Presidential election, 2016

[linus]

(07-22-2016, 05:09 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(07-22-2016, 02:12 PM)linus Wrote: The TV is saying Kaine. I still think it could be Booker.

(Or maybe it's just because I don't want to believe that the Democrats are about to nominate the blandest ticket since Bore / [GI Joe] Lieberman. If the Democrats win [which I still think is the likeliest possibility] it will be like: hashtag WhiteHouseSoWhite.)

Of the three said to be on the short list, Booker is the only one I think that would help to energize the ticket - especially vis a vis core Obama voters - which is what I think she needs. A Kaine pick would I guess suggest they believe she needs to signal to white/suburban/independents that she'd be a "safe" bet. Or something.

But, you know, if it's Booker how long before the right trolls her with the bumper sticker: CLINTON / BOOKHER.

And I continue to think that Julian Castro would be the boldest, most inspired pick (of all the people mentioned publicly).

There is a problem with picking Booker.  The Governor of New Jersey would get to pick his replacement.  And the Governor of New Jersey is none other than ...... Chris Christie!

Elizabeth Warren has the same problem.  

Too bad, because otherwise, I like them both.

That may be the clincher, I guess. It's interesting: I was just reading the dailykos veepstakes live blog and there were multiple comments from Latinos wanting to see Castro picked. He's a rousing speaker, a great debater (or so I hear), and a political natural (unlike her). He would of course be the first Latino vp (not nothing), and the symbolism of having a Latino as Democratic running mate in the year of the Trump would be unmistakable. Best of all: he has a body double.

PS You really schooled me on this one. Dope that I am, it didn't even occur to me that if she picked Booker Christie would be picking his replacement. Kaine (and it is Kaine: I'm writing this postscript after the announcement), is obviously well-qualified to be president, and therefore a reasonable and responsible pick, I guess, but it hardly seems likely to excite progressives.

[Eric the Green]

The biggest weakness of Kaine, as far as I know, is his support for trade deals. This is dangerous, because trade is the biggest issue that Trump is using to try to win the rust belt, where the election will be decided, and to win votes there from union and working class Democrats.

[Bob Butler 54]

A few days ago, I proposed that Bill Clinton could come out, start plagiarizing Michelle's 2008 speech, then have Michelle come out of the wings and call him on it.  They could then do a half comic half scathing exchange on the real distinction between Democratic and Republican values.  Seemed like a good idea.  Would have been fun.

What they did instead worked better, though.  'When they go low, we go high' is a better note.  They also did very well with Michelle and still have Bill in reserve for another speech a bit further down stream.

I think they are doing well so far.

[playwrite]

Michelle was awesome and Warren provided the detailed indictment of Trump's trash.

Sanders threaded the needle with power and elegance - laying out all that he's done and making clear his revolution would only become a "monument" rather than continue as a "movement" if Trump is elected (e.g., instead of a push for a public option, Trump will kick 20 million recently insured to the curb).

The pivot, however, was Sarah Silverman -






- and to think this would not have happen except for the delay in Paul Simon's entrance (man, he's gotten old and off tune).

[Eric the Green]

I know, I know; Republicans helped with those things. But--- they don't anymore!

[Bob Butler 54]

Bill Clinton for press secretary?

That was an impressive talk.  It is very rare that one can change an established public figure's image this late in a career.  The counter argument to using Bill a lot comes from FDR's time.  After the first fireside chat, lots of folks said it was so effective that he ought to do it a lot.  FDR decided it was so effective it should be used rarely, so it would remain fresh, the audience wouldn't get too used to it happening all the time.  Instead of going on radio frequently, FDR kept it fairly rare....  but encouraged his wife to go on quite quite a bit.

Presidential spouses can come in handy.  We'll see if Bill can give Eleanor a run for the money for her place in history as the number one first spouse.

Anyway, I think Hillary has got her convention bounce at the very least.

Favorite line?  The Arkansa legislator telling Bill after Hillary testified before a committee that he thought they'd elected the wrong Clinton.

