2016 Presidential Candidate

[MissStache]

Rather than all the 'normal' ways to win - we have to get the women vote, the black vote, the old vote, the young vote, the 'other group that doesn't matter' vote - if a candidate would just focus on the middle where most of the people are, they would win.

By "normal way to win" do you really mean to say "only appeal to wealthy Christian white males"?  Because that's kind of what you sound like.

As for the bit about "focusing on the middle" to the exclusion of women, minorities, old people, and young people, I suggest you spend some time with latest US demographic data.  Those people are the new middle.

Yep. The foolish thing is that some politicians think they can be elected by alienating minorities, women, and anyone who doesn't hate gay people.  Guess what?  Gay-loving Mexican women are the new voting majority!  (Or they will be, very soon.) 

Shocking to see how many politicians use veiled language like "the Real America" and "The good old days" and think that we don't know that means "back when/where blacks and women knew their place."

The whole primary system just cracks me up, because the only people who really care at this stage in the game are the ones who are most passionate, which usually means they are the crazies on both ends.  So you end up with people like Trump polling #1 and very few people willing to take on the Hillary juggernaut (and I say that as a Hillary fan) (and one of the crazies).

I think it will be a Clinton/Christie election, if Christie can make it through the primaries with his wildly liberal  (to most conservatives) history. 

[Bob W]

it seems like 12 voters have voted since I last looked at this and they all voted Rand Paul... he used to have 3 votes compared to the 17 of Bernie Sanders

Yeah,  glad to see Rand making progress!   

Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though?   Is someone stuffing the ballot box?  And what about the Democrats?   Is that the best they could come up with?  Where are the freaking Dems?  Sanders is an independent for God sake.

So here is a dream final election --

Hillary and Jeb both win their primaries as expected.    Then Trump and Sanders decide to run as independents as well.   Trump of course would syphon off enough Republicans to spell disaster for Jeb but it would be curious to see if an up front clueless socialist could take any votes from Hilary.  It just might happen as Hilary's negatives are very high. 

I feel sorry for Hilary really.    Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie.  Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are?   I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983.  Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you." 

Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO. 

[MissStache]

Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though?   Is someone stuffing the ballot box? 

Pretty sure this forum leans VERY heavily democratic, from what I've seen in any posts that are even remotely political (and a bunch that aren't).  I'm not surprised by any of the results.

I feel sorry for Hilary really.    Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie.  Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are?   I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983.  Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you." 

Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO. 

Totally disagree here.  She's a woman who went though an incredibly humiliating public mess and came out on the other side stronger, wiser, and more powerful.  She went from being Bill's wife to a Senator, Secretary of State, and major contender for the White House.  She raised a brilliant daughter amid all of it.  She's an inspiration. 

Their marriage doesn't bug me at all.  How many millions of husbands and wives have been cheated on and then forgiven their spouse?  Good for them for working through it.  Are the many marriages of Trump, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich supposed to be a better example?   I think the Clintons have a marriage that serves both of them well.  Certainly it isn't a paragon of everything that marriage can be, but who cares?  That doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to choosing a political leader. 

[Vertical Mode]

Gary Johnson if he runs again.

Me too!

With respect to the Republican field, I actually think the strongest (R) candidate would be Romney, if he were running again. My concern with much of the new crop of Republicans is that, while their focus on budget issues is a welcome change, I'm not sure I agree with their assessment of the difference between "spending" and "investment".

IMHO, what needs to happen is a national-level conversation about what our priorities are for spending/investment, and what the role of our government is/what we'd like it to DO. The philosophical differences between (R) and (D) are rooted in a different conception of what role the government should play, and although in some applications they'd be mutually-exclusive neither is necessarily wrong. Going as far back as Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, we have seen the debate about government scope (although they were mostly concerned about representation then). Bringing this back full-circle, I think a Sanders vs. (Romney/Paul/someone with a consistently conservative outlook) would be the most productive and worth watching precisely because of their different perspectives (assuming their ability to maintain candor and intellectual honesty, which might be a stretch).

I'm also curious, anyone else think the next President could realistically be someone who isn't officially in the race yet?

[forummm]

I feel sorry for Hilary really.    Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie.  Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are?   I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983.  Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you." 

Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO. 

