The New American Politics thread

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by T@T

Your probably right but the problem is anyone else remotely close in the polls are dipsticks, this is absolutely the worst set of pubs in history.

How quickly people forget the recent history of the last Republican primary cycles. Go back to 2008 and think about the specter of Rudi Gulliani or Fred Thompson. How about Mike Huckabee? And this was all before the kookiness of the Tea Party causing people to go the crazy edge of the right. Then think back to 2012. Remember when it was going to Rick Santorum to be the nominee, when he won Iowa? Or Newt Gingrich when he took South Carolina? Or how about when Rick Perry and Herman Cain were the answers? There is all sorts of crazy, but there are only so many viable candidates. The crazy always gets washed out at some point in the race.

@peter12. When was the last time a populist candidate actually made it through the primary process and won his party's nomination? Was that person so devoid of a platform like Trump?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by New Era

How quickly people forget the recent history of the last Republican primary cycles. Go back to 2008 and think about the specter of Rudi Gulliani or Fred Thompson. How about Mike Huckabee? And this was all before the kookiness of the Tea Party causing people to go the crazy edge of the right. Then think back to 2012. Remember when it was going to Rick Santorum to be the nominee, when he won Iowa? Or Newt Gingrich when he took South Carolina? Or how about when Rick Perry and Herman Cain were the answers? There is all sorts of crazy, but there are only so many viable candidates. The crazy always gets washed out at some point in the race.

@peter12. When was the last time a populist candidate actually made it through the primary process and won his party's nomination? Was that person so devoid of a platform like Trump?

I don't forget, the pubs have been bad (very bad) for a long time, how else can you explain Obama winning?

As for your question to peter12? Don't want to step on his shoes but I would guess his answer to be Reagan, his first 6 months he couldn't spell "platform" and actually joked about it.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Reagan wouldn't be considered a populist candidate in th same vein as Trump. Reagan was a well established political entity, being politically active in the 40's. He was amultiterm governor of California before taking a run at the presidency. Reagan also had an incredible amount of support from the political philanthropists of the day, getting a massive support from the Coors family, which were the Koch brothers of their day. Reagan's "kitchen cabinet" was stocked with those supporters. Reagan was as much an insider with these power brokers as there could be, as they also backed his campaign to be California governor. What may have played a part in the perception of Reagan being a populist is his courting of the American Conservative Union. But what made Reagan king was Carter's economic troubles. The final nail in Carter's coffin was the Iranian Hostage Crisis. At that point the polls, where Carter lead right into October, swung violently in Reagan's favor.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

Reagan wouldn't be considered a populist candidate in th same vein as Trump. Reagan was a well established political entity, being politically active in the 40's. He was amultiterm governor of California before taking a run at the presidency. Reagan also had an incredible amount of support from the political philanthropists of the day, getting a massive support from the Coors family, which were the Koch brothers of their day. Reagan's "kitchen cabinet" was stocked with those supporters. Reagan was as much an insider with these power brokers as there could be, as they also backed his campaign to be California governor. What may have played a part in the perception of Reagan being a populist is his courting of the American Conservative Union. But what made Reagan king was Carter's economic troubles. The final nail in Carter's coffin was the Iranian Hostage Crisis. At that point the polls, where Carter lead right into October, swung violently in Reagan's favor.

I would probably say TDR. Trump doesn't need a platform yet. That can come after he has secured the nomination for the Republican candidate. You heard it here first.

He is actually lampooning how ineffective the standard Republican platform has become. Guest workers, reduced corporate tax, medicare reform, abandonment of social issues, and anti-Obama rhetoric will not cut it anymore.

That said, I am personally rooting for Carly Fiorina.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by T@T

I don't forget, the pubs have been bad (very bad) for a long time, how else can you explain Obama winning?

As for your question to peter12? Don't want to step on his shoes but I would guess his answer to be Reagan, his first 6 months he couldn't spell "platform" and actually joked about it.

