Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an election

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

From across the Pond, a Brit's view on the temperment of the 2016 electorate.

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/sorry-america-but-it-looks-like-joe-biden-is-your-next-president/

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Pray for this tomorrow night

@RalstonReports: I have this theory that Biden will be lowered onto the debate stage the way Cher is in a Vegas showroom. With a light show.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Time to pull the plug on Ben Ghazi and Trey Gowdy's political career:


http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/polit...adley-podliska-right-wing-nut-job-jim-jordan/

So an ex-staffer, a conservative Republican mind you, is saying the committee has gone off the rails and is solely focused on taking down Clinton, something we already heard from the House Majority Leader. Now the committee itself will be investigated for leaks.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Time to pull the plug on Ben Ghazi and Trey Gowdy's political career:


http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/polit...adley-podliska-right-wing-nut-job-jim-jordan/

So an ex-staffer, a conservative Republican mind you, is saying the committee has gone off the rails and is solely focused on taking down Clinton, something we already heard from the House Majority Leader. Now the committee itself will be investigated for leaks.

Wow. Did that ever blow up in their faces.

Moral of the story: when you're doing a partisan hit job on an opposition candidate, try to not to involve the formal mechanisms of the United States government in a conspiracy. I would have thought Watergate taught them that lesson, but I guess Republicans have to be re-taught every few decades.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Wow. Did that ever blow up in their faces.

Moral of the story: when you're doing a partisan hit job on an opposition candidate, try to not to involve the formal mechanisms of the United States government in a conspiracy. I would have thought Watergate taught them that lesson, but I guess Republicans have to be re-taught every few decades.

For me, its simple. You can only sustain a BS partisan inquiry for so long before it unravels. You either put up or shut up. Otherwise eventually people start leaking info that there's nothing going on, that the focus is on something not related to the committee's stated reason for existence, etc. Ken Starr investigation is exhibit 1A of this. So much so the guy got forced to 1) stay on the job after he wanted to leave (sound familiar Mr Boner?), and 2) spent another 9 months investigating after he concluded there was nothing "there" in Whitewater or anything else until he discovered the Prez getting hummers from overweight interns.

This always ends the same way. If I were Gowdy I'd put off that Hillary appearance on the 22nd. The bozos in the House most likely still won't have a leader by then, and the changes of her getting the better of them are much greater than 50/50.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

In the WaPo's "on this date" election Twitter, Hillary had a 25 point lead today in '08.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

For me, its simple. You can only sustain a BS partisan inquiry for so long before it unravels. You either put up or shut up. Otherwise eventually people start leaking info that there's nothing going on, that the focus is on something not related to the committee's stated reason for existence, etc. Ken Starr investigation is exhibit 1A of this. So much so the guy got forced to 1) stay on the job after he wanted to leave (sound familiar Mr Boner?), and 2) spent another 9 months investigating after he concluded there was nothing "there" in Whitewater or anything else until he discovered the Prez getting hummers from overweight interns.

This always ends the same way. If I were Gowdy I'd put off that Hillary appearance on the 22nd. The bozos in the House most likely still won't have a leader by then, and the changes of her getting the better of them are much greater than 50/50.

They should have started later. Since the only point was to smear her, they could have astro-turfed allegations and let the conspiracy wackjobs carry the ball until late 2015, then form their investigatory committee and drag her through the mud for the first 6 months of 2016.

Instead, the way they went about it she's now exonerated in plenty of time to bounce back with all but the herpa-derps who pathologically hate her anyway. And meanwhile they've exposed themselves to censure if Congress flips in 2016 and the Dems then investigate the investigators.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Politico on the HRC email controversy

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-2016-emails-213241?paginate=false

If you're Sanders, O'Malley and Webb do you jump on the email controversy tonight or treat Her Clintonness with kid gloves?

If that won't happen, what is the strategy to torpedo and sink the HRC campaign?

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Politico on the HRC email controversy

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-2016-emails-213241?paginate=false

If you're Sanders, O'Malley and Webb do you jump on the email controversy tonight or treat Her Clintonness with kid gloves?

If that won't happen, what is the strategy to torpedo and sink the HRC campaign?

Tough to side with knuckledraggers and Tiger Beat on the Potomac (politico - thank you charlie pierce) in a Dem debate. As has now been shown, e-mail stuff is a bunch of hooey since there's nothing there and is merely a partisan exercise which both Majority Leader and Ben Ghazi! committee staffer have both admitted. If anything, Bernie should give a full throated defense of Clinton, which will endear him to Hillary supporters.

