Jump to content

2016 US Presidential Race - Landslide or Laughing Stock?


iNow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Informal poll / pulse check...

 

What do you think would happen if Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ran on a single ticket in 2016? Landslide or laughing stock?

 

Also, what if they ran against a Rand Paul / Ted Cruz ticket?

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I dearly love what Elizabeth Warren has been doing in the senate, I'm not sure such a ticket would capture enough of the "center" in 2016.

 

I don't think there's a ticket on the right that gets less than 40% of the popular vote (though 60%-ish for the dems would be considered a landslide), and that frightens me no end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted Cruz on any ticket scares me to no end. It's the same reason I didn't vote for McCain. I actually liked McCain and a lot of his ideas - but his choice of running mate left me with no doubt that things would get much worse much faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the growing income inequality issue needs to be addressed strongly, and I don't see Clinton or any of the other Dems being very effective in that. Stripping income for the last 30 years from the middle class and piling it on top of what the 1% already makes has led to a US with poor tax revenues, a lackluster economy and a population that struggles to buy what its corporations are manufacturing elsewhere.

 

I think Warren and Sanders would make the most interesting chief executives in our history. I think it would be a very hard sell though, and would probably end up as a close race rather than a landslide for either side.

 

Maybe after they fix income equality, E&B can move us away from winner-takes-all voting. I think 50-50 political races are harmful to the country as inaccurately representative of political creed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ticket would lose in the primary, in 2016. However it is obvious that the political landscape is shifting leftwards in the Untied States. Possibly 2024 Elizabeth Warren could win. But Bernie Sanders is a self proclaimed "socialist" no way he would make it through the vetting process, nor do I think he would want to be a vice president.

 

I really think that it will be tough next to impossible for the GOP to win the president if they continue their current platform, only way it happens is if they elect a libertarian-esque candidate. The tea party republicans and traditional GOP just polarize the majority of the electorate with their social platforms.

 

That all said, I think if Hillary runs, she wins.


Maybe after they fix income equality, E&B can move us away from winner-takes-all voting. I think 50-50 political races are harmful to the country as inaccurately representative of political creed.

 

I believe winner takes all voting is a good thing as long as terms, term limits and a balance of powers system is in place. The winner of an election needs some level of control in order to carry out his or hers agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ticket would lose in the primary, in 2016.

 

I think the danger mirrors the tea party actions: you win the primary because the far(ther) left comes out in droves and you beat more moderate (center/right) candidates, but it's not enough to win the general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will never win.

 

 

I think the danger mirrors the tea party actions: you win the primary because the far(ther) left comes out in droves and you beat more moderate (center/right) candidates, but it's not enough to win the general.

 

True, however I don't think the Democratic party is quite as radical as the republican party at this time. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is as left wing radical as Ted Cruz is right wing radical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe winner takes all voting is a good thing as long as terms, term limits and a balance of powers system is in place. The winner of an election needs some level of control in order to carry out his or hers agenda.

 

Figure out a way to avoid the historical trap of WTA voting eventually winding up with just two major parties trying to represent the will of hundreds of millions of people and maybe we don't need to fix the voting system. I don't trust either major party agenda anymore, and I'm so very tired of the two sides pushing against each other to leave us nowhere.

 

The stupidity is really starting to get to me. The US is slipping in so many identifiable areas, and so much of it is because our leadership wastes public resources on party-ing. When you vote a sensible, smart, necessary bill down because it came from across the aisle, you're party-ing too much.

 

 

 

I like Sanders stance on media ownership, and hate Clinton's. That's something else that needs to be fixed in 2016, imo, 20 years after Hillary's husband broke it.

 

Warren and Sanders would be great custodians for the ACA as well. It's far from great, but could be if the Republicans don't get in office and start dismantling everything good that's been done. Maybe Bernie can make people understand that we could have the best universal healthcare model from any country in the world and still pay less than what we're paying now.

Also Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will never win.

 

Please let this be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

True, however I don't think the Democratic party is quite as radical as the republican party at this time. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is as left wing radical as Ted Cruz is right wing radical.

