US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2089

On July 09 2015 12:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I agree. He does this stuff for a living.

Who do you think would be a competent enough interviewer... one that could actually hold his feet to the fire for some serious crap that Trump has done or said, and not come out looking completely defeated by Trump? Maybe Anderson Cooper?

Today, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who as of-late has gone relatively gaffe-free, uttered a phrase that may not go over too well with the constituency he seeks to reach. During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush told New Hampshire's "The Union Leader" that to grow the economy, "people should work longer hours."

He was answering a question about his plans for tax reform and responded:

"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."

Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.

On July 09 2015 13:06 Bagration wrote:
It's tricky for interviewers - if you stand your ground and call people out on their bullshit, you'll develop a reputation for toughness and some people will avoid being interviewed by you. After all, a politician's handlers are super-careful with a politician's media appearances, and tend to avoid putting their bosses in a tough spot. A disastrous interview can absolutely destroy a career or reputation (numerous examples, Sarah Palin comes to mind first), so many may not be willing to schedule an interview if they are likely to get grilled. Thus, interviewers have an incentive to play softball sometimes with the candidate to maintain relationships and reputation so that they can continue to get access to future interviews.

On July 09 2015 13:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
A first year associate who graduated from a decent law school (like top 5 or whatever) with a decent background in Constitutional law would wreck Scalia I think. I'm not very impressed with the quality of his arguments as of late. The man issues opinions that conflict with his own previously written ones, he's clearly more interested in justifying his own positions than taking any sort of stance. At least Thomas and Roberts are consistent.

On July 09 2015 13:41 Wegandi wrote:
I don't even care for Trump, but he demolished that interviewer. It was actually a bit entertaining even if I disagree with Trump on a lot of issues. I wouldn't mind watching Chris Matthews interview him for a hour. Some fireworks for sure and both are intelligent. The problem with Trump though, is that he has no substance. It's all rhetoric. I think Matthews would hit that spot hard.

Also, lol @ Kelly. She is a dimwit lightweight. Just look at how she had to apologize to Rand. She's as antagonistic and less substance as Bill O'Reilly or Hannity is. We don't need 2 blowhards in one interview.

On July 09 2015 13:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
First year law students don't know shit about law yet though. A first year associate who graduated from a decent law school (like top 5 or whatever) with a decent background in Constitutional law would wreck Scalia I think. I'm not very impressed with the quality of his arguments as of late. The man issues opinions that conflict with his own previously written ones, he's clearly more interested in justifying his own positions than taking any sort of stance. At least Thomas and Roberts are consistent.

I'm glad Trump did okay in an interview. It'll keep his sham of a campaign and hairpiece in the spotlight a little longer, and his implosion will be the more spectacular for it.

On July 09 2015 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
legal arguments are pretty low level. i'd rate most of it scholasticism tier

PPP's newest North Carolina poll finds that Donald Trump's momentum just keeps on building. He's the top choice of Republican primary voters in the state, getting 16% to 12% for Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, 11% for Mike Huckabee, 9% for Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, 7% for Rand Paul, 6% for Ted Cruz, 5% for Chris Christie, 4% for Carly Fiorina, 2% for Rick Perry, 1% each for Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum, and less than 1% each for John Kasich and George Pataki.

Trump's favorability rating in North Carolina is 55/32, much higher than we were finding in national polls prior to his entry into the race. Trump's really caught fire with voters on the far right- 66% of 'very conservative' voters see him favorably to only 24% with a negative view of him. Trump is polling particularly well with younger voters (29%) and men (20%).

Jeb Bush had been leading our previous few polls in North Carolina. But he continues to struggle with conservatives. Among 'very conservative' Republicans, only 37% see him favorably to 44% who have a negative opinion of him and only 7% of those voters support him for the nomination, putting him in 7th place in the GOP field. Bush's overall 43/35 favorability is the second worst of any of the 10 candidates we measured that for, besting only Chris Christie's 27/41 standing.

Mike Huckabee has the highest favorability rating of the GOP hopefuls in North Carolina at 65/19. Also with particularly good numbers are Marco Rubio at 57/16 and Ben Carson at 55/10. We're not generally finding those folks at the top of the heap when it comes to preference for the nomination, but they do have a lot of goodwill that might help them move up later.