O Really wrote:
Would I vote for Biden? Absolutely.
I wish the situation was such that if the Dems ran a really awful candidate that the Republicans would have somebody better. But with the hold the inmates have in the House asylum and a thin line in the Senate, it's simply not acceptable for the current style "Republicans" to control it all. Besides, the last time I voted for a Republican because the Dem was really really awful, it was Spiro Agnew. Ewwwww.
Past that, however, I think Biden as President probably wouldn't be a superstar, but wouldn't likely screw up anything. The same couldn't be said for, say, Cruz, Rubio, Jeb!, etc.
Other than local/state candidates, I have never voted for a democrat, but I would vote for Biden, over the alternatives.
I think all of us left of center would vote for any of the Dem candidates or Biden vs. any of the leading Republicans. Kasich has no chance and has been pandering to the rightwingnuts, anyhow. That's why I thought Wneglia's question was about who you would support in the primaries if Hillary dropped out and Biden entered.
Oh, Biden vs. Bernie in a Hillaryless primary? Probably. I like Bernie, but polls and lame Republican candidates notwithstanding, I've got serious doubts about whether he's electable. Nobody has really tossed dirt on him like the Republicans would do if he's the candidate. While highly popular in tiny Vermont, he doesn't have much of a national record, hasn't been a Congressional or Senate superstar and his committee assignments aren't as deep as one might like (such as Biden's chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). He'll take a major beating when they start putting together ads showing his youthful activism as well as his self-described "socialism." Hell, they beat up Obama over that for 8 years and he's not a socialist. Imagine what if a candidate were?
Fair enough. I think a case can be made that Biden is more electable in the general than Hillary and maybe also Bernie (it's a weird year voter-wise). If the establishment parties have their way, which is very much in doubt, we'd get Biden-Rubio if Hillary were to drop out for some reason.
Turnabout - Wneglia, if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz and for discussion's sake you had to vote, would you pick either of them over Hillary or Bernie?
Vrede too wrote:Fair enough. I think a case can be made that Biden is more electable in the general than Hillary and maybe also Bernie (it's a weird year voter-wise). If the establishment parties have their way, which is very much in doubt, we'd get Biden-Rubio if Hillary were to drop out for some reason.
Turnabout - Wneglia, if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz and for discussion's sake you had to vote, would you pick either of them over Hillary or Bernie?
In that scenario, I would possibly hold my nose and vote Hillary, hoping that she would become a centrist like Bill after the election.
Interesting, my opinion is that Hillary's long been a centrist, both ideologically and opportunistically, one that's been forced to swing somewhat left by Bernie's candidacy. That and my distaste for family dynasties are the reasons that I support Bernie when I otherwise think it would be a good thing for America to finally catch up to several Muslim nations and finally elect a woman chief executive.
Of course, who knows what a "centrist" is anymore given that the GOP has swung so ridiculously far to the self-destructive wingnut right. A prediction: If Hillary is elected we will see an unbroken continuation of the same irrational gridlock vitriol aimed at Obama for the past 8 years regardless of her politics, both because she's a Clinton and because she's a woman. The GOP has hung its hat on the shrinking proportion of old white male Americans and will have to lose a few elections before it reforms.
You didn't answer what you would do if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz, you had to vote and the Dem nominee is Bernie. I'm only asking about the leaders Trump or Cruz since you've said you still like Jeb and I assume that Rubio would be acceptable to a lifelong Republican like you over Hillary or Bernie.
Fwiw, I think Jeb and Rubio would try to govern as centrists, if the self-destructive GOP wingnut right lets them, and do think it would be a good thing in general for America to elect a Latino POTUS even though there's a big gap between rightwing Cubans and the rest of Latin America.
Vrede too wrote:Interesting, my opinion is that Hillary's long been a centrist, both ideologically and opportunistically, one that's been forced to swing somewhat left by Bernie's candidacy. That and my distaste for family dynasties are the reasons that I support Bernie when I otherwise think it would be a good thing for America to finally catch up to several Muslim nations and finally elect a woman chief executive.
Of course, who knows what a "centrist" is anymore given that the GOP has swung so ridiculously far to the self-destructive wingnut right. A prediction: If Hillary is elected we will see an unbroken continuation of the same irrational gridlock vitriol aimed at Obama for the past 8 years regardless of her politics, both because she's a Clinton and because she's a woman. The GOP has hung its hat on the shrinking proportion of old white male Americans and will have to lose a few elections before it reforms.
You didn't answer what you would do if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz, you had to vote and the Dem nominee is Bernie. I'm only asking about the leaders Trump or Cruz since you've said you still like Jeb and I assume that Rubio would be acceptable to a lifelong Republican like you over Hillary or Bernie.
Fwiw, I think Jeb and Rubio would try to govern as centrists, if the self-destructive GOP wingnut right lets them, and do think it would be a good thing in general for America to elect a Latino POTUS even though there's a big gap between rightwing Cubans and the rest of Latin America.
I could conceivably vote for Bernie if I thought congress would still have enough sense to scale back his grandiose generous ideas.
I think that's a certainty. The GOP may be enough of a mess that it could possibly lose the House and could easily lose the Senate, but the Dems won't get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
I also wonder if the GOP might work more amicably with Bernie than Hillary despite his leftism, out of respect for his honesty and principles (and his being an old white male), and given their longstanding hatred of Hillary.
Dems have no chance whatsoever of winning back the House in the forseeable future. Too many safely gerrymandered seats, and not enough contested. Comparing even the biggest waves ('Pugs or Dems), matching them would still not be enough. Even those dark red voters who claim to be fed up with everything gubbmint and want to "throw all the scoundrels out" don't do it when it comes to their own Congressman. No chance. None. Nada. :cussing:
Agreed, but I'm trying not to underestimate how very, very stupid the GOP could be.
For example, how do you predict absolutely how much damage nominee Cruz could do to it?
Impossible to predict - also impossible to overestimate how stupid a bunch of the GOP voters can be. But we can look at 1964 for some ideas. And Cruz is no Goldwater.
O Really wrote:Impossible to predict - also impossible to overestimate how stupid a bunch of the GOP voters can be. But we can look at 1964 for some ideas. And Cruz is no Goldwater.
rstrong wrote:Yet another case where the most devastating attacks by Republicans against Obama or Hillary involves showing that they're essentially Republicans.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
Those who believe that "politics is the art of the possible" aren't particularly frightened by a person who is "moderate and center." Especially if they worked their idealistic ass off and sweated blood for another "proud progressive" named McGovern only to be rewarded with a total ass kicking and another Nixon term.
Easy tiger, that was aimed at Wneglia, not you. I agree that in general a centrist is more likely to win in November, though with her baggage, deserved and not, I'm not sure that necessarily applies to Hillary.
It's just my personal choice to not settle for the middle. Not counting Nixon, somewhat , we haven't had a liberal POTUS since FDR, why not give it a shot?
Vrede too wrote:
It's just my personal choice to not settle for the middle. Not counting Nixon, somewhat , we haven't had a liberal POTUS since FDR, why not give it a shot?
No offense taken. Sure, I'd like to have a real liberal President. But s/he'd still end up governing from the middleish. Besides, FDR had some unique circumstances to play with that I don't think we'd want to have again. And some of what he got done is still being yammered over, like minimum wage, etc.
But we can look at 1964 for some ideas. And Cruz is no Goldwater.
