What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

OTOH this means the GOP has one African-American, two Hispanics, an Asian American, and one woman running.

The Demos have no blacks running one election cycle after electing the first black president, one woman, no minorities, and three old white men/women. Bit of a flip there.
Indeed, it makes one wonder about the future of the Democratic party when their candidates don't reflect diversity and changing demographic trends. :hophead:
It's really just a difference in approach right? The GOP is using the hispanic to the hispanics, the African-American to African-Americans etc. The Dems have just consolidated and use the shill white chick to make promises to any and everyone and change as much as necessary. It's certainly easier to present a united front the second way. It just feels more sleazy that way. The future of the party is fine though. As long as the GOP and Dems have the average citizen believing "a vote for someone not D or R is a wasted vote" they'll be fine. That's a trend that doesn't look like it's going anywhere for a while.

 
OTOH this means the GOP has one African-American, two Hispanics, an Asian American, and one woman running.

The Demos have no blacks running one election cycle after electing the first black president, one woman, no minorities, and three old white men/women. Bit of a flip there.
Indeed, it makes one wonder about the future of the Democratic party when their candidates don't reflect diversity and changing demographic trends. :hophead:
It was just an observation, no conclusions. I do think the GOP has a much stronger representation of Hispanic national politicians. IIRC Jindal is the first Asian-American to run on a national stage and there is another waiting in the wings in SC. Obviously the demographics aren't there with the politicians.

The Demos obviously have the advantage at the polls there, but I do think the lack of a black candidate is odd. Patrick and Booker are probably at least two promising stars who are sitting out because of Hillary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think any of the ones officially in drop out before the first caucus.

I do think there's a prospect for Christie to not make the race, especially if his fundraising dollars are shorter than expected.

A steady dose of headlines like this don't help him any: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/wildstein_claims_christie_broke_law_by_revealing_grand_jury_information_report_says.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured

This field is a lot like a texas hold 'em pot. After the first couple limp in with a call, suddenly the pot odds pretty much dictates that everybody call even with minimal holdings and play the pot odds. The upside of catching a hand and scooping a big pot is in front of these candidates and if you look at it there's really very little downside for any of them.

Carson and Fiorina have no office to lose - if anything they can be a talking head or sell books now.

A guy like Graham or Pataki is close to (or at) the end of their political career anyway - taking a swing (the way Biden did in '08) really doesn't change anything for them.

Guys like Santorum and Perry really have nothing to lose at this point.

Some of the younger candidates can view this as at worst a trial run for a future year (though the lesson of guys like Santorum and Perry may be that this strategy of trying to be 'next' may be obsolete).

Trump is Trump at this point - I mean what's the undecided % on him in terms of Fav/Unfav - like 0.01%?

Guys like Rubio and Walker have a shot at the prize - a shot which probably wouldn't be better if they sat out.

The only guy maybe that sorta has something to lose is Bush (in terms of perhaps damaging the family brand with a poor run) but that die is cast - anything short of a nomination does that, what will be will be.

So the marginal value of dropping out for pretty much any of these candidates is pretty minimal. An interesting situation.

-QG

 
The Commish said:
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
OTOH this means the GOP has one African-American, two Hispanics, an Asian American, and one woman running.

The Demos have no blacks running one election cycle after electing the first black president, one woman, no minorities, and three old white men/women. Bit of a flip there.
Indeed, it makes one wonder about the future of the Democratic party when their candidates don't reflect diversity and changing demographic trends. :hophead:
It's really just a difference in approach right? The GOP is using the hispanic to the hispanics, the African-American to African-Americans etc. The Dems have just consolidated and use the shill white chick to make promises to any and everyone and change as much as necessary. It's certainly easier to present a united front the second way. It just feels more sleazy that way. The future of the party is fine though. As long as the GOP and Dems have the average citizen believing "a vote for someone not D or R is a wasted vote" they'll be fine. That's a trend that doesn't look like it's going anywhere for a while.
I'd argue that it's actually insulting to minority voters to roll out candidate who look like them but support policies that hurt their demographic.

 
The Commish said:
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
OTOH this means the GOP has one African-American, two Hispanics, an Asian American, and one woman running.

