2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

I know statistics can be used a lot of different ways but Wisconsin does not rank last in job creation under Scott Walker.  Beyond that historic data would have told us Barack Obama could not win a second term with the job #'s at the time of the 2012 election.  The Democrats will beat up Walker on job #'s, but the fact of the matter is he's won 2 elections in the last 2 years in a swing state.  Nobody needs to comprehend why people vote for him to understand he might be a decent candidate.  If he's not ready for the national stage chances are he will fall apart long before the general election, but if he makes it through this field of Republicans I think even Democrats would have to admit he knows how to win elections.

 

 BTW Voter ID polls pretty well.  It might be a solution to a problem you don't think exists, but I'm pretty sure the problem does exist, and I would imagine most in support of it support it for that reason.  I'm gonna try not to get in to much back and forth but the Scott Walker bashing crowd is the worst of politics.  So you disagree with someone politically, oh well.

 

You're right that the bad economy alone doesn't lose him a race, but it's hardly something for him to run on either.  He's also the worst kind of fiscal conservative - the kind that picks and chooses what he wants to be conservative about.

 

He still wants a blank check for defense spending, he only busted the unions that opposed him and not all public unions, he was only too happy to hand money back to corporations over people, and he used his position as governor to bully organizations he disagrees with socially.

 

He's not a fiscal conservative, not in the true sense.  Only in the sense that the Republicans and Tea Party want you to believe.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

You're right that the bad economy alone doesn't lose him a race, but it's hardly something for him to run on either.  He's also the worst kind of fiscal conservative - the kind that picks and chooses what he wants to be conservative about.

 

He still wants a blank check for defense spending, he only busted the unions that opposed him and not all public unions, he was only too happy to hand money back to corporations over people, and he used his position as governor to bully organizations he disagrees with socially.

 

He's not a fiscal conservative, not in the true sense.  Only in the sense that the Republicans and Tea Party want you to believe.

 

Yeah, one look at his voting record should cement that.   He's no Ron Paul. Heck, I don't even think he's a Rand Paul. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I know statistics can be used a lot of different ways but Wisconsin does not rank last in job creation under Scott Walker.  Beyond that historic data would have told us Barack Obama could not win a second term with the job #'s at the time of the 2012 election.  The Democrats will beat up Walker on job #'s, but the fact of the matter is he's won 2 elections in the last 2 years in a swing state.  Nobody needs to comprehend why people vote for him to understand he might be a decent candidate.  If he's not ready for the national stage chances are he will fall apart long before the general election, but if he makes it through this field of Republicans I think even Democrats would have to admit he knows how to win elections.

 

 BTW Voter ID polls pretty well.  It might be a solution to a problem you don't think exists, but I'm pretty sure the problem does exist, and I would imagine most in support of it support it for that reason.  I'm gonna try not to get in to much back and forth but the Scott Walker bashing crowd is the worst of politics.  So you disagree with someone politically, oh well.

 

Here is an idea....compare the outcomes of budgets, surpluses, spending, and job creation the last 5 years in MN vs WI, when we went different ways at governor, and tell me which produced better results.....then explain why you like Walker. Just concentrate on outcomes....not if he can get votes, since that is a complete abandonment of principle......for fun, you could also compare which increased freedoms in his state, and which decreased them, and which cuts funding for any group opposed to him, while increasing funding for those that agree with them (and, which busted unions that don't support him, while not touching those that do).....and tell me which is more principled, and which is not all the principled, but is a politician.....

[mikecgrimes]

The economy of Minnesota as compared to Wisconsin in say the year 1962 has a heck of a lot more to do with the current economy of the two states then the politics of the current governors.  I like Scott Walker as a candidate for president you don't thats fine.  I don't have to justify that by some criteria you make up.  Wisconsin is locked in by lake Michigan, has no major rivers, and very few natural resources.  It's an economy based on beer and dairy, and they do fine off that but never will be able to compete with Minnesota.  When Wisconsin has had a Democrat Governor and Minnesota has had a Republican have the economies of the two states flipped?  I'm sure there is some way to manipulate the statistics in your favor.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The economy of Minnesota as compared to Wisconsin in say the year 1962 has a heck of a lot more to do with the current economy of the two states then the politics of the current governors.  

 

If basically admitting that what he's done has been ineffectual....what's the point of wanting him to run?  I get your point and agree with it to a degree, but what has he accomplished then?

[mikecgrimes]

Question for Democrats does Clinton excite you at all. I know the bench is thin and its her turn but if even a few Obama voters stay home its a different race.

