|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President.
|
On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President.
I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence.
Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males.
EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men?
If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too.
|
On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's (white guy) numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote.
The amount of identity politics in America is sad and shameful. I would be incredibly insulted as a voter to be stereotyped into the "x" vote. I always seems to see an overwhelmingly low information coverage of the "average" American voter on election day. The interviewees seem incredibly happy in their ignorance to vote along identity lines without any real idea on their candidates platform.
"Here's a candidate of a certain demographic, who cares what their positions are, you are part of that demographic vote."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a major part of it is simply the nature of segregation in america, something a canadian would not have expereince with.
|
On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing.
As Sanders' VP, I would think, given the demographic issues you've raised, he'd look at people like Sherrod Brown, a progressive senator from Ohio-- because it's known as being an important swing state. Unfortunately Brown is a white male also, but at least he gets the geographic boost from that pick. I haven't thought about it much more than that haha.
People speak of Elizabeth Warren not running this election cycle, saying that it's more likely she'll run in a cycle or two (4-8 years depending on who wins in 2016). She's 65... +8 and guess what-- 73! And then the same people hesitant of Bernie Sanders' age will be hesitant of her age. I really think this was her time if she were ever going to run. A shame really...
|
Hundreds of protesters gathered at the Port of Seattle on Monday to block oil workers’ access to a Royal Dutch Shell drilling rig temporarily docked there on its journey to the Arctic, where it will be used to resume exploration for oil and gas reserves.
Holding signs reading “Shell no” and “Seattle loves the Arctic,” protesters assembled early in the morning to prevent workers from reaching the rig, one of two that Shell plans on sending to the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwest coast this summer.
Environmental groups opposed to drilling in the Arctic have organized a series of protests against Shell’s plans, saying drilling in the frigid region, where weather changes rapidly, could lead to a catastrophic spill that would be impossible to clean.
They also say drilling would threaten the Arctic’s vast layer of sea ice, which helps regulate global temperature and has been disappearing as a result of global warming.
Source
|
On May 19 2015 10:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Hundreds of protesters gathered at the Port of Seattle on Monday to block oil workers’ access to a Royal Dutch Shell drilling rig temporarily docked there on its journey to the Arctic, where it will be used to resume exploration for oil and gas reserves.
Holding signs reading “Shell no” and “Seattle loves the Arctic,” protesters assembled early in the morning to prevent workers from reaching the rig, one of two that Shell plans on sending to the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwest coast this summer.
Environmental groups opposed to drilling in the Arctic have organized a series of protests against Shell’s plans, saying drilling in the frigid region, where weather changes rapidly, could lead to a catastrophic spill that would be impossible to clean.
They also say drilling would threaten the Arctic’s vast layer of sea ice, which helps regulate global temperature and has been disappearing as a result of global warming. Source
Nice idea but a D- for optics. Using petrol based plastic for the kayaks they used was pretty dumb. I guess in a meta way it's kind of funny to use their own product but I don't think anyone is going to get it like that and i don't think it was on purpose.
|
On May 19 2015 04:27 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2015 15:32 Yurie wrote:On May 18 2015 12:18 darthfoley wrote:
Just wanted to say fuck yea, i'm excited for Bernie Sanders. Haters gonna hate He is 73 years old now. Are you sure it is a wise choice? That is my point of hate.  If you want to look at his age, which is fair game, I would counter by saying that I trust him in choosing an ideologically consistent and qualified running mate. He is definitely older than I would like, but I am going to vote based on policy rather than age. I'd never thought i'd actually be excited for a presidential cycle, but after Elizabeth Warren made it clear she wasn't interested, I actually can't wait to see Sanders vs. Clinton. I know it's a super long shot, but I take solace in knowing that a young junior senator from Illinois was also a super long shot. Clinton doesn't seem to have learned much from 2007 with her handling of the email "controversy" and the Clinton Foundation controversy; she's taken ~13 press questions since announcing, while Sanders has appeared on any medium that will take him-- including Fox News multiple times. I am hoping that Jumping Joe Biden, or Martin O'Malley, etc. will join the race, because I think they will pull mainly from Clinton supporters rather than Sanders people. Re "preaching to the choir," lol i'm aware that this site caters to candidates like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, but i'm just as adamant with my support of Sanders on Facebook and IRL. Perhaps Sanders will be the Ron Paul of the Democratic party, but through Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent, Rand Paul, the GOP is being pulled further to the Libertarian side of the party; this can be seen through the recent House vote to stop indiscriminate NSA collection of phone data. Obviously, the biggest hurdle Sanders has is the "socialist" brand, but he's actually very good about sticking to issues that are bi-partisan to explain his brand of "democractic socialism," e.g. student loan debt, healthcare, college cost, income inequality. He's introduced bills (that will obviously fail) to break up the big banks, and to make public college free already. The key is marketing, which Clinton seems to be shitty at. Just take the recent remarks from Bill Clinton: he has to earn $500,000 a speech "to pay the bills." If that doesn't scream out-of-touch with the average American, idk what does.
I mean, the difference in media exposure is that Sanders NEEDS all the exposure he can get. Hillary can afford to be, let's say, a little more picky.