The Demos have no blacks running one election cycle after electing the first black president, one woman, no minorities, and three old white men/women. Bit of a flip there.
Indeed, it makes one wonder about the future of the Democratic party when their candidates don't reflect diversity and changing demographic trends. :hophead:
It's really just a difference in approach right? The GOP is using the hispanic to the hispanics, the African-American to African-Americans etc. The Dems have just consolidated and use the shill white chick to make promises to any and everyone and change as much as necessary. It's certainly easier to present a united front the second way. It just feels more sleazy that way. The future of the party is fine though. As long as the GOP and Dems have the average citizen believing "a vote for someone not D or R is a wasted vote" they'll be fine. That's a trend that doesn't look like it's going anywhere for a while.
I'd argue that it's actually insulting to minority voters to roll out candidate who look like them but support policies that hurt their demographic.
Argue away :shrug: Every election I've been a part of has rolled out a candidate that looks like me that establish policies that hurt my demographic and I'm insulted. It's odd that you'd go the race route on a topic like this.

 
The Commish said:
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
OTOH this means the GOP has one African-American, two Hispanics, an Asian American, and one woman running.

The Demos have no blacks running one election cycle after electing the first black president, one woman, no minorities, and three old white men/women. Bit of a flip there.
Indeed, it makes one wonder about the future of the Democratic party when their candidates don't reflect diversity and changing demographic trends. :hophead:
It's really just a difference in approach right? The GOP is using the hispanic to the hispanics, the African-American to African-Americans etc. The Dems have just consolidated and use the shill white chick to make promises to any and everyone and change as much as necessary. It's certainly easier to present a united front the second way. It just feels more sleazy that way. The future of the party is fine though. As long as the GOP and Dems have the average citizen believing "a vote for someone not D or R is a wasted vote" they'll be fine. That's a trend that doesn't look like it's going anywhere for a while.
I'd argue that it's actually insulting to minority voters to roll out candidate who look like them but support policies that hurt their demographic.
Argue away :shrug: Every election I've been a part of has rolled out a candidate that looks like me that establish policies that hurt my demographic and I'm insulted. It's odd that you'd go the race route on a topic like this.
Huh? Aren't you talking about the races and genders of the GOP & Democratic candidates?

 
The Commish said:
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
OTOH this means the GOP has one African-American, two Hispanics, an Asian American, and one woman running.

The Demos have no blacks running one election cycle after electing the first black president, one woman, no minorities, and three old white men/women. Bit of a flip there.
Indeed, it makes one wonder about the future of the Democratic party when their candidates don't reflect diversity and changing demographic trends. :hophead:
It's really just a difference in approach right? The GOP is using the hispanic to the hispanics, the African-American to African-Americans etc. The Dems have just consolidated and use the shill white chick to make promises to any and everyone and change as much as necessary. It's certainly easier to present a united front the second way. It just feels more sleazy that way. The future of the party is fine though. As long as the GOP and Dems have the average citizen believing "a vote for someone not D or R is a wasted vote" they'll be fine. That's a trend that doesn't look like it's going anywhere for a while.
I'd argue that it's actually insulting to minority voters to roll out candidate who look like them but support policies that hurt their demographic.
Argue away :shrug: Every election I've been a part of has rolled out a candidate that looks like me that establish policies that hurt my demographic and I'm insulted. It's odd that you'd go the race route on a topic like this.
Huh? Aren't you talking about the races and genders of the GOP & Democratic candidates?
No, i was talking about the difference in approach. It's all pandering. You're insulted that a black man is pandering to a black man or a hispanic man is pandering to a hispanic man. To me, it's all pandering and it's insulting regardless of who's doing it to whom. You seemed to single out it being insulting when the pandering is done by race, not me.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I do think the lack of a black candidate is odd.
:mellow:
AA candidates running in Non-(D)-Incumbent Demo prmary races:

1984 - Jackson

88 - Jackson

92 - Wilder

00 - None

04 - Sharpton and Mosley-Braun

08 - Obama

Even in 2000 Jackson explored running. It's an anomaly.
Of the entire bunch, Obama was the only one that was taken as a serious contender for the nomination.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I do think the lack of a black candidate is odd.
:mellow:
AA candidates running in Non-(D)-Incumbent Demo prmary races:

1984 - Jackson

88 - Jackson

92 - Wilder

00 - None

04 - Sharpton and Mosley-Braun

08 - Obama

Even in 2000 Jackson explored running. It's an anomaly.
Jackson won primaries in '88 and at one point had the lead in delegates.

-QG
I meant it was an anomaly that a black candidate is not running in the Demo field. Squizz's point was that none of the prior AA candidates were "serious" or taken seriously.

You're right, Jackson won nearly all the Southern states and at least a couple others in 88.

