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.

**Polonius**

whembly wrote:

That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.

Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.

EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.

Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.

**jasper76**

@whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.

**whembly**

Polonius wrote:
The dirty secret behind Trump is that he has anemic fundraising, and isn't really spending much of his own. He's luxuriating in free media, but he's not running ads, he has no ground game, and even his high level campaign staff is threadbare.

He's actually making money by "loaning" his campaign himself.

His lack of infrastructure is what's holding him back. That's how Cruz was able to snare additional delegates, because his staff knows the rules.

Infrastructure is mandatory in California... or, he's going to lose there as well.

He's done amazingly well because of an odd confluence of events and his own, lets call it charisma. A third party run would probably be embarrassingly futile.

Indeed... he was smart enough to tap into the voter's anger... he just didn't know *how* to run a campaign, which will be his downfall.

**jasper76**

Polonius wrote:
whembly wrote:

That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.

Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.

EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.

Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.

I doubt anyone unfriendly to marijuana legallization can do very well in Colorado. But now that I say that, I'm not quite sure where Cruz stands on that issue.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:

He has a brand, and part of that is that he's a "winner".

Besides, he's *not* going to get the fundings he'd need for a 3rd party run.

He will have "won" by getting the most votes and being "cheated out of it".

As far as funding, he's pretty rich, and his supporters will no doubt give donations. And you can be damn sure that there will be donations by left-wing groups to hurt the R's chances.

Now, it's not a sure things, But I wouldn't put it past him

**whembly**

Polonius wrote:
whembly wrote:

That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.

Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.

EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.

Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.

I frequent Colorado as most of my family lives there now, so I pay attention to the local politics there.

One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.

Plus, the Democrats has taken major beatings of the last few years, which culminated with the aftermath of the anti-2nd laws that were passed (then repealed), and the Democrat legislatures faced multiple recalls.

My sense is that Democrat Coloradoan voters is, at best, ambivalent towards Clinton and at worst despise her. They're very much feeling the Bern now.

As for WI... have you not notice a Republican Governor who's in his 2nd term and survived a recall? WI is one of those "purple" states where Conservatives is actually growing and are well motivated in politics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Polonius wrote:
whembly wrote:

That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.

Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.

EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.

Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.

I doubt anyone unfriendly to marijuana legallization can do very well in Colorado. But now that I say that, I'm not quite sure where Cruz stands on that issue.

Indeed... see Cruz's On the Issues site:

-Let's see what happens in Colorado with legalization. (Nov 2015)
-Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs. (Apr 2015)
-2014: federal enforcement; 2015: let states experiment. (Mar 2015)
-I disagree with states legalizing pot, but it's their right. (Feb 2015)
-Let states be laboratories of democracy on marijuana. (Feb 2015)
-I foolishly smoked pot when young, but never since. (Feb 2015)

**skyth**

Polonius wrote:
jmurph wrote:
It doesn't matter if "that's how these conventions work"- politically, with the current climate, I don't see how anyone but the frontrunner getting the nomination turns out well for the party. (And with the whole "Anyone But Trump" faction, even that will be problematic). Expecting the GOP leadership to somehow lecture their angry populist wing (already largely hostile to the so called "GOP establishment") to swallow a bitter pill seems like throwing gasoline on a fire.

Let's be fair though, Trump won a ton of his delegates due to quirks in the rules and a crowded field. He hasn't taken 50% of any given state yet. He's got the most votes, but nothing approaching a mandate. And that's the rule: get to half, or take your chances in a convention.

If I was in the RNC, I'd worry less about the angry populists, who aren't a reliable bloc, and more on the religious right, which is. Running Cruz shows the hard right that the GOP is about true conservative values. More Trump voters would support Cruz than vice versa. It's the smarter play, and Cruz can be expected to not embarrass the party too badly, especially if the actual general election seems lost. All those down ticket races matter.

The GOP has spent six years trying to kowtow to angry voters since the Tea Party sprang up, and it's gotten nothing but grief. I don't think they make the same mistake twice. It's the same cold calculation the democrats make with the Green party and the other far left agitators: make them realize that it's a two party system, and they'll buckle to support the lesser of two evils. Worst case, they're just staying home.

The GOP has been the party that kowtowed to angry voters as long ad I can remember. The American Taliban that they linked themselves to were angry voters long before the Tea Party was born...

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
@whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.

Tell that to his supporters and all of the news organizations stepping all over themselves to interview Trump.

**dogma**

Polonius wrote:

Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.

At least in the case of Wisconsin you're talking about a place that elected Scott Walker, both by normal process and recall. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cruz managed to carry the State with his small government rhetoric.

**Prestor Jon**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:

He has a brand, and part of that is that he's a "winner".

