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.
2016/03/01 01:46:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: He did pay back when he used is campaign card.
It's still a breach of financial responsibility. While in almost all cases organisations will just demand the money back and move on, I don’t think it should be that easy. I can’t see how it is that much different from getting caught taking something that doesn't belong to you, and thinking everything is okay when you give it back.
Note I’m not saying it’s something that should disqualify Rubio from the presidency. That's kind of silly to be honest. Why not go hunting for old speeding fines? That's really what most efforts to judge personal character come down to - little anecdotes and factoids about their personal life, and then lots of assumptions by voters. It really just doesn't matter compared to a candidate’s policy platform.
And, he's campaigning. EVERY Congressional candidate running for POTUS does that.
I agree with you there. Voting attendance is a terrible way to judge senate performance. But was that your opinion in 2008? Honestly, did you never criticise Obama for his low voting record?
skyth wrote: The hatred for the Clintons is less than the hatred for Obama from the right from what I've seen. Hatred against the Clintons gets less traction than against Obama.
That’s because Obama is in power right now. When Bill Clinton was in power the hatred for him was extraordinary. Pretty much every ridiculous fantasy about Obama’s evil conspiracies is recycled from stuff they said about Bill Clinton. The only exception I can think of is birtherism.
Breotan wrote: There are a lot of racists in the Democrat party, too, but Democrat voters just don't seem to care about them. Even when they show up in the news, it doesn't seem to affect Democrat numbers. I'm really not sure why the Democrat party gets a pass on this but until the Republicans figure out how things like "optics" and "situational awareness" work I guess the Democrats continue to get one.
The racists in the Democrats aren’t focused on in the same way as the racists in the Republican party because extent and effect matter. Extent matters, because a party with some racists obviously has less of a problem than a party with lots of racists. And effect matters, because a party which accepts a number of racists on the fringes of the party is different to party that panders to it’s racists with whistleblower tactics.
The issue with Republicans isn’t ‘look there’s racists in there’. The issue is that Republicans attempt to sell issues like welfare reform by playing up to overtly racist myths like the welfare queen.
d-usa wrote: I think the racist circle on the diagram is pretty fluid. Right now it overlaps a lot with the Republican side of the political spectrum. In 20 years it likely will move somewhere else again.
Yeah, the racists are pretty strongly connected to whoever happens to be appealing to working class white voters at that point in time. For a long time Democrats were the party of working class whites, now it’s the Republicans. 20 years from now, as you say, it’s entirely possible that that things will have swapped around and it will be Democrats playing up to racists. Probably with some kind of ‘they took our jobs’ nonsense.
Frazzled wrote: I don't believe that actually. HRC is finally starting to win, but dude for awhile she was losing to Moses' older crotchetier commie brother (I'd have voted for him FYI...). The fact she had to flip flop on a bunch of positions and actually battle this guy shows how weak she is.
Pretty good analysis on 538 showed Sanders was always around 10 points shy of where he needed to be to win. It’s just that the Iowa and New Hampshire’s whiteness meant he looked like he was travelling much better than he actually was.
But yeah, the fact that she’s actually faced a battle that close tells you how mediocre she is. I think its mistake to assume that weakness has anything to with the Republican attacks on her though. I think she’s struggled for the exact same reasons she struggled in 2008 – she’s a pretty crappy campaigner. She doesn’t work a crowd, and has no ability to communicate high end policy in a way that’s understandable and appealing to voters. She might be better than Bill in forming policy, but she is nothing like the politician her husband was.
The US has always survived despite its politicians. This is the first time I am actually concerned about its future. I predicted radical political movements would start with the Great Recession, but I didn't really believe it. Yet here we.
Your country survived the middle of the 19th century, it will survive this. But yeah, I do wonder if the biggest story to come out of this in the long term won’t be Trump’s circus, but the rise of an extreme, uncompromising left wing in the Democrats, roughly equal to the Tea Party wing of the Republicans. Then you’ll see what real deadlock and dysfunction looks like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: This is why Marco Rubio will almost certainly be the nominee, in my opinion. The states that Trump is strong in are states that divide the delegates proportionally, whereas the states that Rubio are strong in are all-or-none. If Rubio wins them all, he wins the nomination. If he doesn't, then Trump doesn't have enough either, which leads to a brokered convention, which leads to Rubio anyway since in no world will they pick either Trump or Cruz.
I was saying a while ago that the Trump nonsense was possibly working quite well for the Republicans, because it’s meant there’s been almost no serious review of Rubio. People have been so fixated on Trump that the plainly crazy policies put up by Rubio and Cruz have received almost no media attention.
If Rubio beats Trump then Democrats will actually have very little time to try and work their base up to get concerned about what Rubio wants to do. In comparison the Republicans have been working on Clinton for 20 years.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/01 02:14:55
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/03/01 03:22:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
Ustrello wrote: Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
I live in Illinois and I have no clue what you are talking about.
