The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Since my last political thread was successfully derailed (which was my fault

) I figured I create a new generic one.

Let's try to keep it primarily related to the 2016 Presidential Elections, but I'm game for anything related to politics in general.

While it's almost a forgone conclusion that Hillary will run and is expected to announce in a few months... most of the action is on the GOP nomination process.

Here's an interesting read on every Political Junkie's wet dream... a Brokered Convention:

What If No One Wins the GOP Presidential Nomination?
Normally, I dread commenting on presidential nomination contests. But as much as I might like to return to the days of short presidential nomination processes (Franklin Roosevelt didn’t declare his intention to seek a third term until the summer of 1940), the reality is that the year-long nomination process is here to stay, and it is time to start writing on it.

But in truth, I’m actually hopeful about this year’s campaign, because I think it could be unlike anything we’ve seen in a very long time. I think the Republican Party really could wind up with a brokered convention – that is, a race where no candidate receives a majority of the delegates by the end of voting. In fact, it might well be the most likely outcome, if only because no particular outcome is particularly probable.

This race is intriguing not just because of one possible outcome. It is interesting because it is difficult even to formulate a workable theory of the race. Charlie Cook uses a brackets metaphor, while Jim Geraghty and Larry Sabato think of the race in terms of tiers, but all of these have problems. Instead, I see a race that is largely chaotic. It is one where an unusually large number of candidates have perfectly plausible paths, if not to the nomination, then at least to lengthy runs deep into the balloting process.

This is because 2016 really is the deepest GOP field in a very, very long time. In fact, it isn’t even close. To be clear, that doesn’t mean that eventual candidate is (or will be) the strongest Republican nominee ever. I think that’s unlikely, and in fact, that is crucial to my analysis. It just means that number eight is unusually strong. In 1996, eighth place in Iowa was businessman Morry Taylor. In 2008, it was Alan Keyes (who placed fourth in 2000). This year, eighth place will probably be a candidate we now see as a legitimate contender for the nomination.

Let’s look at Jonathan Bernstein’s list of potential candidates here, and assume the following candidates get in: Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, John Bolton and Peter King. Some on that list won’t run, but some others probably will (Mike Pence or Rick Snyder being the most obvious contenders).

Let’s rate this field using a points system as follows: 5 points for a sitting veep, 4 for a sitting senator or governor, 3 for a representative, 2 for Cabinet officials, and 1 for “other.” We’ll (somewhat arbitrarily) add a point for “star power,” and deduct one for candidates who haven’t won a race in the past six years. We’ll do this for all the initial fields going back to 1980 (minor note: Harold Stassen receives a 1 even though he was a former governor. An election in 1938 doesn’t have much bearing in 1988).

Now to be clear, it is likely that some of these candidates will drop out as we approach actual voting for the usual reasons: they fail to gain traction in the polls, fail to raise money, or are excluded from debates. At the same time, I think that this “early winnowing” effect will be more muted than is usually the case. Most of the candidates on my list tend to draw support from different wings of the party, have different bases of fundraising, and will register at least some support in Iowa. Someone might catch fire, but I think the lack of an overwhelmingly strong candidate means that it is just as likely that the polling remains very tight, with candidates struggling to make it out of the low teens. This keeps even marginal candidates in striking distance and will decrease the incentive to drop out. Our hypothetical field of 16 might be 10 by caucus day, but it will be a very serious group of 10.

The total for the prospective 2016 field is 56 points, by far the highest of any field. The next-closest field, from 2008, totals just 39 points. Moreover, the average candidate quality in 2016 is the highest of the bunch: 3.5 points, compared with 3.1 points for 2012 or 3.3 for 2008. Even this doesn’t tell the whole story though, as the 2008 slate is filled with candidates who were much weaker than their ratings suggested (Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson). Almost all of the candidates on the 2016 list would have been top-flight contenders against the 2012 field, yet many of them will struggle to finish in the top five in a single primary or caucus.

The traditional way to analyze the Republican primary is to walk through the early states, gaming out various paths to the nomination. So, we would start with Iowa, which traditionally likes religious conservatives and fellow Midwesterners. This might argue for Scott Walker, who performed well in the state over the weekend, Ted Cruz, who could combine religious conservatives with Tea Partiers, or perhaps for a repeat victory for Huckabee or Santorum.

