The next POTUS...Jackass or Elephant?

[TheSiege]

I think we all knew by Bush's 6th year that whoever won the democratic primary was going to be the next president. Hell I made a 10k bet on it.

Liberals will say its a shoe in for Democrats this next go around.
Conservatives will say the same.

I know we don't know who the contenders are, at least not all of them. But honestly, is the general public favoring one party over another? Congress and most Governors are GOP, has the general public changed their minds since the mid-terms?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Too early, too much can happen until the election.

 

[nickqt]

I think we all knew by Bush's 6th year that whoever won the democratic primary was going to be the next president. Hell I made a 10k bet on it.

Liberals will say its a shoe in for Democrats this next go around.
Conservatives will say the same.

I know we don't know who the contenders are, at least not all of them. But honestly, is the general public favoring one party over another? Congress and most Governors are GOP, has the general public changed their minds since the mid-terms?

The Republican party is going to have an uphill battle to get to 270 EC votes.

 

[Oyeve]

Well, this go around the republicans are just freaking retarded. I mean, really. I dont adhere to either party but damn, republicans politicians have been so damn retarded for years now. Its rather embarrassing as an american to see this.

 

[soundforbjt]

Historically the dems should not win the White House, but should take back Congress or at least the Senate.
What will happen remains to be seen, too early to tell.

 

[fskimospy]

I think we all knew by Bush's 6th year that whoever won the democratic primary was going to be the next president. Hell I made a 10k bet on it.

Liberals will say its a shoe in for Democrats this next go around.
Conservatives will say the same.

I know we don't know who the contenders are, at least not all of them. But honestly, is the general public favoring one party over another? Congress and most Governors are GOP, has the general public changed their minds since the mid-terms?

It's of course way too early to say much of anything. The democrats have a fairly significant structural advantage in the electoral college which means that in a general sense the democrats are more likely to win. A lot will probably depend on how the economy is in the 6-8 months before the election.

 

[nickqt]

Well, this go around the republicans are just freaking retarded. I mean, really. I dont adhere to either party but damn, republicans politicians have been so damn retarded for years now. Its rather embarrassing as an american to see this.

One major US political party ignores the people, is fairly corrupt, and are in it for themselves.

The other major US political party is f-ing insane.

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Cozarkian]

Jackass. The republicans have too many candidates, and will become divisive over their favored candidates. As the candidates drop-out, a portion of their loyal supporters will be disappointed and lose motivation, resulting in lower voter turnout. Dems will also gain a few seats in Congress as a result of a better turnout. In 2020 we will get an elephant with control of both houses.

 

[nickqt]

Jackass. The republicans have too many candidates, and will become divisive over their favored candidates. As the candidates drop-out, a portion of their loyal supporters will be disappointed and lose motivation, resulting in lower voter turnout. Dems will also gain a few seats in Congress as a result of a better turnout. In 2020 we will get an elephant with control of both houses.

The Republican party has won a majority of the popular vote in 1988 and 2004. They have an uphill battle for 270 EC votes in 2016 and 2020, regardless of who wins in 2016.

 

[rudeguy]

It's of course way too early to say much of anything. The democrats have a fairly significant structural advantage in the electoral college which means that in a general sense the democrats are more likely to win. A lot will probably depend on how the economy is in the 6-8 months before the election.

Yep, way too early. Most people I know aren't interested at all as of right now. I haven't listened to any campaign stuff at all. But I don't think the economy is going to be a major issue. People hear that the stock market is up and unemployment is down and they consider themselves informed and happy. I think how Hillary ends up looking is the real factor. The dems are basically putting all their eggs in her basket in hopes of some kind of mega campaign. It could pay off huge or it could be a huge mistake.

Time will tell.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Jackass. The republicans have too many candidates, and will become divisive over their favored candidates. As the candidates drop-out, a portion of their loyal supporters will be disappointed and lose motivation, resulting in lower voter turnout. Dems will also gain a few seats in Congress as a result of a better turnout. In 2020 we will get an elephant with control of both houses.

Not really. That's what the caucuses are for.

 

[rudeguy]

Not really. That's what the caucuses are for.

I could see it working the way he described but it's also very possible that it could work the opposite way if democrat voters don't like Hillary. I could see them staying home rather than vote for a Republican.

Either way, only time will tell.

 

[theeedude]

Anyone but a Republican. Failed economic policies, never ending wars, no thanks.

 

[ivwshane]

As stated before: history shows that the party that holds the presidency after the second term typically loses it. I will also add that if dems, once again, run away from the accomplishments of Obama (like they did with clinton and again in 2012), the dems will lose again.

That being said, the republicans are almost single handedly destroying any chance they have of getting back in the White House. Only the dumbest and biggest of partisans can look at the Republican Party and say, "you know, they've got some good ideas, I could get behind them!". The Republican Party has zero ideas that haven't been proven to be failed policies and they have zero new ideas.

