[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Trump might fall out of favor, but right now he’s kicking everyone’s ass on the GOP side of the fence.
[/quote]
Wasn’t Rudy Giuliani crushing everyone in the GOP last time around?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Newt nails it. The things being said now about Trump are almost verbatim what was being said about O’ Hickory in the 1820s and 30s.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-andrew-jackson-president-2016/2015/08/27/id/672260/[/quote]
Nice article, Push.
I don’t know if Trump will win or not. As NewtG said, it’s much too early to tell…
But he has struck a nerve.
The other thing not mentioned is that for the past 30 years or so, Trump has been “vetted”. Unless he has some hidden, gay, Illegal Mexican Lover…I just don’t see how much there is out there that we don’t already know about him.
He is truly making things interesting.
Mufasa
One thing about Jeb.
He seems “competent”…but he has the charisma of soggy lettuce.
Even when he is “angry” or is “lashing out”, it seems uninspired.
And yes…Hillary is seeming more and more vulnerable. I don’t know if even “Ole’ Bill” has a lot of tricks to pull this one out.
Mufasa
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Trump might fall out of favor, but right now he’s kicking everyone’s ass on the GOP side of the fence.
[/quote]
Wasn’t Rudy Giuliani crushing everyone in the GOP last time around? [/quote]
Not to this extent.
Trump is literally driving the narrative of all the other candidates.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Trump might fall out of favor, but right now he’s kicking everyone’s ass on the GOP side of the fence.
[/quote]
Wasn’t Rudy Giuliani crushing everyone in the GOP last time around? [/quote]
Not to this extent.
Trump is literally driving the narrative of all the other candidates.
Mufasa[/quote]
I mean’t more so in terms of poll numbers. I don’t remember (suppose I could use google…)
People usually want the opposite of what they have after awhile. After Carter, people craved the strength of Reagan. After a fumbling GW Bush, people wanted the pragmatism of a “thinker.” After a dithering Obama, people want a strong doer, and that is why Trump is doing well.
You may not like Trump, but people look at him and say “he may be a loud mouth but I believe he can get shit done.”
As far as the rest of the crop of politicians, I have one word to describe them all…OATMEAL.
They are all plain fucking stale-ass dry oatmeal. Nothing exciting, totally predictable, nothing exciting about them at all.
I like oatmeal, I just don’t want to vote for it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Newt nails it. The things being said now about Trump are almost verbatim what was being said about O’ Hickory in the 1820s and 30s.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-andrew-jackson-president-2016/2015/08/27/id/672260/[/quote]
Trump isn’t polite enough for some who think that the only choices that we should have should come from the political class.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
People usually want the opposite of what they have after awhile. After Carter, people craved the strength of Reagan. After a fumbling GW Bush, people wanted the pragmatism of a “thinker.” After a dithering Obama, people want a strong doer, and that is why Trump is doing well.
You may not like Trump, but people look at him and say “he may be a loud mouth but I believe he can get shit done.”[/quote]
Very well said and spot on!
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
As far as the rest of the crop of politicians, I have one word to describe them all…OATMEAL.
They are all plain fucking stale-ass dry oatmeal. Nothing exciting, totally predictable, nothing exciting about them at all.
I like oatmeal, I just don’t want to vote for it.[/quote]
I do like Rubio. He’s smart, has a great story, speaks Spanish and represents Florida. Should Trump actually win the nomination, and it’s far too early to predict that, he should pick Rubio to balance the ticket.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
As far as the rest of the crop of politicians, I have one word to describe them all…OATMEAL.
They are all plain fucking stale-ass dry oatmeal. Nothing exciting, totally predictable, nothing exciting about them at all.
