-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 23, 2020, 10:27:52 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 223231 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
undercover-m
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 513



View Profile
« Reply #575 on: March 07, 2016, 04:16:05 PM »

I got the Chrome app that changes Trump to Drumpf. The real name exposed by John Oliver.
This board is sort of confusing but funny to read now.
Logged

"We are pushed to the wall as the heap fills the room to its limits. The window breaks. The house bursts. A heartbreakingly fine Scotch plaid passes before our eyes. Pinstripes carry us into Manhasset Bay."
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #576 on: March 07, 2016, 04:33:53 PM »

Emily, I don't know: if Trump wins the nomination but loses general, what (beyond party rules to prevent such an outsider from doing this to them again) would they feel the need to shake up? They could rightly say he didn't accurately reflect the party's principles.

As for how the GOP legislature would act, we totally agree there. I can't imagine that changing until they lose, win the presidency, or have the party splintering that seems imminent. I just think a Trump win-and-loss won't force that splinter; it will just prolong the drama.
Ah, I think we have a miscommunication. In both of my scenarios I was assuming Trump wins the nomination but in one case loses the general, in the other wins the general.  So I'm only predicting significant party change if he wins the whole burrito. If he wins the nomination but loses the general, I agree that not much will happen, party-wise.

Ah, yes, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but any scenario I was presenting presupposed a Clinton win over the Republican nominee, assuming that nominee were Cruz or Trump (and I do think Clinton--while also presupposing she isn't charged with anything--would beat either of them pretty handily). So my scenarios were strictly along those lines, and the party's reaction to Trump losing the general versus to Cruz losing the general. The former, I think leads to nothing new (except maybe changing the rules to become nominee). Whereas if Cruz loses, I wonder if the party actually does splinter, as the "we didn't nominate a true conservative" line would be pretty much tested and failed.
That latter is an interesting point that I hadn't thought of. I'd thought that if they get a 'true conservative' (which of course we're not using the definition that word had until about a decade ago) in the White House, they'd have a bit of a collapse because what they want to happen wouldn't happen; but I hadn't thought of what if they nominated one and he didn't win. It's a very interesting thought. Thank you.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #577 on: March 07, 2016, 04:35:19 PM »

I got the Chrome app that changes Trump to Drumpf. The real name exposed by John Oliver.
This board is sort of confusing but funny to read now.
Do both apps work together? So we can have Donald "It's in Corinthians Two" Drumpf?
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #578 on: March 07, 2016, 04:39:15 PM »

I got the Chrome app that changes Trump to Drumpf. The real name exposed by John Oliver.
This board is sort of confusing but funny to read now.
Do both apps work together? So we can have Donald "It's in Corinthians Two" Drumpf?

Yeah, I've been using both, and they work in blissful harmony.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #579 on: March 07, 2016, 04:41:41 PM »

I got the Chrome app that changes Trump to Drumpf. The real name exposed by John Oliver.
This board is sort of confusing but funny to read now.
Do both apps work together? So we can have Donald "It's in Corinthians Two" Drumpf?

Yeah, I've been using both, and they work in blissful harmony.
O happy day.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #580 on: March 09, 2016, 07:13:15 AM »

I have two questions:
1. Trump and Sanders both speak in terms of 'revolution', great change, "making America great again", getting the pussies out of politics, having effective genetalia (well, only one talks about the latter few) - what do they actually propose in terms of policy or process changes that will actually achieve great change and, if one is elected, how will he implement these policies? Please give specific proposals, not rhetoric.

