These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.
In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - (
New Window )
Not just governors. Although he's a former governor, if it was Joe Manchin vs. Trump I vote Manchin.
Environmental concerns tend not to drive dem party voting. However, a died in the wool coal/crude guy may struggle going forward. Take me for example -- I've NEVER thought much about environmental stuff. But I'm increasingly starting to believe that is is a massive issue we need to look at ASAP. The warnings from scientists are just too dire. Moreover, a healthy subset of the dem side money (particularly left coast $$) is more focused on environmental stuff. One guy, Tom Steyer, is handing out millions to try to stop Keystone (which seems to me like the wrong fight).
I would never vote for the person who "negotiated" that cluster fuck of a deal.
Quote:
much stronger candidate than in '04
I would never vote for the person who "negotiated" that cluster fuck of a deal.
You really think he's a stronger candidate HH? I don't mean it sarcastically, but he retains most of the negatives he used to have and adds in his term as Secretary of State where he had the misfortune to be in office when a number of bad things happened. Rightly or wrongly they will be imputed at least in part to him.
I've heard great things about Hickenlooper (CO) but I dont know a lot about him. And part of me thinks Cuomo (NY) could do a decent job, even though he's not my kind of candidate (I just think he's dumb). Tom Wolf (PA) is a guy I dont know a lot about but he gets some buzz.
I do think there is something to the notion of having someone who actually ran a real, non-political business in charge. Bloomberg was a good mayor because of the nitty gritty stuff -- like getting lots sold and back on the tax roll. Wolf was a business owner too, before selling to a PE firm.
Wolf has been a mixed bag so far. His biggest knock here so far has been his lack of support for local businesses and no strong plan to build the PA economy through local business.
"Do not balance the budget on the backs of small businesses," Lewis said. "That is all we're asking."
Wolf's spending plan features an increase in the state's personal income tax from 3.07 percent to 3.7 percent, an increase in sales tax from 6 percent to 6.6 percent and more than $3 billion in property tax relief. The governor vetoed a Republican-passed no-tax-increase budget on the June 30 deadline, and broad-based tax hikes have been the center of negotiations with the governor since then."
http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/business_leaders.html
Wolf is all about taxing the "rich", but small local businesses should not be part of that.
Same thing nationally. The more you tax businesses (small or larger), the less likely they are to thrive in the economy or hire more employees. It's counter productive to what your original purpose is.
It's almost like they raise taxes to fund the unemployed that are unemployed BECAUSE they raised taxes.
I've heard great things about Hickenlooper (CO) but I dont know a lot about him. And part of me thinks Cuomo (NY) could do a decent job, even though he's not my kind of candidate (I just think he's dumb). Tom Wolf (PA) is a guy I dont know a lot about but he gets some buzz.
I do think there is something to the notion of having someone who actually ran a real, non-political business in charge. Bloomberg was a good mayor because of the nitty gritty stuff -- like getting lots sold and back on the tax roll. Wolf was a business owner too, before selling to a PE firm.
There are a few things I don't particularly like about Hickenlooper but he wouldn't be a terrible candidate. Not sure if he's ready for prime time but you never know. And if the Republican nominee was Donald Trump I'd pull the lever for Hickenlooper in a heartbeat. Wolf's CV as a politician is pretty light but his resume prior to politics is relatively impressive. Same deal. If the Republican candidate is shitty enough I would contemplate. Cuomo I don't care for, less for his ideology than because he comes across as a prick.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
Sorry, I don't feel your pain. Any New Jersey resident who makes more than 40k (single) or 80k (married/Joint) is in a higher tax bracket (although the rate on the first 20k is zero). And Christie gets constantly vilified for vetoing legislation to take the rates even higher. On top of that, we pay a 7% sales tax.
It's almost like they raise taxes to fund the unemployed that are unemployed BECAUSE they raised taxes.
This is actually debatable. Small movements in income/profit related taxes probably have no practical impact on decisions to expand etc. Much more relevant is stuff like having to cover payroll tax and health insurance for a new employee on top of wages.
But putting tax issues aside (Im unimpressed by pols who push tax cuts without paying for them). There is just a mindboggling amount of regulation applicable to businesses. But regulated and unregulated businesses. Indeed, established firms now use it as a weapon; regulation has become a huge barrier to entry. No one talks about it seriously, but I'd like to see someone hatchet down the regs.
