Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471317 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #300 on: August 10, 2015, 08:05:41 AM »
ccp:  Agreed.  The moderators think the show is about them.  The future questioners from other networks will be worse with a few exceptions. 

It wasn't a debate except for a couple of sparring incidents; it was just series of very short interviews with candidates.

In my view, a candidate or political interview should be split about 50-50 worst case between confronting a candidate on a perceived shortcoming and letting the candidate give his or her vision of how things should be.

It doesn't have to be so clever or take up 31% of the candidate's limited time:

Iran poses a serious problem in the world. What would you do about it?

What is your view of what economic growth should be and how would you accomplish that?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #301 on: August 10, 2015, 10:36:28 AM »
FWIW I thought the debate quite well done by the FOX team.  The pointed, aggro questions were good examples the sort of thing attack that the Dems will bring.  Best to see now who can handle it.

As my posts on the Carly thread have stated all along, I have found her quite interesting.  With the debate she has moved up further in my estimation.  I confess, given my initial gut reaction to her announcement of her candidacy, I am surprised to realize that I can imagine supporting her for the presidency.  The others currently in that category for me (and this is a VERY fluid thing) are Ben Carson and Ted Cruz.

Carly handles aggro questions VERY well (see e.g. the Chris Matthews interview I posted on her thread on Saturday) by reframing them without a hint of snarkiness and packs a tremendous amount of real content into her answers in a very concentrated way.

Crafty_Dog

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

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
WSJ: A Moderate Rep analysis
« Reply #303 on: August 12, 2015, 08:45:42 AM »
After their first presidential debates, it is time for Republicans to get serious. Donald Trump won’t be their nominee. Neither will Ben Carson. Nor will any of the men in the 5 p.m. undercard event last week. Despite Carly Fiorina’s strong performance, it is hard to believe that the GOP would turn to someone who was fired as Hewlett-Packard ’s CEO in 2005 after a tenure charitably described as controversial, and whose only run for elective office resulted in a landslide loss in 2010 to Sen. Barbara Boxer in California.

There are only five candidates with a plausible path to the Republican nomination: two sitting senators ( Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz), two sitting governors ( Scott Walker and John Kasich), and a former governor ( Jeb Bush). They represent a choice among very different persons, but also—and more fundamentally—between competing strategies for the future of the Republican Party.

First, the candidates as individuals. Ted Cruz is running as the tea party’s Mr. Conservative—aggressively antigovernment except for national defense, with an explicit appeal to Christian social conservatives. John Kasich is this generation’s compassionate conservative, who cites his faith as justification for expanding Medicaid and extending “unconditional love” to gays and lesbians. Scott Walker is the fighting conservative who fires supporters’ hopes that he will stick it to the liberals in Washington, as he did to public-sector unions in Wisconsin.
Opinion Journal Video
Assistant Editorial Features Editor Kate Bachelder on the Democratic presidential candidate’s latest plan to soak the rich. Photo: Getty Images

Although Jeb Bush may have been quite conservative by the standards of the 1990s, today he is the voice of the moderate conservative establishment, most comfortable talking about economic growth and opportunity, and about education and immigration as the means to them. And Marco Rubio is running as the future of conservatism—a perfect match of message and messenger.

On the personal front, Mr. Kasich comes across as warm, passionate, almost hectic. Mr. Rubio too is warm—genial, welcoming, a clear and fluent speaker with more self-control than the Ohio governor. Mr. Walker is competent but doesn’t seem as forceful as his record, or quite large enough for the higher office he seeks. Mr. Bush is workmanlike, well-versed in the issues but without the ability to present his positions concisely. Mr. Cruz knows what he wants to say, so much so that he often sounds rehearsed, with an ever-present edge of barely suppressed anger.

When it comes to preparation and experience, Republicans will have to choose between candidates who have substantial executive experience and those who don’t. The party may well hesitate to nominate an eloquent senator still in his first term—Messrs. Cruz and Rubio fit that description. At a time when Americans are wringing their hands about Washington’s dysfunction, candidates who are able to say “I can get it done” and back up their claims with hard evidence will enjoy an advantage over those who can’t.

This brings us to the strategic choice Republicans face—whether to focus on broadening the party’s appeal or doing a better job of mobilizing its base.

In 2012 Mitt Romney garnered only 47% of the popular vote, even though he received 59% of the white vote—56% of whites with a college degree and 61% of those without one. The problem for Republicans is that the white share of the electorate is falling about two percentage points every four years.

The white-working-class share is falling even faster—about three points each quadrennial cycle. In 1988 whites made up 85% of the electorate. By 2012, whites were down to 72%, and their share will be even lower—about 70%—in 2016. In 1988 whites without a college degree accounted for 54% of the electorate; in 2012 the percentage had dropped to 36%; the projection for 2016 is 33%. With each election, it becomes harder for Republicans to parlay a base-mobilization strategy into national victory.

The advantage of this strategy is that it requires no shifts of positions that risk intraparty strife. Not so for the alternative of broadening their appeal. Republicans who think that a different tone without substantive changes can do the job are fooling themselves, just as status quo Democrats did in 1988. Mr. Romney got only 27% of the Hispanic vote, 25% of Asian votes and 38% of young adults.

As the Republican National Committee’s postmortem report on 2012 argued, winning the White House without endorsing comprehensive immigration reform and adopting a more-welcoming stance toward gays and lesbians would be difficult at best.

That could happen. John Kasich has endorsed a path to legal status for persons who entered the U.S. illegally. So has Jeb Bush. Scott Walker went further as recently as two years ago, advocating a path to citizenship, before reversing himself and opting for a hard-line anti-immigration stance. Marco Rubio pushed for comprehensive immigration reform but then hit a conservative stone wall and backed off.

From a Democratic standpoint, a moderate-conservative Republican ticket representing the two largest swing states would be cause for concern. In fact, Bush-Kasich would be scary, and Kasich-Rubio even more so.
Popular on WSJ

 
 



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #304 on: August 12, 2015, 01:08:15 PM »
"From a Democratic standpoint, a moderate-conservative Republican ticket representing the two largest swing states would be cause for concern. In fact, Bush-Kasich would be scary, and Kasich-Rubio even more so."

Bush Kasich is most scary to me forget about the Democrats.  These two are Democrat-lites.

WSJ forgets that Bush senior went from an approval rating of over 90% from the Iraq Kuwait invasion to less than 50% by 1991.

Bush jr.  went from 90% to 26%.

