-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 03:45:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 523007 times)
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #675 on: April 15, 2016, 06:02:01 AM »

Well my drink at the moment is coffee, and I did buy the coffee. So if it does, I'm not aware of them. Point me to the bar. Technically I'm working (though from home today), but hell, I work better drunk anyway. And if a guy can't start drinking at 8 a.m., when can he start drinking?

By the way, to answer my question, as much as I find the convention intrigue intriguing, I'm playing the safe bet: it'll be Clinton v Trump (and thus a Clinton win by double-digit points). The only way it's not Clinton is an indictment, which I don't think will happen, while with Trump I could still see some kind of convention manipulations resulting in Cruz, who would lose to a centrist like Clinton by more than Trump.
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.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #676 on: April 15, 2016, 06:17:10 AM »

Responding here because it's more appropriate to this thread.


Captain - that is just wishful thinking on the old-guard Republican Party.  I think both parties are looking for bearers of their respective legacy positions.  We have upstarts cropping up all over the place who don't seem to want to continue the same-old, same-old and want a real shake-up on both sides.  It is just too easy to call them demagogues. 


Except that I'm not talking about general discontent within parties. I'm talking specifically about the Trump phenomenon within the Republican party right now. And Trump is best described as a demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. (Definition from whatever Google's default dictionary is...)

This point of mine isn't about whether people are sick of the status quo, whether they're right to be sick of it, what's going on within other parties. It was specifically about the electoral problem the Republicans have this cycle with Donald Trump, who is capitalizing on anger and spouting literal nonsense that appeals to people emotionally, not rationally. He is best described as a demagogue. (Unless we're "telling it like it is," a la Mr. Trump himself, at which point we'd say he's a racist, sexist asshole who is assembling legions of gullible people on the false premise that he "gets" them and will look out for them despite a lack of any evidence to support that.)
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: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #677 on: April 15, 2016, 06:45:23 AM »

Responding here because it's more appropriate to the thread

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?
Emily - she was not just a member, but the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College in the late 60's while the country was still reeling from JFK, MLK, and RFK being assassinated, anti-war demonstrations and race riots in larger cities. 

That is not unimportant. During her formation at home, the party which moved her was the Republican party.  One does not seek an office in college unless there is both a background and commitment. Children are highly influenced by the political chatter in a home and they tend to carry those values as adults, and vote that party as well when they come of age.

That is just dismissive to use the "it was 50 years ago" defense.  And it explains why the Republicans won't completely freak out if she is elected. They can "work with her."  One commentator about a week or so ago on ABC Sunday, suggested that the Republicans just let Hillary "have the White House" and prepare for the 2020 election to defeat her. 

Just let her "have The White House?  Seriously.   

First - another lol for Trump 'articulating' anything.
To the points above: honestly, this sort of point is the sort that supports the 'vast right wing conspiracy' argument and weakens all the Hillary is some sort of behind-the-scenes mastermind arguments because it's so completely absurd and wrong.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #678 on: April 15, 2016, 06:48:25 AM »

Responding here because it's more appropriate to this thread.


Captain - that is just wishful thinking on the old-guard Republican Party.  I think both parties are looking for bearers of their respective legacy positions.  We have upstarts cropping up all over the place who don't seem to want to continue the same-old, same-old and want a real shake-up on both sides.  It is just too easy to call them demagogues. 


Except that I'm not talking about general discontent within parties. I'm talking specifically about the Trump phenomenon within the Republican party right now. And Trump is best described as a demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. (Definition from whatever Google's default dictionary is...)

This point of mine isn't about whether people are sick of the status quo, whether they're right to be sick of it, what's going on within other parties. It was specifically about the electoral problem the Republicans have this cycle with Donald Trump, who is capitalizing on anger and spouting literal nonsense that appeals to people emotionally, not rationally. He is best described as a demagogue. (Unless we're "telling it like it is," a la Mr. Trump himself, at which point we'd say he's a racist, sexist asshole who is assembling legions of gullible people on the false premise that he "gets" them and will look out for them despite a lack of any evidence to support that.)
Captain - this is the election year of discontent. Every Democrat I talk to is disgusted with the party and will be their first generation of voting for Trump.  Their ancestors would roll over in their graves. But, I am not convinced that Trump was serious when he started out and just may have wanted to send his own message which could have spilled over of his business promotion.  