I think Clinton's strategy is largely okay. If she went out and did interviews, responded to every bit of real or manufactured scandal about her, it would just be information overload for voters. I don't think she plans to really get serious until a month or so before the primaries.
As a candidate... well, could be better etc. etc. but I'm fine with Clinton. She'll probably campaign a little more to the right and then govern from the left. I don't see her doing anything super noteworthy as president, probably just let what Obama instigated run it's course.
|
On May 19 2015 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President. I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence. Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males. EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men? If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too.
Per your other posts - young voters tend not to vote in any significant %'s, and as you age, your perspective on economic matters generally tends to become less pro-Government. There is also a significant portion of the young that are libertarian and we are for the most part despondent about both parties. If anything I'm more excited about the effects of internet media in lieu of traditional cable-TV outlets that are controlled by powerful interests all ready in bed with the G-men. How this will turn out in voting trends in 20 years is anyones' guess, but I have a pretty positive outlook. I imagine in 20 years the GOP won't look like the GOP of today or the 90s. Social conservatism is all ready on its way out demographically and us younger libertarians will be the predominant view I imagine.
The Democrats look old and stale to me. Both parties I feel like will have significant voter-turn out problems and hopefully we can get the duopoly out of the business of running the debates. Perhaps they'll be another chance for an independent/3rd party to run and garner significant votes that turns into something approaching voter satisfaction. Neither party represents the country well at all. There are huge chunks of the country that are disenfranchised by the duopoly.
Or, maybe things will be so bad that independent movements in the country will grow and peacefully leaving the country might be an option (most of the old people are the most adamant about Lincoln nationalism...). Who knows.
PS: I think Hillary wins if the nominee is anyone else other than Rand as the polls indicate as much and she can position herself being less interventionist and gung-ho about war all the time if its a non-Rand nominee which if history is an indicator is a pretty good predictor of electoral victory. Also, Bush has zero shot. He has -20 negatives with GOP electorate, so I found it funny you thought he would even have 1% chance. Oh, by the way Fox News purposefully left out Rand when he is polling 4% better than Hillary (47-43), as they really really really really hate the libertarian wing of the party.
|
On May 19 2015 14:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President. I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence. Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males. EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men? If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too. Per your other posts - young voters tend not to vote in any significant %'s, and as you age, your perspective on economic matters generally tends to become less pro-Government. There is also a significant portion of the young that are libertarian and we are for the most part despondent about both parties. If anything I'm more excited about the effects of internet media in lieu of traditional cable-TV outlets that are controlled by powerful interests all ready in bed with the G-men. How this will turn out in voting trends in 20 years is anyones' guess, but I have a pretty positive outlook. I imagine in 20 years the GOP won't look like the GOP of today or the 90s. Social conservatism is all ready on its way out demographically and us younger libertarians will be the predominant view I imagine. The Democrats look old and stale to me. Both parties I feel like will have significant voter-turn out problems and hopefully we can get the duopoly out of the business of running the debates. Perhaps they'll be another chance for an independent/3rd party to run and garner significant votes that turns into something approaching voter satisfaction. Neither party represents the country well at all. There are huge chunks of the country that are disenfranchised by the duopoly. Or, maybe things will be so bad that independent movements in the country will grow and peacefully leaving the country might be an option (most of the old people are the most adamant about Lincoln nationalism...). Who knows. PS: I think Hillary wins if the nominee is anyone else other than Rand as the polls indicate as much and she can position herself being less interventionist and gung-ho about war all the time if its a non-Rand nominee which if history is an indicator is a pretty good predictor of electoral victory. Also, Bush has zero shot. He has -20 negatives with GOP electorate, so I found it funny you thought he would even have 1% chance. Oh, by the way Fox News purposefully left out Rand when he is polling 4% better than Hillary (47-43), as they really really really really hate the libertarian wing of the party.
Fair enough, The only reason why I say Bush is that he is the only one that can make it through the primary and have a shot in a national (though I'm becoming more skeptical of that if he can't separate from his brother). Rand sounds nice but once you dig into him he falls apart, not to mention he'll be running against practically everyone (a blessing and a curse).
Bush only wins a national because for republicans it will be Vote for Bush or stay home, which will essentially be a vote for Hillary/someone to her left.
If Republicans lose, I don't have any idea how they will be able to say it was their candidate that lost and not their party/ideas. If they spent Obama's term explaining why social issues were a bad fight, instead of raring them up, they could have a candidate with a sensible social position take the nomination and the election.
|
On May 19 2015 09:51 oneofthem wrote:
a major part of it is simply the nature of segregation in america, something a canadian would not have expereince with.
Canada had plenty of segregation in its history, including segregation of Black people.
There's also been a longstanding issue with Natives across the country, and the worst of it was essentially the same kind as in the US, with separate schools, restaurants, facilities, etc.
British Columbia in particular has a rather messy history with Asians, Chinese especially considering the slave labour used for the Pacific Railway, and the Head Tax following that. Then there was further efforts to segregate Chinese, Japanese and Indians into their own communities and away from ethnic Europeans.
