|
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 February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes.
That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils.
|
On February 05 2014 06:24 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +You actually said that the price of gold isn't stable and predictable as if the underlying factors and properties of gold are constantly changing. When instead you have it completely backwards...the money supply and value of the $ is completely unpredictable and is constantly changing thanks to the Fed. What I find odd is that the price of gold is constantly changing (a lot) when the underlying factors and properties of gold are constant. The price of gold is driven by speculators, not it's qualities. Look at the charts again. Why has the price of gold fluctuated so drastically when the qualities of the metal have not changed? As for the value of currency, it is predictable because the Fed tries to make it predictable - they shoot for annual inflation of about 2% over time. This doesn't mean that it will always grow by 2% annually, but at least the mechanisms which affect it's value are well understood. Last time I used the term "predicable" you said something like "LOL you think it's 100% predictable newb!" or something, so to be clear I do not think it's certain, or even likely, that inflation will be 2% every year. However, I think it's a pretty safe bet that it will be close to that over time. Show nested quote +I see you also added another bit (in bold) I did not at first see because you edited your post so I'll address it now...
Of course price of gold is influenced to some degree by the costs to mine it. Again, LOL...you really just said that. The falling price of gold is a good reason why many of the gold mining companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. Earlier you said for some reason that the price of gold was steadily increasing, but now you claim that it is falling? Either way, if the price to mine gold was a significant factor in its price, why would mining companies be on the verge of bankruptcy? Show nested quote +One of the concerns of Bitcoin's future is that the cost to mine a single Bitcoin is just about the current price of Bitcoin. Go print a couple thousand Ben Franklin's in your basement...I'm sure it won't cost you more than 100 Ben Franklins. OK... and since the price to mine a single bitcoin is constant (I think? I don't really know much about bitcoin), I assume you think its price is stable? It may stabilize in the future, but during it's brief history it has bounced around a lot. If the cost of mining it was a significant factor in its price this wouldn't be the case. Just like if the cost of mining gold was a significant factor in its price it would also be stable rather than rising steadily or falling or whatever it is that you are claiming that it is doing.
Gold is a secured assets. It doesn't degrade itself over time, and it is pretty liquid (it is easy to sell it quite quickly on the market). You wonder why gold fluctuate so much, but just watch the prices for art, it is the same mecanism more or less. With more and more inequalities (which means more savings, due to the consumption function), a system that nobody trust anymore (since the crisis of 2008, but actually a lot of people "believed" that something was off way before) people feel protected in having savings in gold.
Each fluctuation that you see on the graph (inflation adjusted graph) can be interpreted with the proper historical context.
|
On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils.
whats the difference with the way it ends up working in Germany? You have a conservative party, a conservative party who thinks its too cool to join the rest and so 'independently' represents Bavaria and then a gaggle of leftist parties. But in the end its a Conservative Coalition vs. Liberation Coalition. Which is what American politics is too.
|
On February 05 2014 06:33 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils. whats the difference with the way it ends up working in Germany? You have a conservative party, a conservative party who thinks its too cool to join the rest and so 'independently' represents Bavaria and then a gaggle of leftist parties. But in the end its a Conservative Coalition vs. Liberation Coalition. Which is what American politics is too.
Well but our conservative party isn't really conservative anymore. That's probably the only reason they're so successful. Actually you'll often hear that the CDU was "sozialdemokratisiert" (social - democratized), because to be honest, conservative social policies are just full of crap. The amount of science denial and delusion that comes out of the GOP is ridiculous.
The CDU's public opinion is basically : "They're pretty neutral on cultural and social issues, but know how to handle money". If the Republicans would come up with someone along those lines I think they could win the next election given the fact that Obama is pretty unpopular. But if they come up with Donald Trump the election is probably going to end worse than the last one.
|
On February 05 2014 05:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida measure that would allow the use of medical marijuana has cleared its final hurdle and will be on the November ballot.
The state Supreme Court on Monday approved the language for the proposed constitutional amendment.