[pbrower2a]

Here's what the late William F. Buckley said of Donald Trump sixteen years ago:

Quote:Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.

....

In the final analysis, just as the king might look down with terminal disdain upon a courtier whose hypocrisy repelled him, so we have no substitute for relying on the voter to exercise a quiet veto when it becomes more necessary to discourage cynical demagogy, than to advance free health for the kids. That can come later, in another venue; the resistance to a corrupting demagogy should take first priority.

....

So what else can Trump offer us? Well to begin with, a self-financed campaign. Does it follow that all who finance their own campaigns are narcissists? At this writing Steve Forbes has spent $63 million in pursuit of the Republican nomination. Forbes is an evangelist, not an exhibitionist. In his long and sober private career, Steve Forbes never bought a casino, and if he had done so, he would not have called it Forbes’s Funhouse. His motivations are discernibly selfless. . .

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/0...-accurate/

This is a right-wing site. It cites an obscure magazine called Cigar Aficionado, the sort of place where one rarely sees political discussion or has it tucked neatly away under a discussion of "I really enjoy these cigars". Donald Trump would have been seen as a sick joke in 2000; Bill Buckley may have had some qualms about George W. Bush becoming President, but not too many to choose him over Al Gore.

William F. Buckley is no longer with us, so we can read into what he said or wrote whatever we like. I doubt that he would concur that Barack Obama is an above-average President, but even so most of the disdain for the current President is ideological. Stopping the economic hemorrhaging of the two most dangerous meltdowns of the American economy in the last century is a Great Deed of a President, something to which business acumen is of slight significance.

Of course it is up to Americans to reject demagoguery wherever it appears, under whatever partisan identity it it takes as a cloak. When the Obama-era bull market comes to an end we are going to need solutions, and not scapegoats. Demagogues are the bane of democracy. Just look at Venezuela, which the demagogue Hugo Chavez snookered.

[Eric the Green]

(07-27-2016, 06:38 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Bill Clinton for press secretary?

That was an impressive talk.  It is very rare that one can change an established public figure's image this late in a career.  The counter argument to using Bill a lot comes from FDR's time.  After the first fireside chat, lots of folks said it was so effective that he ought to do it a lot.  FDR decided it was so effective it should be used rarely, so it would remain fresh, the audience wouldn't get too used to it happening all the time.  Instead of going on radio frequently, FDR kept it fairly rare....  but encouraged his wife to go on quite quite a bit.

Presidential spouses can come in handy.  We'll see if Bill can give Eleanor a run for the money for her place in history as the number one first spouse.

Anyway, I think Hillary has got her convention bounce at the very least.

Favorite line?  The Arkansa legislator telling Bill after Hillary testified before a committee that he thought they'd elected the wrong Clinton.

I liked his spiel about the real one vs the made up one.





full speech: In the Spring of 1971, I met a girl.
https://youtu.be/MAsgTQ7rWqQ

[pbrower2a]

William F. Buckley must have thought that Donald Trump could have gone either way, choosing his partisan identity and his agenda entirely for convenience. He would have been as objectionable as a Democrat as a Republican.

Genuine conservatives usually have no room for demagogues. They prefer to keep mass expectations low, and demagogues violate that preference. Liberals distrust opportunism.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:Obama has wildly exceeded my expectations. In addition to the economic triage, he's done some remarkable geopolitical triage. I compare and contrast him with Bush 43. While Bush 43 did a number of right things after 9/11, he quickly lost the trail. Overall, Bush 43 frustrated me greatly on the geopolitical front. He failed to see beyond the WoT. In this new century, we not only faced a ramping up of terrorism, we also faced a rapid deterioration of the Post WW2 order, and its modification, the so called post-Cold War order. The time to strike was the early 00s. We lost a precious decade due to this. Obama was able to step in and if not stop, at least arrest the deterioration. Finally we are cranking up our strategic defensive and offensive stance, in response. Kudos to Obama!

You are aware of the fact that in each of the last 11 months, the U.S. unemployment rate has been lower than it was in every single month of Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Yet the far-right Big Lie Machine has managed to convince most of the country that the economy under Obama has been at its worst since the 1930s.

