Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001320
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
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.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
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.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
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').
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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...
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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!
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
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!”)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ 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 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ IngoB
... as long as it's not Sarah Palin.
I would bet on Senator Kelly Ayotte.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Has Condoleezza Rice come out of the closet yet?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Also a concert pianist. That definitely would rate highly in my book. Not that I have a vote.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
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
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
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).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
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
Is there an American edition of Who Do You Think You Are? It's one of the things about the show that's quite interesting, how the stories handed down in families often to turn out to be true, but also that some of them are partly true but a little garbled (such as a couple of different facts getting mashed together).
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Callan:
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.
Actually, the John McCain isn't a natural born citizen card was already in the works because John McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone. Nobody would have claimed McCain was a Muslim because McCains father isn't a Muslim and his school records from Indonesia don't list him as being a Muslim. Chances are very good another conspiracy theory about John McCain would have arisen in due time. Conspiracy theorists always come up with something to hang on the president.
Now, the question here is how many of those people who claim Obama was a Muslim and not a citizen would have voted for him even if they didn't have the slightest doubt about his religion or place of birth.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Moo,
I've been looking at this Elizabeth Warren Cherokee business.
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.
Which isn't the same thing.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
Nice one
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Moo, I am part Cherokee, but none of the official people will acknowledge it, papers and family history--and physical resemblances--notwithstanding. My ancestors, like so many others, missed out on the Dawes Roll thing. In our case we applied too early and then didn't reapply--IIRC there were several years worth of applications where this happened to people, so much so that the gen. research sites suggest alternative methods for those caught in this bind. But that isn't going to get me tribal recognition regardless of what I prove. Great-great-granddad didn't sign up properly and so we missed out on land ownership, among other things (which is the humorous example I use with students to remind them to sign my attendance sheet!). There are also plenty of tribes (since Warren has claimed two) that won't officially recognize people who don't have a certain percentage of Indian blood, which means that in one generation you can go from accepted to "go away." There is also the problem of the freedmen--people (often black) who lived with the tribes and sometimes intermarried, who were Cherokee or whatever in all ways except birth--there are fights about how to designate these people and their descendants. Do they count as Indian or not?
Indian gen. research is complicated by the fact that some families have generations that purposely hid their identity for reasons of shame or racism. Grandma V did this, and the family history was whispered in corners. Easy not to know if no one whispered to you! like some of Warren's cousins. In my case, Grandma's mother was still living and damn proud of her ethnicity when I questioned her (not too pleased with daughter's hushhush attempt, which probably contributed to their alienation over the years). But what if she'd been dead already? I would never have known they sent her to Indian school.
I'm guessing at least half of those with Indian ancestry are in similar nonprovable boats. And I am worse than Warren as I have always checked the Indian box on forms, and even benefitted from cultural enrichment programs in primary school, despite having even today no official "proof" of my ancestry. (And I refrain from allowing school pubs etc to designate me as first Indian whatever, just as Warren did, because I'm embarrassed to do so when I retain neither the language nor the culture nor anything but blood by my generation. Too embarrassing to claim a distinction that should go to someone with a clear and living tie to the modern tribes.)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.
Which isn't the same thing.
Here is some evidence.
Even if her family story were true, she is only 1/32 Cherokee. This should not qualify her for affirmative action. I would have no problem with her claiming to be Cherokee if she had not claimed special benefits.
Moo
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I can't find anything saying she ended up in affirmative action or any other program (unlike me). Could you direct me?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Your link goes to a woman who claims that if you aren"t enrolled in one of 3 official groups, you simply aren"t Cherokee. Which is a bald assertion, as well as nonsense (since new applicants would logically go from being "not Cherokee" to "Cherokee" as soon as accepted, despite having undergone no ontological change.)
I mean, she"s entitled to assert such things, but I see no reason why anyone else should accept her assertion.
Drat this sprained thumb!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.
Which isn't the same thing.
Here is some evidence.
Even if her family story were true, she is only 1/32 Cherokee. This should not qualify her for affirmative action. I would have no problem with her claiming to be Cherokee if she had not claimed special benefits.
Moo
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
And like Lamb Chopped, I haven't seen anything in my research this evening that demonstrates Warren claimed special benefits. As far as I can see, she made the claim after being employed, not before, and in fact it's her failure to claim any special benefit while a student that has people saying she's been inconsistent.
[ 06. November 2014, 13:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PS, At the very least, none of the people in that "evidence" appear to be the person married in 1884 that was at the centre of other discussions I saw.
It feels a bit like pointing at all my great-great-great-grandparents who never claimed to be Cornish to refute the particular one who did so claim.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Let's say she is wrong, and she has no ancestors who either are Cherokee or have lived as Cherokee.* As long as she truly believed she was Cherokee, surely it was reasonable for her to accept aid as Cherokee. And considering how much valid debate there is about what it really means to be Cherokee (thinking of Lamb Chopped's post as an excellent example of this) why on earth would she automatically take other people's opinion of whether she's Cherokee above what she knows from relatives she trusts?
*Avoiding debate about what it means to be Cherokee.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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!
I don't understand this.
1. If the accusation is that you have to have been born a US citizen on US soil to be president, how come this person can be a candidate at all? After all, until recently he has owed allegiance to the lineal descendant of George III.
2. Going back to Barak Obama, am I right that the accusation by the conspiracy theorists isn't that he is barred because Hawaii isn't really in the US - even though the rest of us all think it is - but that he wasn't really born there at all and the records have been faked? Presumably this was by someone who had a strange foreknowledge that in 48 years time this small baby was going to run for president.
3. If the US is a secular state, why would being a Moslem - if he were one which it seems very clear to everyone else that he isn't - bar one from being president?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is some evidence. ...
I don't know anything about the issue behind this, but what a seriously malevolent site.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya. Being a Muslim wouldn't disqualify Barack Obama or anybody else from serving as president. Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
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
Nope, it was 5-4.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by seekingsister:
[qb] Going back to Barak Obama, am I right that the accusation by the conspiracy theorists isn't that he is barred because Hawaii isn't really in the US - even though the rest of us all think it is - but that he wasn't really born there at all and the records have been faked? Presumably this was by someone who had a strange foreknowledge that in 48 years time this small baby was going to run for president.
Yes, that is the way the conspiracy runs. Jon Stewart and many others have had a field day just basically running thru the implications of the conspiracy theory-- which not only involves his father plotting this long, involved 48 year plot and then leaving the scene, but also involves the knowing cooperation of a huge web of government officials from the governor of Hawaii on down. The fact that there are, in fact, people who actually believe this is... well, let's just say, remarkable.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the US is a secular state, why would being a Moslem - if he were one which it seems very clear to everyone else that he isn't - bar one from being president?
No official bar, just the usual "electability" questions in a deeply "religious" (in some sense) nation.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya.
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
I've wondered why this was never brought up when Mitt's dad was trying to get the nomination. (He was born in a Mormon settlement in Mexico.)
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
It was.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
I've wondered why this was never brought up when Mitt's dad was trying to get the nomination. (He was born in a Mormon settlement in Mexico.)
I assume that's what it means, rather than that it bars those born by caesarian section, i.e. like Macduff "from his mother’s womb untimely ripped."
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.
The 'birtherism' nuttiness is merely a thin veil for racism. Which is why it is important for the fantasy birth place to be Kenya. It would never do for the late Mr. Obama to have his future-president son in, say, Belgium or Canada.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya. Being a Muslim wouldn't disqualify Barack Obama or anybody else from serving as president. Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.
I am not a fan of Barack Obama (not a fan of any politicos, actually) but this is something I really don't get - the so-called "Birther" position.
My query is - Obama's mother was unquestionably a US citizen - surely, whatever the nationality of his father, wherever he was born, wherever he later moved to, wherever he was schooled, he inherits US citizenship through her (to say otherwise would be to say that if a female US diplomat serving in, say, Germany, gave birth outside of the US embassy or certain military bases in a foreign country with or without a named father) then that child would NOT be a "natural born US citizen) which seems absurd.
I have also asked the question on sites considerably less Obama-friendly than this one and even the most hard-line anti-Obamaists conclude that the "Birther" stance doesn't hold water (which makes me wonder why they even bother pushing that angle but hey).
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
The "birther" thing is not based in reality, so it will be fun to ask why Ted Cruz qualifies to run for president and see them splutter to explain.
Kenyan birth or not, Obama has never been accused of being a dual citizen to my knowledge - unlike Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann. Having an allegiance to a foreign country (and in Bachmann's case a choice she made as an adult) surely is more of an issue than being born to an American woman abroad.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.
I believe he was born in the Canal Zone, which was U.S. territory at the time.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It was. And his parents were unquestionably US citizens -- I believe his father was a Navy officer. Nevertheless it was not an issue for McCain in any way. Because of his skin color.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.
The 'birtherism' nuttiness is merely a thin veil for racism. Which is why it is important for the fantasy birth place to be Kenya. It would never do for the late Mr. Obama to have his future-president son in, say, Belgium or Canada.
The issue WAS raised about John McCain. You seem to be under the impression that John McCain and his followers made a big deal about Obama's birthplace. John McCain did not. The people who did weren't and aren't big fans of John McCain either. The highest profile person to make an issue of this was Donald Trump who frequently makes a big deal about possibly running for president in order to gin up interest in The Apprentice. Obama's father was from Kenya. Why claim Obama was born in Canada or Belgium?
Here is the wikipedia article on the natural born citizen clause including a list of presidential candidates whose eligibility under the natural born citizen clause has been questioned. Barack Obama was not the first. One of the arguments even assumed he was born in Hawaii.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The issue WAS raised about John McCain.
Not to the degree it was about Obama - not even close.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
That's because Obama won the election and McCain did not.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
No way that it's just that. It was a big issue during the campaign re Obama the way it just wasn't re McCain. I didn't even know that McCain was born out of the country until I read this thread. And I paid attention to McCain because I liked him before he ran for president. At one point even thought I would vote for someone like him for president. So if it had been discussed even half as much as it was discussed re Obama, I definitely think I'd have heard it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That's because Obama won the election and McCain did not.
The view from outside was that it was all about race and racism.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
Nice one
Seconded. The tclune cutting edge at work. Nice to see you again, Tom.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
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.
Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also a concert pianist. That definitely would rate highly in my book. Not that I have a vote.
And Condi should stick with that--exclusively.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
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.
Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.
Except a small number of Hawaiians, but for entirely different motives!
At least it's now acknowledged the original takeover was unlawful.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
Plug "McCain's citizenship questioned" into a search engine. Or read the Snopes.com article.
[ 06. November 2014, 20:46: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
That is a list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation. She claimed Cherokee ancestry through her mother.
quote:
And like Lamb Chopped, I haven't seen anything in my research this evening that demonstrates Warren claimed special benefits. As far as I can see, she made the claim after being employed, not before, and in fact it's her failure to claim any special benefit while a student that has people saying she's been inconsistent.
Here are three snippets from this site which I linked to earlier. 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}
But Penn’s 2005 Minority Equity Report identified her as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority.
{snip}
Harvard hired Warren for a temporary position in 1992, and the law school reported a Native American woman on its federally mandated affirmative-action report. The program did not report a Native American woman for 1993 through 1995, during which time Warren was back at Penn — she had spurned Harvard’s initial offer of a tenured position, according to a Globe report.
As I said before, I have no problem with Warren honestly believing that she had Cherokee ancestry and listing it on applications, etc. My problem is that she refused to discuss the matter with the Cherokee genealogists and tribal leaders. It is one thing to make an honest mistake, even if you benefit from it, and another to refuse to consider any evidence that it was a mistake.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know anything about the issue behind this, but what a seriously malevolent site.
As I said in my first post on this topic, the Cherokees are very angry--as angry as black people would be if they learned that a white person had claimed to be black in order to benefit from affirmative action.
Moo
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
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.
Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
If by mentioned, you mean filing a federal lawsuit challenging his eligibility then yes it's been mentioned.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
When Madeleine Albright found out she had Jewish ancestry (while she was SoS, IIRC) and mentioned it, some in the American Jewish community were very suspicious, thinking she was making it up for some sort of political gain.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
That is a list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation. She claimed Cherokee ancestry through her mother.
My point is on her mother's side she has 2 grandparents, 4 great-grandparents, 8 great-great-grandparents and 16 great-great-great-grandparents. Are we even looking at the right ones here? Because we sure as heck aren't looking at a COMPLETE list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation.
[ 06. November 2014, 21:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
Nope, it was 5-4.
Yes. The 4 were a small sign of *some* sanity on the court. The 5 should've been fired--it wasn't their decision to make.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
She claimed Cherokee ancestry though her mother. The census reports consistently listed her mother as white.
Moo
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sorry, I went one generation too far. But it immediately struck me that there is only 1 entry per generation, which is clearly wrong. There is one great-great-grandfather listed. Even restricting to her mother's side, there should be 4-great-great-grandfathers and 4 great-great-grandmothers listed.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
As I said in my first post on this topic, the Cherokees are very angry--as angry as black people would be if they learned that a white person had claimed to be black in order to benefit from affirmative action.
No. That is evidence that a person or persons unknown for some reason known to them has sufficient personal dislike of Mrs Warren to set up a blogsite to express that dislike. The website is designed simply so as to encourage other people to dislike her too.
Look, I'm a foreigner. I don't know who Mrs Warrant is. Before this thread, I'd never heard of her. Unless she becomes the next US president in two years time, it's quite possible I won't hear of her again. But I can tell this from the way the website sets itself up and presents its case.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Part of what complicates things is that, at the time people started paying attention you these things, several tribes had unified to create the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee nation was comprised of a huge hunk of the southeast and midwest-- huge. So a lot of people who do have distant Native American ancestry might be inclined to say they are part Cherokee, as that gives a better chance at technical accuracy
One of my great grandparents had a Native American wife, and my best guess at the tribe based on her dress in the pic I saw was ?? Navajo, maybe? But the family has always called her " Cherokee." And I didn't even know she existed till I was 27. Just before I married.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
If her mother had any Cherokee ancestry, then Elizabeth has only half as much. If her mother did not have enough Indian ancestry to list it on a census form, Elizabeth, with only half as much, should not have listed it on any application.
I read a lot more about this two years ago when the subject first came up. I don't remember what all the websites were, but I read Warren's side as well as the Cherokees. The Cherokees were far more convincing, and I hold it very much against Warren that she refused to talk to them.
Moo
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I don't fuss either way about E's ancestry. However, maybe her mom thought it was wiser not to claim Cherokee on the census?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If her mother had any Cherokee ancestry, then Elizabeth has only half as much. If her mother did not have enough Indian ancestry to list it on a census form, Elizabeth, with only half as much, should not have listed it on any application.
I read a lot more about this two years ago when the subject first came up. I don't remember what all the websites were, but I read Warren's side as well as the Cherokees. The Cherokees were far more convincing, and I hold it very much against Warren that she refused to talk to them.
Moo
But it doesn't work this way. The census forms ask YOU to identify what you are, and until very recently, they forced you to pick a single category. Thus most of my ancestors picked "white" (including those who were 50% Cherokee, no doubt) because you had only two choices--and one was considerably more socially acceptable than the other.
I estimate that Grandma who hid her ethnicity was either 25% or 50% Cherokee. Judging by her appearance, I'm guessing 50%. Given her dislike of Indian ancestry, she would certainly have answered "white." Her son my father looks fullblood though he is at best 25%, and he also answered "white." I have answered "white" up until the last census, when I was able to indicate mixed heritage. My son will have to indicate THREE heritages if he so chooses. Or who knows? He may default to "white" as well, despite being less than 50% white in the mix.
Oh, and Great-grandma, who was quite like a fullblood Cherokee? She married a white Scotsman. Guess who filled out the census forms for his household? And in a day when people were still writing "squaw" on census forms (or not much later than that), three guesses what he would be motivated to write for the whole household?
As for the Cherokee Nation et al--I'm rather pissed at them for insisting on drawing a hard bright line between those who can prove their ancestry (to a very specific set of standards) and those who have a more distant derivation or a derivation provable by something other than the fucking Dawes Rolls. I don't mind the legal qualificatons for federal aid, etc. That's reasonable, since some test must exist. But to say or imply "you're not allowed to call yourself Cherokee because you don't meet this highly specific test of ancestry which is based on the US government's enrollment (not something the Cherokees dreamed up, and not something they administered either--and weren't they mishandling all kinds of Indian-related shit at the time? what makes them so trustworthy in this, then?)--
Well.
I'm not claiming aid. I wouldn't take it if it were offered. But I damn well don't want to have a treasured part of my family heritage taken from me because it's un-PC of me to mention it without having fully-signed up Cherokee Nation membership--or provable eligibility for same.
[Damn. It's like being told you're not a Jew because God forbid, you believe in Jesus. Never mind who gave you birth.]
ETA: As for refusing to talk to them, I don't know what she had going on specifically, but I know--because I've checked--that they would throw me out in a heartbeat. Their interest is in whether you meet membership criteria--which I don't, and probably never will.
[ 06. November 2014, 22:33: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't mind the legal qualifications for federal aid, etc. That's reasonable, since some test must exist.
{snip}
I'm not claiming aid. I wouldn't take it if it were offered.
The difference between you and Elizabeth Warren is that she listed herself as Native American, and thereby made herself a more desirable university hire.
I have said more than once that I don't care whether she called herself a Cherokee. I object strongly to the fact that she exploited the designation.
Moo
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
So hang on, it's okay to identify as Cherokee so long as you don't tell anyone about it?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
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?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
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....
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
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 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I don't know how one determines the reality of anything based on a tweet of past covers of a moribund magazine.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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?
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE] My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
That was actually a 5-4 decision.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president?
I'm not sure it's possible for our electoral system to produce a *good* president.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.
Clown cars, start your engines.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
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.)
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
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!
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
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).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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).
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
The Hill just published its list of thirteen most likely Republican presidential candidates. Most of the names above the "Waiting in the Wings" section have been mentioned on this thread already with the exception of Mike Huckabee. While the opening quote calls this "the most open field we’ve ever seen", to me it seems eerily reminiscent of 2012.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
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.
My first cynical thought is that the DNC expects the next President to be Republican, and is running Hilary as this go-round's Dukakis.
Which isn't to say they'd be unhappy if she were elected--but I don't think they're banking on her winning.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
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.
Yes, they're pro BIG business, though they like to talk as if they're in favor of small business, too.
However, re Carly having as much of a chance as Mitt: she helped wreck a much-vaunted BIG business. So unless they nominate her for wrecking a worker-friendly culture...which is not out of the question...
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So unless they nominate her for wrecking a worker-friendly culture...which is not out of the question...
Huh. I thought that was a plank in the Republican platform.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
So Jeb Bush is now officially running for President, or he's at least decided to "actively explore the possibility of running for president of the United States", which amounts to the same thing. Is the U.S. ready for another Bush presidency? As far as I know his policy views and positions are fairly close to those of his still-massively-unpopular brother.
And then there's this:
quote:
Next month, Gov. Bobby Jindal is bringing a mass prayer event to LSU's campus sponsored by a conservative Christian group that has espoused controversial views on a number of issues, including the causes of Hurricane Katrina.
Isn't this how Rick Perry kicked off his presidential bid in 2012, with a supposedly non-political prayer rally? Of all the Republican efforts in 2012 that seems like the the one future candidates should try to avoid emulating. It was poorly organized, the candidate was ill-prepared for public appearances, and . . . there was a third thing but I forget what it was.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
It doesn't surprise me at all. The US is not really a democracy. If we were a real democracy, we'd have real choices when choosing major-party candidates for president during the primaries. What actually happens is that all the money lines up behind the few preferred candidates of the rich, powerful elites, and we get to choose among those few people. The rich, powerful elites are fine with political dynasties -- they're all about keeping things in the family.
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
We could have added the Kennedys if only they didn't keep getting assassinated.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
And let's not forget Benjamin and William Henry Harrison.
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
We could have added the Kennedys if only they didn't keep getting assassinated.
Or drove better.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
There has been only one presidential election without a Bush or a Clinton since 1976. That's 38 years.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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
C) the Citizens United decision, which has given a whole new meaning to the saying "money talks."
D) knee-jerk voter approval of any candidate who calls himself "a conservative" without asking exactly what it this means, or exactly what the candidate is seeking to conserve.
I also agree that if Republicans are pro-business, they'd better look to their laurels in the area of promoting honest government. Business on the whole does not do well in an environment of corruption (which I would define simply as officials refusing to do their jobs without being bribed). Citizens United, again, is making this problem worse.
I like Hillary, and might love Elizabeth Warren. Of the Republicans, I could live with Christie, and Rand Paul is at least interesting. The others scare me. But how much difference will the whole question make? The idea of becoming an ex-pat is more and more intriguing. If I'm going to die in a third-world country, it might as well be some other third-world country.
[ 22. December 2014, 20:26: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Presidents having to show Christian credentials? Meh. What you have to do is show alleged MORAL credentials. Which is why a Mormon made it as far as he did in the last race, and why Jimmy Carter got bagged on all the time for actually believing all that stuff and letting it affect his actions. (Mustn't go that far, of course!) Basically what you must have is church membership in a mainstream denomination, the duller the better (we're not looking for much more than that as an electorate, and we'll get squeamish about active activity such as teaching or preaching, or even membership in some of the denominations with a more "active" reputation.) and an ability to make broad sweeping statements that can't offend anybody (for example, Muslims/Jews/extreme patriots/other Christian groups, which means avoiding a lot of potholes, most notably all but the most glancing of references to Jesus). So no praying in Jesus' name or mentions of Christian doctrine where anybody can hear you, which includes your private life (which won't be private, of course). But you can quote him as a great human teacher all you want, and it will add to your moral cred (don't ever come out and say that, but do act from that perspective and you'll be all right).
This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
Republicans
There are so many Republican contenders (declared, soon to be declared, and still "exploring") you could almost do a statistical analysis of their religious beliefs. So how do they shake out?
Declared Candidates (listed in chronological order of declaration of candidacy)
Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.
Randal “Rand” Paul – Born into the Presbyterian faith and still allegedly an adherent. Some would say his true gods are libertarianism and capitalism, but he is officially a member of a "mainstream denomination".
Marco Rubio – Rubio is the most interesting case of all the announced candidates. He was born into Roman Catholicism, spent time as a Mormon, then attended a Protestant megachurch before returning to Catholicism. He identifies as Catholic but also still attends that Protestant megachurch. One blogger described it as "Sunday mornings with the Virgin Mary, Saturday nights with Fun Jesus!" Neither one of these qualifies as a "mainstream denomination", a term which in an American context typically means "Mainline Protestant". Besides, whatever other criticisms can be leveled at the Catholic Church, "squeamish[ness] about . . . teaching or preaching" isn't one of their faults.
Benjamin “Ben” Carson – A Seventh Day Adventist, definitely not considered a "mainstream denomination".
Cara “Carly” Fiorina – Raised as an Episcopalian but currently "an irregular churchgoer who is not affiliated with a particular denomination". I'm not sure birthright membership really counts as "church membership in a mainstream denomination".
Michael “Mike” Huckabee – Not just a Southern Baptist but a Southern Baptist minister. Still not a "mainstream denomination". (See entry for Ted Cruz above.)
George Pataki – A lifelong Roman Catholic. Despite much more widespread social acceptance of the faith in the U.S. since it was a stumbling block for JFK, it doesn't fall into the usual parameters of a "mainstream denomination" for either American political purposes or LC's description of the term. (See entry for Marco Rubio above.)
Richard “Rick” Santorum – Not just a Roman Catholic, but a Catholic so secure in his faith he feels comfortable lecturing the Pope on the contents of upcoming encyclicals. (Ironically the Pope being lectured by Santorum to "leav[e] science to the scientists" has a master's degree in chemistry and is thus a scientist himself, something that cannot be said of Santorum.) Like Marco Rubio and George Pataki, not a member of a "mainstream denomination". In fact, given his advocacy of re-criminalizing homosexuality, Santorum is arguably outside mainstream Catholicism (by U.S. standards) as well.
Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.
Scheduled Announcements (have scheduled events to announce candidacy)
James Richard “Rick” Perry – Grew up in the United Methodist Church (the mainstreamiest of American "mainstream denominations") but suddenly switched to a non-denominational megachurch not long before his last attempt at the Republican Presidential nomination. Pretty much by definition you can't be a member of a "mainstream denomination" if you go to a non-denominational church.
Donald Trump – Born into the Presbyterian faith and claims to still be an adherent. This does qualify as a "mainstream denomination".
Exploratory Committees (have an exploratory committee but no announcement date scheduled yet)
John Ellis “Jeb” Bush – Surely this scion of old money New England belongs to some crusty "mainstream denomination", right? Nope. Although raised as an Episcopalian (a very "mainstream denomination"), Jeb Bush converted to Roman Catholicism in 1995. (See entries on Rubio, Pataki, and Santorum as to why this isn't a "mainstream denomination" as the term is being used here.)
Christopher “Chris” Christie – A member of the Roman Catholic faith. (See entries on Rubio, Pataki, Santorum, and Bush as to why this isn't a "mainstream denomination" as the term is being used here.)
Piyush “Bobby” Jindal – Another Roman Catholic. (See entries on Rubio, Pataki, Santorum, Bush, and Christie as to why this isn't a "mainstream denomination" as the term is being used here.)
John Kasich = Interestingly identifies as "Anglican". Most Americans in communion with the Anglican Church identify as "Episcopalian", but either way I think he still gets credit as belonging to a "mainstream denomination".
Scott Walker – Currently a member of a non-denominational evangelical church. As noted under Rick Perry, you can't belong to a "mainstream denomination" if you go to a non-denominational church.
Democrats
A much smaller field here.
Declared Candidates
Hillary Clinton – A member of the United Methodist Church. As noted above (see Rick Perry) this is usually considered a very "mainstream denomination" in the U.S.
Bernard “Bernie” Sanders – Although not particularly observant, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Though this is likely to help him avoid LC's mentioned pitfalls of "praying in Jesus' name" or "mentions of Christian doctrine where anybody can hear you", he's still not a member of a "mainstream denomination".
Martin O’Malley – A Roman Catholic. (See entries on Rubio, Pataki, Santorum, Bush, Christie, and Jindal.) It's interesting that half a century after JFK's Catholicism was considered an impediment the most numerously represented faith in the 2016 presidential primaries is Catholicism.
Scheduled Announcement
Lincoln Chafee – A member of the Episcopal Church, a "mainstream denomination".
Exploratory Committee
James “Jim” Webb – I can't find much about Webb's religious beliefs other than that he's identified as a follower of "non-denominational Christianity" on his Wikipedia entry. Once again, if you're non-denominational you can't belong to a "mainstream denomination".
So, if we abide by LC's rule of thumb, if the Republicans want to win the White House in 2016 they should nominate Rand Paul, Donald Trump, or John Kasich. Everyone else is just wasting their time and their donor's money because they don't belong to a "mainstream denomination". The Democrats, on the other hand, could choose either Hillary Clinton or Lincoln Chafee and still have a shot at the presidency.
There. That clears out and simplifies what was becoming a very cluttered field.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Short answer: Wait till after the primaries. Anyone and everyone can announce candidacy now, including a 35-year-old belly-dancing chain-smoking baboon. Just as long as it was born here.
And playing word games about non-denominational denominations is just silly.
[ 03. June 2015, 18:37: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
Well, citing John Quincy is a good way to make me uncomfortable with American dynasties. He was an asshat.
And I can walk down the street, throw a rock, and probably hit a houseful of people who were not comfortable with the Bush dynasty. Like Ruth said, when things come closer to an actual democracy, then we can start generalizing about what America is comfortable with.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I would be much happier if all of this could be delayed, or compressed, or something. The election is not for more than a year! If we could confine all campaigning to the year of the election, that would give us 3 years off for the 1 year on.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The election is not for more than a year!
But it's only two months until the Iowa State Fair, where candidates will be evaluated on whether or not they can eat a corn dog in a dignified manner. I truly cannot think of a better way to evaluate leadership ability.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
n,This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
. . . Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.
. . .
Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.
Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
As for "denomination," I know plenty of Southern Baptists who have no problem at all with the Southern Baptist Convention being called a denomination. But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
But when I noted Southern Baptist Ted Cruz's use of the equally Southern Baptist Liberty University as the place to announce his candidacy she explicitly rejected the idea that Liberty U. was associated with what she'd termed "mainstream denomination[s]".
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
But when I noted Southern Baptist Ted Cruz's use of the equally Southern Baptist Liberty University as the place to announce his candidacy she explicitly rejected the idea that Liberty U. was associated with what she'd termed "mainstream denomination[s]".
Liberty is affiliated with a group of 500+ churches called Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia. These churches separated from the 14,000+ church Baptist General Association of Virginia. While the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia are considered a state convention by the SBC, Liberty is not affiliated with the SBC.
And at least in the link you provided, LC did not explicitly reject the idea that Liberty is associated with what she'd call a "mainstream denomination." Rather, she said she was talking about the denomination a candidate belongs to, not the denominational affiliation of photo-op locations.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You know, Croesos, you could talk TO me rather than ABOUT me.
And Nick Tamen is right.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
n,This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
. . . Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.
. . .
Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.
Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
As for "denomination," I know plenty of Southern Baptists who have no problem at all with the Southern Baptist Convention being called a denomination. But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
Exactly. For the purposes of this discussion, Southern Baptist and non-denominational (i.e. independent) evangelical are as mainstream as it gets, and the gold standard for GOP candidates. Roman Catholic used to be a problem for US presidential candidates (see JFK) but now that we (evangelicals) have joined up with them to bully gays and feminists, we've decided they're "mainstream" Christian as well-- at least for voting purposes. Mormon (see Romney) is still a bit on the edge, but likely to also become an acceptable stances for GOP presidential material, as long as they don't cave on the aforementioned dead horse issues.
With Dems it's a much more complex and nuanced equation. And then there's leftie evangelicals like me who usually don't even factor in at all, as was noted on the other thread (see Jimmy Carter).
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics. They are:
- dull (optional)
- not engaged in active activity such as teaching or preaching
- don't have an "active" reputation
- make broad, sweeping, yet inoffensive statements
- never make any but the most glancing references to Jesus
- never pray in Jesus' name
- never mention Christian doctrine where anybody can hear
- only quote Jesus as a "great human teacher"
These characteristics don't make me think of Southern Baptists generally or any of the various presidential candidates claiming to be Southern Baptists specifically. They do sound s lot like the standard criticisms white American evangelicals have been leveling against mainline Protestant churches for the past several decades, ever since they decided that "evangelical" and "mainline Protestant" were mutually exclusive categories. You can see why the equivalence was noted.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
As noted before, the Catholic Church most notably fails LC's "no teaching or preaching" standard. They're very enthusiastic about both.
Jews are a bit closer call. They definitely don't pray in Jesus' name, rarely (if ever) refer to Christian doctrine, and often consider him a "great human teacher". Unfortunately like the Catholics they're great supporters of teaching, though not necessarily preaching. (At least to outsiders. Does internal preaching count?) They've also got a fairly "active" reputation. In fact, if you check out some of the more fevered corners of the internet you'll see that for some people the Jews have reputation of being involved in everything!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
And you're still talking around me.
If you want to discuss my meaning, why not ask me?
Instead of ignoring me and twisting my words.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics. They are:
- dull (optional)
- not engaged in active activity such as teaching or preaching
- don't have an "active" reputation
- make broad, sweeping, yet inoffensive statements
- never make any but the most glancing references to Jesus
- never pray in Jesus' name
- never mention Christian doctrine where anybody can hear
- only quote Jesus as a "great human teacher"
These characteristics don't make me think of Southern Baptists generally or any of the various presidential candidates claiming to be Southern Baptists specifically. They do sound s lot like the standard criticisms white American evangelicals have been leveling against mainline Protestant churches for the past several decades, ever since they decided that "evangelical" and "mainline Protestant" were mutually exclusive categories. You can see why the equivalence was noted.
No, I don't see why the equivalence was noted.
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name. (Seriously, is there any Christian denomination other than the Quakers that does not engage in preaching?) Granted, it's not quite as clear whether "the duller, the better" is talking about a dull denomination, but in context it seems plain to me it's meant to modify "church membership," so as to say the candidate must be a lackluster member of a mainstream denomination.
As far as I can tell, the only descriptors LC gave of denominations are "mainstream" and the reference to denominations with "a more 'active' reputation,"when she noted that membership in such a group might make Americans "squeamish." Essentially, I understood her to say that Americans generally like someone who is not on the fringes religiously and who can talk the talk—but not too loudly or passionately, please—but who isn't going to actually walk the walk.
[ 04. June 2015, 01:20: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name.
With the possible exception of Carly Fiorina, I'm not sure this distinction makes any real difference to the candidate analysis.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name.
With the possible exception of Carly Fiorina, I'm not sure this distinction makes any real difference to the candidate analysis.
It makes a significant difference when you frame your entire analysis by saying:
quote:
Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics.
It makes a difference because the analysis is based on a faulty premise. Contrary to your premise, LC did not define the characteristics of a mainstream denomination in the context of US presidential politics. She described the religious characteristics of a candidate likely to be successful in a presidential race, not characteristics of denominations and not characteristics of all who announce their candidacy.
So it makes a critical difference. As far as I know, every denomination/religious group identified in your candidate list engages in preaching and teaching. As far as I know, all of the Christian ones will makes regular references to Jesus, will pray in Jesus' name and will talk about Christian doctrine (as they understand it) on a regular basis.
But individual members of those groups may not do these things, at least not publically. That's why the characteristics of candidates listed by LC can't be assumed to be characteristics of the religious groups to which those candidates belong.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?
Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it. I doubt either, that the CofS would want to have links with a Presbyterian church if it really met the Crœsos test.
There are plenty of people in the CofE who would pass the Crœsos test, but we don't all.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?.
The term "mainline" is often misused and often used interchangeably with the even vaguer term "mainstream." What would be considered "mainstream" (or "normal") Christianity would vary greatly depending on one's own pov and the geographical region one is in. In the American South, Southern Baptist would be about as "mainstream" as it gets. In the midwestern Bible belt, it might be Southern Baptist, it might be Reformed or Lutheran, but probably not Catholic. Here in California what's considered "mainstream" would break down even further, depending on whether you're in L.A county, Orange County, northern Calif, or the San Joaquin Valley. And of course, in Utah Mormon is mainstream, but not so almost anywhere else. Again, it's a vague term with a lot of variation in usage.
[ 04. June 2015, 18:44: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?
Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it. I doubt either, that the CofS would want to have links with a Presbyterian church if it really met the Crœsos test.
There are plenty of people in the CofE who would pass the Crœsos test, but we don't all.
The RCC and the SBC are both mainstream but not mainline. Mainline and mainstream aren't synonyms. The "Mainline" in "Mainline Protestant" refers to the Philadelphia Mainline. The Philadelphia Mainline does not represent mainstream America. The average American wishes that we could be so lucky.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it.
I can't take full credit for the tick list. All the items were originally proposed by Lamb Chopped, as well as their applicability to American presidential politics.
What's interesting is that despite a good deal of diversity among everyday adherents the denominational rule-of-thumb LC/Crœsos system seems to sort 2016 presidential candidates pretty accurately by religious blandness (with the previously noted possible exception of Carly Fiorina who ended up on the "non-bland" side.)
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
We should have a pool.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
How do you figure that?
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
How do you figure that?
That would be awesome...for the Democrats. Rubio is very unpopular with Hispanic/Latinos and since approximately 50,000 Hispanic/ Latinos turn 18 and become eligible to vote each month, in states with large numbers of electoral college votes, that doesn't bode well.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Rubio is a well funded candidate acceptable to all factions of the Republican Party. Kasich has the experience in congress and as a two term governor that Rubio lacks. To win the White House, the Republicans need to win Ohio and Florida. Rubio will carry Florida. Kasich just won re-election in Ohio by a landslide.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
According to Quinnipiac University's latest poll of Florida voters:
Clinton at 46 percent to Rubio's 44 percent
Bush at 45 percent to Clinton's 42 percent
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Bush likely won't win the primary. Polls are within the margin of error and a year and a half before the election. Besides, I'm not predicting Rubio can win the election just that he will be the nominee.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
Being well funded certainly is a healthy indicator at this stage (which is a sad statement on our system), but as the stragglers start falling off the big question for the remaining candidates will be "who can defeat Hillary?"
Rubio might be the best bet, but as has been stated, his unpopularity with Hispanic voters might sour his image as a suitable candidate for the showdown with Clinton.
It's hard to tell right now, but if last time is any indication then look for the guy consistently placing second in all the polling.
Also, if Republicans do manage to shaft Obamacare recipients via the upcoming supreme court decision, then look for the more moderate GOP candidates to surge in popularity, especially in red states where the court decision is going to be felt most.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Republican primary voters want to see Obama care eliminated.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Voldemort is polling better.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Voldemort is polling better.
To be fair, Voldemort has a longer track record than most of the GOP field.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.
I suppose I'd prefer Kasich or former NM governor Gary Johnson (but he's running as libertarian, not GOP). However, it often seems the US is pretty much SOL no matter what. Our primary is about seven or eight months away so there's no reason to think much about it now.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Also, if Republicans do manage to shaft Obamacare recipients via the upcoming supreme court decision, then look for the more moderate GOP candidates to surge in popularity, especially in red states where the court decision is going to be felt most.
