Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471287 times)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #400 on: September 21, 2015, 10:18:17 AM »
Larry,

Get off your damned horse! You want to see all the friggin little details, but now is not the time. Haven't you ever taken a marketing class?

Each candidate is marketing themselves to the population. The population wants "basics", not detailed nitty gritty that they cannot understand. They are not friggin know it all elitists like you.

The greater the details, the greater the likelihood that opponents of each candidate will use the info to attack the candidate. They will misrepresent,  obfuscate, lie and do whatever else to take down the candidate.

KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. The details don't sell.

I remember when I first got into sales. I wanted to impress my customers with my product knowledge and guess what? It did not work. I could not sell hot coffee to an eskimo. People  don't care about the details. They just want to know your objectives, see if it fits with their own objectives, and that you have a general idea of how to proceed. Nothing else. Heck, in Ludlow's case, they would not understand anyway.

Damn, I hate these fools.


PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #401 on: September 21, 2015, 02:15:16 PM »
lol....National Review confirms what I and others have been saying about the GOPe rigging the primaries to stop "non-conventional" candidates.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386913/new-rnc-rules-stymie-conservativesin-primaries-henry-olsen

From the article written in 2014:

This is a potential death sentence for the conservative candidate. Most of the highly conservative southern states traditionally hold their primaries inside of the March 1–14 window. If that occurs again in 2016, a conservative candidate will probably not gain many delegates over the establishment choice by winning the states in his base. Even if a southern state in the window allocates, as many non-southern states do, three delegates to each congressional district on a winner-take-all basis, the proportional allocation of the statewide delegates will place a conservative statewide winner at a severe disadvantage. He or she will then have to compete in less hospitable states that have the freedom to select all of their delegates by winner-take-all methods.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #402 on: September 21, 2015, 06:47:35 PM »
A bit of "Candidate Casino":

a) IMHO Trump is less strong than he appears, the anti-Trump vote is divided amongst many and as the many become fewer, the survivors vote percentages will go up.

b) Very well positioned in this regard in Rubio, he is the second choice of many will relatively low negatives.

c) Carly is going to go under the microscope now for her time at Lucent and HP.  The ads that Boxer ran against her to good effect here in CA are likely to be resurrected.  PS:  If I have it right, Boxer's manager is highly ranked on Hillary's staff.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Walker out, etc.
« Reply #403 on: September 22, 2015, 09:18:05 AM »
It seemed to me Walker and Perry were running by looking in the rear view mirror.   Others are guilty of it too.

Perry had an amazing economic record in Texas, outperforming the whole rest of the country and he didn't mind telling us..  That didn't translate into people believing he could do the same with the country especially if he was seen as unelectable.

Walker took a strong stand against the wrongful public employee unions in Wisconsin and won.  He won 3 statewide elections in Wisconsin in the last 4 years, and he told us and told us.  Did that mean he was ready to win nationwide or even carry his own state in a national election?  No.  Breaking the federal employee unions isn't the heart of what is wrong.  Foreign policy, immigration and economic plans are.  I would say his work in Wisconsin isn't done.  Wisconsin still has big government and old economy problems, its economy has not passed up its Democrat-led neighbors yet, they don't have the tax rates of SD, TX or FL yet and Walker is still young.

Chris Christie might as well drop out too.  He is touting accomplishments in a state still burdened by big government problems and leftism.  He hasn't moved New Jersey away from voting left except for his own election.  How he would prosecute the war on terror is interesting, but doing for the country what he did for NJ is not a compelling story.

Kasich has a heck of a track record.  If this was a resume election, he would win.  It clearly isn't.

Conventional wisdom says we tend to elect Governors to be President while Senators get bogged down in wonkiness and procedural talk.  This year is different.  We have 31 (?) Republican Governors available plus some great former governors.  In the race are (or were) the Governors from the biggest states and biggest swing states possible, Ohio, Florida, Texas, even New York, plus NJ, LA and Wisc.  None are catching on so far.

The Senators running are not the type we normally think of as Senators running for Peresident.  All are junior Senators.  All are first term.  All are leaders of a movement more than they are proceduralists and compromisers from the smoke filled rooms of Washington.  Rand Paul is trying to strike a balance between libertarianism and reality, carrying the torch of the Ron Paul movement, the smallest but most energetic wing of the conservative movement.  Paul also carries the Republican torch for anti-interventionism.  (Carson leans that way too.)  Ted Cruz is closest (other than Paiul) to being a pure conservative and consitutionalist.  Rubio is the conservative leader of the pro-freedom, pro-growth wing, in my view. These are philosophical leaders, not people who made their careers in the Senate.  None of them suffer from the conventional problems of being a Senator except for the lack of executive experience and having their campaigning constrained by vote roll calls in Washington.

Carly had kind of a tough time running the world's largest tech company through tumultuous times.  She touts those accomplishments only when confronted with the bad sides of it.  Her rise is based on her focus on the task ahead, leading America.  She may have learned more out of that executive experience than if she had led the company during a time when everything they touched just turned to gold.

Trump is more of a project manager than a CEO as I see it.  Carson is a unique case outside of known rules.

Walker led in April, was second on Aug 1, did almost nothing wrong, and is now out.  This race is fluid.
--------------------------------------

With everything now upside down, Trump is now where Bush was supposed to be when he entered.  There was the Bush support, known and measured, and there was the rest splitting the anti-Bush sentiment.  The best Bush could do was hold his ground and he didn't.  He under-performed.  Now there is Trump support, from low 20s to the 30s, back to low 20s.  He is the most known now so everyone inclined to prefer him already does.  As he gets more specific on issues, some of his support could erode.  If he looks unelectable, more support erodes.  Not too many who are now anti-Trump now are going to change their mind and back him for the nomination as I see it.

Disclosure, my prediction accuracy rate is not very good and the candidates I like best tend to lose.  (

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #404 on: September 22, 2015, 10:04:42 AM »
I just made a small donation each to Rubio and Carson

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #405 on: September 22, 2015, 10:24:29 AM »
And a big one to Trump.    :evil:
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #406 on: September 22, 2015, 02:03:21 PM »
MAJORITY OF NEW YORKERS, JEWS DON'T LIKE HILLARY CLINTON
New Yorkers rate Hillary unfavorably by 51 to 46 percent.
September 22, 2015
 
Daniel Greenfield
 
 
 
Hillary Clinton used money and political connections to carpetbag herself into a Senate seat in New York. Now for the first time, she's viewed unfavorably by a majority of New Yorkers.
New Yorkers rate Hillary unfavorably by 51 to 46 percent. Among Jews, 54 percent rate Hillary Clinton unfavorably to a 45 percent favorable. Those are worse numbers than Obama, who also polls underwater among Jews, but polls favorably among New Yorkers.
Donald Trump is leading in New York, which is what you would expect. Ben Carson comes in second. Jeb Bush third. Not that it's a contest either way. No Republican is going to win New York, though Trump comes closest to splitting the Jewish vote against Biden 43 to 54 percent. Trump does slightly better with New York Latinos than Jeb Bush, but his presence also moves more Latino undecideds to Biden.
Hillary Clinton though is just unpopular in New York. No Republican actually beats her, but she performs worse against Biden in most matchups. And she splits the Catholic vote and 43 percent of the Jewish vote goes to her opponent.
Biden is very competitive among Catholics if his opponent is Jeb Bush (even though Jeb is Catholic) or Donald Trump. Ben Carson splits Catholics. But Hillary splits Catholics. And this isn't a Latino issue, because Hillary does better with Latinos than Biden. Hillary has a problem with white Catholics.
Also interestingly, Hillary ties Jeb Bush and Trump among white New Yorkers, but Ben Carson decisively wins white New Yorkers. (He doesn't do anything with black voters.)
Against Jeb Bush, Bernie Sanders actually does worse with Jewish New Yorkers than Hillary. (And she isn't popular either.) Sanders also gets the lowest level of black support and is barely above 50 percent with Latino voters.
Ben Carson actually gets 39 percent against Bernie Sanders' 46 percent. It's also one of the few scenarios where Ben Carson picks up any amount of the black vote. Against Carson, Sanders' Latino support falls to 42 percent.
Sanders wins white voters over Bush, but loses white voters to Carson.
This is an interesting scenario. You have to wonder what's going on there. Which white voters is Carson unlocking.
Meanwhile the big issue is still the economy. Nobody cares about immigration. Even among Latinos it only pulls 13 percent. That's average.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #407 on: September 22, 2015, 02:21:49 PM »
Thought it time to post the latest polling data from the Morning Consult.  This is certainly different than the CNN/ORC poll that all the media keep citing. The Morning Consult and the NBC poll (not even quoted by NBC, they are using the CNN/ORC poll) are similar.  Based upon the polling subsequent to the 2nd debate, the CNN poll is an outlier.

No wonder Trump went off on Fox last night. Fox continues to promote the worst poll and ignore the NBC and other polls. The Fox/GOPe/Rove attack continues.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Hillary ill?
« Reply #408 on: September 22, 2015, 02:59:03 PM »
This is the second article that I have seen today on this.

Edward Klein is writing a book whereby he cites that "The 67-year-old Democratic front-runner has been “frequently plagued” by “blinding headaches” and a series of strokes over the course of the campaign which have left her second-guessing her chances of winning in 2016, says the upcoming book “Unlikeable — The Problem with Hillary.”

http://nypost.com/2015/09/22/hillary-is-dealing-with-mounting-health-issues-new-book-claims/

The book is up on Amazon and is being released Sep 28, which would be next Tuesday.

http://www.amazon.com/Unlikeable-Problem-Hillary-Edward-Klein/dp/1621573788

If Klein does report these illnesses, Hillary will have to respond by releasing her medical records. If not, then she only reinforces the idea that she is not well, and is hiding it.

This could be the tipping point and could force her out of running for President. it would be the proverbial stake in the heart of the vampire.

BTW, Hillary just came out against Keystone. This was two days after saying that she was going to wait until after the election to say something on it.


PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #409 on: September 24, 2015, 10:49:45 AM »
Donald Amongst the Eggheads

They don’t like him for some strange reason.

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. – 9.23.15 - The American Spectator.

Hold on to your toupees, the conservative intellectuals are in a stew.

One candidate in the race for the Republican presidential nomination is not playing by the rules. He is rude and crude and having a very good time of it. Oh, and by the way, he is leading the field by a lot. He has 29 percent of the vote among Republicans, according to an NBC online survey the other day. His next closest opponent is Dr. Ben Carson with 14 percent and after that Carly Fiorina with 11 percent. Both, incidentally, are new to politics as is the target of the conservative intellectuals’ wrath, Donald Trump. Interestingly the intellectuals are markedly out of touch with the conservative rank and file.

Trump’s rambunctious presence in the race is responsible for a miracle. The conservative intellectuals have finally thrown in with the left intellectuals. Both disrelish Trump, and, if truth be known, they are not very happy with Carson or Fiorina, who with Trump account for over 50 percent of the Republican vote. A year ago these three would be sitting in the politicians’ audience.

Meanwhile Trump is flying around the country having a great time discomfiting the intellectuals and gathering abundant support from conservative voters, independents, and even from the left. How is this happening? Well, Trump speaks boldly. He has taken the measure of the political class and finds it wanting. And he has identified issues that most of the other candidates are too timid to tackle. He is an optimist. Like Ronald Reagan he sees America as a shining city on a hill, and it does not make him wince. My guess is that Trump likes movies starring John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. He is a regular American.

The think tank eggheads bring to politics neatly tailored plans to address such problems as income distribution or the immigration conundrum. Trump clarifies issues. To income distribution he brings plans for economic growth and jobs. To the immigration question he identifies the problem. It is illegal immigration, and the illegals leap to supply him with evidence by murdering and raping the citizenry. Trump’s solution is to build a wall and to return the illegals. As for those immigrants who arrived here legally, they can continue to prosper. There is evidence the legals approve.

Aside from identifying and clarifying issues, Trump spots as issues matters that the establishment politicians hardly notice, for instance, political correctness. Somehow he has perceived that political correctness rankles average Americans. It angers them when political correctness intrudes into school curricula, political discourse, and how government treats its citizens. When Trump speaks out against it, the ordinary American discovers that Trump is their kind of guy. He is also their kind of guy when he speaks out against tax loopholes and for fairness in the tax code. Trump has his finger on the pulse of average Americans. His touch for markets that has made him billions he applies to finding constituencies, and it appears he has been brilliant at finding constituencies or, as he says, “The Silent Majority.” He, and for that matter the other late arrivals to politics Carson and Fiorina, have caused anxiety in the establishments of both parties, to say nothing of the intellectuals.

How is it that Trump anticipates the issues better than the establishment politicians? Well, despite his fortune, Trump is a regular American. I think a lot of Americans recognize this. The best of America is like Trump, optimistic, self-confident, energetic, can-do, and they enjoy a good laugh. Trump has made running for political office fun again, much as Ronald Reagan made running for office fun again after the lugubrious Jimmy Carter. Reagan spoke of “Morning in America.” Trump has trademarked “Make America Great Again.”

How is Trump going to do when the voting begins? I can see him getting at a minimum 25 percent of the vote going into the convention, maybe more. It depends on his ability to develop an organization to get out the vote, his continued anticipation of issues, and his continued ability to address them boldly. If he succeeds, as I think he will, he will have a strong hand to play in the convention. I suspect his strongest opponent will be Jeb Bush, but Carson and Fiorina will also be candidates to reckon with. Then the players will sit down and cut a deal, but remember they will be dealing with the billionaire who wrote The Art of the Deal. I am looking forward to an exciting summer in 2016.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #410 on: September 24, 2015, 11:36:49 AM »
Tyrel writes a good piece about Trump and what motivates his supporters, but the motivations cited are symptoms of the problems that we have, and that it is hoped that Trump can address.  But before I discuss this, two personal observations:

1. I do the grocery shopping in the family. The last two times I have gone and while waiting in line, I hear discussions on Trump. Most people are genuinely enthused by Trump and hope that he can bring change. The comments come from all groups and not just whites. (Now, I live in a middle class, liberal Northern California city. It has a mix of ethnic groups, about 15% black, 25%  hispanic, 20% asian and the rest white.) When I do hear negative, it is easy to determine the liberal persuasion of the person.

2. I was given a Make America Great Again ball cap. Since I am a "shit disturber", I will wear it to the malls and other shopping areas. The response that I get to the ball cap is overwhelmingly positive. I am stopped and asked time and again where the question is always about where they can get a cap. Also, I am engaged in conversations about how good Trump will be for the country.

The question for why this is occurring goes far beyond what Tyrel writes about. To understand, I would direct people to reading "The Fourth Turning"  (TFT) by Strauss and Howe, written in 1996.

TFT does a historical analysis of the past going back to the 1400's, and identifies that history operates on not a "a straight time line" but that it is circular. Essentially what they mean is that history does repeat itself in general trends.  The trends come from a "generational basis" and each generation covers about an 20 year period. Every 4th Generation, the country/society "resets" and begins anew.

TFT identifies the US as having gone through 4 cycles to date, with us currently being in the 4th Turning of the 4th cycle. They identify the cycles as The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, The Depression/WW2, and the newest cycle being the Financial/Housing Crisis.

Each 4th Turning has certain general characteristics that indicate a type of malaise which has settled over the country. People find that the "old ways" no longer work, people are disillusioned, and the leaders of the country cannot or will not engage in efforts to cure the issues. Financially, things are just as bad with Debt Leverage at unacceptable levels. Often, a "general" war is experienced.  The result of the 4th Turning is that people look for change, and the change begins with the search for a new leader who they fell can counter what is occurring.

The leader that is most often chosen is one who is accepted as "strong and decisive". He might be good or bad. For example in the previous 4th Turning from the Depression Era, the US looked to Roosevelt, the UK Churchill, Germany Hitler and the USSR Stalin. Previous turnings saw the US going to Lincoln and Washington.

If this premise is accepted, then it becomes obvious why so many are looking to Trump to lead. He is considered strong, decisive and a problem solver. (Snarly may fall for a time into this category.) Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, and the dwarves do not meet the strong and decisive standards, so they fail to attract the support. The Dem candidates fall into this same category, except for perhaps Warren.

The problem for any country entering into a 4th Turning is that absolutely no one knows how it will turn out. Society will change, but where these changes will occur and how are unknown. Society may take entirely unpredictable paths, especially if a general war occurs.

TFT is really a good book to consider reading for this perspective.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - John Kasich: Life is about balance
« Reply #411 on: September 28, 2015, 08:55:24 AM »
He hasn't earned his own thread yet, but Kasich is moving like a turtle toward the nomination.  If we assume the top 3, Trump, Carson and Fiorina will fizzle, and Jeb Bush too, and that Cruz isn't electable, that leaves Rubio and Kasich.  Rubio is young, articulate and charismatic.  Kaaich is older, wiser and more experienced (at compromising).  Take your pick.

Kasich says he will focus on New Hampshire and then sweep the country (good luck with that.)  Yet this powerline sighting was in Council Bluffs Iowa on Saturday:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/live-from-council-bluffs-its-john-kasich.php

In the first place he [Kasich] has decent poll numbers. The Real Clear Politics average has him at 10 percent or fourth in New Hampshire. Nationally, Bloomberg has him at 4 percent. The second point to consider is that he has been a successful governor of the large and electorally important state of Ohio. He claims to have taken an $8 billion dollar state deficit and turned it into a $2 billion dollar surplus. But then again Scott Walker and Rick Perry had at least equally impressive records and they are both out.

John Kasich appears to be a happy warrior. It’s a quality that has appeal to many voters.

The event at the county fairgrounds was well-attended with the largest contingent of local elected officials at any GOP event I have been at. It is easy to forget that in Iowa and New Hampshire the endorsement and campaign infrastructure of the locals can be critical to success. Congressman David Young was in attendance. He did not endorse Kasich but spoke favorably of him.

At the outset Kasich reminded the crowd of his blue collar roots and his father’s occupation as a mailman. He said he would speak for the people who have no one to speak for them. Bear in mind, however, that he used to work as an investment banker and has friends on Wall Street. Kasich therefore has a background in three worlds: politics, media (at FOX News) and finance.

One of his strengths is his background in budget and spending issues in the state and federal government. He claims to have written the first balanced federal budget since roughly forever. He claims to have left Congress with a huge fiscal surplus surplus, but “the GOP spent it.” Not the Democrats, but the Republicans. He used the line: “When you know the budget, you know everything.” Look for that in the next debate.

He said he will restore defense spending but will be prudent about it. Kasich claimed credit for stopping the spending on the legendary $800 hammer.

Government shutdowns are in the news again and he was part of the first one. He said he supported the Clinton-era shutdown because he “knew he could bend Clinton.”

His populist message was expressed in his desire not to exclude anyone. Kasich’s happy warrior message was conveyed with his promise to compromise without compromising principles.

Kasich took up Pope Francis’s visit. He attributed the Pope’s popularity to a message of hope. Kasich avows that his campaign for president is meant to lift us up and stop the negativity.

I asked him about his reputation as a moderate Republican. Kasich asserted that today Ronald Reagan would be considered a moderate Republican. The other aspect of his moderate reputation is one of tone. He will talk publicly about average people’s problems and his work to solve them. He claims: “I’m a mainstream conservative and a reformer.”

In  answer to a question about the overbearing EPA he worked in the assertion that Hillary is most fearful of him winning the nomination. He seeks to remind voters that the nominee needs the votes of many voters who are middle-of-the-road. He puts it this way: “Life is about balance.”

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #412 on: September 28, 2015, 09:37:38 AM »
My three problems with Kasich are:

1. He is pro Amnesty and really not supportive of a Wall.

2. He expanded Medicaid in Ohio significantly, supported Medicare 4 which was for prescription medicine.

3. He supports Commoncore.

For things like Abortion, he is "pragmatic". He is against abortion personally, but will not go against it legally. Probably the same with Planned Parenthood. (On this stuff, it is simply a device to splinter both sides, so as the special interests can keep money coming in and keeping up the division.)