I like oatmeal, I just don’t want to vote for it.[/quote]
I do like Rubio. He’s smart, has a great story, speaks Spanish and represents Florida. Should Trump actually win the nomination, and it’s far too early to predict that, he should pick Rubio to balance the ticket. [/quote]
Would Kasich be better to get the support of Ohio? I think Florida is more red, but the ideal ticket is both, which is why I’m hoping for a Kasich/Rubio ticket. Rubio is young, get him experience as VP. People in Ohio love Kasich and I think he could get majority in the general election support. As much as I hope for it, I don’t see the right wing of the Republican party letting Kasich win the primary.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
As far as the rest of the crop of politicians, I have one word to describe them all…OATMEAL.
They are all plain fucking stale-ass dry oatmeal. Nothing exciting, totally predictable, nothing exciting about them at all.
I like oatmeal, I just don’t want to vote for it.[/quote]
I do like Rubio. He’s smart, has a great story, speaks Spanish and represents Florida. Should Trump actually win the nomination, and it’s far too early to predict that, he should pick Rubio to balance the ticket. [/quote]
Would Kasich be better to get the support of Ohio? I think Florida is more red, but the ideal ticket is both, which is why I’m hoping for a Kasich/Rubio ticket. Rubio is young, get him experience as VP. People in Ohio love Kasich and I think he could get majority in the general election support. As much as I hope for it, I don’t see the right wing of the Republican party letting Kasich win the primary.[/quote]
Florida and Ohio are the two key states as I’ve talked about in previous posts. Without winning both of those states the republicans will lose. That’s why I wanted Romney to pick Rubio as his VP four years ago. But, he went with Ryan and the rest is history.
Kasich appears to be the most moderate of the 17 republican candidates. But, even so I feel that he has the experience to make a really good President. And with Rubio as his VP they would most likely win in a walk vs Hillary or Biden. And at this point the republicans need to win the White House for many reasons.
Trump has thrown a monkey wrench in the Kasich/Rubio ticket, at least so far. I’ve been waiting for Trump to shoot himself in the foot but nothing he says seems to harm his poll numbers. I find that interesting as I recall one other Presidential candidate who had such Teflon, Ronald Reagan. Don’t get me wrong Trump is no Ronald Reagan and I am not comparing them in any way other than this one fact: people seem to respond to Trump in a similar fashion. in 1980 Reagan’s negatives were also high. You either loved him or you hated him in the beginning. But as the people heard more of what he was about his negatives came down and his positives rose.
I have no idea if Trump’s negatives will come down enough to matter. He is no Reagan. Trump is harsh, loud and doesn’t seem to care who he offends. But then again these are different times than the 1980’s. We live in a very brash, reality series society. Trump may just be able to do the unthinkable and pull off a win. I do believe that at this point only Trump can hurt Trump. Until that changes there will be no Kasich/Rubio ticket. But, there could be a Trump/Rubio ticket.
I have to say this is one heck of an interesting Political season.
All I know at this point is something that I have been saying for many months, long before Email gate, Hillary will never become President of the United States. And that alone is almost enough for me to he happy regardless of which republican wins…and a republican will win this time around!
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Trump might fall out of favor, but right now he’s kicking everyone’s ass on the GOP side of the fence.
[/quote]
Wasn’t Rudy Giuliani crushing everyone in the GOP last time around? [/quote]
Not to this extent.
Trump is literally driving the narrative of all the other candidates.
Mufasa[/quote]
I mean’t more so in terms of poll numbers. I don’t remember (suppose I could use google…)[/quote]
Could be. I’ll look too.
I just don’t recall Giuliani having double-digit leads in most major Polls. He DEFINITLEY could not say something negative and his numbers go UP.
(If I recall, there was something Giuliani said or did that began his eventual slide).
Mufasa
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Kasich appears to be the most moderate of the 17 republican candidates. But, even so I feel that he has the experience to make a really good President. And with Rubio as his VP they would most likely win in a walk vs Hillary or Biden.
