Originally Posted by playwrite

Explain to me how Bernie survives SC, NV and Super Tuesday.

Considering that Iowa, as far as Democrats go, is a good indicator of who the nominee will be I would say that bolstered by wins there he will pick up SC and NV but barely and by Super Tuesday will have locked up the nomination. Clinton waffles too much to be trusted by the Democratic base, something that killed her in 2008 as well.

As I said before, a Bernie win in Iowa and New Hampshire will eventually go into all the pundits' talking points of how those two states reflect the eccentricities of Bernie supporters.

75% of the comments from the Commentariat are wrong.

There are some comparisons of HC to Establishment GOP, and granted even Bill Clinton, positions of the 1990s on financial regulations, but there is absolutely nothing in common with the GOP clown show of today. Someone trying to suggest otherwise can only be described as having been in a coma for the last 20 years and steadfastly remaining willfully and blindingly ignorant by ideological choice.

The GOP clown car always gets eliminated in NH and SC. I fully expect the GOP to be going into SC with Trump, Cruz and Rubio. I doubt that Rubio will survive SC though, but he could pick up a VP spot. All three have economic and political positions very similar to the GOP of the 1990s and incidentally the Clintons.

The GOP clown show is pretty damn scary. I recognize that one way to cope with that is to ignore it or try to dismiss it, BUT that doesn't mean the reason why they're so damn scary is going to go away.

I agree. Thankfully we live in a republic with democratic (and that is small d democratic) traditons and the primary will winnow out the clowns, like it always does. Even the most partisan GOPer here (and I won't name names) will admit that they need someone who can at least beat Hillary Clintion (not that doing so would be that hard with their voter suppression and a large portion of the Obama Coalition staying home cause they do not like and do not trust her). Seriously have you seen HRC's unfavorables lately?

Ah, the biggest concern coming out of DPRK detonation is the PRC wasn't aware it was coming and the DPRK doesn't give a shit.

The PRC is aware of everything the DPRK does.

And you know this how? Jong-Un is not a Soviet Politburo made up of a bunch of old men.

I will grant that he is a 32 year old unknown. However, he is surrounded by a Soviet-Like Politburo made up of a bunch of old men. A failure to understand this is a failure to understand the structure of the DPRK's system.

Tempered by Congressional GOP crittters??? What are you smoking???

Yes. In the House the Baggers make up less than 60 seats currently and that is likely to drop. In the Senate the Dems from the minority can still filibuster just about everything. Reid's nuclear option turns out to not be so nuclear.

As to what I'm smoking, I've not smoked anything since 7th February 2013. I do like my special brownies from time to time though.

One can make that argument relative to Bernie and if one wants to vote for him over that issue, I fully understand that. On the other hand, anyone suggesting the ANY Democrat, including HC, is anywhere near the warmongering of today's GOP is either a complete idiot or smokin too much weed. Have you noticed that the one guy, Rand Paul, in the GOP clown car willing to suggest a less NeoCon approach on the world stage is slowly being escorted out of the clown car?

Considering that HRC and other Boomer Democrats have consistently gone with the Neo-Con agenda there is no reason to expect her to not be the same old warmonger. As for Rand Paul, he never really was in the GOP Clown Car to start with. The Pauls are imperfect fits with the GOP in general being Libertarians. They typically only run on GOP tickets due to the fact that the Libertarian Party has distinct disadvantages in states that don't allow fully open elections such as California or Florida.

Both parties have written themselves laws to ensure that they and only they can really run for office.

You sure are putting a lot of faith in a 50-year old doctrine. You might want to go outside and talk to people; a lot has changed. Did you know that the Berlin Wall has been taken down? Are you aware that we now have people willing to blow themselves up, even take down big skyscrapers by flying planes into them? Did you know that the guy who came into the WH in 2000 based on no more nation-building, did in fact invade two countries and we're still trying to not only prop up those countries but just about every country that borders those two countries?

I'm aware of all of these things. What you seem to have not noticed is that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US has never tangled in a shooting war with a nuclear power. That 50 year old doctrine is holding because no one wants to be dictator over a grave yard. It is kind of besides the point after that.

