American Politics the 2016 edition

Well you hit it on the head my friend. 

Conservatives mistrust government but only in terms of social spending. Welfare, the big 3 entitlements, and increasingly education (which is weird I thought conservatives always believed education was the key to pulling yourself up by those good ol boostraps) these are there targets. Also unions, regulations, stuff like that. Basically economically is where they want gov to stay away. They LOVE government when it comes to defense spending, as well as stomping on civil liberties, "morality" etc  

This is the difference I learned between conservatives and libertarians who are at least true in their beliefs. 

Policing has been an interesting window to the mind. There are libertarians who seem to range from supportive of cops but critical when need be, to outright hateful of the idea and think they're authoritarian. Conservatives however have been extremely gung ho on supporting police to the point where it's irrational. Like we all know violence is bad, it's wrong for those who have taken to violence against cops but many refuse to acknowledge the problems in our police system, and in fact defend them. No matter how blatantly bad the incident. Conservative v Liberatian divide. 

loloops!

OK, so part of this reduction is apparently from the weak economy as well as Budget Control Act, but seems part is indeed due to the ACA. 

Now, overall I was not super pleased with the bill. There were parts I liked, parts I didn't, thought it was very messy and convoluted and doesn't address some major issues with our health system and really wanted a public option, but I did say I would wait and see how things unfurl to judge it. 

Well, economic ruin never happened, skyrocketing costs never happened, insurance has been extended to millions of people and it seems the growth of healthcare costs have been slowed. The medicaid expansion has been one of it's huge successes. 

So overall: I have to say ACA has been a success. 

I still hope, (I know not even in my dreams) we push for a public option, and there are still monopoly/competition/waste issues that need to be addressed, but I'd say Obama's major legacy, timid and moderate as it is (remember when the idea was pushed by conservatives in the 90s as their alternative to a straight up universal system??) has been moderately successful. 

Hope we can continue to push for more. 

Also, CNN rolled out the interactive electoral map again. Great to be able to wargame again.

Fiddling around with it, I, the esteemed Dr. Kelvin (PhD, OMG), have discovered that the prognosis for Donald "Corn Hair" "Cheeto Jesus" J. Trump is exceptionally grim. Between his rhetoric, his "campaign" "strategy", his lack of resources, and the demographics, in order to win he must somehow:

1) Hold the at risk Red Wall states (Utah, Arizona, Georgia)

2) Win the swing states he gives a damn about (Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin)

3) Win either Michigan or Pennsylvania

Hillary can best him just by holding the Blue Wall and taking any two swing states (which here includes Utah et al, but not Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia - she's definitely getting those). You'll also notice that North Carolina, despite being potentially safe for Trump, is rather meaningless - add NC to 1 and 2 but fail to get 3 and the Electoral College is simply deadlocked, and lose NC but complete the three steps and he wins anyways.

I'm calling it for Hillary right now. We're getting our first female president. And to think that it took until September for me to call the election for Obama in '12!

We now know he was only ever a protest candidate and their goal was to hit double digit polling, and I read somewhere supposedly an insider said the whole thing was just for his brand/ego (which is no shock).

Anyone read the latest blurb on how most of Trump's fundraising has gone to...himself. Lining his pockets and nothing more. 

Also it cant be denied: trump IS a long time Clinton friend and ally....I don't think it can be ruled out he was there/has been going for a bit just to give her the easiest possible time. Either by knocking out the legit names and getting Cruz to be the nominee, or the Donald himself and he increasingly alienates the base/says outlandish things to aid the cause. 

The guy spent barely money, doesn't bother to fundraise, never set up a ground campaign/network, he fired his campaign manager...I really feel it's possible he was just a protest vote that went berserk and/or is out to aid Clinton. 

IF that really is the case, it better never come out as it would mean our democracy is literally a show, it'd be a mockery of what we claim to be as a country and would mean all the "electable/must beat trump" stuff would be obvious bunk, and Sanders fans would be quite rightfully livid. 

Yeah, Kaine and fellow VA senator Mark Warner. They were the 2 earliest and consistent names I've seen. 

Makes sense they are very Clinton-eqsue picks: Moderate-ish, safe, boring. That's not to be funny, it's just the Clinton style. I never really thought she'd go for balance (Warren, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken) or wow factor (Cory Booker). Makes sense too, going too far to the left could alienate alot of people. Like I said elsewhere, wouldn't want to have our version of Sarah Palin...the person who fires up the base at the cost of  everyone else Which may happen with someone like Warren. Honestly, to non Democrats I think she is less appealing than even Sanders. I personally know people who like-ish or respect him while hating Warren. 

I still say it's dangerous to pull any senator out, Dems need every seat they can get especially since they can very possibly take the Senate. 

I still like the idea of Tom Perez. Has obvious ties to Obama, a solid liberal/labor record. 

The early favorite was Julian Castro but I haven't heard his name as much, I wonder if it's due to protest from liberals over his selling discounted houses to wall street firms