Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: All things being equal I'd support the candidate that the Republicans are not supporting openly. So far they've tried to prop up Sanders against Clinton, meaning that they at least consider her a bigger threat. A year ago I'd be in complete agreement. But currently HRC's numbers with the general public are far worse than Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 All things being equal I'd support the candidate that the Republicans are not supporting openly. So far they've tried to prop up Sanders against Clinton, meaning that they at least consider her a bigger threat. A year ago I'd be in complete agreement. But currently HRC's numbers with the general public are far worse than Sanders. Far worse is a huge overstatement. It's maybe 5 points. Both are very favorable with dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: A year ago I'd be in complete agreement. But currently HRC's numbers with the general public are far worse than Sanders. Far worse is a huge overstatement. It's maybe 5 points. Both are very favorable with dems. Favorability with Dems is overrated in the general*. And her numbers have fallen a lot more than that. Her trustability numbers are terrible now. *One thing I haven't seen discussed here much is the enthusiasm gap. A lot of Dems like Hillary, but idk how strong that support is. Too many Dems say they will hold their nose and vote for HRC. That's not good. Esecially when nearly ever single Republican will be super enthused to vote against her. It would be a mistake to ignore how polarizing she is. Again, I'm not anti-HRC or pro-Sanders. Just highlighting the problems both candidates face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 According to whom? No reasonable polls I've seen. Not every repub will be enthused to vote against Clinton either. Mostly because there is not a lot of enthusiasm for the repub candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: I generally agree with all of this. To be clear, my fears are entirely about the general election. Both candidates have serious flaws. While Trump has, or would have in any sane election race, fatal flaws. I see Palin has played the troubled veteran card for her son's arrest. And of course Obama is to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 If a recession is developing this year an anti wall street candidate like sanders is probably democrats best chance to win. Especially if he's running against a wall street creature billionaire like Trump. Clintons wall street associations could be a huge liability in the general, especially if she's running against Rubio. Cruz is less a threat here as he is literally married to Goldman and 100% wall street. Downballot, 2010 senate incumbents will be even more vulnerable with a developing recession. Since declaring a recession always requires at least six months delay, we need to watch if one is developing, cause looking back in November and being all surprised the previous two quarters contracted ( as economists usually are surprised since they don't pay attention to the real world as it is happening) is going to be too little too late for democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterKing Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: Who it really hurts are countries like Brazil, Venezuela and Nigeria, who need oil to be at the 45-60 per barrel range to break even and rely heavily on exporting. This is killing them to the point where Brazil is having problems funding basic things like hospitals. I would disagree with Brazil's inclusion on this list. Only a few cities and the state of Rio de Janeiro really have a significant oil income and the funding of the hospitals have been having trouble since forever, mostly thanks to corruption and bad administration. We are having a serious economic crisis, but that comes mostly from the awful economic policies that our leftist government implemented. Besides a huge corruption scandal has hit hard our state oil company, so it is crumbling faster than other oil companies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 You're right - it is just some of brazil. My apologies for being less accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 DNC/CNN trying to drag Hillary over the finish line in Iowa. Even have Clinton crony Chris Cuomo as a host. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/hillary-clinton-debate-iowa-sanders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterKing Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 37 minutes ago, Kalbear said: You're right - it is just some of brazil. My apologies for being less accurate. Sorry, didn't want to nitpick,I fear I've expressed myself badly, what I meant was that oil is just around 10% of Brazilian exports, while in the other countries mentioned it is the main export (78% in Nigeria, more than 90% in Venezuela) , and that the brazilian economic crisis has deeper roots than the oil price, but I do agree to your main point, about the damage low oil prices inflict in poor. oil dependent nations. Sorry again if I implied anything else, my english is not that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Commodore said: DNC/CNN trying to drag Hillary over the finish line in Iowa. Even have Clinton crony Chris Cuomo as a host. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/hillary-clinton-debate-iowa-sanders So if the DNC puts debates on a weekend, it's to favor Clinton. If the DNC puts a debate on a weeknight, it's to favor Clinton. What could the DNC do that wouldn't favor Clinton, I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said: So if the DNC puts debates on a weekend, it's to favor Clinton. If the DNC puts a debate on a weeknight, it's to favor Clinton. What could the DNC do that wouldn't favor Clinton, I wonder. Arrange a debate where Sanders is the only one there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 To be fair, Neil appears to be lumping a comment from a conservative in with previous sentiment from Sanders supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said: So if the DNC puts debates on a weekend, it's to favor Clinton. If the DNC puts a debate on a weeknight, it's to favor Clinton. What could the DNC do that wouldn't favor Clinton, I wonder. Bonesy is right. Two completely different people with near diametrically opposing political views used antithetical reasoning to reach the same conclusion. There's nothing inconsistent about that and it's not surprising at all. It especially has no relevance to who your comment (obviously) was directed at: liberals who are trying to imply that the DNC is fixing the debate schedule (by scheduling the debates during the weekend) in order to favor Hillary Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordos Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Now that Obama has less than a year, I feel the time is right to metaphorically pop the cork and join the discussion on the Presidential election of the United States. All the talk before today way completely pointless. I am not American but I pay attention to all English speaking politics around the world. Politics is an obsession of mine. Now