[MillsT_98]

(07-27-2016, 03:35 PM)Anthony Wrote:

Quote:Obama has wildly exceeded my expectations. In addition to the economic triage, he's done some remarkable geopolitical triage. I compare and contrast him with Bush 43. While Bush 43 did a number of right things after 9/11, he quickly lost the trail. Overall, Bush 43 frustrated me greatly on the geopolitical front. He failed to see beyond the WoT. In this new century, we not only faced a ramping up of terrorism, we also faced a rapid deterioration of the Post WW2 order, and its modification, the so called post-Cold War order. The time to strike was the early 00s. We lost a precious decade due to this. Obama was able to step in and if not stop, at least arrest the deterioration. Finally we are cranking up our strategic defensive and offensive stance, in response. Kudos to Obama!

You are aware of the fact that in each of the last 11 months, the U.S. unemployment rate has been lower than it was in every single month of Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Yet the far-right Big Lie Machine has managed to convince most of the country that the economy under Obama has been at its worst since the 1930s.

The Great Recession/Crash of 2008 has made everything worse for working families and young students. The drop in the unemployment rate since then was bolstered by the creation of jobs, but many of these jobs left many workers underemployed and underpaid. In addition, many unemployed people stopped looking for work, leaving the workforce and causing a so-called drop in unemployment (mostly due to fewer workers in the workforce). In addition, the creation of wealth has mostly gone to the top 1%. The rich are getting richer and are leaving everyone else behind. This income inequality and underemployment/underpayment is why the economy has been at its worst since the 1930s.

[Eric the Green]

Obama made a great speech tonight, and it gets better as it goes along. He covered all the bases, along with Kaine, Biden, Bill, Bernie, Elizabeth, Michelle.... The things that needed to be said were said. I hope the people listened.

[pbrower2a]

Democrats seek to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous radical who knows not what he is doing. That was a failure with a desperate Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan (Carter was a 2T pol in a world quickly going 3T and terribly ineffective) -- but this time the Democratic nominee takes the legacy of an effective incumbent during an unresolved 4T.

The faults of Donald Trump are obvious and odious. His virtues as a candidate are few.

Democrats can show Donald Trump as untrustworthy on foreign policy as George McGovern, as reactionary on economics as Barry Goldwater, and as inept at inter-ethnic relations as George Wallace.

[playwrite]

(07-27-2016, 11:09 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote:

(07-27-2016, 03:35 PM)Anthony Wrote:

Quote:Obama has wildly exceeded my expectations. In addition to the economic triage, he's done some remarkable geopolitical triage. I compare and contrast him with Bush 43. While Bush 43 did a number of right things after 9/11, he quickly lost the trail. Overall, Bush 43 frustrated me greatly on the geopolitical front. He failed to see beyond the WoT. In this new century, we not only faced a ramping up of terrorism, we also faced a rapid deterioration of the Post WW2 order, and its modification, the so called post-Cold War order. The time to strike was the early 00s. We lost a precious decade due to this. Obama was able to step in and if not stop, at least arrest the deterioration. Finally we are cranking up our strategic defensive and offensive stance, in response. Kudos to Obama!

You are aware of the fact that in each of the last 11 months, the U.S. unemployment rate has been lower than it was in every single month of Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Yet the far-right Big Lie Machine has managed to convince most of the country that the economy under Obama has been at its worst since the 1930s.

The Great Recession/Crash of 2008 has made everything worse for working families and young students. The drop in the unemployment rate since then was bolstered by the creation of jobs, but many of these jobs left many workers underemployed and underpaid. In addition, many unemployed people stopped looking for work, leaving the workforce and causing a so-called drop in unemployment (mostly due to fewer workers in the workforce). In addition, the creation of wealth has mostly gone to the top 1%. The rich are getting richer and are leaving everyone else behind. This income inequality and underemployment/underpayment is why the economy has been at its worst since the 1930s.

