|
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. |
On December 29 2016 10:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2016 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On December 29 2016 02:39 zlefin wrote:On December 29 2016 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
As I could have predicted, instead of going after Turkey, our president-elect decided to go after Obama.
To be fair he is right. Obama is just randomly passing dickish regulation to make life more difficult for Trump. citation on that last point? all i've heard about is regulations being passed to try to protect important things; not to mess with trump. but i've certainly heard in the past about transitions being rocky and all sorts of small dickish office things being done. Israel UN vote, MANPADs to Syrian rebels, additional sanctions on Russia, in general just gestures to piss people off and add more obstacles for Trump's stated policy goals. It's just more of Obama's typical petulance on parade. All he's doing is undermining the arguments of his supporters that his failure to get anything done is strictly a function of the GOP. But come January 20, that will all be in the past. Trump is gonna flush the entire Obama era down the toilet, and not a moment too soon. Keep in mind the GOP has campaigned for the last 6 years on repealing the ACA, they have both houses and the presidency. If it doesn't get repealed and replaced Republicans will be shown to be just as ineffective as Democrats, then maybe, just maybe, more folks will be clued into the fact that they don't represent us at all. That the reason that they can't pass their promises isn't because of the other side, but because there was never any intention to pass the things voters want in the first place (unless they happen to line up with their big money donors preferences). Don't worry, I have plenty of scorn reserved for the GOP, and I eagerly await seeing whether the GOP is as impotent and/or as uninterested in pushing a conservative agenda now as it has been for the past twenty years or so. The GOP is gonna get thrashed if that happens. I kind of want to see it for all their ineffective behavior under Boehner and McConnell (I say they just feel more comfortable in the minority and not needing to make stands and advance an agenda). Ryan's got both the spineless establishment man and conservative-leaning moderate in him. I really just hope America gets the failed experiment of Obamacare off its back, an SC justice from Trumps excellent list, and a secure border. This all before the populism vs conservatism fight begins in earnest and populist trade policy and domestic policy fails to deliver on its promises. You cannot Carrier deal an entire country or stimulus your way out of automation and cheap foreign labor, though you can make marginal improvements in domestic industries by lessening burdensome regulation. Pence knows it, Bannon doesn't.
what constitutes a "secure border"?
i.e. how would we measure whether the goal of a secure border has been met or not in your opinion?
i'd rather call obamacare fundamentally flawed than a failed experiment. as an experiment it hasn't failed because it hasn't even finished yet, so it's too early to call the result (from an experimental perspective)
|
It's pretty hard to view any long-term governmental policies as real "experiments" anyway because of the lack of a control condition. "Rates have gone up after Obamacare's passage" is as flawed an argument as saying the Star Wars program was a successful because the Soviet Union fell apart after it started.
It will be interesting to see if everything really does go tits-up if they really do try to finagle some way to keep pre-existing conditions in Republicare while removing the individual mandate, because that seems like it will just make everything worse in one way or another.
They might just do the boilerplate "Medicaid block grants to states" and "allow insurance across state lines" though, which are unlikely to really do anything super good or bad to the system as a whole (instead they'll just screw over some kinds of people).
|
I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's.
I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time.
He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.
I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth.
|
Nuclear modernization has already been an issue on the table, both because of aging technology and Russia's growing stockpile:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/23/obamas-new-rationale-for-1-trillion-nuclear-program-augurs-a-new-arms-race-with-russia/
The Obama administration has historically insisted that its massive $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program does not represent a return to Cold War-era nuclear rivalry between Russia and the United States.
The hugely expensive undertaking, which calls for a slew of new cruise missiles, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers over the next three decades, has been widely panned by critics as “wasteful,” “unsustainable,” “unaffordable,” and “a fantasy.”
The administration has pointed to aging missile silos, 1950s-era bombers, and other outdated technology to justify the spending, describing the steps as intended to maintain present capabilities going forward — not bulking up to prepare for a future confrontation.
Last year, speaking to NATO allies, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter insisted that “the Cold War playbook … is not suitable for the 21st century.”
But President Obama’s defense budget request for 2017 includes language that makes it clear that nuclear “modernization” really is about Russia after all.
The budget request explicitly cites Russian aggression, saying, “We are countering Russia’s aggressive policies through investments in a broad range of capabilities … [including] our nuclear arsenal.”
In December, Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, testified before Congress: “We are investing in the technologies that are most relevant to Russia’s provocations … to both deter nuclear attacks and reassure our allies.”
