US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2192

Does Jeb Bush really want to refight the Iraq war?

Yes, his eagerness to blame Hillary Clinton for the rise of the Islamic State and the spread of terrorism and instability across the Middle East is an opportunity to show his mettle on foreign policy, a top issue for Republican primary voters, and demonstrate toughness toward the likely Democratic nominee.

But his calculation to broaden and expand that argument into a full speech, set to be delivered Tuesday night at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., also exposes the former Florida governor to real political risk by drawing attention to the Iraq war, his brother’s defining legacy and a fraught subject he struggled to reckon with just three months ago.

“I think it’s a pretty important moment for his candidacy,” said Craig Robinson, a prominent GOP activist in Iowa who publishes The Iowa Republican website. “This is a subject matter that the next debate is going to focus on; it’s also a subject matter that he has struggled with. This is a moment for him to gain his footing on foreign policy issues.”
Bush is gambling that he can turn a major potential weakness into an exhibition of strength.

Arguing that Clinton, as secretary of state, “stood by” while Iraq fell apart and as the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, took root across Iraq and Syria puts Bush on offense, shifting the conversation away from whether the war itself was a mistake. (Bush admits now, after stumbling on this question for four days in May, that the invasion was a bad idea.)

“ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat,” Bush will say, according to excerpts of his speech released Monday by his campaign. “And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this? Like the president himself, she had opposed the surge … then joined in claiming credit for its success … then stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away.”

Bush’s speech is also an attempt to harden negative perceptions about Clinton’s globe-trotting tenure as America’s top diplomat.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton relented Tuesday to months of demands she relinquish the personal email server she used while secretary of state, directing the device be given to the Justice Department.

The decision advances the investigation into the Democratic presidential front-runner's use of a private email account as the nation's top diplomat, and whether classified information was improperly sent via and stored on the home-brew email server she ran from her house in suburban New York City.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said she has "pledged to cooperate with the government's security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them."

It's not clear if the device will yield any information - Clinton's attorney said in March that no emails from the main personal address she used while secretary of state still "reside on the server or on back-up systems associated with the server."

Clinton had to this point refused demands from Republican critics to turn over the server to a third party, with attorney David Kendall telling the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that "there is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server."

Republicans jumped on Tuesday's decision to change course, as well as the additional disclosure that two emails that traversed Clinton's personal system were subsequently given one of the government's highest classification ratings.

"All this means is that Hillary Clinton, in the face of FBI scrutiny, has decided she has run out of options," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in a statement. "She knows she did something wrong and has run out of ways to cover it up."

Federal investigators have begun looking into the security of Clintons' email setup amid concerns from the inspector general for the intelligence community that classified information may have passed through the system.

There is no evidence she used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes. Kendall has said previously that Clinton is "actively cooperating" with the FBI inquiry.

Twelve years ago, in August 2003, Joe Lieberman led in most polls of the Democratic primary. Eight years ago, in August 2007, Rudy Giuliani maintained a clear lead in polls of Republicans, while Hillary Clinton led in polls of the Democratic nomination contest. Four years ago, in August 2011, Mitt Romney began with the lead in polls of Republican voters, but he would be surpassed by the end of the month by Rick Perry, the first of four Republican rivals who would at some point overtake Romney in national polling averages.

Lieberman, Clinton, Giuliani and Perry, as you’ve probably gathered, are not the faces atop Mount Rushmore. Only Clinton came close to winning the nomination.

Not long ago, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was surging. In just a few months, the Vermont senator halved Hillary Clinton’s lead in Iowa and moved to within shouting distance of her in New Hampshire. But it’s probably time to change the verb tense. No longer is Sanders surging. He has surged. From now on, picking up additional support will be more of a slog.

On August 12 2015 09:46 Deathstar wrote:
Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Howard Dean also drew large crowds. Populists do that. But all the progressives voting for Sander won't help him get the nomination because Democrats are largely moderate, not progressive, so Sanders still has a lot of work to before even thinking about scratching Hillary

On August 12 2015 09:57 Introvert wrote:
Speaking of Trump and Sanders, two relevant FiveThirtyEight articles from today. I know many of our posters here already check it daily, but for those who don't...




Source

On August 12 2015 09:38 GreenHorizons wrote:


He's a democratic socialist, and there are significant differences. I presume you know that and are just being facetious though?

Believe me I've heard more than an earful from actual socialists about how he certainly isn't one.

On August 12 2015 10:17 Sermokala wrote:

I surely know the difference but do you think Joe the steel worker from Ohio is going to think? Weeks and weeks and months and months of ads will accuse him of being a red or dead socialist that wants to turn us to greece.

On August 12 2015 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:




Gotta love the use of the 538 name to lend credibility to pretty poor analysis. This article has already been picked apart.

The relevant part of the analysis is it will be harder moving forward which comes as a "Duh!" to anyone with the slightest bit of awareness.

On August 12 2015 10:28 Introvert wrote:


Great counter-analysis there. Yeah, we all know it's slog once people already know your name. Not really the point. Besides, I'm not sure how it is both poor analysis and obviously true. Unless you are talking about two different parts.

On August 12 2015 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


None of those people have ever drawn 20k+ ever, even at their peaks much deeper into the election season when far more people are paying attention (unless I've missed some).

I don't doubt he and his grassroots campaign still have plenty of work to do but those comparisons just aren't accurate. Also the representation of Democratic positions (of the people not the politicians) as being different from Sanders is also a myth.

Many/Most of his key positions are supported by a majority of Americans not just Democrats.



