[Andorion]

I meant in a relative way. Compared to the other candidates. Ted Cruz for example comes across as completely crazy.

On a related note, if Clinton wins how significant will it be if the Dems can't control Congress?

[Terez]

Better than a GOP president and Congress.

[worry]

Andorion, on 11 August 2015 - 02:57 AM, said:

I meant in a relative way. Compared to the other candidates. Ted Cruz for example comes across as completely crazy.

On a related note, if Clinton wins how significant will it be if the Dems can't control Congress?

Oh I know you're asking in relative terms. I'm saying he hides his insane cruelty behind a "reasonable" businessman's exterior. The degree to which he's safer than the other candidates is insignificant. He's as capable of ordering the torture of civilians, for instance, as any of the rest.

[worry]

In my heart of hearts I would prefer him to Hillary Clinton. He's a good guy and a capable public servant. In my brain of hearts I think he doesn't stand much of a chance. He genuinely is a goofy gaffe machine (including, unfortunately, the occasional older generation ingrained lightly racist dad jokes), and though otherwise politically savvy he isn't ruthless enough for the process (and I'd hate to see him become so, so it's a can't win situation for him).

[Andorion]

If I remember correctly the 2008 Obama vs Hillary primary was a lot tougher than anything she is facing now. And none of the Republican contenders seem to have any kind of appeal to the middle. If I remember the 2012 election analysis Obama won because he got a lot of the fence sitters votes in the "Swing States"

Am I correct? I used to follow US politics very closely back then but not so much now

[amphibian]

Andorion, on 14 August 2015 - 04:17 AM, said:

If I remember correctly the 2008 Obama vs Hillary primary was a lot tougher than anything she is facing now. And none of the Republican contenders seem to have any kind of appeal to the middle. If I remember the 2012 election analysis Obama won because he got a lot of the fence sitters votes in the "Swing States"

Am I correct? I used to follow US politics very closely back then but not so much now

Obama built one of the most effective "get out the vote" machines in world political history in 2008. That machine reached and convinced black/Hispanic and young voters in huge numbers. He let it mostly disband after the election, but it came back partway and succeeded big among the young people of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Those are the "swing states" being talked about. Some of that will transfer to Hilary because she's the Democratic candidate and some will transfer simply because the Republican alternatives are so bad.

However, Obama lost 51% of the older white male votes against Romney. I think Hilary will lose +45% no matter whoever the GOP puts up because that much of the older white males are genuine morons/racists. But... it's 4 years later and there's less of the older white men than there were before, so the impact of losing that much among that specific demographic is less - even though Hilary won't stomp the GOP in the young/minority demographics as badly as Obama did.

(Yes, Hilary is the Democratic candidate even though we all have to go through the kabuki of Sanders/O'Malley. What they might do is push her to better social justice positions, which is productive, but they won't stop her primary win.)

[Terez]

Andorion, on 14 August 2015 - 04:17 AM, said:

If I remember correctly the 2008 Obama vs Hillary primary was a lot tougher than anything she is facing now. And none of the Republican contenders seem to have any kind of appeal to the middle. If I remember the 2012 election analysis Obama won because he got a lot of the fence sitters votes in the "Swing States"

Am I correct? I used to follow US politics very closely back then but not so much now

These so-called "fence sitters" are typically not ideological fence-sitters, but "to vote, or not to vote?" fence-sitters. The ideological fence-sitters are largely mythological. Moderates of both parties still tend to identify strongly with their party; people who vote for Republicans and Democrats interchangeably are either idiots, rich people who court favors all around, or white Southerners, i.e. people who are old enough to remember when white people in the South voted for Democrats. And those people usually only vote for Dixiecrat types in local elections, though as recently as 2010 Mississippi had "evolved" Dixiecrats in the US House of Representatives, like Gene Taylor and Travis Childers, and there are still some in the state legislature. Today's Dixiecrats are conservative on social issues (religion, abortion, etc.) but progressive enough on other issues to court the black vote (which is socially conservative in the South anyway). But they are a dying breed because the South has become more and more dedicated to the Republican Party, or at least conservatism (in all things) as a creed, and in any case, the Deep South states are not Presidential "swing states" and have not been since 1980.

Some of the Republican candidates have a limited appeal to the middle, even an appeal to some progressives.

John Kasich, the governor of Ohio (one of the most important swing states), signed up to expand Medicaid in his state as intended by Obamacare. The Republicans took the Medicaid expansion to court (eventually to SCOTUS) and managed to keep it optional for states, since Medicaid was already run by the states (with federal matching funds), so Republican governors largely opted out in their states and now there is a gap between the poorest of the poor who are already covered in states like Mississippi and the lowest bracket eligible for Obamacare subsidies. TL;DR Kasich expanded Medicaid in his state because he had presidential ambitions. No Republican in living memory has won the White House without Ohio, so his main appeal is electability: he can probably deliver Ohio, even though most progressives in his state dislike him for other reasons. The state is evenly enough divided that he only needs to make a small shift in turnout, and he is probably capable of delivering that shift.

