MerenthaClone Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Yeah he has a point with the Supreme Leader thing and Obama. Why does Obama go out of his way to kow tow to middle eastern assholes? Just call Khamenei by his name or think up a neutral title like the 'Persian Pope'. Because a basic modicum of politeness is generally a useful thing in international relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Because a basic modicum of politeness is generally a useful thing in international relations. Only for beta males. Real men ridicule heads of state of other nations. Toucan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Only for beta males. Real men ridicule heads of state of other nations. Toucan. Sure is a good thing for Republicans that Obama's such a beta male, then, or he'd have wandered up to Congress, slapped his dick on the table, and demanded they enact full gay black socialism immediately. Cowering at his immense manliness and virility, surely, they would have caved, leaving themselves in a hellscape of roving wealthy not-poor black men congratulating each other on their latest (maybe) gay marriages as they vaccinate (for free!) the downtrodden and oppressed Christians of the world. I mean, that's basically how a real man enacts his policies through, right? Just...manliness and bluster? e: Also, I'm imagining the upset that the actual Pope, and other Catholics, might have at hearing Khamenei described as "the Persian Pope". I'm sure nobody would give a fuck about [i]that[/i] comparison, certainly not the rabid Christianist right who are just looking for reasons to scream "Muslim!" at Obama as loudly as possible. (Yes, the Catholics count as honorary Christians when necessary for such comparisons) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 e: Also, I'm imagining the upset that the actual Pope, and other Catholics, might have at hearing Khamenei described as "the Persian Pope". I'm sure nobody would give a fuck about that comparison, certainly not the rabid Christianist right who are just looking for reasons to scream "Muslim!" at Obama as loudly as possible. (Yes, the Catholics count as honorary Christians when necessary for such comparisons)Hey, calling him a 'Persian Pope' would help focus those kinds of Christians who still call the pope the whore of Rome, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 It's still Clinton's race. The Democrats still like her and even polling showing Sanders doing well shows people still liking Clinton and having her as their second choice. The narrative that "the left doesn't like Clinton" is also pretty much bunk. Sanders does better with the far left but Clinton still does very well with them too and with the whole spectrum left. When you look at the numbers Clintons support is weakest among the less educated, the more conservative, the less wealthy and the really young. Which funnily enough looks exactly like Sander's support profile except for Sanders is more popular with the very liberal and the very young. And Clinton polls better with women (and less well with men). And then, of course, there's the race issue, which is the biggest thing in the room. Can't win the Democratic nomination without minority support and Sanders don't have it. You see all the polling coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire because those places are really really white. I agree with just about all of this, and I'll add something else. You can tell where the party organization is lining up by looking at endorsements, and most of those have gone to Hillary Clinton. Of course there is still time for those endorsers to switch sides (and if some scandal surfaces they just might), but for now they belong to Clinton, and that matters. Also, it's still way too early to pay much attention to these polls. January is a long way off, and Iowa voters probably haven't really started paying attention yet. If Sanders is leading in December, Clinton should worry; until then, I think she can probably do what she's been doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I agree with just about all of this, and I'll add something else. You can tell where the party organization is lining up by looking at endorsements, and most of those have gone to Hillary Clinton. Of course there is still time for those endorsers to switch sides (and if some scandal surfaces they just might), but for now they belong to Clinton, and that matters. This gets at the heart of what Sanders is trying to do though: he's deliberately not taking any money from Super PACs. There's no doubt that Clinton is currently the candidate of the Democrat establishment and that she will raise an order of magnitude more money than Sanders. The question is whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage. The conventional wisdom is that it is an overwhelming advantage so Sanders has practically no chance of winning at all and the most he may accomplish is force Clinton to move to the left during the primary, a move that she will disavow in the usual shift to the center as soon as the primary is over and the general campaign begins. This is what almost everybody thought when Sanders announced that he is running and it is still the most likely outcome. However, every once in a while, people get tired of the elites telling them what to do. It's extremely rare, but it's not entirely impossible. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now -- it's definitely too early to tell yet -- but based on the popularity of Sanders (and for that matter, Trump on the Republican side), it is currently still possible that being the establishment candidate with all of the big donors lined up might actually be a disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 However, every once in a while, people get tired of the elites telling them what to do. It's extremely rare, but it's not entirely impossible. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now -- it's definitely too early to tell yet -- but based on the popularity of Sanders (and for that matter, Trump on the Republican side), it is currently still possible that being the establishment candidate with all of the big donors lined up might actually be a disadvantage. Clinton is broadly popular amongst Democrats, which is not a sign of "elites" telling anyone what to do. Rather, the fact that Clinton has so many endorsements is a sign that she's eminently acceptable to the rank and file. As I said, that doesn't mean things can't change--Iowa is a long way off--but this is not a situation of back-room power brokers telling anyone what to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 CNN's revealed the next GOP debate lineup. Its the same 10 as before, plus Fiorina. So that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Clinton is broadly popular amongst Democrats, which is not a sign of "elites" telling anyone what to do. Rather, the fact that Clinton has so many endorsements is a sign that she's eminently acceptable to the rank and file. As I said, that doesn't mean things can't change--Iowa is a long way off--but this is not a situation of back-room power brokers telling anyone what to think. Yeah, Clinton isn't just popular among the elites. And crucially, she's actually popular across all the parts of the Democratic coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Yeah, I was at first intrigued by Biden getting in, but now I'm leaning against it. As long as this email stuff doesn't contain an actual game-changer there's no reason to think she won't hammer the GOP nominee in the general. And she seems like she definitely has the emotional energy for the race whereas Biden may not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Nice interview with Joe Biden on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert tonight. :) Prep work? When did The Tonight Show name disappear? Wasn't it the Tonight Show with Jay leno, or was it the Late Show as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 The Tonight Show still exists, it's on NBC like it's always been, now It's The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. The Late Show started with David Letterman when he went to CBS now Colbert has taken over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Clinton is broadly popular amongst Democrats, which is not a sign of "elites" telling anyone what to do. Rather, the fact that Clinton has so many endorsements is a sign that she's eminently acceptable to the rank and file. As I said, that doesn't mean things can't change--Iowa is a long way off--but this is not a situation of back-room power brokers telling anyone what to think. A worthwhile political endorsement is by definition something that comes from an individual or group that is influential in some way -- either wealthy or famous or preferably both. These are the people I am referring to as the elites. Of course, some of them are not quite as influential as others and some are considerably more powerful, but very few are on the same level as ordinary citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Another day, another case of armed insurrection being okay as long as you're right-wing white people: The Oath Keepers -- the armed, anti-government vigilante group known for popping up at the Ferguson protests and elsewhere -- has told Kim Davis' legal counsel that they would be willing to "protect" the anti-gay marriage Kentucky clerk from being detained by the U.S. Marshals Service. According to Right Wing Watch, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes has said he is already on his way to Kentucky. In a statement posted to the Oath Keepers' website, Rhodes claims that the federal judge who ordered Davis' detention after she refused to issue gay marriage licenses "grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial." Prior to Davis' release from detention Tuesday, the Oath Keepers planned to picket the home of the judge, U.S. District Judge David Bunning, Right Wing Watch reported. It is unclear if she will be detained again if she gets in the way of her clerks' office issuing the licenses, as her lawyers have suggested, when she returns to work. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-oath-keepers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 A worthwhile political endorsement is by definition something that comes from an individual or group that is influential in some way -- either wealthy or famous or preferably both. These are the people I am referring to as the elites. Of course, some of them are not quite as influential as others and some are considerably more powerful, but very few are on the same level as ordinary citizens. Polls of Democrats show Clinton is popular with them. Google and ye shall find. Here's a nice insight into what endorsements really mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Polls of Democrats show Clinton is popular with them. Google and ye shall find. Here's a nice insight into what endorsements really mean. She is indeed leading the national polls, but this is an independent point from the endorsements. I don't see anything in the Washington Post article that disagrees with what I said -- the endorsements are the opinion of the Democrat elite and they are overwhelmingly for Clinton. By the way, her lead in the polls is not as large as it was and appears to be still shrinking: Hillary Clinton's lead in the race for the Democratic nomination has fallen to just 10 points, and at the same time, her advantage in hypothetical general election matchups against the top Republican contenders has vanished, a new CNN/ORC poll has found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 The Tonight Show still exists, it's on NBC like it's always been, now It's The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. The Late Show started with David Letterman when he went to CBS now Colbert has taken over.Ah, yes, thanks, I had forgotten for a moment it was Letterman he was replacing. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 She is indeed leading the national polls, but this is an independent point from the endorsements. I don't see anything in the Washington Post article that disagrees with what I said -- the endorsements are the opinion of the Democrat elite and they are overwhelmingly for Clinton. Sigh. What I am saying is that Clinton's strong position is not, as you asserted, merely the opinion of elites, but that elite opinion is itself a sign that she's broadly popular within the party. Now, that's not to say that rank-and-file opinion cannot change--there's plenty of time!--but for right now, Clinton is on the right side of both the average Democrat and the elite. That's a good place to be, and certainly better than Bernie Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Ignore what the polls say, including potential match up, and vote for the primary candidate (GOP or Dem) that aligns best with your preferences, I say. And then when the general comes around hold your nose and put up signs and/or volunteer for the candidate of the party that best suits you. I am as big a poll junkie as anyone, but it gets a little annoying playing 10 dimensional chess and trying to figure out voting strategies based on opponents or even the purpoted support your candidate may get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 best thing for the country would be higher turnout in primariesit's the only chance to scare incumbents, because they know it's unlikely most voters will flip their vote to the opposing partyI vote for primary challengers by default, all else being equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.