|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The polls have just closed in Alaska’s Aleutian Island polling stations, which means that Election 2014 is over and Campaign 2016 is now officially underway! Even though no one has officially declared their candidacy yet, I naturally thought we needed a thread ASAP to document the atrocities.
So, what can we look forward to over the next two years? Who will show up at next year’s Iowa State Fair and try to eat a corndog in a way that doesn’t invite rude internet captions? Who are the players in this drama/farce?
The Democrats
Hillary Clinton: First runner up in a hard-fought 2008 presidential primary contest, conventional wisdom is that the nomination is hers to lose. Of course, they said the same thing in 2008 and look how that turned out. Her positives include name recognition, a solid track record in both elected and appointed office, and already knowing her way around the east wing. Oh, and one of the most popular Democratic ex-presidents is guaranteed to campaign strongly for her. Negatives mostly have to do with her age (if elected, she’d be about a year younger than Reagan was at his first inauguration) and all the existing opposition research and conspiracy mongering from her husband’s terms.
Martin O’Malley: So far the Governor of Maryland (his replacement in this post was theoretically elected tonight) is the only one who’s openly acting as if he might challenge Ms. Clinton for the nomination. Since no one has been willing to announce for 2016 before the polls close for 2014 this mostly involves appearing at high profile events in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. O’Malley’s may very well be establishing himself the only alternative to Hillary Clinton, on the possibility that Ms. Clinton decides she won’t or can’t run.
Joe Biden: He’s made a few primary attempts but was never really close. Biden obviously wants the presidency and maintains he’s perfectly fit and competent for that office. Of course, since that’s a condition of his current job what else is he going to say? Nominally further to the left (such as it is in American politics) than Ms. Clinton, Mr. Biden’s biggest negative is probably his age. On inauguration day 2017 Joe Bide will be older than Reagan was at his second inauguration.
Beyond these names, the list is even more speculative than usual. Andrew Cuomo (socially liberal but otherwise in the pocket of big business) is sometimes mentioned, as is Kirsten Gillibrand (also fairly conservative by Democratic standards, but less so since she’s been in the Senate). No one other than O’Malley seems willing to run a primary campaign whose almost certain outcome is to get crushed by Hillary.
The Republicans
Mitt Romney: Yeah, he’s a two-time loser in the presidential stakes and says he’s not interested in making it three, but there’s a persistent whisper campaign that he’s just waiting for circumstances to change. His positives are that everyone already knows him. His negatives are that two elections have demonstrated that not many people like what they know about him.
Ted Cruz: Darling of the Tea Party movement, which means he’ll have strongly dedicated footsoldiers to help him win the nomination but have to work hard to convince the rest of America that he’s not crazy in the general election. Given that his fingerprints are all over the most recent government shutdown, that seems like an uphill fight.
Marco Rubio: His positives are that he’s a foreign policy hawk who wants to kill a lot of foreigners. His negatives are his position on immigration, where he wants to allow foreigners into the country. This is a big no-no to the modern GOP.
Rand Paul: Kind of a Republican for Republicans who don’t want to admit they’re Republicans. He’s got enough quirky, off-brand libertarian positions to differentiate himself from the pack, but not enough to actually disagree with the party on most of its key issues. His biggest negatives are that religious conservatives are wary of Senator Aqua Buddha and the remaining questions about his dad’s racist newsletters.
Rick Santorum: He was a bit of joke last time around, but he stuck it out long enough to technically finish second in the 2012 primary. No one really gives him much of a chance this time around, but he’s making enough visits to Iowa and New Hampshire to show that he’s serious about his candidacy, even if no one else is. As positives go, his anti-abortion and anti-gay credentials are beyond question. Negatives include the fact that the Republican party seems to be getting less vocally anti-gay all the time, and then there’s his well known Google problem.
Jeb Bush: Postives include everything associated with the Bush name and the theoretical ability to swing Florida into the Republican column. Negatives include everything associated with the Bush name.
Chris Christie: Once possessed an ill-deserved reputation as a sensible and moderate Republican. This reputation lies in tatters once it was discovered that he was (allegedly) willing to use the powers of his office to vindictively punish political rivals/dissenters. Even Republicans are starting to wonder what he’d do if he had control of the FBI and the NSA.
