Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I agree with your point of view. But; Hillary may be the lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers; but she's not a neo-liberal through and through. No need to exaggerate. If we can't get Bernie, then the best thing is to vote strategically. Vote for Hillary if you live in one of the 9 or 10 swing states. Otherwise, vote for your principles, and vote for Jill Stein or some other candidate that represents your principles, or write in Bernie.

Eric I will take serious issue in a subsequent post (if not a new thread) with your rebuttal that Hillary Clinton is "not a neoliberal through and through." But I will wait until after the Democratic and Republican primaries on March 15th, when I expect her and Trump to cement their leads in their respective fights for the presidential nomination.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Eric I will take serious issue in a subsequent post (if not a new thread) with your rebuttal that Hillary Clinton is "not a neoliberal through and through." But I will wait until after the Democratic and Republican primaries on March 15th, when I expect her and Trump to cement their leads in their respective fights for the presidential nomination.

OK. But I think her record as senator and the projects she worked on as first lady shows that she is a liberal, not a neo-liberal. And what she advocates in her campaign shows the same thing. A liberal is not a radical, that's true. The difference between her and the extremists on the other side (Trump, Rubio, Cruz) is night and day in that respect.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK. But I think her record as senator and the projects she worked on as first lady shows that she is a liberal, not a neo-liberal. And what she advocates in her campaign shows the same thing. A liberal is not a radical, that's true. The difference between her and the extremists on the other side (Trump, Rubio, Cruz) is night and day in that respect.

I am a radical (more on that in a subsequent thread--maybe). A Thomas Paine radical. I see no real countervailing power to neoliberalism (corporate politics) in this country. Certainly not the Democratic Party.

As Chris Hedges has maintained in one of his books, liberalism, whatever it meant in the beginning and whatever good it once did for our country, has failed ordinary Americans on so many levels. And neoliberalism and liberalism have little--if anything--in common as ideologies.

You're absolutely right about the difference between Hillary and the GOP candidates on offer, though. But I see that choice as center-right versus far right, and that's a poor choice for me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Democrats educate the voters about how important it is to vote, and vote Democratic, in other races. This is a civics lesson that millennials and all of us apparently need to review and review until we get it.

Yeah, but its not working. Unless it does, this will not be pretty.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yeah, but its not working. Unless it does, this will not be pretty.

Right; it will not be pretty if the Republicans keep control of the other offices, and if they defeat Clinton because liberals don't like her, that will be really ugly. I think more and more people realize the need for this civics lesson. It needs to be a concerted effort at education. Apparently they don't teach it in school. Millennials and the new adaptives need to learn how our government works. They don't know, apparently.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Allegedly, skyscrapers since the 1930s were built with non-opening windows in part to prevent suicides by jumping. September 11 proved that a myth.

For the worst of the worst, the people who gambled big on Other People's Money, took their cut first for lavish lifestyles, and parlayed the wealth of others into failure... might I have suggested hara-kiri?

The ultimate plea deal. Go in the next room and shoot yourself and we won't charge your wife and kids with racketeering.

Bank of America (after acquiring LaSalle Bank, which had acquired Standard Federal, which had acquired Michigan National Bank) is no longer in Michigan. Wells Fargo, after acquiring Norwest Bank, is still in Indiana.

A very conservative state, and one which treats Gary and Hammond as colonies.

.

..It is the speculative boom, and not the subsequent crash, that does the real damage. A speculative boom devours capital that could be put to less grandiose uses (like plant and equipment in private industry or public investments in infrastructure). That is where the damage comes; the Crash is only the recognition that the speculative boom was sheer waste.

Crashes actually free up capital to flow to new businesses. That's why the Bible mandates minor crashes every seven years (sabbatical) and massive redistribution every 50 years (jubilee).

The mortgage boom of the first twenty years of the post-WWII era depended upon ultra-conservative guidelines for lending. The best way to qualify for a loan was to prove stability on the job. Being a factory worker getting lots of overtime was practically the optimum. Starting a business? Be a renter. Taking some accounting courses so that you don't have to keep driving a truck? Forget the mortgage loan until you have been an accountant for five years. Bankers had gotten stuck with the task of saying "no" to people with hare-brained schemes to make quick bucks, much like everyone else. Banking attracted the laziest, most unimaginative, and least entrepreneurial of people in business. As mortgage issuers they needed not seek business. They told applicants to put up more collateral, show stability, and stick to the norms that other borrowers followed -- but if you couldn't do that, then the tellers will guide you in the way of thrift.

Yes, that was the GI way. And both informed and scarred by bad memories of the 20s and the 30s. It's what one expects in 1T. And where did the cowboys and sociopaths go during that time? Into places like the CIA or into business branches overseas where there were exploitable locals. After all, opening up overseas by creating "banana republics" by forcing decolonisation on France, the UK, the Netherlands and Portugal was America's pound of flesh for saving them from Nazis and Communists.

Bankers typically recycled capital, issuing a loan and collecting it, with the collections supporting the next series of loans. But they had to stick with the mortgages that they got. Later there would be specialists -- initial lenders who took the loan (and application fees) as income, only to farm the loan off to another entity.

Read http://www.amazon.com/The-Half-Never.../dp/046500296X . It's a fascinating story. Edward Baptist has shown that many of the mortgage instruments (subprimes, mortgage backed securities, ect. were first created for mortgages in the 1830s--on slaves. The South bred the original predatory capitalists years before they became prevalent up North. And never stopped.

Big Business used to promote from within, finding the most competent workers to go up the career ladder. Such insured that people with normal behavior, including some empathy for Humanity as a whole, would get ahead. Such people respected the reality of their subordinates' lives. Having spent real time on the shop floor they could never develop or maintain the pathological narcissism or even sociopathy that has become endemic in Corporate America. Anyone who has spent appreciable time in genuinely proletarian tasks is now disqualified among the people who who have never gotten their hands dirty in hard toil on the job.

