timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I had mentioned that in a Bill Kristol column over the weekend he included a short statement in the middle which said that if Trump won the nomination, "honorable Republicans" such as himself would support a third party independent candidate "to save the soul of the Republican Party." 

Nobody on TV is discussing this which makes me think it's all talk. Certainly Kristol himself, who is not without influence, is not ready to give up the ship; based on what I hear from him and Michael Medved , Mitt Romney, and similar voices, they intend to fight Trump all the way to the convention. There is also a logistical problem; I recall reading that the deadline for new candidates in many states has already passed, so I don't know how they solve that. 

Even so I'm having trouble envisioning a guy like Kristol ever supporting Trump no matter what. And it makes me wonder how this convention in Cleveland plays out, assuming Trump is the nominee: there are sure to be both protests and riots outside, while inside I imagine many prominent Republicans simply won't show  up (or might make speeches denouncing their candidate!) Will the corporations who normally sponsor this event pull out if threatened with boycotts? This promises to be fascinating. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I recall reading that the deadline for new candidates in many states has already passed, so I don't know how they solve that. 

None of the deadlines have passed yet, but it is getting close to the point when getting the signatures required in a lot of states may prove impossible.

If it's just a protest vote, though, without expectation of the candidate winning, they can always just write in Romney or Paul Ryan or whoever.  Or they can vote for a Gary Johnson or something.

 

[Higgs]

I had mentioned that in a Bill Kristol column over the weekend he included a short statement in the middle which said that if Trump won the nomination, "honorable Republicans" such as himself would support a third party independent candidate "to save the soul of the Republican Party." 

Nobody on TV is discussing this which makes me think it's all talk. Certainly Kristol himself, who is not without influence, is not ready to give up the ship; based on what I hear from him and Michael Medved , Mitt Romney, and similar voices, they intend to fight Trump all the way to the convention. There is also a logistical problem; I recall reading that the deadline for new candidates in many states has already passed, so I don't know how they solve that. 

Even so I'm having trouble envisioning a guy like Kristol ever supporting Trump no matter what. And it makes me wonder how this convention in Cleveland plays out, assuming Trump is the nominee: there are sure to be both protests and riots outside, while inside I imagine many prominent Republicans simply won't show  up (or might make speeches denouncing their candidate!) Will the corporations who normally sponsor this event pull out if threatened with boycotts? This promises to be fascinating. 

I don't think Trump gets the nomination.  I don't think he reaches 1,237.  A brokered deal will be reached between two or three of the lower candidates and that's that.  If Trump somehow wins the nomination there's no reason to run a 3rd party candidate, because I agree with you that he has no chance of beating Hillary, so no need to create rancor when it's a fait accompli anyway.

And I don't see Donald being all that torn up about it either.  I really don't think he wants to be President all that badly.

 

[timschochet]

Tim - I'm a free agent at this point.  Give me some good reasons why I should vote for Hillary...

Other than the fact that you appear to be an old fashioned conservative, I don't know enough about you to offer reasons that would warrant your support. Given your stated views I don't think there is anything domestically about Hillary Clinton that you're going to like. Therefore, let me offer you 3 reasons that might appeal to you: 

1. Hillary if elected will most likely face a hostile Congress opposed to her, just like Obama has. Obama faced it for 6 out of 8 years, and so was able to get stuff done in the first 2 years that I presume you did not like. Hillary will probably not have that luxury. This means gridlock and status quo. Liberals don't get their way and neither do comservatives. But for any fiscal conservative it also means no new large spending, and that might be preferable to you than the alternative. 

2. Hillary is strong minded and tough on foreign affairs. There is very little difference between her and many of the Republican candidates in this regard. Personally I think she is the best person to navigate us through the situation in Syria, with ISIS, Iran, Putin, China. I know a lot of people disagree with me on this, and since we've got nothing but time in this thread to discuss it I'm prepared to tackle each of these situations at some length if you'd like. 

3. Most importantly: if it comes to a choice between Trump and Clinton, then the biggest reason to vote for Clinton is to defeat Trump. Putting all question of politics aside, Donald Trump would IMO be a historical embarrassment for the United States, a repudiation of our legacy as the greatest country in the history of the Earth. Vote for Hillary because she is the opponent. I would write the same with practically anyone else with the slightest political standing. 