That's true in the red states that have managed to block much of the implementation of Obamacare (refusing to set up their own state exchanges, not taking advantage of the federal $$ to expand Medicare). Conservatives in those states do continue to loathe/fear Obamacare precisely because they have no real experience of it-- they only know the boogieman that GOP has painted it to be and the scapegoat the insurers have made of it ("we're raising your rates-- but it's not our fault, really! It's not that we're greedy shameless pigs, it's because Obamacare made me!").
Voters in states that have fully implemented Obamacare have already begun to see the benefits. Most people either have benefited themselves or know someone who has. It's imperfect (we need to get to single payer to deal with the real problems) but is making enough of a difference to begin to be quite popular where it has had a chance to actually be tried. The GOP should be concerned about the electoral math there if they do in fact manage to scuttle the program.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Here is the thing. The potential Supreme Court ruling only affects 6 million people in the 37 red states. 6 million seems like a large number but it is stretched out over 37 states. How many of those 6 million people were ever going to vote Republican in the first place? Of the ones who were going to vote Republican, how many of them only purchased insurance to avoid the fines? Of those who were potential Republican voters who like Obamacare, how many of them are voting strictly on that issue? How many of them will vote in the primary? The backlash against candidates who oppose Obamacare in the Republican primary will be negligible. What there is will be more than offset by Republican voters delighted with Supreme Court decision.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.
Not true. By my estimate Obama had a longer track record (time spent in elected office at a state or federal level) than Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal. That's seven of the thirteen Republican candidates who have either officially announced their candidacy or scheduled announcements.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
If he could point at a long list of promises that were kept instead of broken, it would have more support.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Here is the thing. The potential Supreme Court ruling only affects 6 million people in the 37 red states. 6 million seems like a large number but it is stretched out over 37 states. How many of those 6 million people were ever going to vote Republican in the first place? Of the ones who were going to vote Republican, how many of them only purchased insurance to avoid the fines? Of those who were potential Republican voters who like Obamacare, how many of them are voting strictly on that issue? How many of them will vote in the primary? The backlash against candidates who oppose Obamacare in the Republican primary will be negligible. What there is will be more than offset by Republican voters delighted with Supreme Court decision.
I thought we were talking about the general.
If we're talking about the primary-- that's where we're going to see the same problem the Republicans have had the last two presidential races. The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example. GOP candidates have to swing far to the right to get the nomination-- which will include pandering to the anti-Obamacare crowds. But when the general election comes around, those hard-line words are going to come back to bite them in the bum, as all those millions of Americans who have had their health and their finances improved by ACA aren't going to take their attacks lightly (especially if they manage to bring it down altogether-- doubtful at this point). Same with gay marriage, immigration and a host of other wedge issues where the GOP is out of step with the country as a whole.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.
Not true. By my estimate Obama had a longer track record (time spent in elected office at a state or federal level) than Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal. That's seven of the thirteen Republican candidates who have either officially announced their candidacy or scheduled announcements.
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries. I don't even know which party's primary I will be voting in or if I will either bother. We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
As long as folks keep voting for dimocrats and republicans that is
certainly the case.
Either way, the man-child will be replaced. That will be great whether it's Hillary or any of the (r)s.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
As long as folks keep voting for dimocrats and republicans that is
certainly the case.
Either way, the man-child will be replaced. That will be great whether it's Hillary or any of the (r)s.
I covet your optimism.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example.
Again, nationwide polls on individual issues aren't really that important because of the electoral college. The only question is if the Republican views on those issues will prevent them from winning enough of the battleground states to win the election. Gerrymandering doesn't explain Republican control of the Senate and 31 state houses. On the other hand, turn out might prove to be an issue once again.
Now, many in the Republican Pary believe they are to the right of the American people on social issues and to that end have all but thrown social conservatives under the bus. Unfortunately, social conservatives make up over a 1/3 of the GOP vote. Hard to believe their votes could be replaced by all the social liberal hawks who believe the rich are getting a raw deal.
A Mike Huckabee/Jim Webb third party bid would be interesting.
[ 10. June 2015, 18:48: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Right, Graham has no track record of being in charge of something. Sanders has.
If I owned an MLB team and I was picking a manager, I'd be more interested in your managerial experience then what's on the back of your card. Two different jobs.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example.
Again, nationwide polls on individual issues aren't really that important because of the electoral college. The only question is if the Republican views on those issues will prevent them from winning enough of the battleground states to win the election. Gerrymandering doesn't explain Republican control of the Senate and 31 state houses. On the other hand, turn out might prove to be an issue once again.
Now, many in the Republican Pary believe they are to the right of the American people on social issues and to that end have all but thrown social conservatives under the bus. Unfortunately, social conservatives make up over a 1/3 of the GOP vote. Hard to believe their votes could be replaced by all the social liberal hawks who believe the rich are getting a raw deal.
Agreed-- that (all of it) was my point.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
ouch
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
ouch
That's OK. I intend to vote for Elizabeth Warren even though she insists she's not running...
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
Warren is great. I haven't voted for a Republican for president since elder Bush. The only one that scares me is Cruz, he reminds me of a Stephen King character for some reason.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
ouch
Ben Domench wrote the same article over at the federalist. He represents the libertarian lite wing of the Republican Party that believes post 2008 a majority of Americans want to give banks and big business more power while at the same time virtually eliminating the safety net. John Kasich may be running for vice president and that's why I put him second. Frankly, I don't understand the problem. Both articles appear to be saying, "What's with all you RINOs wanting to nominate a competent pragmatist with years of experience in both state and federal government?"
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Jeb Bush has unveiled his new primary campaign strategy: sending waves of his followers on a hopeless charge against entrenched artillery. Casualties are expected to top out at no more than 50% overall. Seriously though, if you're going to make an historical reference you should at least be familiar with the events you're referring to and how it turned out for the participants.
Then again, maybe it's just the Bush family's natural foot-in-mouth speaking style coming out.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".
Brrrr.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Jeb Bush has unveiled his new primary campaign strategy: sending waves of his followers on a hopeless charge against entrenched artillery. Casualties are expected to top out at no more than 50% overall. Seriously though, if you're going to make an historical reference you should at least be familiar with the events you're referring to and how it turned out for the participants.
Then again, maybe it's just the Bush family's natural foot-in-mouth speaking style coming out.
It's anybody's guess how much this will matter to a public that knows damn-all about US (or any other) history, probably never heard of Pickett's Charge, and doesn't read except in 140-character bits.
A friend of mine is teaching a summer composition course to college freshmen. She says 25% of her class claims never to have read a single book during high school.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
What I find telling is, successful or not, the campaign Jeb is referencing is a famous Confederate Army action. ( Hell, his speechwriter may have Googled " famous Confederate Army campaigns" to get the phrase.)
There is a variety of levels of disturbing going on there-- the nuances of secession, Jim Crow, revenge for Atlanta...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What I find telling is, successful or not, the campaign Jeb is referencing is a famous Confederate Army action.
To be fair, Pickett's Charge was being referenced by "one Bush ally", not Bush himself. Of course, one of the most important things presidential campaigns do is control the message they send out. If someone's going to be speaking to the New York Times about your campaign, the phrase "Pickett's Charge" should never cross the metaphorical Emmitsburg Road of their lips.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Nothing telling about it beyond admitting to futility, istm.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Right, Graham has no track record of being in charge of something. Sanders has.
If I owned an MLB team and I was picking a manager, I'd be more interested in your managerial experience then what's on the back of your card. Two different jobs.
But what, exactly, is the President "in charge" of?
I suppose it depends on what you see as the most important aspect of the job. Yes, the President is the head of the Executive branch. But in the USA even more than many countries, separation of powers ensures that this doesn't give the President power over making the rules (laws), only power over implementing them.
And not power over actually having the money needed to implement.
Being able to deal with Congress is therefore a pretty vital component of the job. I therefore query whether having been "in charge" of something is actually the best indicator.
[ 16. June 2015, 03:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Being able to deal with Congress is therefore a pretty vital component of the job. I therefore query whether having been "in charge" of something is actually the best indicator.
I believe a governor who has experience dealing with a state legislature has a leg up on someone who has just been a congressman or senator. That seems to usually be the judgement of the nation as a whole during my lifetime with just Kennedy and Obama being elected from the senate.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Fair enough.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".
I'm only familiar with the TV series. But IIRC Stillson was the seriously-disturbed politician, whose life kept intertwining with Johnny's?
I can see the comparison. My main problem with Ted Cruz (besides his being a Republican) is his father's Dominionism theology, which involves Ted and other men being anointed as kings/princes and producing an "end-times transfer of wealth" from evil people to Christians.*
Makes me wonder if Rafael Cruz is like Stillson's dad.
*That isn't exactly the wording in this particular article, but versions vary.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I can see the comparison. My main problem with Ted Cruz (besides his being a Republican) is his father's Dominionism theology, which involves Ted and other men being anointed as kings/princes and producing an "end-times transfer of wealth" from evil people to Christians.*
While I prefer Republicans to Democrats and a punch in the stomach to a kick in the nads, I also prefer governors to senators. I'm also hinky about folks who hold to a theology you describe, messing with other people and their stuff.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!
Here's some polling analysis of why Mr. Trump is a terrible candidate.
quote:
[P]opularity is performance in politics, and Trump is the first candidate in modern presidential primary history to begin the campaign with a majority of his own party disliking him. A whopping 57 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to an average of the three most recent polls. That beats former record holder Pat Buchanan, who had a 43 percent unfavorable rating at this point in the 2000 election cycle.¹ Buchanan, of course, ended up running as an independent.
-----
¹For each candidate, I averaged the three most recent polls in the first half of the year before the primaries. But for some candidates, only one or two polls were available.
The included graph is also amusing.
Trump's entry brings the Republican field to 12 declared candidates. Bobby Jindal is supposed to be lucky #13 on June 24. That leaves Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Scott Walker as the only Republicans with exploratory committees who haven't either announced their candidacies or scheduled to do so. I'd be surprised if Scott Walker didn't jump in, so let's say the Republican field is at least 14 candidates. The logistics of staging a "debate" between that many candidates is starting to look problematic.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Kasich attends an ACNA church in Westerville, Ohio (near Columbus). Most likely a new plant by ACNA, since Episcopal parishes didn't (by and large) get to keep their property when they left.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
I'm not thoroughly convinced Trump doesn't go on youtube and study Ric Flair speeches.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!
Question from a foreigner who doesn't really have the measure of US politics. Is Donald Trump well regarded and widely seen either in the US or in a significant part of US public opinion, as presidential material?
Most of the other names mentioned are unknown outside the US, but we have heard of Donald Trump. Unless he has hidden talents that we know not of, it is difficult to take him seriously as a potential leader of the free world.
Here is Dame Judy Dench on the subject.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.
The reason he is to be feared is because he is a spoiler. He may, from pure nuttiness, draw support and money away from more viable candidates. And he is certainly, from pure name recognition, going to muscle his way onto the stage for the main GOP debate, which is (at this writing) going to be selected by popularity poll. No, if I were the GOP the last person I would wish to see is Trump. The man may be relied upon to blurt idiocies that will tar the entire brand. (See Trutherism.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... The reason he is to be feared is because he is a spoiler. He may, from pure nuttiness, draw support and money away from more viable candidates. ...
Yes, we have those too. We've even got a whole party of them. They got quite a lot of votes, but only got one seat in the recent election.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
LeRoc--
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.
Are you being serious or sarcastic, please? Thanks.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Brenda--
Yes, but... (re Trump)
--People do sometimes elect a nutter, or someone who's incapable, or unqualified, etc. IMHO, Dubya Bush springs to mind.
--People who are overly enamored of Trump's "Apprentice" reality shows and celebrities in general may feel he's a fine choice.
--Trump's still a Truther, and there are others out there. And they may be as relieved to get rid of Obama and get a Truther as many, many people were to get rid of Dubya and get Obama.
We may not be out of the Truther woods yet...
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
His financial record will do for him - didn't he famously get a billion pounds in (entirely legal) debt during the eighties ?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I was referring to a statement from the Democratic National Committee after Donald Trump announced that he would run. More information here.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
LeRoc--
Aha. ROTFL. Thanks for the link!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... People do sometimes elect a nutter, or someone who's incapable, or unqualified, etc. IMHO, Dubya Bush springs to mind. ...
It was a well known Italian who had sprung to my mind.
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
A crackpot then.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Enoch: A crackpot then.
That's what they *want* you to think.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
There are a few things about Donald Trump that puzzle me:
1. Why does have what looks like shredded wheat for hair?
2. Does he realise that his surname can mean 'to fart'?
Apart from that, where's he going to get the money from to fund his bid for the White House? His business ventures aren't doing that brilliantly at the moment.
I'm assuming his pitch or the presidency is going to take precedence over his bid to build another golf complex in Ireland. And it looks unlikely that he'll be able to devote much time to his Aberdeenshire venture which is haemorrhaging money, despite the fact that he's only provided 67 of the 6,000 jobs he promised in order to get planning permission to lay waste an SSSI.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.
What would happen if both main parties nominated a nut in the same year?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other, that would mean ⅓ of the electorate are crackpots. I could possibly, just about, credit ⅓ of backbench politicians are crackpots, but of the American people, no.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other, that would mean ⅓ of the electorate are crackpots. I could possibly, just about, credit ⅓ of backbench politicians are crackpots, but of the American people, no.
I'd say that is what appeared to be true to the author at the time he wrote it. I don't really disagree with him, though.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.
What would happen if both main parties nominated a nut in the same year?
We aren't doing that already?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in.
To everyone's surprise, the people of Wisconsin elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor in 1998. He turned out to be not a bad governor.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in.
To everyone's surprise, the people of Wisconsin elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor in 1998. He turned out to be not a bad governor.
Minnesota
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Is that article really true?
Hard to say. The 9/11 poll referenced was conducted in 2007, and there's always the question of wording. An ambiguously worded question could lump together people who believe the Twin Towers were brought down by a secretly arranged controlled detonation and those who knew of the existence of the "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo as those who "believe George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks". There doesn't seem to be a lot of more recent polling on the subject. Those that do exist mostly indicate Rasmussen's results were an outlier.
Of course, the main point of such articles is to create a false equivalency, which mostly serves to shut down any kind of thoughtful analysis (both sides are exactly equal in crackpottery) and to give the reader a sense of his or her own moral/intellectual superiority over all those fools. I'm pretty sure that no Democratic presidential candidate has suggested George W. Bush was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks. On the other hand some of Republican presidential candidates (Huckabee and Trump) have played around with the idea that Barack Obama is really from Kenya.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
Trump will drop out in time to film the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. Last couple of election cycles, he got attention simply by making noise about running for president. Just making noise about running for president wasn't getting him the attention he wanted so he actually has to enter the race for a few months and take part in one or two debates.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, the main point of such articles is to create a false equivalency, which mostly serves to shut down any kind of thoughtful analysis (both sides are exactly equal in crackpottery) and to give the reader a sense of his or her own moral/intellectual superiority over all those fools. I'm pretty sure that no Democratic presidential candidate has suggested George W. Bush was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks.
The question is whether he knew and Howard Dean played some with the idea. And the article doesn't show an exactly equal crackpottery but, for the two questions asked, more crackpottery amongst the democrats.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trump will drop out in time to film the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. Last couple of election cycles, he got attention simply by making noise about running for president. Just making noise about running for president wasn't getting him the attention he wanted so he actually has to enter the race for a few months and take part in one or two debates.
I don't see him making to the financial disclosure deadline.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
http://www.trump.com/charities/
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
http://www.trump.com/charities/
Huh. Guess our Quaker friends were right: there is something of God in everyone. Even The Donald.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that he gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand. So it's not that he doesn't care about human beings as a whole; he simply doesn't care about Americans.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
http://www.trump.com/charities/
Most really appallingly greedy capitalists have some sort of charity they support. Good PR, and a great tax shelter.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that he gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand. So it's not that he doesn't care about human beings as a whole; he simply doesn't care about Americans.
You really mean that?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is undeniable that he would be an awful president. If he did not have a bajillion dollars to fund his campaign himself, it would sink like a stone, because only a few people actually support him.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that [Trump] gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand.
What's interesting is that similar criticisms could be leveled against other Republican contenders. For example, it could just as easily be argued that Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum (to pick two candidates at not-quite-random) are "running" in order to burnish their conservative standing, thus raising their speaking fees on the lecture circuit and their salaries at their Fox "News" sinecures. Is it just that Trump doesn't have a background in politics that requires people to play along and pretend that self promotion is political principle?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
http://www.trump.com/charities/
Most really appallingly greedy capitalists have some sort of charity they support. Good PR, and a great tax shelter.
Interesting that his charity is sick kids-- not poor kids. Not that I mind a charity that helps sick kids, of course. But my biggest gripe with The Donald is his revisionistic "self-made millionaire"/ "poverty is a result of your own lazy bad choices" schtick. If he had to actually get involved with helping poor kids he might end up accidentally meeting one and having his whole worldview/ self-image challenged.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
The sick kids charity is spearheaded by his son, the "GoGirls" thing (or whatever it is) by Ivanka. I think it is less that Trump is inconsistent between his mouth and his charity than other people are figuring out how to do good things with his money-- and that looks good on his webpage.
Sorry, but I haven't heard much that can be called charity or human compassion actually come out of his mouth.
[ 17. June 2015, 20:54: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Rick Santorum may actually believe he can be president. (He has believed this for some years. There are meds for that.) But Mike Huckabee, I agree, knows that he is unelectable. He too is simply juicing his brand. And unlike The Donald he should know better.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other . . . .
Probably not a safe assumption. Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Probably not a safe assumption. Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
That maths only works if one accepts that the foot-soldier members of the two parties are statistically seriously battier than the rest of the population. Cynically one might sometimes think that, but it would be a bit depressing if it were really true that you have to be an above average nutter to join a serious (not a fringe, note) political party.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Second post
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for?
No. Folks might make assumptions based upon how you registered. I don't know how my wife is registered but my dad tell her when we were young and she was majoring in education that, or course, she can vote how ever she wants to. However, if you want a teaching job, or any other tax-payer funded job, you'd better registered Democrat. Don't know if it still that way. In our state, you can only vote in your registered party's primary. But if you are registered as unaffiliated, you pick out which party's primary you are going to vote in when you get to the polling station.
quote:
Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
yes, who you voted for is secret but you can look up to see if someone voted.
quote:
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
It is their business here. You can register Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and unaffiliated. They still seem to think having folks from the two major parties keeps it neutral ground.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
Though both in the US and UK. whoever owns the press can aim to deliberately destroy a strong candidate and leave weaker ones, or ones who will have a less broad appeal. Has it been done? I would guess so.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
irish_lord99: You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
I understand that this depends on the State you live in?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Yes, and also on the time limits for switching party affiliation in said state.
Where I live, you can register as a member of one party to vote in its primary for the candidate you think most likely to lose the general election, then re-register next day as a member of the other party so you can vote for the candidate you actually favor.
You can also register as an Independent, but your subsequent vote then "allies" you with the party of the candidates you vote for, so re-registration may be needed.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes it does. In some states only party members can vote in the primary, and in other states anybody can vote. Also, the rules can be changed, so what was the rule last time around may be different this time. A related issue: whether a party has a primary, or a nominating convention. Much, much verbiage can be spent discussing the pros and the cons of the above; I assure you you do not want to hear about it.
As to the power of the press, one need only look at the last cycle around, when there was a steady drumbeat over on Fox that Romney was going to win in a landslide. They were living in a gauzy bubble of illusion, and when the actual votes came in and it popped the pain was very severe. Yes, you can create the illusion, and in some cases you can make the public swallow it. But not always, which really gives me faith. God really does look after idiots!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for?
No. Folks might make assumptions based upon how you registered. I don't know how my wife is registered but my dad tell her when we were young and she was majoring in education that, or course, she can vote how ever she wants to. However, if you want a teaching job, or any other tax-payer funded job, you'd better registered Democrat. Don't know if it still that way. In our state, you can only vote in your registered party's primary. But if you are registered as unaffiliated, you pick out which party's primary you are going to vote in when you get to the polling station.
quote:
Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
yes, who you voted for is secret but you can look up to see if someone voted.
quote:
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
It is their business here. You can register Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and unaffiliated. They still seem to think having folks from the two major parties keeps it neutral ground.
I suppose it's a difference in political cultures but to me, quite a lot of that is fairly shocking.
I've never heard it even argued that it should be anyone else's business in a country where voting is not compulsory, to be entitled to know whether you voted or not.
Most of us would be very sensitive of any suggestion that local authorities should decide who to employ depending on how they voted. The suspicion does exist, particularly of some authorities, but it is regarded as one of the most obvious markers of corruption.
Local government officers above a certain level, or who advise councillors, are supposed to keep their sympathies to themselves. Since a number of scandalous episodes 30+ years ago, they have actually been forbidden by law from publicly campaigning for political parties. This even includes not displaying posters on their houses.
We don't have primaries here. There've been arguments for them, but I hope we never do. I can't see the point of them or where they fit into the system. But surely, if you have them the parties are responsible for running and paying for them, not the government.
What is the difference between 'Libertarian' and 'Unaffiliated'? Unaffiliated translates to me as 'undecided' or 'none of your business', but presumably that excludes you from both primaries. But Libertarian sounds like sex drugs and rock and roll.
The press is a different issue altogether, but at least nobody is obliged to take any notice of what they say. I don't. Do you?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suppose it's a difference in political cultures but to me, quite a lot of that is fairly shocking.
Yes, it can be if let it get to you.
quote:
I've never heard it even argued that it should be anyone else's business in a country where voting is not compulsory, to be entitled to know whether you voted or not.
It does have some uses. For example, my mother was laid up with dementia for several years. I'd check to make sure someone else didn't vote in her place. A good friend of mine was helped by the local democrat party boss way back in the 80s. They loaded up several buses with loyalists and gave them the name and address to use as they got off the bus at each of the precinct stations they voted in. I would check my mother's name, and still check for people who I KNOW didn't vote, to make sure they are not recorded as having voted. What I could really do about it beyond b&m, though, I don't know.
quote:
Most of us would be very sensitive of any suggestion that local authorities should decide who to employ depending on how they voted. The suspicion does exist, particularly of some authorities, but it is regarded as one of the most obvious markers of corruption.
Corruption is fine if it is your guys doing it. One of our elders tells me that when he was much younger that young lady teachers would come to his county north of mine and would stay in homes of families paid by the county to keep them. Student teachers, I think it was, or whatever you call a college student being put in a classroom for a semester for training purposes. Anyway, he was there when one young teacher was told she had to leave one house and go stay at another because where she was originally put had the same last name of a loyal democrat family but are really republicans. Republicans were not allowed.
I think, at least hope, that such rampant cronyism is on the way out. The democrat party has controlled this state since the civil war until the last couple of years. It seems that if one party has control for so long it is only obvious the corruption will grow and grow.
quote:
We don't have primaries here. There've been arguments for them, but I hope we never do. I can't see the point of them or where they fit into the system. But surely, if you have them the parties are responsible for running and paying for them, not the government.
State and local pay for them here who pays in NC
quote:
What is the difference between 'Libertarian' and 'Unaffiliated'? Unaffiliated translates to me as 'undecided' or 'none of your business', but presumably that excludes you from both primaries.
Unaffiliated means you're registered to vote and that's it. Folks can read whatever meaning they want into that. I started out Democrat like my folks were when I first registered in 1977. Republican for about 1980 to maybe early 1990s, or so. Libertarian for a wee bit. Finally unaffiliated when it became an available choice. I would at least like to think that it means that I am contacted less by political campaigns.
quote:
But Libertarian sounds like sex drugs and rock and roll.
It can be that as long as you aren't messing with other people or their stuff. [url=
https://www.lp.org/platform]Here[/url] is the platform for the party. It is closer to my own views than that of the other parties. However, for spiritual reasons I won't get into here, my studying appears to be leading me in the direction of having my name removed from the registration rolls all together.
quote:
The press is a different issue altogether, but at least nobody is obliged to take any notice of what they say. I don't. Do you?
I've been trying to stay away from the press and the news since my major depressive bout in the fall of 2011 with maybe the exception of sports and weather.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
Even if he wasn't able to do anything about it, it would make enduring it that much easier.
The greatest gift the GOP could give the country would be to keep running the fools they've put forth so far, to the extent that Stewart decides its just far too much fun to get outta the game now just when the work is writing itself, so that he cancels his plans for imminent retirement.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think that some of them don't even need to be mocked. Some of them can mock themselves quite effectively.
I guess it's not easy for a comic presenter sometimes to think of something even weirder than the candidates have already done.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
irish_lord99: You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
I understand that this depends on the State you live in?
It does, as do rules about whether one affiliates with a specific party when one registers to vote.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And also what other parties are available. (Green, Natural Law, Socialist...)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that some of them don't even need to be mocked. Some of them can mock themselves quite effectively.
I guess it's not easy for a comic presenter sometimes to think of something even weirder than the candidates have already done.
...especially if the comedian doesn't want to give even weirder ideas to the candidates!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
Pres. Harry Truman. As in, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
Again, Minnesota leads the way. Well, in the Senate anyway...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Cher's expressed her opinion of the Donald's candidacy.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
When another follower asked her to choose between Trump and fellow Republican Ted Cruz, her response was just as frank: "That's like saying 'would you rather have a Migraine or Throw Up.'"
BURN.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, is Trump insane, a publicity whore or is he there to set a floor so low that it raises every other Republican candidate by comparison?
Or is he just drumming up support for Ted Cruz, the only Republican who can get away with saying shite* like this?
*though he should generate outrage amongst voters of Mexican decent as he is not Mexican.
[ 07. July 2015, 01:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A better theory is that he is a secret Democratic mole, sent in with a brief to make all the other Republican candidates look like idiots. He will be at the debates, for sure. He will say something outrageous, about women or rape or Mexicans. All the other candidates will hem and haw, or blink helplessly, or blurt out a foolish agreement. It will be on YouTube for months, and the vilification will be continuous.
And Hillary will win!
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
Pres. Harry Truman. As in, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
Unless he is the one being mocked. Then that is a different story.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I think Trump has just about guaranteed that a Latino will get the Republican nomination...unless party's brass are so anti-Latino that they can't see that it might get them a ton of Latino votes.
The only good thing if Jeb Bush wins is that we'd have a Latina first lady. AFAIK, they've all been white.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The only good thing if Jeb Bush wins is that we'd have a Latina first lady. AFAIK, they've all been white.
Our current one certainly isn't.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yes, sorry.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think Trump has just about guaranteed that a Latino will get the Republican nomination...unless party's brass are so anti-Latino that they can't see that it might get them a ton of Latino votes.
Not sure about that. Trump seems to have surged in the polls of likely Republican primary voters since he let his nativist freak flag fly. Whatever the rest of the country thinks of him, he's winning over the folks who matter for picking the Republican nominee. Like any successful strategy, I expect there to be imitators.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, is Trump insane, a publicity whore or is he there to set a floor so low that it raises every other Republican candidate by comparison?
Or is he just drumming up support for Ted Cruz, the only Republican who can get away with saying shite* like this?
*though he should generate outrage amongst voters of Mexican decent as he is not Mexican.
Although among the type of voters Trump seems to be appealing to it doesn't matter if you're from Cuba or Guatemala or the Bronx; if your ancestors came from a Spanish speaking country you'll still get called a "Mexican" by them.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
If Donald Trump were not a millionaire, he would be a schizophrenic junkie screaming random shit on the streets like so many others. I think he's certifiable - probably a combo of mania, narcissism, & borderline personality disorder - but as long as he has all that money, he can be comfy and cray.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is a vast gulf between what you must do and say to win the party nomination, and what you need to do and say to win the general election. This was the pit poor Mitt Romney fell into; when he said things that the base liked the public made retching noises over wastepaper baskets. Unfortunately the GOP seems to be treading the same well-worn path yet again. They have not yet found a Reagan, a man who could both be adored by the base and get other people to vote for him.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
It looks like our NC primary is on March 1, 2016. That's excellent timing, being after the Super Bowl and before the ACC tournament. I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Unfortunately the GOP seems to be treading the same well-worn path yet again.
Not much fresh grass on the Dims path either.
They will enthusiastically support a tired, not particularly bright or charming, demonstrated liar and cheat for POTUS, and move Slick Willy back into the whor...er, White House again in the process.
Good times!
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
They will enthusiastically support a tired, not particularly bright or charming, demonstrated liar and cheat for POTUS, and move Slick Willy back into the whor...er, White House again in the process.
Can't say that I know many people who are too enthusiastic about sending HillBilly back to the White House (particularly after that Libya decision). But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
But then I'm getting to the point where I think the best plan may be to dissolve the US and form smaller more regional provinces or something.
[ 14. July 2015, 00:27: Message edited by: saysay ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I don't see myself voting in the general election.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Can't say that I know many people who are too enthusiastic about sending HillBilly back to the White House (particularly after that Libya decision). But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
But of course you will vote, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't see myself voting in the general election.
Please support a third party.
God knows that I would vote Green and shout it from the rooftops before I would cast a vote for anyone who might actually be President, at least at this time....
Another 4 or 5 cycles....who knows?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
I've read that but haven't figure out about this state yet. If a drivers license is what is used to select for jury duty then that would be a help.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
That probably beats fretting and fuming.
quote:
But then I'm getting to the point where I think the best plan may be to dissolve the US and form smaller more regional provinces or something.
As long as folks can be peaceful about it, it shouldn't be a forbidden thought. The last time such a thought was acted upon we had hundreds of thousands slaughtered so don't be surprised if lots of folks break out in a severe case of the willies.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
I wish there were some small hope of Bernie Sanders being taken seriously (for starters, by himself). As it is, he can only barely hope to nudge the conversation a bit leftward. The entire US political spectrum has shifted so far to the right, there's no left left.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
I've read that but haven't figure out about this state yet. If a drivers license is what is used to select for jury duty then that would be a help.
According to the North Carolina Jury Service website, quote:
At least every two years, a Master Jury List is prepared in each county, using the lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. For each week of court, citizens’ names are randomly selected from the Master Jury List, and jury summons are issued for those whose names are drawn.
(emphasis added by me)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Not having a driving licence doesn't let you off jury duties here. You've basically got to be a recently convicted criminal to get off it. I'm not even sure that being profoundly deaf will do it.
[ 14. July 2015, 09:31: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
It's not a question of "being let off" - it's how they generate the lists of people to summon in the first place. The North Carolina master list is apparently made from the union of the sets of registered voters and licensed drivers, not from their intersection.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is too early (oh Lord, more that 14 months) to get excited about it. It's a long long way to Tipperary. Let the chattering classes do their thing and keep your own powder dry. They are paid to wear out their stomach lining listening to Donald Trump; you don't have to.
But do vote. You are a member of this society -- do your part. And remember that if you don't vote, you abjure all whining and complaining privileges for the next four years -- you wouldn't want to miss those.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Does anyone else take comfort in the fact that the election won't come down to one vote?
I have family members on either side, so either way someone I care about is going to be upset by the result. I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins. I'm just really glad that I don't have to know that my vote one way or the other made half of my family really upset.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Does anyone else take comfort in the fact that the election won't come down to one vote?
I do.
quote:
I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins.
Yes. It's like that for most all of us. I read this and have to pretty much agree with what he has to say.
quote:
I'm just really glad that I don't have to know that my vote one way or the other made half of my family really upset.
It really shouldn't for several reasons, including why have said, and it seems if they have a say they shouldn't mind you having one.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the North Carolina Jury Service website, quote:
At least every two years, a Master Jury List is prepared in each county, using the lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. For each week of court, citizens’ names are randomly selected from the Master Jury List, and jury summons are issued for those whose names are drawn.
(emphasis added by me)
Way cool. Thanks for finding that.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins.
Yes. It's like that for most all of us.
There can, of course, be policy ramification to this 'I've got mine, screw you' electoral attitude. For example, it was frequently noted during the Iraq War that the U.S. military was drawn from a smaller proportion of the overall population than in times past. That minimized the electoral consequences of the decision to go to war (and maintain the war), since most Americans were "living a life that is probably not going to change much" whether their country was involved in a protracted war of choice in the Middle East or not.
A similar dynamic seems to have been at work over a longer time scale in the issue of health care reform. By providing senior citizens with a secure, taxpayer funded health care plan in the form of Medicare, one of the most influential blocs of voters (because American seniors always turn out to vote) could regard the health care problems of younger Americans with detached disinterest.
[ 14. July 2015, 19:02: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
This man's wife got mad because her husband didn't vote:
quote:
A Mesa man is in critical condition after his wife ran over him with her Jeep because she was upset he didn’t vote in the presidential election and feared her family would suffer with President Obama’s re-election...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
You could also remember that American elections use a secret ballot and that the only way they'll know to get mad at you is if you tell them.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
They both ask, and I am a terrible liar. Not to mention the weeks building up to the election when I am the subject of "I can't believe he might vote for that guy" conversations among friends and family. It is ideally a personal, private matter, but these days so few people keep it to themselves that lots of people feel no shame in asking "so who are you going to vote for," or just launching into a rant on the assumption you agree with them.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
This man's wife got mad because her husband didn't vote:
quote:
A Mesa man is in critical condition after his wife ran over him with her Jeep because she was upset he didn’t vote in the presidential election and feared her family would suffer with President Obama’s re-election...
That's what I'm talking about. Romney won Arizona by over 200,000 votes. Now had Obama won by one vote, she might have had something to be mad about.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They both ask, and I am a terrible liar. Not to mention the weeks building up to the election when I am the subject of "I can't believe he might vote for that guy" conversations among friends and family. It is ideally a personal, private matter, but these days so few people keep it to themselves that lots of people feel no shame in asking "so who are you going to vote for," or just launching into a rant on the assumption you agree with them.
I have a solution to that, Og, and it's really pretty simple. Drink beer.
Go to your favorite local pub and drink lots of glorious ice cold beer. Folks there tend to mind their own business about such things as politics.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
For people who don't want to read election news: Slate's election news blocker.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
For people who don't want to read election news: Slate's election news blocker.
But if you do you'll miss the (unintentional?) hilarity of candidates using the Waffen-SS in their campaign materials.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
The latest news from the clown car; in a recent poll Trump poll lead widens. It's a small poll and many Republicans are hoping things change.
As for the jury eligibility, I don't know if it's still true now, but many years ago I worked at a company about 5 blocks from the Middlesex County Courthouse in Cambridge, Mass. It was then not a crowded neighborhood and we were warned about an interesting old law still in effects called "Highways and By ways". Basically, if enough jurors didn't show up to meet the needs of the court, they would send bailiffs down the street and ask people if they were citizens. If so, they were drafted. So the warning was, if you see a police looking guy walking down the street for you, casually move away as fast as you could.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So the warning was, if you see a police looking guy walking down the street for you, casually move away as fast as you could.
Could be good advice in lots of places and circumstances.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.
We can only hope.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The latest news from the clown car; in a recent poll Trump poll lead widens. It's a small poll and many Republicans are hoping things change.
Blogger Steve M makes the interesting observation that Trump is polling at 32% among Republicans and Republican-leaning registered voters who don't have a college degree and at 8% among those who do. That's a pretty wide separation.
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on
:
John Kasich is officially in the race. I hope he can make it into the top 10. I want to hear him lecture The Donald about St. Peter.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
John Kasich is officially in the race. I hope he can make it into the top 10. I want to hear him lecture The Donald about St. Peter.
Well, that's everyone in the pool, isn't it? Everyone with an exploratory committee on the Republican side is now officially running. For those who need a score card, the list (in chronological order of official declaration of candidacy) is:
- Mark Everson
- Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz
- Randal "Rand" Paul
- Marco Rubio
- Benjamin "Ben" Carson
- Cara "Carly" Fiorina
- Michael "Mike" Huckabee
- Richard "Rick" Santorum
- George Pataki
- Lindsey Graham
- James Richard "Rick" Perry
- John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
- Donald Trump
- Piyush "Bobby" Jindal
- Christopher "Chris" Christie
- Scott Walker
- John Kasich
I'm putting Mark Everson on the list because he's a declared candidate, not because he has any chance of getting the nomination. If I started filtering by that standard, I'm not sure where I'd be able to stop. So the declared Republican field stands at seventeen, and this seems to represent a peak. There are no more undeclared candidates with exploratory committees out there that I'm aware of. Perennial Republican nuisance candidate Jack Fellure filed with the FEC the day after election day 2012 [PDF], but as far as I know has done nothing else.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.
Why on earth do you think he will flame out by October? What could cause him to do that? Do you think he'll say something incredibly offensive? He already did that that and its put him the the lead in the polls.
I don't think he'll get the nomination but I think its quite possible he could win some of the Primaries. If Rick Santorum could win 11 primaries in 2012 why shouldn't Trump be able to win a few.
Then when he doesn't get the nomination there's the prospect of him doing a Ross Perot and running as a third party candidate. Seems to me Trump is having the time of his life and has no real motivation not to keep going.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about. Perhaps other non-US shipmates will tell me I'm just ignorant. But the only two that are likely to be known to even a moderately well informed foreigner are Jeb Bush because of his more famous dad and brother and Donald Trump for a collection of wrong reasons all of which mark him out as depressingly disturbing presidential material.
