2016 Presidential Candidate

[Bob W]

Lucky predictions for me ----  Trump very nice to CF and high fived BC.  CF definitely was the big winner for the night and will pick up many, many points.  BC and DJT  ceded ground IMHO.    Trump toned down his shtick.    TC kissing DJT's butt for a hope at the VP slot.   I don't remember anyone else being there?   Oh yeah,  that JK guy.   Still think he is great at the policy wonk end of things and he might make a great "take Ohio at any cost"  VP choice.   He knows that and that is his ultimate objective.

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida. 

Since BC is now in favor of the wall and deportation of some sort he could attract a lot of interest in the south.   He could conceivably win Iowa based on bible thumping -- pull in second in NH and  generate lots of interest in the south. 

Best damn primary season ever and only 145 days until the first vote is cast. 

[Jeremy E.]

Lucky predictions for me ----  Trump very nice to CF and high fived BC.  CF definitely was the big winner for the night and will pick up many, many points.  BC and DJT  ceded ground IMHO.    Trump toned down his shtick.    TC kissing DJT's butt for a hope at the VP slot.   I don't remember anyone else being there?   Oh yeah,  that JK guy.   Still think he is great at the policy wonk end of things and he might make a great "take Ohio at any cost"  VP choice.   He knows that and that is his ultimate objective.

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida. 

Since BC is now in favor of the wall and deportation of some sort he could attract a lot of interest in the south.   He could conceivably win Iowa based on bible thumping -- pull in second in NH and  generate lots of interest in the south. 

Best damn primary season ever and only 145 days until the first vote is cast.

Trump threw multiple slams Fiorinas way, but you were right on the outcome anyways

[beltim]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

[Bob W]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage?   I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp.   Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF. 

Still one has to hand it to the Dems for importing all those votes over the last 20 years.  Appears the Pubs were asleep at the wheel. 

One could imagine the black voters flipping sides if courted and informed about the effects of massive immigration on their future prospects. 

[yuka]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage?   I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp.   Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF. 

Still one has to hand it to the Dems for importing all those votes over the last 20 years.  Appears the Pubs were asleep at the wheel. 

One could imagine the black voters flipping sides if courted and informed about the effects of massive immigration on their future prospects.

It's my impression that GWB did quite well with hispanic voters. A quick search yielded a WaPo article saying 44% in 2004 and 35% in 2000.

[dramaman]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage?   I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp.   Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF. 

Still one has to hand it to the Dems for importing all those votes over the last 20 years.  Appears the Pubs were asleep at the wheel. 

One could imagine the black voters flipping sides if courted and informed about the effects of massive immigration on their future prospects.

It's my impression that GWB did quite well with hispanic voters. A quick search yielded a WaPo article saying 44% in 2004 and 35% in 2000.

You beat me to the punch. The GOP's favorability with Hispanic voters took a nosedive once it became clear that the GOP base (and the politicians that pander to them) was not going to support immigration reform. Romney's self-deportation comments didn't help. Of course those are mild compared to the current Trump-inspired rhetoric.

And the Democrats did not import Hispanic votes. Those new Hispanic voters came from good ol' fashioned demographic shifts within the existing U.S. citizenry.

[beltim]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage?   I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp.   Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF. 

Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively.  But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.

[Bob W]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage?   I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp.   Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF. 

Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively.  But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.

The overall national percentage matters not.  It only matters the percentage in swing states. 

http://www.examiner.com/article/only-4-percent-of-voters-swing-states-are-latino

The link is dated 2012 so let's assume 5% of swing state voters are Latino.  At this point one has to assume that 95% of the Latinos will vote democrat.   


So the question then is what percentage of the 73% nonlatino white vote has to swing republican.  One also should assume that 10% of the 15% black voters in swing states will shift to Republican based on immigration reform.  Is the 10% of 15% black vote greater than the 30% of the 5% Latino vote.   Not significantly.   But one needs to take the long view and assume that the wedge being driven between Hispanics and blacks broadens a bit each year.  It is a pretty basic argument --  Dear Black voter, -- The illegal aliens have taken all your jobs thanks to the Democrats.   

Much of what I've read about the black middle class voter is that they are tired of the racial politics and more concerned with pay, jobs and economics than a media driven racist party view. 

 It gets a little complicated when you add in the independents who may swing to republican and subtract the republicans who will sit it out because they don't like Trump, Ben, Jeb or Carly.   

