Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The Nevada Democratic Convention got a bit boisterous

http://wtop.com/elections/2016/05/se...ts-convention/

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Gotta put the peons in their proper place, before His Greatness deigns to appear before them. Make sure they know who the Alpha Dog is.

I'm sure he has rules about who goes to who, who sits with his back to the window, and all that rot.

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Welp, that honeymoon was short.

Gotta put the peons in their proper place, before His Greatness deigns to appear before them. Make sure they know who the Alpha Dog is.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I'm amused by pundidiotry's recent trend of discovery that Trump does in fact speak for Republicans. They're astonished that his favorable ratings amongst Goopers are rising. No sh !t Sherlock. As I said before, aside from Mormons and private equity guys, who amongst the 61M Mittens voters is less excited to vote for Trump than they were for Romney?

Trump will get his 60M votes (1M Romney voters have "aged out" since 2012). His problem is getting 6M Obama voters to not show up for Hillary even though the SCOTUS is at risk of being taken over by a rodeo clown, amongst other issues. If his idiocy plus her presumed appeal to older women gets her close to Obama in 08 #'s Paul Ryan might need to start looking for another job as I hear Minority Leader in the House ain't no fun.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Welp, that honeymoon was short.

One of Donald Trump's top allies in Congress slammed the presumptive GOP nominee after he failed to meet with rank-and-file lawmakers backing his campaign during his ballyhooed trip to Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) told POLITICO that Trump refused multiple requests to meet with members of Congress working to round up support for him in Washington.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Humanity is improving, with a few exceptions.

[MaizeRage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

We have all come a long way.

Not all of us. Another example of the great people Trump will surround himself with: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ook-kill-obama

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This is great.

The sexism of the interviewer (the questions, at least) is almost unbelievable now.

We have all come a long way.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Hey with friends like these....

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ook-kill-obama



In other news, I think we just found out FlagDude's real name!

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This is where you're wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Once Trump has the nomination, he isn't going to run on "conservative" issues. He's going to run to the left of Clinton. We'll be hearing about taxing the rich, higher minimum wages, blah, blah, blah.

And that will be entertaining. Dealing with a candidate who will say anything, and with a general public that doesn't care, is extremely difficult for politicians who play by the old rules.

But it also creates a problem for the "establishment" Republicans. It's one thing to back a blowhard that everyone else in your party is backing. It's another to back him and then have him come out he next day and tell everyone that under a Trump presidency the minimum wage will be $20/hr.

He can do that all he likes, but it will get him jack sh !t. Say one thing one day and something completely different the next and pretty soon people on both sides don't trust you. We aren't living in 1968 where Nixon can contradict a statement he made during the primaries to a different audience in the general election and nobody will notice. Trump is going to have to fight the probably accurate perception that he's unhinged. Having a debate within his own mind isn't going to help dispel that worry. Remember, this will be the person in charge of the nukes and all that. Its going to take the Clinton campaign about a millisecond to capitalize on Trump's mental instability.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

A two hour meeting??? This is the first time I've almost felt sorry for Paul Ryan:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...n-signal-unity

From my sources:

TRUMP (for first 1 hour and 59 minutes): I'M THE AWESOMEST PARTY NOMINEE WHO EVER AWESOMED. WORSHIP ME YOU LITTLE BAHSTID. WORSHIP MEEEEE!!!!

RYAN (in last minute): So, we're okay with the racism, torture, and mass deportations, but my people need your assurance that massive tax cuts for our billionaire campaign contributors as well as raising defense spending through the roof is a go.

TRUMP: Hey, I'm a billionaire! Are you doing all of this just for me?

RYAN: Ummm.....YES! That's the ticket. This tax cut is all for you, because you're uhh...Awesome, and there will be a few of our friends who are kinda awesome, just not as much as you, who will get some tax cuts too. Oh, and we'll throw in a free aircraft carrier with your name on it with the increased defense budget.

TRUMP: WE'RE GONNA MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN BABY! SEE HOW AWESOME I AM?

This is exactly right.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

If handled right, this could be the start of something good.

Operating under the assumption that Sanders will win the California primary but still fall far short of amassing enough delegates to claim the Democratic nomination, the document calls for the Vermont senator to exit the race and launch an independent political group far larger than any other recent post-campaign political operations, such as those started by Howard Dean or Barack Obama.

The idea would be to let progressives launch a concerted populist attack on Drumpf, unattached to Hillary's need/want to be associated with centrist, corporate-friendly interests.

I like the idea of opening up on Drumpf from another front.

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

A two hour meeting??? This is the first time I've almost felt sorry for Paul Ryan:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...n-signal-unity

From my sources:

TRUMP (for first 1 hour and 59 minutes): I'M THE AWESOMEST PARTY NOMINEE WHO EVER AWESOMED. WORSHIP ME YOU LITTLE BAHSTID. WORSHIP MEEEEE!!!!

RYAN (in last minute): So, we're okay with the racism, torture, and mass deportations, but my people need your assurance that massive tax cuts for our billionaire campaign contributors as well as raising defense spending through the roof is a go.

TRUMP: Hey, I'm a billionaire! Are you doing all of this just for me?

RYAN: Ummm.....YES! That's the ticket. This tax cut is all for you, because you're uhh...Awesome, and there will be a few of our friends who are kinda awesome, just not as much as you, who will get some tax cuts too. Oh, and we'll throw in a free aircraft carrier with your name on it with the increased defense budget.

TRUMP: WE'RE GONNA MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN BABY! SEE HOW AWESOME I AM?

This is where you're wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Once Trump has the nomination, he isn't going to run on "conservative" issues. He's going to run to the left of Clinton. We'll be hearing about taxing the rich, higher minimum wages, blah, blah, blah.

And that will be entertaining. Dealing with a candidate who will say anything, and with a general public that doesn't care, is extremely difficult for politicians who play by the old rules.

But it also creates a problem for the "establishment" Republicans. It's one thing to back a blowhard that everyone else in your party is backing. It's another to back him and then have him come out he next day and tell everyone that under a Trump presidency the minimum wage will be $20/hr.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

These apologia columns are usually self-important navel-gazing, and this one is no exception, but Ross does pull one beautifully salient line:

For those of us who have long been frustrated precisely by the smallness of those differences, the narrowness of the G.O.P. policy debate, it’s a particularly staggering result: A party whose leading factions often seemed incapable of budging from 1980s-era dogma suddenly caved completely to a candidate who regards much of the conservative vision with indifference bordering on contempt.

Yes. Yes, indeed.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

....the hockey player, the mutant, or the drug cargo?

Or the kicker. How soon they forget.

10 points for the Foundation reference, though.