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.

**Co'tor Shas**

I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.

The WSJ actually put the figure at 18 trillion. The figure is fething stupid though, because it's the WSJ so of course it is.

The first part is the old con of listing the figure over 10 years, rather than a more sensible annual amount. This allows you to give a figure that's not only 10 times higher and therefore 10 times scarier, but it actually allows you to inflate the figure even more, by loading future assumptions in to the system so the last years of the projection are even scarier (don't think your number is scary enough, just make healthcare cost increases higher so the number gets crazy high in the out years!).

The second part of the con is that it lists only the cost to the government, and then says that will have to raised through taxes which is totally scary. But, fairly obviously, if government is paying for your healthcare, then you aren't paying for it anymore. So across the population you'd see a change from paying insurance to paying tax, with the difference determined by policies not yet known and personal circumstances. That's obvious enough that I feel kind of patronising for having typed it. But it was hidden by the WSJ's gakky con job.

I mean, I think Sanders policies are almost entirely pie in the sky, even if they were economically practical they're politically dead in the water. But reality fething matters, and sleazy gak from the WSJ needs to be called as what it is.

We have a lesson to be learned in Venezuela.

Do you have a lesson to learn from Argentina as well? Or do we only accept really loose comparisons to countries with totally different economic structures and levels of prosperity when they argue against socialism?

Anyhow, for some sensible comparisons to similar countries, France does just fine. The Scandanavian countries do just fine. The US, also, does just fine. All are examples of perfectly functional economies that deliver, to most people, pretty decent standards of living. And so the only question becomes whether you would prefer some further left like France, or something further right like the US, so something in between.

But then, framing it like that makes it much harder to defend the growing income inequality, so of course people prefer the 'Venezuela failed' narrative.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I've seen those numbers, but it being election season, I feel I must ask: who is estimating??

Because if it's Republicans, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.
If it's Pro-HRC Democrats, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.

It's the WSJ, so yeah, good reason to over-estimate.

But, I will put it the way one of my very Libertarian friends put it earlier: if the net gain for the country is greater than the net cost, then the government should be all for it.

National comparisons have found pretty consistently that government run healthcare is much cheaper than private sector healthcare, so it would be a net gain.

But it's all pretty academic, because ACA limped over the line amongst some incredible political madness, and that was a fairly minor reform of the existing system. The idea that a president could undertake nationalisation of healthcare is just not going to happen.

**jasper76**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.

The only reason this hasn't happened already, to the benifit of the entire nation, is the corporate stranglehold on all politicians, which all GOP politicians publicly recognize, admit their complicity in, and simultaneously denounce. It's all a numbers game so far. The power and the money is all to be found in the Bush camp, whether Bush is their ultimate candidate, or whether they back their resources with an alternate because Jeb might not be Presidential; material.

Either way, at this point its all a known commodity. Polls show noone in the GOP beating Clinton, and they do even worse against "Biden his time". Sanders will never get the nod because he is too much a threat to the banks and the corporations, unless there is a complete public swell on bothe sides of the electorate, but the right hates Europe and Sanders, and could never buy in to his overhaul program, despite how much they otherwise respect him on many issues, as evinced by his recent speech at an evangelical university.

**sebster**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.

It isn't so much over-zealousness as Sanders not really worrying about what is actually practical. Not because he's foolish, but because he entered this race with zero expectation of winning, just with the intent of dragging Hillary to the left. Talk about nationalisation of healthcare to get people talking about improving public healthcare, for instance.

It's interesting that the WSJ has decided to actually spend some time on Sanders. It may just be that they couldn't figure out how to write any more on Benghazi or emails, or maybe they're starting to think Sanders might actually be a real candidate. Or maybe it was just too easy to make up something scary with the 18 trillion figure, and deadlines were tight. Who knows?

**jasper76**

My guess is that Sanders entered the race for one of two reasons:

1. To become Clinton's Vice President
2. To force the Democratic Party back to an actual leftist position.

Clinton wins in any scenario. If Sanders appeals to the right, she gets more right sway votes. If he doesn;t appeal to anyone but the leftists, he just goes back to being a valuable Senator.