Besides, he's *not* going to get the fundings he'd need for a 3rd party run.

He will have "won" by getting the most votes and being "cheated out of it".

As far as funding, he's pretty rich, and his supporters will no doubt give donations. And you can be damn sure that there will be donations by left-wing groups to hurt the R's chances.

Now, it's not a sure things, But I wouldn't put it past him

Trump isn't spending much of his money now, he's loaning it to his campaign and he'll use campaign donations to pay himself back. If Trump doesn't win the nomination at the convention he'll pay himself back on his campaign loan, declare a 3rd party candidacy but he won't really campaign except for doing some rallies at friendly venues and milking the media for all the interviews and air time he can get by staying in the race while barely doing any real campaigning. Trump gets donations but they tend to be small individual donations not big donations from big donors so I don't think he could self fund a real 3rd party run.

**plastictrees**

Trump isn't going to risk any of his own money on this.
I'm sure he'd be happy to run as...almost anything if other people are paying for it.

And yes a Trump/Sanders ticket is not happening, although it's probably the only way to top the current situation for us spectators.

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.

Tell that to his supporters and all of the news organizations stepping all over themselves to interview Trump.

A brand can be terribly damaged and still generate a lot of ratings.

**whembly**

Prestor Jon wrote:
whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.

Tell that to his supporters and all of the news organizations stepping all over themselves to interview Trump.

A brand can be terribly damaged and still generate a lot of ratings.

True... I concede that point.

**Polonius**

whembly wrote:
[I frequent Colorado as most of my family lives there now, so I pay attention to the local politics there.

One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.

Plus, the Democrats has taken major beatings of the last few years, which culminated with the aftermath of the anti-2nd laws that were passed (then repealed), and the Democrat legislatures faced multiple recalls.

My sense is that Democrat Coloradoan voters is, at best, ambivalent towards Clinton and at worst despise her. They're very much feeling the Bern now.

As for WI... have you not notice a Republican Governor who's in his 2nd term and survived a recall? WI is one of those "purple" states where Conservatives is actually growing and are well motivated in politics.

Interesting perspective. I think "the bern" will fade, especially if Cruz is the nominee, because he's the bogeyman the left has been painting the GOP as for 15 years. He's very, very conservative, and doesn't try to hide it. I think that motivates a lot of lefties that might sit out an Al Gore nomination to block him. But... it will be interesting to see how Clinton handles winning the nomination and moving forward.

Plenty of blue states have republican governors. Michigan, Ohio, even Maryland all have GOP Governors. People like Paul Ryan, and apparently dislike state employees. I'm not sure Cruz's very heavy social conservatism will translate, but I've been surprised before.

What Cruz might do, more than any candidate since Reagan, is really cause a spike in turn out from the religious right. The problem is that Reagan was crazy charismatic on top of being conservative, and Cruz, well, isn't.

**whembly**

Yeah, I don't see the religious coming out in droves for Cruz, like what happened with Reagan.

Just like in 2014... if Cruz wins the Presidency, it'll mostly be because of Clinton's lack of ability to get her constituents to vote.

She's not going to get Obama's number.

The wildcard would be what Cruz can do...

**jmurph**

Well, except that this is not like 2008 for the GOP. Or any year. 538 had a good article talking abut primary voters and how most of them are unhappy with any given candidate as compared to Dems who, as a majority, would be happy with either (and the same was true of both Dems and GOP in prior elections for all candidates except Ron Paul).

Obama v. Clinton was very similar to Clinton v. Sanders.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Polonius wrote:
I saw that article, and I agree, for the same reasons. Contested conventions are crazy, but they're still ~2500 die hard republicans. There is no way they nominate Trump on a second ballot, but I think they'll go for the hard right conservatism of Cruz.

The hard right conservatism will carry no water with the type of voter who only cares about politics once every 4 years, nor will it cut the mustard in crucial marginal states like Florida.

Western politics is all about the centre ground these days.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.

Cruz asked this question...

“What steps will you take to require these states to cease and desist their support of the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana, or to otherwise bring these states into compliance with existing federal controlled substance law?”

...of Loretta Lynch in 2015, just about a year ago. That doesn't seem very much like a State oriented sentiment, it seems more like a Federally oriented sentiment designed to up his conservative cred for a Presidential run.

whembly wrote:

As for WI... have you not notice a Republican Governor who's in his 2nd term and survived a recall? WI is one of those "purple" states where Conservatives is actually growing and are well motivated in politics.

The Milwaukee County Executive is also trying to sell off its public park land to private entities, because the liquidation of public assets always works out well for the public.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

whembly wrote:
Yeah, I don't see the religious coming out in droves for Cruz, like what happened with Reagan.

