Originally Posted by MordecaiK

On the other hand, the US in 1968 had an economy that was so healthy that the economy was taken for granted (as one would expect in 2T). The Vietnam War and Civil Rights (and riots) were the ONLY issues that election. And the Vietnam War directly affected mainly young people--who their elders denigrated as cowards and traitors for not serving in it without complaint. After all, those Civic elders had served in WWII without complaint.

So it is not surprising that most Americans did NOT want Hubert Humphrey in the White House in 1968 (Humphrey probably would have gone down as a reformer if he had beaten out JFK in 1960). Or that a Democratic Party would support Humphrey because older Americans refused to give Idealist young people the satisfaction of admitting that they were right. A fact that would not be lost on Boomers as they aged in the future.

Your second point in the above paragraph is certainly correct. But Humphrey only lost barely, so it wouldn't be accurate to say that "most Americans" did not want him in the White House. He was highly respected among Democrats for his many liberal achievements.

In this election, the role of the Vietnam War is played by an economy that only works for a few. And the CIvics (or Artists) are the young people who cannot catch a break from this. economy. Young people who may not agree with their elders but certainly are not hated by their elders.

And the economy is trending down not up even if a recession has not been declared yet. So there is little relief for the incumbent party there.

If the issue is the economy, then your point that Hillary Clinton is a neo-con like Humphrey or LBJ does not hold, since neo-con refers to the militarist tendency.

Obama has held on to his 45-50% approval rating, so half the people agree that he brought the economy out of the great recession, and that his policies, and not those of the Republicans, are needed to keep it from crashing again. That might work to Hillary's advantage. Sanders may well be the stronger candidate, for many reasons. But he would face withering attacks about giving away free stuff to young liberals by taxing the rich. But he would be the first candidate with a perfect score on my system to never win a presidential election (there have only been 3: James K Polk and Jimmy Carter).

2Ts often feature economies that are the worst or most unstable besides 4Ts. But not yet in 1968. It could be called the last year of the American High, economically. But the results of our hubris during the American High/early Consciousness Revolution were soon to be felt in the 1970s. 1969 was already the start of this decade-long downturn. The following recovery in the 3T only benefited the wealthy, as you pointed out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the issue is the economy, then your point that Hillary Clinton is a neo-con like Humphrey or LBJ does not hold, since neo-con refers to the militarist tendency.

The term would likely be neo-liberal, which refers to economic policy and it has a lot in common with traditional right wing / Republican economics. Obama and the "third way", pro Wall St crowd are typical neo-liberals and often in opposition to the Progressive economic position.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So far my "knock out" predictions have been spot on.

With the big win in SC, we can safely put aside Mike's "Trumps a Loser!" scenario. NH could have been an earlier call for this, but SC nails it. Trump's in for the long haul. As expected, it knocked out Bush just like NH knocked out Christie. Carson should have left as well, but, well, his candidacy is weird; he'll likely leave at some point but it will be barely noticed and not really a knockout as much as a whimper in the corner somewhere. No knockout for Kasich as expected.

The Dems in NV proved to be the nothin-burger as expected since only a clear Sanders win would have been a likely knockout for Clinton. The rumor of Sanders taking a significant Latino vote proved much less than what it was, but it is something to watch as early as Colorado on Super Tuesday.

Coming up, Donald's win in NV will be near meaningless other than slowly adding to his delegate count which will be the story as the season progresses (ala 08 Obama keeping 100 delegates ahead of Clinton no matter what). The media is trying to make something of the Mormon vote going to Cruz or Rubio, but its really just another nothin burger. If Cruz, but particularly Rubio, makes it close in NV, its not a knock out for Trump but it does make latter events less certain.

Clinton taking SC big is not a knockout for Sanders but it can be considered a big stagger that he will likely not recover from. He makes it within 10 percentage points, however, then his eventual knockout becomes less certain.

The big potential knockouts on Super Tuesday for the GOP is Cruz losing TX and Rubio losing VA. Cruz will be clearly knocked out with a TX lost. Rubio will likely carry on with a VA loss but as a zombie. What would be most interesting is they both loss these two states and become zombies joined at the hip, trying to eat each others' dead brains and hearts. Trump would only be knocked out if he doesn't win any state, but would be looking good if he wins just half, sliding scale between these.

Kasich will hang in until March 8 Michigan, which if he comes in close 2nd, he will survive; a 3rd or worse showing and he's gone. An earlier Super Tuesday poor 3rd or 4th in VA would be the handwriting on the wall to watch for.