 

[timschochet]

I don't think Trump gets the nomination.  I don't think he reaches 1,237.  A brokered deal will be reached between two or three of the lower candidates and that's that.  If Trump somehow wins the nomination there's no reason to run a 3rd party candidate, because I agree with you that he has no chance of beating Hillary, so no need to create rancor when it's a fait accompli anyway.

And I don't see Donald being all that torn up about it either.  I really don't think he wants to be President all that badly.

I don't know the guy any better than you do, but it strikes me that at this point he wants to be President pretty badly. I think he wants to prove everybody wrong about him. I doubt he will walk away from this so easily...

 

[timschochet]

Look, first of all he has to get the Republican nomination.

Then he has to have a sane VP choice, which is no given

THEN he has to win the Presidential nomination.

Only 1 of the 3 is likely at this stage, but this election is hardly like any other.

I know it is not easy to impeach, but he is not your traditional establishment candidate is he? If he continues to operate as he does when it comes to REAL decisions, not just hyperbole or empty slogans, there will be plenty within the Republican establishment that would be happy to deal with a reasonable VP rather than Trump. Whether they go with the Dallas option or impeachment is irrelevant. The members in congress are hardly likely to embrace him as an outsider and a borderline/fully across the border joke candidate. Business as usual works better without a loose cannon.

Presidents generally have the support of their party. This won't be the case with sane Republicans. All bets are off and they may not want to wait 4 years to do something about it if he cannot be worked with.

I know all the above is an outside shot, but it definitely is feasible.  

The Dallas option? 

I guess I'm not as conspiratorial as you. I don't think Oswald had any help, you see. 

 

[Higgs]

I don't know the guy any better than you do, but it strikes me that at this point he wants to be President pretty badly. I think he wants to prove everybody wrong about him. I doubt he will walk away from this so easily...

The biggest mistake people make about Trump is underestimating his intelligence. He knows exactly what is going on, and that he is losing.  He likes the rallies and the ego trip, but he doesn't like the politics.  He will be quite happy to get back to his old life rather than failing miserably as President.  He has too many enemies, and the hatred and fear of him is too deep. I think he knows this.  You watch.

 

[timschochet]

The biggest mistake people make about Trump is underestimating his intelligence. He knows exactly what is going on, and that he is losing.  He likes the rallies and the ego trip, but he doesn't like the politics.  He will be quite happy to get back to his old life rather than failing miserably as President.  He has too many enemies, and the hatred and fear of him is too deep. I think he knows this.  You watch.

All right. We'll see how accurate you are. Honestly nothing should surprise anyone at this point. 

 

[Shula-holic]

You just have to think Kasich is being promised something behind the scenes to keep going and force this to a convention if he can.  Cruz is right that Kasich can't win the delegate race.  The party doesn't want Trump, and to only a slightly lesser extent they don't want Cruz, or at the very least want to have a carrot/stick approach to be able to take with Cruz to get him to the number he needs.

 

[timschochet]

As far as Trump losing: 

1. If he wins Florida and Ohio, he's going to be the nominee, right? 

2. If he wins Florida but loses Ohio, he's still on track to be the nominee, right? 

These are my assumptions but please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If campaign finance reform is your #1 concern then I honestly don't see a huge practical difference between Hillary and Bernie.

Yaknow, Beaver asked you a question in the Donald thread about your seriousness and then you come up with something like this.

This is THE most glaring difference between them among many differences.

 

[timschochet]

Yaknow, Beaver asked you a question in the Donald thread about your seriousness and then you come up with something like this.

This is THE most glaring difference between them among many differences.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? I was speaking in practical, not symbolic terms: at this point the only way to have campaign finance reform is to overturn Citizens United. That means liberal SC justices. Therefore there is no practical difference between Sanders and Clinton. 

 

[Zegras11]

You just have to think Kasich is being promised something behind the scenes to keep going and force this to a convention if he can.  Cruz is right that Kasich can't win the delegate race.  The party doesn't want Trump, and to only a slightly lesser extent they don't want Cruz, or at the very least want to have a carrot/stick approach to be able to take with Cruz to get him to the number he needs.

