2016 Presidential Election Candidates

[SB Shock]

In '96, 56% identified themselves as pro-choice, 33% identified themselves as Pro-life. In 2013, the same tracking poll has shown that Pro-choice is now 45%, Pro-life is 48%.

[SB Shock]

There, that's better. You should lead with your stronger punches.

ETA: sneaky edit there SB. You can't just discount any population center as bankrupt or shitty.

Well of course, but there are some liberal bastions that comically are bankrupt.

Also, our fore fathers in their infinite wisdom saw the risk of population centers and that is why we have a electoral college who give the small states a dis-proportionate say relative to their population. If we didn't have an electoral college then national elections would be decided by California, NY and Texas.

[pinstripers]

Secede.

[GoShockers89]

.

[GoShockers89]

.

[SubGod22]

This is exactly what I'm saying. Although way more concisely.

I think there is a huge chunk of the country who agree with Republicans (generally) on fiscal issues and agree with Democrats (generally) on social issues. But the fear that Republicans will roll back social changes that they strongly believe in is preventing them from supporting the party.

Back on the issue of 2016 candidates, I understand that Kansans don't want immigration reform, and you'll probably be pissed at Rubio for supporting it. Here's the thing: You're going to vote for him regardless if he gets the nomination. In Florida, which tends to decide the winner of Presidential elections, 67% of voters believe in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. So what's more important, having a guy that agrees with you on this one issue or winning?

Republicans/conservatives aren't against a path to citizenship like you and much of the media states. The concern on that side of things is that the bill that he supported doesn't do much of anything to attack the problem of illegal crossing. Conservatives believe that needs to be dealt with before we start granting citizenship to everyone that has crossed illegally. There's still a problem there that needs to be dealt with. We seriously may be the weakest country in the world when it comes to enforcing our borders and laws. Hell, Mexico is more strict with illegal immigrants than we are. A lot more strict.

And I'll also say that there are a number of people that won't vote for their "party" if it means voting for a horrible candidate. Odds of a candidate holding all the same views as the voter is slim, but many have felt that they can't relate/connect/support a number of the candidates that have been forced upon them. Now, if Rubio were to win the nomination, he may still get a lot of the conservative vote, but in the primaries, a number of them may very go against him in favor of candidates that reflect their views more closely. People are tired of voting while "holding your nose".

Personally, the vast majority of Dems are way too far left for me. Sadly, a number of Republicans are also way too far left for me. I know I'm not alone. Still, I would probably identify more closely with Libertarians but I refuse to embrace any party.

And to the Tea Party points, some of them don't associate with Republicans at all and even a number of those that do are getting fed up because the party continues to move left. A previous poster was correct when he said that those who run the party "tolerate" them because they know they need them, but they don't really support them. There are definitely those in the Republican party who embrace the movement, but it's definitely not the majority of the party leaders by any means. I'll be curious to see if the Tea Party makes more gains in the coming elections.

[Rlh04d]

Well of course, but there are some liberal bastions that comically are bankrupt.

Also, our fore fathers in their infinite wisdom saw the risk of population centers and that is why we have a electoral college who give the small states a dis-proportionate say relative to their population. If we didn't have an electoral college then national elections would be decided by California, NY and Texas.

Have you ever seen a list of the poorest states in the country? They're all states that are defined by conservative values and consistently vote for Republican candidates in every Presidential election.

Look at the 24 states that voted for Mitt Romney in the last election. Of those 24 states, two states ranked in the top 23 of the country in per capita income -- Alaska and Wyoming. Interestingly, Alaska's ranking there is helped by the checks the government cuts all Alaskan residents. Of the 27 lowest per-capita income states in the United States, 22 voted for Mitt Romney. Only five (New Mexico - 45, Ohio - 32, Michigan - 30, Iowa - 28, Maine - 27) voted for President Obama. It's a little better if you look at median income -- five states that voted for Romney were in the top 25 of the country; still 12 of the worst 13 states, though.