For Dems, the only possible knockout for Sanders on Super Tuesday would be a lost in Mass. If the MA lost is big (doubtful), he's gone; if its close or actually wins, he is a strong survivor. Clinton becomes questionable only if she doesn't take 1/2 the states.

Super Tuesday has too big of an impact on the GOP side to move past it other than for Kasich. So I'll hold off on that.

On the Dem side, if Bernie takes or is close in Mass., even if Clinton takes more than half the states on Super Tuesday, Michigan looms very large for both. If one wins by more than 10%, it is over for the other. If closer, then it is on to BIG March 15.

The combination of uncertainty from Super Tuesday and Michigan for Dems makes it too much to capture scenarios for March 15 other than saying regardless of outcomes, the knockout for one of the two Dems is very unlikely to go beyond that date - essentially the nomination will most likely be over for the Dems two weeks from now if not sooner. That's going to be necessary to deal with all the PUMAs out there, particularly if Clinton wins it.

I'm waiting for someone (maybe the Super Delegates) to review who is winning in which states. Winning big in a state that will certainly go the other way in the General, is not winning anything of value. New York goes to the Dems, so no GOP hopeful should prance around as "the winner". For this election, if not future ones, the same applies to Texas, but in reverse. In fact, the only ones that are truly important are the Purple states, where the winner may have a pull on the votes that really count.

No one talks about that, though. Hillary's expected win in SC is nice press, but that's all.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Obviously you have been watching little if any Fox News or Newsmax. If you were watching, you would know that today's post-elder Adaptives and elder Idealists can't stand the Millennials, at whom they hurl the vilest insults at every opportunity.

Oh, I know this from all the elderly Clinton supporters spewing hateful shit about Millennials and sound just like Republicans.

Originally Posted by playwrite

My, my, if it comes to it, you are going to be a tough PUMA to crack.

I haven't considered myself a Dem since 2010, I am only registered as one so I can participate in the caucuses, so I technically can't be a PUMA.

Originally Posted by playwrite

My, my, if it comes to it, you are going to be a tough PUMA to crack.

brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrwwwwwww brrrrrrrww brwwwwww

Uh yeah, puma = big kitty, kitty.

Reports are coming out of Nevada. Apparently it is complete chaos. In addition to a total lack of organization at the caucus locations, there are reports of double voting, voters not being checked for address and properly checked off of the check sheets, multiple ballots given mistakenly, etc, etc. We be banana republic and I'm not talking about my jeans.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm waiting for someone (maybe the Super Delegates) to review who is winning in which states. Winning big in a state that will certainly go the other way in the General, is not winning anything of value. New York goes to the Dems, so no GOP hopeful should prance around as "the winner". For this election, if not future ones, the same applies to Texas, but in reverse. In fact, the only ones that are truly important are the Purple states, where the winner may have a pull on the votes that really count.

No one talks about that, though. Hillary's expected win in SC is nice press, but that's all.

Sounds like an argument for electability in the General which was not what my post was about; mine was about identifying what primaries will most likely spell the end of a candidacy.

As for "value," it is important to recognize if one doesn't win enough state primaries, regardless of state party leanings, one isn't on the ballot in the General.

If we then take this one step at a time, and focus on who gets the nomination, what can we learn from states with different party leanings?

Is a win in SC more indicative of how VA will go or is NH a better indicator of what VA voters will pick? You might be able to make the case that NH is a better indicator of how MA or MN will go but what about OK or CO? But the real question to ponder, particularly if Sanders wins MA, is what state primary result is the best indicator for Michigan on March 8 - that could spell the end of either Clinton or Sanders, although the loser will continue to zombie on until at least March 15.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrwwwwwww brrrrrrrww brwwwwww

Uh yeah, puma = big kitty, kitty.

Both that kitty and Odin will be relatively easy compared to the PUMAs we had to deal with in '08!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sounds like an argument for electability in the General which was not what my post was about; mine was about identifying what primaries will most likely spell the end of a candidacy.

As for "value," it is important to recognize if one doesn't win enough state primaries, regardless of state party leanings, one isn't on the ballot in the General.

All true, yet it seems an odd choice. Let's postulate a case where one Democratic candidate is very popular in the RED states, but less so in the BLUE ones. It's quite possible that this candidate gets the nod, but simply can't win in the General. Trump could have been the GOP version, but he's winning everywhere. Still, he is not likely to win BLUE states in the General, and the PURPLE states seem unlikely too (though populism might get him a few).

Originally Posted by PW ...

If we then take this one step at a time, and focus on who gets the nomination, what can we learn from states with different party leanings?