I could see a Kasich/Rubio ticket if it goes to the convention.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? I was speaking in practical, not symbolic terms: at this point the only way to have campaign finance reform is to overturn Citizens United. That means liberal SC justices. Therefore there is no practical difference between Sanders and Clinton. 

Tim almost every word of your post is incorrect.

I am talking practical, I'm talking real life, what Hillary does and what she has done her whole life.

Overturning CU is not the only way to have campaign finance reform. CU is far more complicated than 90% of the people realize. - But to the point Sanders', Trump's and Cruz's (yes) success proves that heavy donor reliance is not needed.

The other prong of CU is transparency - Hillary as a practical matter is one of the most secretive people around in terms of her relations with donors. Here she is symbolic, she's symbolic of what needs to be reformed.

The USSC is a whole other issue, it's probably the best one that anyone voting Democratic has to support Hillary IMO.

 

[timschochet]

I could see a Kasich/Rubio ticket if it goes to the convention.

And how do you think the Trump supporters (and Trump himself) would react to this? Or the Cruz supporters, with the second most votes? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim - why do you even see the need for campaign finance reform? You seem completely unfazed by the implications of Hillary's tight embrace of her corporate masters.

 

[Zegras11]

And how do you think the Trump supporters (and Trump himself) would react to this? Or the Cruz supporters, with the second most votes? 

I don't see it being the big issue most do.  Someone has to get to 1237, and if they don't a new set of rules apply. Cruz supporters would easily fall in line. Trump supporters would only switch to Bernie, and that would not be many.

 

[timschochet]

Tim almost every word of your post is incorrect.

I am talking practical, I'm talking real life, what Hillary does and what she has done her whole life.

Overturning CU is not the only way to have campaign finance reform. CU is far more complicated than 90% of the people realize. - But to the point Sanders, Trump's and Cruz's (yes) success proves that heavy donor reliance is not needed.

The other prong of CU is transparency - Hillary as a practical matter is one of the most secretive people around in terms of her relations with donors. Here she is symbolic, she's symbolic of what needs to be reformed.

The USSC is a whole other issue, it's probably the best one that anyone voting Democratic has to support Hillary IMO.

Well I don't see how you're disagreeing me. You're acknowledging that it's all about symbolism. 

If Bernie defeats Hillary it's a defeat for Hillary Clinton and for the corporate forces that support her. But it does nothing to reform the system. 

 

[Shula-holic]

And how do you think the Trump supporters (and Trump himself) would react to this? Or the Cruz supporters, with the second most votes? 

I think the party is in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation.  The long term damage of running Trump could be significant.  If they go with another nominee even if Trump has the most delegates, they likely get wiped out this cycle.  The calculus could be though that this is the lesser of two evils.  I'd not put it past them though to throw it to Cruz in some regard and possibly a Kasich as VP to try and salvage as many votes in this cycle as they can so as to try and salvage the House and limit the damage in the Senate.  I still think they get wiped out in the Presidential race though.

 

[Courtjester]

Okay, Tim is dead on, that other thread is just off the rails for any substantive discussions.

This is just something I have been working on in my mind and I am not sure if it passes the sniff test or not. Tim, you have mentioned that you believe if Trump gets the nomination, you believe it would be extremely detrimental to the GOP and they risk losing not only the presidency, but possibly both houses.

I want to approach it from the other side, I believe, at this point, if Trump doesn't get the nomination, it will damage the party and I believe the county even more.

Let's start with the "Lost Voters" as the media loves to call them or people who have not voted in a several election cycles and some never. Some of the info gleaned from exit polls so far have found that 1 in 10 of the GOP voters so far, fall into this category mainly because of the allure of Trump. If he is not the man and Cruz somehow is awarded the nomination, then the party will lose these voters possibly for good as it is not a stretch to believe they will feel disillusioned again and will not have a reason to vote in the general election.

If you look at that fallout further, Trump's supporters are so loyal and committed that, in addition to the loss of the Lost Voters, you will have huge numbers of these voters not showing up. Here is the rub, there are 34-35 Senate seats I believe up for grabs and all the seats in the house--a low GOP turnout will translate to large Democratic gains there in both.

