|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
So hang on, it's okay to identify as Cherokee so long as you don't tell anyone about it?
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ugh. Look, I've listed myself as multiracial on any number of university sites, most of which show no clear indication that they are about to turn around and use that information in the hiring process. If they ARE using that data I've submitted, I can tell you that it's being used in a wholly negative way (prejudice in hiring still exists whatever they say). I've never gotten an interview I couldn't trace directly to a personal contact as opposed to a form. And the personal contacts are generally aware of what I look like.
Seriously, once you tell a university or any other corporation how you identify, you have very little control over where that data turns up later--sometimes to your embarrassment. I think it very likely Warren filled out a form, in the way you do, name, address, ethnicity, gender, etc., and that data goes into a database which is then pulled upon for a zillion future uses, some of them unexpected. (I filled out my maiden name on the first form I ever did for graduate school and then was astonished to find that every document I got from the school henceforth, from fundraisers to transcripts to alumni mailings, insisted on hailing me as Lamb Formerly Chopped. I mean, what? And I couldn't get it changed, as by the time I noticed, they said it was in too many places to bother.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
Sincerely, Lamb STILL Formerly Chopped my life long.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Trying to return to the OP, Hillary seems the front runner for the DNC, and she certainly has waited long enough for the opportunity. Given the choice between her and Elizabeth Warren, I'd hope that registered dems would choose experience and political savvy over youth and energetic speeches this time around. I'm afraid that the current POTUS has spoiled the DNC's chances of getting another candidate to the White House, but they might have a chance if the current crop of GOP congress people are able to push through some unpopular legislation (esp. if they manage to divert more wealth to the wealthy and away from the rest of us).
It's early to tell for the GOP, but I suspect they'll do what they did in 2012 and 2008 and nominate Chris Christie. He's moderate to quasi liberal now (well, at least he acknowledges man-made global warming) and I'm sure he can gin up enough conservative rhetoric to convince the right-er leaning members of his party that he's both electable and actually a conservative.
During the bridge-gate scandal the talk radio pundits backed off of him quite a bit, and Glenn Beck went as far as to say that he wouldn't endorse him if he did win the nomination (but he will, I'm sure). They all like Ted Cruz a lot, especially after he shut down the evil guvmint; but he's too volatile for the overwhelming majority of republican voters to trust.
YMMV
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
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.
Sigh.
Where is the next Tampico IL favorite son?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Given the choice between her and Elizabeth Warren, I'd hope that registered dems would choose experience and political savvy over youth and energetic speeches this time around.
I'll give you political experience, but Clinton is 67 and Warren is 65.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I don't think Elizabeth Warren is going to challenge Hillary Clinton in the primary. Bernie Sanders appears to be making noise about running against Hillary in the Democratic primary even though technically he isn't a Democrat. Hillary doesn't excite my progressive facebook friends but Bernie does.
Sanders is 73 which means he would be 75 upon taking office. He's on his second term as Senator after serving 8 terms in the House and 4 terms as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. His candidacy would offer progressives a true alternative to those of Clinton. Bernie Sanders doesn't have a snowball chance in hell of winning the primary.
Question is do progressives want a token primary challenge to Clinton. On the plus side, a challenge from the Left will force Hillary Clinton to seriously address the issues important to progressives. On the other hand, a challenge from the Left will force Hillary Clinton to seriously address the issues important to progressives.
Now, the Democrats are determined to give Hillary Clinton her opportunity to run for president in a general election. Few people of any political persuasion are in love with her. I don't get it. Democrats should nominate Amy Klobuchar. She has all the same policy positions as Clinton and she's likeable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by irish_lord99:
It's early to tell for the GOP, but I suspect they'll do what they did in 2012 and 2008 and nominate Chris Christie. He's moderate to quasi liberal now (well, at least he acknowledges man-made global warming) and I'm sure he can gin up enough conservative rhetoric to convince the right-er leaning members of his party that he's both electable and actually a conservative.
Bridgegate is too much of a liability for Chris Christie. Ted Cruz is scum. Jeb Bush is a has been and missed his opportunity to be president when he lost the 1994 governors election to Lawton Chiles and George W. Bush beat Ann Richards. Rick Perry is an idiot. Mitt Romney is a two time loser. Rick Santorum hasn't held elected office in years. That leaves Marco Rubio and Rand Paul from the OP. My money would be on Rand Paul. I stopped taking Rubio seriously after the stupid comment about Republicans not needing any new ideas because they had an idea called America and it still worked. Of the Republicans beloved by the Tea Party, Mike Lee would be my choice. However, 2016 would not be the year to run a senator for president. Republicans have to run one of their governors.