**sebster**

jasper76 wrote:
The only reason this hasn't happened already, to the benifit of the entire nation, is the corporate stranglehold on all politicians, which all GOP politicians publicly recognize, admit their complicity in, and simultaneously denounce. It's all a numbers game so far. The power and the money is all to be found in the Bush camp, whether Bush is their ultimate candidate, or whether they back their resources with an alternate because Jeb might not be Presidential; material.

The biggest advertising budget for a soft drink launch couldn't convince people to drink Crystal Pepsi. Advertising dollars really matter, but if the product is a turd then money will only go so far. The establishment candidates with some kind of broad appeal, Jeb!, Perry, Walker, they're all really gakky candidates for lots of reasons. That leaves the hard right establishment players like Cruz, Paul and Santorum, and the outsider candidates like Trump and Fiorina. Candidates in those latter categories have performed better, but they're limited by their narrow appeal.

I guess something similar is happening in the Democratic primary. Clinton is New Coke.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
My guess is that Sanders entered the race for one of two reasons:

1. To become Clinton's Vice President
2. To force the Democratic Party back to an actual leftist position.

Clinton wins in any scenario. If Sanders appeals to the right, she gets more right sway votes. If he doesn;t appeal to anyone but the leftists, he just goes back to being a valuable Senator.

I didn't think of the VP possibility. Interesting.

Though I will say there's one circumstance where Clinton doesn't win - if her campaign continues to suck so hard that she doesn't win. There's a part of me that kind of hopes for that because I like Biden way more than I like Clinton, but mostly as a political junkie I'm just annoyed at having to watch someone at the highest level of the game go about doing such a crappy job of campaigning.

The email thing continues to get attention, but it isn't because it really deserves much attention, but because Clinton has given us nothing interesting to talk about.

**jasper76**

That's why it seems to me just a numnbers game alredy. If the Republicans nominate thier best candidates in Bush and Rubio, they might lose 54%/46%.

If they nomiate someone like Truthey might lose 59%/41%.

If they go for Cruz or Santorum it will reach Mandate territory.

**sebster**

jasper76 wrote:
That's why it seems to me just a numnbers game alredy. If the Republicans nominate thier best candidates in Bush and Rubio, they might lose 54%/46%.

If they nomiate someone like Truthey might lose 59%/41%.

If they go for Cruz or Santorum it will reach Mandate territory.

Maybe, the Republicans have been a clown show so far, but the Democrats have been pretty crappy as well, except Sanders.

Seems like we're waiting for somebody, anybody with some kind of broad appeal to actually do something. While we're waiting its all Trump and Sanders (though it's very unfair to put them together for lots of reasons, it works on the level that they're both outsiders with appeal to specific audiences).

**shasolenzabi**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Which policies may I ask? Just saying "policies" isn't very helpful. For all I know, it could be a plan to build a death star .

Also wouldn't it be easier to just say 1.6 trillion a year?

He is quoting numbers like Fox News is spewing, trying to scare people. Meanwhile the Pentagon can't account for some major amounts of a 20yr period that could have been saved if they were better at accounting.

Love how some folks forget that.

Besides, we have a lot to fix in this country, roads, bridges, dams and railways for starters.

Oh and Sanders is gaining a broader audience every day.

**sebster**

shasolenzabi wrote:
He is quoting numbers like Fox News is spewing, trying to scare people. Meanwhile the Pentagon can't account for some major amounts of a 20yr period that could have been saved if they were better at accounting.

Not quite. It means they've lost track of where it was spent, it doesn't mean it wasn't actually spent on something necessary.

So for instance the government could have lost records for a million dollars worth of combat boots - it is bad that the system can't properly state what was spent but the spending itself may have been legitimate. Elsewhere they might have spent a million dollars on a machine that writes USA! on the moon before abandoning that because they couldn't get it to glow red, white and blue. So that would be accounted for but wasteful spending.

Don't take this is a defence of the system, because US government accounting is horrific, but it's important to understand what those failings mean, and what they don't mean. Unaccounted dollars aren't automatically wasted, and accounted for dollars aren't necessarily well spent.

But either way, the issue is not really anything to do with the cost of Sanders' proposals.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

jasper76 wrote:
Wow...is Whembly starting to get worried about a Sanders Presidency?

