Bernie Sanders

[gr8indoorsman]

As a follow up, I just took the isidewith.com quiz again, this time more thoughtfully. Unfortunately, Trump is the one I align with most, and I suspect that's because I place more emphasis on economic policy and less on most of the rest where I find his policies abhorrent (immigration, women's rights, etc.). I do not and will not support Trump for or as President (insofar as I am allowed as a servicemember) as I would be ashamed to have him as CinC or the direct representative of our country, regardless of his purported ideological stances.

Rubio was a close second, not surprisingly. He's "my boy" as far as this election goes.

Followed then by Fiorina and then Cruz and most of the rest of the R candidates.

Interestingly, Clinton was mid-pack, ahead of Christie and Carson for me. Sanders was, of course, last because of my vast differences of opinion with him economically and in foreign policy. On domestic policy, he was one of my top 4, and near the top with respect to electoral policy as well as I would've expected.

The entire range was 85% for Trump (83% Rubio down to 79% Cruz) down to 63% for Sanders, which makes me feel a little bit better about having Trump at the top.

I feel like that quiz is OK except that listening to Trump and Cruz speak actually bugs me more than Sanders, even though I admit that more of Sanders' policies make me want to vomit.

I'd be happiest with a Rubio-Clinton election, regardless of the outcome. I'd be fine with a Rubio-Sanders election - for one, I think Rubio would win, and for another 80% of Sanders' crazy-ass ideas (IMO) aren't going to happen, but election reform might!

I'd vote for Clinton over Trump. I might vote for her over Cruz. And I might vote Sanders over either one of those imbeciles as well.

 

[qazplm]

I watched the town hall and the Democratic debate last night and it got me thinking... of the two candidates, clearly I would be more closely aligned ideologically with Hillary than Bernie on most issues, the two notable exceptions being campaign finance reform and gun control. Though I'm more left-leaning or at least centrist than most right wingers on gun control in that I think more needs to be done, I am not convinced that a whole slew of bans and tougher/more laws are always the answer, instead better/more thorough enforcement of current laws would probably work. In fact I think Bernie's summary of gun control describes me perfectly: "I will take the following concrete steps to reduce gun violence: strengthen and better enforce the instant background check system; close the gun-show loophole; make 'straw man' purchases a federal crime; ban semi-automatic assault weapons which are designed strictly for killing human beings; and work to fix our broken mental health system."

There was an interesting exchange which highlighted why Bernie might not be the nightmare some folks of my ilk think. When the moderator mentioned that the first priority you tackle is usually the one thing you really get done in a four-year presidency (or eight years for Obama and PPACA, largely due to Congress, which I'm fine with... balance of power works), he asked what it would be for each candidate.

Hillary mentioned like nine things, and never really answered the question. In fact, I'd say she made pains to dodge it entirely. But, if I had to nail down the thing she seemed most concerned or passionate about, I'd say it was green energy and making the US the leader in developing green energy into the future. Either that or path to citizenship and immigration reform. But again, too hard to nail down one thing.

Bernie, on the other hand, said he would fix the political system and reform campaign financing in an effort to get politicians out of the pockets of the "billionaire class".

I admit, I'm feeling the Bern on that one. If he were elected, I'd be much happier pushing that agenda than, really, anything Hillary mentioned. Hillary is becoming more demagogic as Bernie gains on her, and I think Bernie says what he thinks.

1. Hillary rejected the premise that you can only do one big thing. I agree with her. It may end up you can't do anything if Congress is with the other party and blocks you, or it may end up that you can do multiple things. Obama did more than the ACA. Whether one thinks it good or ill, he got rid of some of the Bush tax cuts...that was a pretty big deal, again whether you think it great or bad. DADT, another pretty big deal, and I think a driver in the revolution of gay rights during his second term. So, I don't think it's fair to say, she never answered the question because I think it was a poorly premised question. She listed a host of things, all important.

2. Bernie is not remotely going to "fix the political system" or reform campaign finance. At BEST, he'd nominate justices...eventually...he would...years from now perhaps return us to Pre-Citizen's United. Now, I think that would be great, it was a horrible decision...but it is not as if the campaign finance landscape of then is all that much better nor would it get politicians out of the pockets of the billionaire class. It would certainly help keep folks like the Koch's from spending almost a billion dollars (I believe somewhere around 900 million for this election cycle), and that's good, but Hillary's nominees (or any Dem President's nominees) would do the same.

My problems with Bernie remain:

1. too one-note. EVERYTHING isn't about Wall Street, or Big Banks and Corporations. I see no real deep thoughts about foreign policy, or a myriad number of social issues, or anything other than tearing down the rich. I think the rich should pay more, and I think corruption is too high, but we have a ton of other issues as well.

2. Too vague. He proposes to save more money annually in health care savings with his plan...than we spend on health care savings annually.

3. Will not win the GE. Now Hillary may not win the GE, but Bernie will not win the GE. He might turn out more Dems, but he will also turn out more Reps. Lower level candidates in more moderate districts will be tarred with him, and even if he somehow won, I'd wonder if the Senate wouldn't remain republican.

I'd vote for him way before anyone in the clown car, and I certainly would have preferred a third choice to either of them, but to me Hillary is by far the more preferred person. She's smart, deeply knowledgeable across the board, and she knows how to fight in the trenches. Bernie would simply "stand by his principles." Which is nice, but nothing gets done, and you know at some point, stuff does need to actually get done.

 

[qazplm]

As a follow up, I just took the isidewith.com quiz again, this time more thoughtfully. Unfortunately, Trump is the one I align with most, and I suspect that's because I place more emphasis on economic policy and less on most of the rest where I find his policies abhorrent (immigration, women's rights, etc.). I do not and will not support Trump for or as President (insofar as I am allowed as a servicemember) as I would be ashamed to have him as CinC or the direct representative of our country, regardless of his purported ideological stances.

Rubio was a close second, not surprisingly. He's "my boy" as far as this election goes.

Followed then by Fiorina and then Cruz and most of the rest of the R candidates.