Meanwhile the Republican majority Senate, House, State Legislators,  and Governors are getting the message as clearly as CF got her face message.   You will see some states enact very strict illegal alien laws in the next few years.  It could very well be that illegal immigration could be the new litmus test for state politicians.  i.e. you are either against illegals or you don't get the vote.   One could see 40 states making illegals really illegal in the next 5 years. 

Remember gerrymandering districts --- same theory except you are gerrymandering states.   States unfriendly to illegals (all red and some blue) would lose Latino populations while friendly states (all blue) would pick up Latinos.  It takes a generation but works out nicely for the republicans especially if they can pick up a good percentage of the black vote along the way. 

I think the Republicans will eventually thank DJT as they will likely pick up seats in both the Senate and House thanks to his line in the sand stance. 


 

[beltim]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage?   I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp.   Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF. 

Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively.  But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.

The overall national percentage matters not.  It only matters the percentage in swing states. 

The link I gave you talks about the swing states using real numbers.  They all require Republicans getting 40+% of the Latino vote to win the state.

[yuka]

I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as

• First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
• Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
• Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
• We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
• Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.

So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.

[Bob W]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage?   I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp.   Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF. 

Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively.  But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.

The overall national percentage matters not.  It only matters the percentage in swing states. 

The link I gave you talks about the swing states using real numbers.  They all require Republicans getting 40+% of the Latino vote to win the state.

The first one said nothing about swing states and was a propaganda piece.  The second had too much information for me to spend the day deciphering. 

I guess if the assumption is that nothing else changes the second one could be correct.   Percentages are a bitch.   1 white nonlatino is worth 14 latinos,   1 black equals 3 latino.   And don't forget the union voters.   Ask yourself -- are they more likely to vote for or against illegals?      From the Democratic base the unions will be easiest to flip.  Sure the union bosses will still fund the Dems but a lot of their members may be voting Pub.   Getting out the base is a huge deal as well. 

[Bob W]

I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as

• First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
• Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
• Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
• We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
• Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.

So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.

Well I can think of only one candidate not corporate sponsored. 

[beltim]

Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind.   It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports.   It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform,  that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact.  My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.   

There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%.  I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/

Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage?   I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp.   Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF. 

Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively.  But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.

The overall national percentage matters not.  It only matters the percentage in swing states. 

The link I gave you talks about the swing states using real numbers.  They all require Republicans getting 40+% of the Latino vote to win the state.

The first one said nothing about swing states and was a propaganda piece.  The second had too much information for me to spend the day deciphering. 

I guess if the assumption is that nothing else changes the second one could be correct. 

Fox News is a propaganda outlet for Latinos?  Interesting.  Anyway, yes, I was talking about the second link, which if you had read, would answer the questions you've asked since.

As for the assumption that if "nothing else changes the second one could be correct" you're right, that is an assumption.  But, Romney won a near-record percentage of the white votes in 2008.  So the question would be whether the Republican candidate in 2016 would be able to set a new record for percentage of the white vote.

[Gin1984]

I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as

• First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
• Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
• Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
• We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
• Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.

So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.

Can you please eleborate on this?  The lack of slavery somehow means we have equal rights for everyone, is that what you are saying?  That we did not need the civil rights act of 1964?  That women, without the ERA, somehow have equal rights because no slavery.  I must be misunderstanding you.  Please tell me I am.

[dramaman]

I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as

• First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
• Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
• Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
• We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
• Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.

So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.

For the Republican Primary, the closest candidate that fits your description is IMO Rand Paul. Unsure how you feel on foreign policy so his anti-interventionist position could be significant one way or the other.

[Bob W]

Foxlatino?   Um yeah,  I would guess biased as CNNwhite would be. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/newsmax-poll-second-republican/2015/09/17/id/691953/

Here is the newsmax poll of debate winners.  I wouldn't have guessed Trump with such a huge margain. 

Donald Trump 46.26%
 Carly Fiorina 20.11%
 Sen. Marco Rubio 9.32%
 Dr. Ben Carson 9.22%
 Sen. Ted Cruz 5.67%
 Gov. John Kasich 3.10%
 Gov. Chris Christie 2.14%
 Gov. Jeb Bush 1.45%
 Sen. Rand Paul 1.27%
 Gov. Mike Huckabee 1.04%
 Gov. Scott Walker 0.41%

I would have ranked similarly with less margin for Trump and higher for CF and lower for BC.   JB 1.45%  That is freaking hilarious.   His staff is crying at their office at this very moment.  That squirrel has no nuts!

Outsiders/non republican/non politicians have 76% of the vote.  Wow!!! 

