2016 GOP Candidate?

[SnakeTom]

With 2 years to go before the election it is just about certain that Hillary Clinton will be the Dem candidate, But who do you think will be the Republican candidate. And as follow up questions which Republican would have the best chance to win the Presidency and which would make the best President in your opinion? That's three separate questions I'm asking.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Tom before I answer, don't think it's a shoe in that Shrillary gets them Dem nomination. Remember she was ahead in early polls six years ago and some unknown community organizer came out of left field. Now she has Benghazi hanging over her head. Don't know who takes it if not her, but no way is she a given at this point.

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
With 2 years to go before the election it is just about certain that Hillary Clinton will be the Dem candidate, But who do you think will be the Republican candidate. And as follow up questions which Republican would have the best chance to win the Presidency and which would make the best President in your opinion? That's three separate questions I'm asking.

Tom K

Nothing is for certain in politics, but she is the favorite on that side.

1) As of now, I'd say Jeb Bush will be the GOP candidate.
2) I think Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney would have the best chance to win.
3) I think Paul Ryan would make the best president.

 

[JIMSOULS]

I've never voted for a Republican for President (though not always a Democrat). If Hillary runs, I'd have to think about changing the trend. She's just wrong for America just like G.W. Bush was wrong. No more Clintons. No more Bushes. Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

 

[HALL85]

Who will be the candidate?
The Republican base is so fractured and they really need to take a long look at how they relate to the American public. I don't see that happening, so I think you'll get Mitt Romney again as the candidate since he seems to be the least polarizing to all of the fringes of the party.

Best chance to win?
I don't know enough about him, but what I've seen Marco Rubio could be that candidate that broadens the Republican base and has a chance to win. I'm not sold on him, but if it's only about winning he would be my guess.

Which would make the best President?
He's not running, but I think Alan Simpson would be the best Republican choice. He understands how to work across the aisle, I wish the President and Congress had the balls to implement Simpson/Bowles. The thing I like most is he tellls you what you need to hear vs. what you want him to say.

I would really like to see both parties nominate candidates that can actually lead...what a thought that would be. To me that's been the major failing of Obama. Can't lead his way out of a paper bag and has polarized the country more than any other President. He keeps blaming Bush and Congress for his inability to get things done. All he cares about is doing public appearances when he should be working with Congress. He had a Democratic Congress when he was elected and puked all over that ramming the ACA through. Hillary is nothing more than B.O. in a dress...blah, blah, blah, shrill and condescending. Two years is a long time...never know who may emerge on either side, but wouldn't that be refreshing to see two candidates that can lead and get things done? Maybe I'm an optimist, but there has to be two qualified people that can capitalize on the lack of confidence the public has in elected officials and use this as an opportunity to be that bold leader we so desparately need.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Originally posted by HALL85:
Tom before I answer, don't think it's a shoe in that Shrillary gets them Dem nomination. Remember she was ahead in early polls six years ago and some unknown community organizer came out of left field. Now she has Benghazi hanging over her head. Don't know who takes it if not her, but no way is she a given at this point.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton & would never vote for her (coming from a progressive POV), but Benghazi is not hanging over her head. Anyone that cares about Benghazi in the way you mean would never vote for Hillary anyway.

It's also hard to take you as seriously I would like when you make silly little jabs like "Shrillary" or "community organizer". The latter in part. could come off as a little racist, bc it's used as a dog whistle type of comment by some.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Originally posted by JIMSOULS:

I've never voted for a Republican for President (though not always a Democrat). If Hillary runs, I'd have to think about changing the trend. She's just wrong for America just like G.W. Bush was wrong. No more Clintons. No more Bushes. Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

If you're a fan of Elizabeth Warren like I am, then which Republican could possibly be more appealing to you than Hillary? She's another corporatist, chicken hawk Democrat, but she's still more in line with Elizabeth Warren (barely) than any of the Republicans that are talked about right now.

