US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

E) I bet the drunker she got, the more uptight and volatile she'd get - she clearly prizes self control to a fault, and thus, overthinks everything.  People like that that bad get less fun drunk, usually.  Also? - retarded criterion.

[Rusty Edge]

Uh true. I usually say that drunk lets the real you out, so...

Where was I ? Primary results.

With the vote count in the 90s, they have called Michigan for Sanders,50% to 48% and Mississippi for Clinton 83% to 16%.

GOP Michigan
[Sleezebag] 37%
Kassich 24 %and Cruz 25% fighting for 2nd.
Rubio 9% a distant last place.

GOP Mississippi
[Sleezebag] 47%
Cruz   37%
Kasich 9%
Rubio  5%

GOP Idaho- 37% counted.
Cruz  42%
[Sleezebag] 29%
Rubio   18%
Kassich  7%

Sanders in Michigan is a big upset. His hall is empty. Apparently he didn't expect it.

Also, Michigan is an open primary state. Some Hilary supporters voted for [Sleezebag], thinking strategically for the general election. Some Republicans may have voted for Bernie for the same reason. Or maybe out of Hillary hatred and a desire to spend her money.

One of the analysts pointed out that it's starting to look like Hillary is strong in the red states ( which she won't carry in the fall anyway ) and Bernie is bringing it in the purple/swing states

[Rusty Edge]

Yes, I think global trade is a good thing on the whole. It creates interconnectedness, and is a cause for peace. Our economy depends upon it. So do the Clintons.

Bernie and [Sleezebag] are strongly against it.  So too, apparently is much of America.
If the conventions/ super delegates  manage to deny one, will their supporters feel cheated and shift to the other outsider out of rage and frustration, bent on shaking things up?

Or will they get mad and go home?

I guess it's possible that they will remain politically engaged in their respective parties. I guess we'll have to see how nicely or ugly things play out.

**********************************************************************************
Here's something interesting-

Supposedly there was a CNN story that Rubio was going to drop out before his home state of Florida primary. That makes no sense to me, and the campaign vehemently denied it.

The thing is, according to the Rubio camp,  the Cruz campaign in Hawaii is supposed to have circulated a robocall announcing the news, as a dirty trick.

This sounds strangely familiar/similar to the dirty trick the Cruz campaign used so effectively against Ben Carson in the Iowa Caucus, for which [Sleezebag] calls Cruz "Lying Ted" .

My wife points out that as dirty tricks go, it would be the perfect one for the [Sleezebag] campaign, provided they could pull it off secretly. Take out Rubio and blame Cruz in one fell swoop.

************************************************************************

So far Hawaii looks like [Sleezebag], Cruz, Rubio and Kasich.
Rubio could finish the night without a single delegate. He's looking kinda weak right now.

[Buster's Uncle]

The proprietor of that very liberal popular culture blog I've mentioned following and sometimes commenting on has gone into adamant Bernie should quit mode...

[Unorthodox]

The proprietor of that very liberal popular culture blog I've mentioned following and sometimes commenting on has gone into adamant Bernie should quit mode...

I think it's fairly clear he's not going to WIN the nomination, outright, so I don't know why he stays in, necessarily.  (but I could say the same about a lot of the republicans)

More my lack of understanding the advantages of continuing a losing campaign just to make a point than anything else. 

[Buster's Uncle]

I believe I've already talked about my take on that; if, as I assume, he ran for President not expecting to win, but hoping for a Perot Effect -make some noise and get his issues out there and force the other candidates to treat them seriously- then the more delegates he turns up at the convention with, the better.  He can get some planks of the party platform and go home - or more likely endorse HRC and campaign for her, considering the alternative.

He's done well enough, considering, already that he's going to be a Very Important Man for the rest of his political career, rather then a Presidential Loser.  There's a fairly empty niche on the left of the Democratic party to step into as a leader...

-Also, I understand that his campaign funding is in good shape, and if I'm wrong and he ran thinking he could win - she could drop dead.  She could get caught with her girlfriend.  She might snap and poop on the stage in the middle of a speech.  Anything might happen, and he doesn't get to be President if he quits - why back off in the investment he's made now?

And I'd argue that he does her more good than harm just by being there and giving her someone to debate while the right's getting the lion's share of the coverage with freaks and clowns.  The interestingness balance is terribly in their favor as it is.  It would be worse without any hint of a horse race to hype on the left...