Regarding could the Republican candidate take a much higher percentage of white votes and black votes than MR did.  Why yes they can. 

The white,  black, latino race baiting is getting very old though.  We are moving towards a post racial identity in this country.   I haven't identified racially since like 1976.   The focus has shifted to economics and class.  As in the middle class is getting the shit end of the turd. 


Drudge ---
"By the end of the event, Trump, who is number one in the Washington Examiner's presidential power rankings, received 61 percent of votes. At a distant second place with 14 percent was Carly Fiorina. In third, Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul tied with 6 percent."  http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/trump-is-runaway-favorite-in-drudge-poll


CNN record viewership at 20 million (I missed by 2 million in yesterdays forcastimate)  http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/trumpmania-gop-debate-sets-cnn-ratings-record

So yeah,  around 50% of the viewers (10 Million people)  gave the debate to Trump.  That even though he did a shit job.  Amazing really. 

I didn't think he could keep up the momentum but apparently there are a lot of pissed off disenfranchised folks in the good old USA that ain't gonna take it anymore. 

So the question is how will the jockeying go for the next month until the next big event.   Trump won't say as much stupid stuff -- CF will be out touting her numbers.  BC will be quiet as always and fade away by December.   Could Rubio make a power move?   Could he be the VP to Trumps P?   Will he flip the latino vote in Florida?   Will he speak in Spanglish?   Will CF have a makeover?   

And what about Billary and the Socialist?   Will JB enter the race as Obama alluded to yesterday?  Will that knock Billary to second place the day he announces?

Stay tuned for all the exciting turns!!

[sol]

Nate Silver over at 538 suggests that Trump has essentially no chance to win the GOP nomination.

The argument is that establishment republicans think he is destructive to their brand.  He's engaged in a hostile takeover of the republican party, and the lasting damage he could cause to their current coalition of fiscal, social, and national security conservatives would be fatal to the long term survival of the party.

With that thought in mind, they are prepared to sink him at any cost, including party suicide by pursuing a brokered convention that would fracture the party base and definitely lose them this election, but at least preserve the two party system for a future one.

I don't know if his analysis is correct, but it sounds plausible to me.  Trump opposes the GOP platform on taxes and health care, and he waffles on abortion.  His only real campaign issue, immigration, is so destructive to the party's long term electability that even the other current republican candidates are fighting him on it.  If they really think he means to kill the party, I think they have the power to stop him.  They're just hoping he self destructs first so it doesn't have to come to that.

[MoonShadow]

Nate Silver over at 538 suggests that Trump has essentially no chance to win the GOP nomination.

The argument is that establishment republicans think he is destructive to their brand.  He's engaged in a hostile takeover of the republican party, and the lasting damage he could cause to their current coalition of fiscal, social, and national security conservatives would be fatal to the long term survival of the party.

With that thought in mind, they are prepared to sink him at any cost, including party suicide by pursuing a brokered convention that would fracture the party base and definitely lose them this election, but at least preserve the two party system for a future one.

I don't know if his analysis is correct, but it sounds plausible to me.  Trump opposes the GOP platform on taxes and health care, and he waffles on abortion.  His only real campaign issue, immigration, is so destructive to the party's long term electability that even the other current republican candidates are fighting him on it.  If they really think he means to kill the party, I think they have the power to stop him.  They're just hoping he self destructs first so it doesn't have to come to that.

But then a brokered convention would give Trump a credible excuse to run third party, regardless of his 'loyalty' pledge.  This would certainly split the vote, causing the Dem candidate to win no matter who was nominated; but also potentially destroy the Republican party anyway, in much the way the Whig party ceased to exist.  Nate Silver might be correct, he usually is, but if Trump's long term goal is just to destroy the Republican party, he most certainly still can.  This is going to be fun to watch.

[KittyCat]

But then a brokered convention would give Trump a credible excuse to run third party, regardless of his 'loyalty' pledge.  This would certainly split the vote, causing the Dem candidate to win no matter who was nominated; but also potentially destroy the Republican party anyway, in much the way the Whig party ceased to exist.  Nate Silver might be correct, he usually is, but if Trump's long term goal is just to destroy the Republican party, he most certainly still can.  This is going to be fun to watch.

What would Trump theoretically gain from destroying the party?

[Jeremy E.]

But then a brokered convention would give Trump a credible excuse to run third party, regardless of his 'loyalty' pledge.  This would certainly split the vote, causing the Dem candidate to win no matter who was nominated; but also potentially destroy the Republican party anyway, in much the way the Whig party ceased to exist.  Nate Silver might be correct, he usually is, but if Trump's long term goal is just to destroy the Republican party, he most certainly still can.  This is going to be fun to watch.

