Next Time Around
Having devoted yesterday's column to a look backwards at presidential races, today I'm going for a personal best in the "ridiculously early speculation" category, and examine what might happen to the Republicans and the Democrats in the next presidential race. Hey, it's been that kind of week, what can I say?
Before I dig in, I should define my term. By "next time around" I am speaking of the next open presidential nomination (with no incumbent running, in other words). This could either be in 2020 or 2024 for either party, depending on who wins this year's election. Either President Hillary Clinton or President Donald Trump would assumably want two terms, so I'm taking it as a given that they'll run for re-election. A sitting president means an all-but-assured nomination (usually, but not always), so I'm looking beyond any second-term campaign to the election afterwards -- when the field will be truly open. So for one party, this will be in 2020 and for the party who wins this year, it'll likely be in 2024. As I said, a personal best in "ridiculously early."
This year has been odd (for a number of reasons, admittedly), because the parties seem to have switched playbooks with each other. Assuming for the sake of conversation that Clinton and Trump win their respective nominations, Republicans will have done what Democrats usually do, and vice-versa. Republicans normally (but not always, to be fair) nominate the "next guy in line" -- the previous second-place finisher. Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Bob Dole had all run before, and it was thus "their turn." If this had held true this year, we would have seen someone like Rick Santorum win the GOP nomination. Obviously, that didn't happen. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats usually "fall in love" with their candidate, rather than drafting an also-ran. This year, however, they chose the "next gal in line." As I said, it's odd that the parties seemed to switch their strategies this year, but chalk that up to the voters themselves.
So what will this mean next time? I would expect the parties to revert to the norm. This is almost guaranteed on the Democratic side. If Hillary wins, Bernie Sanders is simply going to be too old to mount another run (especially if Clinton serves two terms). Clinton herself won't be in the mix, meaning the Clinton dynasty will be over (at least until Chelsea decides to seek office). If Clinton loses in November, this will also likely be true, because I would have a hard time seeing Democrats give her a second chance in 2020 (especially if she lost to Donald Trump, of all people).
With no previous frontrunner candidates on the ballot, the next Democratic race is going to be as wide open as you can imagine. After Bernie has proved how far a populist candidate can go, I would fully expect there to be numerous candidates vying to be "the next Bernie." Elizabeth Warren would obviously be at the top of that list, but I could also see someone like Sherrod Brown or even Al Franken toss their hat in the ring as well. Of course, there will also be "establishment" candidates on the primary ballot, but it's hard to see who would be the strongest -- at least, not currently knowing who Hillary's running mate or cabinet appointments will be. Whoever works in the Clinton White House will obviously have a big leg up for the establishment vote.
What has been fascinating about Bernie Sanders's run is not that he's probably going to lose, but how close he is actually coming to winning -- against a Clinton, no less. What could he have done if Hillary Clinton hadn't been on the ticket this year, one has to wonder. Will his "revolution" still be as acutely felt by the voters in four (or eight) years? That's impossible to tell, really. But suppose America's economy has a downturn between now and then (which, according to economists, we're actually overdue for). That would actually increase the appeal of the populist message. As I've noted before, previous populist Democratic candidates (John Edwards, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson) won a few contests but never got more than 600 total convention delegates in the end. Bernie will finish with over twice that count. That's an impressive feat for a true "dark horse" candidate. The success of his run, in fact, means that next time around a populist won't be such a dark horse, and will actually be seen as pretty mainstream within the Democratic Party. So it is entirely possible that Elizabeth Warren -- or someone very much like her -- could be the Democratic nominee, next time around.
Predicting the future of the Republican Party is a lot harder, mostly because Donald Trump is so far out of the normal realm of party nominees. There will be an aftermath to Trump's run, and it may include fundamental shifts within the party. That's pretty easy to see, whether he wins or loses in November. What's a lot harder to predict is what those fundamental shifts will look like.
I think the highest probability is that Republicans revert to their norm, and nominate Ted Cruz next time around. Sure, he's not well-liked within the party, but he's got four (or maybe eight) years to improve on that front. He will paint the 2016 election in the most positive light possible (for him, of course), and his main argument will be a familiar one: "The party should have elected me -- a true conservative -- and then we would have won the election!" Of course, this argument only works if Trump actually loses. If Trump should win the White House, I find it impossible to even speculate what the Republican Party would look like after he's done with it. His is such a personality-driven campaign that it's hard for me to see what would follow a Trump presidency. A lot would depend on how his presidency is seen by the public (especially the Republican base). If it was successful, would they want some sort of continuation of Trump? If it was seen as a failure, then the party might be in the same place they'd be if he loses in November -- they might head whichever direction they see as 180 degrees from where Trump tried to lead them.
If Trump loses to Clinton, or if he is a one-term failed president (again, as seen by Republican voters), then I think the party might just go ahead and give the next nod to Ted Cruz. Cruz has shown one important skill this election season, and that is his knowledge of the nuts and bolts of delegate selection. He's also building a network that could be easily reconstructed next time around.