to the discussion. I would wish for Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic Primary and the general election, I personally do not believe he will considering that Americans are always being told that the 'European model' as it's referred to is an utter failure. Also with the rise of the semi-fascist Donald Trump and the 2004 election where they re-elected George Bush, I learned never to underestimate the stupidity of the American voter. I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton even though I do have a favorable view of Bill Clinton's presidency. She simply won't fight hard for the issues I care about and her foreign policy is not much different from the likes of Joe Lieberman or John McCain. Keep in mind that established forces (and I'm not just talking about career politicians) will not allow a Sanders presidency. The primaries are only a way for voters to give advice to the parties on who the nominee should be. Delegates are not forced to choose the candidate the voters want. Then there are the super delegates. And in the General Election there is the electoral college. I've been warning for years of a deep flaw in the system: faithless electors. Voters in a state choose a candidate and electors are EXPECTED to vote for the candidate of the voter's choosing. But in most states, the electors are not forced by law to choose the candidate of the voters' choosing. In Michigan faithless electors votes are considered null and void. Unless ALL 50 states make laws forcing electors to choose the candidate of the voters' choosing, the US presidential election is not real democracy at work. If Sanders were to win in a landslide, suddenly all your loyal electors will become faithless electors and vote for Trump or a third party candidate. So I'm going to be the cynic. To me cynicism is a shield from being disappointed and I love being pleasantly surprised. Barack Obama has done much for progressive politics. But there is still much more to be done and Hillary Clinton will not continue with the progressive cause. I was an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama in 2008 and looking back, I definitely do not regret my way of thinking. Obama has disappointed me in many ways but in more ways he has done great. Obama is as progressive as America can get. I'm going to acknowledge the sad truth that when Donald Trump is elected, the United States is not a partner in the global community to make the world a better place. The rest of the world will have to soldier on without America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, Ordos said: Now that Obama has less than a year, I feel the time is right to metaphorically pop the cork and join the discussion on the Presidential election of the United States. All the talk before today way completely pointless. I am not American but I pay attention to all English speaking politics around the world. Politics is an obsession of mine. Now to the discussion. I would wish for Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic Primary and the general election, I personally do not believe he will considering that Americans are always being told that the 'European model' as it's referred to is an utter failure. Also with the rise of the semi-fascist Donald Trump and the 2004 election where they re-elected George Bush, I learned never to underestimate the stupidity of the American voter. I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton even though I do have a favorable view of Bill Clinton's presidency. She simply won't fight hard for the issues I care about and her foreign policy is not much different from the likes of Joe Lieberman or John McCain. Keep in mind that established forces (and I'm not just talking about career politicians) will not allow a Sanders presidency. The primaries are only a way for voters to give advice to the parties on who the nominee should be. Delegates are not forced to choose the candidate the voters want. Then there are the super delegates. And in the General Election there is the electoral college. I've been warning for years of a deep flaw in the system: faithless electors. Voters in a state choose a candidate and electors are EXPECTED to vote for the candidate of the voter's choosing. But in most states, the electors are not forced by law to choose the candidate of the voters' choosing. In Michigan faithless electors votes are considered null and void. Unless ALL 50 states make laws forcing electors to choose the candidate of the voters' choosing, the US presidential election is not real democracy at work. If Sanders were to win in a landslide, suddenly all your loyal electors will become faithless electors and vote for Trump or a third party candidate. So I'm going to be the cynic. To me cynicism is a shield from being disappointed and I love being pleasantly surprised. Barack Obama has done much for progressive politics. But there is still much more to be done and Hillary Clinton will not continue with the progressive cause. I was an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama in 2008 and looking back, I definitely do not regret my way of thinking. Obama has disappointed me in many ways but in more ways he has done great. Obama is as progressive as America can get. I'm going to acknowledge the sad truth that when Donald Trump is elected, the United States is not a partner in the global community to make the world a better place. The rest of the world will have to soldier on without America. lolwhat? Dude, put down the crackpipe and step away from the keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 When Shryke and I are emphatically in agreement against you, you may want to reconsider your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Well, there might be some major executive action by Obama on campaign finance disclosure. It's about time. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/president-obama-may-require-federal-contractors-to-list-campaign-gifts.html?_r=1 President Obama May Require Federal Contractors to List Campaign Gifts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Holy fuck. Why is this not a requirement already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Quote Holy fuck. Why is this not a requirement already? Notice McConnell clutching his pearls in this article. He loves dark money. Quote The contemplated campaign finance order stems from the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling allowing unlimited corporate spending on politics. At the time, the court suggested that Congress could enact new laws to require disclosure, even if setting dollar limits was no longer constitutional. However, Congress has never acted on that suggestion, and blocked a measure called the Disclose Act that would have carried it out. If the White House goes through with an order requiring corporate campaign disclosure, it would only apply to companies with federal contracts, although that would likely cover the majority of large corporations. Mitch McConnell Freaks At Obama's Latest Idea http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-obama-campaign-finance_us_569ffe9fe4b0404eb8f01924?utm_hp_ref=politics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.