If we come from a position that Cruz somehow gets the nomination from shenanigans at the conventions , I believe we will see one of the biggest routs in election history if he is paired up against Clinton,. No one likes him. (As an aside, do we even have a Ted Cruz thread even here?) His success so far has mainly been because of the anti-trump voter crowd and not the pro-Ted crowd. He views are way too right for most to swallow. He is just creepy and frankly I personally don't think I could pull the lever for him--which in essence would mean I voted for Clinton. Without Trump there, the fallout is 8 years of Clinton because I don't magically see the GOP finding anyone that is trusted by the Trump/Lost Voter crowd in the next 4 years.

Clinton will more than likely be nominating at least 2 Justices and that will mean more left leaning nominees.

So the landscape, if there is no Trump, is a Clinton controlled White House for 8 years--a possible swing in the House and Senate, and a liberal SC.

If Trump is the nominee, the turnout will be large and these Lost Voters will more than likely be voting a party ticket, which even if he doesn't win the general election, will translate to the GOP candidates at least holding or possibly gaining seats.

This is sort of a work in progress, but curious to your thoughts Tim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well I don't see how you're disagreeing me. You're acknowledging that it's all about symbolism. 

If Bernie defeats Hillary it's a defeat for Hillary Clinton and for the corporate forces that support her. But it does nothing to reform the system. 

At the beginning I said the exact opposite: as a PRACTICAL matter - ie in the way that Hillary has practiced the profession of politics - Hillary has been the walking, talking definition of corruption and everything wrong with political influence, access and prioritizing the donors over constituencies.

eta - You give no reason why you even see the need for campaign finance reform. You seem completely unfazed by the implications of Hillary's tight embrace of her corporate masters.

 

[timschochet]

Okay, Tim is dead on, that other thread is just off the rails for any substantive discussions.

This is just something I have been working on in my mind and I am not sure if it passes the sniff test or not. Tim, you have mentioned that you believe if Trump gets the nomination, you believe it would be extremely detrimental to the GOP and they risk losing not only the presidency, but possibly both houses.

I want to approach it from the other side, I believe, at this point, if Trump doesn't get the nomination, it will damage the party and I believe the county 

Let's start with the "Lost Voters" as the media loves to call them or people who have not voted in a several election cycles and some never. Some of the info gleaned from exit polls so far have found that 1 in 10 of the GOP voters so far, fall into this category mainly because of the allure of Trump. If he is not the man and Cruz somehow is awarded the nomination, then the party will lose these voters possibly for good as it is not a stretch to believe they will feel disillusioned again and will not have a reason to vote in the general election.

If you look at that fallout further, Trump's supporters are so loyal and committed that, in addition to the loss of the Lost Voters, you will have huge numbers of these voters not showing up. Here is the rub, there are 34-35 Senate seats I believe up for grabs and all the seats in the house--a low GOP turnout will translate to large Democratic gains there in both.

If we come from a position that Cruz somehow gets the nomination from shenanigans at the conventions , I believe we will see one of the biggest routs in election history if he is paired up against Clinton,. No one likes him. (As an aside, do we even have a Ted Cruz thread even here?) His success so far has mainly been because of the anti-trump voter crowd and not the pro-Ted crowd. He views are way too right for most to swallow. He is just creepy and frankly I personally don't think I could pull the lever for him--which in essence would mean I voted for Clinton. Without Trump there, the fallout is 8 years of Clinton because I don't magically see the GOP finding anyone that is trusted by the Trump/Lost Voter crowd in the next 4 years.

Clinton will more than likely be nominating at least 2 Justices and that will mean more left leaning nominees.

So the landscape, if there is no Trump, is a Clinton controlled White House for 8 years--a possible swing in the House and Senate, and a liberal SC.

If Trump is the nominee, the turnout will be large and these Lost Voters will more than likely be voting a party ticket, which even if he doesn't win the general election, will translate to the GOP candidates at least holding or possibly gaining seats.

This is sort of a work in progress, but curious to your thoughts Tim.

I think it's interesting. I think you might be right. 

 

[Zegras11]

No way Cruz gets the nomination at a convention. They don't like him.  That's why Cruz has been so vocal about having Rubio and Kasich drop out asap.