The argument for nominating a "true conservative" has been around at least since Ronald Reagan exited the Oval Office. The way the argument is usually framed is: "because the party nominated a moderate (Romney, for instance), a lot of conservative voters stayed home." If this mass of people were given an exciting red-blooded conservative to vote for, they would come out of the woodwork and swamp whatever Democrat was running with their millions of votes. You hear this argument time and again from conservatives, in fact. The only thing that will dispel this line of thinking would be to actually give it a try and see what happens. And there's no more perfect way of testing the theory than nominating Ted Cruz.
Of course, I could be wrong about that. Indeed, I could be wrong about everything I've written here (such are the risks of political prognostication). If the Republican Party loses in an epic landslide this year (which more and more people are considering possible), with Clinton winning over 400 Electoral College votes and Democrats regaining control of both the House and Senate, then the changes Republicans make might be in an entirely different direction. Perhaps this time they'll actually pay attention to the post-mortem report from the party bigwigs. Perhaps they'll realize that scapegoating immigrants and gays and minorities is nothing but political poison at the ballot box. Perhaps some savior of the party will appear, who strongly denounces excluding large swaths of voters, and by force of personality convince the party to change some of the worst of its excesses. Hey, anything's possible. It's what the Republicans may actually need the next time around to even be considered viable at the national level again.
As you can see, I'm a lot more confident predicting the Democratic side than the Republicans' future. But I really do think that the next presidential election will see a reversion to both parties' norms in how they choose their nominees. Perhaps Republicans won't nominate Ted Cruz in 2020, but I'd bet that whoever the nominee does turn out to be, he or she already ran this year (Marco Rubio, perhaps?). On the Democratic side, unless Martin O'Malley suddenly catches fire, the opposite will likely be true: the eventual nominee will very likely be a fresh face on the national scene. Progressives might not win the next primary struggle, but either way Democrats will probably settle on someone who has not previously run.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Today's anecdote: well-dressed, mid-40s man from China, store parking lot.
What does he think of the election season so far?
"I don't know, I don't know."
Heavy sigh.
"I don't think one person can do very much. Obama seemed so revolutionary but seven years later what has changed? He appointed someone from Goldman Sachs as Secretary...Donald Trump is an outsider but I doubt even he will make much difference. I come from China - we didn't have elections. But the election of one politician here, not enough. It is a process."
I can't see Cruz getting the nod next time on the Repub side. He really does seem to be so genuinely disliked by his own party -- I'm sure you saw Boehner's interview today wherein he described Cruz as "Lucifer in the flesh" or words to that effect. But everything depends on whether Trump wins or loses -- and even when he loses I suspect the powers that be are NOT going to think going more reactionary is going to be the answer. Especially if it's a blowout.
My hope is that the Christianist/End-times nuts who follow Cruz will go third party or just pull out of politics for awhile.
On Dem side, I live in Akron Ohio and Sherrod Brown's wife, journalist Connie Schultz, has a very active facebook page/group here. She has said repeatedly Sherrod Brown does not want to be President and doesn't intend to run. I suppose that could change but methinks we'll be looking elsewhere. And, although I love Elizabeth Warren, she'll be 70 in 2020… May not matter. But she is so very, very good where she is.
Paula,
He appointed someone from Goldman Sachs as Secretary...
I sure hope you set that well-dressed, mid-40s man from China in the store parking lot straight on that misinformed comment.
Who does this man think saved the US economy, President Obama? ... the Republicans? Well, he can guess again!!
Hint: it wasn't anyone who ever worked for Goldman Sachs or any other such Wall Street firm. It was actually someone who spent virtually their entire adult professional life in ... wait for it ... public service.
And, in one of life's ironies, he now has left public service and is spending the latter years of his working life in the financial sphere that everyone and their brother thought he was in all along.
I would be remiss if I said I wasn't disappointed by his choice but, he did write a fascinating book (Stress Test). Though, it wasn't exactly a life's memoir written on some South Pacific island. Ahem.
Paula,
Are you secretly taping these people you stop for your anecdotes?
Just curious ...
Elizabeth: I'm not arguing or lecturing or correcting anyone. My objective is to get their response without trying to influence them.
I started by writing down comments but after awhile I started recording people.
I tell them I am getting a daily "snapshot" from strangers that I am posting online. So they know they're going to be quoted. Most people have been friendly and willing to comment. A couple haven't been.
Liz,
Perception trumps reality in these cases...
The fact that none of the Wall Street bigwigs were held responsible for the catastrophe and many on Obama's team WERE those same Wall Street bigwigs, it's understandable that people would conclude that the SecTreas was a Wall Street insider...
It's like when people assume Hillary is a murderer... Technically, she isn't, but the body count associated with the Clintons is huge, so people can be forgiven for this assumption..
Or like when everyone thinks Trump is a racist.. It was more fun and easy to just follow the herd rather than actually LOOK at the facts...
It's all about perception..
Michale
Paula,
I'm not arguing or lecturing or correcting anyone. My objective is to get their response without trying to influence them.
Yes, well, that is the overarching problem with the media - mainstream, social, and otherwise. It's how falsehoods continue to be viewed as the truth and history becomes meaningless.