Are the rest all nonentities, or is there hidden gold somewhere in there?
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.
I've wondered lately if Hillary manages to sprout a personality capable of overcoming her negatives and wins the White House, will we all be calling Bill the "First Gentleman"?
That's almost too funny to wish against!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Bill Clinton, at his best, would be an awesome First Gentleman. He'd have a great time planning who's going to sit next to whom at state dinners--both to help and provoke, and for his own amusement. Kind of like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's jewelry.
Unfortunately, he hasn't been at his best for a long time. Plus he's addicted to being center stage. And then there's the whole matter of keeping himself to himself...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.
I've wondered lately if Hillary manages to sprout a personality capable of overcoming her negatives and wins the White House, will we all be calling Bill the "First Gentleman"?
That's almost too funny to wish against!
Honestly, I find the joke a bit offensive (as well as stale-- we've been hearing it for almost 16 years). It reminds me a lot of when I was first ordained and folks would call me "Pastor" Cliffdweller with an audible inflection that implied air quotes next to "pastor". When, in fact, there was nothing amusing about it-- I was and am a pastor. No air quotes. And, if Hilary is elected, Bill will indeed be the "first gentleman". No air quotes. Nothing particularly funny about it, even if some folks don't think he always acts all that "gentlemanly".
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about. Perhaps other non-US shipmates will tell me I'm just ignorant. But the only two that are likely to be known to even a moderately well informed foreigner are Jeb Bush because of his more famous dad and brother and Donald Trump for a collection of wrong reasons all of which mark him out as depressingly disturbing presidential material.
Are the rest all nonentities, or is there hidden gold somewhere in there?
Not that surprising. If you asked any American who doesn't follow politics closely they'd have much the same reaction. They either wouldn't know who you were talking about, or would identify them with some vague descriptor rather than by name. Like "that guy who was really thirsty that one time on national television" or "the one who doesn't like volcano monitoring" or "the one whose name is a vaguely disgusting internet neologism" [slightly NSFW].
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about.
You'd probably know something about many of them if you followed US politics at all, but if you don't, you wouldn't. What's so remarkable about that? They're not interested in getting your vote.
ETA: Stupid slow tablet!
[ 22. July 2015, 00:43: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
I've heard of all except three, Mark Everson, Ben Carson, and Lindsey Graham. Admittedly I don't know much about most of them, and knew of Carly Fiorina as a chief executive rather than as a politician, but there are plenty of British politicians I don't know much about either.
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic ?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Right now my first pick would be a governor if I choose to vote in the Republican primary. However, the primary isn't until after the Super Bowl. That's a pretty good while so it's awfully early to get worked up about any of it.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've heard of all except three, Mark Everson, Ben Carson, and Lindsey Graham. Admittedly I don't know much about most of them, and knew of Carly Fiorina as a chief executive rather than as a politician, but there are plenty of British politicians I don't know much about either.
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic ?
Throw Scott Walker into the list of serious candidates. The name Bush is problematic. On the other hand, the Republicans haven't won a presidential election without somebody named Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The name Bush is problematic. On the other hand, the Republicans haven't won a presidential election without somebody named Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.
Not the first time I've heard those names linked. Although I generally think Nixon was more trustworthy than Dubya.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic?
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
Still, from my perspective I think all the declared Republican candidates have some kind of big impediment that should prevent them from winning their party's nomination, and yet logically one of them has to.
--------------------
*Given that the name he goes by is his initials (John Ellis Bush), is putting the name "Bush" at the end redundant? Sort of like saying "ATM machine"? Maybe that's why the name "Bush" doesn't appear on his campaign signs; he's a stickler for grammar.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
Hoping for Walker, personally. Bush might actually be able to BS people into thinking he's a moderate. Walker isn't capable of doing so on a national scale - he's virtually guaranteed to lose a general election unless the Dems hose it up royally. (That said, the Democrats are past masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is pretty accurate.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
Donald Trump has doxxed Lindsey Graham. After Graham called him a 'jackass' in a TV interview Trump responded by reading out Graham's cell phone number at a live televised event and Graham now has to get a new number.
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.
Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to. Given the voters who are attracted to him getting attacked by 'beltway' Republicans will, if anything, be a plus point for him in the election.
I don't think he'll get the Republican nomination but I think he'll cause all kinds of problems for other candidates (as Graham has just discovered). He may well end up being responsible for knocking several of them out of the race and there's not much they can do about it.
Here's an interesting clip I found of an adviser to one of the other candidates explaining the problem of dealing with Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAswVl_KZVU
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.
Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.
This is something of a byproduct of the Citizens United decision. While it's always been possible for a wealthy individual to self-finance a presidential run, they historically had to do so outside the apparatus of an established party. Post-Citizens-United it seems impossible for organized parties to use the traditional methods of enforcing message discipline, like cutting off funding. In the old days the Republican Party would have had the option to tell someone like Donald Trump to go away (and to make it stick). Now their only option is to have Reince Priebus ineffectually wag his finger at Trump.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Can they not just throw him out of the party ?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
He doesn't need the party. He could run as a third-party candidate.
But I wouldn't get too excited about Trump enthusiasm.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
My guess is, from the GOP's point of view, if they throw him out of the party, he'll split the right-wing vote so the victory will assuredly go to Clinton.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He doesn't need the party. He could run as a third-party candidate.
But I wouldn't get too excited about Trump enthusiasm.
I don't think he's going anytime soon and I think this quote from a Huffington Post article on Trump will tell you why
quote:
Trump has also largely eschewed the poverty-shaming strain of Republicanism espoused in Paul Ryan's "makers and takers" rhetoric, Scott Walker's drug testing of food stamp applicants, and the "let him die" episode from a 2011 primary debate. But not all of the GOP base wants to stick it to the poors. Many of them are poor, and fed up with a government that doesn't seem to be looking out for them. They like Medicare and Social Security, and think Democrats are raiding the programs to fund Obamacare and Obamaphones. They don't see why banks should get bailouts while their friends get pink slips.
Trump is targeting that segment of the Republican party, which shares many economic concerns with Democrats and independents. Trump's campaign speeches don't revert to the time-honored Republican promise to "save" Social Security by slashing benefits for retirees. Instead, he vows to preserve the safety net -- even Medicaid -- by making everybody so rich that the programs would be on sound financial footing.
link
These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc. Political scientists have noted that many of these parties have a higher proportion of their support coming from working class voters than the main center left parties in those countries do. Many of their voters have come from mainstream center right parties but many have not, either previously being center left or in many cases having been non voters. Even when they have come from the center right they often don't hurry back.
Trump's headline grabbing antics are often similar to tactics used by these populist right parties. I suspect his support base is firming up and I don't think its peaked yet. I don't think Trump is going anywhere.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I don't think any Republican candidate can win the 2016 Presidential election unless the GOP finds both policies and a candidate to attract the (very distrustful) Hispanic and Black voters. At present, there is not much sign of both of those things happening in time.
Here is a link, with a voter composition table which makes interesting reading.
Trust once lost is hard to regain. Coupled with state voting patterns, the electoral college structure is at present (and for the foreseeable future) more favourable to the Democrats, even if the popular vote is close.
The only possible X factor might be a major scandal involving the Democratic candidate. And since Hilary and Bill's dirty washing has been on public display for a quarter of a century now, that seems pretty unlikely.
Given the odds against thing, it probably wouldn't matter if the GOP had a collective brain-fart and went for Trump. In financial terms, he's got more than enough money of his own to waste. And another thumping loss might, just possible might, awaken the GOP heartland to the time of day. WASP attitudes and policies will not just lose the upcoming election, but without change will lose the one after that as well.
But it's not all bad for the GOP. The gerrymandered House of Representatives seems likely to deliver the GOP another blocking majority.
So the US looks likely to experience more political polarisation for the next 4 years. Without bipartisan co-operation over the structural biases (and that would appear to have about the same chance as a snowball in Hell), this doleful misery seems set to continue.
[ 23. July 2015, 08:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Donald Trump has doxxed Lindsey Graham. After Graham called him a 'jackass' in a TV interview Trump responded by reading out Graham's cell phone number at a live televised event and Graham now has to get a new number.
Lindsey Graham's response is a thing of beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.
I agree with you. What Trump says looks a lot like these European politicians, and thoughts that he'll be off-stage quickly might be overly optimistic. There is a difference in the US (and the UK) of course because of their districtal system, I wonder how that will work out.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.
I agree with you. What Trump says looks a lot like these European politicians, and thoughts that he'll be off-stage quickly might be overly optimistic. There is a difference in the US (and the UK) of course because of their districtal system, I wonder how that will work out.
The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively but they have both still a substantial number of voters who aren't in any hurry to switch back to the main parties. I think Trump could do reasonably well (but not win overall) in the primaries. After that he could well run as an Independent or 3rd party candidate.
I saw this clip of him being interviewed this week on the Dana Loesch show. He was asked about running as a 3rd party candidate and if you listen carefully to his answer you'll hear its what I believe politicians call a 'non-denial denial'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIItn__nXGo
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Bibliophile: I saw this clip of him being interviewed this week on the Dana Loesch show. He was asked about running as a 3rd party candidate and if you listen carefully to his answer you'll hear its what I believe politicians call a 'non-denial denial'
My guess is that if he's eliminated in the primaries, his ego won't allow him not to run as an independent. Which will give the GOP a serious problem.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively
The situations are by no means comparable. There is no equivalent to FPTP in national elections, and the FN is doing pretty well in first rounds.
This can be taken to be the French voting with their hearts rather than their heads, a favourite national pastime prior to the decisive round.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Lindsey Graham's response is a thing of beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.
Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.
This is something of a byproduct of the Citizens United decision. While it's always been possible for a wealthy individual to self-finance a presidential run, they historically had to do so outside the apparatus of an established party. Post-Citizens-United it seems impossible for organized parties to use the traditional methods of enforcing message discipline, like cutting off funding. In the old days the Republican Party would have had the option to tell someone like Donald Trump to go away (and to make it stick). Now their only option is to have Reince Priebus ineffectually wag his finger at Trump.
It now seems that even the finger wagging option may be getting out of reach. Trump has now openly threatened to run as as 3rd party candidate if the RNC don't 'treat him fairly'
quote:
NEW YORK — Donald Trump says the chances that he will launch a third-party White House run will “absolutely” increase if the Republican National Committee is unfair to him during the 2016 primary season.
“The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.”
Pressed on whether he would run as a third-party candidate if he fails to clinch the GOP nomination, Trump said that “so many people want me to, if I don’t win.”
“I’ll have to see how I’m being treated by the Republicans,” Trump said. “Absolutely, if they’re not fair, that would be a factor.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248910-exclusive-trump-threatens-third-party-run
in other words 'play nice and no more finger wagging or else'.
Given the Republican Party establishment's support for big money in politics they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves for this situation.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I agree that the GOP has sown the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind.
The newest meme sweeping the web: Brush your cat. Amass the brushings into a mat and put it on your cat's head. Voila -- your cat impersonating Donald Trump! Photograph him quickly and post.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Or this:
God Called Me to Run
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think any Republican candidate can win the 2016 Presidential election unless the GOP finds both policies and a candidate to attract the (very distrustful) Hispanic and Black voters. At present, there is not much sign of both of those things happening in time.
Here is a link, with a voter composition table which makes interesting reading.
Trust once lost is hard to regain. Coupled with state voting patterns, the electoral college structure is at present (and for the foreseeable future) more favourable to the Democrats, even if the popular vote is close. ...
That is why the GOP loves voter id laws and eliminating early voting and same-day registration - because of the disproportionate impact on people of color and the poor and students and women -- all groups which lean Democratic. If they GOP can suppress their votes effectively, they might have a shot at the White House. They've already wrapped up the House until the next census and will probably always have a rural vs. urban advantage in that body. In the last election cycle, there was talk of changing the winner-take-all electoral college to distributing the electors based on congressional districts, which again would favour the GOP presidential candidate.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Soror Magna
I think the Obama campaigns countered more difficult voter registration so I guess a (probable) Clinton campaign could follow suit.
On changing the electoral college along the lines that have been suggested, how likely is that to succeed in time for 2016? On general grounds I'd have thought not.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I've never been persuaded by any of the reasons anyone has ever given on the various occasions when it has been discussed on these boards, for having your electoral college since the original reason why it was designed into the Constitution in the C18 did not stick. Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins? Inserting any other stage into the system is capable of distorting the result without adding anything.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm inclined to agree, Enoch. But that wasn't the suggestion Soror Magna referred to.
I'm pretty sure we've had a previous discussion on the pros and cons of the current electoral college. I'll have a look in the dusty archives, see if I can find it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Here's a link to a post in the 2012 US Presidential election thread.
No credit for speedy discovery. I was just lucky! I haven't looked further down the thread to check the follow up.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.
I want my vote to count just as much as any other vote in any other state. It will never happen with the current system.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.
I want my vote to count just as much as any other vote in any other state. It will never happen with the current system.
If you do the math you will see that the smaller states are heavily weighted through the EC.
California is 38 million people. Wyoming is about 600,000. 38 million/600,000 is +/- 63.
California has 55 Electoral votes, Wyoming has 3.
55/3 is 18.
A straight popular vote would insure that no candidate for POTUS would ever be seen outside the 10 or 12 most populous states.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
The last serious effort to amend the Constitution to do away with the electoral college was in 1970, and it was a filibuster by senators from small states that killed it.
I don't know if it will make any of you feel better, but plenty of California voters feel like their votes don't matter. Our votes in the primaries come too late to matter, and Republican voters know that they haven't mattered in the general presidential election for at least 20 years, since the state has become a reliable Democrat stronghold. Candidates only visit California to raise money.
Personally, I think it's time for us to acknowledge that it's really only rich people who matter in this whole process. If a candidate can't persuade rich people to donate, it doesn't matter what the likes of you and me think.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Wouldn't it be better for electoral college votes to be apportioned by the percentage of votes for candidates, rather than awarded as a block to the winner of a plurality (Maine and Nebraska vote by congressional district, with the additional 2 going to the winner of the plurality)? In this way, should (say) 40% of Californians vote for Mr Trump, he would get 22 Californian votes, and Mrs Clinton the other 33. In this way, popular vote would have a greater say while smaller states, with their disproportional strength (i.e., Vermont with its 2+1=3 rather than its proportional 1 vote) are still relevant enough for attention by candidates.
This would have the advantage that "safe" states, which are taken for granted by candidates-- which Republican worries about Utah? -- would no longer be taken for granted as the danger of going from 5 Utah votes to 4 would ensure some attention, as would the prospect of going from 1 to 2 would engage the mind of a Democratic candidate.
This would also help keep two-party democracy operational in the "safe" states.
As it is, "battleground" states such as Florida and Arizona get disproportionate attention as they are among the few where either party can win. Still, I suppose that this helps direct large sums of campaign money into job-creation in the journalism and business-travel industries.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is definitely a better way to do it. But there is no will to make a change. Those in power got in on the current system, and are not motivated at all to alter it. Nor would now be a good time, ramping up to an election. The ideal time to do it is -after- an election when everyone is exhausted and all the shouting is over for a couple months. But a new incoming administration usually does not have this issue anywhere near the top of the agenda.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Drat it, hit send too fast. I have a photograph of my cat, dressed for Halloween. He is going, naturally, as Donald Trump -- his cat-hair wig is perfect. I have no idea how to post the photo here, but I could possibly get it up on the SoF Facebook page.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
Sorry. That's nonsense. It is not believable that all the voters in one big state would vote for the same candidate. If there's a straight headcount, all votes are of equal value, wherever they are.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The electoral college was about protecting the interests of small states and regions. It is still about that. A state's electoral votes equals its number of senators and representatives. Give each congressional district an electoral vote. The candidate who wins the popular vote gets an extra two electoral votes.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Personally, I think it's time for us to acknowledge that it's really only rich people who matter in this whole process. If a candidate can't persuade rich people to donate, it doesn't matter what the likes of you and me think.
Damn straight.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/
The article highlights his opposition to the Iraq war, his outspoken support for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and his continuing support for universal healthcare (although of course not the 'Obamacare' system).
The latter he explained in this short audioclip of an interview he did last week
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/conservative-with-a-heart
He said that he 'didn't care' if this cost him votes in the Republican primaries but I'm not sure it will. I suspect that disproportionately high number of the primary voters will be socially conservative old people who use Medicare.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/
Hilarious!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
A whole thread on the Electoral College from 2012 can be found here.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
A straight popular vote would insure that no candidate for POTUS would ever be seen outside the 10 or 12 most populous states.
I'm always amazed at the level of self-contradictory "reasoning" fans of the electoral college can come up with the support that anachronism. In the 2012 election Wyoming voted Republican by a margin of more than 40 percentage points, while the Dakotas had margins of about 20 percentage points each. Under the electoral college, any effort that doesn't move the state to a majority in your favor is wasted. Given this, there's no reason to visit those states now, as can be seen from this handy website. On the other hand, if votes from those states would still be counted in your presidential total even if you didn't carry a majority of the population, that would be an incentive to pay them some attention.
Now if your problem is an objection to the fact that 13,038,547 voters in California carry more electoral weight than 249,061 voters in Wyoming, your problem is with democracy in general rather than any specific vote counting system.
The electoral college is actually one of the more frequently amended sections of the Constitution. (The twelfth and twenty-third amendments revised the rules for the electoral college.) So it's demonstrably possible to pass such amendments, although it's still incredibly difficult to do so. That would be the only way to switch over to popularly electing the U.S. President.
On the other hand, some fixes are available without resorting to a Constitutional amendment. For example, expanding the size of the U.S. House of Representatives would take care of a lot of the disproportionate representation problem. By my calculations (based on the 2010 census), expanding the U.S. House (which can be done legislatively without resorting to an amendment) from its current size of 435 members to 827 would largely eliminate the disproportionality in the allocation of electors. Wyoming would have 4 electors, California would have 102. Not proportional parity, but a lot closer, and it would largely eliminate disproportionality in the U.S. House. The only practical concern is whether a legislative body that large can function.
Dividing up each state's electors on a proportional basis is also a fix that doesn't require a constitutional amendment. I'm skeptical of doing it by Congressional District, since those are subject to gerrymandering and might just end up in practical terms as a winner take all system like present. For example, in the 2014 House races in Massachusetts Republicans captured 17% of the vote (which isn't bad considering they only contested 3 of Massachusetts' 9 Congressional Districts) yet zero of Massachusetts' congressional delegation are Republicans.
At any rate, the Electoral College is an anachronism that would be better replaced by direct election, but failing that there are fixes available.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/
Hilarious!
No one is saying that he is a progressive but on a number of issues he is on the left of the American political spectrum.
For example, as noted above, he is in favour of universal healthcare whilst Jeb Bush has recently argued in favour of abolishing medicare. And yet Trump is the one portrayed in the media as being more extreme than Bush.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...).
Like so many GOP candidates before him (yes, Newt, I'm looking at you...) he isn't the least bit interested in actually becoming president-- too much work for too little pay and too little respect. But, like the others, he's found that running for president is just the little resume boost needed to restart a has-been career and launch into the far more lucrative job of political pundit. It's a well-paying and easy gig. No need to do any research or read anything, no need to make any hard decisions, and you get to sit back and criticize the poor fool who actually got the job all you want w/o worrying about the consequences. Just collect your fat check from Faux News or the Heritage Foundation or some other right wingnut organization.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Exactly. Who was it, who decided that all Trump coverage should not be filed under News & Politics but should be posted under Entertainment? They had the right of it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks for the better link, Croesos.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Brenda Clough: Who was it, who decided that all Trump coverage should not be filed under News & Politics but should be posted under Entertainment?
I think it was Huffington Post.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...
Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...
Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.
No, but Jon Stewart is rather famously Jewish and is probably referring to the fact that as long as Donald Trump is in the race the Daily Show will never want for material.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Won't the Daily Show want for Jon Stewart himself shortly? A thought that makes me very sad. There is nobody quite like him on either side of the pond.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Won't the Daily Show want for Jon Stewart himself shortly? A thought that makes me very sad. There is nobody quite like him on either side of the pond.
I know. I've been going to bed with Stewart (wink, wink) every night very years... it won't be the same.
I keep hoping that Trump et al will cause him to have a change of heart-- after all, with them in the race you don't even have to work all that hard, the jokes just write themselves... But sadly, he just keeps saying it's his lovely parting gift.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
There's an interesting graphic showing where 2012's presidential campaign donors are bestowing their 2016 contributions (at least to date).
Barack Obama's backers, interestingly, are going to Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton by a fairly significant margin.
A plurality of Mitt Romney's backers seem to favor Marco Rubio. Who knew?
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
Also interesting to note how a number of Ron Paul sponsors went to Sanders...
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Politico says Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Walker will be auditioning for the Koch brothers and other wealthy donors this weekend. This may thin the herd somewhat.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Charisma Magazine says that Donald Trump has been anointed by God. Hope they'll do a retraction in two years.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
Triple
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".
I did. My post reflects the results of that search.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
So Fox News has lowered its standards so that all Republican candidates can participate in one of its two debates this Thursday (August 6, 2015). The standard now is either "all declared candidates whose names are consistently being offered to respondents in major national polls, as recognized by Fox News" or those who "meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements; . . . announce and register a formal campaign for president; and . . . file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), including financial disclosure". You'll note that the first criteria would exclude Mark Everson's ultra-longshot campaign (no one polls for his support) while the latter would include him.
At any rate, as the polls now stand the ten candidates who would get included in the prime-time debate (starts at 9:00 pm EDT) are:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
- J.E.B. Bush
- Scott Walker
- Marco Rubio
- Ted Cruz
- Rand Paul
- Mike Huckabee
- Ben Carson
- Chris Christie
- Rick Perry
The six runners-up (John Kasich, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham) would take part in the "opening act" debate (sometimes referred to as "the kiddie table") scheduled to start at 5:00 pm EDT (which is 2:00 pm on the west coast). It's actually a distinct possibility that because it has fewer (and saner) participants the earlier "kiddie table" debate might be more substantive and dignified than the main event.
Of course polling between now and then may change these line-ups, so we can probably expect a lot of crazy behavior (or at least a lot more crazy behavior) as candidates try to push themselves into the top 10 over the next week.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Honestly, I think we've been wrong about Faux News all along. They are actually left wing satirists who absolutely adore Jon Stewart and are as heartbroken as the rest of us to see him leave. Why else would they be offering up this valentine to the man just weeks before his departure? Set your DVRs folks-- next week is going to kick off the greatest week of Daily Shows in history.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
A debate 15 months before the Nov 2016 election? Each candidate getting maybe 1 or 2 questions?
Here would be my answer at such a crowded debate.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
A debate 15 months before the Nov 2016 election? Each candidate getting maybe 1 or 2 questions?
But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.
As for the number of questions likely in the amount of time available, that's a decision that's been made by the Republican Party/Fox News. (Is there a meaningful distinction between these entities at this point?) This kind of early circus is how they feel it's best to provide the first public showing of next year's presidential hopefuls.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.
Six months is still too far out, imo. That leaves the debate mattering because of a state fair. Here I am 56 years old having thought all of my life a fair was for riding rides and looking at crops and animals.
quote:
As for the number of questions likely in the amount of time available, that's a decision that's been made by the Republican Party/Fox News. (Is there a meaningful distinction between these entities at this point?) This kind of early circus is how they feel it's best to provide the first public showing of next year's presidential hopefuls.
I don't see much of a distinction between the two. I also don't much of a distinction between the DNC and the the other cable news channels.
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
Agreed-- a much more productive use of time. But I would advocate carving a bit of time there to catch Stewart's take on it all-- even if it's doomed to make us love him all the more and thus make the parting all the more poignant.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Sanders is actually rather liberal on immigration issues. As for saying that open borders is a Koch brothers proposal that's simply a statement of fact.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
Agreed-- a much more productive use of time. But I would advocate carving a bit of time there to catch Stewart's take on it all...
You would have a better shot of catching something fresh and actually funny if you watched the debate.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Perhaps our Nick could arrange things so he could lounge in the swimming pool, drink beer and watch the comedy show all at the same time.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I'm trying to imagine the fun and games that could result from a Republican House and a Sanders presidency. What's worse - a commie or a n*****?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A woman, of course. The GOP loathes women.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps our Nick could arrange things so he could lounge in the swimming pool, drink beer and watch the comedy show all at the same time.
It would be groovy but there isn't any cable tv outlets at the pool. I've already looked. Soaking in the pool, downing some suds and watching a baseball game was my plan. We live in a condo and it's the pool for the condo complex so it isn't something I can easily remedy. So, instead of groovy we have to settle for swell.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It would be groovy but there isn't any cable tv outlets at the pool. I've already looked.
You just need a little more initiative. Slingbox or similar in your unit, hooked up to your cable. Webcast the video to a laptop or tablet in the pool.
You can do point-to-point wifi between your place and an access point near the pool with a couple of pringles cans.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic?
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
I think that Scott Walker would be a terrible candidate and frankly I don't see why Tea Party people would like him so much. He's done flip flops on immigration and various other issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYLcWhx_ERc
http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2015/03/09/12-reasons-why-conservatives-should-reject-scott-walker/
He's a strong supporter of TPP, his economic and budget records are less than stellar. Beyond that he just doesn't seem very likeable. Watching some clips of him and he just comes across as one of the most smarmy and insincere looking people I've every seen. I can't see him doing well in the general election and I can't think of a single good reason for any Republican voter to actually vote for him in the primaries.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
I think that Scott Walker would be a terrible candidate and frankly I don't see why Tea Party people would like him so much. He's done flip flops on immigration and various other issues
You underestimate the degree to which the Tea Party (and similar) is about simple resentment. Scott Walker hates unions and busts them, particularly public sector unions. Plus he survived a recall election, so he's already stuck it to "them". ("Them" in this case being some vaguely liberal conspiracy.) Yes he's terrible at public speaking, but "smarmy asshole" is what the Tea Party is looking for. It's their key demographic.
[ 01. August 2015, 19:41: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
And speaking of Scott Walker, this seems like a fairly clever bit of political theatre.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I enjoyed this questionnaire (scroll down a bit).
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Looks like the slate is set for the first Republican Presidential Debate of the 2016 primaries. The top ten, in order of decreasing popularity, are:
- Republican frontrunner Donald Trump
- J.E.B. Bush
- Scott Walker
- Mike Huckabee
- Ben Carson
- Ted Cruz
- Marco Rubio
- Rand Paul
- Chris Christie
- John Kasich
The staging will be set up to give the top polling candidate the center podium, with others flanking him (right and left) in order of decreasing popularity. Which means frontrunner Trump will be sandwiched between Bush and Walker.
The "other six", who will be participating in the earlier "kiddie table" debate, are:
- Rick Santorum
- Bobby Jindal
- Carly Fiorina
- Lindsey Graham
- George Pataki
- Jim Gilmore
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Tomorrow night: Stock up on your favorite beverage and let the drinkin' games begin! The debates also coincide with Jon Stewart's last night on the air-- extended to 90 minutes. It should be the best 90 min. ever. We need to savor it, as it's gotta last us through the next 15 months of what promises to be a whackadoodle election season.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
At least the Labour Party's list has only got four names on it, and ½ are men and ½ are women.
Unless I'm missing something, the only woman is on the reserve list.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless I'm missing something, the only woman is on the reserve list.
No, no. Lindsey Graham is a man...
Oh, wait. You meant Carly Florina. Never mind.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The "other six", who will be participating in the earlier "kiddie table" debate, are:
- Rick Santorum
- Bobby Jindal
- Carly Fiorina
- Lindsey Graham
- George Pataki
- Jim Gilmore
Oops. That should be the "other seven". I left out this guy:
I'd like to claim I was being deliberately ironic (because, you know), but I was just sloppy.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
And the Democrats have finally gotten around to announcing their debate schedule. The first one will be in about two months, on October 13. Six debates overall, with (at least) the first four taking place before the first primaries/caucuses.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
This article (NSFW language ahead!!!) is probably the best thing I have read about the election, the Trump candidacy, and the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Well, all I can say is, the competition for Next Faux Network Star did not disappoint.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
It was certainly interesting seeing "family values" voters out in force to defend against charges of misogyny made by a Fox news anchor.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August
Yep, especially when it isn't the August of an election year. I drank beer and watched some Cheers on Netflix with my wife then read and farted around for a while until Rectify. They can all pound sand until after the Super Bowl.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August
Yep, especially when it isn't the August of an election year. I drank beer and watched some Cheers on Netflix with my wife then read and farted around for a while until Rectify. They can all pound sand until after the Super Bowl.
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Well yes. You'll note that the Democrats aren't starting their debates until October. Of course, there's a lot less winnowing that needs to be done there.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Well yes. You'll note that the Democrats aren't starting their debates until October. Of course, there's a lot less winnowing that needs to be done there.
Yes, that's true, but Martin O'Malley's bellyaching.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Maybe it's a symptom of who my Facebook friends are, but I didn't notice a huge overlap of people who were posting about the debate and people who are eligible to vote in a Republican primary or who might actually vote for one of the people on stage in the election. The one friend I have who is a professional Republican muckraker was proudly announcing that she was going to happy hour rather than watching.
Oh well. Fox got its content, perhaps a little ratings bump, and advertizing dollars. If ESPN can invent a need for bowl games featuring mediocre college football teams so that it has something to show in December, I guess Fox can invent a need for debates in August, as long as the candidates show up.
So will Trump stay in for Iowa, or is he going to pull out before he risks losing an actual poll? (To be fair, he did win the California Reform Party primary in 2000, even though it happened several months after he pulled out of that race. After 25 years of pulling this trick, you'd think we would have caught on.)
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Oh well. Fox got its content, perhaps a little ratings bump, and advertizing dollars. If ESPN can invent a need for bowl games featuring mediocre college football teams so that it has something to show in December, I guess Fox can invent a need for debates in August, as long as the candidates show up.
I just read that FOX had 24 million viewers for the debate so, there you go.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
So Trump has been uninvited to speak at a Red State forum after suggesting that Megan Kelly asked him pointed questions because she was on her period.
This is too easy. He makes a big fuss about how neither of the parties are ready for a straight talker who can cut through the B.S., drops out of the Republican primaries, but reminds everyone that he never said he wouldn't run as an independent. He goes out on top, and he gets will he or won't he coverage for the next 12 months.
I'd set the over / under at Labor Day, but that's three weeks out.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I believe the quote was, she had blood coming out of her eyes, she had blood coming out of her wherever.
Which is gibberish really.
[ 08. August 2015, 16:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
He is now claiming he was referring to her nose - this does not make a great deal more sense.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Well, at least the GOP reaction shows that they are beginning to take into account that they have actual, female type women who vote as members.
Period- shaming? Really? What is this, 1985?
Actually, what he seems to be implying is that women are sharper, more aggressive pundits when on their periods, so maybe we ought to use that superpower more.
[ 08. August 2015, 16:44: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
Yes. It's a period drama.
Anything in woman superpower is welcome to stop him, as far as I'm concerned.
One wonders what's really in the back of his strange-hair-controlled mind? He'll know he hasn't got a chance. Or has he?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
It seems to me that this early in the election cycle his poll ratings are due not to agreement with what he plans to actually do, whatever that really is, but to his being entertaining.
If Ric Flair was running he'd have higher ratings than Trump right now.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I believe that the size of the Trump ego is such that he not only really believes that he can win the nomination, he believes he can win the election and become a viable president. This man's attachment to reality is of the most tenuous.
Furthermore, his comments about women make it clear that I should never spend a dime on anything with the Trump name on it for the rest of my life. Money talks for the Donald.
I have no way to post a picture of my cat, who I Trumped again today, but if you send me your email address I will send you the photo.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe that the size of the Trump ego is such that he not only really believes that he can win the nomination, he believes he can win the election and become a viable president. This man's attachment to reality is of the most tenuous.
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
I mean look at who he picked as his target. Prior to this, all sorts of people would have told you that Megan Kelly was only on TV because she has a pretty face and can spout Fox talking points. If there is anyone who he can be sure that people will stop siding with in a few weeks max, it's Megan Kelly.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I mean look at who he picked as his target. Prior to this, all sorts of people would have told you that Megan Kelly was only on TV because she has a pretty face and can spout Fox talking points.
Any network would be glad to have her.
quote:
If there is anyone who he can be sure that people will stop siding with in a few weeks max, it's Megan Kelly.
I doubt it. He can't talk out of his ass like that and look better over time.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Oh, I don't think anyone will say that Trump was right for saying what he did. (Actually, I'm sure there are truly tactless people who already have said he was right, but let's forget them for a bit.) I'm just saying that it will be a week or two before another clip of Kelly doing her thing starts circulating with the headline "Watch as a guest eviscerates fembot / walking Barbi doll Megan Kelly" and Trump's remarks become old news.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
What worries me about Trump is that when Hitler rose to power everyone thought he was a clown, too. His very presence in the lineup shows that there's something deeply wrong.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
Bingo.
Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
7lPeriod- shaming? Really? What is this, 1985?
Actually, what he seems to be implying is that women are sharper, more aggressive pundits when on their periods, so maybe we ought to use that superpower more.
They should put that in the Bodyform advert.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
Bingo.
Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.
You really think he needs Fox News money? That would be a serious pay cut for him... of course president would be too; but never underestimate the attraction of power.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
Bingo.
Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.
You really think he needs Fox News money? That would be a serious pay cut for him... of course president would be too; but never underestimate the attraction of power.
Again, this is a pattern for Trump... and for other GOP leaders as well. There is some pretty serious money to be made on the (both conservative & liberal) speaking circuit for pretty easy work. It's not like you'd have to give up your day job (as you would with POTUS)-- it's just a nice lucrative side job. And you still get the ego thing-- everybody ponying up big $$ to listen to you, quoting you, applauding you-- w/o having to be accountable for your decisions or having to do the hard work of negotiating with Congress (something I can't see Trump doing in a million years).
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Does it really outway the cost of running in the first place ?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Does it really outway the cost of running in the first place ?
Oh, who knows? To your point, he appears to be playing with his own money (one of his stupider statements, "I don't take special interests money, I AM special interests...), although one wonders if that is his plan longterm. Trump isn't exactly a rational investor-- he's been bankrupt 4 times. He's a reckless swing-for-the-fences kind of guy who has the big wins and the big losses to show for it.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Trump doesn't need the Fox News money but he definitely needs their unfair, not balanced backing from their various talking heads. The Fox Faithful are ditto heads.
This morning Trump says anyone who thought his remarks referred to anything other than nose bleeds are "deviants." He also says he will be "phenomenal to the women." Thanks for being so specific, Donald. I feel better now.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I'm not so sure he wants or will get Fox's backing, at least unless he wins the nomination. They loved that he got Democrats with nothing better to do to tune into the debate, but let's be honest, the pledge to support the party and the sexist statements questions weren't intended to help the guy. It's a sideshow to keep us watching, even though we all know the money is going to give us Bush and Clinton a year from now.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Bernie Sanders was just on Face the Nation and he said the worst thing about the debate was all the serious subjects they didn't touch; climate change, the growing gap between rich and poor, the threat of more war in Iraq, the huge campaign funds coming from billionaires who will then control the winner. Why can't we have someone like him for president?
He also touched on the biggest thing I have against Clinton -- she voted for the war in Iraq. That's the reason I voted for Obama over her last time and it still bothers me.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
At least Secretary Clinton has conceded the Iraq vote was a mistake. It seems the GOP wants nothing more than to repeat the mistake with Iran. And Syria.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What worries me about Trump is that when Hitler rose to power everyone thought he was a clown, too. His very presence in the lineup shows that there's something deeply wrong.
Whilst I think they had very different motivations, part of the appeal they both share is they are speaking to people who feel oppressed by their current situation.
That the US right's "oppression" is an hallucination is irrelevant.
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(one of his stupider statements, "I don't take special interests money, I AM special interests...)
Ugh, that reminds me of his appearance in front of a Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry a few years ago. When asked to provide evidence to back up his assertions (in this case on the negative impact on tourism of wind turbines) he replied "I am the evidence".
I am holding on to all the assertions here that he'll never be President, that at some point in the process he'll withdraw. From your lips/keyboards to God's ears.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why can't we have someone like him for president?
Well, he is running... when he first got in, I just thought he was too independent and too liberal to win... but I dunno, he's gaining a lot of traction. I thought the same thing of Obama around this time in the election cycle, was just praying he'd hang in there til the Calif primary so I'd get to vote for him at least once... and look what happened... in many ways, Sanders reminds me of Obama.
One little fantasy I've been spinning in my head has to do with the timing of Jon Stewart's exit from the Daily Show.. so odd for him to leave on the same day as the Republican debates which would have been a field day of fun for him... So I wonder... what if he quit so he can run Sander's campaign? Or a PAC that will support candidates and causes he cares about?
A pipe dream, but...
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Try this on for size:
President Bernie Sanders and Prime Minister Tom Mulcair, sitting down at a Canada/US summit.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And in candidate news:
Ted Cruz Cooks Bacon With A Machine Gun (HuffPost).