But in that generation a) there were fresh memories of what happened when this was not done b) living large was punished by a 95% top tax rate and it was actually shameful to have a household big enough for a butler--CEOs made only 30 times the wage on the shop floor and c) everyone had been socialised to be "regular guys" and that all people were basically equal by their experience serving in WWII. It was their indulged children who began to glorify inequality as part of their rebellion against conformity. The "tax strikers" of the 1970s and 80s started out conscientiously objecting to their taxes being used to finance the Vietnam War. That's where that meme, now beloved of Republican conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, came from.
And there was a heavy price paid during this 1T in the form of a stultifying conformity which I have mentioned before that Boomers rebelled against.

Big Business wants unions outlawed so that workers can become serfs.

Disposable slaves, actually. Serfs have rights under feudal law and cannot be alienated from land and livelihood.

The optimum for Big Business was Nazi Germany, where employers decided what they would pay (as little as possible -- near-starvation wages) and what hours they would demand (about 60 hours a week, as opposed to the 40 hours a week becoming the norm in America. Workplace accidents became more commonplace as employers became more demanding and reckless about human life. Unions tied to the Nazi Party (and run by Party hacks), rounded people up for assemblies to glorify the Volk and Fuehrer, bled the workers for 'charitable' contributions, and exhorted workers to toil harder with more dedication for the Good of the State and Volk so that they could deserve more. To make things really bad, employees could not change employers without the consent of the employer. That is serfdom! Where Nazi aggression expanded that nightmare, the Nazi norm was enforced. Even in countries poorer than Germany things got worse.

And as recovery progressed, the Nazis soon discovered that they needed disposable "non-Aryans" working on the bottom so that Hitler could keep his promise to his base. Which was one of the hidden justifications for going to war.

Was that the worst possible? Hardly. There were labor camps. Grumble about working conditions, and one might work to exhaustion on starvation rations and either learn the folly of your ways and be thankful to be a serf in Nazi Germany or die of exhaustion, hunger, or violence. Big Business liked that arrangement. It was exploiting the labor in the labor camps.

Yes, the German workers WERE serfs. They did have a stable place and some benefits.

Even without genocide and political violence, Nazi Germany was a workers' Hell. It's telling that the Germans that the British and Americans first trusted after the defeat of the Third Reich were industrial workers, even if the senior officers implementing the occupation were of middle-class or upper-class origin like those American or British officers.

And the Russians trusted industrial workers too, many of which turned out to have been closet Communists during the Reich.
Big Business wants no labor unions other than stooge entities like those in Nazi Germany. It wants people working to exhaustion on near-starvation pay just to pay off loan-sharks. You can count on this: if America gives full power to the Republican Party this year, America will become a cheap-labor country because labor unions will be either outlawed or so proscribed that they are nothing more than social clubs (or worse, the sorts of unions that bleed workers for contributions to dubious charities, round people up for political demonstrations that glorify the Party, and exhort workers to simply work harder and longer for the benefit of the ruling elites).

Isn't that the case now? And won't that also be the case with Center-Right Hillary Clinton? Give Trump credit for at least getting the authoritarians unstuck from blindly following Wall Street and letting themselves be diverted from their own needs by bogus social issues such as abortion and anti-gay bigotry (which is what his major opponent, Ted Cruz represents). What you are suggesting is something that Trump in power would have a very narrow window of 2 years to accomplish before Democrats--REAL Democrats this time, purged of "blue dog" neo-liberals-- come roaring back to retake Congress just as the Tea Party did in 2010. A Clinton Administration would simply freeze the Democratic Party while likely embroiling the US in wars in the Mideast and possibly the Big One with Russia.

Donald Trump simply rejects the style of recent conservative politicians like Bush, Huckabee, and Walker. He has gamed the system before for his own gain, and he will accede to the desires of other plutocrats who want to do much the same. Thus if some chain restaurant prefers Ukrainian waitresses who will live in barracks-like accommodations instead of trailers or flats that they share with three or four other such waitresses before those waitresses quit when they get married, he will arrange the appropriate visas for such a plan -- and ensure that those Ukrainian-born waitresses never get to meet men who might marry them, so they might stick around until they are no longer pretty, after which time they are deported to Ukraine. Of course they get no pension, and they don't qualify for Social Security. Most of what those waitresses get as pay will go into meeting rent for their barracks.

That's exactly the kind of thing Trump has said he will NOT do. And if he tries that he will lose much of his base, giving Progressive Dems a chance to organise that wave election I'm talking about. I will say that a Trump Administration will NOT be a good time to be an environmentalist, who are likely to be RICOed, especially if they organise blockades against projects like Keystone.

Except for disdain for the economic Establishment, voters for Sanders and for Trump have little in common. Trump supporters are heavily white, and toward the bottom in educational and economic attainment.

And these are the voters who will only turn far left when they find that a strongman dosen't meet their needs. Attempts at demonising and marginalising these voters, as Hillary shows signs of a willingness to do with her stance on gun control, will backfire since this is the very class that does the repressing. The good thing about this election is that those voters are halfway where they need to be for there to be real change. And at a time when there is still living memory of the 20s and 30s due to longer lifespans.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Isn't that the case now? And won't that also be the case with Center-Right Hillary Clinton? Give Trump credit for at least getting the authoritarians unstuck from blindly following Wall Street and letting themselves be diverted from their own needs by bogus social issues such as abortion and anti-gay bigotry (which is what his major opponent, Ted Cruz represents). What you are suggesting is something that Trump in power would have a very narrow window of 2 years to accomplish before Democrats--REAL Democrats this time, purged of "blue dog" neo-liberals-- come roaring back to retake Congress just as the Tea Party did in 2010. A Clinton Administration would simply freeze the Democratic Party while likely embroiling the US in wars in the Mideast and possibly the Big One with Russia.

