[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The ticket idea perplexes me. It matters very little who the candidate picks for a his/her running mate. Did people really vote for Obama/Biden? Did Biden bring in extra votes in 08 and 12? Was the hope and change crowd enamored with what Biden could bring to the table?
The Republicans can win if they run on conservatism. No more Purple candidates. Jeb can’t be the nominee. Give people a reason to go to the polls. How many Republicans stayed home in 08 and 12? A choice between Jeb and a democrat is a lose lose. [/quote]
I missed this until Zepp said something. I’m not 100% sure this is the case. I know the die hard righties want it to be the case, but I’m not sure if it is.
The dynamics of the race are going to favor Republicans. The last 8 years haven’t been good enough to run on and it is going to be easy to paint the Democrats as an extension of Obama. In fact that will be the play. Now, it won’t be as easy as 08 when Bush was insanely unpopular because Obama’s favorability could be decent come election time. He’s most polarizing with those the Democrats are going to lose anyways. Low information voters might be swayed by look at Wall Street, unemployment, gas prices, etc. W Bush didn’t have any of that going for him as we were in full on crisis mode.
I don’t want Jeb Bush to win, but the idea that he couldn’t beat Hilary but Ted Cruz or some other die hard conservative definitely could doesn’t make a lot of sense to me politically. The thing that will most hurt Bush is probably his last name, but if he goes against Clinton that may wash. I can’t buy the notion that most Republicans would really stay home when Hilary Clinton is on the opposing side and they have been out of the big house for 8 years.
Democrats will try to turn it into a social issues battle if the economic framing doesn’t work. This favors them. If Republicans can’t escape the primary without taking some social positions that aren’t favorable with the majority then they may struggle. If I was putting money on a team though I’d put it on the Republicans.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Low information voters might be swayed by look at Wall Street, unemployment, gas prices, etc. W Bush didn’t have any of that going for him as we were in full on crisis mode.
[/quote]
The election is a long while away, and I’ve seen people saying we’re currently in a recession and no one will admit it.
There really hasn’t been a recovery from 2008 yet. The markets are all inflation, the unemployment figure is hogwash at best and the price of oil is tanking and our reserves are at record highs and running out of room.
If we aren’t in full blown shit city come Nov 2016, I’d be sorta surprised at this point.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Low information voters might be swayed by look at Wall Street, unemployment, gas prices, etc. W Bush didn’t have any of that going for him as we were in full on crisis mode.
[/quote]
The election is a long while away, and I’ve seen people saying we’re currently in a recession and no one will admit it.
There really hasn’t been a recovery from 2008 yet. The markets are all inflation, the unemployment figure is hogwash at best and the price of oil is tanking and our reserves are at record highs and running out of room.
If we aren’t in full blown shit city come Nov 2016, I’d be sorta surprised at this point. [/quote]
Hence the low information voters part beans. Low information voters don’t know what inflation is. Democrats can point to stock numbers. Low information voters don’t know what the issues with the unemployment figure. They know lower is better than higher. They know gas is cheaper now than it was at this time last year.
The economy could be a shit show by 2016 I have no idea. If the election was today Democrats could paint a picture for low information voters that might be enticing.
Politics is all about convincing people what is real anyways. If the economy for some reason starts humming around election time Republicans will do everything they can to convince people otherwise. McCain did not have the option that Hilary MAY HAVE is all I was saying.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What I meant is that median houses in the two time periods aren’t really comparable in terms of features. Your 2010 house offers so much more in every respect despite the fact that each is considered median in its respective time period.[/quote]
I’d rather the 1970’s house + location.
My first home was a small 3 bed 1 bath house and was a 10 minute commute to work.
My sons first home has 60% more square footage… but is more than a 45 minute commute to work. He simply cannot afford an apartment within 10 minutes drive to work and thats with him and his wife both working.