He talks of smaller government, but I have no idea where he really stands, but I suspect he will expand it if elected.

Gun control, he has supported assault weapon issues, but he also has been more conservative on other issues.

I figure he is also bush lite.
PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Hillary Worked to Silence Bill's Sexual Assault Victims...
« Reply #413 on: September 28, 2015, 10:32:46 AM »
ROGER STONE: ‘PETS KILLED, TIRES SLASHED, LATE NIGHT PHONE CALLS’ TO SILENCE BILL CLINTON’S SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS

by ROBERT WILDE  27 Sep 2015

Long time political operative and strategist Roger Stone appeared on Breitbart News Sunday, broadcast on SiriusXM patriot radio channel 125, with Breitbart’s senior investigative political reporter Matt Boyle.

Stone who cut his political teeth working for Richard Nixon’s infamous Committee to Re-elect the President, later campaigned for Ronald Reagan, and until recently worked for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, shared a few nuggets from his new book The Clintons’ War on Women, which he co-wrote with Robert Morrow.

Stone told Boyle that Hillary Clinton promoting herself as an advocate for women and children is hypocrisy. The author reminded Breitbart News Sunday listeners that as recently as last week Hillary spoke about the rape issue and that raped victims should be believed.

“Unfortunately, this doesn’t match her own history,” Stone pointed out. “She has been an enabler of rape. She has been the person to enable the serial rape and sexual assaults by her husband Bill Clinton. Some of which are known publicly: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.”

Stone stated that there were “many, many others who were not known publicly.” He charges that the main stream media is protective of the Clintons and supressed the other incidents to the public.

In The Clintons’ War on Women, Stone told Boyle that “We have laid out Hillary’s real record on women.”

Stone accused Bill Clinton of violating the women physically and that Hillary came to his rescue and hired detectives, to gather information on the women. She then used the information to “run a terror campaign to intimidate Bill’s victims into silence.”

According to Stone, Hillary’s motivation is clear. She does not want  anything to get in the way of growing their power and wealth.

Stone added that the book includes not only the serial rapes committed by Bill Clinton and Hillary’s cover up, but the “horiffic things” that were done to his victims. “Pets Killed. Tires slashed. Windshields Smashed in and bullets left in the front seat of cars. Late night phone calls: We know where you’re children go to school,” all of these threats were part of the Clintons intimidation tactics.

“This is very sick stuff.  It is the psychological abuse of women and Hillary is responsible for it. Women voters need to know her real record,” the political firebrand asserted.

Ironically, Stone observes, that Hillary advocates for equal pay, but that “in no job where she was the boss did women make as much as the men.”

“Hillary is really not a friend to women,” he insists. “That is really what this book is about.”
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #414 on: September 28, 2015, 07:07:21 PM »
North Carolina just manipulated its Primary Election. Guess who benefits?

NC was a winner take all primary. It was always assumed to be in the Jeb corner in support.

Jeb's support has dropped from 12% to 5% in the last month. Rand Paul is at 0%. And Mrs Graham now has 2 supporters, up from  0 last month. She is surging.
Trump has gone in one month from 24 to 26% support.

So what did NC do on Sat? They changed the rules to:

1. Proportional Primary so that the delegates will be awarded on a proportional basis.

2. Increased the number of delegates from 12 to 72. NC now has the 6th highest number of delegates to the convention.

3. 3 of the delegates are "at-large" and can vote for whoever they want.

So who does this benefit? It benefits Bush or Rubio, whoever remains, because they will now get a portion of the delegates that would otherwise go to the winner, likely to be Trump.

The poll is Public Policy and the results will be released tomorrow.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Geraghty
« Reply #415 on: September 29, 2015, 08:57:05 AM »
The State of the Race as September Comes to an End

Donald Trump: A lot of Trump critics are confident he will burn out. I’m not so sure. Sure, it’s not that hard to picture scenarios where Trump trips up and can’t recover: a series of statements akin to “Look at that face!” makes him unacceptable even to Republicans who agree with him on the issues, or running for office stops being fun for him and his interest wanes, or he finally goes to events like the one by Heritage Action in South Carolina and withers when he’s in a format that requires policy details instead of applause lines. But Trump foes would be fools to count on this. Trump may have stopped gaining momentum inthe polls, but he’s still the front-runner.
Yes, there’s some polling evidence that Trump supporters aren’t the voters most likely to vote in a GOP caucus or primary . . .

Trump supporters lag behind Republican primary voters in general in high-engagement voter categories. Trump also lags significantly in penetration of issue-driven voters. Conversely, he enjoys a significant concentration of support among unengaged voters. One might assume that these unengaged voters are attracted to Trump's brash style and talent for creating sound bites.

. . . but some of those folks taking a newfound interest in politics because of Trump will get up off the couch, register as Republicans, and vote for him. (Speaking as a rabid Trump critic, this is an accomplishment.)

Recall Fred Barnes’s observation of the focus group of Trump supporters: “Their tie to him is almost mystical. He’s a kind of political savior, someone who says what they think.” Even if Trump never builds upon the 20-some percent he’s getting in most polls right now, just holding that level of support would leave him with a big pile of delegates and maybe the ability to play kingmaker.

Throw in the front-loading of primaries next year, and whoever is hot in February and March is probably going to be the nominee. We know Trump will have the money to run whatever positive messages he needs and to go negative on anyone he wishes. He’s pretty much dominated the political discussion almost every week since mid-June.
Even if Trump departs the race, Trump-ism will live on well past 2015. The modern conservative movement/Republican party is going to have a significant minority, if not a plurality, yearning for vehement opposition to illegal immigration, wariness of trade deals, the intermittent rhetorical denunciation of hedge-fund managers, and the insistence that most foreign-policy problems can be resolved by simply meeting with foreign leaders to “look ’em in the eye and say, ‘Fellas, you’ve had your fun. Your fun is over.’”

There will always be an appetite for someone who comes along and insists the solutions are easy.

Ben Carson: The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza ranks Carson the sixth-most-likely person to win the GOP nomination, which seems really low. He observes, “Carson’s recent comments about his wariness about electing a Muslim president further stoked concerns from establishment Republicans that he is simply not ready for prime time.” Forget making and breaking candidates; so far this cycle, have we seen any indication that “establishment Republicans” can influence the rise or fall of candidates?

Ben Carson raises money in bunches. He’s got the indisputably impressive life accomplishments. He’s got . . . Kanye West. You could see him cleaning up in Iowa or South Carolina. And you can’t help but wonder that as race relations get worse, a broad swath of the public might yearn for a message like Carson’s final statement in the first debate:

CARSON: Well, I think the bully pulpit is a wonderful place to start healing that divide. You know, we have the purveyors of hatred who take every single incident between people of two races and try to make a race war out of it, and drive wedges into people. And this does not need to be done. What we need to think about instead -- you know, I was asked by an NPR reporter once, why don’t I talk about race that often. I said it’s because I’m a neurosurgeon. And she thought that was a strange response. And you say -- I said, you see, when I take someone to the operating room, I’m actually operating on the thing that makes them who they are. The skin doesn’t make them who they are. The hair doesn’t make them who they are. And it’s time for us to move beyond that. (APPLAUSE) Because our strength as a nation comes in our unity. We are the United States of America, not the divided states. And those who want to divide us are trying to divide us, and we shouldn’t let them do it.

Carly Fiorina: She’s undoubtedly rising; she was at 3.3. percent in the RealClearPolitics average on September 19. Now she’s at 11.6 percent. If the race comes down to who the best communicator is, she may have the best shot. But I wonder how many Republicans have this nagging doubt that the Democrats would “Romney-ize” her over the layoffs . . .

Marco Rubio: To hear Terry Sullivan, Marco Rubio’s campaign manager tell it, they’re perfectly comfortable where they are right now -- in the middle of the pack, not high enough to attract flak from the other candidates, not low enough to stir talk of a lost cause. “People don’t stop running for president because they run out of ideas, or they run out of a desire to give speeches; they stop because they run out of money,” Sullivan told Rich Lowry at our event last week. “When you’re paying people for three months, it’s not too bad; when you’re paying them for twelve months, it’s different . . . Everybody on our campaign has taken a pay cut from whatever job they had, myself included.” Every expense over $500 has to be approved by Sullivan. With budgeting like that, Rubio won’t be leaving the race anytime soon, and it’s easy to imagine Republicans who aren’t comfortable with the first-time candidates unifying behind Rubio.

Jeb Bush: Hey, remember how Bush’s super PAC started running $24 million in ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina back in mid-September? There have only been two polls conducted in those states since then, so it’s too early to see if they’ve had an effect. But if there isn’t some pop in those numbers for Bush, it might be time to hit the panic button. It’s near-impossible to imagine Jeb Bush dropping out before votes start getting cast, but if he’s stumbling along in single digits in January . . . how long will he stay in the race?

Everybody at this level and down is husbanding resources and hoping to get a boost out of either Iowa or New Hampshire. The buzz is that Rand Paul is being pressured to drop out and focus on running for reelection to the Senate.

Ted Cruz: Is the Cruz strategy really to be warm and fuzzy to Trump, positioning himself if Trump stumbles or withdraws? If you were on Team Cruz, wouldn’t you want to start formulating a plan just in case Trump doesn’t withdraw? Cruz has the money to stick around a long time; it’s just not clear that he’s got a plan to transfer Trump’s supporters to himself without Trump’s approval.

John Kasich: Obviously getting some traction in New Hampshire, but he seems like the antithesis of what a lot of conservatives want to see in their nominee this year.
Chris Christie: Most people thought he had a good debate, but we haven’t seen much pop in his poll numbers. It appears that in to move the numbers in the current media environment, you need more than just a “good debate,” you need “a moment” -- either a speech or exchange that people gush about the next day. Lindsey Graham is in a similar situation.

Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum: Both of these guys keep hanging around, obviously operating on a shoestring, hoping that Iowa will fall in love with them again and catapult them to the first tier. The only Republican who won a contested Iowa caucus twice was Bob Dole (1988, 1996).

Bobby Jindal: Yes, yes, he’s lower than pi in just about every poll. He’s pretty clearly focusing on Iowa and hoping for the best. Still, he’s the candidate who simultaneously can’t stand GOP leadership in Washington (“It appears that even though voters gave Republicans control of the Senate in 2014, Harry Reid is still running the Senate.”); the current front-runner (“Donald Trump is a madman who must be stopped.”); and President Obama (“The president told the pope that, in America, people must be free to live out their faith without fear of intimidation. That’s the opposite of reality in America today.”) Maybe there’s a sweet spot in between there.

NBC News: Hey, It’s Time to Trim the GOP Field

Urgh.

Though the debate will be on NBC partner CNBC, Chuck Todd, NBC’s political director and the moderator of Meet the Press, is taking part in establishing the debate set up and criteria. And Todd has publicly expressed skepticism about the need to include 10 or 11 candidates, the numbers featured in the first two debates.

“Let’s just say the goal is to create a threshold that candidates have to meet to qualify for the stage rather than committing to putting 10 candidates on the stage. And I don’t think we should commit to more than 10-candidate debates. You have to be viable. So now we’re in debate three it’s time to show viability and only the viable ones survive,” Todd said during an interview on ESPN radio last week.

First, why are we learning, or at least getting hints, about the debate criteria from ESPN radio?

Second, can you think of a better rallying cry for the guys left off stage -- presumably Jindal, Santorum, Pataki, Graham, and maybe Rand Paul or Mike Huckabee -- than for them to be left out by NBC News? “The liberal media, the parent company of MSNBC, has decided my voice shouldn’t be heard . . .”

Third, in an era where campaigns are fueled by the fundraising surges that come from televised “moments” -- and in a cycle where the RNC set strict rules on how many debates could occur, thus limiting the opportunity for these “moments” -- why would the RNC accept NBC News’ effectively knocking four or five guys off the stage?

Fourth, Fox News and CNN enjoyed monster ratings for having both debates. Why would CNBC want to limit what’s likely to be the most-watched program in their history?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #416 on: September 29, 2015, 09:18:24 AM »
Here is a question that needs to be asked........

Does the GOP even want to win the Presidency? Or do all they really care about is retaining control of the Senate and House? Why do I ask?

1. The GOP has been pushing for Jeb since Romney. And we all know that Jeb cannot win. No more Bushes. Heck, just looking at Bush on the campaign trail, and he looks like he does not want to win, that he is going to the dentist when he campaigns. Why push him then?

2. The GOP is pushing Amnesty, which the public does not want. What is with that?

3. Carson is mostly concerned with abortion and gay marriage, against both.  He is a 7 Day Adventist.....and look what happened with Romney and his Morman beliefs. Carson considers greater NSA spying against Muslims in the US, including search and seizure. Does it stop there? What about the 4th Amendment?  Carson thinks everyone should be able to buy a gun without a registration requirement, yet he turns around and says that Assault Weapons are okay in the country areas, but not cities. Where is he on the 2nd Amendment?

4. Carly is unelectable. This week she is against abortion, wants to turn back Roe v Wade, but two years ago, she was pro abortion. Additionally, she is a believer in mad made global warming,  amnesty, and Common Core. Plus, she has a credibility issue.

5.   Rubio is Jeb lite. Amnesty, Common Core, etc. He appears to be the alternative if Jeb fails, but who really wants him?

The other candidates that the GOP supports, Kasich, etc., have their issues as well.

Cruz, he is not electable since he will be hit with the Tea Party label.

The only potential candidate that could likely win in the general election would be Trump. But the GOP is attacking him at every point, even though he is actually getting increasing support from blacks and latinos.

So the question remains, does the GOP really want to win? I would suggest that they do not. Here is why.

The US is facing critical issues, both financially and socially over the next 10 years. The debt is continuing to climb, and contrary to those who view debt as a percentage of GDP and thus as long as it remains about 22% of GDP, all is fine. But that is unsustainable.

Employment is another problem that needs real resolution. The participation rate is at the lowest in decades. People cannot work or get full time work. People are working 2-3 jobs, just to get by. Yet the government claims that the employment rate is 5.1%, which is considered full employment.

The banks are financially insolvent. They survive only by manipulating mark to mark and not mark to market. Their profits are being generated by market actions, not traditional lending practices.

The housing market remains broken. No one is taking the steps needed to get it going again.

Fed rates remain at ZIRP levels. 0% interest rates. Once they are forced to increase, there goes the economy, housing, employment, etc.

Simply put, the US is broken and may not be fixable, at least with "traditional" practices. Only extraordinary means of attacking the problems might work, and that is questionable.

So the question again..........does the GOP want to win the election? Do they want the blame when things go to the bad again? Do they expect a general collapse and another Great Depression, so they want to "hide"?

The GOP actions would seem to suggest so.
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Larry Correia's election predictions
« Reply #417 on: September 29, 2015, 10:01:34 AM »
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/08/11/my-election-predictions/

My Election Predictions

    August 11, 2015   correia45   381

I was talking to Mike Kupari about this yesterday, mostly being my usual optimistic self, and telling him don’t worry, the election wasn’t going to be Donald Trump versus Bernie Sanders, so there was no reason to flee and build a compound in Costa Rica just yet. He suggested I write it up for the blog, so what the heck, here goes.

Note, these aren’t endorsements, they’re predictions. So you don’t need to yell at me for not backing your dude. Yes, I’m sure your Candidate X is super awesome, and I’m a stupid jerk face for not seeing it.

My prediction is that the republican nominee will be Ted Cruz. The democrat nominee will be Hillary Clinton.  At this early point in the campaigns I got Dole, Bush, and Romney right. McCain surprised me, but I think I was just blinded by my dislike for him. I predicted Obama as soon as he got done with that first original DNC speech, and sadly got that one right. Though I was surprised how fast he usurped the Clinton machine.

Here is my reasoning. First, the democrat side is really easy to predict. You’ve got one batty old socialist and a slightly battier old socialist. Though I’ve been told that Hillary Clinton isn’t actually a socialist because the way she loves taking bribes is very capitalistic. Good point.

Bernie is nuts, but he’s honest. He skips right over all the typical democrat feel good, heart string tugging reasons why they think the government should control everything, and gets right to the government controlling everything. He is economically illiterate. Those Occupy Democrat memes going around Facebook where they are quoting Bernie fucking up some basic economic principle are literally painful. Every time you share one of those, an accountant dies.

The only reason Bernie is actually polling surprisingly decently is because many democrats sense just how lackluster Hillary is. However, Hillary is still going to get the nomination. Because as much as democrats like to think that they’re all about tolerance, there is something incredibly emasculating about watching your candidate get chased off the podium of his own rally. There’s a reason the Black Lives Matter protestors haven’t invaded Hillary’s space, because we all suspect she’d shriek “GUARDS! SEIZE THEM!” super villain style, and then have them devoured by her nanotech enhanced attack weasels.

Hillary may be a liar and a cheat, and she’d sell your children’s organs to Russian mobsters to make five bucks, but at least she’s not a total chicken shit. So, barring the highly unlikely event that Hillary gets arrested by the FBI for one of her multitude of scandals between now and the primaries, Hillary is it.

On the GOP side it gets really hard to predict just because there are a slew of candidates. Right now I see it going Cruz, with an outside chance of Rubio or Walker. Yes, I know that isn’t what the polls say right now, but this is how I see it playing out.

Trump is a stunt candidate. He’s sitting around twenty percent, lots of people are flipping out about it, and the media is loving that. But the rest of the GOP can’t stand him. As we head into the primaries we always do this thing, where somebody will pop up, the voters will say Oooooh New and Shiny, they’ll surge, and then once people have a chance to actually look at what they’ve really done, they come back down.

The thing everybody needs to remember is that every single election cycle we go through this period where the media tries to pick the eventual GOP candidate for us. Their criteria are A. Can the democrat eventually beat them? And B. If they do somehow win, will they not rock the boat too bad for democrats? McCain is the greatest example of that ever. This time around their obvious pick was Jeb Bush. For weeks it was Jeb, Jeb, Jeb. Only Jeb was dull and Trump makes great TV. If you look at early polling it almost always correlates with how much media attention the candidate is receiving. So, a candidate polling at 5% is usually getting 5% of the coverage, etc.

Trump comes along, he’s bombastic, unapologetic, and simply does not give a shit. The real lesson to be taken from Trump and Bernie is that many Americans are so damned tired of the establishment and the media that they’ll root for anybody, no matter how crazy they are, if they’ll just quit sucking up and actually stand for something.

But here is the problem with Trump, and it isn’t his personality or being willing to insult people (because if I’m judging these people on personality, I’d probably get along with him in person way better than most of the others, and the Rosie line made me do a spit take). It is because he’s been a Republican less time than Bernie has been a Democrat. When I’ve talked to the hard core Stormtrumpers they’ll say he’s great on the border! Okay, but what about his record on abortion, guns, crony capitalism, government intervention, eminent domain, and single payer healthcare? Suck, suck, suck… oh but on that one he evolved… This week.

For the people convinced that Trump is the Real Conservative in the race, and that the other 15 are all RINOs, put down the crack pipe. This is the same guy who a couple of years ago was outraged about violent videogames and saying how somebody needed to do something about them. Yeah, there’s a dude totally grounded in the Bill of Rights.

And before any fanatical Trump fan yells at me again about Megan Kelly was mean and how I just listen to FOX News, I cancelled cable like a year ago, so I don’t watch TV news unless I’m on it. Sheesh. The hard core Trump fans remind me a lot of the old hard core Ron Paul fans.

So with all the attention in the world, he’s leading at 20%, but that’ll die down as the novelty wears off. Most people aren’t single issue voters, and they’ve already put up with two terms from a malignant narcissist, why pick another? Trump will eventually drop out and use his celebrity to make even more money, much of which he’ll donate to democrats and democrat causes.