Interestingly, Clinton was mid-pack, ahead of Christie and Carson for me. Sanders was, of course, last because of my vast differences of opinion with him economically and in foreign policy. On domestic policy, he was one of my top 4, and near the top with respect to electoral policy as well as I would've expected.

The entire range was 85% for Trump (83% Rubio down to 79% Cruz) down to 63% for Sanders, which makes me feel a little bit better about having Trump at the top.

I feel like that quiz is OK except that listening to Trump and Cruz speak actually bugs me more than Sanders, even though I admit that more of Sanders' policies make me want to vomit.

I'd be happiest with a Rubio-Clinton election, regardless of the outcome. I'd be fine with a Rubio-Sanders election - for one, I think Rubio would win, and for another 80% of Sanders' crazy-ass ideas (IMO) aren't going to happen, but election reform might!

I'd vote for Clinton over Trump. I might vote for her over Cruz. And I might vote Sanders over either one of those imbeciles as well.

Cruz and Trump really are ridiculous. I mean...seriously, possibly two of the worst candidates either party has put up since the late 60s/early 70s when the parties took turns putting up really bad choices. Mondale was pretty sad, but he was at least a decent guy...same with Dole.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

1. Hillary rejected the premise that you can only do one big thing. I agree with her. It may end up you can't do anything if Congress is with the other party and blocks you, or it may end up that you can do multiple things. Obama did more than the ACA. Whether one thinks it good or ill, he got rid of some of the Bush tax cuts...that was a pretty big deal, again whether you think it great or bad. DADT, another pretty big deal, and I think a driver in the revolution of gay rights during his second term. So, I don't think it's fair to say, she never answered the question because I think it was a poorly premised question. She listed a host of things, all important.

2. Bernie is not remotely going to "fix the political system" or reform campaign finance. At BEST, he'd nominate justices...eventually...he would...years from now perhaps return us to Pre-Citizen's United. Now, I think that would be great, it was a horrible decision...but it is not as if the campaign finance landscape of then is all that much better nor would it get politicians out of the pockets of the billionaire class. It would certainly help keep folks like the Koch's from spending almost a billion dollars (I believe somewhere around 900 million for this election cycle), and that's good, but Hillary's nominees (or any Dem President's nominees) would do the same.

My problems with Bernie remain:

1. too one-note. EVERYTHING isn't about Wall Street, or Big Banks and Corporations. I see no real deep thoughts about foreign policy, or a myriad number of social issues, or anything other than tearing down the rich. I think the rich should pay more, and I think corruption is too high, but we have a ton of other issues as well.

2. Too vague. He proposes to save more money annually in health care savings with his plan...than we spend on health care savings annually.

3. Will not win the GE. Now Hillary may not win the GE, but Bernie will not win the GE. He might turn out more Dems, but he will also turn out more Reps. Lower level candidates in more moderate districts will be tarred with him, and even if he somehow won, I'd wonder if the Senate wouldn't remain republican.

1. I think this is fair. I guess I'd quibble, though... he let the Bush tax cuts expire, it didn't take action - I guess inaction can be action in some cases. And yes, I agree that DADT had to do with Obama being in office, so credit for LGBT rights is deserved in some measure thanks to Justice appointments (for better or for worse, whatever your opinion. And yes, I agree that it's tough to judge because obviously Congress is blocking his abilities, again for better or for worse whatever your opinion. Change is supposed to be hard and slow in a Democracy unless it's blatantly obvious. That system still works.

2. Fair point about Clinton. I do think she should be able to state one priority over all others, however. The D party was pretty clear on that in 2008 and I think that's helpful as far as establishing a platform and a base. Most common sensed people know any candidate won't get done everything they want in four or eight years, so I think it's important to identify that one or two things over all others that you're really going to push hard for, perhaps at the expense of some others.

3. I agree, but if he puts focus on fixing it, that's a good thing and better than anything Clinton mentioned (IMO!!). Obviously we're going to disagree on that point, and that's OK.

I agree with your three problems with Bernie whole-heartedly, but that message resonates with young, emotional voters, and that's what helps the D base as you said. I'm not sure Clinton can excite them quite as much with her platform. But, I think Sanders would get beaten soundly by Rubio. Really - and this is formed only on my opinion of the clown car candidates - I think Rubio would be the only one with a good shot at Hillary.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Cruz and Trump really are ridiculous. I mean...seriously, possibly two of the worst candidates either party has put up since the late 60s/early 70s when the parties took turns putting up really bad choices. Mondale was pretty sad, but he was at least a decent guy...same with Dole.

I thought Dukakis was pretty awful. Kinda like Dole too.

I was disappointed in McCain, though I think he would've been a better president than any of the ones you or I mentioned. I was excited when he was running, but then he just kind of fizzled and ran into a buzzsaw of "Hope. Change." In the end, he's doing good things still in the Senate holding DOD accountable.

 

[beardownboiler]

As a follow up, I just took the isidewith.com quiz again, this time more thoughtfully. Unfortunately, Trump is the one I align with most, and I suspect that's because I place more emphasis on economic policy and less on most of the rest where I find his policies abhorrent (immigration, women's rights, etc.). I do not and will not support Trump for or as President (insofar as I am allowed as a servicemember) as I would be ashamed to have him as CinC or the direct representative of our country, regardless of his purported ideological stances.

Rubio was a close second, not surprisingly. He's "my boy" as far as this election goes.

Followed then by Fiorina and then Cruz and most of the rest of the R candidates.

Interestingly, Clinton was mid-pack, ahead of Christie and Carson for me. Sanders was, of course, last because of my vast differences of opinion with him economically and in foreign policy. On domestic policy, he was one of my top 4, and near the top with respect to electoral policy as well as I would've expected.

The entire range was 85% for Trump (83% Rubio down to 79% Cruz) down to 63% for Sanders, which makes me feel a little bit better about having Trump at the top.

I feel like that quiz is OK except that listening to Trump and Cruz speak actually bugs me more than Sanders, even though I admit that more of Sanders' policies make me want to vomit.

I'd be happiest with a Rubio-Clinton election, regardless of the outcome. I'd be fine with a Rubio-Sanders election - for one, I think Rubio would win, and for another 80% of Sanders' crazy-ass ideas (IMO) aren't going to happen, but election reform might!

