2016 Presidential Candidate

[MoonShadow]

Mostly just for fun, like a stupidly expensive version of a fire-cracker.  Come visit me and we could go here...

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=machine+gun+shoot&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

And no, you can't here the music while in the crowd.  I don't know why they bother.

You have to be independently wealthy to even afford the ammunition for most of those weapons, much less the actual firearm.

I suspect the sudden quiet is because so many are still trying to digest that video?  Was it a bit too far outside of your comfort zone?

[MoonShadow]

Ha well I suppose I over reacted a bit when I saw that line in sol's post.

Probably typical of the debate that is going on - see a red flag and charge.

It is quite fun, btw.  There are even some machine guns that can be rented, but you still have to buy the ammunition and you are not permitted to leave the firing line with them.  They make it rather clear that the ATF agents that are ever present at that event would not take kindly to that.  The ammunition alone to shoot the GE minigun is about $200 for 20 seconds.  Cheaper to watch, though.

[Malaysia41]

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.

and...

If Trump wins the Republican nomination, which actually could happen with his appeal to tea partiers and people who value the concept of a border,  I would definitely vote for him just to change the failed trajectory of the country over the last 3 administrations.      He would definitely win the border war in like 4 weeks.   Other than that and that his current wife is much hotter than Ivan Trump (have you seen your recent pictures?)

I dunno Bobbo, given his marriage record, Trump is definitely not a good role model for men IMHO. 

/sarcasm - not actually my HO.  Trump is a buffoon for the words that spew out of his mouth - not for who he married. Plus, I bit; I couldn't let the 'role model for women' comment go.  Smacks of this.

(sorry to resurrect old posts - just read through most of this beastly thread and wanted to post to follow).

[Malaysia41]

So, now that I'm on this thread - I will spew some of my thoughts too! 

I don't love anyone in the running for prez.  Regarding Hillary - I've come around a bit after reading Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War by Robert Gates.  She comes off as competent, measured, diligent, thoughtful.  I think she's qualified to be prez.  That said, I still dislike how politically calculated she is, answering questions without really answering them, for example.  But the thing I dislike most is that she's such a hawk.  I think she'll continue killing people in the Pakistan hills with drone strikes - with no court orders, no warrants, no due process - and with the side effects of killing innocent people and creating ever more hatred toward the USA.  I think this is one of our most misguided activities.  Even as I think she'd do well as president, I can't support anyone who is so willing to compromise our ideals for 'safety'.  The email thing - well, honestly I haven't been paying attention.  I'm trying to stay on the low info diet.

That's enough for now - BS later (Bernie Sanders discussion later).

[forummm]

So, now that I'm on this thread - I will spew some of my thoughts too! 

I don't love anyone in the running for prez.  Regarding Hillary - I've come around a bit after reading Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War by Robert Gates.  She comes off as competent, measured, diligent, thoughtful.  I think she's qualified to be prez.  That said, I still dislike how politically calculated she is, answering questions without really answering them, for example.  But the thing I dislike most is that she's such a hawk.  I think she'll continue killing people in the Pakistan hills with drone strikes - with no court orders, no warrants, no due process - and with the side effects of killing innocent people and creating ever more hatred toward the USA.  I think this is one of our most misguided activities.  Even as I think she'd do well as president, I can't support anyone who is so willing to compromise our ideals for 'safety'.  The email thing - well, honestly I haven't been paying attention.  I'm trying to stay on the low info diet.

That's enough for now - BS later (Bernie Sanders discussion later).

Hilary is very "competent, measured, diligent, thoughtful". And is also politically calculating as you say. But literally everyone else running has been politically calculating their entire public careers. Some may just be better at hiding it. But I think if you actually watch them, they aren't really that good. Politicians don't answer questions and take all kinds of wacky positions that differ from their position last week because of polling or backlash. It's a game for them. Every single one of them to at least some extent. Even Trump who appears to be telling it like it is has been making many political calculations for years. I would say the least calculating is Sanders because he's been pursuing the causes he believes in for years, even when they have not been popular in the House or Senate. So he has not moderated his tone in order to fit in better and be more politically successful. Ironically I think that's actually what has caused him to be so popular with the  movement he's leading right now. But even he has changed the way he talks about issues like gun control because his relatively permissive votes in the past are less popular with the Democratic primary voters he's trying to attract.

