Anyone watching? Interested? Obviously this is a two person debate tonight with 3 others joining. Curious to see HC take on the TPP questions. I am sure her emails/Benghazi will be brought up ad nausum, but the TPP has me interested.
Under Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies, with numerous deaths. Many of the deaths were of non-Americans. Only one death was a consulate member, but there were 11 were Americans serving various functions, and lots of others were our guests at the time of the attacks? Not identical, but similar enough. (link) I won't get into the WTC argument, but what about the death of 241 marines? Not similar enough? Why didn't that turn into an unending series of investigations?
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
Aside from being a terrible Governor, I heard him say the other day words to the effect that the US should shoot down Russian jets that violated the no fly zone he would set up in Syria. We're now ready to go to war over Syria. And, he's one of the normal candidates.
the same people who yammer on about how the GOP has moved so far Â
I've seen many people separate climate change from man-made climate change. Also, why include the second part of the post if it had nothing to do with your point?
Yes. Many people do separate climate change from man-made climate change. And the people who do so are charlatans who are denying science. The vastly overwhelming consensus of scientists is not merely that there is climate change, but that it is in part caused by human activity. So Rubio denying that is Rubio denying the whole ballgame.
Personally if I were running for President, whether or not I believed in climate change or who caused it would be irrelevant. I would end up in the same place you say Rubio is from a policy perspective. So, it's a non-issue for me.
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
Before the 2nd debate means that you're discussing a critique of the Fox News debate. So you're saying that if CNN does not ask the sort of questions Fox asked then it shows CNN has an agenda? Why does Fox get to dictate the question style for all subsequent debates?
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
I thin kit's highly unlikely that you will see that. Not necessarily because of media bias, although previous Dem debates had some lovefests from the panel, but largely because of the candidates' personalities. All of them, including Sanders, have steadfastly refrained from being harsh on their competitors. That may be to their credit or, it may be in recognition that all but one are fighting losing causes and they know that and they don't want to damage the front-runner since eventually they need to win the presidency. The republicans have real contests, so damaging each other is part of the need to win the nomination. It's unlikely that they will shift from that perspective even in a debate format.
I 100% agree with this. I could see the prickly Webb changing things up if he ever got momentum (he wont).
RE: the same people who yammer on about how the GOP has moved so far Â
to the right are often big fans of Bernie the fucking socialist. Curious.....
Bernie Sanders's socialism is more bark than bite. It's a silly label at this point. Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
RE: RE: I'll be watching with my 16-yr-old daughter Â
tough as Megan Kelly and the others on Fox were on the GOP debate. I thought Hugh Hewitt would have been nice to have on CNN since he is like the only conservative at CNN but apparently he was replaced with Juan Carlos Lopez I guess to appeal to the hispanic vote.
Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
There is also a study that says that the Democratic Party has moved further left than the GOP has to the right:
Quote:
The study’s overall argument is that income inequality has increased political polarization at the state level since the 1990s. But the authors find that that this happens more by moving state Democratic parties to the left than by moving state Republican parties to the right. As the Democratic Party lost power at the state level over the past 15 years, it also effectively shed its moderate wing. Centrist Democrats have increasingly lost seats to Republicans, “resulting in a more liberal Democratic party” overall. The authors find that the ideological median of Republican legislators has shifted much less.
First and foremost, this is a runaway for Clinton in current state. The false narrative of the race tightening is created by a spectral candidate in Biden - who effectively peals most of his support from Clinton's base. Even with Clinton's rough few months, his removal from polling shows her in the 50-60% range and a +30 lead on Bernie Sanders (and she's already well ahead in all states not named New Hampshire or Vermont).
That isn't going to change and is the reason why Biden is going to stay on the sideline unless an unforeseen (or inevitable depending on your vantage point/party affiliation) Clinton disaster occurs. The DNC is more than content running Clinton and Biden is not going to jump in, split the base and complicate things. He's also been a lousy presidential candidate historically and looking to put a capstone on his political career. A failed bid at the presidency is not that.
Sanders is the latest entry in the progressive wing of the Democrat's summer fling, but the leaves are turning and things are turning "real". He'll make some noise and may grab New Hampshire - then follow Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. out the door when the voting base in states are not predominantly white and very liberal.
The people who can make noise tonight are O'Malley and Webb. Chafee may bring some attention to the metric system, but he will likely be the first to drop and really offers nothing else of value.