 

I agree, but the middle of the US political spectrum leans right. I think there is a greater mass of ultra-right leaning people in congress than ultra-left, and gerrymandering explains only part of that. For example, once the rhetoric is stripped away, Obama is pretty much a centrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Warren and Sanders would make the most interesting chief executives in our history. I think it would be a very hard sell though, and would probably end up as a close race rather than a landslide for either side.

I wonder if those on the right would react similarly to a Warren/Sanders ticket to the way the left reacted to Palin in 2008.

 

Part of me is also beginning to wonder if Rick Perry might join up with Ted Cruz as a GOP ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if those on the right would react similarly to a Warren/Sanders ticket to the way the left reacted to Palin in 2008.

 

Like it was an intellectual affront to any reasonably educated citizen with a rational worldview? I'm gonna say NO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to remember, my friend, that they believe their own point of view and worldview to be both rational and educated. If they believed otherwise, they would have a different outlook and ideology... Likely one more similar to our own.

 

That's one of the weirdest thing about politics. To some extent, everyone believes that their opinion is the only correct one.

 

With that said, I do recognize that many on the right were similarly dissatisfied/disgusted with the choice of Palin as John McCain's running mate in 2008, so it's clearly not a 1:1 comparison (since I suspect that very few on the left would be dissatisfied or disgusted with a choice of Warren or Sanders on the ticket).

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to remember, my friend, that they believe their own point of view and worldview to be both rational and educated. If they believed otherwise, they would have a different outlook and ideology... Likely one more similar to our own.

 

That's one of the weirdest thing about politics. To some extent, everyone believes that their opinion is the only correct one.

 

Too true. I was reminded of that lately in a discussion with one of our ultra-conservative friends. He was firmly convinced that gay pride parades were bad because they made heterosexuals violent. He blames the gays for having them and forcing all the straight guys to go downtown and beat them up. And somehow he considered that conclusion was both rational and educated. It made sense to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Too true. I was reminded of that lately in a discussion with one of our ultra-conservative friends. He was firmly convinced that gay pride parades were bad because they made heterosexuals violent. He blames the gays for having them and forcing all the straight guys to go downtown and beat them up. And somehow he considered that conclusion was both rational and educated. It made sense to him.

 

[o/t]

 

Unfortunately there are dinosaurs out there - this strange reversal of the cause of violence crops up as a defence to murder all around the world. It is claimed (completely erroneously in my opinion) that a homosexual advance is sufficient to unbalance some heterosexual men to the extent that their action are not completely within their control. It is known in the UK and Commonwealth law as the Portsmouth defence or the Homosexual Advance defence and still gets brought up as a means to show enough provocation (now called loss of control IIRC) to diminish a charge of murder (mandatory life sentence) to one of manslaughter (judge decides on sentence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately there are dinosaurs out there

 

Not as off-topic as you think. To me, it's dinosaur thinking that might put another Bush in the White House. Big, dumb, dinosaur-thinking lumberers, with asses so huge it blocks their hindsight and makes them forget the past. "I'm sure Jeb will be different from George I. And Neal. And George II."

 

The US has been leaning too conservatively for too long and we've upset the balance. This boat is listing right into bad water, so maybe we need a hard left rudder to balance things out.

 

I wonder how Warren and Sanders would play with Congress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not as off-topic as you think. To me, it's dinosaur thinking that might put another Bush in the White House. Big, dumb, dinosaur-thinking lumberers, with asses so huge it blocks their hindsight and makes them forget the past. "I'm sure Jeb will be different from George I. And Neal. And George II."

 

The US has been leaning too conservatively for too long and we've upset the balance. This boat is listing right into bad water, so maybe we need a hard left rudder to balance things out.

 

I wonder how Warren and Sanders would play with Congress?