Then it gets really complicated.

Carly Fiorina did really well on the first debate, and then kicked Chris Matthews’s ass (see that thing above about people being hungry for anyone who will stand up to the media). I’ve got several friends who are hard core Fiorina supporters, but I have another friend who worked for her at HP who really found her business practices shady, but I’ve not had a chance to delve into that enough to comment.

A lot of people are thinking it would be a good match up because Fiorina is a woman and Hillary is a sort of woman shaped carbon based life form. And it could possibly derail Hillary’s main campaign platform of Vote For Me Or You’re a Misogynist Pig. Which will probably be similar to Obama’s Vote For Me or You’re Racist and Vote For Me or You’re Racist 2: Extra Racist.

However, according to the media we all know that Republican women aren’t real women. Just like Ben Carson, Tim Scott, Mia Love, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Walter Williams aren’t actually black people either.

The strategic problem for Fiorina is that because she is a Republican woman, and she has done well, expect the media to go full Palin on her. If she does have any questionable business dealings, they’ll be huge headlines for weeks on end (unlike deleted emails, missing classified documents, and getting ambassadors killed, because what difference does it make?). She’s still a possibility, but if there is anything even vaguely shady or potentially shady, the media will use it as a club to discredit her. Nothing freaks out the media worse than female or minority republicans.

Once people get tired of the Trump show, that hunger for bucking the establishment and telling the media to bugger off will still be there. And this is why I think Ted Cruz will move into the lead. He’s been a pain in the establishment’s ass. The left wing media hates him. And you can usually tell who the media really fears by how much they try to ignore them, or talk about them, rather than to them (gee whiz, I can’t imagine where I came up with that theory!).

Cruz has an elected track record. He’s got actual conservative cred. He’s one of the Tea Party generation that’s been replacing the greying and thankfully dying off big government GOP. Is Cruz a fantastic candidate? Nope. His track record isn’t perfect and he looks a lot like a young Grandpa Munster. Once they can’t safely ignore him, expect the media to go after him extra hard. The thing Cruz has going for him on that front is that they’ve been trying for years, and they’ve already spilled every bit of dirty laundry they had to discredit him back during the government shut down fight.

The biggest hurdle Cruz has won’t be the DNC or their tame news media, it will be the McCains, Hatches, and Grahams of the GOP. Because they really want a Jeb or a Christie. (note, I didn’t put Lindsey Graham in that list of potential presidents, because nobody, and I’m including Lindsey Graham, think that Lindsey Graham can be president).

On Jeb Bush… Ain’t gonna happen. He was the media’s initial pick, and it was even more painfully obvious than when all the democrats showed up in our open primaries to “cross the aisle” to nominate McCain, and then promptly ditched him for Obama on election day. But Jeb’s got zilch. Actual conservatives don’t like him, the Tea Party hates him. On the issues, he’s mumble mumble amnesty and mumble mumble that’s not what Common Core was supposed to mumble. Seriously, do you know any actual voter who likes Jeb? Can you think of one? I can’t. Jeb has all the suck of the old, dying, big government GOP, so the conservative base will be even less enthusiastic for him than they were for Romney and McCain, with the added benefit that his last name is Bush, so automatically half the country hates him.

Chris Christie is beloved by the media because he’s loud, and the biggest big government big republican they can have lose to Hillary, and if Christie happened to somehow beat Hillary, then they’d only be stuck with a republican who was electable in New Jersey. Christie came to prominence because of that same phenomena that is floating Trump now—which I think will eventually give it to Cruz—in that he’s willing to be disagreeable. Sadly, he’ll buck the media, but he won’t buck the establishment because Christie is the establishment. By volume, he’s half the establishment. And I’m saying that as a 6’5” 300 pounder myself.

On the far side of Christie is Rand Paul. Now personally, I really like Rand. I think he’s actually got real convictions and he’s got guts. As hipsters where whining in one tweet about the horrible evil Tea Party, and their next tweet was lamenting how bad it was the government was reading their emails, a guy elected by the Tea Party was the one fighting to get the NSA to quit reading their mail.

If you had to name three elected officials in the GOP who have been the biggest pain in the establishment GOP’s collective ass over the last few years, it would be Paul, Cruz, and Mike Lee (that’s my senator! I don’t claim Hatch). Luckily, I think Lee is too antisocial to ever run for president, which is good, because I want him to eventually replace Mitch McConnell and his weird turtle face.

But between Rand and Cruz, Cruz is polling better now, and seems to be having a better run of it. Gut feeling, barring a really good showing, I think Rand is principled enough that he’ll drop out after the first couple of primaries to not split the Tea Party contingent, and the liberty minded republicans who are backing Rand will go to Cruz. That’ll be the jump. Of the other candidates, who else would they support? A regular Rand ally, or one of the bigger government types? That’s a no brainer and several percentage points.

That’s if the Tea Party side coalesces into one favorite. The establishment side is split too, so it’ll be interesting if they all get behind one person.

There are two others that I still see as strong possibilities, Rubio and Walker.

Scott Walker is an election winner and a union buster, two things that really appeal to the base. He had a pretty vanilla showing in the last debate. He’s squishy on some core issues, but the feeling I get is that for some reason he’s a relative unknown to most primary voters. Which again shows that who the media most fears, they ignore, until they can’t, then they lie. They did the lie/fear thing in Wisconsin, but at the national level it has mostly been ignore. So if Walker does something really interesting enough to sneak past the Trump circus sucking up all the coverage and oxygen in the room, he could still have a shot.

Rubio is an interesting one. If you’d asked me four years ago who I thought the GOP front runner would be today, he probably would have been my call. It seems like he’s got a lot of national electability, but his problem is that he straddles the line between big government establishment republican and small government conservatism way too much. Note, to all aspiring young politicians, if perpetual loser John McCain wants you to team up with him on a big controversial issue, RUN AWAY! The whole fishing boat, speeding tickets, NYT expose helped him more than anything else. It humanized him and made him relatable. But there are too many issues he has sucked on with the base, so I think he’s going to fall by the wayside.

If several of the candidates drop out and toss their support behind Rubio or Walker, it could very well go their way.

Cruz and Rubio are both Latinos. Some republicans seem to think that is like a magic bullet, and suddenly republicans are going to get the Latino vote. That’s stupid. Just stop. The concept of “Latino” as a demographic is horribly flawed and unrealistic to begin with. How in the hell can you expect to stick people whose ancestors originate from one whole continent, the bottom half of another continent, and the west end of a third continent, islands in every hemisphere, spread over like 30 countries, in America between one and ten generations, and expect them to be this homogenous voting block?

Though since Cruz and Rubio are both Cuban, I expect to see the media declare that Cubans aren’t real Latinos. Sort of like when the government declared that Portuguese are Latino, and I was all like MWA HA HA HAAAAA I’M OFFICIALLY A MINORITY and they were all like oh shit what have we done?

On the same note, some republicans seem to think that if we run Ben Carson, republicans will suddenly get the black vote. I like Ben Carson. I think he’s probably a really good man. I also think focusing on his race is an incredibly stupid philosophy, and one that the democrats will beat republicans at every time. Identity politics are stupid democrat games. Don’t be surprised when you play their game and lose. That’s because they make the rules and game is rigged. You want to win, convince people that you’re worth voting for.

The problem with Ben Carson is that he’s not a politician, and it shows. You’d think being a non-politician at a time when everybody hates politicians would be a winning proposition, but they still have to know how to play the game. Trump isn’t a politician either, but he is a consummate game player. Fiorina isn’t a politician, but judging by how she rolled Jabba the Matthews, she’s got game. As a brain surgeon Carson is probably the smartest guy on the stage, but he’s not a political animal. Hillary has 1/3 of Carson’s IQ and none of his humility, but my gut feeling is that she’d walk all over him in a debate. Then Carson had to go and suck on guns, which is a kiss of death issue with the base.

Kaish… I’m not even going to bother to look on Google to see if I spelled that right. I have no idea why he is there. Non-entity. He could be the best candidate ever, who is right on every single issue, but I wouldn’t know, and neither do any of the voters. Perry just can’t seem to shine. Lots of Texans seem to love him, but he’s got zero momentum. Jindal, same thing. Barring any sort of super brilliant coup maneuver, I don’t see these guys moving up.

Lindsey Graham… Holy shit, just shoot me now. If Lindsey Graham got elected president I’d volunteer for that one way trip to Mars, and if that was a no go, I’d build my own rocket. He’s everything wrong with John McCain and the GOP, only he’s not a war hero, and has a lisp.

Again, these are just my guesses. I could be totally wrong. I also predicted Romney was going to win in the electoral college (to be fair, he only lost by like 600k spread across four swing states, so it wasn’t like I totally blew it). But the democrat side is going to be Hillary, unless she is arrested and can’t make bail.  Republican side, I figure Cruz, with an outside chance of Fiorina, Rubio, or Walker.

However you look at it, no matter who wins, we’re going to end up with somebody better suited for the job than Barack Obama. Sadly, I’m including Bernie Sanders in that equation, and that’s really saying something.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #418 on: September 30, 2015, 10:54:22 AM »
From Trump thread:   (PP)  Doug,

I am serious now. It will be either Hillary (if she survives the email scandal) or Biden.

You make good points on  the Trump Plan. But the problem is that Trump will not be "allowed"  to defend his plan in a rational manner. The liberal media will claim that it is unworkable, and they will drive the narrative. Meanwhile, the GOP will push the narrative that everyone must pay something, so that will drive off those who don't pay anything now.

It is becoming more apparent that the GOP ticket will likely be Rubio/Fiorina. With this ticket, the GOP can claim support for women and hispanics and for them, hopefully increase hispanic and women support. It might work to a degree, but it will be offset by the tax issue.

The problem is that Rubio/Fiorina is no better than what the Dems offer. They are all indebted to Wall Street and K Street. So nothing will really change.

What the GOP is ignoring is that with Rubio/Fiorina, once again a large part of the GOP electorate will stay home and not vote. I will be one of them. Why vote if nothing will change? It is all the Uni-Party.

