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.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
You guys have a 15 month electoral cycle and we told GH not to keep updating us on Bernie's bowel movements.
Pretty much. Big thinkers in the conservative wing of the GOP saw Trumps unfavorables and decided he can’t win the general election. Nothing really shocking, should have happened earlier.
Why do they even have these primaries if the party 'elders' want specific candidates? Why not just have a party congress and elect a party head. Shave 12 months off the election cycle.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
As someone who's conservative, what's your opinion on that National Review piece?
It's obviously clear to everyone that Trump has been a thorn in the GOP's side on the best of days. Something like this piece seems like an establishment wedge that will only serve to further split the "people" and the establishment. Do you think this is the beginning of a party separation?
And as you've mentioned, it's similar in that regard to the left side of the race as well. Man, I would love if we didn't have just two parties.
I'll be first to say that the National Review piece is generally accurate in its characterizations of Trump and in pointing out that he's not a conservative (I also think that the piece is hypocritical, but that's another story). But here's the point: this is the kind of piece that truly puts "conservatism" on trial in this election. If Trump wins the nomination despite this kind of attack (and I'm thinking that he will), what does that say of the status of "conservatism" within the republican party? Would it not be a wholesale rejection of conservatism as presently defined? I think it would be. There are some huge ramifications here for what is going to happen to the republican party.
And many of the same forces are at work in the democrat party, which is fueling Bernie's rise, though to a lesser degree. It's been a long time since the US has had such a potentially consequential election year.
By all accounts, Trump's ground game is a joke. The conventional wisdom says that in order to win Iowa it takes a committed ground game to get people out to vote for a candidate. Trump likes to talk about his poll numbers a lot, but historically polls haven't been great at predicting the winner in Iowa:
Donald Trump certainly treats his frontrunner status as gospel, often simply reciting favorable poll numbers to his crowds. But an analysis of polling data from previous elections shows that, even with less than two weeks until the first votes are cast, it is still too early for polls to be predictive.
In four of the five previous presidential elections, the leaders in national polls 13 days out from the Iowa caucuses failed to capture the nomination. And in three of the five, the polls weren’t even predictive of the winner in Iowa.
I think he is going to lose in Iowa, perhaps badly. And once he's shown to be a "loser" his personality cult could collapse quickly.
To be clear, I don't think he's going to lose because of an inability to appeal to his base. I think he is going to lose because he's an entertainer who has no idea how to actually run a campaign..
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
What's your take on it?
See my post above.
Are we getting Trump as nominee?
Yep, it certainly looks like it.
Will the RNC appoint Bush in complete defiance of the entire primary? Trump is looking inevitable. If Rubio doesn't score at least 25% vote in Iowa or NH, I think he may be out. He needs to at least show potential, not continue to be in the background.
No. Keep in mind that there's a difference between the conservative intelligentsia within the republican party and the republican establishment. Here's what interesting about this distinction. News stories are indicating that the establishment and the donors are starting to warm to Trump. To put it crudely, these are the pure politicians that will do whatever they need to do to preserve or advance their political stature. So no surprise here. It's the conservative ideologues that are tripping over themselves to kill off Trump. Their actual impact and influence within the party has been suspect for some time now, which is part of the problem that has led to Trump's emergence.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
As someone who's conservative, what's your opinion on that National Review piece?
It's obviously clear to everyone that Trump has been a thorn in the GOP's side on the best of days. Something like this piece seems like an establishment wedge that will only serve to further split the "people" and the establishment. Do you think this is the beginning of a party separation?
And as you've mentioned, it's similar in that regard to the left side of the race as well. Man, I would love if we didn't have just two parties.
I'll be first to say that the National Review piece is generally accurate in its characterizations of Trump and in pointing out that he's not a conservative (I also think that the piece is hypocritical, but that's another story). But here's the point: this is the kind of piece that truly puts "conservatism" on trial in this election. If Trump wins the nomination despite this kind of attack (and I'm thinking that he will), what does that say of the status of "conservatism" within the republican party? Would it not be a wholesale rejection of conservatism as presently defined? I think it would be. There are some huge ramifications here for what is going to happen to the republican party.
And many of the same forces are at work in the democrat party, which is fueling Bernie's rise, though to a lesser degree. It's been a long time since the US has had such a potentially consequential election year.
By all accounts, Trump's ground game is a joke. The conventional wisdom says that in order to win Iowa it takes a committed ground game to get people out to vote for a candidate. Trump likes to talk about his poll numbers a lot, but historically polls haven't been great at predicting the winner in Iowa:
Donald Trump certainly treats his frontrunner status as gospel, often simply reciting favorable poll numbers to his crowds. But an analysis of polling data from previous elections shows that, even with less than two weeks until the first votes are cast, it is still too early for polls to be predictive.
In four of the five previous presidential elections, the leaders in national polls 13 days out from the Iowa caucuses failed to capture the nomination. And in three of the five, the polls weren’t even predictive of the winner in Iowa.
I think he is going to lose in Iowa, perhaps badly. And once he's shown to be a "loser" his personality cult could collapse quickly.