The money thing works both ways. You can complain about "liberal bastions" going bankrupt, but on the other side, nearly every "conservative bastion" in our country is extremely poor. So if your point is that Democrats will put us into bankruptcy, wouldn't the flip side of that same point say that Republicans will drive our per capita GDP into the dirt, just like the states they run? If Detroit is evidence of the financial incompetence of liberals, what is Mississippi?

As for your point about the electoral college, while your point about the small states wanting more say is correct, there were other reasons "in their infinite wisdom" contributing as well: namely a lack of faith in the intelligence of the average American (particularly in being able to be manipulated by a tyrant) and an attempt to avoid the slavery argument. They created a body independent of the votes of citizens because they didn't trust us. And thanks to the electoral college, all national elections are decided by Florida and Ohio.

[Rlh04d]

Republicans/conservatives aren't against a path to citizenship like you and much of the media states. The concern on that side of things is that the bill that he supported doesn't do much of anything to attack the problem of illegal crossing. Conservatives believe that needs to be dealt with before we start granting citizenship to everyone that has crossed illegally. There's still a problem there that needs to be dealt with. We seriously may be the weakest country in the world when it comes to enforcing our borders and laws. Hell, Mexico is more strict with illegal immigrants than we are. A lot more strict.

I believe this is the point I made regarding immigration:



I'm not sure why you keep restating your point as if I don't understand it. My point is simply that what you are stating conservatives believe is clearly in the minority among American voters.

And while I understand your point about "holding your nose" in regards to a candidate (I sat out this last election rather than vote for Romney, personally), what do you want from a Presidential candidate specifically? Do you want him to be pro-life, anti-gun control, focused on stopping the inflow of illegal immigrants over dealing with those already here, and anti-gay marriage? Does he have to be all of those points to be a real conservative candidate that Republicans will support without holding their nose? And if so, can any nominee that believes those things win a general election when three of those four stances are clearly in the minority nationally, and the other is very divisive?

[Rlh04d]

In '96, 56% identified themselves as pro-choice, 33% identified themselves as Pro-life. In 2013, the same tracking poll has shown that Pro-choice is now 45%, Pro-life is 48%.

And that's a fair point. However, I cited statistics for four significant social arguments in our country that the Republican Party has defined itself by. I'm taking your silence on those issues as accepting my point ;)

And you're definitely right about the identification of pro-life/pro-choice. However, when the Republican Party makes pro-life a defining characteristic of the party, it means that the party is defining itself on the point that abortion should be illegal. And Gallup's poll at that same time also said that 61% of the country believes abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

That said, I think abortion feelings in this country are changing dramatically, and we're probably in line for a lot of changes in the near future on that issue.

[SubGod22]

Perhaps because last time we gave amnesty with a promise to do something about the inward flow of illegals, we got amnesty and we're still waiting on something to be done with the border. Why should we repeat the same mistake? If we go through with the amnesty bill that they're pushing, we'll be having this same damn conversation in the not too distant future. Simply put, the majority isn't always right. That's one of the things about how our country was set up as well, the majority doesn't always get to do what they want/think at the time.

One of the few things the gov't is actually supposed to do is protect the border. Epic fail on their part. But they're really good at doing things they shouldn't even be involved with.

As far as what does a candidate have to believe to get my vote...the biggest thing is smaller gov't. After that, it just depends. Neither of the last two candidates were small gov't guys and neither got my vote. I have a feeling that the Republicans won't get my vote in '16 either. Not that they care, but it's most likely that a third party candidate will be the closest one to my beliefs. I voted for Johnson in this last election, I don't agree with everything he believes, but it was a lot closer than the other two yahoos.

[Rlh04d]

Perhaps because last time we gave amnesty with a promise to do something about the inward flow of illegals, we got amnesty and we're still waiting on something to be done with the border. Why should we repeat the same mistake? If we go through with the amnesty bill that they're pushing, we'll be having this same damn conversation in the not too distant future. Simply put, the majority isn't always right. That's one of the things about how our country was set up as well, the majority doesn't always get to do what they want/think at the time.