The difference is, somehow, that Canada as a whole has dealt with and gotten over most of its racial issues a lot faster than the US has. It's probably something that has all kinds of social science papers written about it.
|
On May 19 2015 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 14:25 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President. I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence. Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males. EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men? If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too. Per your other posts - young voters tend not to vote in any significant %'s, and as you age, your perspective on economic matters generally tends to become less pro-Government. There is also a significant portion of the young that are libertarian and we are for the most part despondent about both parties. If anything I'm more excited about the effects of internet media in lieu of traditional cable-TV outlets that are controlled by powerful interests all ready in bed with the G-men. How this will turn out in voting trends in 20 years is anyones' guess, but I have a pretty positive outlook. I imagine in 20 years the GOP won't look like the GOP of today or the 90s. Social conservatism is all ready on its way out demographically and us younger libertarians will be the predominant view I imagine. The Democrats look old and stale to me. Both parties I feel like will have significant voter-turn out problems and hopefully we can get the duopoly out of the business of running the debates. Perhaps they'll be another chance for an independent/3rd party to run and garner significant votes that turns into something approaching voter satisfaction. Neither party represents the country well at all. There are huge chunks of the country that are disenfranchised by the duopoly. Or, maybe things will be so bad that independent movements in the country will grow and peacefully leaving the country might be an option (most of the old people are the most adamant about Lincoln nationalism...). Who knows. PS: I think Hillary wins if the nominee is anyone else other than Rand as the polls indicate as much and she can position herself being less interventionist and gung-ho about war all the time if its a non-Rand nominee which if history is an indicator is a pretty good predictor of electoral victory. Also, Bush has zero shot. He has -20 negatives with GOP electorate, so I found it funny you thought he would even have 1% chance. Oh, by the way Fox News purposefully left out Rand when he is polling 4% better than Hillary (47-43), as they really really really really hate the libertarian wing of the party. Fair enough, The only reason why I say Bush is that he is the only one that can make it through the primary and have a shot in a national (though I'm becoming more skeptical of that if he can't separate from his brother). Rand sounds nice but once you dig into him he falls apart, not to mention he'll be running against practically everyone (a blessing and a curse). Bush only wins a national because for republicans it will be Vote for Bush or stay home, which will essentially be a vote for Hillary/someone to her left. If Republicans lose, I don't have any idea how they will be able to say it was their candidate that lost and not their party/ideas. If they spent Obama's term explaining why social issues were a bad fight, instead of raring them up, they could have a candidate with a sensible social position take the nomination and the election.
If Bush wins and when the GOP loses, you can't blame it on the party/ideas (entirely... at least). It's the same reason why the GOP lost with Romney and McCain. A significant portion of the party stayed at home rather than vote for Democrat-lite candidates. The same will happen if Bush wins the nomination.
There are a lot of positions I disagree with Rand on, but if he can get past the primary he'll crush Hillary. Looking at the (D) side, I mean, the top 3 in the race are all really old and rehash the past for the most part (hey don't worry, I want to roll back a lot of things too, just funny when that's thrown out like some ten ton negative lmao). Then you have people like Joe Biden and I don't see how you guys are so enthusiastic about where you guys are going.
As has been pointed out before, there is a huge gap in the GOP in many respects. Between the 50+ and the under 39's, Between vying ideological groups (the neo-cons vs. the Buchaninites/Paul/Taft wing), the social-cons vs. the libertarian wing, etc. The GOP isn't like the Democrats where they're partisan first and principles second so a lot of these groups won't vote for candidates that are opposed to their positions. I certainly won't vote for the sad lot of them, as they all represent what I oppose for the most part (and this is why Rand gets like +30 in the under 29 age bracket and scores huge positives with independents compared to everyone else).