Is a win in SC more indicative of how VA will go or is NH a better indicator of what VA voters will pick? You might be able to make the case that NH is a better indicator of how MA or MN will go but what about OK or CO? But the real question to ponder, particularly if Sanders wins MA, is what state primary result is the best indicator for Michigan on March 8 - that could spell the end of either Clinton or Sanders, although the loser will continue to zombie on until at least March 15.

I can't say, but the winner in SC or MA is of little interest in the General. For that matter, any Azure BLUE or Crimson RED state will support its historical party alignment in almost all cases. Only the PURPLE states are really important, since they separate victory from defeat. Some bright Poli-Sci PhD candidate should look at this as an excellent dissertation topic. How should the parties select their respective candidates if winning the Big Brass Ring is the goal? I'm not sure that's the primary mission of politics, but the parties are not in the political game as much as the power game.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

All true, yet it seems an odd choice. Let's postulate a case where one Democratic candidate is very popular in the RED states, but less so in the BLUE ones. It's quite possible that this candidate gets the nod, but simply can't win in the General. Trump could have been the GOP version, but he's winning everywhere. Still, he is not likely to win BLUE states in the General, and the PURPLE states seem unlikely too (though populism might get him a few).



I can't say, but the winner in SC or MA is of little interest in the General. For that matter, any Azure BLUE or Crimson RED state will support its historical party alignment in almost all cases. Only the PURPLE states are really important, since they separate victory from defeat. Some bright Poli-Sci PhD candidate should look at this as an excellent dissertation topic. How should the parties select their respective candidates if winning the Big Brass Ring is the goal? I'm not sure that's the primary mission of politics, but the parties are not in the political game as much as the power game.

What you're bringing up is a valid aspect - it explains much of why Rubio (Fl), Kasich (OH), Gilmore (VA) and the longer shot Santorum (PA) entered the race, but certainly not Trump (private jet). For Clinton (NY, DC, AR) or Sanders (Queens, VT), the favorite son consideration has to be taken to a more nebulous level of who will likely take what swing states based on demographics and polling.

The problem with which "non-favorite son" will be best in what will be the most important swing state(s) in the general is the myriad of other elements (e.g. demographics, name recognition, voter interest levels when/where, policy positions, campaign media blitzs, debates, wonk analysis, endorsements, momentum, etc. etc.) Does someone have a model that combines all those and tells you with some certainty at some point when one candidate will be the better selection in the purple state(s) that will swing the general several months down the road? Or, maybe best to just let the process play out? If it was the former, Clinton would have been picked last summer. I'm pretty sure you would be uncomfortable with that, but why would you be comfortable making Bernie the quasi-favorite son for the purple states now based on three states only one of which he actually won? Seems odd.

Originally Posted by noway2

The term would likely be neo-liberal, which refers to economic policy and it has a lot in common with traditional right wing / Republican economics. Obama and the "third way", pro Wall St crowd are typical neo-liberals and often in opposition to the Progressive economic position.

That is an exaggerated view though. It's a matter of degree. Obama and Hillary are more neo-liberal than Sanders or Robert Reich, for example. But Obama and Hillary are progressive leftists compared to the Bush's, Rubio and Cruz, for example. Something of the same can be seen among Republicans, where Trump and Kasich are less neo-liberal than Rubio and Cruz. But all the Republicans are neo-libs compared to any of the Democrats.

None of you will go along with me, but I call on all progressives to work like the devil to get Trump the Republican nomination, changing your registration so you can vote in Republican primaries if necessary. The point being that if Trump wins, the political era that began in 1980 - with its obnoxious phrases like "trickle down," "supply side," "flat tax," and "national sales tax" - will be over, not to return until the next 3T. If the overclass' sociopathic economics couldn't even win a Republican primary, then imagine how badly it would get beaten in a general election?

The Republicans will have to find a whole new signature issue - and that will take time: The last time they were in this same situation - in the 1930s - it was not until the early 1950s that they found one: Anti-Communism in a foreign-policy context.

In the meantime, the Democrats will be able to completely make over the American economy, and quite possibly, other facets of American life as well. And if Trump were to go on to win the general election, at least we will have a neo-Malthusian wealth-redistributor in power, which is infinitely better than another Social Darwinist.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

None of you will go along with me, but I call on all progressives to work like the devil to get Trump the Republican nomination, changing your registration so you can vote in Republican primaries if necessary. The point being that if Trump wins, the political era that began in 1980 - with its obnoxious phrases like "trickle down," "supply side," "flat tax," and "national sales tax" - will be over, not to return until the next 3T. If the overclass' sociopathic economics couldn't even win a Republican primary, then imagine how badly it would get beaten in a general election?