One of the few things the gov't is actually supposed to do is protect the border. Epic fail on their part. But they're really good at doing things they shouldn't even be involved with.

As far as what does a candidate have to believe to get my vote...the biggest thing is smaller gov't. After that, it just depends. Neither of the last two candidates were small gov't guys and neither got my vote. I have a feeling that the Republicans won't get my vote in '16 either. Not that they care, but it's most likely that a third party candidate will be the closest one to my beliefs. I voted for Johnson in this last election, I don't agree with everything he believes, but it was a lot closer than the other two yahoos.

We keep coming at this from different angles. I'm not saying anything about what is the correct policy. Obviously we need to protect our border.

Obviously the majority isn't always right. However, the majority pretty much always elects the next President, or Senator, or Representative, or Governor.

If you put up nominees who believe something that the majority strongly disagrees with, how do they win that election? Even if Johnson has the right solutions across the board, he still only got 1% of the vote, so who cares?

[SubGod22]

So are you recommending that people back down from their convictions and beliefs? I believe they need to simply do a better job of explaining the point and getting it out there. Lets not pretend that the majority of voters actually know what's going on and/or understand the details. They get most of their info from those that frame the stories to fit their agendas. We saw this perfectly well recently with the Martin/Zimmerman case.

[Rlh04d]

So are you recommending that people back down from their convictions and beliefs? I believe they need to simply do a better job of explaining the point and getting it out there. Lets not pretend that the majority of voters actually know what's going on and/or understand the details. They get most of their info from those that frame the stories to fit their agendas. We saw this perfectly well recently with the Martin/Zimmerman case.

The average person in this country is clueless. I don't think that's separated by party lines, as I'm guessing a lot of people here do, though. I have no faith in any media outlet anymore.

And yeah, unfortunately I think I'm arguing that I'm arguing that people are expecting to get too much out of politics. That's a painful thing for me to say as someone who always agrees more with third party candidates, but whether Gary Johnson or anyone else has all the answers or not, they don't have any power to do anything if they can't get elected. Unfortunately, I think American politics is about holding your nose and picking the lesser of two evils, and that's not going to change. As long as the Republicans can put up a real fiscal conservative in 2016, I don't care about much else. I'm willing to hold my nose on anything that results in our economy getting back on track.

[SB Shock]

Have you ever seen a list of the poorest states in the country? They're all states that are defined by conservative values and consistently vote for Republican candidates in every Presidential election.

So having conservative values make you poor?

17 out of the 22 states with largest budget deficits were Blue States
10 of out 14 states with the smallest budget deficits were Red States

As for your point about the electoral college, while your point about the small states wanting more say is correct, there were other reasons "in their infinite wisdom" contributing as well: namely a lack of faith in the intelligence of the average American (particularly in being able to be manipulated by a tyrant) and an attempt to avoid the slavery argument. They created a body independent of the votes of citizens because they didn't trust us. And thanks to the electoral college, all national elections are decided by Florida and Ohio.

Better than California and NY deciding the fate of the country.

[SB Shock]

The average person in this country is clueless. I don't think that's separated by party lines, as I'm guessing a lot of people here do, though. I have no faith in any media outlet anymore.

And yeah, unfortunately I think I'm arguing that I'm arguing that people are expecting to get too much out of politics. That's a painful thing for me to say as someone who always agrees more with third party candidates, but whether Gary Johnson or anyone else has all the answers or not, they don't have any power to do anything if they can't get elected. Unfortunately, I think American politics is about holding your nose and picking the lesser of two evils, and that's not going to change. As long as the Republicans can put up a real fiscal conservative in 2016, I don't care about much else. I'm willing to hold my nose on anything that results in our economy getting back on track.

This we can agree on (except I don't believe the Republicans will step up)