As for Warren, I love the woman & agree with her on almost everything (her public comments about Israel's actions this summer were surprising, but I wonder if that was her just playing politics vs. what she actually believes), but I just don't see how she raises enough $ to run a successful campaign considering how she won't be getting much Wall Street or Big Bank $ based on her stance against them (a simplification, I know). This fundraising problem is exactly why I wish public financing of elections were more than a pipe dream right now.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:

It's also hard to take you as seriously I would like when you make silly little jabs like "Shrillary" or "community organizer". The latter in part. could come off as a little racist, bc it's used as a dog whistle type of comment by some.

Racist? Let me give you my short response. Go "F" yourself. You know nothing about me a-hole.

 

[Section112]

What is racist about calling a man who was a community organizer a community organizer?

Oh yeah and by the way Shillary is an accurate depiction and it goes way back. See the link posted.

http://www.caintv.com/watergate-era-judiciary-chief

 

[SnakeTom]

I asked a serious question so the personal attacks & insults are really not needed nor appreciated. Are there any other serious answers to the questions.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

And some of us did answer it. I reserve the right to defend myself against race-baiting attacks.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Racist? Let me give you my short response. Go "F" yourself. You know nothing about me a-hole.

way to flip out for no reason. I didn't say you were a racist, and you know it. Just an excuse for a cheap shot I guess. I said that that term can be seen that way, so i would have preferred u not use it. it wasn't a big deal.

 

[HALL85]

Said the author of the cheap shot. You know damn well what you were suggesting.

 

[Section112]

Tom I believe the Republican candidates are wide open at this point. Not 100% sure who is running or who could win. Could come from a field of Romney, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Christie (doubtful but you never know), Rand Paul and countless others. Don't count out Rand Paul. At some point it will be his time. The press likes to make him out as a fringe candidate but he brings new and common sense thoughts to the table. I really think the press is trying to make Romney out as the best candidate right now because they know he is beatable.

In 2012 I liked John Huntsman (former Governor who ran a state successfully and ambassador so he had good foreign policy credentials) but he made too much sense so he lost in the primaries. He was a real moderate. I'm really hopeful the Dems will rethink Hillary the power monger but I don't think they will. I would like it for once if two candidates ran that I saw a lot of positives on and that I could get behind but that has not occurred in my lifetime IMO since Reagan. My guess it will be much of the same.

Its clear in my mind that Obama was a huge mistake for this country as he has failed to lead. I cannot say if Romney would have been better but at least he lead a state prior to the election and did so very well in a Democratic leaning state. He was also a moderate. Moderates tend to get more done as they can reach across the aisle (see Clinton and Reagan) and I believe Governors also have the experience of dealing with legislators and have to make tough decisions and actually run something and that experience allows them to lead better than a Senator or Congressperson.

Obama's inexperience and lack of leadership has shown significantly and I hope the American people have learned from this mistake but I doubt it. Instead the American people will say let's have a woman be President instead of looking at her record and what she has done to get there.

 

[Pirate6711]

Huntsman was the best candidate for the republicans in 2012 and would be in 2016 if he chose to run, but he'll never have a chance because the shepherds and the sheep who follow them think he's too moderate. That's how clowns like Bachmann and Santorum did much better than a great candidate like Huntsman in 2012 and how another clown like Cruz would get more support than Huntsman in the upcoming primary.

If they go with Romney again, I think he would be a good candidate if they just let him be himself. We saw that in the debates when he wasn't giving canned statements and trying to cater only to the extremists in the party. He did a lot of great things as the governor of Massachusetts, but the republican shepherds deemed some of those accomplishments too liberal for the sheep so we only saw the robotic side of Romney telling the extremists what they wanted to hear. It's incredible how close the final margin was considering how poor the campaign was for the republicans. That gives the party a glimmer of hope for 2016. That and the divisiveness of Hillary Clinton.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Pirate6711:
Huntsman was the best candidate for the republicans in 2012 and would be in 2016 if he chose to run, but he'll never have a chance because the shepherds and the sheep who follow them think he's too moderate. That's how clowns like Bachmann and Santorum did much better than a great candidate like Huntsman in 2012 and how another clown like Cruz would get more support than Huntsman in the upcoming primary.

