2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What if "the truth of what ought to be done" is really not "slightly" either way, but actually more radical than that? Like . . . what if the "truth" is just on the side of a farther left candidate in terms of social policy and even economic policy. The moderate middle is still pretty . . . reactionary, in some people's estimation.

I'm not saying what *should* be done, I'm saying part of the president's job is to keep the rest of government in check, specifically the House (as the American people have a long tradition of electing opposing parties to the presidency and Congress). He's one man with a lot of power to negate the radical ideas that often come out of Congress, which is elected by small groups of people and tends to be more polarized as a result. Our presidents tend to be more centric because it requires a lot of people from varied backgrounds to help him/her win an election. That's a good thing, as it slows down bad ideas and prevents populism.

 

If the president is a populist with an aligned Congress, we're ****ed. Sure, some good ideas may be implemented... But we're going to see a lot more bad ideas than good come out of that situation. Even when this happens and good things come of it - Lincoln, FDR - the country teeters on the brink of some far-reaching, terrible policy (both presidents frequently abused their power, thankfully they also happened to be good, decent men of conscience... And I'm not a fan of hoping and praying a man with too much power will retain his common decency).

[nicksaviking]

 

Okay, here's something I've been curious about this whole time ... Ted Cruz ... where's the 'birther outcry' on him? Seriously. He wasn't born in this country. His citizenship is listed as dual. Isn't it a 'law' that the president must be born in this country? I think it's time to rethink that law, but for now, that's what it is. There was outcry, huge outcry, that Obama wasn't born in this country. He did prove that he was, but still. Where's the outcry for Cruz not being born in this country? And why/how can he run if this is still the law?

 

Oh, Trump has been going nuts on this issue the last week or so.

[Squirrel]

 

Oh, Trump has been going nuts on this issue the last week or so.

Ack! Please! No one say GMTA to me! I need to be cleansed!

[nicksaviking]

 

Ack! Please! No one say GMTA to me! I need to be cleansed!

 

Trump's going to need a running mate, and who knows what his social and economic positions will be next month. They truly could be anything.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Trump's going to need a running mate, and who knows what his social and economic positions will be next month. They truly could be anything.

 

I think he goes with Jerry Springer.

[Squirrel]

 

I think he goes with Jerry Springer.

Sarah Palin.

[Squirrel]

Oy ... Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump today ... dumb and dumber.

[drjim]

 

On Trump supporters, as though this was surprising (though it is nice that there is some detail here about this):

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

 

The authoritarian tendencies in many, many people also will point toward Clinton.

It would be nice if there were a rejection of both.

 

I see "authoritarian" as way too loaded sociological nonsense.

 

Here is the best thing I have read on Trump to date: 

 

http://theweek.com/articles/599577/how-obscure-adviser-pat-buchanan-predicted-wild-trump-campaign-1996

 

I have absolutely no love for Trump, but I am more sympathetic towards his supporters by the day. A generation (moving on two and three) of a substantial subset in our country that has been continually screwed by the political elite.

[Shane Wahl]

"Sociological nonsense?" I am not sure what you mean. That's not to say that the article you posted isn't good. It really is.

 

Still, though, something else is going on with many of these supporters. I will refrain from going too far down the path of what I really think, however.

[TheLeviathan]

I see "authoritarian" as way too loaded sociological nonsense.

 

Here is the best thing I have read on Trump to date: 

 

http://theweek.com/articles/599577/how-obscure-adviser-pat-buchanan-predicted-wild-trump-campaign-1996

 

I have absolutely no love for Trump, but I am more sympathetic towards his supporters by the day. A generation (moving on two and three) of a substantial subset in our country that has been continually screwed by the political elite.

Damn, that was an interesting read.

[mikecgrimes]

 

"Sociological nonsense?" I am not sure what you mean. That's not to say that the article you posted isn't good. It really is.

 

Still, though, something else is going on with many of these supporters. I will refrain from going too far down the path of what I really think, however.