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I'm not sure that Trump cares about his place in history, but assuming that he does (and I see nothing suggesting that he doesn't), he will certainly be given a larger place if he forms a third part and runs, and an even larger place if he manages to carry a few states.
Also, the publicity garnered by a third party run would be enormous, particularly for someone likely to say or do something outrageously newsworthy every day.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Perhaps a Trump/Palin ticket?
I could see it winning a big chunk of the popular vote, and perhaps the electoral votes of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota....
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Perhaps a Trump/Palin ticket?
I could see it winning a big chunk of the popular vote, and perhaps the electoral votes of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota....
Hey, we were having a moment there.
Don't go putting you-know-what in the punchbowl.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
I'm wondering if Trump is going to win the nomination? Given unlimited funds and support by the tea party, I can imagine him sticking around for a long time.
I am marveling that a Drudge Report poll is being cited as evidence that he did well in the debate. Not what I would call an unbiased source. I saw a comment asking how many Democrats voted to continue the mischief.
Some of this is the unlimited money and some is the media not wanting to give up the excitement for the next few months of primary infighting with the other candidates.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
If Trump sends some money her way, she'll likely do whatever he wants. It will definitely be "TRUMP for President in 2016", not "Trump/Palin in 2016."
I think she still has a fair number of hard-core supporters who could provide a margin in some states although there is likely a considerable overlap with Trump boosters. Palin has a good record of stirring up such people.
Putting a woman (albeit Palin) on the ticket would
those who criticize his blatant misogyny.
In any case, it's hard to imagine that even Palin could say anything more damaging to Trump than the things he routinely says himself.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Palin/Trump:
At the RNC convention for the 2008 election, there was quite a tableau some time after McCain chose Palin over Lieberman for VP. IIRC, the speeches were over for the night. McCain and Palin were sitting next to each other on stage. Lieberman was just behind them, angrily looming over them like a vulture. I thought, "oh, neither Lieberman nor Palin should be behind any of the others on the stairs". Lieberman wanted the VP spot, expected due to his friendship with McCain, and both Palin and Lieberman probably wanted the top job.
I wonder what undercurrents there would be in a Trump/Palin candidacy?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
Putting a woman (albeit Palin) on the ticket would
those who criticize his blatant misogyny.
...
Anyone who can recognize misogyny should also be able to recognize tokenism.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
I'm sure even now he's trying to figure out a way to make it a Trump/Trump ticket.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
When I was a kid, there was a book called "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark." It was a compilation of obviously made up stories to be read for amusement and a cheep thrill around the camp fire. Being a little jumpy, I never owned a copy, but it was always a school book fair best-seller.
Now maybe I'm wrong, and I'll take my lashes if I am. But Trump - Palin 2016 sounds like the first story out of "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark: Politics Edition." Maybe it is a serious threat. Or maybe (I feel as if I am repeating myself) it's August, shit else is happening, and political writers have to submit something to their editors.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
I'm sure even now he's trying to figure out a way to make it a Trump/Trump ticket.
There's always this.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
Naked ego in politics beats naked politicians. Ask around.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
It has been a long, long time since he has looked in a mirror, apparently.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
It has been a long, long time since he has looked in a mirror, apparently.
The hair alone demonstrates that.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Rick Perry's campaign has evidently run out of money, per TV news. IIRC, he's letting his staff go, and maybe closing offices.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It's not that he's run out of money. It's that the billionaire donors decided not to give him any more money. And he has no base -- no people donating ten dollars -- to make up the lack. He wasn't a good enough sock puppet; the plutocrats have better mouthpieces.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
In a field of 17, Rick Perry was a little too much last season's news. The fact that one of the indictments is going forward can't help, either. I suspect he was seen as having just a little too much baggage. In the end, I think that sense of "last year's news" is going to shoot down Santorum as well.
Of course, Donald Trump certainly has plenty of baggage as well--and seems to be shopping for more every day. In the slow news environment, though, he at least provides entertainment. The Fox network has long known that entertainment is more important than hard news if you want to generate profit from a TV brand.
The Donald is the real wild card in this election. I find very few redeeming qualities there (OK, I find none) but he stands a good chance of playing kingmaker--for the Democrats.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The Donald is the real wild card in this election. I find very few redeeming qualities there (OK, I find none) but he stands a good chance of playing kingmaker--for the Democrats.
He does! If he actually makes it through the nominations I think almost any Democrat but Clinton would beat him. It's not her fault, but she is so hated by most Republicans, I think they would vote for any Republican rather than her.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
More on why the Trump lead is a slow news month fiction, this time from Nate Silver.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
On the other side, this is an interesting opinion piece on the Black Lives Matter movement pushing back against Democratic candidates for not saying enough about racial inequality.
The sense seems to be that as long as candidates don't directly address racial inequality as a problem in and of itself rather than as a symptom of economic inequality, black voters are going to feel like they are being offered a "least bad" candidate rather than someone who might actually do something to help them out directly.
So if no one comes out and makes racial inequality a cornerstone of his or her platform, is there a risk that black voters stay home? And why should black voters be expected to be happy about voting for the "least bad" candidate?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Trump doesn't need the Fox News money but he definitely needs their unfair, not balanced backing from their various talking heads. The Fox Faithful are ditto heads.
This morning Trump says anyone who thought his remarks referred to anything other than nose bleeds are "deviants." He also says he will be "phenomenal to the women." Thanks for being so specific, Donald. I feel better now.
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News. She would normally be the very last kind of person to be attacked by a Republican presidential candidate. By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So Trump has been uninvited to speak at a Red State forum after suggesting that Megan Kelly asked him pointed questions because she was on her period.
This is too easy. He makes a big fuss about how neither of the parties are ready for a straight talker who can cut through the B.S., drops out of the Republican primaries, but reminds everyone that he never said he wouldn't run as an independent. He goes out on top, and he gets will he or won't he coverage for the next 12 months.
I'd set the over / under at Labor Day, but that's three weeks out.
I think you're wrong about that.
Trump is now apparently working of his Tax and Immigration policies (the latter apparently he's working with Senator Jeff Sessions on) and will announce them in September before the second debate
link
He's also reporting to be building up a formidable election machine in Iowa link
I think he's actually trying to win.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
I never heard of Megan Kelly until this story broke. I doubt that many people who don't watch Faux News had heard of her. Now everyone has. She couldn't have bought this kind of publicity. If anything, Trump's behavior is apt to encourage other moderators to try for the same treatment.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News.
fwiw, "smart" is not a word anyone would have used to describe Kelly prior to the debate.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
Trump has announced his immigration plan, apparently the first candidate to do so
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
A "Janet and John" summary of Trump's immigration policy now follows.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Bibliophile
For your information, Fox News is not a news service. Its stock in trade is propaganda. I learned this by watching its coverage of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections.
YMMV but if it does you are wrong.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A "Janet and John" summary of Trump's immigration policy now follows.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
Was it Oscar Wilde who suggested that it wasn't the last refuge but the first?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm quoting Samuel Johnson, but I don't mind either first or last when it comes to scoundrels.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News. She would normally be the very last kind of person to be attacked by a Republican presidential candidate. By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
Nope. Trump's standard mode of interaction with anyone is to either talk about how great he (or anything with his name on it) is or to insult and denigrate anyone who asks him a tough question or disagrees with him. This isn't a deliberate plan, it's just Trump being Trump. I suppose it could be argued that Trump's overall campaign strategy is to appeal to the belligerent asshole faction of the Republican party, but that's more playing to his strengths than any kind of deliberate plan.
Plus, being "made headlines of" seems a particularly ineffectual threat against a Fox News talking head. The network is all about outrage and attention seeking. (See O'Reilly, Bill.) If Megyn Kelly isn't going to be embarrassed off the air after insisting that of course Santa and Jesus are white (counterpoint), she's not going to be embarrassed into silence because she asked Donald Trump if he had a problem with women, followed by Donald Trump demonstrating very clearly that he has a problem with women.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bibliophile
For your information, Fox News is not a news service. Its stock in trade is propaganda. I learned this by watching its coverage of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections.
YMMV but if it does you are wrong.
Bear in mind -- it was founded by Rupert Murdoch.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Pigwidgeon
You may find this link interesting, despite it being a bit long in the tooth.
Particularly because of this observation.
quote:
The creation of straight-up propaganda networks like Fox News in America has done enormous damage to the quality of democratic discourse in that country. Many people blame the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission’s “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, under President Reagan, for setting this process of degeneration in motion. This rule had required broadcasters, both radio and television, to inform their audience about matters of public interest, and specified that “coverage of these issues must be fair in the sense that it provides an opportunity for . . . contrasting points of view.” This doctrine was, over the years, unpopular with both the left and right, depending on the tenor of discussion in the media. It seems clear, however, that a lot of current right-wing talk radio, as well as Fox News, could not operate as it currently does without the abolition of this rule.
"Straight up propaganda network" as a description fits in very well with the coverage of the last two Presidential elections by Fox which I personally observed. There were times when the bias was so blatant, I couldn't believe my eyes and my ears.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I mentioned elsewhere that the great tragedy of Christianity in the past twenty years or so is how it's been co-opted by politics:
A truly sad witness to us
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
A couple of days ago - I might be mis-remembering - I heard that Donald Trump said his favourite book was "The Art of the Deal" and his second favourite book was the Bible. Today, I heard the same two books, but reversed. Anyway ....
Does anyone really believe Donald Trump's favourite book is the Bible? Is anyone going to challenge him <cough> Pastor Huckabee <ahem>? And if I may be allowed a follow-up, what will the Bible-lovers make of his "I will be great on women's health issues"?
How long until the wheels come off the Donald Clown Car? I wanna see Bernie Sanders face off with Scott Walker, gorrammit.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I wonder if The Donald tithes.
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on
:
I have come to believe that no republican candidate has ever studied the Constitution and only one (John Kasich) has actually read any part the four Gospels.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
A couple of days ago - I might be mis-remembering - I heard that Donald Trump said his favourite book was "The Art of the Deal" and his second favourite book was the Bible. Today, I heard the same two books, but reversed. Anyway ....
Does anyone really believe Donald Trump's favourite book is the Bible?
About a year ago, I was in the presence of someone was complaining that, of a group of young business people profiled in a magazine, none of them listed a truly "great" film as their favorite movie. I think your favorite book or movie need not be the book or movie that has most influenced you, and that whenever people put "The Bible" as their favorite book, it comes off as a boast rather than a believable statement. If I were going to a deserted island for a year, I would certainly want to bring my Bible and BCP, but that doesn't mean that either one is my favorite book (the Code of the Woosters).
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Is anyone going to challenge him <cough> Pastor Huckabee <ahem>? And if I may be allowed a follow-up, what will the Bible-lovers make of his "I will be great on women's health issues"?
I don't really see the point of challenging him, as he no doubt has an outrageous response ready which will put him back in the limelight.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How long until the wheels come off the Donald Clown Car? I wanna see Bernie Sanders face off with Scott Walker, gorrammit.
I might have been a little over eager when I set the over / under at Labor Day, although I'm not paying on over yet. His numbers have plateaued and perhaps dropped a bit. He is still in the lead, but given that his negative numbers are so high among the 75-85% of Republicans who don't support him, it seems unlikely that he will pick up supporters as other candidates drop out.
As for Mr. Sanders, he may also be suffering from a plateau problem. He got a nice bump from increased name recognition, and from the folks who finally gave up on Elizabeth Warren- low hanging fruit, really. But can he turn enough Clinton voters to make it interesting? That's the difference between being the next Howard Dean or the next Barack Obama.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is a long tiresome tradition in the US of the August news doldrums. Everybody who is anybody is out of town, at the Hamptons or on Martha's Vineyard, and so nothing serious is reported on.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
On the slow news cycle front, Mr. Sanders was asked by a reporter for the New York Times if it is fair that Clinton gets more scrutiny over her hair than he does.
Honestly, it's not his fault that the media focus on the physical appearance of female candidates. And he got to the right answer ("it's absolutely wrong") eventually. But his shock at even having to field a question about his hair, I thought, really helped prove the interviewer's point about the double standard.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
There's a piece with video on Google news called "Clinton talks to Black Live Matter." I didn't link it because it's about twenty minutes long, but I find it really interesting.
This is in Massachusetts. The man and two women she speaks to are delegates from BLM and they start right out telling Clinton that they blame her more than any other candidate for things like the number of blacks in prison.
Hillary listens carefully for several minutes and then responds, (I think,) with some excellent, clear advice. Advice from a woman who has been lawyer, First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. She cites the Women's Liberation Movement and the LBGT community as examples of what she's saying (put together a firm policy, be clear about what you're asking for, change laws don't wait for hearts to change.)
The man from BLM responds with (paraphrasing), "We don't need white people telling us what to do," and "What you're doing is blaming the victim."
The whole conversation impressed me with Clinton's coolness and her ability to really listen. Others may see the whole thing in a different light.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I'd say it is the primary process at work. Primaries are where the various factions in the parties struggle with one another to develop a party platform for the election year. People get upset with BLM for protesting Democrats rather than Republicans. But really, they are just trying to shape their own party's platform. Why bother yelling at the guy who knows you aren't voting for him anyway? Now is the time to let your own party know that this issue matters, and that it needs to be part of the platform in 2016.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
Is this person serious?
From the article:
Asked if she wiped her personal server before handing it over to investigators, Clinton responded “Like, with a cloth or something?”
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.
Donald Trump wishes he could make such a ridiculous statement, and David Patraeus wishes he had been a dim.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.
Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
Whether or not that's a true statement remains to be seen. But it is certainly not a ridiculous one.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
Plus, she has said she didn't receive anything that was designated "classified." I expect the FBI might find some classified information that was sent to her private e-mail but not flagged as classified, in which case it wont be her fault, but I'm sure FOX news will go nuts.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Og, King of Bashan: People get upset with BLM for protesting Democrats rather than Republicans.
I find the dynamics of what is happening between the BLM movement and the Democrat candidates rather interesting.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.
Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
That sounds great, until State says that she used personal email exclusively.
She never had a .gov email during her time at the State department.
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
I don't know about State, but in my Agency the use of email for Classified information is discouraged. so yeah, I do find it believable that she never sent or received an email containing information designated as "classified". Such material may have been exclusively sent/received in hard copy, or via diplomatic data systems which are more secure than email. email is, in my experience, rarely use for that sort of thing. But my experience may be outdated, since it's been a while since I dealt with diplomatic issues at work. Nevertheless, I find it completely plausible that she did not handle that sort of email herself, but rather that staff would have handled it for her, and provided her with hard copy when necessary.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I don't know about State, but in my Agency the use of email for Classified information is discouraged. so yeah, I do find it believable that she never sent or received an email containing information designated as "classified". Such material may have been exclusively sent/received in hard copy, or via diplomatic data systems which are more secure than email. email is, in my experience, rarely use for that sort of thing. But my experience may be outdated, since it's been a while since I dealt with diplomatic issues at work. Nevertheless, I find it completely plausible that she did not handle that sort of email herself, but rather that staff would have handled it for her, and provided her with hard copy when necessary.
I agree. My experience is extremely outdated but the last jobs my husband and I had before retiring we were often doing things on the computer for our bosses who had no clue how to do it themselves. Things are different now but I think Clinton was probably only half joking when someone asked her if she had wiped her account and she said, "You mean with a cloth?" Did Eisenhower know how to type? Could Kennedy take shorthand? I doubt it, and I doubt that the Secretary of State knew how to erase a hard drive.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It seems likely that President Obama is more IT-savvy than Hilary and I note he's been doing emails "by the book". But is this really a big deal? I don't see how you can "wipe" email records from existence. Everyone you send and receive is recorded elsewhere and, subject to system archiving limits, your server and those of your recipients will have copies also.
And if I got an email from anyone in a powerful position demanding or asking me to do something unethical or illegal, I'd damn sure keep a copy of it for my own protection. Emails are a pretty leaky means to use if you want to do something naughty. Ask those caught and jailed in the News of the World hacking fiascos.
[ 20. August 2015, 11:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
The rule is simple: "Never put anything in e-mail that you wouldn't want a jury to see."
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The rule is simple: "Never put anything in e-mail that you wouldn't want a jury to see."
You would be surprised (well, perhaps not) at the number of public sector managers who were horrified at learning that erase from their e-mail folder was not equivalent to destroying the message. I fear that I was among the minions who took pleasure at the visible involuntary quiver when they were told that a government business message, even when sent on their own machine on an unofficial account, still fell under the Act and, what was more, was copyright to the Government.
The widespread belief that an electronic message was not a formal document is now rapidly disappearing as we see them produced as evidence in court proceedings. In my official days, I treated emails as if they were formal correspondence, and the only difference was that they appeared on screens rather than were inserted in envelopes.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
In my official days, I treated emails as if they were formal correspondence, and the only difference was that they appeared on screens rather than were inserted in envelopes.
Only, if I put the paper envelope in the trash, chances are good it's gone forever, but if I put the e-mail in the trash, it's still there. I didn't know this either for a long time. Should people simply not do any business actions, or ordering of medical supplies, or banking online?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Several years ago (well, 15-20) in the same Public Service to which AtheA refers (but a different department) I remember being told by authority that every document we had was liable to be accessed under the Access to Information Act. Notes of phone conversations, drafts of memos -- every scrap of paper including calendars (unless pristine).
At which point, people simply stopped making notes of phone conversations and private memos about who said what at meetings. And blithely (and illegally) started ripping up and shredding all those notes that they had made. Thereby, incidentally, destroying a great deal of information that quite properly ought to have been preserved for research and historic purposes.
We were also told explicitly that every email we sent or received was accessible as above. No one has any excuse for not knowing that their emails are not their private property.
And anyone who doesn't realize that the receiver of an email has a copy just as the sender does ought not to be employed.
John
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Only, if I put the paper envelope in the trash, chances are good it's gone forever, but if I put the e-mail in the trash, it's still there. I didn't know this either for a long time. Should people simply not do any business actions, or ordering of medical supplies, or banking online?
You certainly shouldn't ever put anything secret in an unencrypted email. Think of email as being like a postcard. Probably, nobody will look at it, but anyone in the delivery chain could have a read. (Oh, and they can easily store a copy if they like.)
That's why you don't do things like sending your credit card details in an email.
If you do online banking, or you buy stuff online, the communication between you and the bank / company is encrypted and can't be read by anyone else (assuming the encryption is up to snuff, etc.)
Credit card theft from stores doesn't come from someone decrypting the encrypted traffic between you and the store, and doesn't generally come from someone installing a keylogger on your computer - usually it comes from a data security breach at the store involving the theft of a large number of customer credit cards. (This can happen to brick-and-mortar stores that keep electronic records, too.)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
That's a different path than we are seeing followed. The provincial privacy commissar here has indicated that nothing can be shredded nor destroyed, even unsolicited information that is considered personal to someone, and even if that person never received a service from the office because someone authorized to have that info may inquire about it. I know this from an inquiry from the privacy commission. Also, if you make a phone call or otherwise message to many offices, you can be assured that this is also stored probably for an eternity. The reason that it is an eternity is that there are regulations allowing destruction of info, but it is a lot of trouble figuring out which time frame applies to what info.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.
I'm actually Clinton's age, and would disagree. Most of us women of that era did in fact learn to type in high school-- yes, for sexist reasons (the boys took shop, girls took home economics & typing) but most of us did learn. And it was quite helpful for those of us, like Mrs. Clinton, who went on to higher education and grad school (our male peers usually had to pay big $$ to get their papers and dissertations typed). In those days of lower tuition/ more scholarship opportunities I was able to put myself thru college & grad school working as a faculty secretary-- good training for when I became an academic with my own administrative assistant.
It is true that once you move out of your undergrad days when your using your typing as a means of income you're not apt to advertise the fact that you can type x-words per minute, but I would hazard a guess that a fairly large percentage of American women of our generation are pretty proficient typers.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type. . . .
I'm actually Clinton's age, and would disagree. Most of us women of that era did in fact learn to type in high school. . . .
I'm older than she is, and typing was a required course for academic-track (college bound) students.
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on
:
I'm also about the same age and did not take typing in high school. It wasn't required for college prep students and I could never fit it into my busy schedule. I paid someone to type my papers.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Decades ago, I took typing because of my interest in journalism - well, the school newspaper anyway.
I dropped out fairly quickly because my typing grade would have ruined my G.P.A.
The girls in the class would certainly have won all the A's and B's. I'd have been lucky to squeeze out a passing grade.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
"Post 2000"? Wow, that is surprising. What's the evidence for this?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.
In my high school days in Ontario (1967-72), academic-stream girls would usually not take typing as that was for girls who intended to become secretaries and not go to university. I was one of the few males in the class (64 wpm on manual, IIRC) as I suspected that typed essays would soon become mandatory. By 1980, the tide had turned and all academic-stream students were taking typing.
I wish I had taken shorthand as well.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Yeah, I don't get that. Sure, typing was "girly" in the last century, but since the personal computer revolution, most of the male academics I talk to - especially those who come from countries with more rigid gender roles - *wish* they had learned to touch-type. Now they are always looking for someone to type stuff or complete complex web forms for them, and trying out every new voice-recognition product that comes out. When they do use a proper keyboard, they use a combo of hunt-and-peck backed up by autocomplete and spell-check, which produces some pretty wild results. That's the social cost of denigrating traditionally female sills.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Speaking as a two finger keyboard operator since entering the IT industry in the late 1960s ..
It was only the ease of real-time correction which enabled me to do the job at all. Touch-typing would have been a very useful skill to have had, but not essential.
The above post required, oh, about half a dozen(!) corrections, but since these days I just make them "on the fly" I'm not that aware of how rudimentary my two finger keyboard operating really is. Until I stop and count, realise how crappy I am.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I was watching the TV news tonight at a friend's place (I very rarely do so at home). There was an item with Donald Trump addressing a rally in North Carolina.
I was so glad to hear further up thread that he is unlikely to win the Presidential nomination, much less the race. I was beginning to think NZ might have to offer asylum to all sensible Americans if he did
.
What an embarrassment he would be in office, akin to North Korea's Beloved Leader, but at least with more checks and balances.
Huia
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
In other news; a candidate called Deez Nuts is rising in the polls to 9% in the North Carolina polls against Clinton and Trump. The name is an alias for a 15 year old High School student in Iowa. After substantial social media support, he may be entering in the polls in other states.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Wait, did that poll just show Trump polling ahead of Clinton in a three-way contest with Deez Nutz?
I was at a rock festival this weekend. I saw a man walking through the crowd leaning over to groups of people as he walked by and shouting "Trump for President," presumably hoping to get a rise out of someone. I was going to suggest that this was a perfect example of why people say they support Trump, but even I am beginning to wonder if he's got legs.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
Which of the "family values" men in the legion of Republican candidates will be the first to hurriedly announce his withdrawal just before his name appears on the rapidly becoming public Ashley Madigan website?
Your bets are invited.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Tukai and all Shipmates
No they aren't. Remember Commandment 7 and the depth of pockets of the candidates compared with the more or less empty SoF pocket. After stories break and are carried by news media - well that's different.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In other news; a candidate called Deez Nuts is rising in the polls to 9% in the North Carolina polls against Clinton and Trump.
On the link quoted above is a further link to
Limberbutt McCubbins who should be a shoo in given the interest in cats on the net.
Huia
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
I accept the hostly concerns about naming names but presume we can still speculate about when such an event, if any, might happen. My guess is sometime in the next month or two, firming to near certainty if we include not just the candidates themselves but also their staffers.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
I wonder how soon one of them will be the focus of an FBI investigation?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I wonder how soon one of them will be the focus of an FBI investigation?
Why just the FBI? Don't state investigators count? On the Republican side that club includes Scott Walker (whose investigation was squelched under dubious circumstances and whose appointees seem to keep winding up in prison), Rick Perry (currently under indictment), and Chris Christie (multiple investigations relating to the vindictive use of power in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal). Interestingly these are all criminal investigations, unlike the Clinton e-mail investigation, which is the result of "a 'counterintelligence referral' -- not a 'criminal referral'".
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?
If you mean the marital cheating thing, the Republicans would seem more likely just through sheer numerical superiority (seventeen declared candidates as opposed to five). If you mean the criminal investigation thing, the Republicans seem to be leading there as well (two active and one recently quashed investigation vs. zero)
[ 25. August 2015, 13:32: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
If I were the Clinton people, I wouldn't count on the general public finding the "it's just a mere counterintelligence referral, not a criminal referral" line hugely reassuring.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Ashley Madison fallout. If you name names speculatively, I/we will delete them and refer you to Admin for further action. Hope that's clear enough.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 25. August 2015, 17:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?
I think that by definition, sexual conservatives have more to hide.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
Reminds me of Gary Hart.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
Reminds me of Gary Hart.
But by the time Bill came along we decided that adultery is an issue between him & his wife & his God. Fortunately, the Lincoln bedroom had a very comfy couch so the nation didn't suffer from having a sleep-deprived president.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
Elected leaders have been breaking promises and betraying people since (I'll bet) the first vestiges of democracy appeared. We really shouldn't be surprised when they do the same in what are sometimes called their "private" lives.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
There's a difference between "unsurprised" and "unconcerned".
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But by the time Bill came along we decided that adultery is an issue between him & his wife & his God. Fortunately, the Lincoln bedroom had a very comfy couch so the nation didn't suffer from having a sleep-deprived president.
Amazingly, Hillary didn't kill him, after he embarrassed her in front of the entire world. So we know she can exercise restraint in a crisis. Handy skill, should she be president.
Teens reportedly sympathized with Bill, 'cause they get in trouble for sex, too.
By the time the adultery trial (more or less) came along, lots of people were sick and weary of the "Get The Clintons" games. (And someone involved later admitted that there really *had* been "a vast right-wing conspiracy" (VRWC).) We wanted the VRWC to take their toys and go home, let the country get back on track, and let the prez get back to work.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I'll stick my neck out and present my gut feelings on the election. I've had these feelings from the start, and nothing has shaken them to date.
Hillary will almost certainly win. I have felt that from the instant there was speculation that she would run. Nothing that has happened nor anything that can reasonably be expected to happen will change that.
I'll outline all the reasons for the above in more detailed posts should I feel the need to do so.
Such a near inevitable outcome is a bitter pill for Republicans to swallow, especially the die hard Clinton haters, and for some Democrats who find her too centrist. Thus, both groups (yes, both groups) blindly hope to find and push a nominee to replace Clinton - a losing effort, a "Hail Mary".
Consequently, potential GOP candidates with any sense at all don't want to engage in such an exhausting contest only to face certain defeat. Hence, the GOP clown car.
The media would like the election to appear to be a contest, so they cover and perhaps manufacture "scandals" to no avail.
Fortunately, the clown car provides super abundant copy as a diversion from the lack of a genuine contest for the Presidency.
I think we'll go through the motions of campaigns and an election, the outcome of which we deep down knew all along.
Those are my gut feelings. Attack as you wish.
[ 26. August 2015, 23:17: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I think you are most likely correct-- but would just say I don't think it is entirely a foregone conclusion that Hilary will get the Democratic nomination. Sanders is drawing far more support than I would have guessed. In another season I would have thought he was far too leftist to win, but with the GOP clown car careening wildly toward the cliffs of doom, he has a chance to invigorate us Dems who otherwise would go for a more sensible choice. Rumor has it Biden is also considering a bid-- normally I would say Biden is likeable but unelectable (those Bidenisms! loveable, but not very presidential...) but if he is able to draw the support of very popular Elizabeth Warren, he might have a real shot.
Then there's the possibility Warren herself could be persuaded to enter the race...
...my own personal fantasy (perhaps I mentioned this already upthread?) is that the reason Jon Stewart ended his very popular stint on the Daily Show just when things we're getting interesting is that he is getting ready to manage someone's political campaign. Sanders or Warren would be the most likely candidates if that is the case. Or he might be planning to start his own super-PAC supporting causes he cares about-- again, Sanders and Warren would likely be beneficiaries. Were he to do either of those things I think it would be a game-changer.
Hilary's still probably the likely candidate, but not as much of a fait accompli as we would have thought a month or two ago.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
The thing that bothered me was how staged Hillary's reaction was. She's not stupid enough to not have known about it (there are no relationships without compromises, and while that's not a deal I would make, there's no way she didn't know he was sometimes unfaithful).
But the media played right along as they staged their tearful betrayal/ repentance story.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
tangent:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The thing that bothered me was how staged Hillary's reaction was. She's not stupid enough to not have known about it.
She quite possibly did, since it wasn't the first time. But as an aside, I do find the persistent (in a number of venues/contexts) "on some level you must have known" narrative re adultery tiresome blame-the-victim nonsense. Probably because I was clueless about my first husband's serial adulteries for 11 years.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
.
Hilary's still probably the likely candidate, but not as much of a fait accompli as we would have thought a month or two ago.
I go way beyond that. I don't think the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate someone who could possibly, or even likely, lose to one of the clowns when, in my view, Hillary will be the next President barring something utterly extraordinary.
[ 27. August 2015, 01:28: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
She's not stupid enough to not have known about it...
Could be she was just keeping her mouth shut because of the startling resemblance of her daughter to her former law partner, who knows?
I wouldn't underestimate her stupidity though...
[ 27. August 2015, 01:26: Message edited by: romanlion ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Let me throw out a question:
Who, among the clown car, stands a ghost of a chance against Hillary in the general election?
Yes, things can change during the next 14 months, but let's assume things remain pretty much as they are, which is the most likely scenario - "the more things change..." and all that.
[ 27. August 2015, 01:38: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Also, for those who think the "scandals" are a problem for Hillary, I suggest a look at the rampant self-destruction occuring in the clown car. The car itself (the GOP) may avoid total ruin, but its occupants will be, at best, walking dead.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you are most likely correct-- but would just say I don't think it is entirely a foregone conclusion that Hilary will get the Democratic nomination. Sanders is drawing far more support than I would have guessed. In another season I would have thought he was far too leftist to win, but with the GOP clown car careening wildly toward the cliffs of doom, he has a chance to invigorate us Dems who otherwise would go for a more sensible choice.
Nate Silver has his odds up to 5% for winning the Democratic nomination. Sanders is popular with liberal white democrats, especially men. He polls badly with black voters (they give him credit for his record) and "Reagen Democrats." I think a lot of us (myself included) probably overestimate his shot because we tend to have lots of white liberal friends, so we see a lot about him on social media.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Let me throw out a question:
Who, among the clown car, stands a ghost of a chance against Hillary in the general election?
Any number of them, depending on voter turn out. Obama made it to the White House on the back of a super successful get out the vote campaign. Bad turn-out has cost the Democrats the Senate and the balance of governor's seats, and it could easily cost them the White House.
That's the real leverage that Black Lives Matter carries. They aren't going to turn around and vote for the Republican if the Democrats don't make racial inequality a major priority in the campaign. But if the general response is "well the other guy is going to be worse for you", will the Democrats be able to count on the kind of turnout Obama got from Black voters?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
Also, the clown car is doing a fine job of energizing Hispanics. Jeb and Rubio are doing little to help matters.
Women? Isn't it obvious? The majority has been in the Democratic camp for a long time. A lot more tents will be needed.
[ 27. August 2015, 03:08: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
On the GOP side, I think each and every candidate will likely generate downright fear among most voters. With one or two or three exceptions (and US will never let another Bush near the White House), the clown car is full of nutters.
My suggestion would be for the GOP to quickly find a rational, pragmatic, likable candidate difficult as that may be, and he or she would almost certainly lose the election in any case.
Alternatively, I'd suggest going with Trump as the sacrificial lamb. Trump would love it. The campaign would be hilarious, and the GOP could quickly disown him while demonstrating to the enranged and deranged wing of the Party
the futility of running a candidate who is their messiah.
[ 27. August 2015, 03:36: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I think that a Trump nomination would be a gift to the Democrats. I believe voters of Hispanic descent would show up in droves just to vote against him. Sort of a get-out-the-vote against instead of for. There are Latinos who are conservative and do disapprove of immigrants who don't arrive in the U.S. legally, but I think that Trump's arrogant disrespect and stereotyping will set most Latinos' teeth on edge. And worry other people of color.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I think Trump isn't fully aware of how many naturalized Latinos live in this country. He's gonna find out, though. Prior to 1849, half of the continental US was Mexico, ffs. We have generation upon generation of Latinos living here.
"Go back to Univision." Oh, how stupid.
And was it Rubino that tried to cover the whole " anchor baby" grossness with, " Naw, man, we were talikng about the Asians." Oooch. Kiss whatever Scraps of California you had goodbye. Again, generation on generation. Hell, half the people immigrating to California are looking to hook up with established family branches.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
In the US military adultery is a court martial offence. Soit stands to reason that someone who wants be President, thus CinC US military should not be an adulterer .
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that a Trump nomination would be a gift to the Democrats.
In my opinion, all the GOP aspirants so far have been and will continue to be be a gift to the Democrats.
At least if Trump gets the nomination, and he is demolished by Hillary, Republicans can say that he isn't really a Republican.
In fact, some are already saying that, and some are even suggesting that he may be a stooge planted by by Democrats (perhaps those crafty, cunning Clintons?).
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Trump tries to do damage control after enraging Hispanics. In the process, he manages to alienate Asians by mocking their sterotypical broken English.
The man will certainly go down in the anals of history.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Kelly--
I doubt that Trump cares--except he may well think that they shouldn't be here, either.
Reality, reason, history, and common sense are beyond his ken.*
*"...and Barbie, and all my other action figures!"--Lorn, "Angel".
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In fact, some are already saying that, and some are even suggesting that he may be a stooge planted by by Democrats (perhaps those crafty, cunning Clintons?).
A Message On Donald Trump From Conspiracy Theory Hillary.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Croesos--
Thanks for that link! Wonderful article.
Also on that site: "Donald Trump White Supremacist Roundup".
Some scary stuff there. I worry that a lot of people may actually vote for Trump, for all sorts of reasons--including being his fans. There are lots of people who agree with him, and not just avowed white supremacists. So many people were/are terrified of having Obama as president...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The man will certainly go down in the anals of history.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Also, the clown car is doing a fine job of energizing Hispanics. Jeb and Rubio are doing little to help matters.
I guess this is another example of white privilege in this country. I'm white, and the candidates jump all over themselves to appeal to me. Meanwhile, a group of Latinos organize a forum in Iowa on immigration and no-one other than O'Malley and Chafee deign to attend.
So your choice is open hostility on the right and at least we aren't openly hostile on the left. And Sanders supports the Dream Act, but other than that seems to be in the "Dey turk err jurbs" camp.
What a thrilling choice.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess this is another example of white privilege in this country. I'm white, and the candidates jump all over themselves to appeal to me. Meanwhile, a group of Latinos organize a forum in Iowa on immigration and no-one other than O'Malley and Chafee deign to attend.
At this point in the election cycle, I think they're looking for large donations rather than votes. They probably figure they have more hope for the big bucks from white audiences than they do from Latinos.
(Trump has plenty of his own big bucks, but he's the exception to every rule.)
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
tangent:
She quite possibly did, since it wasn't the first time. But as an aside, I do find the persistent (in a number of venues/contexts) "on some level you must have known" narrative re adultery tiresome blame-the-victim nonsense.
Oh, my goodness.
Never change.
At this rate we'll have a successful write-in vote for Omar, no problem.
More realistically I suspect a lot of people are simply not going to vote in this election. The government redistributes wealth upwards no matter who is in office, so what does it matter?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kelly--
I doubt that Trump cares--except he may well think that they shouldn't be here, either.
Reality, reason, history, and common sense are beyond his ken.*
*"...and Barbie, and all my other action figures!"--Lorn, "Angel".
Do I give a shit what Trump cares about? I am just gleefully noting how he is eroding his potential Republican base.
[ 27. August 2015, 23:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
More realistically I suspect a lot of people are simply not going to vote in this election. The government redistributes wealth upwards no matter who is in office, so what does it matter?
I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
(* Definition: A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.)
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992? Many within the Black Lives Matter movement blame the Clintons for the anti-crime policies that have resulted in mass incarceration of non-violent black offenders.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992?
As a reminder, in 1992 African-Americans composed 8% of the U.S. electorate and cast 83% of their ballots for the Democratic presidential candidate. The Republican party may wish that "nothing has changed" since then, but assumptions that African-American voters were simply going to dissolve into the æther is what gave us the (unintentional) hilarity of the Unskewed Polls fiasco in 2012.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
(* Definition: A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.)
Sadly, this is not the case. We have Baltimore and Ferguson and New York and California. We have five percent of the world's population an 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
There is an open class war being waged, and those who have power and money have made it clear that they will do anything to maintain their power and money.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992? Many within the Black Lives Matter movement blame the Clintons for the anti-crime policies that have resulted in mass incarceration of non-violent black offenders.
I definitely think the Clinton era changes have played a role, but most that I've read trace it further back to Reagan's zero-tolerance drug laws/ mandatory sentencing.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992?
As a reminder, in 1992 African-Americans composed 8% of the U.S. electorate and cast 83% of their ballots for the Democratic presidential candidate. The Republican party may wish that "nothing has changed" since then, but assumptions that African-American voters were simply going to dissolve into the æther is what gave us the (unintentional) hilarity of the Unskewed Polls fiasco in 2012.