Why does her marriage matter so much to people? It's not really anyone's business. Maybe she stands by her wedding vows or believes in her stated religion that says you shouldn't get a divorce or just believes they are better together? So she's unlucky enough to be among the half(??) of marriages that involve infidelity--along with quite a few other presidents who had mistresses. What does that have to do with governing?

Estimates today find married men cheating at rates between 25 percent and 72 percent. Given that many people are loath to admit that they cheat, research on cheating may underestimate its prevalence. But it appears that cheating is as common as fidelity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-cheating/2012/02/08/gIQANGdaBR_story.html

[nereo]

Totally disagree here.  She's a woman who went though an incredibly humiliating public mess and came out on the other side stronger, wiser, and more powerful.  She went from being Bill's wife to a Senator, Secretary of State, and major contender for the White House.  She raised a brilliant daughter amid all of it.  She's an inspiration. 

Their marriage doesn't bug me at all.  How many millions of husbands and wives have been cheated on and then forgiven their spouse?  Good for them for working through it.  Are the many marriages of Trump, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich supposed to be a better example?   I think the Clintons have a marriage that serves both of them well.  Certainly it isn't a paragon of everything that marriage can be, but who cares?  That doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to choosing a political leader.

i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding.  We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery.  I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others.  Is it a model to aspire to?  Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.

[mtn]

My picks: 
1: Christie
2: Paul
3: Sanders

(Considerable distance)

4: Bush
5: Carson


(WAYYY More distance)

6: Clinton 

(WAYYYYYYYY More distance)

All the rest. Maybe Graham deserves more, but I know nothing about him. More than likely though, I vote Libertarian. Again.

[mtn]

I feel sorry for Hilary really.    Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie.  Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are?   I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983.  Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you." 

Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO. 

Why does her marriage matter so much to people? It's not really anyone's business. Maybe she stands by her wedding vows or believes in her stated religion that says you shouldn't get a divorce or just believes they are better together? So she's unlucky enough to be among the half(??) of marriages that involve infidelity--along with quite a few other presidents who had mistresses. What does that have to do with governing?

Because I believe she is staying in it for power, for her own advancement and not for that of the country. I'd have a lot more respect for her if she did divorce the slimeball.

Of course, my opinion might have been prejiduced due to my dad having gone to high school with her and playing football with her brothers. Not a high opinion of that family in my family even before the politics.

[nereo]

Here is a very quick quiz that will show you where you fall on the spectrum of liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian,  authoritarian.  http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz   Your score may surprise you. 

This is a quiz intentionally designed to make you "score" as a libertarian. I pay it no credence. Libertarians are absolutely right on a good chunk of issues (call it 30% to make up a number) where a lot (but not all) of "mainstream" politicians are very wrong, and just absolutely nuts on about the same number. Libertarians (like Rand Paul and his father) think it should be OK for businesses to discriminate on race. Rand has changed away from some of his good positions (like not getting involved in senseless wars) in order to try to win the primary.

Just for fun I took the quiz and, reading the questions I was expecting it to 'score' me as libertarian.  Instead, it put me smack in the middle as a moderate.  However, it still suggested that i should consider voting libertarian:

Like many Americans, you have a mixed view of government's role in individual's lives, and you don't strongly identify with any particular school of political thought.
Of course very few people will have "perfect scores" in any one direction, and you fall smack-dab in the center of it all. You might appreciate the way libertarians transcend the left-right spectrum

[Bob W]

I feel sorry for Hilary really.    Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie.  Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are?   I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983.  Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you." 

Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO. 

Why does her marriage matter so much to people? It's not really anyone's business. Maybe she stands by her wedding vows or believes in her stated religion that says you shouldn't get a divorce or just believes they are better together? So she's unlucky enough to be among the half(??) of marriages that involve infidelity--along with quite a few other presidents who had mistresses. What does that have to do with governing?

Estimates today find married men cheating at rates between 25 percent and 72 percent. Given that many people are loath to admit that they cheat, research on cheating may underestimate its prevalence. But it appears that cheating is as common as fidelity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-cheating/2012/02/08/gIQANGdaBR_story.html

Oh I have no problem with Bill being a serial cheater.   I just feel sorry for Hillary.  That's all.  I've seen cheating situations before and I can tell you it isn't pretty.    I'm guessing that after the first 10 years she just got used to it.   The Monica thing probably didn't even phase her and she just went straight to the "how do we leverage this situation for political advantage"  playbook.   

