The elections are more than 18 months away, but already would-be contenders are busy sucking unto votes, especially on the Republican side. So far only Ted Cruz has officially announced his candidacy. I admit that he has some good economic ideas and does speak eloquently (and without prompter). However, he looks like a conservative who wants to regulate the people's bedroom.

Although I can't vote (I wouldn't even if I could), the only GOP contender that looks interesting so far is Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin. Anyone who can tame unions and give workers a choice rather than coertion deserves respect. But I don't know much else about him to say I would endorse him.

And so far on the Democrat's side, it looks like Hillary Clinton will get the crown. I wonder if she can be worse than Obama has. She has the potential: she's a war hawk, she loves big government AND she loooooves to keep secrets away from the prying eyes of the public.

Fortunately for the economy, Elizabeth Warren said she wouldn't run. If you think the present economic situation sucks, it would be nothing compared to President Warren. Her ignorance of basic economics (supply and demand, incentives) is even worse than Obama's, who at least seems to supprot free trade.

So, will the next president be Red or Blue? Will it be a he or a she, and does it matter to you?

janus :

First, it's "Coercion", not coertion. There's a spell checker for that stuff.

Hillary will win. I have nearly complete opposite political philosophy, but she'll win. She'll say that she was against Obama's failures and for his successes. She'll run on the Clinton name. She'll win. There's little doubt in my mind.

The only republican team that I think might beat her is Paul Ryan and Rand Paul duo. Those two are great speakers who could win debates left and right. Rand Paul isn't completely conservative, so they could potentially steal unhappy democrat votes.

However, I doubt the two would team up, and I doubt even more that either one would get through the republican primaries. The only people that win republican primaries are ultra-conservative. And even Paul Ryan might not be conservative enough this time.

Txgangsta : I really don't think Hillary Clinton will win... Not with the three scandals all right in a row, and that's if you aren't talking about Benghazi. You have her boosting Democrats (illegally), hiding thousands of federal business E-mails not to mention that she was deleting them, etc. That, and the Clinton's don't have a good calling card since Bill left the White House back in the late 90's. 

I have no idea who will win, but I highly doubt it will be a Democrat, based on previous voting patterns in the US.

darthyoda : I agree, the scandals are plaguing Hillary according to new polls that show she isn't well-received in swing states. But unfortunately, considering the sweet spot most media seem to have for Democrats, most of it will likely go under the radar unless blogs and other "alternative" news sources take over.
However, as of now, who could take the lead? Elizabeth Warren says she won't be racing and she seemed to be the only other contender so far.

As for Rand Paul: he's not a war hawk so his chances look slim. He's not as principled as his father, but the name might play against him.

janus :

Rand Paul isn't a war hawk, and that's why he might be able to steal some democrat votes. Democrats that are pro-peace and disappointed with Obama's administration and Clinton's military mentality have an incentive to vote Republican if Rand Paul is on the ticket.

But Republicans aren't playing politics right now. Romney Ryan was two ultra-conservatives. Who were they going to sway? It's like Republicans wanted to lose.

Txgangsta : Yes it was a poor choice for 2012. However with the exception of Bush I, incumbents have always had the upper hand since the two-mandates amendment (unless there was an incredible catastrophe like the hostage crisis in Iran and hyperinflation) was passed. Besides, the negative effects of Obamacare were still not felt by the population so they were still under the impression that it was the best thing since the wheel.

I have my doubts as to whether Paul can sway disappointed Democrats. For starters, African Americans are almost sold in advance to the party, which greatly helped Obama in both his elections. And because their "leaders" (for lack of a better word) like Al Sharpton so worship government and the Democrats, people "collectively" still follow their leadership. I'm not calling them stupid or anything; they merely act according to their perceived best interest.

The same thing seems to go for "minorities" like gays and women. Whenever they renounce the Democratic immunity, all hell breaks lose on them (it's even worse for blacks).