And every single candidate on both sides (with the possible exception of Sanders) will continue the extra-judicial killings via drone strikes if they are elected. Some would escalate them or even start a war.

[Malaysia41]

Hilary is very "competent, measured, diligent, thoughtful". And is also politically calculating as you say. But literally everyone else running has been politically calculating their entire public careers. Some may just be better at hiding it. But I think if you actually watch them, they aren't really that good. Politicians don't answer questions and take all kinds of wacky positions that differ from their position last week because of polling or backlash. It's a game for them. Every single one of them to at least some extent. Even Trump who appears to be telling it like it is has been making many political calculations for years. I would say the least calculating is Sanders because he's been pursuing the causes he believes in for years, even when they have not been popular in the House or Senate. So he has not moderated his tone in order to fit in better and be more politically successful. Ironically I think that's actually what has caused him to be so popular with the  movement he's leading right now. But even he has changed the way he talks about issues like gun control because his relatively permissive votes in the past are less popular with the Democratic primary voters he's trying to attract.

And every single candidate on both sides (with the possible exception of Sanders) will continue the extra-judicial killings via drone strikes if they are elected. Some would escalate them or even start a war.

Yup.  (Nodding in agreement through your whole post)

That's the quality that attracts people to Bernie - honesty. It's such a rare quality in a politician that people are willing to forget their own ideologies and vote for him.

[firewalker]

Whoever gets elected, we all know what will happen. The promises of their platform will disappear, some new left-field problem will take the stage, and their job will be like all those before: Put out the fires that burn the brightest, show up at socially applaudable occasions, screw something up so late night tv has something to work with, retire and write a book.

[yuka]

Just heard on the news that Al Gore is entering the race....

I stand corrected.

So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.

It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.

Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?

Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered.  We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out).  Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns.  The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law.  I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.

Holy fuck what is wrong with your country when all you need to own a rocket launcher is simply a licence?

In what delusional state of madness is it considered acceptable for an ordinary citizen to need something like that. What exactly is that person going to use it for, other than an act of terror?

There's a guy on reddit's gun sub-reddit who is a facilitator of the process of getting a license for NFA weapons (the colloquial term for these ridiculous weapons.) It's a very expensive and very time-consuming process to be able to own even one of that type of weapon, and the process (I believe) has to be done for each weapon. Plus there's a substantial FBI background check (although I'm less impressed by it now that I know you can avoid giving your fingerprints by registering the gun to a trust or limited liability corporation.) Anyway, the machine guns are just really cool and/or collector's items, and I don't know WTF a rocket launcher would be for, if that happens to be legal. If I had one, I'd beg people for dead vehicles so I could do slow-motion videos of javelins destroying the vehicles.

[sol]

New poll numbers today suggest that all of the traditional Republican candidates are falling behind the crazy ones.  Six months ago I would have said Jeb Bush was the presumptive nominee, he's now polling at 9%.  Rubio and Walker have spent the past several years building names for themselves within the party, but now poll at 4 and 6%  They're toast.

Instead, Trump is the leading GOP candidate by a wide margin, at 25%, followed by Ben Carson and Ted Cruz at 12 and 10%.  Some people had high hopes that Rand Paul would transform his party, but his campaign is already over.

If you add up all those numbers, it looks like Republicans might have more than 50% of the electorate if they were to get behind a single candidate.  Except that the same poll has Clinton and Sanders at 49 and 30%, suggesting that the poll was forcing folks to pick a candidate even if they don't intend to vote for that party.

But those are all just primary votes, not indicative of how the nation would vote in a head to head.  I'm eager to see some new head to head polls between the parties because the last ones I've seen are almost a month old, and Trump has come a long way in the past month.  Back in July, Trump would have lost to Clinton or even to Sanders by about 15% of the popular vote.  15% is about the margin that Trump has gained in the past month, compared to his Republican rivals, but it's not clear if rise would translate into the same jump in a national poll of all candidates.

[beltim]

New poll numbers today suggest that all of the traditional Republican candidates are falling behind the crazy ones.  Six months ago I would have said Jeb Bush was the presumptive nominee, he's now polling at 9%.  Rubio and Walker have spent the past several years building names for themselves within the party, but now poll at 4 and 6%  They're toast.