I'd vote for Clinton over Trump. I might vote for her over Cruz. And I might vote Sanders over either one of those imbeciles as well.

Sanders would likely lose the general to almost any of the realistic GOP candidates. The one that frightens me the most (because I think he's a sociopath) is Ted Cruz. That guy would be a disaster. While I don't think Trump or Rubio are even close to ideal, I could live with it.

 

[beardownboiler]

Cruz and Trump really are ridiculous. I mean...seriously, possibly two of the worst candidates either party has put up since the late 60s/early 70s when the parties took turns putting up really bad choices. Mondale was pretty sad, but he was at least a decent guy...same with Dole.

The reason I'm "OK" with Trump is that I don't trust him . . at all. The guy isn't stupid. He's just not. He got plenty of help to get where he is, but he still can't do it by being stupid. He's a jerk, but he's not stupid. He would have to be a complete moron to believe much of what he has said so far. I think he says what he says just to get people behind him. I have little faith that he'll actually do anything he has talked about. I figure he'd end up being pretty moderate. Cruz, on the other hand, is a POS who would be a disaster as president.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Sanders would likely lose the general to almost any of the realistic GOP candidates. The one that frightens me the most (because I think he's a sociopath) is Ted Cruz. That guy would be a disaster. While I don't think Trump or Rubio are even close to ideal, I could live with it.

Ick, I'd rather Cruz than Trump I think, but I mean, seriously... don't make me choose!

Rubio, to me, is a far better representative of the US. He's well-spoken and not indelicate. He's intelligent and can think on his feet. We see Cruz and Trump put in awkward situations and they respond poorly. Rubio can usually talk intelligently, and I don't think he runs from changing his mind. It's silly to me to see candidates criticized for votes in 2002, for example, in 2016. "You changed your mind!!" Well, yeah? Circumstances and times change, and sometimes you support things you don't like to get some things you do. It's called compromise.

I guess that sums up what I dislike most about Cruz and Trump - they are entirely uncompromising, which just doesn't work in the world or in politics, IMO.

 

[beardownboiler]

Ick, I'd rather Cruz than Trump I think, but I mean, seriously... don't make me choose!

Rubio, to me, is a far better representative of the US. He's well-spoken and not indelicate. He's intelligent and can think on his feet. We see Cruz and Trump put in awkward situations and they respond poorly. Rubio can usually talk intelligently, and I don't think he runs from changing his mind. It's silly to me to see candidates criticized for votes in 2002, for example, in 2016. "You changed your mind!!" Well, yeah? Circumstances and times change, and sometimes you support things you don't like to get some things you do. It's called compromise.

I guess that sums up what I dislike most about Cruz and Trump - they are entirely uncompromising, which just doesn't work in the world or in politics, IMO.

See my next post about Trump. It's not entirely logical, but that's my take on that guy. Maybe I'm being optimistic.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I saw CNN entrance polls that made sense to me. Based on highest education level, these were the preferred candidates in the clown car:

HS degree or less: Trump
Some college: Cruz
College degree: Rubio
Post-graduate education: Rubio

Just thought it was interesting and confirmed what I would've guessed. (Note: this does not mean every Trump supporter is uneducated, nor that all Rubio supporters are smarter, it's just who appeals to the broader base on average.)

 

[gr8indoorsman]

See my next post about Trump. It's not entirely logical, but that's my take on that guy. Maybe I'm being optimistic.

No, I agree he's smart and he understands people. He's a total demagogue at least when campaigning, but that's probably smart. I listened to all five post-caucus speeches, and I think his was far and away the most vacuous. "I love everybody!!!" pretty much summed it up. Sanders' was good, Rubio's was good. The other two were "meh."

 

[qazplm]

1. I think this is fair. I guess I'd quibble, though... he let the Bush tax cuts expire, it didn't take action - I guess inaction can be action in some cases. And yes, I agree that DADT had to do with Obama being in office, so credit for LGBT rights is deserved in some measure thanks to Justice appointments (for better or for worse, whatever your opinion. And yes, I agree that it's tough to judge because obviously Congress is blocking his abilities, again for better or for worse whatever your opinion. Change is supposed to be hard and slow in a Democracy unless it's blatantly obvious. That system still works.

2. Fair point about Clinton. I do think she should be able to state one priority over all others, however. The D party was pretty clear on that in 2008 and I think that's helpful as far as establishing a platform and a base. Most common sensed people know any candidate won't get done everything they want in four or eight years, so I think it's important to identify that one or two things over all others that you're really going to push hard for, perhaps at the expense of some others.

3. I agree, but if he puts focus on fixing it, that's a good thing and better than anything Clinton mentioned (IMO!!). Obviously we're going to disagree on that point, and that's OK.

I agree with your three problems with Bernie whole-heartedly, but that message resonates with young, emotional voters, and that's what helps the D base as you said. I'm not sure Clinton can excite them quite as much with her platform. But, I think Sanders would get beaten soundly by Rubio. Really - and this is formed only on my opinion of the clown car candidates - I think Rubio would be the only one with a good shot at Hillary.

I think we are beginning to see problems with Rubio though as exposed by the republican candidates and the media. Christie of all people revealed it...he doesn't take questions from anyone but select folks in the media and he never, ever varies from his script at each stop down to the same jokes and punchlines every time.

That doesn't mean he's an idiot, but that kind of scripting is a bad idea and bound to backfire at some point sooner or later. He also doesn't have much in the way of accomplishments, and he's going to have to pick a side on immigration and there's problems either way he goes there. He either keeps conservatives and loses Latinos, or vice versa.

I think Bush on paper should be the strongest candidate, followed by Kasich. Both governors, both in purple states, both with at least a veneer of moderatism combined with enough conservatism to keep their side in check.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think we are beginning to see problems with Rubio though as exposed by the republican candidates and the media...he never, ever varies from his script at each stop down to the same jokes and punchlines every time.

I think Bush on paper should be the strongest candidate, followed by Kasich. Both governors, both in purple states, both with at least a veneer of moderatism combined with enough conservatism to keep their side in check.