Quote:
I'd vote Bloomberg over Hillary. The guy is just ultra competent.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
I dont think you saying that you'd vote for someone over Hillary is a terribly useful datapoint.
Giuliani got a lot of credit for shit that he wasnt responsible for. Crime was down everywhere; Rudy didnt take the lead out of gasoline. And he didnt cause the Clinton era economic boom, which in particular enriched NY b/c of the bank/legal work. He was a walking, talking piece of shit. Though he performed very well on/after Sept. 11.
Quote:
In comment 12449151 Deej said:
Quote:
I'd vote Bloomberg over Hillary. The guy is just ultra competent.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
I dont think you saying that you'd vote for someone over Hillary is a terribly useful datapoint.
Giuliani got a lot of credit for shit that he wasnt responsible for. Crime was down everywhere; Rudy didnt take the lead out of gasoline. And he didnt cause the Clinton era economic boom, which in particular enriched NY b/c of the bank/legal work. He was a walking, talking piece of shit. Though he performed very well on/after Sept. 11.
C'mon, NYC under Guiliani undoubtedly benefited from a national decline in crime but the difference between the city at the beginning of his tenure and at the end was huge, and other cities in the Northeast saw little or no comparable improvements (and in some cases actually declined).
Quote:
In comment 12449151 Deej said:
Quote:
I'd vote Bloomberg over Hillary. The guy is just ultra competent.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
I dont think you saying that you'd vote for someone over Hillary is a terribly useful datapoint.
Giuliani got a lot of credit for shit that he wasnt responsible for. Crime was down everywhere; Rudy didnt take the lead out of gasoline. And he didnt cause the Clinton era economic boom, which in particular enriched NY b/c of the bank/legal work. He was a walking, talking piece of shit. Though he performed very well on/after Sept. 11.
Yes there was a national trend. But having worked in the city during Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani administrations I can tell you with certainty that he made a difference. All you had to do is walk from the PA Bus Terminal to the Flatiron District on a daily basis and drive a car around the city during that time to know that it was a lot more than a national trend.
Quote:
In comment 12449056 Headhunter said:
Quote:
much stronger candidate than in '04
I would never vote for the person who "negotiated" that cluster fuck of a deal.
You really think he's a stronger candidate HH? I don't mean it sarcastically, but he retains most of the negatives he used to have and adds in his term as Secretary of State where he had the misfortune to be in office when a number of bad things happened. Rightly or wrongly they will be imputed at least in part to him.
I wouldn't want either one, but heck yeah John Kerry over Hillary. Almost zero baggage, trustworthy (as far a politician can be), and I think a decent man.
Quote:
In comment 12449267 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 12449151 Deej said:
Quote:
I'd vote Bloomberg over Hillary. The guy is just ultra competent.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
I dont think you saying that you'd vote for someone over Hillary is a terribly useful datapoint.
Giuliani got a lot of credit for shit that he wasnt responsible for. Crime was down everywhere; Rudy didnt take the lead out of gasoline. And he didnt cause the Clinton era economic boom, which in particular enriched NY b/c of the bank/legal work. He was a walking, talking piece of shit. Though he performed very well on/after Sept. 11.
Yes there was a national trend. But having worked in the city during Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani administrations I can tell you with certainty that he made a difference. All you had to do is walk from the PA Bus Terminal to the Flatiron District on a daily basis and drive a car around the city during that time to know that it was a lot more than a national trend.
Talk about revisionist history, holy denial Batman. Giuliani didn't clean up NYC? Giuliani started the trend (with help from a good economy).
The city was undoubtedly safer and cleaner after Rudy. New York's comparative improvements were better than most every other city. New York also had more room to improve and had economic advantages other cities lacked. It's easy to say that because it happened on his watch, he's responsible for it. I think that the swing in crime rates nationwide over that period makes it too hard to credit his efforts. It was literally a night and day change.
The city was undoubtedly safer and cleaner after Rudy. New York's comparative improvements were better than most every other city. New York also had more room to improve and had economic advantages other cities lacked. It's easy to say that because it happened on his watch, he's responsible for it. I think that the swing in crime rates nationwide over that period makes it too hard to credit his efforts. It was literally a night and day change.