Next is New Hampshire, where we could see a Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, or Jeb Bush do well. South Carolina traditionally follows (although for now, New York and Utah precede it) and it has long been the establishment firewall. But lately it has been more populist: Huckabee very nearly defeated McCain (in a race whose map eerily paralleled a 1940 anti-prohibition referendum) on the basis of a strong showing in the upcountry, while in 2012 Newt Gingrich beat Mitt Romney in the state by a 12-point margin. So we might label this fertile territory for an insurgent populist, perhaps Ted Cruz or Rick Perry.

That leaves a flurry of caucus states – Nevada, Colorado and Minnesota – to consider before we get into the run up to Super Tuesday. Santorum made a splash by winning some of these in 2012 (though Romney did manage to win Nevada). But look at the second-place finisher in Minnesota and Maine (which held early caucuses in 2012): Ron Paul. Caucuses tend to reward candidates with devoted followings. If Rand Paul inherits his father’s following and builds upon it somewhat as a more reasonable, electable option, one can see him performing well here.

So here you have a perfectly plausible scenario where we exit the early primary phase of the contest with four winners, each of whom is a legitimate presidential contender. What’s more, it’s not entirely clear how they knock each other out. Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul all represent different wings of the party, would draw from different fundraising bases, and would have different demographic appeals. Just as important: None is an obvious choice, but at the same time, unlike 2012, all will have a group of supporters that really likes them; it won’t just be an “anti-Bush” vote trying to coalesce. You can mix up the various winners (Rubio, Christie, Perry, Paul), but the same analysis holds.

Plus, we have states like New York, Utah and North Carolina that have moved up their primaries. We don’t have a good feel for these states, but you could take any one of the above scenarios, add Chris Christie in New York, Mitt Romney in Utah and any number of candidates in North Carolina. Moreover, a strong second-place finisher could decide that he is the next Bill Clinton (who famously won only one of the first 11 primaries in 1992), and try to keep going.

At that point, it really is anybody’s game. No one really has an incentive to drop out, as the RNC’s compressed schedule means the finish line is in sight by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, and all of these candidates can probably win a race here and there to keep the old ball rolling. Money might get tight, but the threshold for winning these contests remains low. It also becomes very difficult for any one candidate to amass a majority of the delegates very, very quickly.

Complicating matters even further, our analyses haven’t fully accounted for the rise of SuperPACs. I suspect 2012 was but a preview of their potential impact. Rick Santorum nearly threw the entire race into chaos in 2012 with a camper and the backing of Foster Friess. Sheldon Adelson helped Newt Gingrich stay in the race through May. Without SuperPACs, they likely would have been out in March, at the latest. What happens if Friess, Adelson, Karl Rove and the Kochs all back different candidates, while a candidate like Paul survives off of grassroots support? That race could go on for a very long time.

But, in fact, the race is even less predictable than the above analysis suggests. To see what I mean, let’s revisit our list of candidates above, putting in a sort of bare minimum for each candidate in Iowa, without any regard for the total vote share. I did this, and I was not generous. Top-flight candidates rarely drop much below 10 percent here, and candidates we today regard as also-also-rans routinely put up strong showings. So when I give two-term governors who have routinely been mentioned as nominee material like Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie 5 percent, or give 11 percent to a candidate like Mike Huckabee, who won 40 percent of the vote the last go-round, I’m being pretty stingy.

The total I came up with was 125 percent. There are two implications to this. First, a lot of objectively strong candidates are going to have to do quite a bit worse than we currently think is possible next January, but we have no real way of knowing just who those candidates are. To be sure, the field will narrow some by Election Day, but I’m already giving the most likely dropouts very small vote shares.

Second, and most importantly, with a deep field such as this that splits the Republican coalition in so many different ways, you really might be able to win Iowa with 12 percent of the vote or so. Alan Keyes surpassed that vote share in 2000, Gary Bauer came within striking distance of it that same year, and Pat Robertson doubled it in 1988.

Given this, almost anyone really can win Iowa this time. Moreover, if we really do have a low-teen threshold for victory in these early races, the types of unpredictable “quantum effects” that political scientists routinely dismiss as irrelevant, like newspaper and gubernatorial endorsements, suddenly become important. Could Chris Christie have a solid debate and shoot from 5 percent to 15 percent in the polls right before the election? I’m basically asking if he can win over two-thirds of Romney voters, so the answer to me is obviously “yes.” Might Terry Brandstad decide it is Kasich's time, and rocket the governor into a surprise third-place finish? If it only takes 10 percent of the vote to do so, why not?