I would guess Bush and Kasich don't make it to Super Tuesday, personally. Bush is tarnished by his name, which is unfair, but a fact of life. Kasich doesn't stand out in any way, which would be good against this field, but it's bad against this field if that makes sense.

Rubio has commented on his script saying "that's my message. That's what's important to me and that's what I'm campaigning on." I think there's a lot being made of his script but I don't know what they're hoping to prove. Maybe they're trying to say he doesn't think well on his feet, but his performances at debates show otherwise. While he's probably not outright won one, he's stood out in the top couple of guys in all of them including answering questions directly when asked, unlike some other guys who just use their minute to say what they want to say.

We'll see what happens. The fact that he's being attacked, particularly by the media, leads me to believe that he's gaining strength, not the other way around. When it comes to GE time, he'd still carry the conservative voters who would show up en masse to vote against Sanders but to a lesser extent against Clinton. Whether or not he carries more of the Latino vote is anyone's guess. I think his stance on immigration is pretty clear - stop illegal immigration first, then discuss a pathway to citizenship for those here now. He's even said that probably wouldn't happen for 10-12 years, and of course he was panned for that, but he's right IMO. I don't see a "quick fix" either extreme way: neither deporting everyone and building Trump-Cruz Wall complete with spikes and dogs; nor "Hey, congratulations, you're all citizens! Come get your welfare" or whatever... is a fast, permanent solution which both stops the influx of illegals and offers a realistic solution to those who are here now.

Obama didn't have much in the way of accomplishments, either!

 

[qazplm]

I would guess Bush and Kasich don't make it to Super Tuesday, personally. Bush is tarnished by his name, which is unfair, but a fact of life. Kasich doesn't stand out in any way, which would be good against this field, but it's bad against this field if that makes sense.

Rubio has commented on his script saying "that's my message. That's what's important to me and that's what I'm campaigning on." I think there's a lot being made of his script but I don't know what they're hoping to prove. Maybe they're trying to say he doesn't think well on his feet, but his performances at debates show otherwise. While he's probably not outright won one, he's stood out in the top couple of guys in all of them including answering questions directly when asked, unlike some other guys who just use their minute to say what they want to say.

We'll see what happens. The fact that he's being attacked, particularly by the media, leads me to believe that he's gaining strength, not the other way around. When it comes to GE time, he'd still carry the conservative voters who would show up en masse to vote against Sanders but to a lesser extent against Clinton. Whether or not he carries more of the Latino vote is anyone's guess. I think his stance on immigration is pretty clear - stop illegal immigration first, then discuss a pathway to citizenship for those here now. He's even said that probably wouldn't happen for 10-12 years, and of course he was panned for that, but he's right IMO. I don't see a "quick fix" either extreme way: neither deporting everyone and building Trump-Cruz Wall complete with spikes and dogs; nor "Hey, congratulations, you're all citizens! Come get your welfare" or whatever... is a fast, permanent solution which both stops the influx of illegals and offers a realistic solution to those who are here now.

Obama didn't have much in the way of accomplishments, either!

Obama wasn't scripted, and he had a message that resonated, and on one of his parties seminal issues, Iraq, he didn't flip flop. Rubio has none of those. Rubio is not carrying hispanics so long as he carries the water for the republican plans. If he'd stood his ground before the flip flop with the Gang of 8, he might have stood a chance, but of course he couldn't get nominated with that stand so he switched. Just like AA's weren't going to come out and vote for Ben Carson, Hispanics are not going to come out and vote for Rubio, unless I suppose he flips again were he nominated in the GE...but I doubt anyone on either side would trust him if he did that. He's being attacked because he's the establishment lane guy. Bush, Kasich, and Christie are horrible candidates for that lane, he's the best of the lot. He's not being attacked for any other reason. I don't see Trump/Cruz supporters rushing to him.

I think this is turning into a three way race that goes to a brokered convention. One for outsiders, one for evangelicals, and one for establishment Reps.

 

[jadeezra]

Well what's up now boys with the poll today? Things are getting wild. Qazplm I'm not dodging your question haven't been on in awhile. Will respond tomorrow. Btw guys it's honor you guys are smart

 

[qazplm]

Well what's up now boys with the poll today? Things are getting wild. Qazplm I'm not dodging your question haven't been on in awhile. Will respond tomorrow. Btw guys it's honor you guys are smart

Not really. One poll has it close, another poll has Hillary up double digits. I think we will see after Super Tuesday. If Bernie is tied with Hillary or nearly so in delegates, ok, he's for real, but if she takes most of the Super Tuesday states, then it's hard to see how he catches up.

SC will be a mini-preview of that...if she wins at least as comfortably as he wins NH then he's in trouble. If it's a nailbiter like Iowa, then she's got good reason to be nervous.

Either way, he doesn't win the GE unless the right is dumb enough to nominate Trump.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Obama wasn't scripted, and he had a message that resonated, and on one of his parties seminal issues, Iraq, he didn't flip flop.

... but Obama didn't have much in terms of accomplishment in his Senate term, which was my point. Obama, at this juncture, wasn't winning caucuses either, and Obama was also a very good speaker, which Rubio is amongst the Republicans, whether it's scripted or not. But as usual you've got it all figured out, so I guess I can just stop paying attention until 2020.

Edit: I'll leave it there, and acknowledge that Obama won in Iowa in 2008, so my bad. Again, tuning out until 2020, at least as it pertains to discussing things with qaz, I guess. Back into the woodwork...

 

[qazplm]

... but Obama didn't have much in terms of accomplishment in his Senate term, which was my point. Obama, at this juncture, wasn't winning caucuses either, and Obama was also a very good speaker, which Rubio is amongst the Republicans, whether it's scripted or not. But as usual you've got it all figured out, so I guess I can just stop paying attention until 2020.

Edit: I'll leave it there, and acknowledge that Obama won in Iowa in 2008, so my bad. Again, tuning out until 2020, at least as it pertains to discussing things with qaz, I guess. Back into the woodwork...