Another evenly divided state is Florida, and there are two candidates from Florida, both with some appeal to the middle, but again, this is about turnout. Jeb Bush is a Bush, and obviously not appealing to the middle for that reason alone, but he was a fairly popular governor. He had a 60% approval rating in Florida when he left office in January 2007, while his brother as president was floundering in the 30s. He can probably deliver Florida. His wife is Mexican and he speaks fluent Spanish, so he has some limited appeal to Hispanic/Latino voters who helped destroy Obama's GOP opponents. Most of them would still vote Democrat, but again, this is about turnout. He has some Latino fans who lean GOP but who wouldn't come out to vote for one of the more shrill opponents of immigration reform, even a Latino like Ted Cruz.

Speaking of Latinos, then you have Marco Rubio, the other guy from Florida, who is probably the most likable Republican candidate in the whole field. He seems like a great guy, to the point that many progressives like myself are continually surprised at how much we disagree with him on almost everything. He is not a shrill opponent of immigration reform like his fellow Cuban-American candidate Ted Cruz. He has backtracked his progressive stance on immigration reform to please the GOP primary voters, but he could probably make immigration reform actually happen as president. I mean, what is the GOP going to do, primary him? He could also deliver Florida. He is a Senator, which means the whole state voted for him, not just a red-leaning district.

So, it just so happens that the 3 candidates with the most appeal to traditionally Democratic voters are also the 3 most powerful swing state candidates.

Scott Walker might (might!) deliver Wisconsin to the GOP, but it's unlikely. He has been elected governor so often because Wisconsin gubernatorial elections are in midterm years, when Democratic turnout is always worse (across the country). The progressives in his state hate him, and he's a really weak candidate with zero appeal to the left, and one of the left's favorite senators, Russ Feingold, is running to get his seat back and will get the progressives out to vote. And Wisconsin is only worth 10 electoral votes. Ohio is worth 18 and Florida is worth 29.

Chris Christie's appeal was supposed to be an ability to deliver solidly blue New Jersey (14 votes) but he got elected in odd-numbered years, which is even less impressive than getting elected in a blue state in a midterm year (like Walker). And he kind of blew that with all his reelection scandals anyway. And he hugged Obama. The red meat conservatives will never forgive him for that.

Ted Cruz and Rick Perry are from Texas, which is already solidly red. None of the others have a chance....except maybe the current front-runner who shall not be named and who has no appeal whatsoever to the middle, nor any swing state advantage.

[Nicodimas]

https://market-ticke...www?post=230529

One Can dream right? I wonder when a political candidate will run with the above platform.

To Summarize:
End the Cartels, force posting of prices and stop gouging the end-user on costs.

[Nevyn]

Andorion, on 14 August 2015 - 04:17 AM, said:

If I remember correctly the 2008 Obama vs Hillary primary was a lot tougher than anything she is facing now. And none of the Republican contenders seem to have any kind of appeal to the middle. If I remember the 2012 election analysis Obama won because he got a lot of the fence sitters votes in the "Swing States"

Am I correct? I used to follow US politics very closely back then but not so much now

Obama vs Hillary was tough and close fought, but it didn't really get close until the eve of the first primaries. In a lot of the run-up to the election she was thought to be as inevitable as she now is.

I would say that she is actually more vulnerable now (age, scandals) than she was in 2008, but there may not be a challenger anywhere near as mass appealing and electable as Obama was.

[amphibian]

I disagree. She's got a fairly good run as Secretary of State now that she didn't have before. That goes a ways towards addressing the "unqualified" attack that every woman in high politics has to deal with more actively than their male counterparts.

The age thing isn't that big a deal. We haven't had a sitting president die of old age since FDR died while shtupping his mistress in Florida (Eleanor knew and was quasi ok with it).

[Nevyn]

amphibian, on 20 August 2015 - 02:11 AM, said:

I disagree. She's got a fairly good run as Secretary of State now that she didn't have before. That goes a ways towards addressing the "unqualified" attack that every woman in high politics has to deal with more actively than their male counterparts.

She was already a first lady and senator before. She was actually attacking Obama on the "unqualified" grounds.

And her secretary of state run isn't necessarily a plus, because what most americans recall of her tenure are a pair of scandals (emails and Benghazi), even if that is mostly due to right wing attacks.