But no matter.  He is their guy.

Kasich is a liberal with a Republican label.

Rubio I am still not sure.

I don't see why Cruz is mentioned as a plausible but Fiorina, Jindal, and others are not.

The WSJ may as well be the Huffington post as far as I am concerned.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #305 on: August 13, 2015, 07:27:41 AM »
"From a Democratic standpoint, a moderate-conservative Republican ticket representing the two largest swing states would be cause for concern. In fact, Bush-Kasich would be scary, and Kasich-Rubio even more so."

Bush Kasich is most scary to me forget about the Democrats.  These two are Democrat-lites.

WSJ forgets that Bush senior went from an approval rating of over 90% from the Iraq Kuwait invasion to less than 50% by 1991.

Bush jr.  went from 90% to 26%.

But no matter.  He is their guy.

Kasich is a liberal with a Republican label.

Rubio I am still not sure.

I don't see why Cruz is mentioned as a plausible but Fiorina, Jindal, and others are not.

The WSJ may as well be the Huffington post as far as I am concerned.

That piece was by Bill Galston who is hired by the WSJ to write an opposing or different view than the editorial writers, as Al Hunt and others have done.  Crafty prefaced it with 'moderate Republican view'.  CCP comparison with huff post is about right.  But given the rino or centrist perspective, Bush-Kasich might be a dream ticket for him, and might win, which is better for America than when we let Obama win, or Bernie winning, or Hillary, etc.  I still hold out hope that a really sharp and talented true conservative can run win and change people's minds on some things.

Recent history tells us though that the pale shades of pastels don't in fact give us better results than painting in bold colors, paraphrasing someone successful in this business.

Bush and Kasich were two popular governors of two very key states. Almost a dream ticket.  Hillary is almost a dream candidate for Dems on paper too, but in fact she is miserable.  So we play the game and watch them perform...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Henninger
« Reply #306 on: August 13, 2015, 09:12:12 AM »
 By
Daniel Henninger
Aug. 12, 2015 6:44 p.m. ET
294 COMMENTS

Donald Trump has achieved the most coveted role in American politics—presidential kingmaker. Whichever man or woman occupies the Oval Office in January 2017, history will note that the man who enabled it was Donald Trump.

The path to ordaining Hillary Clinton as president is worn and beaten: Mr. Trump, like Ross Perot in 1992, would run as a third-party candidate and default the second member of the Clinton family into office with less than 50% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton got all of 43%.

Mr. Trump could pay a high reputational price for this. Holding open the back door to the White House for Hillary Clinton will fracture post- Obama America into ungovernable divisions, but . . . whatever.

Donald Trump isn’t going to crown himself the next Republican president. Reversing Mr. Trump’s negatives with voters beyond his affinity group would make the loaves and the fishes look like child’s play. But Mr. Trump just did something unique in presidential politics: He delivered 24 million prospective voters to the Republican Party in its Aug. 6 primary debate on Fox News. It is a mind-boggling number.

In 2008, wunderkind Barack Obama debated Hillary Clinton—favored then as now—and 10.7 million watched, less than half Thursday’s audience. The earlier, happy-hour GOP debate Thursday had six million viewers.

The next day, I walked by a bar in hip Williamsburg, Brooklyn, which still had its chalkboard sign on the sidewalk: “Watch the DEBATE here!” Folks, if they are promoting Republican debates in Brooklyn bars, we’ve entered another dimension. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Donald Trump’s rowdy fame delivered a monster audience, but what did 24 million Americans see? More to the point, what did they expect to see?

They came for blood sport. After the wild buildup (the Mexican rapists, John McCain is no hero) they expected to see Donald Trump do a World Wrestling Federation number with nine opponents, verbally flying off the turnbuckles to flatten Scott Walker, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. That didn’t happen. Instead, WWF showman that he is, Mr. Trump climbed out of the ring to take on Megyn Kelly down in the seats.

Many of the 24 million also came to see the 2015 edition of the Republican Party’s notorious presidential zoo. Anytime Republicans collect onstage together, you expect cringe-making eruptions. You expect from experience that at least one will say something crackpot. Those moments in the 2011-12 debates diminished all the Republicans onstage.

Against this backdrop, what happened instead last Thursday was eye-opening—as in millions of opened eyes.

This wasn’t 2011 all over again. In the past four years, something has changed. The party’s nine strong and winning Senate candidates in 2014 were an intriguing upgrade. But now this group.

You expect Republicans to take the “social-issues” questions and drive themselves into a ditch. But asked about gay marriage, John Kasich gave a remarkably thoughtful, apparently spontaneous, answer.

They asked Ben Carson if he’d bring back waterboarding. After a moment, Dr. Carson replied, “There is no such thing as a politically correct war.” It was a good answer.

Chris Christie got into exchanges with Mike Huckabee on Social Security and Rand Paul on surveillance that offered a look into where the lines are drawn on two relevant issues.

Immigration questions have been the GOP’s Bermuda Triangle for two presidential election cycles. Now, they handle them.

Jeb Bush’s answer on Common Core, that the real goal should be an education system parents believe will lead to jobs for their kids in the 21st century, was at least adept.

Marco Rubio, another political prodigy, was concise and focused. Ted Cruz, the Senate’s flamethrowing freshman, was steady and articulate. Carly Fiorina’s summary attack on Hillary Clinton’s integrity was bare-knuckle but not out of bounds.

A liberal viewer might have disagreed with every word spoken in two hours. But this wasn’t the famous zoo.

Winning presidential nominations, and then the general election, is about assembling votes at the margin, among minds still open to persuasion. How public opinion forms in elections has become more complex than ever.

Nielsen Social reported that while Jon Stewart’s final hour on Comedy Central produced 233,000 tweets on Twitter, the GOP debate produced 3.2 million. Mix together Facebook, texting, the Web, the still-huge carry of traditional media, and real conversations in all the country’s Brooklyn-like bars. Result: The audience for the GOP primary race is bigger and more open to hearing from the party’s candidates than anyone would have predicted a month ago.

This isn’t good for Donald Trump. Mr. Trump’s audience saw during the debate that most of his opponents aren’t puppets. The kingmaker will not be king. The phenomenon he helped create—a competitive, highly watched race—will now grind him down. Modern campaigns are too professional, too long and too expensive for him to win a 50-state delegate battle that doesn’t end until next June. Consult Rick Perry.