Ronald Reagan was an establishment politician who had previously attempted to garner the GOP nomination in 1976 and had served as Governor of California prior to that.

Reagan had a well crafted platform of race baiting and communist boogeyman scare tactics as well as the aptly named 'voodoo economics' his presidency became known for.

Donald Trump is one small step away from Mary Carey.

[peter12]

Decent article in the NRO about Trump's status as an outsider candidate.

Ignoring Trump’s appeal would be a mistake, because he points to real divisions in the party coalition. Republicans should address these divisions — simply defeating Trump’s candidacy would not necessarily heal them. Grass-roots frustration with the Republican establishment continues to percolate. Even among Republicans, approval of the congressional GOP is down to 23 percent, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. Many in the base, fairly or not, view the party’s power structure as ineffective and operating upon values that the base does not share.

http://goo.gl/azLyCj

Sanders is doing the same thing with the Democrat's base.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by peter12

I would probably say TDR. Trump doesn't need a platform yet. That can come after he has secured the nomination for the Republican candidate. You heard it here first.

He is actually lampooning how ineffective the standard Republican platform has become. Guest workers, reduced corporate tax, medicare reform, abandonment of social issues, and anti-Obama rhetoric will not cut it anymore.

That said, I am personally rooting for Carly Fiorina.

This is such a ridiculous statement.

But in American politics, it's the truth. Scary reality.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

This is such a ridiculous statement.

But in American politics, it's the truth. Scary reality.

How is it ridiculous? Justin Trudeau was notoriously cagey on any sort of Liberal Party platform during his leadership bid, and the run up before the election.

Trump's strategy is sound - point out the cracks in the Republican establishment.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by peter12

How is it ridiculous? Justin Trudeau was notoriously cagey on any sort of Liberal Party platform during his leadership bid, and the run up before the election.

Trump's strategy is sound - point out the cracks in the Republican establishment.

You don't think it's ridiculous to not have a platform when you are running to be PM or President?

Maybe I'm just an idealist.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You don't think it's ridiculous to not have a platform when you are running to be PM or President?

Maybe I'm just an idealist.

He isn't running to be President, yet.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

He isn't running to be President, yet.

I understand you're trying to play a semantics game here, but Trump is running for President. He announced his campaign on June 16th and his PAC money will all be FEC registered for that purpose.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by peter12

He isn't running to be President, yet.

Slow day at work I assume today? Nitpicking posts.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

I understand you're trying to play a semantics game here, but Trump is running for President. He announced his campaign on June 16th and his PAC money will all be FEC registered for that purpose.

Unfortunately, semantics games matter in politics. Trump's strategy is as stated above, to expose the hypocrisies and failings of the Republic coalition strategy. Social science exclusively uses the past to make projections. In this case, the electoral coalition that elected Reagan and came out of the Goldwater disaster no longer exists. This is why platform is not nearly as important as you, or CroFlames are making it out to be. In fact, I can't really think of any platform that would be effective for a Republican candidate at this stage in the game. None of them are virtuous enough to create one that is believable.

Sanders so-called platform is just a re-appeal of the FDR legacy of the party.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Slow day at work I assume today? Nitpicking posts.

Nah, it's just what he does.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

Bernie Sanders' platform is pretty simple: "vote for me and I'll give you free stuff."

Tell me one policy that Sanders has that would affect you negatively.

And don't say 'he will INCREASE TAXES!!@#*(!@#)(*!@#!@' That is a lame copout. I am talking about actual specifics where he will take away your hard earned money and pass it all out for free to everyone else.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Azure

Tell me one policy that Sanders has that would affect you negatively.

And don't say 'he will INCREASE TAXES!!@#*(!@#)(*!@#!@' That is a lame copout. I am talking about actual specifics where he will take away your hard earned money and pass it all out for free to everyone else.

I'm not an American, buy I pay American taxes. I would rather take all the money they spend on overseas military posts/bases/missions and dump it ALL into healthcare reform.