2016/03/01 03:43:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ustrello wrote: Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
I live in Illinois and I have no clue what you are talking about.
Ustrello wrote: Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
I live in Illinois and I have no clue what you are talking about.
Watch TV and I am sure you will see some.
No cable or satellite. I don't doubt they are happening, we have a pretty vicious state. What is the dealio with them?
2016/03/01 03:49:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ustrello wrote: Well the first political attack ads have shown up in Illinois, and Tammy Duckworth has come out swinging. I honestly expect Kirk to get smashed by her.
I live in Illinois and I have no clue what you are talking about.
Watch TV and I am sure you will see some.
No cable or satellite. I don't doubt they are happening, we have a pretty vicious state. What is the dealio with them?
Yeah I didn't expect them this quick though, maybe may but not march. It was a pretty vicious attack on Kirk voting on veterans, basically him voting no on veteran benefits and providing more armor for soldiers.
NASCAR's chief executive and several NASCAR drivers endorsed Donald Drumpf on Monday, just one day before a cluster of Southern states vote in the GOP's Super Tuesday contests.
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
"You know about his winning in business and success. I'm gonna tell you, he wins with his family," said France, who noted that he's known Drumpf for more than two decades.
"That's how I judge a winner," France added, pointing to how well Drumpf's children have turned out.
The endorsement marked a stark contrast with how NASCAR reacted to Drumpf's controversial comments this summer about undocumented Mexican immigrants -- calling them criminals and "rapists" -- when the racing association decided to change the location for its postseason banquet away from the Drumpf National Doral and to another venue.
Bill Elliott, a retired champion NASCAR driver, also joined Drumpf on stage, saying that he's "all for" what Drumpf has said he will do for the United States as president.
"For what he can do I think for our country, I'm all for it. We need a change guys, that's all there is to it," Elliott said.
Elliott's son and two other current NASCAR drivers also endorsed Drumpf Monday.
The endorsements could give Drumpf a boost Tuesday, when more than a dozen states, including several southern states like Georgia, where NASCAR is especially popular, make their choice for Republican nominee known.
NASCAR's 2015 season averaged 5.1 million viewers, according to the ESPN-owned Jayski.com website.
Thanking his latest endorsers, Drumpf noted that "they have guts."
Moments earlier, Drumpf opened his rally praising the stock car racing association.
"I love NASCAR. Do we love NASCAR?" Drumpf asked the crowd.
The endorsement comes on the heels of a series of high-profile endorsements for the billionaire Republican presidential candidate who is increasingly viewed as most likely to become his party's nominee.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions have also endorsed Drumpf in the final days of campaigning leading up to the crucial Super Tuesday contests.
Oh boy.....
2016/03/01 05:15:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party
Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state’s top elections official.
Secretary of State William Galvin said more than 16,300 Democrats have shed their party affiliation and become independent voters since Jan. 1, while nearly 3,500 more shifted to the MassGOP ahead of tomorrow’s “Super Tuesday” presidential primary.
Galvin called both “significant” changes that dwarf similar shifts ahead of other primary votes, including in 2000, when some Democrats flocked from the party in order to cast a vote for Sen. John McCain in the GOP primary.
The primary reason? Galvin said his “guess” is simple: “The Trump phenomenon,” a reference to GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, who polls show enjoying a massive lead over rivals Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and others among Massachusetts Republican voters.
“The tenor of the Republican campaign has been completely different from what we’ve seen in prior Republican presidential campaigns,” Galvin said. “You have to look no farther than the viewership for some of the televised debates.
“The New York Times referred to the campaign as crude; I suppose that’s fair,” added Galvin, a Democrat. “The fact of the matter is the tenor has been very different this time. And that has an effect. People are interested. It’s exciting.”
Galvin said the state could see as many as 700,000 voting in tomorrow’s Republican primary, a significant number given just 468,000 people are actually registered Republicans. In Massachusetts. unenrolled — otherwise known as independent — voters can cast a ballot in the primary of any party.
If the Democratic vote is close to that of 2008 — when 1.2 million hit the polls — the state could surpass the 1.8 million that voted that year overall, setting what Galvin said he believes would be a record for a presidential primary in Massachusetts.
“The question in my mind is the Democratic turnout,” Galvin said. “The nature of the race is a little different than it was in ’08. ... It’s a fact that Sen. (Bernie) Sanders has a very aggressive campaign here in Massachusetts. He spent both time and money. He has a good ground (game) from what I can see, as does Sen. (Hillary) Clinton. So that’s going to help us. But the chemistry was somewhat different than it was in ‘08.”
Galvin noted the historical context in 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama was vying to become the nation’s first black president, and running against Clinton — seeking, as she is again this year, to become the first woman to serve as president.
Turnouts have hit record levels in other primary states this year.
Galvin pointed to the shift in voters from the Democratic party as an “indicator” of turnout in the Bay State.