The justices approved the ballot summary 4-3 just three days after a petition drive reached the required number of signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
The decision is a defeat for Attorney General Pam Bondi, who challenged the ballot language by saying it's misleading.
Channel 9's Greg Warmoth has been following the issue since November when he flew to California to cover it.
Now that the final hurdle has been cleared, it's up to the voters in Florida and attorney John Morgan told Warmoth research polling shows that a large majority of Florida voters will vote "yes" on medical marijuana.
Morgan poured $2.8 million into the effort this fall to get the vote on the ballot. In fact, his family and law firm accounted for 83 percent of the legalization effort's entire budget. Source
In the #1 state for prescription fraud and doctor shopping,... "Medical" marijuana is a joke. Just legalize it. Seriously.
|
On February 05 2014 06:33 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils. whats the difference with the way it ends up working in Germany? You have a conservative party, a conservative party who thinks its too cool to join the rest and so 'independently' represents Bavaria and then a gaggle of leftist parties. But in the end its a Conservative Coalition vs. Liberation Coalition. Which is what American politics is too.
You can vote for specific parts of that coalition, which gives those a stronger position to achieve more of their goals in coalition talks, instead of just saying "I vote republican", and then basically voting for all of that parties program even if you don't agree with most of it.
For example, you could vote CDU if you are more interested in their core issues, or FDP if you are more a fan of the small government/corporate idea.
Or if you are more on the left side of the spectrum, you got multiple choices too depending on what your issues are.
But more importantly, it is actually possible for new parties to emerge, instead of having to basically be a movement that tries to move an existing party into the direction they desire just because it is utterly impossible for a third party to ever become relevant.
Though i agree that it would be nice if some parties wouldn't always fall in the same role in coalitions, and instead looking for where they can actually achieve most of their own goals instead of basically always being the coalitions. But in general, i think that a multi-party system fundamentally leads to a much better political climate then a two-party system, simply because it opens up some repercussions for lazy parties. Like the FDP nearly vanishing into obscurity in the last election due to mismanagement and fundamentally having a position that is not that attractive to most germans. Or the emergence of the greens, which lead an actual voice in the parliament for a political movement, because it actually touched on issues that the other parties didn't, and which were important to a significant portion of the population.
|
Is there allowed to be a 3rd party in federal american politics?
|
On February 05 2014 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 06:33 Sub40APM wrote:On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils. whats the difference with the way it ends up working in Germany? You have a conservative party, a conservative party who thinks its too cool to join the rest and so 'independently' represents Bavaria and then a gaggle of leftist parties. But in the end its a Conservative Coalition vs. Liberation Coalition. Which is what American politics is too. Well but our conservative party isn't really conservative anymore. That's probably the only reason they're so successful. Actually you'll often hear that the CDU was "sozialdemokratisiert" (social - democratized), because to be honest, conservative social policies are just full of crap. The amount of science denial and delusion that comes out of the GOP is ridiculous. The CDU's public opinion is basically : "They're pretty neutral on cultural and social issues, but know how to handle money". If the Republicans would come up with someone along those lines I think they could win the next election given the fact that Obama is pretty unpopular. But if they come up with Donald Trump the election is probably going to end worse than the last one. so basically you just have one party that represents the middle? Canada has the same thing. The party in power is the middle of the road on everything, then the very act of being in power causes them to become lazy and incompetent, thus allowing the next, equally centrist guys to take over and stay in power for a prolonged period of time before becoming incompetent and lazy and getting replaced by a nominally different but policies wise very similar party.