Michale,
It's all about perception..
That is also a problem that few seem willing to contest.
Michale,
Is it understandable when Republican members of Congress accuse a treasury secretary of being a former employee of Goldman Sachs and when the secretary says that is untrue, then the congressman retorts with, well you worked in the investment banking industry. And, when the secretary says that is also untrue and that he has spent his entire career in public service, the congressman fires back with a "whatever" ... unbelievable!
Is it understandable when Republican members of Congress accuse a treasury secretary of being a former employee of Goldman Sachs and when the secretary says that is untrue, then the congressman retorts with, well you worked in the investment banking industry. And, when the secretary says that is also untrue and that he has spent his entire career in public service, the congressman fires back with a "whatever" ... unbelievable!
Yep... Just as unbelievable as when hordes and hordes of people insist Trump is a racist without a SINGLE FACT to back it up..
So I get it.. It's unbelievable and it's annoying...
But it's the world we live in... Or, more accurately, it's the politics of the world we live in...
Facts don't matter. Hysterical Hyperbole is the coin of the realm...
Michale
But it's the world we live in... Or, more accurately, it's the politics of the world we live in...
We must do our own little part to change that up ... and, never miss an opportunity even when opportunity comes knockin' - left, right and center, at the same time!
I can't see Cruz getting the nod next time on the Repub side. He really does seem to be so genuinely disliked by his own party -- I'm sure you saw Boehner's interview today wherein he described Cruz as "Lucifer in the flesh" or words to that effect. But everything depends on whether Trump wins or loses -- and even when he loses I suspect the powers that be are NOT going to think going more reactionary is going to be the answer. Especially if it's a blowout.
I think you are spot on, Paula. If Trump loses I think that there will be some serious 'rules making' to limit candidates who are 'official' Republican nominees - I expect a nomination committee that prospective candidates will have to get approval from. Rogue candidates will not be allowed to participate in the debates, etc. There would also be lawsuits if somebody uses the party label (they also own "GOP", "Grand Old Party," "Republican National Committee," "RNC" and the official GOP elephant logo).
I also expect that there will be serious tinkering with the delegate allocation process. I would imagine that the Republicans will introduce superdelegates (for the same reason that the Democrats adopted the practice).
Yep... Just as unbelievable as when hordes and hordes of people insist Trump is a racist without a SINGLE FACT to back it up..
Yeah, correctly he is an extreme bigot ... but he's still a racist in the colloquial use of the word ;)
Yeah, correctly he is an extreme bigot ... but he's still a racist in the colloquial use of the word ;)
There is no evidence of "extreme" any more than Hillary or Sanders are "extreme" bigots...
The only difference is the choice of scapegoated group...
but he's still a racist in the colloquial use of the word
I agree.. "Colloquial" in the sense of "whomever we don't like"... :D
Michale
I agree.. "Colloquial" in the sense of "whomever we don't like"... :D
Or, more accurately, "Colloquial" in the sense of "whatever we want it to mean at any given moment"... :D
It's like, if you want to believe you are a black person..
POOOF
You're a black person....
If you want to believe you are 17 instead of 30???
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/world/americas/jonathan-nicola-said-he-was-17-but-the-high-school-basket-player-may-be-closer-to-30.html
POOOOF
You are 17 instead of 30....
If you want to believe Trump is a racist...
POOOOF
Trump is a racist...
No reality or facts required...
:D
Michale
C'mon Michale - calling Mexicans rapists and talking about building a wall is a lot more extreme than anything from Kasich, Sanders or Clinton (Cruz is another case).
Pretending to forget who David Duke is just before a southern primary (he'd even dissociated himself from Duke two days earlier when the big cameras weren't on him) is extreme.
Calling for banning entry to all Muslims is extreme. As is falsely claiming that thousands were celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11.
The whole birther movement fiasco was extreme (and racist).
Mocking Asian accents is extreme (and racist).
Making funny hand gestures to mimic a disabled reporter is extreme.
Tweeting bogus murder statistics that humiliate blacks is extreme (and racist by the way).
So, yes, Trump is an extreme (and odious) bigot.
C'mon Michale - calling Mexicans rapists and talking about building a wall is a lot more extreme than anything from Kasich, Sanders or Clinton (Cruz is another case).
If Trump had called Mexicans, rapists, the you would have a point.
But he didn't, so you don't...
Pretending to forget who David Duke is just before a southern primary (he'd even dissociated himself from Duke two days earlier when the big cameras weren't on him) is extreme.
You mean pretending to forget David Duke the 13th time after being asked and answered the previous dozen times???
I don't see any problem with that...
Calling for banning entry to all Muslims is extreme.
That's not extreme.. That's called prudence...
Making funny hand gestures to mimic a disabled reporter is extreme.
So is a Democrat saying something about "fucking retards"...
So, yes, Trump is an extreme (and odious) bigot.
No more than Democrats who ridicule and attack a class of Americans they don't like...
The problem is, you are within the circle, so it's impossible for you to see outside the circle...