The public acknowledgement that Russia is the impetus for U.S. modernization has critics concerned the Cold War-era superpowers are now engaged in a “modernization” arms race.
|
On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. Show nested quote +He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth.
Trump will only have a primary challenge if he's deeply unpopular, and still he'd most likely win.
I think it's more likely that he decides not to run again, which is totally something I could see him doing.
|
On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. Show nested quote +He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth.
a fair number of people are equally uncouth.
he is rather of an outlier I suspect. he barely won this one. i'm sure some will try to copy him, but I doubt they'll succeed. trump wasn't really notably successful, and was in fact notably unsuccessful; he just ran against someone who had a very large hatedom (as well as some other factors).
personally I'd change some structural things, but most people don't seem to be actually trying to fix the problems that led to someone as unfit as trump being selected.
|
On December 29 2016 11:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. a fair number of people are equally uncouth. he is rather of an outlier I suspect. he barely won this one. i'm sure some will try to copy him, but I doubt they'll succeed. trump wasn't really notably successful, and was in fact notably unsuccessful; he just ran against someone who had a very large hatedom (as well as some other factors). personally I'd change some structural things, but most people don't seem to be actually trying to fix the problems that led to someone as unfit as trump being selected.
I actually wonder if a more polished populist could succeed in the future. Then you might need a Bernie equivalent to contend with him.
|
On December 29 2016 11:58 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 11:44 zlefin wrote:On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. a fair number of people are equally uncouth. he is rather of an outlier I suspect. he barely won this one. i'm sure some will try to copy him, but I doubt they'll succeed. trump wasn't really notably successful, and was in fact notably unsuccessful; he just ran against someone who had a very large hatedom (as well as some other factors). personally I'd change some structural things, but most people don't seem to be actually trying to fix the problems that led to someone as unfit as trump being selected. I actually wonder if a more polished populist could succeed in the future. Then you might need a Bernie equivalent to contend with him.
idunno. polished and populist kinda seem like they don't go together well.
you could just contend with one with a charismatic guy with a sound plan.
|
On December 29 2016 11:40 oBlade wrote:Nuclear modernization has already been an issue on the table, both because of aging technology and Russia's growing stockpile: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/23/obamas-new-rationale-for-1-trillion-nuclear-program-augurs-a-new-arms-race-with-russia/Show nested quote +The Obama administration has historically insisted that its massive $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program does not represent a return to Cold War-era nuclear rivalry between Russia and the United States.
The hugely expensive undertaking, which calls for a slew of new cruise missiles, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers over the next three decades, has been widely panned by critics as “wasteful,” “unsustainable,” “unaffordable,” and “a fantasy.”
The administration has pointed to aging missile silos, 1950s-era bombers, and other outdated technology to justify the spending, describing the steps as intended to maintain present capabilities going forward — not bulking up to prepare for a future confrontation.
Last year, speaking to NATO allies, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter insisted that “the Cold War playbook … is not suitable for the 21st century.”
But President Obama’s defense budget request for 2017 includes language that makes it clear that nuclear “modernization” really is about Russia after all.
The budget request explicitly cites Russian aggression, saying, “We are countering Russia’s aggressive policies through investments in a broad range of capabilities … [including] our nuclear arsenal.”
In December, Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, testified before Congress: “We are investing in the technologies that are most relevant to Russia’s provocations … to both deter nuclear attacks and reassure our allies.”
The public acknowledgement that Russia is the impetus for U.S. modernization has critics concerned the Cold War-era superpowers are now engaged in a “modernization” arms race.
"Deter nuclear attacks" you mean waste a trillion dollars on a program that will never work instead of spending money on improving strike capabilities?
To be fair they intend to improve those too - and that's perfectly valid and necessary. Doing so towards "first strike capability" against Russia would be a massive failure though.
Edit: looking over the actual details of the spending it looks like an awfully wasteful vanity project that won't do much good. Obama is basically proposing and funding rebuilding new shit instead of making incremental and inexpensive upgrades to existing nuclear weapons, and the price tag is ballooning very quickly. Also going for arsenal size over improved strike capabilities.
Those who said Trump's statement was stupid, you can rest easy knowing Obama is doing what Trump got widely panned for proposing. Living Trump's dream.
|
As a chemical physicist, fuck yeah nuclear modernization. Give me and my national labs that sweet moolah and watch us wreck shit. We and our physicist colleagues laid the smack down on Hiroshima and we'll do whatever the fuck you want if you just give us grants.
I have always held the belief that technological advancements in all directions and applications is ultimately inevitable and that our country should thus rush to be the first ones there.