|
On February 05 2014 06:50 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 06:33 Sub40APM wrote:On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils. whats the difference with the way it ends up working in Germany? You have a conservative party, a conservative party who thinks its too cool to join the rest and so 'independently' represents Bavaria and then a gaggle of leftist parties. But in the end its a Conservative Coalition vs. Liberation Coalition. Which is what American politics is too. You can vote for specific parts of that coalition, which gives those a stronger position to achieve more of their goals in coalition talks, instead of just saying "I vote republican", and then basically voting for all of that parties program even if you don't agree with most of it. For example, you could vote CDU if you are more interested in their core issues, or FDP if you are more a fan of the small government/corporate idea. Or if you are more on the left side of the spectrum, you got multiple choices too depending on what your issues are. But more importantly, it is actually possible for new parties to emerge, instead of having to basically be a movement that tries to move an existing party into the direction they desire just because it is utterly impossible for a third party to ever become relevant. Though i agree that it would be nice if some parties wouldn't always fall in the same role in coalitions, and instead looking for where they can actually achieve most of their own goals instead of basically always being the coalitions. But in general, i think that a multi-party system fundamentally leads to a much better political climate then a two-party system, simply because it opens up some repercussions for lazy parties. Like the FDP nearly vanishing into obscurity in the last election due to mismanagement and fundamentally having a position that is not that attractive to most germans. Or the emergence of the greens, which lead an actual voice in the parliament for a political movement, because it actually touched on issues that the other parties didn't, and which were important to a significant portion of the population.
do the smaller parties in a coalition actually get to put forward their program? Because if not again, its no different than the Republican/Democrat split. For example, there used to be Republicans who didnt care about social issues but they became weaker and weaker and finally disappeared while religious Republicans with their superior organization took over the party and made it much more efficient in the short term. Now they've lost 2 presidential elections and chances are pretty strong they'll nose a third one in '16 and go away too. As far as I can tell in your example the difference is that voters 'feel' better in Germany because the negotiations are done in the open instead of in some hotel room. Outcome seems the same.
|
Usually, coalition negotiations involve both positions in government (party A gets ministry x, y and z while party B gets ministry u, v and w) and policy, meaning the coalition agrees to do a, b and c out of one parties program, and d, e and f out of the other parties.
Depending on how many votes they gained, the parties negotiating position varies. There is a huge difference between what a 5% party can get in a 45/5 coalition, and what a 15% party can get in a 35/15 coalition.
That is the short term. And as i said before, in the long term this sort of system is a lot more flexible to change for large swings in issues, because it allows a new party to just appear based on a new issue which is relevant to the people, and which none of the established parties touch.
Anyways, we probably should stop talking about this considering this is the US politics thread, not the german politics thread. I am sorry i brought it up.
|
On February 05 2014 05:45 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida measure that would allow the use of medical marijuana has cleared its final hurdle and will be on the November ballot.
The state Supreme Court on Monday approved the language for the proposed constitutional amendment.
The justices approved the ballot summary 4-3 just three days after a petition drive reached the required number of signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
The decision is a defeat for Attorney General Pam Bondi, who challenged the ballot language by saying it's misleading.
Channel 9's Greg Warmoth has been following the issue since November when he flew to California to cover it.
Now that the final hurdle has been cleared, it's up to the voters in Florida and attorney John Morgan told Warmoth research polling shows that a large majority of Florida voters will vote "yes" on medical marijuana.
Morgan poured $2.8 million into the effort this fall to get the vote on the ballot. In fact, his family and law firm accounted for 83 percent of the legalization effort's entire budget. Source I wonder how quickly the marijuana legalization program is going to go. Danglers, Introvert, xDaunt, you are my conservative newssources, is anyone super angry about ganja being legal on your end? Is it a Muslim conspiracy to weaken America's resolve and make it open to Communist infiltration? Because if not seems like the momentum is there for it being moved off the schedule 1 drug list, the only people being viciously opposed would be the special interests who benefit from current laws (DEA? the tobacco companies?)
Decriminalize it federally and let the states decide how they want to handle the details.
Sorry to requote my question but i really, really wonder how the republican voters think they can get it this time when like.. nothing changed since the election (baring a giant scandal and stuff like that).
