Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  2016 General Election Thread (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 27 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   2016 General Election Thread
BellaFenice
Knowflake

Posts: 3419
From: Neptune with PisceanDream, Faith, and Meissieri
Registered: Sep 2013

posted April 16, 2015 02:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BellaFenice     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thought it would be fun to have a general thread to discuss the nominations, primaries, and eventually election day. We could put any info on nomination updates, voting projections, debates, etc, in here.

I'm all for a Clinton-Warren ticket, Warren is actually my preferred female democrat (rather her run for prez tbh), and what could be more better than following the first black president with the first female one.

Though Bernie is my preferred Democratic candidate, he's got a tough hill to climb.


Anything at this point to stop the holy trinity of derp known as Cruz/Rubio/and now Trump?


*edit- WOW. So I was way wrong in my prediction. Trump as the Republican front runner?

May the best (or least problematic) candidate win!

IP: Logged

iQ
Moderator

Posts: 5012
From: Lyra
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 21, 2015 08:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for iQ     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Democrats may narrowly win as the US Economy is on an upswing.

Personally, I do not think Hillary would be a good President for the USA. Warren is light years ahead in capability and positive intentions.

Republicans yet to prepare a good,cool, secular young team or an intelligent economic agenda. Cutting taxes for the rich is all they can think of, hoping the rich will spend this on job creation [But they invest these savings in China].

They want to win without working hard and without making contact with the masses.

Nobody amongst them has Reagan's Charisma [nor his Astrologers ]

Their attitude will always be their Nemesis in the modern age, the snobbish "snooty rich Old Man" attitude of being too successful to talk to the ordinary folk or to the youth.
They want the vibrant and savvy youth to become religious and old Christian men before their 30s. Not gonna happen.

Twitter and Facebook battle will be won easily by the Democrats and this could tilt the balance.

Lets see.

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted April 21, 2015 01:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
With so few smart, honest Senators I would hate to see Warren run for Prez..and be crucified and hobbled the way Congress has tried with Obama. We need all the good Senators we can get..the importance of a functioning Congress has been made all too clear these last few years.

Still hoping someone else will over come Hillary. Bernie Sanders should at least run for the Nomination, if only to push a real conversation under the spotlight. He has said he will not compete but support any other Dem nominee to avoid indirectly aiding the Republicans into a monolithic Washington.

IP: Logged

peony
Knowflake

Posts: 1060
From: U.S.
Registered: Dec 2014

posted April 28, 2015 10:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for peony     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
With so few smart, honest Senators I would hate to see Warren run for Prez..and be crucified and hobbled the way Congress has tried with Obama. We need all the good Senators we can get..the importance of a functioning Congress has been made all too clear these last few years.

Still hoping someone else will over come Hillary. Bernie Sanders should at least run for the Nomination, if only to push a real conversation under the spotlight. He has said he will not compete but support any other Dem nominee to avoid indirectly aiding the Republicans into a monolithic Washington.


Bernie Sanders is running as a Democrat. Will announce this Thursday, April 30, 2015.

IP: Logged

BellaFenice
Knowflake

Posts: 3419
From: Neptune with PisceanDream, Faith, and Meissieri
Registered: Sep 2013

posted April 29, 2015 05:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BellaFenice     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
With so few smart, honest Senators I would hate to see Warren run for Prez..and be crucified and hobbled the way Congress has tried with Obama. We need all the good Senators we can get..the importance of a functioning Congress has been made all too clear these last few years.

Still hoping someone else will over come Hillary. Bernie Sanders should at least run for the Nomination, if only to push a real conversation under the spotlight. He has said he will not compete but support any other Dem nominee to avoid indirectly aiding the Republicans into a monolithic Washington.


That is a good point. I am all for a female president, but I'm not 100% sold on Hilary. I think she miles ahead of the Republican candidates right now.

Also want to add I feel the Democrats have the minority vote as well. This I think is going to be very key running into 2016.