Michale
Saying that it's only TRUMP supporters who are violent...
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gays-for-trump-crowd-gathers-at-costa-mesa-rally-20160428-story.html
THAT's extreme....
Michale
I think the "facts" at least to Michale's overly liberal use of the word, paint Trump as an interesting kind of racist/bigot/prejudiced person. It seems to me that with Trump (and quite a few others in our society) skin color is inversely important to wealth/affluence/notoriety. He will try not to rent to a poor black person but will invite a top black athlete to his foursome and treat them as an equal (or at least as much of an equal as he can treat anyone). The Samuel L. Jackson spat a bit ago was interesting. The actual disagreement I could care less about but I found it telling that heated politics and twitter spats are all well and good among the affluent but don't let it get in the way of a favorable tee time. On the other hand if you can prove Trump cheats at golf, that might sink him. Inflammatory politics are nice side game but you just don't cheat at golf...
The problem is, you are within the circle, so it's impossible for you to see outside the circle...
Trump is regarded generally as being an extreme bigot and a racist, and not just for partisan reasons. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care about Democrats vs. Republicans. For example, in the U.K. the only two nominees most people have heard of were Trump for his bigoted remarks, and Clinton because her husband used to be President.
They think Trump is a bigot and a racist from seeing clips of his speeches. I'm on calls to Europe and Asia frequently and my friends ask me if Trump has a chance of becoming President because they think he is odious.
Hell, the British Parliament even had a session on banning Trump from the country based on his remarks - the footage is hilarious ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZunCEYtER0 ). This was prompted by an online petition that got the required 100,000 signatures forcing the debate (it quickly got 584,364 signatures).
My friends in Germany are appalled because they are extremely sensitive to populist politicians who single out groups to scapegoat (just edged around Godwin's law on that one). In China, like in Britain, they think he is a dangerous buffoon.
So, you tell me, if the 'circle' includes basically everybody in the World except Trump supporters, who is inside the circle, and who is outside?
And then there is this little gem from a Republican mouthpiece:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
And then, of course, is the National Review's "Against Trump" tirade (nannybot won't let me post the link).
That's not extreme.. That's called prudence...
Far right wing Christians have committed terrorist acts on American soil. Is it "prudence" to ban all Christians?
The problem is, you are within the circle, so it's impossible for you to see outside the circle...
And you are in your own circle that seems to suffer the same problem. You know look in the mirror and all...
CW: Re: Nannybot
Given that you pre-clear us to post, can you not put reliable commentators like Paula, Michale, myself, etc. on a list that the nannybot ignores. If we go off reservation we can be taken off the list, but I just lost another couple of comments for a reason I can't understand.
Thanks.
What's with all this paranoid nannybot business!? Haven't you heard of tech issues?
Neil,
If you lost some comments for reasons you can't understand, then one of two things needs to happen ... have some patience, number one ... and, number two, always make a copy of your comment in case this glitch happens to you again and, remember, you may have to change it up a bit to avoid that nasty message that says you may have already said this once and it's not worth repeating. Heh.
Trump is regarded generally as being an extreme bigot and a racist, and not just for partisan reasons.
Yea.. It's because he is rich and successful...
Far right wing Christians have committed terrorist acts on American soil. Is it "prudence" to ban all Christians?
If there was a massive immigration of christians whereas some of them had been DOCUMENTED as being terrorists...???
Yea, damn skippy it would be prudent to limit their immigration until such time as they can be deemed NOT a threat..
I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that whatsoever...
And you are in your own circle that seems to suffer the same problem.
My circle encompasses facts and reality, whereas ya'all's circle is solely made up of the concept that anything Right is evil incarnate and anything Left is pure as the driven snow..
My circle is a lot better and a lot more realistic than ya'all's circle...
:D
Michale
Trump is the ONLY Presidential candidate who has addressed and supported The Remembrance Project...
Where is Hillary and Bernie on this???
They are too busy coddling the very criminals and scumbags that CAUSED The Remembrance Project...
That puts Trump WAY WAY higher on the morality ladder than either Hillary OR Bernie...
Michale
But I guess in the vaunted halls of the Left Wingery it's "extreme" to care about Americans first.... :^/
If that's the case, give me "extreme" any day of the week and twice on Sunday....
Michale
Trump is regarded generally as being an extreme bigot and a racist, and not just for partisan reasons.
Yea.. It's because he is rich and successful...
You mean like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and the constant claims of racism that trail them around wherever they go in the World?
But I guess in the vaunted halls of the Left Wingery it's "extreme" to care about Americans first.... :^/
So, you'll be all for universal healthcare then - since it is proven to be by far the most effective method to keep a population healthy?
And, to save 30,000 American lives per year, you'll accept strong controls on gun access?
You'll also want to fund a program to remove lead from pipes, even if that means we only have to spend more than the top 5 other nations on defense instead of the top 11?
Otherwise it might seem to others that you just want to pick on one group to single out to make America safer.
@Elizabeth[26] re: Nannybot
You're right - and I understand from CW's post earlier this week that the Nannybot is really important to keeping this blog free of the crazy stuff (I have my own blog and have to scroll through dozens of spam comments).