We are still in 2014...things have changed and they will continue to change (see the polls). Obama lost a large % of the vote compared to '08, it's shortsighted to say that since he won in 2012 that nothing will change from now on out. I personally think that overall dissatisfaction with government will be enough, so long as the Republicans show themselves actually be opposed to the crap in DC, instead of just the other side of a coin. Even though Hillary is a woman, I don't think she's going to have that "OMG, I FEEL COOL FOR VOTING FOR A POLITICAL MINORITY" factor. At least I hope not. So, maybe this time we may actually get to debate some substance. I do expect the "war on women" train to continue from the left, so the Republicans are going to have to counter that effectively.
Yes, they were way too conservative. Look at how the public opinion of the GOP went down after the government shutdown. What is "more conservative" than McCain even meaning? A guy with a gun in his hand and an eagle on his shoulder? If the GOP wants to win an election again they'll need a moderate candidate, especially on social and technological stances. The majority of the US is not going to elect an "anti - gay marriage, anti - abortion I'd like to know what goes on in your bedroom" kind of guy.
Maybe a female "down to earth" version of Mitt Romney wouldn't be a bad idea.(If someone like that exists)
The two aren't related. Disliking the shutdown =/= disliking conservatism. Besides, people are constantly overdoing the shutdown. NO ONE CARES. Though I do think that Cruz made a good decision, he can position himself for when this whole thing explodes. If it doesn't, then he's wrong and he will lose.
Have you not yet figured out how McCain is nowhere near the epitome of conservatism? Has that not been discussed here before? The most recent example is when he criticized conservatives (called Cruz a "wackobird"). Yea, he's really conservative. He's a Republican first.
The Republicans keep picking moderates! It might amaze TL, but most people don't vote based on gay marriage and abortion. Most people in the last election voted on economic issues, and as long as things remain stagnant, all this other "oppressed minority" crap will take a backseat. You are just using broad stereotypes, given the language of this post- thanks.
Nothing much has changed except voter ID laws which is the GOP last best chance to secure election wins despite it being a poisoned chalice. The GOP are slowly becoming an obsolete party and they know it is happening but refuse to change or look in the mirror to address it's problems.
The best part is that it's really hard for the left to find people truly affected by voter ID laws. If they can do everything needed to become or participate as a citizen they can pick up a photo ID at an office.
But I agree with your last sentence, though I'm sure we disagree on the solution.
For Introvert/Dangelrs a conservative would be someone who: Undoes a significant portion of Supreme Court legislation grounded on the commerce clause, disbands a significant portion of the federal government, ends or significantly curtails social security and medicare and also grants significantly more power to individual states. They would also probably be okay with some kind of mass arrest and deportation of latinos. Danglers seems the more social conservative so I think the end of abortion laws and re-criminalization of homosexuality would be okay with him. Also, all taxes would be slashed and all property of individual Americans that could be better used by American corporations would be seized immediately.
This is nice tongue in cheek assessment 
Just because I haven't given my opinion on social issues doesn't mean I'm a moderate in that regard, I don't know how you could make that statement :p
As a conservative, my ideal president would not undo "Supreme Court legislation grounded on the commerce clause" because A) he doesn't have that power, and B) because the Court doesn't (technically) write legislation He would certainly veto any bills that expand government authority in that area, however. And don't forget the General Welfare clause!
While much of what you listed is a good ultimate goal, I recognize that it will take ages to dismantle the garbage we have now. I'm not opposed to social programs (if they can be constitutionally justified), but if they are to continue, they must be small, and immigration must monitored carefully. If you have a welfare state you must ensure that those receiving it have contributed a substantial amount before they reap the benefits.
They would also probably be okay with some kind of mass arrest and deportation of latinos.
That's a little (a lot) unfair. I'd be ok with, if it were even possible, to deport illegals- not Latinos. Don't lump the legal with the lawbreakers. This country has a rich history of immigration, I love it. I don't like lawbreakers, however.