It is getting to be the case now (America a cheap labor country with no labor unions, etc), because of continued Republican and lite-Democrat rule for 35 years. But Hillary is not center-right like her husband was back in the 90s. Copying her husband will not work now. She has always been more liberal; a liberal icon and a terror to conservatives. She is center-left. Trump is appealing to bogus social issues like immigration instead of bogus social issues like abortion and gay bigotry, without however becoming in favor of womens' or gay rights. It's just a change in emphasis.

Since the 2010 and 2014 Republican victories were the result of low turnout, we can't expect much from 2018 against Trump because the younger people still may not vote. And it takes 6 years, not 2, for the Democrats to get riled up enough to give the incumbent Republican a beating. Unlike the Republicans, for whom it only takes 2 years to give a Democrat a beating. Clinton will not embroil the USA in middle east wars besides what we're already embroiled in, and will certainly not get us into a big one with Russia. Remember the USA war cycle. Did you see the video? A new USA war is not due in what would be Hillary's term(s).

A Republican in the White House for even 4 minutes let alone 4 years is a total disaster from which our country could not survive, not to mention our world. Our Supreme Court would remain frozen in the past for another generation, and leave us without voting rights and money ruling politics, as well as unable to control carbon emissions, and full speed ahead with more oil and coal burning. The idea of accept bad today in hopes of better tomorrow, is not viable anymore, period.

I will say that a Trump Administration will NOT be a good time to be an environmentalist, who are likely to be RICOed, especially if they organise blockades against projects like Keystone.

No kidding. And as Sanders said, we need our energy transition "yesterday," not maybe 4 or 8 years from now.

And these are the voters who will only turn far left when they find that a strongman dosen't meet their needs.

Unless they DOSE off. Then they will just accept whatever the strongman does. Then, it doesn't matter what they do.

Attempts at demonising and marginalising these voters, as Hillary shows signs of a willingness to do with her stance on gun control, will backfire since this is the very class that does the repressing. The good thing about this election is that those voters are halfway where they need to be for there to be real change. And at a time when there is still living memory of the 20s and 30s due to longer lifespans.

Gun control is just something we need; it has nothing to do with demonizing anybody. The right-wing and the NRA demonize those of us who understand the need for gun control. Just like happens here among some posters. No, the Trump voters are not half-way toward where they need to be. Just maybe a quarter of the way. And I wouldn't count on any voters who are dumb enough to trust a conman and a bigot with their future.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

... Attempts at demonising and marginalising these voters, as Hillary shows signs of a willingness to do with her stance on gun control, will backfire since this is the very class that does the repressing. ...

Anyone who thinks that any reasonable gun control is on the horizon in this country is a fool. To the extent that Hillary embraces any kind of gun control in her campaign, she will alienate and drive away votes. There are more important issues to deal with this time.

Gun control, in this country,​ needs to be a peripheral issue.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Trump has been a big patron of the casino business, one of the big job-creators in Nevada. But note well: he is in trouble in Arizona and Texas for insulting the Pope and Latinos. The sudden bad poll for him in Colorado may reflect that. I also remind everyone: watch Florida. Maybe Louisiana, the most Catholic state in the South except for Florida and Texas.

The Michigan poll is telling. Michigan is typically about D+5 now, and a situation in which Trump can lose Michigan by something like a 57-41 margin could put Indiana in play. Indiana?

The strongest Democratic wins of Michigan (1964, 2008, 1936, and 1932) correspond with the only Democratic wins of Indiana since 1900. Michigan, which this poll suggests is out of contention, and has only House races up for grabs in 2016, will not be a big market for political ads this year. Indiana, in contrast to Michigan, has an open Senate seat up for grabs that the Republican Party cannot afford to lose.

I am beginning to see Marco Rubio as a thoroughly-unqualified hack.

I certainly hope Trump would lose Michigan. But Michigan is the state that re-elected Rick Snyder governor and turned back an initiative challenge to it's "right-to-work" law. In other words, Michigan is a very divided state. Places like Detroit and Flint and Saginaw, Bay City and Midland not only under-perform electorally, they have been losing people.Michigan has always been divided between liberal working class (now formerly) unionised places like Detroit and the Bay Cities and very conservative Western Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, which is an electoral extension of Indiana. Gerald Ford came from Western Michigan. I can easily see the racial tension in Michigan and Wisconsin--exacerbated by lead poisoning, which has been tied to increases in violent crime and ADHD and perhaps thus also authoritarianism--increasing support for Trump in Michigan. And Ohio and Wisconsin. All of which have lead poisoning in small white communities as well as inner city African-American communities. Though the state by state comparison I saw did not show Trump actually CARRYING Michigan, it could be a very close race. And NAFTA (which Hillary continues to support) is not well liked in Michigan, which is why Bernie dumped on her over NAFTA at yesterday's debate.
In Arizona, there is the same tension in a state where often older whites, Mormons and conservative "refugees" from California cling to power against an emergent Latino and Native American population and will do ANYTHING to keep the state from "flipping blue" the way California did. That's where Arizona's anti-immigrant law came from. Arizona is a state where the ruling classes were willing to take a hit, economically during the recession to keep power out of the hands of Latinos and Native Americans.
And Cruz is more extreme on immigration than Trump is.
And Texas has some very complicated politics. The Republican Party has stayed in power in Texas by cultivating right-wing more educated "Tex-Mex (often whiter) Latinos and by playing some Latinos against African-Americans. That is why a white minority state like Texas isn't Democratic yet. Illustration: The cop who arrested Sandra Bland is Latino.
That said, Texas would take a serious hit, economically from a trade war with Mexico and an end to NAFTA. Enough to elect Hillary? Unlikely but I suppose possible.
Watch tommorrow's total Dem and total Repub. turnout from Michigan. It will give us some indication of where Michigan is going and a lot to talk about.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I am a radical (more on that in a subsequent thread--maybe). A Thomas Paine radical. I see no real countervailing power to neoliberalism (corporate politics) in this country. Certainly not the Democratic Party.

