American Politics the 2016 edition

micky wrote: ahhh... 3 weeks to go... just placed my order for a kilo of coke.. a case of Jack... a bevy of blond strippers with collective IQ only slightly higher than the average Trump supporter.. .and of course .. a couple of muscular meatheads for Raff so that she can drink champagne dripping off their bulging biceps... so the McPredictions... 1)  Clinton wins.  no sh*t.. but how much.  I've seen some chatter that current polls are not underselling Trump.. but are underselling Clinton..   Makes some sense... then there is the large.. much larger than in normal years undecided vote.  Rational thought would indicate most will break for Clinton.  Those that hate her.. and/or love him are already cooked into the polls. That is why he has the ceiling he has.. he is not likely to surpass it.  Figure given a choice between someone they don't like but at least will be politics as usual.. or someone they REALLY don't like.. who might (would haha) take the country off the cliff.. my money is that 2/3'rds of the undecided break Clinton. So my prediction... http://www.270towin.com/maps/3n8VN Clinton does pass 400 and does take Texas...  it is close already.. do think my talking points are whey she takes it.. narrowly but does... also registering the first double digit popular vote win we've had since 1984..  ancient times and a different country ago.... in terms of the hyper partisan tribal country we've become. 2) Senate... Democrats end up with 52 seats and control 3) the House?  Hard to say.. we have seen some wild swings in the last few years so it is not impossible.. nor even improbable considering the state of politics 2016 and the idiocy of the last Congress. However I think Trump needs at least one more bad news cycle for the down ballot disaster to swing the house. I think they hold on to it.. very narrowly... and likely to fully swing back to the Democrats in 2018.. as the Senate goes back to the Republicans (chock out the docket for the 2018 midterm elections.. brutal)

Well, I'll give you this much - Hillary right now looks to have a better chance in Texas than in Georgia.

micky wrote: JJLehto wrote: In response to Micky, but also my general thoughts: Much has been made about the, absolutely true, gap growing in politics. However, I think it's largely been because of the Republican's rightward drift. They used to (the mainstream) support New Deal policies, many were supportive of civil rights.  They've increasingly strayed from that, Democrats have not. Heck if anything they've drifted towards the center themselves economically, before this recent jog back left. I recall an article showing how today's liberal republicans are more conservative than the average conservative from decades ago. So yeah, seems clear to me who's driven most of this gap Part is also a natural tendency perhaps for that to happen with parties, but also the Democrats have become increasingly socially liberal as well. Isn't this good? Don't we all believe this is good? So the gap in politics can be lamented on, but what do you want? And yeah us dumb youngin Bernie bots...but again I don't get it. He represent Democratic ideas: social liberalism, dedication to environment, pro labor/working/middle class. Aren't these good things?? Aren't these what the Democratic Party is ya know, supposed to be about? Basically: The gap seems like the two parties are just returning to their roots. The GOP has embraced limited government, the Democrats are drifting back towards labor/middle class roots. If anything the Dems aren't going more left per se...just regaining their old spot.  And since you always talk about the "culture war" I say...loss of the middle ground? Good riddance. If the Dems going farther left means fighting for abortion, gay, civil and environmental rights, I say good. Fight on.  ahhh... Brian...  I think the chart was VERY clear.... the Democratic Party... those OF the Party are moving left.  Look at just how much of the Democratic segement is OFF the map to the left.. compared to earlier years...  no doube it is moving left. They have a lot of room to move... question is...  the GOP has to move left to remain viable in today's (and especially tomorrows) reality.. do they continue to trend right.. or simply stand put. oh nevermind my Bernie shots.. . I really liked the guy.. liked what what he stood for... LOVE the enthusiam he generated....while the Democratic Party was ready for him... America was not. As I said earlier... he was ahead of his time.. by an election cycle or two.... I had thought early onTrump would have beaten him... and though obviously not as certain of that today... I do think things could have turned out differently if it had Bernie rather than Hillary as his opponent. The best the GOP had against her . .were her f**king emails..  they would tarred and feathered him like ONLY the GOP attack machine could have to where average American Joe 6-Pack would have voted for a serial misogynst over a goddamend COMMUNIST   As I said earlier in the thread Brian... Bernie might be a nice guy.. he had NO idea.. Vermont politics was no preperation for what the GOP would have thrown at him.. little of it true.. none of it real... but it would have stuck.  Fear is page 1 of the GOP playbook...along with the politics of personal destruction... Hillary was immune because they have tried to destroy her for 30 years and shot their bolt already.... Bernie likely would have wilted.. and lost an election the Democratic should have NEVER lost.  That is why I couldn't support him.. the stakes were too high to dream or live on idealism....