Now, if the Republicans let me control the legislative agenda for the next two years, they would pass bills increasing the minimum wage, raise the earned income tax credit, forgive some student loans, and pass sentencing reform. Democrats couldn't oppose them. Obama would sign them. Hillary Clinton couldn't claim a bit of credit for any of it. After that, they would attack all of unpopular parts of Obamacare and put the Democrats on the defensive. Then, the Republicans could run a senator for president.
--------------------
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
Beeswax Altar--
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.
Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.
If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That leaves Marco Rubio and Rand Paul from the OP.
You might be right, and Rubio's ethnic background would work to his advantage in the general election.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Beeswax Altar--
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.
Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.
If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.
Just because they voted for her doesn't mean they love her. More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton. I believe somebody like Amy Klobuchar would do better in the general election.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Beeswax Altar--
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.
Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.
If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton.
What is the quantitative basis for this assertion? "Love" is difficult to measure quantitatively.
[ 07. November 2014, 12:19: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton.
What is the quantitative basis for this assertion? "Love" is difficult to measure quantitatively.
Indeed. But my sense is Beeswax Altar is right. I've always been a huge Clinton fan. While I"m not prepared to vote for someone just because I've been waiting for a woman president (Prez. Palin, anyone?) I have been waiting to vote for her. But I would be one who find more to be excited about, more to be optimistic about Warren than Clinton. She may be newer to the national stage, but she has a good, strong, history of public service and an excellent record. "Cherokeegate" seems like small potatoes compared to the issues that dog Clinton. I think she's electable. More than that, I think she would do enormous good as President.
--------------------
"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:
Now, if the Republicans let me control the legislative agenda for the next two years, they would pass bills increasing the minimum wage, raise the earned income tax credit, forgive some student loans, and pass sentencing reform. Democrats couldn't oppose them. Obama would sign them.
It's interesting that your suggested to key to GOP success involves passing a large chunk of the Democratic agenda that the GOP has always opposed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Take a page out of the Clinton playbook. Student loan forgiveness wasn't part of the so called stimulus package. Republicans have supported raising the EITC in the past. I'd also encourage them to force Obama to make a choice on the Keystone pipeline.
--------------------
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:
Republicans have supported raising the EITC in the past.
That's a hard sell when the most recent Republican presidential candidate essentially called those using the EITC a bunch of lazy, shiftless moochers who could never be convinced to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives". Most past Republican "support" for the EITC was as a bargaining chip to leverage budget cuts elsewhere.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
So?
Every time the Republicans win an election, the supposedly impartial talking heads tell them the voters want them to compromise and work with the Democrats. When Democrats win, it's a mandate for change. Whatever. Give them compromise as defined by Barack Obama.
--------------------
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:
Every time the Republicans win an election, the supposedly impartial talking heads tell them the voters want them to compromise and work with the Democrats. When Democrats win, it's a mandate for change.
That observation seems to be the opposite of reality.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I don't know how one determines the reality of anything based on a tweet of past covers of a moribund magazine.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....
That strikes me as a very good question. Is there anyone who's actually going to have a vote in this election who is prepared to have a go at answering it?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.
Clown cars, start your engines.
--------------------
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
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men.
Around here I run into more Hillary haters than lovers. And I mean haters. Some of them nice liberal feminist men who just have some kind of personal thing against her.
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....
It's more important to me to have a good president. I'll likely vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate, but I kind-of hope she isn't. I don't think her winning the presidency would be the feminist victory that others seem to think it would be. And I'd like to stop fighting Vietnam in our public discourse at some point.
Also, realistically, I think a female Republican candidate has a better chance becoming the first woman president.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Nothing about Hillary Clinton to excite progressives with her Wall Street connections and relative hawkishness. Certainly nothing about her excites social conservatives. Nothing about her excites libertarians. For populists, you can't get more establishment than Hillary Clinton.
