People, I bet someone dinner that Ted Cruz will further than Rand Paul in the Republican primaries. This guy is very know it all when it comes to politics. I have to beat him. That is all that matters!!!! Let me hijack this thread to tell you about it.
He might get as far as Huckabee or Santorum but he won't be the nominee. No way in hell.
I think Christie and Jeb are going to be the last men standing, not sure which will get the nomination in the end. And I'm not sure which scares me more.
I thought Christie had a good chance a few years ago. I no longer think that's the case. He's a blow hard and a bag of dicks quite frankly and I don't think he's likeable enough to win the nomination.
That's a wee bit premature since the election isn't for another 1.75 years and Cruz is the only serious R candidate who has officially announced.
Well I did say right now! Who knows what can happen in the next year or so.
If I had to put money (or a dinner) on it, I'd say Walker or Kasich will be the nominee.
A friend from Ohio recently said he thought Kasich should be president. Embarrassingly (since I lived in OH for 3 years), I don't really know anything about him offhand. Is there a consensus?
I think Christie and Jeb are going to be the last men standing, not sure which will get the nomination in the end. And I'm not sure which scares me more.
I thought Christie had a good chance a few years ago. I no longer think that's the case. He's a blow hard and a bag of dicks quite frankly and I don't think he's likeable enough to win the nomination.
That's a relief to hear honestly. I can't stand him and really don't like what he has done in his tenure as NJ Gov, so I am scared of what he would do to this country, but it felt for a while like he really stood a chance. People like to talk about what he did after Sandy and even I'll admit that he handled the immediate crisis well before going on to misappropriate funds that were supposed to be used for disaster relief. Add in his vetoing of gay marriage, which was an obvious stunt to be able to say he did on the national stage in '16 (the bill had bipartisan support and something like 80% of NJ residents supported it) and he's a slime bag.
And all of that is before touching bridgegate and his general personality.
Well I did say right now! Who knows what can happen in the next year or so.
If I had to put money (or a dinner) on it, I'd say Walker or Kasich will be the nominee.
A friend from Ohio recently said he thought Kasich should be president. Embarrassingly (since I lived in OH for 3 years), I don't really know anything about him offhand. Is there a consensus?
He's anti-gay marriage and pro-life and thus a big nope for me.
Ted Cruz is not going to be the nominee unless the other candidates disintegrate, although it's certainly a useful narrative for purposes of galvanizing apathetic Democrats.
Well I did say right now! Who knows what can happen in the next year or so.
If I had to put money (or a dinner) on it, I'd say Walker or Kasich will be the nominee.
A friend from Ohio recently said he thought Kasich should be president. Embarrassingly (since I lived in OH for 3 years), I don't really know anything about him offhand. Is there a consensus?
The base hates him and so do donors. He doesn't shit on the ACA or unions enough for their liking.
On the other hand, the vote suppression stunt he tried to pull in 2012 shows he is willing to go dirty when it counts.
But he is the most reasonable, likeable name I've seen mentioned, even with the whole cheating to win blood on his hands. If you think this primary election will play out like 2008 and 2012 (I don't, but many do), he has a chance.
A friend from Ohio recently said he thought Kasich should be president. Embarrassingly (since I lived in OH for 3 years), I don't really know anything about him offhand. Is there a consensus?
He's anti-gay marriage and pro-life and thus a big nope for me.
I expect gay marriage to be resolved by SCOTUS this year. And by that, I mean they'll find gay marriage bans unconstitutional (agreeing with Posner (7th Cir.), et al. over Sutton (6th Cir.)).
He's anti-gay marriage and pro-life and thus a big nope for me.
I expect gay marriage to be resolved by SCOTUS this year. And by that, I mean they'll find gay marriage bans unconstitutional (agreeing with Posner (7th Cir.), et al. over Sutton (6th Cir.)).
That is my hope.
But it could be overturned by a more conservative SCOTUS, as could Roe v. Wade, which, as I understand it, gives jurisdiction back to the individual states.
He's anti-gay marriage and pro-life and thus a big nope for me.
I expect gay marriage to be resolved by SCOTUS this year. And by that, I mean they'll find gay marriage bans unconstitutional (agreeing with Posner (7th Cir.), et al. over Sutton (6th Cir.)).
I think this is true.
The biggest fear I have from this is that low information voters who support gay marriage will think the GOP is totes cool since this issue has been neutralized. There is still so, so much other damage that a John Roberts redux appointment could do, however.
In a perverse way, the gay marriage issue not being settled is better for Democrats as a rallying cry, much how the continued existence of legal abortion serves as a rallying cry for social conservatives. When the central issue is resolved to the group's liking, a huge unifying issue is gone. HOWEVER, I prioritize gay marriage actually becoming legal over having any sort of unifying Democratic issue.
I also think we're going to see Republicans introducing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I know it won't actually go anywhere, but I would not be surprised to see time wasted on this (see, e.g., 80 trillion votes to repeal the ACA).
People, I bet someone dinner that Ted Cruz will further than Rand Paul in the Republican primaries. This guy is very know it all when it comes to politics. I have to beat him. That is all that matters!!!! Let me hijack this thread to tell you about it.
He might get as far as Huckabee or Santorum but he won't be the nominee. No way in hell.
Huckabee came in second in 2012.
Here's my reasoning. In 2008 and 2012, there was the front runner with the questionable conservative credentials, at least to the base. McCain and Romney won not because they were universally adored, but because the most committed to the party split their votes and money across a bunch of other candidates. The conventional wisdom going into 2016 seems to be resting on things playing out exactly like that - Walker, Cruz, etc splitting the crazy vote, while Jeb Bush unifies the moderates.
