U.S. Politics: Blame it on Canada!

[Fragile Bird]

Sorry, I had to start this thread, with Trump's response to Cruz to go back to Canada and Cruz's dilemma.

Carry on!

[Dr. Pepper]

Do you know Hillary's positions on rape and sexual assault? I just checked her web site and found them, at least in regards to sexual assault on campus. I don't see what she has to answer for in regards to her views and positions on rape and sexual harassment. And how did she "not support other women"? By not taking after Bill with a knife? Do most female voters really expect her to do so?**

And what's this "potential disaster" about Bill's past? It wasn't a disaster for him when it went down twenty years ago, but for some reason you seem to think it will be an issue for Hillary when it wasn't in 2008. Did Americans forget about Monica eight years ago, but have all of a sudden been reminded in 2016? 

I don't know why you are being so defensive about this and acting shocked that this could become a big thing.  Things are different than they were 8 years ago, the way we react to things has changed, even if only subtly.  

Look at Bill Cosby.  The man has been plagued by sexual controversy for decades and it really didn't matter.  He stayed popular.  One clever comedy sketch went up on social media and it blew up, and blew up with a generation that really shouldn't care much about Cosby anymore (hint, millennials).  His legacy is now shit.  Do you really not think that a cleverly timed and well-framed social media campaign could do the same to Bill and by association Hillary?  I think you'd be rather short sighted if you thought it couldn't happen.  It's not about whether or not HIllary should take a knife to Bill, it's about the appearance of things.  She can speak out about addressing sexual violence, but it wouldn't be hard at all for a campaign to be launched questing her position on this when she proudly puts a known and admitted sexual harasser front and center. 

The potential disaster would be that it would keep people who would vote Democratic from the polls.  I mean, I'm simply assuming you'd agree that it would be a disaster if this led to one of the Republican candidates being elected. 

[TrackerNeil]

Look at Bill Cosby.  The man has been plagued by sexual controversy for decades and it really didn't matter.  He stayed popular.  One clever comedy sketch went up on social media and it blew up, and blew up with a generation that really shouldn't care much about Cosby anymore (hint, millennials).  His legacy is now shit.  Do you really not think that a cleverly timed and well-framed social media campaign could do the same to Bill and by association Hillary?  I think you'd be rather short sighted if you thought it couldn't happen.  It's not about whether or not HIllary should take a knife to Bill, it's about the appearance of things.  She can speak out about addressing sexual violence, but it wouldn't be hard at all for a campaign to be launched questing her position on this when she proudly puts a known and admitted sexual harasser front and center. 

I don't find this comparison persuasive. What Cosby is accused of is 1) a crime (or many crimes); and 2) something that was previously unknown to most Americans. Bill Clinton was never accused of any crime in regards to Lewinsky*, and his misdeeds in that regard are well known to anyone who was alive at the time or has access to Google. That's a news flash that is shocking no one, and the media rarely focus on stories that everyone already knows, and neither do Americans. Maybe the Republicans can make something of this if they can unearth something new, but otherwise that field has been plowed wide and deep. It's hard to imagine what would come up now that hasn't in twenty years, but I suppose anything is possible. 

As for putting Bill "front and center", that didn't hurt Hillary in 2008. I don't know why anyone thinks that, eight years later, it will somehow drive significant numbers of young voters away from her. Are there data that support this proposition?

*I'm going to leave aside the perjury charge, which while noteworthy doesn't bear on how Clinton treated Lewinsky, and that's what's at issue here. No nitpicking on this point, please; I'm not interested in discussions about how bad the perjury was or why it should have gotten Clinton bounced from office.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

Why would anyone wish to move to Canada when Trudeau is destroying their economy?

[maarsen]

Why would anyone wish to move to Canada when Trudeau is destroying their economy?

Are you saying Justin Trudeau is responsible for the collapse of global oil prices and the subsequent collapse of global equity markets in just 3 months?

[Altherion]

This post in the football thread pointed out a hilarious video of children singing at a Trump rally. Here's a Time article about this (the video is about halfway through the article). On the one hand, the article has a point about using children as tools in political campaigns, but on the other, the video is absolutely hilarious.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Sorry, I had to start this thread, with Trump's response to Cruz to go back to Canada and Cruz's dilemma.

Carry on!

It's alright

They are not a real country anyway.