Sure me too, I am a radical too. A good thing that we need.

The Democratic Party is not monolithic. There are many Democrats would would counter-vail neo-liberalism.

I have of course been railing against it here for over 18 years now.

Here's my rap against it:
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

You're absolutely right about the difference between Hillary and the GOP candidates on offer, though. But I see that choice as center-right versus far right, and that's a poor choice for me.

So, just change the label: center-left vs. extreme right. That's the typical choice we're given these days. Bernie still has a chance. But if he doesn't make it, we need to make the best of it, and not hope to turn all lemons into lemonade.

And your post about the poor fortunes of candidates who face a battle for the nomination to succeed an incumbent of their own party, was very telling. This election is going to need to continue to upset expectations and patterns to come out anything close to acceptable.

Originally Posted by TnT

Anyone who thinks that any reasonable gun control is on the horizon in this country is a fool. To the extent that Hillary embraces any kind of gun control in her campaign, she will alienate and drive away votes. There are more important issues to deal with this time.

Gun control, in this country,​ needs to be a peripheral issue.

Gun control (an impossibility in a nation awash with 300 million guns held by 60 million people) has always been a dog whistle against percieved "dangerous classes". It was this way ante bellum against slaves and AA freedmen and post bellum against African Americans and in the North, white immigrants from Europe and strikers. If we look at the history of gun laws in this country they have always been the result of moral panics against "folk devil" "dangerous" classes and out groups.
In this election cycle, the folk devil for Hillary is--poorer whites. A very large group to treat as a folk devil, and going for Trump. That's why Trump always talks about the 2nd Amendment at his rallies even if most of what he says about it is bull***t. Yes, gun control will backfire against Hillary if she wins the nomination. Sanders, a Senator from a rural state at least knows enough to back off from gun control.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is getting to be the case now (America a cheap labor country with no labor unions, etc), because of continued Republican and lite-Democrat rule for 35 years. But Hillary is not center-right like her husband was back in the 90s. Copying her husband will not work now. She has always been more liberal; a liberal icon and a terror to conservatives. She is center-left. Trump is appealing to bogus social issues like immigration instead of bogus issues like abortion and gay bigotry, without however becoming in favor of womens' or gay rights. It's just a change in emphasis.

Folks can keep going on wrt Shillery, but that doesn't change the basic fact that she has enough baggage to open up her own Samsonite
outlet.

Since the 2010 and 2014 Republican victories were the result of low turnout, we can't expect much from 2018 against Trump because the younger people still may not vote.

They need somebody to vote for instead of non options. Face it, they have pretty much 0 stake in the status quo. They only have a landscape of 0 jobs, debt servitude via student loans, etc. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Millies just say the hell with it and go Jacobin on us.

And it takes 6 years, not 2, for the Democrats to get riled up enough to give the incumbent Republican a beating. Unlike the Republicans, for whom it only takes 2 years to give a Democrat a beating. Clinton will not embroil the USA in middle east wars besides what we're already embroiled in, and will certainly not get us into a big one with Russia. Remember the USA war cycle. Did you see the video? A new USA war is not due in what would be Hillary's term(s).

You're kidding, right? Now, who was it who brought on the mess in Libya again? Bernie's a real Democrat, not some neo-liberal addled fake.

A Republican in the White House for even 4 minutes let alone 4 years is a total disaster from which our country could not survive, not to mention our world. Our Supreme Court would remain frozen in the past for another generation, and leave us without voting rights and money ruling politics, as well as unable to control carbon emissions, and full speed ahead with more oil and coal burning. The idea of accept bad today in hopes of better tomorrow, is not viable anymore, period.

The Clinton Foundation has a whole shitpot of bankster donations. Follow da money.

Unless they DOSE off. Then they will just accept whatever the strongman does. Then, it doesn't matter what they do.

And who was it that said Hillery was part of the "establishment" ?

Gun control is just something we need; it has nothing to do with demonizing anybody. The right-wing and the NRA demonize those of us who understand the need for gun control. Just like happens here among some posters. No, the Trump voters are not half-way toward where they need to be. Just maybe a quarter of the way. And I wouldn't count on any voters who are dumb enough to trust a conman and a bigot with their future.

Oh, that culture wars thing again? Fuck gun control, as usual. X control = X black market.

The way things are going, the establishment will set lots of folks to burn.



Go long on lamp posts and ropes.




The establishment ain't worth squat. Sorry, no thank you.

Originally Posted by TnT

Anyone who thinks that any reasonable gun control is on the horizon in this country is a fool. To the extent that Hillary embraces any kind of gun control in her campaign, she will alienate and drive away votes. There are more important issues to deal with this time.

Gun control, in this country,​ needs to be a peripheral issue.

Not quite. It's a serious safety issue that the majority of Americans agree with. It WAS on the horizon after Newtown; why not again? The people wanted it; the NRA didn't. Republicans gave the NRA the victory. It can't work forever.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Folks can keep going on wrt Shillery, but that doesn't change the basic fact that she has enough baggage to open up her own Samsonite
outlet.

Maybe liberals should stop carrying this baggage. The Republicans stuffed her bags with this shit; let THEM carry it.

They need somebody to vote for instead of non options. Face it, they have pretty much 0 stake in the status quo. They only have a landscape of 0 jobs, debt servitude via student loans, etc. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Millies just say the hell with it and go Jacobin on us.

They'd better go vote then, and vote for Bernie. Going Jacobin will just land them in jail.