I think 2016 is going to turn that on its head because for lots of reasons, I think Jeb Bush is just not as good of a candidate as McCain or Romney, but namely, I just don't see moderates coming out in full force to vote for another Bush. So some might hold their nose and go for Walker, others might decide to check out lesser knowns, like Kasich. So instead of the far right splintering, my prediction is that the massive "anyone but Ted Cruz" wing of the party is going to fracture into splinters smaller than the Ted Cruz 4 Lyfe corner of the party.
I will concede that it is way too early to be making predictions, a lot of people could jump in or out of the race on either side of the aisle and shake things up for everyone. But based on what I see right now, I just don't see 2016 shaking out like 2008 or 2012. I don't think that's an insane prediction.
I expect gay marriage to be resolved by SCOTUS this year. And by that, I mean they'll find gay marriage bans unconstitutional (agreeing with Posner (7th Cir.), et al. over Sutton (6th Cir.)).
I think this is true.
The biggest fear I have from this is that low information voters who support gay marriage will think the GOP is totes cool since this issue has been neutralized. There is still so, so much other damage that a John Roberts redux appointment could do, however.
In a perverse way, the gay marriage issue not being settled is better for Democrats as a rallying cry, much how the continued existence of legal abortion serves as a rallying cry for social conservatives. When the central issue is resolved to the group's liking, a huge unifying issue is gone. HOWEVER, I prioritize gay marriage actually becoming legal over having any sort of unifying Democratic issue.
I also think we're going to see Republicans introducing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I know it won't actually go anywhere, but I would not be surprised to see time wasted on this (see, e.g., 80 trillion votes to repeal the ACA).
I disagree at least for right now. It's going to continue to kill conservatives for a while. There's talk of a constitutional amendment. There's the shit that's going down in Indiana. And the whole trans person stuff?
Gay marriage being settled by SCOTUS is only one tiny piece of the puzzle.
You know how every reporter likes to put a mic in front of a Republican and ask them to talk about rape babies and female anatomy because the potential for something horrifying coming out of their mouths is just so good that it's like low hanging fruit?
Imagine that. Reporters are going to be falling over themselves to get these candidates to say homophobic things. I predict at least one campaign of some sort, maybe a Senate race or something, going up in flames over this.
Even if SCOTUS overturns gay marriage bans, this in no way means that the fight for LGBT rights is over and that gay friendly R's can take a deep breath and vote for the Rs knowing that gays are safe. That's like saying "well we banned slavery, everything is peachy keen for African Americans now."
The biggest fear I have from this is that low information voters who support gay marriage will think the GOP is totes cool since this issue has been neutralized. There is still so, so much other damage that a John Roberts redux appointment could do, however.
In a perverse way, the gay marriage issue not being settled is better for Democrats as a rallying cry, much how the continued existence of legal abortion serves as a rallying cry for social conservatives. When the central issue is resolved to the group's liking, a huge unifying issue is gone. HOWEVER, I prioritize gay marriage actually becoming legal over having any sort of unifying Democratic issue.
I also think we're going to see Republicans introducing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I know it won't actually go anywhere, but I would not be surprised to see time wasted on this (see, e.g., 80 trillion votes to repeal the ACA).
I disagree at least for right now. It's going to continue to kill conservatives for a while. There's talk of a constitutional amendment. There's the shit that's going down in Indiana. And the whole trans person stuff?
Gay marriage being settled by SCOTUS is only one tiny piece of the puzzle.
You know how every reporter likes to put a mic in front of a Republican and ask them to talk about rape babies and female anatomy because the potential for something horrifying coming out of their mouths is just so good that it's like low hanging fruit?
Imagine that. Reporters are going to be falling over themselves to get these candidates to say homophobic things. I predict at least one campaign of some sort, maybe a Senate race or something, going up in flames over this.
Yes. Agreed. Didn't see this before I posted.
oGay rights are far, far from settled, regardless of what SCOTUS does.
For one thing, hello, there is someone working on a KILL THE GAYS INITIATIVE.
Post by tacosforlife on Mar 30, 2015 11:23:05 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong. I know the fight for LGBT rights will not end with a SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. I was specifically referring to the ability to get low information voters to the Dems' side (and those are the most persuadable ones). I don't think that suddenly Human Rights Campaign is going to be endorsing a bunch of Republicans.
Even if SCOTUS overturns gay marriage bans, this in no way means that the fight for LGBT rights is over and that gay friendly R's can take a deep breath and vote for the Rs knowing that gays are safe. That's like saying "well we banned slavery, everything is peachy keen for African Americans now."
Well to be fair, that's what both sides of the aisle have been saying since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Even if SCOTUS overturns gay marriage bans, this in no way means that the fight for LGBT rights is over and that gay friendly R's can take a deep breath and vote for the Rs knowing that gays are safe. That's like saying "well we banned slavery, everything is peachy keen for African Americans now."
Of course it doesn't mean that, but that doesn't mean some people won't think it means that.
Even if SCOTUS overturns gay marriage bans, this in no way means that the fight for LGBT rights is over and that gay friendly R's can take a deep breath and vote for the Rs knowing that gays are safe. That's like saying "well we banned slavery, everything is peachy keen for African Americans now."
Of course it doesn't mean that, but that doesn't mean some people won't think it means that.