US Election: 2016

[muskrat89]

Interesting... I thought all the God lovin, gun-lovin redencks couldnt read....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/3-of-4-nyt-bestsellers-are-anti-clinton-books/article/2598379

For the first time, three of the top four New York Times nonfiction best sellers are anti-Clinton books.

 

[muskrat89]

I am actually surprised at Trump's quiet popularity when  talking to friends, colleagues and others. I think Trump is viewed as well meaning, but brash and unpolished. Hillary is viewed as contrived, scheming  and perpetually dishonest. I don't even think "popularity" is the right term - maybe "better than Hillary rating" would be more applicable...

http://www.chicksontheright.com/hillarys-story-about-helping-a-disabled-child-was-complete-bs/

That article references this one: http://wbsm.com/hillarys-anecdotal-in-convention-acceptance-speech-is-yet-another-lie/

http://www.youngcons.com/trump-was-right-mayor-who-restricted-1000s-from-rally-today-has-ties-to-hillary-clinton/

 

[tomahawk6]

If Trump's style turned off voters he wouldnt have set a record for votes received in the primary.He has great appeal across the spectrum and should translate into great appeal in the general election.The other contenders didnt make the cut.Ryan and et al wouldnt agree to support Trump so now they will have to pay the price.I would love to see Ryan lose in his primary,but its tough to knock off an incumbent.

By the way the first #NeverTrumper Congressman Huelskamp-Kansas lost his primary last night to a pro-Trump opponent Roger Marshall.Maybe Ryan should worry after all.

 

[a_majoor]

I have had a chance to talk to a friend who was travelling in upstate New York, and he reports that the upstate area is pretty uniform in their support for Trump. It seems that the divide is really between the urbanites and the political/academic/bureaucratic classes and everyone else. The uniform contempt that is felt for the "Flyover States" and middle Americans who don't share the progressive viewpoint could backfire on the Dems and even establishment Republicans as it drives more people to the polls to make their displeasure known.

WRM looks at the opposite angle in this article in The American Interest, trying to understand why we have the worst political class in history. His take; pandering to the vanity of rich but stupid people:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/08/01/the-soul-sick-leadership-elite-in-america/

The Soul-Sick Leadership Elite in America
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
The New York Times digs into the DNC email dump:

Last October, a leading Democratic donor named Shefali Razdan Duggal emailed a sweetly worded but insistent list of demands to a staff member at the Democratic National Committee.

Ms. Duggal wanted a reminder of how much she had raised for President Obama and the Democrats (the answer: $679,650) and whether it qualified her for the premium package of hotel rooms and V.I.P. invitations at the party’s convention in Philadelphia. She asked whether she could have an extra ticket to Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s holiday party, so she could bring her children. But most on her mind, it seemed, was getting access to an exclusive November gathering at the White House.

“Not assuming I am invited…just mentioning/asking, if in case, I am invited ,” wrote Ms. Duggal, who was appointed by Mr. Obama to oversee the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and is married to a San Francisco financial executive. “Might you have an intel?”

Too bad that we now have to depend on leaks from Putin moles to know what’s going on in our country, but the donor stroking industry revealed in these emails is anything but secret. Thousands of prominent people are involved, either as strokers or strokees. Many of these people are extremely well known to journalists at major newspapers, and not a few of them are married to journalists.

Yet here is the NYT treating these leaked emails as a window into an unknown world. The unwillingness of the press to delve into the Vanity Fair at the heart of modern progressive politics (there is no such reluctance to peer into the mysteries of Republican finance) is a real problem.

Actually, what the hack tells us about the money and politics nexus is better than some fear. Most of what goes on is that there are a number of wealthy people in this country with outsize egos but not much common sense. These people are willing to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns if politicians and staff will pretend to take them seriously, even for a few minutes at a time. “Thanks for your insights on China, they will help me plan our national strategy.” No, they won’t, and 99.999% of the things that rich donors tell politicians will be laughed at, ignored and trashed—though staffers will be assigned to write letters maintaining the illusion that the donor’s half-educated ramblings have somehow been incorporated in something official.

Pompous wealthy wannabes aren’t all that much of a direct threat to the republic, and indulging their vanity is not the worst way to fund our political system. The people that pay the highest price, psychically at any rate, are the politicians who have to flatter and stroke. Since the politicians are the ones who gain and keep high office, it seems only just that they do the bulk of the bowing and scraping and toadying involved.

It’s the indirect costs that are high; if anyone wonders why so many of our career politicians are cynics with deep contempt for the public they serve, years of fawning over dumb rich people, pretending to take their silly ideas seriously, assuring each of them that you aren’t like the other stupid rich people, no, you are special, you are smart, and our ten minutes a year friendship punctuated by check writing is deep and sincere—all this tends to corrode the soul. Having a political class who subsist on exploiting the character weaknesses and insatiable narcissism of dilettante plutocrats isn’t the best way to cultivate an ethos of responsibility and patriotism at the highest levels of government.