Sadly, a lot of lawyers and business people do the very same thing, and run for office as a pretext to get business.  But, on the other hand it does help to have a law degree to read the ordinances and other proposed legislation rather than have some lawyer give their spin that the candidate would sheepishly follow because they don't know any better.    

But, I think Trump is sincerely surprised at how much his message of bringing back business, stronger national security and border control for drugs, and criminals has resonated with people who have had it with sanctuary cities, for example (but which does not make you an automatic bigot.) Trump does present as superficial in terms of body image but he is hardly a Charles Atlas symbol.  He has made some huge gaffes because he is a political neophyte.  

Where it matters, for me, is how well he has educated his daughters. That runs contrary to many global standards which would relegate a woman to the home and subservient and unable to read and write. Trump's message is noisy.  Last night his speech was more measured in NY.  

We have mechanisms in place to remove a president should he become a demagogue or a tyrant, in the event he is elected.  

The NY elections will be interesting especially if Sanders wins.  Wink          
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #679 on: April 15, 2016, 06:57:22 AM »

Responding here because it's more appropriate to the thread

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?
Emily - she was not just a member, but the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College in the late 60's while the country was still reeling from JFK, MLK, and RFK being assassinated, anti-war demonstrations and race riots in larger cities.  

That is not unimportant. During her formation at home, the party which moved her was the Republican party.  One does not seek an office in college unless there is both a background and commitment. Children are highly influenced by the political chatter in a home and they tend to carry those values as adults, and vote that party as well when they come of age.

That is just dismissive to use the "it was 50 years ago" defense.  And it explains why the Republicans won't completely freak out if she is elected. They can "work with her."  One commentator about a week or so ago on ABC Sunday, suggested that the Republicans just let Hillary "have the White House" and prepare for the 2020 election to defeat her.  

Just let her "have The White House?  Seriously.    

First - another lol for Trump 'articulating' anything.
To the points above: honestly, this sort of point is the sort that supports the 'vast right wing conspiracy' argument and weakens all the Hillary is some sort of behind-the-scenes mastermind arguments because it's so completely absurd and wrong.
Emily - Whether you like or hate him, Trump is a force to be reckoned with. And, Sanders, as well, calling her out on her speech fees.  She got nearly a quarter of a mil from Verizon. That came out as the East Coast Verizon workers are on strike.  

And this "vast right wing conspiracy" is the rhetoric that Hillary has been hiding behind.  Benghazi is not a conspiracy generated by Republicans or Independents.  Hillary's disregard of security protocol is not a "right wing conspiracy." It is dishonesty. Those are personal actions are indefensible.  

A "right wing conspiracy" is at the tip of her lips ready to spew when she has nothing else.  It is the "dog ate my homework" defense.  

Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    Wink
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #680 on: April 15, 2016, 07:01:54 AM »


Captain - this is the election year of discontent. Every Democrat I talk to is disgusted with the party and will be their first generation of voting for Trump.  Their ancestors would roll over in their graves. But, I am not convinced that Trump was serious when he started out and just may have wanted to send his own message which could have spilled over of his business promotion.  


