ray

there's no way to know what will happen 1 year ahead of time

Except that you live in a duopoly where the two Presidential candidates are chosen through a predetermined and structured process that virtually rules out the entry or consideration of anyone who isn't in the running right now.
So its a virtual certainty that some one in the two groups, the large circus or the 3 man medicine show , will be the nominees.
So although much may occur to change the course, there are not that many realistic options. And little that you've suggested as course changing is actually likely to change the fundamental question. "Which Presidential candidate is going to meet my needs...?"
Over half of republicans are showing their support in polls to one of Ben Carson or Donald Trump. Of them only Carson currently has an upside . Trump has too many who will never consider voting for him. (I expect that number to grow as Carson;s many foibles, peccadilloes, and generally wacky thinking are exposed.)
If the party comes to its senses and votes for a sensible candidate, Rubio is leading ...Perhaps that might change, but no one not already on the list of 11 or 12 is going to show up...
The chances of Hillary being upset are diminishing daily.

Bbauska here's the full definition, which you didn't quote:

to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable

It is the second part of the phrase which makes the word pander a negative. And which means that
meeting the needs of various minorities or as you say

Mrs Clinton is trying to provide gratification to the various minorities

is meaningfully different. If minorities want policies that provide them with economic opportunity or security those demands are good. if minorities want policies that provide a fair and equitable route to citizenship for established migrants who are undocumented that would be good. In their eyes and the eyes of their employers, friends and families...
On the other hand, pandering would be like Trumps plan to build the worlds longest fence and make someone else pay... and humanely deporting 11,000,000 people... Unreasonable ... and impossible. But this sure sounds great to the disaffected white people he attracts.

I am not a Trump supporter, so I will not address your position on that. The negative that results in the pandering being the proper term is just what you said. ILLEGAL immigration is a negative. To enter the US illegally is something that that is a crime, and thus a negative.

Are you saying she is not pandering?

freeman3 wrote:You're right about...Lincoln Chaffee. He's a bit bizarre.
Rubio's no exceptions for abortion will not play in Peoria. A hawk and extremist on abortion goes against a female candidate--he'll be lucky to lose the female vote by only 20 percentage points.

Not sure you're accurate:

Rubio would ban abortion after 20 weeks. Rubio co-sponsored a 2013 Senate bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks since fertilization, making exceptions for the life of the mother, rape or incest.http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Marco_R ... ortion.htm

Out of interest, why exactly is abortion still such a major factor in US elections ? As I understand it there's very little that an individual politician can do to restrict abortion even if they want to (correct me if I'm wrong here), so it seems odd that their stated positions, which they'll most likely never enact anyway, are such a big deal.

rickyp wrote:Unfortunately for Rubio he needs to first get the nomination and in doing so he'll take positions that will taint him with the various minority groups to the extent he'd need 80% of white men, and more than 50% of white women. And he can't get that.

As is the case 99.999999% of the time, you don't have a clue. The problem you have is that Rubio will be running against someone. That someone is not very popular. In fact, I daresay Mrs. Clinton has more name ID than Rubio. And yet:

Rubio 46, Clinton 41 (Quinnipiac)
Clinton 47, Rubio 44 (WSJ/NBC)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... s_general/

Both polls are "registered voters." "Likely voters" tend to skew more conservative. Furthermore, Clinton has a ceiling--many simply will not vote for her, not for money or anything else. She also will not have the irrational enthusiasm surrounding her of Obama. Good luck replicating Obama's turnout.

Btw, does Hills speak fluent Spanish?

And Fate?

If you think Hillary is going to do better than that,

Here's what you probably haven't considered. From a Univision Poll . (And her numbers can only improve since then ...considering she's past the Benghazi nonsense)

Marco Rubio was the only Republican candidate tested who had a higher positive than negative favorability among Latino voters, with 35% having a favorable opinion on him and 34% having unfavorable. Bush came in at 36/45, Cruz at 26/36, Paul at 22/32, Walker at 15/23, and Trump at 17/71.