If they go with Romney again, I think he would be a good candidate if they just let him be himself. We saw that in the debates when he wasn't giving canned statements and trying to cater only to the extremists in the party. He did a lot of great things as the governor of Massachusetts, but the republican shepherds deemed some of those accomplishments too liberal for the sheep so we only saw the robotic side of Romney telling the extremists what they wanted to hear. It's incredible how close the final margin was considering how poor the campaign was for the republicans. That gives the party a glimmer of hope for 2016. That and the divisiveness of Hillary Clinton.

Good post 6711. That is a great summary of what is wrong with the Republican Party. There are some very good candidates out there like Huntsman, but the party can't get out of their own way and the fringe groups get all the attention.

 

[Section112]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Pirate6711:
Huntsman was the best candidate for the republicans in 2012 and would be in 2016 if he chose to run, but he'll never have a chance because the shepherds and the sheep who follow them think he's too moderate. That's how clowns like Bachmann and Santorum did much better than a great candidate like Huntsman in 2012 and how another clown like Cruz would get more support than Huntsman in the upcoming primary.

If they go with Romney again, I think he would be a good candidate if they just let him be himself. We saw that in the debates when he wasn't giving canned statements and trying to cater only to the extremists in the party. He did a lot of great things as the governor of Massachusetts, but the republican shepherds deemed some of those accomplishments too liberal for the sheep so we only saw the robotic side of Romney telling the extremists what they wanted to hear. It's incredible how close the final margin was considering how poor the campaign was for the republicans. That gives the party a glimmer of hope for 2016. That and the divisiveness of Hillary Clinton.

Good post 6711. That is a great summary of what is wrong with the Republican Party. There are some very good candidates out there like Huntsman, but the party can't get out of their own way and the fringe groups get all the attention.

Agree 100%

 

[SHUBigT]

1) As of now, I'd say Jeb Bush will be the GOP candidate.
2) I think Mitt Romney or Rand Paul would have the best chance to win.
3) I think Rand Paul would make the best president.

 

[Shuathelete]

Geez I guess Mickey Mouse is gonna have an alltime high vote count this time

This post was edited on 11/3 1:41 PM by Shuathelete

 

[Merge]

SPK actually started a similar conversation over a year ago.

https://setonhall.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?highlight=jeb&sid=959&fid=1420&tid=166061575&mid=166066722

If Hilary runs, I still do not see her losing. I will not vote for her but she is probably the least popular she has even been but still polls very well in some key swing states. The GOP candidate would likely need to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and one of Colorado or Iowa. That is a pretty large shift in the electorate against a fairly popular democrat. The GOP's only chance really is to hope she doesn't run.

I expect she will run and pick someone like Evan Bayh as her running mate.

I'm sticking with Jeb being the best choice for the GOP, 2nd for me is Rand Paul.
If Romney doesn't work with anyone he worked with the last time... he might be ok... but he needs to shift himself towards the center to where he ran last t

Christie hasn't really helped he reputation enough to win the nomination, although I think he still may be able to position himself as the VP pick by entering the primaries and performing well.

Rubio would also be a great choice as the VP pick for the GOP, but I don't think they would do as well with his name being first on the ticket.

 

[donnie_baseball]

No one named Bush is winning anything; I can't imagine the GOP vetting him. He might be a great guy, but with the media and the Obama administration STILL reminding us of what a mess they had to clean up, I can't imagine that playing well. As someone else stated, the last thing this country needs, right now, is another Bush, or Clinton, in the Oval Office.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by HALL85:
Said the author of the cheap shot. You know damn well what you were suggesting.