You're kidding, right? Now, who was it who brought on the mess in Libya again? Bernie's a real Democrat, not some neo-liberal addled fake.

Libya is not our mess, and not our fault. The people rose up; they had to be protected against genocide, as we should have protected the people of Syria from it, but did not. Result? The other mess, and it's much bigger and threatens all of Europe.

No, the planets do not lie. The war cycle works. Watch my video again. Posted already umteem times; you know where it is by now.

The Clinton Foundation has a whole shitpot of bankster donations. Follow da money.

Lots of foundations get or are built on money from rich folks of one kind or another. So WHAT? The Clinton Fdn. does good work.

And who was it that said Hillery was part of the "establishment" ?

She's part of the Obamament.

Oh, that culture wars thing again? Fuck gun control, as usual. X control = X black market.

Who said anything about culture wars? I've already straightened you out on that. In one eye and out the other. Not my problem. If you think madmen will set up a black market, I've some news for you.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Gun control (an impossibility in a nation awash with 300 million guns held by 60 million people) has always been a dog whistle against percieved "dangerous classes". It was this way ante bellum against slaves and AA freedmen and post bellum against African Americans and in the North, white immigrants from Europe and strikers. If we look at the history of gun laws in this country they have always been the result of moral panics against "folk devil" "dangerous" classes and out groups.

Gun control is not a dog whistle against dangerous classes. That's just demonizing gun control advocates. Opponents to gun control do that well; yes, I know. Gun control is a police whistle against mad-men and con-men getting guns scot free. Gun controls reduce gun violence. The "history" is totally irrelevant. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

In this election cycle, the folk devil for Hillary is--poorer whites. A very large group to treat as a folk devil, and going for Trump. That's why Trump always talks about the 2nd Amendment at his rallies even if most of what he says about it is bull***t. Yes, gun control will backfire against Hillary if she wins the nomination. Sanders, a Senator from a rural state at least knows enough to back off from gun control.

The poorer whites voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008. That memory may not be dead. Of course Trump talks about gun control. ALL Republicans do. It is a dog whistle for white identity. 2nd Amendment memes are part of white identity politics, big time. Panic gun buying largely began in the late sixties after the riots. Fear of gun control is fear of blacks and other "lower classes."

Sanders is not backing off from gun control; he's backing off from banning regular guns. There's not much difference in policy.

Gun control is one of the biggest crying and long-unmet needs in this country. It's one big reason we need a new Supreme Court.

Funny though, for a group of posters here who scream and cry that gun control is irrelevant, you show no hesitation to let it take over ANY thread. Meanwhile the proper thread has been taken over by arguments over the Vietnam War. A little dated, don-ya tink?

Maybe you wouldn't mind if gun control took over the Justin Bieber thread. I don't know WHAT his views are on it. But he must be against it if he's for Cruz. "Whatyathink?"

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe liberals should stop carrying this baggage. The Republicans stuffed her bags with this shit; let THEM carry it.

If that's the case, she always has the option of vetting her doners. You know, never make deals with devils like big banks and other Wall $treet denizens for the purpose of featherbedding your stuff.

They'd better go vote then, and vote for Bernie. Going Jacobin will just land them in jail.

Could be. That's what I'll be doing. I already voted for Bernie on Super Tuesday and I'll vote for him again in November regardless of who's actually on the ticket. Trump is more of a symptom than a cause and Shillery's part of the illegitimate establishment .

Libya is not our mess, and not our fault. The people rose up; they had to be protected against genocide, as we should have protected the people of Syria from it, but did not. Result? The other mess, and it's much bigger and threatens all of Europe.

1. Libya is a IS haven now.
2. Yup, it's also a staging area for people smugglers which is the headache for Europe.
3. We may or may not have stopped "genocide", but is it? IS chops folks' heads off and stuff. It's a nice example of good intentions leading to really shitty results. As far as Europe, there's that ditz, Merkel. She said Germany wants migrants. Well, she got her wish and there's all manner of chickens coming home to roost and shitting all over Germany. They even have rape-u-gees porking German lasses.

https://www.rt.com/news/331594-iraqi-refugee-raped-boy/

Russian media outlets are much better than the US lamestream media! I don't want this riff-raff here in the US.

No, the planets do not lie. The war cycle works. Watch my video again. Posted already umteem times; you know where it is by now.

They may or may not lie. There's always human error to fuck it up.

Lots of foundations get or are built on money from rich folks of one kind or another. So WHAT? The Clinton Fdn. does good work.

It's a conduit to those outrageous speaking fees. People don't dish out $200,000/hr for mindless drivel for nothing.

She's part of the Obamament.

ww.salon.com/2015/10/21/this_is_not_a_democracy_behind_the_deep_state_that _obama_hillary_or_trump_couldnt_control/
Yup. I'm trying to sort out how many years the imperial project has left to go. Empires always fall from within from bankruptcy.

Who said anything about culture wars? I've already straightened you out on that. In one eye and out the other. Not my problem. If you think madmen will set up a black market, I've some news for you.

You sort of did. I put the gun control thread on ignore. I reserve the right to reflog that dead horse if I see it's maggot infested carcass elsewhere. Black market = any market govco doesn't approve of.

My new projection (3/7) on the US Senate

New Public Policy Polling surveys in Arizona, Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina find that voter anger over their Republican Senators’ unwillingness to consider a replacement for Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court could help make those seats competitive for Democrats this fall.