So what happens if, instead of Walker, Bush, Cruz, and Paul, our early winners are, say, Ben Carson, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Paul, with Walker, Bush and Cruz coming in a close second in these states? The result would be seven solid candidates receiving substantial numbers of delegates early on, without an obvious pick for the party. It would quickly become self-perpetuating: The longer candidates continue to rack up delegates, and the longer that the size of the field prevents someone from racking up a huge numbers of delegates, and the longer the field will stay large.

The most credible response to all of this is, in my view, “Haven’t we predicted this before?” This was basically Steve Kornacki’s rejoinder to me in 2012, when I was discussing such a scenario for that year. Our back-and-forth is worth revisiting if you agree with me so far, as Kornacki’s recitation of history is impeccable (as is his wont).

But my rejoinder is basically the same as last time: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This is especially true since some things really have changed: SuperPAC funding, Internet fundraising (weakening parties), and the size and strength of this field.

Most importantly, we should bear in mind just how close Republicans actually came to a brokered convention in 2012. Had 5,300 Ohio voters changed their mind, and/or 16,200 Michigan voters cast their ballots differently, Romney would have been severely damaged, and that race probably would have gone to the convention. Party elites might even have demanded it.

For that matter, consider 2008 on the Democratic side. John Edwards was a very serious candidate, coming off of a credible run as vice president in 2004. What if he had decided to gut it out for one more week, through Super Tuesday? Let’s say he won only 90 delegates – just 5 percent of the 1,700 delegates awarded that day. If he pulled evenly from Obama and Clinton, this would have been enough eventually to deny Obama an outright majority of the pledged delegates.

Of course, the super delegates would probably have still saved Obama (Edwards would have had to have won about 250 delegates on Super Tuesday to prevent that), but super delegates don’t fit into the Republican calculus to any great degree. More to the point, it only took two equally matched candidates and a tepid effort from a third candidate for the 2008 Democratic race to come dangerously close to a convention. If just four or five evenly matched Republicans making it to Super Tuesday, it’s hard to see how a similar result would be avoided.

This isn’t to say that things necessarily play out this way. A candidate could catch fire and suddenly bring stability to the races, as happened with the Democrats in 2004. A large number of candidates could decide not to run.

Rather, the point is that it really is unknowable at this point what will happen. For now, the race is chaotic and utterly unpredictable. Which makes it fun.

**cincydooley**

The thought of Hillary as next president makes me ill.

**whembly**

cincydooley wrote:
The thought of Hillary as next president makes me ill.

eh... I've already in the acceptance phase. No one has really convinced me that she's not a powerhouse.

*shrug*

At least there's a strong chance this the GOP will retain both houses in 2016.

There's some merits to a divided government.

**Kap'n Krump**

I'm not really a rabid republican or democrat, but I'd be shocked if Hillary didn't run and win.

I mean, one reason Obama was able to win both times was that he had a substantial portion of the black vote, because he is black. So, he had a substantial pull with 13% of the population.

How much more extreme is that effect going to be when Hillary has the same effect with about 50% of the population?

Like Obama, TONS people are going to vote for Hillary for no other reason than because either A) She's something new in American politics, and they want to help make history, or B) Women are going to vote for her because she's a woman.

I'm not saying anything bad about blacks or women - this is simply human nature. If the reverse was true, and women had been in charge of the U.S. since its inception, and the first male candidate was likely coming up, I'm sure society would do the same thing.

At this point, Hillary would have to on record that she's eaten live babies before, or have her running mate be satan himself before she'd have a chance at losing. That, or republicans would have to resurrect and combine into one body both Reagan and Jesus.

Also food for thought: The last president to not be re-elected was Bush Senior, back in 93'. So, for 22 years we've re-elected Clinton, Lil' Bush, and now Obama, and it's certainly fair to say that each of those presidents have had significant controversies that should have challenged their re-election, but they all made it.

So, in addition to the near-certainty of Hillary running and winning, also consider the likelihood of her re-election.

**Frazzled**

Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.

Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.

on a more important note, I'd like to throw my hat into the ring.

Wiener Party 2016 candidates:
Frazzled/TBone

"A bone in every bowl!"

**CptJake**

Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm not really a rabid republican or democrat, but I'd be shocked if Hillary didn't run and win.

I mean, one reason Obama was able to win both times was that he had a substantial portion of the black vote, because he is black. So, he had a substantial pull with 13% of the population.

How much more extreme is that effect going to be when Hillary has the same effect with about 50% of the population?

Like Obama, TONS people are going to vote for Hillary for no other reason than because either A) She's something new in American politics, and they want to help make history, or B) Women are going to vote for her because she's a woman.