Beyond abortion (which is a huge metaphysical conundrum), the GOP in 20 years I expect to be a lot more freedom oriented than the Democrats (on social issues). We're far more likely to be against Government-licensure of marriage at all (so, no discrimination against polygamists, polyamorists, et. al), for ending the Drug War and for repealing vice laws in general + pardoning non-violent 'criminals' or more generally no victim no crime, etc. I expect the generation following us to be even more one-sided on these issues as we have a huge outreach to the youth(s). Hopefully we can give you back the Neo-Cons. We'll see where it goes and how things unfold, but the GOP is essentially 3 parties in one and getting along is...well..terse to say the least lmao. (Throwing snowballs at the likes of Hannity is always fun, I must admist)
|
On May 19 2015 15:21 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 14:25 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President. I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence. Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males. EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men? If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too. Per your other posts - young voters tend not to vote in any significant %'s, and as you age, your perspective on economic matters generally tends to become less pro-Government. There is also a significant portion of the young that are libertarian and we are for the most part despondent about both parties. If anything I'm more excited about the effects of internet media in lieu of traditional cable-TV outlets that are controlled by powerful interests all ready in bed with the G-men. How this will turn out in voting trends in 20 years is anyones' guess, but I have a pretty positive outlook. I imagine in 20 years the GOP won't look like the GOP of today or the 90s. Social conservatism is all ready on its way out demographically and us younger libertarians will be the predominant view I imagine. The Democrats look old and stale to me. Both parties I feel like will have significant voter-turn out problems and hopefully we can get the duopoly out of the business of running the debates. Perhaps they'll be another chance for an independent/3rd party to run and garner significant votes that turns into something approaching voter satisfaction. Neither party represents the country well at all. There are huge chunks of the country that are disenfranchised by the duopoly. Or, maybe things will be so bad that independent movements in the country will grow and peacefully leaving the country might be an option (most of the old people are the most adamant about Lincoln nationalism...). Who knows. PS: I think Hillary wins if the nominee is anyone else other than Rand as the polls indicate as much and she can position herself being less interventionist and gung-ho about war all the time if its a non-Rand nominee which if history is an indicator is a pretty good predictor of electoral victory. Also, Bush has zero shot. He has -20 negatives with GOP electorate, so I found it funny you thought he would even have 1% chance. Oh, by the way Fox News purposefully left out Rand when he is polling 4% better than Hillary (47-43), as they really really really really hate the libertarian wing of the party. Fair enough, The only reason why I say Bush is that he is the only one that can make it through the primary and have a shot in a national (though I'm becoming more skeptical of that if he can't separate from his brother). Rand sounds nice but once you dig into him he falls apart, not to mention he'll be running against practically everyone (a blessing and a curse). Bush only wins a national because for republicans it will be Vote for Bush or stay home, which will essentially be a vote for Hillary/someone to her left. If Republicans lose, I don't have any idea how they will be able to say it was their candidate that lost and not their party/ideas. If they spent Obama's term explaining why social issues were a bad fight, instead of raring them up, they could have a candidate with a sensible social position take the nomination and the election. If Bush wins and when the GOP loses, you can't blame it on the party/ideas (entirely... at least). It's the same reason why the GOP lost with Romney and McCain. A significant portion of the party stayed at home rather than vote for Democrat-lite candidates. The same will happen if Bush wins the nomination. There are a lot of positions I disagree with Rand on, but if he can get past the primary he'll crush Hillary. Looking at the (D) side, I mean, the top 3 in the race are all really old and rehash the past for the most part (hey don't worry, I want to roll back a lot of things too, just funny when that's thrown out like some ten ton negative lmao). Then you have people like Joe Biden and I don't see how you guys are so enthusiastic about where you guys are going. As has been pointed out before, there is a huge gap in the GOP in many respects. Between the 50+ and the under 39's, Between vying ideological groups (the neo-cons vs. the Buchaninites/Paul/Taft wing), the social-cons vs. the libertarian wing, etc. The GOP isn't like the Democrats where they're partisan first and principles second so a lot of these groups won't vote for candidates that are opposed to their positions. I certainly won't vote for the sad lot of them, as they all represent what I oppose for the most part (and this is why Rand gets like +30 in the under 29 age bracket and scores huge positives with independents compared to everyone else). Beyond abortion (which is a huge metaphysical conundrum), the GOP in 20 years I expect to be a lot more freedom oriented than the Democrats (on social issues). We're far more likely to be against Government-licensure of marriage at all (so, no discrimination against polygamists, polyamorists, et. al), for ending the Drug War and for repealing vice laws in general + pardoning non-violent 'criminals' or more generally no victim no crime, etc. I expect the generation following us to be even more one-sided on these issues as we have a huge outreach to the youth(s). Hopefully we can give you back the Neo-Cons. We'll see where it goes and how things unfold, but the GOP is essentially 3 parties in one and getting along is...well..terse to say the least lmao. (Throwing snowballs at the likes of Hannity is always fun, I must admist)
Well that sounds like everyone can totally blame the party and the ideas, just a matter of who within the party and which ideas. I agree the social conservatives will have officially lost and will either have to take what republicans give them or just give up pretty much.
After that it's a new ballgame both sides will have to shift.
|
Isn't even thinking that a Libertarian would win a primary downright delusional?