Key findings from the surveys include:

-All these Senators start out with pretty mediocre approval ratings. John McCain’s approval is a 26/63 spread, Roy Blunt’s is 25/48, and Richard Burr’s is 28/44. Only Chuck Grassley within this group is on positive ground and his 47/44 spread is down considerably from what we usually find for him as he loses crossover support from Democrats because of his intransigence on the Supreme Court issue. Further making life difficult for this quartet is the incredibly damaged brand of Senate Republicans. Mitch McConnell is vastly unpopular in these four states, coming in at 11/63 in Iowa, 16/68 in Arizona, 16/69 in Missouri, and 19/65 in North Carolina. McConnell will be an albatross for all Senate Republicans seeking reelection this fall.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/

Note: This assessment can change rapidly should the Republicans not play obstructionist games with the nomination of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Anyone with an approval rating below 40% is in extreme danger of defeat, no matter what State he represents. Many pols with such low approval ratings retire or get defeated in a primary.

Of course, should Republicans act responsibly with an Obama appointment this assessment reverses.


My take (and rationale):



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.

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 8 0
40-44 2 0
45-49 1 2
50-54 3 0
55-59 0 0
>60 0 3
retire 3 3
indict 0 1
oth off 1 0
no poll 6 1


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Iowa (from Sure R)
Kansas


Edge R:
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Arizona (from Edge R)
Georgia (from Edge R)
Nevada


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
Missouri* (from toss-up)
New Hampshire*
North Carolina* (from toss-up)
Ohio*
Pennsylvania*


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.

Update: a poll of Vermont shows an approval rating of 65% for Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT). About what I expected.

Bloomberg: I Won't Run for President
(note: my prediction fulfilled again )

Monday, 07 Mar 2016 05:53 PM

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday that he would not wage a third-party bid for the presidency this year.

He wrote in a column on Bloomberg View that "when I look at the data, it's clear to me that if I entered the race, I could not win. I believe I could win a number of diverse states -- but not enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the presidency."

Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who built a business media and information empire, had been studying the possibility of waging an independent bid for the presidency, but wrote that he ultimately decided that such a candidacy would risk handing the election to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, who now have the most delegates on the way to the Republican nomination.

"In a three-way race, it's unlikely any candidate would win a majority of electoral votes, and then the power to choose the president would be taken out of the hands of the American people and thrown to Congress," Bloomberg wrote. "The fact is, even if I were to receive the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, victory would be highly unlikely, because most members of Congress would vote for their party's nominee. Party loyalists in Congress -- not the American people or the Electoral College -- would determine the next president.

"As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz," he wrote. "That is not a risk I can take in good conscience."

He wrote that he has"known Mr. Trump casually for many years, and we have always been on friendly terms. I even agreed to appear on 'The Apprentice' -- twice. But he has run the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people's prejudices and fears."

Bloomberg wrote that Cruz's "pandering on immigration may lack Trump's rhetorical excess, but it is no less extreme."

Bloomberg did not endorse any candidate, and was critical of both parties. But he had words of praise for Hillary Clinton's husband.

He wrote that the "leading Democratic candidates have attacked policies that spurred growth and opportunity under President Bill Clinton -- support for trade, charter schools, deficit reduction and the financial sector. Meanwhile, the leading Republican candidates have attacked policies that spurred growth and opportunity under President Ronald Reagan, including immigration reform, compromise on taxes and entitlement reform, and support for bipartisan budgets. Both presidents were problem-solvers, not ideological purists. And both moved the country forward in important ways."

Bloomberg wrote that he was "flattered" by those who encouraged him to run.

He told Variety last month that "we need people in politics who are unafraid to talk about the real issues that will make a difference for our country."

Bloomberg considered running for president in 2008, a year after he switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent, but ultimately decided against it. He endorsed the re-election of President Obama in 2012.

© 2016 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.


Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/bloo...#ixzz42H6DyJDz

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

If that's the case, she always has the option of vetting her donors. You know, never make deals with devils like big banks and other Wall $treet denizens for the purpose of featherbedding your stuff.

Most politicians take money from the corporate establishment. It's great that Bernie can do without it, but that's because he's good. 10-0 score, remember?

(I may need to revise his score downward to 9-0 though; we'll see. My data is being updated from 2000.)

Could be. That's what I'll be doing. I already voted for Bernie on Super Tuesday and I'll vote for him again in November regardless of who's actually on the ticket. Trump is more of a symptom than a cause and Shillery's part of the illegitimate establishment .

The populist prairie fire seems to be berning. I would not have expected it. I don't know if CA will do it. Hillary may not be part of the Establishment; how many corporations does she run or hold stock in?

1. Libya is a IS haven now.
2. Yup, it's also a staging area for people smugglers which is the headache for Europe.
3. We may or may not have stopped "genocide", but is it? IS chops folks' heads off and stuff. It's a nice example of good intentions leading to really shitty results. As far as Europe, there's that ditz, Merkel. She said Germany wants migrants. Well, she got her wish and there's all manner of chickens coming home to roost and shitting all over Germany. They even have rape-u-gees porking German lasses.

1. Libya is not an IS haven now; its two factions and NATO have it on target.
2. The staging area is Turkey.
3. Get a grip. We didn't even TRY to stop Assad.

They may or may not lie. There's always human error to fuck it up.

Not really.

It's a conduit to those outrageous speaking fees. People don't dish out $200,000/hr for mindless drivel for nothing.

No it's not a conduit for that. You're reaching.

Yup. I'm trying to sort out how many years the imperial project has left to go. Empires always fall from within from bankruptcy.

Can Bernie even stop it?

You sort of did. I put the gun control thread on ignore. I reserve the right to reflog that dead horse if I see it's maggot infested carcass elsewhere. Black market = any market govco doesn't approve of.

Dead horses seem to come to life around here. But you are nurturing one up above. Blame the IS for Syrian genocide? Come on, dude.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Most politicians take money from the corporate establishment. It's great that Bernie can do without it, but that's because he's good. 10-0 score, remember?

1. The "establishment" isn't just corporate. It's the Deep State. Of course the Deep State is comprised of corporate and Federal Government entities. The Deep State is a conglomerate of Financial , Defense, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc. along with the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. who all featherbed off the real economy.