All I'm saying is that if someone generally ignored your issues and told you to vote for them anyway because they were better than the other guy or because they have always had your back (even when they didn't), you would be upset. The Black Lives Matter movement feels like this is what is happening to black voters now, and there is an argument that it is happening to Latino voters as well. If your main strategy to appeal to minority voters is to let the other guy say racist things and hope that the minority voters punish him at the ballot box, you aren't earning their votes. This isn't a partisan argument, this is about recognizing that white voters are treated differently from black and Latino voters. You earn the white vote with campaign promises, and then you hope the other guy says enough scary things to get the black and Latino vote out. That is wrong. And that's why you need a primary with multiple contenders. If the party insiders settle on one candidate whose main job is keeping the big donors happy, who is going to force them to listen to the people who don't have the dollars to influence policy?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
If I were Hillary, I'd keep Bill busy by sending him to to African-American neighborhoods in urban Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina.
That should go a long way toward delivering the needed turnout in those key states.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Issues aren't the only thing that matters to voters.
Of equal imortance, perhaps of more importance, is rapport (I can't think of a better term). The relationship between Bill and the Affrican-American community has always been extremely close. It's a personal and emotional bond, and I don't think that it's at all faked on Bill's part.
This is well-illustrated by Bill opening his post-Presidential office in Harlem.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Issues aren't the only thing that matters to voters.
Of equal imortance, perhaps of more importance, is rapport (I can't think of a better term). The relationship between Bill and the Affrican-American community has always been extremely close. It's a personal and emotional bond, and I don't think that it's at all faked on Bill's part.
This is well-illustrated by Bill opening his post-Presidential office in Harlem.
That seems to be true, but I'm not sure if that rapport extends to Hilary.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
So you have actual people on the streets pleading with you to listen to them. Actual black youths being killed in encounters with the police. A justice system that has more black men in jail than were enslaved in 1850. And what are you going to do about it?
Tell blacks that their issues aren't really important to them and that they will really be happy with visits from someone they have rapport with.
I can't say what the response will be, but if it is "fuck that," I don't blame them.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So you have actual people on the streets pleading with you to listen to them. Actual black youths being killed in encounters with the police. A justice system that has more black men in jail than were enslaved in 1850. And what are you going to do about it?
Tell blacks that their issues aren't really important to them and that they will really be happy with visits from someone they have rapport with.
I can't say what the response will be, but if it is "fuck that," I don't blame them.
Indeed.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Issues aren't the only thing that matters to voters.
Of equal imortance, perhaps of more importance, is rapport (I can't think of a better term). The relationship between Bill and the Affrican-American community has always been extremely close. It's a personal and emotional bond, and I don't think that it's at all faked on Bill's part.
This is well-illustrated by Bill opening his post-Presidential office in Harlem.
That seems to be true, but I'm not sure if that rapport extends to Hilary.
I'm not sure either, which is why I suggested the above effective role for him. I think that he can make it clear that a vote for Hilary is a vote for both of them - a transposition of an earlier line he used during his campaigns.
Also, Bill has shown that he can be stellar in his articulation of the issues, as long has he doesn't talk on and on.
I can think of no other White politician who could come close to Bill's ability to motivate African-American voters.
Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on
:
I'm British, so look in on this from outside the bubble somewhat.
The GOP are utterly clueless. Obama's presidency has been an utter global catastrophy and winning this election should be easy for them, but somehow I think they will blow it.
They have a few decent candidates: Carson and Rubio both strike me as good men, but a little bland and not presidential.
[ 29. August 2015, 07:59: Message edited by: 3M Matt ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Obama's presidency has been an utter global catastrophy
Which must surely be a subjective statement. Some would say he failed to lead the world in a war against Iran. Others that he failed to cut carbon emissions. And, of course, the US electorate will largely judge him based on domestic policy, which (to me) seems to have the usual combination of good and bad.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So you have actual people on the streets pleading with you to listen to them. Actual black youths being killed in encounters with the police. A justice system that has more black men in jail than were enslaved in 1850. And what are you going to do about it? ...
When Secretary Clinton told the BLM representatives that their movement should also be developing and presenting concrete policy proposals, they responded that asking them for solutions was "victim-blaming". Unfortunately for them, I think she's right: if all the BLM movement creates is a hashtag and street demonstrations, nothing will change. And there are some really obvious things they should have been able to present immediately: end mandatory minimum sentencing, end three-strikes-and-you're-out, outlaw papers-please and stop-and-frisk, decriminalize possession of illegal drugs for personal use, establish national guidelines for use-of-force and investigating police killings, improve public defender services, equip police with as many fricking recording devices as they can carry, ensure every inmate in prison has access to education and mental health treatment, as well as better support for parole, probation and release ... I could go on.
Me, personally, I kind of like it when people ask me to tell them what to do, especially when I want something from them.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think I saw a website with 10 policy proposals by the BLM movement. I have to look it up.
ETA found it: Campaign Zero
[ 29. August 2015, 14:58: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think I saw a website with 10 policy proposals by the BLM movement. I have to look it up.
ETA found it: Campaign Zero
Nothing in there to address Jamyla Bolden
Or Amari Brown
Or Malijah Grant
If only they had been killed by police.
BLM's selective outrage, combined with their tactics is why they will never have widespread credibility, even in their own communities.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Obama's presidency has been an utter global catastrophy
Which must surely be a subjective statement. Some would say he failed to lead the world in a war against Iran. Others that he failed to cut carbon emissions. And, of course, the US electorate will largely judge him based on domestic policy, which (to me) seems to have the usual combination of good and bad.
I am delighted that Obama has failed to lead us into a war. How often do we need to hear it? No land wars in Asia!!! No one could say our little adventure in Iraq was worth the billions of dollars and many deaths it cost. Both my children are in the US Army, so chicken hawks get no quarter from me.
And thank God for Obamacare! The sick get care -- where's the down side in that?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
If you were being harassed at work, you complained to the boss, and he said "come back with some proposals to make things better for you," wouldn't you want to say "O gave you my proposal, stop being an asshole"?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If you were being harassed at work, you complained to the boss, and he said "come back with some proposals to make things better for you," wouldn't you want to say "O gave you my proposal, stop being an asshole"?
Sure. There is no doubt that African-Americans have every right to complain about the Democrat's casual indifference/ sense of entitlement to their vote. There is no doubt that they have every right to complain about the current state of affairs. Frustration, heartbreak, raw anger-- all appropriate responses.
None of that changes the fact that Mrs. Clinton's advice was spot on. As I think the slate of specific proposals that have come out since then illustrate. Now it's up to the DNC to make good on their end of the bargain.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And thank God for Obamacare! The sick get care -- where's the down side in that?
Mountains of paperwork that no human being working outside the insurance industry can hope to understand including a three-inch wide dictionary that you are expected to store somewhere and when you go to the doctor they still send you a bill that you realize you will likely spend the rest of your life paying.
Nice idea, glitchy implementation.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I think the slate of specific proposals that have come out since then illustrate.
The proposals were out there long before the riots or black lives matter movement. It's just nobody was paying attention.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And thank God for Obamacare! The sick get care -- where's the down side in that?
Mountains of paperwork that no human being working outside the insurance industry can hope to understand including a three-inch wide dictionary that you are expected to store somewhere and when you go to the doctor they still send you a bill that you realize you will likely spend the rest of your life paying.
Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
And those of us who were unable to get ANY health insurance prior to Obamacare due to "pre-existing conditions" are happy to read 3 dictionaries in order to get the care we or our loved ones need. At a high cost, yes, but measurably less so than under the prior system.
Yes, the American health care system is seriously effed up. But far less so than it was prior to Obama.
[ 29. August 2015, 20:20: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I have several friends who are covered by Obamacare, and none has complained to me about "mountains of paperwork", a "dictionary", etc. Also, they enrolled through Covered California, a state-run exchange, where the found the sign up process quick and easy.
They are all covered by a non-profit HMO, so perhaps that accounts for their lack of complaints.
The for-profit companies are well known for payment delays, bickering over items covered, and mounds of paperwork. The ideal health care system, imo, would involve removing the profit motive from health care.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
(* Definition: A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.)
Sadly, this is not the case.
It is the case, whatever one's views about the reality of the class war. The description of the US and UK tax systems as not very progressive in accordance with the classic definition is simply a statement of fact.
quote:
We have Baltimore and Ferguson and New York and California. We have five percent of the world's population an 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
There is an open class war being waged, and those who have power and money have made it clear that they will do anything to maintain their power and money.
Let us say that you are right and there is a class war being waged by those with power and money in order to maintain their own position. What do you think should be done about that in the context of the upcoming Presidential election? Which is what this thread is about.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
That would involve reversing the Supremes' tragic Citizens United decision, equating political donations with free speech.
Next, reinstate the "fairness doctrine" for media giving opposing viewpoints equal time or space to rebut potential bias in the media. That would put an end to overt partisan propaganda peddled in the guise of news.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Next, reinstate the "fairness doctrine" for media giving opposing viewpoints equal time or space to rebut potential bias in the media. That would put an end to overt partisan propaganda peddled in the guise of news.
Agreed, shut down Faux news and MSNBC simultaneously and you'll immediately elevate the level of discourse: the problem is policing the sheer volume of media out there, and finding a way for both sides to agree on what's 'fair'.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I have friends who are getting medical care for the first time in years. If you are a creative type there is not, and never has been, enough money in the arts to pay for health insurance.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
This is defeatist and obscures the issue. ldjjd indicated one thing that could be done to make the effect of money far less baleful, and you ignore it. We may never be able to get money out of politics completely (why the reference to HRC? Is that a tu quoque or a non sequitur?) but we can do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
This is defeatist and obscures the issue. ldjjd indicated one thing that could be done to make the effect of money far less baleful, and you ignore it. We may never be able to get money out of politics completely (why the reference to HRC? Is that a tu quoque or a non sequitur?) but we can do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.
I'm simply being realistic.
You can't overturn Citizens United without political movement at the national level, and you can't get into politics at the national level without lots and lots of money. That money doesn't arrive without expectations, and one of those expectations is that the influence of money continue.
It's never going to happen.
The reference to HRC was simply to point out that the likely next POTUS (according to ldjjd, to whom my comment was directed) won't be backing a move to take money out of politics, so his/her desired 'first step' is already dead in the water if he/she is right about HRC.
The problem is certainly not limited to Clinton; but if you want a POTUS in 2016 who didn't get there on the backs of corporate sponsors and special interest groups then you'll have to vote for Trump.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
Well, no, I didn't, since I got what little medical care the state required at the free clinic.
quote:
And those of us who were unable to get ANY health insurance prior to Obamacare due to "pre-existing conditions" are happy to read 3 dictionaries in order to get the care we or our loved ones need. At a high cost, yes, but measurably less so than under the prior system.
You know, my mother died young of a condition that she probably wouldn't have died from if she had access to appropriate health care, so this attempt at emotional manipulation is not going to work.
If you're going to refuse to listen to the people when they tell you that in many cases the medical bills after Obamacare are more expensive than they were before it, prepare for your candidate to lose.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is the case, whatever one's views about the reality of the class war.
You said the US government, like the UK government, sits by and simply lets the redistribution of wealth upwards happen. I objected to that description as far too passive given the government's actions. What they did in Ferguson has been documented in reputable news sources. What they did elsewhere is being documented.
quote:
Let us say that you are right and there is a class war being waged by those with power and money in order to maintain their own position. What do you think should be done about that in the context of the upcoming Presidential election? Which is what this thread is about.
I'm actually of the opinion that states need to start drawing up their articles of secession.
But since that's not likely to happen, we need a candidate who is willing to stand up for the working class. Someone who is willing to admit that while certain policies might have been created with the best intentions, in some cases the policies are actually hurting the people they were intended to help. Someone who, unlike the rest of the dems in this country, doesn't act like people should be happy that they aren't currently being beaten and who doesn't threaten to start beating them again if they don't smile and show some gratitude. Someone who is willing to take on some of the ideas that criminal justice reform advocates have been saying we need for years. Someone who is willing to acknowledge the problems and honestly talk about how to go about fixing them instead of acting like the problems don't exist because they haven't started affecting the middle class yet. Someone who understands that most members of the media have at least a college degree if not more, and most of the people in this country don't, and who refuses to pander to the media and their set narratives.
We're more likely to get a write-in vote for Omar.
Hillary might get the Democratic nomination, but she won't win the general election. The people won't stand for it.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
There is a bit of irony regarding Trump and big money in politics.
While Trump points out the evils of outside big money, he is willing and able spend huge amounts of his own billions on his candidacy. Is the potential for corruption any less?
I do like his pointing out that in the past, he has expected and usually received tit for tax in his donations.
[ 30. August 2015, 01:17: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
saysay, my feiend,
Who is likely to defeat Hilary? Who, other than Bernie Sanders, is showing more interest in the necessary changes you mention other than Hilary, and she has addressed them. I know, I'll admit that it may be campaign rhetoric, but what is the alternative.
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
saysay, my feiend,
Who is likely to defeat Hilary? Who, other than Bernie Sanders, is showing more interest in the necessary changes you mention other than Hilary, and she has addressed them.
Oh, I admit, she'll likely get the Democratic nomination. (not because she's addressed the necessary changes, because she hasn't, but because people think it's her turn)
But people are sick of the lies. And the lack of attempt to fix the real problems instead of coddling rich white women.
And they'll burn this country to the ground if things continue the way they've been going.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The problem is certainly not limited to Clinton; but if you want a POTUS in 2016 who didn't get there on the backs of corporate sponsors and special interest groups then you'll have to vote for Trump.
Although (as Trump himself pointed out in an odd bit of argument): all this does is remove the middle man. Instead of electing a corporate special-interest shill you elect the corporate special-interest directly.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
saysay,
A President can do only so much, especialy with a majority of Congress and the Supreme Court beholden to monied, conservative, and even reactionary interests. Pres. Obama's tribulations illustrate this.
Without a Democratic President, I fear that some truly frightening legislation will be enacted without a veto.
Given how the whole system is gamed by those at the very top, I can only hope for gradual change after pitched battles, hopefully inspired by the President's bully-pulpit. That has happened on some issues.
My overriding hope is that necessary changes can occur before the whole thing falls apart or is burned down as you predict, my friend.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The problem is certainly not limited to Clinton; but if you want a POTUS in 2016 who didn't get there on the backs of corporate sponsors and special interest groups then you'll have to vote for Trump.
Although (as Trump himself pointed out in an odd bit of argument): all this does is remove the middle man. Instead of electing a corporate special-interest shill you elect the corporate special-interest directly.
Indeed. Since Trump and his empire are one and the same, the Trump Empire (a royal house of sorts?) would preside. Would he or could he honestly divest himself of his identity with his empire for even a few years?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
Well, no, I didn't, since I got what little medical care the state required at the free clinic.
quote:
And those of us who were unable to get ANY health insurance prior to Obamacare due to "pre-existing conditions" are happy to read 3 dictionaries in order to get the care we or our loved ones need. At a high cost, yes, but measurably less so than under the prior system.
You know, my mother died young of a condition that she probably wouldn't have died from if she had access to appropriate health care, so this attempt at emotional manipulation is not going to work.
If you're going to refuse to listen to the people when they tell you that in many cases the medical bills after Obamacare are more expensive than they were before it, prepare for your candidate to lose.
No manipulation-- just my experience. I know what it's like to spend hours upon hours wading thru meticulous paperwork trying to get the right combination of factors, to get in just the right network with just the right pediatrician, to get the referral that would get my son the treatment he needed.
And later, I know what it's like to be over 50 with pre-existing conditions and denied coverage at any price. Obamacare was a godsend, for many of us.
Yes, it has only slowed the rate of inflation rather than stopping or reversing it. Yes, a different system (single payer) would be much, much better. As I said, it's effed up. But it's better than it was. Much better.
And yes, some people are paying more now. But not because of Obamacare (although that's what their premium increase letters say). Their rates were raised by their insurers under Obamacare for the exact same reason the insurers raised rates every year for the last several decades: because they could.
So yeah, there are better models, better options, out there. But until America wakes up and decides having health care doesn't mean you turn into a godless communist, I'll take this little bit of progress over my old days of trying to eke out care for my loved ones any day of the week.
If that's emotional manipulation, well, then so be it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
saysay
What Ferguson city government did through abuse of the fines system for revenue raising was condemned by the federal Justice department and folks may yet get prosecuted over that. In any case that wasn't using the local taxation system as a means of revenue raising.
A refusal by substantial numbers of black voters to vote for Clinton as a protest and expression of community anger simply lets in whichever more regressive GOP candidate gets that ticket. How in the Hell is that better?
And stoking anarchist fires can lead to the doleful establishment of revolutionary or counter-revolutionary totalitarian governments.
I see the emotional attraction of 'a plague on both their houses'. But if you think about it, it kills whatever fragile seeds of hope there may be of better 'government of the people by the people for the people'. I think it is a counsel of despair to give up on democracy, whatever its present imperfections in the U.S.
[ 30. August 2015, 04:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
saysay, my feiend,
Who is likely to defeat Hilary? Who, other than Bernie Sanders, is showing more interest in the necessary changes you mention other than Hilary, and she has addressed them. I know, I'll admit that it may be campaign rhetoric, but what is the alternative.
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
I suspect you are correct, but it will be interesting to see. At this moment in time Sanders has a bit of the same feel that Obama had at this point in the election cycle. I was sure at that time that he would never get the nomination, but hoped he would hang in there long enough for me to vote for him in our state's primary. But he did get the nod. So... I don't know.
Maybe... if Warren were to endorse/ agree to be VP...
Maybe... with Jon Stewart as campaign manager...
Pipe dreams, perhaps.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Obama in 2008 gained the floating centre vote as well as improving further the Democrats' share of the African American and Hispanic vote.
Could Bernie do that? It seems more likely to me that Hilary will get the endorsements she needs. She's canny enough to know how to play her cards better this time around.
Actually, I think Bernie is overplaying the outsider card. You can endanger grass roots support that way, particularly since the Democrats are seeking to retain the Presidency. Obama played the 'fresh young face' card to perfection in 2008, which worked a lot better in the campaign to regain the Presidency for the Democrats. I don't think that works for Bernie, for many reasons.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
If the Democrats were certain to regain control of the Senate and/or the House, I would be very happy with a Sanders/Warren ticket. They would be a breath of fresh air in the garbage dump.
Unfortunately, the two (Fox News: "Socialsts", "radicals","elitists", "pointy heads", "Godless", "statists") would be defeated in all liklihood, but it would be worth it to have a discussion of the dire needs of huge numbers of our citizens and to sow seeds of conscience in the process.
However, it will be next to impossible for Democrats to regain the House thanks to gerrymandering at the state level.
Not-at-all fun fact: Democratic House candidates as a whole won the overall popular vote for candidates but fell far short of a majority in the House - pseudo-democracy in action.
Given the above, we must nominate and vigorously support the Presidential candidate who can win. As things stand, that candidarte is Hilary.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe... with Jon Stewart as campaign manager...
What qualifies him to do this job? Stewart is amazing at what he's been doing for the last 15 years or so, but I don't see how a gift for satire would make him a stellar political operator.
According to Wikipedia, this was David Plouffe's resume, before he managed Obama's 2008 campaign:
quote:
Plouffe began his political career by working for Senator Tom Harkin's 1990 re-election campaign.[15] He later worked as a state field director for Harkin's unsuccessful 1992 Presidential campaign. In the same year he successfully managed Congressman John Olver's first re-election bid in Massachusetts. In 1994 Plouffe managed Delaware Attorney General Charles M. Oberly's unsuccessful campaign against Senator William V. Roth. He then worked as campaign director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1995. In 1996 Plouffe managed Bob Torricelli's successful campaign to fill Bill Bradley's New Jersey seat in the United States Senate.[citation needed]
From 1997-98, Plouffe served as Democratic leader Dick Gephardt's Deputy Chief of Staff. In 1999–2000, as executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Plouffe led Democrats to gains that came within several thousand votes of winning back the House. He also led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to unusually high fundraising amounts, during his tenure at the DCCC. In the winter of 2000, Plouffe joined AKPD Message and Media but left briefly to serve as a strategist for Gephardt's unsuccessful Presidential bid. He returned to the firm and became a partner in February 2004. Beginning in 2003, Plouffe and fellow AKPD partner David Axelrod worked on Barack Obama's 2004 Illinois Senate campaign, beginning his association with Obama. Plouffe worked with Axelrod on the successful 2006 campaign of Deval Patrick for Governor of Massachusetts.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Oh, it wasn't a serious suggestion. otoh, Stewart's pieces are able to shed light on an issue, skewer his opponents, and stir up support in a succinct 5 min spot better than anyone I know. Could be very valuable to any campaign I would think, in much the same way Bill Clinton was as "the explainer" in Obama's campaign.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
A Vice-Presidential candidate perhaps? Hilary could act "Presidential" while Stewart goes for the jugular. He'd have a field day with any GOP nominee.
Stranger things have happened in American politics.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A Vice-Presidential candidate perhaps? Hilary could act "Presidential" while Stewart goes for the jugular. He'd have a field day with any GOP nominee.
I don't see him as a Hilary fan. Oh, I'm sure if she ends up with the nod he'll support her-- but I don't see him getting excited enough about her presidency to leave a lucrative career where he can pretty much write his own ticket. I could see him however getting that excited about Sanders or Warren.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
As fond as I am of Stewart, I watched and re-watched his farewell show. If you haven't seen it, try to catch it. I don't think he's going to have a ready platform for his opinions. Now Colbert on the other hand is in the catbird seat...
I think the other effect of so much money is that the clown circus is going to run a long time before people decide to settle down. Hopefully there will be time for some more attractive candidates to emerge.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Emerge on the Democratic side?
I'd have some suggestions on the Republican side.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I bear good news for you all.
No matter what you fear from the 2016 election, there is hope, it will get better.
For, Kanye West has decided to run for President in 2020.
Yes, in a mere 5 years, the US will be perfected. Now, if only everyone else can get on board and we can elect him emperor of the world, humanity will have no more to worry about.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
After Obama, I think the Democrats may well be attracted to an experienced 'fixer and manipulator' given a) that they are likely to win again (demographics) and b) have to cope with a stacked House of Reps and/or Senate. That's the edge the Clinton family will have in selection of candidate. That happens first. On presidential polling day, disaffected minorities may see their choice as being between 'a louse and a double-louse' (a famous observation from a previous election). But if they stay away, they will get the GOP with a House Majority to boot. I don't think they will go for that.
[ 31. August 2015, 09:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After Obama, I think the Democrats may well be attracted to an experienced 'fixer and manipulator' given a) that they are likely to win again (demographics) and b) have to cope with a stacked House of Reps and/or Senate. That's the edge the Clinton family will have in selection of candidate. That happens first. On presidential polling day, disaffected minorities may see their choice as being between 'a louse and a double-louse' (a famous observation from a previous election). But if they stay away, they will get the GOP with a House Majority to boot. I don't think they will go for that.
It's a hard choice, though. Between allowing a party to continue to think they can take you for granted with no real action on your pressing issues, or ending up like the Green Party, who's petulant 3rd party bid brought down the most pro-environmental candidate imaginable and gave us instead Bush/Cheney.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's a hard choice, though. Between allowing a party to continue to think they can take you for granted with no real action on your pressing issues, or ending up like the Green Party, who's petulant 3rd party bid brought down the most pro-environmental candidate imaginable and gave us instead Bush/Cheney.
True enough. I suppose it depends on how angry you feel. But Obama's publicly expressed frustrations seem real enough to me. He's hamstrung.
Until the electoral processes get reformed, the US looks to me to be stuck with legislative gridlock impeding any action, even compromise action, on other reform agendas. It might not take much to cause that to boil over bigtime.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Too right. Bernie Sanders is just a left-of-centre candidate, and nothing to scare the horses. Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
Bernie Sanders is what I call nearly dead.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Too right. Bernie Sanders is just a left-of-centre candidate, and nothing to scare the horses. Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
Don't overestimate the political sophistication of the typical American voter, for whom "Socialism" means horrible countries like Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and France, lands without freedom and economic opportunity. In the minds of many, even Canada would be on the list.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Don't forget "socialized medicine", a designation which has helped hold back a national health care system here.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
Bernie Sanders is what I call nearly dead.
Well, he's not a spring chicken, but I always wish those in public life a long and healthy life (although some individuals I would like to see them experience retirement).
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Don't forget "socialized medicine", a designation which has helped hold back a national health care system here.
I have a friend who is just old enough to remember Saskatchewan when the CCF brought in Medicare in 1961. 30% patients never paid their bills, they were either dead or deadbeat. By 1962 Saskatchewan was a net destination for doctors as they made more money than under the private system. The Government took its cut for appearances, and let the doctors have the rest, and assured payment for every patient they saw.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
It seems to me the SC (to which I belonged in my dipper days) inspires more yawns than fear. Their website and newsletter don't even seem to have been updated in some time. Fightback on the other hand seems to have a little more organizing clout. (The Toronto New Democratic Youth is dominated by Fighback entrists and frequently clashes with its provincial executive, who at one point voided the TNDY's executive elections when it returned a slate of Fightback/IMT Trotskysts).
Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on
:
Augustine the Aleut wrote:
quote:
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Augustine the Aleut wrote:
quote:
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Augustine the Aleut wrote:
quote:
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
With the Byzantine patchwork of ballot laws from state to state, it would not at all surprise me if the Socialist Party in Vermont endorsed a Liberty Union candidate. Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the senate as the candidate of the Democratic, Liberal, and Working Families parties, after all.
(The Socialist Party is story in itself, having dwindled to the faithful remnant emerging from the party's three-way split over the Vietnam War and relations with the Democratic Party).
[ 02. September 2015, 04:35: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
What's a dipper please? The usual meaning I know if this rather charming little bird.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's a dipper please? The usual meaning I know if this rather charming little bird.
Canadian NDP
Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on
:
Augustine the Aleut wrote:
quote:
I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
To be fair to you, I don't think Channel 3 ever called him anything but "the Socialist Mayor of Burlington".
I lived in the Burlington area until I came to Mass in 1977, and visited my parents regularly until they died, and we got Ottawa and Montreal TV on our cable.
(I meant to post this last night, but had a commitment.)
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've heard of all except three, Mark Everson, Ben Carson, and Lindsey Graham. Admittedly I don't know much about most of them, and knew of Carly Fiorina as a chief executive rather than as a politician, but there are plenty of British politicians I don't know much about either.
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic ?
Throw Scott Walker into the list of serious candidates.
Scott Walker's campaign seems to have been sinking like a rock lately. Here is the latest polling average from Huffington Post
Donald Trump 32.5%
Ben Carson 13.1%
Jeb Bush 7.7%
Ted Cruz 6.2%
Marco Rubio 6.0%
Mike Huckabee 4.7%
Carly Fiorina 4.5%
Scott Walker 4.4%
John Kasich 3.4%
Rand Paul 2.6%
Chris Christie 2.5%
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
I don't know if this is th right thread to put this in but apparently Glenn Beck's 'The Blaze' in in trouble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfxVM7U_C2g
I can't say I'm sorry about this, I'm not really a Glenn Beck fan
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I am sorry to hear that Scott Walker is fading from the scene-- I was really anxious to hear how the northern frontier barrier (Wall of Scott doesn't have the same poetry as Wall of Hadrian) would be doing. I thought that perhaps it could provide employment for mosaic makers, so that the artistic shining wall could improve the aesthetic sensibilities of Minnesotans.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I am sorry to hear that Scott Walker is fading from the scene-- I was really anxious to hear how the northern frontier barrier (Wall of Scott doesn't have the same poetry as Wall of Hadrian) would be doing. I thought that perhaps it could provide employment for mosaic makers, so that the artistic shining wall could improve the aesthetic sensibilities of Minnesotans.
LOL. He's also know in fifth place in the latest Iowa polls, joint fourth in New Hampshire and joint seventh in South Carolinia. Its difficult to see how he recovers from that.
I think a lot is the Trump factor. Trump has not only taken a huge amount of Walker's support base directly but he seems to have a particular antipathy to Walker, second only to his antipathy to Bush. He attacks them both at every opportunity. Whilst he may not get the nomination himself I can well see him preventing Bush or Walker from getting the nomination either.
[ 05. September 2015, 15:27: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
A very bad poll for Jeb Bush came out this week from Public Policy Polling
Here are Hillary Clinton's General Election matchups in the poll. The figures below don't include don't knows and I've put them in order of Clinton lead from least to greatest lead
Clinton 44%
Carson 44%
Clinton 46%
Trump 44%
Clinton 45%
Fiorina 43%
Clinton 47%
Rubio 43%
Clinton 46%
Bush 42%
Clinton 47%
Cruz 42%
Clinton 44%
Kasich 39%
Clinton 48%
Huckabee 42%
Clinton 47%
Walker 40%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90315.pdf
As you can see a bad poll for Bush but an absolutely disastrous one for Scott Walker who seems to be starting to circle the drain now.
The worst bit of the poll for Bush was when people were asked about a match up between Clinton, Bush and an Independent Trump
Clinton 42%
Trump 27%
Bush 23%
Third place would not be great for Bush. Interesting that the three Republicans who do best in the poll against Clinton - Carson, Fiorina and Trump - have all never held elected office.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I don't know if this is th right thread to put this in but apparently Glenn Beck's 'The Blaze' in in trouble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfxVM7U_C2g
I can't say I'm sorry about this, I'm not really a Glenn Beck fan
Oh Pleeeeeeaaaasssseeeee Lil' baby Jesus, may it be so!
I have to listen to three hours of his ranting every day on the job,
it would be beyond satisfying to see his empire collapse.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
A couple more polls from the last week here (don't worry I'm not about to post up every poll but I do think these are particularly interesting). The first is a general election poll on Trump. Now Trump has been gradually improving his general election polling numbers but this is the first one that show Trump in the lead
Trump 45%
Clinton 40%
Trump 44%
Sanders 40%
Trump 44%
Biden 42%
Trump 44%
Gore 41%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6
Interesting to note how Clinton does worse out of possible Dem candidates on this poll.
The second poll is a Florida Republican Primary Poll. Florida is, of course, the home state of both Bush and Rubio. Bush was governor for 8 years and Rubio is an incumbent senator. As recently as July they were polling first and second in this state with Scott Walker regularly polling third. So how are Bush, Rubio and Walker doing now in the Sunshine state?
Trump 30%
Carson 25%
Bush 19%
Rubio 6%
Fiorina 5%
Kasich 3%
Cruz 3%
Cristie 2%
Huckabee 2%
Walker 1%
Jindal 1%
http://opinionsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FL-GOP-Pres-Prim-9.2.15.pdf
A very bad poll for Bush, Rubio and Walker.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I have to listen to three hours of his ranting every day on the job,
Oh, my-- that sounds horrible. Do they at least pay your some sort of hazard pay bonus??? I would have thought the labor code/occupational safety board would have some sort of rules against such work conditions. I'm available to organize picket lines/ boycotts...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A couple more polls from the last week here (don't worry I'm not about to post up every poll but I do think these are particularly interesting). The first is a general election poll on Trump. Now Trump has been gradually improving his general election polling numbers but this is the first one that show Trump in the lead
Trump 45%
Clinton 40%
Trump 44%
Sanders 40%
Trump 44%
Biden 42%
Trump 44%
Gore 41%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6
Interesting to note how Clinton does worse out of possible Dem candidates on this poll.
Really? A poll claims that Donald Trump would win ~30% of the Hispanic vote and ~25% of the black vote (no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 11% of the black vote since 1996), and Hillary Clinton getting the same result (within the margin of error) as all the other Democrats in the poll is the thing that draws your attention? I'd say the former is much more notable (and sufficient grounds for increased skepticism about SurveyUSA's methodology) than the latter.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A couple more polls from the last week here (don't worry I'm not about to post up every poll but I do think these are particularly interesting). The first is a general election poll on Trump. Now Trump has been gradually improving his general election polling numbers but this is the first one that show Trump in the lead
Trump 45%
Clinton 40%
Trump 44%
Sanders 40%
Trump 44%
Biden 42%
Trump 44%
Gore 41%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6
Interesting to note how Clinton does worse out of possible Dem candidates on this poll.
Really? A poll claims that Donald Trump would win ~30% of the Hispanic vote and ~25% of the black vote (no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 11% of the black vote since 1996), and Hillary Clinton getting the same result (within the margin of error) as all the other Democrats in the poll is the thing that draws your attention? I'd say the former is much more notable (and sufficient grounds for increased skepticism about SurveyUSA's methodology) than the latter.
OK here's another general election poll from a different polling company. This one the latest ORC poll for CNN
Carson 51%
Clinton 46%
Bush 49%
Clinton 47%
Trump 48%
Clinton 48%
A better poll for Bush and a less good poll for Trump however it still shows Trump neck and neck with Clinton. A couple of interesting points from the date. Firstly the trends
June 26-28
Clinton 54%
Bush 41%
Clinton 59%
Trump 35%
July 22-25
Clinton 51%
Bush 46%
Clinton 56%
Trump 40%
August 13-16
Clinton 52%
Bush 43%
Clinton 51%
Trump 45%
Sept 4-8
Bush 49%
Clinton 47%
Trump 48%
Clinton 48%
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/10/demsclinton.pdf
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
Also on the point of the demographic breakdown of the above poll it includes these sub samples for the 'white' and 'non-white' categories
White
Bush 58%
Clinton 39%
Trump 57%
Clinton 40%
Carson 57%
Clinton 41%
Non-White
Clinton 66%
Bush 29%
Clinton 67%
Trump 28%
Clinton 58%
Carson 38%
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Looks like the lineup for the Republican primary debate next week has been determined.
The main event will consist of:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
- Ben Carson
- J.E.B. Bush
- Ted Cruz
- Scott Walker
- Marco Rubio
- Carly Fiorina
- Mike Huckabee
- Rand Paul
- John Kasich
- Chris Christie
Note that Fiorina and Kasich have moved up from the "kiddie table" debate into the main event. Interestingly this debate will have one more candidate in the main event than last time (bringing the total to eleven*), but it still means that one candidate who was in the main event last time has been "demoted" to the earlier debate in next week's event. In this case it's Rick Perry who has been pushed down to the undercard event, where he'll join Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham. Jim Gilmore has been dropped from the event entirely, not because he's dropped out of the race but because he hasn't achieved the minimum threshold of polled support to qualify for a seat.
--------------------
*The Spinal Tap-themed promotions practically write themselves. "The Reagan Library Republican Primary Debates: this time they go to eleven!"
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Looks like the lineup for the Republican primary debate next week has been determined.
The main event will consist of:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
- Ben Carson
- J.E.B. Bush
- Ted Cruz
- Scott Walker
- Marco Rubio
- Carly Fiorina
- Mike Huckabee
- Rand Paul
- John Kasich
- Chris Christie
Note that Fiorina and Kasich have moved up from the "kiddie table" debate into the main event. Interestingly this debate will have one more candidate in the main event than last time (bringing the total to eleven*), but it still means that one candidate who was in the main event last time has been "demoted" to the earlier debate in next week's event. In this case it's Rick Perry who has been pushed down to the undercard event, where he'll join Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham. Jim Gilmore has been dropped from the event entirely, not because he's dropped out of the race but because he hasn't achieved the minimum threshold of polled support to qualify for a seat.
--------------------
*The Spinal Tap-themed promotions practically write themselves. "The Reagan Library Republican Primary Debates: this time they go to eleven!"
Rick Perry has now dropped out of the race. I wonder if CNN will go ahead with having eleven in the main debate and four at the secondary event?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Last night, Joe Biden gave a great interview to Stephen Colbert on "The Late Show".
Transcript (Ark.com)--Start reading at time point 00:18:13.
Video (YouTube).
B didn't come across at all as the sort of...dufus (someone who does everything wrong) that he so often did in the past. He was dignified, funny, and turned out to be a practicing Catholic who finds his faith very helpful.
I want Hillary to be president. I'll vote for her in the primary, and whoever the Dems run in the general election. However, we could do worse than have B for president.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Sadly, I think he would likely lose to most of the potential GOP candidates, even some major nutters, who (with plenty of media help) will paint him as a doofus no matter what he says or does. Remember what they did to Al Gore, who gave them very little (arguably no genuine) ammunition.
The Republicans are scared to death of Hillary, and they would love to see her replaced by Biden or Sanders, neither of whom has a chance in the general election.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Maybe not:
quote:
- Matchups among all American voters show:
- Biden tops Trump 48 - 40 percent. He beats Bush 45 - 39 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 41 percent.
- Clinton edges Trump 45 - 41 percent. She gets 42 percent to Bush's 40 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent.
- Sanders edges Trump 44 - 41 percent and edges Bush 43 - 39 percent. Rubio gets 41 percent to Sanders' 40 percent.
Quinnipiac poll
Biden has his amusing moments, but he's no doofus. Many of President Obama's accomplishments were built on foundations that Biden developed, using the wisdom and connections developed over years of public service. He's been referred to as the nation's Eulogizer-in-Chief and he has huge personal appeal among a wide variety of people.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
It is interesting to notice the ages of the various contenders.
Bernie Sanders was born in 1941.