|
On May 19 2015 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 15:21 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 14:25 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President. I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence. Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males. EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men? If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too. Per your other posts - young voters tend not to vote in any significant %'s, and as you age, your perspective on economic matters generally tends to become less pro-Government. There is also a significant portion of the young that are libertarian and we are for the most part despondent about both parties. If anything I'm more excited about the effects of internet media in lieu of traditional cable-TV outlets that are controlled by powerful interests all ready in bed with the G-men. How this will turn out in voting trends in 20 years is anyones' guess, but I have a pretty positive outlook. I imagine in 20 years the GOP won't look like the GOP of today or the 90s. Social conservatism is all ready on its way out demographically and us younger libertarians will be the predominant view I imagine. The Democrats look old and stale to me. Both parties I feel like will have significant voter-turn out problems and hopefully we can get the duopoly out of the business of running the debates. Perhaps they'll be another chance for an independent/3rd party to run and garner significant votes that turns into something approaching voter satisfaction. Neither party represents the country well at all. There are huge chunks of the country that are disenfranchised by the duopoly. Or, maybe things will be so bad that independent movements in the country will grow and peacefully leaving the country might be an option (most of the old people are the most adamant about Lincoln nationalism...). Who knows. PS: I think Hillary wins if the nominee is anyone else other than Rand as the polls indicate as much and she can position herself being less interventionist and gung-ho about war all the time if its a non-Rand nominee which if history is an indicator is a pretty good predictor of electoral victory. Also, Bush has zero shot. He has -20 negatives with GOP electorate, so I found it funny you thought he would even have 1% chance. Oh, by the way Fox News purposefully left out Rand when he is polling 4% better than Hillary (47-43), as they really really really really hate the libertarian wing of the party. Fair enough, The only reason why I say Bush is that he is the only one that can make it through the primary and have a shot in a national (though I'm becoming more skeptical of that if he can't separate from his brother). Rand sounds nice but once you dig into him he falls apart, not to mention he'll be running against practically everyone (a blessing and a curse). Bush only wins a national because for republicans it will be Vote for Bush or stay home, which will essentially be a vote for Hillary/someone to her left. If Republicans lose, I don't have any idea how they will be able to say it was their candidate that lost and not their party/ideas. If they spent Obama's term explaining why social issues were a bad fight, instead of raring them up, they could have a candidate with a sensible social position take the nomination and the election. If Bush wins and when the GOP loses, you can't blame it on the party/ideas (entirely... at least). It's the same reason why the GOP lost with Romney and McCain. A significant portion of the party stayed at home rather than vote for Democrat-lite candidates. The same will happen if Bush wins the nomination. There are a lot of positions I disagree with Rand on, but if he can get past the primary he'll crush Hillary. Looking at the (D) side, I mean, the top 3 in the race are all really old and rehash the past for the most part (hey don't worry, I want to roll back a lot of things too, just funny when that's thrown out like some ten ton negative lmao). Then you have people like Joe Biden and I don't see how you guys are so enthusiastic about where you guys are going. As has been pointed out before, there is a huge gap in the GOP in many respects. Between the 50+ and the under 39's, Between vying ideological groups (the neo-cons vs. the Buchaninites/Paul/Taft wing), the social-cons vs. the libertarian wing, etc. The GOP isn't like the Democrats where they're partisan first and principles second so a lot of these groups won't vote for candidates that are opposed to their positions. I certainly won't vote for the sad lot of them, as they all represent what I oppose for the most part (and this is why Rand gets like +30 in the under 29 age bracket and scores huge positives with independents compared to everyone else). Beyond abortion (which is a huge metaphysical conundrum), the GOP in 20 years I expect to be a lot more freedom oriented than the Democrats (on social issues). We're far more likely to be against Government-licensure of marriage at all (so, no discrimination against polygamists, polyamorists, et. al), for ending the Drug War and for repealing vice laws in general + pardoning non-violent 'criminals' or more generally no victim no crime, etc. I expect the generation following us to be even more one-sided on these issues as we have a huge outreach to the youth(s). Hopefully we can give you back the Neo-Cons. We'll see where it goes and how things unfold, but the GOP is essentially 3 parties in one and getting along is...well..terse to say the least lmao. (Throwing snowballs at the likes of Hannity is always fun, I must admist) Well that sounds like everyone can totally blame the party and the ideas, just a matter of who within the party and which ideas. I agree the social conservatives will have officially lost and will either have to take what republicans give them or just give up pretty much. After that it's a new ballgame both sides will have to shift.
Eh, sure, at the foundation its blaming ideas, but it's not blaming the ideas that you implied (e.g. the less Government ideas for the most part). For the most part, abortion is about the only social issue which will leave voters at home, but it's also not a winning issue for the (D) side either as their views are well out of the mainstream (partial birth, post-third trimester, etc.). After that, I think the social issues play a far smaller role than say, the National-Security state apparatchiks (which a huge part of the social-con base are also Neo-Cons) and economic matters. Civil liberty concerns are almost entirely part of the libertarian wing of the party.
If I have any say in things (and my generation for the most part), the GOP will go back being the civil liberties, anti-war, market party it used to be under say Coolidge. Will be interesting to see if the Democrats go back to being their Wilsonian selves or there will be a bi-partisan consensus on things like the Bill of Rights, localism, etc. At any rate, the parties cannot maintain the status-quo as more and more are opting out of either of them.
|
On May 19 2015 15:48 Velr wrote:
Isn't even thinking that a Libertarian would win a primary downright delusional?
You're describing an entirely different political party winning another political parties primary? Why, yes, that is quite impossible. If you meant 'libertarian' in philosophy, than no, it's possible. The biggest hurdle is Fox and the media. They try their damndest to marginalize and ignore those outside the three-ring circus. Thankfully, the under 39 crowd has tuned out of their sphere and gets most of their information on the internet.