2. 'Conservative' (in the historical meaning) women and Hispanic voters have, over the last several decades, been moving to the Democratic Party while 'liberal' (also in the historical meaning) white working class men have been moving to the Republican Party. The latter are now split between Trump and Sanders but are clearly consumers of populism, and the former are running away from Trump. Would a Clinton/Trump general election campaign further polarize the country by getting virtually all white men (with the exception of the majority of the highly educated middle-class) into the Republican Party and virtually everyone else into the Democratic Party?
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #581 on: March 09, 2016, 08:04:39 AM »

I'll say this much about either party. At this point in the races, you cannot take anything that is said as anything more than rhetoric. Even if they have polices and processes posted, there is no way that they can effect change without having Congress on their side to pass said polices and/or laws. As for polarization, this is nothing new in American politics. For anyone who knows their history, this is a battle that has been fought since Adams & Jefferson. The main issue here is Congress, again. Until Senators and Reps are voted in who have learned the art of compromise, we will be stuck with ineffectiveness. This "my way or the highway" mentality has got to stop if we as a nation are going to move forward. A lot rides on this as our economy is affected by it. Our aging and failing infrastructure is affected by it. Not to mention our standing on the world stage. Once we get past the conventions, then I will take a hard look at what the candidates put forth and determine which policies and ideas will move the country forward. I say this too, because I haven't voted my declared party in the presidential election for 24 years. I always try to vote for whoever I think moves us the best way forward as a nation, not as a party.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
KDS
Guest
« Reply #582 on: March 09, 2016, 08:13:18 AM »

Emily,

To me, the only one of the remaining candidates that has said anything at all lately about policies is John Kasich.  I was actually pretty impressed with him at the last Republican Debate.   And, of course, he's trailing by a mile. 

He also said he'd get the surviving members of Pink Floyd together for his inauguration if he won the election. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #583 on: March 09, 2016, 12:08:17 PM »

Emily,

To me, the only one of the remaining candidates that has said anything at all lately about policies is John Kasich.  I was actually pretty impressed with him at the last Republican Debate.   And, of course, he's trailing by a mile. 

He also said he'd get the surviving members of Pink Floyd together for his inauguration if he won the election. 
Smiley Smiley Now that's a campaign promise.
I agree that in that last debate he seemed reasonable, but I haven't seen him speak without being surrounded by the rest of 'em, so maybe if he just looked good in comparison.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #584 on: March 09, 2016, 12:08:56 PM »

I'll say this much about either party. At this point in the races, you cannot take anything that is said as anything more than rhetoric. Even if they have polices and processes posted, there is no way that they can effect change without having Congress on their side to pass said polices and/or laws. As for polarization, this is nothing new in American politics. For anyone who knows their history, this is a battle that has been fought since Adams & Jefferson. The main issue here is Congress, again. Until Senators and Reps are voted in who have learned the art of compromise, we will be stuck with ineffectiveness. This "my way or the highway" mentality has got to stop if we as a nation are going to move forward. A lot rides on this as our economy is affected by it. Our aging and failing infrastructure is affected by it. Not to mention our standing on the world stage. Once we get past the conventions, then I will take a hard look at what the candidates put forth and determine which policies and ideas will move the country forward. I say this too, because I haven't voted my declared party in the presidential election for 24 years. I always try to vote for whoever I think moves us the best way forward as a nation, not as a party.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer, drbeachboy.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #585 on: March 09, 2016, 03:59:25 PM »

I have two questions:
1. Trump and Sanders both speak in terms of 'revolution', great change, "making America great again", getting the pussies out of politics, having effective genetalia (well, only one talks about the latter few) - what do they actually propose in terms of policy or process changes that will actually achieve great change and, if one is elected, how will he implement these policies? Please give specific proposals, not rhetoric.

2. 'Conservative' (in the historical meaning) women and Hispanic voters have, over the last several decades, been moving to the Democratic Party while 'liberal' (also in the historical meaning) white working class men have been moving to the Republican Party. The latter are now split between Trump and Sanders but are clearly consumers of populism, and the former are running away from Trump. Would a Clinton/Trump general election campaign further polarize the country by getting virtually all white men (with the exception of the majority of the highly educated middle-class) into the Republican Party and virtually everyone else into the Democratic Party?