Instead, Trump is the leading GOP candidate by a wide margin, at 25%, followed by Ben Carson and Ted Cruz at 12 and 10%.  Some people had high hopes that Rand Paul would transform his party, but his campaign is already over.

If you add up all those numbers, it looks like Republicans might have more than 50% of the electorate if they were to get behind a single candidate.  Except that the same poll has Clinton and Sanders at 49 and 30%, suggesting that the poll was forcing folks to pick a candidate even if they don't intend to vote for that party.

But those are all just primary votes, not indicative of how the nation would vote in a head to head.  I'm eager to see some new head to head polls between the parties because the last ones I've seen are almost a month old, and Trump has come a long way in the past month.  Back in July, Trump would have lost to Clinton or even to Sanders by about 15% of the popular vote.  15% is about the margin that Trump has gained in the past month, compared to his Republican rivals, but it's not clear if rise would translate into the same jump in a national poll of all candidates.

Those polls are of likely Republican voters and likely Democratic voters, respectively.  You can't use them at all for general election results.

[sol]

Those polls are of likely Republican voters and likely Democratic voters, respectively.  You can't use them at all for general election results.

Right, and I didn't.

Which is why I said I was hoping for new head to head polls since the last ones I've seen are about a month old.  For example, Trump would have lost to Sanders back in July but I haven't seen any similar polling since Trump's big jump in the polls.

[beltim]

Also, that same poll has some updated head to head results.  Clinton is up 7 against Fiorina, up 5 against Trump, and down 2 to Bush or Rubio.  Trump has popular support among the Republican base, but he's disliked by far more people.

[beltim]

Those polls are of likely Republican voters and likely Democratic voters, respectively.  You can't use them at all for general election results.

Right, and I didn't.

Yes you did:

Instead, Trump is the leading GOP candidate by a wide margin, at 25%, followed by Ben Carson and Ted Cruz at 12 and 10%.  Some people had high hopes that Rand Paul would transform his party, but his campaign is already over.

If you add up all those numbers, it looks like Republicans might have more than 50% of the electorate if they were to get behind a single candidate. 

Those numbers were only for Republican likely voters.  No likely Democratic voters go into those numbers.

[sol]

Also, that same poll has some updated head to head results.  Clinton is up 7 against Fiorina, up 5 against Trump, and down 2 to Bush or Rubio.  Trump has popular support among the Republican base, but he's disliked by far more people.

You motivated me to go find full results:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/14/fox-news-poll-sanders-gains-on-clinton/

[forummm]

I don't think that Carson number will last very long. Especially with him having performed research using aborted fetal tissue. The fact that Sanders is now leading in NH and closing hard in Iowa is very interesting.

I still think Trump will be around for a long time but won't win the R nomination. I think that if no one else gets in the race, Sanders has a slight edge as the most likely to win the D nomination.

[beltim]

Also, that same poll has some updated head to head results.  Clinton is up 7 against Fiorina, up 5 against Trump, and down 2 to Bush or Rubio.  Trump has popular support among the Republican base, but he's disliked by far more people.

You motivated me to go find full results:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/14/fox-news-poll-sanders-gains-on-clinton/

Yes, that's where I was looking.  I meant to include the link - sorry about that.  It doesn't appear to have head to head results with Sanders, though.

[sol]

I think that if no one else gets in the race, Sanders has a slight edge as the most likely to win the D nomination.

While I agree that more Democrats like Sanders than Clinton if they get down to details, I think Clinton would win handily and Sanders would be a close race.  And most Democrats would rather be assured of a Hillary presidency than risk Bernie losing and maybe getting a Trump presidency. 

Hillary is a corporatist sellout and far too hawkish for most liberals, but that's the sort of American middle-road that would otherwise appeal to lots of cross-over voters.  Despite what you hear out of the GOP PR firms about how Hillary is a lefty pinko, she's too far to the right on business/economic/wealth issues and foreign policy to appeal to real liberals, which is maybe her strength in a general election.  Like Obama and Clinton 1, she's favors protecting business interests, favors bailing out too-big-to-fail failures, and favors bombing brown people who look sideways at America.