@iQ: Great post! I 100% agree!

@peony: thanks for the info! That is good to hear!

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 05, 2015 11:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh dear it seems the party of the Constitution may be no more. Apparently Ben Carson is the favourite of those who want the Constitution rewritten to make Christianity our official religion and the Bible the law of the land. ..more than half the Tepublican respondents.

Rafael Cruz wont know whether to laugh or cry..isnt Ted the anointed one chosen by the Lord to rule America?

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/25/57-republicans-dismantl e-constitution-christianity-national-religion.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 8987
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 06, 2015 10:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Apparently Ben Carson is the favourite of those who want the Constitution rewritten to make Christianity our official religion and the Bible the law of the land. .."

You're so full of it it's oozing out of every pore and orifice of your body.

At no time, ever, never ever has Carson said he wants to establish a religious theocracy of Christianity in the United States. Nor, has Carson ever said he wants to do away with the 1st Amendment prohibition that..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

It's leftist airhead radicals...like your little Marxist Messiah O'Bomber who are attempting to erode and destroy citizens 1st Amendment rights to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

Big, big, big chance for you to post any statement by Carson whereby Carson endorses amending the US Constitution to establish a Christian theocracy. Go for it!

Carson isn't my guy but leftist lies about candidates gets old fast.

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 06, 2015 12:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I didn't say Carson said anything. I said that according to this poll - and we all know how you love your polls - the majority of Republicans polled want the Constitution altered to make Christianity the official religion and the country run according to the Bible..A Public Policy Polling (PPP) national survey conducted between February 20th and February 22nd of Republican voters, found that an astonishing 57 percent of Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution, and establish Christianity as the official national religion. Only 30 percent oppose making Christianity the national religion.


And the majority of that majority also favour Carson for president.

Ben Carson is the preferred presidential candidate of those who want to impose Christianity on the nation with 24 percent support Mike Huckabee and Scott Walker are tied for 2nd place at 16 percent..

I would guess they have formed an impression of him where do you think they got it from?

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 06, 2015 04:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here's something Carson did say:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-hero-ben-c arson-to-beck-you-have-no-right-to-semi-automatic-weapons-in-large-cities/

Oh, and vaccinations should be mandatory with no religious or "philosophical" exceptions.

So while the conservatives strive to condemn Obama for wanting to ban guns, Carson is actively suggesting it but somehow that is not a problem.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ben-carson-mandatory-vaccinations-right/2015/02/02/id/622273/

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 06, 2015 04:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
More brilliance from the astute doctor

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/ben_carson_says_president_can_ignore_scotus_gay_marriage_ruling_he_should_read_presidential_oath

IP: Logged

Eirlys
Knowflake

Posts: 516
From: Atlantic Coast
Registered: May 2013

posted May 06, 2015 06:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eirlys     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
Here's something Carson did say:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-hero-ben-c arson-to-beck-you-have-no-right-to-semi-automatic-weapons-in-large-cities/

Oh, and vaccinations should be mandatory with no religious or "philosophical" exceptions.

So while the conservatives strive to condemn Obama for wanting to ban guns, Carson is actively suggesting it but somehow that is not a problem.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ben-carson-mandatory-vaccinations-right/2015/02 /02/id/622273/


Sounds like he doesn't understand very much

about guns.

The argument is ridiculous.

Also-- you don't think there are too many vaccines

out there, now?

------------------
Nothing is permanent in this wicked world; not even our troubles.

-C Chaplin

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 06, 2015 07:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carson is on the board a Company developing cancer vaccines. Apparently he hasn't seen the growing body of medical literature that sees the resurgence of vaccinated diseases as a direct result of vaccination. Cancer not being Contagious at least it will be hard to push mandates on those IF they pass the trial stage.