What would Trump theoretically gain from destroying the party?

Publicity

[milesdividendmd]

This just in Ben Carson ties Trump in Iowa poll.   

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Monmouth-University-Monmouth-Poll/2015/08/31/id/672824/

Those freaking racist Republicans are up to it again!  lol

 

Still supporting Trump Bob?  Still think he'll win?

Aside from his immigration nonsense I found myself agreeing with him an awful lot last night.

Pro Progressive taxation? Check
Non interventionist foreign policy?Check
No carried interest deduction? Check
G w Bush caused ISIS and made us unsafe? Check

Not bad.  I could go along with all of those. Maybe he is a NY democrat, which you must be too.

Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage.

[yuka]

I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as

• First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
• Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
• Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
• We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
• Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.

So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.

Can you please eleborate on this?  The lack of slavery somehow means we have equal rights for everyone, is that what you are saying?  That we did not need the civil rights act of 1964?  That women, without the ERA, somehow have equal rights because no slavery.  I must be misunderstanding you.  Please tell me I am.

I think "misheard" would be more apt, if you can have such a thing on internet forums. You're thinking of the 13th amendment, not the 14th (which is what I referred to.)

[Jeremy E.]

So I still want Kasich to take the nomination, and someone asked me a question I hadn't thought of... Who do I want to be his VP? I'd probably say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, but I don't think either are possible. Marco Rubio is probably most likely but I don't like that idea. Not that I really care who VP is seeing as they don't really do much, but I think if Rubio is VP this election, he will have very good odds of being President in the future, which I don't necessarily want.

[MoonShadow]

So I still want Kasich to take the nomination, and someone asked me a question I hadn't thought of... Who do I want to be his VP? I'd probably say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, but I don't think either are possible. Marco Rubio is probably most likely but I don't like that idea. Not that I really care who VP is seeing as they don't really do much, but I think if Rubio is VP this election, he will have very good odds of being President in the future, which I don't necessarily want.

Marco Rubio is is a very good position to be tapped as VP by anyone.  He is very popular in a very important swing state.  As for increasing his odds of winning the nomination in the future, it certainly does that, but much can happen in 8 years.

[Jeremy E.]

So I still want Kasich to take the nomination, and someone asked me a question I hadn't thought of... Who do I want to be his VP? I'd probably say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, but I don't think either are possible. Marco Rubio is probably most likely but I don't like that idea. Not that I really care who VP is seeing as they don't really do much, but I think if Rubio is VP this election, he will have very good odds of being President in the future, which I don't necessarily want.

Marco Rubio is is a very good position to be tapped as VP by anyone.  He is very popular in a very important swing state.  As for increasing his odds of winning the nomination in the future, it certainly does that, but much can happen in 8 years.

I agree

[Gin1984]

I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as

• First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
• Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
• Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
• We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
• Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.

So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.

Can you please eleborate on this?  The lack of slavery somehow means we have equal rights for everyone, is that what you are saying?  That we did not need the civil rights act of 1964?  That women, without the ERA, somehow have equal rights because no slavery.  I must be misunderstanding you.  Please tell me I am.

I think "misheard" would be more apt, if you can have such a thing on internet forums. You're thinking of the 13th amendment, not the 14th (which is what I referred to.)

Gah.  I am sorry.  Yes, I was thinking of the thirteenth.  I should have googled to check instead of relying on my memory. 

[MDM]

No carried interest deduction? Check

Maybe he is a NY democrat

Even Schumer seems to be on board with this.  Perhaps we'll see pigs flying after all.

Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage.

Don't think Carson "went along with" Trump on this (emphasis added):
CARSON: But, you know, the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations.

He did go on to say:
CARSON: But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.  And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.

It would be good to understand more than a soundbite's worth of what he meant there.  One can parse that in different ways, particularly through different political filters.

[milesdividendmd]

No carried interest deduction? Check

Maybe he is a NY democrat

Even Schumer seems to be on board with this.  Perhaps we'll see pigs flying after all.

Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage.

Don't think Carson "went along with" Trump on this (emphasis added):
CARSON: But, you know, the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations.

He did go on to say:
CARSON: But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.  And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.

It would be good to understand more than a soundbite's worth of what he meant there.  One can parse that in different ways, particularly through different political filters.

Oh I watched the debate.

The problem is the italicized portion of his quotation which is quite simply factually incorrect. Period.