I saw this earlier and wanted to respond, but unfortunately my employer apparently believes I ought to spend company time doing what they pay me for. What a rip-off... But really:

1. I wholeheartedly agree with drbeachboy that it's almost irrelevant, in that the president can't enact policies without congressional support, and in a Trump or Sanders scenario, it's hard to imagine that happening. Earlier today I was thinking for the first time, how does a Republican congress treat Trump? I almost suspect it would be barely better than they treat Obama. I'm sure they'd find ways to get a few things done, but when he starts talking absurdity, or pure liberal ideas, obviously they're not going to do that. Speaker Ryan is already struggling to walk that line of talking about supporting the party, walking the party's platform line, and supporting the party's candidate. And Sanders would have a worse time, probably even if he had a Democratic congress. I said in an early post in this thread, maybe around the first debates, something about wanting to hear policy proposals, and I still do. But frankly it's almost irrelevant unless the candidates can drag along the legislature.

2. I don't think Trump will change the party. I think the party will do what it can to move on as quickly as possible. Sen. Graham was on Axelrod's podcast recently talking about how you can lose an election, and you need to use the opportunity to decide who you are (as a party). And he meant Trump will win the nomination, lose the election, and the party has to figure out what it is going to be. I think he's right. Trump's voters might vote Trump, but they aren't traditional Republicans. It's a one-off, loyalty to the charisma of the asshole, not to the ideology. Friedman's NYT op-ed today is right that it isn't about reasoning with him or his supporters because they aren't attracted to his reason. That's all political rigmarole to them; they just want a tough guy who yells a lot and sells caps and slogans. A lot of politicians are empty suits, he's just empty without a coherent tradition guiding his absurdity.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #586 on: March 09, 2016, 06:47:24 PM »

So, El Capitan, you think the working class white men who are polled saying they usually vote for Democrats but they would vote Trump over Clinton would just be doing a one-off? And you believe the same about the moderate Republican women and Hispanics who say they would vote Clinton over Trump?
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #587 on: March 10, 2016, 03:04:02 PM »

So, El Capitan, you think the working class white men who are polled saying they usually vote for Democrats but they would vote Trump over Clinton would just be doing a one-off?

I think in some cases, yes. I think some of those men won't vote for a woman at all, much less one who (laughably incorrectly) has been painted as an ultra-liberal. But if it had been Trump v. Webb, Trump v. Biden? Yeah, I think they'd still be voting Democratic this time around. Others, I think are hugely attracted to him personally. I can't imagine why, but there is no doubt he has some kind of charisma that is winning people over. Those voters, I don't think it's about party loyalty at all, either. Next time, who knows for whom they vote? I guess whoever is the biggest, loudest asshole. But then I think there is another subset of those who are increasingly "conservative" as they age and the world changes around them. Maybe they're uncomfortable about the unwhitening of the country; of the increasing acceptance and visibility of gay, lesbian, bi, trans people; or the ongoing rise of non-Christians. Those people are unlikely to go back to the Democratic party.

And you believe the same about the moderate Republican women and Hispanics who say they would vote Clinton over Trump?

Again, multiple scenarios. Some people--and probably mostly women--are going to vote for the female candidate because it's an important thing to them to see a woman elected president. For a centrist Republican who wants to see a female president, hell yes, I think she's going to vote Clinton over Trump. And yet I wouldn't be willing to assume she's a Democrat henceforth. Maybe the GOP reintegrates some centrists (or at least more traditional Republican "conservatives" instead of lunatics) by '20. Wouldn't that voter be more likely to vote Condoleeza Rice over, say, Elizabeth Warren? I think probably. If the GOP continues its recent shift, I don't think Trump is even the issue: if they are moderate Republicans in the sense that they are OK with the dreaded AMNESTY (cue scary music), are worried about the erosion of abortion rights (to name two issues that are likely important to Hispanic and female voters, not that those issues aren't important to others or that those voters don't have other issues they care about), then yeah, I think they're more likely to stick with Democrats, even if they're holding their noses.

