Last Republican Primary Season vs This One

The last primary was known for having the lead change a lot more than normal, though as you can see, it was mostly Romney up top, and then the other competitors tried one by one to see who matched up better.

This primary, on the other hand... ! It's not as far in, but it's a lot more chaotic and has no clear 'Romney'. Also the graph is slightly out of date, Trump's been gaining steam since then.

Draw what conclusions from it that you will, I've never seen a primary season like it.

This upcoming election is going to be fascinating. There's no clear leader in either party, and it once again becomes a "lesser of two evils" situation.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This upcoming election is going to be fascinating. There's no clear leader in either party, and it once again becomes a "lesser of two evils" situation.

The Democrats have a pretty clear leader- It's a two-way race, with Hillary in a definite lead, Bernie Sanders rising to challenge. The third name in the polls is Joe Biden, who hasn't announced and I don't think plans to.

(And considering Republican policies on economics [crap], civil rights [crap], and stuff like the Iran deal, whichever Democrat wins I'll take with much more gusto than just a lesser of two evils. ... though I don't want to digress this thread onto the Democrats too much).

The Democratic primary is going to be, in comparison, boring. I mean, it may be a bit interesting in the 'see two experienced politicians go head to head' sense, but the situation is a fairly normal one. Even if Sanders manages to pull a win, it'll be more or less a repeat of Obama.

The Republican Primary, though? The last one was unusually chaotic, and it's got nothing on this one.

You've got three major establishment candidates- Bush, Rubio, and Walker. Out-there loud candidates- Trump and Christie and Carson. Religious candidates like Huckabee, Tea partiers like Cruz. Libertarians like Rand Paul. Jindal and Lindsey Graham. All names with some history and backing in the party.

Every quarter of the Republican party is throwing their best candidates in.

Explain to me the Democrats' economics that are somehow better than the Republicans'? Also, the Iran deal is all Democrats.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Explain to me the Democrats' economics that are somehow better than the Republicans'?

Ok, it's a digression, but if you insisted. The Democrats lead a steady recovery from the biggest financial crash since the great depression, cutting the unemployment rate in half. Obama is going to finish his term with an unemployment rate below Reagan's, and the early 80s crash was a wet fart in comparison to the worldwide financial meltdown of '08.

The Republicans wanted to crash the economy worse than the financial crisis over the debt limit, an arbitrary limit that was never messed with before.

Also they support austerity, which is what caused double-dip recessions- sometimes triple-dip- in multiple other countries during the same time we were having our steady recovery. The UK started better off but managed to fall behind due to austerity. Ireland went to 14% unemployment due to austerity.

And in all these countries, it raised their debt too, so it's not like it's a tradeoff between growth and debt, no, it purely sucks, and the financial crisis has convinced most economists on Earth that it's a bad idea, yet the Republicans still embrace it.

Also, the Iran deal is all Democrats.

Yes, the deal-which-prevents-Iran-from-getting-nukes is a good thing, and like you say, all Democrats. If successful, it both moves them further from getting nukes (more than doubling time-to-nuke from the start of the process, and giving us inspectors to make sure they don't start for *15 years*), and gives us a position for future negotiations and makes Iran less likely to jump the gun on other matters. Quite possibly giving us help against Isis.

The Republicans don't actually have an alternative beyond 'do nothing and hopefully they'll give us everything in exchange for nothing, maybe?'. If they have an actual alternate proposal outlined, I'd believe them, but they don't, and that's the strategy that has let Iran grow their capacity reducing the lead time from 2 years-from-start-to-bomb to under-six-months-to-bomb. I'd have more confidence in them if their strategy hadn't already given the Iranians so much for so little.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Explain to me the Democrats' economics that are somehow better than the Republicans'? Also, the Iran deal is all Democrats.

Usually people have the understanding that the government creates jobs and helps unemployment.

This government is socialist

Our economy is Captialist

However much damage the government can try and do the free economy will always recover. Has nothing to do with Obama who hasn't done anything to help people get jobs. The free market, entrepreneurs and small business has.

With that being said I'm not a fan of large corporations, I think they are evil. Especially companies like Coke, Monsanto, Dow and others.

It shows how crazy and overstuffed the Republican race is that the supposedly more electable Rand Paul is polling around the same that his "fringe candidate" father was last time around.

