Are the repub poobah's forgetting that Rubiot is a tea party name? In their haste to elevate him after losing their boy Jeb! I think they are missing that he will get destroyed in a GE against a reasonable dem. He's Romney lite but without much of the stuff that made Romney appeal to independents.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I guess...but the emails thing just isn't going away, especially if they've launched another investigation into the foundation. Depending on when the stuff leaks, it could kill her in the general. Especially versus Trump.
You're resorting to Trump style fear mongering now. (Cruz would never get elected because he's a Canadian and the Dems would sue etc, therefore vote for me instead).
Over the weekend I met my 1st Republican and 1st Trump supporter.
The Republican was a college student from Alabama. "Moderate." Liberal on social issues though she's personally religious. Can't stand Trump (madman) or Hillary (everything is "I'm a woman").
The Trump guy drives a van for the university, and for once, he was listening to a discussion on college debt on radio instead of the usual shitty music. So I asked him if he's planning to vote.
The Republican was a college student from Alabama. "Moderate." Liberal on social issues though she's personally religious. Can't stand Trump (madman) or Hillary (everything is "I'm a woman").
The Trump guy drives a van for the university, and for once, he was listening to a discussion on college debt on radio instead of the usual shitty music. So I asked him if he's planning to vote.
"I won't vote for no democrat. Never for Hillary. Don't like the things she says. Don't like the things Bernie says either. Free college, who is going to pay for that? That's like free school."
I'm wondering whether to continue. "Well, public school is free..."
"You know what I mean (I just nodded at this point). Anyway, I'm thinking of Trump. He said good stuff about bringing factory jobs back."
I'm really wondering whether to reply.
"Bernie's been saying the same things too."
"Only cos Trump said them"
This I couldn't let go.
"Actually, Bernie's been saying the same stuff for 40 years."
"Heh. You aren't a voter are you?"
"No, no"
I don't know if I made him mad that bearded Asians like Bernie, or whether I got him to consider changing.
I'm wondering whether to continue. "Well, public school is free..."
"You know what I mean (I just nodded at this point). Anyway, I'm thinking of Trump. He said good stuff about bringing factory jobs back."
I'm really wondering whether to reply.
"Bernie's been saying the same things too."
"Only cos Trump said them"
This I couldn't let go.
"Actually, Bernie's been saying the same stuff for 40 years."
"Heh. You aren't a voter are you?"
"No, no"
I don't know if I made him mad that bearded Asians like Bernie, or whether I got him to consider changing.
I think it's a legitimate concern. I don't know of any other candidate who has won an election (or even run a campaign) with the FBI investigating him. You don't think it will put off undecided voters?
No - it will only reinforce existing narratives for the GOP who don't like the Clintons and for the Dems who feel she is being unfairly targeted. Its only Bernie fans and the GOP who are interested in diverting policy discussions to Hillary's emails (even though Bernie apparently doesn't want to talk about it).
Interesting that Latin America has had a lot more socialist politicians in office than North America or Western Europe, over the past 50 years or so. Argentina and Brazil tax almost European levels in % terms, and in Brazil's case nominally there's the whole safety net, free healthcare, free school, free university, worker's rights... the only problem is that half of it doesn't actually work, the other half is actually stifling to entrepreneurship and economic activity in general.
Its not about what you want to do, its about what you can do, and the secondary and tertiary effects of those policies.
I think it's working somewhere.
That steep decline correlates pretty well with Lula coming to power.
Yes, because in 2002 Brazil's population was the most educated in its history, after the economy was unf'd (by a centre-left government with liberal economists, whom the left wing would not collaborate with) in the 90s and poor kids could actually stay in high school at a higher rate rather than having to work to support the family.
Also, that data is through '09 and '11 (the poverty rate peer group is like our 3-0 last night). '15 saw the economy contract 4%, will likely be followed by another 4% this year. That'll mean a contraction of more than 10% in GDP per capita.
Most notable about the leftism is what happened last year was that even while the national economy contracted 4%, government spending was up 0.5%. Because, can't ever cut that spending, right? The government overspent its tax receipts to the tune of 10% of GDP, and hasn't cut back anything this year either. Its walking towards a default on its debt. Inflation was also 11%, and hasn't been at its 4.5% target since 2009. If you've never lived in an inflationary economy, know this: it hurts poor people a lot more than wealthier people - I have savings invested with the bank, even in hyperinflation my bank will offer me several products and services to make sure I minimize my loss of spending power. Poor people have a lot more of their money as a % in cash and on deposit, and also their bankers usually aren't as active in looking out for them.