And also, and yes this mean nothing, but 4 of the 6 campaigns were by Chicago based candidates.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I do think the lack of a black candidate is odd.
:mellow:
AA candidates running in Non-(D)-Incumbent Demo prmary races:

1984 - Jackson

88 - Jackson

92 - Wilder

00 - None

04 - Sharpton and Mosley-Braun

08 - Obama

Even in 2000 Jackson explored running. It's an anomaly.
Of the entire bunch, Obama was the only one that was taken as a serious contender for the nomination.
Hard to take this seriously with the success Jackson had during his runs.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I do think the lack of a black candidate is odd.
:mellow:
AA candidates running in Non-(D)-Incumbent Demo prmary races:

1984 - Jackson

88 - Jackson

92 - Wilder

00 - None

04 - Sharpton and Mosley-Braun

08 - Obama

Even in 2000 Jackson explored running. It's an anomaly.
Of the entire bunch, Obama was the only one that was taken as a serious contender for the nomination.
Hard to take this seriously with the success Jackson had during his runs.
At that time, an overwhelming majority Democrats did not believe that Jackson would seriously contend for the nomination, despite a couple primary victories. Very much like Bernie Sanders in that the party would never, ever, have nominated him because he didn't stand a chance of winning the general election.

 
Interesting innovative East German thinking here by Carson:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-lets-spy-government-workers

:ninja: :unsure:

-QG
It's called the Inspector General, there is the OIG but also almost every federal department has one. Scarey he does not understand that.

OTOH - The IG's in each department are an important part of ethics and financial administration, it would be good if we had candidates who believed in this and saw it a way of ensuring well-run government.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324063304578520952503319368

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a 2 parter would be fine, the top 10 Premier League, and the relegated candidates jousting in the second one, maybe the following night.
I prefer a rotating stage
A Lazy Susan, perhaps.
in an attempt to appeal to Hispanics: lazy susana

 
I think a 2 parter would be fine, the top 10 Premier League, and the relegated candidates jousting in the second one, maybe the following night.
I prefer a rotating stage
This is a pretty great idea. Just have one microphone in front; once your podium rotates out of range, you're done talking.

 
I think a 2 parter would be fine, the top 10 Premier League, and the relegated candidates jousting in the second one, maybe the following night.
I can only accept this plan if candidates are actually promoted and relegated (in the following debates) based on each performance.
Well I think they are basing this on poll results, like the BCS, somehow. If someone takes advantage of the weaker field in the 2nd debate and does really well they could likely move up in the polls and make the 1st debate in the next round. Just a theory.

 
Well I think they are basing this on poll results, like the BCS, somehow. If someone takes advantage of the weaker field in the 2nd debate and does really well they could likely move up in the polls and make the 1st debate in the next round. Just a theory.
If it were really like the BCS, one candidate could destroy everyone else in the second debate but get left out on strength of schedule, while Newt freaking Gingrich gets the bid because of his quality loss to Mitt Romney, and oh God this might be a better analogy than I thought when I started writing.

 
Been hearing some stuff on the radio about a book Jeb Bush wrote in the 90s in which he recommends "shaming" unwed pregnant girls ala The Scarlet Letter. Don't know how accurate these reports are.

 
Been hearing some stuff on the radio about a book Jeb Bush wrote in the 90s in which he recommends "shaming" unwed pregnant girls ala The Scarlet Letter. Don't know how accurate these reports are.
...

In a chapter called "The Restoration of Shame,” the likely 2016 presidential candidate made the case that restoring the art of public humiliation could help prevent pregnancies “out of wedlock.”

One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame. Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out of wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful.
Bush points to Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, in which the main character is forced to wear a large red "A" for "adulterer" on her clothes to punish her for having an extramarital affair that produced a child, as an early model for his worldview. "Infamous shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter are reminders that public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical roots,” Bush wrote.

As governor of Florida in 2001, Bush had the opportunity to test his theory on public shaming. He declined to veto a very controversial bill that required single mothers who did not know the identity of the father to publish their sexual histories in a newspaper before they could legally put their babies up for adoption. He later signed a repeal of the so-called "Scarlet Letter" law in 2003 after it was successfully challenged in court.

...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/jeb-bush-1995-book_n_7542964.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Been hearing some stuff on the radio about a book Jeb Bush wrote in the 90s in which he recommends "shaming" unwed pregnant girls ala The Scarlet Letter. Don't know how accurate these reports are.
...

In a chapter called "The Restoration of Shame,” the likely 2016 presidential candidate made the case that restoring the art of public humiliation could help prevent pregnancies “out of wedlock.”

One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame. Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out of wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful.
Bush points to Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, in which the main character is forced to wear a large red "A" for "adulterer" on her clothes to punish her for having an extramarital affair that produced a child, as an early model for his worldview. "Infamous shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter are reminders that public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical roots,” Bush wrote.