So I guess she really is a good role model for women given the fact that you pointed out that their spouses are very likely to cheat or have cheated.  She has in fact "stood by her man"  just like Tammy said to do.     And that has made all the difference.   Wish more marriages would hang even though they suck. 

[KisKis]

Here's another fun political quiz to see where you are on the spectrum. 

http://www.celebritytypes.com/political-coordinates/test.php

[dsmexpat]

Bernie. No question.

[Bob W]

Here is a very quick quiz that will show you where you fall on the spectrum of liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian,  authoritarian.  http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz   Your score may surprise you. 

This is a quiz intentionally designed to make you "score" as a libertarian. I pay it no credence. Libertarians are absolutely right on a good chunk of issues (call it 30% to make up a number) where a lot (but not all) of "mainstream" politicians are very wrong, and just absolutely nuts on about the same number. Libertarians (like Rand Paul and his father) think it should be OK for businesses to discriminate on race. Rand has changed away from some of his good positions (like not getting involved in senseless wars) in order to try to win the primary.

Just for fun I took the quiz and, reading the questions I was expecting it to 'score' me as libertarian.  Instead, it put me smack in the middle as a moderate.  However, it still suggested that i should consider voting libertarian:

Like many Americans, you have a mixed view of government's role in individual's lives, and you don't strongly identify with any particular school of political thought.
Of course very few people will have "perfect scores" in any one direction, and you fall smack-dab in the center of it all. You might appreciate the way libertarians transcend the left-right spectrum

I think that is very good advice indeed.  Libertarianism is really a heightened moderate viewpoint.  We call bull shit on both the left and right.   

We're not opposed to a lot of the government programs if they make sense and are not funded by taxes.  But come on  50 years of war on poverty and no improvement?    Wouldn't you think someone would notice or at least acknowledge the program as a failure?  And don't get me started on the military industrial complex.   

[Chris22]

Totally disagree here.  She's a woman who went though an incredibly humiliating public mess and came out on the other side stronger, wiser, and more powerful.  She went from being Bill's wife to a Senator, Secretary of State, and major contender for the White House.  She raised a brilliant daughter amid all of it.  She's an inspiration. 

Their marriage doesn't bug me at all.  How many millions of husbands and wives have been cheated on and then forgiven their spouse?  Good for them for working through it.  Are the many marriages of Trump, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich supposed to be a better example?   I think the Clintons have a marriage that serves both of them well.  Certainly it isn't a paragon of everything that marriage can be, but who cares?  That doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to choosing a political leader.

i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding.  We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery.  I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others.  Is it a model to aspire to?  Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.

Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency.  "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take."  I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president. 



In other news, Sanders informed us he thinks no one should have guns that aren't for hunting, so buh-bye, enjoy your trip back to VT.

[Cheddar Stacker]

This seems as good a place as any to drop this link:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/the-battle-to-lose-independent-vote.html

[Bob W]

Here's another fun political quiz to see where you are on the spectrum. 

http://www.celebritytypes.com/political-coordinates/test.php

Interesting test.  Thanks

My score =

Right-liberalism (Libertarianism): Individuals in this quadrant seek to uphold liberty as the primary political good in all respects. They tend to see themselves as staunch supporters of both personal and economic freedom and are deeply skeptical of collective plans and goals, stressing instead the principle of voluntary association and the individual’s capacity to make his own judgments. They typically see less of a role for the state than individuals in the other three quadrants, believing instead in the spontaneous social order of the market.

[beltim]

I'm also curious, anyone else think the next President could realistically be someone who isn't officially in the race yet?

Yes.  It would be an uphill battle for the nomination, but someone like Joe Biden or Mitt Romney could enter the race and have a decent shot.

[Glenstache]

I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.

