US Elections: Children of the Revolution

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

#CruzSexScandal has been #1 Trend worldwide for a while now. No comments from Cruz campaign or from any of his shills (Ben shapiro, glenn beck etc). 

All i have is the story from NE, not sure how true it is. But Katrina Pierson removed her instagram when it started trending. 

[Guess who's back]

54 minutes ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

#CruzSexScandal has been #1 Trend worldwide for a while now. No comments from Cruz campaign or from any of his shills (Ben shapiro, glenn beck etc). 

All i have is the story from NE, not sure how true it is. But Katrina Pierson removed her instagram when it started trending. 

This election is hilarious. Never stops giving. 

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't see how you could possibly force anything using the threat of a Trump presidency given that Clinton leads Trump in current polls. That said, I googled Bernie or Bust and found this article which almost perfectly expresses how I feel:

The "almost" is because I believe that writing in Sanders' name is a futile gesture and, depending on what alternatives to Clinton are still in the race and have a chance to win, there might be better uses of one's vote.

All I can make out from reading that is:

- Obama wasn't able to do everything he wanted to do as President because he didn't really want it enough or didn't really mean it or something, and absolutely not because of political obstacles or practical problems because those aren't a thing.

- Sanders will somehow be able to achieve anything and everything he wants to do as President, even the things that are harder than what Obama promised to do, because why not.

- Vote Sanders!

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I find myself wondering...

...suppose the Green Party were to take a leaf from the Tea Party's playbook. (This assumes somebody with organizational competence in the Green Party.)

Green Party operatives go to districts the Democratic Party has effectively given up on, the ones that are assumed to be so solidly 'red' they mount only a token effort.  The Green Party very quietly picks candidates for these districts, but runs them as democrats, not greens.  DNC reaction: 'Never heard of so-and-so, but its a lost cause anyway, so who cares?'  Unlike the DNC, the greens mount an intensive, quasi stealth campaign for these candidates.  They go the internet route - Facebook, Twitter, all that.  Focus on younger people. 

Result 1 - The Green Stealth campaign works - they win a number of congressional districts, with candidates who are Green Party in all but name.

Result 2 - These Green Democrats start making demands on the Democratic Party overall, much as the Tea Party does with Republicans.

How big of a mess could they create?

No mess at all.

Those "lost cause" seats are lost cause for a reason - they're unwinnable Republican fortresses (not to say that the Democrats shouldn't always run candidates, but sometimes they really are facing impossible odds). Even if these stealth candidates through an incredible stroke of luck manage to win, you've got perhaps a dozen "Green" congressmen, at absolute most, out of a 200 member Democratic caucus, or, more likely, one or two out of 200. So they're not in a position to demand anything, and they'll likely lose the next election anyway when the Republicans get their act together. 

What you're after instead are primary challengers to the existing Democratic incumbents. Though even that's problematic, since most of the right-wing Democratic congresscritters lost in 2010 or 2014. So you're up against people who agree with you 90% of the time.

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

All i have is the story from NE, not sure how true it is.

At this stage, does it matter how true it is? It's gonna damage what chances he had either way, right?

[TrackerNeil]

5 hours ago, lokisnow said:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-24/donald-trump-s-tough-but-plausible-path-to-winning-the-white-house

What is interesting about the above article is that democratic strategists are working on the assumption that Donald Trump's path to an electoral college victory is in the Rust Belt. That by flipping Ohio, Pennslyvania, Wisconsin, Michigan,Iowa etc, Trump can win without having to worry about winning Florida or Virginia.

Setting aside the plausibility of this, as it is fairly plausible, all of those states voted more republican in 2012 than in 2008, the democratic strategists are saying the Democratic Party plans on investing heavy resources in these states, which it has not done for years, at least not to the extent that they seem to be planning on doing so.

I find this Bloomsberg piece to be bullshit. Kapur makes several points that he just doesn't support; for example, he quotes Ed Rollins, who thinks Trump has a chance to win Wisconsin because that state has "a strong Republican governor." Are there any data that show that a state's governor has any significant influence on how that state votes in presidential elections? Pennsylvania had a Republican governor in 2012, as did New Mexico, yet both states went blue in the election. Does that mean those governors were weak? Kapur should be exploring that and not just giving a Republican political consultant free page space.