With my post yesterday, I am really coming to the conclusion that the GOP would prefer to lose the Presidency again. After all, we all recognize that the next 4 years are fraught with economic danger, homeland security dangers, and society dangers caused by the ethnic divide. The next President will face all of these issues and reality suggests that there will be no easy solution.

Would you want to be President for the next four years, or eight and be responsible for handling what is coming? I would not...........and I bet that the GOP actually feels the same way.
 8-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point I think either Rubio or Fiorina will be the nominee.  Rubio may be Carly's VP choice.  I don't know if she will be his.  Maybe.

There is another dynamic in play.  The statisticians like Jay Cost at Weekly Standard and Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics look at conditions and results from previous election cycles and believe that most of it, after a two term President, comes down to the approval of the incumbent and the performance of the economy under his direction.  If those are both lousy, the other party wins.  The details of each party picking their most electable candidate take care of themselves, from this point of view.

Those measures look lousy for the Dems right now, whether it turns out to be Hillary, Biden or someone else.  The approval numbers of the incumbent and the economy should be driven even lower and lower by the opposition, the way Dems did it on Bush during the Iraq war.  Why should we tolerate this level of economic incompetence and wrongheadedness.  Just the story of Carson and a Muslim President or backing a county clerk in Kentucky (?) are interesting but diversions away from winning this election.

FWIW, Marco Rubio politically is no Bob Dole, John McCain, or wishy washy Romney.  He rose from the tea party, ran against a moderate Republican, sitting governor (for Senator), tried to solve problems given the existing makeup of Congress (Dems controlled the Senate then).  He hasn't lost sight of the differences between the parties.  The contrast will be screaming-obvious in the general election.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #419 on: September 30, 2015, 11:48:05 AM »
Jay Cost is correct in past times, but I wonder now. Just think Romney is 2012. He should have won the election, but he really whimped out.

For Rubio, there is this.

1. He is for Amnesty, a problem with 62% of the population.

2. Voted against the Mike Lee amendment for balancing the budget by 2017 and reducing government size by half by 2025. Voted in 2013 against balancing budget in 5 years without tax increases.

3. He misses votes more than any other candidate. He missed votes for both the Planned Parenthood funding and also TPP.

4. He supports TPP.

5. He wants Permanent Extension of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act.

6. He voted for the NSA and against the requirement of needing warrants for wiretapping of US citizens.

7. He votes against reforms to the NSA Mass Survelliance and the privacy issues.

8. Supports Medicare Part D

9. Against privatizing Social Security

10. Cosponsored legislation calling for private business to consider race in interviewing

11. Supports sugar subsidies and Import Export bank

12. Supported federal subsidies in student loans

13. Supported arming Syrian rebels and getting rid of Assad. Also supported US intervention.

14. Was in favor of US intervention in Libya.

15. Voted to block conservative amendments to the Iran Nuclear Agreement

16. Voted for Florida's Cap and Trade.

Rubio concerns me because though he appears to be a conservative, his positions like Cap and Trade and NSA/FISA suggests that he is for government expansion.





PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #420 on: September 30, 2015, 04:01:41 PM »
Doug writes,

"It will be either Hillary (if she survives the email scandal) or Biden"

It will be clinton again.

the Clintons are all over the airwaves with their accomplisses in the media.

Erin Burnett interviewing Bill for the "clinton foundation" front.

A big announcement today on Yahoo news that Hill "breaks with Obama" on Obamacare:  She says she is against the Cadillac tax.  (big fn deal)

Showing her "humor" on the interview with ms analingus whatever the sleezeball's hoolywood name is.

And Bill telling us how "proud" he is of Hillary.  AFter telling one lie after another.
 :x

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Regarding "amnesty"
« Reply #421 on: September 30, 2015, 07:08:34 PM »
Putting aside the merits of the issue, it seems to me that we here need to recognize that if someone was brought here illegally as a baby or young child and has grown up here and feels and thinks he is an American, speaks English only, etc it is going to be seriously bad politics to say he should be shipped to a "home" he does not remember where the language is one he does not.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #422 on: September 30, 2015, 07:54:04 PM »
CD,

These are negotiating points to be hammered out. Art of the Deal. But since I no longer believe that Trump will be nominated, it is immaterial.

Guess I need to start a thread on my thinking about how the GOP will manipulate things so as to get their person nominated.
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Regarding "amnesty"
« Reply #423 on: September 30, 2015, 08:07:50 PM »
Putting aside the merits of the issue, it seems to me that we here need to recognize that if someone was brought here illegally as a baby or young child and has grown up here and feels and thinks he is an American, speaks English only, etc it is going to be seriously bad politics to say he should be shipped to a "home" he does not remember where the language is one he does not.



And how would you presume we do that? The "dreamer" program is already up to it's neck in fraud.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #424 on: October 01, 2015, 09:58:01 AM »
PP:  I agree-- details to be hammered out  AFTER we regain control of who gets in.

GM:  My question and implied point is a political one for those who assert, as Trump does, that ALL illegals are to get shipped out.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #425 on: October 01, 2015, 10:15:26 AM »
CD,

I cannot believe that I am going to say this but I will. Look to the Courts.  Ouch!!!!!!!!! What a mess this will be..............

Over the past several years, many immigration attorneys got into foreclosure law because of their clients being legal, illegal, and who knows what else. These attorneys are going to clog the courts with litigation with all of this if passed. It will be never ending...........

Thanks for the headache.......................

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #426 on: October 01, 2015, 06:08:55 PM »
Most of the time the polls covered are of Rep primary voters or some sub-category like that.  I would like to see more polls of ALL voters, especially of one-on-one match ups.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #427 on: October 02, 2015, 02:53:50 PM »
Trump's money allows him to jet anywhere he wants, anytime he wants, a luxury people like Walker, Pawlenty, santorum don't have.  Mostly, though, he has used the threat of using his money to give him credibility.  So far, it was his name, reputation, skills and message that he used to make the entry that an average outsider could never make.

The roadmap pp points to will be crucial soon and they need to be planning for it now.  It will take big money to have a serious presence everywhere at once when we get to the primaries.  All the low drawing candidates will have to decide whether to spend their donors' last dollar, take on bad debt and lose, or drop out sooner.  That is when this thins out quickly and the real fight for the nomination begins.

I think both Trump and Bush will leave this race for other reasons.  Bush because he is just not catching on.  Trump will leave the race IF he sees his numbers are about to slide.  Easy exit, Trump says, 'I made my point, now others can do it.  I have a business to run.'

The money concern for Trump is different.  I doubt he plans to spend a billion of his own money.  I also doubt that he can.  He is building up his brand as long as he is seen as a winner.  He gives that away if he fights to the end while losing.  Also, WAAAAY too much ego there to leave seen as a loser.  Instead, his exit will come as a surprise.  He must see this campaign as a distraction costing him a fortune in terms of being away from his business, and worth nothing if it isn't building his brand any further.

Also possible with Trump is that he wanted to prove he could win the election.  He may not really want the day to day duties AND SCRUTINY of the job.  He has a pretty good life already!

The latest poll pp shows puts Rubio in first of the so-called politicians which I think is a great position for him - even at 8%.  It is the first time I've seen Fiorina fall back.  I don't expect Carson to hold up as we get closer. I don't know what his end game is, maybe just step up his game and win!

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #428 on: October 02, 2015, 03:31:11 PM »
Here is the website interactive polling cite. It is using a 5 day rolling average. Trump is kicking ass on this one.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20151002/collapsed/false

Here is the most recent Gravis Poll coming out

http://www.oann.com/trump-dominates-one-america-news-networks-national-poll/

Both polls are showing Trump in the 30's.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #429 on: October 02, 2015, 03:43:33 PM »

Here is an image of the Reuters Interactive Poll. Notice a couple of things.

Carson is in a downward trend.
Fiorina is a downward trend as well, since Sep 28.
Jeb is bouncing off a bottom.
Trump took a dive after the debate, but appears to be recovering some of the losses
Rubio appears to have gained support after the debate, but he is now wavering up and down off the high.
Cruz is bouncing along his bottom, not showing any real recent change.

Go to the website for a real look.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #430 on: October 04, 2015, 08:36:02 AM »
Pretty good analysis here along the thought lines of this election having brackets with quarterfinals, semi-finals and finals.
(If you buy the idea that these candidates compete for the same space, it follows that one will emerge as the victor of that space.  It seems to me that Rubio passed up Bush and that Bush will drop if he doesn't gain traction.  Kasich is the McCain/Romney-like favorite of this cycle for all the media types that will turn on him in the general election anyway, and he also isn't catching on.  A lot of experience and wisdom there, but not much for message or delivery.  But I don't see him dropping if he thinks he can do well in NH.  I would think a Rubio nominee would pick a governor for a running mate - and not from his own state.  In that sense having Kasich stay in for vetting is a good thing for the ticket.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bush-rubio-and-kasich-eye-one-another-in-the-shadow-of-trump/2015/10/03/f3cff3f2-69dc-11e5-9223-70cb36460919_story.html

Bush, Rubio and Kasich eye one another in the shadow of Trump
 
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush outlines his energy policy during a visit to Rice Energy, an oil and gas company based in Canonsburg, Pa. (Gene J. Puskar/AP)
By Dan Balz October 3 at 12:59 PM 
The Republican presidential contest is not, regardless of what it seems some days, all about Donald Trump. There’s another dynamic unfolding that has almost nothing to do with the businessman-politician currently atop the polls but that will have a major influence on who becomes the party’s nominee.

This other struggle involves the competition among former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. History suggests that whoever emerges triumphant in this three-way rivalry will be in a strong position to claim the nomination, though admittedly the past has been a poor predictor of events so far in this campaign.

Ever since Trump surged to the top of the polls, the other candidates have been trying to assess both his staying power and the cost-benefit analysis of engaging him. Trump and Bush have clashed almost from the start, with growing intensity. More recently, as Rubio has risen, Trump has taken aim at him, and Rubio has responded in kind.