I very seriously doubt Hilary pulls in even close to a similar percentage of women voters as Pres Obama pulled of black voters. Black voters tend to vote Democratic Party, and yes, Pres Obama was a motivating factor in their turn out numbers. Women do not tend to vote as a single party block.

**Kap'n Krump**

Frazzled wrote:
Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.

Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.

I agree that she won't get 50% of the population, but she will likely have an "in" with 50% of the population. If even a quarter of women vote for her based on gender, that's about the same 13% of the black vote Obama got, which was enough to for him to get ahead.

And it's true she didn't win the democratic ticket v. Obama, but as I recall, she was a very close second.

Time will certainly tell, though, one way or the other.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.

Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.

Yeah, after all, in 2008, we all knew years in advance it would be Giuliani vs Hillary, so... I wouldn't give her a lock.

The chances of the GOP nominating a buffoon are pretty good though. I would say there's at least a 60 percent chance of that, even after we winnow out the non-candidate candidates that are just in it to fleece the rubes (Palin, Trump, Gingrich) or sell a book (Huckabee, probably Gingrich too). Ultimately in 2015 the GOP remains party that embraces embarrassing levels of buffoonery.

I hope Rick Perry runs again, personally, that is my favorite circus.

I can't imagine Mitt is legitimately going to run again, despite the noises he is making, which is a shame for him because I think he could actually win this time: one of his big issues was voter relatability and empathy, and now that's he's sort of dramatically failed there is an element of his personality that the average voter can now sort of connect with (being defeated in an endeavor).

In my opinion, though, things will remain the same: the Dems will not be able to get Congress again anytime soon, and the Reps will not be able to retake the presidency anytime soon.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.

Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.

Yeah, after all, in 2008, we all knew years in advance it would be Giuliani vs Hillary, so... I wouldn't give her a lock.

The chances of the GOP nominating a buffoon are pretty good though. I would say there's at least a 60 percent chance of that, even after we winnow out the non-candidate candidates that are just in it to fleece the rubes (Palin, Trump, Gingrich) or sell a book (Huckabee, probably Gingrich too). Ultimately in 2015 the GOP remains party that embraces embarrassing levels of buffoonery.

I hope Rick Perry runs again, personally, that is my favorite circus.

I can't imagine Mitt is legitimately going to run again, despite the noises he is making, which is a shame for him because I think he could actually win this time: one of his big issues was voter relatability and empathy, and now that's sort of dramatically failed there is an element of his personality that the average voter can now sort of connect with (being defeated in an endeavor).

Perry is a buffoon? How so? He's not my favorite, but he's certainly better than most of the other potentials.

Agreed on the Palin, Gingrich, & Trump buffoonery.

Mitt would be a decent Presidential caretaker imo... not necessarily great, but at least has a chance to build a competent administration. However, I can't see him running again for real.

**Ouze**

I suspect that Rick Perry is going to have a difficult time fundraising when he's currently diverting his campaign funds to legal fees to (so far, unsuccessfully) fight off his felony indictment for abuse of power.

There are 3 reasons that I think he'd be a bad candidate - that was one, the other is his efforts to show how he's done well with the Texas economy are going to be a little underwhelming with dropping gas prices and a general economic recovery, and uh... I forgot the other reason.

**Frazzled**

Kap'n Krump wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.

Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.

I agree that she won't get 50% of the population, but she will likely have an "in" with 50% of the population. If even a quarter of women vote for her based on gender, that's about the same 13% of the black vote Obama got, which was enough to for him to get ahead.

And it's true she didn't win the democratic ticket v. Obama, but as I recall, she was a very close second.

Time will certainly tell, though, one way or the other.

Considering he was a nobody and she had the "lock" then, thats telling. note her negatives are really high constantly in polling.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

In my opinion, though, things will remain the same: the Dems will not be able to get Congress again anytime soon, and the Reps will not be able to retake the presidency anytime soon.

I'd be happy with that. The US has typically operated under just such a system.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I suspect that Rick Perry is going to have a difficult time fundraising when he's currently diverting his campaign funds to legal fees to (so far, unsuccessfully) fight off his felony indictment for abuse of power.

There are 3 reasons that I think he'd be a bad candidate - that was one, the other is his efforts to show how he's done well with the Texas economy are going to be a little underwhelming with dropping gas prices and a general economic recovery, and uh... I forgot the other reason.

