[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 03 September 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

I don't get the hate for Hillary. She's a polished expert, with foreign policy and state credentials. Has she done some shady stuff? Yeah, give me a 40 year veteran politician that doesn't have some history.

My unenthusiasm for Hillary is more rooted in her history of making terrible judgment calls, along with the fact that she seems to be pure ambition without much substance. She wants to be the first woman president but she is far from representative of feminism, having tailored her beliefs and practices to fit her husband's ambition her whole adult life, even down to staying with him while he repeatedly disrespected her in public view (though, by this time, that benefitted her own ambitions too). After all these years, her decision to run for Senate in a state where she had never lived, fresh out of the White House, still rubs me the wrong way. Her votes on Iraq and the Patriot Act still rub me the wrong way (along with many other more minor things). Her dogged persistance in the 2008 primary and her maneuvering into State still rub me the wrong way, especially considering how little she accomplished in that role, and how she continued to make bad judgment calls in those tough situations she couldn't avoid. Every politician plays the game, but some politicians are also visionaries, and it's hard to see it with Hillary.

HoosierDaddy, on 03 September 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

Sanders: Couldn't possibly win the election.

He could certainly win against Trump, and he's even polling ahead of Bush and Walker, the top establishment candidates, for the moment. These things can change, to be sure, but I don't think he's the long shot people make him out to be. Personally, I'm not incredibly fond of him as a candidate, for various reasons. He's not much of a statesman, and he can be rather out of touch sometimes. But I still prefer him to Hillary.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 04 September 2015 - 03:47 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 03 September 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

I don't get the hate for Hillary. She's a polished expert, with foreign policy and state credentials. Has she done some shady stuff? Yeah, give me a 40 year veteran politician that doesn't have some history.

My unenthusiasm for Hillary is more rooted in her history of making terrible judgment calls, along with the fact that she seems to be pure ambition without much substance. She wants to be the first woman president but she is far from representative of feminism, having tailored her beliefs and practices to fit her husband's ambition her whole adult life, even down to staying with him while he repeatedly disrespected her in public view (though, by this time, that benefitted her own ambitions too). After all these years, her decision to run for Senate in a state where she had never lived, fresh out of the White House, still rubs me the wrong way. Her votes on Iraq and the Patriot Act still rub me the wrong way (along with many other more minor things). Her dogged persistance in the 2008 primary and her maneuvering into State still rub me the wrong way, especially considering how little she accomplished in that role, and how she continued to make bad judgment calls in those tough situations she couldn't avoid. Every politician plays the game, but some politicians are also visionaries, and it's hard to see it with Hillary.

Hmmmm. You don't like her because she's a politician. That's how this reads to me. They're all shady fucksticks, it's just choosing the right one that is important. Sanders has no chance. He'll rightfully and correctly labeled a socialist and "boom pow" he's done. McCarthy and Regean cast a long shadow.

HoosierDaddy, on 03 September 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

Sanders: Couldn't possibly win the election.

He could certainly win against Trump, and he's even polling ahead of Bush and Walker, the top establishment candidates, for the moment. These things can change, to be sure, but I don't think he's the long shot people make him out to be. Personally, I'm not incredibly fond of him as a candidate, for various reasons. He's not much of a statesman, and he can be rather out of touch sometimes. But I still prefer him to Hillary.

Let's be real: Trump isn't going to win, and if he does, the Dems could put a stick up against him and win because that asshat couldn't win an election if he bought it, and he's going to try.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 04 September 2015 - 04:05 AM, said:

Let's be real: Trump isn't going to win, and if he does, the Dems could put a stick up against him and win because that asshat couldn't win an election if he bought it, and he's going to try.

I'm not so sure any more that he won't win the nomination. It depends on how long certain candidates stay in the race. Nothing can hurt him with the people who already like him, literally nothing. He says the most out-there retarded shit every day, and everyone who isn't hiding under a rock has heard all of it. And they love it. They're convinced he's their savior, and they'll defend him just as they did Sarah Palin.

I do think, however, that the most likely scenario for the Republican nomination is a brokered convention, however unlikely they normally are. (Linky for the furriners.) This cycle is far from normal. Trump is far from normal. Is there any time in living memory when a candidate so hated by the Establishment was so loved by the base? I can't think of a comparable example aside from the segregationists, and I don't know if that's comparable. The Dixiecrat phenomenon along with the rise of northern liberal Democrats (including northern black voters) shook up the party system so badly that we had a polar reversal. I don't think that's an option this time; we would have to go multi-party, and for that to work we'd need to change first-past-the-post laws because we couldn't accept parliamentary plurality/coalition governments here. Many congressional procedure rules would also have to change. But none of that is happening this cycle; that's a few cycles down the road. This time, we're looking at a brokered GOP convention.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Terez, on 04 September 2015 - 03:47 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 03 September 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

I don't get the hate for Hillary. She's a polished expert, with foreign policy and state credentials. Has she done some shady stuff? Yeah, give me a 40 year veteran politician that doesn't have some history.

