[worry]

If you saw Rubio on The Daily Show last week, he's already moderating some of his most extreme (read: Tea Party) positions. Stewart called him on it (the tension between moderation and TP's stranglehold), but Rubio kinda shuffled past it. You're right though, he's a very congenial guy...probably the least abrasive Republican period, let alone Tea Party. If conservative leaning "independents" can be swayed by anything, it's a candidate who shares their abhorrent views who doesn't come off as a snob.

Re: Warren, I think she's insisted that she's not running for President. Are VP hopes pipe dreams? Probably. There are certain donors she might scare off for sure. But I'd still like to think about it before all hope is dashed.

[Illuyankas]

Cruz will just get a Ron Paul at the convention and 'mysteriously' not get recognised (over the shouting of people trying to get him recognised). He might get nominated and it'll be hilarious because he'll never get to be President ever.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Illuyankas, on 19 January 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

Cruz will just get a Ron Paul at the convention and 'mysteriously' not get recognised (over the shouting of people trying to get him recognised). He might get nominated and it'll be hilarious because he'll never get to be President ever.

That's the crazy thing about politics in the US though (at least for pres elections)...if he got nominated, he could flub every debate and give non-answers to every question and he'd still have steadfast support of roughly half the country just cause he's the republican candidate and folks are tired of having a democrat president...or whatever. Seems to be what happened with Romney too...I mean the guy was caught on tape weeks before election night saying he didn't care about 47% of the country's votes because they're a bunch of socialist moochers (paraphrasing of course) and he still put in a solid showing on election night.

What is an actually *good* and professional (read: not hyper-partisan) news source for me to follow? Last election I watched Maddow Show mostly because she at least makes an effort to correct inaccuracies despite her obvious anti-republican slant. Still, I'd like something that gives both sides a fairer shake.

[Terez]

That's the thing; none of the unslanted news sources do any kind of in-depth coverage. If you want any kind of analysis of the news, you need a slant. Maddow is good; another good one is Steve Kornacki on weekend mornings. He is a liberal, but 1) he's more of a wonk than a lecturer, and 2) he has panels on his show that often include Republicans, so you at least get the other side of the argument. He rarely has the type to start a shouting match on his show; the only shouting match I ever recall seeing on his show was when he had Barney Frank on the day after Israel invaded Gaza this last time. Barney was supposed to be doing the game show segment (Up Against the Clock) with his sister, but then news happened, so the segment was canceled and they talked about Gaza instead. One thing is for sure: Kornacki will never have Barney Frank on to talk about Israel on purpose.

[McLovin]

Nicodimas, on 19 January 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

It's going to be Bush Vs Clinton for 2016

Nothing says America has failed like Bush v Clinton '16.

I predict this will be the lowest-turnout election in many cycles. I can't pull either of those triggers. Guess I'll be voting for Ralph Nader or something...

[amphibian]

If you live in Dallas, Texas, then I think your city will mostly vote for Clinton, but the state will vote for Jeb Bush.

[Terez]

amphibian, on 20 January 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

If you live in Dallas, Texas, then I think your city will mostly vote for Clinton, but the state will vote for Jeb Bush.

Isn't Austin more likely to go for Clinton than Dallas?

[worry]

You should vote Dem in '16 even if you have to hold your nose doing it because: SCOTUS. When ambivalent (or yah, disappointed), that's a pretty good way to ground the decision. Or maybe not if you don't live in a swing state anyway, I dunno.

[Terez]

I did not vote for Hillary in 2008 and I don't want to vote for her this time. But for some god knows reason the mainstream Democrats are crazy about her, so I will hold my nose and vote for her. I'm hoping there's someone worth a protest vote in the primary. Of course, what I'm really hoping is that she'll have an epiphany at the last minute that she doesn't want to spend her twilight years dealing with this BS, and she will announce she's not running, at which time Warren will feel obligated to get in the ring. But that's a fantasy. Hillary wants to be president even more than Romney, I suspect.