Your point was about one thing, my point was to point out several other things...instead of addressing those things either with why you agree or disagree with them, you go into a hissy fit because I have a differing opinion than yours. And yes, your edit is wrong as you noted, Obama was winning from the start, he had an amazing team that knew how to get more caucus votes EVEN when he lost the votes (like in Nevada), he was in the right spot on the number one issue that Dems cared about (Iraq)...Rubio is not (immigration), and there's no indication he has an amazing field operation (although there's no indication he has a bad one either). Obama also did not have to contend with a bunch of other folks competing with money, or the establishment lane, or someone flanking his left (right) like Cruz or a wildcard like Trump. It was really just him and Hillary with a little pressure from JE (but not much). There are a ton of reasons why Rubio does not equal Obama in advantages going into their first nomination run.

I haven't "guaranteed" anything for 2016...but yeah, it's a really bad set of candidates you have right now. If McCain 08 or Romney 12 even were running, I'd be concerned. Hell, if Dole were transported in time I'd considered Hillary only a slight fav. But no, I'm not remotely concerned about Rubio because to win the nomination he will have to take a position on immigration that will not be popular with Hispanics, or young people, or even some independents. Obama as a speaker is also quite ahead of Rubio.

Now if you have contrary OPINIONS feel free to say them, or you can continue the hissy fit because I disagreed with you....I don't care.

 

[lbodel]

... but Obama didn't have much in terms of accomplishment in his Senate term, which was my point. Obama, at this juncture, wasn't winning caucuses either, and Obama was also a very good speaker, which Rubio is amongst the Republicans, whether it's scripted or not. But as usual you've got it all figured out, so I guess I can just stop paying attention until 2020.

Edit: I'll leave it there, and acknowledge that Obama won in Iowa in 2008, so my bad. Again, tuning out until 2020, at least as it pertains to discussing things with qaz, I guess. Back into the woodwork...

Obama won most of the meaningful caucuses actually.

Obama's campaign was probably one of the most sophisticated campaigns ever, both with him as a candidate and the overall operation. Obama was very well prepared on subject matters, even with just having limited experience in the Senate. And obviously he had time on his side with Iraq being a key (sore) subject. And obviously in terms of the Presidential race, the economy came to the forefront, which wasn't necessarily Obama's strength, but it was McCain's weakness. Timing is everything!

As a campaign, he actually had a strong strategy to win as many delegates as possible and the caucuses were a key point. His organization was his strength which bodes well in a caucus. He won all but 1 caucus I believe. But, it was even beyond winning/losing. He lost the Nevada caucuses to Clinton. But he won more delegates from the caucus because of his campaign's strategy in the state.

This is currently one difference between Obama and Sanders. Now, obviously energetic supporters help make up for a lack of organization, but Sanders organization is nowhere close to what Obama had. Look at Iowa for example - everyone said that if the turnout was huge, Sanders would win. Well, Clinton barely won, but still won. But the one thing she had going for her (which was not momentum, hype, etc.) was organization.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I'll say this: I didn't see the R debate on Saturday, but have seen some of the reviews and it sounds like what qaz said would happen with Rubio's scripting did, indeed, come to fruition. So well done, qaz.

I cannot stomach Trump nor Cruz, and Rubio seems like the next best candidate and one I've enjoyed listening to thus far (again, I didn't see whatever debacle happened Saturday). I believe he could threaten H, but I've been wrong before and will be wrong again in the future.

I wonder how much Sanders will hurt Hillary. I wonder if his running and gaining momentum will ultimately cost H votes in a similar vain where I won't vote for Cruz or Trump, and qaz believes - probably correctly - that Cruz/Trump supporters won't turn out to vote Rubio, that some hard-left voters may not turn out to vote for a "DINO" as they view H.

I don't think Sanders compares to Obama in terms of a campaign at all. There are a lot of holes in Sanders' campaign that I think H will start to exploit down south, and she already has. You're seeing more of the "dreamer vs. doer" come out, and there's life to that I think.

As much as railing on establishment politics is the chic thing to do these days, the establishment exists and wins a lot because the establishment understands the game. Guys like Cruz and Sanders who want to do everything to their "gold standard" ideology will be ineffective in that environment because, as we've discussed before and as the Tea Party has learned, without a super majority or control of both houses and the White House you will never gain enough votes to pass anything if you're unwilling to compromise.

That, in a nutshell, is why I think it'll be Hillary v. Rubio/Kasich/Bush in the end. I think the establishment Republicans need to get behind one guy... but it may be too late for them as the "Sanders effect" on Hillary is only magnified on the R side because there are TWO nutjobs in the clown car.

 

[qazplm]

I'll say this: I didn't see the R debate on Saturday, but have seen some of the reviews and it sounds like what qaz said would happen with Rubio's scripting did, indeed, come to fruition. So well done, qaz.

I cannot stomach Trump nor Cruz, and Rubio seems like the next best candidate and one I've enjoyed listening to thus far (again, I didn't see whatever debacle happened Saturday). I believe he could threaten H, but I've been wrong before and will be wrong again in the future.

I wonder how much Sanders will hurt Hillary. I wonder if his running and gaining momentum will ultimately cost H votes in a similar vain where I won't vote for Cruz or Trump, and qaz believes - probably correctly - that Cruz/Trump supporters won't turn out to vote Rubio, that some hard-left voters may not turn out to vote for a "DINO" as they view H.

I don't think Sanders compares to Obama in terms of a campaign at all. There are a lot of holes in Sanders' campaign that I think H will start to exploit down south, and she already has. You're seeing more of the "dreamer vs. doer" come out, and there's life to that I think.

As much as railing on establishment politics is the chic thing to do these days, the establishment exists and wins a lot because the establishment understands the game. Guys like Cruz and Sanders who want to do everything to their "gold standard" ideology will be ineffective in that environment because, as we've discussed before and as the Tea Party has learned, without a super majority or control of both houses and the White House you will never gain enough votes to pass anything if you're unwilling to compromise.

That, in a nutshell, is why I think it'll be Hillary v. Rubio/Kasich/Bush in the end. I think the establishment Republicans need to get behind one guy... but it may be too late for them as the "Sanders effect" on Hillary is only magnified on the R side because there are TWO nutjobs in the clown car.