[Bonesy]

It was not lost on me that the first word of the OP was "sorry."

[Paladin of Ice]

It was not lost on me that the first word of the OP was "sorry."

Meanwhile Colbert made a joke the other night about Cruz' refusal to apologize for anything and said that maybe Cruz isn't Canadian after all.

[Bonesy]

lol

[Fragile Bird]

 

 

It was not lost on me that the first word of the OP was "sorry."

 

But of course!

 

 

 

[Shryke]

A hilarious story in two parts:

1) Bush donors await green light to jump ship

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/jeb-bush-donors-loyalty-217802

 

POLITICO talked to nearly two dozen major donors, and most say they are waiting for what one veteran Republican and former Bush 43 administration appointee described as the "family hall pass" to jump to another campaign after the New Hampshire primary.
“I’m resigned to it being over, frankly. It’s really disappointing,” said one top Bush Wall Street donor. “I’d urge him to get out after New Hampshire if he doesn’t do well, but he probably won’t."
The deterioration of the Bush campaign has been a humbling experience for his fundraisers. A year ago, even before he was a candidate, Bush's team was locking down donors across the country and getting commitments for six- and seven-figure checks with little trouble. Donors were pitted against each other to see who could raise more and be in the good graces of the man who, at the time, was described by many in Bush World as the inevitable nominee.

Now the fundraising pitch is decidedly different.
"Hey, I need you to throw away money on Jeb — out of loyalty," a Bush fundraiser has told donors recently.

 

2) And they are looking to jump onto Trump's ship (likely called The Trump Ship because it's Trump)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-now-see-a-trump-cruz-race-with-time-for-a-shift-running-out/2016/01/15/9b5d91f0-bbb4-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

Republican donors, who had long assumed that the outsider candidates would self-destruct and that voters would rally around someone such as former Florida governor Jeb Bush, are suddenly adjusting their thinking and strategies.

Spencer Zwick, the national finance chairman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, said power brokers and financiers are now trying to cozy up to Trump in various ways, such as reaching out through mutual friends in New York’s business community.

 

“A lot of donors are trying to figure their way into Trump’s orbit. There is a growing feeling among many that he may be the guy, so people are certainly seeing if they can find a home over there,” he said.

Zwick cautioned that he does not necessarily predict that Trump will win, only that he could, and said some of these donors are talking regularly with other candidates as well.

Everyone who was worried about another Clinton vs Bush race, it doesn't look like you'll have to worry.

[Bonesy]

Let the record show that I believe the record should show.

I said Bush will be the nominee. I said Trump would never be the nominee. I said Paul would stick it out to be heard.* I said Clinton was on very shaky ground.

I'm very nervous about two of these and remain unsure about the other two.

On a lighter note, I convinced two more Trump supporters to switch allegiance to a candidate running as a Democrat today.

* Didn't predict they wouldn't let him be heard. I was an idiot there.

[ThinkerX]

JEBS! donors wanting to jump ship is no great surprise.  His campaign has been in dire trouble ever since his crack campaign staff botched a photo-shop job within the capabilities of your average computer savvy twelve year old.  (The black hand thing.)

 

Wall Street rallying behind Trump is something I have been speculating about for months now.  Trump, after all, is a member of the1%, and his policies (reducing the minimum wage, tax breaks for those at the top, and even the desire for a middle eastern war) fit right in with the rest.  Might almost be seen as a sort of negotiating ploy.  To me, a sort of 'backroom deal' here has always seemed possible.  Of course, this really means we could end up with President Trump.  (An unmitigated disaster).

 

I figure the next president will last one term.  A republican congress is almost certain to try to impeach Hillary.  Plus she's old.  Sanders is just plain old, period.  Better have a healthy younger Veep.  Trump's arrogance would cost him everything within a couple years, plus he's old.  Cruz is younger, but matches Trump in the arrogance department and that will hurt him very badly.  Rubio...no.

 

So who would that leave for 2020?  The 'deep bench' of Republican Governors is a joke.  Dems?

 

[Dr. Pepper]

I don't find this comparison persuasive. What Cosby is accused of is 1) a crime (or many crimes); and 2) something that was previously unknown to most Americans. Bill Clinton was never accused of any crime in regards to Lewinsky*, and his misdeeds in that regard are well known to anyone who was alive at the time or has access to Google. That's a news flash that is shocking no one, and the media rarely focus on stories that everyone already knows, and neither do Americans. Maybe the Republicans can make something of this if they can unearth something new, but otherwise that field has been plowed wide and deep. It's hard to imagine what would come up now that hasn't in twenty years, but I suppose anything is possible. 

