Originally Posted by Einzige

At this point, I'm unironically supporting both Sanders and TRUMP. Anything but another fucking Reaganoid neoliberal.

TRUMP is not some sort of conservative, however alternaright he might be. He's, basically, Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower, and I'm okay with that on a temporary basis. He's not a Southerner, not an evangelical, probably not actually a Christian; there's no way his exposure to the heights of finance hasn't left him a converted cosmopolitan. I won't have to hear about GAWD from the bully pulpit, which is all I really want.

As a Republican, I'm sure he will fall in line with Obama and Bush and say "GAWD bless America" at every fucking opportunity.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Sanders' campaign has a real talent for moving ads.

Boy, yeah. That's another one. If blacks in SC see ads like that, Hillary is in trouble. Sanders IS a protester.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

You have a lot more faith in the Clintons than I do, Eric. I look at how far the Clintons pulled the Democratic Party to the Right in the 90s. And Hillary's propensity for military intervention. A lot of repression can be done in an era of war than an era of peace. Woodrow Wilson appeared to be a liberal too, and he gave us an Espionage Act that Hillary would like to prosecute Snowden and Assange under and a Sedition Act that was held unconstitutional by the courts. If Bernie Sanders can be compared to Eugene V Debs, Hillary Clinton can be compared to Edith Wilson--who might have gone far if her husband had not had a stroke and later died.

Jeffrey Sachs has raised the issue of Hillary's alleged militarism. I admit that sometimes she gives me a pause. In the PBS debate she implied that she would not negotiate with Iran, while Bernie says we talk to our enemies and improving relations with Iran is a good idea. I agree with Bernie; making peace eventually with Iran is a good idea, even though we can't yet because we don't support their terrorist moves.

I don't blame her for any of the problems in Libya or Syria. And as for Iraq, a vote for a resolution is not a war started by a president. The USA in Libya or Syria under Obama-Hillary did not engage in regime change. The people rose up against Qaddafi and Assad. The USA provided air support to keep Qaddafi from attacking his people. Hillary's comment when he fell was hyperbole. The USA didn't topple him; his people did. Then we DIDN'T provide that support for the Syrians. The genocide that we kept from happening in Libya, happened in Syria, courtesy of Assad. Belatedly we provided some resources for the Syrian rebels. Too little too late. But the USA did not engage in regime change, and did not send ground forces to do it. Hillary did not advocate such, in either place. Bush did, in Iraq. That's the difference. And Hillary doesn't advocate sending ground troops to fight the IS now either.

On balance, Bernie may be better. But Hillary would be a wise leader, and today a leader willing to apply some force may be more desirable to me in some circumstances than a pacifist. At least Bernie is no Trump. He understands and feels the pain of the Syrians under the attacks from their genocidal mass murderer dictator Assad. Trump does not.

Myself I don't plan to vote for Hillary; I would vote Green, but if I lived in Ohio or Florida I might well vote for Hillary. I disagree with anyone who would vote for a Republican over Hillary. I would likely vote for Sanders if he's the Democratic nominee, and not Green.

The elites in the USA; what do they want? Who represents them? The Republicans are bought and paid for by them. They do their bidding.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The elites in the USA; what do they want? Who represents them? The Republicans are bought and paid for by them. They do their bidding.

Those elites live in a very different universe.

With the effective disappearances of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina from the race for the Republican nomination and the apparent rise of John Kasich, I can now offer my assessment of some binary matchups from immediately after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. First Hillary Clinton:


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich




Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



(Those involving Donald Trump will appear in another post due to a limitation of four images in a post).

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Binary match-ups involving Bernie Sanders. The near-tie between Cruz and Bush compels me to keep Jeb in view, though.



Bernie Sanders vs. Jeb Bush




Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz



(I no longer take Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina seriously).

Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich




Bernie Sanders vs. Marco Rubio


(Polls involving Donald Trump will appear in another post due to a limit on available images in one post.

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Binary matches involving Donald Trump:

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The elites in the USA; what do they want? Who represents them? The Republicans are bought and paid for by them. They do their bidding.