The "look I'm smart too" glasses. You have to give him credit. His hair is almost as bulletproof as mine. Almost. My coif has successfully withstood hurricanes.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I suspect that Rick Perry is going to have a difficult time fundraising when he's currently diverting his campaign funds to legal fees to (so far, unsuccessfully) fight off his felony indictment for abuse of power.

Actually, I think he's going to spin that as a positive as the case is purely laughable.

There are 3 reasons that I think he'd be a bad candidate - that was one, the other is his efforts to show how he's done well with the Texas economy are going to be a little underwhelming with dropping gas prices and a general economic recovery,

That's a good point... he seems to take too much credit for it. I understand WHY he's claiming it, but it's awfully conceited of him to claim credit.

and uh... I forgot the other reason.

Try his debate when he was stoned on painkiller after back surgery. Man that was pretty bad.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:

Actually, I think he's going to spin that as a positive as the case is purely laughable.

I thought so as well, but it's survived two attempts to quash so far... the special prosecutor has stated there is more to it than has been reported.

In any event, as donor or bundler, do you give your money to a guy who is going to put it into get-out-the-vote-teams, ad buys, and flyers, or the guy who is giving it to lawyers to fight off a felony criminal case?

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:

Actually, I think he's going to spin that as a positive as the case is purely laughable.

I thought so as well, but it's survived two attempts to quash so far... the special prosecutor has stated there is more to it than has been reported.

In any event, as donor or bundler, do you give your money to a guy who is going to put it into get-out-the-vote-teams, ad buys, and flyers, or the guy who is giving it to lawyers to fight off a felony criminal case?

It survived those quash attempts because of the technical nature... the indictment doesn’t specifically say they are bringing the charge based on the veto. Which everyone knows that is the case... so until the court actually proceeds and that this *is* the prosecution's theory, Perry's laywers can legally demand that the prosecutors specify *how* he misused property, and make them allege that he did so by way of a veto. THEN, the judge can rule on the question of whether a veto can violate that law.

At least, that's what I think... Texas court proceedings seem wonkey to me, so I may be missing the point.

Anyhoo... I think that's my point as he'll use this as a badge of honor in his fundraising attempts.

**Frazzled**

Its survived two attempts so far because the US legal system is generally laughable.

As to a donor, you have a better point, which was the whole point of why the Texas Democrats pushed this.
Fortunately for me he's not the best candidate (as in I would vote for Hillary over him) so it doesn't bother me.

In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
I suspect that Rick Perry is going to have a difficult time fundraising when he's currently diverting his campaign funds to legal fees to (so far, unsuccessfully) fight off his felony indictment for abuse of power.

There are 3 reasons that I think he'd be a bad candidate - that was one, the other is his efforts to show how he's done well with the Texas economy are going to be a little underwhelming with dropping gas prices and a general economic recovery, and uh... I forgot the other reason.

Nice one.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:

In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.

Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.

Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?

Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.

Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?

Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.

I see... I wasn't a big fan on *how* he went about it.

Should've been more of a "opt-in" program... rather than defaulting to "mandating with opt-out".

**cincydooley**

The biggest problem the GOP is going to continue to have is that many conservative males between the ages 25-40 (like myself) are too much RINOs to the hardliners, to whom, for whatever reason, the GOP likes to cater.

Honestly, I'll never understand it because those far right hardliners simply aren't going to vote Democrat. They're not. So why not appeal to those of us that fall in the Libertarian camp? Those of us that, for lack of better phrasing, don't give a gak what people do in the privacy of their own home.

I've always though the best move for the GOP is to push for marriage equality harder than the left. Because there are plenty of homosexuals that vote left on this sole issue, despite being fiscally conservative.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.

Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?

Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.

I see... I wasn't a big fan on *how* he went about it.

Should've been more of a "opt-in" program... rather than defaulting to "mandating with opt-out".

God on earth why? Vaccinations aren't Opt-in. Look at Disneyland to see what happens when the nattering nabobs are allowed to not vaccinate. They infest us all.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.

Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?

Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.

I see... I wasn't a big fan on *how* he went about it.

Should've been more of a "opt-in" program... rather than defaulting to "mandating with opt-out".

God on earth why? Vaccinations aren't Opt-in. Look at Disneyland to see what happens when the nattering nabobs are allowed to not vaccinate. They infest us all.

It's not that the Vaccinations per se is my objection.

My objection is gubmint folks saying you must take it in the ass and do what I say.

If my physician recommends it... GREAT! Sign me up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:

I've always though the best move for the GOP is to push for marriage equality harder than the left. Because there are plenty of homosexuals that vote left on this sole issue, despite being fiscally conservative.