As for putting Bill "front and center", that didn't hurt Hillary in 2008. I don't know why anyone thinks that, eight years later, it will somehow drive significant numbers of young voters away from her. Are there data that support this proposition?

*I'm going to leave aside the perjury charge, which while noteworthy doesn't bear on how Clinton treated Lewinsky, and that's what's at issue here. No nitpicking on this point, please; I'm not interested in discussions about how bad the perjury was or why it should have gotten Clinton bounced from office.

HRC wasn't the nominee in 2008 so 2008 is pretty irrelevant.  And again, things are also different 8 years down the road.  Social media plays a more active role.  Public conversation around sexual violence has also shifted.  

I don't think you can brush aside the Cosby example so quickly, but I don't want to get into a Cosby conversation so I'll leave that for now. You'd previously stated that millennials wouldn't remember or care about Bill's transgressions.  Whether they will or won't remember hardly matters honestly, it would be the way a campaign about it is framed today.  

 Previously, discussion about Hillary's continuing to stay with Bill was all centered around it being a private marital issue. It would be ridiculously easy to bring it all back up and reframe it as evidence of HRC not really being a voice for women.  I don't know that there is any data on this.  I do have anecdotal data, which isn't all that helpful, but here it is anyway.  I know of several women who have very serious problems with HIllary seemingly condoning Bill's long history of alleged rape, sexual harassment and being part of the so-called "Lolita Express".  These women are infrequent voters and only casual consumers of news and politics and their getting out to the polls will depend fairly heavily on whether or not campaigns and associated advertising gets them motivated enough to overlook an issue that is personally important to them.  If there is a swiftboat-esque campaign framed about HRC's associated with a sexual assaulter, these women aren't going to the polls.  

 I did hear a segment recently on NPR (can't seem to find it right now) specifically addressing this and several speakers discussed the nasty treatment of the women involved in Bill's sex scandals.  That's not data, but it's obviously being discussed.  I just think it's shortsighted to think that it could never become an issue.  If you're the nominee for president anything and everything can become an issue.  

[Bonesy]

If it's being discussed, it's a form of data.

However not one that will be taken seriously by those that disagree with their preferred narrative.

[Shryke]

This is what I found on the issue with a quick google from ...  today:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-billclinton-idUSMTZSAPEC1G1RRHP7

Bill Clinton may not be the “secret weapon” that Hillary Clinton needs in the U.S. presidential race. And the former Democratic president may not become the albatross that Republican candidate Donald Trump expects, either.

Bill Clinton simply is not wielding that kind of influence – good or bad – over voters so far this year, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. A majority of Americans, including 73 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans, said Bill Clinton does not factor into their opinion of Hillary for president.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

But Hillary is not the nominee (not yet anyway) and campaigning against her in the general will be different than it is in the primary.  The other Democratic candidates aren't going to go after her on Bill.  It's going to be a different story in the general.  

[Shryke]

But Hillary is not the nominee (not yet anyway) and campaigning against her in the general will be different than it is in the primary.  The other Democratic candidates aren't going to go after her on Bill.  It's going to be a different story in the general.  

Was that to me? Cause the poll I linked is about the general.

[Dr. Pepper]

Was that to me? Cause the poll I linked is about the general.

Which is still months away....  

It's a poll based on people's feelings between Jan 7th and Jan 13th.  The question will be, if the Republican candidate and/or their PAC's launch a campaign against Hillary addressing her association with a known sexual harasser, will that 21 percent of women who thinks Bill's presence hurts Hillary's chances grow?  How many casual voters will not make it to the polls when they are listening and reading over and over that HIllary loves rapists?  How many young voters who might be hearing the specifics of Bill's sexual misconducts for the first time will be convinced to just sit home?  

Again, this is all based on whether or not a specific campaign is launched framed in a specific way and whether or not all those casual voters who won't start paying attention until closer to the election are swayed by it.  I think it's very easy to see that an emotionally charged topic (sexual violence) turns many voters off and keeps them home, which I'd find disastrous.  It would be stupid if HRC weren't prepared for something like that.