Don't waste your time. Shameful representative of the thought police, twisting your words make you a "racist," "hater," or what-have you.

 

[SnakeTom]

Well here are my thoughts. Barring any health issues developing Hillary
will be the Dem candidate without any serious opposition. I also think she will
be elected President if the nominee. If Hillary does not run for whatever reason
there will be a Republican President. I do not see her divisiveness as an issue
as those strongly opposed to her don't vote Dem anyway.





It is my view that America is best served if ruled from the center to
avoid the gridlock that we now see. Unfortunately the Primary system favors
those at the extremes of both parties. Presidents such as Bill Clinton &
Ronald Regan were successful because they knew how to deal with the opposition
party. This is where Bush2 & Obama have failed.





Getting back to the questions asked I think Christie will be the GOP
candidate & has the best chance to win because of his name recognition, fund raising ability &
tough outgoing style. The bridgegate scandal is behind him & will have
little to no affect. As to which person in the GOP would make the best President
I think it would easily be Huntsman if he were a candidate which unfortunately
is not likely. Among the others probably Christie or possibly Rubio..





Tom K

This post was edited on 11/4 11:10 AM by SnakeTom

 

[HALL85]

Interesting thoughts Tom, although like I said before, although Clinton is the favorite for the Dems, I don't think she's a shoe-in for the nomination.

Surprised me with your Christie pick. He might be the most colorful of the Republican candidates but I just don't see him getting through the primary process. Personally, I hope he doesn't run, because if he does, all we will hear for the next two years are the words "Bridgegate" and "Bully" out of the press since they can't seem to report on anything of substance. Everyone will be looking for or trying to break a story on his first "outburst" on the trail. Really not sure how good a President Christie would make at this point either. He's done some very good things as Governor (much more than any of his recent predescessor's), but I expect more on a Presidential resume and he's not there yet.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Well here are my thoughts. Barring any health issues developing Hillary
will be the Dem candidate without any serious opposition. I also think she will
be elected President if the nominee. If Hillary does not run for whatever reason
there will be a Republican President. I do not see her divisiveness as an issue
as those strongly opposed to her don't vote Dem anyway.





It is my view that America is best served if ruled from the center to
avoid the gridlock that we now see. Unfortunately the Primary system favors
those at the extremes of both parties. Presidents such as Bill Clinton &
Ronald Regan were successful because they knew how to deal with the opposition
party. This is where Bush2 & Obama have failed.





Getting back to the questions asked I think Christie will be the GOP
candidate & has the best chance to win because of his name recognition, fund raising ability &
tough outgoing style. The bridgegate scandal is behind him & will have
little to no affect. As to which person in the GOP would make the best President
I think it would easily be Huntsman if he were a candidate which unfortunately
is not likely. Among the others probably Christie or possibly Rubio..





Tom K

This post was edited on 11/4 11:10 AM by SnakeTom

Tom, I agree with everything except for Christie. He will not get through the primary, conservatives outside on NJ do not like him enough. He is better suited for the VP spot.

Though, like you said. If Hilary runs, it doesn't really matter who she is running against.

 

[SnakeTom]

The reason that I think Christie could get the nomination is that if the GOP smells blood & feels that they really have a chance to win it all they are more likely to go to the candidate that has the more national appeal rather than go with the hard core conservative whose appeal is only to those who vote Republican anyway. Remenber it is the independent voter who really decides a national election not the hard core voter on the left or the right.. Likewise as much as the liberals love Elizabeth Warren she would have no chance in a general election for President.

Tom K

 

[SPK145]

What about John Kasich? Very popular, crushed it last night in Democrap counties, ceratinly conservative but proven at reaching across the aisles, no?

As for best leader, something America desperately needs, Romney leads that category by a large swath.

I used to like Christie but he can really be attacked on NJ's economy which is really lacking the rest of the country.

Of course I really like Rand Paul but he seems to be sending mixed messages in a likely run for the office.