So...Hillary has a chance because:
-she might be more moderate than either her progressive challenger or Republican opponent
-nostalgia for the 90's
-some would like to see a female president
But, few people really love Hillary Clinton. As saysay points out, some people hate Hillary Clinton. She has lots of political experience. However, she's only an average candidate.
I don't think any of the Republican candidates are quaking in their boots thinking Hillary Clinton is an unstoppable juggernaut.
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'd agree there's nothing to excite progressives about Hilary Clinton. The last time this happened a relatively minor politician managed to win the Democratic nomination in the vacuum of that lack of excitement.
Of course, that's before we see what crazies show up in the Republican primary. That's always depressing.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
-she might be more moderate than either her progressive challenger or Republican opponent
I think this is a pretty key point. We've seen what happens with Romney, for example, when a candidate swings out to one side to win the nomination then tries to swing back to the middle for the presidential election, which is where you need to be (Tea Party supporters notwithstanding).
If Clinton sticks to being moderate, that might not make some more leftish parts of the Democrats happy, but it seems to me that being a moderate Democrat is less of a problem in the Democrats than being a moderate Republican is a problem in the Republicans.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Unless Hillary runs unopposed in the Democratic primary and faces no challenge from her left, she will be in the same boat as Romney. I doubt she will be that good at it. Then again, she will have the media to help her unlike last time when they abandoned her for Barack Obama. Well, George Stephanopoulos didn't.
--------------------
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
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.
Clown cars, start your engines.
Oh jeez, I'd forgot about him. He was all the buzz a while back on conservative radio. He's too similar to a televangelist to do well in the general, IMO.
Another conservative to split the tea party vote and nominate a moderate in the primary.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.
Clown cars, start your engines.
Oh jeez, I'd forgot about him. He was all the buzz a while back on conservative radio. He's too similar to a televangelist to do well in the general, IMO.
Another conservative to split the tea party vote and nominate a moderate in the primary.
Yep, hence the clown car reference. He has zero chance; why bother? The Moral Majority hasn't quite taken on board the notion that (a) they're no longer a majority, if they ever were, and (b) given some of their more prominent figures, they don't look especially moral to That Other Majority.
--------------------
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
Dr. Carson doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of winning the nomination. Somebody has to fill the black conservative candidate roll left vacant by Alan Keyes and Herman Cain. Ben Carson will make a name for himself so that he can make some money.
--------------------
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
I doubt Carson seriously needs a bunch of money--he's a brilliant, famous surgeon who's saved lots of kids.
I still have a hard time reconciling his crazy political beliefs with the above.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And now we've got a surprise, longshot entry into the Democratic field, former Senator Jim Webb.
quote:
Former Virginia senator Jim Webb on Wednesday evening announced that he is launching an exploratory committee to consider running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.
"Over the past few months thousands of concerned Americans from across the political spectrum have urged me to run for president," he said in a video released on YouTube Wednesday. "I have decided to launch an exploratory committee to examine whether I should run for president in 2016. I made this decision after reflecting on numerous political commentaries."
<snip>
The announcement came as a surprise to political watchers. Webb, who had said previously that he was considering a presidential run, is the first potential Democratic candidate to launch an exploratory committee. It is unclear if his announcement will precipitate other Democratic exploratory committees in the near future.
Maybe there will be more contenders for the Democratic nomination than people think.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Jim Webb will be a good foil for Hillary Clinton. He's a former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan and a war hero who opposed the War in Iraq. His political political positions are also more populist than Hillary Clinton's. However, Jim Webb is a bit older than Hillary Clinton and is reportedly not well liked by those in both parties who have served with him.
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
She claimed Cherokee ancestry though her mother. The census reports consistently listed her mother as white.
Moo
Census reports don't go into details of mixture, though, do they? I mean, if someone asked me about my national heritage I'd want to tell them I was half-English with a fair amount of Irish believed to be in the other half, and a suspected dash of Cornish but we can only find that bloke's marriage certificate in London where he says he was from St Ives but we've not found anything to verify that claim... but I doubt there's a box for that.
My first paying job was to digitize the 1851 and 1861 census returns for Augusta Township in Canada West (now Ontario) and it was fascinating. The form asked for place of birth and religion and the census taker usually put ethnicity for place of birth and one could not count on what they might inscribe. We encountered families where one generation would be counted as "coloured" and the children not. Other families were counted as "Indian" but not everyone in the household. We wondered if this meant that one parent was First Nations and the other not, but there was one case where two children were annotated as twins, one Indian, and the other not! One household featured a father with a well-known local Mohawk family name marked as "scotch" and his Pennsylvania Dutch Loyalist-named wife as "half-breed."