 

[timschochet]

But let's go a little deeper, Court Jester, beyond this election. Those "lost voters" are supporting Trump, and Sanders, in part because of a perception that free trade has been bad for this country. I don't agree with that perception but it's there. To this, the Trump voters also add anti-illegal immigration and a fear of Islam. 

My point is that these "lost voters" are not conservatives. They are not going to stick with the Republican Party no matter what happens with Trump. So where does that leave us? 

IMO, it leaves us with a situation in which, at least for the time being, the GOP is an irrelevant force when it comes to choosing the Presidency. If that is the case, then the main struggle every 4 years will be between the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and the Sanders/Warren wing. Whoever wins that struggle will be the President no matter who the GOP nominates. It will be like the 80s and early 90s Super Bowl games when you knew that whoever won the NFC Championship was the winner beforehand. 

 

[timschochet]

But- I don't think the House of Representatives will see significant changes under the current gerrymandering. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Things are looking tough for Republicans now but I'm skeptical of the notion that the Democrats have a lock on the Presidency for the foreseeable future.  A lot of changes can happen in a relatively short period of time.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I will say that it's possible for there to be a "tipping point" where Democrats could theoretically put things in their favor for a long time to come.  But we're nowhere near that point right now.

 

[timschochet]

Things are looking tough for Republicans now but I'm skeptical of the notion that the Democrats have a lock on the Presidency for the foreseeable future.  A lot of changes can happen in a relatively short period of time.

It can. But the main thing that would concern me if I was a Republican is the rising Hispanic population in Texas. If Texas turns blue, forget it. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

.What I don't understand about a brokered convention is simply this: let's say Trump doesn't have the necessary 1200 delegates to win. He's still going to have more delegates than anyone else right? So I simply can't see a situation in which he is denied the nomination in favor of somebody with less delegates (or in the case of somebody new, no delegates.) 

I mean I get that people keep talking about this but I don't know how this formula is going to work. 

You don't understand how the majority at the convention would be opposed to a Trump candidacy?

Rubio, Kasich, & Cruz factions could combine and form a coalition government on the second ballot. Kasich bringing in OH as VP for Rubio, Cruz or Romney or someone else drafted would do the trick easily.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think money is a much bigger factor in non-Presidential races -- candidates for Senate and the House aren't on TV all the time like Presidential candidates.

The biggest factor in the HOR isn't gerrymandering, it's that people want their Congressman to bring home the cash and the federal projects while blaming every other Congressman and the president for the woes of the country and overspending.

 

[Shula-holic]

The biggest factor in the HOR isn't gerrymandering, it's that people want their Congressman to bring home the cash and the federal projects while blaming every other Congressman and the president for the woes of the country and overspending.

I couldn't disagree more and here is why I say that, how many House districts are competitive in the general now?  I think someone did as study on this in the past couple years, I'd need to dig up the numbers.  It was well under half, I think it hovered around 25-30%.  I know where I live, there isn't a House district in the state that has a serious general election battle.  The only battle is in the primary.  See Eric Cantor last cycle.  The only way to lose your seat is from the extreme of either party.  Therefore, you have members of the House being extreme and uncompromising to save their jobs.   This all comes from gerrymandering and making districts "safe" for each party, or even if you are in the minority in your state, they draw lines so that all of your party is crammed into as few districts as possible.  That all leads to those districts also being extreme.

ETA:  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/05/only-1-in-7-house-districts-were-competitive-in-2012/

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I couldn't disagree more and here is why I say that, how many House districts are competitive in the general now?  I think someone did as study on this in the past couple years, I'd need to dig up the numbers.  It was well under half, I think it hovered around 25-30%.  I know where I live, there isn't a House district in the state that has a serious general election battle.  The only battle is in the primary.  See Eric Cantor last cycle.  The only way to lose your seat is from the extreme of either party.  Therefore, you have members of the House being extreme and uncompromising to save their jobs.   This all comes from gerrymandering and making districts "safe" for each party, or even if you are in the minority in your state, they draw lines so that all of your party is crammed into as few districts as possible.  That all leads to those districts also being extreme.