As governor of Florida in 2001, Bush had the opportunity to test his theory on public shaming. He declined to veto a very controversial bill that required single mothers who did not know the identity of the father to publish their sexual histories in a newspaper before they could legally put their babies up for adoption. He later signed a repeal of the so-called "Scarlet Letter" law in 2003 after it was successfully challenged in court.

...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/jeb-bush-1995-book_n_7542964.html
What an idiot.

 
Sadly I think I'm warming up to Trump. If I thought he'd bring some brilliant minds to run foreign policy while refraining from going hog wild on the domestic front, it could work.

 
This is gonna go one of 5 ways:

1. A conservative other than Walker wins Iowa; Bush narrowly beats out Rubio in New Hampshire and Florida, and Jeb is the candidate. This is still the most likely outcome.

2. A conservative other than Walker wins Iowa; Rubio beats out Bush in New Hampshire and Florida, and Rubio is the candidate.

3. A conservative other than Walker wins Iowa; Rubio and Bush split New Hampshire and Florida, and it's a race to the finish between Rubio and Bush; Rubio probably wins.

4. Walker wins Iowa; Rubio or Bush wins both New Hampshire and Florida, and then it's a race between Walker and the Rubio/Bush winner. If it's Walker vs. Rubio, advantage Rubio. If it's Walker vs. Bush, advantage Walker.

5. Walker wins Iowa, Rubio and Bush split New Hampshire and Florida. This is the nightmare scenario for the GOP bigwigs. All hell breaks loose. With no consensus, the race continues all the way to the end, and candidates like Cruz, Huckabee and Paul manage to stay in a lot longer than they should because every state is up for grabs. It could even go all the way to the convention. From a spectator standpoint, this would be the most entertaining outcome.

 
Yeah this is going to be a classic for poli sci classes for years to come. 17 candidates, this could help the GOP or it could fracture it. The best case scenario is someone runs the table in the South but even that seems in doubt.

I could see IA Walker, NH Bush, SC Graham, FL Rubio, TX Cruz, WI/MI Walker, OH Kasich, LA Jindal, CA Rand Paul, NY Pataki, the rest of the South and most other states Bush, on and on.

There will be some horse trading.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah this is going to be a classic for poli sci classes for years to come. 17 candidates, this could help the GOP or it could fracture it. The best case scenario is someone runs the table in the South but even that seems in doubt.

I could see IA Walker, NH Bush, SC Graham, FL Rubio, TX Cruz, WI/MI Walker, OH Kasich, LA Jindal, CA Rand Paul, NY Pataki, the rest of the South and most other states Bush, on and on.

There will be some horse trading.
All of the bolded are extremely unlikely IMO.

 
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yeah this is going to be a classic for poli sci classes for years to come. 17 candidates, this could help the GOP or it could fracture it. The best case scenario is someone runs the table in the South but even that seems in doubt.

I could see IA Walker, NH Bush, SC Graham, FL Rubio, TX Cruz, WI/MI Walker, OH Kasich, LA Jindal, CA Rand Paul, NY Pataki, the rest of the South and most other states Bush, on and on.

There will be some horse trading.
All of the bolded are extremely unlikely IMO.
Yeah I agree, but they could have a brokered convention or at least have as many as 4 candidates winning in multiple states. Those other guys can take major chunks out of those home states though even if they don't win them.

Cali actually I have no idea, I just though Paul's libertarianism might play well there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The California Republican party is dominated by Orange County and much of the area between Los Angeles and San Francisco- "drive over country". Although there are elements of conservative, tea party types, as well as libertarian types, historically the "establishment" have dominated. This is still the home of Richard Nixon and Pete Wilson. Reagan was somewhat of an anomaly- Arnold, the moderate governor, is far more representative. At least in the past. Our Republicans tend to like technocrats and business people- see Carly Fiorina.

Then again, that's all in the past- who knows about the future? It's been years since California has had any kind of national impact in Presidential elections beyond fundraising. And of course the Republican party has gone through a particularly bad spell here in the last several years, mostly due to changing demographics- we have a Democratic governor, 2 senators, and a Dem legislature without any limitation from Republicans on what it wants to do. In my lifetime it's never been quite this lopsided.

A Presidential race in the GOP that was still ongoing by the time it reached California would vitalize and reenergize the Republican party here, if anything could.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
I think we're starting to see why though he was supposed to be the talented one he has never gotten to a place where he ran before. I think he's just here now because it's 'now or never' finally.
Jeb is a smart guy, but sorely lacking in the charisma and charm department.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top