I like the idea of a self funded non political candidate. In my opinion a career politician has very little real world skills.
But if being a career politician doesn't provide you with any 'real world' skills, is being a president a 'real world' job? At a minimum, you need to have a sophisticated understanding of law, of the way government works, of international relations, of economics. You don't get those skills from many 'real world' jobs. Honestly, being a state governor is probably the most applicable experience you can get.
I think elections have strangely (and entirely accidentally) changed over the years to become a pretty good litmus test for showing us the sort of leader someone is going to be. An incompetent campaign is likely to reflect that the person would be incompetent as a leader. A campaign needs to manage very large budgets that follow very complex rules, they need to coordinate extensive and geographically distributed work-forces, they need to have a high degree of accountability, they need to be very data-driven, they need effective risk/reward management, they need to be based on connection not only with citizens but also with other officials. From the deceit of Cruz, the secrecy of Clinton, the disconnect of Rubio, the divisiveness of Trump, you can look at how these people conduct their campaigns and get a reasonable sense of what their white house would be like.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Oh I see, because things might be difficult to pass one shouldn't even try. Gun control in a nutshell. If you can't solve verything with one bill don't even bother trying. How about having vision and taking the steps you can to start going down the road. Geez. If he wins the election it is because a majority of voters agree with his vision. If the House and Senate stand in the way it will be 2 years of lame duck presidency followed by massive mid-term changes. The voters will not accept another do nothing congress.
I mean...you know this isn't true right? The GOP started Operation: Obstruction in 2010. At the time, they had 242 House seats and 47 Senate seats. Currently, the GOP has....247 House seats, and 54 Senate seats. So no, the voters will easily accept a do-nothing Congress. They've already shown you they will.
You also have to remember after Obama's first two years, with the House and Senate under Dem control, the Dems got destroyed in the 2010 elections (combined loss of 70 seats!!!). So even if Bernie gets the Senate for instance, if he tries to pass say Health Care, he'll be decimated in 2018 because the GOP machine, like it or not, is very effective. Like significantly more than the Dems.
I guess I'm not saying "Don't try", I'm saying pretty much no matter what the GOP has the mechanisms in place to brutally punish the Dems. Remember Obama was a true centrist even if they tried to slam him as a communist/socialist/maoist/whateverist. How easy is it going to be for them to go after a guy who uses socialist in his title? Almost too easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
If there is enough of a turnout this year and people try to make a difference in even Gerrymandered areas, there could be change. GOP is up for 24 openings in the senate vs. 10 for Dems. It's a matter of getting enough support and getting people to realize the Congress/Senate are a huge problem.
Senate isn't the House. Senate can be had for the Dems for sure, no gerrymandering there at all. The House though, I mean you have to see how they drew up some of these districts. Brilliant (if disgusting) political moves to pretty much screw the Dems out of many possible seats for years to come. Problem with the Senate is the GOP has rigged that one too with the filibuster, so now it takes 60 seats to have a majority and not 50. Maybe the real lesson out of all of this is the Dems need to stop being such pussies and just start acting like dicks.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 02-19-2016 at 02:39 PM.
A vote for Bernie is, either now or in four years, a vote for the hardline right wing republicans, because that is where the U.S. goes after a failed four years of nothing happening.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, who struggles with perceptions of dishonesty in polls, said Thursday that she didn’t believe she had ever told a lie and vowed to do her best to be honest going forward. Jimmy Carter famously pledged to the American people, “I will never lie to you.” Asked if she could give a similar promise in an interview with CBS News, Clinton didn’t quite go there.
“You’re asking me to say, ‘have I ever [lied]?’ I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I am going to do the best I can to level with the American people,” Clinton told anchor Scott Pelley.
Senate isn't the House. Senate can be had for the Dems for sure, no gerrymandering there at all. The House though, I mean you have to see how they drew up some of these districts. Brilliant (if disgusting) political moves to pretty much screw the Dems out of many possible seats for years to come. Problem with the Senate is the GOP has rigged that one too with the filibuster, so now it takes 60 seats to have a majority and not 50. Maybe the real lesson out of all of this is the Dems need to stop being such pussies and just start acting like dicks.
One interesting effect of Scalia's death and the resulting vacancy is it suddenly gives the Democrats some advantages in electoral cases. One of the cases currently on its way to the supreme court involves a heavily gerrymandered North Carolina district (from the 2010 redistricting cycle), which a federal court found unconstitutional, because it was drawn along race lines. Here's the district in question... good grief!
The death of Scalia means that this case is likely headed for at best a 4-4 split, which will uphold the lower court's decision. But if the Democrats win the election, regain control of the senate, and manage to secure a long-term advantage in the supreme court, it gives them an inside track on further electoral cases. There are certainly other heavily-gerrymandered districts that could be challenged, not to mention giving the Democrats a better chance at defeating election ID laws. It's possible that a pro-democrat supreme court could find gerrymandering along political - and not just racial - lines unconstitutional, effectively ending the gerrymandering advantage Republicans currently enjoy.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Clinton is now projected by CNN to have won the Nevada caucuses. Sanders likely needed to do well and looks to have fallen just short. He's not going away or anything but I sense this is a minor setback for him.
It'll be interesting to see the results for south carolina. Trump has been up big in the polls, but there's been some late movement away from him. There's also been a big increase in google search traffic on Cruz and Rubio, which seemed to be a decent indicator of late-breaking undecideds (for Cruz and Rubio in Iowa, and for Kasich in New Hampshire).
I wouldn't be surprised to see all 3 just a few points apart in the mid 20s, as they were in Iowa.
Edit: Exit polls also suggesting that Trump did poorly with late deciders.
It'll be interesting to see the results for south carolina. Trump has been up big in the polls, but there's been some late movement away from him. There's also been a big increase in google search traffic on Cruz and Rubio, which seemed to be a decent indicator of late-breaking undecideds (for Cruz and Rubio in Iowa, and for Kasich in New Hampshire).
I wouldn't be surprised to see all 3 just a few points apart in the mid 20s, as they were in Iowa.
Edit: Exit polls also suggesting that Trump did poorly with late deciders.
If Cruz looses SC(bible belt state) he should just quit.
Looking like Rubio will finish second which should eliminate Ted Cruz from consideration. Cruz's strategy was to try and win all the "SEC primaries", so to finish third in one of the most evangelical states is pretty devastating. Wonder if Jeb treks on with his likely 4th place finish. Kasich and Carson should be finished.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Looking like Rubio will finish second which should eliminate Ted Cruz from consideration. Cruz's strategy was to try and win all the "SEC primaries", so to finish third in one of the most evangelical states is pretty devastating. Wonder if Jeb treks on with his likely 4th place finish. Kasich and Carson should be finished.
While Cruz is in all practical terms done, I think he stays in at least until after March 1st; only a couple weeks, and most of those are closed caucuses would should flatten Trump's support a bit. But really, the only reason why he would drop out is because the establishment wants him to, and it's not like he has any friends there.
Kasich has put next to no effort into South Carolina and would probably like to stay in until March 1st as well, for Massachusetts, Vermont, and Minnesota. But I could see him bowing to party pressure and dropping out, as he'll be little more than an establishment spoiler now. Maybe Rubio promises him a cabinet position or something if he drops out this month.
Bush, yeah, he needs to drop out now, there's zero reason for him to stay in.
Also looks like Trump has a solid shot at a sweep tonight. A couple districts are definitely still in play, but Trump getting all 50 delegates wouldn't be a surprise.