[beltim]

One of the most interesting questions to me is the second choice question: number 9 in the poll.  Marco Rubio is the top second choice (13%), suggesting high favorability even though he has pretty low first choice numbers.  Similarly, Bush's numbers look a lot better when you take into account his second-choice numbers - which are second only to Rubio's.  Bush and Rubio might not be a ton of people's favorite right now, but they are people that the Republicans can unite behind.

I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.  And when you take Trump's numbers out, Carson, Cruz, and Bush are essentially tied. 

[sol]

I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.

Everyone keeps saying this but I'm having doubts.  They say Trump is a joke candidate, that it's only a matter of time before he implodes, that the party won't back him, that a more serious option will emerge.  But what is the GOP going to do if 75% of their electorate want Trump?  Just ignore them and promote a party insider instead?  How's that going to play for them?

One option is that Trump's candidacy is just the death throws the GOP.  They've technically only won the popular vote in a Presidential election one time (Kerry) since 1988, suggesting that the nation as a whole has become majority Democratic.  They've struggled with women voters, with latino voters, with young voters.  The popular party faithful are frantic, trying to find a way to reclaim the glory the Nixon/Reagan era, and they don't think an establishment candidate like Walker can clinch it so they're praying for a miracle and Trump is their Hail Mary candidate.  Maybe something truly different, something wild and unexpected?  Worth a shot since grinding it out straight up is a guaranteed losing path?

But I still think Trump would lose, and then what do those people say?  How do you rebuild your party after losing everything, and then losing your wild comeback bid?

[forummm]

I think that if no one else gets in the race, Sanders has a slight edge as the most likely to win the D nomination.

While I agree that more Democrats like Sanders than Clinton if they get down to details, I think Clinton would win handily and Sanders would be a close race.  And most Democrats would rather be assured of a Hillary presidency than risk Bernie losing and maybe getting a Trump presidency. 

Hillary is a corporatist sellout and far too hawkish for most liberals, but that's the sort of American middle-road that would otherwise appeal to lots of cross-over voters.  Despite what you hear out of the GOP PR firms about how Hillary is a lefty pinko, she's too far to the right on business/economic/wealth issues and foreign policy to appeal to real liberals, which is maybe her strength in a general election.  Like Obama and Clinton 1, she's favors protecting business interests, favors bailing out too-big-to-fail failures, and favors bombing brown people who look sideways at America.

It's really hard to say at this point, especially without knowing who the opponent(s) would be, but I think Sanders would be more likely to win the general. Hilary is more conservative than Obama. And Obama is basically a 90's moderate Republican updated for some social issues where the entire populace has fundamentally shifted (like gay marriage and the wars on drugs and crime). No matter how corporatist and hawkish and sell-out Hilary gets, people on the right and middle have generally made up their mind about her, and she's not going to win people over by being more conservative--if they want someone conservative they'll just vote for the Republican. There's this weird irrational emotional reaction to her that people have. It's probably sexism on some level. She's also not very personable and comes off as somewhat phony, so that's probably part of it too. And the Clintons were very successfully demonized by the right (did you know she killed Vince Foster?) for so long that it's burned into people's minds. Whereas if you pay any attention you know what Sanders stands for and that it's authentic. And his positions generally resonate with the electorate. A big part of winning the general is turning out the base. Sanders is clearly generating much more enthusiasm than Hilary. I think that will continue to grow as the race moves on.

One of the most interesting questions to me is the second choice question: number 9 in the poll.  Marco Rubio is the top second choice (13%), suggesting high favorability even though he has pretty low first choice numbers.  Similarly, Bush's numbers look a lot better when you take into account his second-choice numbers - which are second only to Rubio's.  Bush and Rubio might not be a ton of people's favorite right now, but they are people that the Republicans can unite behind.

I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.  And when you take Trump's numbers out, Carson, Cruz, and Bush are essentially tied. 

I still think it'll be either Bush, Walker, or Kasich. But with so many people running, it will be a long time before we will know. You need to have deep pockets to run that kind of a long race. No one will have deeper pockets than Trump and Bush, but Walker could tap a lot of Koch money if needed. The person who can win a primary or two will also get a bunch of cash flowing to them.

[forummm]

I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.

Everyone keeps saying this but I'm having doubts.  They say Trump is a joke candidate, that it's only a matter of time before he implodes, that the party won't back him, that a more serious option will emerge.  But what is the GOP going to do if 75% of their electorate want Trump?  Just ignore them and promote a party insider instead?  How's that going to play for them?