An extra hour each day to spend with their kids is so much more valuable than an extra bathroom and another bedroom or two.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What I meant is that median houses in the two time periods aren’t really comparable in terms of features. Your 2010 house offers so much more in every respect despite the fact that each is considered median in its respective time period.[/quote]
I’d rather the 1970’s house + location.
My first home was a small 3 bed 1 bath house and was a 10 minute commute to work.
My sons first home has 60% more square footage… but is more than a 45 minute commute to work. He simply cannot afford an apartment within 10 minutes drive to work.
An extra hour each day to spend with his kids is much more valuable than an extra bedroom and bathroom.[/quote]
For the most part I can (and do) work anywhere with a high-speed internet connection, which includes the hot-spot on my iphone. Now I can even take the family on many more camping trips a year because I can work on some of them when I need to. Unless I lost the ability to work remotely, it would take a very large pay increase to get me to sign on to a 45 to 60 min. commute. Right now my commute involves two flights of stairs.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thunder speaks the truth. Just having an ac unit, or being able to afford to get the kids a Playstation, doesn’t erase the income/wage gap issue.[/quote]
Spot on. The modern GOP is the party of big business and is conservative in name only. Conservative values are stronger than ever but there are no leaders to rally behind.
I care about my community and my country. I think a competitive free market usually provides the best outcomes. I don’t think the government does a good job at looking after the less fortunate. I know enough about history to know the dangers of letting the government get too powerful. I want the freedom to run my business without running into mountains of red tape. I don’t want the state interfering with my religious rights. I want good and affordable education and healthcare for my children and I want the right to choose my level of coverage/educational providers. I think family is incredibly important. And I’m willing to work hard.
Yet I wouldn’t vote for the GOP. They are absent on policy and vision and instead focus on wedge issues and pander to big business. For example you can’t just cut welfare spending and expect that the community will pick up the slack; you have to build strong communities first.
And I certainly don’t trust big business to look out for people because they continually expect more while providing less. They certainly aren’t acting in the interests of the community like small businesses tend to do.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What I meant is that median houses in the two time periods aren’t really comparable in terms of features. Your 2010 house offers so much more in every respect despite the fact that each is considered median in its respective time period.[/quote]
I’d rather the 1970’s house + location.
My first home was a small 3 bed 1 bath house and was a 10 minute commute to work.
My sons first home has 60% more square footage… but is more than a 45 minute commute to work. He simply cannot afford an apartment within 10 minutes drive to work.
An extra hour each day to spend with his kids is much more valuable than an extra bedroom and bathroom.[/quote]
For the most part I can (and do) work anywhere with a high-speed internet connection, which includes the hot-spot on my iphone. Now I can even take the family on many more camping trips a year because I can work on some of them when I need to. Unless I lost the ability to work remotely, it would take a very large pay increase to get me to sign on to a 45 to 60 min. commute. Right now my commute involves two flights of stairs. [/quote]
I would jump at the chance to work remotely. I hope it becomes the norm over the next 20-30 years. As a country we waste so much time commuting.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
And I certainly don’t trust big business to look out for people because they continually expect more while providing less. They certainly aren’t acting in the interests of the community like small businesses tend to do.[/quote]
I distrust large concentrations of power in both big government and big business. And to a large degree I think both these two are wedded together. It is tough for me to even see how the big financial institutions are even considered the “private sector” when their board members and key owners simply take turns running the fed and the economic wing of the executive branch, regardless of which party wins.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The ticket idea perplexes me. It matters very little who the candidate picks for a his/her running mate. Did people really vote for Obama/Biden? Did Biden bring in extra votes in 08 and 12? Was the hope and change crowd enamored with what Biden could bring to the table?
The Republicans can win if they run on conservatism. No more Purple candidates. Jeb can’t be the nominee. Give people a reason to go to the polls. How many Republicans stayed home in 08 and 12? A choice between Jeb and a democrat is a lose lose. [/quote]
I missed this until Zepp said something. I’m not 100% sure this is the case. I know the die hard righties want it to be the case, but I’m not sure if it is.