To tie it back to the US, I was reading on Sen. Sanders the other day and found that he appointed Stephanie Kelton to be chief economic adviser for the Senate Budget Commitee's Democratic minority. Kelton is a leading scholar behind Modern Monetary Theory. From wikipedia:
According to modern monetary theory, "monetarily sovereign government is the monopoly supplier of its currency and can issue currency of any denomination in physical or non-physical forms. As such the government has an unlimited capacity to pay for the things it wishes to purchase and to fulfill promised future payments, and has an unlimited ability to provide funds to the other sectors. Thus, insolvency and bankruptcy of this government is not possible. It can always pay".[1] In contrast to orthodox monetarism, MMT explains inflation as being caused primarily by resource constraints rather than monetary expansion.
Indeed, the government can always pay. But I can never agree that it won't become inflationary in order to nominally pay for lavish spending without equivalent taxation. So Sanders' advisors are possibly very laissez-faire about inflation, but inflation is really bad for poor people.
Also, that data is through '09 and '11 (the poverty rate peer group is like our 3-0 last night). '15 saw the economy contract 4%, will likely be followed by another 4% this year. That'll mean a contraction of more than 10% in GDP per capita.
Most notable about the leftism is what happened last year was that even while the national economy contracted 4%, government spending was up 0.5%. Because, can't ever cut that spending, right? The government overspent its tax receipts to the tune of 10% of GDP, and hasn't cut back anything this year either. Its walking towards a default on its debt. Inflation was also 11%, and hasn't been at its 4.5% target since 2009. If you've never lived in an inflationary economy, know this: it hurts poor people a lot more than wealthier people - I have savings invested with the bank, even in hyperinflation my bank will offer me several products and services to make sure I minimize my loss of spending power. Poor people have a lot more of their money as a % in cash and on deposit, and also their bankers usually aren't as active in looking out for them.
To tie it back to the US, I was reading on Sen. Sanders the other day and found that he appointed Stephanie Kelton to be chief economic adviser for the Senate Budget Commitee's Democratic minority. Kelton is a leading scholar behind Modern Monetary Theory. From wikipedia:
According to modern monetary theory, "monetarily sovereign government is the monopoly supplier of its currency and can issue currency of any denomination in physical or non-physical forms. As such the government has an unlimited capacity to pay for the things it wishes to purchase and to fulfill promised future payments, and has an unlimited ability to provide funds to the other sectors. Thus, insolvency and bankruptcy of this government is not possible. It can always pay".[1] In contrast to orthodox monetarism, MMT explains inflation as being caused primarily by resource constraints rather than monetary expansion.
Indeed, the government can always pay. But I can never agree that it won't become inflationary in order to nominally pay for lavish spending without equivalent taxation. So Sanders' advisors are possibly very laissez-faire about inflation, but inflation is really bad for poor people.
You can't have it both ways.
Either the massive increase in social spending, including education-linked spending, helped bring Brazil's poverty levels much below China (which has a much faster-growing and higher GDP), and overspending caused the crash...or
They were not socialist policies anyway, and the crash happened because...reasons?
I'm from India. I've read about the best and worst of govt programs. If well-implemented, they can transform lives of literally starving people. They can also be massive sinkholes for corruption.
http://www.indiaspend.com/cover-story/half-full-half-empty-10-years-of-nrega-80147
The current govt was trying to cut this massive Keynesian program (which is why the decline in those stats last year) but they couldn't. It's because it works.
Note that I'm not a Keynesian: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/2016-us-presidential-elections.403345/page-173#post-18815640
Says nothing to change the fact much of the world of immigration is searching out the capitalism of Western Europe and North America who´s economies and societies grew to what they are today under the so called "nanny state" conditions, and it gets up many people noses to listen to immigrants cashing in on these conditions, yet wanting to tear it down with their right wing ideology. And yes, it nearly came tumbling down in 2008. Luckily the "nanny state" stepped in.