Abortion laws can be left to the states. The Court's ruling on it was stupid, but I can't change that. Also, there are situations (like life of the mother) where I can see the argument for it. Every husband I know would choose their wife over their kid, so I get it. So don't use such broad statements.
Gay marriage: states. Whatever my own opinions in it's morality, this is the best way to handle it. The 14th amendment doesn't need to go through another contortion to fulfill the social whims of the left. (Things are changing anyway, why does it need to go through the court system?)
Yes, of course taxes would be low- the government would be small.
a literal donkey would have won against mccain palin after 8 years of bush. pls.
And yet McCain got more overall votes than Romney. Something is quite wrong there.
Is there allowed to be a 3rd party in federal american politics?
Yes, there are lots of other parties. None of them are within a galaxy's length if winning anything, however.
|
Alot of people care about the shutdown actually; to some it's one of the most blatantly irresponsible things to happen in quite some time.
And cruz IS a wackobird; or rather an unworthy and untrustworthy narcissist seeking only his own aggrandizement rather than the good of the country (but quite effective at that goal).
Sadly most people are unwilling to seriously reshape the nature of democracy and keep using poor designs. Most current setups are asking for con-artists to get into power.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Kind of cute, but I'm skeptical that John Kerry is a good control for Barack Obama : )
|
|
|
A stormwater pipe under an unlined coal ash pond at a shuttered plant in Eden, North Carolina, burst Sunday afternoon — draining tens of thousands of tons of coal ash into the Dan River.
Duke Energy, which owns the Dan River Steam Station, retired since 2012, estimates that 50,000 to 82,000 tons of coal ash and up to 27 million gallons of water were released from the 27-acre storage pond. The leak has at least temporarily been stopped, while Duke works on a more permanent solution. Coal ash is a toxic waste byproduct from burning coal, usually stored with water in large ponds.
The closest community at risk from the spill is Danville, Virginia, which takes its water from the Dan River about six miles downstream of the pond. No water quality issues have been reported so far.
“This is the latest, loudest alarm bell yet that Duke should not be storing coal ash in antiquated pits near our state’s waterways,” Frank Holleman, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) told the Charlotte Business Journal.
SELC and others have been calling for Duke to remove ash from earthen basins such as the one at Dan River to more secure lined ponds to protect local water sources. Duke has 14 coal-fired power plants in the state, 7 of which have been retired.
Source
|
The answer to that pesky water pollution is obviously less regulation. Hopefully, the existing treatment facilities can handle it without too much issue.
Feel bad for the fish, though.
|
On February 05 2014 05:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 05:23 Sub40APM wrote:On February 05 2014 03:17 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 18:27 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 18:20 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 18:01 Sub40APM wrote:On February 04 2014 17:41 Introvert wrote:On February 04 2014 15:33 Danglars wrote:
Well, Seb40EPM, everybody who ran or said they were considering running in 2012 minus Mitt Romney (unless he changes his mind) and Cain. It's not the conservative party, it's the Republican party, my preferred candidates are the most conservative I hold any hope for.
Against a Biden or Clinton, I'd support a Cruz, Paul (Rand), Trump, Ryan, Gingrich. Longest of the long shots Bolton, Ben Carson, Huntsman, DeMint. If they decided to run, Cuccinelli, Issa, Jindal, Palin (Flame On!), Rubio, Walker, West, Bachmann.
I couldn't get behind a Christie, or a Huckabee, or many of the rest of possibilities I didn't mention. As good as Bush was on terrorism, he was a big government type that grew it and paved the way for some of Obama's excesses; I don't want another Bush. Christie's opposition to Obamacare was hardly present and that issue remains big in my mind.