[TheLeviathan]

As an independent I can tell you Clinton pretty much eliminates my interest in voting Democratic.

[Squirrel]

Question for Democrats does Clinton excite you at all. I know the bench is thin and its her turn but if even a few Obama voters stay home its a different race.

If Clinton is the nominee I will vote for her. Given the candidates in the Republican group, and given the current state of the Republican Party, all I can say for each and every one of them is 'No way in Hell!' Bernie Sanders, at this point, would be my choice but I'm not sure he will get the nomination.

 

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. I am party-unaffiliated, but I am a very liberal voter. In national elections I usually vote Democratic as I feel that's the lesser of two evils. Also, as a woman, it will never, ever be in my best interests to vote Republican or have a Republican elected, given the state of the current party, so I will cast my vote for the best chance to beat whomever the Republican is. In state and local elections I'm more exacting with my votes.

[Craig Arko]

I hope for my dream team, but failing that Bernie is my guy so far.

[Mike Sixel]

I could go back to voting for Republicans under the following conditions:

 

1. they stop trying to impose their religious values on everyone else

2. they stop cutting taxes on the wealthy, causing the deficit to go up

3. they actually care about the environment

4. they stop trying to legislate science

5. they stop cutting support systems for the poor, even though this country is swimming in money

 

I used to work for the Republicans.....back when they actually believed in education and infrastructure and controlling the deficit.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The economy of Minnesota as compared to Wisconsin in say the year 1962 has a heck of a lot more to do with the current economy of the two states then the politics of the current governors.  I like Scott Walker as a candidate for president you don't thats fine.  I don't have to justify that by some criteria you make up.  Wisconsin is locked in by lake Michigan, has no major rivers, and very few natural resources.  It's an economy based on beer and dairy, and they do fine off that but never will be able to compete with Minnesota.  When Wisconsin has had a Democrat Governor and Minnesota has had a Republican have the economies of the two states flipped?  I'm sure there is some way to manipulate the statistics in your favor.

 

By what criteria should I judge him?

 

And no, the economy is not based on beer......

[TheLeviathan]

I could go back to voting for Republicans under the following conditions:

 

1. they stop trying to impose their religious values on everyone else

2. they stop cutting taxes on the wealthy, causing the deficit to go up

3. they actually care about the environment

4. they stop trying to legislate science

5. they stop cutting support systems for the poor, even though this country is swimming in money

 

I used to work for the Republicans.....back when they actually believed in education and infrastructure and controlling the deficit.

For me the list is much simpler: drop the social issues and work on smart, fair solutions to problems. We desperately need a party that wants to effectively inact solutions.

[mikecgrimes]

Without saying what exactly you mean by the term social issues it's difficult for me to know if I agree with you.  I want my kids to grow up in a world where they don't have to ever hear the F word because I brought them with to the store, I want them to grow up in a world where it is clear the government does not endorse the use of drugs.  I want them to grow up in a world where they respect everyone else, and everyone else also respects them.  

 

In the end despite the fact I would imagine my "social issues" views are closer to yours then the average 60 year old elected Republican I think the Republicans should keep on doing what there doing, and in 25 years they will be where you want them to be.  The democrats really only came around on these issues in any meaningful way 5 years ago, and it doesn't seem as if their current political view matches their personal view.

[Craig Arko]

Hmmm. I like Ike.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Without saying what exactly you mean by the term social issues it's difficult for me to know if I agree with you.  I want my kids to grow up in a world where they don't have to ever hear the F word because I brought them with to the store, I want them to grow up in a world where it is clear the government does not endorse the use of drugs.  I want them to grow up in a world where they respect everyone else, and everyone else also respects them.  

 

 

What is the Republican party doing to minimize the F word?  Is there a fine for that coming?  Cuz I'd vote Hillary if that's on a platform.

 

If the Republican party keeps hammering losing issues like marijuana criminalization and anti-gay marriage - they won't win another national election for awhile.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think it's a free country, and people have the right to use the F word, just as I have the right to not use it.  This is what bothers me about my Christian brothers (as well as some people on the extreme left).  They want the law to essentially justify/legitimize their life styles.  To be clear, this problem is much bigger than the moral right, there's plenty of people with all sorts of world views pushing this...  And ironically, it won't work.  You cannot take the world out of the lost.  You can only live your life in a way that shines the light of God for them to see.

 

That's one of many reasons why I tend to fall very libertarian in my views.  It's the government's job to protect the liberties of the people.  Government would be much smaller and less odious if that was it's only charter. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

We desperately need a party that wants to effectively inact solutions.