The Republicans are threatening to block any Supreme Court justices proposed by Hilary and say that they will continue to obstruct until a Republican is voted President.  For that reason alone, I believe that all Americans should choose not to vote for the Republicans.  If you are already stating that you are not going to do your job then why the hell should we elect you to the position.

progaardvark wrote: micky wrote: 3) the House?  Hard to say.. we have seen some wild swings in the last few years so it is not impossible.. nor even improbable considering the state of politics 2016 and the idiocy of the last Congress. However I think Trump needs at least one more bad news cycle for the down ballot disaster to swing the house. I think they hold on to it.. very narrowly... and likely to fully swing back to the Democrats in 2018.. as the Senate goes back to the Republicans (chock out the docket for the 2018 midterm elections.. brutal)   I admire your enthusiasm on having a possible Democrat House, but the monkey on their back is the gerrymandering issue. If it wasn't for some dubious gerrymandering practices, the House might have been a lot closer to a 50-50 split or even lean blue right now. Maybe this could be addressed in the Supreme Court once Clinton gets another judge added that will tilt it more leftward. If the SC won't touch it, maybe the progressive wing can tackle this since Sanders and Warren have been working hard to get more progressives on down ballot tickets, but that will take time.

though it has seemed like it.. it isn't like the GOP has held the House for that long.  Gerrymandering is obviously nothing new.. and not enough to keep the House red...  and we all know it works both ways. Thus I doubt it is a court fight either side wishes to touch. It is a systematic ill..  but both parties partake freely of it.

I don't think the House will turn blue this time.. though I got a kick of the barrage of ads against one of the few remaining GOP representatives here in the deeply blue suburban DC area... Comstock is toast. Crucifying her the Democratic PAC's are.