Third-party spoiler? That will be a one-way ticket to American history’s Palookaville.

Write to henninger@wsj.com.

Write to Daniel Henninger at henninger@wsj.com


Crafty_Dog

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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Whispers of Al Gore
« Reply #308 on: August 14, 2015, 10:08:33 AM »
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/al-gore-insiders-figuring-out-if-theres-a-path-for-him-to-ru#.qgRKwwE93

Al Gore without Tipper.  He is a divorced man now; what was that all about?  Plenty of new gaffes, statements, video clips and transactions to scrutinize since he thought he would never run again.  It's been 16 years (in 2016) since 2000 and 24 years since the 43% electoral 'landslide' of 1992.  He is a little bit out of the loop. 

If Warren gets in, she splits the Bernie vote, helping Hillary...

Also mentioned is current Secretary of State John Kerry, trying so hard to step up his game right now as this plays out with Hillary.  Kerry is a story of his own.  He will be 73 at inauguration.  His cutting off ears in Vietnam talk was more than a half century ago.  Married for money - twice.  Already lost to a relatively weak Republican.  Is betting the farm on Obama's foreign policy where 57% disapprove before it even faces scrutiny.  He is probably the smoothest talker of the old guard. 

But where is the new guard?  Who is the Marco Rubio of the Dems?  Debbie blabbermouth Schultz?  I have been saying Hickenlooper:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/mine-disaster/colorado-governor-john-hickenlooper-drinks-animas-river-water-story-behind-photo
He will be 65 just after inauguration.  If he was a Republican, Crafty would call him a boring white guy.  )

Biden might become the choice of the Obama machine, with Obama front and center pleading for America to continue his destruction, and the choice of VP becoming crucial for the Dem future. 

Don't rule out Michelle.  I feared she would follow the Hillary route, run for Senate and stake out her own ground.  But she is an Obama and an elitist, why wait for that?

Most likely, because they don't have one who can do it, they will all get in and the Dems will have a mess worse than the Republicans to straighten out with the clock ticking down. 

All this happened after we called Hillary inevitable for the 16th year in a row.  If you didn't care about the future of the country, this would be fun to watch.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #309 on: August 15, 2015, 06:21:01 AM »
"Sure, we've got a lot of reasons to be angry. But the country is in a very Dark-Side-of-the-Force mood, convinced that anger is empowering, not blinding. At some point, a person enveloped in relentless, fiery anger and grievances stops making sense to anyone else. When a movement's philosophy is so easily summarized by 'GFY,' it's hard to believe they're being unfairly 'bashed.'" —Jim Geraghty

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #310 on: August 15, 2015, 04:15:28 PM »
Well Obama has been saying to one half the country GFY for over 6.5 yrs.  (I had to look that one up)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #311 on: August 15, 2015, 06:01:23 PM »
Frankly, this is all rearranging the deck chairs on the deck of the Titanic at this point.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #312 on: August 18, 2015, 11:06:11 AM »
I gave $20 each to Carson and Fiorina this morning.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #313 on: August 19, 2015, 07:45:17 AM »
    What If Donald Trump Really Is . . . Electable?

Do a dance, Donald Trump fans, because the “he’ll lose a general election in a landslide ” argument just took some damage in the CNN poll out this morning:

The poll finds Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump by just 6 points, a dramatic tightening since July. Trump is the one of three Republican candidates who have been matched against Clinton multiple times in CNN/ORC polling to significantly whittle the gap between himself and the Democratic frontrunner. He trailed Clinton by 16 points in a July poll, and narrowed that gap by boosting his standing among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (from 67% support in July to 79% now), men (from 46% in July to 53% now) and white voters (from 50% to 55%).

It will be fascinating to see if applying likely voter screens changes these numbers. Usually, Republican candidates do a few points better among a sample of likely voters than overall registered voters. But Donald Trump’s name identification among the general population is so high, his numbers might be the same.

Why Democrats Can’t Confront What Hillary Has Done

The Democratic party is about to have a breakdown.

For at least the past four years, if not longer, the average Democrat, when asked about the nominee-in-waiting, will respond, “Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.” Oh, sure, they may not be able to think of any accomplishments, and they may gripe about her ties to Wall Street. They may openly acknowledge that she lied about her e-mail server. Her team may openly gloat that no one cares whether she followed the rules or the laws about government archiving. But most of that they hand-wave away. She’s just doing it because she has such ruthless enemies. Everybody does it, she’s judged by an unfair, harsher standard than everyone else.

The problem is that there isn’t really a good reason to keep lots of classified information on a private server. We’re talking about information from the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (spy satellite images), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Director of the DIA at the time Hillary was at the State Department said there’s a “very high” chance her e-mails were hacked by foreign intelligence -- Chinese, Russians, or others. “Likely. They’re very good at it. You know, China, Russia, Iran, potentially the North Koreans. Other countries that are quote-unquote our allies, because they can.”

And here’s who was running the server:

The IT company Hillary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account was run from a loft apartment and its servers were housed in the bathroom closet, Daily Mail Online can reveal.

Daily Mail Online tracked down ex-employees of Platte River Networks in Denver, Colorado, who revealed the outfit’s strong links to the Democratic Party but expressed shock that the 2016 presidential candidate chose the small private company for such a sensitive job.

One, Tera Dadiotis, called it “a mom and pop shop” which was an excellent place to work, but hardly seemed likely to be used to secure state secrets. And Tom Welch, who helped found the company, confirmed the servers were in a bathroom closet.

This sort of decision is just stupid. It’s dangerous for herself, for everyone she e-mails, for the Obama administration, and of course, for national security. It’s an astonishingly short-sighted risk-reward calculation, to escape Freedom of Information Act requests and Congressional subpoenas by putting your communications at risk of being read by Russia’s foreign-intelligence service or the Chinese Ministry of State Security or God knows who else.

The problem for Democrats is that their worldview rests upon their leaders’ being the smart ones. They’re the ones who are wrapped up in “smart power.” They’re the ones sophisticated enough to “empathize with our enemies.” It’s those knuckle-dragging Republicans, those neocon warmongers, those paranoid xenophobes, those backwards hicks who just don’t understand how the world works. All it takes to get Russia to behave better is a reset button. The fall of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya deserves a “victory lap.” Syria’s Bashir Assad is a “reformer” and “the road to Damascus is the road to peace.”