I was just hoping there might be a 'safe list' in the nannybot software that allowed pre-screened users to bypass the nannybot.
If there was a massive immigration of christians whereas some of them had been DOCUMENTED as being terrorists...???
1. Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009: Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, “I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester."
3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed.
You want some more? Like the Oklahoma City bombing? The Centennial Olympic Park bombing? Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994?
etc. etc.
Time to ban Christians? No, that would be about as stupid as banning Muslims.
Neil,
I was just hoping there might be a 'safe list' in the nannybot software that allowed pre-screened users to bypass the nannybot.
Hey, I believe this site is THE best for immediate posting of comments - my very limited experience with such, notwithstanding.
I can tell you that at the only other site I comment at, from time to time, it can take days - no joke! - to have your comment posted and there are only a handful or two of commenters there. Matters of Principle, Senator Gary Hart's blog, could sure use that "safe list" you talk about!
My circle encompasses facts and reality, whereas ya'all's circle is solely made up of the concept that anything Right is evil incarnate and anything Left is pure as the driven snow..
Tasty copy pasta...
But I guess in the vaunted halls of the Left Wingery it's "extreme" to care about Americans first.... :^/
Or at least lives are only worth memorializing if they are killed by illegals, eh? Strange sense of morality you have there...
Neil,
So, you'll be all for universal healthcare then - since it is proven to be by far the most effective method to keep a population healthy?
Despite all the horror stories to the contrary.. :D
Time to ban Christians? No, that would be about as stupid as banning Muslims.
You have 4...
Do you want me to list the TENS of THOUSANDS of dead innocents due to muslim extremism...
But, that's so typically Left Winger....
"Let's ignore the 60,000 armed scumbags terrorists staring us in the face and concentrate on the 2 or 3 pea-shooter armed scumbags that are a mile away..."
Typical...
Michale
Or at least lives are only worth memorializing if they are killed by illegals, eh? Strange sense of morality you have there...
Which is infinitely better than IGNORING those lives which is what ya'all do...
And then have the gall to say that MY sense of morality is "strange"..
At least I have morality that's not based on political ideology..
Michale
Time to ban Christians? No, that would be about as stupid as banning Muslims.
You still haven't provided ANY facts to support your claim that terrorists are amongst christian refugees that are immigrating to the US..
When you can some facts to support THAT claim, then we can talk.. :D
Michale
"Let's ignore the 60,000 armed scumbags terrorists staring us in the face and concentrate on the 2 or 3 pea-shooter armed scumbags that are a mile away..."
It's just like the black lives matter crap...
"Let's address the .08% of black people that are killed by cops and ignore the 96% of black people that are killed by other black people!!"
It's an agenda borne COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY from a partisan ideological agenda and has absolutely NO BEARING on the facts or reality....
Like I said.. Typical Left Wingery bullcarp....
Michale
Which is infinitely better than IGNORING those lives which is what ya'all do...
All lives matter not just those who fit your political bias du jour, or at least wasn't that what you are trying to convince us with the anti black lives matter rants? Guess it's only important when it furthers your political agenda...
And then have the gall to say that MY sense of morality is "strange"..
Indeed...
At least I have morality that's not based on political ideology..
All evidence to the contrary...
It's an agenda borne COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY from a partisan ideological agenda and has absolutely NO BEARING on the facts or reality....
Like I said.. Typical Left Wingery bullcarp....
So, do have a text file to copy and paste from or do you type this copy pasta out each time?
Bashi,
All lives matter
Not according to your Left Wingery nutballs of the BLM racist hate group..
not just those who fit your political bias du jour,
Really?? Then why hasn't ANYONE on the Left talked about Kathleen Steinle??
Apparently HER life didn't matter to ANYONE on the Left... Present company included...
At least I have morality that's not based on political ideology..
All evidence to the contrary...
NO evidence to the contrary...
There... Fixed it for ya.. NOW it's accurate.. :D
Michale
So, do have a text file to copy and paste from or do you type this copy pasta out each time?
Nice dodge....
Another typical tactic of the Left Wingery.. :D
Michale
Still waiting for facts to support ya'all's claims that christian refugees represent a terrorist threat to the US...
{{chiirrrrppppppppp}} {{chiiirrrrrpppppppp}}
Yea... That's what I thought....
Michale
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/a_liberal_case_for_donald_trump_the_lesser_of_two_evils_is_not_at_all_clear_in_2016/
That's the point that ya'all don't see...
Ya'all are so hysterically emotional about the '-R' after Trump's name and enamored by the '-D' after Hillary's name that you can't analyze the situation calmly and rationally..
There are MANY issues that Trump is on the LEFT of Hillary on...
But all ya'all can see is '-D'/'-R'......
Michale
If Clinton is a two-term Prez, then Warren will be 74, sort of taking her off the table. Brown would be 71 and Franken 72. My guess is that Clinton being Prez until she's 76 will make Dems long for a much younger person as Prez.
If Clinton decides to call it a one-term presidency then perhaps Franken or Brown, perhaps not.