It's nice to keep the faith in a daydream, but sometimes you need to wake yourself up and take a look around at reality. I realize it is scary, but just trying to ignore it and hope it all goes away in a few years isn't going to make it so.

It isn't a daydream to understand that the US does not attack powers with nuclear weapons. 70 years of history backs up that thesis.

I'm the one being hyperbolic???

Do you really think your predicted cyclical contraction in 2017 is going to be anything near what happen in 2008??? That was a 4T near depression with a financial sector meltdown sprinkled on top - a once-in-a-lifetime event. Even so, the GOP took the Congress just two years later and some half-ass GOP candidate gave Obama at least a run for his money. Now just two terms later, you and others are suggesting the GOP could put somebody back in the WH. Party killing? Really???

"It's the economy" has power in a particularly election...maybe. But a Party killer??? Again, what are you smokin?

History indicates that when the ideological line of one of the Parties is discreditied in the manner of a major depression of which their playbook offers no solution they will remain discredited for a generation, maybe even two. Eisenhower may have been a Republican but he was still a New Dealer after all.

So the question should be, what are you smoking? Since the business cycle will kick in and you seem to want there to be Clintonvilles instead of Hoovervilles or Trumpvilles or Cruzvilles.

Kim has a lot of problems but pushing a button is not one of them.

Moreover, a lot of people with "problems" become suicidal and those that buy into their being a god often have a difficult time when reality creeps in.

There is no evidence of Kim Jong-Un being suicidal, (homicidal is debatable) that being said even he has to understand that even if all 10 (or so) of their nukes hit the US west coast or Japan, a rain of ruin the like of which has never been seen before will be striking Pongyang in about 24 hours after that.

Jong's state-of-mind is just one of thousands of scenarios of things that could go wrong on the geopolitical stage that would have a profound impact on all of our lives.

Only if one is also scared of the boogeyman. Seriously Playdude, you are starting to sound almost as paranoid as PBR and that is saying something.

I'd rather have an adult in the WH that understands that - four years of a GOP clown at the helm can be disastrous - we've certainly seen that. Hey, were you aware that Saddam actually didn't have any WMDs and that he had nothing to do with 9/11? Hey, did you know that there was essentially no regulation of the finance sector in the 00-00s and that caused a bit of a problem for some homeowners and oh, by the way, the entire F-in global economy?

I agree on having an adult in the White House. That essentially precludes ALL boomers--that generation never grew up--as such I'll be supporting Sanders in the Primary. That being said, should we have to have a clown, let us go with the biggest one, get it done and over with and get that party totally discredited for a generation maybe two.

And yes I know that Saddam was a weapon of mass distraction (c) (TM) (etc). That a total lack of financial regulations (a Clinton policy btw) brought chaos to the financial sector and crashed the economy and all that shit.

You're not talking to JPT here.

Just checking.

Maybe you should be checking in with those who actually think that the US can have a sovereign debt crisis. Our differences rest on unimportant matters, namely that you're a partisan Democrat and I couldn't give a shit less as long as we don't have Clinton because I know whatever she does I will not like. Seriously even my Boomer mother hates that woman's guts--there has to be a reason besides being a non-white, non-liberal, Democrat. I'm thinking it may have something to do with being on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and I mean actual progressives and not the Neo-Progressive SJW types. Those are the Democratic Version of the GOP Clown Car.

Originally Posted by playwrite

First we had Baghdad Bob, now we have Korean Kinser???

Kinser, this is the kind of back-room bureaucrat mealy-mouth horseshit that dooms any attempts at a Marx-based system.


I invite people to first turn-on "complete search phrase" and then Google "Jong kills his"...

The fact of the matter is that Korean Politics, like Chinese Politics, like Soviet Politics, like Cuban Politics rests on two forces. One is either asscending, or one is being purged. Kim Jong-Un purged his uncle. Not really news. Purges happen every day in the DPRK, PRC and many other countries.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You cannot apply conventional wisdom here. This kind of thinking was why people thought Trump would have faded by now, like Carson has. He hasn't, so historical analogies like you are using have already been shown to not apply to Trump.