One option is that Trump's candidacy is just the death throws the GOP.  They've technically only won the popular vote in a Presidential election one time (Kerry) since 1988, suggesting that the nation as a whole has become majority Democratic.  They've struggled with women voters, with latino voters, with young voters.  The popular party faithful are frantic, trying to find a way to reclaim the glory the Nixon/Reagan era, and they don't think an establishment candidate like Walker can clinch it so they're praying for a miracle and Trump is their Hail Mary candidate.  Maybe something truly different, something wild and unexpected?  Worth a shot since grinding it out straight up is a guaranteed losing path?

But I still think Trump would lose, and then what do those people say?  How do you rebuild your party after losing everything, and then losing your wild comeback bid?

They'll say the same thing they've said after every other loss--"we should have gone more conservative". "We weren't true to our principles". Etc.

[Bob W]

I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.

Everyone keeps saying this but I'm having doubts.  They say Trump is a joke candidate, that it's only a matter of time before he implodes, that the party won't back him, that a more serious option will emerge.  But what is the GOP going to do if 75% of their electorate want Trump?  Just ignore them and promote a party insider instead?  How's that going to play for them?

One option is that Trump's candidacy is just the death throws the GOP.  They've technically only won the popular vote in a Presidential election one time (Kerry) since 1988, suggesting that the nation as a whole has become majority Democratic.  They've struggled with women voters, with latino voters, with young voters.  The popular party faithful are frantic, trying to find a way to reclaim the glory the Nixon/Reagan era, and they don't think an establishment candidate like Walker can clinch it so they're praying for a miracle and Trump is their Hail Mary candidate.  Maybe something truly different, something wild and unexpected?  Worth a shot since grinding it out straight up is a guaranteed losing path?

But I still think Trump would lose, and then what do those people say?  How do you rebuild your party after losing everything, and then losing your wild comeback bid?

And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.   

[sol]

And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.   

It's not really odd.  As we've previously discussed, republican voters are overrepresented because they are concentrated in states that have disproportionate representation. And becausE republicans were charge when we last redrew congressional districts.  Gerrymandering is a wonderful thing.

[Bob W]

And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.   

It's not really odd.  As we've previously discussed, republican voters are overrepresented because they are concentrated in states that have disproportionate representation. And becausE republicans were charge when we last redrew congressional districts.  Gerrymandering is a wonderful thing.

Well I think we are forgetting that in many states that are heavily Red or Blue that many, many Republican voters sit out on Presidential election day as they know their vote won't have much impact.   I imagine many Dems sit out as well for the same reason.  So counting the popular vote doesn't tell you much.  It appears to be slanted slightly in favor of Dems on the Presidential stage.    And man those swing states have some power come election time.   

I'm not sure the district redrawing has much if any impact on the Governorship's of which the Republicans appear to have 62% vs Dem 36%. That is a pretty big swing.   Our state currently has a Dem as Governor.    I don't see that holding up next go round. 

Here is an interesting take on the Perot effort from his former staff leader.  We forget just how whack Perot was.   Remember that Admiral he picked as a running mate -  WTF?

I think Trump is smart enough to pick a decent VP candidate should he win the Republican nomination. 

  http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/16/yes-donald-trump-can-win-but-heres-what-it-will-take/

[Jeremy E.]

And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.   

It's not really odd.  As we've previously discussed, republican voters are overrepresented because they are concentrated in states that have disproportionate representation. And becausE republicans were charge when we last redrew congressional districts.  Gerrymandering is a wonderful thing.

On top of this, young people tend to only vote for president and not vote any other times, whereas older people will vote whenever they are able to. Also, population doesn't matter in the senate, it's how many states are dem vs how many states are republican, and I think a lot of the smaller states are republican.

[beltim]

I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.

Everyone keeps saying this but I'm having doubts.  They say Trump is a joke candidate, that it's only a matter of time before he implodes, that the party won't back him, that a more serious option will emerge.  But what is the GOP going to do if 75% of their electorate want Trump?  Just ignore them and promote a party insider instead?  How's that going to play for them?