None of the other candidates has a clear strategy for taking down Trump. But they all think he will look like a different candidate — and in their assessments, a less formidable candidate — once the field narrows to three or four finalists after the voting begins. So they are beginning to focus on one another as much as they are worrying about him.

With the first contests still months away, none of the three yet looks like a front-runner. In the average of recent national polls, Rubio and Bush run fourth and fifth behind Trump, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina. Neither Bush nor Rubio breaks double digits. Kasich doesn’t even break 5 percent.

  Marco Rubio speaks during a meet-and-greet event Friday in Iowa. (Jessica Reilly/AP)
National polls at this stage are less meaningful than state polls. In Iowa, where the first caucus will take place in early February, Trump and Carson lead, with Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) currently third. Bush and Rubio trail the first three, and Kasich is even deeper in the pack. In New Hampshire, Trump also has a big lead, but Kasich is jockeying with Fiorina for second, with Carson and Bush next and Rubio farther back.

In recent days, Bush, Rubio and Kasich have shown how much they’re worrying about one another. They’ve been sniping at each other and making other moves that underscore the significance of their competition.

Rubio has long emphasized that the party needs a fresh candidate, not one tied to the past, an implicit criticism of his fellow Floridian who is part of an American political dynasty. Bush, a two-term former governor, has belittled Rubio’s experience, or lack thereof. Kasich, a two-term governor and longtime House member, has claimed that his experience and record are unmatched by any of the other candidates.

Advisers to the three anticipate more attacks ahead. “The Bush campaign is feverishly doing their opposition research on Governor Kasich and Senator Rubio,” said John Weaver, Kasich’s chief strategist. “An empire like that is not going to go quietly into the night. We’re expecting pretty sharp elbows to be thrown. We’re going to handle it head on.”

Past Republican nomination contests often have devolved into competition between a candidate from the center-right or mainstream conservative wing of the party and a candidate from the hard right or populist conservative wing. Most times, the candidate from the mainstream conservative wing becomes the nominee.

This year, the race is more scrambled because of the added factor of the apparent desire by many Republicans for an outsider or non-politician. That has elevated Trump, Carson and Fiorina and has forced the others to adapt. Rubio has been stressing that, despite being in the Senate, he’s really not of Washington.

Instead of establishment vs. tea party, one GOP strategist describes the race this time as a competition between those in the anger, or anti-Washington, lane, vs. those in the aspirational lane. Bush, Rubio and Kasich all fall more into the aspirational lane.

What will make the difference? Based on how the three candidates are running, it’s clear that they see the path ahead in slightly different ways, though each has handicaps he must overcome to win.

Bush has repeatedly pushed back at Trump by arguing that anger and insults cannot win the presidency. He seeks to be the aspirational candidate, conservative enough because of his record in Florida to be acceptable to a conservative party, while offering a positive and inclusive message that reaches beyond the GOP coalition.

But many Republicans see Bush as least able to appeal across the entire party — not much more able to appeal to the hard right than Cruz would be able to attract mainstream conservatives.

Lodged firmly in the establishment wing as the son and brother of former presidents, he faces resistance on the far right and among those yearning for an outsider. His hope is that he can change perceptions of himself, outlast his rivals with superior resources and persuade Republicans that he’s their best hope to win a general election.

Sally Bradshaw, Bush’s senior adviser, said the key remains what it has been from the start of the campaign: to portray Bush as a conservative reformer by stressing what he did in Florida. “People don’t know that yet,” she said. “When that message burns in, his numbers are going to change. That’s his

Kasich is looking to the traditional model. He is the compassionate conservative of 2016 who hopes to strike first in New Hampshire and build from there. His advisers believe that, eventually, he can reach across the divide in the party to become the nominee.

But the party has not only moved right in the past decade, it also has developed a harder edge than when George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative in 2000. Kasich’s support for expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act is just one example of a position that will not sit well with many conservatives.

Rubio’s team sees crosscutting appeal as vital, a race that will favor a candidate who can best unite a fractured party. The senator’s goal is to demonstrate skills as a communicator, to show depth on the issues, to turn his personal story into a positive message for the party, to make as few errors as possible and over time generate enthusiasm across the GOP coalition.

Rubio, too, has vulnerabilities. His past support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, from which he has backed away, remains an obstacle in his path. So too does his personal profile, that of a youthful first-term senator with limited experience trying to become president — a profile not unlike that of President Obama when he first ran eight years ago.

David Axelrod, who was Obama’s chief strategist in both campaigns, often has said that voters look for a replacement rather than a replica in picking a new president. The adviser to one of Rubio’s rivals put it this way: “When was the last time this country elected two presidents with similar attributes?” Rubio will be trying to dissuade his fellow Republicans that he isn’t another Obama.

There are wild cards in the calculations of all three camps. Maybe New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who occupies similar space, will catch fire in New Hampshire and elsewhere, although the resistance to him within the party is significant. Fiorina has demonstrated fearlessness that has jarred even Trump and can appeal across the party. Carson remains a candidate of unknown potential.

Last, there is the Trump factor and what his support represents. For now, he remains the dominant force in the GOP race. But the advisers to Bush, Rubio and Kasich see a turn in the campaign heading into the final months of the year, one that will heighten the competition among them with significant consequences for their party.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #431 on: October 04, 2015, 10:21:33 AM »
I expect that some people/pundits are going to be "hawking" the new IBD poll showing Carson with a substantial lead, 24 to 17 over Trump.  I have tried to find the "internals" and the "methodology" to the poll, but none of it is being published. So to determine credibility, I direct everyone to the third candidate from the bottom. Ryan has 3% support.

WTF? Ryan isn't even running.  Toss this poll out in the trash.


PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #432 on: October 04, 2015, 12:05:26 PM »
I would love to see more emphasis on polls that pit each Rep vs. Hillary, each Rep vs. Biden, and each Rep vs. Sanders.

Of course I get the relevance of likely Rep primary voter polls, but we should remember to keep our eye on winning the White House.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #433 on: October 04, 2015, 08:34:31 PM »
I would love to see more emphasis on polls that pit each Rep vs. Hillary, each Rep vs. Biden, and each Rep vs. Sanders.

Of course I get the relevance of likely Rep primary voter polls, but we should remember to keep our eye on winning the White House.

I'm sure there will be more and more of them after the field gets narrowed a little.  Here is the most recent I have seen.  Doesn't cover everything but sheds some light.
monday Sept 28, 2015
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)   Poll   Results   Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Clinton 49, Trump 39   Clinton +10
General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton   NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Clinton 44, Fiorina 45   Fiorina +1
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Clinton 45, Bush 44   Clinton +1
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton   NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Carson 46, Clinton 45   Carson +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Biden 56, Trump 35   Biden +21
General Election: Fiorina vs. Biden           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Biden 47, Fiorina 41   Biden +6
General Election: Bush vs. Biden           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Biden 48, Bush 40   Biden +8
General Election: Carson vs. Biden           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Biden 49, Carson 41   Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders   NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Sanders 52, Trump 36   Sanders +16
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 08:37:04 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #434 on: October 05, 2015, 03:21:38 AM »
Well! That has a way of clarifying things a bit!

Trump loses to Sanders by 16 points?!?  To Hillary by 10?!?  To Biden by 21?!?  Indeed ALL the Reps lose to Biden?!?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 10:46:54 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #435 on: October 05, 2015, 08:56:32 AM »
Well. that has a way of clarifying things a bit!

Trump loses to Sanders by 16 points?!?  To Hillary by 10?!?  To Biden by 21?!?  Indeed ALL the Reps lose to Biden?!?

If all are losing, it may indicate sample error.  Best to look at relative strength.

Biden carries the sympathy of losing his son.  Check back after he defends the Obama record for a year.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #436 on: October 05, 2015, 09:32:43 AM »
"Biden carries the sympathy of losing his son.  Check back after he defends the Obama record for a year"

It won't be him anyway.  It will be the disgusting pig.  In the end she could commit murder and the libs will support her and deny everything else.   As the Democrats always do.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #437 on: October 07, 2015, 08:15:02 AM »
I saw some polls this morning that show Trump continuing to lead the Reps among likely primary voters, but when various Reps were put one-on-one seriatim with Hillary, Biden, and Sanders among ALL voters, his poll numbers were quite inferior to those of other Rep candidates.  As I have stated here previously, in that the general election is the one we have to win, we need to keep this in mind.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #438 on: October 07, 2015, 08:29:39 AM »
Of course, those polls have show considerable improvement from past polls for Trump. What happens when Trump begins his $20m add buy at the end of the month? Think this might have a positive affect on the polls?
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Moving Pat's post to here
« Reply #440 on: October 09, 2015, 07:35:39 AM »
Then you will love this.....follow the money. It shows who the big donors are, including the PACS.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html

Notice the Wall Street Investment type firms and energy firms supporting Cruz, Rubio and Bush. How much of the energy firms are about Keystone?

(I suppose everyone here supports Keystone.)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Rubio Attacks Trump on Eminent Domain
« Reply #441 on: October 12, 2015, 07:48:10 AM »
Who could have seen THIS coming?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-hits-trump-eminent-domain_1042161.html

Rubio Hits Trump on Eminent Domain
10:50 AM, OCT 7, 2015 • BY JOHN MCCORMACK

Manchester, N.H.
Florida senator Marco Rubio responded Wednesday morning to Donald Trump's comment that the use of eminent domain for private projects is a "wonderful thing."

"He's wrong," Rubio told THE WEEKLY STANDARD following a campaign event at a tech company in New Hampshire. "In Florida when I was a state legislator, we passed what has become model legislation for other states around the country--that I actually passed--both a law and a constitutional amendment that keeps developers like Donald Trump from using eminent domain to take private property away from an owner and give it to another private owner, which is what the Kelo decision said should be legal unless states barred it. So he's wrong about that. One of the most important rights Americans have is private property."

In an interview Tuesday evening with Bret Baier on Fox News, Trump praised the government's seizing private property from individuals in order to "build this massive development that’s going to employ thousands of people, or you’re going to build a factory, that without this little house, you can’t build the factory."