Rick Perry: A strong contender in the 2012 primaries . . . until he opened his mouth. Mr. Perry proved that you can actually be too dumb to be the Republican nominee for President, something I had doubted after the 2000 primary. So what’s the solution to this public relations disaster? Spend the next four years in crash courses on current events, foreign policy, domestic affairs, and all the other stuff Americans ostensibly think their president should know? Nah! Just put some glasses on him! That’ll smarten him right up.
The (presently only theoretical) Republican primary field in 2016 strikes me the same way the 2012 field did: all of the (theoretical) candidates are flawed in some serious way that should prevent any of them from receiving the nomination, yet at the end of the process one of them has to get it.
So, did I miss anyone? (No, Sarah Palin doesn’t count. She’s never going to run for anything again. She just hints around about it so people will send money to her PAC.) What are your thoughts on the 2016 presidential election? Who would you like to see run? What issues should receive more attention?
[ 05. December 2016, 00:40: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?
From what I understand a substantial chunk, possibly a majority of the newly elected senators and representatives are bat-shit insane, and are planning to spend the next 2 years trying to repeal the AHA and impeach President Obama. This is likely to mean no governing goes on for the next 2 years anyway.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The USA will get a conservative Republican, and you and the rest of the world had better hope he's not one of the batshit crazy ones. It may be closer than the Senate votes suggest, because of the increasing importance of the votes of ethnic minorities, but I can't see any of the Democrats reversing the move to the right.
The next two years will be "block and blame Obama" time, with some generalised mudslinging at any policies which are socially generous, ecologically supportive, therefore "liberal and Democrat", rather than just "Obama aberrations". There will probably be some moves away from "Obamathink" within the Democrats as well. I guess a lot will be running scared now.
The only real danger to the election of a Republican President is that the two majorities will overplay their hand and provoke a switchback. That could happen, I suppose, if the batshit crazies get the bit between their collective teeth. But I don't think it will.
Anyways, that's a preliminary view from this side of the pond. I'm pretty gloomy about the prospects.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I wouldn't be at ALL sure of a Republican getting elected in 2016. Look what happened in 2012.
We've discussed on the Ship before the observations that were made then, which were that there is a solid block of large States that have now voted Democrat every Presidential election for the last 20 years, and that this means that the Republicans have to carry the vast majority of swing States to win. The number of electoral college votes that a Democrat can pretty much rely on is much higher than the number a Republican can pretty much rely on.
What happens in House elections is totally different, not least because of the thoroughly partisan way in which most electoral boundaries are set (only a few states AFAIK have independent commissions doing this work). Senate elections are also different because each State is of equal value for those purposes. Both of those might favour Republicans, but so long as the Democrats are popular in the north-east and on the west coast, they've got a significant advantage in Presidential races.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
The only reasons the Republicans are doing well in Congress is
A) gerrymandering of districts in the House
B) standard shift away from party of the incumbent president in the Senate
The demographics are not on their side. The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won and the second time we were in the middle of wars and people were afraid John Kerry would let bin Laden bomb their kids.
The only GOP candidates with a chance of getting centrists and minorities to vote for them are Jeb Bush and Rand Paul. But the GOP establishment does not want them and the grassroots are way to the right. None of those right-wingers has any chance of winning - Cruz, Perry, Santorum. Wall Street Republicans are still backing Christie, but he's a loudmouth bully and will not appeal to many Americans who find the East Coast aggressive attitude obnoxious. He also has more skeletons in his closet - I can assure you of that. East Coast local politics is Dirty with a capital D. Bridgegate was just the start. And I don't think Romney is enough of a masochist to run again.
Biden is very, very smart but he's a loose cannon, he doesn't stick to the script. But he's more of a politician than Obama is and I think he knows DC well enough to get stuff done. I'd vote for him or Hilary no problem.
[ 05. November 2014, 07:52: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Biden is very, very smart but he's a loose cannon, he doesn't stick to the script. But he's more of a politician than Obama is and I think he knows DC well enough to get stuff done. I'd vote for him or Hilary no problem.
Plus he was the first Biden in a thousand generations of Bidens to go to university!
It's just as well we Brits don't get the vote. Based on the OP, the Democrats are putting up Mrs Clinton, Carcetti from The Wire or the bloke who ripped off one of Neil Kinnock's speeches when running for President. So I think it's a toss up between Mrs Clinton and a write in campaign for Omar.