Gotta love the use of the 538 name to lend credibility to pretty poor analysis. This article has already been picked apart.

The relevant part of the analysis is it will be harder moving forward which comes as a "Duh!" to anyone with the slightest bit of awareness.

On August 12 2015 10:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Worth pointing out, but there's little indication that Sanders' ability to draw crowds is unique or can be converted into victories. Yes he's drawing massive crowds early in the cycle, but it's to be seen how much social media/organizing drives that resulting in a new sort of campaign paradigm versus his appeal (which is undeniable).

So you agree with 538 but call it poor analysis? I'm a little confused.

Also, remember 8 years ago Clinton v Obama. Obama was an amazing candidate-- we'll ignore how he did as president. The nomination dragged on for a really, really long time even with his advantages, and the vote was close. Obama won in delegates, but Hillary won the popular vote (albeit without counting caucus states, which went for Obama heavily). Don't count Hillary out.

Anyways, Bernie is gaining traction but he's got a long way to even stand a chance of beating Hillary. Right now, he's looking more like a Rick Santorum (supportwise).

On August 12 2015 11:28 darthfoley wrote:


I would disagree with you, but understand the point, if you're referring to 2012 Rick Santorum; if you're comparing Bernie Sanders to 2016 Rick Santorum, idk how much more wrong you could get.

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Tuesday the U.S. may need to send more ground troops into Iraq to defeat Islamic State militants, but he stopped short of saying how many as he outlined his strategy for combating a threat that's "spreading like a pandemic."

In the first major foreign policy speech of his White House bid, Bush sharply criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and accused the Democratic front-runner and President Barack Obama of allowing the militant group to take hold in the Middle East.

"Who can seriously argue that America and our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the president and Secretary Clinton - the storied 'team of rivals' - took office?" Bush said. "So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers."

Along with saying he would potentially boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, where roughly 3,500 American military trainers and advisers are already helping Iraqi forces fight the Islamic State group, Bush offered a broad look at how he would take on the group in neighboring Syria — which Bush and Middle East experts agree is a far more complicated task.

Beating back IS there will require the removal of that country's president, Bashar Assad, Bush said. To do so, he said he would aim to unite the moderate forces fighting IS in that country and for U.S. troops to "back them up as one force."

"And we should back that force up all the way through - not just in taking the fight to the enemy, but in helping them to form a stable, moderate government," he said. "It's a tough, complicated diplomatic and military proposition, even more so than the current situation in Iraq. But it can be done."

Bush has previously touched on aspects of his strategy for Iraq, such as allowing the training and advisory troops already in the country to join Iraqi forces on the battlefield and help in better guiding airstrikes. He again expressed support for a no-fly zone in Syria.

In his speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Bush tied the rise of IS, a militant Sunni group that occupies a large swath of Iraq and Syria and has a presence elsewhere in the region, to the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.

"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat," he said. "And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this?" Answering his own question, he said Clinton "stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away. In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly once."

Clinton has said she supported keeping a residual force behind in Iraq, but a proposal to do so fell through after Baghdad refused to give the troops immunity from legal charges, as Washington demanded.

On August 12 2015 12:15 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone ever participated in a political poll? I've been seeing a lot of articles trying to rationalize Bernie Sanders' ability to get gigantic crowds while still "being behind". I realized I've never actually participated in a poll asking who I favor, yet there are apparently lots of polls. I can't help but wonder if conventional polling methods disproportionately represent people over the age of 30. I don't doubt that Clinton still has more supporters at this moment, but I am skeptical of 4x. Maybe it's just that I'm insanely liberal and lots of my friends are too, making me over estimate his support. But the Portland crowd, followed by the even larger one in LA makes me think Sanders really is taking off.


Either way, I hope Sanders at least does well enough to earn a vp spot. As Bill Clinton once said, liberals want to fall in love with a candidate. Not having a candidate people are passionate about hurts liberal voter turnout a lot more than conservative turnout. Sure as hell a lot of love in the air.

On August 12 2015 13:12 whatisthisasheep wrote:

Millennials have a habit of halfheartedly supporting a movement while not caring about the results. (ex Ron Paul Revolution, Kony 2012, Occupy Wall Street, etc.) Sanders events are just like concerts or sporting events, you go to hang out your buddy's, meet girls, and have a good time. After the event, they just go back to their lives. At that age most people care much more about going to the bar and getting laid than being involved in the political process. I don't know the statistics but I would guess voters between the ages of 18-30 vote alot less often then voters ages 45-60. Once you get married, have kids, start a business, and start paying a shitload of taxes you start to pay attention to the political process more.

Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has rocketed past longtime front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, a stunning turn in a race once considered a lock for the former secretary of state, a new Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll shows.

Sanders leads Clinton 44-37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, the first time the heavily favored Clinton has trailed in the 2016 primary campaign, according to the poll of 442 Granite-Staters.

Vice President Joe Biden got 9 percent support in the test primary match-up. The other announced Democrats in the race, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Gov. Jim Webb, barely register at 1 percent or below.

The live interview phone poll was conducted Aug. 7-10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points

On August 12 2015 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
@Introvert: Apparently NH and the Boston Herald missed 538's memo


.

Source

The "inevitability" is cracking.

On August 12 2015 13:30 Mohdoo wrote:



Real talk: Do you think Bernie Sanders would have to adjust his message at all if he wins the primary? Are there any candidates from the GOP that you think could beat him?

On August 12 2015 13:30 Mohdoo wrote:



Real talk: Do you think Bernie Sanders would have to adjust his message at all if he wins the primary? Are there any candidates from the GOP that you think could beat him?