• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

Joe Biden has made a decision. He has shown he's smart enough not to get in this race.

I believe that Biden would be the President this country needs, but would never elect. I say that because what needs to be done is break through the partisan divide that has created the legislative gridlock and kept the US from progressing as many form both ends of the spectrum feel it should be doing, but choose to blame each other for that failure.

Here is Biden's words from today:

As the family and I have worked through the -- the grieving process, I've said all along what I've said time and again to others: that it may very well be that that process, by the time we get through it, closes the window on mounting a realistic campaign for president. That it might close.

I've concluded it has closed. I know from previous experience that there's no timetable for this process. The process doesn't respect or much care about things like filing deadlines or debates and primaries and caucuses.

But I also know that I could do this if the -- I couldn't do this if the family wasn't ready. The good news is the family has reached that point, but as I've said many times, my family has suffered loss, and -- and I -- I hope there would come a time -- and I've said this to many other families -- that, sooner rather than later, when -- when you think of your loved one, it brings a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eyes.

Well, that's where the Bidens are today. Thank god. Beau -- Beau is our inspiration.

Unfortunately, I believe we're out of time, the time necessary to mount a winning campaign for the nomination. But while I will not be a candidate, I will not be silent.

I intend to speak out clearly and forcefully, to influence as much as I can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation. And this is what I believe.

I believe that President Obama has led this nation from crisis to recovery, and we're now on the cusp of resurgence. I'm proud to have played a part in that. This party, our nation, will be making a tragic mistake if we walk away or attempt to undo the Obama legacy.

The American people have worked too hard, and we have have come too far for that. Democrats should not only defend this record and protect this record. They should run on the record.

We have a lot of work to get done over to the next 15 months, and there is a lot of -- the president -- there's a lot that the president will -- will have to get done, but let me be clear that we'll be building on a really solid foundation.

But it all starts with giving the middle-class a fighting chance. I know that you in the press love to call me "Middle-Class Joe," and I know in Washington that's not really meant a compliment; it means you're not that sophisticated, but it is about the middle class. It isn't just a matter of fairness or economic growth, it's a matter of social stability for this nation. We cannot sustain the current levels of inequality that exist in this country.

I believe the huge sums of unlimited and often secret money pouring into our politics is a fundamental threat to our Democracy, and I really believe that. I think it's a fundamental threat, because the middle class will never have a fighting chance in this country as long as just several hundred families, the wealthiest families, control the process. It's just that simple. And I believe that we have to level the playing field for the American people. And that's going to take access to education and opportunity to work.

We need to commit. We are fighting for 14 years -- we need to commit to 16 years of free public education for all of our children. We all know that 12 years of public education is not enough. As a nation, let's make the same commitment to a college education today that we made to a high school education 100 years ago.

Children and child care is the one biggest barrier for working families. We need as the president proposed a triple child care tax credit. That alone will lead to dramatic increase in the number of women able to be in the workforce, and will raise our economic standards.

There are many equitable ways to pay for this. I often hear, well, how do you pay for this? There are many equitable ways to pay for this. We can pay for all of this with one simple step, by limiting the deductions in the tax code to 28 percent of income. Wealthy folks will end up paying a little bit more, but it's my guess -- and I mean this sincerely -- it's my guess they'll be happy to help build a stronger economy and a better educated America. I believe we need to lead more by the power of our example, as the president has, than merely by the example of our power.

We have learned some very hard lessons from more than a decade of large scale, open-ended military invasions. We have to accept the fact that we can't solve all of the world's problems. We can't solve many of them alone.

The argument that we just have to do something when bad people do bad things isn't good enough. It's not a good enough reason for American intervention and to put our sons and daughters' lives on the line, put them at risk.

I believe that we have to end the divisive partisan politics that is ripping this country apart. And I think we can. It's mean spirited, it's petty, and it's gone on for much too long. I don't believe, like some do, that it's naive to talk to Republicans. I don't think we should look at Republicans as our enemies. They are our opposition. They're not our enemies. And for the sake of the country, we have to work together.

As the president has said many times, compromise is not a dirty word. But look at it this way folks, how does this country function without consensus? How can we move forward without being able to arrive at consensus? Four more years of this kind of pitched battle may be more than this country can take. We have to change it. We have to change it.


And I believe that we need a moon shot in this country to cure cancer. It's personal. But I know we can do this. The president and I have already been working hard on increasing funding for research and development, because there are so many breakthroughs just on the horizon in science and medicine, the things that are just about to happen. And we can make them real with an absolute national commitment to end cancer, as we know it today.

And I'm going to spend the next 15 months in this office pushing as hard as I can to accomplish this, because I know there are Democrats and Republicans on the Hill who share our passion, our passion to silence this deadly disease.

If I could be anything, I would have wanted to have been the president that ended cancer, because it's possible.

I also believe we need to keep moving forward in the arc of this nation toward justice: the rights of the LGBT community, immigration reform, equal pay for women and protecting their safety from violence, rooting out institutional racism.

At their core, every one of these things -- every one of these things is about the same thing. It's about equality, it's about fairness, it's about respect. As my dad used to say, it's about affording every single person dignity. It's not complicated.

Every single one of the issues is about dignity. And the ugly forces of hate and division -- they won't let up, but they do not represent the American people. They do not represent the heart of this country. They represent a small fraction of the political elite, and the next president is going to have to take it on.

Most of all I believe there's unlimited possibilities for this country. I don't know how many of the White House staff and personnel have heard me say repeatedly that we are so much better positioned than any country the world.

We are so -- I've been doing this for a long time. When I got elected as a 29-year-old kid, I was called "the optimist". I am more optimistic about the possibilities -- the incredibly possibilities -- to leap forward than I have been any time in my career.

And I believe to my core that there is no country on the face of the Earth better positioned to lead the world in the 21st century than the United States of America.

Washington, though, has to begin to function again. Instead of being the problem, it has to become part of the solution again. We have to be one America again. And at our core, I've always believed that what sets America apart from every other nation is that we -- ordinary Americans -- believe in possibilities. Unlimited possibilities.

The possibilities for a kid growing up in a poor inner-city neighborhood or the -- a Spanish-speaking home, or a kid from Mayfield in Delaware, Willow Grove in Pennsylvania like Jill and I, to be able to be anything we wanted to be, to do anything -- anything -- that we want.

That's what we were both taught, that's what the president was taught. It was real. That's what I grew up believing. And you know, it's always been true in this country, and if we ever lose that, we've lost something very special. We'll have lost the very soul of this country.

When I was growing up, my parents, in tough times, looked at me and would say to me and my brothers and sister, "honey, it's gonna be OK." And they meant it. They meant it. It was gonna be OK.

But some of you cover me, I say, go back to your old neighborhoods. Talk to your contemporaries who aren't as successful as you've been. There are too many people in America -- there are too many parents who don't believe they can look their kid in the eye and say with certitude, "honey, it's gonna be OK."