I agere that the increasing accumulation of wealth by the 0.1% and the 1% is a problem. But are there not also Democratic elites?

Originally Posted by radind

I agere that the increasing accumulation of wealth by the 0.1% and the 1% is a problem. But are there not also Democratic elites?

Of course. But if what the chart shows is right, most of the elites (i.e. the 1%, the wealthy) want the things proposed by the Republicans, and oppose the things proposed by the Democrats.

Hillary leads Trump in most national polls now, so those state polls are probably inaccurate. But of course the polls are going to shift and move around.

Originally Posted by radind

I agere that the increasing accumulation of wealth by the 0.1% and the 1% is a problem. But are there not also Democratic elites?

During the heyday of the neoliberal DLC, Wall Street was as well supported by the Dems as the Reps, and the financial support showed it. The rise of the Progressive movement is reversing that now, and the .1% is returning to the fold. Will it also reverse the movement of the working class to the Reps? So far, the answer is still open on that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary leads Trump in most national polls now, so those state polls are probably inaccurate. But of course the polls are going to shift and move around.

--- the only polls worth anything are one done on various Tues of certain months, culminating in the big Tues in Nov

Originally Posted by marypoza

--- the only polls worth anything are one done on various Tues of certain months, culminating in the big Tues in Nov

The polls can show the direction of electoral history. The polls of the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 showed nip-and-tuck Presidential races; those of 2008 and 2012 showed McCain and Romney collapses. Senatorial polls of 2010 and 2014 showed Democrats in deep trouble all the way and needing miracles to avoid smashing defeat. Often one sees things before they show up in polls. Erratic behavior of a candidate is not good for re-election.

One can see trends. It was hard for me to believe that Barack Obama had a chance to win Virginia, a state that had gone only once for a Democratic nominee for President since 1948 and then in a Democratic landslide. (If Bill Clinton couldn't win it, then Virginia offers no chance for a Democrat in a close election... and Obama won it decisively!) But the polls of 2008 and 2012 showed Virginia becoming a disaster for Republicans. In 2000 and 2004 polls showed that Democrats were losing the Clinton-era hold on some states that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996.... states that Obama lost by huge margins.

Polls have some validity as predictors. The problem is that they can go obsolete very fast.

There's a dark side. Polls are wonderful means for deciding where to allocate money, especially for manipulative advertising.

Hillary, the Rebel Girl.

"awesome" video produced by a couple of her supporters:

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

During the heyday of the neoliberal DLC, Wall Street was as well supported by the Dems as the Reps, and the financial support showed it. The rise of the Progressive movement is reversing that now, and the .1% is returning to the fold. Will it also reverse the movement of the working class to the Reps? So far, the answer is still open on that.

I have not seen anything indicating any reversal in wealth accumulation for the 0.1%. Have you?

Polarization is a threat to dialogue.

Political Polarization in the American Public


http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...erican-public/


… "The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want.”…


… "To chart the progression of ideological thinking, responses to 10 political values questions asked on multiple Pew Research surveys since 1994 have been combined to create a measure of ideological consistency. Over the past twenty years, the number of Americans in the “tails” of this ideological distribution has doubled from 10% to 21%. Meanwhile, the center has shrunk: 39% currently take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions. That is down from about half (49%) of the public in surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004.”…

Some patterns emerge:

1. "Consistent conservatives" and "consistent liberals" are more likely to be friends with those of similar beliefs.
2. "Consistent conservatives" prefer more square footage at the expense of being a greater distance from cultural amenities (art galleries, theaters)
3. "Consistent conservatives" are more likely to show disdain for a family member marrying outside the ethnic group or an atheist; "consistent liberals" are more likely to have a problem with a family member marrying a born-again Christian, gun owner, or someone who didn't go to college.
4. Obviously, "consistent conservatives" are more likely to prefer FoX News to MSNBC... and "consistent liberals" show the inverse.
5. "Consistent conservatives" generally oppose any path to citizenship for illegal aliens of any kind, and "consistent liberals" are willing to allow a path for citizenship to people who meet some qualifications.
6. "Consistent conservatives" are much more likely to oppose abortion in opposition to "consistent liberals".