Have to think it's Hillary's nomination if she wants it, Elizabeth Warren is that Mickey Mouse say anything candidate. She will win the fake Indian vote however.

 

[SHUBigT]

So our most recent US President list could look like this: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and potentially Hillary Clinton. So out of the last 5 presidents you'd have two Bush's and two Clinton's and nobody sees a problem with that?

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

So out of the last 5 presidents you'd have two Bush's and two Clinton's and nobody sees a problem with that?

Well both pairs were/would be infinitely better than B.O.....

I think you judge each person on what they bring to the table. With that said regardless of her marriage to Bill, I think Hillary would be an awful President and continue the recent streak.

 

[SHUBigT]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

So out of the last 5 presidents you'd have two Bush's and two Clinton's and nobody sees a problem with that?

Well both pairs were/would be infinitely better than B.O.....

I think you judge each person on what they bring to the table. With that said regardless of her marriage to Bill, I think Hillary would be an awful President and continue the recent streak.

Agree that BO is the worst out of the lot. If Hillary wins I think this country will no doubt continue its downward spiral. I personally don't like seeing the highest office in this country controlled by just a couple families. That isn't what our founding fathers had intended for America.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

Originally posted by SHUBigT:
I personally don't like seeing the highest office in this country controlled by just a couple families. That isn't what our founding fathers had intended for America.

Do you mean like John Adams and John Quincy Adams? Well they were among the founding fathers but then again both were one term Presidents - LOL.

Tom K

 

[SHUBigT]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

Originally posted by SHUBigT:
I personally don't like seeing the highest office in this country controlled by just a couple families. That isn't what our founding fathers had intended for America.

Do you mean like John Adams and John Quincy Adams? Well they were among the founding fathers but then again both were one term Presidents - LOL.

Tom K

LOL....I was waiting for someone to nab me on that. Well played Tom

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

Agree that BO is the worst out of the lot. If Hillary wins I think this country will no doubt continue its downward spiral.

What is your definition of downward spiral?

I see a declining budget deficit to the lowest it has been since before the recession, the lowest unemployment rate since before the recession, a stronger US dollar, and an incredibly strong stock market.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

Agree that BO is the worst out of the lot. If Hillary wins I think this country will no doubt continue its downward spiral.

What is your definition of downward spiral?

I see a declining budget deficit to the lowest it has been since before the recession, the lowest unemployment rate since before the recession, a stronger US dollar, and an incredibly strong stock market.

Yes, and it is beyond me why the Dems did not play up those facts during the election. For a Party that produced two incredibly well produced Presidential campaigns they went totaly asleep during this campaign. Staying on the defensive and not fighting back. I think the Presidents indecisiveness in the middle east hurt big time and the campaign was on the defesnsive throughout.

Tom K

 

[SHUBigT]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

Agree that BO is the worst out of the lot. If Hillary wins I think this country will no doubt continue its downward spiral.

What is your definition of downward spiral?

I see a declining budget deficit to the lowest it has been since before the recession, the lowest unemployment rate since before the recession, a stronger US dollar, and an incredibly strong stock market.

I'm glad you see those things because I don't. Unemployment is calculated based on the number of people receiving benefits so those numbers are skewed. The dollar isn't that strong and if it ever stopped being the go to currency for the world, we'd be sunk. Certain countries are already trading in currency other than the dollar. Inflation is up. Our education system when you compare it with other countries is falling behind. Crime is on the rise. Illegal immigration is still a huge problem. I know you're very well versed on a lot of topics but I just don't see the positive momentum that you do.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

I'm glad you see those things because I don't. Unemployment is calculated based on the number of people receiving benefits so those numbers are skewed. The dollar isn't that strong and if it ever stopped being the go to currency for the world, we'd be sunk. Certain countries are already trading in currency other than the dollar. Inflation is up. Our education system when you compare it with other countries is falling behind. Crime is on the rise. Illegal immigration is still a huge problem. I know you're very well versed on a lot of topics but I just don't see the positive momentum that you do.