That's what we need to change. It's not complicated. That will be the true measure of our success, and we'll not have met it until every parent out there can look at their kid in tough times and say, "honey, it's gonna be OK," and mean it.

That's our responsibility. And I believe it's totally within our power. The nation has done it before in difficult times.

I have had the very great good fortune and privilege of being in public service most of my adult life -- since I've been 25 years old. And through personal triumphs and tragedies, my entire family -- son Beau, my son Hunter, my daughter Ashley, Jill -- our whole family -- and this sounds corny, but we found purpose in public life.

We found purpose in public life. So we intend -- the whole family, not just me -- we intend to spend the next 15 months fighting for what we've always cared about -- what my family's always cared about -- with every ounce of our being, and working alongside the president and members of Congress and our future nominee, I am absolutely certain that we fully are capable of accomplishing extraordinary things. We can do this.

And when we do, America won't just win the future, we will own the finish line.

Thank you for all being so gracious to Jill and me, for the last six or eight months, and for our whole career for that matter. But I am telling you, we can do so much more. I am looking forward to continuing to work with this man to get it done. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much.
 
A twofer: Why the Republicans are having a hard time harnessing the awesome powers of Big Data, and a it of cartoon snark for you to enjoy as well:

http://thewilderness.me/how-to-build-a-digital-elephant/

How to Build a Digital Elephant: The GOP’s Biggest Obstacle in 2016
The Wilderness | Issue 61 | 10 . 21 . 2015 |

Last week saw the Democrats, the purported party of Youth and Diversity, turn their first primary debate into a joyless slog that quickly devolved into a pitiless deathmarch to see which aging, pasty-faced candidate could stay awake past their bedtime the longest. It took less than five minutes for the Democratic candidates to start yelling at, and about, everyone watching. As VOXDOTCOM noted, the Democratic party is in ashes on a state and national level outside of the presidency, and they have no candidates in the post-Obama era worth offering so hey: Lincoln Chafee will have to do! The best they are offering is a 74-year-old socialist (who, a week after the debate ended, is probably still on stage screaming about communitarian economics in a darkened auditorium) and a 70-year-old oligarch with the lowest likability ratings of any presidential candidate in modern history…who also just happens to be the target of a FBI investigation for gross mishandling of classified information.

And yet, in the end none of it may matter.

The gaffes. The staged media events. The bursts of random cackling that repel voters like garlic repels vampires. The scandalous indifference to, and insolence toward, federal law. All of it may very well be utterly inconsequential in the final analysis because more and more these days it’s data and analytics that decide elections. And numbers don’t care about likability or traditional electability. The 2016 election, more than 2012 or 2008 before it, will be an election decided on data and outreach, and as of right now the GOP and its candidates are woefully underequipped and underprepared. Some of this is completely beyond their control at this early point in the primaries. But some of it is not; it is very much under their control, and the current structure of GOP campaign operations suggest that the candidates are simply choosing not to emphasize it.

Here is a simple fact: right now, the GOP is on the road to defeat, set to be overwhelmed by a superior digital voter microtargeting operation on the other side, and hamstrung by a refusal to focus on the future of predictive analytics and Big Data application technology. These are the things which translate through e-mail and online contacts, into both donations and (even more importantly) boots on the ground in the thick of a general election campaign: door-to-door mobilization. Everything else — the theater, the social media back-and-forths, the SNL appearances and Sunday morning show interviews — is almost meaningless. The 2016 pool of potential GOP nominees represents the deepest reserve of young Presidential-level talent the Republican Party has had in ages, and none of it may matter because while the engineers and developers on the Democratic side aren’t necessarily personally invested in Hillary or Bernie, they do believe in the greater Cause. And, more to the point, these are the sorts of people who simply enjoy solving equations and problems.

GOP candidates are facing a mammoth two-pronged problem: 1) the failure of will and lack of funds to field large data-driven get-out-the-vote operations, and; 2) Hillary Clinton’s well funded allies in Silicon Valley, specifically Eric Schmidt and Google. On top of that, this is a party whose candidates look like they are playing catch-up in the areas of digital operations and field mobilization.

To give you an idea of how far behind the Republican Party is in the digital age of voter-targeting, realize this: the GOP didn’t even create a position for a Chief Technology Officer until after the 2012 election, when they looked to former Facebook senior engineer Andrew Barkett, who moved on to work on digital ops for the Jeb! Bush campaign. It took a disaster as large as Mitt Romney’s ORCA operation, an analytical Titanic, to wake the Republicans from of a pre-digital opioid slumber that saw their rival campaign operation carry Obama to consecutive victories on the backs of 20/30-something developers who were busily coding, farming data, and analyzing and applying the results behind the scenes. (Team Chicago had about 200 digital staffers to Romney’s 50.) The GOP undertook a sort of digital boot camp after the failures of 2008 and 2012 that certainly helped in 2014. But how well that translates over to 2016 is still a shaky unknown — midterm cycles are not at all like the massive pressure of Presidential election cycles — and as far as individual campaigns are concerned, the outlook isn’t good.

“There’s a whole bunch of people in politics who say a lot of words, all the buzzwords that we talked about, and they say, ‘I want more analytics.’ None of them have any idea what any of those things mean,” Barkett stated on a panel discussion earlier this year. “They have no idea what the difference is between building an infrastructure of servers that know how to send e-mails to having an e-mail list or the difference between the records in the voter file and the analytics that you do in addition to those,”

This isn’t to say that as a party, the GOP hasn’t made enormous strides in online voter targeting. They have. But how well that translates over to candidates preparing for a brutal primary and general election is anyone’s guess. On top of that,  the GOP simply just doesn’t have the allies in the technology industry that the Clinton machine, via the Obama campaign, has.


This is why forward-thinking campaigns that embrace technology, such as Marco Rubio’s, are so important to the new era of digital politics. Every campaign should be scouring the earth for the new Peter Brand from Moneyball. High and low, in and out of politics, everywhere and anywhere. But because the Republican party itself is still littered with pre-Obama, pre-analytics consultant fossils who think direct-mail expenditures and TV ads are worth burning millions of dollars on, new talent is hard to find and even harder to convince to take a likely pay-cut. (Nobody with talent is going to take a pay-cut to be told “no, we’re overlooking your Big Data web microtargeting outreach idea to send out a bunch of postcard-mailers instead. It’s what we’ve always done.”) And for everything the Rubio campaign is doing right in embracing Silicon Valley’s talent and technology, he also embraced Romney’s former ORCA leadership team (who have shown no signs of learning from their cetacean-sized failure in November 2012), and he is still struggling to gain ground and cash in a crowded primary field dominated by a regressive AM radio entertainment wing still gladly turning their microphones over to a mealymouthed shiteating harlequin named Donald Trump — who at this point, has zero digital ground-operation beyond telling his Twitter followers to spam-vote the Drudge online poll.