If Democrats acknowledge Hillary made a stupid and consequential decision, everything else built upon that perception of intellectual and judgmental superiority crumbles. Yes, it erodes the case for her to be commander-in-chief. But what’s more, it forces Democrats to look at what their foreign-policy philosophy has really generated. Has the outstretched hand really thawed relations with hostile states? Have the concessions made to hostile states changed their behavior, rhetoric, or policies? Are international institutions really responsive to horrific mass violence? Is the world safer? Are human rights more respected? Are extremist groups waning or thriving and expanding?
Coming to terms with all of that is just too hard. So many Democrats will choose to believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in a partisan witch hunt.
Meanwhile, in that CNN poll:

Clinton maintains this edge in the general election race despite a growing perception that by using a personal email account and server while serving as secretary of state she did something wrong. About 56% say so in the new poll, up from 51% in March. About 4-in-10 (39%) now say she did not do anything wrong by using personal email. Among Democrats, the share saying she did not do anything wrong has dipped from 71% in March to 63% now, and just 37% of independents say she did not do wrong by using the personal email system.

And positive impressions of Clinton continue to fade. Among all adults, the new poll finds 44% hold a favorable view of her, 53% an unfavorable one, her most negative favorability rating since March 2001.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #314 on: August 19, 2015, 08:12:13 AM »
Check the Huff Post.  The rationalizations and denial and corruption of Dem party on display for all to see.

Still "right wing conspiracy" allegations abound.

They have all their eggs money sweat blood and corrupt machine invested in her alone.

It is certainly enjoyable to see her squirm (with a cloth or something) but it will take a lot more to knock her unconscious.

Her handlers have surrounded her and propping her up.

Even the Feminist CNN though replayed the snarky wiping response this morning.  If the lib gals at CNN even do this then there really is a crack in the machine.

 :-D :-D :lol: :lol: :lol:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #315 on: August 19, 2015, 08:39:10 AM »
I gave $20 each to Carson and Fiorina this morning.

This is the right strategy.  Either of those two could win and be a great President, but only if people step forward and support them.  This is how you vote now from a state where your vote later will not really matter.  Great timing in terms of hitting both of them as they build momentum.  Like every non-profit raising money, they are looking at numbers of contributors, not just the size of the donation.  Everyone who is informed and wants to make a difference should pick now or pick soon and send support.  

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #316 on: August 19, 2015, 09:10:54 AM »
Thank you Doug.  You understand my thinking precisely.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #317 on: August 19, 2015, 09:47:27 AM »
...
It is certainly enjoyable to see her squirm (with a cloth or something) but it will take a lot more to knock her unconscious.
...
Even the Feminist CNN though replayed the snarky wiping response this morning.  If the lib gals at CNN even do this then there really is a crack in the machine.
 :-D :-D :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes.  We saw this coming but we couldn't even imagine it playing out this badly for her  It is so surreal that it seems intentional.  She has very current statements running where she says no classified material was sent or received while the classified email count is over 300 and still rising.  Then she switched to saying 'marked or designated classified' as if the people who may have removed marking weren't under her responsibility or that she wouldn't know that spy satellite aerial photos of Yemen with terrorist locations marked aren't classified, marked or not??

Now the joking about it , talk about tone-deaf - jokes require timing.  She forgot to put this behind her first before lame attempts to poke fun at it all, snapchat with automatic delete and wiping clean with a cloth, ha ha.  That ought to build trust and make felony breach of security charges go away.

I wonder if our best interest is to watch her keep limping toward winning the nomination and losing the general election rather than hope for some newcomer ride in, unscrutinized, and save the day for Dems.

Meanwhile, none of our central questions about her biggest crisis as Sec State (Benghazi) have been answered.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #318 on: August 19, 2015, 09:52:02 AM »
Remember the bribes through the Clinton Foundation too!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - immigration
« Reply #319 on: August 19, 2015, 10:25:05 AM »
The elephant in the presidential election room is still immigration policy.  It was the starting point and remains the central appeal of frontrunner Trump.  It is the main source of conservative distrust of Bush, and also Rubio.  It was a central argument here on the board too.

Clinton has been clear; she will continue and even expand all of Obama's efforts to ignore current law and write new law expanding our country with new arrivals, regardless of existing law.

Trump says send them home, they've got to go, and goes further - he says don't break up families, send entire families back.  Deport is the only way to follow the law.  Others can stop Trump by stealing his issue and running on it too.

But polls say only 30% of Republicans support widespread deportation. and much lower for the whole electorate.  Any candidate taking that side will compete for a share of the 30%, but not win the Presidency.  

Ann Coulter's research and book has landed a few, very serious, valid points.  Our legal immigration flow is out of control too.  We are not acting at all in our own best interest.  Securing the border is only a part of the problem and solution.

On the other side of it is Jeb - 'they invade as an act of love.'  It is partly true, they love their family and want the best for their children.  But that doesn't speak to our best interests.  Paradoxically, the new people bring voting habits that support the dysfunction they are fleeing.  

In the middle is almost every other candidate and they are floundering.  Someone needs to emerge with a plan tougher than the compromise reforms we have been hearing but still practical and compassionate enough to win. There needs to be a comprehensive plan to overhaul every aspect of the system.  Every overstayed visa needs to be dealt with.  Every illegal family I'm afraid needs to be scrutinized.  Not only rapists and murderers, but people who came here illegally only to become chronic dependents on our generosity need to go back and start over.  Don't confuse the Merican safety net with the American dream.  This process won't be easy or pretty.  But running away from the elephant in the room just isn't working.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #320 on: August 19, 2015, 11:13:54 AM »
The 14th Amendment argument will be a very tough one to make too.  There is a lot of headwind against the reading Trump is advocating, even from a lot of right of center talking heads.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #321 on: August 19, 2015, 03:49:03 PM »
The 14th Amendment argument will be a very tough one to make too.  There is a lot of headwind against the reading Trump is advocating, even from a lot of right of center talking heads.

Screw the talking heads. The actual victims of the criminal invasion are much more compelling.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #322 on: August 19, 2015, 04:26:10 PM »
If people think that Donald is just blowing off the Constitution, that will not be good.  He has to make the case well.    Maybe he can lurk here and go back to the threads where we discussed this a couple of years ago.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #323 on: August 20, 2015, 07:59:57 AM »
"Screw the talking heads. The actual victims of the criminal invasion are much more compelling."

 I agree as do many others who support Trump because he is saying what needs to be said and the rest of the pack are too cowardice to say.