That is not how unemployment is calculated. Unemployement is calculated based on survey's as it always has been so the numbers are not skewed. We have had significant improvement in US employment since 2008.

The dollar is stronger than it was in 2007.

Inflation is a bad thing? Inflation being up is a good thing as long as we do not grow too quickly. Idealy it should be around 2-3% per year so we are a little slow if anything.

Crime? Crime has been declining fairly steadily for 20 some years.

illegal immigration is down and we have been deporting more illgal immigrants than ever.

Our education system comapred to other countries is really something I don't know much about though so I can't speak there.

I am not looking at things and thinking that we are in a huge amount of positive momentumm, but I do look at things and think that we are out of the worst economic crisis in our country of the last 80 years and we are moving in the right direction. I just didn't see how someone can look at any economic data and think we are spiraling downwards.

I wanted to understand why you thought the way you did, and I am assuming you are spekaing on a more localized level where some of these issues haven't followed the national trends?

 

[Pirate6711]

Originally posted by SPK145:
What about John Kasich? Very popular, crushed it last night in Democrap counties, ceratinly conservative but proven at reaching across the aisles, no?

As for best leader, something America desperately needs, Romney leads that category by a large swath.

I used to like Christie but he can really be attacked on NJ's economy which is really lacking the rest of the country.

Of course I really like Rand Paul but he seems to be sending mixed messages in a likely run for the office.

Have to think it's Hillary's nomination if she wants it, Elizabeth Warren is that Mickey Mouse say anything candidate. She will win the fake Indian vote however.

Kasich wouldn't be a bad pick. He's a moderate republican who has done a lot of good for the state. He tested the waters with a collective-bargaining law, but smartly backed off when it got crushed in a vote in 2011. He has made a lot of successful business decisions to establish public-private partnerships with some state agencies that has saved the state a lot of money. He has had to make hard financial decisions to keep a struggling rust belt state at or above water level.

It didn't hurt that the state democrats took little advantage of the Bob Taft-Tom Noe scandal. The democrats did nothing but mock the republicans. So after one term with Ted Strickland as governor (I have talked with him a few times, great guy, didn't do much as governor), the republicans stormed the state with very direct policy changes and plans to improve the state in the future. The democrats (led by the ultra-smug Chris Redfern, who lost his state house seat last night and resigned as state party chairman after Fitzgerald got walloped) just tried to bash republican policy instead of presenting their own. They tried to rely on a shrinking union voting base instead of seeking new voters. So what has happened in the last four years? Most of Kasich's policies have worked. Aside from a couple social issues, he's been very moderate (especially in education and healthcare) and the state is in healthy (as healthy as a rust belt state can hope to be) financial shape because he's been firm with making some hard decisions that were ignored for the previous 20+ years.

It didn't hurt Kasich that he was running against Ed Fitzgerald, a smug asshole picked and prepped by the smug asshole Chris Redfern, who never really campaigned, saw most of his staff quit by August, and has many skeletons in his closet. Even with all that, it's still amazing that Kasich got nearly 2/3 of the vote in Ohio. And before anybody thinks I'm just a basher of the democrats, I have been much more involved with democrats in Ohio than any party in any other state where I have lived. Here in NC, I'm registered unaffiliated and voted for the Libertarian senate candidate yesterday.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

I'm glad you see those things because I don't. Unemployment is calculated based on the number of people receiving benefits so those numbers are skewed. The dollar isn't that strong and if it ever stopped being the go to currency for the world, we'd be sunk. Certain countries are already trading in currency other than the dollar. Inflation is up. Our education system when you compare it with other countries is falling behind. Crime is on the rise. Illegal immigration is still a huge problem. I know you're very well versed on a lot of topics but I just don't see the positive momentum that you do.