Actually when one goes over the history of GOP primaries since 1976 and examines the rise and fall of candidates one sees that those who fade away before Iowa don't win Iowa at all. The also don't become the nominee and usually drop out after NH. I fully expect that with Iowa Cruz will win, followed by Trump in second, and Rubio a distant third.

What does apply to Trump is winning. It is very clear that Trump has always responded to weakness in his polls with a vigorous effect to get his numbers back up. He knows that what creates his Teflon suit is the fact that he wins. So he has to win. Iowa is important to Trump (and Trump only) because he cannot come out looking like he is 0 for 1.

Trump winning the Iowa Caucus will result in the same scenario for him that Playdude claims will happen to Sanders on the Democratic side. If you think that the Commentariat has not detected long ago that Iowa is the most tea-bagging, most xenophobic, most fundamentalist Christian state in the Union you'd be sorely mistaken. These people know their craft well.

Trump may want to win Iowa, and if he does, and he goes on to break the pattern then it sets him up to suck up the rest of the political oxygen out of the GOP room, much like W did before Iowa, which is why he was the only other candidate to win Iowa and be the nominee. Bob Dole obviously had a Favorite Son effect being from Kansas or Nebraska or one of those square states that border Iowa.

Now if his loss is close and in line with the polling, or say better than the polling, this cold be seen by his supporters as a tie, and so they so he will be 0-0-1, that not quite a losing record. And if he wins big in NH and so leads in cumulative delgates then he will have the best record in the field and still be seen as a winner. But if he outright losses in Iowa, then it will turn out that Trump as lied to all his supporters, by promising them he was a winner, and his support in NH will weaken, and he will underperform there too, like a loser does.

I'm unsure of the latest polls that Playdude just posted, not having time to have seen them so my information may be out of date a few days, but it appears that Trump should lose to Cruz within the margin of error. It very well could end up that after a recount, that he will tie Cruz like Romney did Santorum in 2012. (I hate Santorum's name, my auto-correct always tries to make it 'sanitarium'.)

Trump promises only one thing, he will win. How can he win for America if he cannot even win a stupid caucus? As for all the other candidates what you say about Iowa is perfectly valid.

Trump promises many things. Sure the essence of his message is he'll win, and against HRC who couldn't win? She has the worst unfavorables of all the candidates including ones that are just plain crazy like say Huckabee (who is only running to increase speaking fees and book sales).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well that is a pure faith-based statement. You can believe it with all your heart, that won't make them do as you bid them to.

Perhaps, but GOP Xers are pretty predictable. The answer to the question of spending money from a GOP Prez is "no". The answer to the question of spending money from a Democratic Prez is "Hell No". and the answer to the same question from HRC would be "Hell no and fuck you for even suggesting it."

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That said, I do not necessarily disagree with you about the likely outcome of a Democratic victory this November (a Republican landslide in 2020). I simply am not sanguine about a Republican victory in 2016, which I think would be just as bad as a Republican landslide in 2020.

Where we differ (and why I prefer a Democratic victory this year) is that the Democrat will be president and will have to opportunity to try to change the political dynamic that will otherwise lead to Republican victory in the 4T no matter who wins in 2016.

Oh I understand your point. I think where we differ is on how effective we think a Democrat will be at changing the political dynamic. Sanders has been in the Senate Long Enough to know where the levers of power are, he also understands that to change the dynamic he has to propose policy X and then force the GOP to yell NO then go on tv and say "I wanted to do X to help Y people but the GOP said "Go fuck yourself"...." <insert crochety Grandpa mode>

HRC can't pull that off because the difference between her and the GOP is the D after her name and everyone who isn't a Democratic Partisan (like some people here are) understands that.

If Hillary is the nominee our last best hope for a 1T not dominated by the GOP and all the craziness that entails is for her to lose to somebody, anybody but preferably Trump.

It comes down to Hoover and the gold standard. If you play it safe and stay conventional, like Hoover and Obama did--your party will lose. You have to go bold like FDR did after winning in 1940. He did not have a liberal-controlled Congress then, but was nevertheless able to but a big dent in economic inequality.