Trump may have his billions, but he has thus far shown zero interest in spending it on the sort of campaign infrastructure that matters for winning national elections, especially as regards digital outreach and targeting small donors and voters.

Last week, as candidates released their FEC filing data for the 3rd quarter of 2015, burn rates for GOP frontrunners were alarmingly high as it related to money spent on their GOTV and digital targeting operations. Ben Carson, for example, spent upwards of $10 million on advertising mainly through traditional ad buys and old-school mailers. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, spent a mere $450,000 on online ad buys and parlayed it into a stunning $11 million of donations. As Jeb! Bush continues to slide in polls, he has ended up slashing campaign salaries while still paying out a moderate amount on big data operations.

Meanwhile, the highest paid staffer of the Hillary Clinton campaign is her director of analytics.

One side is taking this all very seriously. One side, by all appearances, continues not to.

GOP campaigns are burning through millions of donor dollars on the same old traditional media in primaries, and the story that many of them will tell you is that they are hoping to use more tech-savvy targeted analytics later on in the general election once they get there. But as we have seen before from the Romney disaster, by then it will perhaps be too late. Patrick Ruffini of Echelon Insights (and whose Medium is an invaluable tool for understanding these topics more) had an excellent breakdown at Politico on the problems of an analytically conservative party continuously attempting to play catch-up. Ruffini writes:

“This divide is mirrored on the digital side of the campaign. Rather than hoarding money early, Democrats have invested in seven-figure email list-building programs to lay the foundation for eight- and nine-figure digital fundraising returns down the road. Clinton and Sanders are very different candidates, but the strategies they have pursued in this regard are strikingly similar. In the second quarter, each had paid online advertising firms $1.2 million, exclusive of money paid for staff or to maintain their digital infrastructure. These ads are designed to do one thing: get as many people as possible to give over their email address to the campaign, so they can later be targeted for fundraising appeals.”

The Sanders campaign, for example, is using targeted emails lists to reach individual voters and volunteers, and building out an organic movement. GOP candidates are relying on the big ad buys, the sort of impersonal arms-length outreach which may reach eyeballs of voters sitting in front of their TV, but doesn’t motivate people to donate or volunteer to knock on doors.

In short, just as the GOP itself is relying on an outdated and hostile media for its debate-hosting and moderation (instead of turning to online formats to reach non-traditional voters) GOP campaigns are pouring millions upon millions of wasted dollars into outdated, traditional advertising buys such as regional TV ads and posterboard mailers. The other challenge facing GOP candidates is simple: competition. More candidates means more (and more scattered) donors, and a primary race that devolves into a parody of It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, with a dozen or so goofballs stumbling over each other for dollars and stretching their field operations to over-max capacity (hello, Scott Walker). There is only so much money to go around for so many candidates.
Cave_119


Which brings us to the most terrifying aspect of all of this: Eric Schmidt’s The Groundwork.

Little is known about the Google Alphabet CEO’s start-up operation, except that it is partly funded by Schmidt himself and includes several key members of the successful Obama “Cave,” the engineers who developed superior voter-targeting application platforms in 2012.  The Groundwork’s website is a single landing page with a mysterious logo that, I kid you not, resembles the Illuminati symbol. It was created before Clinton’s official launch, with one singular goal in mind: elect Hillary. QZ.com ran a profile and the information shared should be a wake up call to GOP base and the candidates bickering over how to Make America Great Again:

“…sources say the Groundwork was created to minimize the technological gap that occurs between presidential campaign cycles while pushing forward the Big Data infrastructure that lies at the heart of modern presidential politics. There is also another gap in play: The shrinking distance between Google and the Democratic Party. Former Google executive Stephanie Hannon is the Clinton campaign’s chief technology officer, and a host of ex-Googlers are currently employed as high-ranking technical staff at the Obama White House. Schmidt, for his part, is one of the most powerful donors in the Democratic Party—and his influence does not stem only from his wealth, estimated by Forbes at more than $10 billion. At a time when private-sector money is flowing largely unchecked into US politics, Schmidt’s funding of the Groundwork suggests that 2016’s most valuable resource may not be donors capable of making eight-figure donations to Super PACs, but rather supporters who know how to convince talented engineers to forsake (at least for awhile) the riches of Silicon Valley for the rough-and-tumble pressure cooker of a presidential campaign.”

On top of this, the DNC has been granted access to Organizing For Action’s coveted donor list, including all e-mail addresses. This is what is transpiring in the back rooms of the DNC and the Clinton campaign machine, while conservative candidates relitigate the Holocaust as a gun-control issue, argue about George W. Bush’s responsibility for 9/11, and generally dance the age-old jig of internecine primary warfare to nitrous oxide giggles of a network media all too happy to ensure that the clown car rolls on. While GOP campaigns struggle for oxygen, money and voters, Schmidt has already laid down a 50-state digital infrastructure and is using the best young minds he can find to target and develop it.

Make no mistake: the Republican Party is once again playing with two strikes against it.

The engineers and developers creating these platforms for Schmidt may be ideologically like-minded, but they aren’t necessarily driven by their desire to influence the national conversation as it relates to social issues or foreign policy. They simply see a problem that needs solving, and they know that if they’re the ones to solve it they can write their own post-election ticket anywhere they want. Let’s be clear: when Eric Schmidt of all people approaches you with an opportunity, you absolutely are not going to start mumbling to him about “political differences.” As far as Silicon Valley culture is concerned, you’ve just been given an Offer You Can’t Refuse. Could anybody? These young minds don’t care about e-mail scandals or leaked classified intelligence. They don’t care about debate performances or poll numbers. They don’t care what MSNBC or CNN hosts are saying. They are simply data-driven, analytical minds obsessed with solving the problem put in front of them. Unfortunately for Republicans, the problem presented to them in this case is how to elect Hillary Clinton (or maybe Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, depending on how things shake out) as President of the United States of America.

If this outlook seems grim,  it is.

But it’s not entirely hopeless. On top of the digital strides the RNC has made with apps and e-mail targeting, a familiar ally is attempting to take the party and the candidates even further in hopes of competing with Schmidt and Google: Charles and David Koch. Koch industries poured money into a data research firm called i360, which was started by Michael Palmer, John McCain’s former chief technical strategist. Past clients included Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst and Larry Hogan. (The latter two won decisive 2014 victories in races where the Democrats had started off favored; in Hogan’s case, pretty much nobody outside his friends and family thought he would win the Maryland governor’s race until he shockingly clobbered Martin O’Malley’s handpicked successor on election night.) In Colorado, i360 assisted in targeting voters using social media analytics, credit bureau reporting data, former addresses and television watching habits. That data, once compiled, analyzed, and intelligently used, helped Cory Gardner defeat Senator Mark Uterus in what turned out to be a very close race.

Data-mining made all the difference.

