|
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 May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it!
I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her.
I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary.
|
In regards to sanders age: has he done a thorough health screening to look for possible problems?
That's something I'd in general always like from older candidates, a good look at their current heath status, checks for stuff that may not be apparent.
|
What if Warren ends up being his running mate? One can dream.
|
On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary.
I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her.
However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race.
|
On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race.
I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination
|
Personally I think the only reason Warren isn't going to run the next 2 elections is because she can't play the sex card vs Clinton.
|
On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination
Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate.
1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage.
2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing.
3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well.
These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing.
|
On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing.
I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle?
|
On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle?
Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz.
Edit:
I'm actually more interested in why you disagree with the analysis.
|
On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz.
Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates.
lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though.
He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's (white guy) numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote.
|
On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing.
a voting system where those are relevant points looks like a very bad one for representing the whole country and not only swingvoters in swing states....
|
On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote.
it's not about independents, it's about swing voters. they're not the same.
|
On May 19 2015 07:53 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote. it's not about independents, it's about swing voters. they're not the same.
Replace independent with swing voter and the statement is still true, though I don't understand what distinction you are thinking would make a difference anyway?
|
On May 19 2015 08:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:53 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:
[quote]So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run?
I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote. it's not about independents, it's about swing voters. they're not the same. Replace independent with swing voter and the statement is still true, though I don't understand what distinction you are thinking would make a difference anyway?
just the sentiment that people who go out to vote tend to be a bit conservative relative to the independent average, which in itself is large enough margin that would cause significant vote differential. Also swing voters also tend to be less educated, so terms like "socialist" are often used in a negative context would also hurt. Sanders doesn't have the public name recognition that his right wing counterparts would have as well, which also is a big reason swing voter vote.
|
On May 19 2015 08:05 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 08:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:53 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her.
I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary.
I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote. it's not about independents, it's about swing voters. they're not the same. Replace independent with swing voter and the statement is still true, though I don't understand what distinction you are thinking would make a difference anyway? just the sentiment that people who go out to vote tend to be a bit conservative relative to the independent average, which in itself is large enough margin that would cause significant vote differential. Also swing voters also tend to be less educated, so terms like "socialist" are often used in a negative context would also hurt. Sanders doesn't have the public name recognition that his right wing counterparts would have as well, which also is a big reason swing voter vote.
I guess I see what your saying and it might be right, but this is probably one of the last elections where that will be true. Younger voters are overwhelmingly to the left of the republican party and all those more conservative seniors will be moving on.
If the Republican party doesn't move left to keep up with it's changing demographics young voters will have no choice but to defect in large numbers.
|
On May 19 2015 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 08:05 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 08:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:53 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her.
However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote. it's not about independents, it's about swing voters. they're not the same. Replace independent with swing voter and the statement is still true, though I don't understand what distinction you are thinking would make a difference anyway? just the sentiment that people who go out to vote tend to be a bit conservative relative to the independent average, which in itself is large enough margin that would cause significant vote differential. Also swing voters also tend to be less educated, so terms like "socialist" are often used in a negative context would also hurt. Sanders doesn't have the public name recognition that his right wing counterparts would have as well, which also is a big reason swing voter vote. I guess I see what your saying and it might be right, but this is probably one of the last elections where that will be true. Younger voters are overwhelmingly to the left of the republican party and all those more conservative seniors will be moving on. If the Republican party doesn't move left to keep up with it's changing demographics young voters will have no choice but to defect in large numbers.
Gerrymandering is screwing over Republican's chances of ever winning a presidential election, but it makes them easier to hold more seats in the house.
|
On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a report Monday morning detailing decades of failed trade enforcement by American presidents including Barack Obama, the latest salvo in an ongoing public feud between Warren and Obama over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Obama is currently negotiating the major trade pact with 11 other nations. While the text of the TPP agreement remains classified information, it is strongly supported by Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobbying groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The deal is opposed by most congressional Democrats, along with labor unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom.