My biggest beef with vax is that it's obvious one size doesn't fit all. And that there have been dud-to-dangerous vaccines pushed on the public. Potentially they are a great idea. In practice highly questionable. IMO

IP: Logged

Eirlys
Knowflake

Posts: 516
From: Atlantic Coast
Registered: May 2013

posted May 06, 2015 11:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eirlys     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
*double post*

I have no idea why.. I guess it's my phone. :/

IP: Logged

Eirlys
Knowflake

Posts: 516
From: Atlantic Coast
Registered: May 2013

posted May 07, 2015 12:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eirlys     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
Carson is on the board a Company developing cancer vaccines. Apparently he hasn't seen the growing body of medical literature that sees the resurgence of vaccinated diseases as a direct result of vaccination. Cancer not being Contagious at least it will be hard to push mandates on those IF they pass the trial stage.

My biggest beef with vax is that it's obvious one size doesn't fit all. And that there have been dud-to-dangerous vaccines pushed on the public. Potentially they are a great idea. In practice highly questionable. IMO



I don't disagree.

The number of vaccines (and wholly unnecessary 'medications')

out these days is absurd.

Create a disease, market a 'cure'..

The FDA shoves it through in an abbreviated trial, and if the

profits outweigh the cost of the settlements (over the fatalities)

... it's a win!

For them, of cour$e; not us.


My doc is old school (very old, lol)- he even told me to stay

the hell away from the flu shot (no problem).


I'm not convinced that Carson is a Conservative.. but I don't think

Hillary (or the pseudo-Indian, Warren) is a Liberal, either.

I think they're all power-hungry people who believe they're better

equipped to manage our lives than we are.

They also (typically) stand to profit, personally.

But then, ALL politicians do; on both sides of the aisle-- that's the truth.

------------------
Nothing is permanent in this wicked world; not even our troubles.

-C Chaplin

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 8987
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2015 11:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"I didn't say Carson said anything. I said that according to this poll - and we all know how you love your polls - the majority of Republicans polled want the Constitution altered to make Christianity the official religion and the country run according to the Bible"

Bullshiiiite!

This is what you said and there's absolutely no justification for your absurd attempt to connect Ben Carson to any attempt to amend Article I of the US Constitution to permit a Christian theocracy. NONE!

"Apparently Ben Carson is the favourite of those who want the Constitution rewritten to make Christianity our official religion and the Bible the law of the land. .."

So, having failed to back up your absurd statement, now, you're off on a rant to restrict 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens.

But, there's still a chance for you to redeem yourself.

Just post the actual poll question here...from the actual poll...and the results. You know, the question in that poll you say proves a sizable portion of Americans...Republicans/Conservatives or otherwise want a Christian theocracy.

Go for it. And...be sure to post a link to that poll....because I don't believe it for even a split second.

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 07, 2015 11:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Try reading the link jwhop. Im not going to argue over your inability to read it..even though i quoted the passage you CHOOSE to interpret wrongly..in case it was my synopsis thst was poorly written and confused you

...and carson in his own words on guns is also linked

Giveaway that you didnt bother: there is a link to the Poll in the article

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 07, 2015 01:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In fact, the first of TWO LINKS to the poll is in the FIRST LINE of the article.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 8987
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2015 02:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"PPP surveyed 316 Republican primary voters from February 20th to 22nd. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 5.5%. This survey was conducted through automated telephone interviews and interviews over the internet to voters who don’t have landline phones.

Hahaha, an automated telephone interview..which means they had no idea who they were talking to and/or internet interviews...where they had no idea who they were talking to.

Wow, that's sure to result in an amazingly accurate poll!!!!!

Added to the fact PPP is a far left loon polling organization and the stage is all set for an incomparably "accurate poll"!

In a room of 1000 real Republicans, you couldn't get 1 to say...scrap the 1st Amendment and establish a Christian theocracy.

This is just utter complete horseshiiite but, it's right in line with this polling companies far left loon leanings.

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 07, 2015 02:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In other words they arent conservatives so they don't cOunt...not "likely voters" like Rasmussen cherry picks to exclude those who vote liberal? Just actual voters from Republican primaries. Objectivity must be outlawed.

