As in stock markets? If that's how we define how our economy is doing, I don't know what everyone is complaining about currently.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
As in stock markets? If that's how we define how our economy is doing, I don't know what everyone is complaining about currently.
P
Priceless
Guest
That's one measure. Another is that Clinton came into office with a $291 billion deficit and left with a $286 billion surplus (the first balanced budget since Ike). Here are some other stats http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-clinton-economy-in-charts/
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
No, that's not how we define how the economy is doing. However, the markets have historically been an indicator of the economy as a whole. In fact, that was the original purpose behind the Wall Street Journal creating the Dow Jones Industrial Average - take thirty of the largest companies that would best represent the economy as a whole. There's been a divergence from the economy and the stock markets in the last 10 years or so, though.
No, that's not how we define how the economy is doing. However, the markets have historically been an indicator of the economy as a whole. In fact, that was the original purpose behind the Wall Street Journal creating the Dow Jones Industrial Average - take thirty of the largest companies that would best represent the economy as a whole. There's been a divergence from the economy and the stock markets in the last 10 years or so, though.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Except it was. Look at the plunge in year over year GDP growth in 1990-92.
Except it was. Look at the plunge in year over year GDP growth in 1990-92.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
A surplus that was turned into an economy in a freefall when Bush walked out the door.
A surplus that was turned into an economy in a freefall when Bush walked out the door.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
So Kepler, I imagine you aren't that high on the idea of Hillary 16
How do you feel about Elizabeth Warren in 16? She's getting a lot of mention in Democratic circles - some as a VP for Clinton, most as her opponent in the primaries.
So Kepler, I imagine you aren't that high on the idea of Hillary 16
How do you feel about Elizabeth Warren in 16? She's getting a lot of mention in Democratic circles - some as a VP for Clinton, most as her opponent in the primaries.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
The fake Indian would be awesomeSo Kepler, I imagine you aren't that high on the idea of Hillary 16
How do you feel about Elizabeth Warren in 16? She's getting a lot of mention in Democratic circles - some as a VP for Clinton, most as her opponent in the primaries.
P
Priceless
Guest
I know you wouldn't vote for anyone, which is why I didn't ask you.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Warren's policies are a start -- at least she understands The Problem -- but she has roughly the same likelihood of winning a national election as Robert Reich. If being right was enough Mondale would have beaten Reagan in '84, but elections are more about charisma than intellect, and a chunk of the electorate (on both sides) would vote for a door knob if it made them feel comfortable. Warren has no charisma and she would be threatening to You Know Who. So we need somebody less professorial and more "beer with worthy." Yeah. I don't get it either, but that's what plays in Peoria.
The best bet for a competitive nominee who would also govern well is a fairly bright hood ornament who knows their limitations and has a moral compass to put their capital behind policies that are good for the country. Maybe, I dunno, Tom Udall or Mark Warner. Hillary is > 90% likely to win the general, and 50/50 for a landslide given what a clown car the right is. That's good for the Court (which in the long run is probably all that matters, since otherwise the GOP can just keep cheating more outlandishly) but her domestic policies would be as bad as a moderate Republican's and her foreign policy would set the country back a decade.
So Kepler, I imagine you aren't that high on the idea of Hillary 16
How do you feel about Elizabeth Warren in 16? She's getting a lot of mention in Democratic circles - some as a VP for Clinton, most as her opponent in the primaries.
Warren's policies are a start -- at least she understands The Problem -- but she has roughly the same likelihood of winning a national election as Robert Reich. If being right was enough Mondale would have beaten Reagan in '84, but elections are more about charisma than intellect, and a chunk of the electorate (on both sides) would vote for a door knob if it made them feel comfortable. Warren has no charisma and she would be threatening to You Know Who. So we need somebody less professorial and more "beer with worthy." Yeah. I don't get it either, but that's what plays in Peoria.
The best bet for a competitive nominee who would also govern well is a fairly bright hood ornament who knows their limitations and has a moral compass to put their capital behind policies that are good for the country. Maybe, I dunno, Tom Udall or Mark Warner. Hillary is > 90% likely to win the general, and 50/50 for a landslide given what a clown car the right is. That's good for the Court (which in the long run is probably all that matters, since otherwise the GOP can just keep cheating more outlandishly) but her domestic policies would be as bad as a moderate Republican's and her foreign policy would set the country back a decade.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Here's a run down of the contenders (according to USnooze):
Democrats
Republicans
Here's a run down of the contenders (according to USnooze):
Democrats
Republicans
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Kep sometimes I feel you're fighting the last war instead of the next one. The "I'd rather have a beer with him" mantra got destroyed (like a lot of things) by George W Bush. I'm also not sure there's a lot of distance been Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton on issues. Udall I agree is far more liberal.