2. Sure, non of the above support Bernie.

(I may need to revise his score downward to 9-0 though; we'll see. My data is being updated from 2000.)

Aha! That means you erred on the first try. The stars are always right, but human error fucks up the interpretation. While you're there, you can fix yer 1962 boundary as well. That's 2 errs in 1.

The populist prairie fire seems to be berning. I would not have expected it. I don't know if CA will do it. Hillary may not be part of the Establishment; how many corporations does she run or hold stock in?

Here ya go.



[quoe]
1. Libya is not an IS haven now; its two factions and NATO have it on target.
[/quote]

Really? You might want to trawl teh interwebs and tell folks they are wrong then.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/world/...bya/index.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/tunisian-secu...border-2331478
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

2. The staging area is Turkey.

It's also Libya.
https://www.wikileaks.org/eu-militar...ees/press.html

3. Get a grip. We didn't even TRY to stop Assad.

Not really.

See above wrt. www.philosopherswheel.com You admitted you have to "change" stuff. That means Eric 1.0 was buggy.

No it's not a conduit for that. You're reaching.

Sure it is. I mean really. I'd even pay my own air ticket to fly someplace and utter crap for an hour and get paid $200,000.

Can Bernie even stop it?

Probably not. I don't think he'd feed it as much though. It'll stop itself once it gets bloated enough. Then it'll collapse in upon itself like a star going supernova.

Dead horses seem to come to life around here. But you are nurturing one up above. Blame the IS for Syrian genocide? Come on, dude.

There are plenty of actors there actually. There's Assad, Russia, the Kurds, assorted other Sunnis, the US, and Turkey.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

1. The "establishment" isn't just corporate. It's the Deep State. Of course the Deep State is comprised of corporate and Federal Government entities. The Deep State is a conglomerate of Financial , Defense, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc. along with the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. who all featherbed off the real economy.

The CIA and FBI are just institutions needed for security, and the NSA too, but it has been allowed to abuse and extend its role because of the war on terror. It can be brought to heel with a few more votes in congress, if the people want it. The people keep these things going by not demanding that they be shut down and/or behave.

Aha! That means you erred on the first try. The stars are always right, but human error fucks up the interpretation. While you're there, you can fix yer 1962 boundary as well. That's 2 errs in 1.

Careful; I haven't decided about Bernie yet. But my scores are based on the horoscopes of the candidates. It's not an error; as more candidates happen, the database can change. Revisions are made in any theory as more data comes in. But the USA war cycle I have known about since the 1970s, longer than generations or point systems for candidates. It is reliable and I have made successful predictions with it. So if I say there won't be a US war, it's a good bet. No, nothing is certain, but to say that if Hillary is elected she will start a war, has no basis at all. She is much less likely than today's Republican Party and its candidates to go militarist. So if you play the percentages, start with the fact that Republicans are 10 times more militarist than Hillary, and add in the US war cycle that forecasts no new USA war until 2025, and you get a good idea of what WON'T happen if she's elected.

Here ya go.

I can't watch it now, might mess up my bandwidth while I'm doing my internet radio show at http://stillstream.fm
It's probably a smear; I've heard them all from you and the other Hillary Haters already.

You might want to trawl teh interwebs and tell folks they are wrong then.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/world/...bya/index.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/tunisian-secu...border-2331478
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

As far as I know they control a small area on the coast, and are being opposed by the two factions and NATO. They'll be gone soon. I don't know when Libya will get a grip on itself, but it will happen I think. That's my prediction.

It's also Libya.
https://www.wikileaks.org/eu-militar...ees/press.html

Most refugees are from Turkey now; that is well known. It is a good thing to keep up with the news once in a while.

Sure it is. I mean really. I'd even pay my own air ticket to fly someplace and utter crap for an hour and get paid $200,000.

The Foundation is separate from the Clinton's money. Duh..... Just another scam smear.

Probably not. I don't think he'd feed it as much though. It'll stop itself once it gets bloated enough. Then it'll collapse in upon itself like a star going supernova.

I don't know how much of an empire the USA is anymore. The corporate state, though, is international in scope.

There are plenty of actors there actually. There's Assad, Russia, the Kurds, assorted other Sunnis, the US, and Turkey.

Of which Assad was the cause of the genocide, obviously.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

My new projection (3/7) on the US Senate

New Public Policy Polling surveys in Arizona, Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina find that voter anger over their Republican Senators’ unwillingness to consider a replacement for Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court could help make those seats competitive for Democrats this fall.

Key findings from the surveys include:

-All these Senators start out with pretty mediocre approval ratings. John McCain’s approval is a 26/63 spread, Roy Blunt’s is 25/48, and Richard Burr’s is 28/44. Only Chuck Grassley within this group is on positive ground and his 47/44 spread is down considerably from what we usually find for him as he loses crossover support from Democrats because of his intransigence on the Supreme Court issue. Further making life difficult for this quartet is the incredibly damaged brand of Senate Republicans. Mitch McConnell is vastly unpopular in these four states, coming in at 11/63 in Iowa, 16/68 in Arizona, 16/69 in Missouri, and 19/65 in North Carolina. McConnell will be an albatross for all Senate Republicans seeking reelection this fall.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/

Note: This assessment can change rapidly should the Republicans not play obstructionist games with the nomination of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Anyone with an approval rating below 40% is in extreme danger of defeat, no matter what State he represents. Many pols with such low approval ratings retire or get defeated in a primary.

Of course, should Republicans act responsibly with an Obama appointment this assessment reverses.


My take (and rationale):



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.

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 8 0
40-44 2 0
45-49 1 2
50-54 3 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
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Iowa (from Sure R)
Kansas


Edge R:
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Arizona (from Edge R)
Georgia (from Edge R)
Nevada


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
Missouri* (from toss-up)
New Hampshire*
North Carolina* (from toss-up)
Ohio*
Pennsylvania*


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.