To be clear, I don't think he's going to lose because of an inability to appeal to his base. I think he is going to lose because he's an entertainer who has no idea how to actually run a campaign..
I would have said that a few months ago when his campaign was like 3 dudes in a bare bones office in the Apprentice studio. My impression is that he's built up his infrastructure quite a bit since then... haven't found a specific number (at least up to date one), but some good info here.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
What's your take on it? Are we getting Trump as nominee? Will the RNC appoint Bush in complete defiance of the entire primary? Trump is looking inevitable. If Rubio doesn't score at least 25% vote in Iowa or NH, I think he may be out. He needs to at least show potential, not continue to be in the background.
All Rubio needs is to beat Kasich + Bush + Christie in Iowa/New Hampshire and for the four together to crack whatever Trump gets in New Hampshire. I'm not sure he cares about beating Kasich in New Hampshire since the man has virtually no name recognition. No way he's dropping out if he gets, say, 15% in Iowa and 15% in New Hampshire.
It is interesting that while the Republican punditry and media spent months doing everything in their power to stop Trump as the nominee, the Democratic punditry (DailyKos, Huffpo, etc.) and media have largely spent months doing everything in their power to push the narrative of Bernie-as-real-challenger. It's pretty clear the latter are more motivated by pageclicks than ideology.
On January 23 2016 03:27 xDaunt wrote: I find it interesting that the discussions of choice in this thread right now concern a wholly local environmental problem (Flint) and a total bullshit issue (reparations) as opposed to the potentially historic populist revolution that is occurring in both political parties.
Just an observation.
Everything there is to be said has already been said. Until something new happens there isn't much politics to discuss.
National Review putting out a hit piece on Trump with the aid of almost every major conservative thinker in the country does not constitute "nothing new happening."
What's your take on it? Are we getting Trump as nominee? Will the RNC appoint Bush in complete defiance of the entire primary? Trump is looking inevitable. If Rubio doesn't score at least 25% vote in Iowa or NH, I think he may be out. He needs to at least show potential, not continue to be in the background.
All Rubio needs is to beat Kasich + Bush + Christie in Iowa/New Hampshire and for the four together to crack whatever Trump gets in New Hampshire. I'm not sure he cares about beating Kasich in New Hampshire since the man has virtually no name recognition. No way he's dropping out if he gets, say, 15% in Iowa and 15% in New Hampshire.
It is interesting that while the Republican punditry and media spent months doing everything in their power to stop Trump as the nominee, the Democratic punditry (DailyKos, Huffpo, etc.) and media have largely spent months doing everything in their power to push the narrative of Bernie-as-real-challenger. It's pretty clear the latter are more motivated by pageclicks than ideology.
Well I think there is a difference.
There are many non-establishment, non-moderate republicans that disagree with Trump's "ideology" regardless of whether or not he can win the general election. (ie they would actually be unhappy if Trump won the presidency, because they don't think he represents their interests/values)
Whereas I believe that most non-establishment, non-moderate democrats probably agree with Sander's ideology but are afraid he can't win the general election. (ie they would actually be happy if Sanders won the presidency because he represents their interests/values...Clinton is viewed as the sellout who is more likely to get elected)
While I recognize that a minority of Republican supporters would actually benefit from Trump's tax plans I suspect a majority would still support them. Although it's a broad coalition I believe the largest unifying policy is "taxes (on the rich) are too high" and that is something Trump seeks to address. If we assume that his large planned tax cuts will go with a reduction in the size of the government (rather than simply increasing borrowing) it would be reasonable to assume that he supports their core issue.
On January 23 2016 07:02 IgnE wrote: Wait what? The media has been pushing Bernie?
I guess the media hasn't been pushing Bernie. I also should have said "liberal" rather than "Democrat" since there's a fairly big divide.
That media has been pushing "there's a possibility (that's less than HRC's) that Bernie could win." And yes, they absolutely have, because they are desperate to have a horse race and have been since September.
They pushed it with the emails (Clinton was in a "death spiral" before the first debate remember?). They pushed it with Biden. They pushed it with New Hampshire. And now they're pushing it with Iowa-even MSNBC is talking about it like a competitive race. Just because sometimes it's true doesn't mean the media haven't been pushing it for pageviews.
Not even the fringe right said Trump had a chance for ages and ages.
On January 23 2016 08:44 oBlade wrote: Has anyone brought up Ross Perot before?
All Trump's talk about using punitive tariffs against trading partners gives me Perot flashbacks. I recall his speeches in that Perot voice railing against NAFTA and in defense of the Ameeican blue-collar worker. Ugh.
Prompted by a recent death in South Carolina, federal regulators have recalled five million vehicles with defective Takata air bags, which have injured more than 100 U.S. drivers.
The brands recalled include Ford, Volkswagen, Audi and Mercedes Benz.
NPR's Sonari Glinton reported on what happened: "It was an accident in a Ford Ranger that killed the ninth person in the U.S. because of faulty airbags that explode and send sharp metal pieces flying at drivers."
In one of the largest such actions in history, 24 million vehicles equipped with the Japanese company's air bags have been recalled in the United States.
Rebecca Lindland with Kelley Blue Book said consumers are getting complacent about recalls.
EPT