Is it possible some hardcore leftists won't come out for Hillary? Sure. See the folks who voted Nader in 2000. Bernie excites those same folks who think there is no difference between HRC and the republicans. Those people are idiots, but yes they are out there. How many there are of them, eh, I don't know. I don't think it's enough to fundamentally change things, but you never know if another Florida situation pops up where it only takes a handful of folks to sway things.

I think some Cruz/Trump folks will vote for Rubio. It's the same phenomena I just happen to think it's larger on one side than the other, but just like some Bernieites will vote for HRC, some will vote for Rubio. But I think to overcome the demographic advantages any Dem has in the EC, the republican nominee has to pull a Bush 04, and really bring out the conservative base in key states. The question is...if some Cruz/Trump folks stay home, can Rubio do that...I'm skeptical.

Sanders campaign doesn't compare to Obama yet. He doesn't reach minorities...and I think Obama did better with people over 45 than Sanders does (I could be wrong there though). IF he turns around the minority vote, then it will start to compare. As it stands now, NH is his last big win for awhile (SC would be the next, I don't consider NV big at all).

HRC is a pretty bad candidate though. I think she'd be a good President but she runs pretty poorly with a lot of self-inflicted wounds. Still, I think she has a 70% chance of winning the nomination and probably an 80 percent chance of winning the GE as things stand right now.

 

[qazplm]

Obama won most of the meaningful caucuses actually.

Obama's campaign was probably one of the most sophisticated campaigns ever, both with him as a candidate and the overall operation. Obama was very well prepared on subject matters, even with just having limited experience in the Senate. And obviously he had time on his side with Iraq being a key (sore) subject. And obviously in terms of the Presidential race, the economy came to the forefront, which wasn't necessarily Obama's strength, but it was McCain's weakness. Timing is everything!

As a campaign, he actually had a strong strategy to win as many delegates as possible and the caucuses were a key point. His organization was his strength which bodes well in a caucus. He won all but 1 caucus I believe. But, it was even beyond winning/losing. He lost the Nevada caucuses to Clinton. But he won more delegates from the caucus because of his campaign's strategy in the state.

This is currently one difference between Obama and Sanders. Now, obviously energetic supporters help make up for a lack of organization, but Sanders organization is nowhere close to what Obama had. Look at Iowa for example - everyone said that if the turnout was huge, Sanders would win. Well, Clinton barely won, but still won. But the one thing she had going for her (which was not momentum, hype, etc.) was organization.

Agree...turnout was the second highest but HRC still won, even if barely. Left unsaid was that turnout among the youth wasn't all that much higher...Bernie is not fully inspiring them to come out for him like Obama did. Relying on the youth vote is always a risky proposition but it's where Bernie is at right now.

 

[beardownboiler]

Is it possible some hardcore leftists won't come out for Hillary? Sure. See the folks who voted Nader in 2000. Bernie excites those same folks who think there is no difference between HRC and the republicans. Those people are idiots, but yes they are out there. How many there are of them, eh, I don't know. I don't think it's enough to fundamentally change things, but you never know if another Florida situation pops up where it only takes a handful of folks to sway things.

I think some Cruz/Trump folks will vote for Rubio. It's the same phenomena I just happen to think it's larger on one side than the other, but just like some Bernieites will vote for HRC, some will vote for Rubio. But I think to overcome the demographic advantages any Dem has in the EC, the republican nominee has to pull a Bush 04, and really bring out the conservative base in key states. The question is...if some Cruz/Trump folks stay home, can Rubio do that...I'm skeptical.

Sanders campaign doesn't compare to Obama yet. He doesn't reach minorities...and I think Obama did better with people over 45 than Sanders does (I could be wrong there though). IF he turns around the minority vote, then it will start to compare. As it stands now, NH is his last big win for awhile (SC would be the next, I don't consider NV big at all).

HRC is a pretty bad candidate though. I think she'd be a good President but she runs pretty poorly with a lot of self-inflicted wounds. Still, I think she has a 70% chance of winning the nomination and probably an 80 percent chance of winning the GE as things stand right now.

This is pretty much my take, exactly (though I think I hold Clinton in higher regard). The big difference between Bernard and Obama is that Obama was promising realistic change, where Sanders is promising people the moon and is winning over morons with worthless platitudes.

Those kinds of people are helpful in Congress, because they can excite others to not get complacent. As president, I think a person like Bernard will just irritate everyone to the point that nothing ever happens.

 

[atmafola]

GI, what's this your obsession with Rubio. Decent looking and articulate? Yes. Depth and Resolute? No. The opinion of him around some people I discuss with (mostly new england liberals) is that he is a lightweight, paid mouthpiece for the republican money bags, shallow in accomplishments and wavering in his stances. Basically, a slightly smarter, better looking Scott Walker with less executive experience.

Might sound shallow, but Ted Cruz's voice grates my ears. I can't listen to him talk for 2 minutes without wanting to claw my ear drums out. His facial expressions don't help either. And don't get me started on his politics.

 

[atmafola]

Hey, as a liberal. Does it sound good to hear someone unabashedly and unapologetically state liberal positions the way Sanders does? Abso-effing-lutely! I have lived through a decade of wackos on the rights drawing their lines so far out right they were starting to pull the middle right. Maybe, its about time we draw our lines way out left too, rather than starting off closer to the middle.

Having said that, I am still a strong Clinton lean for two reasons. One, I might be one of the few that doubts Sander's commitments to some of the causes he espouses. To me, it sometimes seem he finds out what popular liberal positions are to issues, and then coopts that position without having a long history of supporting those positions. On some issues e.g. economic, wall street etc, he has had a position. On others, e.g. BLM, he seems more of an opportunist to me. I mean that's what politicians do, but for me its a credibility thing when sincerity is one of your calling cards. I don't expect sincerity or fidelity to principles from any of the Clinton clan.