 

[joecct]

Tough to side with knuckledraggers and Tiger Beat on the Potomac (politico - thank you charlie pierce) in a Dem debate. As has now been shown, e-mail stuff is a bunch of hooey since there's nothing there and is merely a partisan exercise which both Majority Leader and Ben Ghazi! committee staffer have both admitted. If anything, Bernie should give a full throated defense of Clinton, which will endear him to Hillary supporters.

The object is to win, not to make nice, isn't it?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

If you're running against Hillary for the Democratic nomination, you have to voice your unequivocal support for her while also bringing it up. The more Hillary is playing defense against the email story the more her campaign stalls. But at the same time, the email controversy is broadly considered by Democrats -- at least the Democrats who vote in primaries -- to be a baseless Republican smear campaign like Benghazi, so you can't in any way be seen to be feeding it. Your best bet is a sort of poison kiss, where you say "And I just want to reiterate that I have every confidence that Senator Bedfellow is in no way connected with these scurrilous charges that he does speedballs while forcing naked underaged Congressional page boys to read from the Omnibus Budget Reconcilation Act of 1948."

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

The object is to win, not to make nice, isn't it?

Which you do with a Dem audience by sticking up for fellow Dems. If MSNBC did a hit piece on Donald Trump, and Jebbers! was asked about it in a debate, his best answer is not to agree with the story, thus making him look like a two faced weasel, but rather blast the story as a liberal conspiracy theory which allows you to win over some of Trump's supporters.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Which you do with a Dem audience by sticking up for fellow Dems. If MSNBC did a hit piece on Donald Trump, and Jebbers! was asked about it in a debate, his best answer is not to agree with the story, thus making him look like a two faced weasel, but rather blast the story as a liberal conspiracy theory which allows you to win over some of Trump's supporters.

Bingo.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Big big thing for Bernie to explain is that vote against the Brady Bill. One time in my lifetime (40+ years) has the NRA lost on Capital Hill, and that was it. Whatever he was thinking, I can see this one coming back to haunt him depending on how he handles it. Bernie is correctly pointing out he's adopted liberal positions before Hillary. That's a fair point. However, we need to hold him to the same standard on gun control from a liberal perspective.

Likewise, its fair to point out Hillary's vote on the Iraq War (but you're a loony if you hold her as responsible as GWB/Cheney for that debacle). I'd argue however that the Brady Bill has saved far more American lives than were lost in the Iraq folly. Voting against that act, a core victory of liberalism along with the ACA, Family Medical Leave Act, Dodd-Frank, etc is a pretty big deal so lets see how well he finesses that.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Big big thing for Bernie to explain is that vote against the Brady Bill. One time in my lifetime (40+ years) has the NRA lost on Capital Hill, and that was it. Whatever he was thinking, I can see this one coming back to haunt him depending on how he handles it. Bernie is correctly pointing out he's adopted liberal positions before Hillary. That's a fair point. However, we need to hold him to the same standard on gun control from a liberal perspective.

Likewise, its fair to point out Hillary's vote on the Iraq War (but you're a loony if you hold her as responsible as GWB/Cheney for that debacle). I'd argue however that the Brady Bill has saved far more American lives than were lost in the Iraq folly. Voting against that act, a core victory of liberalism along with the ACA, Family Medical Leave Act, Dodd-Frank, etc is a pretty big deal so lets see how well he finesses that.

I think Bernie has a big opportunity there, but it's not the one you're thinking of. Bernie has crossover appeal because he's speaking about what really matters -- inequality and the the neo-feudalism of Wall Street economics (in which Hillary is deeply implicated). Bernie should say he is more pro-gun than most Democrats. All the single issue voters on gun control are against it. Bernie is so much better for working Americans on economic policy that he can afford to be middle of the road on guns and pick up some crossover support.

Hillary's best bet is to steer the debate towards issues involving foreign policy, international perspective and experience. That's her trump card over Bernie. If she starts getting into privacy or civil liberties issues she's screwed because Bernie has her number. And God help her if she talks about economics for obvious reasons.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

If you think Sanders should come out with a pro-gun message at a Democratic primary debate, you truly do think the guy is Jesus! Lets just agree to disagree on the merits of that advice.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

If you think Sanders should come out with a pro-gun message at a Democratic primary debate, you truly do think the guy is Jesus! Lets just agree to disagree on the merits of that advice.

Do not misrepresent. I'm saying non-fundy lower middle class whites are shopping around because they've (finally) sussed out that the GOP rips them off. There is an enormous amount of room between the average Dem House candidate and the Dem presidential position on guns -- the bi-coastals and the big liberal donors pull the party too far left on guns and alienate a large and passionate demo that we could win on economic policy if we stopped insisting upon what is, at this point in time, a Quixotic and urban-oriented effort to limit gun ownership.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Do not misrepresent. I'm saying non-fundy lower middle class whites are shopping around because they've (finally) sussed out that the GOP rips them off. There is an enormous amount of room between the average Dem House candidate and the Dem presidential position on guns -- the bi-coastals and the big liberal donors pull the party too far left on guns and alienate a large and passionate demo that we could win on economic policy if we stopped insisting upon what is, at this point in time, a Quixotic and urban-oriented effort to limit gun ownership.

Who's trying to "limit gun ownership"? That's NRA speak. What Clinton, the current version of Sanders, and most other Dems want to do is make all gun transactions subject to background checks and keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. Sanders needs to come out in public and admit he F'ed up on the Brady law vote. Pooh poohing this issue isn't an electoral winner. What happens when you don't confront it IMHO is our people will stay home ala the 2014 midterms. Hillary Clinton saying she'll use executive authority on guns is music to my ears. I'm curious if Bernie will pledge to do the same. Any voter who thinks the Dems are going to come into their homes and take away their guns most likely aren't voting Democratic anyway.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

Any voter who thinks the Dems are going to come into their homes and take away their guns most likely aren't voting Democratic anyway.

That's where I think you're wrong. I think there are large swathes of the country where people are afraid "they're coming for our guns and Bibles" because of the cultural narratives that play in those places, and which still actually have large numbers of people who are quite receptive to an economic progressive agenda. Remember, even in the redder states you're talking about 55/45 splits -- swinging 5% off the GOP majority is enough to put those states in play. We saw it happen in NC, and it could also happen in GA, AZ, IN, MO, and MT. For the presidency that diverts GOP assets from making a run at current purples. And that's a lot of potential Senate pickups over time, which in turn allows a Democratic president to make more sweeping changes. You want actual gun control someday? Then get it in little pieces with the full approval of gun owners who, for example, overwhelmingly support background checks (90/10) and closing the show loophole (70/30).

The votes are there. The Republicans risk losing them due to the kidnapping of the party by the nutbars. So let's go out and get them, and build a serious coalition. Enough of this 52/48 stuff where we win but are then blocked by the GOP on the Hill. Blow them away and have a free hand to actually remake a better nation.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 - People lie the most after a hunt, during a war or before an elect

That's where I think you're wrong. I think there are large swathes of the country where people are afraid "they're coming for our guns and Bibles" because of the cultural narratives that play in those places, and which still actually have large numbers of people who are quite receptive to an economic progressive agenda. Remember, even in the redder states you're talking about 55/45 splits -- swinging 5% off the GOP majority is enough to put those states in play. We saw it happen in NC, and it could also happen in GA, AZ, IN, MO, and MT. For the presidency that diverts GOP assets from making a run at current purples. And that's a lot of potential Senate pickups over time, which in turn allows a Democratic president to make more sweeping changes. You want actual gun control someday? Then get it in little pieces with the full approval of gun owners who, for example, overwhelmingly support background checks (90/10) and closing the show loophole (70/30).

The votes are there. The Republicans risk losing them due to the kidnapping of the party by the nutbars. So let's go out and get them, and build a serious coalition. Enough of this 52/48 stuff where we win but are then blocked by the GOP on the Hill. Blow them away and have a free hand to actually remake a better nation.

5%?? Either party lops 5% off the others totals in a Presidential election there is going to be a major shift. In fact there are only 8 red states from the last election that would come back into play with such a large shift, but 13 blues. 5% is a big shift.

If I were a political adviser (and I didn't commit suicide first) I'd just hire someone to run a Nader campaign. Find, and fund, a candidate who pulls votes away from the other party and run them as an independent. A lot simpler and more probable than trying to draw 5% off the other team's total by claiming to love guns.