Regarding the elections:
1. We should have ranked voting primaries with out required allegiance to some political party (allegiance requirement varies by state, and has been contested in court back and forth here  in WA over the years. It's bullshit).
2. The American populace tends to elect or discard candidates based on things that have little to do with their fitness or competency for office. We run our elections like reality TV and then put the winner in a position with real power and consequences. Can you even imagine the international shitshow that what would ensue if somebody like Trump had to negotiate ANYTHING with Russia, China, or any of our European allies?
3. The two party system does not serve us, as voters, well. It is ripe for manipulation and limits our options. Years in which there were 3 candidates (gasp!) were considered disasters because the competition somehow allowed the election to be "stolen". I have not always liked the outcomes of those elections, but I thought they were more interesting and appropriate than the standard party-line hold your nose and vote scenario.
4. Vote by mail should be an easy/standard option in all voting districts, nationwide. Our country has too long a history of voter disenfranchisement via voting during specific hours on work days at specified locations that may not have adequate facilities.

[nereo]

i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding.  We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery.  I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others.  Is it a model to aspire to?  Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.

Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency.  "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take."  I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president. 

So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers?  interesting.
I'm still not convinced that this justifies the response.  "I'm going to stay in this marriage for my kids / I'm going to stay in this marriage to keep up appearances / I'm going to stay in this marriage because of our job situation / I'm going to stay in this marriage because it's good for me as a politician".
There are lots of reasons why people stay in marriages after they've been cheated on, and some are better than others.  My point is that I don't think it is fair to judge someone more harshly for staying in a marriage after being cheated on compared to someone who has had multiple affairs and multiple divorces.

[mtn]

I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.

I want to vote for someone I can pretend to trust, and someone who I think will not fuck up the country. While Sanders may not do things the way I like, I think he is overall one of the better candidates.

Frankly, I don't care about left or right. I care about our country running smoothly. I think he can do it--I might not like his methods, but they're a hell of a lot better than Cruz.

[G-dog]

Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.

Oh GuitarStv - you are always funny but I really LOVE THIS!

Thanks for this!

IOU a drink!

[beltim]

Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though?   Is someone stuffing the ballot box?  And what about the Democrats?   Is that the best they could come up with?  Where are the freaking Dems?  Sanders is an independent for God sake.

The overall R/D split is pretty close to that of the general population.  Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, remember.

I'm finding it interesting the differences between these results and the general population:
1)  The Republicans most likely to win the nomination are polling well below the general population (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio)
2) Rand Paul is about ~5-10 times more popular on this forum than in the general population
3) Sanders is similarly ~5 times more popular on this forum (relatively to Clinton) than in the general population

[Bob W]

Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.

Oh GuitarStv - you are always funny but I really LOVE THIS!

Thanks for this!

IOU a drink!

That is funny as hell!   So I didn't think he wore a toupee  -- so I checked.   Nope,  just a comb forward and over and die job. 
http://www.digitalspy.com/celebrity/s79/the-celebrity-apprentice-usa/news/a394400/donald-trump-responds-to-hairpiece-rumors-i-do-not-wear-a-wig.html#~pjQJuYCkrxW6ue

[Bob W]

Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though?   Is someone stuffing the ballot box?  And what about the Democrats?   Is that the best they could come up with?  Where are the freaking Dems?  Sanders is an independent for God sake.

The overall R/D split is pretty close to that of the general population.  Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, remember.

I'm finding it interesting the differences between these results and the general population:
1)  The Republicans most likely to win the nomination are polling well below the general population (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio)
2) Rand Paul is about ~5-10 times more popular on this forum than in the general population
3) Sanders is similarly ~5 times more popular on this forum (relatively to Clinton) than in the general population

Well I don't think MMM forum posters could be considered normal in the typical sense.   We are outliers, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that we generally pick the non traditional candidates.   That, and I'm guessing,  probably 50+% of the population has never heard of Sanders or Rand Paul and if they have they have little idea who they are.

Personally,  I'm pretty much on the low information diet.   I couldn't visually identify Sanders.   All's I know about him is that he is pure socialist.  I would also be challenged to tell you what any of the Republican's stances are per individual.

I am so looking forward to the first Republican debate.  Trump will either go down in flames or just beat the stinking crap out of the others.    I assume since he is ahead in the polls he will have center stage.   I can also see him brow beating the moderators at Fox.   Should be fun.

On the other hand,  I can't see Hillary accepting a debate challenge from Sanders.   

[Proud Foot]

I really have not decided who I will vote for.  As a registered Republican I have not taken the time to look through the 50 candidates to decide who to vote for in the primaries.  And most of them are WAY to far to the right for me.  I know I will not vote for Bernie or Hillary as my views are different from theirs on the majority of issues. 