 

First of all a large portion of his crowd is non supporters, you can literally hear the booing over the cheering.  Second his supporters seem to be really dumb, and not the I'm sick of it I'm just voting Trump dumb but the I can't spell Caucus wouldn't know how to google when they are, and don't even think they are important dumb.  I could easily see him under 15% in Iowa, then good luck convincing his supporters it isn't over, it's not like the Ron Paul crowd who showed up anyways.  Another thing to keep in mind supporters of any other candidate who might be busy on caucus day will make a point of showing up to defeat him, if his supporters don't show up at well beyond average #'s he will fall short.  Primary states might be a different story, but he could easily lose all the momentum out of Iowa.  I also think his crowd might not be as real as it seems, when you aren't airing ads you have a lot of $50 bills lying around, and the reality is his rallies are not being held in the biggest buildings in the world, these are minor league hockey rinks and college arenas I  bet you couldn't fit 8,000 people in most of these places, and that's before you make the stage way bigger then it needs to be, open up a few rows for security purposes and make sure to allow as many protesters as possible in.  It wouldn't take many paid seat fillers to create the appearance of a can't miss event.  Think of how he built his business, it wasn't about actually making money it was about the appearance of making money.  Now that Limbaugh Glen Beck and others have turned on him it's all over.

[TheLeviathan]

Man, you are in a serious state of denial.

 

Still waiting on the source of those polls too.

[drjim]

 

"Sociological nonsense?" I am not sure what you mean. That's not to say that the article you posted isn't good. It really is.

 

Still, though, something else is going on with many of these supporters. I will refrain from going too far down the path of what I really think, however.

 

I think "authoritarian" is a very loaded phrase meant for a certain reaction. I think there are other, less menacing words that would describe the same type of individuals.

 

I am especially biased though, just never been a big fan of academic discipline of sociology and the way that it collects data and comes to conclusions.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think "authoritarian" is a very loaded phrase meant for a certain reaction. I think there are other, less menacing words that would describe the same type of individuals.

 

I am especially biased though, just never been a big fan of academic discipline of sociology and the way that it collects data and comes to conclusions.

 

Other than the whole "we've been studying this since WW2" thing, sure, it is made up. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it not true. Do you have any data showing how wrong all these studies are?

[drjim]

Other than the whole "we've been studying this since WW2" thing, sure, it is made up. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it not true. Do you have any data showing how wrong all these studies are?

I don't, but by the standards of sociology I could certainly whip some up right quick.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Man, you are in a serious state of denial.

 

Still waiting on the source of those polls too.

 

I get it you don't think it's true.  Let me be really clear on this I don't care.  Very few of these polls break it down in any real way but the few that have have made it clear that Trump is attracting support from non Republicans.  I'm sorry that when I found this information I didn't worry that people that don't want to do their own research might consider me to be a liar because again I don't care.  I'll have a prediction on Iowa in a few days.  I expect to be very accurate as I usually am on those sort of things.  These things are really hard to poll with any predictive power because it comes down to turnout.  I can tell you who will turnout and why but if you don't want to hear that I guess we have to wait for the caucus night results.  I might have a pro Cruz bias, but I know I don't have a pro Jeb Bush bias, and he's going to do very good in Iowa.

[drjim]

 

I get it you don't think it's true.  Let me be really clear on this I don't care.  Very few of these polls break it down in any real way but the few that have have made it clear that Trump is attracting support from non Republicans.  I'm sorry that when I found this information I didn't worry that people that don't want to do their own research might consider me to be a liar because again I don't care.  I'll have a prediction on Iowa in a few days.  I expect to be very accurate as I usually am on those sort of things.  These things are really hard to poll with any predictive power because it comes down to turnout.  I can tell you who will turnout and why but if you don't want to hear that I guess we have to wait for the caucus night results.  I might have a pro Cruz bias, but I know I don't have a pro Jeb Bush bias, and he's going to do very good in Iowa.

 

If you are right on Bush that would radically change this race. Or at least the media perception of it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I get it you don't think it's true.  Let me be really clear on this I don't care.  Very few of these polls break it down in any real way but the few that have have made it clear that Trump is attracting support from non Republicans.  I'm sorry that when I found this information I didn't worry that people that don't want to do their own research might consider me to be a liar because again I don't care.  

