Jump to content

US Elections - From Russia with Love


The Anti-Targ

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Thinking on it - Obama is unique in that he is the first president since possibly Kennedy who has left the office without basically any taint of anything particularly bad or dislike. LBJ had Vietnam, Nixon lol, Ford pardoned nixon, Carter was weak and failed in Iran, Reagan had Iran contra, Bush has tax increases, Clinton had affairs and lies, bush2 had the great recession and Iraq.

It's been 60 fucking years almost since we had a president that was virtually spotless in that way.

BENGHAZI!!!!!!!

but seriously, he could definitely have handled Libya better and also Syria and the withdrawal from Iraq, but the latter two were fallout from Bush's invasion and even though Obama could have handled things in Libya better, I'm not convinced things are any worse than if the US had stayed out completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And what have the Trump tweets been saying?  He could not have been happy about the things said about him....

After the like 4 big speeches tonight he's gonna be desperate to steal the attention back I think and also mad as hell at being mocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton will win or lose on her own merits, or lack thereof. But Bernie supporters are fools if they think Trump winning or Hillary winning amounts to much the same thing so it doesn't matter if they don't vote or they cast a protest vote. You won't get the president you want, but you'll get the president you deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Thinking on it - Obama is unique in that he is the first president since possibly Kennedy who has left the office without basically any taint of anything particularly bad or dislike. LBJ had Vietnam, Nixon lol, Ford pardoned nixon, Carter was weak and failed in Iran, Reagan had Iran contra, Bush has tax increases, Clinton had affairs and lies, bush2 had the great recession and Iraq.

It's been 60 fucking years almost since we had a president that was virtually spotless in that way.

Kennedy's only remembered fondly because he got shot. Between the Bay of Pigs, just about starting World War III, and weak (in comparison to LBJ) stance on Civil Rights, he's one of the most overrated Presidents of the century.

I'd argue Eisenhower is a better comparison to Obama (and not just because he left office alive).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Kennedy's only remembered fondly because he got shot. Between the Bay of Pigs, just about starting World War III, and weak (in comparison to LBJ) stance on Civil Rights, he's one of the most overrated Presidents of the century.

I'd argue Eisenhower is a better comparison to Obama (and not just because he left office alive).

Oh yeah, I'd agree. But Kennedy is at least viewed with fondness by almost everyone, even if it was as a martyr. And he was the last president I think that most people would say that about. Reagan comes close, I guess, but he was pretty tarred by things. 

Eisenhower is a good example too.

But yeah - it's hard to think that after tonight's speech, Republicans are actually stating how much they'll miss Obama and that he is taking all the things that they said they stood for, and claiming them - largely because the Republicans abandoned them. They're looking at Obama as a great president. That's pretty remarkable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

The posters praising Obama here apparently forget that for the bulk of Republicans, Obama is the president who effectively destroyed the US. 

Very much a partisan issue, with blinders all around.

 That's seems more like a mental issue than a partisan one. Didn't see a whole lot of destruction on my drive home from work this evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 That's seems more like a mental issue than a partisan one. Didn't see a whole lot of destruction on my drive home from work this evening.

Gay marriage is now a thing in the USA, how is America not destroyed in their eyes? It is surely now the modern day Sodom, when back in the days of Reagan it held the promise of being God's own Kingdom.

@Kalbear I think it's only Republicans who remember Reagan fondly. I think progressives in the USA mostly remember Reagan about as fondly as UK left wingers remember Thatcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

The posters praising Obama here apparently forget that for the bulk of Republicans, Obama is the president who effectively destroyed the US. 

Very much a partisan issue, with blinders all around.

Sure. But if 55% of the country thinks it was an amazing speech (no data on this yet, just throwing out a number) and they all vote for Clinton, that's a landslide. The fact that any Republicans think it was great speech, and there are a few (mostly saying that it was basically a Reagan speech with a couple Democratic lines thrown in), is a pretty big win. Since that suggests that there are more than a few independents who think it was a great speech, and nearly all Democrats would think it was a great speech no matter what.

I think the polls coming out starting on Sunday/Monday are going to show a pretty big bounce for Clinton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sure. But if 55% of the country thinks it was an amazing speech (no data on this yet, just throwing out a number) and they all vote for Clinton, that's a landslide. The fact that any Republicans think it was great speech, and there are a few (mostly saying that it was basically a Reagan speech with a couple Democratic lines thrown in), is a pretty big win. Since that suggests that there are more than a few independents who think it was a great speech, and nearly all Democrats would think it was a great speech no matter what.

