|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also vote for Clinton, if she wins the nomination. She's much farther to the right than I'd like, but she's still far different than any of the Republican options and that difference is important.and I'll vote for/work for hillary when/if she beats sanders. But for me the calculation comes down to
[(%chance bernie winning) X (net good of bernie presidency)] > [(%chance of hillary winning X net good of a hillary presidency)]
Whereas I'll be voting for Clinton in the primaries because I think she'd make a better president than Sanders, not because of electability per se.
Sanders is closer to some of my own economic views and seems to have an above-average store of integrity for a politician. Imagining him in office, I trust him to try to deliver on his promises, a bit more than I trust most politicians' campaign rhetoric.
But I don't trust him to succeed.
I think Clinton may be more adroit at heading off at least parts of the partisan gridlock that I suspect would ultimately paralyze Sanders.
There's some other reasons I prefer her despite some shadiness - work ethic is one - but I'm not going to decry ideologically driven gridlock on the right and then turn around and vote for it on the left.
If gridlock is your concern, it doesn't much matter. Clinton isn't going to be able to do more about current Republican tactics than Obama has or Sanders would.
I'm really not sure what will work. Maybe, eventually, it'll get obvious enough and hurt enough that voters will do something, but I'm not seeing any sign of that yet.
And there's the rub. You cannot fix the problem without undoing the damage the Republicans have done - mainly redrawing the district lines into something resembling sanity and doing away with the gerrymandered mess we currently have.
But as long as Republicans hold majorities, they're not going to do anything about it for obvious reasons. And it'll be almost impossible to take away that majority because they've redrawn everything to make sure they'll stay in power.
Imagine partisan gridlock stomping on a human face forever and ever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ahahaha...
What I wish is that we had a mandate to have districts drawn in the most competitive way possible. Unfortunately, human interest being human interest, I doubt either party would actually do that because it might legitimately threaten their own power.
Rampant gerrymandering is a lot older than the current political crisis. As far as Republicans in the House go, it might contribute to their numbers, but it isn't responsible for their attitudes.
Clinton's current measure of "liberalism" is mainly on positions that she's evolved since becoming the 2.0 version of a Presidential candidate. Clinton 1.0 was considerably more right-wing, and she's still very much a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, although at least not nearly as much a cowboy as Bush 2.0.
Clinton's term in the Senate stretches back to 2001. During her eight-year term in the Senate, she ranked in the upper 15th percentile of Senators in terms of liberal political leanings.
So when, exactly, was Clinton 1.0?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas I'll be voting for Clinton in the primaries because I think she'd make a better president than Sanders, not because of electability per se.
Not with the new republicans.
I trust that clinton will succeed in passing legistlation. I just don't think it will be the legislation I want to see. With clinton its all about her. She wants her name in the history books and a landmark bill. She'll "compromise" with the republicans to get it, which as stubborn as they are and hard wired for compromise as the democrats are, winds up meaning the republicans write the bill. You need someone at least as crazy left as they are right to get anything that isn't right. I know thats the golden mean fallacy, but we're dealing with people (well, they think they're people) and people are not rational, especially politicians.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Clinton may be more adroit at heading off at least parts of the partisan gridlock that I suspect would ultimately paralyze Sanders.
There's some other reasons I prefer her despite some shadiness - work ethic is one - but I'm not going to decry ideologically driven gridlock on the right and then turn around and vote for it on the left.
See, I think that the gridlock is SO bad, and so ingrained in the system that the only way to change anything is to do what the Republicans have been doing for the past 2 decades: fight at the state level. Once you control state houses you can gerrymander and voter suppress and all that other stuff that is CREATING this gridlock.
I think Sanders has a better chance of actually getting voters excited for once, getting youth to go vote in droves, and once they're in the ballot boxes, vote for him for president AND vote the right way on the state level.
Democrats have a massive advantage in presidential election years, and I think EVEN Bernie could roundly defeat any of the current stock of Republicans, with the possible exception of Bush or Rubio.
TL;DR- I'm living in Japan right now. If it's Bush v. Clinton in 2016, I'm not f!*%ing coming back!
Anyone ever wonder if the fact that there are big companies funding Clinton's campaign would have anything to do with the exposure she got?
Anyone ever wonder if the fact that there are big companies funding Clinton's campaign would have anything to do with the exposure she got?
Not really, no. I think the fact that she's been the presumptive Democratic nominee since about 2004 (and has been building a national-scale campaign organization for more than a decade) has more to do with it -- and is also the reason she has some high-profile backers with deep pockets. Even when Obama won the 2008 nomination, he did so as a come-from-behind candidate against a mammoth campaign organization, and Clinton's rolodexes didn't disappear into the ether in November 2008.
If you look at the current crop of declared candidates, she's the only one that routinely makes national headlines. Groups such as Ready for Hilary (formed January 2013) were created to raise funds and develop a campaign organization before anyone else was even in a serious discussion about the 2016 election. (To be clear -- January 2013 was the same month that Obama's second term started; that's nearly four years out from the next election.) George Soros was on the board of that particular PAC in October 2013.