I can't see the Republicans winning nationally. Which is just as well, really. I'm sure it wasn't the reaction that Croesus had in mind but his list of Republican hopefuls had me dropping to the floor and imploring Jesus to deliver us from evil. Out of that little lot it's either Jeb Bush or a write in campaign for Marlo Stansfield. My name is my name!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her. Respected Senators that run and lose frequently end up being Highly Respected Senators. It's almost as if everyone says "hey, you were important enough to have a national profile!".
EDIT: And it also observed that failed candidates frequently succeed in getting the people who beat them to adopt the same policies.
[ 05. November 2014, 11:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her.
There is a downside--her claim that she is part Cherokee. She seems to have used this claim to advance her career.
Apparently the Cherokees are quite angry about it. Her claim was based mostly on family lore; when this was questioned, instead of examining the question and then saying 'Oops!, she dug in her heels.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I appreciate the differences between the Presidential race, and the Senate and House races. Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race. The House is indeed gerrymandered. And the two-Senators per State structure works differently to the Electoral College in dealing with overall votes and popularity.
The real question is, will that built in advantage be enough? Can the Democrats recover/maintain sufficient support to have a good chance of winning in 2016? I don't think they can this time; unless the GOP helps them out e.g. by mobilising the ethnic minorities against themselves. (That can't be ruled out, of course.) Turn out looks likely to be a key factor.
I'll be keeping my eyes open for the next 538 blog on the topic.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?
With the bunch who were just elected or re-elected, I'm quite happy to have them bounding around the country campaigning -- they'll do less harm that way than if they were causing trouble in Washington.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...
That's still a matter of debate.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I appreciate the differences between the Presidential race, and the Senate and House races. Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race. The House is indeed gerrymandered. And the two-Senators per State structure works differently to the Electoral College in dealing with overall votes and popularity.
The real question is, will that built in advantage be enough? Can the Democrats recover/maintain sufficient support to have a good chance of winning in 2016? I don't think they can this time; unless the GOP helps them out e.g. by mobilising the ethnic minorities against themselves. (That can't be ruled out, of course.) Turn out looks likely to be a key factor.
I'll be keeping my eyes open for the next 538 blog on the topic.
The results in the Senate races aren't all that telling. It's amazing the Democrats still held Senate seats in South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, and Louisiana in the first place. I know why they still held seats in Louisiana and West Virginia. I've got an inkling about South Dakota. Montana? I got nothing. In any event, the Republicans were supposed to win those Senate seats. The Republican performance in the Southeast might be a cause for alarm but not much. Only one Senate race should give the GOP hope for 2016 and that's Iowa. More on that below.
No...the real key here is the governors races. Scott Brown won handily in Wisconsin. Rick Snyder won in Michigan. John Kasich won in Ohio. Terry Branstad won in Iowa. A Republican even won in Illinois. Add that to Joni Ernst's win in Iowa and the Republican path to victory becomes obvious. The weakness in the Democratic blue wall is Michigan and Wisconsin. The Republicans have to win all the states won by Romney, Florida and Ohio, and then win any two of Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, or Wisconsin.
Problem for the Republicans is that all of their potential candidates are either from deep red states or political has beens. Republicans need somebody who can win in the Midwest. The Republicans need ideas that will win in the Midwest. They need to run a governor not a senator. John Kasich's win in Ohio was impressive. Republicans might as well nominate him to run against Clinton. The country wants to go back to the 1990's. Let's go.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As a foreigner and one who does not really understand how US politics work, four things strike me as really surprising.
1. How old so many of these potential candidates are - much older than Barak Obama, and much older than party leaders elsewhere have tended to be since the 1960s.
2. How much so many people seem to be driven by hatred towards Barak Obama. I know the rules don't allow him to stand again. So this shouldn't really be relevant anyway. From abroad, perhaps he's not that scintillating but it doesn't look as though he's been doing too bad a job. He's a lot better than his predecessor, and he at least tried to do something about the absence of a proper health service. Why this acrimony? To a foreigner he actually looks quite a good president.
3. How early this speculation is starting. This election is two years away. It's as though one starts thinking about Christmas in June.
4. How being able to control the two chambers, or even having been the party leader in one or the other of them doesn't seem to have anything to do with leading one's party into the presidential election.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Barnabas62: Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race.
Normally, the disadvantage democrats have in terms of low turnout during the Midterms also diminishes with the Presidental elections.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.
I'm considering registering as a Democrat just so I can vote for her in the primary.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a foreigner and one who does not really understand how US politics work, four things strike me as really surprising.
. . .