I honestly don't know why Bobby Jindal tries. Each time he attempts to capture the national spotlight he fails. The Republicans tried to sell him as the Right Wing Obama years ago and he failed by giving one of the most awkward speeches in American political history.

Also, I'll point out that 4 of the top 5 candidates are Florida based. 😎

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Usually people have the understanding that the government creates jobs and helps unemployment.

This government is socialist

Our economy is Captialist

However much damage the government can try and do the free economy will always recover. Has nothing to do with Obama who hasn't done anything to help people get jobs. The free market, entrepreneurs and small business has.

With that being said I'm not a fan of large corporations, I think they are evil. Especially companies like Coke, Monsanto, Dow and others.

You have absolutely no understanding of the government or economy, do you?

So many people want to here about Dem vs Rep policy rather than the Republican's frankly fascinating primary.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Usually people have the understanding that the government creates jobs and helps unemployment.

This government is socialist

Our economy is Captialist

However much damage the government can try and do the free economy will always recover. Has nothing to do with Obama who hasn't done anything to help people get jobs. The free market, entrepreneurs and small business has.

Except that the economic stimulus Obama specifically did is credited with saving in the realm of 3-4 million jobs, according to multiple non-partisan third party economic groups. You see, the government is not some special circumstance other thing, when it spends money to hire people, people have jobs, more money enters the economy. They spent hundreds of billions of dollars on jobs and creating economic movement that makes jobs. We thus got jobs.

In terms of unemployment numbers, rather than being at 5.5%, we'd be around 7-7.5% without it.

We also have contrast with what happens when the government does nothing or cuts spending in the same circumstances. Our way, with the big stimulus spending, worked better. The countries that did austerity- again, the policy the Republicans still push- often gained unemployment. Ireland, which was widely recognized as one of the countries that most went with the economic policies the Republicans like, went up to 14%, and only recently dropped down below 10% after hovering at 13 for years.

Also? Our tax rate and relatively government action and such is smaller than it was during the 50s-60s when the country was at it's most prosperous and the gov spent much more on infrastructure and the like.

The United States Government is not socialist- which, btw, is not opposed to capitalist, a lot of European governments are both- but it is part of the economy.

You're arguing based on ideology and labels- what you view as capitalist or socialist or such. I'm arguing number. You put X money into this, jobs happen. Don't, jobs don't happen.

With that being said I'm not a fan of large corporations, I think they are evil. Especially companies like Coke, Monsanto, Dow and others.

Oh, so you're pro-government regulation is favor of keeping big corporations from gaining that kind of power.

Very not-Republican of you.

See Jindal's blue line way at the bottom there?

Remember how he was a big name a few years back, did a State of the Union response speech and everything? Got some ribbing for drinking water mid-speech but was definitely considered one of the party's rising stars?

FiveThirtyEight article on why he missed his chance. In 2012, he'd have shook up the race (I don't think he quite had the experience to win, but he would've been a top contender). In 2016, he's outflanked in pretty much every category, and he's less popular now than he was then, even in his home state.

So Bobby Jindal's a candidate who's dropped from contender to also-ran, and at *this* point it doesn't look like he's even going to contribute much to this chaotic mix. Though as some drop out that could conceivably change, odds are looking quite low.

Originally posted by Q99
Ok, it's a digression, but if you insisted. The Democrats lead a steady recovery from the biggest financial crash since the great depression, cutting the unemployment rate in half. Obama is going to finish his term with an unemployment rate below Reagan's, and the early 80s crash was a wet fart in comparison to the worldwide financial meltdown of '08.

The Republicans wanted to crash the economy worse than the financial crisis over the debt limit, an arbitrary limit that was never messed with before.

Also they support austerity, which is what caused double-dip recessions- sometimes triple-dip- in multiple other countries during the same time we were having our steady recovery. The UK started better off but managed to fall behind due to austerity. Ireland went to 14% unemployment due to austerity.

And in all these countries, it raised their debt too, so it's not like it's a tradeoff between growth and debt, no, it purely sucks, and the financial crisis has convinced most economists on Earth that it's a bad idea, yet the Republicans still embrace it.