My point is that I don't see a circumstance where he hits 50% of delegates, let alone 75%.  Way too many people just dislike him, and strongly prefer "any other Republican" to Trump.  Trump may last until the convention with 20-30% of the delegates, but I don't see how he wins the nomination when he's so unpopular with the other 70%.

[Glenstache]

And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.   

It's not really odd.  As we've previously discussed, republican voters are overrepresented because they are concentrated in states that have disproportionate representation. And because republicans were charge when we last redrew congressional districts.  Gerrymandering is a wonderful thing.

Or, to empirically show the effect of gerrymandering vs algorithmic definition of voting districts:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/11/28/0338208/mathematicians-study-effects-of-gerrymandering-on-2012-election

and the original study:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796

Yes, gerrymandering can strongly favor individual parties (republicans and democrats have both done it, the details and severity of which by party I cannot comment on).

[MDM]

Or, to empirically show the effect of gerrymandering vs algorithmic definition of voting districts:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/11/28/0338208/mathematicians-study-effects-of-gerrymandering-on-2012-election

and the original study:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796

Yes, gerrymandering can strongly favor individual parties (republicans and democrats have both done it, the details and severity of which by party I cannot comment on).

Many well-reasoned comments in the first linked article.  E.g., this one:

  | Personally, I find it all to be a bunch of bullcrap. Have you seen those voting districts that are along, squiggly lines that wander all over the place?

Yeah, and you know what? One of the most famous ones is in North Carolina [wikipedia.org], the site of this study.

And guess who created it and why? Democrats did [state.mn.us], in order to secure a minority voting block big enough to elect a black person to Congress. Ever since, it's been one of the most litigated districts in the U.S.

I'm always shocked at how many people don't realize that this is one of the primary LEGAL rationales for gerrymandering -- back in the 1980s and 1990s you even saw unholy alliances between minority leaders and conservative Republicans conspiring to create awkward districts in some states that would give each group what they wanted: the minorities got enough people together in a district to elect a minority to Congress, and the Republicans got to excise many of those annoying mostly Democratic minority voters from their districts.

We are still living with that legacy in many states, and I frankly have found news coverage in recent years of gerrymandering to be lacking in discussion of this issue. It's not all just Republicans who have taken control of state legislatures -- we've also had a committed effort for quite a few decades to segregate voter districts in such a way that would allow more minorities in Congress.

But of course that creates a problem, because it ends up disenfranching non-minority Democrats who get stuck in all the surrounding districts that can no longer elect a Democrat because a large portion of Democrats were deliberately removed from swing districts to create the minority-majority district.

So the Democrats end up in a Catch-22. If they want to promote Congressional "diversity," they can create districts where minorities get elected, but they can end up screwing themselves over in the process because then all the surrounding districts become more Republican and make it more difficult for Democrats to actually achieve an overall Congressional majority.

It's certainly not the only issue that has led to Republican majorities in Congress -- but it's one that's not often talked about, and it has had some significant effects

[forummm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/12/the-amazing-thing-about-cnns-iowa-poll-is-donald-trumps-leads-in-everything-besides-the-horserace/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/16/donald-trumps-surprisingly-savvy-comment-about-american-politics/

Trump's ability to get credit for not having positions is really interesting.

Reading about Fiorina being 2nd on the economy was interesting given her actual track record. People generally incorrectly think that a good business person would be good at leading an economy (and the president doesn't lead the economy anyway, but that's a separate issue).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/business/carly-fiorinas-record-not-so-sterling.html
Quoting a summary of article:

Mr. Sorkin notes that this is all the more striking because she was fired by Hewlett-Packard after the company's stock dropped by half in 2005. Mrs. Fiorina has long blamed this on the bursting of the dot-com bubble and the deepening recession in Silicon Valley after the Sept. 11 attacks.

...

Mrs. Fiorina defends her record, saying, "We took the growth rate from 2 percent to 9 percent." The problem is she is referring to Hewlett-Packard's revenue rather than its profit. If you make enough acquisitions - especially one the size of Compaq - you can inflate your revenue figures and buy growth, Mr. Sorkin argues. Real business success lies in increasing profitability.

As the campaign goes on, Mrs. Fiorina will have difficulty arguing that her time as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard should be viewed as an asset, and not a liability, Mr. Sorkin writes.