JJLehto wrote: micky wrote: JJLehto wrote: In response to Micky, but also my general thoughts: Much has been made about the, absolutely true, gap growing in politics. However, I think it's largely been because of the Republican's rightward drift. They used to (the mainstream) support New Deal policies, many were supportive of civil rights.  They've increasingly strayed from that, Democrats have not. Heck if anything they've drifted towards the center themselves economically, before this recent jog back left. I recall an article showing how today's liberal republicans are more conservative than the average conservative from decades ago. So yeah, seems clear to me who's driven most of this gap Part is also a natural tendency perhaps for that to happen with parties, but also the Democrats have become increasingly socially liberal as well. Isn't this good? Don't we all believe this is good? So the gap in politics can be lamented on, but what do you want? And yeah us dumb youngin Bernie bots...but again I don't get it. He represent Democratic ideas: social liberalism, dedication to environment, pro labor/working/middle class. Aren't these good things?? Aren't these what the Democratic Party is ya know, supposed to be about? Basically: The gap seems like the two parties are just returning to their roots. The GOP has embraced limited government, the Democrats are drifting back towards labor/middle class roots. If anything the Dems aren't going more left per se...just regaining their old spot.  And since you always talk about the "culture war" I say...loss of the middle ground? Good riddance. If the Dems going farther left means fighting for abortion, gay, civil and environmental rights, I say good. Fight on.  ahhh... Brian...  I think the chart was VERY clear.... the Democratic Party... those OF the Party are moving left.  Look at just how much of the Democratic segement is OFF the map to the left.. compared to earlier years...  no doube it is moving left. They have a lot of room to move... question is...  the GOP has to move left to remain viable in today's (and especially tomorrows) reality.. do they continue to trend right.. or simply stand put. oh nevermind my Bernie shots.. . I really liked the guy.. liked what what he stood for... LOVE the enthusiam he generated....while the Democratic Party was ready for him... America was not. As I said earlier... he was ahead of his time.. by an election cycle or two.... I had thought early onTrump would have beaten him... and though obviously not as certain of that today... I do think things could have turned out differently if it had Bernie rather than Hillary as his opponent. The best the GOP had against her . .were her f**king emails..  they would tarred and feathered him like ONLY the GOP attack machine could have to where average American Joe 6-Pack would have voted for a serial misogynst over a goddamend COMMUNIST   As I said earlier in the thread Brian... Bernie might be a nice guy.. he had NO idea.. Vermont politics was no preperation for what the GOP would have thrown at him.. little of it true.. none of it real... but it would have stuck.  Fear is page 1 of the GOP playbook...along with the politics of personal destruction... Hillary was immune because they have tried to destroy her for 30 years and shot their bolt already.... Bernie likely would have wilted.. and lost an election the Democratic should have NEVER lost.  That is why I couldn't support him.. the stakes were too high to dream or live on idealism.... Well no doubt they have moved left, but my point was (besides the fact the GOP has drifted way farther to the right) isn't this a good thing? A VERY good thing Especially since most of the leftward drift is on social issues. Which is very near and dear to my heart. Driving both my vote and my corresponding hate haha. There was just so much lamenting the loss of the middle, and IDK...I say screw it. The Dems should fight for these values, and if it means the loss the middle, so be it. You just seemed to really lament it, but I found that odd given all the "culture war" stuff. Commit man! Really?  If I appeared to lament it... I sure didn't intend to.. nor more than I do the rise of tribal partisan politics I often mention as if there really is anything wrong with the '2 Americas'.  Sure it sucks.. it would be great if Republicans were culturally enlightened... believing in a culturaly diverse and relgiously inclusive America.. but they do not.  Thus the tribal nation of right wing politics gives rise to charlatans like Trump.. but the cultural 'warrior' in me LOVES it.  Fools like him.. and Ted Cruz waiting in the wings for 2020 are just elections won before the first vote is cast in today's America. The Democratic party for so long has been the sleeping giant. .the apathetic majority (in large part to minority voters only now becoming energized and realizing their immense power they do hold.. and will only continue to gain). Howver for many years the Democratics outworked, outfought by a smaller but more passionate right wing to this country. It is finally time that the cultural war.. became more than just the right kicking around the left. Oi...the "Bernie was bound to lose" sh*t? Please...the guy who actually had support from youth, independents, white working class voters and newcomers? The one who ya know, actually had a net positive favorability rating? And against Trump? If people like and support Clinton, that is fine...but I wish they'd drop the "he'd never win" nonsense. 45% of the country will vote against the Dems just because. The blue states would've backed him, leaving the swing states and I think he absolutely could've won. His message plus being more flat out likeable, especially with white men who are the one bloc still eluding Hillary, don't see how it was so obvious he'd lose.  As for the messiness, he was accused of being sexist, racist, (for a liberal these are actually painful!) of not caring about gun victims/choosing gun manufacturers over murdered children...Not exactly fluff punches. That said, he did go farther than I ever would've expected. We all know his purpose was to influence the party, our Ron Paul, and it's worked. Even got to Obama and Biden.  Vermont politics? Well hell, maybe people believe his outsider thing a little too well. He has been in Congress for 25 years ya know Including being the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee which means btw: If the Democrats re take the senate, which is still currently expected, Bernie Sanders would become the head of the Senate Budget Committee.  Which would not only be awesome, the truly mammoth volume of salt that would be pouring from the GOP would be delicious. agree to disagree on Bernie's electablility.. sorry to say Brian.. I've seen his movie..  numerous times. I don't think I was the only one...  he did worst .. with older voters.. who have long memories of past failures of Democratic nominees.  Could you see him stooping to Trump's level of nastiness.. no.. I don't either.. and that would doom him. He'd try to win a issue driven campaign.. when most of the electorate is more interested in less esoteric issues.. oh really... wikiweaks (the Russians concocted) just came out with information that Sanders had ..ummmm.... who knows...a homosexual relationship with Hồ Chí Minh back in the 60's and later a 3some with Hanoi Jane. that is what they'd stoop to... they'd destroy him.. only if they didn't find actual skeletons in his closet.. which who really knows if he does or does not.. Clinton ran a clean campaign against him.. and who in Vermont has really ever dug into his past.  Clinton's had been laid bare...  ad nauseam. My point was of course...  he would have been tarred and feathered to a point where the middle and older aged.. who most certainly were NOT Bernie supporters... would have never voted for the guy after the GOP character assinated him out of existence.