2. How much so many people seem to be driven by hatred towards Barak Obama. I know the rules don't allow him to stand again. So this shouldn't really be relevant anyway. From abroad, perhaps he's not that scintillating but it doesn't look as though he's been doing too bad a job. He's a lot better than his predecessor, and he at least tried to do something about the absence of a proper health service. Why this acrimony? To a foreigner he actually looks quite a good president.
Where I live, I see political TV ads for 2 states. All the Republicans ran anti-Obama campaigns by tying their opponents' voting records to support for Obama -- and his poll numbers are in the mid-40s. As I see it, the Republicans have successfully trashed Obama's image in the public mind, and that, coupled with a little -- OK, a lot -- of latent racism has made him a target for the loathing borne of economic misery that the poor and middle class continue to experience in this 'recovery' which boosts the fortunes of the wealthy.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
3. How early this speculation is starting. This election is two years away. It's as though one starts thinking about Christmas in June.
The poor and middle class start Christmas shopping in June or earlier. It's the only way most of us can scrape a modest Christmas together, by buying one gift at a time over many months.
The staggering costs of running even minor political campaigns mean that strenuous fund-raising efforts will have begun a couple of years ago for national campaigns for 2016.
I've been serving in my state's legislature the past 2 years, but (being unopposed) was not obliged to spend anything on campaigning; I have colleagues who spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on signs and brochures and ads to win offices which pay $100 per year plus mileage (yes, that's 'hundred').
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Porridge:
Obama's image in the public mind, and that, coupled with a little -- OK, a lot -- of latent racism has made him a target for the loathing borne of economic misery that the poor and middle class continue to experience in this 'recovery' which boosts the fortunes of the wealthy.
If that's what it takes to get progressives through the night...
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.
And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.
(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I guess that debate may well have something to say in the final outcome. The GOP will need a candidate who is able to neutralise the demographic risk and mobilise the core support. Seems a easy enough game to play during the campaign, for the sake of winning. Doesn't mean you won't get a conservative Republican in the Oval Office. Just that he or she will need to be a smart conservative Republican.
It's an obvious strategy. Is it a political impossibility, given the high stakes?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.
And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.
(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)
Who are these people voting Republican that would have voted for Obama if he were white? Only the politically blinkered believe they exist. A bigot might also believe they exist because the bigot thinks every last American in flyover country is secretly a member of the KKK even though the bigot has met precious few if any of the people the bigot judges so harshly.
What Hebrew or Greek word does your Bible translate government provided health insurance?
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Canadian media report today that $4 billion was spent on this election of your's (Maclean's, CBC), with the big spenders and advertisers are such wonderful people as the Koch brothers who aired 44,000 ads, one in ten of the total ads aired, spending $300 million. Tom Steyer was reported as spending $73 million mostly against pro-pipeline candidates.
A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?
Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.
I'm considering registering as a Democrat just so I can vote for her in the primary.
If she runs, I will have a devil of a time choosing between Warren & Clinton. Warren just might win the day for me. In many ways she seems much like Obama did in '08-- a breath of fresh air, someone who reminds us of why we became Dems in the first place. Someone who has the guts and the tenacity to enact real change that matters.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her.
There is a downside--her claim that she is part Cherokee. She seems to have used this claim to advance her career.
Apparently the Cherokees are quite angry about it. Her claim was based mostly on family lore; when this was questioned, instead of examining the question and then saying 'Oops!, she dug in her heels.
(shrugs). Well, I'm not Cherokee so ymmv. But as the parent of a Mormon convert, I'm not in a position to judge anyone relying on "family lore" to cling to flimsy claims of native American roots. There are so many many worse things you could say about most anyone on the playing field right now, it's just a giant yawn. It'll give the late-night crowd something to laugh about in the "I can see Russia from my back door" vein, but at the end of the day, I can't see it mattering a whole lot.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?
Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?
I doubt I can answer your questions with any pronouncements that cover all that landscape. I will, however, point out that a Tea Party loony who ran against my US Rep was heavily backed by the Koch brothers. The loony, Marilinda Garcia, served in the state legislature with me. She's quite pretty and her surname could possibly be expected to appeal to a growing demographic in our state. Apparently the Koch brothers believe that looks, a Hispanic surname, and the ability to smile widely, coupled with a gift for yakking interminably without ever actually saying anything would easily win the election over our frankly homely-as-a-hedge-fence but experienced, smart, and hardworking Democratic incumbent.