That is not how unemployment is calculated. Unemployement is calculated based on survey's as it always has been so the numbers are not skewed. We have had significant improvement in US employment since 2008.

The dollar is stronger than it was in 2007.

Inflation is a bad thing? Inflation being up is a good thing as long as we do not grow too quickly. Idealy it should be around 2-3% per year so we are a little slow if anything.

Crime? Crime has been declining fairly steadily for 20 some years.

illegal immigration is down and we have been deporting more illgal immigrants than ever.

Our education system comapred to other countries is really something I don't know much about though so I can't speak there.

I am not looking at things and thinking that we are in a huge amount of positive momentumm, but I do look at things and think that we are out of the worst economic crisis in our country of the last 80 years and we are moving in the right direction. I just didn't see how someone can look at any economic data and think we are spiraling downwards.

I wanted to understand why you thought the way you did, and I am assuming you are spekaing on a more localized level where some of these issues haven't followed the national trends?

Perception is not always reality, but if things are as good as you say, why has the public renounced B.O.'s policies as seen by the results from last night? Clearly there is a disconnect and dissatisfaction in the voting base.

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

I'm glad you see those things because I don't. Unemployment is calculated based on the number of people receiving benefits so those numbers are skewed. The dollar isn't that strong and if it ever stopped being the go to currency for the world, we'd be sunk. Certain countries are already trading in currency other than the dollar. Inflation is up. Our education system when you compare it with other countries is falling behind. Crime is on the rise. Illegal immigration is still a huge problem. I know you're very well versed on a lot of topics but I just don't see the positive momentum that you do.

That is not how unemployment is calculated. Unemployement is calculated based on survey's as it always has been so the numbers are not skewed. We have had significant improvement in US employment since 2008.

The dollar is stronger than it was in 2007.

Inflation is a bad thing? Inflation being up is a good thing as long as we do not grow too quickly. Idealy it should be around 2-3% per year so we are a little slow if anything.

Crime? Crime has been declining fairly steadily for 20 some years.

illegal immigration is down and we have been deporting more illgal immigrants than ever.

Our education system comapred to other countries is really something I don't know much about though so I can't speak there.

I am not looking at things and thinking that we are in a huge amount of positive momentumm, but I do look at things and think that we are out of the worst economic crisis in our country of the last 80 years and we are moving in the right direction. I just didn't see how someone can look at any economic data and think we are spiraling downwards.

I wanted to understand why you thought the way you did, and I am assuming you are spekaing on a more localized level where some of these issues haven't followed the national trends?

Perception is not always reality, but if things are as good as you say, why has the public renounced B.O.'s policies as seen by the results from last night? Clearly there is a disconnect and dissatisfaction in the voting base.

Macroeconomic data is showing a strong recovery from the 2008 collapse. It just hasn't trickled down to blue collar people just yet. I also don't think people (from the perspective of the present time) realize just how bad that crisis was and how close we were to a depression. I think 20, 30, 40, 50 etc years from now, history will show this and how impatient the electorate was during Obama's presidency, and likely whoever the next president is, GOP or Dem.



Well, average Americans aren't the smartest folks and there has been a trend over the years in elections where they just swing from Democrat to Republican and vice versa, especially in recent times. In the early 2000's, the GOP was in control, then the Democrats took over in 2006. In 2010 and 2014, it has swung back towards the GOP. It will move back towards the Democrats as soon as 2016 or as late as 2020, that's just the way Americans vote.

Look at our own NJ ballot. Did people even read the first state question, which permits the legislature to enact "bail reform?" What this actually does is cede more of your rights to the government. If you're ever arrested, it's possible you could be held in jail until trial with no possibility of bail. It's scary to me that people actually voted for that. Do they really believe courts won't abuse their new power??




This post was edited on 11/5 3:34 PM by shu09

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by shu09:

Well, average Americans aren't the smartest folks

This post was edited on 11/5 3:34 PM by shu09

...which explains why Obama was elected for two terms......