Yes, the deal-which-prevents-Iran-from-getting-nukes is a good thing, and like you say, all Democrats. If successful, it both moves them further from getting nukes (more than doubling time-to-nuke from the start of the process, and giving us inspectors to make sure they don't start for *15 years*), and gives us a position for future negotiations and makes Iran less likely to jump the gun on other matters. Quite possibly giving us help against Isis.

The Republicans don't actually have an alternative beyond 'do nothing and hopefully they'll give us everything in exchange for nothing, maybe?'. If they have an actual alternate proposal outlined, I'd believe them, but they don't, and that's the strategy that has let Iran grow their capacity reducing the lead time from 2 years-from-start-to-bomb to under-six-months-to-bomb. I'd have more confidence in them if their strategy hadn't already given the Iranians so much for so little.

I haven't forgotten this, I'll address this today with charts and shit.

Here's one for you:

The money!

One thing that's interesting is that while, of course Jeb and Hillary are in top two for total money, Jeb, and other Republican candidates, have theirs much more in SuperPACs/'nonprofits', while even Bernie Sanders has more directly donated to his campaign than any of the Republican candidates.

Perry has more in his SuperPAC than Hillary does hers, even though he has very little in his actual campaign fund.

Only Ben Carson and Rand Paul of the Republican candidates have focused their money directly into their campaigns- IMO a more sensible way of doing things, as it allows more direct control.

It's interesting how the money breaks.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I haven't forgotten this, I'll address this today with charts and shit.

Preferably in a thread about those subjects.

i can't wait for the debates

and i had honestly written off watching political debates in general... but this election is too good to miss

donald trump is going to talk circles around all those losers imo

Originally posted by red g jacks
i can't wait for the debates

and i had honestly written off watching political debates in general... but this election is too good to miss

donald trump is going to talk circles around all those losers imo

While I kinda have different expectations of Donald, I think a number of the other Republican candidates are much more prepared speakers, I do agree that they are gonna be too good to miss 🙂

i dunno man every interview i see of donald the guy is quick as hell.. can you show me one of these other charismatic speakers? because from where i'm standing trump knows how to talk to the unwashed masses. i mean you have to take into account different environments and all. i'm around people who say the kind of "controversial" shit he says on a daily basis. it's not some fringe constituency... it's probably a majority of the white populace in backwater states like the south and the prairie states and shit. so when the media blares his shit from a loudspeaker in an attempt to shame him, they're actually shoring up his base for him.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i dunno man every interview i see of donald the guy is quick as hell.. can you show me one of these other charismatic speakers? because from where i'm standing trump knows how to talk to the unwashed masses. i mean you have to take into account different environments and all. i'm around people who say the kind of "controversial" shit he says on a daily basis. it's not some fringe constituency... it's probably a majority of the white populace in backwater states like the south and the prairie states and shit. so when the media blares his shit from a loudspeaker in an attempt to shame him, they're actually shoring up his base for him.

I'm not talking charisma so much as preparation, being caught out.

Remember how Obama slammed him last time? Donald'll go out on a limb on some topic, and his opponents can shut him down.

You can be as flamboyant as you want, but if your opponents know the policies and facts better- Which Jeb, Rubio, Walker, etc. do- they'll come out looking better.

And everyone has experience with debates here, it's not like he's the only public speaker.

yea but in the case of what trump's saying... correcting him on what he said about immigrants or something like that isn't really going to win them much conservative love.. sort of like ron paul was much more capable of frankly stating the imperialist nature of our foreign policy... didn't win him any love from republicans just cause he was right though.

True, but I expect it to come up with other issues too. Presidential debates run a wide range of topics, and the candidates has to be informed on many of them.

Current Status:

And, of note, who's looking to even make it to the debate:

The top 10 get in.

Normally the only people who have to worry about missing the debate are the tiny candidates, so this is unusual! And 9 and 10, Christie and Santorum, have such a small gap that they could possibly be bumped off if there's a few bad polls for them.

Christie could have a shot if he gets to the debate, his strategy is based a lot on image and I could see his presence there gaining some points, but if he doesn't get on he may as well drop now.

It's also interesting that Santorum, Romney's biggest competitor, is in such a vulnerable spot.

If the Republicans nominate Trump I'll be convinced they don't want to win the White House.