They were wrong.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I dunno. People have shown a remarkable capacity to obsess over the birthplace of a President...
[X-Post, I was trying to follow on from cliffdweller.]
[ 06. November 2014, 00:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I will, however, point out that a Tea Party loony who ran against my US Rep was heavily backed by the Koch brothers. The loony, Marilinda Garcia, served in the state legislature with me. She's quite pretty and her surname could possibly be expected to appeal to a growing demographic in our state. Apparently the Koch brothers believe that looks, a Hispanic surname, and the ability to smile widely, coupled with a gift for yakking interminably without ever actually saying anything would easily win the election over our frankly homely-as-a-hedge-fence but experienced, smart, and hardworking Democratic incumbent.
They were wrong.
Thank God.
The more Koch money we can throw down the sewer pipe, the better IMHO.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Canadian media report today that $4 billion was spent on this election of your's (Maclean's, CBC), with the big spenders and advertisers are such wonderful people as the Koch brothers who aired 44,000 ads, one in ten of the total ads aired, spending $300 million. Tom Steyer was reported as spending $73 million mostly against pro-pipeline candidates.
A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?
Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?
What do you think the Koch brothers want that would shock and horrify the voters who vote for the candidates supported by the Koch brothers? Money spent by PAC's doesn't bother me nearly as much as the access lobbyists have to the elected leaders. Nobody is proposing a change to that.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Hillary--possibly with Elizabeth Warren for VP.
In 2008, I voted for H in the primaries. I thought both she and Obama needed a lot more experience, but they were who we had. Interestingly, any of the candidates in the fall election would've broken a glass ceiling of some sort.
For once in my life, I got to vote for a woman for president. That means a *lot* to me. I think H has earned it, this time. She was a good secty. of state, and I think she's finally found herself. She knows DC and the White House from the inside. I think she'd do a good job.
I don't know much about Elizabeth Warren. I did see her in a great interview with David Letterman. She grew up poor, still remembers it, and doesn't want anyone else to go through that.
If E and H run against each other, they'll split the Dem. vote. If they run as a team, they might just sweep the election.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hillary--possibly with Elizabeth Warren for VP.
In 2008, I voted for H in the primaries. I thought both she and Obama needed a lot more experience, but they were who we had. Interestingly, any of the candidates in the fall election would've broken a glass ceiling of some sort.
For once in my life, I got to vote for a woman for president. That means a *lot* to me. I think H has earned it, this time. She was a good secty. of state, and I think she's finally found herself. She knows DC and the White House from the inside. I think she'd do a good job.
I don't know much about Elizabeth Warren. I did see her in a great interview with David Letterman. She grew up poor, still remembers it, and doesn't want anyone else to go through that.
If E and H run against each other, they'll split the Dem. vote. If they run as a team, they might just sweep the election.
I do agree Hillary has earned it and has the ability and experience. But she doesn't inspire us the way Obama did and I believe Warren could. Warren has less experience but what she has is stellar. And she is simply fearless. She'll go toe-to-toe with the Koch bros or the rest of that crowd.
I'm quite sure Warren & Clinton would never run against each other in the general election. They have too much respect for each other for that. They almost certainly will run against one another in the primary, which is fine-- Dems don't tend to beat one another up in the primaries the way GOP candidates do.
Whether either would be willing to take the VP slot I'm not sure.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you think the Koch brothers want that would shock and horrify the voters who vote for the candidates supported by the Koch brothers? Money spent by PAC's doesn't bother me nearly as much as the access lobbyists have to the elected leaders. Nobody is proposing a change to that.
Pretending that these are two separate issues misses the point. The reason lobbyists have the access they do is because of the money spent on campaigns by their corporate masters.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.
This seems contrary to conventional wisdom, which is that the access granted lobbyists is directly proportional to the amount of money their backers have contributed to a candidate. Why do you hold that elected officials are indifferent to campaign contributions?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.
This seems contrary to conventional wisdom, which is that the access granted lobbyists is directly proportional to the amount of money their backers have contributed to a candidate. Why do you hold that elected officials are indifferent to campaign contributions?
I don't see where Beeswax Altar is suggesting any such thing. He's simply pointing out that that is not a new problem. The rampant "dark money" opened up by Citizen's United, however, is-- and seems to have had a significant impact on the outcome of the elections. That's cause for concern. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about lobbyists as well.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.
And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.
