|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ I think people are severely underestimating the demographic shift 2016 brings in the Democrats' favor. 2012 was supposed to be a "close" race, yet everyone who knew anything about statistics knew Obama was going to win and it wouldn't be much of a fight. The same, IMO, applies for 2016. Really, I'm already assuming a President Clinton and a democratic re-taking of one (if not both) of the chambers of Congress. The main thing that interests me in 2016 is the legal weed referendums.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:There is no possibility of the Democrats retaking the House. They won the popular House vote in 2012 and it did virtually nothing. The map is gerrymandered specifically to blunt the demographic shift. I was thinking the Senate, especially when you consider the fact that the 2010 class of nutjobs is up for re-election. And yes, the Democrats will probably not have the House until 2020.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:I think we should elect older people because they know a shitload more than younger people, Or they pretend to and use their age as an excuse not to change their minds.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I see either hide or hair of Penn, Howard Wolfson, or that puling little racist poo poo Lanny Davis, and I will find the nearest third-party candidate. I'm voting Green, as I do in every federal election. California's jungle system may make me choose between neoliberals and holy-gently caress-you're-insaners, but at least I can vote for who I want on the federal level.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:I'd yell at you for being a dumbass, but at least you live in California and your vote doesn't matter, anyway. As long as you filled out your census. I agree with Debs: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want and get it." I refuse to perpetuate our neoliberal status quo if I can help it. Really, I'm already assuming a President Clinton. My main interest is in the various marijuana referendums.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So why do you want a mealy mouthed center left at best party with hilarious anti reality baggage over actual Socialists? You have them on the ballot in California. Not sure who Party for Socialism and Liberation is running in 2016 yet (will it be Peta Lindsay again?) but they'd almost certainly be a better choice, for example. I said I agree with Debs on this particular issue; I didn't say I was a revolutionary socialist (I'm a European-style Social Democrat). Really, I'd like something approximating the German system where we get a combination of proportional and single-district representation. Gen. Ripper posted:For (relatively) well-off white guys it's either the Greens or the Guilty as charged; I like our current system so long as it has a significant social safety net for poorer communities and better government oversight over business/less money in elections. When I stay "neoliberal status quo" I'm mainly referring to neoliberalism in its extremely right-wing "gently caress poor people and make them enjoy it" American context. I'm opposed to the libertarians on everything but drugs & porn. AYC fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A socialist party is closer to social democrats than the Green party is. Like seriously if you're really after voting your conscience, greens probably aren't the way to go unless you're an aging hippie who hasn't paid attention to things in years, or you're very centrist person who leans every so slightly to the left and believes in pseudoscience. All good points (I do hate anti-vaxxers); I'll check out some more far-left parties as we get closer to the election. Though as I said, I'm 90% sure Clinton will be elected regardless of who else runs. Thanks for giving me something to think about. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Goddammit. I complain about the two-party system, but all the third parties are either full of whack jobs or even more irrelevant than the big three (Constitution, Green, and Libertarian). Who should I, as a European Social Democrat who supports a strong social welfare state (on the level of France), vote for? Convince me, SA, because I'm in limbo right now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Someone you like in the Democratic primary. You can worry about the general after that. So Bernie Sanders?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Okay that makes sense - we do want small states to open the playing field, but why not at least switch it up every four years? This time is Iowa,NH,Nevada,SC. Next time we get Nebraska,WV,Oregon,Louisiana. Wouldn't that make more sense long term? American political institutions and practices generally don't make sense; change is extremely difficult, and inertia is among the most potent forces in all of Washington. Why do you think we still have Tuesday elections and the electoral college?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 22:26
|
|