Of course if Coolidge and Reagan are any indication, we should be due another conservative guy I REALLY like in 2030. I hope I'm not voting for "the other guy" sometime before then. I like your choices, but then again who wouldn't I vote for instead of Hillary? It's kind of tainting the whole thing... I'm kind of surprised, it would not have amazed me to find out I was the only one who would vote for Palin if it came down to it... Paul Ryan has proven he's soft on some things (* cough* immigration *cough*), so I'd take Cruz or Paul before him. Despite the conventional wisdom in this thread, I think either of them has a good shot at wining. Recall, everyone said Reagan "couldn't win", "look at what happened to Goldwater", etc. Good parallels too, Reagan made the establishment very angry when he ran in a primary against Ford. He lost, but it was hardly by a large margin (it was decent, but for a sitting president?)...I think they even blamed him for Ford's loss by dragging out the primary. Some interesting modern parallels can be made. Cuccinelli would be good, but he lost the governors race, I don't think we'll see him this time. Same- Christie and Huckabee are dead last. We have people as least as conservative as Reagan and maybe even Coolidge now, and I think if Obamacare is bad enough, we'll get a conservative before 2030. I hope. Don't drag me back in haha, I hear from Introvert you already hashed and rehashed it all so I'm backing out. I would necessarily defend my interpretation and re-issue what I find wrong with yours, and here I would be violating your own advice ... for I do feel very comfortable as well with my position. I think I debated it with Roe? Or was it that other guy, DoubleReed? Anyway, it's been hashed out, though at the slightest prompting I would take it up again. I can't help it. I meant more on the theme of who do you think it will be, not who would you vote for. I think you have to try really really hard to think there will be a Reagan moment -- at the end of the day he was governor of California not a Southern state. It will be interesting to see who the establishment will pick if Christie doesn't work. It might be Huckabee. In terms of Conservatives- Cruz is running, as is Rand. We may see Walker as well. I think Ryan will be in it. I don't think Rubio will...his name was there for a while, but after the immigration debacle he lost a lot of pull. He might be the establishment choice if it comes down to it (to appease the Tea Party), but I think he's a little down the line. Jindal may run too. It's really early, so it's hard to tell. I'm not an expert so I look for the obvious like Christie, Paul, and Cruz. Honestly, I can only say that 3 or 4 are for sure running right now. As to the Reagan comment, I would just say that it's hard to know. He really was the last time the establishment was pushed this hard, so that's the main similarity I see. That and the general down feeling in the country. Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see what that last bit has to do with anything. Anyone can win, look at Obama. A one term senator plucked from obscurity. Cruz and Paul are not governors either, they are in similar positions to the one Obama was in. They don't need to be a high profile governor, they've already made their mark. I think a "Reagan moment" is not for sure, but it is possible. Ya but Obama also clearly is an excellent electioneer, whatever else you want to say about him the guy crushed the Clinton machine completely and utterly and then won one of the most improbable elections in '12. Ya the Republicans went out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot but he definitely wakes up for the elections. After that disaster show that was the GOP primary I wonder who would be as solid in the other side. I think your assessment of the Obama campaign is quite good and is a valid point. Certainly no Republican is as charismatic as him or Reagan. Perhaps since we are no longer in the 20s, to get anyone who runs on a extreme agenda elected, one needs charisma. And I agree that neither Paul or Cruz has an overabundance of it... The great thing is though, Hillary doesn't either! So that isn't as much of an issue. Also, Obama was hardly invincible, his victory margin (in the popular vote) was much lower than 2008, and (I haven't checked the numbers on this) but if everyone who voted for McCain in '08 had actually voted in 2012 Romney could have won! (or been MUCH closer.) Which brings me to... Out of interest:
What exactly did change since the last election when the republicans seemed to live in their own imaginationland were they had good chances?
Yeah, Obamacare implementation was bad, but so was the (useless) goverment shutdown and as far as i can tell the blame for the incapable congress also falls more on the republicans?
You also had problems getting Women to vote for you… Has this changed in any way? Did you get the hispanic vote back? What changed?