They are "anchor babies" they come here illegally abusing our laws have babies at our expense and then turn around and demand resources and benefits and call us racist or xenophobes (the new left name - aka 'homophobes') and the rest.

They undermine all those who come here legally including Puerto Ricans who are Americans.

What about them?  They are Latinos.  What rights do they have in all this.?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #324 on: August 20, 2015, 10:24:08 AM »
Last night O'Reilly affirmed that in 1985 that SCOTUS declared the birthright reading of the 15th (INV vs. Fernandez?).

If we can't address that then we got a problem.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Birthwrong citizenship
« Reply #325 on: August 20, 2015, 09:00:59 PM »
From our own threads it looked to me like the wrong interpretation of the 14th amendment came in a footnote to a case and became precedent and thus the law of land, subject to either some new case being set up to overturn it or the passing of an amendment that makes restores the amendment to its original, intended meaning.

The President plays no direct role in the constitutional amendment process.  The common way to do it is to have 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate pass it and send it to the state legislatures where 3/4ths of them (38) are needed to ratify it.  70% of the state chambers are now Republican; getting all of those still leaves you 4 states short.  Passage in 34 Republican states plus 4 Democratic states would do it.  Counting in the other direction, passage in all but the 12 most leftward states is required to amend the constitution with a conservative reform. 

A constitutional convention is another way, same difficulty, I believe.

5 Justices could fix this too.  But they won't.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #326 on: August 26, 2015, 11:41:07 PM »
Correction:  INS vs. Pineda.  Anyone have a URL?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #327 on: August 26, 2015, 11:47:13 PM »
Ted Cruz told Megan Kelly that there are quality C'l scholars on both sides of the question.

MK reminded him that previously he had supported the birth right interpretation.  He acknowledged but repeated that there are reasonable scholars on both sides and suggested that both seeking judicial change and C'l change because birthright is bad policy.

Worth noting is that the language on subject to the jurisdiction and Congress making law to effectuate the intent had Indians excluded until Congress passed a law in the 1940s (sorry I have no citation for this).   Question: If Congress can expand those subject to the jurisdiction, why can't it contract those subject to the jurisdiction?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Noonan: America is so in play
« Reply #328 on: August 28, 2015, 06:58:32 AM »
So, more thoughts on Donald Trump’s candidacy, because I can’t stop being fascinated.

You know the latest numbers. Quinnipiac University’s poll this week has Mr. Trump at a hefty 28% nationally, up from 20% in July. Public Policy Polling has Mr. Trump leading all Republicans in New Hampshire with 35%. A Monmouth University poll has him at 30% in South Carolina, followed 15 points later by Ben Carson.

Here are some things I think are happening.

One is the deepening estrangement between the elites and the non-elites in America. This is the area in which Trumpism flourishes. We’ll talk about that deeper in.

Second, Mr. Trump’s support is not limited to Republicans, not by any means.

Third, the traditional mediating or guiding institutions within the Republican universe—its establishment, respected voices in conservative media, sober-minded state party officials—have little to no impact on Mr. Trump’s rise. Some say voices of authority should stand up to oppose him, which will lower his standing. But Republican powers don’t have that kind of juice anymore. Mr. Trump’s supporters aren’t just bucking a party, they’re bucking everything around, within and connected to it.

Since Mr. Trump announced I’ve worked or traveled in, among other places, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey and New York’s Long Island. In all places I just talked to people. My biggest sense is that political professionals are going to have to rethink “the base,” reimagine it when they see it in their minds.

I’ve written before about an acquaintance—late 60s, northern Georgia, lives on Social Security, voted Obama in ’08, not partisan, watches Fox News, hates Wall Street and “the GOP establishment.” She continues to be so ardent for Mr. Trump that she not only watched his speech in Mobile, Ala., on live TV, she watched while excitedly texting with family members—middle-class, white, independent-minded—who were in the audience cheering. Is that “the Republican base”? I guess maybe it is, because she texted me Wednesday to say she’d just registered Republican. I asked if she’d ever been one before. Reply: “No, never!!!”

Something is going on, some tectonic plates are moving in interesting ways. My friend Cesar works the deli counter at my neighborhood grocery store. He is Dominican, an immigrant, early 50s, and listens most mornings to a local Hispanic radio station, La Mega, on 97.9 FM. Their morning show is the popular “El Vacilón de la Mañana,” and after the first GOP debate, Cesar told me, they opened the lines to call-ins, asking listeners (mostly Puerto Rican, Dominican, Mexican) for their impressions. More than half called in to say they were for Mr. Trump. Their praise, Cesar told me a few weeks ago, dumbfounded the hosts. I later spoke to one of them, who identified himself as D.J. New Era. He backed Cesar’s story. “We were very surprised,” at the Trump support, he said. Why? “It’s a Latin-based market!”

“He’s the man,” Cesar said of Mr. Trump. This week I went by and Cesar told me that after Mr. Trump threw Univision’s well-known anchor and immigration activist, Jorge Ramos, out of an Iowa news conference on Tuesday evening, the “El Vacilón” hosts again threw open the phone lines the following morning and were again surprised that the majority of callers backed not Mr. Ramos but Mr. Trump. Cesar, who I should probably note sees me, I sense, as a very nice establishment person who needs to get with the new reality, was delighted.

I said: Cesar, you’re supposed to be offended by Trump, he said Mexico is sending over criminals, he has been unfriendly, you’re an immigrant. Cesar shook his head: No, you have it wrong. Immigrants, he said, don’t like illegal immigration, and they’re with Mr. Trump on anchor babies. “They are coming in from other countries to give birth to take advantage of the system. We are saying that! When you come to this country, you pledge loyalty to the country that opened the doors to help you.”

He added, “We don’t bloc vote anymore.” The idea of a “Latin vote” is “disparate,” which he said generally translates as nonsense, but which he means as “bull----.”

He finished, on the subject of Jorge Ramos: “The elite have different notions from the grass-roots working people.”

OK. Old style: Jorge Ramos speaks for Hispanic America. New style: Jorge Ramos speaks for Jorge Ramos. Old style: If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America. New style: How touching that an American president once thought if you lost a newsman you’d lost a country.

It is noted that a poll this week said Hispanics are very much not for Donald Trump. Gallup had 65% with an unfavorable view of him, and only 14% favorable. Mr. Trump and Mr. Ramos actually got into that, when Mr. Ramos finally questioned him after being allowed back into the news conference. Mr. Trump countered with a recent Nevada poll that has him with a state lead of 28%—and he scored even higher with Nevada’s Hispanics, who gave him 31% support.