My unenthusiasm for Hillary is more rooted in her history of making terrible judgment calls, along with the fact that she seems to be pure ambition without much substance. She wants to be the first woman president but she is far from representative of feminism, having tailored her beliefs and practices to fit her husband's ambition her whole adult life, even down to staying with him while he repeatedly disrespected her in public view (though, by this time, that benefitted her own ambitions too). After all these years, her decision to run for Senate in a state where she had never lived, fresh out of the White House, still rubs me the wrong way. Her votes on Iraq and the Patriot Act still rub me the wrong way (along with many other more minor things). Her dogged persistance in the 2008 primary and her maneuvering into State still rub me the wrong way, especially considering how little she accomplished in that role, and how she continued to make bad judgment calls in those tough situations she couldn't avoid. Every politician plays the game, but some politicians are also visionaries, and it's hard to see it with Hillary.

HoosierDaddy, on 03 September 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

Sanders: Couldn't possibly win the election.

He could certainly win against Trump, and he's even polling ahead of Bush and Walker, the top establishment candidates, for the moment. These things can change, to be sure, but I don't think he's the long shot people make him out to be. Personally, I'm not incredibly fond of him as a candidate, for various reasons. He's not much of a statesman, and he can be rather out of touch sometimes. But I still prefer him to Hillary.

As someone who doesn't deny climate change i'd say hes pretty in touch.

Yes thats the bar we set for your politicians.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 04 September 2015 - 04:15 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 04 September 2015 - 04:05 AM, said:

Let's be real: Trump isn't going to win, and if he does, the Dems could put a stick up against him and win because that asshat couldn't win an election if he bought it, and he's going to try.

I'm not so sure any more that he won't win the nomination. It depends on how long certain candidates stay in the race. Nothing can hurt him with the people who already like him, literally nothing. He says the most out-there retarded shit every day, and everyone who isn't hiding under a rock has heard all of it. And they love it. They're convinced he's their savior, and they'll defend him just as they did Sarah Palin.

I do think, however, that the most likely scenario for the Republican nomination is a brokered convention, however unlikely they normally are. (Linky for the furriners.) This cycle is far from normal. Trump is far from normal. Is there any time in living memory when a candidate so hated by the Establishment was so loved by the base? I can't think of a comparable example aside from the segregationists, and I don't know if that's comparable. The Dixiecrat phenomenon along with the rise of northern liberal Democrats (including northern black voters) shook up the party system so badly that we had a polar reversal. I don't think that's an option this time; we would have to go multi-party, and for that to work we'd need to change first-past-the-post laws because we couldn't accept parliamentary plurality/coalition governments here. Many congressional procedure rules would also have to change. But none of that is happening this cycle; that's a few cycles down the road. This time, we're looking at a brokered GOP convention.

In spite of everything, I still believe the common Republican voter is rational. Trump will rely on sheer fucktardism to win, and I don't think it's out there. Maybe I'm naive in this belief, but I do believe it.

We can't just build a big fucking wall; there's an entire coast.
We can't just make China more whatever the fuck. It's China.
We can't just ignore shit and declare bankruptcy when it happens, like the Donald fucking does.

I hate that douchebag with 1,000 nuclear suns. Grow the fuck up you idiot. If you want to be a big boy in politics, be a fucking adult.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 04 September 2015 - 04:32 AM, said:

In spite of everything, I still believe the common Republican voter is rational.

Have you seen the latest PPP poll of GOP primary voters?

http://www.publicpol...er-country.html



Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?
14% - Christian
54% - Muslim
32% - Not sure


Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?
29% - Yes
44% - No
26% - Not sure


Do you think Ted Cruz was born in the United States?
40% - Yes
22% - No
39% - Not sure

[HoosierDaddy]

Those are the self-identified fucktards I was talking about. They probably think he has an Osma bin Laden poster in his bedroom.

[Terez]

A very clear plurality at present, wouldn't you agree? This is reflected in all the Trump polling.

[HoosierDaddy]

A percentage of the Republican base that was pro-Palin. That's all I see. 33% of self-identified Republicans would vote for a maggot on a tree if it claimed to be the only American present. That's all I see.

[Terez]

And how are the so-called rational Republicans supposed to stop them? Which Establishment candidate will they get behind, and how will they compel the vote-splitters to get out of the race? I honestly cannot see any way out of a brokered convention at this point.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 04 September 2015 - 05:58 AM, said:

And how are the so-called rational Republicans supposed to stop them? Which Establishment candidate will they get behind, and how will they compel the vote-splitters to get out of the race? I honestly cannot see any way out of a brokered convention at this point.

They're going to eventually line up. It's what they do. Maybe not behind Bush, which was the original thought, but possibly Walker or someone else. Polls right now mean nothing, other than the fact that Republicans hate establishment candidates. Once the adults step in they'll realize they have no choice if they want to get rid of the Dems.