He is either pandering to right wing nut jobs, or he is a nut job himself. Or both.

[MDM]

The problem is the italicized portion of his quotation which is quite simply factually incorrect. Period.

I'm guessing you are referring to the second part of what was quoted, as the whole quote is italicized.  Do you agree with "we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations"?

As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade".  Has there been any clarification?

[milesdividendmd]

There is a standard schedule for immunizations. There is no alternative schedule. There is no evidence that the standard schedule gives "way to many in too short a period of time." 

[dramaman]

The problem is the italicized portion of his quotation which is quite simply factually incorrect. Period.

I'm guessing you are referring to the second part of what was quoted, as the whole quote is italicized.  Do you agree with "we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations"?

As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade".  Has there been any clarification?

Regardless of whether he meant a week, month, year or decade, from what I've heard, he's just plain wrong regards to 'too many in too short a period of time'. At least that is the claim of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Considering Carson's reputation, it's too bad he is catering to this paranoia.

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/17/441222497/an-alternative-vaccination-schedule-actually-presents-more-risks-than-benefits

[Jeremy E.]

For a second there, I thought someone was anti-vaccinations, and I was going to have to get away from this post as I've argued about that subject far too much already. Glad to hear that's not the case.

[Malaysia41]

In the CNN debate, did any of you notice how often various GOP candidates said they'd abolish the IRS?  That seemed like totally out of left right field.   It was crazy.  I mean, sure, I get it - low taxes - most Republicans want that.  But come on - abolish the IRS?  They sounded like loons* lunatics.

* Sorry if I offended any Canadians. Your Loonie dollar coins are lovely and not in the least bit crazy.   

[Jeremy E.]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

[Malaysia41]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

[Jeremy E.]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.

[midweststache]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.

I don't think Malaysia41 is disagreeing with you re: Alexander Hamilton. There's an increasing consensus, however, that Andrew Jackson needs to be replaced on the 20s, which seems like a prime opportunity to put a woman on our national currency: http://www.womenon20s.org/ I'd like to see Sacajewa on the 20, because screw Andrew Jackson, but since she's already been on currency I think that's unlikely.

I grew up near a town called Jackson (after Andrew Jackson) that was a hop, skip, and a jump away from the National Trail of Tears Park. When I pointed out the irony of this geography, people looked at me like I had just skinned their puppy--I was denigrating their city and what was I, the PC police? and yadda yadda yadda.

Most importantly, why was this a question at the GOP debate (and why the $10 when the movement is clearly for the $20)? From my understanding, the questions were AWFUL. (What would your Secret Service code name be? Seriously? Is this a deciding factor for some voters?) It seems like the questions were meant to create conversation (see: our conversation on currency) without giving a lot of opportunity to talk actual policy...

[dramaman]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.

The problem with this '1/10' statement is that it is obviously pulled out of the air. It presumes that someone has actually compiled and quantified the accomplishments of Alexander Hamilton and EVERY woman in the U.S. over the last 300 years such that they can certify that NO woman has contributed more than 9.999% of that of Alexander Hamilton. The notion is ridiculous and belittles the accomplishments of women in general as it presumes that one can just KNOW that NO WOMAN even amounted to 1/10 of Alexander Hamilton.

Why not simply say that Alexander Hamilton contributed much more to the United States than Andrew Jackson and that if anyone should be replaced it should be Jackson and leave it at that?

[Gin1984]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.

Well I think it depends on who in the country were are talking about.  I don't think Hamilton did a lot for women or African Americans, of his time period because honestly what did those groups gain by our independence (as a country). 
Think about what Abigail Adams wrote to her husband  “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
I would disagree that Hamilton did "remember the ladies". 

[dramaman]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.

Well I think it depends on who in the country were are talking about.  I don't think Hamilton did a lot for women or African Americans, of his time period because honestly what did those groups gain by our independence (as a country). 
Think about what Abigail Adams wrote to her husband  “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
I would disagree that Hamilton did "remember the ladies".

Good point. It really wasn't until the 20th century that women were even taken seriously to consider that they could make serious contributions beyond being wives and mothers. As I recall, Adam's reply to Abigail was to essentially laugh off the idea that women needed more rights claiming that men only were masters in name and were really subject to the women in their lives. Very condescending.

[Malaysia41]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.