The fatheaded stupidity of rich liberals is the subtext of the hacked emails: how easily they are exploited, how gullible their vanity makes them, how pathetically eager they are for the hollow satisfaction of a seat next to the powerful. In one sense it’s refreshing: great wealth does not in fact make a nincompoop powerful. Also, it suggests that the real problem with our republic is that what should be our leadership elite is soul-sick: vain, restless, easily miffed, intellectually confused, jealous…

The sense that people like this—a mix of knaves and fools—are running both parties has a lot to do with the anger that fueled both the Sanders and the Trump campaigns. There’s a spiritual disease at work in this, and over time it has the ability to wreck not just individual souls, but our free institutions and the rule of law itself.

 

[Kirkhill]

99.999% of the things that rich donors tell politicians will be laughed at, ignored and trashed—though staffers will be assigned to write letters maintaining the illusion that the donor’s half-educated ramblings have somehow been incorporated in something official.

That right there.....

That is the problem and Mead is as guilty as any of the progressive pundits.

He thinks there is a right answer and that he knows it.

The key to a functioning democracy is acceptance.

Acceptance of the knowledge that you will never get agreement on what is right, what is fair, what is just.

The only thing you can count on is getting agreement, by the majority, on what is acceptable.

And when people find the situation in which they live their lives unacceptable then the "fraggings" will begin.

What happens when the turnout in November falls below 50% (let's say 40%) and the vote is split 50:50?

What is legitimate about a government that finds itself running a country with 20% in support, 20% opposed and 60% that don't recognize the process and just want the whole mess to go away?


The problem is that too many people with lots of training but little intelligence fail to accept the validity of the concerns of those with whom they disagree.

 

[tomahawk6]

The RNC is talking to Trump about his lack of support for Ryan and McCain.Both have been bashing Trump so why should he play ball ? I wouldnt either.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That's awful nice of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to be peacemakers like this.  :nod:

 

[Journeyman]

What happens when the turnout in November falls below 50% (let's say 40%) and the vote is split 50:50?

What is legitimate about a government that finds itself running a country with 20% in support, 20% opposed and 60% that don't recognize the process and just want the whole mess to go away?

Ahh, the joys of the Electoral College system.  The US system doesn't actually need anyone  to show up at the polls; if there's no majority of votes cast, the House of Representatives picks the President and the Senate chooses the VP.  It's been required several times in the past.

Is it legitimate?  Not when compared to other democratic forms, but it's not our cross to bear.  In fact, the recurring complaints are that it makes the popular vote largely irrelevant, and so actually discourages voter participation.  :dunno:

And while there will be a whole lot of 'stupid', trying to pass itself as delegate campaigning, pundit analysis, political debates, and masturbatory blogging before 8 November.... I don't think voter apathy will be an issue;  my completely useless and irrelevant guess is that we may see some sort of record voter turn-out.  I also think it will overwhelmingly favour Trump.

I don't think that's a good thing, but it's overwhelmingly for the same reasons I didn't like our options north of the 49th last October; I simply cannot believe that those are/were remotely  the best candidates that could have been put forward (by the valid Canadian parties; I'm sure Elizabeth May is the best the Greens can do, and the NDP will have to wait for the zombie apocalypse to get Layton back).


Nonetheless, once again the electorate will get the government(s) they deserve..... and Idocracy comes that much closer to being a documentary.  :not-again:

 

[dapaterson]

That's awful nice of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to be peacemakers like this.  :nod:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/royal-newfoundland-constabulary-twitter-mixup-trump-republican-1.3685178

 

[Kirkhill]

Ahh, the joys of the Electoral College system.  The US system doesn't actually need anyone  to show up at the polls; if there's no majority of votes cast, the House of Representatives picks the President and the Senate chooses the VP.  It's been required several times in the past.

Is it legitimate?  Not when compared to other democratic forms, but it's not our cross to bear.  In fact, the recurring complaints are that it makes the popular vote largely irrelevant, and so actually discourages voter participation.  :dunno:

And while there will be a whole lot of 'stupid', trying to pass itself as delegate campaigning, pundit analysis, political debates, and masturbatory blogging before 8 November.... I don't think voter apathy will be an issue;  my completely useless and irrelevant guess is that we may see some sort of record voter turn-out.  I also think it will overwhelmingly favour Trump.

I don't think that's a good thing, but it's overwhelmingly for the same reasons I didn't like our options north of the 49th last October; I simply cannot believe that those are/were remotely  the best candidates that could have been put forward (by the valid Canadian parties; I'm sure Elizabeth May is the best the Greens can do, and the NDP will have to wait for the zombie apocalypse to get Layton back).


Nonetheless, once again the electorate will get the government(s) they deserve..... and Idocracy comes that much closer to being a documentary.  :not-again:

All true.  Crap!

Including the bit about turnout and support for Trump.  A metaphorical "fragging"?

Too many people ignored for too long willing to "blow up" the system? 

 

[muskrat89]

It seems that the divide is really between the urbanites and the political/academic/bureaucratic classes and everyone else.

Exactly what I have been saying, although you said it much better - and so far at least, confirmed in my conversations with people....

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

In spite of some of the Rosie Trump predictions here, I suspect this story is closer to the reality.

