Who wins 2016 Presidency?

[Ulty]

 

McCain got blasted for his age during the 2008 race. Hillary is only a couple years younger, so that could be a possible issue as well.

Hillary Clinton is ELEVEN years younger than John McCain. McCain is past the US male life expectancy now, while Clinton wouldn't even get close to the US female life expectancy during a potential Presidential term.

 

What I meant was, McCain was 72 years old when he ran in 2008 and his age was a major talking point (at least on the talk shows and such). Hillary will be 69 in 2016. Life expectancy and general health are on Hillary's side, sure, but the general age comparison at the time of election is similar. But no, I don't think it should be a real issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if some made it out to be.

 

Plus now you have to think about Hillary Clinton and 69.

[tschu]

If she was any good at that, Monica wouldn't have had to do it for her

[JJ Husker]

But the point is that the party that pretends to be the party of Reagan isn't really anymore. That's probably somewhat evidenced by the fact that they have to skip a couple of their own presidents to get to one who is worth mythologizing.

 

You could make a similar argument about JFK if you wanted . . . but the DNC is pretty happy with their recent presidents . . . to the point that they don't need to go all the way back to JFK. (Not to mention that I'd argue that JFK wasn't all that great . . . and wouldn't be as memorable as he is if not for being assassinated while young.)

Recent Dem presidents being; Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, & Kennedy.

 

You would argue that JFK wasn't all that great? Compared to that list? Wow! Yet you rail on about Reagan and complain that repubs have to skip a couple to get to a worthy one.......

The scary thing is if the DNC is in fact pretty happy with their recent presidents.

[NUinID]

 

 

 

 

Pssst. Reagan would be driven out of the current Republican Party.

 

Put aside the nostalgia for a moment and actually look at his record. No way in hell could he win the GOP nomination.

JFK wouldn't recognize his party either.

 

The difference is that JFK's corpse isn't trotted out every 30 seconds to rally the base.

 

I believe JJ said that JFK was a great leader also. That is why I brought him up.

 

But the point is that the party that pretends to be the party of Reagan isn't really anymore. That's probably somewhat evidenced by the fact that they have to skip a couple of their own presidents to get to one who is worth mythologizing.

 

You could make a similar argument about JFK if you wanted . . . but the DNC is pretty happy with their recent presidents . . . to the point that they don't need to go all the way back to JFK. (Not to mention that I'd argue that JFK wasn't all that great . . . and wouldn't be as memorable as he is if not for being assassinated while young.)

 

I would agree that JFK wasn't all that great, but he sure could pick up chicks.

 

But the truth of the matter is that you brought it up. JJ was just stating that he thought he was a good leader, which I tend to agree with.

 

You can look at his record if you want, because you are probably right about that, as you see it. All I know is the way Reagan made most Americans feel about being an American. After basically being told to be ashamed of being an American for the prior 15 years due to the Vietnam War, Cold War, Civil Rights or what ever else, he said it was OK to be proud you lived in America.

 

Personally I don't care for Barack Obama because I feel we are back to the point where we should be ashamed of being Americans and I think it is his leadership or lack of it that is putting us in that position. Clinton and Bush the elder and younger were better leaders IMO. Heck Hillary Clinton would be a better leader than he is and I don't even like her.

 

A President should project the strength of our country Obama does not IMO. I know this is not your thinking, but its the way I feel.

[tschu]

I would agree that JFK wasn't all that great, but he sure could pick up chicks.

 

But the truth of the matter is that you brought it up. JJ was just stating that he thought he was a good leader, which I tend to agree with.

 

You can look at his record if you want, because you are probably right about that, as you see it. All I know is the way Reagan made most Americans feel about being an American. After basically being told to be ashamed of being an American for the prior 15 years due to the Vietnam War, Cold War, Civil Rights or what ever else, he said it was OK to be proud you lived in America.

 

Personally I don't care for Barack Obama because I feel we are back to the point where we should be ashamed of being Americans and I think it is his leadership or lack of it that is putting us in that position. Clinton and Bush the elder and younger were better leaders IMO. Heck Hillary Clinton would be a better leader than he is and I don't even like her.

 

A President should project the strength of our country Obama does not IMO. I know this is not your thinking, but its the way I feel.

 

 

dude what

 

Well he might've driven the country straight into the shitter but GODDAMMIT I FEEEEEL LIKE AN AMERICAN

 

USA #1, USA USA USA

[NUinID]

 

I would agree that JFK wasn't all that great, but he sure could pick up chicks.

 

But the truth of the matter is that you brought it up. JJ was just stating that he thought he was a good leader, which I tend to agree with.

 

You can look at his record if you want, because you are probably right about that, as you see it. All I know is the way Reagan made most Americans feel about being an American. After basically being told to be ashamed of being an American for the prior 15 years due to the Vietnam War, Cold War, Civil Rights or what ever else, he said it was OK to be proud you lived in America.