Conservative commentators widely criticized Trump for supporting the government trampling on individual rights.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Rubio Attacks Trump on Eminent Domain
« Reply #442 on: October 12, 2015, 07:58:08 AM »
Rubio could do worse than to read up on Doug.  :-D

Who could have seen THIS coming?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-hits-trump-eminent-domain_1042161.html

Rubio Hits Trump on Eminent Domain
10:50 AM, OCT 7, 2015 • BY JOHN MCCORMACK

Manchester, N.H.
Florida senator Marco Rubio responded Wednesday morning to Donald Trump's comment that the use of eminent domain for private projects is a "wonderful thing."

"He's wrong," Rubio told THE WEEKLY STANDARD following a campaign event at a tech company in New Hampshire. "In Florida when I was a state legislator, we passed what has become model legislation for other states around the country--that I actually passed--both a law and a constitutional amendment that keeps developers like Donald Trump from using eminent domain to take private property away from an owner and give it to another private owner, which is what the Kelo decision said should be legal unless states barred it. So he's wrong about that. One of the most important rights Americans have is private property."

In an interview Tuesday evening with Bret Baier on Fox News, Trump praised the government's seizing private property from individuals in order to "build this massive development that’s going to employ thousands of people, or you’re going to build a factory, that without this little house, you can’t build the factory."

Conservative commentators widely criticized Trump for supporting the government trampling on individual rights.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #443 on: October 12, 2015, 09:33:37 AM »
From this, I guess Rubio is against the Keystone Pipeline.

Keystone benefits private companies, but to implement, it will require Eminent Domain use.

Hmmmm.....what to do?
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #444 on: October 12, 2015, 11:30:39 AM »
Interesting question.  Can we pin this down gents?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Private beneficiaries of Eminent Domain
« Reply #446 on: October 12, 2015, 07:59:09 PM »
http://www.law360.com/articles/709025/transcanada-to-drop-keystone-xl-eminent-domain-suits

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-on-keystone-xl-eminent-domain-i-respectfully-dissent/article/2544461

http://insideclimatenews.org/content/keystone-xl-texas-high-court-gives-hope-landowners-eminent-domain-fight

Here are three of many articles.

See?  Not quite so black and white......



From the link:  "A Nebraska landowner has sued to block the taking of his property (actually, an easement across his property)"

It is a 36" pipe, a public utility easement as I understand it.  No property deeds were stripped and no one was shackled and forcibly removed from their homes in the way Suzette Kelo and Vera coking were by public officials at the direction of Pfizer and Trump.

No one near mainstream opposes eminent domain for PUBLIC USE including things like roads, bridges, airports, hospitals, prisons, even though these may have a private operator or house a private business.

The Kelo controversy is about public taking for a preferred PRIVATE USE.

So what about public utility right of ways?  Public utility commissions regulate quasi-private companies that operate a utility - like a pipeline.  Are they public use?  Yes.  Is that a gray area?  I don't think so.

Is Keystone XL for public use?  Yes.  How?

The way I see it, every ambulance, every police car, every fire truck in America uses this product and it needs transporting across the country, one way or another.  Places like the WHITE HOUSE are heated with this product, a very basic example of public use of the product in need of transporting.  That is not the same as a factory, a mall or a casino that could be located somewhere / anywhere else.

The product has public use, requires transport and the pipeline is the safest way  and most efficient to transport it by a factor of something like 10 fold compared to trucking it which is used now absent the pipeline.

I don't know about the structure of the company operating the pipeline or why it is Canadian or if that matters.  I imagine they are regulated like every other public utility company.  The way it should work in my view is that the public should own the right of way and the company pays for operational rights that entice them to make the investment.  

Is this different than a public taking for private development?  Yes, in a couple of ways.  It's only a 36" pipe, an easement, an inconvenience, not a displacement as far as I know.  It is a partial taking and those also require compensation according to Supreme Court precedent.  

But the crucial difference is public use.  I made the argument above that this is a public use. But if it is not, if it is merely our crony government helping out one preferred economic interest over everyone else, well then it is only legal under the Breyer, Souter, Trump rule - which is '"wonderful" - if you are the preferred private economic interest who has the government clear out properties for you.


« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 08:28:40 PM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #447 on: October 13, 2015, 07:43:04 AM »
Doug,

Yes, it is a 36 inch pipe, but what does that entail? This "little" pipe requires building all total over 1000 miles of pipe. That  requires:

1. The building of roads along the route to lay down the pipe and on both sides of the pipe.

2. The ground underneath where the pipe will be laid must be prepped and solidified so that there is no chance of pipe movement outside of tolerance levels.

3. Temporary material storage sites all along the route as the pipe is being built.

4. Access roads to the pipe along around the route.

5. Additional pumping facilities  along the route to ensure adequate pressure for the oil to flow.

6. Who knows what else will be required.

As to Eminent Domain versus easement, you cite easements, but Forbes cites Eminent Domain and this Nebraska ruling on Keystone cites Eminent Domain, so ED is an issue. (Most landowners have allowed for use of easements and agreements have been made with TransCanada. But there are holdouts who do not want the pipeline. So ED comes into play.)

http://www.dominalaw.com/documents/LB-1161-Court-Order-Feb-19-2014.pdf

You cite Kelo again, but Kelo also stated the following:

1. Under Connecticut law, ED for the private use was allowed. If the SCOTUS did not agree, they could have ruled the law invalid.

2. SCOTUS also stated that it was up to the Congress to define what Public Use was. They have not done anything yet on it, of course.

3. Since Kelo, certain states like Florida have changed their laws to prohibit private use. So this comes to a 10th Amendment States Rights issue potentially.

As to how the oil will be used, since refined oil in the US is decreasing in use, it is likely that much of the oil will be refined and exported. Of course, there is no way to determine which gallon will stay in the US and which gallon exported.

Will the oil be for public or private use? Both.

Finally, you make the comment about a casino, mall, etc being able to be built anywhere for the people's use. Take Manhattan Island for instance. Not possible.

As I have said previously, this stuff is not black and white. It is filled with gray areas everywhere. But what is important to note, like with Trump in New Jersey, the homeowner took it to court and won. The parking lot was not built.

This is how the controversies should be treated, not by just outright denials of ED. Let the courts decide.

BTW, per Trump, he was willing to pay the homeowner many times more than what the property was worth, which was $500k. She would not accept it. A few years later, she sold and moved to California. She got $500k for the property. Now you may say that Trump was not telling the truth, but as he said, even $5m at the time would have been worth it to him over litigation.  Now, Trump thanks her for not selling because it kept the deal from going through and it would have been another loser casino at this time.



PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #448 on: October 13, 2015, 08:41:32 AM »
"Will the oil be for public or private use? Both."

Yes, like a hospital.  The point is that the project includes an authentic public use.  You can't arguably not use the services of a hospital or fire department or the roads or fuel that the ambulance uses because the use by its nature is unplanned.  Casinos, factories, malls, not so much.


"Finally, you make the comment about a casino, mall, etc being able to be built anywhere for the people's use. Take Manhattan Island for instance. Not possible."

No.  What I meant is that they can buy land further out where there will be willing sellers.  Or they can pay more and buy Manhattan Island for 5 times value if that will bring willing sellers and the buyer wants to pay the price.  It is not a proper public policy function for me to locate their business for them.


The constitution, by and large, lays out LIMITS on the powers that future majorities of people might want exert over their fellow citizens and their liberties, such as to be secure in their own home.  What the Kelo decision and private use eminent domain view fails to offer in my view is any limit to the abuse of this enormous, government power.  The public benefit of economic development argument is often false but more importantly has no limit to its use.  If a rich person could tear down my home and build the neighborhood standard $3 million house, construction jobs benefit and the tax revenues to the community would increase.  So what.  Does that make it right to take, force me out and transfer the ownership based on city council majority rule?  Yes under tyranny and no under freedom.  It's as simple as that.

Trump never finished the acquisition of Vera Coking's property, but it did proceed to the point of her being served notice that she will be forcibly moved.  The political point is that he has doubled down on the "wonderful" desirability of that process.  

It is also true that the condemnation-happy central planners of both New London and Atlantic were proven wrong in their economic vision of central planning.  So was the Soviet Union, Japan, Inc. and the central planners of Jonestown where he Jim Jones followers (literally) drank the Kool Aid.  But that isn't the point.  The point is that we don't want to be puppets controlled by central planners even when their projects appear to succeed.  I don't want to be offered one of their alleged thousands of Casina service jobs or Trump Tower Concierge, limo driver or big pharma tech or stadium special events vending job or anything else forcibly created against my will.  I would like to CHOOSE my job and choose my house based on the options available to me in a free market.

If I'm right about this, someone please tell Trump.  He promised he would apologize if he was ever wrong.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 08:46:59 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #449 on: October 13, 2015, 11:10:21 AM »
"You can't arguably not use the services of a hospital or fire department or the roads or fuel that the ambulance uses because the use by its nature is unplanned.  Casinos, factories, malls, not so much."

This is a 3rd Party Beneficiary type of argument. If this is acceptable, then so is the argument that the taxes incurred from private uses also benefits those same public services. So there would be no difference in the two.

As to moving further out where land could be bought for the use needed, where are you going to find land on Manhattan Island for a needed project in the city?  Build an island next to Manhattan? Underwater?

No one is talking about using ED to tear down one home and replace it with a $3m home. This is about commercial developments that serve to benefit the entire community and where other options are not readily available.

If your position is taken that there can never be a use of ED for any "non-public" use such as a road, then any person can stop development of something solely for their own perceived bias and there would be no recourse.

Do you think that developers want to litigate these actions? No way. They want to make reasonable offers to people and do so. Usually, these offers will be in excess of the value of the property. And if the offer is declined, then negotiations take place. Only when everything breaks down does either ED or litigation begin to take place and that is only after the local government has deemed it appropriate. Of course, one can always claim crony capitalism exists at every point, but there are reasonable actions that also occur not as a result of crony capitalism.

Guess we just have to disagree on this.

PPulatie