Edited by micky - October 19 2016 at 16:24

Equality 7-2521 wrote: micky wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: micky wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Thanks for your thoughts Micky. We disagree so much especially on post 3 it's not even worth saying more than I appreciate knowing where you stand.   so where are you with your politics Pat these days.  It has been a few years since Bad Micky was last seen around here. What are your thoughts on the two candidates...and their parties? I guess I'm a libertarian, but libertarians like to keep telling me that I'm not so who knows maybe I'm not. Both parties are trash like political parties tend to be. Trump is abhorrent and I don't really think my opinion of him needs to be elaborated on. I don't like HRC. If I'm not trying to be civil then I also find her abhorrent. She's a liberal right so we clash with economic policy, but that's not even what I really care about with her. She's a mess in her foreign policy. Frankly, she essentially has none. She's a war candidate, as hawkish as they come, more so even than all but two of the republican candidates that took the field in the primaries. Going back to her time as a first lady, she's been a consistent supporter of USA enforced regime changed across the globe aggressively pursuing the most hapless aspects of our FP which has led to massive political destabilization and the inception of fringe paragovernmental extremists abroad. She's a humanitarian crisis on two legs. Her work in Syria and Libya is pure disgrace. She shares blame in our baffling hostile relations with the two other largest world powers.  She's a huge proponent of the drone program which is something I just can't stand and people who know me around here are probably tired of hearing me talk about. So in short that's why I dislike her so much. thanks Pat I have heard many of your thoughts expressed by friends of mine so that is no surprise to hear Pat. I had wondered if you still identified as a Libertarian.  What are your thoughts.. on my thoughts.. that the Libertarian Party some day may (and I think it will) replace the Republican Party as our 2nd major party.  I don't agree.. .at all.. with the economic side... but do agree on the social side. Thus since social issues and the 'culture war' drives my vote more than anything.. I see the Libertarian Party having more of future in this country than the Republican Party. The country is moving to the left socially... I think we all agree of that. “I can tell you where to find Reagan Republicans: Go to a cemetery in Oakland County, Michigan" economically?  Perhaps I'm simplifing things. But how is Libertarian Policy any different than than the failed and disproven Repubican economic models.  Less taxation doesn't work.. big businesses don't trickle it down.. just buy bigger homes and more yachts and the social safety net.. needs resources to function. Thus the social contract we must honor with taxation. so I guess my question is ... something I care less about than social issues.. but still am interesting in. Where do Libertarian and Republican economics policies diverge or differ.. or am I right to tar and feather both as already tested.. and proven to be failures. I don't see the Libertarian party supplanting the Republican. The country is moving leftward socially so perhaps the Republican party will begin to do that, but much of the core of that party would rather vote for a Democrat than adopt the foreign policy of libs and the extreme left social policy. Big business interests are none too keen about libertarian economic policy either. I don't really see the economic policies as that similar. Republican policies focus on funneling money into big business through government kickbacks in a slew of forms domestically while enriching them with our modern economic imperialism across seas.

interesting...  I read the Republican social problems differently.. thus the fatal gunshot wound leading to being supplanted.  Who makes up the base, the core of the Republican Party. Economic conservative?  hardly..  foreign hawks? hardly... it is the very group that would try to keep a straight face and vote for Trump (even though he flies in the face of everything that religious conservatives say is important to them) than vote for a Democrat. The basic problem they have is that in order to move left.. they have to cut lose ..a substantial part of their core support. The cultural right and remnants of the Religious Right.  They have ZERO place in the Democratic Party.  There is no place for them... yet as i noted earlier.. there are still Replicans out there that still subscribe to all that less taxes, small government and pro-business.  You have two very different camps under one tent. 

I do think the party will split before it ever moves leftward.. moving left.. about as much chance as the Democratic Party does in moving RIGHT.. regardless of what makes sense.. the party is reflected not by the establishment..which knows it has to move left.. but its voters. Thus.. the Civil War within the Republican party.. which will kill it. The fight between the establishment.. and its voters. See Trump 2016. Who do you think will win that fight moving forward...

anyhow Pat... you don't see the more 'moderate' (fiscal and foreign) aspects of the Republcian Party finding a home with the Libertarians... accepting a more liberal society ideology for a home in a still evolving party that they could easly evolve into one more to their tastes...one that is not shackled with the albatross of being embarrassing and completely out of touch with America today (" no matter who much I believe in limited government.. I can not vote for a party of racists and bigots').. not to mention the basic ideals in which this country was based upon.