 

Personally I don't care for Barack Obama because I feel we are back to the point where we should be ashamed of being Americans and I think it is his leadership or lack of it that is putting us in that position. Clinton and Bush the elder and younger were better leaders IMO. Heck Hillary Clinton would be a better leader than he is and I don't even like her.

 

A President should project the strength of our country Obama does not IMO. I know this is not your thinking, but its the way I feel.

 

 

dude what

 

Well he might've driven the country straight into the shitter but GODDAMMIT I FEEEEEL LIKE AN AMERICAN

 

USA #1, USA USA USA

 

I don't agree that he drove the country into the shitter as you put it. That's not point I was trying to make. In the 8 years that Reagan was president the Country went from feeling pretty lousy about itself to feeling pretty good about itself. Reagan played a big part in that.

[EbylHusker]

Well I don't know about you all, but I don't feel like a true Murican unless we're projecting our country's strength across the entire globe by telling other countries wtf to do and bombing brown people with drones. It's not like that doesn't, and hasn't, come back to bite us in the ass, ever... MURICA MURICA MURCIA!!

 

Is there a smiley thing firing a gun into the air? Imagine that is here as well.

[JJ Husker]

Well I don't know about you all, but I don't feel like a true Murican unless we're projecting our country's strength across the entire globe by telling other countries wtf to do and bombing brown people with drones. It's not like that doesn't, and hasn't, come back to bite us in the ass, ever... MURICA MURICA MURCIA!!

 

Is there a smiley thing firing a gun into the air? Imagine that is here as well.

Of course there is no middle ground. Either we are bombing brown people and torturing at Gitmo, while feeling good to be American or we are letting terrorists go, apologizing all over the world for our terrible behavior of keeping the whole f'ing globe in check, while feeling like being American isn't all that great of thing anymore. No middle ground to be had of those two scenarios.

[EbylHusker]

Ah yes, our self appointed role of keeping the entire world in check. And we do such a great job of it, too. Oh wait...

 

lmfao

[JJ Husker]

Ah yes, our self appointed role of keeping the entire world in check. And we do such a great job of it, too. Oh wait...

 

lmfao

I didn't realize it was a self appointed role. Silly me, I thought we were constantly getting stuck with the job by default. And I really didn't realize we were doing a poor job of it or that it was laughable. Now I know. Hey, next time, we should just call up France and tell 'em it's their turn. I'm down for that.

[EbylHusker]

It's not a surprise you believe what you do. Good luck with that.

[carlfense]

 

But the point is that the party that pretends to be the party of Reagan isn't really anymore. That's probably somewhat evidenced by the fact that they have to skip a couple of their own presidents to get to one who is worth mythologizing.

 

You could make a similar argument about JFK if you wanted . . . but the DNC is pretty happy with their recent presidents . . . to the point that they don't need to go all the way back to JFK. (Not to mention that I'd argue that JFK wasn't all that great . . . and wouldn't be as memorable as he is if not for being assassinated while young.)

Recent Dem presidents being; Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, & Kennedy.

 

You would argue that JFK wasn't all that great? Compared to that list? Wow! Yet you rail on about Reagan and complain that repubs have to skip a couple to get to a worthy one.......

The scary thing is if the DNC is in fact pretty happy with their recent presidents.

 

I think you're missing the point. Neither Clinton or Obama are the dumpster fire that was W's presidency . . . and while I personally think that Bush Sr. is somewhat underrated he is largely ignored by the right. Possibly because he was a one term president (like Carter for whatever that is worth).

 

That's why the focus is on Reagan.

 

It's not about how great Clinton and Obama is are. . . or even how great Reagan was . . . it's about clinging to a past that is remembered as better than it actually was. You know . . . conservativism.

[carlfense]

dude what

 

Well he might've driven the country straight into the shitter but GODDAMMIT I FEEEEEL LIKE AN AMERICAN

 

USA #1, USA USA USA

Ronaldus Magnus was mostly about feelings.

[JJ Husker]

All I know is, I would take another Reagan in a heartbeat. But you're probably right, the nostalgia effect probably elevates the memory of how good he really was. Still better than the reality of what we've had since, imo.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Hillary Clinton will win assuming she decides to run, which I think she eventually does. She'll have unified party support, she won't be forced to move farther to the left because she'll essentially be running unopposed. She'll have the flexibility to appear moderate to independents in swing states like Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire. This will also keep great lakes states like Minnesota and Wisconsin safe.

 

The Republicans, as it currently stands, have no electable candidate. I think Ted Cruz won the most recent straw pole (which means next to nothing), with people like Rand Paul, Donald Trump etc. still getting a lot of support. Those guys would be crushed in a general election. I think all of the other serious candidates would be forced to far to the right by their unelectable piers, mentioned above, and would struggle to win enough swing states to take the election.

 

This is pretty crazy considering in 2016 we will likely see a Democrat President easily win a victory in the white house while the Republicans simultaneously hold both the House and the Senate. We likely won't see any agreement on major issues for the foreseeable future.