U.S. Politics - Jeb announced yet?

[awesome possum]

I was reading something last night at home (so don't have the link right now at work) about Rick Perry answering questions about whether that whole "being indicted" thing. One question was, "will voters be able to trust you with the indictment on your record?"

Perry's answer reveals more than he probably meant to about the political process. It was something like, "I have only had one or two donors bring this up to me over the last couple months."

Key word there: donors. The question was about voters and Perry, intentionally or accidentally, ignored that to talk about what donors had told him. Now, yes, donors are also voters but I think this just goes to show that only one type of voter matters to these politicians: the ones that give them money.

As this anonymous congressman says in this Vox article:

You're paying us to do a job, and we're spending that time you're paying us asking rich people and corporations to give us money so we can run ads convincing you to keep paying us to do this job.

[TerraPrime]

Would I prefer a better Democratic candidate than one who's too close to Wall Street? Yes. I would support Sanders and Warren, for instnace (though neither are running).

But I will just as happily support Hillary once she grabs the nomination, with only mild reservation. I think her support of the Iraq war is not that big of a deal. She's clearly hawkish in outlook, though her stint as Secretary of State did much to temper her record on foreign relations, imo. I also think it's political suicide for her to renounce her support on Iraq invasion, even if she does regret it. I don't think it's going to sell very well when the GOP can legitimately quote her saying "I was wrong to support invasion of Iraq." I think the best we can expect is for her to attack it from the side and say something like she learned a lesson about the importance of unbiased, fact-based, accurate intelligence not blindisded by ideology in making critical decisions in deploying U.S. troops.

[Jaxom 1974]

I'm not satisfied with this, either. I've fallen out of love with Hillary over the last two years, mainly because she seems to have a problem admitting past mistakes. She had a problem with this in 2008 vis a vis Iraq, and she has a problem with this now vis a vis DOMA**. I don't know why she can't just admit that Bill Clinton got it wrong when he signed that bill into law, just as she got it wrong when she voted in favor of GWB's little war. It's OK to make a mistake.

** This wasn't even Hillary's mistake!

I'm not satisfied with this, either. I've fallen out of love with Hillary over the last two years, mainly because she seems to have a problem admitting past mistakes. She had a problem with this in 2008 vis a vis Iraq, and she has a problem with this now vis a vis DOMA**. I don't know why she can't just admit that Bill Clinton got it wrong when he signed that bill into law, just as she got it wrong when she voted in favor of GWB's little war. It's OK to make a mistake.

** This wasn't even Hillary's mistake!

Essentially the top the democratic contenders are Hillary, Biden, and Warren right?

Are any of those three two term presidents? Not because of ability, but potentially age. If that makes sense.

[Fez]

Essentially the top the democratic contenders are Hillary, Biden, and Warren right?

Are any of those three two term presidents? Not because of ability, but potentially age. If that makes sense.

Biden is the most likely one-term president of the bunch. At the end of his first term he'd be older than Reagan was at the end of his second. But Clinton at the end of her second-term would still be a couple months younger than Reagan was; and Warren at end of her second would be two years younger.

If Clinton wins in 2016. I think she's definitely running for re-election unless she has a major health scare AND has a charismatic VP who could run instead, avoid a primary race, and retain most of the advantages of incumbency.

[TrackerNeil]

But I will just as happily support Hillary once she grabs the nomination, with only mild reservation. I think her support of the Iraq war is not that big of a deal. She's clearly hawkish in outlook, though her stint as Secretary of State did much to temper her record on foreign relations, imo. I also think it's political suicide for her to renounce her support on Iraq invasion, even if she does regret it. I don't think it's going to sell very well when the GOP can legitimately quote her saying "I was wrong to support invasion of Iraq." I think the best we can expect is for her to attack it from the side and say something like she learned a lesson about the importance of unbiased, fact-based, accurate intelligence not blindisded by ideology in making critical decisions in deploying U.S. troops.