And even with a recalcitrant Congress that won't support the millions of jobs, that cannot be outsourced, for dealing with our crumbling infrastructure, Obama's policies have brought back many many jobs.  The best way of marking that is with this graph -



- that takes out the enormous trend of Baby Boomer retirements as well as more people choosing to go to school.

Sure, we're not back to the go-go days of private debt-driven pre-2008 meltdown, but the growth is much more solid.

This can not only continue but be accelerated under a Clinton White House, a Dem Senate and a chastised GOP House that could actually pass some infrastructure investment and other job creating programs.

On the other hand, that trend doesn't have a chance of continuing under a guy who hasn't given a shXt about this for his 70 years on this earth but just wants to rule us.  There's no doubt the upward trend will be just as much at risk as it was in the 00-00s when we last gave the keys to the economy to the drunks that drove it into the ditch less than 10 years ago.  Remember? If not, check the graph again.

[pbrower2a]

binary match-up:


Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump






30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Leads with less than 40% are considered TIES.





Three-way race:





Small states and districts in area:
CT: D5,6;4 MA: D14,4;4
ME: D7,??;4  ME-01 (est) D14,??;6 ME-02 R2,??;4
NJ D9,12;4
VT D15,10,3

Clinton (D)
Trump ®
Johnson (L)


Johnson support:

16%+: 80
13-15: 70
10-12: 60
7-9: 50
4-6: 40
2-3: 30
0-1: 20
Poll w/ no Libertarian number: clear




Stein support:

16%+: 80
13-15: 70
10-12: 60
7-9: 50
4-6: 40
2-3: 30
0-1: 20
not mentioned: clear

[pbrower2a]

I will be using a different map next week. The ends of the two Conventions begin the real races for President, showing whether the nominees of the Democratic and Republican Parties have defined themselves and vilified the other side successfully. Convention speeches establish the themes of the race. As I see it, in a two-way race my current map fails to distinguish a spread of 49-36 from one of 41-36. In a binary race I have a cause for a distinction between a race in which one of the nominees is over 45%, both are over 45%, or neither is. Mass advertising begins next week based upon promises and doubts raised in the Party conventions. Should Johnson prove relevant I will accommodate him. Old maps may become irrelevant.

Republicans have tried to depict Hillary Clinton as shady; Democrats are trying to depict Donald Trump as a dangerous extremist whose experience has no relevance to governing America. The themes are set, and new themes are unlikely.

It is remarkable that in his speech last night President Obama excoriated together fascists, communists, jihadis, and home-grown demagogues, the latter implying Donald Trump. This takes swipes at totalitarian causes of the past (the first two), today (a better definition than "radical Islam", as solutions to violent movements in Islam may be newer currents of Islam that contain some radical elements), and our own home-grown extremists who would tear down the decencies of our heritage for their own radical agendas.

Republicans are still stuck on the questionable issue of whether President Obama is a genuine American. With less than half a year in this Presidential term, such is now ludicrously irrelevant as well as unfounded. They should have ditched this issue long ago... but when the faction with the greatest contempt for reason gets hold of the Party that is what one gets. Democrats have a better slogan "Stronger Together" than the vacuous "Make America Great Again". We are all in this Crisis Era together, or this Crisis may do great harm to America.

[Anthony '58]

Where's the map showing Darcy Richardson's numbers?

[pbrower2a]

(07-28-2016, 12:57 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-28-2016, 12:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I will be using a different map next week. The ends of the two Conventions begin the real races for President, showing whether the nominees of the Democratic and Republican Parties have defined themselves and vilified the other side successfully. Convention speeches establish the themes of the race. As I see it, in a two-way race my current map fails to distinguish a spread of 49-36 from one of 41-36. In a binary race I have a cause for a distinction between a race in which one of the nominees is over 45%, both are over 45%,  or neither is. Mass advertising begins next week based upon promises and doubts raised in the Party conventions.  Should Johnson prove relevant I will accommodate him. Old maps may become irrelevant.  