Joe Biden was born in 1942.
Donald Trump was born in 1946.
Hillary Clinton was born in 1947.
Ben Carson was born in 1951.
Carly Fiorina was born in 1954.
Chris Christie was born in 1962.
Rand Paul was born in 1963.
Ted Cruz was born in 1970.
Marco Rubio was born in 1971.
While the Republicans apparently have a supply of relatively young, ambitious participants and more in the wings, the top Democrats are not spring chickens. Who does the Democratic party have to run for President in 2020, 2024, 2028, etc.?
(Our youngest President was 42 when he was sworn in, and the oldest was 69. The average is 54 years, 11 months.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Nate Silver says that Trump will fail and that he won't clinch the candidacy. Normally I respect Silver a lot, but this time I'm not so sure.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Maybe not:
quote:
- Matchups among all American voters show:
- Biden tops Trump 48 - 40 percent. He beats Bush 45 - 39 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 41 percent.
- Clinton edges Trump 45 - 41 percent. She gets 42 percent to Bush's 40 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent.
- Sanders edges Trump 44 - 41 percent and edges Bush 43 - 39 percent. Rubio gets 41 percent to Sanders' 40 percent.
Quinnipiac poll
Biden has his amusing moments, but he's no doofus. Many of President Obama's accomplishments were built on foundations that Biden developed, using the wisdom and connections developed over years of public service. He's been referred to as the nation's Eulogizer-in-Chief and he has huge personal appeal among a wide variety of people.
Matchups from the ORC poll I linked to above
Bush 49%
Clinton 47%
Biden 52%
Bush 44%
Clinton 48%
Trump 48%
Biden 54%
Trump 44%
I wouldn't underestimate Biden either. Look at the way that many of the Republican candidates have reacted to Donald Trump's attacks on them, complaining about what he has said about them.
Now I haven't followed Biden closely from across the pond so you'll have to tell me if I'm right about this but my impression is that Biden is someone who's instinct would be not to complain about it but to hit back twice as hard, something Trump's rivals have all failed to do.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is perfect for us: The Trump Bible.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It is interesting to notice the ages of the various contenders.
Bernie Sanders was born in 1941.
Joe Biden was born in 1942.
Donald Trump was born in 1946.
Hillary Clinton was born in 1947.
Ben Carson was born in 1951.
Carly Fiorina was born in 1954.
Chris Christie was born in 1962.
Rand Paul was born in 1963.
Ted Cruz was born in 1970.
Marco Rubio was born in 1971.
While the Republicans apparently have a supply of relatively young, ambitious participants and more in the wings, the top Democrats are not spring chickens. Who does the Democratic party have to run for President in 2020, 2024, 2028, etc.?
(Our youngest President was 42 when he was sworn in, and the oldest was 69. The average is 54 years, 11 months.)
And President Obama was born in '61, meaning he was younger than most of the above when he ran the first time around.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
The above poll doesn't take into account that Biden is not yet a candidate and therefore hasn't been subject to criticism, whereas Hillary has been under relentless attack involving the e-mail pseudo-scandal, something that will ultimately be seen as a cheap, nasty, partisan tempest in a tea pot.
I'm certain that candidate Biden would be painted (unjustly) as a doofus. His gaffes have already given rise to the pejorative term, "Bidenism".
Gore was all but destroyed by an inarticulate reference to the internet.
Here's a sample of what the Repubicans will have to throw againsrt Biden.
[ 12. September 2015, 22:28: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Bidenisms here.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
cf. Palinisms And that's just one year.
Seriously, the GOP should be very careful when they attack Clinton or Biden. They already have a huge gender and race gap to deal with. If they piss off enough of the white, older, male electorate with careless attacks on Biden, they're screwed.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
Yep.
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
She can win the party nomination, but I don't think she can win the general election.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
Yep.
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
She can win the party nomination, but I don't think she can win the general election.
Depends on who she's running against. The GOP at this point seems entirely incapable of pulling their s**t together to put forward an even halfway credible candidate. Hilary, Biden, and even Sanders would have a cake walk against Trump. But, as has been noted already, it's early days still, so time will tell.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Here's a candidate for those voters who can't find anyone crazy enough in the GOP clown car.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Biden--
He'd be much happier not running, IMHO. AIUI, he's only considering it because his son (Bo?), before he died, asked him to run. Maybe even made him promise to.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
Yep.
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
She can win the party nomination, but I don't think she can win the general election.
"Complete hatred" may be an overstatement. I doubt many out there consider Hillary someone that they would 'like to have a drink with'; and a lot of people don't entirely trust her (including me). But a lot of us also remember how much better the middle and working classes had it under the Clinton administration and a lot of us want that back.
Personally, I don't find Hillary to be genuine, I don't entirely trust her, don't find her to be particularly charismatic, and I believe that her bid for the presidency is ultimately aimed at increasing her personal wealth.
But I'll still vote for her, because I believe that she is a shrewd, calculating political mover and I think that is what it takes to get stuff done. Bill can run as her VP for all I care.
Right now, any hope we have of closing the income inequality gap lies with Hillary. The GOP won't do it, and the rest of the DNC crew lacks the political awareness and/or capital to push the proper legislation through.
YMMV
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I don't think her ultimate goal is increasing her personal wealth. She is able to make plenty of money off lectures and books, and the Clintons already benefit from post-Presidential benefits.
If I had to attempt a view into her heart, I'd guess that she is motivated by a feeling of destiny and a longing to be a huge figure in history. Of course, that goes hand-in-glove with an immensely outsized ego, but in that regard, she hardly differs from other Presidential candidates, past and present.
Regarding the wealth gap in the US, the tax "reforms" coming from the clown car thus far involve even more tax cuts for the wealthy and token sums for everyone else. Hillary would never let such plans be enacted.
[ 14. September 2015, 01:47: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I find it worrying that the GOP candidates are all appalling. It would do Hillary good to have some credible opposition. As it is, people of sanity have no choice. There is no one else to vote for.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Biden--
He'd be much happier not running, IMHO. AIUI, he's only considering it because his son (Bo?), before he died, asked him to run. Maybe even made him promise to.
I think it would be tough for him to be on the campaign trail and suffer the inevitable attacks right now (which is rough at the best of times, much less when you're in mourning).
But I also think he's one of the few people who stands a chance at changing our ridiculous mediated national conversation. Part of me wants to see him run just for that.
Never thought I'd see the day when Joey seemed like the candidate voters can connect with.
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
"Complete hatred" may be an overstatement. I doubt many out there consider Hillary someone that they would 'like to have a drink with'; and a lot of people don't entirely trust her (including me). But a lot of us also remember how much better the middle and working classes had it under the Clinton administration and a lot of us want that back.
What makes you think electing Hillary will get the middle and working classes back the prosperity of the 90s?
"Complete hatred" is not an overstatement among the people I live around and work with. There's an uprising; people are tired of princesses, pretty lies, and manipulative gotcha games. A lot the people I know who supported her 2008 bid aren't in her corner this go-round.
quote:
Personally, I don't find Hillary to be genuine, I don't entirely trust her, don't find her to be particularly charismatic, and I believe that her bid for the presidency is ultimately aimed at increasing her personal wealth.
Right. She is one of the super-wealthy, one of the class that has made it perfectly clear that they are willing to do anything to preserve the power that they (in many cases undeservedly) hold.
This makes you think that she will enact policies that benefit the poor, working, and middle classes how?
quote:
But I'll still vote for her, because I believe that she is a shrewd, calculating political mover and I think that is what it takes to get stuff done. Bill can run as her VP for all I care.
Right now, any hope we have of closing the income inequality gap lies with Hillary. The GOP won't do it, and the rest of the DNC crew lacks the political awareness and/or capital to push the proper legislation through.
YMMV
And again I'm baffled by your belief that she has anyone's interests but her own (and her wealthy donors') in mind. You said it yourself - she's a shrewd, calculating, political mover.
She knows which side her bread is buttered on.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Not everyone who is wealthy wants to use politics to gain even more wealth, e.g., the Kennedys.
Hillary has not made her money off the backs of the middle class or poor, nor is she blind to their economic plight. I totally disagree with the idea that she is in this for the money.
Yes, she is calculating, ambitious, and clever. What successful politician isn't?
I think, though, that she has a firm moral (and I use that term in its best sense) center - something probably derived from her classic Methodist social gospel faith coupled with her near identification with Eleanor Roosevelt.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
The "general public's" supposed hatred of the Clintons is largely an artifact of the media's deep and abiding genuine hatred of the Clintons. (e.g. the New York Time's massively inaccurate "scoop" on the Clinton e-mail "scandal".) The American public have never hated either of the Clintons with the degree of antipathy the press feels they should.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And an awful lot of people want Hillary to break that glass ceiling.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Here is a quote from Trump:
quote:
Trump touted his tough-talking style as a plus.
"It's an attitude that our country needs. We get pushed around by everybody," he told Fox News, adding, "We have to push back."
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Not all Americans. But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege. One cannot but pity people who are no longer allowed to look down upon persons of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
As the song says, they were taught to do it, when they were six or seven or eight. And now the world has changed. Trump is the voice of their dismay.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
I'm not an American, but my impression is that most people American or not are tempted to believe everyone is pushing us around, and if you include under 'pushing around' as 'not moving when we push them anymore', more so.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
This filmlet is probably well known in the US, but when I first encountered it recently, it gave me enormous pleasure. The President scores some palpable hits on a target that to me thoroughly deserves it. And he does it with wit and humour.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege.
Relative privilege. White working class men are certainly privileged compared to working class women and black working class men. But that doesn't mean that being working class isn't of itself a serious lack of privilege.
Being "spoken for" by a multi-millionaire is of itself a serious form of erasure.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege.
Relative privilege. White working class men are certainly privileged compared to working class women and black working class men. But that doesn't mean that being working class isn't of itself a serious lack of privilege.
Being "spoken for" by a multi-millionaire is of itself a serious form of erasure.
Agreed. But apparently it is one that a significant segment of working/middle class white men are willing to engage.
I have wondered if it's something similar to what was observed in Southern opposition to abolition/civil rights. In, A Stone of Hope (David Chappell's meticulously researched history of the American civil rights movement) Chappell observed that the most vocal and passionate opposition to abolition of slavery and later of desegregation came not from wealthy white slaveowners, but from poor whites, even when in some ways that was contrary to their interests (if you abolish free slave labor that theoretically mean more low-paying jobs for poor workers, even as it would increase competition for those jobs). He suggests there is some psychological need to feel like "at least I'm not on the bottom rung"-- even when it means aligning with wealthy and privileged persons who certainly don't have your best interests at heart. I don't know if that's at play here or not, but as a casual observation there does seem to be some similarity.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Trump has never frightened me, but lately, watching his rallies and the people surrounding him, excitedly taking selfies; I get a little depressed. I remember another time when an odd ball, outsider quickly rose to power by talking about "making the country great again," and blaming an ethnic group for all their problems. All sorts of nice people in Germany were praising him for "just saying what we're all thinking." I'm not hinting in any way that anything dire is in Trump's plans or in his supporters' minds. I'm just saying that I now have a better picture of how that all got started.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Clinton can barely conceal her contempt at the vast majority of Americans. People have noticed.
Legislators in California, New York, and now congress are writing "safe campus" acts - laws that apply only to college students. People aren't even attempting to conceal the class warfare anymore.
There are tanks and soldiers in the streets sometimes, in most states the government doesn't have to charge you with a crime to seize your assets, and a lot of people have the bruises to prove just how much they have been pushed around.
But keep right on sneering. Y'all will be irrelevant soon enough.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Don't hold back. Why?
And why do you think it is that the Republicans aren't running a decent candidate? What does that say about them that they can't/won't?
If there is class warfare on the part of the DNC (more likely, neglect from what I've seen), it's given excellent cover by the more extreme and visible class warfare on the part of the GOP. As has been noted above, Clinton and the DNC may not be very motivated to take some constituencies' concerns very seriously when the competition is the GOP clown car.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Clinton can barely conceal her contempt at the vast majority of Americans. People have noticed.
I have a few questions.
1. What would be the basic policies of this "decent" Republican candidate, and can you name a major Republican politician who advocates such policies?
2. Can you provide concrete examples of Hillary's supposed barely concealed contempt for the vast majority of Americans? Exactly what is it that "people have noticed" that demonstrates her contempt?
3. What do you feel are the most important policies that the next President should pursue?
4. Can you name a candidate who is dedicated to such policies and who stands a reasonable chance of being elected?
5. What is there in this tread that serves as an illustrstion of why a "decent" Republican could be elected?
[ 15. September 2015, 01:23: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
By the way, I do not consider Hillary to be sinlessly perfect. I could come up with a list of other Democratic possibilities who would satisfy me completely.
However, I can think of none of them to be as likely as Hillary to win the general election, and the thought of the GOP in total control of Washington terrifies me.
[ 15. September 2015, 01:30: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Don't hold back. Why?
The general attitude of sneering, looking down upon the people doing the manual labor that keeps the world running, signalling class position through certain words, and talking and acting as if the superior class knows the real motivation of everyone better than they do.
People who don't understand why _American Sniper_ appeals to the majority can't effectively lead a population who finds _American Sniper_ appealing.
quote:
And why do you think it is that the Republicans aren't running a decent candidate? What does that say about them that they can't/won't?
Nobody has a decent candidate. The least evil wins...
quote:
If there is class warfare on the part of the DNC (more likely, neglect from what I've seen), it's given excellent cover by the more extreme and visible class warfare on the part of the GOP. As has been noted above, Clinton and the DNC may not be very motivated to take some constituencies' concerns very seriously when the competition is the GOP clown car.
Most people don't see the policy. They see the liar in front of them telling them pretty lies, and they feel the damage that gets done when they're told they have to pay more than they will ever earn for something they're required (by gov't) to have.
There's a legitimate frustration at the class war (because you're required to have things that can only be bought by engaging with people who treat you like shit).
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
saysay,
I don't understand this, "...they feel the damage that gets done when they're told they have to pay more than they will ever earn for something they're required (by gov't) to have."
Is this a reference to the Affordable Care Act?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But keep right on sneering. Y'all will be irrelevant soon enough.
Not sneering. Not at the American public, anyway. Trump is unequivocally the least qualified candidate in the mainstream race. I understand the frustration with the business as usual pols, but jumping on board the clown car is not the solution.
Trump has shown exactly zero understanding of how he would do anything, beyond touting his success in business. BTW, he has bankrupted several of those. And government is not, and should not, be run as a business anyway.
Trumps main success is in self-promotion. The world already buys the American brand, what does he bring to the table that is at all necessary?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Mr. Trump openly snears at just about everyone who doesn't kiss his....feet.
[ 15. September 2015, 04:11: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And it's due to Reagan, IIRC, that recipients of unemployment benefits have to pay tax on them--essentially, paying a tax on a tax.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
saysay--
Yes, there absolutely is class warfare. But the campus laws I know of pertain specifically to problems that happen on campus (e.g., sweeping rape victims and cases under the rug). And lots of college students aren't from upper-class backgrounds.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not all Americans. But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege. One cannot but pity people who are no longer allowed to look down upon persons of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
Brenda, thanks for that. As an outsider I was having difficulty understanding why
anyone would vote for him.
Huia
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Thank you.
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.
I admit that an extremely tiny number of GOP members of Congress did side with the unemployed. That sensible and compassionate stand took guts.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... Legislators in California, New York, and now congress are writing "safe campus" acts - laws that apply only to college students. ...
Many colleges and universities were established by state governments. This usually means that significant legal changes to their charters have to be approved by those same governments. Ditto for federal institutions and funding. Heck, my own institution had to get the provincial government to amend the Universities Act in order to ticket* mis-parked cars on campus. Pell grants were established by an act of Congress that applies <gasp> only to college students. O noes! And of course, lots and lots and lots of laws are written with specific groups of people in mind - e.g. only owners and drivers of motor vehicles have to have drivers' licenses and insurance.
---
*That was actually a pretty hilarious case. A student successfully appealed a parking ticket on the grounds that the university act did not authorize issuing tickets. However, the act still authorized the removal of vehicles from university property. So until the legislature got around to amending the act, everyone who mis-parked on campus, whether a few minutes over at a meter or blocking a fire hydrant or access ramp, GOT TOWED. It was insane. They were towing so many cars they had to set aside a whole level of one parkade for an impound lot.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.....
Easy peasy - the Republican economic rules are very, very simple. If you want rich people to work harder, you have to give them more money. If you want poor people to work harder, you have to give them less money.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.....
Easy peasy - the Republican economic rules are very, very simple. If you want rich people to work harder, you have to give them more money. If you want poor people to work harder, you have to give them less money.
That makes a lot of sense. I was never quite sure about the Republican
tinkle down theory.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Thank you.
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.
I admit that an extremely tiny number of GOP members of Congress did side with the unemployed. That sensible and compassionate stand took guts.
I am happy to have this discussion, but in private. I learned long ago not to try to explain such things among this pack of wolves.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
Translation?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
Translation?
While there is life there is hope
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
Actually, what I learned from both the Hilary faux scandal and the Sony hacking was that other people have far, far more interesting email correspondence than I do. I pity the poor NSA agent charged with pouring over my work emails, although I suppose if they suffer from insomnia they might come in useful...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
You may not have been watching the Styx recently, but we have confirmed that we do have a guideline which says if you use a foreign language tag, you have to provide a translation. In this case, someone else has kindly done that for you. But next time, do it yourself.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Any predictions for tonight's clown fest?
It looks like it's shaping up to be a gang attack on Trump, and I think it may well backfire.
Trump can unleash the vilest of his insults without seeming (in the minds of many) to be a bully, but rather a victim of an angry mob of losers.
[ 16. September 2015, 23:41: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Bush III wants to put Thatcher on the ten dollar bill?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I've always suspected that Ms. Fiorina is an ice queen, in which case, Trump's (repentant?) mention of her beauty would provide half the definition, and her actions at HP would provide the rest.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Hillary was on the "Tonight Show" with Jimmy Fallon, Wed. night. It was awesome!
Jimmy impersonated Trump, having a phone convo with Hillary. Hilarious! Then there was a longish (for that show) interview. She was witty, and comfortably controlled, had great answers, and looked great.
Here are the official clips from NBC.
No transcripts yet--it's a late night show. But
OnPolitics has a review article, with quotes and still photos.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Bush III wants to put Thatcher on the ten dollar bill?
I missed the debate, but just looked that up.
USA Today has this of other candidates' responses:
quote:
Chris Christie: Abigail Adams
John Kasich: Mother Theresa
Scott Walker: Clara Barton
Carly Fiorina: Wouldn't change it*
Donald Trump: His daughter, Ivanka Trump, or Rosa Parks
Ben Carson: His mother
Ted Cruz: Rosa Parks
Marco Rubio: Rosa Parks
Mike Huckabee: His wife
Rand Paul: Susan B. Anthony
(Carly Fiorina's response is more lengthy, but it's on that same page.
Interesting list.
Jeb's reasons made more sense than I expected, but he totally ignored the countless American women who would qualify. (I'll give him credit--he does at least know that Maggie wasn't American, and it would "probably be illegal".)
Kasich suggested Mother T. Does he know as much as Jeb??
Rosa Parks, with several votes, would be cool to have as the first woman on our paper money. (Unless I'm forgetting someone?)
But we tend to go farther into the past. Susan B. Anthony, women's rights activist, has a dollar coin. However, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, her friend and comrade in the struggle, would be a great choice. (Sacagawea, Native American cross-country guide to explorers Lewis & Clark (while she was pregnant!!), is also on a dollar coin.)
If Abigail would be chosen, there would need to be a spot on the bill for her quote "Remember the ladies", which she wrote to John Adams, her husband, when he was in the pre-revolutionary Continental Congress.
From that last link:
quote:
The future First Lady wrote in part, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I enjoyed those clips a lot. A bit of light relief from Corbyn politics in the UK. But very effective.
Seriously, Hillary really is a "tough mother". Presumably more of the same to follow, with Ellen deGeneres?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Ellen's show, while somewhat similar to Jimmy's, has a different style, so we'll see how it goes.
I felt sorry for Jimmy about that accidental "mother" remark. He was so embarrassed--but Hillary handled it well.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I've always suspected that Ms. Fiorina is an ice queen, in which case, Trump's (repentant?) mention of her beauty would provide half the definition, and her actions at HP would provide the rest.
Not a big fan of Fiorina, didn't vote for her when she ran for office here in CA, but I thought she handled a very difficult situation with class. Even more so, though, I thought the whole awkward exchange revealed even more clearly Trump's view on women: I can't think of a single time he has commented on any woman, anywhere, including (horrifically) his own daughter, on anything other than her physical appearance. Fiorina either "has a face no one could vote for" or she is "beautiful." His own daughter is "so stunning if she wasn't my daughter I'd be dating her". But no mention for either one of their intelligence or any other aspect of their person-- no mention on whether Fiorina has the right leadership skills, policy positions, or temperament for the position. And this is pretty much true of every public exchange she's had with our about any woman, any where. It's the only thing he notices. And, as Fiorina says, women are hearing that.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I find Trump unutterably creepy and would not let him near my daughter. (A US Army captain, so in fact he is welcome to hit on her -- she has an M-16, so it would be fun.) He reminds me of Jesse Ventura -- the quintessential celeb candidate. And we all know how Ventura worked out for the state of Minnesota...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Hmmm...we could give all girls and women those Trump pinatas that are a fad now, so they could practice verbal and/or physical self defense...
And ewwwww, re his comment about his daughter.
[ 17. September 2015, 14:03: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
Actually, come to think of it, as Brenda noted, that could be quite fun...
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not a big fan of Fiorina, didn't vote for her when she ran for office here in CA, but I thought she handled a very difficult situation with class.
With extreme class. She handled it briefly and precisely, yet she refrained from going full on Carol Peletier on him.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
Actually, come to think of it, as Brenda noted, that could be quite fun...
Hmm...Dubya gave her a very unwanted shoulder massage at a conference, caught on camera. She was visibly upset. I thought she showed enormous restraint in not hitting him.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
Andy Borowitz has the best debate post-mortem I have heard so far: "Let's be honest: when the biggest moment of a debate is one candidate rebuking another for making fun of her face, we are not exactly in Lincoln-Douglas territory."
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
Still definitely feels like it'll be Bush vs. Clinton in the real election, which honestly worries me. Though I'm not sure whether Jeb's name will help him after two Bushes in office, one can only hope not.
Re sexist politicians: I have seen a delightful picture of our mayor--whose politics I strongly dislike--being introduced to a local organizer except he's super-obviously staring at her breasts. Doesn't seem to hurt him any, I fear.
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on
:
The Washington Post has and excellent review of last nights lies and misinformation.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
The Washington Post has and excellent review of last nights lies and misinformation.
They missed a big one.
quote:
"There's one thing I'll tell you about my brother," said Jeb(!) Bush. "He kept us safe."
Anyone remember this stuff?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies. ...
If that ever proves to be the case, and I hope he never gets the opportunity, she will get the better of him.
Except, she could do that anyway. It'd just make her job easier.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Charles Pierce is an angel. With a sword.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
Still definitely feels like it'll be Bush vs. Clinton in the real election, which honestly worries me. Though I'm not sure whether Jeb's name will help him after two Bushes in office, one can only hope not.
If last night was any indication, I don't think Jeb will make it. He was saddled with too much baggage defending his brother's record. If he was willing to distance himself from W I think he'd have a more than decent chance, but he signaled last night that he's gonna tie his bid to W's record, which can't be a winning strategy.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
If they had started correcting each other the event would have lasted another four hours, so one must thank God that no one bothered.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If they had started correcting each other the event would have lasted another four hours, so one must thank God that no one bothered.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, that is a quotes file moment.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
The ref to Harvard and Dartmouth probably means he was referring to research/opinions from those institutions.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Apparently, Ms. Fiorina feels that it's all right for her to mock another woman's physical appearance.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
The ref to Harvard and Dartmouth probably means he was referring to research/opinions from those institutions.
The fact is that even if nothing in the program is changed, Social Security for retirees will be able to pay full benefits for years and years to come. Decades from now benefits would likely have to be reduced somewhat - again if nothing is done.
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on
:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
LOL re "Prada". I wonder who can be Ann Hathaway's character, and counter-act her a bit?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
The ref to Harvard and Dartmouth probably means he was referring to research/opinions from those institutions.
The fact is that even if nothing in the program is changed, Social Security for retirees will be able to pay full benefits for years and years to come. Decades from now benefits would likely have to be reduced somewhat - again if nothing is done.
I hope that is the case. I went on it early, due to disability. While I don't live in fear over it, I do sometimes think of it--especially when Congress openly doesn't have the political will to shore it up, and some members want to cut it altogether.
I'd really rather not wind up living under a bridge. And yes, that does happen.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ Croesos and cliffdweller
Hard for me to believe that there is mileage in playing the "Bush card" and the "kept us safe" myth. But the performance of the GOP candidates is looking more and more bizarre on this side of the pond. Is there a "sensible, or at least comparatively sensible" favourite?
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Will the words sensible and favorite ever go together in politics, Barnabas?
I really liked what Rand Paul said about the wisdom of waiting a while before jumping into foreign conflicts. Mentioning how often the country we back turns into our well armed enemy a few years down the road. But nobody likes him, he's short.
Rubio, in spite of sounding like an overly rehearsed youth pastor, had sensible things to say, but he's not a serious contender.
Fiorina did come across strong but she reminded me of Margaret Thatcher and not in a good way. She really shouldn't be criticizing other women's hairstyles when those straight lines around her thin face did nothing for her. We can't all wear the teenagers styles that well, Carly.
I had always liked Chris Christie but he lost me when he used his worry about his wife on 9-11 as his reason for going into Afghanistan. Presidents aren't supposed to make decisions based on personal emotion are they? In fact every person who introduced himself by naming his beautiful wife and love-of-my-life children lost points with me. Why is that relevant?
I always vote Democrat so I'm not the target audience, but most Republicans seem so random in their message to me. One minute we were hearing about how the middle east is planning to nuke us any day now and two seconds later it was all about defunding Planned Parenthood which just doesn't seem like a presidential issue to me at all.
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on
:
Right now sensible republican candidate is an oxymoron. John Kasich ???
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on
:
Republicans all seem to be living in some alternate universe where everything everywhere is bad and getting worse every day. Its no wonder their base is gun crazy. I recently read an article that described conservatives as generally fearful and liberals as generally optimistic.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos and cliffdweller
Hard for me to believe that there is mileage in playing the "Bush card" and the "kept us safe" myth. But the performance of the GOP candidates is looking more and more bizarre on this side of the pond. Is there a "sensible, or at least comparatively sensible" favourite?
Well, I'm obviously biased-- a pretty hard-core, lifelong democrat. But in years past I've been able to identify at least some Republicans I didn't think would be an absolute disaster. John McCain 1.0, for example (2.0 being when he went over to the dark side and joined up with Rove & Palin, 3.0 being when he morphed into a bitter old man sitting on his porch yelling at the kids to get off the lawn). In recent years though it's gotten harder and harder to find any viable candidate on that side of the aisle. In the current clown car there's no one that seems even remotely sane. As a Dem, that of course is good news-- it should be a cake walk come fall of 2016 (although Jon Stewart will remind me to not underestimate the Dem's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). But really it's not good news for the country-- as noted earlier, if the election turns into a cake walk there will be no one to hold the Dems feet to the fire, to make us be more disciplined, to make us take seriously the concerns of our constituents.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I still remember John Anderson fondly, but he never got that third-party thing off the ground. Colin Powell was so smart that he refused to run, but if he had he would have been great.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
It seems you're not the first person to get that impression. From 2008
quote:
Opinion is still split on whether Ms. Fiorina or her successor as chief executive, Mark V. Hurd, deserve credit for Hewlett’s success after Ms. Fiorina drove through the company’s $25 billion acquisition of Compaq in 2002. By many accounts, Ms. Fiorina was superb at marketing, mixed on strategy, bad at execution — and extraordinarily successful in unifying the board against what Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld of the Yale School of Management calls her “street bully” leadership style.
“What a blind spot this is in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality in this way,” said Mr. Sonnenfeld, the senior associate dean for executive programs at the management school and one of Ms. Fiorina’s sharpest critics. “You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned C.E.O. to be your standard-bearer.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06fiorina.html?_r=0
For more on her record at Hewlett Packard see here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carly-fiorina-business-record_55f9e2c7e4b08820d9173ee6
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I still remember John Anderson fondly, but he never got that third-party thing off the ground. Colin Powell was so smart that he refused to run, but if he had he would have been great.
I registered Republican for the only time in my life in order to vote for Anderson in the primary. When he withdrew to run as an independent, I had to hold my nose and vote for the least-bad of the remaining candidates. That was GHW Bush, who at the time was still ridiculing Reagan's "voodoo economics". I went on to work full-time for a few months on Anderson's campaign.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
my buddy fausto voted for Bush (even Bush the elder)??? Worldview shattered. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 18. September 2015, 21:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Somewhere I still have an Anderson for President button.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
I don't recall seeing her smile once during the debate, even during the jokes. She makes Hillary (criticized for a supposed lack of emotion) seem all warm and cuddly. Fiorina strikes me as Palin with a brain instead of a heart.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
I don't recall seeing her smile once during the debate, even during the jokes. She makes Hillary (criticized for a supposed lack of emotion) seem all warm and cuddly. Fiorina strikes me as Palin with a brain instead of a heart.
This strikes me as just a slightly more sophisticated version of what Trump did. Again, I'm not fan of Fiorina-- because of her policies. But I really couldn't care less whether or not she smiles a lot, or is warm and cuddly. Give me a decent health care system, keep us from another war in the Middle East, maybe do something to turn back global warming at least a bit (none of which Fiorina seems to care about)-- and you can consistently scowl so fiercely you scare little children for all I care. And I have to wonder why we're not counting how many times the male candidates do/do not smile.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I get your point, Cliffdweller, but I do look for signs of a sense of humor in all the candidates.
Rand Paul had a cute little laugh when Trump couldn't resist saying "there's plenty to work with," about Rand's looks. In fact I saw smiles and slight head shakes over the absurdity of Trump from Rand and Jeb Bush that made them seem like men tolerating a bad boy. Chris Christy made a good joke about some sort of criticism that "must have been directed at the other guys."
Carly Fiorini had a great answer about Trumps insult toward her face when she said that the women of America heard what he was saying loud and clear, but when Trump then smarmed, "I think you're beautiful." To me a slight eye roll and smile would have been so much better than that look of stone cold hatred over a childish insult.
Her fans may love that though. Her fury at Planned Parenthood was equally terrifying and I think some Republicans share that feeling about PP.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Yes, you're right, my friend. I suppose it's actually worse when people joyfully smile while they sabre-rattle, or advocate other harmful/dangerous policies.
Unfortunately, personal likeability is an important factor in Presidential politics - the beer drinking buddy test.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Carly Fiorini had a great answer about Trumps insult toward her face when she said that the women of America heard what he was saying loud and clear, but when Trump then smarmed, "I think you're beautiful." To me a slight eye roll and smile would have been so much better than that look of stone cold hatred over a childish insult.
That may indeed be a sign of character. According to Reuters after her failed 2010 Senate run she left owing staff and supplies about half a million dollars and then didn't pay them for four years, that is until shortly before she announced she was running for President, even though she estimated to have a net worth of up to $120 million.
quote:
Twelve of about 30 people who worked on Fiorina’s failed 2010 California Senate campaign, most speaking out for the first time, told Reuters they would not work for her again...“I’d rather go to Iraq than work for Carly Fiorina again,” said one high-level former campaign staffer
It's not common for campaigns to end in debt but not extraordinary either, said Trevor Potter, a Republican former FEC chairman. Usually wealthy candidates pay off the debts themselves "as a matter of honor and reputation because they feel badly about vendors who are stuck with these debts."...
A number of former campaign workers said they were upset that Fiorina paid them only once she had decided to run for president...nine months after she lost the election, Fiorina paid $6.1 million for a 5-acre (2. hectare) waterfront estate in Virginia, near Washington, D.C. The house has no mortgage, property records show.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/21/us-usa-election-fiorina-idUSKBN0O60FV20150521
I don't think Fiorina will be the Republican nominee, right now I think the nomination is Trump's to lose, but if she were then I think that any Democrat would beat her in a landslide.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
There you go. Those are much better reasons not to like the woman than that she doesn't smile.
Her record as a corporate CEO is not much different.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Yes, you're right, my friend. I suppose it's actually worse when people joyfully smile while they sabre-rattle, or advocate other harmful/dangerous policies..
yeah-- Cheney could be creepy that way, for example. (*shudders*)
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... To me a slight eye roll and smile would have been so much better than that look of stone cold hatred over a childish insult. ...
I'm sure that was deliberate. We all know what happens when you roll your eyes on camera.
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on
:
Maybe she was really suffering from the effects of way tooooooooooooooo much Botox.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Indeed.
She earlier said that she is "proud of every wrinkle", yet in the debate appearance, it seemed to me that she had eliminated every trace of them.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I think the best approach to insults from Trump would be to ignore them or laugh them off as Donald just being Donald.
Fighting with him over such matters is likely to give him the attention he craves and results in the blood sport in which he is quite successful.
[ 20. September 2015, 01:20: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
There's an interesting article on how New GOP rules on the election may give Trump the nomination or at least be a power broker. Since the field isn't thinning, if Trump keeps 30 percent in a field of 15 he is going to start to acquire delegates when the primaries start in March. The article also mentions that some of the most likely to fold due to lack of funds are also outsiders and it's quite possible Trump may get a large share of their votes.
Strange Times indeed.
[ 20. September 2015, 02:01: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
After all the time Trump has spent fanning the fiction that Obama isn't an American citizen, I think someone should point out Trump's chubby faced resemblance to this guy. All he needs is the hair.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Here is a '538' insight.
Apparently endorsements have been quite a good historical guide to who gets nominations. This year, for the GOP nomination, Jeb Bush holds a slight lead but so far there is no real sign of the most influential in the party reaching any real consensus on who might be best.
I still can't believe that Trump will win. An 'outsider' may have just become leader of the Labour party in the UK but at least our outsider is quiet, courteous and serious minded. Whereas Trump ...
About the only argument in favour of Trump I can see (and a very cynical one) is this. If the GOP are destined to lose in 2016 (and the demographics are a serious handicap to a GOP candidate winning this time) then it might be better to waste Trump money on a wild goose chase. Save up the serious money for Senate, House and 2020 Presidential try.
Another big loss for a very conservative voice might finally persuade the faithful that they are going to have to woo Hispanics and African Americans to have any chance of getting the presidency again. That means policy changes, ditching some sacred cows, doing something about the increasingly disastrous image.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Barnabas--
Re Trump:
One thing that might swing things majorly in his favor is his established fame. People want to know "what's the Donald said now?" Plus all his years on the "Apprentice" reality show.
I don't understand the idea someone else stated that angry, disaffected, white men like him. Seems like he'd be the last person they'd like.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's an interesting article on how New GOP rules on the election may give Trump the nomination or at least be a power broker.
It seems like the Republican party is flailing, procedurally speaking. From the article*:
quote:
When gloomy Republican Party leaders regrouped after President Obama’s 2012 re-election, they were intent on enhancing the party’s chances of winning back the White House. The result: new rules to head off a prolonged and divisive nomination fight, and to make certain the Republican standard-bearer is not pulled too far to the right before Election Day.
Those who remember the 2008 post-mortem will recall that the Republicans concluded that McCain's early securing of the nomination was harmful to his electability, since the ongoing Democratic primaries kept the public focused on Clinton and Obama. So in 2012 the Republican primaries went much longer than typical with a wide field of candidates and, after another defeat, the conclusion was that they needed "to head off a prolonged and divisive nomination fight", in the words of Nagourney and Martin's Times article. I'd suggest that this vacillating between "we need a long primary" and "we need a short primary" is distracting from the main problem the GOP has these days: the American general electorate no longer finds their positions compelling.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is a '538' insight.
Not mentioned in the article, but something to keep in mind, is that on the Democratic side current members of Congress and Governors are superdelegates, so their endorsement actually translates into a vote at the convention (though not weighted in the same way as 538 counts them). Former presidents, vice presidents, house speakers, and a few other leadership positions are also superdelegates. In 2008 Barack Obama rather famously spent a lot of time lobbying superdelegates before the primary election process got underway, effectively stealing a march on Clinton and forcing her to fight an uphill battle throughout the primaries.
--------------------
*The New York Times has a paywall that only allows non-subscribers to read ten articles per calendar month. Only click through if you're a Times subscriber or want to use one of your ten monthly Times passes on an article about GOP procedural issues.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd suggest that this vacillating between "we need a long primary" and "we need a short primary" is distracting from the main problem the GOP has these days: the American general electorate no longer finds their positions compelling.
Exactly.
There is an argument in the UK (it's on the Corbyn thread) that there needs to be some serious work put into reshaping the debate, particularly on economic issue. And I think the GOP might feel there is some mileage in going that way.
But what the US electorate seems to have with these Republican Candidates is a bizarre set of multiple "punch and judy" shows. Will any of that shift a potential floater from the centre? The whole thing looks farcical.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
And there goes another one:
quote:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has suspended his presidential campaign, effectively ending a once-promising GOP presidential bid that collapsed amid tepid debate performances and other missteps.
"Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top," Walker said in a brief speech in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday evening. "With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately."
Once considered a top-tier contender, and he's gone before a single primary vote is cast.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
There was an interesting article in the Economist about the mysteries of the Republican primaries. Essentially it said that the voters seem to be so set against perceived "insiders" - classified as virtually anyone with political experiences - that they will turf out even someone as impeccably conservative as Walker because he is part of the "political elite". On the other hand they are giving perceived "non-politicos" like Trump much more slack even though they are not nearly as conservative on some issues.
I think there's something to this - I think the Republican grassroots think things are slipping away from them and they blame the people in power. In fact they are even angrier with the conservatives in power, because traitors are even worse than enemies.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
A circling of the wagons?
I hadn't thought about it much before, but there may be something in the concept of a "laager mentality" within the GOP.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The other charming report making the rounds is that God told Walker to drop out.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other charming report making the rounds is that God told Walker to drop out.
Considering that Walker claims God told him to run in the first place this isn't surprising. From God's similar message to Rick Perry telling him to run this time around I think the only thing to conclude is that God gets his kicks by watching these guys flame out spectacularly in the polls. I think He told four different candidates to run last time, including Michele Bachmann.
Remember, if God tells you to run in the Republican presidential primaries He's probably just doing it for the lulz.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A circling of the wagons?
I hadn't thought about it much before, but there may be something in the concept of a "laager mentality" within the GOP.
Well, no, not really! If that were the case, rock solid conservatives like Walker would be in the laager and dubious fly-by-nights like Trump would be out. But it's the other way round!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Remember, if God tells you to run in the Republican presidential primaries He's probably just doing it for the lulz.
one for the quotes file.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other charming report making the rounds is that God told Walker to drop out.
I wish God would have a chat with Donald Trump. (Maybe he has, and the Donald just thinks he knows better.)
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
After the last debate, many commentators said that Trump had his balls cut off. And now he's whining about how offensive that was ... gosh, Donald, those gender-based insults really sting, don't they?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Obviously he is bleeding...somewhere.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Is Carson catching Trump? It looks like it.
I suppose that as other (more typical) GOP candidates drop out the most popular alternative to Trump is likely to pick up more of their votes. Which suggests that running second behind Trump might be a good place to be. And Carson now looks to be a clear second.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Perhaps Trump is trying to emulate Carson's appeal to evangelicals. Have you seen this toe-curling video?
K.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
No, I hadn't. Where's the brain bleach?
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
Did anyone notice the "posted by" credit?!
Hilarious!
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Did anyone notice the "posted by" credit?!
Hilarious!
I missed it. Where is it?
K.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The link said "Video posted by Tomorra Burns" which I reckoned was a misprint/misspell of Tomarra Burns , who I'm pretty sure is married to Pastor Mark Burns.
Those are Facebook links btw.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And in other news:
"Ben Carson Preaches Theocracy At Georgia Megachurch" (Patheos)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And in other news:
"Ben Carson Preaches Theocracy At Georgia Megachurch" (Patheos)
Yeah, the fundamental errors here are mind-blowing. As is the notion that a successful, educated African-American is waxing nostalgic over America's supposedly "Christian" (and slave-owning) founding fathers.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
I didn't realize that the dims had their own Trump until tonight!
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up!
And I haven't seen five whiter people on one stage since I caught the Moody Blues back in high school.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Aside from the fact that he is Jewish, I see no similarity between Sanders and any Seinfeld character. What do you find so hilarious about him?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Wow, a presidential debate with no race-baiting, no slurs against women or immigrants, no mud-slinging.... This is how it's done by grown-ups, GOP.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
"whiter people"?
How is one's degree of whiteness determined? I'd like to know exactly how white I am since that's very, very important, so please tell me your criteria.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
How is one's degree of whiteness determined?
Pantone numbers?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
"whiter people"?
How is one's degree of whiteness determined? I'd like to know exactly how white I am since that's very, very important, so please tell me your criteria.
If I remember my history, paper bags are usually involved.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
How is one's degree of whiteness determined?
Pantone numbers?
DMC.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It's not just theocracy. As this article about Ben Carson's scientific ignorance he doesn't believe in the Big Bang theory or evolution.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Feel free to explore Carson's stance on evolution in Dead Horses. But not here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up!
And I haven't seen five whiter people on one stage since I caught the Moody Blues back in high school.
BTW, congratulations to American Jews! Apparently according to the people who judge such things you're now "white"*. Your backlogged applications to various country clubs will now be processed.
--------------------
*Offer void in Mississippi.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In the US there are honorary white people. This is nearly always closed to black people (google the word 'octoroon' if you like). Occasionally achieved by intermarriage, but more often tincture of time is responsible. A batch of immigrants (Chinese, Irish) come in and in spite of vehement discrimination and outright violence hang on, keep their noses down, and assimilate like fury, using tactics like naming the kids. My name is Brenda, my siblings Lesley and Phillip, my first cousins Stewart, Andrew, Ronald, Frederick, Nivin, Douglas. You would bet we were WASPs, and you would be wrong; it's assimilation at work. It also calls for scaling the financial and educational ladder; none of us could manage it but when my daughter graduated from Stanford there was a collective sigh of relief.
In two or three generations the newcomers are nominally white. If they work it right (Italians) they get their own national holiday (Columbus Day) and their ethnic cuisine is deemed American as apple pie (pizza). Asians are now a 'model minority'; they now discriminate against them in college admissions because otherwise Berkeley or MIT would be solidly Asian, with nary a white face to be seen.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the US there are honorary white people. This is nearly always closed to black people (google the word 'octoroon' if you like). Occasionally achieved by intermarriage, but more often tincture of time is responsible. A batch of immigrants (Chinese, Irish) come in and in spite of vehement discrimination and outright violence hang on, keep their noses down, and assimilate like fury, using tactics like naming the kids.
Another example of American assimilation via naming:
quote:
Superman, you don't think he's Jewish? Coming over from the old country, changing his name like that. Clark Kent, only a Jew would pick a name like that for himself.
From The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Sorry, Brenda. I think you'll have to explain this to us non-Americans. I accept that the Chinese are Chinese. But wherever else they may be on the social ladder as one time immigrants, if you are Irish, Italian or Jewish - or for that matter Ukrainian, Litvak or Swedish, all are white. If that is not the case, then 'white' isn't being used with quite the same meaning as the rest of the world understands it.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry, Brenda. I think you'll have to explain this to us non-Americans. I accept that the Chinese are Chinese. But wherever else they may be on the social ladder as one time immigrants, if you are Irish, Italian or Jewish - or for that matter Ukrainian, Litvak or Swedish, all are white. If that is not the case, then 'white' isn't being used with quite the same meaning as the rest of the world understands it.
For much of U.S. history, it wasn't enough to be caucasian to be socially acceptable. One had to be a certain kind of caucasian. This excluded Europeans of Irish, Jewish, Southern and Eastern European descent and it meant they often faced descrimination and negative social attitudes. These attitudes only changed with time, assimilation, and other things. This is what some people mean when they talk of certain ethnic groups "becoming white."
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up!
And I haven't seen five whiter people on one stage since I caught the Moody Blues back in high school.
BTW, congratulations to American Jews! Apparently according to the people who judge such things you're now "white"*.
I had no idea looking at him how he occupies his imagination.
What exactly was the visual cue that I missed that identified him as Jewish?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Who suggested that there were visual cues?
A little research into the candidates' backgrounds would alert one to the fact that Sanders is Jewish (and that Hillary is a Methodist, Huck is a Southern Baptist, Rubio is a Catholic who often attends an Evangelical megachurch, etc.) It's information that's out there in abundance.
Nevertheless, I do find it interesting that you happened to compare him to a Seinfeld character. There are plenty of amusing non-Jewish characters in other popular sitcoms.
[ 14. October 2015, 23:50: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Who suggested that there were visual cues?
He looks like an old white guy to me.
I don't know what a Jew looks like.
I don't research candidates who will never get my vote. Namely dims and republicans.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes 'white' in this context actually doesn't have much to do with skin color. It has more to do with being accepted in the main culture.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re "white" vs. "Jewish":
In the TV show "Northern Exposure", the season 4 "Thanksgiving" episode, Joel, Jewish doctor from New York, finds out that the local Alaskan natives have a Thanksgiving tradition of throwing tomatoes at white people. He gets very upset and says "I'm many things, but not white!"
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Sometimes assimilation into "white" culture results in being disparaged by members of the culture that has been apparently abandoned.
For example, an assimilated Asian may be called a "banana" (yellow on the outside - white on the inside) by other Asians.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It's not only "socially acceptable". Immigration quotas were set to get Northern Europeans and not southern ones like Italians or Sicilians.
As for Chinese and Japanese etc, the U.S. has a unique ethnic identity; "the Asian". that is not seen in Asia as an ethnic identity.
Catholics and Jews were seen as less than acceptable in many places. Now they are pretty much accepted but Muslims aren't.
No one said it was logical.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
This is getting even more mystifying. Obviously there's a huge difference between being the Earl of Cork and Orrery and an Irish tinker, but neither is likely to be black. Nor, for that matter is Terry Wogan.
I'm inclined to say 'pull the other one'.
Besides, when it comes to immigration quotas, I happen to know that it's far easier to immigrate into the USA with an Irish passport than with a UK one.
Asian here normally means India and Pakistan.
As for the suggestion that you can spot someone is Jewish just by looking at them, that sounds to me like some of the more odious propaganda of the Third Reich.
[ 15. October 2015, 08:45: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes 'white' in this context actually doesn't have much to do with skin color. It has more to do with being accepted in the main culture.
I was once present at a conversation where most of the participants were of Ukrainian origin (some from the US, and others from Canada) who were discussing their cousin, who had married a white girl, although his previous spouse had been "one of us."
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up! ...
What exactly was the visual cue that I missed that identified him as Jewish?
Oh, please. You make a Seinfeld reference and then try to pretend you didn't know he was Jewish? That dog won't hunt.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
OK people, back on issues please. Tempting though analysis of another Shipmate's mindset may be, it's not exactly Purgatorial, is it?
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
In related news, according to Mike Huckabee trusting a tricksy Jew like Sanders with your money is like trusting a Korean with your dog.
So "ha ha Koreans eat dogs" is what passes for wit amongst Republican presidential candidates?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It has always bemused me that Huckabee is (or was?) a minister. Gives Christianity a bad name.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Was the Democratic debate too nice and unified?
I have read two interesting articles in the last 24 hours, both of which wonder why Bernie Sanders won't go on the attack, as he clearly needs to do if he is going to peel off enough votes from Clinton to get the nomination.
One from 538, in which it is suggested that Sanders can only influence the race, but will not win without doing something to take on Clinton.
And another (this one with quite a bit of NSFW language) expressing quite a bit of frustration with the pool of candidates. Opening line:
quote:
Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, a Republican Senator, and Hillary Clinton walk into a bar. Bartender looks them over and says, “Christ, this is 60 percent of the Democratic presidential campaign field? You m***********s make Richard Nixon look like Leon Trotsky.” Then Jim Webb knifes him, because Jim Webb is a f******g maniac.
In all honesty, I can't see myself voting for any of the Republicans this year, but at least they are putting up a fight. Can anyone really take on Clinton, is anyone actually going to try, and what's the point of the debates if they don't?
(Yeah, I know Sanders won the non-scientific online polls. If those had any relation to how an election will actually turn out, Ron Paul would have been the Republican nominee the last two go-arounds.)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
If I want entertainment, I can watch the World Wrestling Federation. In politicians I want intelligence, calm, and common-sense policy. These words cannot be applied to anyone in the GOP, lord knows. I think the Dems made a fine contrast, very attractive.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
... I have read two interesting articles in the last 24 hours, both of which wonder why Bernie Sanders won't go on the attack ....
quote:
“I’m very proud to say, I’ve never run a negative political ad in my entire life, and I’ve been attacked a whole lot,” Sanders responded.
CSM - Bernie Sanders
Since he's not a Christian, it just might be because he's decent.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There is, or rather should be, a difference between criticising an opponents policies and attacking them.
it can be done, it should work. What does it say about politicians and voters that it doesn't happen more?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Since he's not a Christian, it just might be because he's decent.
Are you implying something about Clinton?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is, or rather should be, a difference between criticising an opponents policies and attacking them.
it can be done, it should work. What does it say about politicians and voters that it doesn't happen more?
It ain't nothing new. And this is between good friends.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Was the Democratic debate too nice and unified?
I have read two interesting articles in the last 24 hours, both of which wonder why Bernie Sanders won't go on the attack, as he clearly needs to do if he is going to peel off enough votes from Clinton to get the nomination.
Given the criticisms Sanders has leveled at Clinton's proposed policies (her previous TPP stance, her support of the Iraq War, her support of the surveillance state, etc.), I can only take this to mean you think Sanders should go on the personal attack against Hillary Clinton. Something along the lines of "you look stupid and girls have cooties", perhaps?
Interestingly the American media seems to be pining for something like that. All the back-and-forth, will-he-won't-he speculation about Joe Biden is their form of wishful thinking that they won't have to cover a policy debate and can instead cover a Reality TV-style clash of personalities, which is a lot easier. The Republican primaries have spoiled them!
And this is interesting.
quote:
Republican presidential contender Dr. Ben Carson has put his public campaign events on hold for two more weeks to go on book tour for his new tome “A More Perfect Union” and catch up on fundraising events.
Just in case anyone was actually wondering whether Carson's campaign was a serious political effort or just a PR stunt.
[ 15. October 2015, 21:00: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I certainly wouldn't advise personal attacks, no. 538 noted that the only really pointed attack of the night was Clinton's against Sanders' history on gun votes, while Deadspin pointed out that Sanders just sat there while Clinton justified her vote for the patriot act.
I suppose that you could set out your view and assume that everyone will do the research and see that your opponent has a different view. But if you are 20% down in the polls, you better come up with a way to let people know why they should switch affiliation.
Obama was looking at similar numbers in October 2007, and he managed to close the gap. But he didn't do it without pressing Clinton on her positions.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is, or rather should be, a difference between criticising an opponents policies and attacking them.
it can be done, it should work. What does it say about politicians and voters that it doesn't happen more?
It ain't nothing new. And this is between good friends.
Never said it was new. But the difference, as far as I can ascertain, is the remarks quoted in that video seem very apparently hyperbolic. The attacks of today much less so.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Carson and publicity stunt:
--Running for president seems to be a rite of passage for a lot of (male) people. Or like the brass ring on a carousel--they may not be able to catch it, but they want to try to touch it. And some may simply be deluded about their chances.
--IIRC, the previous time Romney ran, he and his wife took time off for a vacation in...the Caribbean. Not *necessarily* a huge deal--campaigning is very stressful. But AFAIK, candidates just don't do that. It occasioned much media murmuring.
He said that he didn't really want to run, that it was his wife's idea. So why did he run this time? (Is he still in the race?)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Golden Key: --Running for president seems to be a rite of passage for a lot of (male) people.
Sometimes I have the feeling that also a lot of money can be made by running (and afterwards). I don't know to which extent this is true.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interestingly the American media seems to be pining for something like that. All the back-and-forth, will-he-won't-he speculation about Joe Biden is their form of wishful thinking that they won't have to cover a policy debate and can instead cover a Reality TV-style clash of personalities, which is a lot easier. The Republican primaries have spoiled them!
Yes. The old standard for the media used to be "bread and circuses", but it does seem that the need for bread gets put more and more on the back burner. Or, worse, the circus show is presented as though it was bread. That's bad for democracy.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... And this is interesting. ...
No it's not.
Sorry. Just couldn't resist it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Golden Key: --Running for president seems to be a rite of passage for a lot of (male) people.
Sometimes I have the feeling that also a lot of money can be made by running (and afterwards). I don't know to which extent this is true.
With the name recognition of a presidential run, there is absolutely a lot of money to be made on the speaking circuit, and a far far easier gig than a real job like being president. For Republicans there also is the very real possibility of parlaying that name recognition into a very well paid and equally cushy gig as Fox News commentator, as Huckabee and Palin have done. Gingrich spent most of his run last time on his book tour, very clearly that was his real agenda. The vast majority of the GOP candidates, and possibly a chunk of the Dems as well, seem to have these sort of auxiliary but far more lucrative money-making schemes in mind.
[ 16. October 2015, 13:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I will beg hostly indulgence to mention that Saturday Night Live cast Seinfeld co-creator Larry David as Bernie Sanders in this week's cold open. So it wasn't just one shipmate thinking it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
For the last few years, we've had a run of Republican elected officials laboring under the explicit mantra that "government is the problem." Thus they have no interest whatsoever in seeing government work-- to actually solve problems. And, big surprise, what we have found is a government officials from appointed lackeys (remember "good job, Brownie"?) to Congress who prove the proposition thru their utter incompetence.
In contrast, one of the most charming aspects of Bernie Sanders' run so far was his announcement: a simple, brief press conference held just outside the Congressional chambers where he serves. The official statement was preceded by his announcement that he was going to make a brief (and it actually was!) statement followed by just a few questions, then he needed to get back to work. I realize it may have all been for show, but it sent the message that Sanders is a hard-working man who takes his job seriously, and gives a good day's work for a day's wage.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's bad for democracy.
Saw a snippet of a programme in which John Cleese stated that democracy is dead. I'm not sure he was completely wrong.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
{Cue The Man Who Rules The Universe, from the H2G2 books, enter stage right.}
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I forget which Arthur C. Clarke SF novel it was in which the future World President was always chosen from people who had other careers and did not want the job. (The World Computer did the choosing, which probably was worth its construction right there.) The idea was that if you did not want the job you did it well in hopes of getting time off for good behavior. Running for the job explicitly disqualified you for ever.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I've got a friend who is running for State House in my district. He is a really nice guy, who has been working very hard to understand the issues, and he genuinely cares about the people around us. I can see that he is passionate about winning the seat, and that he sincerely believes that he has the best interest of his constituents in mind. And it is that passion that has me supporting him, even though we don't see eye to eye on all of the issues.
Which is all to say that the "only those people who have no interest in seeking office should govern" line sounds great in sci-fi novels, but I think it would probably deprive us of the services of some very capable and passionate folks who really want to make a difference.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Looks like we won't have Jim Webb to kick around anymore.
quote:
Jim Webb will end his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination at a press conference Tuesday, according to two sources with knowledge of the decision.
Or maybe we will:
quote:
The former Virginia senator who launched a longshot presidential bid earlier this year is considering an independent run, according to his campaign.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I forget which Arthur C. Clarke SF novel it was in which the future World President was always chosen from people who had other careers and did not want the job. (The World Computer did the choosing, which probably was worth its construction right there.) The idea was that if you did not want the job you did it well in hopes of getting time off for good behavior. Running for the job explicitly disqualified you for ever.
Probably Imperial Earth:
quote:
For the last century, almost all top political appointments [on the planet Earth] had been made by random computer selection from the pool of individuals who had the necessary qualifications. It had taken the human race several thousand years to realize that there were some jobs that should never be given to the people who volunteered for them, especially if they showed too much enthusiasm. As one shrewd political commentator had remarked: “We want a President who has to be carried screaming and kicking into the White House — but will then do the best job he possibly can, so that he’ll get time off for good behavior.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Sounds just like jury duty.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sounds just like jury duty.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Joe Biden will not be running.
I got the feeling from watching his appearance on Colbert a few weeks ago that this was coming- he was obviously dealing with some serious heartbreak, and he deserves some down time.
In the interview with Colbert, he was asked how he dealt with so much personal loss. His answer was something I (and probably many of you) could appreciate deeply. He said that he turned to daily Mass and the Rosary. Because when all else fails, you know the words are going to be the same every time, and you can just be still. I have had issues with Biden's public comportment in the past, but I can't feel anything but love for someone who will express that anywhere, much less on national television.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Joe Biden will not be running.
From a Democratic perspective, the only decent reasons for a Biden run for the presidency at this late stage of the campaign-forming process would be:
- Joe Biden is significantly more electable than current prohibitive front runner Hillary Clinton
- Joe Biden has significantly better policy positions than current prohibitive front runner Hillary Clinton
Neither of these is particularly clear. In fact, they both seem deeply counter-factual.
- Joe Biden has already made two presidential primary runs. In the first he flamed out early in a process that ultimately nominated Michael Dukakis. Twenty years later he withdrew after a fifth place finish, right behind Bill Richardson, in a primary where Hillary Clinton came very close to getting the nomination. The idea that Biden would be a better campaigner than Clinton seems to defy the historical record.
- It would be hard to find two national-level Democratic politicians whose policy positions are closer than Biden and Clinton. The one difference is that the former senator from Delaware is actually more sympathetic to Big Finance than the former Senator from New York. This is not a plus from the perspective of the median Democratic voter.
Biden seems to have made the right call by staying where he is, both from a personal perspective (he's probably not emotionally ready for the rigors of a primary campaign) and from the perspective of his party.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Bad news for the GOP.
They were hoping that Biden would enter. A primary fight with Hillary would have drained Democratic resources and perhaps somewhat weakened support for Hillary. If Biden could somehow have won the primary, he would have been soundly defeated by several, if not most, of the clowns.
I never trusted the one or two polls that claimed Biden would do better than Hillary against the clowns. Polls can easily be manipulated via the polling process.
This has been a great couple of weeks for Hillary. Tomorrow is likely to bring even more good news.
[ 22. October 2015, 01:03: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Bad news for the GOP.
Eh? I'd say it's great news for them.
quote:
If Biden could somehow have won the primary, he would have been soundly defeated by several, if not most, of the clowns.
The opposite. There's almost no way he could have won the primary, but he would have been a lot more likely to win the general.
quote:
This has been a great couple of weeks for Hillary. Tomorrow is likely to bring even more good news.
Why? (Seriously, why would you think that?)
Her decisions on Libya were atrocious and illustrate every reason everyone has for opposing her as a presidential candidate.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Your first two statement were addressed in the post immediately prior to yours.
More to come.
[ 22. October 2015, 03:43: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I don't think that anyone can deny that it's been a very, very good two weeks for Hillary.
Her debate performance is widely considered to be outstandiing, if not absolutely perfect.
The Benghazi Committee has been exposed (by Republicans!) as a costly, unnecessary, redundant, ultra-partisan attempt to go after Hillary rather than a legitimate effort to guard against future embassy attacks.
There is a good chance that tomorrow Hillary will deliver the long overdue coup de grace to that pathetic committee.
So, we shall see tomorrow if Hillary's good times continue.
[ 22. October 2015, 04:00: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Could you flesh out this statement?
"Her decisions on Libya were atrocious and illustrate every reason everyone has for opposing her as a presidential candidate."
Which decisions on Libya were "atrocious"? What should she have done differently?
I wish that diplomatic efforts in North Africa and the Middle East were as simple as you seem to feel them to be. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for decades at the very least.
What makes you think that different decisions (whatever they may have been) would have guaranteed benign results in such an incredibly unpredictable setting?
[ 22. October 2015, 04:17: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Looks like the participants are now set for Republican Debate Part III, the Debatening! Those participating in the main event will be the same as last time, minus dropout Scott Walker. As a reminder they are:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump (0)
- Ben Carson (0)
- Marco Rubio (+2)
- J.E.B. Bush (-1)
- Carly Fiorina (+1)
- Ted Cruz (-2)
- Mike Huckabee (0)
- Chris Christie (+2)
- John Kasich (0)
- Rand Paul (-2)
There's been a bit of shuffling of the podium order, but the top ten seems stable (aside from the departure of Walker). The four participating in the undercard event will be:
- Rick Santorum
- Bobby Jindal
- George Pataki
- Lindsey Graham
Same as last time, except minus Rick Perry.
In related news, Ben Carson polled as beating Donald Trump in Iowa for the first time. Trump handled this development with all the poise and grace we've come to expect from his campaign.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And originality. The man never fails to astonish.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Mr. Trump is now blaming a "young intern" for the tweet. Interestingly, he used the exact same excuse when he used a picture of the Waffen SS in his campaign Twitter. Maybe he should consider making the management of his Twitter account a paid position? Perhaps hire an actual communications professional?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I watched some of Hillary Clinton's appearance at the Benghazi hearing. This struck me as a reasonable summary.
As someone outside the US, and from what I saw today, this comment from the article strikes me as pretty much on the mark.
quote:
The contentious exchange between Gowdy and Cummings underscores the increasing pressure on the committee to produce evidence of misconduct by Clinton or forever be labeled a taxpayer-funded political attack designed to damage her presidential campaign.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Up to now, I think the Inquisition Committee hoped to drag along for another year and two weeks. Then, after the 2016 election, their report would essentially say, "Never mind. We uncovered nothing."
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
It's finally over. In withstanding that eleven hour Star Chamber ordeal, I think Hillary emerges looking extremely Presidential. I'd therefore call it another great day for her.
I'll be very interested in surveys of the public's reaction.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
If she can give Putin the look that she sometimes gives Gowdy, you've got half of your diplomatic problems solved.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I noted this from an account of the hearings.
Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam shoots himself and the enquiry in the foot.
What was the Chairman doing to let that pass? Ah well, check out this exchange.
Scroll down to the heated exchanges involving Chairman Gowdy, Cummings and Schiff.
And then review this.
But I suppose this GOP-serving crap will grind on until the election.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There's a great image making the rounds, of a comic-book-art Hillary, unsmiling and steely. She is saying, "You don't understand. I am not locked in here with you. You are locked in here with me." (ID that quote!)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a great image making the rounds, of a comic-book-art Hillary, unsmiling and steely. She is saying, "You don't understand. I am not locked in here with you. You are locked in here with me." (ID that quote!)
I'll do better than that. I'll source the image.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Now we know that she knew all along she and the administration was not being truthful with the American people when they claimed the Benghazi attack was over a film.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
And then there were three.
quote:
Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee ended his long-shot bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, he announced at a Washington event Friday.
"As you know I have been campaigning on a platform of Prosperity Through Peace," Chafee said at the DNC's annual Women's Leadership Forum in Washington. "But after much thought I have decided to end my campaign for president today. I would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance be given to peace."
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Now we know that she knew all along she and the administration was not being truthful with the American people when they claimed the Benghazi attack was over a film.
"We"?
Can you point to the exact testimony where this was established?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Now we know that she knew all along she and the administration was not being truthful with the American people when they claimed the Benghazi attack was over a film.
"We"?
Can you point to the exact testimony where this was established?
It's from a report released by the demcocrats on the house select committee on Benghazi. Page 28, towards the bottom,
quote:
Later that afternoon, Secretary Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil regarding the events in Cairo and Libya. The notes from that call indicate that the Secretary relayed information consistent with reporting at the time: “We know that the
attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” The notes also indicate that she acknowledged that Ansar al-Sharia reportedly claimed responsibility for the attacks: “Your not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
Whatever this may do in the primaries in my state in about 5 months or in the general election is early to tell, but probably not much. Folks are talking about the beloved Carolina Panthers, not politics. What is it, anyway, maybe 90% or more of the voters vote the way they always have?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
That link shows Fox News being irresponsible in their reporting. Fox News! Someone get a fan and smelling salts, I think I shall faint.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
I do.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
I do.
Well, I believe this (from the link)
quote:
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Apparently J.E.B. Bush is having to curtail campaign spending already.
quote:
Jeb Bush, once a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, is slashing pay across the board for his struggling campaign as he attempts to regain traction just 100 days before the party’s first nominating contest.
The campaign is removing some senior staff from the payroll, parting ways with some consultants, and downsizing its Miami headquarters to save more than $1 million per month and cut payroll by 40 percent this week, according to Bush campaign officials who requested anonymity to speak about internal changes. Senior leadership positions remain unchanged.
The campaign is also cutting back 45 percent of its budget, except for dollars earmarked for TV advertising and spending for voter contacts, such as phone calls and mailers. Some senior-level staff and consultants will continue to work with the campaign on a volunteer basis, while other junior-level consultants, primarily in finance but including other areas, will be let go, the officials said.
From the memo itself:
quote:
It's no secret that the contours of this race have changed from what was anticipated at the start. We would be less than forthcoming if we said we predicted in June that a reality television star supporting Canadian-style single-payer health care and partial-birth abortion would be leading the GOP primary.
For some reason this reads to me like a snippier version of Hirohito's declaration that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage". I'm actually a bit surprised that J.E.B. isn't better at "the family business".
From the New York Times* on the same subject:
quote:
"Belt tightening is one thing, but sometimes you need to change pants," said a Republican strategist who insisted on anonymity to speak candidly.
That's, uh, pretty candid. And graphic.
--------------------
*The New York Times has a paywall that allows non-subscribers to read 10 articles for free per calendar month. Only click through if you're a NYT subscriber or are willing to use one of your ten monthly Times passes on a vaguely scatological analysis of the J.E.B. Bush primary campaign.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
I do.
Well, I believe this (from the link)
quote:
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
Hillary and the admin knew better yet kept pumping crap for some reason about a video. Pols should just tell us the truth and if they don't know it yet, just say so instead of making shit up.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
I do.
Well, I believe this (from the link)
quote:
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
One thing was made clear during Clinton's testimony yesterday.
She knew almost immediately that the attack was not a response to any kind of video, and communicated as much to her family as well as the Egyptian PM.
Two days later at Andrews AFB she told the families otherwise, even going so far as to suggest to the sister of one victim that she should feel sorry for the Libyan people that they are so ignorant and easily provoked to violence.
She is a liar and a shit human being, but those facts were well established long before this testimony or even her appointment to State.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Pols should just tell us the truth and if they don't know it yet, just say so instead of making shit up.
I agree with this statement. When will the Benghazi committee admit to their true motivations, then?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Here's what Hillary said at Edwards AFB:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."
It seems to me that she has clearly separated Benghazi from the video-imspired attacks at embassies.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
By no stretch of the imagination was the outpost at Benghazi anything close to an embassy, nor was it ever listed as such by the State Department.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Exactly. The whole did-she-didn't-she re the video is one big strawman argument.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's what Hillary said at Andrews AFB:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."
It seems to me that she has clearly separated Benghazi from the video-imspired attacks at embassies.
She spoke these words at the reception of the bodies of the dead men from the outhouse in Benghazi. Near enough to the coffins and the families to have spit on them.
If that is your idea of clear separation well...bless your heart.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
In the quote I posted, she clearly separated the violence at the Benghazi outpost from the protests at the embassies. The Benghazi outpost was NOT as is not an embassy. As such, she did NOT say that the Benghazi tragedy was linked to the video.
Spitting on coffins? Please!
[ 23. October 2015, 23:52: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
In the quote I posted, she clearly separated the violence at the Benghazi outpost from the protests at the embassies. The Benghazi outpost was NOT as is not an embassy. As such, she did NOT say that the Benghazi tragedy was linked to the video.
Spitting on coffins? Please!
According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
Now that the documented evidence turns up empty, we're going with unsubstantiated hearsay supposedly from a bereaved family member under duress. If Hilary DID think the attack was a reaction to the film, she wouldn't have said they were going to arrest the filmmaker. Which undermines the credibility of the whole report.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
"Hillary Clinton, What Do You Do After 11-Hour Benghazi Grilling? Order Indian." (Yahoo)
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
Now that the documented evidence turns up empty, we're going with unsubstantiated hearsay supposedly from a bereaved family member under duress. If Hilary DID think the attack was a reaction to the film, she wouldn't have said they were going to arrest the filmmaker. Which undermines the credibility of the whole report.
It didn't turn up empty. Hillary and the administration told the American people things that they knew were not true. Hillary maintained the lie to the father receiving the body of his dead son. She has no character.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Mere Nick
Purely as a matter of interest, how do you rate Gowdy's veracity? And his competence as Committee Chair?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
and in other news; Huckabee said poor criminals should be sold into slavery That's what the bible says.
I'm assuming that debt slavery is not a dead horse. Redirect me if I'm wrong.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
As far as I can determine, the interview with the father was not shown live. Instead, a transcript was presented, so that makes it hearsay upon hearsay, and that's topped by it being on Hannity's Fox "News" program.
Of course, memories are notorious tricksters. Even the most sinlessly-perfect among us can remember things inaccurately, all the more so, I would say, in emotionally-charged situations situations like immense grief at the death of a loved one.
It's not uncommon (and certainly understandable) in such situations to look for someone to blame. I know that from one of my own grieving experiences.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
To follow up; I was watching a Season 4 episode from The West Wing, within which a moderate Republican, fighting for his seat and being balked by both Democrats and more conservative Republicans observed thisways. "If I'm running scared, I'm running to the Right. That's where the money is".
Who is really gaining from this increasing polarisation? What interests are really being served?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
In the quote I posted, she clearly separated the violence at the Benghazi outpost from the protests at the embassies. The Benghazi outpost was NOT as is not an embassy. As such, she did NOT say that the Benghazi tragedy was linked to the video.
Spitting on coffins? Please!
According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
Charles Woods related a number of colorful details about that occasion in his interview on The Blaze with Glenn Beck, including
quote:
Mr. Woods [said] that the President seemed cold and distant at the time, saying: 'Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish.'
"His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye," Woods says of meeting Obama. "I could tell he was not sorry. He had no remorse."
"An hour later, he [Biden] came over and approached me," Woods told Beck. "And in an extremely loud and boisterous voice, [he asked,] 'Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'"
Tyrone Woods' mother, however, described a very different atmosphere in a Facebook posting shortly afterward: quote:
The entire afternoon was overpowering and unreal. Little did I know that I would find myself in a reception room being comforted, hugged, and, yes, even kissed by the President of the United States. Along with the President, there was Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and General and Mrs. Colin Powell. They were all wonderful. They held my hand, offered condolences, gave warm hugs, and were extremely compassionate and genuinely sad for my loss, as I fought back tears and tried to project an image of strength to honor my SEAL son.
Each of them commended Tyrone for his courage, his bravery, and his ultimate sacrifice for his country. While squeezing Secretary Clinton's hand and choking back tears, I told her that what worried me was that my son died possibly thinking that he had failed in the mission he was to carry out, that of protecting Ambassador Stevens and the people in the compound.
Looking me firmly in the eye, she told me that my son did not fail. She called him a hero and that if not for him, the 30 people inside the consulate would not have made it out. He was doing his job, fighting for his life, putting others ahead of his own safety, but then that was his job, which he did well.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, I never did! Thanks Dave W.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Exactly.
People in the midst of the most profound grief are going to process that grief in all sorts of ways-- including externalizing it and projecting anger, distress, or comfort in varying degrees on other people. That's normal. The Woods deserve our greatest respect, prayers, and compassion. But that doesn't mean that their very subjective perceptions of what was undoubtedly the most emotional painful moment of their lives is valid evidence of anything other that the horrible cost of the tragedy.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
and in other news; Huckabee said poor criminals should be sold into slavery That's what the bible says.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
They really haven't got their heads round this old testament, new testament thing have they ?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To follow up; I was watching a Season 4 episode from The West Wing, within which a moderate Republican, fighting for his seat and being balked by both Democrats and more conservative Republicans observed thisways. "If I'm running scared, I'm running to the Right. That's where the money is".
Who is really gaining from this increasing polarisation? What interests are really being served?
Fear serves conservatives. Always.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They really haven't got their heads round this old testament, new testament thing have they ?
Silly girl. You stand behind whichever one serves at the moment. They have their heads perfectly in this. Context is of the devil, convenience is heavenly.
[ 24. October 2015, 15:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think it was very kind of the GOP to give Clinton an 11 hour campaign ad, and probably at low cost!
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
and in other news; Huckabee said poor criminals should be sold into slavery That's what the bible says.
I'm assuming that debt slavery is not a dead horse. Redirect me if I'm wrong.
Much as I dislike Huckabee's policy positions, blatantly misrepresenting what he said really isn't doing the left any favors.
I don't suppose anyone is going to question the decision to go into Libya in the first place...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
saysay
I suppose the linked article may misrepresent what he said by taking it out of context, somehow. But it does contain direct reported speech and no doubt Huckabee could take action if he has been denigrated by misquoting.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To follow up; I was watching a Season 4 episode from The West Wing, within which a moderate Republican, fighting for his seat and being balked by both Democrats and more conservative Republicans observed thisways. "If I'm running scared, I'm running to the Right. That's where the money is".
Who is really gaining from this increasing polarisation? What interests are really being served?
Fear serves conservatives. Always.
That's true. But what is being damaged is the credibility of democratic processes. Powerful financial vested interests would seem to have the most to gain by a weakening of government of the people for the people by the people.
Unless of course you have some superstitious belief in the ultimate benevolence of the invisible hand of "market forces" and "free trade". Plus some kind of trusting notion that voluntary redistribution of wealth via individual generosity is all that is really necessary.
Which of course I know you don't personally.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
Whether one thinks she is St. Hillary or Satan Incarnate, there seems no question that the hearings were a triumph for her, and even the conservative press in the US have generally recognized it as such, if grudgingly.