The problem with applying successful GOTV analytics is the GOP’s tendency to sit on them instead of working to develop them further. Where RNC data platforms were in 2014 for midterm elections, OFA and the DNC were already in 2012 for a national election. And you can bet they’ve moved forward since then. The RNC itself has a new digital team and a new platform, Republic VX, and is hoping to grow and expand on i360’s success, but as the RNC’s new Chief Technology Officer Azarias Reda told Bloomberg earlier this year, “we can’t solve every problem campaigns have.” There is a recent record of success on the Right but it has to translate over to national campaigns and campaigns have to put emphasis, and more importantly money into these operations. This all has to happen while Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable primary lead and the company of tech-billionaires and developers that are culturally predisposed not to view young tech-savvy GOP candidates as options.

The “candidate” may still be the mighty seed from which all other branches grow, but Barack Obama’s election (and, more importantly, re-election) showed that the candidate and their message do not matter as much as the infrastructure surrounding them. Outdated tactics from past presidential elections will not work. The GOP candidate could be targeting voters, engaging with biased debate moderators, or dressing up in giant squirrel costumes — none of it will matter. As long as they are playing catch-up, they’ll be losing. The results will be the same.

And the GOP will be left with the grim task of having to dispose of the carcass of another giant fail whale.
 
Thoughts, cupper? Rifleman?

Time

Trump’s Foreign Policy Doesn’t Include Fighting Over Burqas

    Daniel White @danielatlarge

Oct. 26, 2015
The billionaire wants to build a "military so strong, so powerful, so everything," but won't use them to dispute women wearing head coverings

Donald Trump told a room full of New Hampshire voters that America should not stand up to countries that require women to cover their faces with burqas.

“Why are we fighting that?” the often-boisterous Republican presidential candidate asked the crowd, and added the country should “let them” wear what they want instead of entering into combat over the head coverings.

Trump also said women might prefer wearing burqas because it eliminates the need for makeup, according to the Boston Globe.


(...SNIPPED)
 
S.M.A. said:
Thoughts, cupper? Rifleman?

Time

It will be 'uge.

See, this is why we need more of the Canadian political elite to start getting policy guidance from the cable news channels. Forget the think tanks, forget the wonks. If you need experts, watch the cable news shows. That's what Trump does, that's what all the politicos should do.

Unencumbered by the thought process.
 
More of the real reason for Trump, Carson and the rest (and Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side): the actual political establishment has become so insulated from the electorate they actually have no idea of what the electorate actually wants (or are so insulated from the effects of their actions they have no idea how these policies play out in the real world). Cupper may have been sarcastic, but cable news commentators and call in radio shows are somewhat closer to the electorate, and bloggers and new media closer still. If there are community newspapers and local television and radio stations out in the hinterland, they probably provide a more nuanced and immediate perspective than the large networks  do:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/26/3-sentences-that-explain-just-how-clueless-establishment-republicans-are-about-2016/

The Fix
3 sentences that explain just how clueless establishment Republicans are about 2016
By Chris Cillizza October 26 

The dirty little secret in Republican politics these days is that the longtime pillars of the party — politicians and ex-politicians, major donors and the consultant class — are further removed from the views of the GOP base than at any time in modern memory. They simply do not understand what the heck is happening within and to their party.

John Sununu, a former New Hampshire governor and longtime GOP hand, is one of the few who is willing to admit just how clueless he is about, among other things, the rise of Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Here's what Sununu told the New York Times's Jonathan Martin:

I have no feeling for the electorate anymore. It is not responding the way it used to. Their priorities are so different that if I tried to analyze it I’d be making it up.

Sununu is far from alone in GOP  ranks. Think about how most establishment Republicans saw this race playing out: Jeb Bush gets in, raises a ton of money and blows everyone else out of the water. By this point in the year, most of the consultant class would have predicted that Bush would be solidly in first place in most of the early states and simply polishing his policy résumé for the general-election fight to come.

But the truth that Martin exposes via Sununu is that the old ways of doing things in the Republican Party have changed significantly since even George W. Bush was elected in 2000 — running, it's worth noting, essentially the same campaign his younger brother is right now. Strategies — get big (in terms of organization), tout electability and inevitability, keep yourself close enough to the center that you can be viable in a general election — that once were fail-safe just don't work in this electoral environment where the dominant sentiment of voters is anger about everything.

For months and months and months, establishment types have counseled patience. Trump (and others) would go up and would come down, Jeb would be steady. That worked right up until Jeb raised $7 million less than Carson over the past three months and had to cut staff to stay afloat. And, oh yeah, Bush (and almost every other "establishment" candidate) is in single digits in polls in every early state that matters.

It's not just at the presidential level either. Remember how Kevin McCarthy was going to be speaker of the House? Sure, there might be some opposition — especially from the tea party-aligned Freedom Caucus — but he had plenty of votes to handle it. Except that he didn't.

We are through the looking glass. The revolution is on. And most of the old guard — Sununu being a notable exception — keeps waiting for things to return to "normal." Maybe they will. Maybe Bush or, more likely, Marco Rubio will wind up as the Republican nominee next year. But, if the recent past is prologue, there is a very real possibility that the way things have always been is not the way they will be in 2016 and someone like, yes, Carson or Trump (or maybe Ted Cruz) could win the GOP nod.

Sometimes you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 
Thucydides said:
More of the real reason for Trump, Carson and the rest (and Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side): the actual political establishment has become so insulated from the electorate they actually have no idea of what the electorate actually wants (or are so insulated from the effects of their actions they have no idea how these policies play out in the real world). Cupper may have been sarcastic, but cable news commentators and call in radio shows are somewhat closer to the electorate, and bloggers and new media closer still. If there are community newspapers and local television and radio stations out in the hinterland, they probably provide a more nuanced and immediate perspective than the large networks  do:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/26/3-sentences-that-explain-just-how-clueless-establishment-republicans-are-about-2016/

I respect Chris Cillzza's opinions and analysis, particularly his center of the spectrum viewpoint.

However, the GOP race last time was never solid until March or April, and many predicted that Romney wasn't gong to make it since he could never get above the 35% threshold. The front runner changed with each caucus or primary, starting with Bachman in the Iowa Caucuses, the Cain, then Gingritch, and so on until we were left with Santorum and Romney.

The difference this time around is the race started a 18 months early. We've been watching Trump lead for months, and now Carson. The outsiders seem to have gamed it out, and the so-called establishment candidates sucking air. But this time 4 years ago we were  just starting to see who was getting in and who wasn't.

I think you will see an establishment candidate finally take over in the March session of the primaries. As the more center oriented / moderate GOP voters figure they have no real chance going with the extreme end of the spectrum, or someone who only really seems to be in it for an ego boost.

As they say - a week in politics is a lifetime. 
 