I also have my doubt whether he can gather the necessary votes to get the nomination (and I don't think he would be considered as a vice-president). Since Millenials don't have a strong-enough voice yet - they are the most wary towards government intervention - baby boomers still control the nomination, and as far as I can tell they tend to favor more conservative leadership since Reagan or establishment ones since Bush I.

Furthermore, will Democrats REALLY become wary of war supported by their candidates? As a French Canadian saying went: Heaven is blue and hell is red... I don't know whether fears of racism were too strong but anti-war people under Bush suddenly became silent in 2009 and it doesn't seem to go away.

The only game changer I can see is the constant demonstration of the shadow regulatory government that burdens people more and more. The new EPA regulations for clean air, while having questionable conclusions on health benefits, will cost all four of your limbs and your job too. The likely regulations over the Internet might also make people realize that government is the problem rather than the solution.

janus :

I think the only people concerned about big-government vs small-government debates are already Republican. They're already of the opinion that big-government is the bad guy. That's not an issue.

Issue is economic, social, and foreign policies. And a pseudo-libertarian candidate has a small liberal appeal in the social and foreign aspects. Economically, it's different than what we're doing, yet not horribly crazy.

I think a libertarian-sympathizer like Rand Paul is the only rational bet that can be made by the Republican party.

off topic -

I'd vote Republican if I could find a candidate that liked big government and were slightly friendlier to the environment.
I'd vote Democrat if I could find a candidate that was socially conservative and honestly cared about debt.
But those options don't exist.
So I don't vote.

Txgangsta : The problem is, Republicans are only theoretical defenders of small government. It was pretty obvious under Reagan, who tripled the deficit and under whom the US Code of Regulation kept growing. Like pro-peace Democrats, small-government Republicans are living in an illusion.

"I think a libertarian-sympathizer like Rand Paul is the only rational bet that can be made by the Republican party."
While associating him with libertarians is a stretch, I do believe too that he's the best chance for the GOP to stand a chance against even Hillary if ever she gets the nomination - or whoever for that matter, unless the present asset bubble pops.

Finally, your off-topic really isn't. Not casting a vote simply shows that you refuse to give your voice to the loudest prostitute around. You simply choose, like I do, to use your own voice.

janus : Common misconception here. Reagan did triple the deficit, but he put all of that money to advance America into one of the best Tech ages ever. Reagan did what government was made for, to protect the people. 

Small Government doesn't mean local. It means that the government takes less interest in what the people are doing. They keep their hands out of the pockets of the people. It's an economic and political idea, and the Republicans lean more in that direction than the Dems... But, it's also partially true that they are becoming more liberal. Sadly, the Republicans are more liberal than ever, but it's the lesser of two, "evils" if you will allow me to use that phrase loosely.

janus :

Maybe I should be more specific about what I mean by "big government". I'm basically a populist, which was a political party in the 1890s. It's a strange kind of socialism. And I think it's economically powerful. The populist ideals of the 1890s were many times identical to FDR's programs to get us out of the great depression.

Most Republicans advocate low taxes and little government regulation. Even if they want lots of pro-business government programs and big military, which is also big government, it's not my strange socialism that I'm looking for.

Txgangsta : Hum, sorry to burst your bubble but FDR's (and Hoover's) policies are exactly what put us in a Depression in the first place. Without their intervention, it would have been over in less than 2 years as happened 10 years before that with Warren Harding.

darthyoda : How has invading several countries in Central America and elsewhere been beneficial for "the people"? Also, how has government been directly responsible for the Tech Age? I do salute his fiscal reform AND the end of bracket creep, but his management was otherwise poor.

"Small Government doesn't mean local. It means that the government takes less interest in what the people are doing."

It also means that governments (as much as possible) stay within their constitutional limits as to avoid useless overlapping AND keep local matters locally (it even includes cities/counties vs. state-wide government).