But while significant, it doesn’t necessary signal a change in the political power structure in Massachusetts, where Democrats have long dominated with heavy majorities in the legislature and across constitutional offices.
The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party. And though the MassGOP gained several thousand voters, it actually lost more in the same time frame, when 5,911 quit the party to be unenrolled.
2016/03/01 08:26:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Breotan wrote: It ain't just rednecks on the right moving to Trump. Apparently people are defecting en mass from the Democrat party to rally around his banner.
The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party.
En masse. 1.3%.
This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 08:26:56
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/03/01 09:37:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Breotan wrote: The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party. And though the MassGOP gained several thousand voters, it actually lost more in the same time frame, when 5,911 quit the party to be unenrolled.
So 0.23% of Mass. Democrats switching sides means what, exactly?
This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
It's like 2012 all over again.
Welcome to the 201216 election! Where the conclusions are pre-decided and the numbers don't matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 09:39:37
Donald Trump's latest assessment of the press: 50% are "absolute sleaze." 25% are "okay." 25% are "pretty good." And 10% are "outstanding."
This is the exceptionalism we hear so much about right ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/03/01 10:36:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Breotan wrote: It ain't just rednecks on the right moving to Trump. Apparently people are defecting en mass from the Democrat party to rally around his banner.
The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party.
En masse. 1.3%.
This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
19,800 left the Democratic Party...
Tiny part of that joined the GOP...
Official: we have no idea why, but I'm guessing Trump...
Headline: Democrats jump ship for Trump!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 14:25:01
2016/03/01 15:07:44
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Damn you lamestream media and your refusal to give Trump any airtime at all !
This is getting somewhat surreal now TBH.
..and the actual election hasn't even started yet.
.. oh boy..
edit :
On the upside we get new Casetteboy
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 15:11:45
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/03/01 15:45:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
sebster wrote: This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
No? I watched the Tea Party movement form and it was quite clear that it was the Republican grass roots getting organized.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe some of those democrat voters switched to vote for Trump as candidate because they think he can't possibly win the actual election.
Not saying it's impossible but that's quite a large number dropping party affiliation just to do that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 15:47:03
2016/03/01 15:48:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
sebster wrote: This is going to be like that Tea Party thing again. Anyone else remember how Republicans were desperate to claim it was a phenomenon across both parties, and not just a reaction within the Republican base?
No? I watched the Tea Party movement form and it was quite clear that it was the Republican grass roots getting organized.
Yeah... this is different.
Trumpism is generally a big FETH YOU to the GOP establishments.
Hence why Rubio/Cruz won't drop out till the convention in the hopes that Trump doesn't reach the delegate minimum, for a brokered convention.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe some of those democrat voters switched to vote for Trump as candidate because they think he can't possibly win the actual election.
Not saying it's impossible but that's quite a large number dropping party affiliation just to do that.
Maybe it's because their state is a guarantee'ed HRC state, thus these democrats wants to create more chaos in the GOP primary?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 15:49:59
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/01 16:01:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe some of those democrat voters switched to vote for Trump as candidate because they think he can't possibly win the actual election.
Not saying it's impossible but that's quite a large number dropping party affiliation just to do that.
Without some historical data regarding the rate at which people are likely to switch parties, the figures from New Hampshire are basically meaningless.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This rather interesting report by Pew Research Centre shows that Independents are more numerous than ever.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe some of those democrat voters switched to vote for Trump as candidate because they think he can't possibly win the actual election.
Not saying it's impossible but that's quite a large number dropping party affiliation just to do that.
Maybe it's because their state is a guarantee'ed HRC state, thus these democrats wants to create more chaos in the GOP primary?
Yes, I understand that. I just don't see it happening with that sort of number. 20,000 is a LOT of people all deciding to go grief the other party's nomination process.
2016/03/01 17:04:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
What is this I don't even.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2016/03/01 17:26:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
What is this I don't even.
Depends what qualifies as "success".
He's got money... he's got mucho arse... gotta give him that at least.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/01 17:49:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Brian France, the racing association's CEO, appeared Monday alongside Drumpf during a rally at Valdosta State University, touting the Republican front-runner's success in his business and personal life.
What is this I don't even.
Depends what qualifies as "success".
He's got money... he's got mucho arse... gotta give him that at least.
You apparently forgot: He's got a daughter that, if she wasn't his daughter, he'd want to bang
2016/03/01 18:32:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I showed up a little before 6:30 AM to vote and there was only a couple of people there and I didn't have to wait!. I also signed a petition to allow the Libertarian Party to have a name on the presidential ballot.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/03/01 18:46:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Oklahoma actually had their act together pretty good and there were no problems with getting a democratic primary ballot for independents in my district. Rolls and ballots were color coded and printed on matching paper and you told person A what party you belonged to. Democrats and Independents were in the same book, so you signed your name in the purple book and they already had your purple ballot waiting for you.