I will throw in here that almost wherever I’ve been this summer, I kept meeting immigrants who are or have grown conservative—more men than women, but women too.

America is so in play.

And: “the base” isn’t the limited, clichéd thing it once was, it’s becoming a big, broad jumble that few understand.
***

On the subject of elites, I spoke to Scott Miller, co-founder of the Sawyer Miller political-consulting firm, who is now a corporate consultant. He worked on the Ross Perot campaign in 1992 and knows something about outside challenges. He views the key political fact of our time as this: “Over 80% of the American people, across the board, believe an elite group of political incumbents, plus big business, big media, big banks, big unions and big special interests—the whole Washington political class—have rigged the system for the wealthy and connected.” It is “a remarkable moment,” he said. More than half of the American people believe “something has changed, our democracy is not like it used to be, people feel they no longer have a voice.”

Mr. Miller added: “People who work for a living are thinking this thing is broken, and that economic inequality is the result of the elite rigging the system for themselves. We’re seeing something big.”

Support for Mr. Trump is not, he said, limited to the GOP base: “The molecules are in motion.” I asked what he meant. He said bars of support are not solid, things are in motion as molecules are “before combustion, or before a branch breaks.”

I end with this. An odd thing, in my observation, is that deep down the elite themselves also think the game is rigged. They don’t disagree, and they don’t like what they see—corruption, shallowness and selfishness in the systems all around them. Their odd anguish is that they have no faith the American people can—or will—do anything to turn it around. They see the American voter as distracted, poorly educated, subject to emotional and personality-driven political adventures. They sometimes refer to “Jaywalking,” the old Jay Leno “Tonight Show” staple in which he walked outside the studio and asked the man on the street about history. What caused the American Civil War? Um, Hitler? When did it take place, roughly? Uh, 1958?

Both sides, the elites and the non-elites, sense that things are stuck.

The people hate the elites, which is not new, and very American. The elites have no faith in the people, which, actually, is new. Everything is stasis. Then Donald Trump comes, like a rock thrown through a showroom window, and the molecules start to move.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Elites: George Will
« Reply #329 on: August 28, 2015, 10:37:12 AM »
From CD's post,

"One is the deepening estrangement between the elites and the non-elites in America"
Speaking of elites who are out of touch:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-havoc-that-donald-trump-wreaks--on-his-own-party/2015/08/26/7418c2c8-4b4c-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html

Seeing him on cable seems to me he has just as much snarl as he claims Trump has.  Not unlike the smirks the Democrat liberals have on their faces whenever challenged.

And I don't believe the numbers he throws around in his articles.  Does anyone for one second believe the number of illegals in this country is the same or lower than it was years ago?

Who is kidding who?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2015, 11:27:11 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #330 on: August 28, 2015, 01:25:20 PM »
Will has been a serious commentator on the scene for decades now.  IMHO he raises a number of fair points in this piece, whether one agrees with it or not.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #331 on: August 28, 2015, 01:29:03 PM »
CCP,

I loved the Peggy Noonan article. She is beginning to pick up on what the "commoner's" are thinking.

"Since Mr. Trump announced I’ve worked or traveled in, among other places, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey and New York’s Long Island. In all places I just talked to people. My biggest sense is that political professionals are going to have to rethink “the base,” reimagine it when they see it in their minds."

The professionals and the elites do not and cannot understand what is going on across the US. They don't have the interactions with those outside of their "class" so they cannot conceive of the anger, distrust, and the longing for a true leader, no matter what is going on.

For at least the last decade, the US is perceived to have been leaderless, and likely much longer. Obama did not show the qualities of a leader, and that has been shown by the state of the country now. 43 was no better, except in his initial response to 9-11. He squandered that beginning in 2003 and lost it completely soon after.

Clinton turned out to be no leader who could motivate the masses. He did a bit within his party, but that was lost as well. 41 could never produce real leadership qualities.

Among those who have run for President and lost, neither Gore or Kerry for the dems, nor McCain or Romney on the right. And currently, Hillary, Jeb, Rubio, or the others inspire others, so they are lacking as well.

Leadership is the ability to engage and pull together people from across all sectors of the population. It involves being able to communicate to the people that there is hope for improvement of their lives, and their futures and it inspires people to believe that there can be a positive outcome.

Since FDR, there has been only Reagan who could inspire the masses to believe in something better. Reagan brought together people of all stripes into the Reagan coalition with his "shining city on the hill", a belief that we could turn around the failures of the 70's.

Trump is doing the same with his "Make America Great Again". He is offering a vision that no politician has offered since Reagan. Instead of condemning America, he is praising America and offers hope that we can return to the days of yore.

This is what leaders do. They offer a hope that all can embrace and offer a road map to get there. Their appeal comes from all corners and are not just limited to one sector.

The GOP and the media do not understand the concept of leadership. They think that just being elected means leadership, and that is not so. Leadership must inspire, but the GOP candidates outside of Trump show no clear indication of leadership qualities. Carson could offer such in the future, and Cruz might as well. But they need to grow to the task.
Carly, not likely, and the others, not at all.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #332 on: August 28, 2015, 01:32:40 PM »
Let's see. Will has condemned all who would support Trump as vulgar, uneducated and much more. He is a damned elitist who has lived in the Beltway far too long. BTW, his wife is on the Walker team.

As for me, I am a  "Vulgarian" and proud of it.  Thank you very much, George Will.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #333 on: August 28, 2015, 01:36:48 PM »
Pat:

Of course you make good points in favor of Trump , , , AND there is good cause to be concerned.  Why is it he is getting a pass from some of us on Kelo or the small homeowner he bullied with his crony capitalist powers in Atlantic City, on having proposed a 14% wealth confiscation tax, pro-abortion, money to Hillary, and so much more?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #334 on: August 28, 2015, 02:57:42 PM »
Why?

Pro abortion at one time. BFD.  The abortion issue is a ruse designed to keep the country divided. Abortion will never be banned in the US. it is now too ingrained. So why the continued controversy? Both side use abortion through special interest groups to keep the donations coming in to fund their own pockets.

His new tax plan is coming out in 4 weeks. We see what that is and then if it warrants complaint. But, I go with what he wrote in his 2012 book, and I am comfortable with his stand.

As to Kelo, I guess I am going to have to look at the entire decision, arguments, the reasons for the ED before I comment on it. It will all depend upon the facts.