[/quote]
Zero evidence supports the assertion that any GOP candidate will win in a walk. That is simply wishful thinking. Both Clinton and Biden are ahead of all GOP candidates in the current polls and Biden has not even declared. Things may change, of course, but current demographics do not support the assertion that any GOP candidate will run away with the race. Let me know when Nate Silver agrees with your assessment and I’ll pay more attention.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Kasich appears to be the most moderate of the 17 republican candidates. But, even so I feel that he has the experience to make a really good President. And with Rubio as his VP they would most likely win in a walk vs Hillary or Biden.
[/quote]
Zero evidence supports the assertion that any GOP candidate will win in a walk. That is simply wishful thinking. Both Clinton and Biden are ahead of all GOP candidates in the current polls and Biden has not even declared. Things may change, of course, but current demographics do not support the assertion that any GOP candidate will run away with the race. Let me know when Nate Silver agrees with your assessment and I’ll pay more attention. [/quote]
I understand what you are saying but respectfully disagree.
Virtually every “predictive” poll taken since they began has been wrong 14 months from the election.
Bush beat Clinton 14 months out
Carter beat Reagan 14 months out
Gore was slightly ahead of Bush 14 months out
There are many others. My point of course is that it is far too soon to tell who would win a national Presidential election.
As for the primary polls, sure they make more sense as they are asking a different question and the primary season is upon us. There is no waiting 14 months.
One more point, they said Reagan would never win because his negatives were too high (something like 12 months out). But as the voters got to know him better his negatives came down while his positives stayed up.
There is just too much time between now and election day. Therefore, those particular polls are worthless. And I say that regardless of who is ahead.
I do agree with you that there has been a demographic shift but that is not the reason that the republicans lost the last two elections. They lost the last two elections for multiple reasons. Obama was a unique character given his race, charisma and ability to read a teleprompter. But moreover McCain was a lousy candidate and also ran a lousy campaign. Romney while not a bad candidate also ran a lousy campaign allowing the Obama people to paint him as a rich out of touch old white guy which he did not respond to properly or fast enough. about 4-5 million republican voters stayed home as well. They looked at a Romney as not conservative enough. Had they voted he would have won comfortably.
Hillary will never be elected President as her negatives are far too high. Now before you remind me of what I said above regarding Reagan that does not include Hillary. Hillary has been around the national political scene for 23 years and people simply don’t like her…or they do like her. Either way, not much will change that because she has been around so long she is what she is. The voters know her and like her or know her and dislike her. Her current negatives hoover around 50%, or above. And they won’t come down as I said everyone knows her and has an opinion. And no President has ever been elected whose negatives were even close to that. Hillary will never be President.
Bernie Sanders is an old grey haired balding socialist and at this point most people have no idea who he is. But I will tell you this with great confidence, he’s not getting elected to the Presidency. One more time (for those who have read this before I apologize). This is the media age and since 1960 a candidate actually has to look good and have charisma (or at least more charisma than his/her opponent) to win. Looking like an old bald man who rarely smiles paints him a loser. Oh and being a socialist…that won’t help either. Yes, the US has fallen but not that far.
Who is left? Oh yes Uncle Joe the gaffe machine. He is directly connected with the failed Obama Presidency, both terms. Sure blacks will turn out to vote for him if Obama endorses him. But they won’t turn out in near the numbers because after all he is an old white guy isn’t he? He suffers from some of the same problems Bernie has. No charisma. And let’s not forget that he is liable to say most anything on any day that will turn his positive numbers upside down. As a side note I have been waiting for that to happen to Trump, but Trump to many is a breath of fresh air (I can disagree with that while still recognizing that it’s true). Biden on the other hand is pretty stale. He tried to run on two other occasions and could not even capture the nomination. he is older now, less attractive in many ways and in my humble opinion suffers from a bit of dementia. As I recall quite well the 1988 campaign where he lost to a lusterless Dukakis. Sure Biden stole speeches and told other lies, but he was never considered a gaffe machine. He is well past his peak and if he runs will once again suffer another defeat.
