bbauska wrote...

Example: World conflict. I do not want to be involved, but if forced to be involved, I am for complete and total annihilation of the enemy.

I was having a fairly drab day today. I got on here to plot my road to world domination in the NWO game and checked this and other threads.

After reading several threads with points and counter points I happened upon this one from bbauska.

I swear to you I laughed for 5 minutes.

Thank you bbauska.

As for a Republican candidate who I think will emerge and of course then lose....Paul Ryan.

Glad to be of service!

Looks like Ted Cruz is going to announce tomorrow.

www.tedcruz.com

too funny

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:You're more conservative than Steve, Brad?

I think so.

Not a chance.

Ryan isn't running.

Jeb is formidable . . . on paper. However, he has several problems:

1. His last name. If it were "Reagan," he'd be in great shape.

2. Hillary's last name. If she is in fact the nominee, no one wants Clinton v. Bush--except some members of the media.

3. His stated determination to run to the center and "lose primaries." Among the GOP primary voters, Jeb rates just above Hillary.

4. The primary calendar.

There's the bottom line. He can't win Iowa. He will have trouble in New Hampshire. South Carolina is far more conservative than Bush. He could win Florida, but if Rubio runs . . . he may not.

So, where does Bush actually win?

Would Bush and Rubio both run ? They're competing for a lot of the same primary voters so it damages both of their chances. Since Rubio is younger and Jeb's protege you'd assume he'll probably sit this one out and wait his chance.

Also, it is actually a certainty that Hilary will get the Democrat nomination ? I haven't really heard of any credible challengers yet, but at this stage 8 years ago nobody thought Obama was credible either. Nobody wants Bush v Clinton III, you're right about that, but doesn't it hurt Hilary too ?

Sassenach wrote:Also, it is actually a certainty that Hilary will get the Democrat nomination ? I haven't really heard of any credible challengers yet, but at this stage 8 years ago nobody thought Obama was credible either. Nobody wants Bush v Clinton III, you're right about that, but doesn't it hurt Hilary too ?

I think Hillary's email scandal is a pretty big deal, and may actually torpedo her candidacy or at least dent it. The NYT's magazine had so many possible Republicans on the cover this past Sunday (wait, is George Pataki really a possibility?), but who else is out there as a strong candidate for the Dems? Even if Hillary does heal and gets the nod, they've got to have someone waiting in the wings in case of scandal or health troubles. I don't know who that is . . . Not even a guess.

Dang, there's a Wikipedia page for everything:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

Sassenach wrote:Would Bush and Rubio both run ? They're competing for a lot of the same primary voters so it damages both of their chances. Since Rubio is younger and Jeb's protege you'd assume he'll probably sit this one out and wait his chance.

That's not what I'm hearing. Jeb has all but declared and Rubio is not backing off.

And, no, I don't think they have the same appeal. Jeb has steadily marched to the middle and Rubio has done the opposite. I would support Rubio. I would not support Jeb.

Also, it is actually a certainty that Hilary will get the Democrat nomination ? I haven't really heard of any credible challengers yet, but at this stage 8 years ago nobody thought Obama was credible either. Nobody wants Bush v Clinton III, you're right about that, but doesn't it hurt Hilary too ?

I'm with geojanes. I think Hillary may have difficulty if anyone has the guts to challenge her. She is not likeable and there is a trail of scandal (or if you insist on being charitable, "questionable judgment") that does not end behind her. This email thing is unreal--only a rube would believe her "convenience" explanation. Some will not care. Still, there's enough "smoke" to make it relatively easy for a competent opponent to defeat her. She finished third in Iowa last time.

If the primaries started today, she'd be a heavy favorite. But, they don't. We're going to be reading a lot more about this email thing before Iowa. How long will it be until a more liberal candidate jumps in?

geojanes wrote:The NYT's magazine had so many possible Republicans on the cover this past Sunday (wait, is George Pataki really a possibility?) . . .

Only in his mind. I don't think even his wife thinks he could get nominated.

. . . but who else is out there as a strong candidate for the Dems? Even if Hillary does heal and gets the nod, they've got to have someone waiting in the wings in case of scandal or health troubles. I don't know who that is . . . Not even a guess.

O'Malley wants it. I think he's a bad candidate.

Biden says he wants it. That's just funny.

Warren says she won't run. That's too bad. She's really a bad politician. She just wasn't as bad as Coakley.

Some mention Gore. If he had just been "normal" since 2000, he'd be plausible. However, I think he would have a tough time.