[EmperorMagus]

Terez, on 04 September 2015 - 05:58 AM, said:

And how are the so-called rational Republicans supposed to stop them? Which Establishment candidate will they get behind, and how will they compel the vote-splitters to get out of the race? I honestly cannot see any way out of a brokered convention at this point.

The GOP favourite is the one who will win the brokered convention correct? Or will Trump/other candidates have any power to affect the decision?

[Terez]

Typically the Establishment favorite will win, yes. Because the delegates are released from their obligations to support their candidate, and the superdelegates are generally already behind the Establishment favorite. So if Trump gets a plurality of the primary vote, enough that the superdelegates can't crowd him out of the convention, but still not a majority, then he probably won't ultimately win the nomination.

[HoosierDaddy]

EmperorMagus, on 04 September 2015 - 06:05 AM, said:

Terez, on 04 September 2015 - 05:58 AM, said:

And how are the so-called rational Republicans supposed to stop them? Which Establishment candidate will they get behind, and how will they compel the vote-splitters to get out of the race? I honestly cannot see any way out of a brokered convention at this point.

The GOP favourite is the one who will win the brokered convention correct? Or will Trump/other candidates have any power to affect the decision?

Neither Trump nor Sanders will win their nominations. There is neither the political will nor the election machinery in place for this to happen.

Book it.

[amphibian]

Terez, on 04 September 2015 - 04:15 AM, said:

I do think, however, that the most likely scenario for the Republican nomination is a brokered convention, however unlikely they normally are. (Linky for the furriners.) This cycle is far from normal. Trump is far from normal. Is there any time in living memory when a candidate so hated by the Establishment was so loved by the base? I can't think of a comparable example aside from the segregationists, and I don't know if that's comparable. The Dixiecrat phenomenon along with the rise of northern liberal Democrats (including northern black voters) shook up the party system so badly that we had a polar reversal. I don't think that's an option this time; we would have to go multi-party, and for that to work we'd need to change first-past-the-post laws because we couldn't accept parliamentary plurality/coalition governments here. Many congressional procedure rules would also have to change. But none of that is happening this cycle; that's a few cycles down the road. This time, we're looking at a brokered GOP convention.

This sounds completely nuts to me. Trump's fundraising numbers are not currently out because he and his campaign have purposely formed them as late as possible to play shadow games as long as possible. But I'd be very, very surprised if they were anywhere near Rubio's 3.7 mil for his Super-PAC because no candidate is reaching Jeb's 17 mil in a Super-PAC. http://blogs.wsj.com...orporate-money/

We have until March 2016 for Bush to build up and slowly ease out his rivals, which will make Trump go away. I suspect there's some degree of coordination here between a couple campaigns (most likely Bush and Trump) to have Trump be the lightning rod as often as possible to keep the other possible lightning rods from getting struck.

There will be no brokered convention for the Republicans.

[Terez]

Trump is right when he says he doesn't need fundraisers. He's worth 10 billion, right? What's a few million for ad buys? And if Jeb doesn't ease out some of his rivals by January, he's got a serious problem. As does the GOP.

[amphibian]

The thing is that Jeb is already fundraising at 3x or 4x the rate of his next two closest rivals (in the money raising sense). None of his donors seem to be defecting either.

But Trump has only given himself 1.6 million so far, whereas someone like Romney had given himself a 20 million bridge loan in 2012 and 35 million in 2008 by this point already.

This guy is not truly serious about self-funding his campaign. He's bruiting the weight of his wealth around without actually committing it and will continue to do so.

[Terez]

It doesn't mean he's not serious. It just means he has no need for advertising at this point. The media is covering his every word for free. He will need to spend a little on staff for ground game in the early states, but this has not been a major campaign expense for the last few decades. The vast majority of campaign cash goes to ads. Most campaign workers are volunteers reporting to a small circle of paid staff.

This post has been edited by Terez: 04 September 2015 - 02:56 PM

[amphibian]

Terez, on 04 September 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

It doesn't mean he's not serious. It just means he has no need for advertising at this point. The media is covering his every word for free. He will need to spend a little on staff for ground game in the early states, but this has not been a major campaign expense for the last few decades. The vast majority of campaign cash goes to ads. Most campaign workers are volunteers reporting to a small circle of paid staff.

You are overestimating the reach, effectiveness and duration of national media coverage if you think this is sustainable for even the next couple months. Also, ad buys are indeed something like 65% of the overall money, but the other 35% of overhead and bodies on the ground staffing is considerable.

[Gnaw]

I think I'm in love with Kim Davis.

She has single handedly caused the eventual exit of at least 5 of the clowns from the circus. Ted Cruz, cHucklebee, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker won't be able to walk back their support come Iowa and New Hampshire when the majority of people actually start paying attention to the race.