[Vertical Mode]

Did anyone else see this today?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-presidential-hopeful-whod-quit-after-signing-a-single-law-20150819?page=3

Curious to hear what others' thoughts are on this. Too idealistic to be practical?

[MoonShadow]

Curious to hear what others' thoughts are on this. Too idealistic to be practical?

Depending upon his choice of Vice, I'd vote for him.  But I still don't think his goal is to actually get elected.  Basicly, he is trying to force the issue upon the Democratic Party's real hopefuls, in a manner similar to (but nicer) how Don Trump is controlling the nature of the debate in the Republican party.

Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.  I would not like that.

[MDM]

Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.

Not necessarily - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.

[MoonShadow]

Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.

Not necessarily - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.

Well, not necessarily, but at present both houses are controlled by Republicans, and the default order of succession is what happens if the new President cannot get their nominee approved by Congress.  And I could so see Warren being assassinated under such conditions.

[beltim]

Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.

Not necessarily - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.

Well, not necessarily, but at present both houses are controlled by Republicans, and the default order of succession is what happens if the new President cannot get their nominee approved by Congress.  And I could so see Warren being assassinated under such conditions.

Huh? There's no mechanism for the Speaker to become Vice President. If Congress doesn't confirm the Presidents pick for VP then there isn't a VP. If both the President and the VP leave office the Speaker would become President. Why do you think Boehner would ever become VP?

[MDM]

Well, not necessarily, but at present both houses are controlled by Republicans, and the default order of succession is what happens if the new President cannot get their nominee approved by Congress.

Agreed - it would be interesting.  There is precedent for a president of one party getting the nominee approved by both houses controlled by the other party: Ford replacing Agnew and Rockefeller replacing Ford.

[MDM]

Why do you think Boehner would ever become VP?

Instead of "VP", I read the thought as "next in line for the presidency".

[MoonShadow]

Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.

Not necessarily - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.

Well, not necessarily, but at present both houses are controlled by Republicans, and the default order of succession is what happens if the new President cannot get their nominee approved by Congress.  And I could so see Warren being assassinated under such conditions.

Huh? There's no mechanism for the Speaker to become Vice President. If Congress doesn't confirm the Presidents pick for VP then there isn't a VP. If both the President and the VP leave office the Speaker would become President. Why do you think Boehner would ever become VP?

More accurately, he would be the next in the line of succession.  If you want to be completely accurate, the Vice's only constitutional role other than as successor is to be the president of the Senate.  Boehner wouldn't be the president of the senate, necessarily, but he would be the presidential successor.

[forummm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us/donald-trump-fails-to-fill-alabama-stadium-but-fans-zeal-is-undiminished.html

Although Mr. Trump has drawn criticism for unveiling few detailed policy proposals, many of his supporters said they were unbothered.

“When he gets in there, he’ll figure it out,” said Amanda Mancini, who said she had traveled from California to see Mr. Trump. “So we do have to trust him, but he has something that we can trust in. We can look at the Trump brand, we can look at what he’s done, and we can say that’s how he’s done everything.”

Still, others said they had plenty of advice for the man they regularly identified in conversation as “Mr. Trump.”

“Hopefully, he’s going to sit there and say, ‘When I become elected president, what we’re going to do is we’re going to make the border a vacation spot, it’s going to cost you $25 for a permit, and then you get $50 for every confirmed kill,’ ” said Jim Sherota, 53, who works for a landscaping company. “That’d be one nice thing.”

[forummm]

This conservative radio host in Iowa is literally calling for the reinstitution of slavery and forced labor. He just wants to enslave Mexicans and others here without permission. And he's had most of the Republican candidates on his show. And Cruz and Walker went on the show *after* he said this. Cruz came on after he said it to agree with him that birthright citizenship (i.e. the 14th amendment) should be revoked. And about half the other candidates have stated they agree with this position. Rubio (who would have his citizenship revoked under this plan) is hedging.

MICKELSON: Well, what's wrong with slavery?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/19/ia-radio-host-jan-mickelson-enslave-undocumente/205020
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/08/conservative-radio-host-from-iowa-wants-to-enslave-immigrants
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a37301/iowa-radio-host-mickelson-okay-with-bringing-back-slavery/

[Chris22]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally.  It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally.  I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.

[MoonShadow]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally.  It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally.  I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.