[Buster's Uncle]

Yes, I think global trade is a good thing on the whole. It creates interconnectedness, and is a cause for peace. Our economy depends upon it. So do the Clintons.

Bernie and [Sleezebag] are strongly against it.  So too, apparently is much of America.

This dances up to something I had intended to talk about WRT free trade.  It's a diplomatic issue/tool and has profound national security implications.  Those are not simple subjects with simple answers, to say the least.

Free trade, you know, is a fairly modern phenomenon of having the tech and resources to transport goods from buyer to seller across the world, and it's currently utterly dependent on the Middle East not getting into a nuclear war or something.  If bicycles are essential to our way of life and all the bicycle manufacturing has gone to Mexico or Indonesia, the US has some considerable innate power over those places if it's both, because they come to depend on the money coming back, and one of those places has enormous leverage over us if only one place is supplying the bikes we must have.

Free trade gives both sides a lot of skin in the game motivating them to want peaceful relations.  Absolute free trade, leading to overspecialization, absent the threat of ending, has no diplomatic power and sets up a fragile system of interdependence that could be destroyed by any number of disasters, manmade and otherwise.  Absolute protectionism/embargo -Cuba, for instance; we haven't had any economic leverage with a strategically important neighbor since the late 50s- is not good a business strategy, to make ourselves what we can buy cheaper.

-We'll never be safe if we don't make some of our own bicycles, but never be rich if we spend too much making all our bikes.  And either extreme denies us diplomatic leverage as a nation...

(This is not even getting into centrally important issues of the dangers/instability of laissez-faire economics versus taxing and regulating big business clear out of the country.)

Even I, something of a labor radical who's not exaggerating a lot when I say the Bossmen want to make us all slaves (like the comedian says, minimum wage is an employer's way of saying "If we could pay you less, we would") admit that policies that make business and profit too much of a challenge to pursue are a fast rack to being a very poor nation.  Trickle-down economics are a lie, but so is straight socialism.

Somewhere in between is the best balance, surely.  Probably wise to lean towards the free trade side, but regulate the financial markets sensibly to promote stability - and work hard on keeping the big money out of politics, lest we stop even pretending not to be a plutocracy...

[Buster's Uncle]

-Also, I understand that his campaign funding is in good shape, and if I'm wrong and he ran thinking he could win - she could drop dead.  She could get caught with her girlfriend.  She might snap and poop on the stage in the middle of a speech.  Anything might happen, and he doesn't get to be President if he quits - why back off in the investment he's made now?

And I'd argue that he does her more good than harm just by being there and giving her someone to debate while the right's getting the lion's share of the coverage with freaks and clowns.  The interestingness balance is terribly in their favor as it is.  It would be worse without any hint of a horse race to hype on the left...

Two thing to elaborate on here:

No, I don't think she has a girlfriend - I wouldn't die of shock, but I think she's actually in love with her (horrible) husband (who is going to make the best First Lady ever).

Sanders has run a REALLY impressively non-negative campaign against an opponent incredibly inviting of attack - he's quite inspirational to a largely-disaffected left, and he can very plausibly turn that energized base out to her advantage later.  All the pieces are right there to pick up and accomplish a lot of his goals and still fight whatever clown the right pukes up, very effectively, the Huckster being a terrifically negatively energizing figure.

[Unorthodox]

I've always viewed their continued marriage as one of convenience, to be honest.   

I wouldn't be shocked by anything on that front, and don't particularly care about any president's bedroom preferences.   

[Buster's Uncle]

I'll try to find if the 60 Minutes interview light-falling incident is on YouTube later, not that it matters...

[Rusty Edge]

After I shut down for the night I learned that [Sleezebag] has two court cases ( one is about [Sleezebag] University ) in play with the potential for criminal indictments.

I was horrified by the thought that potentially, between now and inauguration day, either Clinton or [Sleezebag] or both could be indicted. Leaving us the other.... or else Sanders or Christie?

This is really no way to run a country. Am I supposed to trust in the fact that so far both have been good at bending the law without breaking it enough to get busted?

******************************************
WHY STAY IN A RACE YOU DON'T EXPECT TO WIN?

Yes. The Perot effect! You make the case convincingly, and you force results. In that case a balanced budget.  Too bad we didn't also adopt Perot's ideas for lobbyist reform, and for the pilot program approach to health care reforms.

In Bernie's case, assuming he's as sincere as he seems, there are a number of worthy objectives for staying in the race, even if he can't win.