Obama has repeatedly insisted the TPP will include robust labor protections, and has dismissed Warren's criticisms as "dishonest," "bunk" and "misinformation." On Monday, Warren fired back, showing that Obama simply has not effectively enforced existing labor standards in prior trade pacts. According to the report, a host of abuses, from child labor to the outright murder of union organizers, have continued under Obama's watch with minimal pushback from the administration.
"The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreements," the report reads, citing analyses from the Government Accountability Office, the State Department and the Department of Labor.
Of the 20 countries the U.S. currently has trade agreements with, 11 have documented reliance on child labor, forced labor or other human rights abuses related to labor, according to the report. The violations are not confined to exploitation. Since Obama finalized a labor action plan with the government of Colombia in 2011, 105 union activists have been murdered. Obama called the Colombian deal "a win-win for workers" at the time.
Despite these trade violations, none of these countries has faced significant consequences from the United States government. Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's (white guy) numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote.
The Ted Cruz white thing is an advantage in that the media, if he were the nominee (highly unlikely), would not be able to accuse him of racism for his anti-immigration stances (which they would). Deflecting accusations of racism/sexism, as a Republican, or having the media levy them against your opponent, as a Democrat, is likely to be an important part of 2016.
Also I don't see how Sanders is closer to the swing voter on issues. He claims to be to the left of Hillary/Obama, who have had a great deal of campaign success by not staking out liberal positions, and instead talked to the right of where they govern from.
On May 19 2015 08:12 wei2coolman wrote:
Gerrymandering is screwing over Republican's chances of ever winning a presidential election, but it makes them easier to hold more seats in the house.
Unlikely. It has significantly drained the Democratic bench in swing states. The Democrats this election cycle are Hillary or bust. If you look at electoral votes just in governorships you would also see that this is untrue. Their real problem appears to be an inability to produce a top-level candidate right now.
|
On May 19 2015 08:15 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2015 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run? I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's (white guy) numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote. The Ted Cruz white thing is an advantage in that the media, if he were the nominee (highly unlikely), would not be able to accuse him of racism for his anti-immigration stances (which they would). Deflecting accusations of racism/sexism, as a Republican, or having the media levy them against your opponent, as a Democrat, is likely to be an important part of 2016. Also I don't see how Sanders is closer to the swing voter on issues. He claims to be to the left of Hillary/Obama, who have had a great deal of campaign success by not staking out liberal positions, and instead talked to the right of where they govern from.
Oh wow. Not sure how many times this needs to be said before people stop saying crap like this. His heritage doesn't stop him from being racist. Though I guess the ignorant position that people can't be racist against their own race is still prevalent enough that it would make a difference, sadly...
Many issues where the republicans are in the minority of American voters (either openly or by default from disagreeing without an alternative or just avoiding it altogether) Sanders has the majority opinion or something closer than the republican alternative.
|
On May 19 2015 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 08:15 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:26 Danglars wrote:
[quote]So is she using this position contrast to set up for a presidential run?
I'm also interested in seeing whatever the hell this trade agreement is. It's strongly supported by this political party and these corporate groups and special interests but the common man hasn't seen it! I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her. I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary. I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's (white guy) numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote. The Ted Cruz white thing is an advantage in that the media, if he were the nominee (highly unlikely), would not be able to accuse him of racism for his anti-immigration stances (which they would). Deflecting accusations of racism/sexism, as a Republican, or having the media levy them against your opponent, as a Democrat, is likely to be an important part of 2016. Also I don't see how Sanders is closer to the swing voter on issues. He claims to be to the left of Hillary/Obama, who have had a great deal of campaign success by not staking out liberal positions, and instead talked to the right of where they govern from. Oh wow. Not sure how many times this needs to be said before people stop saying crap like this. His heritage doesn't stop him from being racist. Though I guess the ignorant position that people can't be racist against their own race is still prevalent enough that it would make a difference, sadly... Many issues where the republicans are in the minority of American voters (either openly or by default from disagreeing without an alternative or just avoiding it altogether) Sanders has the majority opinion or something closer than the republican alternative.