Well tough. I don't like polls anyway but if we left it up to you there would be only one party and one agenda in this country..how's that working out for you?

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 07, 2015 10:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Heres another poll. Looking forward to your objections to the source and content. This one is not limited to republicans and suggests a great president would be more welcome than a Bible thumper..

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/07/1383089/-NBC-WSJ-Poll-Americans-would-prefer-a-gay-presidential-candidate-to-an-evangelical-one?

IP: Logged

Eirlys
Knowflake

Posts: 516
From: Atlantic Coast
Registered: May 2013

posted May 08, 2015 12:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eirlys     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Guess I should have said something more volatile.


But Daily KOS?

Honestly, I don't think Americans would care if

the next Pres was a bible thumping, homosexual--

those aren't things I really care about, so long as

S/he can repair the economy and not run us into the

ground like this admin has done.

Srsly. -.-

------------------
Nothing is permanent in this wicked world; not even our troubles.

-C Chaplin

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 8987
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 08, 2015 09:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"In other words they arent conservatives so they don't cOunt...not "likely voters" like Rasmussen cherry picks to exclude those who vote liberal?"

In other words...PPP ran a poll with absolutely no controls over who they polled. Supposedly, they were polling Republicans but...

"Hello, this is the Pee, Pee, Pee polling organization. We're taking an automated poll of Republican opinions and attitudes. If you're a demoscat, progressive, socialist, communist or other variety of lunatic please hang up now. If you're a Republican stay on the line and participate in our poll."

So of course all the loons would hang up and not participate! No, of course the loons wouldn't even think about trying to skew the Pee, Pee, Pee poll.

Or, you could have gone to the Pee, Pee, Pee Poll website and clicked on "Republican" to take the Pee, Pee, Pee Poll. Surely, no one would lie about being a "Republican"!

Such stringent poll controls are almost unheard of!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 8987
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 08, 2015 11:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In a glaring omission, The Washington Post fails to even so much as mention the fact Hillary Clinton expects to raise and spend $2 BILLION to get herself elected.

Also missing in this Washington Post story is the fact the hypocritical Hillary is screeching and shrieking about money in the political process. Right! Check!

Hey, it's a Washington Post story so what else would anyone expect!

Never before have so many people with so much money run for president

The 2016 Republican presidential contest, designed to be a tidy affair, is instead shaping up to be a chaotic, drawn-out slog, thanks largely to an expanding pool of rich patrons raining money on a broad field of candidates.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush has raised tens of millions of dollars for his allied super PAC, collecting a historic amount, he told donors Sunday night. But that hasn’t been enough to stop his rivals from amassing their own stockpiles. A super PAC supporting Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida secured about $20 million in commitments in less than two weeks, according to people familiar with the totals. An independent operation backing Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas says it pulled in $31 million in a single week. A new super PAC allied with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has almost matched that in pledges, fundraisers say.

Never have so many candidates entered a White House contest boosted by such huge sums. The financial arms race could fuel a protracted primary season similar to the one in 2012 — exactly what party leaders were hoping to avoid.

“There could be as many as a dozen candidates that have a threshold amount of money in their campaigns and super PACs to compete vigorously in the early states,” said Phil Cox, a Republican strategist who runs America Leads, a super PAC supporting New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that has the backing of at least two billionaires.

Some party operatives say 2016 could be the first race in the modern era in which a candidate does not need to win Iowa or New Hampshire to prevail. Strong showings in those early states have historically translated into much-needed financial momentum. But this time, wealthy patrons might keep their favorite picks aloft through independent spending.

Contenders such as Cruz and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee are crafting long-game strategies, staking their hopes on a wave of Southern-state primaries that will not take place until March. Although next year’s compressed primary schedule could intensify the momentum for a front-runner, it could also help a range of contenders pick up delegates if a single leader does not emerge quickly.