The dynamics of the race are going to favor Republicans. The last 8 years haven’t been good enough to run on and it is going to be easy to paint the Democrats as an extension of Obama. In fact that will be the play. Now, it won’t be as easy as 08 when Bush was insanely unpopular because Obama’s favorability could be decent come election time. He’s most polarizing with those the Democrats are going to lose anyways. Low information voters might be swayed by look at Wall Street, unemployment, gas prices, etc. W Bush didn’t have any of that going for him as we were in full on crisis mode.
I don’t want Jeb Bush to win, but the idea that he couldn’t beat Hilary but Ted Cruz or some other die hard conservative definitely could doesn’t make a lot of sense to me politically. The thing that will most hurt Bush is probably his last name, but if he goes against Clinton that may wash. I can’t buy the notion that most Republicans would really stay home when Hilary Clinton is on the opposing side and they have been out of the big house for 8 years.
Democrats will try to turn it into a social issues battle if the economic framing doesn’t work. This favors them. If Republicans can’t escape the primary without taking some social positions that aren’t favorable with the majority then they may struggle. If I was putting money on a team though I’d put it on the Republicans. [/quote]
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The ticket idea perplexes me. It matters very little who the candidate picks for a his/her running mate. Did people really vote for Obama/Biden? Did Biden bring in extra votes in 08 and 12? Was the hope and change crowd enamored with what Biden could bring to the table?
The Republicans can win if they run on conservatism. No more Purple candidates. Jeb can’t be the nominee. Give people a reason to go to the polls. How many Republicans stayed home in 08 and 12? A choice between Jeb and a democrat is a lose lose. [/quote]
I missed this until Zepp said something. I’m not 100% sure this is the case. I know the die hard righties want it to be the case, but I’m not sure if it is.
The dynamics of the race are going to favor Republicans. The last 8 years haven’t been good enough to run on and it is going to be easy to paint the Democrats as an extension of Obama. In fact that will be the play. Now, it won’t be as easy as 08 when Bush was insanely unpopular because Obama’s favorability could be decent come election time. He’s most polarizing with those the Democrats are going to lose anyways. Low information voters might be swayed by look at Wall Street, unemployment, gas prices, etc. W Bush didn’t have any of that going for him as we were in full on crisis mode.
I don’t want Jeb Bush to win, but the idea that he couldn’t beat Hilary but Ted Cruz or some other die hard conservative definitely could doesn’t make a lot of sense to me politically. The thing that will most hurt Bush is probably his last name, but if he goes against Clinton that may wash. I can’t buy the notion that most Republicans would really stay home when Hilary Clinton is on the opposing side and they have been out of the big house for 8 years.
Democrats will try to turn it into a social issues battle if the economic framing doesn’t work. This favors them. If Republicans can’t escape the primary without taking some social positions that aren’t favorable with the majority then they may struggle. If I was putting money on a team though I’d put it on the Republicans. [/quote]
Very Good Read H
[/quote]
Thanks. I could be wrong, but I think Hilary running is advantage Republicans. Hilary is a long time enemy of Republicans. The built up hatred against her is already in play from the festering wounds of yesterday. With anyone else Republicans may tear themselves apart in the primaries and then stay home in a bitter protest that their guy didn’t win the nomination.
Once the Republicans get one it is going to be let’s all sheath the swords and unite to defeat our sworn enemy. Republicans will come together and do everything they can to defeat Clinton. I’m not sure they would with someone like Webb or O’Malley. They would against Warren. I think you see greater turnout for Republicans if Clinton gets the nomination. I think she will cause them to unite behind their nominee. You throw in the dirty laundry of decades of the political machine and the attacks write themselves. Jeb hurts the cause because then it may turn into a “who’d you like better Bill or George W” debate and the dynasty attacks against her fail.
…you can’t just cut welfare spending and expect that the community will pick up the slack; you have to build strong communities first…
[/quote]
Problem is you can’t build strong communities first with an entrenched welfare state in place. Impossible.