We put this down to incompetence on the part of the census taker, as we did that the same family featured different spellings of the family name (e.g. Swerdfager, Schwerdfeger, Shwerdfair all found among a half-dozen living at the same address).
In other words, do not rely solely on the documents as sometimes family tradition can make more sense (even if we found information that surprised one well-known established family, that their ancestors were not the Loyalists of whom they boasted, but were self-emancipated slaves from Kentucky. The paterfamilias, stunned by this, then stood and said that they now had something quite different to be proud of).
My own RL surname is spelled in a way which is frequently found on our local reserve and while supply teaching many years ago, two of the Mohawk kids peered at my blue eyes and fair hair and asked, "Sir, are you Indian?" I told them that, while I had some Six Nations blood, it was so far back as to be not a factor in how I saw myself. They began to argue, one saying that I didn't look Indian and the other settled it by saying that you couldn't always tell, as there was a lot of bad blood at Akwesasne. I turned their thoughts back to their copies of Hamlet.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In other words, do not rely solely on the documents as sometimes family tradition can make more sense...
A good friend has some Cherokee blood - a great grandmother she knew while growing up I think - but has always been recorded as "white". (This might be related to having a family name of Custer.) Certainly the record keeping on such matters can be quite spotty, especially for those of mixed race born out of wedlock.
Not that family tradition is always correct, either - chunks of mine are missing, parts are known to be inaccurate, and at one point we simply assumed that the man who contributed my surname had come out West and changed his name to hide his past.
Most of the forms I've had to fill out ask how you describe yourself in terms of race, not the details of your actual ancestry (some of which I can only guess at.) In some cases that can change over time.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I came across this entry at the "GOPlifer" blog at the Houston Chronicle website. The basic gist is that unfavorable demographic and electoral trends prevent any Republican candidate from realistically obtaining the White House in 2016.
From my perspective, I think Chris Ladd is reading too much into the mid-term results. It's almost impossible to project mid-term results into presidential year turnout. For example, Mitt Romney carried West Virginia by a margin of 26.8 percentage points in 2012, yet we're supposed to believe (according to Mr. Ladd's map) that the state is up for grabs in 2016 because of close mid-term results this year? Or that Nevada, which Obama carried by a much slimmer margin of 6.7 percentage points in 2012, is completely out of reach for the GOP in 2016? I don't think the American electorate has shifted that far in two years.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I would agree that it's hard to project from the mid terms any Democratic victory. For example He dismisses Wisconsin reelection of the Governor as irrelevant. I think it will point to a seriously contested state rather than a reliably blue presidential one. You have a Republican administration with access to a lot of Koch funding. I could easily see it turning Red with a bit of gerrymandering and uninspired Democratic voters.
The Democrats are not showing any will to fight or win. It's hard to complain about aging white voters being the Republican bloc and watch Clinton be the likely Democratic candidate. The Obama style doesn't seem likely to forge much of a good track record for incumbent Democrats in Congress.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
A lot will depend on turnout, and someone who can energise the less-likely-to-vote can help their party across the board. (Ballot initiatives often get used for this as well.)
Nationally the average turnout in the midterm election was something like 38%. That leaves a lot of room for shifts depending on who in the remaining 62% decides to show up at the polls.
(And Oregon, with universal vote-by-mail, had 67% turnout, which is down a bit from expected.)
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
For example He dismisses Wisconsin reelection of the Governor as irrelevant.
Speaking of which, Scott Walker is much loved by conservative commentators as a very Reagan-esq possibility for 2016. Any thoughts on that? He got some bad press a while back for how he handled the teachers unions in Wisconsin, but he's been able to turn their budget around from a significant deficit into a noteworthy surplus.
I don't know if he'd have a chance in the general election, but he's an old-school conservative's wet dream.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I came across this entry at the "GOPlifer" blog at the Houston Chronicle website. The basic gist is that unfavorable demographic and electoral trends prevent any Republican candidate from realistically obtaining the White House in 2016.