Give us enough time and money and we'll find something better than nukes, whether it be less messy or more explosive. Trump plz.
|
It's too bad that much of our nuclear research infrastructure exists in cities that I would never want to live in. I had the chance to visit some of said labs before and their work was really great but the cities sucked ass and no sane person would choose to live there.
|
On December 29 2016 13:37 LegalLord wrote:
It's too bad that much of our nuclear research infrastructure exists in cities that I would never want to live in. I had the chance to visit some of said labs before and their work was really great but the cities sucked ass and no sane person would choose to live there.
Isn't there one in Colorado that's kind of not terrible? At least PNNL is in Washington~ The state responsible for helping Clinton be utterly humiliated this election~!~!
|
On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. Show nested quote +He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth.
On the bright side, Democrats (other than the ~30% of total Hillbots) know not to run Hillary again. Bernie's the most preferred specific option with "someone new" being the other leader.
Notably it's not Clinton, Warren, Deval Patrick, or Joe Biden that Democrats would prefer in 2020 over Bernie.
According to the same poll Obama and Trump have something in common, they are both more favorable than Hillary. No idea where Republicans are heading, but it seems most of the Democratic voters have learned their lesson.
|
On December 29 2016 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 13:37 LegalLord wrote:
It's too bad that much of our nuclear research infrastructure exists in cities that I would never want to live in. I had the chance to visit some of said labs before and their work was really great but the cities sucked ass and no sane person would choose to live there. Isn't there one in Colorado that's kind of not terrible? At least PNNL is in Washington~ The state responsible for helping Clinton be utterly humiliated this election~!~!
Yes, the renewable energy lab in Colorado. Not really the pinnacle of greatness. Map of DoE labs on the wiki page (yellow labs are the most important): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy_national_laboratories
Frankly most of the best work is in the New Mexico labs, and not just the national labs (there is some very good applied work by private contractors there too). One of the labs (Sandia) is in Albuquerque, a goddamn terrible city. The rest are in the middle of nowhere. You have the baby Sandia lab along with LLNL in California but they pay pretty shitty money for California and the New Mexico work is better anyways.
Long story short, if you like living a solitary life dedicated entirely to working on science, nuclear labs may be for you.
|
On December 29 2016 13:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. On the bright side, Democrats (other than the ~30% of total Hillbots) know not to run Hillary again. Bernie's the most preferred specific option with "someone new" being the other leader. Notably it's not Clinton, Warren, Deval Patrick, or Joe Biden that Democrats would prefer in 2020 over Bernie. According to the same poll Obama and Trump have something in common, they are both more favorable than Hillary. No idea where Republicans are heading, but it seems most of the Democratic voters have learned their lesson.
What poll are you referring to? In this Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll from the 21st of December, Sanders is definitely not the "most preferred specific option" for 2020 among Democrats and Independents (p. 6).
Other than "someone entirely new" (66.29% excited, 20.45% indifferent, 8.79% shouldn't run (+57,5% net)), the candidate with the biggest difference between those excited and those who think (s)he shouldn't run is Biden, with 43.45% - 22.36% - 31.15% (+12,3% net). Warren comes after him with 34.19% - 23.16% - 27.00% (+7,19% net -- she also has the highest proportion of respondents who've "never heard" of her after Deval Patrick). Sanders comes after them both with 43.61% - 16.77% - 38.18% (+5,43% net). Only if you solely take into account the "excited column" and completely ignore the "shouldn't run" column does Sanders edge out Biden, and it's by one respondent out of 626. Yet he actually received the second biggest proportion of "shouldn't run" responses after HRC (who's obviously not running again).
|
On December 29 2016 14:01 LegalLord wrote:
Long story short, if you like living a solitary life dedicated entirely to working on science, nuclear labs may be for you.
Big ole fuck that from me. I need trendy Thai food and the like. Big ole cities with lots of delicious food and people is essential for me.