As far as Trump, the only thing I like about him is that he refuses to play the politics game.  I wish more candidates would be as straight forward with where they stand on the different issues.

[Pigeon]

Bernie, but I'll vote for Clinton in the election if he doesn't get the nomination.

[Chris22]

i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding.  We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery.  I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others.  Is it a model to aspire to?  Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.

Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency.  "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take."  I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president. 

So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers?  interesting.

I don't give a shit if she stays married or not.  I just think that everything she does is calculated with how it will "play" in the news and what the "optics" are, and therefore she comes accross as unprincipled and having no backbone, everything is for political expediency.  As much as I think Sanders is misguided and laser focused on one issue that is, in my mind, a relative non-issue, I would never say the guy doesn't have principles.  I respect him, even though I disagree with him. 

[nereo]

i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding.  We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery.  I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others.  Is it a model to aspire to?  Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.

Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency.  "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take."  I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president. 

So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers?  interesting.

I don't give a shit if she stays married or not.  I just think that everything she does is calculated with how it will "play" in the news and what the "optics" are, and therefore she comes accross as unprincipled and having no backbone, everything is for political expediency.  As much as I think Sanders is misguided and laser focused on one issue that is, in my mind, a relative non-issue, I would never say the guy doesn't have principles.  I respect him, even though I disagree with him.

ok, but that wasn't the question I was asking. 
To rephrase; why has Hillary's decision to stay with Bill gotten more negative feedback than numerous other politicians who have had actually had an affair, nad have had several divorces?  that's what I have a hard time understanding.

[beltim]

Personally,  I'm pretty much on the low information diet.   I couldn't visually identify Sanders.   All's I know about him is that he is pure socialist.  I would also be challenged to tell you what any of the Republican's stances are per individual.

You might want to learn a bit more before characterizing him as "pure socialist" unless you're exaggerating for dramatic effect.

I am so looking forward to the first Republican debate.  Trump will either go down in flames or just beat the stinking crap out of the others.    I assume since he is ahead in the polls he will have center stage.   I can also see him brow beating the moderators at Fox.   Should be fun.

I am also quite looking forward to the debate.  I think it could be the best reality TV ever.

On the other hand,  I can't see Hillary accepting a debate challenge from Sanders.

Um, she's already agreed to 6.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/

[forummm]

i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding.  We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery.  I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others.  Is it a model to aspire to?  Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.

Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency.  "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take."  I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president. 

So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers?  interesting.

I don't give a shit if she stays married or not.  I just think that everything she does is calculated with how it will "play" in the news and what the "optics" are, and therefore she comes accross as unprincipled and having no backbone, everything is for political expediency.  As much as I think Sanders is misguided and laser focused on one issue that is, in my mind, a relative non-issue, I would never say the guy doesn't have principles.  I respect him, even though I disagree with him. 

Just about everything that any typical presidential candidate does is calculated for how it will play in the news and the optics. The rarities (like Trump and Sanders) stand out for not doing that. It seems like Hilary has a special focus among certain people and is held to a double standard. Again, she's not my candidate. But it doesn't make sense to single her out as power hungry or whatever, and not also mention Cruz, Bush, Cristie, Trump, etc, who are doing it solely for the power. And it literally makes no sense to say both that her decision to remain married was done to look good for political reasons and that her decision to remain married is why people have an irrational hatred of her.

What is the one issue you think Sanders is laser focused on?

[Bob W]

Personally,  I'm pretty much on the low information diet.   I couldn't visually identify Sanders.   All's I know about him is that he is pure socialist.  I would also be challenged to tell you what any of the Republican's stances are per individual.

You might want to learn a bit more before characterizing him as "pure socialist" unless you're exaggerating for dramatic effect.

I am so looking forward to the first Republican debate.  Trump will either go down in flames or just beat the stinking crap out of the others.    I assume since he is ahead in the polls he will have center stage.   I can also see him brow beating the moderators at Fox.   Should be fun.

I am also quite looking forward to the debate.  I think it could be the best reality TV ever.

On the other hand,  I can't see Hillary accepting a debate challenge from Sanders.

Um, she's already agreed to 6.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/

See there you go!  Low information diet baby ------  Why in God's name would she ever agree I have no idea.  And 6?  Wouldn't one suffice?   I guess she just wants the free air time?