(don't worry, dude, Sanders will never get the Democratic nomination, even if Hilary implodes)

Of course Whembly is worried. If Clinton doesn't get the nomination, what's Whembly going to post on this thread for the next 12 months?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
That's why it seems to me just a numnbers game alredy. If the Republicans nominate thier best candidates in Bush and Rubio, they might lose 54%/46%.

If they nomiate someone like Truthey might lose 59%/41%.

If they go for Cruz or Santorum it will reach Mandate territory.

Maybe, the Republicans have been a clown show so far, but the Democrats have been pretty crappy as well, except Sanders.

Seems like we're waiting for somebody, anybody with some kind of broad appeal to actually do something. While we're waiting its all Trump and Sanders (though it's very unfair to put them together for lots of reasons, it works on the level that they're both outsiders with appeal to specific audiences).

I think the Democrat strategy is just let the Republicans keep on talking. Give them enough rope to hang themselves and all that.

Seems to be working, because Trump seems to be dragging everybody down to his level.

Trump's talking about immigration and when Republicans start talking about immigration, they tend not to win...

**Tannhauser42**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.

Exalted for truth. The sad part is that we've already had the disasters. Bridges collapsing, railway derailments, power grid failures, etc.

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
Wow...is Whembly starting to get worried about a Sanders Presidency?

(don't worry, dude, Sanders will never get the Democratic nomination, even if Hilary implodes)

nope.

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.

**Co'tor Shas**

So am I.... Probably for different reasons though.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Wow...is Whembly starting to get worried about a Sanders Presidency?

(don't worry, dude, Sanders will never get the Democratic nomination, even if Hilary implodes)

Of course Whembly is worried. If Clinton doesn't get the nomination, what's Whembly going to post on this thread for the next 12 months?

Don't worry... I ain't scurred.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
So am I.... Probably for different reasons though.

Heh...

Hey... did you hear HRC's speech last weekend (I think) that she said that we all should believe in what sexual assault victims says?

“I want to send a message to all of the survivors,” she said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.”

Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones would like to have a word.

I think a lot of folks had a coronary after that.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.

I would expect a GOP devotee to be far more worried about a Sanders Presidency, at least in terms of policy goals. Are you worried that Clinton might actually accomplish some of her's?

**reds8n**

... as we are a Gaming forum...

http://www.cosmicwombatgames.com/#!campaign-trail/c22qj

The confetti is flying, the champagne is flowing and you have just accepted your party's nomination to run for President of the United States! It will be a long few months with campaign stops, advertising campaigns, fundraisers, and trying to uncover those skeletons in your opponent's closet.
Campaign Trail is a strategy board game in which players pit their campaign skills against one another as they vie for the Presidency of the United States. Engage in grass roots campaigning, advertise, fundraise, debate, and so much more! The candidate who best manages his resources and connects with the public on key issues will win the presidency!

**Prestor Jon**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.

I would expect a GOP devotee to be far more worried about a Sanders Presidency, at least in terms of policy goals. Are you worried that Clinton might actually accomplish some of her's?

Even if Sanders won, and he's going to need to change his party affiliatoin first, it's not going to matter much because without a Democratic supermajority in Congress none of Sanders' proposals are becoming legislation. That kind of turnover in Congress isn't going to happen in 2016 and probably wouldn't in 2018 either so Sanders really isn't threatening. The idea of Clinton continuing existing policies from both the Bush and Obama administration and getting Democrats and Republicans like Graham, Boehner, McCain, McConnel to go along with too is much scarier. None of the problems that have been created by the previous administrations will get fixed by a Clinton presidency and she'll just double down on my failed agendas.

Sanders isn't a threat but at least there would be more gridlock and the chance of some ill thought agendas getting stonewalled or defunded. Even with a Democratic supermajority in congress at some point in the future Sanders isn't scary because even when Obama had a supermajority he showed that special interests controlled it with far more authority than he did.

Sanders won't be VP either. If Hillary wins the nomination the party will want her VP to be a younger politician that could be the presidential candidate in 2020 or 2024 and Sanders is too old to run again in 4-8 years.

**dogma**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Sanders isn't a threat but at least there would be more gridlock and the chance of some ill thought agendas getting stonewalled or defunded.