Definitely. There is a whole cadre of swing voters who lean more left of center. That cadre is pissed about the Scalia replacement not to mention Frump. Frump is sending many left of center and even a decent number of right of center swingers running toward The Donkey.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The CIA and FBI are just institutions needed for security, and the NSA too, but it has been allowed to abuse and extend its role because of the war on terror.

Yup. Folks have no sense of proportion. You have far higher odds of getting killed by lightning than a terror attack. So what do we do? We forfeit our constitutional rights due to scare mongering media reports that some terrorist attack happened. Said fear is enabled by the Deep State to further its featherbedding via increased powers and budgets. I see no reason to even have an NSA or Department of Homeland Security. Those 2 things can go. The FBI can go back to its traditional role of fighting interstate crime and the CIA can go back to snooping on foreign threats.

It can be brought to heel with a few more votes in congress, if the people want it. The people keep these things going by not demanding that they be shut down and/or behave.

See above.

Careful; I haven't decided about Bernie yet. But my scores are based on the horoscopes of the candidates. It's not an error; as more candidates happen, the database can change.

It's still an error. If the database changes, that means the original data was garbage. So you end up with GIGO, garbage in, garbage out = error.

Revisions [to original errors] are made in any theory as more data comes in. But the USA war cycle I have known about since the 1970s, longer than generations or point systems for candidates. It is reliable and I have made successful predictions with it. So if I say there won't be a US war, it's a good bet.

OK, but ...

No, nothing is certain, but to say that if Hillary is elected she will start a war, has no basis at all. She is much less likely than today's Republican Party and its candidates to go militarist.

So we can either get an unscheduled war or when the time comes , no war as such.

if (Republican = true) then
war_happens();
else
no_war();

So no Republicans ever again = no war, right?

So if you play the percentages, start with the fact that Republicans are 10 times more militarist than Hillary, and add in the US war cycle that forecasts no new USA war until 2025, and you get a good idea of what WON'T happen if she's elected.

Oh, so if no Republican, then war chances go to some low number.

I can't watch it now, might mess up my bandwidth while I'm doing my internet radio show at http://stillstream.fm
It's probably a smear; I've heard them all from you and the other Hillary Haters already.

Yup. But it's funny.

As far as I know they control a small area on the coast, and are being opposed by the two factions and NATO. They'll be gone soon. I don't know when Libya will get a grip on itself, but it will happen I think. That's my prediction.

Dunno, but Turkey is in NATO and Turkey is putting the fuck to Merkel at present. That means NATO is experiencing infighting over refugee bedlam in Eurozone. Btw, where there's Turkey, there's Greece. Greece has all sorts of refugee problems to no end. It's a slippery slope for sure.

Most refugees are from Turkey now; that is well known. It is a good thing to keep up with the news once in a while.

Yup. I wonder if they'll get Greeced.

The Foundation is separate from the Clinton's money. Duh..... Just another scam smear.

Not really. It's more of a weigh station. Corporations donate to the fund and then ring up the Clintons for those generous gravy train speaking fees. I'm sure there's some turkey grease around to grease some palms, man.

I don't know how much of an empire the USA is anymore. The corporate state, though, is international in scope.

It's both The Deep State like I said has both Federal Government and corporate actors. We don't have bases strewn word wide for nothing.

Of which Assad was the cause of the genocide, obviously.

That is pretty much true. You have to add in the fact that Assad got help from his friends as well.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yup. Folks have no sense of proportion. You have far higher odds of getting killed by lightning than a terror attack. So what do we do? We forfeit our constitutional rights due to scare mongering media reports that some terrorist attack happened. Said fear is enabled by the Deep State to further its featherbedding via increased powers and budgets. I see no reason to even have an NSA or Department of Homeland Security. Those 2 things can go. The FBI can go back to its traditional role of fighting interstate crime and the CIA can go back to snooping on foreign threats.

People seem more scared of highly-publicized mass death (war, terrorist strikes, ship sinkings, air crashes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and storms). Someone with the fear of terrorism on the tip of the tongue may have a lighted cigarette in hand. Smoking and even the lighted cigarette (as a fire hazard) are more likely to cause individual death. The Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 was the worst act of domestic terrorism in America in decades, but in the same year Oklahoma had year had 652 traffic-related deaths, 43 of them involving pedestrians. One was more likely to be killed that year in a car than in the Murrah Building. Maybe people pay more attention where there is drama or smouldering rubble. People still talk about the sinking of the Titanic over a century ago but have largely forgotten the influenza outbreak of almost a century ago that killed millions.

People still smoke and drive cars. Want a safer America? Enforce traffic laws more rigidly. Better yet, introduce driver-less cars!

Do you know what really scares me, statistically? Bars! Bar brawls kill!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here's another scenario. It's Trump v Clinton, and the fear factor makes Trump unacceptable; Clinton is elected. On the other hand, Clinton is not a beloved candidate, so a very large number of the voters selecting Hillary choose a straight GOP ticket to balance that as an act of contrition. So how does that SCOTUS happen then?

I'm not sure I understand your scenario.

Is there a scenario where Clinton wins the nomination and losses to Trump in the general? Yes, of course, there is. However, it's not going to be a result of people who voted for her in the primaries then going to Trump in the general - that's pretty silly. Was that your intent?

Clinton's lost will likely be a result of two things. First, former Bernie supporters staying home or voting third party, i.e., the narcissistic adolescent within these PUMAs will take ahold of their brains and shut them down on election day. They'll live with that choice far longer than Trump's actual four years in office. The honest ones will tell their grandchildren their role in helping to build the Trump legacy and ask for their forgiveness; the dishonest ones will learn to hide their shame.

The other reason will be lower class Whites voting against their own economic self-interest. It's happened before - see 1860 poor Southern Whites.