Think Amy Klobuchar (55 now, fabulous record with veterans; a bit too centrist, but that could change with the times).
Or, perhaps a Castro brother has reached the experience-level needed by then (Perez is 54 and would make another attractive latino nominee, especially due to his progressive beliefs).
I'm hoping a Trump loss is followed by a "true conservative." I made this argument in a post a while ago (hoping for Trump to be the nominee and lose so that the GOP nominates a "true conservative" in 2020).
Cruz would absolutely be the best version of this from a progressive point of view.
Cruz has absolutely no chance of expanding the electoral map with its blue firewall and purple-turning-bluer demographic changes.
As I said before, 2020 is redistricting. Progressive reforms would be helped tremendously by a Cruz 2020 campaign.
Of course, Progressives have to vote in 2018 and left-wing money and elites need to take a more local view of elections. They need to mimic what the GOP began in 2002 and look to make the 2020 redistricting their ultimate goal.
BTW, has anyone noticed that the Sanders campaign became much more combative and nasty about the same time that Bernie's wife Jane began being much more public in the campaign.
I think she began to believe in the possibility and went harsh and things followed.
neilm [14]:
Superdelegates continue to exist in the Dems precisely b/c they have never overturned the will of the pledged delegates. Should they ever do that, they won't exist in the following cycle.
To your broader point about GOP changing their rules, they have done that in large ways for both 2012 and 2016.
The problem for them is that they have basically looked at what was successful for the Dems and changed along those lines (exc for the new, make the Convention earlier to enable access to fundraising).
Unfortunately for the GOP, this did not work in 2012 and I wouldn't expect it to work in 2016. Even if the GOP wins in Nov, it will be in spite of their mimic-the-Dems rule changes rather than b/c of them.
neilm and Michale (esp Michale):
There is an exceptionally strong argument for gov't-provided universal health care that is conservative in nature (at least, in accord with the business wing of the conservative alliance).
If the basic model is employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, then the price of goods reflect that. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. The problem arises when most all of the countries we compete with economically don't include this in the cost of their goods.
An argument can be made about whether the taxes necessary to make this a reality would be just as large a bite (I don't agree with this argument, but it isn't an unreasonable one to make).
This then becomes a cost-benefit analysis. It's the Obama Derangement Syndrome and especially the demonize all things progressive that have made such a reasonable discussion impossible.
We can't even fix small, easy-to-fix things b/c the Right won't even help.
This then becomes a cost-benefit analysis. It's the Obama Derangement Syndrome and especially the demonize all things progressive that have made such a reasonable discussion impossible.
We can't even fix small, easy-to-fix things b/c the Right won't even help.
Yea, because the Left gives the Right *SUCH* a huge incentive to work together, calling them "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "hostage takers"...
:^/
Cue cries of "THEY STARTED IT!!!!" :^/
If the Left wants to have a partner in governing, the Left needs to BE a partner in governing...
Michale
Speak 2 said,
It's the Obama Derangement Syndrome and especially the demonize all things progressive that have made such a reasonable discussion impossible.
SPOT ON! This kinda goes along with Michale's post asking what is wrong with Trump's "America First" slogan. Nothing is wrong with it. But what President did not put America first in how they governed? I know Michale will have a list ten miles long in response to that question, but my point is that no person works their way up the political ladder and go through all the BS that comes with politics just so that when they reach the highest office, they can carry out their master plan to destroy this country! Will any president be able to have every policy and piece of legislation that they sign meet the public's expectations for whether it truly was putting "America First"? NEVER! Does "America First" mean that it's OK for American companies to benefit at the cost of the people...but only American companies? "America First" is a slogan. It is simple, patriotic (which my autocorrect changed to "parrot erotic" for some reason), and it fits nicely on a bumper sticker. I have no problem with the slogan, but I do question how he plans to live up to that slogan if he were to be elected!
If the Left wants to have a partner in governing, the Left needs to BE a partner in governing...
It wasn't the Left that met after Obama's inaugural speech and agreed that they would no longer make deciding if a piece of legislation was in their constituent's best interests how they determined whether to vote on said legislation. It was not the Left that chose to make whether or not the President supported a piece of legislation the sole determining factor for whether they voted for a piece of legislation. It was not the Left that intentionally voted against the best interests of the country simply to prevent the President from taking credit for signing legislation that would be viewed as helping our country!
It wasn't the Left that met after Obama's inaugural speech and agreed that they would no longer make deciding if a piece of legislation was in their constituent's best interests how they determined whether to vote on said legislation. It was not the Left that chose to make whether or not the President supported a piece of legislation the sole determining factor for whether they voted for a piece of legislation. It was not the Left that intentionally voted against the best interests of the country simply to prevent the President from taking credit for signing legislation that would be viewed as helping our country!
No, but it WAS the Left that sided with Al Qaeda in opposing Bush's policies..
Policies that the Left TURNED RIGHT AROUND AND SUPPORTED TO THE HILT when it was a POTUS with a '-D' after his name that was pushing them...
So, please... Spare me the whinings of the mean old Right and the poor victimized pure Left..