Furthermore, Republicans are NOT the lesser of two evils - both main parties are as evil. They can't go from theory to practice, making them support most big-government policies Democrats advocate for. Bush was too much of a coward to reform Social Security, which is going to bankrupt this country.

janus :

"...FDR's (and Hoover's) policies are exactly what put us in a Depression in the first place."

Grossly debatable. Keynesian economics was not practiced by Hoover. Keynesian economics was demonstrated in the programs of FDR.

Hoover believed in Laissez Faire economics like Adam Smith. FDR did not. Harding didn't reject work programs because of a Laissez Faire mindset, he simply thought tax breaks would be more effective. That's not opposed to Keynesian economics. It's nearly opposed to Laissez Faire though. Harding manipulated the market to compensate for the slow.

For FDR, tax breaks would have done nothing. No one had incomes anyway. The manipulation had to come from a different angle.

Txgangsta : Hoover's "laissez-faire" practice IS a myth. Most of the policies he advocated for were opposed by Roosevelt... until he came to the White House. He was a technocrat, not a classical liberal; Hoover Dam was one of the first public works of importance.

Now you're right about FDR's manipulation. Using inflation, he made real wages decrease and did "slightly" help the economy, but it crashed as soon as this bubble popped. This is exactly what's happening right now, and I hope that it pops before the election so people realize that Democrats are poison for the economy, much worse than Republicans.

(Before you talk about the housing bubble: yes, the GOP did nothing and got intoxicated by the bubble. BUT, the bubble mostly got inflated under Clinton with his obsession with home ownership that dramatically lowered lending requirements.)

In addition, Harding did decrease taxes but also spending. I doubt he was "laissez-faire" but he certainly was better than Hoover

Despite the recent scandals surrounding her, I think that Hillary Clinton will become the first female president. I don't see anyone else beating her. The one person I do NOT want to see become president is Jeb Bush. Why? Because we don't need another Bush!!! George W. Bush was bad enough, we don't need another one.

gamerforlifeforever2 : We don't need another Clinton either. He helped inflating the housing bubble by forcing Mae/Mac to lower mortgage conditions.

So far - and even if I see him more as a conservative - only Rand Paul seems to stand out.

I actually saw people on all 4 corners of a street today holding up signed for some guy running for president. I was like... " it's already starting " 

Txgangsta : With all her scandals, she can't win, but if she does, I'm either restarting my beloved Confederate States of America or moving to Canada, where nothing EVER happens.

This may be a bit controversial, but I am saying it: 

With the announcement that Hillary is running for president, the only reason she'll get in is if a bunch of feminists vote for her, or because she is a woman, just like the only reason Obama got in is because of the color of his skin. 

thing1 : Not saying that race didn't have anything to do with it, but I think it didn't have as much of an influence as the Republican candidates did. In 2008, we had McCain who's plans for policy were virtually identical to George W. Bush's and then you throw in his choice for vice president, who was so brainless that it just turned into a circus. 2012, you had a man who just oozed rich superiority complex and rubbed most people who were not in the upper income class the wrong way. In the end, I am not happy with Washington during these last 2 terms. I'm not happy with Obama, but I also think that the bigger issue was not one person, but the fact that there was just nothing but locked horns between the white house and Congress. The fact that they can't work together even remotely cohesively means that it doesn't matter who the President is, nothing beneficial is going to come from them. But I am already off track. Just a quick restate and summary. Skin might have played a role, but I think the circus show of the Republican candidate of 2008 and the chauvinistic candidate of 2012 was the bigger factor. Especially in 2012, where the race thing wasn't near as much of a focus compared to 2008.

thing1 : Yes, sadly enough. -this user put something here, but best no one knows-. But if a woman runs for the GOP, all hell can break loose.

rcarter2 Yes, the GOP didn't choose the best candidates, but even with the "good ones" they couldn't have won in 2008. Race WAS the largest factor - 97 percent of African Americans voted for Obama.