That gets me too...

Funny story... it's actually conservative in principle to favor SSM. But, the religious (and typical black families) just won't reconcile with that.

**SilverMK2**

Come back into the fold

**squidhills**

Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president. I say that as a card-carrying liberal Democrat.

Hillary's problem is that every single man, woman, child, and house pet in the country knows *exactly* what they think of her. She has a 0% chance to win over any of her detractors, and she can't win over an undecided, because there aren't any when it comes to her. Everybody (or as near to "everybody" as makes no odds) has already formed their opinion of Hillary Clinton. The Dems need to run somebody that 100% of the country hasn't heard of and decided whether they like or dislike already. They need a candidate that is known in one part of the country (so he or she has a support base), who they can "introduce" to the rest of the U.S. during the campaign.

The Dems have the problem of not having anyone seriously considering a run, because it is assumed Hillary is the lock. The Republicans have the problem of everyone considering a run because nobody is the lock. If Hillary runs, I will be very surprised if the Republicans don't win the 2016 election.

**Frazzled**

My objection is gubmint folks saying you must take it in the ass and do what I say.

If my physician recommends it... GREAT! Sign me up.

Cool but in that case your mouthbreathers don't get to be around everyone else in school.

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.

Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?

Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.

I see... I wasn't a big fan on *how* he went about it.

Should've been more of a "opt-in" program... rather than defaulting to "mandating with opt-out".

God on earth why? Vaccinations aren't Opt-in. Look at Disneyland to see what happens when the nattering nabobs are allowed to not vaccinate. They infest us all.

It's not that the Vaccinations per se is my objection.

My objection is gubmint folks saying you must take it in the ass and do what I say.

If my physician recommends it... GREAT! Sign me up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:

I've always though the best move for the GOP is to push for marriage equality harder than the left. Because there are plenty of homosexuals that vote left on this sole issue, despite being fiscally conservative.

That gets me too...

Funny story... it's actually conservative in principle to favor SSM. But, the religious (and typical black families) just won't reconcile with that.

It's stupid not to get your kids vaccinated so that they don't contract serious potentially fatal illnesses. That said, it's not illegal not to get your kids vaccinated so the govt has no right to try to punish people for not doing it by withholding services like public education, etc. Having a govt that actively tries to oppress you because they disagree with your personal choices is not a good way to run a free country.

The real conservative position is to not have the govt be involved in licensing marriages at all. Unfortunately we're several decades too late to have a realistic chance of extracting the social engineering out of the tax code.

**Bran Dawri**

The problem is that an unvaccinated subset of the population allows the germ in question (whatever it is) to mutate beyond the vaccination's immunity and re-infest the general public - and you're back to square one.

Although I am against a lot of government interference (and for a lot of other things for the government to interfere in), public health is one where I really think it does belong.

**MrDwhitey**

Frazzled wrote:

My objection is gubmint folks saying you must take it in the ass and do what I say.

If my physician recommends it... GREAT! Sign me up.

Cool but in that case your mouthbreathers don't get to be around everyone else in school.

This.

People against being vaccinated for anything other than medical reasons should be excluded. No ifs or buts.

**whembly**

squidhills wrote:
Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president. I say that as a card-carrying liberal Democrat.

Hillary's problem is that every single man, woman, child, and house pet in the country knows *exactly* what they think of her. She has a 0% chance to win over any of her detractors, and she can't win over an undecided, because there aren't any when it comes to her. Everybody (or as near to "everybody" as makes no odds) has already formed their opinion of Hillary Clinton. The Dems need to run somebody that 100% of the country hasn't heard of and decided whether they like or dislike already. They need a candidate that is known in one part of the country (so he or she has a support base), who they can "introduce" to the rest of the U.S. during the campaign.

The Dems have the problem of not having anyone seriously considering a run, because it is assumed Hillary is the lock. The Republicans have the problem of everyone considering a run because nobody is the lock. If Hillary runs, I will be very surprised if the Republicans don't win the 2016 election.

Interesting... the thing that you're discounting is how favorable the media is around Hillary, especially when she's the nominee...

I wish Governor Bill Richardson would run.

**squidhills**

whembly wrote:

Interesting... the thing that you're discounting is how favorable the media is around Hillary, especially when she's the nominee...

I'm not discounting it. It just won't be that big of a factor. The media can be as favorable as it wants, but it won't change anyone's mind on her. The people who dislike her tend to not watch the kind of media that would be nice to her, and the people that like her already like her, so the media's efforts to make them like her are pointless.