Secondly, I am not one of those that believe the other sides are idiots and their arguments are without merit. Sanders wishlist sound like pure fantasies. Exciting to get out voters, but will be difficult to implement in a truly divided country. That said, I will be voting and mobilizing the votes for whoever comes out of the primaries.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

GI, what's this your obsession with Rubio. Decent looking and articulate? Yes. Depth and Resolute? No. The opinion of him around some people I discuss with (mostly new england liberals) is that he is a lightweight, paid mouthpiece for the republican money bags, shallow in accomplishments and wavering in his stances. Basically, a slightly smarter, better looking Scott Walker with less executive experience.

Might sound shallow, but Ted Cruz's voice grates my ears. I can't listen to him talk for 2 minutes without wanting to claw my ear drums out. His facial expressions don't help either. And don't get me started on his politics.

I spelled it out pretty clearly: while my stance on policies might align most closely with Trump, I do not want him as CinC nor as the representative of my country. I don't agree with how he says he will do things even if most of them are just rhetoric designed to attract the average ill informed voter. As I said, I would vote for Hillary over Trump.

I don't like Ted Cruz because I'm not that far to the right and think he's an uncompromising ass.

Rubio appears to be the next most viable candidate and I side with him on a number of foreign policy issues, domestic issues (his current stated stances anyway). And yes, I think he'd be a good representative of the US as Obama largely is in spite of my political differences with him.

When/if Kasich or Bush becomes viable, I'll take them more seriously, but for now Rubio is "my guy", and it's hardly an obsession, thanks.

 

[atmafola]

I spelled it out pretty clearly: while my stance on policies might align most closely with Trump, I do not want him as CinC nor as the representative of my country. I don't agree with how he says he will do things even if most of them are just rhetoric designed to attract the average ill informed voter. As I said, I would vote for Hillary over Trump.

I don't like Ted Cruz because I'm not that far to the right and think he's an uncompromising ass.

Rubio appears to be the next most viable candidate and I side with him on a number of foreign policy issues, domestic issues (his current stated stances anyway). And yes, I think he'd be a good representative of the US as Obama largely is in spite of my political differences with him.

When/if Kasich or Bush becomes viable, I'll take them more seriously, but for now Rubio is "my guy", and it's hardly an obsession, thanks.

GI, seems you have the same problems I have been hearing from my some east coast intellectual conservatives I know. yes they exist. For lack of better word, they are "settling" for Rubio because the alternatives in Trump and Cruz are simply unconscionable. If only Jeb didn't have the bland personality of salt-less soup. Hang in there guys. Sensibility will prevail in the end, I hope. As for your comments on Obama, have you had a chance to read David Brook's todays Nytimes op ed on the President.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/opinion/i-miss-barack-obama.html?ref=opinion#permid=17504140

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I wouldn't say I feel like I am "settling" for Rubio. I like Rubio. He's not perfect, not nearly, nor is he my perfect candidate, but I like him more than I liked Romney.

The problems I have with Obama have nothing to do with character or integrity.

 

[jadeezra]

There's actually two national polls showing Clinton /sanders in a virtual dead heat nationally now


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...intons-national-polling-lead-as-nh-votes.html

 

[lbodel]

There's actually two national polls showing Clinton /sanders in a virtual dead heat nationally now


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...intons-national-polling-lead-as-nh-votes.html

Bernie's problem is state by state, not national (although this article leaves out other polls conducted at similar times showing it not being a close race).

Obviously things can change, but Bernie doesn't have the set-up that Obama had. His campaign is nowhere near as organized. He can still do very well, particularly with caucuses which are typically low turnout compared to a primary. Also, minority voters are not his friend right now.

The remaining schedule....

-Nevada. Caucus - no reliable polling. Clinton won this over Obama, but Obama actually won more delegates (again, he had a very sophisticated strategy).

-South Carolina - Clinton is up big (won by Obama in 2008)

Then super Tuesday and beyond...

Sanders' problem is this. Right now, he isn't going to pick up a lot of the states Obama won. South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi - and the latest polls even give Clinton leads in "whiter" states like Minnesota (albeit from late January). In addition, polls have shown Clinton keeping big leads in states she won in 2008.

It's just hard to see what states Sanders would flip away from Clinton - other than maybe some of the New England states - that would counter enough of what she will likely pick up in more diverse states that Obama won.

That being said, one of the more interesting things I think right now is that not only is Clinton winning in almost every head to head match-up vs. Republicans - so is Sanders.

The obvious question is will (or has) Sanders peaked. A lot of people obviously thought Trump would peak last summer and look where he's at.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Watched a little of the debate tonight, just a little bit. Here were two things that need to be explained:

- Does Sanders understand how little $100M will buy on the Federal level? He said he was going to close a loophole that allowed US business to store corporate profits and that that tax would gain $100M annually which he'd out towards infrastructure.mtalk about a drop in the bucket.

- what does he mean by a tax on Wall Street speculation? I have stock mutual funds as the core of my retirement portfolio which I buy and hold? Is that going to be taxed (more)? What does he consider speculation? Does he understand that the middle class also relies on Wall Street, and that any tax levied upon them will be returned to investors in the form of fees and expenses for investing?

Hillary called him on his tuition plan,meaning states would have to pony up Billions to start the free college for all, and she wasn't sure how that was going to happen.

Bernie has some splainin' to do.

 

[jadeezra]

Watched a little of the debate tonight, just a little bit. Here were two things that need to be explained:

- Does Sanders understand how little $100M will buy on the Federal level? He said he was going to close a loophole that allowed US business to store corporate profits and that that tax would gain $100M annually which he'd out towards infrastructure.mtalk about a drop in the bucket.

- what does he mean by a tax on Wall Street speculation? I have stock mutual funds as the core of my retirement portfolio which I buy and hold? Is that going to be taxed (more)? What does he consider speculation? Does he understand that the middle class also relies on Wall Street, and that any tax levied upon them will be returned to investors in the form of fees and expenses for investing?

Hillary called him on his tuition plan,meaning states would have to pony up Billions to start the free college for all, and she wasn't sure how that was going to happen.

Bernie has some splainin' to do.

Yeah that can't happen , not with the middle class I want to hear more. Same with Trump although I think Bernie has explained more.

They are attracting a certain crowd that is anti establishment. Suppose it depends on how deep you believe the corruption runs. He got her on some stuff to though let's not act like he didnt.