The GOP will probably maintain control of Congress, and there are lots of Republican supporters who hate anyone whose last name is "Clinton". That means anything a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton tries to do will be stonewalled by Congress because there is hay to made by claiming "I opposed something a Clinton tried to do!".

**Prestor Jon**

dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Sanders isn't a threat but at least there would be more gridlock and the chance of some ill thought agendas getting stonewalled or defunded.

The GOP will probably maintain control of Congress, and there are lots of Republican supporters who hate anyone whose last name is "Clinton". That means anything a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton tries to do will be stonewalled by Congress because there is hay to made by claiming "I opposed something a Clinton tried to do!".

I think you are overestimating the partisanship of establishment republicans like McConnel who are clearly out of touch with the base of the party. There are plenty of career politicians in the Republican party that will work with Clinton if it means they get to maintain political power and it benefits the special interests that pay them big money. The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians. While there are some politicians that still seem to care about their constiuents there are plenty of other politicians that just want to take money and make the lobbyists happy and spin it in a way that won't cost them the next election. There are plenty of ways for guys like McConnel and Boehner to help HRC continue the Bush/Obama policies without looking like HRC supporters. A lot of the big money that has poured into HRC's campaign is from people who want/expect her to maintain the status quo if she's elected and there are plenty of "Republicans" willing to go along on that lucrative ride of not rocking the boat.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.

I would expect a GOP devotee to be far more worried about a Sanders Presidency, at least in terms of policy goals. Are you worried that Clinton might actually accomplish some of her's?

Yup. The Democrats will go to bat for HRC ala Obama...

I'm not so sure they would for Sanders.

EDIT: what Jon said above.

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.

I would expect a GOP devotee to be far more worried about a Sanders Presidency, at least in terms of policy goals. Are you worried that Clinton might actually accomplish some of her's?

Yup. The Democrats will go to bat for HRC ala Obama...

I'm not so sure they would for Sanders.

EDIT: what Jon said above.

First they need Bernie to switch from Sanders (I) to Sanders (D). Still not sure how he's running for the Democrat nomination when he's officially an Independent that chooses to caucus with Democrats.

**whembly**

Fiorina is finding the next gear...

http://www.wbur.org/2015/09/16/wbur-poll-new-hampshire-september

WBUR Poll: Close N.H. Race Between Trump, Carson

usinessman Donald Trump leads retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, 22 percent to 18 percent, according to WBUR’s first poll of the race.

Trump’s lead is within the survey’s margin of error of 4.9 percent.

In third place is former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, with 11 percent. She’s ahead of the one-time New Hampshire front-runner, ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who’s at 9 percent with Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

The poll (topline, crosstabs) indicates that Carson is closing in on Trump.

“This is a much closer race than we’ve seen over the last few months in pretty much any state, but it’s similar to a couple polls that have come out just in the last few days, and a couple in Iowa from the last few weeks, that have shown Ben Carson doing much better against Donald Trump than anybody has done in quite a while,” said Steve Koczela, of The MassINC Polling Group, which conducted the survey for WBUR.

Overwhelmingly, likely voters in the New Hampshire Republican primary say it’s “very important” that their chosen candidate “says what he or she truly believes.” Eighty-seven percent of poll respondents said that.

And 94 percent of Trump supporters said it’s “very important” their candidate “says what he or she truly believes.”

“He’s not politically correct,” Trump supporter Theodore Martin said in a phone interview. “He says what he means and does what he means.”

Martin, who lives in Rindge, on the border with Massachusetts, said he wants a president who is going to do what he says he’s going to do.

“When [presidents] get into office they never seem to do what they told the American people they were going to do,” Martin said.

Carson, too, benefits from people looking for someone who “says what he or she truly believes.” Ninety-two percent of his supporters said that’s what they want to see in their candidate.

Among them: contractor Gary Anderson. “I believe what he puts out there is going to be the truth and he’ll most likely act on it, not like most of the politicians we’ve seen in the recent past,” Anderson said.

The poll also found that just 24 percent of likely Republican primary voters say it’s “very important” that their candidate have “experience in [another] elected office.”

That’s what Anderson, who lives in Nottingham, near Durham, said.