First, you're mostly going back into things that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But as for what you're saying, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/trump_democrats_are_a_myth.html
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: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #681 on: April 15, 2016, 07:02:14 AM »

Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    Wink

I disagree. I think the DNC is favouring Clinton because she is corporate-friendly just like most in the Democratic party. This is why I also disagree with the premise of what you say is Trump's message: bring back business and stronger national security. After all, you can't find a viable leader in recent history who wasn't pro-corporate and hawkish.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #682 on: April 15, 2016, 07:03:06 AM »

The sorts the of 'gaffes' trump has made aren't because he's a neophyte. They are because heMs bigoted or milking other people's bigotries. I didn't make those sorts of 'gaffes' ever because I'm not bigoted toward women, Mexicans or Muslims. If you aren't bigoted, you don't need an advisor telling you not to say bigoted things.
You keep citing the Democrats you know as if they are representative of a movement related to this year's campaign. They sound to me like they are representative of a multi-generational very slow movement of New England conservatives from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Very slow because their equally conservative ancestors were Democratic stalwarts when the Party was quite conservative on social issues and saved their leftish economic policies for white working-class men. Also slow because they are uncomfortable with the evangelism that has a strong influence in the Republican Party and because they have an inking that Republican Party is not very friendly for the working class either, but they are doing a better job of selling themselves to the white working class than the dems are.

The things you say that 'Democrats you know' are thinking this year do not match what Democrats in general are thinking this year.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #683 on: April 15, 2016, 07:04:09 AM »

Responding here because it's more appropriate to the thread

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?
Emily - she was not just a member, but the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College in the late 60's while the country was still reeling from JFK, MLK, and RFK being assassinated, anti-war demonstrations and race riots in larger cities.  

That is not unimportant. During her formation at home, the party which moved her was the Republican party.  One does not seek an office in college unless there is both a background and commitment. Children are highly influenced by the political chatter in a home and they tend to carry those values as adults, and vote that party as well when they come of age.

That is just dismissive to use the "it was 50 years ago" defense.  And it explains why the Republicans won't completely freak out if she is elected. They can "work with her."  One commentator about a week or so ago on ABC Sunday, suggested that the Republicans just let Hillary "have the White House" and prepare for the 2020 election to defeat her.  

Just let her "have The White House?  Seriously.    

First - another lol for Trump 'articulating' anything.
To the points above: honestly, this sort of point is the sort that supports the 'vast right wing conspiracy' argument and weakens all the Hillary is some sort of behind-the-scenes mastermind arguments because it's so completely absurd and wrong.
Emily - Whether you like or hate him, Trump is a force to be reckoned with. And, Sanders, as well, calling her out on her speech fees.  She got nearly a quarter of a mil from Verizon. That came out as the East Coast Verizon workers are on strike.  

And this "vast right wing conspiracy" is the rhetoric that Hillary has been hiding behind.  Benghazi is not a conspiracy generated by Republicans or Independents.  Hillary's disregard of security protocol is not a "right wing conspiracy." It is dishonesty. Those are personal actions are indefensible.  

A "right wing conspiracy" is at the tip of her lips ready to spew when she has nothing else.  It is the "dog ate my homework" defense.  

Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    Wink
Nonsense.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #684 on: April 15, 2016, 07:05:00 AM »


Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    Wink

That is ridiculous. The DNC favors Clinton because she's a long-time faithful Democrat, while Sanders isn't a registered Democrat even now, but an independent who is running for their nomination. She is and has long been fundraising for the party; he is fundraising for his own campaign.

Of course it helps tick a box in terms of her gender, just like Republicans had been thrilled at the idea of running Rubio as a young, energetic, attractive minority (who just happened to be a terrible candidate), or Palin (who happened to be one of the dumbest public figures I've ever seen), etc. Both parties want to be seen as diverse and inclusive. But the reason the Democratic party backs Clinton so strongly isn't gender bias. It's allegiance and it's money.
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.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #685 on: April 15, 2016, 07:39:02 AM »


Sexism cuts both ways.  The DNC is blocking Bernie because they want a "woman" at any price.  Insisting the party have a woman, rather than the best party candidate, who could be a man, is sexism as against men.    Wink

That is ridiculous. The DNC favors Clinton because she's a long-time faithful Democrat, while Sanders isn't a registered Democrat even now, but an independent who is running for their nomination. She is and has long been fundraising for the party; he is fundraising for his own campaign.