Beyond all this though, its like using a magnifying glass to find differences. If you can get 80% of what you want, as opposed to 0%, that's a deal you take. Failure to recognize this is what gave the country the second Bush Presidency as whiny liberals came under the spell of the fraud Little Ralphie Nader.
You can't elect Bernie Sanders President anymore than Jim Inhofe has a chance to win. The goal is to 1) win the Presidency, and then 2) have a more progressive Congress pass legislation that is more likely to get enacted then if President Paul or Cruz is in office. The idea that a Clinton Presidency would reflect a return of neo-conservativism is fvking lunacy. It more likely will mirror Bill Clinton's record on foreign policy which was pretty darn good.
Kep sometimes I feel you're fighting the last war instead of the next one. The "I'd rather have a beer with him" mantra got destroyed (like a lot of things) by George W Bush. I'm also not sure there's a lot of distance been Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton on issues. Udall I agree is far more liberal.
Beyond all this though, its like using a magnifying glass to find differences. If you can get 80% of what you want, as opposed to 0%, that's a deal you take. Failure to recognize this is what gave the country the second Bush Presidency as whiny liberals came under the spell of the fraud Little Ralphie Nader.
You can't elect Bernie Sanders President anymore than Jim Inhofe has a chance to win. The goal is to 1) win the Presidency, and then 2) have a more progressive Congress pass legislation that is more likely to get enacted then if President Paul or Cruz is in office. The idea that a Clinton Presidency would reflect a return of neo-conservativism is fvking lunacy. It more likely will mirror Bill Clinton's record on foreign policy which was pretty darn good.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
From the Constitution:
Just a quick look from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
He was born an American citizen.
From the Constitution:
Just a quick look from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Define landslide...
I think you underestimate just how severely divided this country is. I can't see a landslide happening within the next 20-30 years unless something major happens to shake up the political landscape of the US
Define landslide...
I think you underestimate just how severely divided this country is. I can't see a landslide happening within the next 20-30 years unless something major happens to shake up the political landscape of the US
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
I agree with you on Warner, and I think we'd have the Clinton triangulation problem if he were the nominee. Not to mention that he would be running to the right of any primary opponent not named Hillary which means he'd commit to a lot of weak sauce policy stuff indistinguishable from the center-right. So, granted, I withdraw Warner as a choice. O'Malley gets mentioned a lot but to me (from up close in MD) he just seems like a time-server who only comes up because it's "his turn." Historically, that is much more a GOP maneuver, so I don't see him being able to fundraise adequately for IA or NH.
Cuomo is as big a disaster as Hillary -- completely a tool of Wall Street. I'd prefer he just switch parties already and run as a 70's Republican.
Patrick comes up a lot -- I don't see the big deal about him either way. He doesn't have Obama's dead shark eyes of political opportunism, and he doesn't seem to have any ideas of what a president should be except he should be named "Deval."
The more I look at the list the more I think it's thin. Hillary is going to have to screw up monumentally to even make this a horserace.
I'm not sure how else to put this after having the same conversation 20 times: DUH. Nobody wants Nader Redux, which is why when the nomination is settled we'll all hold our noses and bravely pull the lever for the shit sandwich that is Miss Thing. But the question was "who else ya got"?
Hillary doesn't give me 80% of what I want; she gives me, at most, 25%. On most issues she is dead center. On some, like military intervention and the continuing obsession with bowing to AIPAC dollars, she is center-right. Her sole redeeming feature is she would likely win handily enough (in our modern split reality that means 55-45) in what is already going to be a great year for Dem Senate prospects that she would likely not have to worry about the current Senate fluffernutters (although no matter who the Dem nominee is there will be weekly Poutrages from the right about him or her being "the most radical arglebargle..." since that's what keeps the rubes riled). The downside of that is, of course, that her agenda only looks enticing if the alternative is Republican Neofeudalism.
But yes, yes, of course -- when she's crowned I'll be there at the coronation. Just don't expect me to be happy about it.
Hillary is highly susceptible to the "must bomb a new place every quarter to prove she's got a dick" problem. Thatcher Disease.
