No worries Net, I was trying to come up with a coherent relevant response and frankly I've read and listened so little about any politics I really have no opinion. Nearly any other topic in humanity I'll have an opinion. The current political climate or specific people, not a fucking clue. I have more opinions about the NHL awards than I do about specific politicians and parties. I think that happened because I went to Catholic school and then to ultra liberal CU-Boulder and just lost interest in that topic because as much as I don't mind being a contrarian, political arguments just seem so difficult to reach any sort of resolution or compromise or even line in the sand.
I think a shit-ton of people will need to wake up in order for him to get elected in the first place. But his message is very popular with most people, so that is certainly possible. Currently special interests are able to prevent a lot of sweeping changes that are supported by a vast majority of people (minimum wage, gun background checks). A large part of that is special interest money trumping general public opinion. While most support an increase in the federal minimum wage, very few make that their main issue when choosing a candidate. What I would hope with a Bernie Sanders candidacy that focuses on concrete solutions to protect and expand the middle class is a dramatic increase in voter turnout that carries over into the midterms, and perhaps more importantly, also translates to greater participation in state legislature elections.
What I find to be incredibly interesting is the fact that Clinton's backers/donors are predominately Wall Street investment houses and banks, while Sanders' are all unions and individuals. He's made millions so far off of small, individual donations, while she's made millions off of a few, high-paying special interest donors. I think this is going to be a very interesting election to watch.
Sander's has very little chance of making much hay in this election. The most he'll do is force Clinton to adopt his stance on a couple of issues that poll really well. I think this election will be incredibly boring if you're an average person, and incredibly lucrative if you're extremely wealthy. The last 5 Presidential elections have gone to the person that spent the most money. In light of Supreme Court rulings in recent years, this relationship - money = win - has only been strengthened. It will be Clinton versus Bush, with Clinton winning. The good news for most people is that in actuality, there is almost no difference between any of the candidates, nor a whole lot of surprises coming in the next presidency. Edit: I'm considering compiling an analysis of the top three candidates in each party and updating it continually as the election approaches.
People are going to either vote for Jeb thinking they're getting George W or Hillary thinking they're getting Bill. The fact that this is what the election is coming down to is pretty alarming. Then again, I could see the Democrats using her to hide a dark horse candidate. At this time in 2007 no one had heard of Barack Obama yet. It won't be Sanders or Warren though.
I don't see this happening. Clinton has spent too much time and money to allow that to happen. The normal presumptive Democratic nominee, Biden, doesn't look like he'll be running. Further, it's June 2105, and I can't think of a Democrat that hasn't announced that would be able to mount a serious challenge. The only way I see the Clinton nomination not happening is if something incredibly major and stupid was committed by Clinton. Frankly, she's way too politically savvy to make that kind of misstep at this stage in the game. The only real question at this point is her running mate. Typically, you see it drawn from the pool of other candidates, but in this case Warren has already committed to not running at all and Sanders is an avowed 'socialist' which will not play well in light of criticisms of the Affordable Care Act being (incorrectly) termed socialist, which is what the Republicans will hammer her on.
Heh, thats why they'd be a dark horse. She's not as left-wing as Obama, so she'll play more centrist. And she cant have another old lady as a running mate, she has to go more youthful. Three possible choices could be: 1) Evan Bayh. Has experience as a senator and as a governor. Almost became Obama's VP until he lost to Biden. He has been loyal to the Clintons since the mid 90s. 2) Martin O'Malley. He's well-known and been in the beltway scene for years as Maryland's governor. He was projected to run in 2008 but decided not to and largely thought to run if Hillary ever backs out at the last minute. 3) Julian Castro. That Hispanic vote. The Republican field is too wide open at this point. Too many people. I would actually be surprised if Jeb Bush got the nomination. All I know is the ones that absolutely wont get it: Michelle Bachmann, Donald Trump, Rick Perry.
Agreed, but I would add Bobby Jindal to that list. What is the election, like a year and a half away? What a pitiful and unnecessary circus.