Money to Hillary...........come on............a business man is going to donate to each side at that level.  His donation to the Clinton Foundation.........no one knew at the time what they were really doing.

Why not talk about the other things that Trump has done that no one hears about.

1. A couple of months ago, a young girl in CA needs to go to New York for major medical reasons. The airlines refused to sell her a ticket because to transport her, seats would have too be removed, as well as some specialized equipment being boarded. What happened? Trump heard about it and sent his private jet to pick her and her family up and transport them to NY for the medical care. No expense to them at all.

2. Remember the Marine who was held in Mexico for several months on the weapons charge? Obama and the other DC politicians did nothing. After the marine was released, Trump gave him a significant amount of money to restart his life.

3. Back in the late 1980's, a husband and wife were losing their farm in Texas. Just before the foreclosure, the husband committed suicide. Trump heard about the foreclosure and the suicide. he contacted the local bank and got the foreclosure postponed. Then he worked with other businessmen to buy out the loan and then eventually forgave the amount owed.

Bet you never heard about any of this. The only way these stories come out is because the people affected tell others what happened. Trump doesn't talk about it.

How many of the current politicians running for office would do things like this?  Hillary? She would steal the money. Bush? He would "no habla anglais" if she called. Rubio? i don't have any money to help?
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #335 on: August 28, 2015, 06:04:22 PM »
I think I'd  vote for Trump, because there really is nothing left to lose at this point.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #336 on: August 28, 2015, 07:06:11 PM »
Trump nailed the CNN reporter tonight. Thousands of people for Trump and CNN wanted to ask him about a couple of protesters present.

Cantor endorses Bush.....Bush should have said "don't do me any favors".

PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #337 on: August 28, 2015, 07:10:36 PM »
Trump nailed the CNN reporter tonight. Thousands of people for Trump and CNN wanted to ask him about a couple of protesters present.

Cantor endorses Bush.....Bush should have said "don't do me any favors".



Wow! The coveted Cantor endorsement. Election over!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #338 on: August 28, 2015, 07:16:47 PM »
Trump nailed the CNN reporter tonight. Thousands of people for Trump and CNN wanted to ask him about a couple of protesters present.

Cantor endorses Bush.....Bush should have said "don't do me any favors".



The more Trump bitchslaps the corrupt media, the more I like him.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #339 on: August 28, 2015, 07:35:24 PM »
Just to be clear, unless things change I'd certainly vote for Trump over any of the Dems.  I'm just saying we need to see a lot more before putting our good name in his hands.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #340 on: August 28, 2015, 07:52:08 PM »
Just to be clear, unless things change I'd certainly vote for Trump over any of the Dems.  I'm just saying we need to see a lot more before putting our good name in his hands.

It is not like we have a lot of choices. No one I would prefer  has near the attraction. Trump beats what the pub establishment would shove down our throats.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Summary of candidates' positions on Islam...
« Reply #341 on: August 29, 2015, 04:31:56 PM »
This, as I told Crafty recently, is a critically important issue, and based on her position, one that eliminates Fiorina from my consideration until/unless she educates herself on the subject:

www.barenakedislam.com/2015/08/05/update-on-republican-presidential-candidates-positions-on-islam-and-the-islamic-threat-to-america/

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #342 on: August 29, 2015, 06:29:18 PM »
That is a good URL Obj.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Steyn
« Reply #343 on: August 29, 2015, 09:43:34 PM »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Scott Walker
« Reply #344 on: August 30, 2015, 03:49:47 PM »
Why Scott Walker will not go anywhere.....build a wall to stop Canadians from coming here for

1. Health care

2. Starbucks

3. Vegetable and fruit harvesting


http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/canadian-border-wall-idea-draws-attention-to-scott-walker-s/article_babe634e-adda-5b07-97ef-27661c50b101.html

Canadian border wall idea draws attention to Scott Walker's 'Meet the Press' interview

In a wide-ranging, 30-minute interview with "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd in Washington on Saturday, Gov. Scott Walker tried to explain his sagging job-approval numbers, pushed back on negative comparisons between Wisconsin and Minnesota and continued to hammer on the nuclear deal with Iran.

Some of the most-cited comments in early headlines after portions of the interview were broadcast on Sunday morning's show, however, were about a border wall.

No, not that one. A Canadian border wall.

Referencing a Walker foreign policy speech Friday in which the Republican presidential candidate said securing the borders was a top priority, Todd asked why no one's talking about building a wall on the United States' northern border to protect from terrorists gaining entry.

Walker said he recently heard just such an idea from law enforcement officials during a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire, which shares a 58-mile border with Canada and has one border crossing.

"So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at," Walker said.

The more popular idea among some Republican candidates, however, is a wall at the Mexican border, something Walker earlier this month followed frontrunner Donald Trump in calling for.

"If we're spending millions of dollars on TSA at our airports, if we're spending all sorts of money on port security, it only makes sense to me that if part of what we're trying to do is protect ourselves — and set aside immigration for a minute — and protect ourselves from risk out there, we should make sure we have a secure border," Walker said on "Meet the Press."

Todd opened the interview by asking about comments made by Walker ally and Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the governor's campaign was "stuck in neutral" and needed a spark.

"I think the biggest spark for us is getting the message out that now's not the time to put in place someone who hasn't been tested before," said Walker, who fell to third behind Trump and Ben Carson in a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll conducted last week. "We saw what a mistake that was under Barack Obama. What we need is someone who's been tested. I've been tested unlike anybody else in this race on the Republican side."

Speaking of Obama, why does the president have a higher job-approval rating than Walker in Wisconsin, Todd asked. In a Marquette Law School Poll conducted Aug. 13-16, 48.5 percent of Wisconsin registered voters approved of Obama's performance while just 39.4 percent approved of Walker's.

It's nothing new, Walker said.

"Four years ago, I was so low in the polls they called me 'Dead Man Walker,'" Walker said. "Because back then we were pushing big, bold reforms, kind of like the big, bold reforms again we pushed in this latest budget. A year later, I won the recall with a higher percentage of the vote and a higher number of votes. Why? Because our reforms worked.

"For all the hype and hysteria of the 100,000 protestors, our schools are better. In fact, ACT scores again are second-best in the country. Our graduation rates are up. Our third-grade reading scores are up. The same thing will hold true here when people see that for students like my son, who's a junior at the University of Wisconsin, the reforms are going to work there as well. Property taxes continue to go down. When people see the benefits of our reforms, just like they did four years ago, I think our numbers will go up again."