“I don’t think political experience is what’s needed,” Anderson said. “I think it’s knowledge of how the system works, but also knowledge of what the people want.”

Fiorina also benefits from the fact that likely Republican voters don’t want someone who is part of the political establishment.

Elizabeth Tibbets said she supports Fiorina because she’s not part of the Washington clique. Tibbets, who lives in Goffstown, near Manchester, said political experience is not very important.

“Except that they have to know how to get around the entrenched politicians that we have in there now,” Tibbets said.

Eighty-five percent of Fiorina supporters said it’s very important that their candidate be able to bring real change to Washington.

The live telephone survey of 404 likely primary voters was conducted Saturday through Monday. Its margin of error is 4.9 percentage points.

The three "outsiders" are leading this poll 1-2-3.

Yowsa!

**Ouze**

Carly Fiorina has been running for various political offices for nearly 8 years now. The only thing keeping her from being a de facto professional politician is the fact she's as good at campaigning as she was at CEO'ing.

Anyway, my guess is her star will rise, and she'll flame out soon enough.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Carly Fiorina has been running for various political offices for nearly 8 years now. The only thing keeping her from being a de facto professional politician is the fact she's as good at campaigning as she was at CEO'ing.

Anyway, my guess is her star will rise, and she'll flame out soon enough.

Actually... I don't.

I seem Carly and Trump getting into it tonight...

Carson may benefit the most out of it.

**curran12**

Whembly, if I'm not mistaken, one of the polls in your link has only a total response of 404 people.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/1/files/2015/09/Crosstabs-2015-09-WBUR-NH-1-Reps.pdf

With 767,383 registered voters in 2012 (that's the easiest data I could find) how accurate can we say these polls are? The more I read of these polls, the less credence I feel I can give them. Between that and the 24 hour news cycle rewarding volume over reality, I am downright confused.

**whembly**

curran12 wrote:
Whembly, if I'm not mistaken, one of the polls in your link has only a total response of 404 people.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/1/files/2015/09/Crosstabs-2015-09-WBUR-NH-1-Reps.pdf

With 767,383 registered voters in 2012 (that's the easiest data I could find) how accurate can we say these polls are? The more I read of these polls, the less credence I feel I can give them. Between that and the 24 hour news cycle rewarding volume over reality, I am downright confused.

The only interesting thing we can glean from the polls at this stage is to see if the "no names" compares to the higher name recognized candidates.

Hillary is tanking now is sort of interesting... she's sucking now against Bernie (largely unknown) is a disaster.

Trump is leading because he's a "TV guy" and not one of these "DC guys".

The time to really pay attention to polls is next spring.

**A Town Called Malus**

curran12 wrote:
Whembly, if I'm not mistaken, one of the polls in your link has only a total response of 404 people.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/1/files/2015/09/Crosstabs-2015-09-WBUR-NH-1-Reps.pdf

With 767,383 registered voters in 2012 (that's the easiest data I could find) how accurate can we say these polls are? The more I read of these polls, the less credence I feel I can give them. Between that and the 24 hour news cycle rewarding volume over reality, I am downright confused.

Hey that's nothing

Over here a newspaper poll of 101 people came to the conclusion that their new party leader would cost the Labour party the next two elections, despite the first of those not being for 5 years

**dogma**

Prestor Jon wrote:

I think you are overestimating the partisanship of establishment republicans like McConnel who are clearly out of touch with the base of the party.

I hope that I am. I would like a functional US Federal government to exist.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians.

Perhaps they shouldn't advocate such extreme positions, or perhaps their constituents should hold fewer extreme beliefs? The Pauls and their ilk have some good ideas, but the platforms those guys run on won't survive long if they compromise. And at the Federal level you need to compromise if you want to get anything done.

**curran12**

whembly wrote:

The only interesting thing we can glean from the polls at this stage is to see if the "no names" compares to the higher name recognized candidates.

Hillary is tanking now is sort of interesting... she's sucking now against Bernie (largely unknown) is a disaster.

Trump is leading because he's a "TV guy" and not one of these "DC guys".

The time to really pay attention to polls is next spring.

I suppose, but my thinking is that such small snapshots are, for lack of a better term, fodder for the news cycle. Which, politics aside, is probably closer to the truth.