One would hope that for sane people, there would be a substantial difference between appreciating a speech given by a politician and voting for a different politician. There is some evidence that Americans are not behaving rationally when making political choices, but I don't think we've degenerated quite that far.

Quote

I think the polls coming out starting on Sunday/Monday are going to show a pretty big bounce for Clinton.

Probably. However, it should dissipate in a couple of weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

It's nice to have a well-liked President that you're proud of at your chosen party's convention. Sorry you don't know the feeling.

The library is open, and DanteGabriel is doing the reading!

28 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sure. But if 55% of the country thinks it was an amazing speech (no data on this yet, just throwing out a number) and they all vote for Clinton, that's a landslide. The fact that any Republicans think it was great speech, and there are a few (mostly saying that it was basically a Reagan speech with a couple Democratic lines thrown in), is a pretty big win. Since that suggests that there are more than a few independents who think it was a great speech, and nearly all Democrats would think it was a great speech no matter what.

I think the polls coming out starting on Sunday/Monday are going to show a pretty big bounce for Clinton. 

I am anticipating a bounce as well, although I doubt that the convention and the speeches therein will affect anybody but Democrats. That's OK; I think the primary purpose of these events is as big infomercials, reminding Democrats of their affiliation and getting them behind the nominee. In that, I suspect the DNC will succeed. Sure, a few Bernie people acted like jerks early on, but I think that's already fading from memory in the face of great speeches by Biden, Obama (both Barack and Michelle), and others. 

Speaking of polls, the state-by-state polls still show Clinton narrowly leading where she needs to lead--Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado--and these were taken during Trump's convention bounce. Hopefully, by next week Clinton's own bounce will have happened and she'll have more comfortable margins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Altherion said:

One would hope that for sane people, there would be a substantial difference between appreciating a speech given by a politician and voting for a different politician. There is some evidence that Americans are not behaving rationally when making political choices, but I don't think we've degenerated quite that far.

Probably. However, it should dissipate in a couple of weeks.

Clinton is pretty explicitly running for Obama's 3rd term at this point, so no, there isn't much of a difference. Especially when, the main thrust of said appreciated speech is that the other candidate is dangerous to the country; being mentioned in the same sentence as fascism, communism, and other threats.

And yeah, any bounce will eventually dissipate; the question is where is the new normal after that happens. Obama got a bounce in 2012, it disappeared, but he ended up well ahead of Romney (who after his own bounce had briefly tied/led the race) and never gave it up (although Romney's second bounce after the first debate got him close again for a bit too). If Clinton gets a +7 bounce and then settles into a +3 lead; I'd be satisfied.

I suspect her internal polling already shows a very different picture than a lot of the public polling. It could be wrong, Romney's sure were, but Democratic internals are usually better than Republican ones*. But unless the campaign thought she was winning, I don't think they'd be sending her to Omaha on Monday. That single electoral vote is nice, and maybe they'll be some sort of event with Warren Buffet that'll get press, but that's valuable time that could be spent in Florida or Ohio or other swing states if it was necessary.

 

*For example, Democrats knew they were gonna get crushed in 2014; but didn't say anything to keep the margins down in still-winnable races. Which sort of worked; Warner won in Virginia by 0.8% in a race that Republicans put almost no resources into because they and the public polling had Warner up by 10% or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

Clinton is pretty explicitly running for Obama's 3rd term at this point, so no, there isn't much of a difference.

I'm actually getting pretty mixed messages on this -- on the one hand, you are right... but on the other, they did try to label her "change-maker" the other day (leading to a fairly amusing joke: if you give her a dollar bill, she'll give you back three quarters).

Anyway, here's something a bit more meaty than speeches which incidentally happens to be a change from Obama's ways:

Quote

 

Heather Podesta wore a scarlet letter “L” to the last two Democratic National Conventions—a not so subtle protest over the Barack Obama’s ban on lobbyists like her donating money to his cause.

Podesta’s scarlet letter is gone this week, because Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee have lifted the ban.“Things have already changed,” said Podesta, while mingling at a brunch put on by her firm at the swanky Philadelphia restaurant Fork on Tuesday with members of Congress, the Obama Administration, and, yes, lots of lobbyists.

...

Campaign finance reformers have watched the change happen with dismay. “The stricter rules regarding lobbyists that the Obama administration and Democratic Party first put in place have been eroded and there has been a lack of effort to enact new rules, so this is not surprising,” said Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “In fact, the conventions have become a stocked pond of local, state and federal officials for lobbyists to fish in.”

 

Of course, Obama ultimately also took a great deal of money from lobbyists, but Clinton is certainly more open about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...