He also spends time on the "nasty campaign" narrative. Can anyone tell me about a presidential campaign that was widely viewed as gentle and high-minded? And don't even get me started on this "plain spoken" nonsense.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

15 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

At this stage, does it matter how true it is? It's gonna damage what chances he had either way, right?

It will only damage Rafael if it gets picked by one of CNN, MSNBC or Fox. So far it is very limited to the social space with no comments from any parties affiliated with the scandal. 

[Fez]

3 hours ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

#CruzSexScandal has been #1 Trend worldwide for a while now. No comments from Cruz campaign or from any of his shills (Ben shapiro, glenn beck etc). 

All i have is the story from NE, not sure how true it is. But Katrina Pierson removed her instagram when it started trending. 

The National Enquirer has a strangely good track record when it comes to exposing politician's affairs. Also apparently the article has pictures of the women in question. They're blurred out, but even so, I can't see the NE taking the risk of being sued for libel. I don't think they'd have included the pictures unless they were confident in the story.

So I'm leaning towards this being true. We'll find out soon enough though. It took the mainstream media about a day to confirm the John Edwards scandal first reported by the National Enquirer.

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

The National Enquirer has a strangely good track record when it comes to exposing politician's affairs. Also apparently the article has pictures of the women in question. They're blurred out, but even so, I can't see the NE taking the risk of being sued for libel. I don't think they'd have included the pictures unless they were confident in the story.

So I'm leaning towards this being true. We'll find out soon enough though. It took the mainstream media about a day to confirm the John Edwards scandal first reported by the National Enquirer.

Well, they were right about John Edwards, but I couldn't help but notice that one of the women's photos, despite their blurcling efforts, looks a lot like Trump spokestroll Katrina Pierson.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I find this Bloomsberg piece to be bullshit. Kapur makes several points that he just doesn't support; for example, he quotes Ed Rollins, who thinks You-Know-Who has a chance to win Wisconsin because that state has "a strong Republican governor." Are there any data that show that a state's governor has any significant influence on how that state votes in presidential elections? Pennsylvania had a Republican governor in 2012, as did New Mexico, yet both states went blue in the election. Does that mean those governors were weak? Kapur should be exploring that and not just giving a Republican political consultant free page space.

He also spends time on the "nasty campaign" narrative. Can anyone tell me about a presidential campaign that was widely viewed as gentle and high-minded? And don't even get me started on this "plain spoken" nonsense.

You're right - there is no relationship between Governors and Presidential vote. Senators are arguably a better barometer.

As for gentle campaigns... 1976?

[jarl the climber]

I sort of respected Ted Cruz a little because he seemed to be the one person Trump couldn't unhinge but it looks like he walked right into this. All he had to do was distance himself from the Dump Trump movement people like Romney & Co. and now they are going to throw him under the bus just like they did with Rubio.

[Fez]

50 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Well, they were right about John Edwards, but I couldn't help but notice that one of the women's photos, despite their blurcling efforts, looks a lot like Trump spokestroll Katrina Pierson.

Yeah, but the thing is, Pierson was originally a tea partier in Texas and she actually worked on Cruz's senate campaign. So its strangely not unbelievable that she would be one of the women in question.

ETA: And could this possibly be what Trump was really referring to when he threatened to 'spill the beans' a few days ago? I've seen a few conservative reporters on twitter saying they were aware of these allegations already; so it seems like at least some circles of people already knew about this stuff.

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, jarl the climber said:

I sort of respected Ted Cruz a little because he seemed to be the one person Trump couldn't unhinge but it looks like he walked right into this. All he had to do was distance himself from the Dump Trump movement people like Romney & Co. and now they are going to throw him under the bus just like they did with Rubio.

Cruz spent the first few debates trying to swim in Trunk's wake and buddy up with him, and has spent the last couple of days tussling with Trump via wife-insulting tweets. I don't think he has managed to resist any kind of un-hinging.

[jarl the climber]

8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Cruz spent the first few debates trying to swim in Trunk's wake and buddy up with him, and has spent the last couple of days tussling with Trump via wife-insulting tweets. I don't think he has managed to resist any kind of un-hinging.

At first he was hoping that Trumps campaign would fail and that he might attract his former supporters, nothing wrong with that. The whole Wifegate thing is clearly Cruz becoming unhinged.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And again, if you hate her for being an 'establishment' politician, you should really hate Sanders, who has been in the establishment for almost 40 years now. Who switched from Independent to Democrat. 