This is why the Democrats are rallying around Hillary: there is no one else who can actually win.

geojanes wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Also, it is actually a certainty that Hilary will get the Democrat nomination ? I haven't really heard of any credible challengers yet, but at this stage 8 years ago nobody thought Obama was credible either. Nobody wants Bush v Clinton III, you're right about that, but doesn't it hurt Hilary too ?

I think Hillary's email scandal is a pretty big deal, and may actually torpedo her candidacy or at least dent it.

Is it? didn't plenty of politicians use private emails as well - on both 'sides'. Including Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio - http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-cli ... 1426205325

geojanes

I think Hillary's email scandal is a pretty big deal, and may actually torpedo her candidacy or at least dent it

.

doubtful . If the BS hearing s over Benghazi didn't raise anything, the pouring over of 55,000 emails isn't going to either.

A new CNN/ORC poll found that the number of Americans who say that they would be proud to have Hillary Clinton as president has increased in the wake of the media/Republican created email scandal.

The CNN poll found some bad news for Republicans. The number of respondents who agreed with the statement that Hillary Clinton is a president that they could be proud of has increased since the email scandal was first reported. The number of Americans who said that Clinton is someone that they would be proud to have as president has increased from 50% in March 2014 to 57% in March 2015. The number of respondents who agreed that Clinton says what she believes not what voters want to hear has increased from 54% in 2007 to 58% today

.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/16/ ... grows.html

People have made their mind up about Hillary. She'll get 90%+ of Blacks and 60 to 65% of women just because of who she is and has been. She's formidable.
What are the issues going to be?
If the early speeches in Iowa by republican potentials is a gauge one issue they expect is income inequality... Hillary will be glad to fight a campaign on that issue.

I'm really not sure why you're all placing so much importance on Iowa. The Iowa caucus has always struck me as a largely irrelevant media-driven circus that has very little bearing on the eventual winner of the nomination. In 2010 there were roughly 120000 people who actually voted in the Iowa caucus, which represented less than 6% of eligible voters in the state, and this was a record turnout. Hardly a bellweather for mainstream opinion. Seriously, how many times has the Iowa Caucus ever actually had a meaningful effect on the outcome of the nomination ?

Sassenach wrote:I'm really not sure why you're all placing so much importance on Iowa. The Iowa caucus has always struck me as a largely irrelevant media-driven circus that has very little bearing on the eventual winner of the nomination. In 2010 there were roughly 120000 people who actually voted in the Iowa caucus, which represented less than 6% of eligible voters in the state, and this was a record turnout. Hardly a bellweather for mainstream opinion. Seriously, how many times has the Iowa Caucus ever actually had a meaningful effect on the outcome of the nomination ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

There are other issues with it. As it is in-person and can take hours during the day, people who work for a living can't take part, absentee ballots can't be cast...

It has in recent years been rather better at predicting the Democrat nominee than the Republican, but not brilliant overall for either. If you ignore when the incumbent stood again, Iowa called a party candidate right 7 times out of 15.

Below are the winners of each party's caucus. If in bold, they were also the nominee. If marked with an asterisk, they were the incumbent President (so likely to get the nomination anyway). At the end is the strike rate excluding incumbents.

1972 No republican caucus, Muskie: 0/1
1976 Ford*, Carter: 1/1
1980 GHW Bush, Carter*: 0/2
1984 Reagan* (unopposed), Mondale: 1/1
1988 Dole, Gephardt: 0/2
1992 GHW Bush* (unopposed), Harkin: 0/1
1996 Dole, W Clinton*: 1/1
2000 GW Bush[b], [b]Gore: 2/2
2004 GW Bush* (unopposed), Kerry: 1/1
2008 Huckabee, Obama: 1/2
2012 Santorum, Obama* (unopposed): 0/1


New Hampshire is slightly better over the same period, at 9 out of 15

1972 Nixon*, Muskie 0/1
1976 Ford*, Carter 1/1
1980 Reagan, Carter 2/2
1984 Reagan* (unopposed), Hart 0/1
1988 GHW Bush, Dukakis 2/2
1992 GHW Bush*, Tsongas 0/1
1996 Buchanan, W Clinton (unopposed) 0/1
2000 McCain, Gore 1/2
2004 GW Bush* (unopposed), Kerry 1/1
2008 McCain, H Clinton 1/2
2012 Ronmey, Obama* (unopposed) 1/1