1) Making the Democratic Party  FDR's party again. By changing the goals and ideals and adding young members.

2) Making the reversal of Citizen's United either by SCOTUS or constitutional amendment a party priority. In the long run, the current ruling makes politics about money rather than the will of the majority of the people.

3) Getting some daylight between Hillary and Wall Street. If you believe Wall Street is evil, you don't want your party's president involved with them.


4) Getting any of the following adopted as Democratic Party dogma- free college tuition, full black employment, $15/hour minimum wage, Medicare for all [EDITED TO ADD expanded Social Security and a $trillion in infrastructure spending ].


Dream the Impossible Dream!

Obviously, I don't Feel the Bern ( except for #2 ), but I can relate on the level of a desire to give the Republicans an ideological makeover.

[Rusty Edge]

So, is there any real traction outside of Utah for Romney putting on a superman cape and saving the day?  (it's all I hear locally)

Fascinating.

Well, people will listen to him speak, but that's about it. He tends to be seen as the author of Obamacare. He's also the Loser who re-elected  Obama.

Theocons always say that losses are because the candidate wasn't enough of a Christian Conservative.

I saw some recent Romney poll results, and he was getting beaten badly.


Presidential as the guy may be, he's relegated to senior statesman. Well, maybe he'll be Ambassador Romney someday.

I forgot to mention -
There's the party split as to where to place the blame. Some blame the Christian Conservatives and their well publicized remarks, such as rape pregnancies being gifts from God as a millstone around Romney's neck.

[vonbach]

Quote from: Rusty Edge on Yesterday at 06:53:24 AM
Yes, I think global trade is a good thing on the whole. It creates interconnectedness, and is a cause for peace. Our economy depends upon it. So do the Clintons.

Bernie and [Sleezebag] are strongly against it.  So too, apparently is much of America.

Of course most people in the USA are against it we're the ones paying for it.
Its strip mining jobs and livelihoods for short term profits for a few.
Interconnectedness also means if one domino falls they all fall. Its one of the
reasons global trade was avoided in the past.

[Buster's Uncle]

In Bernie's case, assuming he's as sincere as he seems

Rusty, in case bin has not given up on us, we seem to be in agreement that Sanders has run a classy campaign and strikes both us as, right or wrong, -see also our agreement in the other direction about Dr. Paul's personal qualities- a fellow of unusual good character for a politician running for President.

That is about the size of it, yes?  And as a conservative, do I read correctly that you find him to be a wild-haired (literally sometimes) radical, and didn't particularly WANT to find him to be a good man?  I'll certainly admit that I was surprised to discover Dr. Paul to be so admirable as a person of guts and integrity...

[Rusty Edge]

You know I hate Hillary. I loathe her for her insincerity and dishonesty. I look at her and think of lawyer and politician jokes. I do think she's clever and competent, but that combination is rather Nixonian, and potentially problematic when somebody has  actual power. ( The Libertarians say that Hillary is really just another NeoCon on foreign policy. )

On the contrary, I find Bernie to be the most sincere person in the race since Ron Paul. I think he's too idealistic to be president. He's sort of the antithesis of Hillary.

I respect Bernie for his patriotism, integrity, and his sincerity, even when I think he's at his most impractical/delusional. Well...

Maybe we're circling back to what you said about Libertarians and Communists, those systems don't fit the people we have to work with. Both Bernie and myself are  outliers to allowable opinion in the American two party system, and I think it's great that he's getting a hearing. I think it's great when I can have discussions about his ideas with millennials. What do you think would happen if the minimum wage were raised to $15? Would you get more overtime? Would it be easier to get a job than it is now?

I just wish either of the Pauls were around to call out the Republicans the way that Bernie is trying to straighten out the Democrats.


Actually I think I rather enjoy Bernie being a good guy, just so that others can see Hillary for what she is when they make those side by side comparisons!

__________________________________________________

Anyway, I believe Bernie is as sincere as he seems.

I used that as a qualifier, because otherwise the explanation for staying in the race you can't realistically expect to win is the one I gave earlier...To become a presidential contender, it's something you have to want all of your life. Normal people don't subject themselves and their families to that kind of proctoscopy and abuse. They drop out because it isn't worth it. The people that want to be president are driven. They don't give up on their life's purpose as long as they have money and supporters to carry on, in hopes that luck will intervene. Well, really, by now they don't know what else to do with their life anyway.