When did Sanders start running for president? According to Wikipedia, he first started discussing the idea in November 2013, but had nowhere near a national scale campaign organization -- and frankly, still doesn't (he has volunteer organizations in only five states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Vermont, none of which is actually a key swing state or an important large-population state). Biden at least has national name recognition, but he also has no organization, and as of this writing isn't even formally running.
Clinton's resources however peaked early into the campaign when she spent it all on an early knockout punch strategy. When Obama refused to disappear back into the woodwork, it backfired severely, and she was chronically short on funds for the rest of the campaign.Anyone ever wonder if the fact that there are big companies funding Clinton's campaign would have anything to do with the exposure she got?Not really, no. I think the fact that she's been the presumptive Democratic nominee since about 2004 (and has been building a national-scale campaign organization for more than a decade) has more to do with it -- and is also the reason she has some high-profile backers with deep pockets. Even when Obama won the 2008 nomination, he did so as a come-from-behind candidate against a mammoth campaign organization, and Clinton's rolodexes didn't disappear into the ether in November 2008.
Yes. I said she was the "presumptive" nominee, not the nominee, for a reason. But if you look at the prediction markets ca. early 2008, or the polls at that time, she was by far the front-runner and Obama was a dark horse.
Right now Sanders is doing a better job raising money than she is, despite her SuperPac connections and her rolodex.
Right. Her Rolodex won't necessarily win her the election (we've seen that proven in '08), but it's certainly enough to keep her in the news. Hell, if Kris Jenner decided to run for president, she (Jenner) would probably be able to eclipse Chalfee and O'Malley.
Anyone ever wonder if the fact that there are big companies funding Clinton's campaign would have anything to do with the exposure she got?Not really, no. I think the fact that she's been the presumptive Democratic nominee since about 2004 (and has been building a national-scale campaign organization for more than a decade) has more to do with it -- and is also the reason she has some high-profile backers with deep pockets. Even when Obama won the 2008 nomination, he did so as a come-from-behind candidate against a mammoth campaign organization, and Clinton's rolodexes didn't disappear into the ether in November 2008.Clinton's resources however peaked early into the campaign when she spent it all on an early knockout punch strategy. When Obama refused to disappear back into the woodwork, it backfired severely, and she was chronically short on funds for the rest of the campaign.
Right now Sanders is doing a better job raising money than she is, despite her SuperPac connections and her rolodex.
Hmm. Near as I can tell, she's raised more, both overall and in the last quarter. He's ahead in number of small donations and may have a short term boost since the debate, if that's what you mean by right now.
The third quarter numbers slightly favor Clinton, but she's got nearly two and a half times the burn rate that Sanders has (25% compared to 11%). Of course, when you're running a national campaign, you have to fund fifty statewide offices instead of only five....
If Sanders isn't winning the numbers game, he's certainly not losing it, either.
I also feel like pointing out, since I came across it while looking at numbers, that both major Democratic candidates are getting far more of their money in traditional campaign donations, while the Republican field is far more reliant on unlimited PAC money.Meaning the Republican freak show will go on until, at the least, the convention vote.
Not necessarily. The PAC backers are likely to make some phone calls to each other and start thinning the herd, or at least the rational ones are. One of the reason that Jeb's in trouble is because his PAC backers are starting to tighten the money supply, because they'd rather be one of a group backing the winner than the major controller of a loser.
I'll also vote for Clinton, if she wins the nomination. She's much farther to the right than I'd like, but she's still far different than any of the Republican options and that difference is important.and I'll vote for/work for hillary when/if she beats sanders. But for me the calculation comes down to
[(%chance bernie winning) X (net good of bernie presidency)] > [(%chance of hillary winning X net good of a hillary presidency)]
Whereas I'll be voting for Clinton in the primaries because I think she'd make a better president than Sanders, not because of electability per se.
Sanders is closer to some of my own economic views and seems to have an above-average store of integrity for a politician. Imagining him in office, I trust him to try to deliver on his promises, a bit more than I trust most politicians' campaign rhetoric.
But I don't trust him to succeed.
I think Clinton may be more adroit at heading off at least parts of the partisan gridlock that I suspect would ultimately paralyze Sanders.
There's some other reasons I prefer her despite some shadiness - work ethic is one - but I'm not going to decry ideologically driven gridlock on the right and then turn around and vote for it on the left.
At least one congressman wants to impeach Clinton day 1. I doubt she will be able to get much more done than Obama
I wouldn't necessarily vote for him, but I hope Bernie gets the nod.
Would somewhat restore my faith in the process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, or did Hilary do allot of Republican blaming in her debate answers. Sure, they have problems they should be accountable for, but her constant attack sounded contrives and forced. "The Republicans did it" seemed to be her go to answer when she lacked a better one. That said I am Bernie all the way! This will be the first time I have decided to vote, because for once a candidate represents much of what I believe.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
well, when did she say "the republicans did it" when they DIDN"T do it?