You just got wrecked 2 times due to having candidates that had to act way too conservative in the pre-elections and had to nominate vice presidential candidates that make « moderate » people cringe just to get the conservative vote (which reps would/should get anyway ?)…
Now your suggesting to get these hardliners on the ticket directly? When they allready most likely were a good enough reason for many people to not vote for McCain and Romney? Who even remembers the government shutdown? Who is going to vote on it? I think Cruz is actually quite smart, Obamacare is going to be such a large issue both this year and 2016 that him being associated with the shutdown will be a great boon to him. He can say that he stood against it to the end when no one else (except Mike Lee) would. I hate playing the group game- "can they get this group and that group?" Women, I don't know what to do about. Someone has to intelligently present the argument of small government and personal responsibility to those women who apparently vote on the issue of birth control, abortion, and the small wage gap. For Hispanics, I think the Republicans won't win them for decades. Reagan granted amnesty in his last term and Bush Sr. still got a crappy percentage of the vote. The Democrats always manage to take credit for anything that benefits minorities. Ironic, considering their history. I want to know what imagination land you live in that a party needs the majority of both groups to win. Romney and McCain didn't lose because they were too conservative. Obama didn't win that way! He won by taking a far left tact and getting his vote out. He LOST the independent vote last time. But I don't even want to argue this point. In the world where most of TL seems to live, McCain and Romney were two extreme conservatives. Due to "internet culture" I always take a liberal's assessment of candidate viability and what counts as "extreme" with a very large pallet of salt. When 90% of the people you interact agree with you, it can alter your perception on these issues. Obama didnt win in '12 because of charisma, he won because he ran a much more efficient electoral campaign. Getting out his voters to vote is exactly how Bush got re-elected in '04. Romney, despite all his vaunted experience as a super duper genius manager and a staff of elite, well educated technocrats floundered completely in that field. And Romney was the most organized of the lot. Just makes me wonder, who has the technical skills to fight a modern election these days. And this applies to Clinton too, the 08 primary was hers from the beginning and she just assumed the coronation was complete and let her team of friends-employees muck it all up. I agree that in 2012 he didn't win that way- that's how he won the first time, which is the situation we are currently discussing (since it will have to be a newcomer). Charisma is needed when one is an unknown and has no record at the time, like Obama. But Hillary has a record and Cruz/Paul have made names for themselves. And none of them are particularly charismatic. But I agree that Obama won in 2012 due to his get out the vote stuff. That also relates back to my point that Romney/McCain didn't lose because they were "too conservative" it was because (IMO) they failed to be conservative enough to pull voters to them. Romney got fewer votes than McCain despite winning independents, so he clearly failed on that front. Exactly. Obama came in promising every liberal dream from the past 50 years. McCain and Romney promised ... nothing to speak of. Even when they tried to talk the tough conservative talk, it sounded unnatural. Motivate the base is what Democrats do. Republicans compromise until they're promising 75% of the same stuff Democrats do ... and give people the easy choice of voting the Democrats that are 100% behind that stuff. As Sowell says, When it comes to national elections, just what principles do the Republicans stand for? It is hard to think of any, other than their hoping to win elections by converting themselves into Democrats lite. But voters who want what the Democrats offer can vote for the real thing, rather than Johnny-come-lately imitations.
Romney picked Ryan to boost his conservative cred. He was on life support beforehand. Same with McCain and Palin, and many conservatives voted in the hopes of a vibrant vice-president. If the big Republican donors get behind a Christie or a McCain, we'll have a 2016 election all about voting against the policies of the last 8 years, and not for anything. I'd give anything for a guy telling us what he believes will fix the country, and not checking "N/A" for political beliefs.
|
On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils. Then the 7 parties all sit together and form a coalition that does the exact same thing as last time. I'd rather elections that change things, that respond to how well they represented their citizens, than elections that are mere wrinkles in the same cloth. The problem in our two-party system does boil down to both parties paying off their constituents electing them with pork, and a population out of touch with US history, unable or unwilling to form large-scale opposition to corrupt candidates and failed policies.
|
On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils.
I think we're a two party system because that's how the politics works out. R's and D's are prepackaged coalitions that occasionally change and keep the other in check. If one were to divide the other could dominate, and so they don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