[Pigeon]

It seems like Hilary has a special focus among certain people and is held to a double standard.

Of course there's a double standard, she's a woman.  Nobody would blink twice at a male politician opting to stay with a cheating wife.

[beltim]

On the other hand,  I can't see Hillary accepting a debate challenge from Sanders.

Um, she's already agreed to 6.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/

See there you go!  Low information diet baby ------  Why in God's name would she ever agree I have no idea.  And 6?  Wouldn't one suffice?   I guess she just wants the free air time?

Maybe.  But she still has to actually get the votes.  If she doesn't participate in debates, there's no way she'd get the nomination.  Remember this time 8 years ago she had a pretty similar lead over Obama that she does over Sanders now.

[Chris22]

i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding.  We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery.  I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others.  Is it a model to aspire to?  Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.

Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency.  "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take."  I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president. 

So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers?  interesting.

I don't give a shit if she stays married or not.  I just think that everything she does is calculated with how it will "play" in the news and what the "optics" are, and therefore she comes accross as unprincipled and having no backbone, everything is for political expediency.  As much as I think Sanders is misguided and laser focused on one issue that is, in my mind, a relative non-issue, I would never say the guy doesn't have principles.  I respect him, even though I disagree with him. 

Just about everything that any typical presidential candidate does is calculated for how it will play in the news and the optics. The rarities (like Trump and Sanders) stand out for not doing that. It seems like Hilary has a special focus among certain people and is held to a double standard. Again, she's not my candidate. But it doesn't make sense to single her out as power hungry or whatever, and not also mention Cruz, Bush, Cristie, Trump, etc, who are doing it solely for the power.

Maybe it's because she's been in the public eye for so much longer, or maybe because it's because this was something so intensely personal versus flipping on a political position, I dunno. 

And it literally makes no sense to say both that her decision to remain married was done to look good for political reasons and that her decision to remain married is why people have an irrational hatred of her.

I remember A LOT of talk at the time about her decision and the politics of it.  And I didn't say that's why PEOPLE have a hatred of her, I said it's a reason I do.

What is the one issue you think Sanders is laser focused on?

Seriously?  Income inequality, the man can't shut up about it.  And it strikes me that he's trying to fix the "problem" mostly by bringing down the rich, not necessarily by bringing up the poor.  I'm all for creating jobs and such, but I don't think telling everyone that it's because "the Koch brothers and other billionaires [you mean like Soros Bernie??????]" are stealing their money that the middle class are "under siege".
[/quote]

[Chris22]

It seems like Hilary has a special focus among certain people and is held to a double standard.

Of course there's a double standard, she's a woman.  Nobody would blink twice at a male politician opting to stay with a cheating wife.

100% disagree, I think it's far more likely that a male (any male) who stays with a cheating spouse is viewed as weak and a pushover versus a female.  The spouse who was cheated on is viewed as a victim, and no one respects or likes a male who is a victim. 

[forummm]

In other news, Sanders informed us he thinks no one should have guns that aren't for hunting, so buh-bye, enjoy your trip back to VT.

I was curious what he actually said, since he's been relatively against gun control bills in the past.

Though he's mostly a dream candidate for progressive advocates, Bernie Sanders has an Achilles heel in the Democratic primary: his past opposition to gun control measures and support for several pro-gun bills backed by the National Rifle Association.

The Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate, revered by progressives on most issues, sought to get right with anti-gun-violence advocates Sunday during an interview on NBC's Meet The Press, days after the latest of many mass shootings in the United States, this time by a gunman at two military centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

He sounded nothing like the senator who voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993 that imposed background checks and five-day waiting periods for firearm purchases, or the senator who voted to allow guns on Amtrak and to shield gun makers and sellers from liability if their guns are used criminally.

"I come from the state which has virtually no gun control. And yet, I voted to ban certain types of assault weapons, I voted to close the gun show loophole," Sanders told host Chuck Todd, before also calling for stricter background checks. "Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who's involved in domestic abuse situations, people should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America."