O'Malley is not going to win, but he's the actual mainstream alternative to Clinton in the current field. If Clinton was really in any kind of danger, his polling would be significantly better. I think he can benefit the most from getting attention on a stage and have the ability to spin his story, but he's too far behind to even be relevant.
Webb is a Dem that will play well with the moderate base, but the Democratic party in current state is not positioned as such currently. He'll play well in the Appalachian Belt the way Sanders is playing well in New England, but has no chance anywhere else.
Honestly, this should be a low-viewership snooze fest. Clinton will likely play it overly safe and do her best to position herself as affable/likable to the overall base, taking on some more liberal talking points to meet the Sanders base halfway and ensure the Democratic voters will turn out when she inevitably wins.
I honestly think the debates will hurt Sanders, as he (and his appearance/presentation) is not going to play well in this medium. Shallow, but that's how these things work.
to the right are often big fans of Bernie the fucking socialist. Curious.....
Bernie Sanders's socialism is more bark than bite. It's a silly label at this point. Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
Check out the article (not op ed) in today's WSJ. Yes, the Republicans have drifted to the right. But at the same time the Democrats have drifted to the left. It's NOT a 1 party phenomenon.
RE: Responding to Benghazi is really pretty easy. Â
Under Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies, with numerous deaths. Many of the deaths were of non-Americans. Only one death was a consulate member, but there were 11 were Americans serving various functions, and lots of others were our guests at the time of the attacks? Not identical, but similar enough. (link) I won't get into the WTC argument, but what about the death of 241 marines? Not similar enough? Why didn't that turn into an unending series of investigations?
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
I'm sure all 87 viewers who tune in tonight will be most interested in that POV.
Whether Republicans moved too far right is a different issue, Greg. Â
The power grab within the House has two parts that are moving aggressively rightward, which is what gives the Freedom Caucus so much power. First, with about 40 of them, no bill can get a majority without either their consent or Democratic help, which gives them power all out of proportion to their numbers.
Second, related to Democratic help, a lot of more moderate Republicans come from districts where all of the pressure for change comes from their right flank. See: Eric Cantor. So, many moderates are fearful of taking stances in Congress which actually match up with their governing philosophy, if it puts them at risk of being primaried from the right.
So, the issue isn't so much how many Republican voters have moved rightward, its whether the governing center of gravity in the House has moved rightward. And if this bunch thinks that Ryan is too liberal, than they are off the reservation on the right side relative to actual voters. Ryan wants to turn Medicaid into declining block grants and Medicare into vouchers, while gutting AFDC and other food programs. Not conservative enough for you? He isn't for the Freedom Caucus.
tonight don't need softball questions. This isn't a Republican debate filled with people who don't believe in global warming but do believe any heavily edited video they watch. This debate is about the only 2 candidates (currently) who are actually qualified to be the next POTUS.
Tell us, which of the Republicans in the last debate denied the existence of climate change.
Looking to see if Jim Webb pulls a Fiorina and earns (figuratively) a seat at the adults table.
Both Fox and CNN didn't pull any punches with respect to the front runner (Duracell). And they asked some pretty demanding questions of the others. Let's see if that also holds true here. Hillary and the "gold standard" TPP is the most obvious.
While it shouldn't be a love fest between the moderators and the candidates, it's up to the candidates to determine how they treat each other. I expect kid gloves in their interactions. If anyone will violate the code it will be O'Malley.
I know nothing about state level trends. Here are the House trends based on Poole and Rosenthal's data (and P&R's DW NOMINATE data is considered the gold standard):
It's that the Republicans are using their scripts now, in a variety of forms, while the Democrats have a number of powerful scripts that they have yet to use aggressively--not the least of which, of course relate to the Freedom Caucus and to responses to the Benghazi crap.
You are right. Watching Trump, Carson and the other wackiest Republican candidates is much more fun than watching Hillary and Bernie. The point is that these scripts will come back, and back and back, when the time comes.
RE: the same people who yammer on about how the GOP has moved so far Â
First and foremost, this is a runaway for Clinton in current state. The false narrative of the race tightening is created by a spectral candidate in Biden - who effectively peals most of his support from Clinton's base. Even with Clinton's rough few months, his removal from polling shows her in the 50-60% range and a +30 lead on Bernie Sanders (and she's already well ahead in all states not named New Hampshire or Vermont).