ETA:  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/05/only-1-in-7-house-districts-were-competitive-in-2012/

I'm in favor of fixing gerrymandering, but there are a lot of nutjobs in the Senate too.  It's not just a gerrymandering problem.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I couldn't disagree more and here is why I say that, how many House districts are competitive in the general now?  I think someone did as study on this in the past couple years, I'd need to dig up the numbers.  It was well under half, I think it hovered around 25-30%.  I know where I live, there isn't a House district in the state that has a serious general election battle.  The only battle is in the primary.  See Eric Cantor last cycle.  The only way to lose your seat is from the extreme of either party.  Therefore, you have members of the House being extreme and uncompromising to save their jobs.   This all comes from gerrymandering and making districts "safe" for each party, or even if you are in the minority in your state, they draw lines so that all of your party is crammed into as few districts as possible.  That all leads to those districts also being extreme.

It's a bit difficult to explain why people view Congress at say 11% favorability or whatever and then their own Congressman at 66% favorability. Something has to give. Although I disagree with salamander shaped districts and race based districting as a matter of principle, you have to get around this basic fact.

Now it's funny how gerrymandering gets brought into things and yet eliminating race as one factor in determining districts is outright rejected. Eliminate the need for minority districts and then that creates a more diverse populace from which to form districts. But this doesn't seem like a very satisfactory solution for many people. Nor does taking the party identification off the actual voting ballots.

 

[Courtjester]

IMO election turnout is primarily based on the desire for change. 

GM talked about this a little in the other thread. Obama has a pretty favorability rating right now amongst Democrats, Recent polls show a lot of Democrats are happy with the condition of the country and are pleased with the way things are going. This could lead to a certain voter apathy amongst Democrat voters. While Republican voters are passionate about change from the ways things are going and this will lead to larger than normal crowds.

I wanted to also relay a story my brother in law told me this weekend. He is a general contractor and coordinates groups of roofers, drywall guys, painters etc, on big projects. Not being stereotypical, but these tend to be fields dominated by Hispanic workers. What he has run into on several occasions in just the recent weeks, are Hispanics who are widely supportive of Trump--I know I had to ask him to repeat himself. He said that when he asked them about their rationale, they said they were American citizens and were tired of being underbid by undocumented workers who proliferate the industry. They were fine with tough immigration laws or even deportation because it meant less competition,

 

[Shula-holic]

I'm in favor of fixing gerrymandering, but there are a lot of nutjobs in the Senate too.  It's not just a gerrymandering problem.

I agree, but as a percentage I'd guess it's a little less just because there are at least a few states with one senator from each party, typically meaning neither can go way overboard or face a tough general.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Btw the prospect of electing President Crazypants wouldn't be so scary or dangerous if we had maintained a more diffuse power base, by putting more and more and more power in the hands of a president it makes the consequences of someone on the Mad King George III level much more worrisome.

 

[Pots]

It can. But the main thing that would concern me if I was a Republican is the rising Hispanic population in Texas. If Texas turns blue, forget it. 

That's why we need Trump's wall.

 

[Shula-holic]

It's a bit difficult to explain why people view Congress at say 11% favorability or whatever and then their own Congressman at 66% favorability. Something has to give. Although I disagree with salamander shaped districts and race based districting as a matter of principle, you have to get around this basic fact.

Now it's funny how gerrymandering gets brought into things and yet eliminating race as one factor in determining districts is outright rejected. Eliminate the need for minority districts and then that creates a more diverse populace from which to form districts. But this doesn't seem like a very satisfactory solution for many people. Nor does taking the party identification off the actual voting ballots.

I think some of that is court ordered as well.  So in abiding by that order, often minorities are all packed into one district.  I agree we shouldn't do it based on race ideally, by the same token if you did it that way in AL for instance, you wouldn't have a single Democratic district.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Other than the fact that you appear to be an old fashioned conservative, I don't know enough about you to offer reasons that would warrant your support. Given your stated views I don't think there is anything domestically about Hillary Clinton that you're going to like. Therefore, let me offer you 3 reasons that might appeal to you: 

1. Hillary if elected will most likely face a hostile Congress opposed to her, just like Obama has. Obama faced it for 6 out of 8 years, and so was able to get stuff done in the first 2 years that I presume you did not like. Hillary will probably not have that luxury. This means gridlock and status quo. Liberals don't get their way and neither do comservatives. But for any fiscal conservative it also means no new large spending, and that might be preferable to you than the alternative. 