Regarding his vote supporting a gun industry immunity bill:

Indeed, he recently defended it on CNN by arguing that a gun manufacturer shouldn't be held accountable for shootings "any more than you'd hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-27/bernie-sanders-defends-gun-record-but-progressives-remain-wary

I don't know. This sounds like he's in favor of people being able to have guns, and always has been. But now his statement is that if the only use of the gun is to kill people, then it shouldn't be for sale. That seems to be not very limiting in practicality--anything can be claimed to be for hunting.

[Chris22]

I don't know. This sounds like he's in favor of people being able to have guns, and always has been. But now his statement is that if the only use of the gun is to kill people, then it shouldn't be for sale. That seems to be not very limiting in practicality--anything can be claimed to be for hunting.

You have to have the super-secret decoder ring.  "Guns meant to kill people" refers invariably to the "evil black rifles" that are incorrectly called "assault weapons."  These are often functionally identical to, or even much less powerful than*, common hunting rifles, but they LOOK scarier.  They have terrible, baby-killing features like shoulder things that go up that make them incredibly deadly.  The whole "you can keep your hunting rifles but not guns meant to kill" is a giant load of bullshit.  It also doesn't do much to assure me me continued ability to carry a concealed pistol, which I consider a vital portion of my right to defend myself. 



*A fun question to ask gun grabbers is "would you rather be shot by an AR-15 'assault rifle' or a .308 hunting rifle" and then show them the two rounds in question and watch their eyes go wide

[G-dog]

I really have not decided who I will vote for.  As a registered Republican I have not taken the time to look through the 50 candidates to decide who to vote for in the primaries.  And most of them are WAY to far to the right for me.  I know I will not vote for Bernie or Hillary as my views are different from theirs on the majority of issues. 

As far as Trump, the only thing I like about him is that he refuses to play the politics game.  I wish more candidates would be as straight forward with where they stand on the different issues.

This comment is in response to Proudfoot and Chris22 re: whether Trump is playing the politics or polls game. I think he is TOTALLY plying the polls, the media, and a politics game! He's just changing some of the rules. Everything he does is to hear his name in the media again - which plays into all of the above. But in some ways, he actually wants the negatupive media reaction. Even bad  attention is attention!

[infogoon]

I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election.  Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates.  Fun stuff

He's a rerun of Herman Cain.

[beltim]

I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election.  Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates.  Fun stuff

He's a rerun of Herman Cain.

Even Cain polled better against Obama than Trump is polling against Clinton.  It's crazy!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_cain_vs_obama-2003.html

[Jeremy E.]

I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.

Regarding the elections:
1. We should have ranked voting primaries with out required allegiance to some political party (allegiance requirement varies by state, and has been contested in court back and forth here  in WA over the years. It's bullshit).
2. The American populace tends to elect or discard candidates based on things that have little to do with their fitness or competency for office. We run our elections like reality TV and then put the winner in a position with real power and consequences. Can you even imagine the international shitshow that what would ensue if somebody like Trump had to negotiate ANYTHING with Russia, China, or any of our European allies?
3. The two party system does not serve us, as voters, well. It is ripe for manipulation and limits our options. Years in which there were 3 candidates (gasp!) were considered disasters because the competition somehow allowed the election to be "stolen". I have not always liked the outcomes of those elections, but I thought they were more interesting and appropriate than the standard party-line hold your nose and vote scenario.
4. Vote by mail should be an easy/standard option in all voting districts, nationwide. Our country has too long a history of voter disenfranchisement via voting during specific hours on work days at specified locations that may not have adequate facilities.

Everyone knows that political parties suck,
and if we sent votes in by mail can you imagine how much corrupt bullshit fake votes could happen? Probably slightly more than already does

[Proud Foot]

G-Dog, Yes he definitely is playing the politics game just by the fact that he is a candidate and is campaigning. However he is not playing it the same way all the other candidates are.  To me it comes down to him stating his positions directly (typically in terms not considered PC) rather than using word play to disguise his position.

All that said, I do know that I will not vote for him because I do not believe he would make a good President.

[Bracken_Joy]

I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.