As I've said a few times in the thread...  I definitely have my eyes on the Libertarians.  They had the bad luck to have a complete joke of a nominee.. they really could have made inroads this year. As it was they came off as the 3rd leg punchline of a sad joke...  the crooked, psychotic, and the oblivious


Edited by micky - October 19 2016 at 17:35

progaardvark wrote: micky wrote: 3) the House?  Hard to say.. we have seen some wild swings in the last few years so it is not impossible.. nor even improbable considering the state of politics 2016 and the idiocy of the last Congress. However I think Trump needs at least one more bad news cycle for the down ballot disaster to swing the house. I think they hold on to it.. very narrowly... and likely to fully swing back to the Democrats in 2018.. as the Senate goes back to the Republicans (chock out the docket for the 2018 midterm elections.. brutal)   I admire your enthusiasm on having a possible Democrat House, but the monkey on their back is the gerrymandering issue. If it wasn't for some dubious gerrymandering practices, the House might have been a lot closer to a 50-50 split or even lean blue right now. Maybe this could be addressed in the Supreme Court once Clinton gets another judge added that will tilt it more leftward. If the SC won't touch it, maybe the progressive wing can tackle this since Sanders and Warren have been working hard to get more progressives on down ballot tickets, but that will take time.

one last thought on your post.  We really haven't touched too much on the House ..well since it realistically wasn't in play until a couple of weeks ago.

Something caught my eye when I posted that Oakland Co. Michigan link earlier. Split tickets...

I had wondered... we all know (or should know) that hand in hand with tribal/hyper-partisan politics in a steep rise in straight ticket voting. I think pretty much all the states allow it (recall there were but a handful that don't give you the option to vote straight ticket)

so let's look back in time

in 2012.. there were 27 (out of of course... 435 districts) that voted for a candidate for President of one party and elected a  house member of the other party. Not surprisingly... the numbers confirm that while talk-radio and Foxnews have poisoned many Republicans minds to see Democrats as spawns of Satan...  PAsMick has not yet done the same for his fellow Democrats

of the 27... 18 voted for Obama.. but voted for a Republican for house.  While the Culture War is on full force... many in my party still don't see the inherent evil of the Republican Party yet (think 2016 will change that...)

more interesting though.. is going back further...

in 2008..  there were 83 districts with a split vote...

in 2004... there were 59....


how many do people expect in the hyper-polarized/partisan 2016 election. My guess.. all of 8 districts. Thus... you can see why the Republicans are so afraid to lose the house.  Enough to take the unprecedented step of running away from their Presidential candidate. Straight ticket voting is becoming more prevalent... and obviously split ticket voting is going down in the tribal/partisan era.  If Hillary wins 325-400 votes... that counts for a lot of congressional disticts.

not saying it will change.. but don't be surprised if it does... polling is pretty much non existant. Due to the overall numbers .. not to mention rapid deflation of the Trump campaign...and continued erosion of educated and women voters.


Edited by micky - October 19 2016 at 19:18

^ You must understand Trump is, for many, a "man of the people", he's "looking out for the little guy", and "saying what people are thinking" (like don't give Iran money, don't let in immigrants from the Middle East, don't pay taxes if you can find a way around it, etc.).  

He's bold, honest, clever, and knows the system.   And man can he hold a crowd !

Micky wrote: I think the chart was VERY clear.... the Democratic Party... those OF the Party are moving left. Look at just how much of the Democratic segement is OFF the map to the left.. compared to earlier years... no doube it is moving left. They have a lot of room to move... question is... the GOP has to move left to remain viable in today's (and especially tomorrows) reality.. do they continue to trend right.. or simply stand put.

The Dems have not moved left. Nearly all the moderate democrats that used to squeak through in some purple and red states got defeated through the course of several elections. It appears like movement on a graph, but that's not really movement at all.. You wouldn't realistically expect a democratic congressman from NY state to become more conservative to accommodate the loss of a democratic moderate in some other red state. The republicans, by comparison, genuinely have moved right. John McCain is a case in point.

Remember the days when Orrin Hatch used to be the scariest thing around.