@Raoul
all these on going investigations are not what Bernie supporters want. She is in all likely hood going to be the nominee and it would be giving the Republicans a walkover. But these are not GOP talking points. It is the State dept and FBI.I do want her to let us have the transcripts though. that is fair.
btw I have been thinking about Supreme Court appointments. Do you really think she is as left as Bill Clinton? She seems farther right. For example I would be very unhappy with an Amy Klobachar. I'm also thinking of Obama's appointment. The one that got 97 votes? How much of a leftie is he? If the Republicans were so happy to vote for him. Personally we should lucky to get someone like Ginsburg.
all these on going investigations are not what Bernie supporters want. She is in all likely hood going to be the nominee and it would be giving the Republicans a walkover. But these are not GOP talking points. It is the State dept and FBI.I do want her to let us have the transcripts though. that is fair.
btw I have been thinking about Supreme Court appointments. Do you really think she is as left as Bill Clinton? She seems farther right. For example I would be very unhappy with an Amy Klobachar. I'm also thinking of Obama's appointment. The one that got 97 votes? How much of a leftie is he? If the Republicans were so happy to vote for him. Personally we should lucky to get someone like Ginsburg.
Center-left, not left-left. Republicans won't vote for him regardless, though.
Hillary has more left-ish policies than Bill Clinton, though as you said, she might not be as left in reality, but had to adjust her policies to appeal the base. Especially with Bernie going quite strong.
Hillary is famously to the left of Bill.
I'm not bothered about the investigations. The Clintons have a long history of their opponents ginning up scandals and blowing them out of proportion as political leverage and this will be no different. If there were any chance she did something wrong, she is smart enough (and legally educated) to know that she wouldn't stand a chance of making it through the election and would bow out.
Spot on.
good info lads
EDIT: By the time Hillary takes the nomination, I hope she would have embraced some of Bernie's policies, thereby bringing the party together.
EDIT: By the time Hillary takes the nomination, I hope she would have embraced some of Bernie's policies, thereby bringing the party together.
Red Dreams will probably like this
Mark Levin is absolutely going to town with Marko Rubio. He's strongly in favor of Ted Cruz. It's funny how he rages on about the lies of Marco Rubio and doesn't criticize Cruz once for the nasty ads
Mark Levin is absolutely going to town with Marko Rubio. He's strongly in favor of Ted Cruz. It's funny how he rages on about the lies of Marco Rubio and doesn't criticize Cruz once for the nasty ads
She has already adopted his rhetoric. Not his policies. And she will go back on it in the general.
Red Dreams will probably like this
Mark Levin is absolutely going to town with Marko Rubio. He's strongly in favor of Ted Cruz. It's funny how he rages on about the lies of Marco Rubio and doesn't criticize Cruz once for the nasty ads
I suppose it could be just to keep some momentum up in the short term? Obviously it's not going to work in delegate terms but if he loses every state that day but Vermont, the contest will be over. Maybe better to focus on winning the five that he can win for the headlines?
I still say, Rubio is the one I fear the most. He is a little twerp, but 'seems' like a decent guy...so he would attract independent voters.
Cruz I think is actually more of a fringe candidate that Trump atm...no way, he gets any independents and a Cruz nomination would guarantee a Hillary victory.
Bernie is going to fight the good fight, but Hillary will come away from Super Tuesday in a commanding position.
Cruz I think is actually more of a fringe candidate that Trump atm...no way, he gets any independents and a Cruz nomination would guarantee a Hillary victory.
Bernie is going to fight the good fight, but Hillary will come away from Super Tuesday in a commanding position.
I am far from a expert on American politics but i think Rubio is the only one on the republican side currently that can beat Hillary.
I think that's why the democrats were all delighted in unison with that chris christie induced gaffe of him in the debate. And that came at the precisely wrong point for him in the GOP race as well, as the momentum was building up for him after Iowa and could have led to him being 2nd in new hampshire and then Jeb and maybe even Kasich dropping out earlier and thus a much closer finish in South Carolina with now more pressure on Cruz.