[/quote]
Then it’s over. Because you sure aren’t going to do it vice-versa. In general, people aren’t going to choose to face single parenthood, sickness, and old age all on their lonesome.
The GOP is a dying party that does not give a rats ass about average American. They are a party for rich and elite that will continue to steal your hard earned money. They have no clue on social issues and they are just as worse when it comes to economy. Heck every time a Rupublicant gets in the White House stock market goes upside down. Most will never giver OBAMA credit for bringing this country back from brink of death. Remember BUSH gave us 2 wars, 9/11, and worse economy since great depression. So if you want to go back to that vote for another white dope !!!
…you can’t just cut welfare spending and expect that the community will pick up the slack; you have to build strong communities first…
[/quote]
Problem is you can’t build strong communities first with an entrenched welfare state in place. Impossible.
[/quote]
Then it’s over. Because you sure aren’t going to do it vice-versa. In general, people aren’t going to choose to face single parenthood, sickness, and old age all on their lonesome.
[/quote]
Good point. The welfare state exists as a placeholder to the institutions that once held the community together. You have to rebuild those institutions first before you take the only thing holding it together away.
People complain about how terrible the welfare state is - of course the welfare state is a terrible substitute for communities, families, etc. So what? You should have thought about that before you helped unleash and support forces that undermined civil society.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Republicans have a great opportunity to win the White House in 2016. There are three key candidates running, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. One of these candidates absolutely needs to be on the ticket with one of the other two.
The republicans need to win two key states in order to defeat Hillary Clinton (or whomever the democrats nominate)
They need Ohio and Florida. Without winning both states they lose! Reagan, Bush Sr., and W all won both Ohio and Florida. Neither McCain or Romney could do it.
Therefore, a smart ticket would include Ohio Governor John Kasich along with either Jeb Bush (former Gov. of Fla.) or Marco Rubio (Sen from Fla,). It matters not to me if Kasich is at the top or bottom of the ticket, nor does it matter if Rubio or Bush are on the ticket as long as one of them makes it.
There you have it, a sure fire win for the republicans. But will they take it, or will they once again snatch defeat from the mouth of victory?
[/quote]
It matters not if a Republican or Democrat wins The White House as it is just more of the same.
[quote]chrism50 wrote:
The GOP is a dying party that does not give a rats ass about average American. They are a party for rich and elite that will continue to steal your hard earned money. They have no clue on social issues and they are just as worse when it comes to economy. Heck every time a Rupublicant gets in the White House stock market goes upside down. Most will never giver OBAMA credit for bringing this country back from brink of death. Remember BUSH gave us 2 wars, 9/11, and worse economy since great depression. So if you want to go back to that vote for another white dope !!![/quote]
I agree mostly of what you said, however Obama is merely a puppet of the financial institutions and it is the reason why none of the Wall Street big wigs were ever prosecuted for almost bringing the world economy to a dead halt. The S&L crisis of the late 80’s was much less of a problem but thousands went to jail over it. How many people were prosecuted for the white-collar crimes they committed in the most recent financial scandal? People who got caught up in the great real-estate scam and financial scam of the late 2000’s should have the foreclosures and bankruptcies taken off their credit report-at the very least. But stealing their money wasn’t enough for them they had to help destroy their credit which in turn further helps to destroy their life. All the while the criminals just go on with their lives. Reprehensible, indeed!
[quote]chrism50 wrote:
The GOP is a dying party that does not give a rats ass about average American. They are a party for rich and elite that will continue to steal your hard earned money. They have no clue on social issues and they are just as worse when it comes to economy. Heck every time a Rupublicant gets in the White House stock market goes upside down. Most will never giver OBAMA credit for bringing this country back from brink of death. Remember BUSH gave us 2 wars, 9/11, and worse economy since great depression. So if you want to go back to that vote for another white dope !!![/quote]
sound like a broken record of the daily show. Dint want to rant about how racist republicans are too? Noting about the evils of Christianity?