The Republicans will have to find a whole new signature issue - and that will take time: The last time they were in this same situation - in the 1930s - it was not until the early 1950s that they found one: Anti-Communism in a foreign-policy context.

In the meantime, the Democrats will be able to completely make over the American economy, and quite possibly, other facets of American life as well. And if Trump were to go on to win the general election, at least we will have a neo-Malthusian wealth-redistributor in power, which is infinitely better than another Social Darwinist.

Let's combined your post with that of M&L's recent one of differentiating where candidates win in state primaries and the party leaning of those states in the general. Coming at it somewhat backwards, it's great timing with this analysis from 538 -

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-donald-trump/

Republicans’ Last-Ditch Hope To Stop Donald Trump
Uneven delegate rules.

...Yet there is still a possibility, albeit a narrowing one, that Marco Rubio could turn the tide and ultimately win more delegates than Trump — even if he wins fewer overall primary votes.

Rubio’s increasingly tenuous path depends on his ability to win a series of winner-take-all states with high proportions of white-collar, college-educated Republicans, most critically his home state of Florida on March 15. Rubio’s path may also depend on his ability to claim delegates from low-turnout territories like Puerto Rico (which, amazingly, will select the same number of delegates as New Hampshire despite having a fraction of the GOP voters) as well as blue-leaning congressional districts with few GOP voters but many available delegates, such as those in Chicago, Maryland and coastal California.

In each instance, Rubio might hope to win large delegate margins with relatively small raw vote margins, while Trump wins far more votes elsewhere but reaps more modest delegate payoffs — raising the prospect of an unusual split votes/delegates verdict enabled by the GOP’s uneven delegate allocation rules....

Imagine CA, MD, and IL Dem voters handing the nomination over to Trump at Rubio's expense, and Trump then moving on to get trumped in the general.

High stakes, but only if you think Trump is worse that Rubio in the WH.

Riddle me this?

How do you stop a rooster from crowing on a Sunday morning?

Answer: By killing it on a Saturday night.

This is Saturday night - and the rooster is laissez-faire, trickle-down, supply-side economics.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

None of you will go along with me, but I call on all progressives to work like the devil to get Trump the Republican nomination, changing your registration so you can vote in Republican primaries if necessary. The point being that if Trump wins, the political era that began in 1980 - with its obnoxious phrases like "trickle down," "supply side," "flat tax," and "national sales tax" - will be over, not to return until the next 3T. If the overclass' sociopathic economics couldn't even win a Republican primary, then imagine how badly it would get beaten in a general election?

The Republicans will have to find a whole new signature issue - and that will take time: The last time they were in this same situation - in the 1930s - it was not until the early 1950s that they found one: Anti-Communism in a foreign-policy context.

In the meantime, the Democrats will be able to completely make over the American economy, and quite possibly, other facets of American life as well. And if Trump were to go on to win the general election, at least we will have a neo-Malthusian wealth-redistributor in power, which is infinitely better than another Social Darwinist.

I find myself actually rooting for him. Partly because this validates his high score on my system, partly because he is less of the trickle-down, laissez faire guy than Rubio and Cruz, partly because he's likely to lose, and partly because he's the most entertaining. I just can't stomach the idea of an immature boy flinging weapons and wars in all directions, and making himself the whining apostle of Gen X Reaganoids.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

None of you will go along with me, but I call on all progressives to work like the devil to get Trump the Republican nomination, changing your registration so you can vote in Republican primaries if necessary. The point being that if Trump wins, the political era that began in 1980 - with its obnoxious phrases like "trickle down," "supply side," "flat tax," and "national sales tax" - will be over, not to return until the next 3T. If the overclass' sociopathic economics couldn't even win a Republican primary, then imagine how badly it would get beaten in a general election?

The Republicans will have to find a whole new signature issue - and that will take time: The last time they were in this same situation - in the 1930s - it was not until the early 1950s that they found one: Anti-Communism in a foreign-policy context.

In the meantime, the Democrats will be able to completely make over the American economy, and quite possibly, other facets of American life as well. And if Trump were to go on to win the general election, at least we will have a neo-Malthusian wealth-redistributor in power, which is infinitely better than another Social Darwinist.

Can you expand on that, particularly his likelihood as a wealth redistributor?

I'm trying to feel more comfortable with the risk of encouraging any way I can Trump over Rubio. In some ways, Trump might take on the Dem nominee better than Rubio, but generally I think he is more likely to lose in the overall calculation. It's just that a President Trump is pretty damn scary. With Rubio, we just get the usual GOP result - a couple of unnecessary wars and a tanked economy, but not as likely all that goose-steppin and gas chambers.