I think that's why the democrats were all delighted in unison with that chris christie induced gaffe of him in the debate. And that came at the precisely wrong point for him in the GOP race as well, as the momentum was building up for him after Iowa and could have led to him being 2nd in new hampshire and then Jeb and maybe even Kasich dropping out earlier and thus a much closer finish in South Carolina with now more pressure on Cruz.
my stomach hurts...Chris Christie
This. He knows he couldn't sway the AA in time for the March 1 states so it's better to peel off delegates where he can and focus on winning where he has a realistic chance. Their campaign strategy will be to make it through Super Tuesday without falling behind too severely in delegates and pitch their message to the Midwestern and Northern states later on. If they play it right and win NY then there's still a chance, however slim.
The idea that Bernie is just running to pull Hillary to the left is a bit condescending. He won't tear the party apart in his path to nomination, evidenced by the refusal to attack her emails, but I don't think he's spending all that donation money just for a speaking slot.
Someone from Canuckistan posted this
Last edited:
my stomach hurts...Chris Christie
Hulu has the whole 90 minutes special. Good watch
The way I understood that tweet was Sanders just wants a speaking spot for highlighting issues but not fighting Clinton, thereby suggesting that not getting nominated could be an okay outcome for Sanders as long as he's pushing Clinton to the left. Maybe a VP ticket too. But I may not be understanding the tweet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of Super Tuesday states are winner takes all and the lead would be insurmountable if Sanders does badly on that day, especially with the super delegates supporting Clinton. The only state between now and Super Tuesday is SC and looks like Sanders already gave up on it.
I do agree that all this support and spending from Sanders camp looks like it's serious and it's condescending to suggest that he's doing it only for a talking platform. It does sound like a conspiracy theory. I only posted it because Red Dreams may like it.
I think it'll actually be a net-negative for him in terms of the delegate count, if he gets properly annihilated in places like Texas, Georgia and Virginia, those are large amounts of delegates being lost when even a minimal presence there could've gotten him a decent bottom level. But in terms of self preservation, winning states plays better to your supporters and the media than losing more states narrowly. He needs some successes he can parade more than optimum delegate wins.
All Democrat races are proportional (ish). Nate Cohn is extremely good on these things though so it was well worth the post and interesting to see the spends.
EDIT - Apparently those spends are up until Feb 28th as well, so they're not spending any money in Texas where there are 222 delegates at stake and he could potentially get a decent result there...
Last edited:
I'm not sure, could be as you said, but 538 projected Hillary to win 10 out of 12 or something close to that, so if Sanders manage s to flip Oklahoma, Minnesota, Colorado, alongside wins in Massachusetts and Vermont, the delegates count may come out better than if he divided his resources in all states. Most polls have Hillary lead sub 20 points so he'll still collect some delegates from other states anyway.
Well as this one says:
If you accept for the sake of argument that ad spent is relative to the amount of undecided votes (and therefore delegates) you'll earn, focusing on those five isn't the best use of his money. We'll see I guess!
The party will be unified. there's too much at stake and Bernie really is the far left of the party.
Also just seen that the Colorado caucuses are closed (only registered Democrats able to vote) and the registration deadline was January 4th. This may help explain why Bernie is spending so much more there - Hillary tends to have a fairly solid lead among registered Dems, and if Bernie can't rely on registering young independents close to or on the day then they may be thinking they need to go further to whittle down Hillary's Democrat lead.
When Sanders brushed off the email question at one of the early debates and Hillary shook his hands, I was content. I got pissed with the Clintons when they started attacking Bernie because he was getting close. On March 1st I am cacusing for Bernie. When Hillary is nominated, I will listen to both her and Trumps platforms before deciding.
In fairness, Hillary repaid that when she didn't talk about the Sanders campaign stealing some of her voter information during a debate, and Sanders hasn't exactly not attacked her over her Wall Street links, about not being a progressive etc.
Bernie is up first in the town hall - parroting his usual two or three issues (rigged system, campaign finance, etc)
that was nothing.
EDIT: and he had to go to court to get back his own information from her minion Debbie Schultz.
He sacked members of staff for it, clearly not nothing.
He also got the access to his voters info back, including those stolen from the Clinton camp.
To date, the only instance I think Clinton was in the wrong was when she accused Bernie of being a misogynist. That was out of line. The healthcare stuff is fair game, even though Bernie Bros won't agree.
The face is perfect
Forgot it was the GOP Nevada caucus. I'll predict Trump ahead of Cruz by 10, Rubio a couple behind that.
- Status