2016 Presidential Battleground States?

[Lucky]

I care more that the leader of our country be someone who has the best for our country in mind more than I care whether they have lifelong service to a particular party. Maybe that's why I don't really feel like I fit in either political party right now.

I do sympathize more with the Democratic agenda right now, but it's hard for me to get gung-ho about candidates based on their loyalty to their party or how liberal their views are.

I agree with you 100%, which is why I am not comfortable with someone I cannot trust to support the Democratic agenda once in office. And loyalty to party translates, at least to some extent, to loyalty to party agenda. Unfortunately, I don't think Warren will run, despite all the encouragement she has received.

[Lucky]

I guess we read what we want to read....one of 7 GOPs to vote against the war in Iraq (unlike lifelong Democrat Hillary Clinton). Staunch environmentalist. A lifelong reliable 'no' vote on tax cuts for the wealthy. Voted for Obama---twice. Against our hawkish military exploits. Exactly the kind of person who should challenge the coronation of Ms. Clinton. But if the fact he was a left of center moderate Republican in New England bothers you, by all means support the preferred candidate of Goldman Sachs. After all, she's had a D next to her name for a longer time so she'll obviously be a better candidate.

And hey, I didn't mean any harm. I agree with you that he is a cool guy, one of the better pols out there. And I agreed with you that he has earned the right to be heard. I just disagree regarding his Democratic credentials, that's all. But a lot of that is probably because I am an old school democrat, who started voting Democrat in the early 70s. Crotchety might be the right word. But, I had to go through Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush I, all before we got two terms of Clinton. A lot people who came of age around then thought it was bad times, but compared to the preceeding 25 years, it was wonderful. Anyway.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I agree with you 100%, which is why I am not comfortable with someone I cannot trust to support the Democratic agenda once in office. And loyalty to party translates, at least to some extent, to loyalty to party agenda. Unfortunately, I don't think Warren will run, despite all the encouragement she has received.

One of the reasons I was happy voting for Obama in 2008 was that I thought he would govern as moderate, Nixon-style Republican in a lot of ways. And I think he more or less did. My own political views have moved leftward in the last seven years, though, such that now I don't really know who I can support for President. Many of the things I came to dislike about Obama are supported by the leading candidates of both parties (eager to go to war, supporting surveillance state, enabling torture and other abusive detention practices, weak on regulating Wall Street, slow to support criminal justice reform, etc.)

[Kevin Seitzer]

Hence my use of the phrase "yet another". There are tons of politicians who are not right wingers. That is what this county needs, not yet another Hillary or Chaffee.

Unlike Seitzer, how liberal the Presidential candidates' views are is crucially important to me. I'm pretty fucking tired of choosing between a moderate Republican or an extremist republican.

I think our disagreement here may be one of semantics (mostly) and degree (a little bit). I get a bad taste in my mouth when I hear a candidate being lauded for how "liberal" they are because of my experience with that on the other end of the spectrum. Republicans have done a huge disservice to themselves and the country over the last few decades by making their party into a contest of one candidate out-conservative-credentialing the other, while ignoring what makes sense for the country and the fact that we have to work together with people of all stripes, even if we disagree about things, because we're all in the boat together. But the Democrats aren't really at that point, and the Republicans are by far the huge offender on this right now. So it's not a disagreement with your values as much as just a pet peeve about wording. I think you and I probably mostly agree on which candidates we like.

I know that "liberal" is a quick shorthand for what you believe is best for the country, but too often in the larger conversation, when it turns into a contest of "liberal" versus "conservative", it seems like what is best for the country gets lost somewhere in the weeds. (Again, not that I think both parties are equal offenders here.)

[Moonlight J]

From my view, Chaffee is the national version of what Charlie Crist was locally to me in Florida.

[Lucky]

I would trust a lot of you guys more than the guys who are actually running.

[nots]

From my view, Chaffee is the national version of what Charlie Crist was locally to me in Florida.

Can you expand on that?

[Moonlight J]

Can you expand on that?

Was one thing, then another, then another.

Both labeled RINOs. Both good for their states, but perceived lack of party convictions will hurt on a national stage as moves appear to be more circumstantial than anything.

His path is Prez or nothing. Can't imagine him as a VP candidate with a NE-based Presidential candidate assuming Clinton isn't derailed.

[onejayhawk]

I would trust a lot of you guys more than the guys who are actually running.

Not just you it appears. Whatever chance Hillary had just took a big hit. The NY Times launched a broadside, raising influence peddling. This was a big issue during Bill's term in the 1990s. They started with this photo, which tells you the tone of the content.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

J

[chancellor]

I would trust a lot of you guys more than the guys who are actually running.

ElDiablo, for whatever reason, keeps refusing to join my ticket as VP. I'm just baffled as to why.

[onejayhawk]

ElDiablo, for whatever reason, keeps refusing to join my ticket as VP. I'm just baffled as to why.

He would make a better VP than Biden.

J

[Lucky]

He would make a better VP than Biden.

J

It is stunning that a Cheney fan would have enough gall to criticize Biden in any way. Stunning.

[onejayhawk]

It is stunning that a Cheney fan would have enough gall to criticize Biden in any way. Stunning.

I am not a Cheney fan, unless thinking he is less of a Sith Lord than Hillary counts.

J

[Lucky]

I am not a Cheney fan, unless thinking he is less of a Sith Lord than Hillary counts.

J

How about less of a war criminal? International gangster? Craven war profiteer? Evil automaton?

People can say what they will about Bush 43, but he has displayed the class not to openly oppose the President during the ongoing "war against terror".

[onejayhawk]

How about less of a war criminal? International gangster? Craven war profiteer? Evil automaton?

Definitely both of those. Hillary is much worse. She would make a great Bond villain.

J