My solace is a wave election in '16 and/or '20 might give us a liberal enough Congress to force her to the left -- the mirror of '94. The Clintons are utterly amoral -- they are purely power-seeking organisms. If the political context is liberal they will govern as liberals. The risk is that with big money dominating politics more and more their line of least resistance will be conservative, and the next 10 years will be a battle between the GOP Insane Clown Posse and the Clintons' "power for our own sake," with absolutely nobody actually representing liberal ideas or national interests.
I agree with you on Warner, and I think we'd have the Clinton triangulation problem if he were the nominee. Not to mention that he would be running to the right of any primary opponent not named Hillary which means he'd commit to a lot of weak sauce policy stuff indistinguishable from the center-right. So, granted, I withdraw Warner as a choice. O'Malley gets mentioned a lot but to me (from up close in MD) he just seems like a time-server who only comes up because it's "his turn." Historically, that is much more a GOP maneuver, so I don't see him being able to fundraise adequately for IA or NH.
Cuomo is as big a disaster as Hillary -- completely a tool of Wall Street. I'd prefer he just switch parties already and run as a 70's Republican.
Patrick comes up a lot -- I don't see the big deal about him either way. He doesn't have Obama's dead shark eyes of political opportunism, and he doesn't seem to have any ideas of what a president should be except he should be named "Deval."
The more I look at the list the more I think it's thin. Hillary is going to have to screw up monumentally to even make this a horserace.
I'm not sure how else to put this after having the same conversation 20 times: DUH. Nobody wants Nader Redux, which is why when the nomination is settled we'll all hold our noses and bravely pull the lever for the shit sandwich that is Miss Thing. But the question was "who else ya got"?
Hillary doesn't give me 80% of what I want; she gives me, at most, 25%. On most issues she is dead center. On some, like military intervention and the continuing obsession with bowing to AIPAC dollars, she is center-right. Her sole redeeming feature is she would likely win handily enough (in our modern split reality that means 55-45) in what is already going to be a great year for Dem Senate prospects that she would likely not have to worry about the current Senate fluffernutters (although no matter who the Dem nominee is there will be weekly Poutrages from the right about him or her being "the most radical arglebargle..." since that's what keeps the rubes riled). The downside of that is, of course, that her agenda only looks enticing if the alternative is Republican Neofeudalism.
But yes, yes, of course -- when she's crowned I'll be there at the coronation. Just don't expect me to be happy about it.
Hillary is highly susceptible to the "must bomb a new place every quarter to prove she's got a dick" problem. Thatcher Disease.
My solace is a wave election in '16 and/or '20 might give us a liberal enough Congress to force her to the left -- the mirror of '94. The Clintons are utterly amoral -- they are purely power-seeking organisms. If the political context is liberal they will govern as liberals. The risk is that with big money dominating politics more and more their line of least resistance will be conservative, and the next 10 years will be a battle between the GOP Insane Clown Posse and the Clintons' "power for our own sake," with absolutely nobody actually representing liberal ideas or national interests.
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Landslide = winning the general by 51 votes but sweeping the electoral college, then waving your hands and chanting, "What division?"
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
10 points (55-45). Nothing beyond that is possible in this climate, with so many people on complete lockdown.
The "real" landslide (if it happened) would be down ticket, with the Clinton Machine's thermonuclear funding (and their unparalleled Rolodex and arm twisting) pushing toss-up congressional seats blue. Assuming that going into '16 the House will be about where it is today and the Senate will be about 50/50, their kind of ruthlessness could result in a decisive shift of Congress: House control and 56 give or take D seats in the Senate. Given that the rest of the filibuster will be gone no matter who runs the Senate in 15-16, that will be enough to make Congress function again. Well, about as well as it ever did, anway.
And given the "obstruction for its own sake" strategy of today, that counts as a seismic shift.
10 points (55-45). Nothing beyond that is possible in this climate, with so many people on complete lockdown.
The "real" landslide (if it happened) would be down ticket, with the Clinton Machine's thermonuclear funding (and their unparalleled Rolodex and arm twisting) pushing toss-up congressional seats blue. Assuming that going into '16 the House will be about where it is today and the Senate will be about 50/50, their kind of ruthlessness could result in a decisive shift of Congress: House control and 56 give or take D seats in the Senate. Given that the rest of the filibuster will be gone no matter who runs the Senate in 15-16, that will be enough to make Congress function again. Well, about as well as it ever did, anway.
And given the "obstruction for its own sake" strategy of today, that counts as a seismic shift.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Or the Dubya Plan: lose, get appointed, then claim a FDR-level mandate.
Or the Dubya Plan: lose, get appointed, then claim a FDR-level mandate.
- Status