In my opinion, the Democratic party of 2016 is more or less the Republican party of, say, pre-9/11 or 2004 or so anyway. So those moderate Republicans ought to feel right at home.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #588 on: March 10, 2016, 06:04:57 PM »

Excellent answer. Thank you.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #589 on: March 16, 2016, 01:27:20 PM »

So at this point anything other than Trump v Clinton would be a surprise.
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #590 on: March 16, 2016, 01:56:18 PM »

unfortunately
Logged
zachrwolfe
Guest
« Reply #591 on: March 16, 2016, 02:35:45 PM »

« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 07:25:42 PM by zatch » Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #592 on: March 16, 2016, 03:41:41 PM »

I'm proud that the great state of Ohio did not enable Donald Trump yesterday.

Clinton vs Trump is perhaps the grimmest Presidential election prospect of all time.
Logged
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #593 on: March 16, 2016, 04:37:08 PM »

Bernie absolutely still has a chance, but it doesn't look good. #TheBernIsHealing

Yeah, but his prospects are dimming. Devastated at yesterday's results, was a complete rout for him  Cry

This is certainly an interesting article: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/33-percent-of-bernie-sanders-not-vote-hillary_b_9475626.html
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 04:48:13 PM by Outside-Looking In » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #594 on: March 16, 2016, 04:56:07 PM »

So at this point anything other than Trump v Clinton would be a surprise.

This is correct.

As fun as it is watching the pretty little robot drop out after losing Florida--will he even bother returning to the senate for this final 3/4 year or just go home?--it's kind of sad to note that all signs point very, very strongly toward the television asshole on the GOP side. And let's not kid ourselves, Clinton is winning the Democratic nomination. On one side, the moronic populist rage wins out to the benefit of...whom? And on the other, it falls short, although hopefully it pulled the party toward a long-neglected part of its base.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #595 on: March 16, 2016, 04:57:16 PM »

Hate to sound cynical but I find it unsurprising that big business wins out yet again.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #596 on: March 16, 2016, 05:01:36 PM »

For people interested in the Sanders campaign, the best thing you could do going forward is forget the Sanders campaign and actually move on. Encourage similar candidates at the local, regional, state, and national levels. Run yourself. Etc. That's what matters. Even if Sanders had miraculously won the nomination and presidency, let's be serious: it would be a footnote because he's an aberration. The whole movement (as is true of every political movement) depends on similarly minded people throughout government. A president is not a king.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #597 on: March 16, 2016, 05:06:49 PM »

For people interested in the Sanders campaign, the best thing you could do going forward is forget the Sanders campaign and actually move on. Encourage similar candidates at the local, regional, state, and national levels. Run yourself. Etc. That's what matters. Even if Sanders had miraculously won the nomination and presidency, let's be serious: it would be a footnote because he's an aberration. The whole movement (as is true of every political movement) depends on similarly minded people throughout government. A president is not a king.

I agree with that about 98% of the way and would only alter your point ever so slightly to suggest that what's needed is a unified movement outside of the political engine. I think in order for real change to occur, it cannot occur within the current political system. As you note, Sanders is good and all but he could only do so much (and really, in my view, he's a bit too much of a moderate anyway). What's required is a genuine, organized grassroots movement.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #598 on: March 16, 2016, 05:48:26 PM »

I'm proud that the great state of Ohio did not enable Donald Trump yesterday.

Clinton vs Trump is perhaps the grimmest Presidential election prospect of all time.
Quite pleased with Ohio!
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #599 on: March 16, 2016, 05:53:49 PM »

For people interested in the Sanders campaign, the best thing you could do going forward is forget the Sanders campaign and actually move on. Encourage similar candidates at the local, regional, state, and national levels. Run yourself. Etc. That's what matters. Even if Sanders had miraculously won the nomination and presidency, let's be serious: it would be a footnote because he's an aberration. The whole movement (as is true of every political movement) depends on similarly minded people throughout government. A president is not a king.
The whole Tea Party nightmare began because Ralph Reed understood exactly this. He started focusing on school boards and local councils in the early 90s and has a lot of state legislature and fed House seats filled with them now. Ralph Reed really changed the landscape with his local-level focus. Perhaps the most important and least famous person in American politics of his generation.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 05:56:19 PM by Emily » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.578 seconds with 22 queries.