Carson is now the frontrunner to Trump's dismay. Meanwhile, Fiorina, Bush and the other so-called "presidentiables" have their poll numbers stuck in the single digits:

Reuters
Politics | Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:21pm EDT
Related: Politics
Ben Carson pulls ahead of Donald Trump in national poll
WASHINGTON | By Ginger Gibson

Ben Carson has placed first in a recent national Republican presidential primary poll, pushing Donald Trump into second place for the first time since June.

Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, received 26 percent of the support in the New York Times/ CBS News poll released on Tuesday morning.

Trump placed second with 22 percent of the support of those surveyed, trailing by less than the 6 percentage-point margin of error. The poll of 575 Republican primary voters was conducted Oct. 21 through 25.

The Republican candidates will meet on the debate stage on Wednesday night, providing a third opportunity for them to differentiate themselves.

The national poll comes after three conducted in Iowa, the first state to vote in the primary process, showed Trump trailing Carson for the first time.

(...SNIPPED)
 
While people are (and should be) genuinely concerned with the state of things in the United States, there is still a big difference between America and the rest of the world. If the GOP were to start stressing the advantages of America (and indeed stressing the differential between Republican States and their European counterparts) they could change the narrative to something much more positive and upifting. (One can dream):

https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states

Mises Wire
If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States
October 26, 2015•Ryan McMaken

The battle over the assumed success of European socialism continues. Many European countries like Sweden have gained a reputation as being very wealthy in spite of their highly regulated and taxed economies. From there, many assume that the rest of Europe is more or less similar, even if slightly poorer. But if we look more closely at the data, a very different picture emerges, and we find that the median household in the US is better off (income-wise) than the median household in all but three European countries.

Worse than Mississippi?

Last year, a debate erupted over how Britain would compare to individual US states. In the UK Spectator, Fraser Nelson explained "Why Britain is poorer than any US state, other than Mississippi." A week later, TIME shot back with an article titled "No, Britain Is Not Poorer than Alabama." The author of the TIME article, Dan Stewart, explained that, yes, Britain is poorer than many US states, but certainly not all of them. (See below to confirm that the UK is, in fact, poorer than every state.)

The main fault of the Spectator article, its critics alleged, was that it relied primarily on GDP and GDP per capita to make the comparisons. The critics at TIME (and other publications) correctly pointed out that if one is going to draw broad conclusions about poverty among various countries, GDP numbers are arguably not the best metric. For one, GDP per capita can be skewed upward by a small number of ultra-rich persons. After all, it is just GDP divided by the total population. That gives us no idea of how the median household is doing is those areas. Also, it's best to avoid averages and stick with median values if we're looking to avoid numbers that can be pulled up by some wealthy outliers.

This same criticism was applied to a 2007 study by Swedish economists Fredrik Bergström and Robert Gidehag (and an article by Mark J Perry) who had asserted that according to their calculations, Sweden was poorer than most US states.

The Bergstrom and Gidehag study was no back-of-the-envelope analysis, but given that they did rely largely on GDP per capita data, I thought it might be helpful to use data that relies on median income data instead, so as to better account for inequalities in income and to get a better picture of what the median resident's purchasing power. Click for full size:

The nationwide median income for the US is in red. To the left of the red column are other OECD countries, and to the right of the red bar are individual US states. These national-level comparisons take into account taxes, and include social benefits (e.g., "welfare" and state-subsidized health care) as income. Purchasing power is adjusted to take differences in the cost of living in different countries into account.

Since Sweden is held up as a sort of promised land by American socialists, let's compare it first. We find that, if it were to join the US as a state, Sweden would be poorer than all but 12 states, with a median income of $27,167.

Median residents in states like Colorado ($35,830), Massachusetts ($37,626), Virginia ($39,291), Washington ($36,343), and Utah ($36,036) have considerably higher incomes than Sweden.

With the exception of Luxembourg ($38,502), Norway ($35,528), and Switzerland ($35,083), all countries shown would fail to rank as high-income states were they to become part of the United States. In fact, most would fare worse than Mississippi, the poorest state.

For example, Mississippi has a higher median income ($23,017) than 18 countries measured here. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom all have median income levels below $23,000 and are thus below every single US state. Not surprisingly, the poorest OECD members (Chile, Mexico, and Turkey) have median incomes far below Mississippi.

Germany, Europe's economic powerhouse, has a median income ($25,528) level below all but 9 US states. Finland ranks with Germany in this regard ($25,730), and France's median income ($24,233) is lower than both Germany and Finland. Denmark fares better and has a median income ($27,304) below all but  13 US states.

On the other hand, were Australia ($29,875), Austria ($28,735), and Canada (28,288) to join the US, they would be regarded as "middle-income states" with incomes similar to the US median of $30,616.

We Should Adjust for Purchasing-Power Differences Among States

But, I'm really being too conservative with the US numbers here. I'm comparing OECD countries to US states based on a single nation-wide purchasing power number for the US. We've already accounted for cost of living at the national level (using PPP data), but the US is so much larger than all  other countries compared here, we really need to consider the regional cost of living in the United States. Were we to calculate real incomes based on the cost of living in each state, we'd find that real purchasing power is even higher in many of the lower-income states than we see above.

Using the BEA's regional price parity index, we can take now account for the different cost of living in different states, and the new graph looks like this:

We now see that there's less variation in the median income levels among the US states. That makes sense because many states with low median incomes also have a very low cost of living. At the same time, many states with high median incomes have a very high cost of living.

Now that we've accounted for the low cost of living in Mississippi, we find that Mississippi ($26,517) is no longer the state with the lowest median income in real terms. New York ($26,152) is now the state with the lowest median income due to its very high cost of living.

This has had the effect of giving us a more realistic view of the purchasing power of the median household in US states. It is also more helpful in comparing individual states to OECD members, many of which have much higher costs of living than places like the American south and midwest.  Now that we recognize how inexpensive it is to live in places like Tennessee, Florida, and Kentucky, we find that residents in those states now have higher median incomes than Sweden (a place that's 30% more expensive than the US) and most other OECD countries measured.

Once purchasing power among the US states is taken into account, we find that Sweden's median income ($27,167) is higher than only six states: Arkansas ($26,804), Louisiana ($25,643), Mississippi ($26,517), New Mexico ($26,762), New York ($26,152) and North Carolina ($26,819).

We find something similar when we look at Germany, but in Germany's case, every single US state shows a higher median income than Germany. Germany's median income is $25,528. Things look even worse for the United Kingdom which has a median income of $21,033, compared to $26,517 in Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Colorado ($35,059) has a median income nearly identical to Switzerland ($35,083), and ten states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Washington State) show higher median incomes than Switzerland. Luxembourg ($38,502), on the other hand, shows a median income higher than every state except New Hampshire ($39,034).

None of this analysis should really surprise us. According to the OECD's own numbers (which take into account taxes and social benefits, the US has higher median disposable income than all but three OECD countries. Sweden ranks below the US in this regard, as does Finland and Denmark.