Excellent, you've identified the part I'm talking about. The "ignorant" (see media) position, is what matters in this case.
Also, although I don't mind it, Sanders' "stumbling" style when answering questions or asking them would play terribly in a national debate in the minds of low-info voters, which is what swing voters are.
|
On May 19 2015 08:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 08:15 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:34 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 07:17 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 06:58 cLutZ wrote:On May 19 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think she sincerely believes she can do more in the Senate and the political backlash of pissing on the Clinton's isn't worth it to her.
I really don't think she intends on running and would only do so if Hillary failed so hard the party demanded it and Bernie for some reason struggled with the female vote, sans Hillary.
I agree she is clearly avoiding the race because the Clinton machine is very powerful and she doesn't have the race issue to play like Obama (rift is still there), so losing would be extremely painful and likely for her. However I think you seem to be vastly overrating Sanders et al, if Clinton was out Warren would likely jump in at the drop of a hat, if only because she would be the only plausible national candidate in the race. I don't think we are disagreeing, other than on Sanders' viability. Just curious what you and other people think is the republican parallel to Sanders as far as viability in a 1 on 1 national election. I think we are in agreement that without Hillary or Warren, Sanders wins the democratic nomination Sanders is the equivalent of an old Mike Lee, or a Pat Roberts, in other words, not even a useful VP candidate. 1. White male: No pandering/victim-hood advantage. 2. From a small, locked up state (Vermont/Utah): No local electoral swing. 3. Views solidly outside the swing-voter mainstream. And lacking appeal to those voters as well. These sorts of candidates would be lucky to reproduce Bob Dole's 1996 showing. I'm thinking I'm disagreeing with your analysis, but I was looking for one from this election cycle? Huckabee. Or a white Ted Cruz. Ok yeah, I think you are way off. Sanders has a lot more positions that are a lot closer to independents than either of those candidates. lol @ white Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz heritage might net him a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote if he's lucky. Ted Cruz loses the Hispanic vote by double digits like every other republican would though. He couldn't even hold on to Cornyn's (white guy) numbers from 08 where they still lost by double digits in the Hispanic vote. The Ted Cruz white thing is an advantage in that the media, if he were the nominee (highly unlikely), would not be able to accuse him of racism for his anti-immigration stances (which they would). Deflecting accusations of racism/sexism, as a Republican, or having the media levy them against your opponent, as a Democrat, is likely to be an important part of 2016. Also I don't see how Sanders is closer to the swing voter on issues. He claims to be to the left of Hillary/Obama, who have had a great deal of campaign success by not staking out liberal positions, and instead talked to the right of where they govern from. Oh wow. Not sure how many times this needs to be said before people stop saying crap like this. His heritage doesn't stop him from being racist. Though I guess the ignorant position that people can't be racist against their own race is still prevalent enough that it would make a difference, sadly... Many issues where the republicans are in the minority of American voters (either openly or by default from disagreeing without an alternative or just avoiding it altogether) Sanders has the majority opinion or something closer than the republican alternative. Excellent, you've identified the part I'm talking about. The "ignorant" (see media) position, is what matters in this case.
My guess is if hell froze over and we ended up with a Cruz nomination news outlets would just take the fox news playbook and get people of that race call them racist. More importantly the Hispanic vote isn't influenced by race in anyway similar to the impact race had with the black vote and Obama. Even with Carson at the top of the polls he's barely in the double digits for the black vote. Even in a Carson vs Sanders election Republicans wouldn't get 40% of the black vote. The only reason this election isn't already over is that Bush proved Republicans can get almost 50% of the Hispanic vote so it's plausible they could get the ~40% they need to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