But if Clinton plays small ball, like Obama did, then she will go home in 2020.

This assumes that Clinton can even win in 2016 which I would argue she can't. Her unfavorables are too high and opposed to a bombast like Trump or a slick Politician like Cruz she has little chance. Should probably win against Jeb Bush or Rubio but I don't see Rubio as having a future in the executive except as maybe a VP.

Sanders though can beat even Trump because he would both excite the Democratic base and is favorable with many who typically break democratic but hate HRC, furthermore he would go bold. He knows his time would be limited and would have to cram as much into his one term (if he wins a second term he's likely to die in the middle of it) as humanly possible.

It is my contention that Sanders and only Sanders can change the conversation and that if there is a Grey Champion at all it will be him (though of course we won't know that until after the fact).

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The fact of the matter is that Korean Politics, like Chinese Politics, like Soviet Politics, like Cuban Politics rests on two forces. One is either asscending, or one is being purged. Kim Jong-Un purged his uncle. Not really news. Purges happen every day in the DPRK, PRC and many other countries.

On the one hand claiming Jong is not really in charge and on the other hand explaining his purges as a given is cognitive dissonance.

Originally Posted by playwrite

On the one hand claiming Jong is not really in charge and on the other hand explaining his purges as a given is cognitive dissonance.

Not really. It is single-party state politics operating as they always do.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Considering that Iowa, as far as Democrats go, is a good indicator of who the nominee will be I would say that bolstered by wins there he will pick up SC and NV but barely and by Super Tuesday will have locked up the nomination. Clinton waffles too much to be trusted by the Democratic base, something that killed her in 2008 as well.



75% of the comments from the Commentariat are wrong.



The GOP clown car always gets eliminated in NH and SC. I fully expect the GOP to be going into SC with Trump, Cruz and Rubio. I doubt that Rubio will survive SC though, but he could pick up a VP spot. All three have economic and political positions very similar to the GOP of the 1990s and incidentally the Clintons.



I agree. Thankfully we live in a republic with democratic (and that is small d democratic) traditons and the primary will winnow out the clowns, like it always does. Even the most partisan GOPer here (and I won't name names) will admit that they need someone who can at least beat Hillary Clintion (not that doing so would be that hard with their voter suppression and a large portion of the Obama Coalition staying home cause they do not like and do not trust her). Seriously have you seen HRC's unfavorables lately?



The PRC is aware of everything the DPRK does.



I will grant that he is a 32 year old unknown. However, he is surrounded by a Soviet-Like Politburo made up of a bunch of old men. A failure to understand this is a failure to understand the structure of the DPRK's system.



Yes. In the House the Baggers make up less than 60 seats currently and that is likely to drop. In the Senate the Dems from the minority can still filibuster just about everything. Reid's nuclear option turns out to not be so nuclear.

As to what I'm smoking, I've not smoked anything since 7th February 2013. I do like my special brownies from time to time though.



Considering that HRC and other Boomer Democrats have consistently gone with the Neo-Con agenda there is no reason to expect her to not be the same old warmonger. As for Rand Paul, he never really was in the GOP Clown Car to start with. The Pauls are imperfect fits with the GOP in general being Libertarians. They typically only run on GOP tickets due to the fact that the Libertarian Party has distinct disadvantages in states that don't allow fully open elections such as California or Florida.

Both parties have written themselves laws to ensure that they and only they can really run for office.



I'm aware of all of these things. What you seem to have not noticed is that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US has never tangled in a shooting war with a nuclear power. That 50 year old doctrine is holding because no one wants to be dictator over a grave yard. It is kind of besides the point after that.



It isn't a daydream to understand that the US does not attack powers with nuclear weapons. 70 years of history backs up that thesis.



History indicates that when the ideological line of one of the Parties is discreditied in the manner of a major depression of which their playbook offers no solution they will remain discredited for a generation, maybe even two. Eisenhower may have been a Republican but he was still a New Dealer after all.