2. Hillary is strong minded and tough on foreign affairs. There is very little difference between her and many of the Republican candidates in this regard. Personally I think she is the best person to navigate us through the situation in Syria, with ISIS, Iran, Putin, China. I know a lot of people disagree with me on this, and since we've got nothing but time in this thread to discuss it I'm prepared to tackle each of these situations at some length if you'd like. 

3. Most importantly: if it comes to a choice between Trump and Clinton, then the biggest reason to vote for Clinton is to defeat Trump. Putting all question of politics aside, Donald Trump would IMO be a historical embarrassment for the United States, a repudiation of our legacy as the greatest country in the history of the Earth. Vote for Hillary because she is the opponent. I would write the same with practically anyone else with the slightest political standing. 

And this is not a problem for you or other democrats or republicans that have seen the result of the failed policies of bringing democracy to the Mid East by overthrowing/getting dictators killed? Russia is pulling out of Syria should we go back to dispose Assad mode so Hillary can have another we came we saw he died moment?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It can. But the main thing that would concern me if I was a Republican is the rising Hispanic population in Texas. If Texas turns blue, forget it. 

Unfortunately, these arguments prove too much. When it's argued that immigration affects political power and that Texas will turn purple then blue (as the president did a couple years ago), and that's approvingly cheered, then the perception is developed that immigration decisions are made for political or cultural decisions. Once you do that there's really no difference between people who want more immigration because it dilutes the conservative influence and those who want it because it preserves it. This is when people get very emotional and "angry" like we are seeing now.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Unfortunately, these arguments prove too much. When it's argued that immigration affects political power and that Texas will turn blue, and that's approvingly cheered, then the perception is developed that immigration decisions are made for political or cultural decisions. Once you do that there's really no difference between people who want more immigration because it dilutes the conservative influence and those who want it because it preserves it. This is when people get very emotional and "angry" like we are seeing now.

I don't think there's any question that politics plays a huge role in the immigration positions of both parties.  I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

 

[Higgs]

IMO election turnout is primarily based on the desire for change. 

GM talked about this a little in the other thread. Obama has a pretty favorability rating right now amongst Democrats, Recent polls show a lot of Democrats are happy with the condition of the country and are pleased with the way things are going. This could lead to a certain voter apathy amongst Democrat voters. While Republican voters are passionate about change from the ways things are going and this will lead to larger than normal crowds.

I wanted to also relay a story my brother in law told me this weekend. He is a general contractor and coordinates groups of roofers, drywall guys, painters etc, on big projects. Not being stereotypical, but these tend to be fields dominated by Hispanic workers. What he has run into on several occasions in just the recent weeks, are Hispanics who are widely supportive of Trump--I know I had to ask him to repeat himself. He said that when he asked them about their rationale, they said they were American citizens and were tired of being underbid by undocumented workers who proliferate the industry. They were fine with tough immigration laws or even deportation because it meant less competition,

Not to get too controversial here, but your story makes perfect sense to anyone who interacts with the real world.  The best name I heard to describe Trump is a blue collar billionaire.  Blue collar workers LOVE Trump, and it doesn't matter whether they are black or Hispanic.  Trump's center of gravity is nationalism, and much of it is based on the growing recognition that "free trade" is a myth that has hurt the working class in favor of the coporatocracy and the politicians beholden to them.  The Middle Class is screaming for this to change, and nobody is listening except Trump and Sanders.

 

[Dr Oadi]

I don't think there's any question that politics plays a huge role in the immigration positions of both parties.  I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

Like pretending to care about the working poor American citizens and having no problem with allowing "11 million" working poor non Americans to come on down and do all these jobs they won't do.  To top it off then champion to raise the min wage and do something about all these stagnate wages that somehow will not increase for some unknown reason other than greedy corporate profiteers keeping all the pie for themselves. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think there's any question that politics plays a huge role in the immigration positions of both parties.  I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

Oh there's lots of pretending that goes on. I think what aggravates many is that laws are put in place and then ignored, so they vote people into office R & D who assure their constituents their interests are being protected and then that trust is violated. We could say this about financial regulation or a few other subjects too but obviously immigration carries the real possibility of forever altering future political outcomes. This is an extremely serious problem.