Actually, her numbers are worse. She loses to Carson! Sure, she beats Trump, but he's not going to be the nominee. He's going after all of his opponents, which is not going to sit well with Republicans.

Lastly, there is a slight chance that she gets indicted. Wouldn't that be fun? If that happens, the Democrats have no one. What? Abs O'Malley? Plugs Biden?

Besides that, you made a DEMONSTRABLY FALSE assertion: you said (effectively, when looking at the numbers you claimed) Hillary would outperform Obama with Blacks and Hispanics. Either say you were wrong or shut up.

Sassenach wrote:Out of interest, why exactly is abortion still such a major factor in US elections ? As I understand it there's very little that an individual politician can do to restrict abortion even if they want to (correct me if I'm wrong here), so it seems odd that their stated positions, which they'll most likely never enact anyway, are such a big deal.

That's my argument. I'm with you.

People want to make a big deal out of a governor's position. It doesn't matter! There is very little he/she can do about it.

As for a President, he/she can appoint justices. Obama has appointed a few blindly leftist justices, which threatens to permanently tilt the Court toward more legislative action.

Rubio's personal position is pretty clear--no exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/17/rubio_r ... umstances/

Actually, Sass a candidate's position on abortion is significant because they can appoint Supreme Court justices. Right now, the court has 5 conservatives and 4 other justices. I believe 3 of those justices would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade--Alioto, Thomas, and Scalia. So if two vacancies came up with regard to the other 6 positions in the (let's say) 8 years Rubio was president then we could be pretty well assured that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. (When all is said and done the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices is one of the most significant and undervalued factor in choosing a president in general)

Of course all of the Republicans oppose the right to abortion, but most of them allow for exceptions. The fact that Rubio does not is an indication that he will press for only selecting justices that are likely to overturn Roe v. Wade (actually, the Casey decision) It is a measurement of how intense he is on the issue.

So, if Roe v Wade is overturned, then abortion will be legal in 23 states; as it was i n 1973. It would be a state decision.

Is that a problem?

It's a problem for women because they will lose the Constitutional right to make decisions regarding their body with regard to procreation. Before Roe v.Wade there were only about 4 states where women had a right to terminate a pregnancy. If Roe v Wade were overturned abortion opponents would then turn to the states.

freeman3 wrote:Actually, Sass a candidate's position on abortion is significant because they can appoint Supreme Court justices. Right now, the court has 5 conservatives and 4 other justices. I believe 3 of those justices would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade--Alioto, Thomas, and Scalia. So if two vacancies came up with regard to the other 6 positions in the (let's say) 8 years Rubio was president then we could be pretty well assured that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. (When all is said and done the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices is one of the most significant and undervalued factor in choosing a president in general).

I call bs on this. There is no way any Republican President will get anybody who supports overturning Roe past a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Actually, Sass a candidate's position on abortion is significant because they can appoint Supreme Court justices. Right now, the court has 5 conservatives and 4 other justices. I believe 3 of those justices would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade--Alioto, Thomas, and Scalia. So if two vacancies came up with regard to the other 6 positions in the (let's say) 8 years Rubio was president then we could be pretty well assured that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. (When all is said and done the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices is one of the most significant and undervalued factor in choosing a president in general).

I call bs on this. There is no way any Republican President will get anybody who supports overturning Roe past a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

That's right. He/she would have to be tight-lipped about it.

Republicans, like Graham, have consistently deferred to the President on judicial appointments, no matter how radical they were. On the other hand, Democrats demand to know a Republican-nominated person's position on stare decisis.

What about Alioto?

freeman3 wrote:What about Alioto?

What about him? http://www.npr.org/2006/01/24/5081976/j ... ion-rights

He got through the process--I am sure two more conservatives could give the right kind of answers to get through. Archduke called bs on the idea that a conservative opposing Roe v Wade could get through the nominating process. Alioto is a recent example .