 

My own research?  I've tried multiple different searches and nothing of the sort pops up.  What polls "break it down in a real way"?  If this is a real claim and not just some junk you made up to back up your opinion, it shouldn't be so hard to find.  So where should I be looking?  

 

Look, I don't think you're a liar....but you're delusional about who is supporting Trump.  But by all means, point me to the polls I should be looking at.

[nicksaviking]

I get it you don't think it's true.  Let me be really clear on this I don't care.  Very few of these polls break it down in any real way but the few that have have made it clear that Trump is attracting support from non Republicans.  I'm sorry that when I found this information I didn't worry that people that don't want to do their own research might consider me to be a liar because again I don't care.  I'll have a prediction on Iowa in a few days.  I expect to be very accurate as I usually am on those sort of things.  These things are really hard to poll with any predictive power because it comes down to turnout.  I can tell you who will turnout and why but if you don't want to hear that I guess we have to wait for the caucus night results.  I might have a pro Cruz bias, but I know I don't have a pro Jeb Bush bias, and he's going to do very good in Iowa.

The only major non-Republican support Trump is getting is from apolitical individuals.I don't mean Independant voters, I mean folks that don't follow politics but enjoy being part of pop-culture and discussing reality shows.

 

Those folks don't actually make it out to vote.

[mikecgrimes]

 

My own research?  I've tried multiple different searches and nothing of the sort pops up.  What polls "break it down in a real way"?  If this is a real claim and not just some junk you made up to back up your opinion, it shouldn't be so hard to find.  So where should I be looking?  

 

Look, I don't think you're a liar....but you're delusional about who is supporting Trump.  But by all means, point me to the polls I should be looking at.

 

I could go through every poll on Real Clear politics until I found it again, I don't  really have time for that given most polls don't have 10 page reports on their data to find those details.  The point is Democrats are the one's putting him over the top.  Just heard it again from Joe Scarbrough as I'm typing.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

The only major non-Republican support Trump is getting is from apolitical individuals.I don't mean Independant voters, I mean folks that don't follow politics but enjoy being part of pop-culture and discussing reality shows.

Those folks don't actually make it out to vote.

 

Agreed, which is a major reason I'm confident he will fall flat.  It's important to note that polls on primaries and Caucuses are pretty worthless, about the only thing they can tell you is trends, but often times even that is missed.  I don't know for sure but pollsters try to shape the results on what they think is happening and are probably adding to many non traditional Republicans into their model, that's something I can't really count on other then I know they aren't going the other way.

[TheLeviathan]

I could go through every poll on Real Clear politics until I found it again, I don't really have time for that given most polls don't have 10 page reports on their data to find those details. The point is Democrats are the one's putting him over the top. Just heard it again from Joe Scarbrough as I'm typing.

If you have to dig that deep, perhaps the explanation is that poll is obscure. Non-political people does not equal "democrat".

 

And what support I do see that it is "democrats" is in poor Appalachian people who identify as having Republican stances but are still registered democrats. So, basically, democrats in name only.

[mikecgrimes]

 

If you have to dig that deep, perhaps the explanation is that poll is obscure. Non-political people does not equal "democrat".

And what support I do see that it is "democrats" is in poor Appalachian people who identify as having Republican stances but are still registered democrats. So, basically, democrats in name only.

 

I think we can all insult any trump supporter, that's not really the point, but yes his Democrat supporters are also stupid, his Democrat supporters are also mostly racist.  And on polls posting a detailed report does not make a poll obscure, in fact every poll does it, some choose not to publish it or make it easily available.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think we can all insult any trump supporter, that's not really the point, but yes his Democrat supporters are also stupid, his Democrat supporters are also mostly racist.  And on polls posting a detailed report does not make a poll obscure, in fact every poll does it, some choose not to publish it or make it easily available.

 

What would make it obscure isn't the detail, it's the fact that it's different.

 

The people Trump is pulling in are still voting on Republican platform (anti-immigration primarily), so any distinction about them being registered as Democrats is pretty meaningless.  