The fact that the median level in the US is above most OECD countries thus makes it no surprise that most of these countries then rank below most US states. The US states that have income level above the median US level will, not surprisingly, outpace many OECD countries by a considerable margin.

Methods and Data

I began with the OECD's "median disposable income" metric. This is a metric developed by the OECD to compare among all member states. The measure takes into account taxes and social benefits provided.

Then, we must adjust the numbers for  purchasing power parity using the World Bank's index. At that point, we can see how the US compared to other members using dollars across all countries. I provided an analysis at the national level here.

But, in order to compare to individual US states, we have to come up with a way to make US states comparable. The OECD does not measure individual US states, so I had to use the Census Bureau's measure of median income for a place to start (2012-2013 2-year average medians). The Census numbers are much higher than the OECD numbers for a variety of reasons. In fact, the OECD income number of the US is only 59 percent of the Census number.

So, to roughly adjust state income levels for OECD methods, I cut down state level income levels to 59 percent of their Census total. This brought the median income level in Illinois, for example, down from approximately $54,000 (Census value) to $32,000 (to estimate OECD value). Similarly, one could also adjust for OECD methods by taking the OECD median income for the US ($30,616) and then adjusting to fit each individual state's median income  in relationship to the nationwide median. For example, since Wyoming (according to the Census) has a median income that is 109% of the national median income, we simply set Wyoming's median income at ~ $33,600 which is 109% of the OECD median income value of $30,616.

When adjusting for cost of living in US states, I then adjusted each state using the regional price parity numbers provided by the Bureau of Economic Affairs. Naturally, median income numbers for individual states are already in US dollars.

Is median income a good metric for poverty comparisons? Maybe, but in any case it's what OECD and UNICEF use. Typically, the "poverty rate" is calculated as either 50% or 60% of the national median income. So, apparently, the UN and OECD do think it's a relevant figure, and if poverty rates are going to be invoked as reasons for new public policy, then median incomes must be analyzed.
 
A good summary on the previous GOP debate:

Diplomat

Republican Round #3: Survival of the Fittest

Candidates focus on US economy and fight for their political future.

By Mercy A. Kuo and Angelica O. Tang
October 29, 2015

(...SNIPPED)

We break down candidates’ debate performances in three categories:

High Stakes
. Sharing center stage Donald Trump and Ben Carson sought to show which “outsider” could seize the inside lane. Trump lacked detailed policy plans. His predictable braggadocio undercut any attempts to rationalize how he would grow the economy without reforming Social Security and Medicare. In using his closing remarks to rant about the debate format, Trump reinforced his brutish style. Ben Carson’s reflective composure held steady in the absence of a standout performance, but may have benefitted from Trump’s tiresome tirades. Jeb Bush faced the fight of his political life. His underwhelming delivery and scripted retorts probably did not help resuscitate his flagging poll position. Going into this round, Marco Rubio, Bush’s chief rival, had to punch above his weight to make a clear break from the pack. A few memorable moments – countering Jeb Bush’s admonition to resign from the Senate, calling out the mainstream media as the Democrats’ Super PAC, and taking a stand against anything bad for his mother – met with uproarious audience applause and likely spiked Rubio’s standing. Ted Cruz’s description of the Democratic debate as one between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and characterizing the media as untrustworthy was a reminder that he cannot be underestimated to tap into fiery conservative conviction.

Flank Stakes. Fighting from the flanks, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul scored high on content and conviction but mediocre on delivery. Kasich appeared uptight. Despite Huckabee’s compelling closing remarks, he had to fight to be heard. Fiorina held her own but did not deliver the much-needed grand-slam performance she gave in the second debate. Chris Christie’s straight-shooter style was much sharper, particularly with his jab at the moderator’s rudeness even by New Jersey standards. But a respectable performance may not be enough for long-term traction. Though less combative this round, Rand Paul lacked inspiration.

Secondary Stakes. In the undercard category, with the exception of Bobby Jindal, the others – George Pataki, Rick Santorum and Lindsey Graham – all took swipes at China on pollution, cyberattacks and manufacturing jobs. But in explaining that economic security is related to national security, Graham’s hand gestures of a clenched fist and open hand in dealing with China and declaring that as commander-in-chief “the crap stops here” was a reminder of China’s presence at the debate.
 
Maybe if the Republicans stand together and work a bit harder on these issues, then the election (and American politics) will be changed quite dramatically:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015/10/30/the-medias-potemkin-village-starts-to-topple/?singlepage=true

The Media’s Potemkin Village Starts to Topple
But whining about liberal bias means nothing if you don't back it up with some action of your own.
by Michael Walsh
October 30, 2015 - 8:40 am

Wednesday night’s CNBC Republican debate turned out to be a tussle between the three left-leaning “moderators” and the candidates on the main stage, most of whom can safely be described as center-right. And finally — thanks largely to the huge ratings bonanza that is Donald Trump — the American people got a chance to see the true, ugly, partisan, smug, self-righteous face of what we used to call journalism, but now is simply political advocacy employing computers and television cameras under the shield of the First Amendment.

Ted Cruz punched the hardest when he went straight after the moderators: “This is not a cage match,” he snarled. But of course it was a cage match and never was intended to be anything else. The entire Leftist media operation cannot imagine it being anything but; for them, a group of Republicans needs to be confronted, challenged and if possible humiliated, while a group of Democrats needs to be cosseted and caressed. It’s not that it’s a deliberate plot, mind you, but rather is the result of a world view that states there is now only one side to a story, and that is the Left side. And all right-thinking people agree.

It may difficult for conservatives, who often smell a conspiracy where there is none, to accept this. Surely the lockstep, if not to say the actual socialist goosestep, of the Left can only be the result of a malevolent plot to crush conservatism. Now, crush conservatism they most certainly want to do, but for decades they’ve gotten away with it because — and this is important, so pay attention — there has been no effective opposition within the ranks of reporters and editors. Conservatives have simply taken themselves out of the game, and largely through attrition.

As a result, the journalists at the national level are rarely exposed to any kind of contrarian or oppositional thinking when it counts — in the story conferences.  Most civilians have no idea what these are or how, outside of the movies, they actually function, but during my 25-year stint in the mainstream media — including sixteen years at Time Magazine at the end of its glory days, they were places to present story ideas, get criticism on the spot from editors and colleagues, and hash out the days top news qua news.

But for lack of any pushback, the “progressive” mindset (cultivated at the university level and reinforced by the old-school ties that operate to a degree among top journalists that would amaze you), the Big Seven — the three nets, Time and Newsweek, plus the New York Times and the Washington Post — that set the agenda for the rest of the country was pretty much the epicenter of the famous “bubble” we hear so much about.  It’s also worth noting that, even today, most of the senior figures and marquee writers in the media establishment not only know each other, they socialize, live in many of the same neighborhoods, work within blocks of each other, have summer houses in the same place, sleep together, and occasionally even marry each other. It’s an incestuous as you feared.