The problem with this '1/10' statement is that it is obviously pulled out of the air. It presumes that someone has actually compiled and quantified the accomplishments of Alexander Hamilton and EVERY woman in the U.S. over the last 300 years such that they can certify that NO woman has contributed more than 9.999% of that of Alexander Hamilton. The notion is ridiculous and belittles the accomplishments of women in general as it presumes that one can just KNOW that NO WOMAN even amounted to 1/10 of Alexander Hamilton.

Why not simply say that Alexander Hamilton contributed much more to the United States than Andrew Jackson and that if anyone should be replaced it should be Jackson and leave it at that?

Exactly.  Make a case for Hamilton and leave it at that.

[Cheddar Stacker]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.

Rachel Faucette

I get it's an honor to be on currency. I understand why people are passionate about these things. I'm not. Hell, I only use cash a few times a year. I'm starting to forget who's on each bill, and before I read this today I'm certain I would not have equated the $10 bill with Hamilton.

I believe we do past, present, and future women a dis-service to ignore this request/movement. After all, historically women make up about 50% of our population. It takes a village to raise a child. Hamilton/Washington/Lincoln/etc. all had a little help along the way.

[Jeremy E.]

I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.

Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question.  I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz! 

I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!

Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot.  He had no regard for non-white human life.   History does not judge him well.  He has no place on the twenty.   Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.

It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting.  So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.

Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.

The problem with this '1/10' statement is that it is obviously pulled out of the air. It presumes that someone has actually compiled and quantified the accomplishments of Alexander Hamilton and EVERY woman in the U.S. over the last 300 years such that they can certify that NO woman has contributed more than 9.999% of that of Alexander Hamilton. The notion is ridiculous and belittles the accomplishments of women in general as it presumes that one can just KNOW that NO WOMAN even amounted to 1/10 of Alexander Hamilton.

Why not simply say that Alexander Hamilton contributed much more to the United States than Andrew Jackson and that if anyone should be replaced it should be Jackson and leave it at that?

It was pulled out of air, if someone wants to come up with a woman to compare to him we can do so. I'm guessing the woman will have contributed even much less than 10% to this country to be honest. I believe if woman were treated equally throughout USAs History, this would not be the case, but they weren't given the oppurtunites that men were. I bet if woman were treated equally throughout USAs history, it would be a much better place today.

[sol]

I'm guessing the woman will have contributed even much less than 10% to this country to be honest. I believe if woman were treated equally throughout USAs History, this would not be the case, but they weren't given the oppurtunites that men were.

That seems to be the crux of this issue.  They're not proposing to put a woman on a bill to recognize her individual contributions as measured against men, they're proposing putting a woman on a bill in recognition of the fact that women were actively prevented from contributing in the same way as men, and some of them managed to contribute in meaningful ways anyway.

We also don't have many qualified black people from the days of our founding fathers to feature on our currency, but I don't think anyone would argue that's because black people in America in the 1700s weren't working hard enough or accomplishing enough.

[clarkfan1979]

Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.

[Jeremy E.]

Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.

You think Jeb Bush is "not even trying"? lol
I think Kasich has a better chance, he is the only Republican that wins a mock election poll against Hillary in New Hampshire.
He's also the only Republican that wins a mock election poll against Hillary in Ohio.
New Hampshire is a major swing state and Ohio is considered the ultimate swing state.

[Bob W]

Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.

You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate.  He is so low energy that he barely registers. 

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243

It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah,  Trump is really,  really, realy not trying in Florida.    Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.   

John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.   

Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida. 

[Jeremy E.]

Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.

You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate.  He is so low energy that he barely registers. 

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243

It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah,  Trump is really,  really, realy not trying in Florida.    Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.   

John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.   

Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.

I still think low energy Bush has a better chance of getting the nomination than Trump

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.

You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate.  He is so low energy that he barely registers. 

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243

It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah,  Trump is really,  really, realy not trying in Florida.    Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.   

John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.   

Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.

I still think low energy Bush has a better chance of getting the nomination than Trump

Since when did "low-energy" become an insult? We're not discussing race horses, tennis players, or even atomic electron orbitals. We're discussing presidential candidates.

[Jeremy E.]

Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.

You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate.  He is so low energy that he barely registers. 

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243

It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah,  Trump is really,  really, realy not trying in Florida.    Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.   

John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.   

Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.

I still think low energy Bush has a better chance of getting the nomination than Trump

Since when did "low-energy" become an insult? We're not discussing race horses, tennis players, or even atomic electron orbitals. We're discussing presidential candidates.

I guess only because low-energy candidates get less talking time during debates than they could otherwise, but idk. I was just resaying what Bob said. Trump oftenly uses it as an insult so maybe ask him