That isn't going to change and is the reason why Biden is going to stay on the sideline unless an unforeseen (or inevitable depending on your vantage point/party affiliation) Clinton disaster occurs. The DNC is more than content running Clinton and Biden is not going to jump in, split the base and complicate things. He's also been a lousy presidential candidate historically and looking to put a capstone on his political career. A failed bid at the presidency is not that.
Sanders is the latest entry in the progressive wing of the Democrat's summer fling, but the leaves are turning and things are turning "real". He'll make some noise and may grab New Hampshire - then follow Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. out the door when the voting base in states are not predominantly white and very liberal.
The people who can make noise tonight are O'Malley and Webb. Chafee may bring some attention to the metric system, but he will likely be the first to drop and really offers nothing else of value.
O'Malley is not going to win, but he's the actual mainstream alternative to Clinton in the current field. If Clinton was really in any kind of danger, his polling would be significantly better. I think he can benefit the most from getting attention on a stage and have the ability to spin his story, but he's too far behind to even be relevant.
Webb is a Dem that will play well with the moderate base, but the Democratic party in current state is not positioned as such currently. He'll play well in the Appalachian Belt the way Sanders is playing well in New England, but has no chance anywhere else.
Honestly, this should be a low-viewership snooze fest. Clinton will likely play it overly safe and do her best to position herself as affable/likable to the overall base, taking on some more liberal talking points to meet the Sanders base halfway and ensure the Democratic voters will turn out when she inevitably wins.
I honestly think the debates will hurt Sanders, as he (and his appearance/presentation) is not going to play well in this medium. Shallow, but that's how these things work.
It's all over but the crying. Hilary has the money and she has the organization. D's have no choice but to hold their noses and vote for her.
RE: Responding to Benghazi is really pretty easy. Â
Under Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies, with numerous deaths. Many of the deaths were of non-Americans. Only one death was a consulate member, but there were 11 were Americans serving various functions, and lots of others were our guests at the time of the attacks? Not identical, but similar enough. (link) I won't get into the WTC argument, but what about the death of 241 marines? Not similar enough? Why didn't that turn into an unending series of investigations?
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
The email scandal came to light in large part because of Benghazi. I'm not terribly concerned about the embassy attacks. A tragedy and a crime, to be sure, but it could have happened on anyone's watch. Blaming a video was shameful. Sid Blumenthal's involvement in that was sheisty as fuck. But it doesn't take clairvoyance to figure out what they were trying to keep a lid on and why it isn't and shouldn't be a partisan issue. But the email controversy implicates a shitload of ancillary issues that should matter.
so around 10% of House Dems are "ideologically moderate"? Â
have gotten explosively more conservative. The House Dem caucus has gotten a more liberal but nothing approaching what has happened on the right. The shift left in the House Dem caucus is entirely explainable by the inability of more conservative southern Dems to win seats. That is, the NY delegation hasnt gotten more liberal, it's just not offset by southern Dems.
The corresponding realignment loss of north east Republican seats does not come close to explaining the hard right turn of house republicans, though it obviously plays some contributing role.
Deej - that's the major index most political scientists use.
Uh oh Ash, you used the word "scientist", you know the righties don't believe in science. To them that's just crap that the liberal media makes up.
I'm deeply skeptical of the idea of social science nor do I think most of the people I'm speaking to here are science skeptics. I'm not interested in joining this sort of argument (or any argument to be honest). I only think the idea of taking Bernie Sanders's supposed socialism seriously is silly given his actual positions and the general complexity of the socialist tradition.
All of that is largely academic, since he'll be tarred with the label for better or worse.
How can he be tarred with a label that he enthusiastically self-applies?
Because the label will come with silly implications that don't match his actual policies. There will be no abolition of private property, no governmental control of the means of production, etc. It's just a stupid debate.
most closely resembles the socialists of yore is his rather humorless approach to everything. Even his ideological allies attest to his zeal, his temper and his ability to pick fights with people whose views appear quite close to his from outside. With a couple of exceptions I don't think Ash is wrong, he is far closer to being a vanilla left-wing Democrat than he is to being a Communist or even an old-Labour socialist. But he is still to the left of the Democratic Party.
NOT moderate. I assume you understood that and your post is a typo.