Clinton will get my vote (and likely my money) if she runs, but I doubt that anything she said on Iraq would much impact her now, particularly if she admitted she were wrong to support a war most Americans now think was a bad idea. You can't go wrong in politics by taking the side of the majority.**

On DOMA, however, the verbal tap-dance she did in response to Terry Gross's question was absurd. I don't see why she can't just say, "First of all, I was not president then. Second, in 1996 we were all in a different place on gay rights than we are now. I did not support marriage equality then, and I was wrong. I support it now." That's not admitting a great character flaw, especially considering that her Republican opponent will still oppose marriage equality.

**Edited to add: I'm going to take that back. I think Hillary took the side of the majority in 2002 when she voted in support of the invasion, and she paid for it later in 2008. I'm convinced that said vote is what gave Barack Obama the opening to steal away the nomination.

[Fragile Bird]

Have you seen the latest from The Onion, about complaints about Obama? http://www.clickhole.com/article/embarrassing-us-ranked-182nd-world-alphabetically-1855?utm_campaign=default&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_source=facebook

As Americans, we are lucky to live in a first-world country. We have an abundance of wealth and one of the highest standards of living anywhere in the world. That’s why it’s utterly stunning that the United States of America consistently ranks 182nd in the world alphabetically.

Simply put, it’s embarrassing. On a list of 195 countries, the United States is only ahead of 13, and we should be ashamed about that.

[Fragile Bird]

Weird. I tried to correct the above post to say it's clickhole, not The Onion, and when I try to post the edit I'm told my post is empty and requires content.

Very appropriate, considering the story posted. :lol:

[Shryke]

I'm not satisfied with this, either. I've fallen out of love with Hillary over the last two years, mainly because she seems to have a problem admitting past mistakes. She had a problem with this in 2008 vis a vis Iraq, and she has a problem with this now vis a vis DOMA**. I don't know why she can't just admit that Bill Clinton got it wrong when he signed that bill into law, just as she got it wrong when she voted in favor of GWB's little war. It's OK to make a mistake.

** This wasn't even Hillary's mistake!

I'm not sure what you expect. Never admit to a mistake you don't have to. It's not even about politicians, this is just media/public relations in general.

[Shryke]

Weird. I tried to correct the above post to say it's clickhole, not The Onion, and when I try to post the edit I'm told my post is empty and require content.

Very appropriate, considering the story posted. :lol:

You were right the first time.

ClickHole == The Onion

It's their BuzzFeed parody.

[Fragile Bird]

Lol, yes, just trying to be exact. :)

[TrackerNeil]

I'm not sure what you expect. Never admit to a mistake you don't have to. It's not even about politicians, this is just media/public relations in general.

I don't expect anything; I'd like a candidate to be able to admit to a mistake, particularly when such admission poses no risk. What's the harm in Hillary admitting that she didn't always support a position that, at the time, most Americans didn't support either?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Would I prefer a better Democratic candidate than one who's too close to Wall Street? Yes. I would support Sanders and Warren, for instnace (though neither are running).

But I will just as happily support Hillary once she grabs the nomination, with only mild reservation. I think her support of the Iraq war is not that big of a deal. She's clearly hawkish in outlook, though her stint as Secretary of State did much to temper her record on foreign relations, imo. I also think it's political suicide for her to renounce her support on Iraq invasion, even if she does regret it. I don't think it's going to sell very well when the GOP can legitimately quote her saying "I was wrong to support invasion of Iraq." I think the best we can expect is for her to attack it from the side and say something like she learned a lesson about the importance of unbiased, fact-based, accurate intelligence not blindisded by ideology in making critical decisions in deploying U.S. troops.

You seem to just be brushing aside her consistent warmongering

[Shryke]

I don't expect anything; I'd like a candidate to be able to admit to a mistake, particularly when such admission poses no risk. What's the harm in Hillary admitting that she didn't always support a position that, at the time, most Americans didn't support either?