Dude, this is just silly. You're better than that, Kal.

 

[Ormond]

8 hours ago, lokisnow said:

 

I think this is always interesting when it comes up, I cannot think of any domestic political spousal examples that did not first depend on the male spouse dying and the female spouse then taking up his mantle to finish out a term. Jean Carnahan did it most recently, and I think, historically, the first female senators were appointed to finish out their husband's term.

But a Dual career household with both respective parties having separate careers and both being elected to high offices?  That is singular in history, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps there are other examples worldwide where spouses (both from non-political, non-oligarchic family heritages) both pursue separate and rather different career paths in elected politics?

And perhaps in these instances there is evidence of the existence of an extraordinary and terrifying dynasty?

I don't know worldwide politics very well, how many terrifying dynasties have been formed by a spouse of an elected politician also having an elected political career?

oy.

 

No two marriages or two political careers are exactly alike, but there certainly are examples of women married to other politicians who have themselves held elected office without their husband dying first.

Miriam Ferguson, the first woman governor of Texas, was elected to that office after her husband had been impeached and removed from the governotship earlier. Though her initial campaign for governor implied her husband would be the real decision maker, in her two terms she seems to have been more than just his puppet:

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/exec/governors/15.html

And for a much more recent example you have Bob and Elizabeth Dole, who certainly had very separate political careers:

http://www.notablebiographies.com/De-Du/Dole-Elizabeth.html

Though Olympia Snowe was first elected to the Maine legislature after her first husband was killed in an auto accident, she had been active in local politics herself before that and was not just a case of a spouse who'd just been a helpmate to her deceased husband getting elected to office. And after she'd already been in the US House of Represenatives for a while, she married John McKernan, who was then the governor of Maine, in 1989, and was first elected to the Senate while she was still First Lady of Maine.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s000663

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2009/09/30/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-olympia-snowe

 

In any event, I don't think the Clintons are unique in American politics as being spouses who have both had political careers while both were still alive.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Well, they were right about John Edwards, but I couldn't help but notice that one of the women's photos, despite their blurcling efforts, looks a lot like Trump spokestroll Katrina Pierson.

Is it wrong that when I heard "Ted Cruz sex scandal" I hoped it was with a man?

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is it wrong that when I heard "Ted Cruz sex scandal" I hoped it was with a man?

Is it wrong that I'm legitimately shocked that he managed to get more than one person to have sex with him?  *shivers, gag, vomit, etc*

[lokisnow]

8 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I find myself wondering...

...suppose the Green Party were to take a leaf from the Tea Party's playbook. (This assumes somebody with organizational competence in the Green Party.)

Green Party operatives go to districts the Democratic Party has effectively given up on, the ones that are assumed to be so solidly 'red' they mount only a token effort.  The Green Party very quietly picks candidates for these districts, but runs them as democrats, not greens.  DNC reaction: 'Never heard of so-and-so, but its a lost cause anyway, so who cares?'  Unlike the DNC, the greens mount an intensive, quasi stealth campaign for these candidates.  They go the internet route - Facebook, Twitter, all that.  Focus on younger people. 

Result 1 - The Green Stealth campaign works - they win a number of congressional districts, with candidates who are Green Party in all but name.

Result 2 - These Green Democrats start making demands on the Democratic Party overall, much as the Tea Party does with Republicans.

How big of a mess could they create?

 

I think this misunderstands the origination of the tea party, republicans invested heavily in local and state politics for forty years creating a gigantic pool and base of support for those elections and local state policy implementation. Since democrats don't care about these elections, their support and base for local and state issues is very small. Thus the republican base was large enough to facilitate a faction and a split and there were participants nationwide who could run on a new more right wing platform at state and local level, as well as the tea party afterthought of running for federal offices.

Democrats don't have a pool large enough for Green Party types to do a tea party type of revolution. They simply don't care enough about state and local elections to have people nationwide who would participate in a split to a new more left wing platform.

 

the people and policies pre existed the tea party and thus facilitated it's universal rise. The people and policies do t exist on the democrat side.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Is it wrong that I'm legitimately shocked that he managed to get more than one person to have sex with him?  *shivers, gag, vomit, etc*

As desperation rises, standards fall.