Education needs to be reformed, not subsidized.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm not an American, buy I pay American taxes. I would rather take all the money they spend on overseas military posts/bases/missions and dump it ALL into healthcare reform.

Education needs to be reformed, not subsidized.

The military budget is an obvious target because it is ridiculously high, but I think they need to reduce over a period of time. Say 5-8% of the total budget per year. Over 10 years you'll have cut almost $300 billion in spending.

Give the military time to properly figure out how to become more efficient without spending so much money.

You could either invest that money into something better, or just take the $18 billion the US spends on oil and gas subsidies and spend it on something better.

There is a LOT of waste and unnecessary spending in the budget.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

Unfortunately, semantics games matter in politics. Trump's strategy is as stated above, to expose the hypocrisies and failings of the Republic coalition strategy. Social science exclusively uses the past to make projections. In this case, the electoral coalition that elected Reagan and came out of the Goldwater disaster no longer exists. This is why platform is not nearly as important as you, or CroFlames are making it out to be. In fact, I can't really think of any platform that would be effective for a Republican candidate at this stage in the game. None of them are virtuous enough to create one that is believable.

Sanders so-called platform is just a re-appeal of the FDR legacy of the party.

I agree with you about Sanders attempting to garner a similar appeal to FDRs legacy, but I don't know how you can write that Trump is attempting to, "expose the hypocrisies and failings of the Republic coalition strategy" with a straight face.

He's a bullwark for the GOPs serious candidates to spare them the lightning rod attention they would otherwise be receiving from the media were Trump not in the running.

Trump gets media exposure and financial gain from this exercise, in exchange, the American Media doesn't get an opportunity to run down the serious candidates the GOP is hoping to groom and field.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm not an American, buy I pay American taxes. I would rather take all the money they spend on overseas military posts/bases/missions and dump it ALL into healthcare reform.

Education needs to be reformed, not subsidized.

Education needs to be reformed indeed and unfortunately some of that reform is going to have to be reducing how much it costs. We can argue until we are blue in the face that "reform" will bring about those reductions or that gouging will not be allowed but the end result is the populace will see that as nothing more than a subsidized system. I don't think Sanders believes everyone should have free education equates to simply handing wannabe students money. It has to come from reform. (edit: also want to point out that Sanders is saying tuition PUBLIC institutions should be free. Plenty of private schools around which wouldn't fit under that umbrella. This is also the ideology phase of things where you put your wish list to the forefront rather than what one expects to actually achieve. Call me crazy that while I think Sanders is too far left, I much prefer his rhetoric to that of the entire GOP field and Clinton).

healthcare...the US already spends 6 times per capita on socialized healthcare than the next highest per capita spender for the developed countries (Canada) yet is the only country without universal coverage. There is plenty of money in the system just as there is with education. Proper and true reform need not actually cost the country and its citizens money.

But these are the problems of a "democracy" run by the special interest groups that have the deepest pockets.


So really the first reform has to be TRUE and REAL election reform. Until that happens you will never trim the very substantial fat that already exists that could cover these things that ought to be covered.

[Vulcan]

It looks like Joe Biden is close to running.

Speaking to members of the United Steelworkers as he ended his Pittsburgh visit, Biden praised Sanders as "doing a hell of a job." When a worker shouted "Biden for president," Biden dodged the issue.
"No... You've got to talk to my wife about that. I've got to talk to my wife about that," he said.
Biden said last week he is not sure he has the emotional energy for a candidacy following the death of his son Beau in May from cancer. He has given himself variously until later this month and possibly as long as until November to act on an appeal earlier this year from Beau to run for president.

If he's got to talk to his wife, I think it means he wants to run. I think he'd be a great candidate. Clinton's' numbers are dropping and Sanders is too much of an outsider socialist to appeal to many. I like Sanders but I can't see him getting elected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03784e27644f3