Not sure if your question is real or snarky. If it is real, go look up Poole & Rosenthal's DW NOMINATE scoring.
He in fact does not understand it. He clearly has no clue what the difference between Communism and Democratic Socialism is either. He just knows that Faux News says it's the same thing and bad for the country.
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
It's that the Republicans are using their scripts now, in a variety of forms, while the Democrats have a number of powerful scripts that they have yet to use aggressively--not the least of which, of course relate to the Freedom Caucus and to responses to the Benghazi crap.
You are right. Watching Trump, Carson and the other wackiest Republican candidates is much more fun than watching Hillary and Bernie. The point is that these scripts will come back, and back and back, when the time comes.
"powerful scripts"? If you say so.
It would make more sense to run as "Bill's third term" but Hilary doesn't want to do that.
But at what point does it no longer really matter if he completely fits the academic, according-to-Marx definition of socialist?
Also I largely don't care about this presidential election because I think HRC is very likely the next POTUS. The Republican candidates are silly and the Democratic candidate a Clinton. It's mindbogglingly sad. My interest is in the senate elections and to a lesser extent the House elections.
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
I think that what has happened is that the voting base has become stronger and more adept at getting their voice heard (and that includes electing more conservative representatives that don't turn into establishment drones when they get to DC).
Everyone concentrates on the 40 or so in the Freedom Caucus, but the voters in all districts are more conservative and are unhappy with the leadership and the direction of the GOP. And there are at least 100 in the House who are more conservative than the direction the establishment wants to go.
As for Ryan, he is a fiscal conservative, but he's pro-immigration. But I don't think he'll sell out to Obama on it before the election. But Rubio will if he gets elected.
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I've seen many people separate climate change from man-made climate change. Also, why include the second part of the post if it had nothing to do with your point?
Yes. Many people do separate climate change from man-made climate change. And the people who do so are charlatans who are denying science. The vastly overwhelming consensus of scientists is not merely that there is climate change, but that it is in part caused by human activity. So Rubio denying that is Rubio denying the whole ballgame.
Before the 2nd debate means that you're discussing a critique of the Fox News debate. So you're saying that if CNN does not ask the sort of questions Fox asked then it shows CNN has an agenda? Why does Fox get to dictate the question style for all subsequent debates?
However, even with fewer candidates, I still think the debates will lack substance. I'm not going to watch.
Why would you waste her time with this kind of pernicious nonsense?
Quote:
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
I thin kit's highly unlikely that you will see that. Not necessarily because of media bias, although previous Dem debates had some lovefests from the panel, but largely because of the candidates' personalities. All of them, including Sanders, have steadfastly refrained from being harsh on their competitors. That may be to their credit or, it may be in recognition that all but one are fighting losing causes and they know that and they don't want to damage the front-runner since eventually they need to win the presidency. The republicans have real contests, so damaging each other is part of the need to win the nomination. It's unlikely that they will shift from that perspective even in a debate format.
I 100% agree with this. I could see the prickly Webb changing things up if he ever got momentum (he wont).
Bernie Sanders's socialism is more bark than bite. It's a silly label at this point. Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
Quote:
It will be her first taste of electoral politics. She expressed an interest and I want to encourage that.
Why would you waste her time with this kind of pernicious nonsense?
Dont listen to Greg. He thinks its acceptable to just hold your hors d'oeuvres plate in the other hand.
There is also a study that says that the Democratic Party has moved further left than the GOP has to the right:
Link - ( New Window )
That isn't going to change and is the reason why Biden is going to stay on the sideline unless an unforeseen (or inevitable depending on your vantage point/party affiliation) Clinton disaster occurs. The DNC is more than content running Clinton and Biden is not going to jump in, split the base and complicate things. He's also been a lousy presidential candidate historically and looking to put a capstone on his political career. A failed bid at the presidency is not that.
Sanders is the latest entry in the progressive wing of the Democrat's summer fling, but the leaves are turning and things are turning "real". He'll make some noise and may grab New Hampshire - then follow Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. out the door when the voting base in states are not predominantly white and very liberal.
The people who can make noise tonight are O'Malley and Webb. Chafee may bring some attention to the metric system, but he will likely be the first to drop and really offers nothing else of value.