 

And even if you want to still be in denial about that, the truth is that all the other candidates (your chosen one included) are trying to match the very same rhetoric Trump is using to gain those people for themselves.  So like it or not, these people are Republicans that the Republican candidates are courting for votes.  I guess your party has just shifted to absorb them out of desperation.

[PseudoSABR]

There's nothing about Trump's platform that would appeal to people that actually have values in line with the Democratic Party; there might be some Democrats that are willing to participate in the Republican primaries/caucuses to help elect a defeatable candidate, but Democrats are typically less-engaged with the political process so I think the number trying to game the system is really low.

 

Like it or not, Trump's platform plays to deep-seated very right wing values like nationalism and protectionism.  If "conservatives" don't want Trump as their candidate, they need only to look at whom they've built a coalition with over the past decade.  As the party and the conservative media lurch to the right, riling up anger in the masses, to maintain their ranks, they left open the possibility for a person to tap directly into that anger and leave the party platform and traditional (moderate) conservative values behind.   Reasonable Republicans have been too willing to embolden the fringe or their party to maintain political control, and this is the inevitable result.   Trump/Palin 2016. 

[nicksaviking]

Bob Dole is now going after Cruz. Seems the party has now decided that Cruz is more dangerous than Trump, as Trump is a sideshow but if Cruz starts winning the primaries, he's going to continue with his lunacy well beyond 2016.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/politics/bob-dole-ted-cruz-donald-trump/index.html

 

"One leading GOP strategist involved in the effort put it this way: "If Trump loses we wash our hands of him. Cruz will think we need to be more crazy and be a long-term nightmare."

 

That's an unnamed GOP strategist, not the other side of the aisle.

 

I'm glad to hear that, at least it sounds like the level heads of the party know they can't go nuclear on social issues and still hope to be relevant again. Someone's making an effort in there to coral the Tea Party damage and bring the party back to within shouting distance of the middle.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Bob Dole is now going after Cruz. Seems the party has now decided that Cruz is more dangerous than Trump, as Trump is a sideshow but if Cruz starts winning the primaries, he's going to continue with his lunacy well beyond 2016.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/politics/bob-dole-ted-cruz-donald-trump/index.html

 

"One leading GOP strategist involved in the effort put it this way: "If Trump loses we wash our hands of him. Cruz will think we need to be more crazy and be a long-term nightmare."

 

That's an unnamed GOP strategist, not the other side of the aisle.

 

I'm glad to hear that, at least it sounds like the level heads of the party know they can't go nuclear on social issues and still hope to be relevant again. Someone's making an effort in there to coral the Tea Party damage and bring the party back to within shouting distance of the middle.

I don't think it will really matter what the level-heads of the party say, as they've hitched their wagon to this inflammatory-base-motivating rhetoric for too long, where anything that appears less inflammatory will be labeled as conciliatory, cowardly, and weak.   I don't see how Republicans can expect to fire up their current base and not also elect someone who best mirrors that fire, as crazy and impractical as they might be.

 

[nicksaviking]

 

I don't think it will really matter what the level-heads of the party say, as they've hitched their wagon to this inflammatory-base-motivating rhetoric for too long, where anything that appears less inflammatory will be labeled as conciliatory, cowardly, and weak.   I don't see how Republicans can expect to fire up their current base and not also elect someone who best mirrors that fire, as crazy and impractical as they might be.

 

You're probably right. I'm just hoping for the days when electing a George Bush Sr, Bob Dole or John McCain (the original, not the post Bush era version) didn't seem like it would risk re-setting socio-economic issues back 50 years.

 

Those guys weren't radicals, and they were pretty recently relevant. Heck, they are all still alive in fact.

[TheLeviathan]

If this pushback on Cruz sustains.,...maybe there is hope for a rebirth of the Republican Party towards sanity. Not holding my breath, but everyone should be rooting for it.

[Badsmerf]

Who is the alternative? I'm still voting Paul, even though my vote will not make a difference. I almost decided to vote Sanders, I just can't get on board with him while I have other options.

 

Bring from Iowa, the best candidate to me U.S. senator Grassley. Supporter of alternative energy, on the finance comity of the Senate, advocate if the constitution. If he were in this race, I believe he would be killing it.... Especially in Iowa.