Absolutely he cannot call for more taxes on the middle classes investments though. I'd like to hear more on that one.


I suppose my biggest fear with Sanders is he will what's remaining off. Then who's going to pay for anything ?

 

[lbodel]

Watched a little of the debate tonight, just a little bit. Here were two things that need to be explained:

- Does Sanders understand how little $100M will buy on the Federal level? He said he was going to close a loophole that allowed US business to store corporate profits and that that tax would gain $100M annually which he'd out towards infrastructure.mtalk about a drop in the bucket.

- what does he mean by a tax on Wall Street speculation? I have stock mutual funds as the core of my retirement portfolio which I buy and hold? Is that going to be taxed (more)? What does he consider speculation? Does he understand that the middle class also relies on Wall Street, and that any tax levied upon them will be returned to investors in the form of fees and expenses for investing?

Hillary called him on his tuition plan,meaning states would have to pony up Billions to start the free college for all, and she wasn't sure how that was going to happen.

Bernie has some splainin' to do.

Clinton is treading the line on bringing up reality. Obviously Sanders' message is rather simple and positive. You don't want to come across as Debbie Downer. So in the last debate, she explained more how she'd fix the same issues (since the issues they are mostly on the same page about) vs. Sanders' less realistic plan. The college tuition snippet from the debate was a great example with her bringing up Scott Walker needing to pony up the money.

Of course, the real question is how much these kinds of questions will be mentioned outside of things like the debates. Clinton can't do the "dirty" work herself - she needs other people to start asking questions.

 

[qazplm]

Clinton is treading the line on bringing up reality. Obviously Sanders' message is rather simple and positive. You don't want to come across as Debbie Downer. So in the last debate, she explained more how she'd fix the same issues (since the issues they are mostly on the same page about) vs. Sanders' less realistic plan. The college tuition snippet from the debate was a great example with her bringing up Scott Walker needing to pony up the money.

Of course, the real question is how much these kinds of questions will be mentioned outside of things like the debates. Clinton can't do the "dirty" work herself - she needs other people to start asking questions.

Yeah that's part of the problem...no one on the left or the media is asking any hard questions about Sanders because, quite frankly, most in the media don't really like Hillary and have no problem with her losing again. It also certainly sells a lot more ad space then "Hillary wins in romp." On the left, folks are like YEAH! Revolution! We get everything we've ever wanted without any thought to the idea that half the country doesn't agree with that at all. They think 1. Nominate Bernie, 2..... 3. Revolution. They are the underpants gnomes.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yeah that can't happen , not with the middle class I want to hear more. Same with Trump although I think Bernie has explained more.

They are attracting a certain crowd that is anti establishment. Suppose it depends on how deep you believe the corruption runs. He got her on some stuff to though let's not act like he didnt.

Absolutely he cannot call for more taxes on the middle classes investments though. I'd like to hear more on that one.


I suppose my biggest fear with Sanders is he will what's remaining off. Then who's going to pay for anything ?

Trump has no clue. We all agree on that...

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Watching Bernie's town hall. Gitmo brought up, and he believes the President is right when he says Gitmo does more harm than good with our perception around the world.

Can someone cite a source other than a Democratic politician in this country (or an op Ed or blog or opiniom, so probably something from a foreign country and particularly one of Islamic majority would be most germane)? I keep hearing it. It's plausible. I don't know if it's actually true though...

I don't understand how the thought that if terrorists were being held in Manhattan prisons, the terror threat would be high is worthy of mocking, but the thought that ISIS and AQ are faulting the US as hypocritical Democratic state based on this prison isn't. That's not what motivates those guys, IMO. We really think it's a major people mover over there that people are held without trial? Iran does it. The Wahhabis do it. Egypt, Libya, Syria...

 

[beardownboiler]

Watching Bernie's town hall. Gitmo brought up, and he believes the President is right when he says Gitmo does more harm than good with our perception around the world.

Can someone cite a source other than a Democratic politician in this country (or an op Ed or blog or opiniom, so probably something from a foreign country and particularly one of Islamic majority would be most germane)? I keep hearing it. It's plausible. I don't know if it's actually true though...

I don't understand how the thought that if terrorists were being held in Manhattan prisons, the terror threat would be high is worthy of mocking, but the thought that ISIS and AQ are faulting the US as hypocritical Democratic state based on this prison isn't. That's not what motivates those guys, IMO. We really think it's a major people mover over there that people are held without trial? Iran does it. The Wahhabis do it. Egypt, Libya, Syria...

Didn't you hear? 9/11, Paris, the subway bombings, etc. were all done to protest the United States' policy of holding enemy combatants without trial. That's been the motivation from the start. What rock have you been under? (tic)

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Seriously.

I just don't think the argument for closing Gitmo is a strong one. You want to say it's too expensive? OK, I can see that. Right now, the strongest motivation I see is legacy-building (fulfilling a campaign promise that's already been broken), which comes down to ego, which is not a legitimate reason at all.

 

[qazplm]

Seriously.

I just don't think the argument for closing Gitmo is a strong one. You want to say it's too expensive? OK, I can see that. Right now, the strongest motivation I see is legacy-building (fulfilling a campaign promise that's already been broken), which comes down to ego, which is not a legitimate reason at all.

I think this misses the difference between what ISIS does and/or their direct motivations, and the ability of terrorist groups to demonize the US/our inability to win over those who might be courted with a moral high ground. It may not be the reasons why they attack, but propaganda works, and it's not helped with something like GITMO.

Put another way, even if the negatives are smaller than some argue, the positives are not very strong either...keeping them at GITMO vice some high security military detainment facility in country keeps us only a wee tiny bit safer, if at all.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think this misses the difference between what ISIS does and/or their direct motivations, and the ability of terrorist groups to demonize the US/our inability to win over those who might be courted with a moral high ground. It may not be the reasons why they attack, but propaganda works, and it's not helped with something like GITMO.

I appreciate your second paragraph. But I still can't find or don't see where it's being used as propaganda other than in political rhetoric by the party (and the individual politician) that made a campaign promise (which has already failed, and correctly so) seven years ago.