O'Malley is not going to win, but he's the actual mainstream alternative to Clinton in the current field. If Clinton was really in any kind of danger, his polling would be significantly better. I think he can benefit the most from getting attention on a stage and have the ability to spin his story, but he's too far behind to even be relevant.
Webb is a Dem that will play well with the moderate base, but the Democratic party in current state is not positioned as such currently. He'll play well in the Appalachian Belt the way Sanders is playing well in New England, but has no chance anywhere else.
Honestly, this should be a low-viewership snooze fest. Clinton will likely play it overly safe and do her best to position herself as affable/likable to the overall base, taking on some more liberal talking points to meet the Sanders base halfway and ensure the Democratic voters will turn out when she inevitably wins.
I honestly think the debates will hurt Sanders, as he (and his appearance/presentation) is not going to play well in this medium. Shallow, but that's how these things work.
Quote:
to the right are often big fans of Bernie the fucking socialist. Curious.....
Bernie Sanders's socialism is more bark than bite. It's a silly label at this point. Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
Check out the article (not op ed) in today's WSJ. Yes, the Republicans have drifted to the right. But at the same time the Democrats have drifted to the left. It's NOT a 1 party phenomenon.
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
Second, related to Democratic help, a lot of more moderate Republicans come from districts where all of the pressure for change comes from their right flank. See: Eric Cantor. So, many moderates are fearful of taking stances in Congress which actually match up with their governing philosophy, if it puts them at risk of being primaried from the right.
So, the issue isn't so much how many Republican voters have moved rightward, its whether the governing center of gravity in the House has moved rightward. And if this bunch thinks that Ryan is too liberal, than they are off the reservation on the right side relative to actual voters. Ryan wants to turn Medicaid into declining block grants and Medicare into vouchers, while gutting AFDC and other food programs. Not conservative enough for you? He isn't for the Freedom Caucus.
Republican Debate Bad Lip Reading - ( New Window )
Quote:
tonight don't need softball questions. This isn't a Republican debate filled with people who don't believe in global warming but do believe any heavily edited video they watch. This debate is about the only 2 candidates (currently) who are actually qualified to be the next POTUS.
Tell us, which of the Republicans in the last debate denied the existence of climate change.
Here ju go!
Global warming stance of all candidates - ( New Window )
Both Fox and CNN didn't pull any punches with respect to the front runner (Duracell). And they asked some pretty demanding questions of the others. Let's see if that also holds true here. Hillary and the "gold standard" TPP is the most obvious.
While it shouldn't be a love fest between the moderators and the candidates, it's up to the candidates to determine how they treat each other. I expect kid gloves in their interactions. If anyone will violate the code it will be O'Malley.
sorry if these render large.
Link - ( New Window )
It's that the Republicans are using their scripts now, in a variety of forms, while the Democrats have a number of powerful scripts that they have yet to use aggressively--not the least of which, of course relate to the Freedom Caucus and to responses to the Benghazi crap.
You are right. Watching Trump, Carson and the other wackiest Republican candidates is much more fun than watching Hillary and Bernie. The point is that these scripts will come back, and back and back, when the time comes.
HAHAHAHA, Rush Limbaugh? Is that you?
That isn't going to change and is the reason why Biden is going to stay on the sideline unless an unforeseen (or inevitable depending on your vantage point/party affiliation) Clinton disaster occurs. The DNC is more than content running Clinton and Biden is not going to jump in, split the base and complicate things. He's also been a lousy presidential candidate historically and looking to put a capstone on his political career. A failed bid at the presidency is not that.
Sanders is the latest entry in the progressive wing of the Democrat's summer fling, but the leaves are turning and things are turning "real". He'll make some noise and may grab New Hampshire - then follow Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. out the door when the voting base in states are not predominantly white and very liberal.
The people who can make noise tonight are O'Malley and Webb. Chafee may bring some attention to the metric system, but he will likely be the first to drop and really offers nothing else of value.
O'Malley is not going to win, but he's the actual mainstream alternative to Clinton in the current field. If Clinton was really in any kind of danger, his polling would be significantly better. I think he can benefit the most from getting attention on a stage and have the ability to spin his story, but he's too far behind to even be relevant.
Webb is a Dem that will play well with the moderate base, but the Democratic party in current state is not positioned as such currently. He'll play well in the Appalachian Belt the way Sanders is playing well in New England, but has no chance anywhere else.