Yes, I agree with you demographics have changes but not enough to put Hillary with her high negatives (that will never come down) and who has been around a long time, a stumbling gaffe machine who is directly connected to Obama, or a an old Socialist in the White House.
WTS, if there comes riding out of the sunset a really good democratic candidate that I have not heard of as yet, anything can happen. But with the players who are currently on the field there will be a win for the republicans in 2016!
These are my own opinions. I have not been influenced by any national guru.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Trump might fall out of favor, but right now he’s kicking everyone’s ass on the GOP side of the fence.
[/quote]
Wasn’t Rudy Giuliani crushing everyone in the GOP last time around? [/quote]
Not to this extent.
Trump is literally driving the narrative of all the other candidates.
Mufasa[/quote]
I mean’t more so in terms of poll numbers. I don’t remember (suppose I could use google…)[/quote]
Could be. I’ll look too.
I just don’t recall Giuliani having double-digit leads in most major Polls. He DEFINITLEY could not say something negative and his numbers go UP.
(If I recall, there was something Giuliani said or did that began his eventual slide).
Mufasa
[/quote]
If I recall he was ahead in the polls and decided to save his money for later primaries. He got to Florida, which he was supposed to win, and got crushed by both Romney and McCain. That was pretty much the end of the trail for him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
As far as foreign policy disasters
the 3 biggest I can think of are
1 Jimmy Carter removing the Shaw
2 George Bush Removing Saddam
3 Obama removing Gaddafi [/quote]
-
Obama handing Iran 150 billion dollars and not even getting our hostages back.
-
Obama treating Israel like an enemy.
-
Obama withdrawing troops from Iraq far too early which helped create Isis
-
Obama allowing Putin to take the Ukraine without barely speaking a word.
Okay, I will have to stop there because I am late for an appointment. But, Obama has been the absolute worst foreign policy President in modern times. He has no equal!
[/quote]
You forgot Reagan’s capitulation with terrorists. Arms for hostage deal in the 80’s.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
As far as foreign policy disasters
the 3 biggest I can think of are
1 Jimmy Carter removing the Shaw
2 George Bush Removing Saddam
3 Obama removing Gaddafi [/quote]
-
Obama handing Iran 150 billion dollars and not even getting our hostages back.
-
Obama treating Israel like an enemy.
-
Obama withdrawing troops from Iraq far too early which helped create Isis
-
Obama allowing Putin to take the Ukraine without barely speaking a word.
Okay, I will have to stop there because I am late for an appointment. But, Obama has been the absolute worst foreign policy President in modern times. He has no equal!
[/quote]
You forgot Reagan’s capitulation with terrorists. Arms for hostage deal in the 80’s.
[/quote]
I haven’t forgot , Iran Contra Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Increase wages so all people that work live above the level that welfare pays
[/quote]
How?[/quote]
Every increase in the minimum wage has been followed by a decrease in the purchasing power of the lowest earners. It doesn’t serve employers, employees, or consumers. Pitt needs to understand the difference between nominal and real wages.[/quote]
Why do other industrialized countries have higher wages and better inclining economies than the U.S.?[/quote]
Do you have sources for this? I’d like to read more[/quote]
A great article talking about well-being with higher wages which translates into a better economy.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Increase wages so all people that work live above the level that welfare pays
[/quote]
How?[/quote]
Every increase in the minimum wage has been followed by a decrease in the purchasing power of the lowest earners. It doesn’t serve employers, employees, or consumers. Pitt needs to understand the difference between nominal and real wages.[/quote]
Why do other industrialized countries have higher wages and better inclining economies than the U.S.?[/quote]
Do you have sources for this? I’d like to read more[/quote]
A great article talking about well-being with higher wages which translates into a better economy.
[/quote]
Maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $30 per hour. wouldn’t that be far better than allowing the under skilled and under educated to work for only $15 per hour?
So…why not $30?