 

[ivwshane]

Yep, way too early. Most people I know aren't interested at all as of right now. I haven't listened to any campaign stuff at all. But I don't think the economy is going to be a major issue. People hear that the stock market is up and unemployment is down and they consider themselves informed and happy. I think how Hillary ends up looking is the real factor. The dems are basically putting all their eggs in her basket in hopes of some kind of mega campaign. It could pay off huge or it could be a huge mistake.

Time will tell.

I agree with everything except the last statement. The dems want anyone, to run against hillary, not because they don't like her but because they want her challenged and because they don't want all their eggs in one basket. Sadly, they may not have any other options.

 

[pcgeek11]

Anyone but a Republican. Failed economic policies, never ending wars, no thanks.

So just like Obama.

 

[pcgeek11]

The Dems could take it again as long as they don't connect their wagon to the train wreck called Hillary Clinton. She has too much baggage ( real or perceived ) and it is growing all the time.

 

[ivwshane]

So just like Obama.

I know you are trolling but in what world has Obamas economic policies been a failure?

 

[Drako]

I'm hopeful that the next POTUS is s truthful bringer of peace and prosperity.

Yeah, OK, just dreaming.

Going with Rubio.

 

[thraashman]

I know you are trolling but in what world has Obamas economic policies been a failure?

In the world where the Republican's favorite catch all term "socialism" is defined as "stuff I don't like done by the black guy".

 

[pcgeek11]

I know you are trolling but in what world has Obamas economic policies been a failure?

Mr. Obama’s economy has performed worse than any president’s since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Simply averaging real gross domestic product (GDP) growth over a president’s tenure, Mr. Obama’s is the lowest by almost a full percentage point.

To catch George W. Bush, Mr. Obama would have to average real economic growth of 3.55 percent over each of the next three years. That would mean a 25 percent increase above his best year’s growth — 2.8 percent in 2012. That’s a tall order, considering last year’s growth was just 1.9 percent, and this year’s first quarter came in at a negative 1 percent.

Mr. Obama’s economy has also had some substantial monetary and fiscal policy boosts. The Federal Reserve has held interest rates at rock-bottom levels for an unprecedentedly long time. Fiscally, federal spending averaged 22.8 percent of GDP during the president’s first five years — well above its 20.5 percent average over the previous 40 years — and debt held by the public more than doubled from $5.8 trillion to $12 trillion between 2008 and 2013.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ok-on-obamas-record-of-economi/#ixzz3YImUnppT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[pcgeek11]

In the world where the Republican's favorite catch all term "socialism" is defined as "stuff I don't like done by the black guy".

Where in my post did I mention "socialism" or anything about "the black guy".

 

[nickqt]

Mr. Obama’s economy has performed worse than any president’s since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Simply averaging real gross domestic product (GDP) growth over a president’s tenure, Mr. Obama’s is the lowest by almost a full percentage point.

To catch George W. Bush, Mr. Obama would have to average real economic growth of 3.55 percent over each of the next three years. That would mean a 25 percent increase above his best year’s growth — 2.8 percent in 2012. That’s a tall order, considering last year’s growth was just 1.9 percent, and this year’s first quarter came in at a negative 1 percent.

Mr. Obama’s economy has also had some substantial monetary and fiscal policy boosts. The Federal Reserve has held interest rates at rock-bottom levels for an unprecedentedly long time. Fiscally, federal spending averaged 22.8 percent of GDP during the president’s first five years — well above its 20.5 percent average over the previous 40 years — and debt held by the public more than doubled from $5.8 trillion to $12 trillion between 2008 and 2013.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ok-on-obamas-record-of-economi/#ixzz3YImUnppT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

If only we could go back to the economy of Jan. 2009!

 

[pcgeek11]

If only we could go back to the economy of Jan. 2009!

That is just stupid. We are discussing overall economy. Not just one point.

 

[nickqt]

That is just stupid. We are discussing overall economy. Not just one point.

I'm simply pointing out that:

1. Obama didn't start with a very health economy, so lets not pretend that Obama came into office and something bad then happened to the economy. It was exactly the opposite.

2. In spite of 1. above, the economy is better now in just about any metric than what it was on Jan. 19, 2009. You know, when the man who cannot be named was kicking ass and taking names economically.

3. U3 is U3. If you're going to change up the unemployment measure, than be sure to use that same changed measure when comparing today to any time in the past, otherwise the whole "unemployment numbers are being cooked" is nonsense, as the government has been using U3 for...awhile.

For example, the man who cannot be named inherited a U6 of 7%, and left office with it hurtling towards 17%. The U6 today is hovering around 10.6%.

Could things be better? Yes. But unless Obama leaves office with an economy cratering like it was when the man who cannot be named left office, let's not go kicking the neo-liberal centrist Democrat in the balls for not delivering everyone a unicorn.