It's a pile of shit....
Michale
So now you know why I hate the Democrat Party so much more than the Republican Party..
Our country had just been brutally attacked.. THOUSANDS of innocent people had been brutally butchered in an unprovoked attack..
And the Democrat Party en masses sided with Al Qaeda and opposed CT policies that were designed to keep this country safe..
And kept this country safe, they did.... In SPITE of the Democrat Party's attempt to weaken this country, there hadn't been a terrorist attack on US Proper for the remainder of Bush's term..
But even though the Democrat Party sided with Al Qaeda, I wasn't TOO peeved... They took a position based in principle and morality and I could respect that.
Even though they were completely, utterly and unequivocally WRONG, I respected their position because it was a position taken in principle..
Or so I thought...
Then when a POTUS with a '-D' after his name came into office, the Democrat Party did a complete 180... All the policies that they said were bad, were horrendous would mean the end of our country...
ALL OF THE SUDDEN, the Democrat Party SUPPORTED those policies!!
It was an eye-opener for me...
I came to realize that the Democrat Party put this country at risk and sided with a group of ruthless terrorist thugs...
NOT based on principle or integrity or morality..
BUT SOLELY AND COMPLETELY FOR PARTISAN GAIN!!!
That's your Democrat Party, people. THAT is your LEFT Wingery....
Bush's policies that were horrendous and horrible, policies that made Bush a "War Criminal" and "Hitler" were, MIRACOUSLY and ALL OF THE SUDDEN not only acceptable but NECESSARY under a POTUS that has a '-D' after his name..
It's all about principles and integrity and morality...
And the Democrat Party has proven beyond ANY doubt that they have none....
Michale
Here ya go Michael:
Racist Trump fan arrested with stockpile of pipe bombs after threatening Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-roos-fbi-pipe-bomb_us_5723a97be4b01a5ebde593d4 via @HuffPostPol.
Michael,
Your entire post in (55) is a joke missing its punchline! I love that in one breath you attack anyone who says "Republicans do this..." for thinking that ALL Republicans are a monolith, yet In the next breath you wear you hypocrisy like a crown bashing all Democrats for committing acts that are not even the truth!
People were outraged to learn that we used torture on the captives we took prisoner. Obama did not continue with that program. When it became clear that there never were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that our government had knowingly lied about them, people got pissed. When our vets got back and weren't taken care of, people got pissed. Your argument that Bush's policies kept us protected after 9/11 is the same as my saying my dogs being dragon hounds have kept my house safe from dragon attacks.
Congress, and the whole country, were engulfed by the emotional swell of grieve that swept across our country after 9-11. How did the Democrats side with al-Qaeda? Bush was given just about anything he asked for in the Patriot Act. You do remember that it was Obama that was President when BinLaden was killed, correct? Odd show of support, if you ask me. Your saying the Democrats are the ones who put party before country is a pathetic attempt to deflect from the reality that it is the Republican Party that has blatantly put party politics above doing what is best for our country since Obama took office!
@Michale [55]
And so goes any claim you have to be an independent.
This is a stream of RWNJ nonsense - you're smarter than that.
Listen, Neil..
So, Obama DIDN'T continue and enhance Bush's domestic surveillance program??
Obama DIDN'T continue and enhance Bush's drone program???
You guys are so transparently blinded by ideology, it's just sad..
And so goes any claim you have to be an independent.
Actually, our own JL said it best..
I hate BOTH Partys, I just hate the Democrat Party more...
With very good reason... :D
Michale
Listen,
You do remember that it was Obama that was President when BinLaden was killed, correct?
I remember it was intelligence developed from the Bush Administration, intelligence gleaned from torture, that allowed Obama to kill Osama..
Ya'all always forget that part...
Gee, I wonder why....
Michale
Racist Trump fan arrested with stockpile of pipe bombs after threatening Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-roos-fbi-pipe-bomb_us_5723a97be4b01a5ebde593d4 via @HuffPostPol.
So you have a one off...
And I have the Bernie supporter who rushed Trump on stage to attack him..
Unlike you, *I* don't paint an entire group for the actions of a single moron...
Michale
Obama did not continue with that program. When it became clear that there never were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that our government had knowingly lied about them,
Actually this is not factual, but why let FACTS get in the way of a perfectly good rant, eh??
But it's funny.. You complain about the Bush government lying when it really didn't..
Yet, you completely ignore when Obama's government BLATANTLY and KNOWINGLY lied about Benghazi..
When Obama's government BLATANTLY and KNOWINGLY lied about TrainWreckCare...
You have absolutely NO credibility to complain about Bush's alleged lies...
Not when you give Obama a pass for HIS blatant and knowing lies..
Michale
Listen,
You have absolutely NO credibility to complain about Bush's alleged lies...
With the exception of the Grand Poobah hisself (obviously) there is only ONE person here who has ANY credibility to speak of Bush's so-called "lies"...
He knows who he is and you ain't he...
"There's only 2 people in this world I trust. One of 'em's me and the other ain't you."