Quote

The age thing isn't that big a deal. We haven't had a sitting president die of old age since FDR died while shtupping his mistress in Florida (Eleanor knew and was quasi ok with it).

Age isn't about fear of having the president die. It is simply a quiet unspoken bias on the part of voters.

[LinearPhilosopher]

http://feelthebern.org/

Well, at least his website is easy to navigate.

[worry]

King Briar, on 20 August 2015 - 10:37 PM, said:

I must be missing something. Can someone clue me in on how Anchor Babies is an offensive term? I just don't understand and would like some explanation on the term.

It's a deliberate objectification of human babies to score fear-based political points, and an attempt to de-Americanize (mostly Latino) US citizens. When people use the term they mean it pejoratively, in the same way "Welfare Queen" was used. And like "Welfare Queen" it's a largely mythological phenomenon: http://www.theguardi...igration-reform not to mention that an "anchor baby" can't petition the govt to document their parents until they themselves are 21. The term is meant to paint these babies as the tools in a get-American-quick scheme.

To sum up:

[Obdigore]

King Briar, on 20 August 2015 - 04:54 AM, said:

I'm not seeing a lot of coverage on Dems cause of Trump stealing the spotlight for now. I just have always been rubbed the wrong way with her. Ugh

You aren't seeing a lot of coverage on Dems because they haven't even really started yet. When one party has over 20 candidates, its a freak show, and you need to start really early.

The Democratic Nomination will most likely be between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and maybe Joe Biden.

[Maark Abbott]

worry, on 21 August 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

King Briar, on 20 August 2015 - 10:37 PM, said:

I must be missing something. Can someone clue me in on how Anchor Babies is an offensive term? I just don't understand and would like some explanation on the term.

It's a deliberate objectification of human babies to score fear-based political points, and an attempt to de-Americanize (mostly Latino) US citizens. When people use the term they mean it pejoratively, in the same way "Welfare Queen" was used. And like "Welfare Queen" it's a largely mythological phenomenon: http://www.theguardi...igration-reform not to mention that an "anchor baby" can't petition the govt to document their parents until they themselves are 21. The term is meant to paint these babies as the tools in a get-American-quick scheme.

To sum up:

It's not a term I've ever heard before, but I'm guessing it would literally mean "A baby that anchors the parents to the US"? Change US to UK and I'm sure UKIP would go nuts about it.

[worry]

Pretty much, except the passive phrasing (focused on the baby) doesn't get the whole idea since it's a misdirection. At its heart the term implies that the adult immigrants are deliberately and nefariously having babies in the US so that they themselves can stay. It may seem like a semantic difference but it's more of a rhetorical difference, as the one pretends that rule of law is the heart of the matter while the other reveals that ascribing sinister motives to dark-skinned people is (yet again) the goal. It's part and parcel with Trump describing Latino immigrants as mostly criminals and rapists.

[worry]

http://www.nytimes.c...diminished.html


Although Mr. Trump has drawn criticism for unveiling few detailed policy proposals, many of his supporters said they were unbothered.

“When he gets in there, he’ll figure it out,” said Amanda Mancini, who said she had traveled from California to see Mr. Trump. “So we do have to trust him, but he has something that we can trust in. We can look at the Trump brand, we can look at what he’s done, and we can say that’s how he’s done everything.”

Still, others said they had plenty of advice for the man they regularly identified in conversation as “Mr. Trump.”

“Hopefully, he’s going to sit there and say, ‘When I become elected president, what we’re going to do is we’re going to make the border a vacation spot, it’s going to cost you $25 for a permit, and then you get $50 for every confirmed kill,’ ” said Jim Sherota, 53, who works for a landscaping company. “That’d be one nice thing.”

[worry]

Step 1 and Step 2 above, Step 3 it stops being rhetorical: http://www.rollingst...-funny-20150821

[Gust Hubb]

worry, on 23 August 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:

Step 1 and Step 2 above, Step 3 it stops being rhetorical: http://www.rollingst...-funny-20150821

Fairly sobering article. On one hand though, the damage the Republican party is creating may hopefully bring the underbelly of America into the light. Humans are particularly good at saying "not my problem" or "doesn't effect me." I'm sure a lot of people support the immigrants against the rabid conservatives stopping short of saying they'd shoot the illegals, but as the quote from Burke goes, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Unfortunately, I think it often takes severe ugliness to wake people up (although, I still am surprised Syria and al-Assad are getting a pass from the international community). Even then, you'd think after slavery, Japanese Internment Camps, and all the other things in our ugly history that America would be wide awake...

[Terez]

There is good reason to believe Reagan sabotaged the hostage negotiations much as Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks.

http://www.truth-out...ot-be-a-problem

(Note that the article is two years old; with the way it starts out, one might be forgiven for thinking it was current.)