 

This.  Problem is that neither party solutions are very good, as it panders to their donors more so than the needs of the people.  At the end of the day, I don't think the government is capable of solving most of these problems, and most of them are made b/c of the ever increasing size and scope of the government in our lives.  Stick to the basics, and I think a lot of these problems go away. 

[mikecgrimes]

 

I think it's a free country, and people have the right to use the F word, just as I have the right to not use it.  This is what bothers me about my Christian brothers (as well as some people on the extreme left).  They want the law to essentially justify/legitimize their life styles.  To be clear, this problem is much bigger than the moral right, there's plenty of people with all sorts of world views pushing this...  And ironically, it won't work.  You cannot take the world out of the lost.  You can only live your life in a way that shines the light of God for them to see.

 

That's one of many reasons why I tend to fall very libertarian in my views.  It's the government's job to protect the liberties of the people.  Government would be much smaller and less odious if that was it's only charter. 

 

This is where you lose me.  If you think I said I want a law restricting the F word you're wrong, some things shouldn't require the threat of a fine or jail time, the problem comes when political cowards are afraid to care.  You should be outraged anytime you here that word in a public place where kids are present, but I guess some people just want to be outraged that Republicans exist.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This is where you lose me.  If you think I said I want a law restricting the F word you're wrong, some things shouldn't require the threat of a fine or jail time, the problem comes when political cowards are afraid to care.  You should be outraged anytime you here that word in a public place where kids are present, but I guess some people just want to be outraged that Republicans exist.

 

I'm not seeing the connection between the F word and Republicans.

[Willihammer]

I do think there's a slice of the populace that would mobilize for a "man on the moon" type campaign, myself included (haven't voted since 2004). I think Millenials (or whatever the generation just after millenials is called - the kids who grew up during the Bush wars) want something pure and uncomplicated to rally behind instead of the complexity of terrorism, religion, etc.

[drjim]

I'm going Trump.

[ericchri]

Even though the thought is actually revolting to me, I kind of want a Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush campaign to see if there's enough other people revolted at the idea to get a 3rd party a decent vote total.  Probably not, though, so instead I'd just end up being revolted for no actual gain.

[twinsnorth49]

So, that Trump speech.........wow. Keep on Rockin' in the Free World, lol.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

If we get Bush vs. Hillary....I would bet Trump stays in this thing Perot style.

[Willihammer]

Speaking of Perot, he's not dead! Maybe he would run too and complete the 1992 reunion

[mikecgrimes]

Trumps ego is enough that he plans on winning, and actually he might have a shot if people who don't pay attention show up to vote in the primaries.  The good news is he would have to win over and over and over, the bad news is the solution to stoping him might be Bush because the self appointed crowd of people who think they are smarter then everyone else but really also don't pay any attention might support Bush.  I hope he's in this to destroy Bush, but that also could work in Bush favor.  Should be fun to watch but in a year where my kind of candidate has a real chance he's nothing but potential trouble.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not seeing the connection between the F word and Republicans.

I see it on a pretty regular basis but maybe that's just me.

 

...

 

I never pass low-hanging fruit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If we get Bush vs. Hillary....I would bet Trump stays in this thing Perot style.

If there was ever a legitimate reason to move to Canada, that scenario is it.

 

You know things are bad when Clinton is the most appealing candidate on the list.

 

The GOP field is a joke and the Democrats aren't much better. Bernie Sanders is the only person I find remotely interesting on the left and he's completely unelectable. Interesting guy, decent ideas, strong principles, completely unelectable.

 

On the right, there's Trump, Cruz, Walker, Fiorina, and Bush. Every single one of them is unelectable for various reasons. Trump because he's a clown, Cruz because he's a polarizing clown, Walker because facepalm, Fiorina because "LOL, she's joking, right?", and Bush because "sweet Jesus not another one".

 

This *should* be a perfect chance for someone sane like Jon Huntsman to swoop in and disrupt the GOP field but after what the party did to him in 2012, I don't see that happening. And that's a damned shame. The GOP needs someone to step up with a voice of sanity if they want the Presidency.

[TheLeviathan]

Rand Paul is the closest thing to sanity on that side of the aisle from what I can see.  Maybe Rubio.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Rand Paul is the closest thing to sanity on that side of the aisle from what I can see.  Maybe Rubio.

Yeah, maybe Rubio. Paul is the right equivalent of Sanders. Decent ideas (with some bad mixed in), strong principles, completely unelectable.