So where did people not find such a difference? On whether they enjoyed outside recreation (hiking, camping, fishing, etc.)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Jeffrey Sachs has raised the issue of Hillary's alleged militarism. I admit that sometimes she gives me a pause. In the PBS debate she implied that she would not negotiate with Iran, while Bernie says we talk to our enemies and improving relations with Iran is a good idea. I agree with Bernie; making peace eventually with Iran is a good idea, even though we can't yet because we don't support their terrorist moves.

I don't blame her for any of the problems in Libya or Syria. And as for Iraq, a vote for a resolution is not a war started by a president. The USA in Libya or Syria under Obama-Hillary did not engage in regime change. The people rose up against Qaddafi and Assad. The USA provided air support to keep Qaddafi from attacking his people. Hillary's comment when he fell was hyperbole. The USA didn't topple him; his people did. Then we DIDN'T provide that support for the Syrians. The genocide that we kept from happening in Libya, happened in Syria, courtesy of Assad. Belatedly we provided some resources for the Syrian rebels. Too little too late. But the USA did not engage in regime change, and did not send ground forces to do it. Hillary did not advocate such, in either place. Bush did, in Iraq. That's the difference. And Hillary doesn't advocate sending ground troops to fight the IS now either.

On balance, Bernie may be better. But Hillary would be a wise leader, and today a leader willing to apply some force may be more desirable to me in some circumstances than a pacifist. At least Bernie is no Trump. He understands and feels the pain of the Syrians under the attacks from their genocidal mass murderer dictator Assad. Trump does not.

Myself I don't plan to vote for Hillary; I would vote Green, but if I lived in Ohio or Florida I might well vote for Hillary. I disagree with anyone who would vote for a Republican over Hillary. I would likely vote for Sanders if he's the Democratic nominee, and not Green.

Hillary--along with (rhymes with war) Al Gore persuaded Bill Clinton (according to Newsweek at the time) to intervene in Kosovo to make an autonomous region of Serbia an independent country--which would be like Russia engaging in airstrikes against the UK to enable Scottish independence or the US to enable Texan independence. The Kosovar Albanians were ethnically cleansing Serbs from Kosovo before Slobodan Milosevich was elected--and Kosovar actions were the reason Milosevic was elected. So Milosevic had a case for ending the guerilla war by forcing the Kosovars to live in Albania. The US really intervened in Kosovo because it wanted to force a non-Communist Russia out of the Balkans. In doing so, Hillary helped laid the groundwork for the current conflict with Russia.
Whatever the situation and however much the existing regimes in Libya and Iraq oppressed their people (and in both countries, the female half of the population was less oppressed under the Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein regimes than they are now) , it was not in the interests of the American people that those regimes were overthrown.

I have little doubt that Bernie Sanders would fare better than Hillary Clinton in the general election. Even with the datum of a near tie between Hillary Clinton and John Kasich in New Hampshire (a critical piece of data because Democratic nominees must win New Hampshire decisively to win nationally since 1992) suggests that Hillary Clinton has a chance to lose the Presidential election against John Kasich.

I'm gagging from the Kremlin bootlicking on this thread.

So, what do we have? A Jewish guy from Colorado who writes like a Limey, or is that just a convenient legend for one of the Kremlin trolls who John X has mentioned?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm gagging from the Kremlin bootlicking on this thread.

So, what do we have? A Jewish guy from Colorado who writes like a Limey, or is that just a convenient legend for one of the Kremlin trolls who John X has mentioned?

It could be some Russian-born Jew who lives in Colorado and who has learned that anything with any semblance of British style is more impressive in America.

One tip-off to boot-licking for the Kremlin (really Vladimir Putin) is that one sees all American politicians as warmongers. Yes, there are American politicians who really would love a nice, convenient War for Profit, and they are disgusting. Peace is a desirable objective but hardly a certainty. If America is to ever get into another war it had better determine that the only real victory implies winning the peace. If there is any one definitive lesson not learned in the First World War by the victorious Allies and established by the victorious Allies other than the Soviet Union it is that real victory comes from leaving the defeated no reason to strike back.