That is a fine point Ser BigNorseWolf. Just found that tactic a bit dated, and it stood out very clearly to me anyway, that it was sort of a cop-out. Thankfully the other side provides plenty of valid criticism ammo.
I hear a lot of people saying things like, "Let's get real here," or, "the smart money's on...", to emphasize how someone like Rubio or Carson is more likely to win. But I have to be honest—I think as much as we'd like to think that Trump shouldn't have Humpy Dumpty's chance atop the Trump Border Wall, he's got enough of a following to win this one. He's the Obama of this election. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a fine point Ser BigNorseWolf. Just found that tactic a bit dated, and it stood out very clearly to me anyway, that it was sort of a cop-out. Thankfully the other side provides plenty of valid criticism ammo.
I think its totally retro to blame things that people did on the people that did them.
I hear a lot of people saying things like, "Let's get real here," or, "the smart money's on...", to emphasize how someone like Rubio or Carson is more likely to win. But I have to be honest—I think as much as we'd like to think that Trump shouldn't have Humpy Dumpty's chance atop the Trump Border Wall, he's got enough of a following to win this one. He's the Obama of this election. :P
The betting markets have a much better track record than polls. Right now, the line is Rubio for the nominee at 2/1, Bush for the nominee at 5/2, and Trump at 10/3.
Now, ten to three is a lot better than he was doing a few months ago, so he's definitely improving his chances. However the people who are confident enough in their judgment to actually put money down on it are not supporting Trump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totally, mayhaps it is time to bring being responsible for your horrible choices back BigNorseWolf! (also laughed so loud at work I got funny looks from the room, well done Ser, well done)
I hear a lot of people saying things like, "Let's get real here," or, "the smart money's on...", to emphasize how someone like Rubio or Carson is more likely to win. But I have to be honest—I think as much as we'd like to think that Trump shouldn't have Humpy Dumpty's chance atop the Trump Border Wall, he's got enough of a following to win this one. He's the Obama of this election. :PThe betting markets have a much better track record than polls. Right now, the line is Rubio for the nominee at 2/1, Bush for the nominee at 5/2, and Trump at 10/3.
Now, ten to three is a lot better than he was doing a few months ago, so he's definitely improving his chances. However the people who are confident enough in their judgment to actually put money down on it are not supporting Trump.
I feel like the betting markets have the same "expert" bias. Trump just doesn't feel like a viable candidate to them. But ultimately it's votes, not odds, that make a race. Trump doesn't just have votes—he's built a massive wave of enthusiasm.
It's just a gut sense. But I reckon we've got a ways to go before we've seen the last of the Trump.
Well, I suppose one question is: How does the GOP nominating process work at the convention? If Trump shows up with enough delegates from the caucuses and primaries to win the nomination is there some mechanism for the party elite to say 'Nope!'?
Both parties have superdelegates, unpledged delegates that are selected largely from and by the party elite.
The Republicans have 437 out of 2470 superdelegates (so about 80% are pledged). A small majority can be dealt with, but, other than leaning on the individual delegates in the style of House of Cards, I don't think there's any easy way to deal with Trump winning and walking in with a large majority.
However, if it looks like a serious risk from the early primaries, I suspect that all the stops are going to be pulled out for the later ones.
Only about 150 Republican delegates will be decided before the end of February. Roughly 500 will be decided on March first, and another hundred on March 5th.
If it looks like Trump has a commanding lead at that point, expect panic to set in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kevin McCarthy pretty much admitted, probably without meaning to that the whole point of the Benghazi Committe wasn't so much about trying to debug a disaster, or peg responsibility as much as it was to drag Clinton's poll numbers down.
Yeah. Not that this wasn't already completely obvious.
The House Benghazi 'investigation' has gone on longer, and cost more, than the 9/11 commission. Ponder that absurdity for a while.
Although my metalhead days are waaaaaay behind me and despite the fact that I would never vote for a Democrat, uh uh, never, I did think this was a pretty badass t-shirt.
(Okay, so the image behind the link isn't a t-shirt, but I saw one of La Principessa's union sisters wearing it.)
the George Soros op-ed, "Galt: The Revolution Hasn't Gone Far Enough,"
Sheesh.
Soros was tried in absentia in Azurestone and was sentenced to a date with Razor Jenni.
Vive le Galt!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas I'll be voting for Clinton in the primaries because I think she'd make a better president than Sanders, not because of electability per se.Not with the new republicans.
I trust that clinton will succeed in passing legistlation. I just don't think it will be the legislation I want to see. With clinton its all about her. She wants her name in the history books and a landmark bill. She'll "compromise" with the republicans to get it, which as stubborn as they are and hard wired for compromise as the democrats are, winds up meaning the republicans write the bill. You need someone at least as crazy left as they are right to get anything that isn't right. I know thats the golden mean fallacy, but we're dealing with people (well, they think they're people) and people are not rational, especially politicians.
Unfortunately the golden mean fallacy is the bill of goods the republicans have been selling the country for 25 years.
Democrats, "don't poison us bro!"
republicans, "no regulations on industry"
So we "compromise" and get poisoned with marginal oversight.