As to "robotic White women," this is hilarious until you think of the gullibility necessary to pull it off -

https://youtu.be/KORZ8F--crY

Originally Posted by playwrite

Can you expand on that, particularly his likelihood as a wealth redistributor?

Look at what happened between 1924 and 1926: In 1924, Samuel Gompers led the charge to have all immigration essentially halted - and by 1926, unemployment was 1.9% and everybody ran out and bought cars and radios, and got their homes wired up with electricity and phone service.

And with unemployment already down to 4.9% now, how low would it go even if only 3 or 4 million illegal aliens were to be deported?

I'm trying to feel more comfortable with the risk of encouraging any way I can Trump over Rubio. In some ways, Trump might take on the Dem nominee better than Rubio, but generally I think he is more likely to lose in the overall calculation. It's just that a President Trump is pretty damn scary. With Rubio, we just get the usual GOP result - a couple of unnecessary wars and a tanked economy, but not as likely all that goose-steppin and gas chambers.

Actually, Cruz is much further to the right than Rubio - at least on taxes anyway. But both have bad cases of what I call "Cuban Exile Syndrome": Just because they, or their families, got screwed by Castro badly enough to want to leave the country, they automatically believe that the economic system diametrically opposite Communism - extreme Austrian School/Ayn Rand-style Social Darwinism - is the best economic system imaginable.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Look at what happened between 1924 and 1926: In 1924, Samuel Gompers led the charge to have all immigration essentially halted - and by 1926, unemployment was 1.9% and everybody ran out and bought cars and radios, and got their homes wired up with electricity and phone service.

And with unemployment already down to 4.9% now, how low would it go even if only 3 or 4 million illegal aliens were to be deported?





Actually, Cruz is much further to the right than Rubio - at least on taxes anyway. But both have bad cases of what I call "Cuban Exile Syndrome": Just because they, or their families, got screwed by Castro badly enough to want to leave the country, they automatically believe that the economic system diametrically opposite Communism - extreme Austrian School/Ayn Rand-style Social Darwinism - is the best economic system imaginable.

Yea, the Social Darwinism of Cruz/Rubio is what makes me a tad more comfortable with Trump. However, I certainly don't buy into the notion that illegal immigration has much of anything to do with levels of unemployment. This is not the 1920s and there's no credible research supporting displacement. I do buy into "replacement" - jobs that no citizen is going to take in the context of the alternatives (e.g., school, retirement, stay-at-home parent) available as well as those immigrants economic activity actually leading to more jobs - the countries most screwed in the coming years are those with low birth rates AND low immigration. Not a fan of illegal immigration; we need comprehensive immigration reform but it needs to based on facts/logic with a sprinkling of empathy rather than stupidity and the suck-up-and-punch-down emotional maturity of the typical t-bagger.

... of wingman!

Rubio is in deep doo-doo in home state -

http://fox61.com/2016/02/25/quinnipi...double-digits/

Quinnipiac poll: Trump leads Rubio in Florida by double digits

but so far Cruz is leading in his home state -

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ed-cruz-219773

Poll: Cruz leads Trump by 15 percent in Texas

There's no air for the GOP Establishment!

Originally Posted by playwrite

... of wingman!

Rubio is in deep doo-doo in home state -

http://fox61.com/2016/02/25/quinnipi...double-digits/



but so far Cruz is leading in his home state -

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ed-cruz-219773




There's no air for the GOP Establishment!

Right, but I have seen more recent polls in which Trump has pulled even to Cruz in Texas.

Holy Cruz!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Right, but I have seen more recent polls in which Trump has pulled even to Cruz in Texas.

Holy Cruz!

Not good. Timewise, TX comes before FL.

Hate for Trump to lose his wingman before he has to shoot down the Rubio gee-whiz flying machine -

I kinda hate to do this, but ya know, it does occur to me. This reminds me of someone:

" "They looked at Trump and thought ... there's no way Republicans, no matter how angry, would rally around this guy. You've heard the establishment types say that they don't know a single person who'd vote for Donald Trump. And then he goes out and wins." "

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...24-column.html

I don't know many people who like a certain pop star. Certainly nobody here. And yet.........

Originally Posted by playwrite

Not good. Timewise, TX comes before FL.

Hate for Trump to lose his wingman before he has to shoot down the Rubio gee-whiz flying machine -

That's a very good point. I never thought I'd say this, but, GO TED! I AGREE WITH JUSTIN BIEBER! Well, maybe for one election in one state............

Originally Posted by Odin

Oh, I know this from all the elderly Clinton supporters spewing hateful shit about Millennials and sound just like Republicans.

What do expect, you're a threat their lifestyles and their control over your lifestyles.