Economists and social scientists love to crap on Rudy's record, but did Philly, did Baltimore, did the major cities in New Jersey (presumably bearing comparable advantages to the Big Apple) see comparable improvements in quality of life in the same timeframe? And individual neighborhoods were turned around by concerted action on the City's part. I'm not an unequivocal fan, I draw the line between liberty and security quite differently than does Rudy, but I won't deny him his achievement.
Immigration Issue Can Ensure Dem Dominance - Michael Kazin, Politico
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/how-trump-can-ensure-democratic-dominance-for-generations-213102
Article #4:
The Dems' Illegal Immigration Problem - Noah Rothman, Commentary
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/09/01/the-left-is-not-serious-about-border-enforcement/
Just wild.
That's the whole evidence for the weak-kneed lefties on immigration, in a piece titled "The Left Is Not Serious About Border Enforcement". What a fucking joke.
Its way too early to judge Wolf on his job, but I have been very meh about what he has done and wants to do.
That actually may be the most shocking thing on the Dem side. Other than early Warren talk (blech), there has been no Draft XXX talk that I've heard of. I guess Biden, but that's not really a movement. It's just Biden (also blech).
Its way too early to judge Wolf on his job, but I have been very meh about what he has done and wants to do.
I don't think he can do what he wants (which is very progressive ) with the current lineup in Harrisburg. Not without the current representation being elected out.
Tom Cotten of La. is a great example. He's 38, bright, articulate and just to the left of Atilla the Hun.
This was supposed to be the year where the GOP had all these candidates in reserve. Hasnt panned out so far, and non-benchers like Trump and Carson are garnering half the support.
What's interesting is that Hillary cleared the field so hard, so early, that there was never even a discussion of the dem bench.
Warren has repeatedly said she’s not running for president in 2016 and in August, disavowed Ready for Warren via her lawyer. “This letter serves as a formal disavowal of the organization and its activity,” Warren’s attorney wrote to the Federal Election Commission. “The Senator has not, and does not, explicitly or implicitly, authorize, endorse, or otherwise approve of the organization’s activities.”
When asked about the group that month, Lacey Rose, the senator’s press secretary, said only, “Senator Warren does not support this effort.”
Link - ( New Window )
Especially if Trump vs. Bush spins out of control; Carson will look like the voice of calm and reason.
Yahoo: Ben Carson on the issues: Inside the mind of the retired neurosurgeon surging in polls, rivaling Trump - ( New Window )
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a seperate system
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a separate system for transmission of classified material.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
And because Cotton served in OIF I have a great deal more sympathy for his anti-Iranian animus than I do for random right winger mugging for the camera.
I'd do it if I was wrapped up in this, whether I knew anything or not. Not good optically for HRC though.
Quote:
she says that the e-mails in question were not "marked" classified at that time.
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a separate system for transmission of classified material.
Eric posted yesterday at 3:29; short explanation of two systems. Classified info can only be transmitted via secured server and network. Wish I could give better explanation, but actual details are classified :)
However, one of the emails released from Jake Sullivan to HRC may clear this up for you. HRC wanted a transcript of a public statement made by Tony Blair. Since public not secret. However in error it was archived on the secured server. Sullivan advised couldn't send until corrected; no physically way to email.
He is hawkish but the bulk of his foreign policy stuff people have found objectionable has been specific to Iran.
Again, it doesn't matter if the info was marked classified or not (and the IG ones still has classified sub-markings).
Interestingly what came out this week is the British knew her system was compromised.
Problem is that won't matter to the FBI if they take this seriously. Some State Department employees had better start looking out for themselves or they are going to jail.
Again, given the very nature of her position, almost all intergovernmental and intragovernmental correspondence would have been considered classified (whether marked or unmarked).
She simply could not have done her job otherwise.
This whole debate has become downright silly. She broke the law. Why do you think she and her staff have destroyed the evidence (servers and blackberries)?
Guiliani said he has found 12 federal statutes that she has APPEARED (his word) to have violated.
Quote:
is just Cheney on steroids. Am I wrong?
He is hawkish but the bulk of his foreign policy stuff people have found objectionable has been specific to Iran.
It goes well beyond that. He has expressed positioned himself as Bush's heir on foreign policy. With McCain's hair-trigger impulse to use force.
Cant say I've read a ton about him though.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
she says that the e-mails in question were not "marked" classified at that time.
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a seperate system