Regarding the elections:
1. We should have ranked voting primaries with out required allegiance to some political party (allegiance requirement varies by state, and has been contested in court back and forth here  in WA over the years. It's bullshit).
2. The American populace tends to elect or discard candidates based on things that have little to do with their fitness or competency for office. We run our elections like reality TV and then put the winner in a position with real power and consequences. Can you even imagine the international shitshow that what would ensue if somebody like Trump had to negotiate ANYTHING with Russia, China, or any of our European allies?
3. The two party system does not serve us, as voters, well. It is ripe for manipulation and limits our options. Years in which there were 3 candidates (gasp!) were considered disasters because the competition somehow allowed the election to be "stolen". I have not always liked the outcomes of those elections, but I thought they were more interesting and appropriate than the standard party-line hold your nose and vote scenario.
4. Vote by mail should be an easy/standard option in all voting districts, nationwide. Our country has too long a history of voter disenfranchisement via voting during specific hours on work days at specified locations that may not have adequate facilities.

Everyone knows that political parties suck,
and if we sent votes in by mail can you imagine how much corrupt bullshit fake votes could happen? Probably slightly more than already does

Oregon doesn't seem to have problems with this, and we have some of the highest voter turnout in the nation. Just sayin =P

[Jack]

I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.

Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.

Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though?   Is someone stuffing the ballot box?  And what about the Democrats?   Is that the best they could come up with?  Where are the freaking Dems?  Sanders is an independent for God sake.

The overall R/D split is pretty close to that of the general population.  Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, remember.

I'm finding it interesting the differences between these results and the general population:
1)  The Republicans most likely to win the nomination are polling well below the general population (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio)
2) Rand Paul is about ~5-10 times more popular on this forum than in the general population
3) Sanders is similarly ~5 times more popular on this forum (relatively to Clinton) than in the general population

These differences can be attributed to media fuckwads screwing with public opinion. If Bernie Sanders loses the Democrat primary, it will be precisely because the media pervasively indoctrinated the public into believing he couldn't win. Rand Paul is being similarly marginalized. All Scott Walker has done is fuck up his state in every way he possibly could, but he's backed by the people who own the media so he's treated as a contender when by all rights he shouldn't be.

I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election.  Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates.  Fun stuff

He's a rerun of Herman Cain.

Even Cain polled better against Obama than Trump is polling against Clinton.  It's crazy!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_cain_vs_obama-2003.html

Herman Cain sucks, but comparing him to Trump is a grievous insult. Trump is easily and by a wide margin the stupidest, most racist, most boorish, least-presidential, ridiculous clown that's ever ran for president as a mainstream candidate in my lifetime.

I admit, it is nice that he's being honest with his positions -- it's just too bad his positions are mostly disgusting and reprehensible.



Anyway, I'm mostly disgusted with what passes for "presidential material" this year: All the republicans are either corrupt, bigots, pandering to authoritarian theocrats (or authoritarian theocrats themslves!), or all of the above. Hillary is also corrupt and has no goddamn principles -- she's Obama 2.0 (and that's not even slightly a compliment). Even fucking Bill had more integrity than she does!

Sanders is the only candidate who isn't a comprehensive disgrace and disaster, but of course he "can't win" because the corrupt, 1%-owned media has pre-ordained it.

[sol]

Oregon doesn't seem to have problems with this, and we have some of the highest voter turnout in the nation. Just sayin =P

Ditto for Washington.  We've been 100% voting by mail since 2011, and about 90% before that.

Turn out rates are higher.  Costs are lower.  And the world has not ended.

[Jeremy E.]

What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan

[nereo]

Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.

Fascist?  Really??  Seems too far to me...
here's a fascist:

[Jeremy E.]

Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.

Fascist?  Really??  Seems too far to me...
here's a fascist:

there's different definitions of facism, check out this one
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

[Bob W]

What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan

Thanks for that --- I just looked it up.   I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes.   This just looks like the flat tax again.  Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.

I absolutely hate that.   The problem with our tax code isn't that it is complicated or onerous on the rich and well paid,  it is that we have a federal tax at all.  If states want to enact taxes for welfare, health,  education,  armies etc. that is fine.   The feds have very little business in the tax game other than transportation and border security. 

The best tax plan is to reduce federal spending by 3% per year for the next 20 years.   

I'm very disappointed with Paul's idea.   He is obviously just grasping at straws now.   

[Technigull]

I'm currently pulling for Rand Paul.  I find his tax plan very mustachian friendly for the nation.  Throw that IRS tax monster in the woodchipper...  Though the chainsaw would be fun too.  (referencing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtglptO4v34)