This is correct.  And for Rubio in particular, it wouldn't have any effect on his citizenship or qualifications for the presidency anyway.  There is a clause in the US Constitution that prohibits retroactive legislation.  Anyone who already has a social security number, regardless of under what conditions, gets to keep it.

[forummm]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally.  It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally.  I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.

This is correct.  And for Rubio in particular, it wouldn't have any effect on his citizenship or qualifications for the presidency anyway.  There is a clause in the US Constitution that prohibits retroactive legislation.  Anyone who already has a social security number, regardless of under what conditions, gets to keep it.

Who knows. Trump says the clause doesn't grant citizenship to children of those illegally here. If he prevails in court with that view (which he won't) then Rubio would never have been a citizen in the first place, so it wouldn't be removing something from him. And if they are going to amend the Constitution to remove or modify the 14th Amendment, then they could amend the ex post facto clause as well.

[MoonShadow]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally.  It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally.  I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.

This is correct.  And for Rubio in particular, it wouldn't have any effect on his citizenship or qualifications for the presidency anyway.  There is a clause in the US Constitution that prohibits retroactive legislation.  Anyone who already has a social security number, regardless of under what conditions, gets to keep it.

Who knows. Trump says the clause doesn't grant citizenship to children of those illegally here. If he prevails in court with that view (which he won't) then Rubio would never have been a citizen in the first place, so it wouldn't be removing something from him.

Uh, no.  Rubio's parents were here legally.  Rubio's parents came from Cuba, and since they were fleeing a communist state, the 'dry feet' rule applied to them.  They were granted full citizenship when Rubio was four years old.  You can make the argument that Cuban refugees should not get special treatment, but since they do; Rubio's parents were, indeed, legal residents of Florida when Marco Rubio was born.

 And if they are going to amend the Constitution to remove or modify the 14th Amendment, then they could amend the ex post facto clause as well.

Perhaps, but it's going to be next to impossible to amend the Constitution under any conditions for some time; and modifying both the 14th amendment & the Ex post facto clause would complicate things further.  A repeal of the 14th isn't really even being discussed, even by the Trump team.  They are claiming that the 14th amendment doesn't address birthright citizenship anyway, and that they can challenge the idea in court.  I have my doubts about that, but it's really just political posturing right now anyway.

[sol]

I have my doubts about that, but it's really just political posturing right now anyway.

Which part of the Trump campaign is anything but?

[MoonShadow]

I have my doubts about that, but it's really just political posturing right now anyway.

Which part of the Trump campaign is anything but?

None, as far as I can tell.

[GuitarStv]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally.  It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally.  I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.

I really like this idea.  If it's applied retroactively, all white people in the US would lose citizenship . . . since they are all the anchor baby offspring of people who illegally invaded native land.

[Zx]

I have my doubts about that, but it's really just political posturing right now anyway.

Which part of the Trump campaign is anything but?

Which part of ANY campaign is anything but? Slick Hillary? Commie Bernie? Bush E Eyebrows? They are ALL duplicitous, deceitful, power hungry zealots that think they know better....although I doubt we'll ever see a liar as accomplish as, say, Slick Willie or B Hussein Obama, as those two are probably the best ever....if you think there is a difference between the leftists and the evil GOP, you have swallowed too much koolaid. They are ALL posturing, as none of them can afford to let anyone know who they really are, what they really think, and what they would really like to get done....you know, if you like your doctor, you can KEEP your doctor. Period. And if you like your insurance, you can KEEP your insurance. Period. They are liars, and when they lie they speak their native language.

[Bob W]

You may have noticed that recent presidents don't pay much attention to the constitution.   One big plus Trump has is that he is not a lawyer.     Although I'm sure he'll have an army of them once president.   The anchor baby deal isn't much of a concern as most illegals will choose to take their kids with them when they leave.   Most will leave voluntarily as there will be no one willing to hire them,  rent to them or give them government money.           And Trump's poll numbers continue to rise.    There is nothing he could say at this point that would knock him out of the race.  He could say Hillary is a C and pick up 5 points I guess?

[matchewed]

Yeah only a year and two months to go. No where to go but up. >.<

[Chris22]

He could say Hillary is a C and pick up 5 points I guess?

If he did that he may have a shot at my vote :)