But not a conspiracy. Rather think of the MSM as a small Scandinavian village, so far untouched by “diversity.” Since everybody knows each other, and follows the same rules, life is calm and good. It’s only the outsiders — those conservatives — who disrupt the natural harmony. Like foreign bodies, they must be mobilized against and expelled by the progressive immune system.  To quote a famous Leftist, Benito Mussolini, the founding father of Fascism, “everything within the State, nothing outside the State.”

Now here’s the thing…

“Mr. Trump: When did you stop beating your wife?”

There aren’t that many of them. The Leftist MSM may seem like a monolith, but mostly it’s a collection of rueful men and women who wish they were doing the things they’re assigned to cover, instead of actually covering them. Like groupies, they derive satisfaction and self-worth from orbiting the heavenly bodies they watch, and around whom they revolve. As I wrote on Twitter last night:

Dirty lil secret of MSM is that most would really rather be doing what the folks they cover do, Serious jealousy and fanboydom at work here.

What the candidates did the other night to the MSM should not be underestimated. At last, it was not just a lone Newt Gingrich bashing the ideological inanity of his interlocutors, but a number of them, including Cruz and Rubio. By presenting a relatively united front against the clear animosity emanating from the three CNBC hosts, the candidates were able to keep the focus off the stupid questions (“are you a comic book version of a campaign?) and onto the biases of the moderators themselves.

Which is why the morning-after headlines were not so much about who “won” but how CNBC — and by extension the entire MSM — disgraced itself. Bashing the media may not be a policy platform, but it’s nourishment and sustenance to a long-suffering conservative constituency which doesn’t much care whom or what is being bashed so long as somebody or something is being bashed. They’re tired of being punching bags, and especially tired of getting smacked around by folks like Reince Priebus (who approved the CNBC debacle), who are ostensibly on their side.

And which is also why the cracks around the foundations of MSM hegemony are a bigger story than most realize. The Soviet Union looked monolithic until a few brave Hungarians (who hated the Russians anyway) opened the floodgates to the West in 1989 and in so doing brought down both the Berlin Wall and the U.S.S.R. The MSM’s cultural hegemony will last precisely as long as it takes to even the odds — not solely, it should be noted, by creating alternative venues of news and analysis (Fox News, PJ Media, Breitbart, et al.) but by flooding the outlets of the MSM with journalists who do not wear their ideological biases on their sleeves but who can still provide skillful professional pushback to help shape the overall narrative.

In other words, you can’t win if you don’t play. Despite the fervent hopes of some on the Right, the New York Times (to which I’ve contributed) and the Washington Post are not going anywhere any time soon. Despite films like Truth, Hollywood will not suddenly collapse under the ideological baggage of some (not all) of its producers, writers, directors, studio execs and stars. These institutions haven’t lasted this long without having something going for them, and that is, at root, a demand for non-ideological excellence.

So it’s not easy to break in to places like these; it takes talent, hard work, luck and what used to be called sticktoitiveness. Whining about liberal bias means nothing if you don’t back it up with some action of your own. The MSM is shaky right now, no question. So put your shoulder to the wheel and knock it over. If you can.

 
And a look at how the debates winnowed out the Republican contenders. Once again, we see the "Establishment", clueless and cocconed from the effects of their own policies, facing a revolt from the "unwashed masses". Why do you think that people like Trump have som much support?:

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2015/10/the-republican-final-four.html

The Republican Final Four Three

According to the Weekly Standard, anyhow:
Tonight’s debate showed that the GOP field is smaller than it looks. Technically, there are still fourteen people running, but the winnowing is far along. We probably have a final six and possibly a final four.

The three winners of the night were pretty obvious: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.

Rubio ended Jeb Bush’s campaign with the kind of body shot that buckles your knees. That’s on Bush, who never should have come after Rubio in that spot for a host of strategic and tactical reasons. But what should scare Hillary Clinton is how effortless Rubio is even with throwaway lines, like “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.” Most people have no idea how fearsome raw political talent can be. Clinton does know because she’s seen it up close. She sleeps next to it for a contractually-obligated 18 nights per year.

Cruz was tough and canny—no surprise there. He went the full-Gingrich in his assault on CNBC’s ridiculous moderators. He did a better job explaining Social Security reform than Chris Christie, even (which is no mean feat). And managed to look downright personable compared with John Harwood, whose incompetence was matched only by his unpleasantness. If you’re a conservative voter looking for someone who is going to fight for your values, Cruz must have looked awfully attractive.

Then there was Trump. Over the last few weeks, Trump has gotten better on the stump. Well, don’t look now, but he’s getting better at debates, too. Trump was reasonably disciplined. He kept his agro to a medium-high level. And his situational awareness is getting keener, too. Note how he backed John Kasich into such a bad corner on Lehmann Brothers that he protested, “I was a banker, and I was proud of it!” When that’s your answer, you’ve lost the exchange. Even at a Republican debate.

And Trump had a hammer close: “Our country doesn’t win anymore. We used to win. We don’t anymore.” I remain convinced that this line (along with his hardliner on immigration) is the core of Trump’s appeal. But he didn’t just restate this theme in his closing argument. He used it to: (1) beat up CNBC; and (2) argue that his man-handling of these media twits is an example of what he’ll do as president. It was brilliant political theater.

Those were your winners.

Carson is irrelevant. He's just the usual Republican Maybe-This-Will-Get-Me-Out-Of-Racism-Free card, the role previously played by Alan Keyes and Hermann Cain. He's also anti-gun, so he's a non-starter.

Cruz and Rubio are competing for the same Establishment dollar as well as the Unicorn vote, also known as the Hispanic Natural Republican. Cruz is tougher than Rubio and he also looks less like an overweight frat brother, so I think he knocks Rubio aside without too much trouble.

The real question is Establishment vs Grass Roots rebellion. And there, the verdict is far from in. And not that anyone here didn't doubt that Jeb Bush was already cooked, but his epic fail raises some genuine questions about the idea that he is the smarter brother.

It’s hard to see how Jeb Bush recovers from his self-inflected wound at Wednesday’s CNBC Republican debate in Boulder when he went after Marco Rubio just after the young senator had hit one out of the park.  Rubio was defending himself from an editorial in the Sun Sentinel calling on Marco to stop “ripping off” the public and quit the Senate because of his poor attendance record.  Rubio responded that John Kerry and Barack Obama had been even more truant from the Senate while running for president and the paper had not only ignored that, but given these men their endorsement.  It was an example of  liberal media bias at its most obvious.  The crowd erupted in its first ovation of the night.  Advantage Rubio.

Clueless, Bush jumped in as if nothing had happened, taking the paper’s side and schoolmarmishly doubling down on Marco.  He got his head handed to him by Rubio (politely) and the audience.
Bush should just quit now. He's an embarrassment.