Republicans have tried to depict Hillary Clinton as shady; Democrats are trying to depict Donald Trump as a dangerous extremist whose experience has no relevance to governing America. The themes are set, and new themes are unlikely.

It is remarkable that in his speech last night President Obama excoriated together fascists, communists, jihadis, and home-grown demagogues, the latter implying Donald Trump. This takes swipes at totalitarian causes of the past (the first two), today (a better definition than "radical Islam", as solutions to violent movements in Islam may be newer currents of Islam that contain some radical elements),  and our own home-grown extremists who would tear down the decencies of our heritage for their own radical agendas.

Republicans are still stuck on the questionable issue of whether President Obama is a genuine American. With less than half a year in this Presidential term, such is now ludicrously irrelevant as well as unfounded. They should have ditched this issue long ago... but when the faction with the greatest contempt for reason gets hold of the Party that is what one gets. Democrats have a better slogan "Stronger Together" than the vacuous "Make America Great Again". We are all in this Crisis Era together, or this Crisis may do great harm to America.

While the Drumpf Dummies obsess on "Messikans, Muzzies and Fagz," Chinese space vehicles capable of hoisting MIRVed thermonuclear warhead clusters undergo re-entries over CONUS. They have their heads stuck where the Sun don't shine.

White Anglo Americans have never harbored the hostility toward Latinos that they have had toward blacks at any time. Donald Trump has hurt several decades of Republican outreach toward Latinos (including even Cuban-Americans and Puerto Ricans who might hear "Oh! I thought you were Italian!" after some slur of Hispanics of any kind). There is much more assimilation between whites and non-white Latinos, the assimilation going both ways. White people aghast at their dear white daughter marrying and having children by a black man are far more lenient toward a Latino son-in-law who shows obvious First Peoples ancestry. Non-black Latinos can become 'honorary whites' and become welcome at the holiday dinner tables.

Donald Trump is going to lose the Hispanic vote far more severely than any Republican nominee since at least Goldwater... and that is a large chunk of the electorate. He can also lose many of the votes of people who have a Hispanic in-law. Many Texans and Arizonans fit that description.

I doubt that the Muslim vote will swing any state unless the state is so close that any minority (even a large occupational group) can make a difference. Same-sex marriage is decided once-and-for all.

...as for national security, Democrats may have taken an issue that usually favors Republicans. President Emeritus Barack Obama will be far more useful to President Hillary Clinton than to Donald Trump in a tough negotiation with the People's Republic of China on weapons systems. Donald Trump gets stuck with the elder Bush, who will quickly become irrelevant for reasons other than the competence that he has shown in the past on foreign affairs. (He is 91).

Hillary Clinton owns the Obama foreign policy. Effectively she also owns the foreign policy of her husband, the elder Bush, and what Ronald Reagan got away with. Donald Trump has cast about the idea of abandoning NATO, a position to the left of what the Nixon campaign was able to pin on George McGovern.

[pbrower2a]

A tale of two political bounces -- Clinton in Pennsylvania and Trump in Ohio.

Pennsylvania (Suffolk), this week:

https://twitter.com/davidpaleologos/stat...7593225216

three-way

Clinton: 46
Trump: 37
Johnson: 5
Stein: 3

two-way

Clinton 50 Trump 41

Public Policy, Ohio (last week)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/...ntion.html

Trump: 42
Clinton: 39
Johnson: 6
Stein: 2


Trump: 45
Clinton: 45


...Pennsylvania is usually much more D than Ohio -- about 5% more Democratic than Ohio.

The Ohio poll is almost certainly obsolete by now. I don't see much significance in the general election in a state having the Convention of one of the Parties.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-28-2016, 10:24 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Clinton is giving a good speech.

She's hitting all the key points and factually describing the dangers of Trump et al.

Not a bad speech.  I agree with the comment that she's a work horse, not a show horse.  Michelle, Barack and Bill had better stage presence and delivery.  These three stars of earlier nights each had their own perspective to push, each covered a different base.  Hillary was trying to cover all three, might have had too much ground to cover.  I'm not totally impressed, but a 'good' is a fair mark.