|
On May 19 2015 15:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 15:21 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 14:25 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President. I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence. Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males. EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men? If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too. Per your other posts - young voters tend not to vote in any significant %'s, and as you age, your perspective on economic matters generally tends to become less pro-Government. There is also a significant portion of the young that are libertarian and we are for the most part despondent about both parties. If anything I'm more excited about the effects of internet media in lieu of traditional cable-TV outlets that are controlled by powerful interests all ready in bed with the G-men. How this will turn out in voting trends in 20 years is anyones' guess, but I have a pretty positive outlook. I imagine in 20 years the GOP won't look like the GOP of today or the 90s. Social conservatism is all ready on its way out demographically and us younger libertarians will be the predominant view I imagine. The Democrats look old and stale to me. Both parties I feel like will have significant voter-turn out problems and hopefully we can get the duopoly out of the business of running the debates. Perhaps they'll be another chance for an independent/3rd party to run and garner significant votes that turns into something approaching voter satisfaction. Neither party represents the country well at all. There are huge chunks of the country that are disenfranchised by the duopoly. Or, maybe things will be so bad that independent movements in the country will grow and peacefully leaving the country might be an option (most of the old people are the most adamant about Lincoln nationalism...). Who knows. PS: I think Hillary wins if the nominee is anyone else other than Rand as the polls indicate as much and she can position herself being less interventionist and gung-ho about war all the time if its a non-Rand nominee which if history is an indicator is a pretty good predictor of electoral victory. Also, Bush has zero shot. He has -20 negatives with GOP electorate, so I found it funny you thought he would even have 1% chance. Oh, by the way Fox News purposefully left out Rand when he is polling 4% better than Hillary (47-43), as they really really really really hate the libertarian wing of the party. Fair enough, The only reason why I say Bush is that he is the only one that can make it through the primary and have a shot in a national (though I'm becoming more skeptical of that if he can't separate from his brother). Rand sounds nice but once you dig into him he falls apart, not to mention he'll be running against practically everyone (a blessing and a curse). Bush only wins a national because for republicans it will be Vote for Bush or stay home, which will essentially be a vote for Hillary/someone to her left. If Republicans lose, I don't have any idea how they will be able to say it was their candidate that lost and not their party/ideas. If they spent Obama's term explaining why social issues were a bad fight, instead of raring them up, they could have a candidate with a sensible social position take the nomination and the election. If Bush wins and when the GOP loses, you can't blame it on the party/ideas (entirely... at least). It's the same reason why the GOP lost with Romney and McCain. A significant portion of the party stayed at home rather than vote for Democrat-lite candidates. The same will happen if Bush wins the nomination. There are a lot of positions I disagree with Rand on, but if he can get past the primary he'll crush Hillary. Looking at the (D) side, I mean, the top 3 in the race are all really old and rehash the past for the most part (hey don't worry, I want to roll back a lot of things too, just funny when that's thrown out like some ten ton negative lmao). Then you have people like Joe Biden and I don't see how you guys are so enthusiastic about where you guys are going. As has been pointed out before, there is a huge gap in the GOP in many respects. Between the 50+ and the under 39's, Between vying ideological groups (the neo-cons vs. the Buchaninites/Paul/Taft wing), the social-cons vs. the libertarian wing, etc. The GOP isn't like the Democrats where they're partisan first and principles second so a lot of these groups won't vote for candidates that are opposed to their positions. I certainly won't vote for the sad lot of them, as they all represent what I oppose for the most part (and this is why Rand gets like +30 in the under 29 age bracket and scores huge positives with independents compared to everyone else). Beyond abortion (which is a huge metaphysical conundrum), the GOP in 20 years I expect to be a lot more freedom oriented than the Democrats (on social issues). We're far more likely to be against Government-licensure of marriage at all (so, no discrimination against polygamists, polyamorists, et. al), for ending the Drug War and for repealing vice laws in general + pardoning non-violent 'criminals' or more generally no victim no crime, etc. I expect the generation following us to be even more one-sided on these issues as we have a huge outreach to the youth(s). Hopefully we can give you back the Neo-Cons. We'll see where it goes and how things unfold, but the GOP is essentially 3 parties in one and getting along is...well..terse to say the least lmao. (Throwing snowballs at the likes of Hannity is always fun, I must admist) Well that sounds like everyone can totally blame the party and the ideas, just a matter of who within the party and which ideas. I agree the social conservatives will have officially lost and will either have to take what republicans give them or just give up pretty much. After that it's a new ballgame both sides will have to shift. Eh, sure, at the foundation its blaming ideas, but it's not blaming the ideas that you implied (e.g. the less Government ideas for the most part). For the most part, abortion is about the only social issue which will leave voters at home, but it's also not a winning issue for the (D) side either as their views are well out of the mainstream (partial birth, post-third trimester, etc.). After that, I think the social issues play a far smaller role than say, the National-Security state apparatchiks (which a huge part of the social-con base are also Neo-Cons) and economic matters. Civil liberty concerns are almost entirely part of the libertarian wing of the party. If I have any say in things (and my generation for the most part), the GOP will go back being the civil liberties, anti-war, market party it used to be under say Coolidge. Will be interesting to see if the Democrats go back to being their Wilsonian selves or there will be a bi-partisan consensus on things like the Bill of Rights, localism, etc. At any rate, the parties cannot maintain the status-quo as more and more are opting out of either of them.
If this new libertarian republican party as you describe it more or less can come up with a plan to give children with shitty parents as good of an education as at least an average kid with average parents, and that average education isn't so shitty I could easily see myself voting republican.