So the question should be, what are you smoking? Since the business cycle will kick in and you seem to want there to be Clintonvilles instead of Hoovervilles or Trumpvilles or Cruzvilles.



There is no evidence of Kim Jong-Un being suicidal, (homicidal is debatable) that being said even he has to understand that even if all 10 (or so) of their nukes hit the US west coast or Japan, a rain of ruin the like of which has never been seen before will be striking Pongyang in about 24 hours after that.



Only if one is also scared of the boogeyman. Seriously Playdude, you are starting to sound almost as paranoid as PBR and that is saying something.



I agree on having an adult in the White House. That essentially precludes ALL boomers--that generation never grew up--as such I'll be supporting Sanders in the Primary. That being said, should we have to have a clown, let us go with the biggest one, get it done and over with and get that party totally discredited for a generation maybe two.

And yes I know that Saddam was a weapon of mass distraction (c) (TM) (etc). That a total lack of financial regulations (a Clinton policy btw) brought chaos to the financial sector and crashed the economy and all that shit.

You're not talking to JPT here.



Maybe you should be checking in with those who actually think that the US can have a sovereign debt crisis. Our differences rest on unimportant matters, namely that you're a partisan Democrat and I couldn't give a shit less as long as we don't have Clinton because I know whatever she does I will not like. Seriously even my Boomer mother hates that woman's guts--there has to be a reason besides being a non-white, non-liberal, Democrat. I'm thinking it may have something to do with being on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and I mean actual progressives and not the Neo-Progressive SJW types. Those are the Democratic Version of the GOP Clown Car.

We'll just have to wait for the election to see, and we'll just have to hope your right about Jong's humanity.

As for giving you a rational reason for your Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I can't.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Not really. It is single-party state politics operating as they always do.

And that placates you???

I guess the operations of Stalin et al in the '30 and '40 were just necessary inconveniences to get to today's generally improved conditions.

Sorry, I'll pass.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Originally Posted by playwrite

On the one hand claiming Jong is not really in charge and on the other hand explaining his purges as a given is cognitive dissonance.

Not really. It is single-party state politics operating as they always do.

If I was making PWs case, at this point, I would just QED and be done with it. If you remove, "Not really", the rest reads as: I agree in full.

Originally Posted by playwrite

We'll just have to wait for the election to see, and we'll just have to hope your right about Jong's humanity.

Considering that Kim's surname is Kim and not Jong, and his given name is correctly Jong-un (yes both syllables are important it is like calling someone named James, Ja) I feel confident to not have to worry about the fears of those too ignorant to understand how single party states work.

As for giving you a rational reason for your Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I can't.

Because there is no rational explanation for your Clinton Fanboyism. My so-called Clinton Derangement Syndrome has its roots in the fact that I do not like and do not trust Hillary Clinton, never have liked her, never have trusted her, and I highly doubt that I ever will like or trust her. Now if Chelsea ran I'd vote for her in a heart beat.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And that placates you???

I guess the operations of Stalin et al in the '30 and '40 were just necessary inconveniences to get to today's generally improved conditions.

Sorry, I'll pass.

Yes.

Adding pointless characters due to spam filter.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If I was making PWs case, at this point, I would just QED and be done with it. If you remove, "Not really", the rest reads as: I agree in full.

The not really applies to there being cognitive dissonance on my part. There isn't any. The ascendancy vs purge dynamic is present in all single-party states be they Communist, Fascist or something else (like Mexico was until recently). It should be noted that being purged does not and never has necessitated a 9g lead supplement. A full three quarters of Soviet purges merely involved expelling persons from the Party and that was it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

On the one hand claiming Jong is not really in charge and on the other hand explaining his purges as a given is cognitive dissonance.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The not really applies to there being cognitive dissonance on my part. There isn't any. The ascendancy vs purge dynamic is present in all single-party states be they Communist, Fascist or something else (like Mexico was until recently). It should be noted that being purged does not and never has necessitated a 9g lead supplement. A full three quarters of Soviet purges merely involved expelling persons from the Party and that was it.