 

[Higgs]

Polling analyst on Fox seems pretty certain it will be Kasich in Ohio and Trump in Florida.  Interestingly, he also said that Friday night's unrest in Chicago actually showed that it helped Trump by a few points.

 

[timschochet]

IMO election turnout is primarily based on the desire for change. 

GM talked about this a little in the other thread. Obama has a pretty favorability rating right now amongst Democrats, Recent polls show a lot of Democrats are happy with the condition of the country and are pleased with the way things are going. This could lead to a certain voter apathy amongst Democrat voters. While Republican voters are passionate about change from the ways things are going and this will lead to larger than normal crowds.

I wanted to also relay a story my brother in law told me this weekend. He is a general contractor and coordinates groups of roofers, drywall guys, painters etc, on big projects. Not being stereotypical, but these tend to be fields dominated by Hispanic workers. What he has run into on several occasions in just the recent weeks, are Hispanics who are widely supportive of Trump--I know I had to ask him to repeat himself. He said that when he asked them about their rationale, they said they were American citizens and were tired of being underbid by undocumented workers who proliferate the industry. They were fine with tough immigration laws or even deportation because it meant less competition,

Look, last I checked there's about 27 million hispanics in this country. According to polling, about 80% have strong feelings against Donald Trump. So there's 5.4 million Hispanics who like Trump, and that's a lot of people. No doubt you're going to meet some of them. 

But the numbers don't lie. If 80% of Hispanics are against him, he's not going to win the election. 

 

[timschochet]

I'm going to explore the "I Side With" site here to see how well the candidates reflect my thinking:


What is your stance on abortion? learn more



Pro-choice
Pro-life

Pro-choice, but ban after the first three months
Pro-choice, I don’t agree but the government has no right to ban it
Pro-choice, but providing birth control, sex education, and more social services will help reduce the number of abortions
Pro-life, but allow in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother or child
Pro-life, and I also oppose abortion for victims of rape and incest
Add your own stance
 
So there's a lot of choices here, but naturally none of them accurately represent my views. The closest one is "pro-choice, but providing birth control, sex education, etc."- however, that sentence includes "will help reduce the number of abortions." I do not care about reducing the number of abortions. I know I will get flack for this from my pro-life friends, but I actually think the more abortions the better (please keep in mind I don't believe fetuses are babies.) 
 
But it's not just me who is not represented here. My best friend, who is a conservative, is personally not opposed to abortion, but rejects Roe vs. Wade because he believes that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, and that the issue of abortion should be decided by the states. (He feels the same about gay marriage.) There is no place for his views here. 
 
I also have a problem with trying to decide how to rate the importance of this issue, from 1 to 5. It is very important to me that abortion rights are protected. But I don't see them being threatened, so I'm not really thinking about that in regard to this election. (Yes, I'm aware that Texas is trying to restrict Planned Parenthood and other access to publicly financed women's care, and I'm very much against that, but those laws do not threaten abortion as a RIGHT.) So I'm not sure how to answer the rating question. 
With regard to the importance of this issue, it strikes me that ever since 1973 a certain number of people on both sides have been sold this fear that if they don't vote for their party this time around, abortion is going to be threatened/innocent lives are going to be threatened. Yet there is almost never any change to the status quo, no matter how many Democrats and Republicans we have elected. Given the fact that Donald Trump is very likely going to be the Republican nominee vs. Hillary Clinton, I don't see the status quo changing this time either. In fact I doubt this will even be a significant issue in the upcoming election at all. 

 

[Rove!]

Btw the prospect of electing President Crazypants wouldn't be so scary or dangerous if we had maintained a more diffuse power base, by putting more and more and more power in the hands of a president it makes the consequences of someone on the Mad King George III level much more worrisome.

To be honest, I'm not sure which one is crazier.

 

[Higgs]

Guys let's pull it together.  It's just politics, and who the hell really knows anything anyways?  For all we know we could be in a computer simulated game right now.  Let's just chill out and enjoy a song together.

 "Always sentiment, to remind me"

 

[Rove!]

One more for the ignore list...have a nice season Em

R