On May 19 2015 16:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 15:48 Velr wrote:
Isn't even thinking that a Libertarian would win a primary downright delusional? You're describing an entirely different political party winning another political parties primary? Why, yes, that is quite impossible. If you meant 'libertarian' in philosophy, than no, it's possible. The biggest hurdle is Fox and the media. They try their damndest to marginalize and ignore those outside the three-ring circus. Thankfully, the under 39 crowd has tuned out of their sphere and gets most of their information on the internet.
It's going to be rough when he's polling well and still gets excluded from a debate. Also the first debate is going to be a nightmare for the RNC. They REALLY want to put Carly on stage to make it seem like they are actually considering a female candidate but they can't put her up there and leave off people polling WAY better that they want to leave off.
How they are going to decide I have no idea, if I had to guess though the first debate will get turned into 2 debates and they will spread the candidates out. Night 1 will probably be prime time Night 2 the people they want to marginalize with one they want to make look good by comparison.
|
On May 19 2015 16:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 15:55 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 15:21 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 14:25 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President. I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence. Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males. EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men? If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too. Per your other posts - young voters tend not to vote in any significant %'s, and as you age, your perspective on economic matters generally tends to become less pro-Government. There is also a significant portion of the young that are libertarian and we are for the most part despondent about both parties. If anything I'm more excited about the effects of internet media in lieu of traditional cable-TV outlets that are controlled by powerful interests all ready in bed with the G-men. How this will turn out in voting trends in 20 years is anyones' guess, but I have a pretty positive outlook. I imagine in 20 years the GOP won't look like the GOP of today or the 90s. Social conservatism is all ready on its way out demographically and us younger libertarians will be the predominant view I imagine. The Democrats look old and stale to me. Both parties I feel like will have significant voter-turn out problems and hopefully we can get the duopoly out of the business of running the debates. Perhaps they'll be another chance for an independent/3rd party to run and garner significant votes that turns into something approaching voter satisfaction. Neither party represents the country well at all. There are huge chunks of the country that are disenfranchised by the duopoly. Or, maybe things will be so bad that independent movements in the country will grow and peacefully leaving the country might be an option (most of the old people are the most adamant about Lincoln nationalism...). Who knows. PS: I think Hillary wins if the nominee is anyone else other than Rand as the polls indicate as much and she can position herself being less interventionist and gung-ho about war all the time if its a non-Rand nominee which if history is an indicator is a pretty good predictor of electoral victory. Also, Bush has zero shot. He has -20 negatives with GOP electorate, so I found it funny you thought he would even have 1% chance. Oh, by the way Fox News purposefully left out Rand when he is polling 4% better than Hillary (47-43), as they really really really really hate the libertarian wing of the party. Fair enough, The only reason why I say Bush is that he is the only one that can make it through the primary and have a shot in a national (though I'm becoming more skeptical of that if he can't separate from his brother). Rand sounds nice but once you dig into him he falls apart, not to mention he'll be running against practically everyone (a blessing and a curse). Bush only wins a national because for republicans it will be Vote for Bush or stay home, which will essentially be a vote for Hillary/someone to her left. If Republicans lose, I don't have any idea how they will be able to say it was their candidate that lost and not their party/ideas. If they spent Obama's term explaining why social issues were a bad fight, instead of raring them up, they could have a candidate with a sensible social position take the nomination and the election. If Bush wins and when the GOP loses, you can't blame it on the party/ideas (entirely... at least). It's the same reason why the GOP lost with Romney and McCain. A significant portion of the party stayed at home rather than vote for Democrat-lite candidates. The same will happen if Bush wins the nomination. There are a lot of positions I disagree with Rand on, but if he can get past the primary he'll crush Hillary. Looking at the (D) side, I mean, the top 3 in the race are all really old and rehash the past for the most part (hey don't worry, I want to roll back a lot of things too, just funny when that's thrown out like some ten ton negative lmao). Then you have people like Joe Biden and I don't see how you guys are so enthusiastic about where you guys are going. As has been pointed out before, there is a huge gap in the GOP in many respects. Between the 50+ and the under 39's, Between vying ideological groups (the neo-cons vs. the Buchaninites/Paul/Taft wing), the social-cons vs. the libertarian wing, etc. The GOP isn't like the Democrats where they're partisan first and principles second so a lot of these groups won't vote for candidates that are opposed to their positions. I certainly won't vote for the sad lot of them, as they all represent what I oppose for the most part (and this is why Rand gets like +30 in the under 29 age bracket and scores huge positives with independents compared to everyone else). Beyond abortion (which is a huge metaphysical conundrum), the GOP in 20 years I expect to be a lot more freedom oriented than the Democrats (on social issues). We're far more likely to be against Government-licensure of marriage at all (so, no discrimination against polygamists, polyamorists, et. al), for ending the Drug War and for repealing vice laws in general + pardoning non-violent 'criminals' or more generally no victim no crime, etc. I expect the generation following us to be even more one-sided on these issues as we have a huge outreach to the youth(s). Hopefully we can give you back the Neo-Cons. We'll see where it goes and how things unfold, but the GOP is essentially 3 parties in one and getting along