The political money boom is being driven largely by super PACs, which can collect unlimited donations from individuals and corporations. The groups are supposed to operate independently from the candidates they support, but in this race they are functioning as de facto arms of the campaigns.

Fifteen White House contenders are being boosted by big-money groups run by their close allies. Most have not yet declared their candidacies but are instead hopscotching the country headlining high-dollar super-PAC fundraisers.

By blessing the groups, the aspirants have given a green light to supporters once wary of such outfits.

“There’s no question that donors are much more comfortable with super PACs,” said Austin Barbour, a Mississippi-based strategist who is running the Opportunity and Freedom PAC, which is backing former Texas governor Rick Perry. “These guys who are worth $100 million or a billion dollars now say, ‘I understand this super-PAC stuff.’ They see that the potential candidates or candidates have a ton of trust and faith in them.”

There’s also been an influx of new contributors and bundlers, GOP fundraisers say. They include executives in the financial-services and oil and gas industries who are upset about federal regulations, as well as conservative Jews alarmed by President Obama’s fraught relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Much of the establishment money is flowing to Bush, who senior Republicans predict will collect $100 million for his super PAC by the end of May.

But his competitors have their own wealthy benefactors. Rubio is being backed by Florida billionaire Norman Braman, who has committed $10 million to his aligned super PAC. Cruz is getting support from the family of hedge-fund tycoon Robert Mercer.

An influential network of conservative donors organized by industrialists Charles and David Koch is touting the merits of five contenders: Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. It also remains to be seen who will win the support of billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, one of the party’s biggest contributors.

Money could actually be less of a determining factor than it has been in the past, some party strategists said. When Bush finally rolls out his eye-popping total, it will be unlikely to have the impact that his brother George W. Bush’s then-record haul of $37 million did in mid-1999.

Jeb Bush has conceded that his gold-plated political name isn’t deterring most opponents.

“I don’t see any coronation coming my way, trust me,” he told a skeptical GOP voter last weekend in New Hampshire. “I’m really intimidating a whole bunch of folks, aren’t I?”

The competitive money race was one of the big topics Sunday as Bush and his team hosted 350 top donors and fundraisers at a swanky Miami Beach hotel.

The donor confab, which concluded Monday, was led by Bush’s top three aides: David Kochel and Sally Bradshaw, who are expected to lead his campaign, and Mike Murphy, who is poised to lead the super PAC. The briefings included discussions of economic and foreign policy and details on how the super PAC, Right to Rise, plans to reach out to “non-traditional GOP communities.”

But some attendees were also eager to hear how Bush will fend off rising competitors such as Rubio, who has cast himself as the face of the party’s future.

“Marco is so much better communicating and makes the generational point without saying a word,” said one big contributor who is supporting Bush and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. “Basically the fear is really about Rubio gaining traction with donors. With money, he is the real problem for Jeb.”

The 2016 primary contest could resemble the fracas in 2012, when super-PAC benefactors kept alive the bids of former House speaker Newt Gingrich and former U.S. senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, forcing Mitt Romney into an extended fight for the nomination.

Adelson and his family poured $15 million into a super PAC backing Gingrich, then an unthinkably large amount. This time, with more big spenders in the mix, such sums could be commonplace, the former House speaker said.

“What seems like really big money is less than a yacht,” Gingrich said in an interview. Wealthy donors could decide that “this year, instead of buying a new yacht, I’m going to spend $70 million on a candidate,” he said.

Hoping to avoid a replay of 2012, the Republican National Committee has curtailed the number of debates and compressed the primary season. “There will be a historical number of folks in the mix, but we will still have a nominee sooner,” RNC spokesman Sean Spicer said.

Party officials, however, are still struggling to figure out what criteria to use to decide who will get to participate in the official debates. “It’s a work in progress,” Spicer said.

By the time the first debate is held in Cleveland in August, there is likely to be nearly a dozen declared candidates, if not more.