Personally, I'd be happy with a President from any party that could actually LEAD the country and help put an end to all of this partisan crap that freezes the country up every budget cycle. We need someone that can reach both sides of the aisle, and foster communication, consensus, and compromise. Then we might be able to actually get some real work done. But in order to do that, you need a candidate that is moderate enough to be acceptable to a large enough voting block on both sides, and the cuirrent primary cycles almost guarantee that won't happen - at least not anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd be happy with a President from any party that could actually LEAD the country and help put an end to all of this partisan crap that freezes the country up every budget cycle. We need someone that can reach both sides of the aisle, and foster communication, consensus, and compromise. Then we might be able to actually get some real work done. But in order to do that, you need a candidate that is moderate enough to be acceptable to a large enough voting block on both sides, and the cuirrent primary cycles almost guarantee that won't happen - at least not anytime soon.

 

An Independent president might also be less susceptible to the Republican habit of voting ideas down just because they came from a Democrat. And while I haven't seen as blatant an example of this coming from the Dems, I'm sure it factors into their voting habits as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

An Independent president might also be less susceptible to the Republican habit of voting ideas down just because they came from a Democrat. And while I haven't seen as blatant an example of this coming from the Dems, I'm sure it factors into their voting habits as well.

 

It's this behavior that causes me to dismiss any recent criticism of supposed lack of leadership, because such behavior is so blatant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's this behavior that causes me to dismiss any recent criticism of supposed lack of leadership, because such behavior is so blatant.

Leadership is about convincing people that agreeing with you will get them more of what they want than disagreeing with you. A real persuasive leader can accomplish a great deal, but when what the person you are trying to lead wants more than anything else is to make you look bad, you're starting with a handicap that is just a bit difficult to overcome, no matter how good you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leadership is about convincing people that agreeing with you will get them more of what they want than disagreeing with you. A real persuasive leader can accomplish a great deal, but when what the person you are trying to lead wants more than anything else is to make you look bad, you're starting with a handicap that is just a bit difficult to overcome, no matter how good you are.

 

And in this case, several instances of changing their position in order to disagree…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another way to look at the thread topic is to consider whether or not the Warren/Sanders ticket would get enough people from the left and the center out to vote... And to vote in large numbers.

 

Part of me wonders if their message resonates enough to trigger action in enough people to counteract the extreme voting activity we so often see from the extreme right.

 

I also wonder if they truly would appeal to the center, or if (as others have already noted) the United States has become so far to the right overall that "the center" is still quite far away from the various positions argued for and espoused by Warren and Sanders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder if they truly would appeal to the center, or if (as others have already noted) the United States has become so far to the right overall that "the center" is still quite far away from the various positions argued for and espoused by Warren and Sanders.

 

Ironically, the more vehemently the right stands in the way of progress, the more radical the counter-measures have to be. The center doesn't like radical in either direction. It took 30 years to transfer middle class income to the 1% in the proportions we see now. If we can't start gradually recapturing that, what's the alternative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death by climate change?

 

More seriously, it's difficult to alter a system (gerrymandering, campaign finance & shadow money, armies of lobbyists, elected representatives becoming lobbyists with million-dollar salaries and bonuses before they've even fully left office, etc.) when the only people who can actually change that dysfunctional system are the ones benefiting from it the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder if they truly would appeal to the center, or if (as others have already noted) the United States has become so far to the right overall that "the center" is still quite far away from the various positions argued for and espoused by Warren and Sanders.

 

I don't particularly believe that the United States voting populous is really that far right.

 

Now measuring this is hard next to impossible, considering a lot of it is terminology. (Conservative is a more appealing term than Republican or that Progressive is a more appealing term than liberal.)

 

That being said the demographics have changed so drastically in the last decade that I believe, unless the republican party does a major re-branding. They are destined to lose. Especially with their hard lined stance against everything good.

 

I mean the Republican party has literally turned into the evil party. . . . and it seems they have replaced their original libertarian philosophies, which at least hold some intellectual honesty with downright bull. . .

 

Furthermore with the continued advancement in age of our younger generations, myself included, who by the way gain their news from the internet, (Republicans don't have the stronghold on media as they once did) will continue to ensure the republican's demise.

 

Ignorance can only last so long. The advancement of mankind has a liberal bias.

 

However, that all being said, the Democratic Party is as easily corrupted.

Edited by toastywombel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.