The New American Politics thread

[Igottago]

Watched some highlights (lowlights?) from the debate. Honestly not much different from watching the apprentice, just needed Trump to say "you're fired". I can't believe this is actually considered serious political engagement. Is there any level of depth to these debates, at all? Or just about who can make the most noise? I knew reality TV was going to erode the culture at some point, took less time than expected.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Chris Christie endorses Trump. I would think that's an obvious attempt to get a VP nomination.

[peter12]

Bruce is going to be pissed.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Chris Christie endorses Trump. I would think that's an obvious attempt to get a VP nomination.

His time as a prosecutor makes him realize that his executive experience as a governor tells him to endorse Trump.

... 9/11

/Christie

[Senator Clay Davis]

Of course textbook Trump, and the media lap dogs giving him what he wants: Instead of talking about his pathetic debate performance, we're onto the next news story. It's funny how much Trump supporters rail against the media, yet without the media Trump would have been out at least 6 months ago.

I suppose ultimately Trump supporters are so driven to kick out Mexicans and Muslims (to start), they'll do whatever it takes. Look at all the Trump supporters who trashed Christie for months now acting like this is a deeply meaningful endorsement. Without question the stupidest voting block of all-time in the history of Earth is Trump supporters.

[calgarygeologist]

I'm watching the live Trump speech that is on CNN right now and he is really losing it. He was always a bit silly and crazy but now he is coming across as utterly insane. Why is the Republican leadership always so full of terrible candidates?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm watching the live Trump speech that is on CNN right now and he is really losing it. He was always a bit silly and crazy but now he is coming across as utterly insane. Why is the Republican leadership always so full of terrible candidates?

Because they have terrible voters. Not all of them of course but the highly engaged ones (the ones most likely to launch primary challanges) are just wacky.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah I think Trump is either trying to get himself out of the race now, or he's seeing how far he can go before his base actually considers not supporting him. At that insane-o presser, he suggested he'll change the First Amendment so that he can sue the Washington Post and New York Times for libel. I mean....

[ernie]

The Republican party and it's baseline supporters are really contradictions. A very large chunk of their support comes from those that rail against everything government but are the primary users of the entitlements. And then you have the rich as the other chunk who are only concerned with the money in their account. And not so they can spend it and stimulate an economy but so they can do very little with it.

I understand a guy like Sanders isn't everybody's cup of tea but at some point does this population not need to wake up and realize that "tax cut" isn't actually a viable solution to much of anything at this point?

[Flash Walken]

The GOP is having nightmares about a presidential ticket with a New York Liberal at the helm and a New Jersey republican as his running mate.

"The South Wants In!"

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yeah I think Trump is either trying to get himself out of the race now, or he's seeing how far he can go before his base actually considers not supporting him. At that insane-o presser, he suggested he'll change the First Amendment so that he can sue the Washington Post and New York Times for libel. I mean....

Playing to his base perfectly.

These anger politics and tea party folks likely believe that the New York Times actually forces people into homosexuality

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I do not realistically believe this would happen, but the best thing for the Republican donor class might be to field and finance an independent candidate, someone to the right of Trump, evangelical Christian, who can attack Trump on his Republican-in-name-only credentials. Such a candidate would not win. But it could dilute the Republican vote enough to ensure that Clinton wins the presidency, while keeping down-ballot performance strong enough to ensure that the Republicans don't suffer in the house or senate. It's not ideal for them, but the donor class is served reasonably well by gridlock so making sure that it continues is probably the best of available outcomes.

Hey, turns out this is not totally unrealistic. It may be being talked about in certain circles. The first big obstacle will be gaining signatures:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...pendent-219859

The idea of such a push by the donors may be the reason they've backed off the idea of an aggressive Trump attack ad idea that they had talked about.

[nik-]

Doesn't that further alienate the "fed up" voter base though?

If they see the money forcing someone new through, they'll likely buck against it. They won't buck so hard to vote Dem, but they could very well buck enough to not bother voting.

They're forcing themselves to play a dangerous game on a game board they created themselves.

[FlameOn]

So Reuters is reporting that all current signs have Trump with 90% chance of winning the GOP nomination.... Let's start building our wall to keep him out.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...an-nomination/

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by nik-

Doesn't that further alienate the "fed up" voter base though?

If they see the money forcing someone new through, they'll likely buck against it. They won't buck so hard to vote Dem, but they could very well buck enough to not bother voting.

Maybe. It depends on what the end goal is. If it's to thwart a Trump presidency at all costs, then they don't need to win back the fed-up voter base, they just need to give the traditional (largely evangelical) right-wing core an option that's further right of Trump and not crazy. To win, they'd probably need to bank on the idea that at some point, Trump's base is going to get sick of his antics, and given its staying power so far, that seems like a longshot. But it might be the best (only?) chance the donors have to not lose total control of the party.

[troutman]

80% of the dirt on Trump has yet to surface:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03260bf75b395

[driveway]

I really like Clinton, always have. I think she very much learned the main lesson of the Obama years which is that campaigning on Hope will win you the job, but you have to govern as a pragmatist.

I think her issue is that she's running as a pragmatist. Also, the baggage of a lifetime in politics.

I think she'd make a good president, though I don't know if she'd be as scandal-free as Obama. Clinton history seems to indicate not. Those scandals would likely hurt her ability to govern. Also, republican intransigence would remain steadfast against her.

In that sense, even though Sanders is to her left, I think - due to the lack of personal hostility the republican base has for him- he may face slightly less resistance in congress.

I just don't know if he learned the "you need to be a pragmatist" lesson of the Obama years.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by driveway

I really like Clinton, always have. I think she very much learned the main lesson of the Obama years which is that campaigning on Hope will win you the job, but you have to govern as a pragmatist.

I think her issue is that she's running as a pragmatist. Also, the baggage of a lifetime in politics.

I think she'd make a good president, though I don't know if she'd be as scandal-free as Obama. Clinton history seems to indicate not. Those scandals would likely hurt her ability to govern. Also, republican intransigence would remain steadfast against her.

In that sense, even though Sanders is to her left, I think - due to the lack of personal hostility the republican base has for him- he may face slightly less resistance in congress.

I just don't know if he learned the "you need to be a pragmatist" lesson of the Obama years.

Her baggage is from showing an alarming lack of judgement. If she worked for me, I would have fired her in a second for that alone. She's had some significant posts and done an adequate job, but she would not be in this position but for her name.

That said, if I had a vote, I'd vote for her in a second given the alternatives. I hope with every bone in my body that she ends up as president, but I find her entirely unlikable and don't really think she's done much to deserve to be president.

[Caged Great]

The way I look at it, who is passable in terms of being able to do the job.

Clinton is.

Sanders and Kasich are about on the same level below her.

Everyone else is a lunatic or stupid (or both)

If there were actual proper candidates on either side of the fence, it would be a better option. If Elizabeth Warren ran, she would have already won.

I don't like Hillary much, but she would do an okay job. Everyone else would be varying shades of disaster as president. Sanders, unless he gets a majority in both the house and senate will be as impeded as Obama was. Nothing will get accomplished in his 4 years and then he will be replaced by a right wing extremist in 2020.

If Hillary wins, and wins again in 2020, then perhaps the Democratic roster of candidates will be restocked enough to get a viable candidate in 2024.

[Caged Great]

Hillary hammered Bernie in Carolina. Currently sitting at 80-18.

She won the elderly black vote (65+) 96-3.

With the amount of states that Hillary is way up on for Tuesday, she could have this wrapped up in a couple days.