Since there is no evidence that this is the case in the DPRK, the point is meaningless. The Kim dynasty is just that: a dynasty ... and not one given to kindness or half measures. The only point that needs to be affirmed: is Kim #3 so inward focused that he fails to see existential risk to the nation as different from risk to him personally. If not, then he'll throw the entire place under the bus to avoid personal risk.

Nate Silver has posted his model results, so I can illustrate my view. He has Trump with a 29% change of winning Iowa and a 40% change in NH. Now I assume there will be somewhat of a bandwage effect and that if Trump wins in Iowa he boosts his chances in NH to 50% and if he loses he lowers his chance to win in NH to 30% (he would still be the most likely to win).

I will assume assume that if Trump wins BOTH Iowa and NH this puts him in a excellent chance to win SC and win the majority of the Super Tuesday contests, making him nearly unstoppable to gain the nomination. Conversely, if he loses both Iowa and NH, he will set likely do poorly in SC and largely be taken out on Super Tuesday.

With these assumptions Trump has a 15% chance of winning both and gaining a very strong shot at the nomination. Conversely he has a 53% chance of losing both and fading out.

If neither of these things happen (a 32% probability) then I think whether Trump has the edge coming out of NH will depend on who leads in the delegate total.

Having said this I would like Trump to win both. If we have to have a GOP prez, let it be him, he has two redeeming features: (1) He is not Cruz; (2) he is not a real Republican.

I really don't like Cruz; he comes across to me as evil--perhaps it's because he is the same age Damien from the Omen would be. The others are just useless assholes.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I think where we differ is on how effective we think a Democrat will be at changing the political dynamic.

No. Our difference is in the likelihood of Republicans being discredited if they really fuck up. You see the parties as symmetrical. If one of them fucks up they get thrown out and the other party gets put in.

You have somehow failed to notice that when Republicans fuck up (Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush I, Bush II) the Democrat who comes next is expected to clean up their shit and and then gets tossed out. If the Dem gets uppity, overseers are put in (e.g. 1994, 2010) or Dems get tossed out early (1980). Then the Republicans come in and get to enact their agenda, ramp up the deficit, start wars etc. all over again--and get away with it. This carte blanche has emboldened them. Today they now openly talk of things that they used to ban from Republican speech as being too far on the Right.

Democrats have been cowed by the double standard. Today a Democrat has to call himself of socialist to say things that were perfectly ordinary for a Northern Democrat when I was young.

Democrats are always hoping for someone to save them. Today its demographics. If the GOP wins this will let the Democrats continue to maintain their belief in this fantasy and the left will slowly just dissolve away like the Federalists/Whigs. If the Dems win and then the economy goes south as you and I believe it will, then they are cornered. Their party will face annihilation--they won't have the luxury of feeding on its dying carcass for the rest of their careers. Thus it will be fight or die. I am betting the the Clintons are not going out without a fight.

Playwrite, your poo-pooing Sanders sounds just like how all the usual idiot punditocracy poo-poo'd Obama 8 years ago.

And as for Kinser's North Korea apologism, LOL!

Originally Posted by Odin

Playwrite, your poo-pooing Sanders sounds just like how all the usual idiot punditocracy poo-poo'd Obama 8 years ago.

No it isn't. I jumped ship from Edwards to Obama at the beginning of December in 2007. I saw Edwards as unviable and Obama as quite viable.

Although I plan to vote for Bernie, like I did with Jackson, I see Bernie's chances of being nominated today as about equal to how I saw Jackson's chances then.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know 'bout that. I think a lot of us would like to see it though, and both on the right and the left. He's not going to be dealing with an economic collapse (you know my prediction about that). So he may have more trouble getting his way than if he had been elected in 2008. What a different world we might be in today if he had been, though.

Actually he did quite a bit in his first 100 days, but it took a couple of years for a mild recovery to get going. Things actually got worse after his 1936 landslide win. He got spoiled and backed off.



It's questionable. Possibly he could, but my prognosis is that either Bernie or Hillary would only do one term. The Democrats would win in 2020 anyway, it appears, but major shifts happen in zero years. So, if the new moon before election indicator says correctly that party in power wins BOTH in 2016 and 2020, that's about the only way some kind of shift could happen.

If the Democrats can win power in both 2016 AND 2020, especially if Sanders (or G-d forbid Hillary) stands aside for a younger candidate because of age (probably the VP) we are looking at a mandate the likes of which we have not seen since the 30s and 40s. Which is not unusual for a 4T.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Cruz took the bait, and Trump killed him.

Cruz will lose Iowa to Trump with the result that Trump will take NH in a landslide. Pretty much the same outcome in every GOP primary from there.

Mike's hypothesis that once shown as a "loser" in Iowa, the snowball would roll with Trump losing in NH and then SC - game over.

BUT, what about the opposite of Trump taking Iowa away from Cruz? Same process, different outcome - game over, but it's Trump.

Cruz thought he could counter Trump's going all-birther on him by saying Trump reflects NYC values and that's not 'real America.'

I love it when one of the Right's false memes comes back to bite them hard. Yep, that NYC meme, part of the bicoastal not real Americans meme, use to work well for them.

But then there was this thingee called "9/11"

Trump's response to Cruz makes everyone feel they are of NYC. It was brilliant.

Cruz is done. And you should know what that now means.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dona.../13/id/709379/



Trump is brilliant at the brand game - he is after all a New Yorker. New York is the "Empire State" - most of the state is about as sophisticated as any other rural backwater in the US... figure it out, folks.

Trump didn't bait Cruz. Trump found a legitimate issue.
The fact of the matter is that the definition of "natural born citizen" has NOT been tested in the courts. It came up in 2008 and resulted in basically a truce between the two parties because John McCain was as or more vulnerable to charges of not being a natural born citizen than Obama was. Basically, a Resolution of Congress said that he was, even though the law that defined a child born on an overseas military reservation as a natural born citizen was not passed until after John McCain was born (and McCain's father, an Admiral, pushed for it), which means it could have been ex post facto unconstitutional.
And Ted Cruz is seen as sufficiently obnoxious by enough of the Republican Establishment that the issue COULD come up in the Convention if he won a majority of delegates and he COULD concievably be disqualified, and without Trump and without Cruz, what's left are the kind of Establishment candidates the Trump-Cruz wing of the Party definitely dosen't want.
Not to mention the realistic possibility of a Democratic court challenge during the campaign for the general election.
After years of working the Birther issue with regards to Obama, Trump knows the issue well and knows just what sympathetic note to take on this issue. A great many Republican voters have been primed to see the Birther issue as a real issue because of the controversy over Obama. And know politically what ass-u-me means. They are not willing to take a chance on Cruz's natural born citizenship being denied by the courts. (And the horror of it for Cruz is that he has no legal way of seeking a declaratory judgement that will clarify the matter).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Not quite right. Here are birth rates in millions. The peak was in 1957, but it was only marginally higher than the values in surrounding years. The rate only materially started to drop in 1965, which is why the baby Boom is dated to 1964.

1954	4.1	1959	4.3	1964	4.0	1969	3.6
1955	4.1	1960	4.3	1965	3.8	1970	3.7
1956	4.2	1961	4.3	1966	3.6	1971	3.6
1957	4.3	1962	4.2	1967	3.5	1972	3.3
1958	4.3	1963	4.1	1968	3.5

Judging from this, the moral panic over overpopulation in the early 70s might have had an impact on the birthrate.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

As the last 8 years have shown us, there's a big difference between a trifecta and an effective trifecta. Obama entered office with a trifecta but was stymied by Senate filibusters and was only able to pass Obamacare with reconciliation. Bush Jr. was stymied by Democratic Senate filibusters over issues such as Supreme Court nominees (Gonzales and Harriet Myers, who would have been disasters, were blocked), and on opening Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Though Bush DID have enough support of bought or blue dog Democrats to pass a devastating tightening of bankruptcy laws.

Even with a Trifecta, Trump cannot do everything he wants. The chance of a 60+ Republican majority in the Senate are remote and the chance of the 66+ majority in the Senate and a 2/3 majority in the House to pass a constitutional amendment and send it to the States is even more remote. Much of what Trump wants done on immigration such as an end to birthright citizenship. will require a constitutional amendment. But a Trump trifecta (or a Sanders win) will kill TPP and TIPP and possibly lead to abrogating NAFTA since a President CAN abrogate or enter reservations into an international treaty. And that could be a good thing.
It's not saying much, but at worst, a Trump Administration would probably be no worse than the Bush 2 Administration.

I would expect the Republicans to make practically any filibuster impossible so that its pet legislation (tax cuts for the rich, a nationwide Right to Work (but for much less) law, tort 'reform' that makes lawsuits against a big business all but impossible, gutting of regulations of the environment and workplace safety, can get on the fast track. I predict that further entrenchment of power (as in allowing states to put property qualifications on voting) will follow.

You are right. I don't trust the b@stards.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Since there is no evidence that this is the case in the DPRK, the point is meaningless. The Kim dynasty is just that: a dynasty ... and not one given to kindness or half measures. The only point that needs to be affirmed: is Kim #3 so inward focused that he fails to see existential risk to the nation as different from risk to him personally. If not, then he'll throw the entire place under the bus to avoid personal risk.

Let us assume what you say is true. Then would it not be incredibly personally risky to start a nuclear war with the only state known to man to have nuclear weapons and to have used them...that is to say the US?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No. Our difference is in the likelihood of Republicans being discredited if they really fuck up. You see the parties as symmetrical. If one of them fucks up they get thrown out and the other party gets put in.

You have somehow failed to notice that when Republicans fuck up (Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush I, Bush II) the Democrat who comes next is expected to clean up their shit and and then gets tossed out. If the Dem gets uppity, overseers are put in (e.g. 1994, 2010) or Dems get tossed out early (1980). Then the Republicans come in and get to enact their agenda, ramp up the deficit, start wars etc. all over again--and get away with it. This carte blanche has emboldened them. Today they now openly talk of things that they used to ban from Republican speech as being too far on the Right.

Democrats have been cowed by the double standard. Today a Democrat has to call himself of socialist to say things that were perfectly ordinary for a Northern Democrat when I was young.

Democrats are always hoping for someone to save them. Today its demographics. If the GOP wins this will let the Democrats continue to maintain their belief in this fantasy and the left will slowly just dissolve away like the Federalists/Whigs. If the Dems win and then the economy goes south as you and I believe it will, then they are cornered. Their party will face annihilation--they won't have the luxury of feeding on its dying carcass for the rest of their careers. Thus it will be fight or die. I am betting the the Clintons are not going out without a fight.

I fail to see how they are not symmetrical. Generally speaking after 8 years of a Democrat, it is the Republicans who are claiming to be the clean up crew. When the democrats start moving too far to the left for the capitalist powers that be (that would be those who buy and pay for these periodic elections) GOP legislators are put in to put the breaks on whatever it is that those "evil liberals" are doing.

As for the Clintons...Bill joined the GOP in most of what they wanted. I strongly doubt Hillary would put up much of a fight. Sanders on the other hand knows his time is limited, he'd have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If the Democrats can win power in both 2016 AND 2020, especially if Sanders (or G-d forbid Hillary) stands aside for a younger candidate because of age (probably the VP) we are looking at a mandate the likes of which we have not seen since the 30s and 40s. Which is not unusual for a 4T.

Yes indeed, although again I question your "God forbid Hillary." Hillary is good; much better than any GOPPER, and not as good as Bernie on the whole. Hillary can adapt to a more progressive electorate on things like TPP.

If the Democrats can win in 2024, then I see them in power indefinitely-- barring a change in our constitution or a collapse of the two party duopoly.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No it isn't. I jumped ship from Edwards to Obama at the beginning of December in 2007. I saw Edwards as unviable and Obama as quite viable.

Although I plan to vote for Bernie, like I did with Jackson, I see Bernie's chances of being nominated today as about equal to how I saw Jackson's chances then.

You may be surprised. He's got the momentum now.

Go Bernie go! Hillary may get schlonged yet again.
Trump vs Sanders would be an epic 4T election. Popcorn time!