is...well..terse to say the least lmao. (Throwing snowballs at the likes of Hannity is always fun, I must admist) Well that sounds like everyone can totally blame the party and the ideas, just a matter of who within the party and which ideas. I agree the social conservatives will have officially lost and will either have to take what republicans give them or just give up pretty much. After that it's a new ballgame both sides will have to shift. Eh, sure, at the foundation its blaming ideas, but it's not blaming the ideas that you implied (e.g. the less Government ideas for the most part). For the most part, abortion is about the only social issue which will leave voters at home, but it's also not a winning issue for the (D) side either as their views are well out of the mainstream (partial birth, post-third trimester, etc.). After that, I think the social issues play a far smaller role than say, the National-Security state apparatchiks (which a huge part of the social-con base are also Neo-Cons) and economic matters. Civil liberty concerns are almost entirely part of the libertarian wing of the party. If I have any say in things (and my generation for the most part), the GOP will go back being the civil liberties, anti-war, market party it used to be under say Coolidge. Will be interesting to see if the Democrats go back to being their Wilsonian selves or there will be a bi-partisan consensus on things like the Bill of Rights, localism, etc. At any rate, the parties cannot maintain the status-quo as more and more are opting out of either of them. If this new libertarian republican party as you describe it more or less can come up with a plan to give children with shitty parents as good of an education as at least an average kid with average parents, and that average education isn't so shitty I could easily see myself voting republican. Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 16:00 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2015 15:48 Velr wrote:
Isn't even thinking that a Libertarian would win a primary downright delusional? You're describing an entirely different political party winning another political parties primary? Why, yes, that is quite impossible. If you meant 'libertarian' in philosophy, than no, it's possible. The biggest hurdle is Fox and the media. They try their damndest to marginalize and ignore those outside the three-ring circus. Thankfully, the under 39 crowd has tuned out of their sphere and gets most of their information on the internet. It's going to be rough when he's polling well and still gets excluded from a debate. Also the first debate is going to be a nightmare for the RNC. They REALLY want to put Carly on stage to make it seem like they are actually considering a female candidate but they can't put her up there and leave off people polling WAY better that they want to leave off. How they are going to decide I have no idea, if I had to guess though the first debate will get turned into 2 debates and they will spread the candidates out. Night 1 will probably be prime time Night 2 the people they want to marginalize with one they want to make look good by comparison.
Yeah, it's a big clusterfuck since there will be something like 16 or 17 announced candidates who have held what one would describe as 'high-office'. I think the first 'debate' will be something like a forum (each candidate goes up one at a time answers the same Q's, etc.), and the establishment wing definitely doesn't want more debates as that gives more exposure to candidates outside their sphere of influence (they really hated Ron and everything we did...e.g. the Nevada Caucus', Louisiana Caucus, etc.). The other option being floated is 2 separate back to back debates with randomly chosen participants, but that opens up a ton of worms itself. I also don't like the idea of using polling as a means to exclude people as polling can be hilariously manipulated (F U frank luntz). The problem is the ADHD nature of the population and god forbid they'd have to sit through a 5 hour debate or something. Otherwise, it wouldn't be too much of a problem. After Iowa the field should narrow down anyways. I also hate the RNC, so I don't really trust them being an impartial arbiter on how to handle this. We'll see how it goes down, but something tells me they're going to try and frame Rubio, Walker, and Bush in the best positive light. Just you watch.
I think it's a lot harder to exclude a sitting Senator from the debates than a congressman like Ron, and since Ron built up a 10-20% base all ready, it's much harder to ignore though they do try still.
As for the school thing, I think it's a lot more complex than simply throwing more money. Pedagogical styles, institutional imprisonment (schools are literally prisons and are the same way we taught kids as in the 1880s...call it institutional stasis which most Government institutions fall into), etc. are all huge problems. I do think there are a myriad of ways of helping poorer segments of society better themselves and getting rid of burdensome licensing, increasing online education (freeing up that market), and reducing our laws which disproportionally incarcerate folk and make it harder to get a job and improve society are sorely needed. That's a far-cry difference than the (D) solution of giving more money to institutionalized teacher's unions and administrators and acting like that is a charitable solution to socioeconomic woes. Besides, if we could reduce property taxes and give more money back to these poorer segments of society then they could choose the best educational path for their children rather than the Government telling them they must go to shitty-X Government school in their vicinity.
|
what does teamliquid think about nationalism?
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions.[1]
From a political or sociological perspective, there are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism. One is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct groupings based on an affinity of birth. The other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society in order to exist.[2]
User was banned for this post.
|
Nationalism is probably the topic I have poured at least a thousand hours into, and I identify myself as a Pan-Asian nationalist and have been influenced by Eurasianism, but I will hold off on my stances since I am really tired, but I have to say that Habermas's Staatsbürgerschaft und nationale Identität is probably the most interesting and relevant work in regards to modern nationalism in West.
Buuuut, this is something that is not relevant to this thread and most political discussions in general as seen by the reception of your constant posting/spam on this topic. If you are interested in continuing this discussion, feel free to PM me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