I think it poses great risk, as I said. Flip-flopping and all that. There's no reason to make an unforced error on the subject.

[TrackerNeil]

I think it poses great risk, as I said. Flip-flopping and all that. There's no reason to make an unforced error on the subject.

I don't have polling data on this, but I doubt many Americans are going to care that Hillary turned around on an issue the same exact way most Americans did. In fact, it's a well known fact that in presidential elections most of the time most people don't vote on specific issues anyway, so I'm not sure it matters much. In 2016, most Democrats are voting for the Democrat regardless of where she stands on marriage equality.

As to "flip-flopping", is there any evidence that accusation has ever harmed any candidate? Did John Kerry lose in '04 because of that term? Did Mitt Romney, in 2012?

[Shryke]

I don't have polling data on this, but I doubt many Americans are going to care that Hillary turned around on an issue the same exact way most Americans did. In fact, it's a well known fact that in presidential elections most of the time most people don't vote on specific issues anyway, so I'm not sure it matters much. In 2016, most Democrats are voting for the Democrat regardless of where she stands on marriage equality.

As to "flip-flopping", is there any evidence that accusation has ever harmed any candidate? Did John Kerry lose in '04 because of that term? Did Mitt Romney, in 2012?

If most voters are going to care, why would she need to say it?

That's what I mean. Regardless of whether accusations like flip-flopper actually hurt a candidate, there's no reason to risk it when no one seems to care.

The last and practically only time this was an issue was back in 2008 and that's only cause Obama was beating her over the head with it.

[BloodRider]

It will be walker in the end.

I sincerely hope not.

[TrackerNeil]

If most voters are going to care, why would she need to say it?

That's what I mean. Regardless of whether accusations like flip-flopper actually hurt a candidate, there's no reason to risk it when no one seems to care.

I suppose it won't hurt her either way, but in my view if it doesn't hurt a politician to tell the truth, then she should tell it. It's possible she believes that a "flip-flopper" charge would stick (although I doubt it), or perhaps she doesn't think her stances on those particular issues were mistakes, which is more disturbing than an unwillingness to admit it.

[lokisnow]

stellar jobs report today, labor force participation ticked up, wages ticked up, revisions were over 100,000 in the positive territory, baseline revisions tacked on another 90,000, and for january it was 250,000 jobs. that makes 11 consecutive months of over 200,000 jobs per month, which hasn't happened since the 1980s (which is more impressive in the eighties since there was a smaller population then).

[Suttree]

More on the latest jobs report.

But the beauty in this report was in the more subtle indicators it offered. That uptick in the unemployment rate? It happened not because fewer people had jobs, but because the size of the labor force rose by a whopping 703,000 in January after annual population adjustments. That was enough to drive upward the proportion of Americans in the labor force and the proportion holding a job.

And while the rate of job creation was consistent with recent readings, the best news was in revisions to previous months, when the nation added 147,000 more jobs than the Labor Department earlier estimated. The nation is now estimated to have added 423,000 jobs in November and 329,000 in December, making them truly blockbuster months for job growth in the United States.

And finally — finally — there was meaningful evidence that an improving job market was translating into higher pay for workers. After a disappointing drop in December, average hourly earnings rose 0.5 percent in January, the strongest since 2008. It seems more plausible that the December drop was a false signal and that there was actually a smaller, consistent gain in hourly wages both months.

So what does this report mean?

If you're an American worker, this is a sign that businesses really are hiring in significant numbers, and are starting to recognize that it's not 2009 anymore. To attract and retain quality workers, firms are starting to have to offer raises that are higher than inflation. Over the last year, average hourly earnings are now up 2.2 percent, comfortably higher than the rate at which consumer prices have risen

[TerraPrime]

You seem to just be brushing aside her consistent warmongering

Has she supported any war effort that politicians from both sides have not supported?