Honestly, this should be a low-viewership snooze fest. Clinton will likely play it overly safe and do her best to position herself as affable/likable to the overall base, taking on some more liberal talking points to meet the Sanders base halfway and ensure the Democratic voters will turn out when she inevitably wins.
I honestly think the debates will hurt Sanders, as he (and his appearance/presentation) is not going to play well in this medium. Shallow, but that's how these things work.
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
The email scandal came to light in large part because of Benghazi. I'm not terribly concerned about the embassy attacks. A tragedy and a crime, to be sure, but it could have happened on anyone's watch. Blaming a video was shameful. Sid Blumenthal's involvement in that was sheisty as fuck. But it doesn't take clairvoyance to figure out what they were trying to keep a lid on and why it isn't and shouldn't be a partisan issue. But the email controversy implicates a shitload of ancillary issues that should matter.
Trump is going to be live tweeting the debate. That should be great.
Uh oh Ash, you used the word "scientist", you know the righties don't believe in science. To them that's just crap that the liberal media makes up.
Quote:
Deej - that's the major index most political scientists use.
Uh oh Ash, you used the word "scientist", you know the righties don't believe in science. To them that's just crap that the liberal media makes up.
You are one of the worst political posters on BBI. You provide nothing more than insipid talking points.
The corresponding realignment loss of north east Republican seats does not come close to explaining the hard right turn of house republicans, though it obviously plays some contributing role.
Quote:
Deej - that's the major index most political scientists use.
Uh oh Ash, you used the word "scientist", you know the righties don't believe in science. To them that's just crap that the liberal media makes up.
I'm deeply skeptical of the idea of social science nor do I think most of the people I'm speaking to here are science skeptics. I'm not interested in joining this sort of argument (or any argument to be honest). I only think the idea of taking Bernie Sanders's supposed socialism seriously is silly given his actual positions and the general complexity of the socialist tradition.
All of that is largely academic, since he'll be tarred with the label for better or worse.
Because the label will come with silly implications that don't match his actual policies. There will be no abolition of private property, no governmental control of the means of production, etc. It's just a stupid debate.
NOT moderate. I assume you understood that and your post is a typo.
Not sure if your question is real or snarky. If it is real, go look up Poole & Rosenthal's DW NOMINATE scoring.
Quote:
I'm very curious as to how that is determined.
NOT moderate. I assume you understood that and your post is a typo.
Not sure if your question is real or snarky. If it is real, go look up Poole & Rosenthal's DW NOMINATE scoring.
He in fact does not understand it. He clearly has no clue what the difference between Communism and Democratic Socialism is either. He just knows that Faux News says it's the same thing and bad for the country.
It's that the Republicans are using their scripts now, in a variety of forms, while the Democrats have a number of powerful scripts that they have yet to use aggressively--not the least of which, of course relate to the Freedom Caucus and to responses to the Benghazi crap.
You are right. Watching Trump, Carson and the other wackiest Republican candidates is much more fun than watching Hillary and Bernie. The point is that these scripts will come back, and back and back, when the time comes.
It would make more sense to run as "Bill's third term" but Hilary doesn't want to do that.
The 1956 Republican platform listed these seven tenets:
1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
George HW Bush famously raised taxes.
Ronald Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty and bailed out social security.
I think it's fair to say the Republican party has moved substantially to the right in the last 10-15 years.
It matters insofar as the word carries the residue of a concept to which it no longer refers.
The 1956 Republican platform listed these seven tenets:
1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
George HW Bush famously raised taxes.
Ronald Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty and bailed out social security.
I think it's fair to say the Republican party has moved substantially to the right in the last 10-15 years.
Are you seriously suggesting that you couldn't do this exact same thing with John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter?
Also I largely don't care about this presidential election because I think HRC is very likely the next POTUS. The Republican candidates are silly and the Democratic candidate a Clinton. It's mindbogglingly sad. My interest is in the senate elections and to a lesser extent the House elections.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
Everyone concentrates on the 40 or so in the Freedom Caucus, but the voters in all districts are more conservative and are unhappy with the leadership and the direction of the GOP. And there are at least 100 in the House who are more conservative than the direction the establishment wants to go.
As for Ryan, he is a fiscal conservative, but he's pro-immigration. But I don't think he'll sell out to Obama on it before the election. But Rubio will if he gets elected.