Of course it helps tick a box in terms of her gender, just like Republicans had been thrilled at the idea of running Rubio as a young, energetic, attractive minority (who just happened to be a terrible candidate), or Palin (who happened to be one of the dumbest public figures I've ever seen), etc. Both parties want to be seen as diverse and inclusive. But the reason the Democratic party backs Clinton so strongly isn't gender bias. It's allegiance and it's money.

Captain - Hillary is no more a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  But they are running on the Democratic ticket for electability.  You are not "vetted" to join a party, you only have to "sign-up and declare your affiliation" at the polls or at city hall.  Neither is as diverse as they would project.  DNC is behind her because that is the deal that was made in 2008 when she was passed-over for Obama.  Both parties engage in horse-trading.  

Rubio made some fatal mistakes at the end by "engaging Trump" returning the same rhetoric, and tone, and he may have been "used" by the party.  And, it backfired.

It was self-sabotage and served to clear the way for someone more closely connected with the Republican old-school narrative such as Kasich, who was lower in the polls for a long time, and now looks at a plan B for the Republican party.  Rubio is keeping his delegates and who knows what will happen with those commitments? It surely is an interesting election season.   Wink
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 07:46:14 AM by filledeplage » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #686 on: April 15, 2016, 07:47:57 AM »


Captain - Hillary is no more a died-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  

Clinton became a Democrat in the late '60s and has raised ludicrous sums of money for that party in the subsequent decades.

Sanders is not a Democrat even now and does not raise funds for the party.

The party supports her because she's the obvious partisan choice.
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.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #687 on: April 15, 2016, 08:04:34 AM »


Captain - Hillary is no more a died-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  

Clinton became a Democrat in the late '60s and has raised ludicrous sums of money for that party in the subsequent decades.

Sanders is not a Democrat even now and does not raise funds for the party.

The party supports her because she's the obvious partisan choice.
Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. That was around 1977.  So it is a mixed message mission she was sending.  Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #688 on: April 15, 2016, 08:07:24 AM »

Please stop picking out things that are generally true of both parties and of US politicians in general and implying that they are concerns for one candidate only.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #689 on: April 15, 2016, 08:08:40 AM »


Captain - Hillary is no more a died-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  

Clinton became a Democrat in the late '60s and has raised ludicrous sums of money for that party in the subsequent decades.

Sanders is not a Democrat even now and does not raise funds for the party.

The party supports her because she's the obvious partisan choice.
Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. That was around 1977.  So it is a mixed message mission she was sending.  Wink

Not unless you believe parties' rhetoric, which I do not. Clinton has never been a lefty, despite what Republicans like to say. She has been somewhat progressive on some issues, but basically pro-business all along. She, and Bill, were transformative forces in the Democratic party in terms of fundraising from the elites as well as in triangulating positions. So I'll repeat: she is the obvious choice for the Democratic party because she has been prominent in the party for decades and raised unbelievable amounts of money for them. Her opponent is not a member of that party and has not raised money for it. It's really pretty simple.
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: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #690 on: April 15, 2016, 08:16:05 AM »

Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #691 on: April 15, 2016, 08:21:44 AM »

Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.

Aside from some cultural things like gay marriage, I'd say the Republicans of the '80s and early '90s are Democrats of today...

Your point is absolutely right, though. First of all, people's political positions evolve all the time, maybe from their own situations their experiences, the world around them. There's nothing nefarious or untrustworthy about it. And second, parties change to maintain their popularity and control, so even if a person remains constant, the party may leave or come to him. To my point earlier in this thread, how many Republicans have said the party left them? Virtually the entirety of my state's (Minnesota) retired Republican lawmakers have at best expressed serious dissatisfaction with that party since the Tea Party's nonsense began, and quite a few have simply left it. Whether Tom Horner, who ran as an independent for governor against Gov. Dayton, or former congressman Vin Weber, or former Sen. Norm Coleman, or former Gov. Arne Carlson, the message is displeasure-to-abandonment about how that party has run into its crazy corner.
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: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #692 on: April 15, 2016, 08:28:01 AM »

Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
Indeed. I worked for Harkin in '92. Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party right away from any remaining shreds of liberalism. Now it can be a bit progressive, but not in the least liberal.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #693 on: April 15, 2016, 08:36:47 AM »

Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   Wink 

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #694 on: April 15, 2016, 08:39:03 AM »


But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink

I'll post it again, just to be sure this statement you keep repeating is challenged: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/trump_democrats_are_a_myth.html
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: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #695 on: April 15, 2016, 08:41:17 AM »

Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   Wink 

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink
Again, on both points, I think your views reflect a very particular New England micro culture.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #696 on: April 15, 2016, 08:44:02 AM »


Captain - Hillary is no more a died-in-the-wool Democrat with her early formative background as a young Republican party leader, than Bernie is.  

Clinton became a Democrat in the late '60s and has raised ludicrous sums of money for that party in the subsequent decades.

Sanders is not a Democrat even now and does not raise funds for the party.

The party supports her because she's the obvious partisan choice.
Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. That was around 1977.  So it is a mixed message mission she was sending.  Wink

Not unless you believe parties' rhetoric, which I do not. Clinton has never been a lefty, despite what Republicans like to say. She has been somewhat progressive on some issues, but basically pro-business all along. She, and Bill, were transformative forces in the Democratic party in terms of fundraising from the elites as well as in triangulating positions. So I'll repeat: she is the obvious choice for the Democratic party because she has been prominent in the party for decades and raised unbelievable amounts of money for them. Her opponent is not a member of that party and has not raised money for it. It's really pretty simple.
Next week in NY will be telling.  Bernie is a native New Yorker.  If she raised money for that party, that should not determine whether she gets "the nod."  There were many hard feelings from 2008 where many women who supported her back then (myself included) find that eight years later, that now that is impossible.  

Many people raise big dough for both sides.  Some big donor bankrolled John Edward's during that bad scandal he was involved in while a candidate.  And she is pro-business but getting big union money so there needs to be a balance when it comes down to policy.  The union people are part of her ground game.  She cannot be seen to have thrown them under the bus for the sake of a business that is not worker-friendly.  

Conventional election politics as usual are out the window.   Wink
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #697 on: April 15, 2016, 08:45:33 AM »

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink

I think The Captain has done a good job at challenging that point but even if we were to accept it, I'd be curious as to whom these Dems believe have been trying to "force a more liberal agenda upon them" since just about every leader has moved the party further to the right.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #698 on: April 15, 2016, 08:46:46 AM »

Also, I don't see how Clinton could not be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after being a young Republican in the 1960s. After all, the Republicans of the 1960s are pretty much the Democrats of today and that's been the case going back to the early 90s.
CSM - being brought up in a political party is very much akin to being bought up in a certain religion and with the history of workplace/ethnic oppression that would be beaten (not literally of course) into you.  And, it was as though the Dems could do no wrong because they were not the party of "the oppressor."  Families would vote as "a block."  That is neighborhood politics.  As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

It is like "imprinting" the party message. I am not sure she can escape that. As things heat up more I suspect that the researchers will release that kind of info into the fray.   Wink 

But, I think you are correct on the ideology of the old days migrating to the other side.  But many of the Dems are rejecting the party leaders trying for force a more liberal agenda upon them.  Wink
Again, on both points, I think your views reflect a very particular New England micro culture.

Think that other parts of the country don't have families voting as a block?  LOL

Most families impart their religious beliefs alongside a political ideology.  
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #699 on: April 15, 2016, 08:46:58 AM »


Conventional election politics as usual are out the window.   Wink

Not really. There are cycles of "insurgencies" in which people get really pissed at the incessant realities of governments failing them. Some minor changes are made, mostly in tenor and messaging, and things go on with the two major parties more or less having their way, especially once we're in the off-years. The details may be unconventional and somewhat unpredictable at the time, but with a little distance it will all be obvious. As always.
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.
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.715 seconds with 22 queries.