Just like in 2014... if Cruz wins the Presidency, it'll mostly be because of Clinton's lack of ability to get her constituents to vote.

She's not going to get Obama's number.

The wildcard would be what Cruz can do...

Don't forget that her husband is a pretty charismatic guy. Bill could be worth a few million votes.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yeah, I don't see the religious coming out in droves for Cruz, like what happened with Reagan.

Just like in 2014... if Cruz wins the Presidency, it'll mostly be because of Clinton's lack of ability to get her constituents to vote.

She's not going to get Obama's number.

The wildcard would be what Cruz can do...

Don't forget that her husband is a pretty charismatic guy. Bill could be worth a few million votes.

Yeah... there will be a nostalgia factor here that shouldn't be discounted.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

dogma wrote:
Polonius wrote:

Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.

At least in the case of Wisconsin you're talking about a place that elected Scott Walker, both by normal process and recall. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cruz managed to carry the State with his small government rhetoric.

Small government rhetoric?

Forgive me if I've mistaken you for somebody else, but a few years ago when we had a thread about Reagan's legacy, I'm pretty sure that it was you that made the point that every time there's a Republican in the white House, the Federal government increases in size!

The myth of small government has surely been de-bunked by now?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
Yeah, I don't see the religious coming out in droves for Cruz, like what happened with Reagan.

I wouldn't be so sure. The religious right really hates Obama, and many of Cruz's campaign ads are focused on Obama.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yeah, I don't see the religious coming out in droves for Cruz, like what happened with Reagan.

Just like in 2014... if Cruz wins the Presidency, it'll mostly be because of Clinton's lack of ability to get her constituents to vote.

She's not going to get Obama's number.

The wildcard would be what Cruz can do...

Don't forget that her husband is a pretty charismatic guy. Bill could be worth a few million votes.

Yeah... there will be a nostalgia factor here that shouldn't be discounted.

Clinton running for the white house, and the X-files on TV!

You're damn right there's a nostalgia factor here! It's the 1990s again!

**jmurph**

Wisconsin also showed that where Trump doesn't benefit from national media, he lags. But don't forget that most of the WI primary votes still went against Cruz, so it's not like they are huge fans. And it wasn't unexpected. Trump has shown some weak ground game in certain states and certainly in the delegate process as a whole. He should recover nicely in NY, though.

The big test is California.

**dogma**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The myth of small government has surely been de-bunked by now?

Nah, people like their myths way too much to give them up. Even the ostensibly "small government" Tea Party is primarily driven by "feth the Democrats".

**jasper76**

whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.

Tell that to his supporters and all of the news organizations stepping all over themselves to interview Trump.

The sheeple are lining up to meet their new daddy

, and the news orgs are lining up to interview a political freakshow. They are not lining up to buy gaudy glasses, go golfing, get a condo, or buy premium steaks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yeah, I don't see the religious coming out in droves for Cruz, like what happened with Reagan.

Just like in 2014... if Cruz wins the Presidency, it'll mostly be because of Clinton's lack of ability to get her constituents to vote.

She's not going to get Obama's number.

The wildcard would be what Cruz can do...

Don't forget that her husband is a pretty charismatic guy. Bill could be worth a few million votes.

Yeah... there will be a nostalgia factor here that shouldn't be discounted.

Clinton running for the white house, and the X-files on TV!

You're damn right there's a nostalgia factor here! It's the 1990s again!

Just reading this post makes me miss the 90s. I'm feeling very verklempt..

**Gordon Shumway**

Me too...and then I remember zobaz pants and the feeling quickly disappears.

**TheMeanDM**

Hypercolor...yo!!

**Tannhauser42**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.

Cruz asked this question...

“What steps will you take to require these states to cease and desist their support of the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana, or to otherwise bring these states into compliance with existing federal controlled substance law?”

...of Loretta Lynch in 2015, just about a year ago. That doesn't seem very much like a State oriented sentiment, it seems more like a Federally oriented sentiment designed to up his conservative cred for a Presidential run.

It's the same ol' thing: States' Rights are something that Republicans agree with....until the states want to do something the Republicans disagree with.

**d-usa**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.

Cruz asked this question...

“What steps will you take to require these states to cease and desist their support of the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana, or to otherwise bring these states into compliance with existing federal controlled substance law?”

...of Loretta Lynch in 2015, just about a year ago. That doesn't seem very much like a State oriented sentiment, it seems more like a Federally oriented sentiment designed to up his conservative cred for a Presidential run.

It's the same ol' thing: States' Rights are something that Republicans agree with....until the states want to do something the Republicans disagree with.

Small Government is good, until a smaller government wants to do something that a larger government doesn't want.

Like cities legalizing protections for certain groups, and states saying nope. Or cities banning certain things, and states saying nope.