-Nicholas Cage, CON-AIR
:D
Michale
Michale,
So, Obama DIDN'T continue and enhance Bush's domestic surveillance program??
Obama DIDN'T continue and enhance Bush's drone program???.
Never said Obama didn't. You are wrong.
Yet, you completely ignore when Obama's government BLATANTLY and KNOWINGLY lied about Benghazi..
I ignored it because it wasn't relevant to our discussion. You are wrong again.
You argue like my 5 yo nephew when he is accused of doing something he wasn't supposed to: you bring up things that others did that have nothing to do specifically with the matter being discussed. You then throw a tantrum and stomp out of the room when it is clear that your distraction didn't work! Whether or not Obama lied about any topic at any point in his life doesn't change any aspect of the conversation we were having concerning the lies told by the Republicans. Zilch, zero, nada! It's not cute when the 5 year old does it, either. But there's still hope that he can be taught that owning up to the truth is the right thing to do even when it is uncomfortable or makes us look bad.
Never said Obama didn't. You are wrong.
Yes, you did..
"Obama did not continue with that program."
The programs I was talking about were the drone programs and the domestic surveillance programs..
You are wrong. Obama DID continue those programs.
And you support Obama in that..
I ignored it because it wasn't relevant to our discussion. You are wrong again.
Our discussion at that point in time was, due to YOU bringing it up, that Bush knowingly lied..
You are wrong...
PLUS you have no credibility to accuse Bush of lying, when you give Obama a pass when he DID knowingly and blatantly lie..
You are wrong..
You argue like my 5 yo nephew when he is accused of doing something he wasn't supposed to: you bring up things that others did that have nothing to do specifically with the matter being discussed.
YOU brought up lying..
Not me...
Whether or not Obama lied about any topic at any point in his life doesn't change any aspect of the conversation we were having concerning the lies told by the Republicans. Zilch, zero, nada!
It has EVERYTHING to do with YOUR credibility on the subject of lying. A subject, I repeat, YOU brought up..
And ad hominem attacks on me doesn't change that simple fact.
You have no moral or ethical foundation to complain about Bush's lying. Even if he DID lie... Which he didn't...
If you want a shred of credibility around here, you need to be honest and admit the faults of your own Party...
Otherwise, it's nothing but hysterical ideological claptrap..
Michale
Basically, YOU brought up the subject of lying..
Then when I whacked yer pee-pee over it, you claimed that it's not relevant...
Make up yer mind, dood.. :D
Michale
Can we please stop accusing each other of ad hominem attacks!?
It's so ... juvenile. We're all big boys and girls here, or should be.
We never used to have to read about ad hominem attacks around here until fairly recently.
Let's leave that irritating policy behind, yes
To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't attack each others opinions or even each other ... just that we should be beyond complaining about it!!!
Can we please stop accusing each other of ad hominem attacks!?
You argue like my 5 yo nephew when he is accused of doing something he wasn't supposed to:
-Listen
Just stating the facts, Liz..
To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't attack each others opinions or even each other ...
Really?? It's OK to attack, not just the idea or the message, but the people too!!??
Color me shocked..
Michale
We never used to have to read about ad hominem attacks around here until fairly recently.
That's because there hasn't been much in the way of ad hominem attacks here until fairly recently...
Michale
Just stating the facts, Liz..
No, you are complaining. Take it like a man. :)
Color me shocked..
Well, you shouldn't be, coming from the least hypersensitive person around here!
That's because there hasn't been much in the way of ad hominem attacks here until fairly recently...
You're gonna have to give me a frickin' break on that one. You know what they say about commenters who dish it out but can't take it, right? Right!? Well, I can't remember what it is but it ain't good.
No, you are complaining. Take it like a man. :)
I'll remind ya'all of that the next time ya'all complain :D
You're gonna have to give me a frickin' break on that one. You know what they say about commenters who dish it out but can't take it, right? Right!? Well, I can't remember what it is but it ain't good.
See above.. :D
Michale
And, actually it was Listen that was "complaining"...
He brought up the subject of administrations who lie and when I responded with the FACTS of that issue, he got all whiney and bitchy and said it wasn't relevant...
So, yell at him.. :D
Michale
So, yell at him.. :D
Does he complain about ad hominem attacks against him? I don't think so.
And, for the love of God, STOP CALLING ME YA'ALL! :)
You know, there has only been one or two contributors here who have leveled the "ad hominem" charge against me. Both are relatively new arrivals here and female. 'Nuff said. Heh.
I just hate it when you start sounding like their hypersensitive complaining. Funnily enough, those who accuse others of ad hominem attacks generally tend to be the ad hominem attackers-in-chief.
Does he complain about ad hominem attacks against him? I don't think so.
That's because no one MAKES ad hominem attacks against him... :D
And, for the love of God, STOP CALLING ME YA'ALL! :)
I don't like singling people out.. It's rude.. :D
Michale
I don't like singling people out.. It's rude.. :D
There's a term to describe dumping everyone into the same boat, too . :)
There's a term to describe dumping everyone into the same boat, too . :)
That's true.. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario... :D
Michale
You said it!