From my perspective, I think Chris Ladd is reading too much into the mid-term results. It's almost impossible to project mid-term results into presidential year turnout. For example, Mitt Romney carried West Virginia by a margin of 26.8 percentage points in 2012, yet we're supposed to believe (according to Mr. Ladd's map) that the state is up for grabs in 2016 because of close mid-term results this year? Or that Nevada, which Obama carried by a much slimmer margin of 6.7 percentage points in 2012, is completely out of reach for the GOP in 2016? I don't think the American electorate has shifted that far in two years.
This is a telling quote from that article.
quote:
Vote suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. Eventually Democrats will help people get the documentation they need to meet the ridiculous and confusing new requirements. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races. Meanwhile we kissed off minority votes for the foreseeable future.
Earlier in the thread I was thinking that the GOP would surely find a candidate whose primary aim was to stop "kissing off" the votes of ethnic minority groups. I think it is probably true that the GOP cannot win unless and until they repent of that "kissing off". That requires policy shifts and modifications which the GOP heartland might initially hard to swallow at best, anathema at worst.
It's somewhat redolent of the Old Labour/New Labour arguments of the 90's in the UK. The Labour pragmatists recognised two things.
1. That Old Labour had become unelectable, even though it was a lot easier to sell Old Labouring to the faithful.
2. So they had to find some way of moving the party policies more towards the centre, even centre-right, while retaining sufficient of the old stuff to keep the faithful in line.
Unless the GOP grasps an analagous "mirror-image" lesson and finds a way of meeting its challenges, it probably can kiss goodbye to the White House in 2016. Earlier I was assuming at least one candidate who had a chance of nomination would be bound to see that. After reading more about the potential candidates, I'm not so sure. I think the GOP may well still be stuck with its WASPish dreams.
The only alternative I can see is that the GOP grandees may be quite happy to play "we'll win the House, keep the Senate, and therefore emasculate any democratic President (even if that President is a woman)" until they can find something else that will work better. If so, the US may be in for more of the same, whichever Democrat gets in.
[ 25. November 2014, 11:19: 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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
It seems to me that the terms of presidential trade are moving against the Republicans, just as LBJ's civil rights legislation laid the grounds for Republican dominance. The reason for the change, of course, is the significantly increasing registration and participation of non-white electors, especially Hispanics. Obama, for example, would have been comfortably defeated in the College without them in both elections. Obama's move on immigration is a poisoned chalice for the Republicans as it threatens to consolidate Hispanics in the Democrat Presidential coalition and/or to divide Republicans. Furthermore, I suspect the supporters of Obamacare, though a minority, are more likely to allow its defence to influence their vote than critical Democrats to desert.
If the Democrats select Hilary Clinton ISTM she will consolidate the feminine (more than -ist) bias to her party, and her record will make it difficult for her to be portrayed as Radic-Lib. At the same time I don't see how the Republicans can select a candidate to swim against the demographic tide let alone a Clinton.
Still, maybe in 2016 Dewey Wins!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
Another potential Republican candidate considering a move in 2016: Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 50 company.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The words "snowball's chance in hell" come to mind.
She didn't do a great job at HP, and she was forced out of the job. But that's not the best part. Anyone from outside California who missed her demon sheep video when she ran for Senate here in 2010 should check it out. Then tell us if you think she should be president.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
RuthW: She didn't do a great job at HP, and she was forced out of the job.
To me, this sounds like she has a good chance of being nominated as the Republican candidate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.
So Carly may have as much of a shot as Mitt (who, I hear, is being begged to run again).
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I suspect the supporters of Obamacare, though a minority, are more likely to allow its defence to influence their vote than critical Democrats to desert.
I doubt they will be minority by 2016. The key parts of the legislation only came into effect this year. Yet already the tide is shifting as more and more middle- and low-income Americans are discovering that it is far from the Big Bad Wolf of Government Tyranny they've been led to expect. If AFA is able to continue w/o significant GOP dismantling (a big if, sadly) by 2016 I expect it will be part of the comfortable middle-class safety net that is considered politically off-limits. The big question will not be whether or not people like AFA-- it will be whether or not GOP will be able to successfully induce collective amnesia to forget the lies they spent 6 years weaving (again, sadly, they've proven to be quite adept at this sort of smoke-and-mirrors).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.
So Carly may have as much of a shot as Mitt (who, I hear, is being begged to run again).
I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.
Bingo.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