[Aptorian]

Serious question.

Much like Obama had "first black president/sign of change and hope" going for him, how much push does the idea of "the first female president" have in the campaign?

Is Hilary Clinton going to be a figure head for strong women in America and will it get her elected?

[Terez]

It's the main reason why people are pushing Warren to run against her. It's past time to break this glass ceiling but liberals are not fond of Hillary at all.

[McLovin]

Terez, on 20 January 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

amphibian, on 20 January 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

If you live in Dallas, Texas, then I think your city will mostly vote for Clinton, but the state will vote for Jeb Bush.

Isn't Austin more likely to go for Clinton than Dallas?

Yes but Dallas County is very blue and will go for her too.

EDIT - but like nico says the state as a whole will go for Bush.

This post has been edited by McLovin: 20 January 2015 - 07:50 PM

[amphibian]

Terez, on 20 January 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

Isn't Austin more likely to go for Clinton than Dallas?

I went through the Dallas election records before I posted that. In 2004, Bush #2/Cheney won by something like 50-48 and in 2008 and 2012, Dallas went for Obama. Before that, it was Bush by a wide margin and then Clinton for both cycles before swinging back strong to Bush #1.

I think the drop-off in the satisfaction levels for Bush #2 will carry over to Bush #3 (Jeb) and since he governed Florida, he won't have the home state boost that Bush #2 had. Thus... I think Dallas goes for Clinton #2 more than it goes for Bush #3.

[Obdigore]

Terez, on 20 January 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

amphibian, on 20 January 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

If you live in Dallas, Texas, then I think your city will mostly vote for Clinton, but the state will vote for Jeb Bush.

Isn't Austin more likely to go for Clinton than Dallas?

Both Austin and Dallas will vote for Clinton.

So will the south-western part of the state.

They probably wont carry the state in 2016 though. 2020 is will probably go Dem, especially if the GOP still doesn't have any kind of good candidate.

[Gnaw]

Elizabeth Warren 2016!!!

[Nicodimas]

I agree with Gnaw.

http://www.cbsnews.c...es-2016-voters/

[Terez]

Don't we all? I kind of doubt there are any Hillary fans here. I could be wrong.

[amphibian]

I think she'd do a better job than Warren as a President.

I like Warren's positions on several things, but I don't think she has the organizational chops yet to play in the truly big political leagues.

If I had my druthers, I'd magically gift Warren with 10 more years of high level politicking and fund-raising then toss Hillary for Warren x 2 terms.

[Terez]

amphibian, on 21 January 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

I think she'd do a better job than Warren as a President.

I don't. I think it's likely she'll win, and it's likely she'll do a bad enough job that she won't win reelection, despite demographic trends that should make it nearly impossible for her to lose.

amphibian, on 21 January 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

I like Warren's positions on several things, but I don't think she has the organizational chops yet to play in the truly big political leagues.

I'm not convinced that Hillary's experiences are superior to Warren's own in this respect. It's Hillary's ability to play in the big political leagues, as you call it, that worries me. Warren would certainly need good advisers in areas where she doesn't have much experience, but the same is true for all presidents. Warren has shown herself to be savvy at nearly every turn, while Hillary has made one bad judgment after another.

Warren has the brand of populism that is needed to make progressivism popular again. Hillary on the other hand will sell out progressives at first opportunity.

Of course it's all moot since Warren isn't running.

PS: When I replied to Nico, I didn't realize I was replying to Nico. Not sure why. I seem to remember replying on my phone shortly after I woke up, so maybe that's why. His support for Warren is more surprising than I implied in my response.

This post has been edited by Terez: 21 January 2015 - 08:09 AM

[Gorefest]

Methinks the USA needs some more political parties.This two-horse race thing is so '70-ies. Even the UK has coalition governments these days.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 21 January 2015 - 09:48 AM