(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)
Who are these people voting Republican that would have voted for Obama if he were white? Only the politically blinkered believe they exist. A bigot might also believe they exist because the bigot thinks every last American in flyover country is secretly a member of the KKK even though the bigot has met precious few if any of the people the bigot judges so harshly.
What Hebrew or Greek word does your Bible translate government provided health insurance?
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno. People have shown a remarkable capacity to obsess over the birthplace of a President...
Well they will reap what they sow, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and only recently gave up his Canadian citizenship. Is he a socialist spy from the North? They have free healthcare up there - gasp!
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
If I was a Republican "manager" and if this was a controlled process, then I would try to field a conservative woman. And I would try to do so slowly enough to give Hillary Clinton a chance to lose the nomination of the Democrats.
A conservative Republican woman against any Democrat man would surely win the election hands down...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
If the Republicans keep moving to the right, I can’t help feeling that the people who aren’t going to vote for them are the same ones who didn’t vote for them last time. Women. People who aren’t white. People in low paid jobs with crappy health insurance cover. These people make up a pretty hefty part of the voting public.
(Incidentally, I found it rather entertaining last time round that the Republicans claimed that get the vote out efforts amounted to dirty tricks. “We totally would have won if people had stayed at home! Is outrage!”)
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ IngoB
... as long as it's not Sarah Palin.
On Voter demographics in 2012, the Wiki article has a neat breakdown of patterns then.
Given the boomerang impact of attempts to tighten up registration processes, I'm sure the GOP Grandees are going to do better this time. Appealing to, and pandering to, the loyal core probably won't be enough. And I'm guessing that all the serious GOP candidates know that. So there are bound to be some changes this time. And they may have some influence on choice of candidate.
Unless, that is, the GOP thinks it can win simply by attacking the opposition, playing on the success of "denigrate and emasculate Obama", and the current apparent demoralisation of the Democrats. Personally, I'd have thought that was a dicier game even this time, easy to overplay and mobilise the minorities against you again.
[ 06. November 2014, 08:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ IngoB
... as long as it's not Sarah Palin.
I would bet on Senator Kelly Ayotte.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I don't suppose there's any African-American atheist lesbians who are a prospect? I just want to see how many heads explode at the mere thought of such a woman being in charge of the country.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Has Condoleezza Rice come out of the closet yet?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I doubt somebody so closely associated with Dubbya (I still remember the gaffe at some public occasion when she referred to 44 as her husband rather than her boss) could get a look-in. Dubbya's still pretty unpopular, and note that he wasn't called upon, as Clinton was for his side, to do much stumping in this campaign.
That said, she would offer a welcome serious alternative to the book-sales-touting, gay-converting, flat-taxing, birth-control-banning, legitimate-rape-promoting fools and idiots her party trolled us with last time out.
And we have to remember that she was once a Democrat.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Also a concert pianist. That definitely would rate highly in my book. Not that I have a vote.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Also worth pointing out that while we had a swing to the right for the Senate, we also had three states (well two and DC) legalize recreational marijuana.
Just a reminder that the US is a large and very diverse country when it comes to politics.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But as the parent of a Mormon convert, I'm not in a position to judge anyone relying on "family lore" to cling to flimsy claims of native American roots. There are so many many worse things you could say about most anyone on the playing field right now, it's just a giant yawn. It'll give the late-night crowd something to laugh about in the "I can see Russia from my back door" vein, but at the end of the day, I can't see it mattering a whole lot.
The problem is that in her applications to Penn and Harvard she checked the box that said she was Native American. In the site I linked to earlier, there is these paragraphs. quote:
The Boston Herald reported in April that Warren had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory and that Harvard Law School had touted her supposed lineage when the program faced doubts about faculty diversity.
{snip}
Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School.
In other words, she gained advantages by falsely claiming to be Native American. I think she honestly believed her family stories; what bothers me is that when she was offered clear proof that these stories were not true, she kept insisting they were.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...
That's still a matter of debate.
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.
Okay, a mistaken claim. The point is that confronted with very solid evidence of the mistake*, she refused to look at it. She still insists she's part Cherokee.
*The Cherokee genealogists had very extensive records.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Also worth pointing out that while we had a swing to the right for the Senate, we also had three states (well two and DC) legalize recreational marijuana.
Just a reminder that the US is a large and very diverse country when it comes to politics.
That sounds like the P J O'Rourke end of the GOP (though I have heard that even he may be a Democrat nowadays).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