Now, if it comes to a Cruz vs Trump final, I think the Establishment will back Cruz simply because he's got more experience. On the other hand, a Cruz vs Trump final puts both men on the ticket.

I think we'll see the field seriously contract after the 10 November debate. By Thanksgiving, we should be down to 5-7 candidates, and the preference cascades will start to become clearer. One thing we can be sure of...whoever the nominee is, he was not the first choice of at least 75% of the Republicans. The key to winning will be presenting a comfortable third or fourth choice.
 
Rubio and Jeb Bush actually thought that past Chinese/Taiwan Guomindang leader Chiang Kai Shek was a "mystical warrior". WTF?

Washington Post


(...SNIPPED)

By 2005, the two men were close enough that when Rubio gave an emotional speech after winning the race to be Florida’s House speaker, Bush made a show of his mentorship. Bush honored Rubio with a gift: a sword, which he said belonged to a great “conservative warrior” named Chang.

“Chang is somebody who believes in conservative principles, believes in entrepreneurial capitalism, believes in moral values that underpin a free society,” Bush told a crowd so large that a plane had to be chartered to ferry well-wishers from Miami to Tallahassee. “Chang, this mystical warrior, has never let me down.”

This gesture was even stranger than it sounds. It appears that “Chang” was not a real person but something from a Bush family in-joke about Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek (“Unleash Chiang!”).
Now, Jeb — whose ­father was once the U.S. envoy to Beijing — had garbled the story into something about a mystical warrior with a sword.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Canadian Press

A Trudeau-style gender-equal cabinet pledge for the U.S.? No thanks, says Trump
The Canadian Press
By Alexander Panetta

WASHINGTON - Critics of Justin Trudeau's guarantee of a gender-equal cabinet have found a famous ally south of the border: Donald Trump.

The billionaire politician was asked Wednesday in an interview about imitating the new Canadian prime minister's half-male, half-female cabinet — and he said no.

An MSNBC interviewer brought up Trudeau's stated rationale for the move — "because it's 2015" — and she asked the Republican nomination contender whether he'd follow suit.

Trump replied that he has many, many women working for his companies. Perhaps even more than 50 per cent, he said. But he said he'd make cabinet appointments based exclusively on merit, not quotas.

(...SNIPPED)
 
A Trudeau-style gender-equal cabinet pledge for the U.S.? No thanks, says Trump
The Canadian Press
By Alexander Panetta

WASHINGTON - Critics of Justin Trudeau's guarantee of a gender-equal cabinet have found a famous ally south of the border: Donald Trump.

The billionaire politician was asked Wednesday in an interview about imitating the new Canadian prime minister's half-male, half-female cabinet — and he said no.

An MSNBC interviewer brought up Trudeau's stated rationale for the move — "because it's 2015" — and she asked the Republican nomination contender whether he'd follow suit.

Trump replied that he has many, many women working for his companies. Perhaps even more than 50 per cent, he said. But he said he'd make cabinet appointments based exclusively on merit, not quotas.

I would love to see the first summit meeting between a presumptive President Trump and the Young Dauphin. Of course given the Young Dauphin won't even face Sun Media reporters, you have to ask what could possibly go wrong at the summit.....
 
S.M.A. said:

This seems like an oddly reasonable position for Donald Trump... for the record, I hate the "because it's 2015" response. What is implied is that, because we have reached 2015 we have entered some magic vortex of equity, despite what statistics about male/female wage gaps and systemic racism in the US (and Canada) say. It's also odd that the cabinet is forced equality based on quota's... so I guess Mr. Trudeau's version of 2015 is that equality can be created through quota's and not through ability? (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity). I prefer Mr. Trumps approach (I think I'm going to be ill for saying that...) and look forward to the day when we can appoint a cabinet based on Mr. Trudeau's implied "it's 2015" statement and not based on quota's, which are the opposite of progress
 
To Trump: Thank you Mr. Obvious! You're FIRED!    ;D

Shanghaiist

On his first day in office, Donald Trump vows to declare China as a currency manipulator

Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump has been bombarding the American media and public with angry remarks voicing his displeasure with China, a country that he also happens to love dearly. Yesterday, the presidential hopeful took it up a notch and declared that his first move upon assuming office would be to force Chinese officials to mend their cruel currency manipulating ways.

This hardline stance comes from Trump’s recent trade paper on China which postures to restore American power in the relationship between the two countries. “With Donald J. Trump as president, China will be on notice that America is back in the global leadership business and that their days of currency manipulation and cheating are over," he writes.

(...SNIPPED)
 
I hope Trump realizes that unlike his business undertakings, he can't get personally rich on the back of the USA, declare the country bankrupt and then start another one again under a different name  ;D.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
This seems like an oddly reasonable position for Donald Trump... for the record, I hate the "because it's 2015" response. What is implied is that, because we have reached 2015 we have entered some magic vortex of equity, despite what statistics about male/female wage gaps and systemic racism in the US (and Canada) say. It's also odd that the cabinet is forced equality based on quota's... so I guess Mr. Trudeau's version of 2015 is that equality can be created through quota's and not through ability? (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity). I prefer Mr. Trumps approach (I think I'm going to be ill for saying that...) and look forward to the day when we can appoint a cabinet based on Mr. Trudeau's implied "it's 2015" statement and not based on quota's, which are the opposite of progress

What the Young Dauphin's advisors have done with the "equality by quota's" thing is "virtue signalling": i.e. doing something to announce support for an assumed virtuous position. Whether the act actually accomplishes anything (or is even counterproductive) is beside the point, you have signalled that you are "doing something" towards the virtuous goal. In the early 2000's, the Mayor and city council of Toronto banned firearms ranges and took steps to harass legal gun owners to show they were "doing something" about the rising wave of gun violence. The fact that gun violence simply kept increasing despite these "signals" was conveniently overlooked by the media and political class, the only thing which actually ended the wave of violence was an international police operation which took down the Shower Posse in Jamaica, the United States and Canada.

The non answer "because it's 2015" is a deliberate attempt to end questioning and debate about the subject, and prevent the sort of close examination of the real causes and effects of the Virtue signalling action and activities. Anyone who tries to bring this up in the future will essentially be told to shut up "because its 2015"
 
Technically, isn't the current administration already doing this?

Reuters

Trump: "I would bomb the hell out of ISIS"

1 hour 10 minutes ago, Reuters Videos
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says if he becomes president, Syrian refugees are going back and that he would "bomb the hell out of ISIS." Rough Cut (no reporter narration).
 
S.M.A. said:
Technically, isn't the current administration already doing this?

Reuters

See this is the problem. The Administration and the GOP wannabes just don't know what the solution is.

They should be bombing them TO HELL, not be bombing hell out of them. Seriously? Come on!. Let's get with the program people.
;D
 
Back
Top