One is not a warmonger for deciding that if scrupulous diplomacy fails, then war is a certainty. One can contrast the First Gulf War and the elder Bush to the Second Gulf War and the younger Bush. The elder Bush looked willing enough to let a Soviet diplomat with KGB ties try to convince Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait when the going was good. The younger Bush wanted a war even if the grounds were specious. Both got war. The elder Bush can now travel anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea and the Infernal State if he so desires. (OK, I would not advise him to try to climb Mount Everest or visit the South Pole, and he is probably unfit for space travel now). The younger Bush is practically a recluse uncertain of whether he can avoid getting prosecuted in the Hague tribunal for war crimes.

Warmongers and defeatists are only superficial antitheses; they have much the same end awaiting their countries -- ruin. At the least, pacifists can be more courageous and heroic than militarists.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Hillary--along with (rhymes with war) Al Gore persuaded Bill Clinton (according to Newsweek at the time) to intervene in Kosovo to make an autonomous region of Serbia an independent country--which would be like Russia engaging in airstrikes against the UK to enable Scottish independence or the US to enable Texan independence. The Kosovar Albanians were ethnically cleansing Serbs from Kosovo before Slobodan Milosevich was elected--and Kosovar actions were the reason Milosevic was elected. So Milosevic had a case for ending the guerilla war by forcing the Kosovars to live in Albania. The US really intervened in Kosovo because it wanted to force a non-Communist Russia out of the Balkans. In doing so, Hillary helped laid the groundwork for the current conflict with Russia.

Intervention in Kosovo was absolutely the right thing to do, and it turned out very well. I disagree; it was not about Russia. 1998 was not 1914; Serbia was not a Russian ally or part of their sphere of influence. It was about just what Clinton said it was about; stopping Milosevic from committing genocide in Kosovo. Milosevic was a war criminal who had to be stopped. And the Serbs disposed of him with a great people-power revolution, one just like the Arab Spring risings-- including the one that failed in Syria because Russia intervened.

Although of course I predicted the whole Balkan mess and the return of the Serbia problem, right on time with the Uranus-Neptune cycle and the saeculum cycles. 1998-1914 = 84 years.

Whatever the situation and however much the existing regimes in Libya and Iraq oppressed their people (and in both countries, the female half of the population was less oppressed under the Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein regimes than they are now) , it was not in the interests of the American people that those regimes were overthrown.

I think it is. Freedom and democracy everywhere are better for us, and for world peace. Democracies are peaceful. The Libyans and Iraqis have a chance now for a better regime and a better life, but it's up to them to make the most of it. The people of Libya overthrew Qaddafi. The United States of America had no business invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam. It was for the people of Iraq to do that. But, we lost that fight; Bush won and the invasion proceeded. The resulting government was not much better, if at all; on balance it was probably a bit better at least according to the democracy index. It offers a chance for the Iraqis, but THEY will have to make it work better in the future. It's still up to them, as it has been all along.

Jeb forgot to pay the rent on jebbush.com and so Trump bought it.

If you try to go to jebbush.com you get Trump's Make America Great Again website.

You can't make this stuff up.

- we need people that don't sweat!

Trump: Marco Rubio, who stood with me, he was with me when he had the meltdown, and I’m telling you, it wasn't a pretty sight. No, he was standing right there, no, he was soaking wet, I’m telling you. He was wet. Boy, I say “What the hell’s going on over here?”I thought he just came out of a swimming pool, he was soaking. I said “Look! Wow.” Said “Are you okay?”

When we get in with Putin we need people that don’t sweat. No, it’s true. We need people that don’t sweat. Can you imagine Putin sitting there and waiting for the meeting and this guy walks in and he’s like a wreck? No, you got to have Trump walk into that meeting folks, we’ll do very nicely. We’re gonna do very nicely.

You know, once the terror of the moment ends in November, this is going to be looked back on as perhaps the most entertaining election of all time. Or, on the other hand, the beginning of the end.