Nothing. The current Republican party has no problem voting against its own members. For instance, the shutdown. Many Republicans were against it, yet many broke ranks. While I usually don't offer my own opinion or position - I will in this instance. Nothing will be done about guns. Frankly, if someone killing a bunch of kids in a school doesn't spur action, nothing will. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but having a different President would have made no difference.
Just throwing this out there, since this is the serious thread and all. I'm considering doing a political blog, specifically following the 2016 election - would anyone be interested in such a thing? If so, hit me up on PM. And now back to your regularly scheduled fighting...
I also just want to say "thanks" to everyone for keeping this thread sane so far... there were a lot of cynics who thought it was going to devolve into a poo-flinging showcase, but it hasn't.
Regardless of the differences between individuals, I'm against another Bush or Clinton being President again simply because I don't think our democracy should be about the same families holding political power for years and years. Gotta mix it up.
It's really good to see this. I've been hoping for this type of discussion for a long time. The thing about Mrs. Clinton is she knows when she's beat, and she is able to turn that into a win. Who got credit for welfare reform in the '90's? Bill Clinton. It was 100% a Newt Gingrich idea, but Clinton gets all the credit for it. He understood the situation, knew he was beat, and made everyone believe he thought it up. Hillary will do the same, I think. Lately, the economy seems like it's the best with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. The country needs gridlock so the government will leave us alone. Obama had already been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate after his 2004 Senate primary victory. He gave the keynote address at the 2004 convention that cemented his position. Some of you are too young to remember that. So far, I don't see any Republican candidate who can beat Mrs. Clinton. The only possibility I see hasn't officially announced yet. Scott Walker has won state-wide elections three times now in Wisconsin, so in theory he would carry it in the general election. Reagan was the last Republican to carry Wisconsin, so that's a big bump. Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Christie - none of them stand a chance.
My buddy works for the Governor's office in Texas and all of his friends are either in the State Capitol, lobbyists, or politically affiliated some-how. His best buddy is on RP's campaign. They know they are screwed and always have been so they've been fucking around for months already. I remember when Jindal was a great potential hope 4-8 years ago, but it was "wait till 2016, he's not ready yet." And then he proceeded to become hot garbage after that. Its a shame the Christie got caught up in that whole bridge bullshit, cause he was actually a fairly palatable Republican contender.
What do y'all think about Rand Paul's chances? I like his positions and understand he has a lot of the young vote, though I admittedly don't follow politics enough to know if he is just pissing in the wind or not.
FYI, just renamed the thread to remove the "weekly" connotation... we're just going to leave this thread open indefinitely so as not to ruin the flow.
Christie was only palatable because no one knew anything about him. After being exposed to his Royal Blow-Hardedness for two terms here in NJ I can tell you he would be a lousy president: 1. He has all the tact of a blind bull in a China shop. There is no way this man could navigate international relations without starting WWIII, or domestic relations without being impeached. 2. One of his crowning achievements as a US District Attorney was a double entrapment, where the terroristic mastermind had to be goaded into committing a crime 3. He took on pension reform, and immediately failed to live up to the premises on which that reform was developed , i.e., "if you agree to these cuts in your pensions we will guarantee funding". They did, he didn't. 4. He "reformed" a quasi-governmental agency by removing questionable appointments, and then replacing them with his own questionable appointments, several of which got caught up in, and resigned as a result of, bridgegate. 5. At best, New Jerseys economy has been stagnant under Christie, and he shown an amazing lack of ability to develop reasonable budgets that accurately estimate revenue Those are the low lights. Highlight - he handled Sandy, as the crisis was unfolding, like a champ, and he deserves credit for that. The recovery, now that's a different story.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/0...emove-content-related-to-the-confederate-flag I know we have moved past the flag and talking about politics, but more companies are removing the confederate flag from there stores.
And a number of those that were opposed to the flag removal are now backpeddling after they see just how big the bandwagon is.