kuenjato Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Quick question I posed in the last thread, right before it got shut down ... what are the chances of Clinton giving Sander the VP slot, in order to unify the party? We're already seeing her adapt to the murmur from the further Left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Quick question I posed in the last thread, right before it got shut down ... what are the chances of Clinton giving Sander the VP slot, in order to unify the party? We're already seeing her adapt to the murmur from the further Left. If it looks like the Republican candidate is pretty close in terms of polling later in the race, I think the chances might be pretty good that we see something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Why do you say that? On Sabato's map there are two "R to D" leans right now with zero "D to R" ones, and the Dems should be competitive in three of the "Lean R" ones (Ohio, Penn, New Hampshire) where they'd have a good chance if the Dem candidate for President wins and has a down-ballot effect. Win all the leans dem, win all the tossups, win almost all the leans rep? Sounds like what republicans needed to do in 2010 and 2012 to win back a majority, they never did. They'll probably have 51 to 53 seats after the election since democrats don't try to win midterm elections anymore this is a situation they created for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Win all the leans dem, win all the tossups, win almost all the leans rep? Sounds like what republicans needed to do in 2010 and 2012 to win back a majority, they never did. They'll probably have 51 to 53 seats after the election since democrats don't try to win midterm elections anymore this is a situation they created for themselves. I don't think it's anywhere close to out of the question if the Dem candidate were to handily beat the Republican candidate, and I expect Dems to continue to do better down ballot in years with the White House on the line. I'm not predicting they re-take the Senate; just that it's not that far-fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Quick question I posed in the last thread, right before it got shut down ... what are the chances of Clinton giving Sander the VP slot, in order to unify the party? We're already seeing her adapt to the murmur from the further Left.Doubtful. Two old northeastern liberals? A young westerner like garcetti is far more likely, or someone to shore up Virginia Colorado or ohio. My ideal veep would be Dayton to contrast walker, but he's too old and northern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 ^I love how Krugman says something that may be empirically supported, and then pulls the bolded part completely out of his ass. Typical Sort of like Libertarians, maybe that post on this very board even, who fully endorse the US backing repressive, populace crushing dictators in our foreign policy while screaming about any state regulation put on their own lives? True lovers of liberty, them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I guess you can't easily talk about who is a true supporter of liberty if you can't define what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 I guess you can't easily talk about who is a true supporter of liberty if you can't define what it is. All the liberty, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 The Nation is to the left of me, but this article on Scott Walker is great. This guy is in politics because people that aren't friends of Scott Walker have it coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Sounds like what republicans needed to do in 2010 and 2012 to win back a majority, they never did. They'll probably have 51 to 53 seats after the election since democrats don't try to win midterm elections anymore this is a situation they created for themselves. Oh, here we go. I've not seen any evidence that what happened in 2014 is because Democrats simply gave up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 All the liberty, man. Also, Aqua Buddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Oh, here we go. I've not scene any evidence that what happened in 2014 is because Democrats simply gave up. It's like picking a scab, I can't help it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 The Nation is to the left of me, but this article on Scott Walker is great. This guy is in politics because people that aren't friends of Scott Walker have it coming. This deserves a quote :The way to understand this governor begins with the recognition that, while he has always embraced Republicanism and conservatism, his primary focus is Walkerism—the advancement of Scott Walker. Don’t look for, say, a libertarian streak in this guy, or the old right’s dubiousness about military adventurism. Walker talks a good anti-government game, but he’s been on the government payroll for 22 of his 47 years. Downsizing government isn’t really his thing; rather, he has a penchant for using it to reward friends, punish enemies, and, above all, promote his political career. In this, suggests former White House counsel and Watergate conspirator John Dean, Walker is “a double high authoritarian governor, a conservative without conscience.” That makes the boyishly affable Walker less comparable to the Republican president he claims to revere, Ronald Reagan, and much more comparable to a Republican president he never mentions. In fact, Dean began arguing several years ago, Walker is “more Nixonian than even Richard Nixon himself (the authoritarian leader with whom I was, and am, so very familiar).” Dean chooses his words in a careful, lawyerly fashion: He says not that Walker is like Nixon, but rather that he is “more Nixonian” than Nixon. The passion for politics may be similarly intense, but Nixon brought a seriousness and precision to the work of governing that Walker has never displayed. The determination to use power for political advantage may be the same, but Walker is far more focused than the 37th president ever was on making structural changes that lock in those advantages—for himself and for a party remade in his image. It’s not that Nixon wouldn’t have gone as far as Walker has gone—and is prepared to go—to do so. Instead, it’s that Walker is living in an era when Supreme Court rulings have cleared the way for multibillion-dollar campaigns and unaccountable “dark money” manipulations; an era when the old media have entered a death spiral and the new media have steered partisans into hardened information silos, making it difficult to challenge their fixed opinions; an era when both major parties attack government, even as they govern in the interests of crony capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 That would then align along the same lines. Cause the US parties are already coalitions. And the overlaps have already gotten gutted. I highly doubt that. It is around the same kind of thinking which would lead one to believe that throwing 6 dice will resulst in 1,2,3,4,5,6. A party catering for example to hispanics would probably be quite to the left considering immigration and worker rights but socially more to the right. Espacially considering religion. The agendas of those parties will be far more precisly tailored to the people their votes they want. If you take parliamentary systems it is often the case that on a specific issue the opinion changes back and forth as you move from right to left (or the other way round). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Unfortunately for republicans and evangelicals, many religious Hispanics read the bible and follow its precepts, all that Jesus behavior and Jesus sermons are the antithesis of Republican and evangelical beliefs as currently practiced. Pope Francis is a better example. That whole feed the hungry and clothe the naked and give all of your wealth to the poor and needy stuff is fairly important, not discard able as evangelicals and Republicans believe. A strong state aiding those in need is highly valued by religious Latinos, religion doesn't make them conservative as you are positing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Unfortunately for republicans and evangelicals, many religious Hispanics read the bible and follow its precepts, all that Jesus behavior and Jesus sermons are the antithesis of Republican and evangelical beliefs as currently practiced. Pope Francis is a better example. That whole feed the hungry and clothe the naked and give all of your wealth to the poor and needy stuff is fairly important, not discard able as evangelicals and Republicans believe. A strong state aiding those in need is highly valued by religious Latinos, religion doesn't make them conservative as you are positing. Read my posting, I exactly said that. (Well, I should have included social security but I kind of thought that would have been clear from the context. That I exactly meant leaning left ond economical policies and leaning probably more to the right on social policies. Which again is obvious the second you consider many are not very well off, so spending money on so to speak rich kids problems won't make sense to them. I agree with you, that pope Francis is a prime example of that. The comment of the vatican to the the gay marriage referendum in Irland was a "great defeat for humanity". My point exactly was, that if you would have more parties in the US (only really feasbile in a system with coalitions) the claim that the US politics is one-dimensional(Krugman) would be exposed as the nonsense it is. The US is forced in a one dimensiol political system, because of structural issues. The US public is far from one dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 The Iran Hearings Prove the GOP Can't Be Trusted With the Presidency If Republicans win the White House next year, they’ll almost certainly control the entire federal government. Many of them, running for president or aspiring to leadership roles in Congress, are trying to block the nuclear deal with Iran. This would be a good time for these leaders to show that they’re ready for the responsibilities of national security and foreign policy. Instead, they’re showing the opposite. Over the past several days, congressional hearings on the deal have become a spectacle of dishonesty, incomprehension, and inability to cope with the challenges of a multilateral world. When the hearings began more than a week ago, I was planning to write about the testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. But the more I watched, the more I saw that the danger in the room wasn’t coming from the deal or its administration proponents. It was coming from the interrogators. In challenging Kerry and Moniz, Republican senators and representatives offered no serious alternative. They misrepresented testimony, dismissed contrary evidence, and substituted vitriol for analysis. They seemed baffled by the idea of having to work and negotiate with other countries. I came away from the hearings dismayed by what the GOP has become in the Obama era. It seems utterly unprepared to govern. If you didn’t have time to watch the 11 hours of hearings conducted on July 23, July 28, and July 29, consider yourself lucky. Here are the lowlights of what you missed. The really scary examples: 7. Bad guys. Republicans think that because Iran is dangerous, we shouldn’t negotiate with it. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, one of the most outspoken critics of any deal, has consistently hammered this point. At the House hearing, Rep. Randy Weber of Texas repeatedly used the phrase “bad actor” to dismiss Iran and the idea of negotiating with it. Rep. Dave Trott of Michigan invoked a motto from his business career: “You can’t do a good deal with a bad guy.” Have any of these men heard of Ronald Reagan? The Soviet Union? Red China? Do they understand that bad guys are exactly the sorts of people you end up negotiating with, particularly over nuclear weapons? 8. Indifference. Republicans think it’s weak and softheaded to care what Iran thinks. At the Tuesday hearing, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania told Kerry we should demand a better deal, “and if the ayatollah doesn’t like it and doesn’t want to negotiate it, oh, ‘boo-hoo.’ We’re here for America.” Weber, speaking for others in his party, ridiculed Kerry’s concerns about Iranian distrust of the U.S.: “Me and my colleagues were up here thinking, ‘Who cares?’ ” When Kerry replied that the Iranians wouldn’t have negotiated on Weber’s terms, the congressman scoffed, “Oh, my heart pains for them.” These lawmakers don’t seem to understand that much of a negotiator’s job consists of understanding, caring about, and accommodating the other side’s concerns. 9. Winning. Graham is running for president as a foreign-policy expert. But three hours of testimony on Wednesday about the difficulties of using military force to stop Iran’s nuclear program taught him nothing. Wrapping up the hearing, Graham demanded that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter answer a simple question: “Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?” When he didn’t get the prompt answer he wanted, Graham thunderously answered the question himself: “We win!” He sounded like a football coach delivering a pep talk. The differences between football and war—what “winning” means, and what it costs—didn’t enter into his equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 So Biden is inching towards running all of my morning papers tell me. Can't say I wouldn't like to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 So Biden is inching towards running all of my morning papers tell me. Can't say I wouldn't like to see it. Really? Go home Joe, you're drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 The Nation is to the left of me, but this article on Scott Walker is great. This guy is in politics because people that aren't friends of Scott Walker have it coming.The comparisons with Nixon are interesting - Nixon ended up being forced from office as a direct result of his activities, and there is an excellent chance the same thing would happen to Walker in the highly unlikely event he somehow became POTUS.'Walkerism' create's a nightmare environment for those at the top. Put simply, this is authority outside the rule of law - nobody is safe, including the power brokers. Todays cabinet secretary is tomorrow's invisible man. Senator so-and-so's demise was an accident, and the gunfire was just figments of peoples imagination. And so on. Walkerism is automatically dangerously unstable.Also, the sheer amount of 'dark' money floating around this campaign season, combined with the unfettered greed and arrogance of the people associated with it has the potential to blow up into something major. Basically, I'm waiting for huge amounts of this dark money - hundreds of millions of dollars worth - to simply 'go missing.' As in out and out theft. Anybody here care to bet there are NOT some operatives possessing the requisite access, greed, and arrogance to do something like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.