The party has also sought to speed up the nomination process by pushing back the Iowa caucuses and moving up the convention to July. The first four contests are on track to be held in February, followed by more than a half-dozen states in early March, including heavyweights such as Texas.

There could be a full roster of candidates still competing by then, lifted by well-funded outside allies. Some could try to cherry-pick states where they have an advantage, winning delegates that they carry to the convention, said Rick Hohlt, a Washington lobbyist and longtime party fundraiser. “It’s become entirely unpredictable,” he said.

Candidates will be able to lean more heavily on big-money groups, which are expanding beyond just television ads.

The Bush-aligned Right to Rise is planning to invest heavily in not just paid media but also a sophisticated digital voter outreach effort, according to people familiar with the plan. A nonprofit group run by a Bush ally is set to serve as an outside policy shop.

When asked about the state of campaign finance laws before his big donor meeting on Sunday, Bush said: “They are what they are. Campaigns are going to have to play within those rules.

“I don’t think you need to spend $1 billion to be elected president of the United States in 2016,” he told reporters, adding, “But in order to be competitive, you’ve got to raise a significant sum of money to build a first-rate policy team and a great campaign.”

The extra freight carried by super PACs could help candidates broaden their operations beyond the states that hold the first few contests early in the race.

Cruz’s campaign, which has raised $6 million since he announced in late March, is building a low-cost national infrastructure. His advisers have assessed which states offer the chance to pick up the most delegates and have assigned a dollar value to the most efficient media markets.

Because the official campaigns can raise only $2,700 per individual, some super-PAC budgets could end up outstripping those of their candidates.

“It would not surprise me to have America Leads spend more on media and paid voter contact than the official Christie campaign, and I think you will see that with other campaigns, as well,” Cox said of his group.

For all the cover that wealthy benefactors will provide in 2016, however, party operatives said they won’t be able to pick the winner.

“Voters are still going to see who is viable, who is credible and who is not,” Barbour said. “But it does give you a puncher’s chance.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-the-2016-gop-race-may-be-more-like-2012-than-the-party-hoped/2015/04/26/fff662c8-e9f9-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html?wprss=rss_politic s

"As POLITICO reported last month, the former secretary of state plans a quick tour of at least two battleground states, Iowa and New Hampshire, before settling into her new campaign headquarters in Brooklyn to begin the months-long work of setting up a field operation, communications shop and fundraising apparatus for a campaign that many close to Clinton estimate will raise and spend $1.5-to-$2 billion."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-election-launch-sunday -116843.html

IP: Logged

Catalina
Knowflake

Posts: 3538
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013

posted May 08, 2015 12:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Catalina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So, Eirlys, you would be okay with running the country by the Bible, not the Constitution, if there's enough moolah in it? The poll was not by Daily Kos, sorry to disappoint.

As to jwhop's version of what Automated means, totally imaginary. Any poll that allows people to self-identify (rasmussen anyone?) Runs the risk of being hoodwinked. An automated poll that calls/contacts people listed as Republican primary Voters (not "likely" but real voters) actually has less chance of being scammed . Especially since stray members of the household rarely answer cell phones/ internet conne tions.

And since we saw who voted in the last midterms I would say that represents pretty well the current portion of the republican party who bother to vote..hence Cruz in the Senate etc. Meanwhile MOST AMERICANS are not so keen on being led by the Anointed to the Rapture.

It was a small poll but I think the WSJ one was larger.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 8987
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 08, 2015 01:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually, an automated phone call means there's no 2 way human contact. So the Pee, Pee, Pee poll has no idea who actually responded to the Pee, Pee, Pee Poll.

But, if it makes you feel good thinking Republicans are ready to ditch the 1st Amendment and create a Christian theocracy in America, it just shows how little you know about Republicans...or Conservatives.

If you tried that nonsense in a room full of Republicans, you'd get laughed out of the room!

IP: Logged


This topic is 27 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2016

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a