Here's what Walker said on some of the other topics:



Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/canadian-border-wall-idea-draws-attention-to-scott-walker-s/article_babe634e-adda-5b07-97ef-27661c50b101.html#ixzz3kLDyxQcg
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #345 on: August 30, 2015, 11:32:49 PM »
Actually, there's some real concerns about northern border security, but jihadis from Canuckistan would have to work hard to inflict a greater loss of life and money on the US to eclipse what we get from south of border.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #346 on: August 31, 2015, 11:16:40 AM »

Bush new campaign photo


PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #347 on: August 31, 2015, 12:00:29 PM »
THE LAST DAYS OF HILLARY

Hillary Clinton’s worst punishment will be her failure.

August 28, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   


Hillary Clinton has spent a third of her adult life trying to become president. All for nothing.

The first time around, she wasted $200 million just to lose to Obama. $11 million of that money came from the notoriously "flat broke" couple. This time around she was determined to take no chances.

Together with her husband she built up a massive war chest using money from foreign governments and speaking fees from non-profits, funneled into her own dirty non-profit and a complex network of unofficial organizations staffed by Clinton loyalists, secured an unofficial endorsement from Obama and carefully avoided answering questions or taking positions on anything. There was no way she could lose.

Now she’s losing all over again.

Hillary has a ton of money, but can’t buy the nomination. She’s spending a quarter of a million a day on a campaign operation with no actual organized opposition to speak of. Even before Biden officially enters the race, she’s falling behind the joke candidacy of Bernie Sanders in key states.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars without making an impact. She spent almost a million on polling only to see her poll numbers drop every week. She dropped $2 million on ads about her mother to try to make women like her. It didn’t work. Nothing is working anymore.

Obama gave Biden his blessing to run. White House spokesman Josh Earnest praised Joe Biden to reporters, saying that there is “no one in American politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”

It wasn’t a subtle message.

Earnest suggested that Obama might endorse a Democratic primary candidate. Despite the deal that the Clintons made in which Bill would campaign for Obama in 2012 in exchange for a Hillary endorsement, it’s looking less and less likely like that he will back Hillary Clinton. Instead Biden appears to be his man.

Biden is already polling better than Hillary in a national election. With Obama’s backing, he can strip away Hillary’s minority vote while Bernie Sanders takes the leftist vote. Hillary Clinton is already doubling down on gender politics by accusing pro-life Republicans of being terrorists, but it won’t work.

It didn’t work last time. It won’t work this time. Once again, Hillary has lost.

The only lesson that Hillary Clinton drew from her last election was to double down on all the things she did wrong. Her organization was big last time so she made it even bigger. It got so big that the different Super PACs were fighting each other over fundraising for her campaign. She had lots of money last time, so she was determined to have even more money this time. But that money has been wasted paying an army of useless people who couldn’t even do something as basic as produce a good logo.

Hillary Clinton was paranoid, controlling and dishonest last time. She decided to be twice as paranoid and dishonest this time around and it destroyed her image and her campaign.

Even before the rope lines and the interview boycotts, the media hated her. Once she began to aggressively shut out the media, its personalities gleefully reported on every email server scandal detail that her enemies in the White House fed to the New York Times and other administration mouthpieces.

It wasn’t a vast right wing conspiracy or even a more real left wing conspiracy that destroyed Hillary Clinton. If she were a stronger candidate, Obama and the left would have fallen in line behind her.

Once again, Hillary Clinton destroyed her own candidacy. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the top three words people associate with her are “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.” If she hadn’t planned a cover-up before there was even anything to cover up and then responded to its disclosure with a series of terrible press conferences climaxing in asking reporters if they meant that she had wiped her email server with a cloth, her old reputation might have stayed buried long enough to win an election.

Now Hillary is right back where she was last time around. She has lots of money, but no one likes her. She’s trying to build a cult of personality, but none of the myriads of people who work for her will tell her the truth about her personality. She inspires no one and there’s no actual reason to vote for her.

With her popularity rapidly vanishing, Hillary is moving to her Führerbunker. Her aides plan to absorb defeats in early states and concentrate all the money and organization on crushing the opposition on Super Tuesday. They’re conceding that Hillary isn’t going to out-campaign her rivals individually, but are betting that her war machine is big enough to destroy them in eleven states at the same time.

Hillary still hasn’t learned that she can’t just buy an election. And she may not have the money to buy it. Donors lost a lot of money funding her failed campaign last time. They came on board again because they were convinced that she had a smooth ride to the nomination. Once Biden enters the race, donors will wait rather than pour more money into the struggling campaign of an unpopular candidate.

And many of the Obama donors who haven’t committed to Hillary will open their wallets for Biden.

ClintonWorld is an expensive theme park to run. All those staffers the Clintons have picked up have to be paid. And the Clintons can’t stop paying them because they have no true loyalists, only mercenaries. If their checks don’t clear, they’ll be working for Biden or O’Malley before you can say "Whitewater."

It will take that machine some time to slow to a halt. Hillary Clinton burned through $200 million fighting Obama. Elections have only gotten more expensive since then. But her donors will learn the hard way that money alone can’t make an unlikable politician with no charisma or compelling message, president.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a message, she has ambition. Her obsession with becoming president has overshadowed any reason that anyone might have to vote for her. She offers no hope and less change. Her candidacy is historic… but only for her. There is no promise she can make that anyone will believe.

After having spent much of her life trying to become president, she will leave once again a failure.

Some are hoping that Hillary will go to jail. But the anger, frustration and bitterness that will gnaw on her after wasting decades and a small fortune on two failed efforts to win the White House in which she had every advantage only to lose before even leaving the starting gate will be worse than any prison.

In January 2017, Hillary Clinton will be sitting in front of a television set watching someone else take the oath of office. Nothing the penal system has to offer would be a harsher punishment than that moment.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #348 on: August 31, 2015, 03:24:00 PM »
Bush new campaign photo

I wonder what this race looks like if Bush drops out first.  Not much different I suppose.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Scott Walker
« Reply #349 on: August 31, 2015, 03:33:45 PM »
Liberals are giddy with the comparison between Wisconsin and Minnesota and Walker has failed to back up his claim of why that is apples and oranges.  Deflecting that question as he did here just makes it keep coming up.

If I have to answer it for him, he is already done.