On December 29 2016 14:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 13:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. On the bright side, Democrats (other than the ~30% of total Hillbots) know not to run Hillary again. Bernie's the most preferred specific option with "someone new" being the other leader. Notably it's not Clinton, Warren, Deval Patrick, or Joe Biden that Democrats would prefer in 2020 over Bernie. According to the same poll Obama and Trump have something in common, they are both more favorable than Hillary. No idea where Republicans are heading, but it seems most of the Democratic voters have learned their lesson. What poll are you referring to? In this Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll from the 21st of December, Sanders is definitely not the "most preferred specific option" for 2020 among Democrats and Independents (p. 6). Other than "someone entirely new" (66.29% excited, 20.45% indifferent, 8.79% shouldn't run (+57,5% net)), the candidate with the biggest difference between those excited and those who think (s)he shouldn't run is Biden, with 43.45% - 22.36% - 31.15% (+12,3% net). Warren comes after him with 34.19% - 23.16% - 27.00% (+7,19% net -- she also has the highest proportion of respondents who've "never heard" of her after Deval Patrick). Sanders comes after them both with 43.61% - 16.77% - 38.18% (+5,43% net). Only if you solely take into account the "excited column" and completely ignore the "shouldn't run" column does Sanders edge out Biden, and it's by one respondent out of 626. Yet he actually received the second biggest proportion of "shouldn't run" responses after HRC (who's obviously not running again).
Who would be your ideal 2020 candidate from democrats?
|
On December 29 2016 15:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 14:55 kwizach wrote:On December 29 2016 13:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. On the bright side, Democrats (other than the ~30% of total Hillbots) know not to run Hillary again. Bernie's the most preferred specific option with "someone new" being the other leader. Notably it's not Clinton, Warren, Deval Patrick, or Joe Biden that Democrats would prefer in 2020 over Bernie. According to the same poll Obama and Trump have something in common, they are both more favorable than Hillary. No idea where Republicans are heading, but it seems most of the Democratic voters have learned their lesson. What poll are you referring to? In this Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll from the 21st of December, Sanders is definitely not the "most preferred specific option" for 2020 among Democrats and Independents (p. 6). Other than "someone entirely new" (66.29% excited, 20.45% indifferent, 8.79% shouldn't run (+57,5% net)), the candidate with the biggest difference between those excited and those who think (s)he shouldn't run is Biden, with 43.45% - 22.36% - 31.15% (+12,3% net). Warren comes after him with 34.19% - 23.16% - 27.00% (+7,19% net -- she also has the highest proportion of respondents who've "never heard" of her after Deval Patrick). Sanders comes after them both with 43.61% - 16.77% - 38.18% (+5,43% net). Only if you solely take into account the "excited column" and completely ignore the "shouldn't run" column does Sanders edge out Biden, and it's by one respondent out of 626. Yet he actually received the second biggest proportion of "shouldn't run" responses after HRC (who's obviously not running again). Who would be your ideal 2020 candidate from democrats?
I don't have one yet.
edit: except for the most straightforward and unifying pick, obviously  + Show Spoiler +
|
I'd like to see someone completely new. The Democratic establishment kind of sucks, Warren is a one-trick pony, and Sanders is something of a stubborn leftist, which is not something I am fond of.
|
On December 29 2016 14:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 13:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. On the bright side, Democrats (other than the ~30% of total Hillbots) know not to run Hillary again. Bernie's the most preferred specific option with "someone new" being the other leader. Notably it's not Clinton, Warren, Deval Patrick, or Joe Biden that Democrats would prefer in 2020 over Bernie. According to the same poll Obama and Trump have something in common, they are both more favorable than Hillary. No idea where Republicans are heading, but it seems most of the Democratic voters have learned their lesson. What poll are you referring to? In this Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll from the 21st of December, Sanders is definitely not the "most preferred specific option" for 2020 among Democrats and Independents (p. 6). Other than "someone entirely new" (66.29% excited, 20.45% indifferent, 8.79% shouldn't run (+57,5% net)), the candidate with the biggest difference between those excited and those who think (s)he shouldn't run is Biden, with 43.45% - 22.36% - 31.15% (+12,3% net). Warren comes after him with 34.19% - 23.16% - 27.00% (+7,19% net -- she also has the highest proportion of respondents who've "never heard" of her after Deval Patrick). Sanders comes after them both with 43.61% - 16.77% - 38.18% (+5,43% net). Only if you solely take into account the "excited column" and completely ignore the "shouldn't run" column does Sanders edge out Biden, and it's by one respondent out of 626. Yet he actually received the second biggest proportion of "shouldn't run" responses after HRC (who's obviously not running again).
I guess I should have said the person with the most Democrats excited for them to run.
"someone entirely new" is a funny category though, one wonders if it's merely an "entirely new" vessel (seems almost mythical) or direction in general.
Are you sure about the bold part though?
|
On December 29 2016 15:11 LegalLord wrote:
I'd like to see someone completely new. The Democratic establishment kind of sucks, Warren is a one-trick pony, and Sanders is something of a stubborn leftist, which is not something I am fond of.
What about C Booker? His speech at the DNC was amazing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2631136/images/o-DEBBIE-WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ-facebook.jpg)