I can't imagine any of the Republican candidates not wishing the whole thing had never taken place. If Hillary is elected President, there will be people who point to her testimony as the point where that election became possible.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Also, at this writing, there is no better and more electable candidate, on either side. It is hers now, to lose. (I went to the local farm market today, where they were happily handing out Hillary bumper stickers.)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, at this writing, there is no better and more electable candidate, on either side. It is hers now, to lose. (I went to the local farm market today, where they were happily handing out Hillary bumper stickers.)
I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, way too establishment in her dealings. Of course, holding one's nose and voting Hillary to avoid a Trump president is a possibility.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I can see Trump winning the nomination, especially if he works out a deal (deals are Donald's self-proclaimed special skill) whereby Carson is promised the V.P. nomination.
Between the two of them, their supporters would be a huge and formidable block, not easily placated by other nominees.
This could perhaps be further enhanced by other deals (Cabinet posts?) with Huckabee, and Cruz, since I don't recall Trump having offended them.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Are there any recent detailed polls showing how many women, Hispanics and African Americans are likely to vote for Trump in a Presidential election? Compared with Hillary Clinton, say?
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, ...
So they don't trust somebody as much as they used to. So they prefer to vote for someone whom no one has ever trusted.
From outside this choice, that's really scary.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, at this writing, there is no better and more electable candidate, on either side. It is hers now, to lose. (I went to the local farm market today, where they were happily handing out Hillary bumper stickers.)
I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, way too establishment in her dealings. Of course, holding one's nose and voting Hillary to avoid a Trump president is a possibility.
Sanders is the one who's starting to look surprisingly electable. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, ...
So they don't trust somebody as much as they used to. So they prefer to vote for someone whom no one has ever trusted.
From outside this choice, that's really scary.
I would not call it impossible, as he is highly thought of by the anti-government element in the Republican party, but his popularity is low
among older line evangelicals, who are troubled by much of his personal life. He might do well in large suburban box churches, but would be a hard sell among Lutherans and would face even more resistance among the integrist RCs who strongly supported George Bush.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
I don't have many doubts about The Donald's ability to secure the nomination--certainly his chances look good right now. I don't consider him "anointed", but I wouldn't write him off.
I still don't see him as electable. He horrifies too many independents and minorities.
ETA: Barnabas62, your wife is obviously a woman of perspicacity.
[ 25. October 2015, 16:27: Message edited by: Organ Builder ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But what is being damaged is the credibility of democratic processes. Powerful financial vested interests would seem to have the most to gain by a weakening of government of the people for the people by the people.
And these ally naturally with conservative governments. Though, to be fair, they are unfortunately not anathema to liberal governments.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plus some kind of trusting notion that voluntary redistribution of wealth via individual generosity is all that is really necessary.
And we can show that this is demonstrably false. Were it true, we would already have supply in excess of need. The very fact that private giving plus support offered by government is insufficient illustrates this clearly.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
Arnold won a in a recall.
Ventura was not a republican, and would probably sue you if he knew you claimed he was.
Dims have a history electing professional clowns.
Just to be fair...
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
It's not Democrats or Republicans who elect candidates, it is the people of the United States. No Democrat or Republican will take the White House without a broad appeal to independents and swing voters.
I think there are still Republicans in the field who might be able to pull that together. I don't think the current front runners can.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Arnold ran and won as a Republican. What difference does it make that it was a recall election?
Yes, Ventura was the Reform Party candidate. He later became an independent, leaning towards the Libertarian Party. I'd say his views come much, much closer to the GOP than to the Democratic Party.
"Dims have a history electing professional clowns.
Just to be fair..."
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
[ 25. October 2015, 23:14: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It's not Democrats or Republicans who elect candidates, it is the people of the United States. No Democrat or Republican will take the White House without a broad appeal to independents and swing voters.
I think there are still Republicans in the field who might be able to pull that together. I don't think the current front runners can.
This election is so weird.
AFAICT the people most likely to win their party's nomination are also the people most likely to lose the general election.
Which leaves us with a write-in vote for Omar.
Or something...
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
The dims have as much history electing idiots like him as the republicans do. And they did it in a straight up election, not in the process of throwing some other dipshit out.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
So what if he's an actor? So was Reagan. At least Franken was funny.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It's not Democrats or Republicans who elect candidates, it is the people of the United States. No Democrat or Republican will take the White House without a broad appeal to independents and swing voters.
I think there are still Republicans in the field who might be able to pull that together. I don't think the current front runners can.
This election is so weird.
AFAICT the people most likely to win their party's nomination are also the people most likely to lose the general election.
Which leaves us with a write-in vote for Omar....
You may have a point.
1. He would be the first openly gay person elected President, although there are suspicions about a couple of others, notably Lincoln.
2. He would be the first person elected to the Presidency posthumously.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
I guess that covers the vanity, but not the creepiness. I don't think creepiness builds confidence. And he sure comes across as creepy to me too. A very strange man.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I don’t think Trump’s electable by the country at large.
After the last Presidential election, the question was asked, “who was voting for Obama, exactly?” IIRC the short answer was, “women and people who are not white”.
If Mitt Romney, who compared to this year’s batch is now looking like an extraordinarily reasonable human being, couldn’t get enough women and non-white people behind him to ensure election, I can’t see how anyone as brazenly sexist and racist as Trump is going to stand a chance.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
The dims have as much history electing idiots like him as the republicans do. And they did it in a straight up election, not in the process of throwing some other dipshit out.
But then, given 3 years to look, the Republicans couldn't find anyone better to contest the next election in 2006 than Arnold, so your fixation on the fact that he first won in a recall seems to excuse nothing.
Anyway I don't understand all this hate on Arnold - he's hardly the most objectionable Republican politician from California.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
So what if he's an actor?
I don't care if he's an actor. I was responding to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
...the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura...
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
At least Franken was funny.
Video please.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Interestingly Franken has been much more of a workhorse than a show pony since his election to the Senate. For example, this incident where criticized Republican laziness on the judiciary committee demonstrates his dedication to his legislative job. Since his election Franken has missed 0.6% of roll call votes, which is a lot better than any of the four current Republican Senators running for President: Cruz 6.7%, Graham 4.1%, Paul 3.4%, and Rubio 6.7%. Those numbers exclude roll call votes taken in 2015, since running for president (and planning a run for the presidency) is a time consuming process and would artificially inflate those numbers even further. (For those who are curious, Santorum missed 2.1% of all roll call votes that occurred during his two terms in the U.S. Senate.)
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mere Nick
Purely as a matter of interest, how do you rate Gowdy's veracity?
Ok, I suppose. More so than Hillary, of course. She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
quote:
And his competence as Committee Chair?
Hard to say. It would be difficult to have a job investigating certain matters and you don't have all information.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
Queen of Mean the Second? I suppose one interesting part of her history was her feud with Donald Trump. Neither came out of that very well IIRC.
It doesn't strike me as a very good fit, but then I have great difficulty seeing Gowdy as you do. There may be some pond differences here, but in my neck of the woods, chairs of committees don't do attack-dogging themselves. Like over Blumenthal.
So far as competence is concerned, although there's a long way to go, Gowdy may have won Hillary the White House in overseeing that interminable, pointless, haranguing, disorganized, utterly amateurish attempt at a smear job. Here's legendary investigative journalist (and Republican)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
Queen of Mean the Second? I suppose one interesting part of her history was her feud with Donald Trump. Neither came out of that very well IIRC.
It doesn't strike me as a very good fit, but then I have great difficulty seeing Gowdy as you do. There may be some pond differences here, but in my neck of the woods, chairs of committees don't do attack-dogging themselves. Like over Blumenthal.
So far as competence is concerned, although there's a long way to go, Gowdy may have won Hillary the White House in overseeing that interminable, pointless, haranguing, disorganized, utterly amateurish attempt at a smear job. So far as veracity is concerned, here's legendary investigative journalist (and Republican) Bob Woodward stating quite categorically that this is a partisan inquiry. Which kind of contradicts Gowdy's clear statements of intent and purpose.
[ 26. October 2015, 22:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Oh, well. You asked what I thought and I told you. I don't think it will have any measurable impact on the election. Most anyone could have predicted what the various folks would have said in reaction to the session and those reactions were probably pretty much written before either one of them even showed up.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
According to Gallup, Hillary's favorabiity jumped 10% after the hearing. That's about 1% for every hour of the inquisition. She should have asked for a few more hours. She's now at 55%!
[ 27. October 2015, 00:49: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The hour after the hearing, late on Thursday evening, was the most profitable hour of her campaign. Everybody piled in and donated to Hillary.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Gowdy is not at all Senator McCarthy the Second, but perhaps they do have one thing in common. When you are over-reaching, it eventually becomes clear that that is what you are doing. But in this case it didn't need an Ed Murrow the Second to point it out. Just the actions in that hearing.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Dims <snip> dims
Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair.
Or perhaps you'd consider the courtesy in discussion and debate of referring to each party by their self-chosen appellation? What do you say?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gowdy is not at all Senator McCarthy the Second, but perhaps they do have one thing in common. When you are over-reaching, it eventually becomes clear that that is what you are doing. But in this case it didn't need an Ed Murrow the Second to point it out. Just the actions in that hearing.
Didn't one of the idiots admit this on camera prior to the hearing?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Dims <snip> dims
Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair.
Or perhaps you'd consider the courtesy in discussion and debate of referring to each party by their self-chosen appellation? What do you say?
In my university days, a Trotskyite acquaintance used to refer to Capitalist Faction No.1 and Capitalist Faction No.2. My problem was that I couldn't remember which was No.1 and which No.2 (which, perhaps, might have been the point).
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ lilBuddha
I think so. But when it is confirmed by actions and statements by committee members and a committee hearing, that kind of drives the point home.
[ 27. October 2015, 12:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Kevin McCarthy, who was at the time expected to become the new Speaker of the House, said the Benghazi hearings had lowered Clinton's poll numbers, when pushed by Sean Hannity to name something Congressional Republicans had gotten done.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I suppose that demonstrates just how dim McCarthy is. And Hannity. In isolation it doesn't demonstrate that Gowdy was personally involved in a thought out strategy. You could argue that McCarthy was pointing to a consequence not an intention. Personally I think the intentionality came out clearly in Gowdy's conduct re Blumenthal. And in some of the GOP committee members' questioning. As HC and Cummings clearly pointed out.
It's clear that I'm no GOP supporter. But this wasn't just about politics either. In a fair investigation, whether you are looking for crimes or ethical misconduct, it's important to avoid descending into sleazy ethics yourselves. Otherwise you taint the process. And that is what was on show in that hearing. That's costly to anyone attempting to take the high moral ground.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
The aftermath of the Kevin McCarthy thing was funny, though. For a while, they went with "I apologize to anyone who was offended", since I guess that's what they've had the most practice with. Unfortunately, he didn't actually insult or offend anyone, he just let the cat out of the bag.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair....
Can we come up with something else? Cunts have warmth and depth.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It not only taints all investigations, it is a blot upon Congress. To run those hearings and investigations costs a mort of money, all wasted in pissing down a partisan hole. It was a fantastical waste of public funds, and they should be slapped hard for it. The good Lord alone knows they're harsh enough, slapping other people for wasting money.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
So apparently the lower tier Republican candidates are upset about their backstage accommodations for tonight's debates.
quote:
The drama began Tuesday afternoon as RNC officials led campaigns on a walk-through of the debate site. After touring the stage, candidates got a peek at what their greenrooms looked like.
Trump was granted a spacious room, complete with plush chairs and a flat-screen TV. Marco Rubio got a theater-type room, packed with leather seats for him and his team of aides. Carly Fiorina’s room had a Jacuzzi.
Then there was Chris Christie, whose small space was dominated by a toilet. So was Rand Paul’s.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't this kind of winners-and-losers tier system exactly the kind of thing the Republican party advocates for everyone else? Rand Paul, of all people, shouldn't be complaining about this realization of the libertarian dream where the "makers" (those with high poll numbers) don't have to share with the moochers and takers who can't get out of the single digits.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Ok, I'm hanging out in Carly's room!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Ooh! Let's all go into the hot tub!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, that was different. Recognising that attacking the "liberal" media is a well known GOP candidate ploy, I thought the CNBC moderators gave the candidates plenty of ammunition for complaint.
Rubio was right in at least one thing. If these things do turn into cage matches, that should be the candidates' doing, not any provocation by moderators.
Worst candidates debate ever? Well, it must be a strong contender.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Brenda: quote:
Ooh! Let's all go into the hot tub!
I think I feel a song coming on...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
For those who are interested, here is a full transcript of yesterday's main event Republican debate. For those with extra time to burn, there's also this transcript of the Republican "undercard" debate.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re weird presidential debates:
There was one--Carter/Ford?--where one guy called the other a communist, then "apologized" by saying it was a Freudian slip. (I.e., he really meant it.)
I think *maybe* Ford said it.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And presented for your consideration:
"The Race is Heating Up, and the Trumpkins Keep Coming..." (Yahoo)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Last night, Hillary talked with Stephen Colbert on "The Late Show". Great fun, and some great one-liners!
Summary and quotes, with embedded clips (CBS local).
Full episode (CBS).
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re weird presidential debates:
There was one--Carter/Ford?--where one guy called the other a communist, then "apologized" by saying it was a Freudian slip. (I.e., he really meant it.)
I think *maybe* Ford said it.
You could be thinking of the moment in 1976 when Ford declared eastern Europe to be free of Soviet domination.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
So what happens when Donald Trump starts to fall behind? His basic campaign strategy and method of interacting with the public to date consist of:
- Telling everyone how great he is and how great his presidency will be, in suitably non-specific ways
- Making snarky and insulting comments about his rivals and/or anyone who asks him a tough question
His followers see this kind of bluster as strength and confidence, but most of us have met this type personally and know it's really a sign of fragility. To date, Trump has been able to point to his poll numbers as proof of point #1 (I'm great because everyone loves me, and everyone loves me because I'm great!). But what happens when his poll numbers start to slip? This has been a largely academic question until recently, since Trump has held the lead in virtually all polling since he announced. But his numbers are starting to slip in Iowa.
So how does he take it?
quote:
"Iowa, will you get your numbers up, please?" Trump begged on Tuesday night, something he rarely does. "Will you get these numbers up? I promise you: I will do such a good job."
<snip>
"I do well with the evangelicals, but the evangelicals let me down a little bit," Trump said. "I don't know what I did."
<snip>
"You know what, people might say: 'It's terrible. He's a terrible person, a terrible human being. I shouldn't, but I'm going to vote for him anyway.' Okay, that's fine," Trump said. "I'm actually a nice person."
<snip>
"What the hell are you people doing to me?" he demanded.
Note that the way Trump sees it, evangelicals owe him their vote (well, I'm guessing he thinks everyone owes him their vote) and that they've "let [him] down a little bit" by not giving him the votes he's entitled to.
There have been a lot of predictions that Trump will start losing ground any day now. Given how often those predictions have proved to be little more than wishful thinking I'm not going to predict that this is the end for the Trump campaign. I will, however, predict that if/when the Trump campaign collapses, it'll be more or less exactly like this: Trump getting ever more belligerent and insulting to people whose votes he's supposedly courting, causing his numbers to slip further, causing Trump to get even more demanding, etc., in an ever more vicious feedback loop.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I feel that at some point he may be looking for a way to pull out without losing face.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The traditional statement is " ... to spend more time with my family." Trump may have difficulty making this fly. A more unassailable position is health. Bribe a doctor to diagnose you with something, drop out, and then instantly recover, possibly with the help of a health supplement which you can then tout.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
I don't see him getting out before New Hampshire.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Well, Ben Carson touts some sort of health supplement...if they work together, maybe they'll *both* drop out!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Brenda Clough: The traditional statement is " ... to spend more time with my family." Trump may have difficulty making this fly.
He needs something more spectacular. And in such a way that he can blame someone else for it.
Not just if his numbers are dropping. I think there's only one thing Trump is afraid of.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
You want a creative solution, I am your girl. Let me see.
Alien abduction, always a favorite, but difficult to fake. Even if Trump CGIs a You-Tube video, too many difficult follow-ons. The hair makes it convincing, however.
Assassination attempt. This is particularly good if you have a tame assassin who can vanish (allegedly to someplace cool, like say Somalia or an al-Qaeda camp somewhere in a Stan, but in actuality back into Trump corporate) and some bladders of fake blood. Again, tame doctors essential. Vanish for six months recouping, and then return in triumph, all set for another go-round next election cycle. Sell health supplements between now and then.
Supercool job elsewhere. I'm sorry, America, but Angelina Jolie needs me! What would this job be? How rocky is Prince Philip, these days? If the Queen was widowed, a slot would open up. And you could get the Donald to help redecorate some of those shabby palaces you have over there.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think there's only one thing Trump is afraid of.
Being ignored? I don’t think he’ll have to worry for a while--when it comes to generating entertainment on a slow news day, he is unparalleled. He can rail against the media, but they love him.
The first delegates for the Republican convention won’t be chosen for almost four months. It’s going to be a problem for all of them not to peak too soon. The ups and downs in the polls may be fun to watch, but I don’t think we are really close enough for them to mean much.
I’m waiting to see who drops out next. I don’t see how Bobby Jindal and Rand Paul can hang on much longer. I think Jeb Bush will make it to New Hampshire, but if he can’t find some way to appear “presidential”, he won’t last much longer after that. I don’t really expect him to last until the big Southern primaries.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think what Trump is most afraid of is that he will win. If it ever comes close to that, he'll find a way to drop out (and blame others for it).
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
An interesting assessment, and you may well be right--I want to think about it a little more, at any rate. Even for those better prepared than he is, the Presidency is not for the faint-of-heart. Where he has had success in his career it has usually been with shorter-term projects than the Presidency as well--he won’t be able to do something else if he’s bored or tired of it.
It might be fun to watch Fox, though, if they had to cover a race between Trump and Clinton.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Does anyone at the J.E.B. Bush campaign know how to use that "Google" thingy?
quote:
To most American voters (especially the younger ones), Jeb Bush’s new slogan will mostly just sound uninspired, and slightly reminiscent of Bob the Builder. But for pretty much anyone even mildly aware of British popular culture, the words “Jeb Can Fix It,” soon to be plastered on every surface his dying campaign can touch, will bring to mind just one thing: Jimmy Savile, one of the most prolific child abusers in the history of entertainment.
<snip>
That slogan is now inexorably linked, in the British popular imagination, to a depraved and vile criminal, whose unconscionable acts were covered up by powerful people for decades. And also, now, to Jeb Bush.
I mentioned earlier that J.E.B. Bush had recently cut staff salaries. Either this new slogan is payback for the cuts or these people are still drastically overpaid.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Jeb's slogan:
Wow! I know about the Saville case, but only because of Ship discussions. I suspect Jeb's PR folks don't have a clue, nor will most American voters. And I don't remember coming across the Saville version of the slogan.
[ 03. November 2015, 02:15: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
"Jim'll fix it" was the title of a long running and very popular at the time Savile TV show in the UK. In which children (or their parents) were encouraged to write in and have their hopes and dreams granted. Both the title and the theme now have an emetic effect in the UK because of the Savile revelations. Including some IIRC related to that very programme.
But I guess there will be zero negative resonance in the US. And barring a miracle, Jeb's campaign will remain on life support until it dies. It's now looking much more likely that Carson will win. Once the skids are under Trump, it will be all down hill for him. Which I also guess is what he now wants.
[ 03. November 2015, 09:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
If the abuse alluded to were related to the US Catholic Church, or to Bill Cosby, it would be a big deal, and do great damage to Jeb's campaign. But most Americans just don't know about the Savile situation.
Thanks for the explanation, Barnabas.
[ 03. November 2015, 10:48: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
It made me think of the recount in Florida in 2000, when Jeb was governor.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Isn't there a way of saying to Trump: we get that you want to make a splash, we get that you want to go down in history. With all your money, why don't you build a permanent base on the Moon? You may make a reality TV series about it, you may call it Donald Trump Base, whatever strokes your ego. Having a base on the Moon is a good thing, and at least it would keep him out of other stuff.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It made me think of the recount in Florida in 2000, when Jeb was governor.
Yes, he certainly "fixed" that.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It made me think of the recount in Florida in 2000, when Jeb was governor.
Yes, he certainly "fixed" that.
Long form ruminations on this point.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Isn't there a character in one of William Gibson's cyperpunk novels, whose job it is to check if a proposed brand name isn't a swearing word in Finnish?
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
With "Santorum," the definition with the most hits was intentionally developed to sabotage Rick Santorum's image and campaign.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
With "Santorum," the definition with the most hits was intentionally developed to sabotage Rick Santorum's image and campaign.
His image certainly, but since the definition of "Santorum" [vaguely NSFW] was developed in mid-2003 and Santorum wasn't up for re-election until late 2006 (which he lost by a margin almost unheard of for an incumbent senator not under indictment nor involved in a sex scandal) it wasn't directly an attempt to sabotage any political campaign of his. The context was Santorum's comments on the then-pending case of Lawrence v. Texas, where it was decided that laws criminalizing various consensual sex acts were unconstitutional. Santorum took a different approach than the Supreme Court eventually took, arguing that that states should have the authority to jail anyone for having sex with a same-gendered partner. It was this, coupled with is his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality and incest, that roused the ire of Dan Savage, who publicized what he felt was the best Santorum neologism* submitted by his readers. Savage later pointed out that not every anti-gay politician gets this treatment at his hands. It was Santorum's advocacy of prison for gays that really put him over the top, as far as Savage was concerned.
--------------------
*I'm not sure "neologism" is the best term for re-purposing an existing word. It might be better to call it a "reologism", except that term is itself a neologism (and an inelegant one at that).
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Again, far elsewhere on the net, a friend of mine is insisting that Ben Carson is ordained by Jesus to be president. (FWIW he was utterly enamored of Sarah Palin as well, so I take this with a grain of salt the size of a Buick Regal.) Santorum could never have won the nomination, in spite of the Google merriment. The GOP persistently flirts with complete lunatics. I can only postulate a passionate and perverse lust for humiliation on the part of the party. (Oh God, I am afflicted with alliteration. Somebody send help.)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Again, far elsewhere on the net, a friend of mine is insisting that Ben Carson is ordained by Jesus to be president.
As I observed earlier, if God tells you to run in the Republican Presidential primaries, it's probably so He can have a good laugh at your expense.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And, in other bizarreness, "Experts dismiss Carson's belief pyramids used to store grain" (Yahoo).
The Seventh Day Adventists said that it's *his* opinion. They must be hoping he signs up with the Pastafarians soon.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Its particularly odd, in that there is nothing to explain, archeologists have found ancient egyptian grain silos. You don't need some exotic explanation for that particular bit of the biblical story.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
Really? Why would the Bush campaign possibly care that his new slogan bears a vague resemblance to the name of a long-defunct British TV show hosted by someone with zero name recognition in the US even after his pedophilia scandal?
And besides, what makes you think they didn't Google it? If I search for "Tom can fix it" I get nothing related to "Jim'll fix it"; even trying "Jim can fix it" doesn't do it. There's no reason why searching for "Jeb can fix it" should have turned that up before Gawker posted the connection.
Admittedly, Googling can help in some circumstances. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front might have gone a different direction (Islamic Moro Liberation Front?) had they Googled the abbreviation of the English version of their name (and had Google existed when they were established in 1984.)
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
*I'm not sure "neologism" is the best term for re-purposing an existing word. It might be better to call it a "reologism", except that term is itself a neologism (and an inelegant one at that)
Apropos of very little I simply wish to opine that "reologism" is a supremely fine word.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
One assumes that Jeb is paying people to generate these things. (The other possibility, that he is dreaming these things up himself, is fearful to contemplate.) It is their job to do due diligence, and not let their man tumble into potholes. Even if he is having these ideas himself, it must be somebody's job to vet them. Somebody has to be there to gently tug on the Emperor's bare arm and point out that there are no clothes.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
So there's been a bit of a shake-up in the next installment of the popular reality TV show Republican Presidential Debate. According to Fox Business channel (the sponsor/host) the main event participants will be:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
- Ben Carson
- Marco Rubio
- Ted Cruz
- J.E.B. Bush
- Carly Fiorina
- John Kasich
- Rand Paul
The undercard / minor league / kiddie table debate will consist of:
- Chris Christie
- Mike Huckabee
- Bobby Jindal
- Rick Santorum
There are "only" eight participant in the main event, meaning Christie and Huckabee have been sent down to the minors. More embarrassingly, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki didn't achieve poll numbers sufficient to qualify for even the kiddie table debate.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
If "now" means 1992, that's correct.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
Makes sense, considering he never claimed that he had.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
Makes sense, considering he never claimed that he had.
Right. He even wrote way back in 1992 that he didn't.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Article, with quotations from Carson's autobiography
What may be causing confusion is that you never need a scholarship to go to West Point. The tuition is zero. However, you do have to be accepted, and there are demanding criteria, including a recc from your congressman. And to be accepted you do have to apply.
Since Carson says he was offered a full scholarship (wrote it in his autobiography) he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What may be causing confusion is that you never need a scholarship to go to West Point. The tuition is zero.
A distinction with out a difference since it means the same thing.
quote:
However, you do have to be accepted, and there are demanding criteria, including a recc from your congressman. And to be accepted you do have to apply.
There are two types of nomination: congressional and service-connected.
quote:
Since Carson says he was offered a full scholarship (wrote it in his autobiography) he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
Politico has greatly helped his campaign by running this sorry excuse for a hit piece on him.
[ 06. November 2015, 19:14: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A more cogent and in-depth article about Carson's woes.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Our primary isn't until March and I don't know who will still be running or which primary I would vote in. In either case, we do now know that Politico makes shit up. Not as bad as Hillary lying to the families of those killed in Tripoli about a video, but still pretty pitiful.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
....he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
Certainly not a dis-qualifier for a potential POTUS. (Or even a sitting one)
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One assumes that Jeb is paying people to generate these things. (The other possibility, that he is dreaming these things up himself, is fearful to contemplate.) It is their job to do due diligence, and not let their man tumble into potholes. Even if he is having these ideas himself, it must be somebody's job to vet them. Somebody has to be there to gently tug on the Emperor's bare arm and point out that there are no clothes.
I think that had anyone in Jeb's campaign raised this as a potential red flag, that person should have been fired. There can't be more than a vanishingly small number of Americans (let alone Republican primary voters) who know or care about the existence of that 20 year old foreign TV show, and anyone who is aware of it is extremely unlikely to be of any help in winning the election. This connection is possibly the least problematic thing about that stupid slogan.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A more cogent and in-depth article about Carson's woes.
Interesting - the writer makes a reasonable case (I think) for why his West Point story shouldn't matter to voters, but his pyramid ideas should.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
So we’re about one year away from Presidential Election Day 2016 (November 8, 2016) and I thought it might be useful to review the electoral “terrain” the candidates will have to traverse on their quest for public housing on Pennsylvania Avenue.
My baseline template for this is the 2012 presidential electorate. In 2012 51.1% of American voters voted for Barack Obama, 47.2% voted for Willard Mitt Romney, and 1.7% voted for someone else. States (and the District of Columbia) are arranged by vote margin (percentage of Obama voters minus percentage of Romney voters) with the most negative (i.e. Romney-voting) at one end and the most positive (Obama-voting) at the other. The basic, rough assumption here is that any policy or action which moves votes towards a candidate in one state is likely to do so in all the others to roughly the same degree. There are some obvious exceptions. A candidate (or running mate) with strong, existing political roots in one state could affect the vote margin there without really moving the needle anywhere else. If a candidate accidentally says something disparaging about Notre Dame’s football team in front of an inadvertently live mic it could crater their support in Indiana without necessarily doing anything in neighboring Ohio. But by and large policies or candidates which appeal to Republicans or Democrats in Maine are likely to also appeal to Republicans or Democrats in Arizona (or elsewhere).
So, what did the 2012 electorate look like? I’ve classified any state with a vote margin of ten percentage points or more as “safe”. There are twenty “safe” Republican states, controlling 154 electoral votes. They are, in order of descending preference for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama:
- Utah 6 (-48%)
- Wyoming 3 (-41%)
- Oklahoma 7 (-34%)
- Idaho 4 (-32%)
- West Virginia 5 (-27%)
- Arkansas 6 (-24%)
- Kentucky 8 (-23%)
- Alabama 9 (-22%)
- Nebraska 5 (-22%)
- Kansas 6 (-22%)
- Tennessee 11 (-20%)
- North Dakota 3 (-20%)
- South Dakota 3 (-18%)
- Louisiana 8 (-17%)
- Texas 38 (-16%)
- Alaska 3 (-14%)
- Montana 3 (-14%)
- Mississippi 6 (-11%)
- South Carolina 9 (-10%)
- Indiana 11 (-10%)
There are only fifteen “safe” Democratic states (plus the District of Columbia), but they’re generally more populous than “safe” Republican states so they control 191 electoral votes. In order of descending preference for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney they are:
- District of Columbia 3 (84%)
- Hawaii 4 (43%)
- Vermont 3 (36%)
- New York 29 (28%)
- Rhode Island 4 (27%)
- Maryland 10 (26%)
- Massachusetts 11 (23%)
- California 55 (23%)
- Delaware 3 (19%)
- New Jersey 14 (18%)
- Connecticut 7 (17%)
- Illinois 20 (17%)
- Maine 4 (15%)
- Washington 12 (15%)
- Oregon 7 (12%)
- New Mexico 5 (10%)
Any state with less of a vote margin than ten percent I’ve classified as a “battleground” state, one which could go either way. There are fifteen of those, controlling a total of 193 electoral votes. They are (again in order of descending preference for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama):
- Missouri 10 (-9.4%)
- Arizona 11 (-9.1%)
- Georgia 16 (-7.8%)
- North Carolina 15 (-2.0%)
- Florida 29 (0.9%)
- Ohio 18 (3.0%)
- Virginia 13 (3.9%)
- Colorado 9 (5.4%)
- Pennsylvania 20 (5.4%)
- New Hampshire 4 (5.6%)
- Iowa 6 (5.8%)
- Nevada 6 (6.7%)
- Wisconsin 10 (6.9%)
- Minnesota 10 (7.7%)
- Michigan 16 (9.5%)
You’ll note Colorado is in bold there. That’s the state that gave Barack Obama enough electoral votes to retain the presidency in 2012. The fact that he also picked up Virginia, Ohio, and Florida was icing on the cake, but he didn’t necessarily need to win them. In order to win the presidency in 2016, assuming the list of states stays in roughly the same order but vote percentages can be shifted, Republicans will have to retain all the states they won with Romney and shift enough voters to win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. In order to do that, assuming this is accomplished by shifting the vote on a national basis, Republicans need to convince ~2.7% (half the margin by which Romney lost Colorado) of those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 that they should vote for [Republican nominee] in 2016. That comes to ~3.46 million voters, if turnout in 2016 is about what it was in 2012. (An interesting corollary of this method is that it implies a Republican candidate would have to win the national vote by a margin of at least 1.5 percentage points, otherwise they would not have enough electoral votes to win.)
This is, of necessity, a very basic, "back of the envelope" calculation that doesn't factor in questions like the partisan effect of lowering voter turnout or other factors. It's a very basic model.
In summary, the basic “terrain” favors Democrats, but not to a degree that would be prohibitive of a Republican victory.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Sanity check for methodological soundness:
In 2008 Barack Obama won the presidency with a margin of 7.3 percentage points nationally. In 2012 he won with a margin of 3.9 percentage points nationally. In effect, the Republicans shifted the national vote by 3.4 percentage points in their favor in 2012 when compared to 2008.
Q: If the results of the 2008 election are "shifted" by 3.4 percentage points in the Republican's favor (and electoral vote distribution among the states is adjusted to reflect the 2010 census), does that replicate the 2012 election?
A: Almost, but not quite. The downward-adjusted 2008 results correctly predict Barack Obama winning every state he actually won in 2012 except Florida. Downward-adjusted 2008 data says Obama should have lost Florida by a margin of 0.6 percentage points when he actually won it by a margin of 0.9 percentage points, which I'd say is more a measure of the futility of predicting close elections in Florida than the insufficiency of the model. At any rate, Obama would still have won the presidency with 303 electoral votes instead of 332.
More interesting is the group of states designated as "battleground states" by the model. Downward-adjusted 2008 data predicts Indiana and Montana would be close enough to be contestable in 2012, though still won by the Republican candidate. In reality, both were outside the ten point margin I've arbitrarily assigned as the cut-off point for "battleground" states.
Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan were close enough to be considered "battlegrounds" in 2012, though the downward-adjusted model didn't predict this. Arizona could be considered the result of having the Republican presidential candidate be an Arizona politician, though that only seems to have moved the vote by a net three percentage points.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Your criterium for 'battleground states' is much too broad. In contrast to other countries, 10% is a huge difference in US politics.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your criterium for 'battleground states' is much too broad. In contrast to other countries, 10% is a huge difference in US politics.
I don't think so. In 2004 George W. Bush won New Mexico by 0.8 percentage points. In 2008 Barack Obama carried the state by a 15 percentage point margin. Similarly Bush won Iowa by 0.7 percentage points in 2004 and McCain lost it by 9.5 percentage points in 2008. These are both swings of more than ten percentage points. When you're talking about state-level data compared across different electoral cycles, a swing of ten percentage points isn't that unheard of in U.S. elections.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Swings from one election to another aren't that important. That's a lousy prediction mechanism.
Normally, what is called a 'battleground state' is a state that is at play in the upcoming election, a state that could go either way. The majority of 'battleground states' you listed weren't in that category in 2012.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Swings from one election to another aren't that important. That's a lousy prediction mechanism.
I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016. I'm basing this on the observation that the states don't really change their partisan "lean" that much from one cycle to the next (Wyoming is "more Republican" than Texas, which is "more Republican" than Ohio, etc.) By ranking them according to margin, that gives a rough idea of how much the losing party would have to "shift" the electorate from where it was last time to achieve victory this time around.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Crœsos: I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016.
In that case, 'battleground state' is perhaps the wrong term. This to me seems to be a term that is very much connected to election outcome predicting. I more or less see what you want to do here, but the term 'battleground state' gets me on the wrong foot.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016.
In that case, 'battleground state' is perhaps the wrong term. This to me seems to be a term that is very much connected to election outcome predicting. I more or less see what you want to do here, but the term 'battleground state' gets me on the wrong foot.
States with the lowest margins (in absolute terms) would be the ones to 'flip' one way or the other by shifting the electorate, so I'm not sure there's a better term. For example, the electorate as a whole shifted ~9.7 percentage points between the 2004 presidential election and the election of 2008 (nearly my whole ten point margin for indicating which states are most at risk of flipping, if you prefer that locution to the term "battleground"). Thus you had states like Virginia going from picking Bush II by 8.2 percentage points in 2004 to going for Obama by a 6.3 percentage point margin in 2008.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think focusing on battleground states looks like a good way of scoping the terrain. Also, I think that will provide the initial prioritization of the two campaign teams. It looks like the sort of thing a RL "Josh Lyman" of "Leo McGarry" would do. You have to have some initial basis for planning. Coupled of course with the general desire to get off to a fast start in the primaries.
Also I'm not sure how much demographic drift there may have been since 2012. Historically, African American and Hispanic votes go very largely to the Democrats; whether a Carson candidacy might affect that remains to be seen.
So there is plenty of uncertainty. But even at this distance, and barring a major political accident or revelation of course, I think the US is very likely to elect another Democrat as president. Using the West Wing model again, until the GOP finds an "Arnold Vinick" (i.e. an intelligent and experienced moderate Republican) they seem likely to discover again that the candidate with greatest GOP grass roots appeal doesn't have much chance of winning the whole thing.
[ 09. November 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I live in a battleground state (Virginia) and it is a weariness. Already they are phoning me. Tonight we got a call from the Carson campaign. My son politely dismissed them, otherwise I would have offered to trade my vote for a declaration from the candidate that he is Luke Skywalker's father.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like the sort of thing a RL "Josh Lyman" of "Leo McGarry" would do.
sigh.
...OK, you can carry on now...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sounds like Carson's campaign managers need a "big block of cheese day" (I love the West Wing) with Brenda Clough and her son and others making a pitch about intrusive canvassing methods. "We need to find out whether we can bother you" is a huge put-off.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is depressing, but I try to regard it as my civic duty. I had not planned to live in a purple state (when I moved here 30 years ago it was not) and I must do my part to help. The menfolk in the family, who are possibly more imbued with the spirit of Christ, try to prevent me from being unkind to cold callers, but there are so many. When I am tired a preprogrammed response kicks in (suggestions welcome: I am considering replying to a request to vote for Carson with 'Would I screw a mandrill?') When I am tanned, rested and ready I take the call as a request for improv theater.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I live in a battleground state (Virginia) and it is a weariness. Already they are phoning me. Tonight we got a call from the Carson campaign. My son politely dismissed them, otherwise I would have offered to trade my vote for a declaration from the candidate that he is Luke Skywalker's father.
I have often suspected that when I get an obnoxious, in-the-middle-of-dinner phone call telling me to vote for Candidate A, that the call is actually from Candidate B's supporters, hoping I'll get so annoyed at Candidate A's harassment that I'll vote for Candidate B.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am considering replying to a request to vote for Carson with 'Would I screw a mandrill?')
I double dog dare you! That's definitely big block of cheese information. And also worthy of the Quotes file.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
: