The frontrunner for the GOP nomination is a year older than Hilary Clinton. Why don't people ever discuss the Donald's health?Originally Posted by pbrower2a
If Trump is nominated, that should neutralize any discussion about Clinton's age.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
I'm beginning to Feel the Bern. Coming from someone like me, that is saying a lot.
I'm clearly within the range of The Silent Minority (we're no longer a majority but are still a substantial and powerful minority).
I know for a fact there are many others among The Silent Minority who will have nothing to do with the GOP if Trump is the nominee. We refuse to vote for a clown whose only reason for being famous is what he did with seed money given to him by The Bank of Mom and Dad. What a schmuck.
Meanwhile, the US seems to finally be reaching a point where normal people can actually contemplate voting for a Nordic-style Socialist. I can't believe I just wrote that. The me of 15 years ago would say I went crazy. But I didn't, not at all.
Regarding the matter of Bloomberg, he is not a likeable man. His attitudes about guns mean that almost no GOPers will vote for him. Those same GOPers who would never vote for Bloomberg are then further divided into pro and anti Trumpers. Trust me on this - you will see something surreal - a significant fraction of GOPers voting for the Democratic candidate, whomever it is. Anyone but Trump.
We are in uncharted waters.
Bloomberg's threat to enter the race has nothing to do with Trump; it has everything to do with Sanders. Bloomberg's thinking is any 'moderate' GOPer will beat Sanders but Trump/Cruz will not. He'll enter to take away moderate Dems away to give the GOP the win even if it be Trump/Cruz.
Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Bloomberg are all NYC critters - trust me on this.
Last edited by playwrite; 01-29-2016 at 01:58 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
Be that as it may, Bloomberg is not likeable. Even to many on The Left.
Likeable is just one element. It's about the numbers particularly in a three-way race. Ask ' 00 Gore or '92 GHW Bush.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
Bloomberg has a version of the Kinser approach - Trump/Cruz will be so bad (e.g., civil war, WW3) that the electorate will beg him to run again in 2020 if not earlier should Trump/Cruz get impeached (assuming their VP Palin goes down with them).
With his billions, Bloomberg could wait it out on several island paradises until the time is ripe and return with a mercenary force to bring DC out of chaos. Unfortunately for Kinser and most of us on this forum, we would likely be one of the first casualties in his hoped-for violence.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
The Rising Pull of the 'Change' Candidates
By Eugene Robinson
January 29, 2016
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_129478.html
WASHINGTON -- Whoever wins Monday in Iowa, and whoever eventually wins the presidential nominations, one thing is already clear: Traditional politics and politicians have failed.
That glaring fact is still difficult for the establishments of both parties to grasp. I mean, surely Republicans will realize they cannot possibly nominate a populist tycoon, with zero experience in government, who vows to round up and expel 11 million people. Of course it will dawn on Democrats that it is inconceivable to have a self-declared socialist as their standard-bearer. Inevitably the planets will return to their normal orbits and everything will go back to the way it should be.
Anyone thinking along these lines, I believe, is in for an unpleasant surprise.
I know that not a single vote has been cast. I realize it's still probable that Democrats will eventually settle on an establishment candidate and still possible (though pretty unlikely) that Republicans will do the same. But even if the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders insurrections somehow fizzle, their impact will not soon fade. These unlikely messengers are showing us how ignorant many of our leaders are about the nation they purportedly serve.
As individuals, Sanders and Trump are hardly cut from the same cloth; one rails against billionaires and one is a billionaire. Their supporters would probably not mix well at a cocktail party. But there's a reason these are the only two candidates who regularly fill basketball arenas with passionate, standing-room-only crowds: Both call for change that is fundamental, not cosmetic or incremental.
And there are specifics on which Trump and Sanders agree. Both stridently denounce free-trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying they depress U.S. wages and send jobs to other countries. Establishment Democrats and Republicans, by contrast, have rarely seen a free-trade pact they didn't like. Apparently, all the assurances from eminent economists that free trade is a plus for the economy offer little comfort to voters who commute past empty acres where factories once stood.
Sanders supports truly universal single-payer health care, which he describes with the shorthand "Medicare for all." Trump wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act -- a position every Republican candidate is required to take -- but also has been a consistent supporter of universal care, though he does not specify how he would bring it about. It turns out that many voters dislike "big government" but need and demand the services it provides. Ideological purity does not cure disease, and everybody eventually gets sick.
Trump and Sanders are both skeptical of the establishment consensus about America's role as the world's policeman. Sanders would use military force only as a last resort; Trump would let Vladimir Putin take charge of cleaning up the Syria mess if he wants to. Politicians in Washington have given us a series of long, messy wars -- fought almost exclusively by the sons and daughters of the working class -- that don't end in victory parades and somehow create as many threats as they eliminate.
Perhaps most significant of all, Trump and Sanders both portray traditional politicians as bought and paid for by powerful monied interests. Sanders rails against big banks, powerful corporations and wealthy plutocrats who bend the system to their will. Trump speaks from personal experience, blithely telling audiences how he regularly wrote big checks to politicians in both parties to buy access and influence.
The system is rigged, these insurgents say. Your elected leaders are working for themselves and their puppet-masters. They couldn't care less about you.
Sanders' solution is a grass-roots "political revolution." Trump, to the extent he offers concrete proposals, seems to promise the muscular use of presidential power. But both have touched a raw nerve, and our political parties had better pay attention.
As the caucuses and primaries begin, the RealClearPolitics poll averages show that 36 percent of Republicans favor Trump and an additional 10 percent support other candidates who have never held elective office. On the Democratic side, 37 percent of Democrats say they favor Sanders. These numbers should be nothing short of alarming to the party establishments.
They show that there are huge numbers of Americans out there whose voices are not being heard -- voters who are tired of half-measures and unkept promises. Whatever happens between now and November, this alienation will not magically disappear. Political parties that lose touch with their constituents end up going the way of the Whigs.
(c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group
Hey, I learned from the best as a kiddie., I was of course, like there man.
Soda pop is child's play compared to ....But myself, I'd rather throw the butts in the face of the tobacco company CEOs, or at least any Republican politician that I happen to meet.
Taking care of one's health, I say, is at least as important a responsibility as any financial obligations. And it helps to make you less of a burden on society if you do.
this.
*The circle is now complete. Jefferson Airplane tossed acid out to their audiences and now there's a band named after self same drug singing about environmental lead.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
The more people like Clinton try to play the "realism" card the more angry people will get, because the reality of the Beltway is not the same as the reality of Main Street America. This is why I think Obama going on how well the economy is doing SOTU Address was completely tone-deaf. Most people think we are still in recession even though the economy has been growing for over 6 years because the growth is not reaching them. Trying to be "reasonable" and trying to correct them will just make them more angry and enraged at the establishment.
During a 4T the "Great Fear" rules and reason goes out the window. You can either channel that fear, for good or for ill, or be made irrelevant.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
True. I have more questions about the mental health of Donald Trump than of his physical health. I see him becoming more belligerent, a very bad sign with the elderly because it often indicates dementia. But I have been thinking of Rubio and Cruz as fall-backs should Donald Trump have a bum ticker. A President dying in office is not as dangerous as a President going senile. Reagan at least had the sober, cautious George Herbert Walker Bush as VP; I can only imagine whom Donald Trump would offer as a sap to other factions in the GOP.
The dangerous Red button goes with the President, and that is a good reason to vote for both a President and a Vice-President averse to using it.
I don't know what to make of an article from so unreliable source as the National Enquirer, but one story had Hillary Clinton living on borrowed time. (OK, so if she should be nominated elect her, but make sure to have someone as a fully-qualified VP to take over).
In actuarial terms, any age for a man is 'older' than for a woman except for reproduction. (Not that it matters much, Donald Trump could still have a child by some trophy wife).
Last edited by pbrower2a; 01-30-2016 at 03:45 AM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Can a party be a state?
Don't particularly care for the title, but the content is right on.
John is too young to be playwrite, but maybe this is along his lines:
Hillary Clinton is the change America needs
John Stoehr
January 29, 2016
http://theweek.com/articles/600613/h...-america-needs
Over the coming weeks and months, Democrats in caucuses and primaries around the country will choose between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to be the party's nominee. Some are now casting the decision as one between "continuity" and "change," with Clinton representing a continuation of President Obama's agenda and Sanders representing a shift toward the transformational change that escaped Obama.
This binary is completely false.
Ours is a historical era in which continuity and change are one and the same. Obama ended the wars of the George W. Bush administration, normalized relations with Cuba, and prevented the ascent of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. In the last week alone, his administration declined to renew licenses to coal mining operations on federal lands, declared a ban solitary confinement of minors in federal penitentiaries, and ordered police departments around the country to give back military surplus equipment being misused by law enforcement. And on Tuesday, news came of the White House preparing to issue an executive order that would require any firm doing business with the federal government — virtually all giant corporations — to disclose its campaign contributions.
We need more of the same. We need the unbroken continuation of Obama's domestic and foreign policies to bring about the laws, rules, and regulations that advance progress. It may not be "transformational," but real change is rarely that sexy. It may not feel all kumbaya, but politics almost never does.
Let's remember the Democrats saved the economy, passed the Affordable Care Act, and reformed Wall Street — with nearly unanimous opposition from Congressional Republicans. Since 2010, we have seen more job growth since no one remembers. More Americans have health insurance. And, while it took a while, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms are now being felt.
That's real change.
Yes, wages are not what they used to be, health care is still run by private insurance companies, and Wall Street still rakes in more money than God. But those are not reasons to break the chain of real progress. Change takes continuity.
Consider Bernie Sanders' call for "Medicare for all."
In the hours before the final Democratic debate, Sanders released a plan for creating a single-payer health care system of the kind found in rich European countries that have managed to keep costs down while ensuring the right of all citizens to access to quality health care. Ever since Obama proposed health care reform that kept intact the role of private health insurance companies, the Democratic Party's left wing has demanded nothing short of "Medicare for all."
That's fine. Most left-liberals would prefer that. But it doesn't represent change so much as wishful thinking.
Hillary Clinton was not, during the debate, just wrapping herself in Obama. She was speaking the truth: Democrats can't go back and restart the fight over universal health care because they have no hope of winning. Now is the time, however, for policy reforms addressing rising costs, insurance exchanges, and private profit. Yes, this is change by a thousand tweaks, but it is still change.
Is there a risk in voting for Clinton? Yes, of course. You don't really know what kind of president you're getting until she's elected. But Hillary Clinton may be the exception. She's long been in the public eye. We know her strengths as well as her weaknesses. Most important, we know she can be forced to listen to progressive demands. That cannot be said of Republicans.
I like Bernie Sanders and would support him in another context, and I don't personally like Hillary Clinton. But my dislike isn't as important as my country transcending the long conservative malaise that began before I was born.
(unquote)
John makes many good points. Although I don't think Sanders has much of a chance of getting single-payer Medicare for all through congress, despite his persuasive skill and some chance of getting young Democrats to the polls to vote for a new congress, I don't think that if he proposed it, that this would require repealing Obamacare. A positive proposal for Medicare for all would not repeal what is in place and leave us with nothing.
Another question is how much or how quickly could Sanders pivot to seeking the improvements to Obamacare that Clinton wants, if his single-payer proposal goes nowhere. And those improvements are very-much needed and may be possible.
There are other ways in which Sanders would improve on Obama/Clinton, of course. Less spying on Americans, for one. Less drone strikes hitting civilians, and less deporting of illegals who would suffer in the process. A president less-beholden to financial interests. Greater certainty about what policies would be pursued by the president on trade and the environment. For the most part though, I think either Sanders or Clinton would move the country forward, and away from that conservative malaise that succeeded another "malaise" some 35 years ago. And I for one "like" both of these candidates. "Everybody should!"
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-30-2016 at 04:31 PM.
What happened to the GOP?
asks a cool, articulate young millennial gal
Talk like a candidate in 2016:
https://youtu.be/UwyB3rsKYeQ
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-30-2016 at 05:28 PM.
As an independent, I am still pulling for Rubio. ( Would prefer Carson, but he has no chance). With the GOP establishment attacking Cruz, it may be time for the GOP to just go away so a viable second party can emerge.
Rubio and Carson are both extremely right-wing. Definitely to the right of Trump, and only marginally not as right-wing as Cruz. So little different that you need a microscope to tell the difference. Of course, who needs a microscope, when you can be lulled by the surgeon's apparently calm manner or charmed by Rubio's good lucks and smooth delivery. Poison is poison, whether delivered by a real estate tycoon, a charming actor, a surgeon or two, Joseph McCarthy reincarnate, or some young sophomoric senator who probably would do well in the school play.
People do. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders has released health data. And both appear to be in excellent health for their ages. Which is not the case with Hillary Clinton, who is on blood thinners http://www.anh-usa.org/hillary-clint...blood-thinner/ to prevent a stroke http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ambitions.html and for whom there are persistent rumours of alcoholism. http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...ibaf&q=&esrc=s .
Hillary's age is one thing. Hillary's health is another.
Why not? The GOP is basically another Whig Party espousing Whig ideas.
Decisions about war and peace are decisions Congress has delegated to the President (in violation of the Constitution, by the way). Decisions about military action are decisions that presidents make unilaterally.
The biggest danger as far as Hillary Clinton (I almost wrote Hillary Clingon--appropriate!) is that she likes war too much. Hillary is far too much the liberal interventionist. I remember Newsweek writing during the Kosovo Crisis that Hillary, along with Al Gore helped persuade President Clinton to intervene against Serbia even though Kosovo was an autonomous region, not a federated state with a legal right to independence. see http://www.creators.com/opinion/stev...ubris.html--an intervention Russia has never forgiven or forgotten and which became the justification for Russian interventions in favour of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence from Georgia and it's takeover of Crimea. Of course Hillary joined the stampede to invade Iraq in 2003 but it WAS a stampede in Congress. On the other hand, Hillary also pushed for the intervention in Libya to destroy Gaddafi, which has turned into a fiasco. War and military action always seem to be a favoured option for Hillary Clinton. If you are looking at predictability, Eric, Hillary's behaviour before is a good predictor of how she will act if she wins.
And in the context of these times, we can no longer afford to act that way. We are fast approaching the point at which Russia and/or China will not back down (both are already standing their ground) but will push back--hard. Whatever the domestic issues, both Trump and Sanders are likely to cut back on this country's treaty commitments and test whether they are in the national interest, not the interest of some greater global order or greater global good. And that is what we need if we are to stay out of the next world war, at least until other powers exhaust themselves (and perhaps stay out completely as the Netherlands did the Thirty Years War and prospered in doing so).
Last edited by MordecaiK; 01-30-2016 at 08:01 PM.
Unfortunately yes.
I thought you might say this, but this is over-estimated. Although in today's era, I have not been opposed to some of the military actions that the Democratic presidents have taken. Kosovo was certainly an appropriate action, and was very successful. Multi-lateral interventions, or else military/financial support, to stop genocides are our responsibility. It's what should have been done in Rwanda. That was also the reason for action in Libya. If there was mission creep there, it was spearheaded by the Europeans. No ground invasion was involved in these actions. And a vote of authorization in congress is not the same as a presidential decision. Her experience as Secretary of State is greater than people realize, and prepares her to favor diplomatic solutions. Her approach to Syria and the IS seems the most balanced and wise of any of the candidates, as I have said. That speaks well for her judgement.The biggest danger as far as Hillary Clinton (I almost wrote Hillary Clingon--appropriate!) is that she likes war too much. Hillary is far too much the liberal interventionist. I remember Newsweek writing during the Kosovo Crisis that Hillary, along with Al Gore helped persuade President Clinton to intervene against Serbia even though Kosovo was an autonomous region, not a federated state with a legal right to independence. see http://www.creators.com/opinion/stev...ubris.html--an intervention Russia has never forgiven or forgotten and which became the justification for Russian interventions in favour of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence from Georgia and it's takeover of Crimea. Of course Hillary joined the stampede to invade Iraq in 2003 but it WAS a stampede in Congress. On the other hand, Hillary also pushed for the intervention in Libya to destroy Gaddafi, which has turned into a fiasco. War and military action always seem to be a favoured option for Hillary Clinton. If you are looking at predictability, Eric, Hillary's behaviour before is a good predictor of how she will act if she wins.
I don't see any indication of cutbacks on treaty commitments. It's not a question of whether Russia and China will push back, but whether THEY push forward, and what to do about it and when. And the greater global order and good is what we need to be concerned about, provided the USA does not exercize its concern alone, and preferably with the rest of the world against an uncalled-for invasion or a genocidal brutality. And not necessarily using military force if other means will work. In that sense of course I agree with using caution about using the military, as a last resort, and I think Hillary will as well.
And in the context of these times, we can no longer afford to act that way. We are fast approaching the point at which Russia and/or China will not back down (both are already standing their ground) but will push back--hard. Whatever the domestic issues, both Trump and Sanders are likely to cut back on this country's treaty commitments and test whether they are in the national interest, not the interest of some greater global order or greater global good. And that is what we need if we are to stay out of the next world war, at least until other powers exhaust themselves (and perhaps stay out completely as the Netherlands did the Thirty Years War and prospered in doing so).
No nation can pursue only its own interest and expect to prosper in these times (this is certainly not the 17th century, and in no way resembles it). Everyone is interconnected in a global civilization now, and nationalism is a relic of the past. People may not always want to recognize this fact, but it is one.
The Democratic Party since McGovern and Carter have been the party of military restraint, and its presidents have done pretty well. Maybe not close to perfect, but much better than the interventionist Republican Party. There are light-years between Hillary Clinton and Rubio, for example.
I am confident that the USA war cycle is working. Did you see my video? The chance of another full-scale war breaking out during the next 8 years involving the USA is fairly remote. A small UN "police action", maybe. If military action is stepped up, it will most-likely happen this Spring under Obama.
Eric, given his tendency to shit on "flyover country", needs to read this:
Here We Go Again, Trash-Talking The Working Class
This struck a chord with me because this woman's background sounds a lot like mine.Bear with me, please, as I start this column with a brief story about my two grandmothers who lived in trailer homes.
They lived in Ashtabula County, which is tucked into the northeast corner of Ohio, an hour east of Cleveland. If ever you’ve travelled a good distance along U.S. 90, you likely passed our county’s handful of exits on your way to somewhere else.
For all of my childhood, this was home, and I was seldom happier than when I had time alone with my maternal great-grandmother, Ada, who raised my mother from the age of 8. In the late ’60s, after her husband died, Ada sold her house and 20 acres to move into a trailer home a couple of miles down the road. It was closer to her church, her second home.
I spent weeks at a time in the summers with her, freed from the responsibilities of the oldest child always on duty. She taught me how to cook, garden and quilt. Every Sunday after church, rain or shine, we walked to the cemetery to tend my great-grandfather’s grave and say a prayer of gratitude for the time we’d had with him. We had our evening rituals, too. She believed a steaming cup of tea at sunset was a great way to settle the mind for the big thoughts that show up only under the night sky.
My maternal grandmother, Vivian, lost custody of my mother when she was 8 and spent the rest of her life trying to make it up to her and taking care of my uncle, who had a mental disability. His name was Francis, and she never spent a day away from him until he died from complications of diabetes in his late 50s.
Grandma Vivian was the first person I knew to buy an aluminum Christmas tree. What a sight for my siblings and me. My mother stood behind us and whispered orders to close our mouths and stop acting like we’d just seen a ghost.
This was the grandma with the trunk full of antique dresses and hats for us to play with whenever we visited. When my mother wasn’t around, Grandma often served me a cup of coffee loaded with milk and sugar — a grown-up reward for “being so responsible.” When her house in Ashtabula County became too run down to be safe, my grandmother closed it up and lived in a trailer on the back lot until Alzheimer’s robbed her of the ability to take care of herself.
I wanted you to know a little bit about my grandmothers so that you might better understand my outrage over a Cleveland Plain Dealer writer’s reaction to Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump for president:
“Thanks to Trump, the entire Palin clan is now back in the spotlight they so crave. Come July, Republican National Convention organizers should house the whole dysfunctional family at a trailer park in Ashtabula.”
This is surely not the first time a pundit has cast the Palins as “trailer park folks” — which is code, of course, for “white trash.” We are hearing these phrases more frequently as pundits try to make sense of Donald Trump’s soaring poll numbers.
In her book “Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America,” sociologist Diana Kendall describes how in 2008 then-“Late Show” host David Letterman “maintained a night-after-night monologue about Sarah Palin and why she is white trash.” He was joined, she writes, by “print media, television and Web blogs … full of descriptions of Sarah Palin’s trailer park lifestyle.”
Much closer to home, since Donald Trump’s charade of a candidacy caught fire, I have heard many fellow liberals freely toss around the terms “white trash” and “trailer trash.” These are people who would never dream of telling a racist joke, but they think nothing of ridiculing those of lesser economic means.
Every group has its “other.” For too many white intellectuals, it’s the working class.
Neither of my grandmothers had much money, ever, but they contributed so much to the lives of the people they loved. They were both storytellers who helped me understand the long-ago sacrifices of people I would never know but who live on in the blue of my eyes and the ambitions of my heart. They are why I’ve devoted a number of columns and stories over the years to people who live in trailer parks.
Just this week, I was remembering Marjie Scuvotti, a 24-year-old mother of four. I interviewed her in 2002, on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. She talked to me in her home in a trailer park as she painted her 6-year-old son Issac’s face red, white and blue for a parade celebrating first responders.
“You’re my American-flag boy,” Marjie whispered in his ear. She couldn’t have been a prouder mother.
This campaign year has barely begun, and it promises to be a long one. Regardless of which partisan lens we look through, we will see some voters who confound us.
Mocking them will never bring us closer to understanding them, but it will surely reveal us, and we will not benefit from the exposure.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
1. "Flyover country" includes Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois, states that the Democratic nominee will absolutely need to win... and Ohio, the state that has voted for the Presidential winner in every election beginning in 1964...
2. This liberal quit using the words "trailer trash" as he canvassed voters for Barack Obama in trailer parks. There are some people living in trailer parks that you have every cause to dislike... but I saw plenty of non-white people struggling to survive. I saw retirees who had given up on more spacious housing and young people starting out. Should I end up in a trailer such will not make me stupider or culturally-cruder. I am still as harshly judgmental of criminals (dopers and sex perverts, largely) who can come from even allegedly "good families".
I respect others and I usually get respect back. But what do you expect from someone who has usually had a pet around from his teenage years on and can hardly imagine a life without a pet cat or dog?
3. I recognize the white working class as the people who least have a clue about what the Right is doing to them. When it gets the clue, it is going to turn against the economic elites which would sweat and starve them should such turn a profit (and such is usually very profitable for exploiters, as exploitation usually is lucrative).
4. I also recognize the working class as the people who make the stuff that I need from a car to furniture. As the Old Order Amish show, it is possible to live well without a bureaucratic elite (and their lives may be tolerable because they have no bureaucratic elite to exploit them). If one is Old Order Amish, one can almost certainly rule out a white-collar job as a career because of the limited education that goes with their religious beliefs. They can own businesses, and those businesses can be profitable.
Maybe I have a hint there. Capitalism is OK, so long as it is too small to oppress, but bureaucratic elitists are the nemeses of social equity.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
One more state to offer an approval rating for the incumbent Senator up for re-election. Johnny Isaacson is up 38-30 in approval, which indicates that he (1) isn't well known in his own state, and (2) that he isn't trying to get well known and may be relying upon a campaign largely based upon advertising by outside interests (like the Koch syndicate). That's Georgia, a state on the margin of competitiveness.
Approval polls only.
Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange -- Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Blue -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.
Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office and not for re-election. Approval and party (D, R) shown With David Vitter retiring after being defeated in a bid for the the Governorship of Louisiana, his seat goes open and no state is shown in this color.
Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --
"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.
Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.
An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.
Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.
NO PARTISAN POLLS.
What I see so far with incumbents:
App Rep Dem
<40 7 0
40-44 2 0
45-49 0 2
50-54 4 0
55-59 0 0
>60 0 2
retire 3 3
indict 0 1
oth off 1 0
no poll 6 2
Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:
Sure R:
Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Likely R:
Alaska
Kansas
Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Tossups
Georgia (from Edge R)
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.
Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*
Likely D:
Oregon
Washington
Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*
*flip (so far all R to D)
New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 01-31-2016 at 05:21 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Rubio is moving up in Iowa polls; that's bad news (although I predicted it); since Rubio is the most-electable Republican candidate, it appears.
Bloomberg's run in the event Sanders gets the Dem nomination will be all about keeping a Wall Street Establishment candidate (can't get more Wall Street than Bloomberg) in the race right up until November. At which point, he may have visions of organising a tight Wall Street opposition to whichever non-Establishment candidate wins the election throughout the new President's term. Bloomberg is seeing himself as the leader Wall Street can coalesce behind, if Hillary isn't President. He's playing a long game, just like Sanders.