As for urbanites vs country folk,  that's the trend for every country. Rural people vote more conservative and urban people vote more liberal. Luckily for those rural New Yorkers 87.9% of new York state is considered urban, so they're outnumbered. Further, I suspect voter turnout AGAINST Trump will be high this election, so I personally don't see it getting much closer than the 48-43 polls now.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/donald-trump-gop-trumplosion-begins/

 

[Remius]

In spite of some of the Rosie Trump predictions here, I suspect this story is closer to the reality.

As for urbanites vs country folk,  that's the trend for every country. Rural people vote more conservative and urban people vote more liberal. Luckily for those rural New Yorkers 87.9% of new York state is considered urban, so they're outnumbered. Further, I suspect voter turnout AGAINST Trump will be high this election, so I personally don't see it getting much closer than the 48-43 polls now.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/donald-trump-gop-trumplosion-begins/

Trumplosion... [lol:

 

[tomahawk6]

Better take a second look at Hill's election numbers.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-received-1-5-million-fewer-votes-2016-2008-democrats-7-million-votes/

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Better take a second look at Hill's election numbers.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-received-1-5-million-fewer-votes-2016-2008-democrats-7-million-votes/

I prefer to look at current poll numbers, but I can see how the primaries may be a reflection of apathy. Personally, I just dont see many of the left-wing people there taking a chance at a Trump presidency. We have a long time until the US election, so as much as I believe that a man who yelled at a baby has no chance at being the leader of the free world, I'll enjoy watching his show... one thing you can say is that he definately has no "hidden agenda"...

As a Canadian conservative, the problem I have with Trump is that he seems to be a caricature of the buffoonish/boorish right winger. Canadians,for better or worse, still believe Republican=Conservative Party of Canada and Democrats=Liberal Party of Canada, so the longer the "trump-losion" last down in the US the worse things get for our Conservative Party.

 

[tomahawk6]

The polls wont be very useful this far out as they are heavily weighted in Hillarys favor.By this I mean there are more democrats polled so the results are slanted,shocking I know.The polls were get real maybe a week before the election.This is a common democrat campaign tactic to depress the opposition voters and make them think its a lost cause.
The democrat machine includes the news media.Fox used to be the conservative answer but no more.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In spite of some of the Rosie Trump predictions here, I suspect this story is closer to the reality.

As for urbanites vs country folk,  that's the trend for every country. Rural people vote more conservative and urban people vote more liberal. Luckily for those rural New Yorkers 87.9% of new York state is considered urban, so they're outnumbered. Further, I suspect voter turnout AGAINST Trump will be high this election, so I personally don't see it getting much closer than the 48-43 polls now.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/donald-trump-gop-trumplosion-begins/

The article is all pure speculation. It reads like an article from Movie Star magazine. Sources close..... a friend said.....someone deep , on the team.... Plain old  :stirpot: not to be taken seriously.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The article is all pure speculation. It reads like an article from Movie Star magazine. Sources close..... a friend said.....someone deep , on the team.... Plain old  :stirpot: not to be taken seriously.

I would say that the article is no less reliant on weak sources and speculation than many posted that go as far as to say all progressives are lazy or stupid (almost literally).

edited for tone

 

[cupper]

By the way the first #NeverTrumper Congressman Huelskamp-Kansas lost his primary last night to a pro-Trump opponent Roger Marshall.Maybe Ryan should worry after all.

Yeah, but Huelskamp got his ass handed to him because he was a extreme conservative ideolog who represented a fully rural agricultural district, yet voted against the farm bill. Because of his anti establishment stance and constant friction with the party leadership he was booted off the agricultural committee. And he did not support funding of a Federal agricultural facility being built in the district.

What this shows more is that pure ideology is meaningless when you cannot deliver for your constituents. I was listening to an NPR interview with Marshall, and he said that Huelskamps numbers dropped with every ideological stance he took, and money and support for Marshall went up.

From The National Review

Anger at Washington is not a mandate for ideological purity. That’s one valuable lesson from Tuesday night’s primary result in Kansas’s first congressional district. And Representative Tim Huelskamp learned it the hard way.

Huelskamp, a conservative agitator who’s been a thorn in the Republican leadership’s side since coming to Congress in the tea-party wave of 2010, lost his seat Tuesday to obstetrician Roger Marshall, who campaigned on the message that Huelskamp was representing a rigid ideology rather than the people of Kansas’s “Big First” congressional district.

The message clearly resonated: Marshall won by 13 points, an unusually comfortable margin against an incumbent who has no ethical or legal baggage. Without question, Huelskamp’s constituents are conservative: President Obama won just 28 percent of the vote there in 2012. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, the district is R+23, the 10th-most conservative in the country. Huelskamp, considered one of Congress’s most conservative members, would seem to be an ideal representative. 

So why did he lose? The Big First is more than a ruby-red bastion of Republicanism; it’s one of America’s premier farming districts. Nearly 90 percent of the district is rural, according to the Almanac of American Politics, and its occupants are overwhelmingly dependent on the agricultural industry. So when Huelskamp voted against the Farm Bill in 2013 — out of what he described as principled opposition to food-stamp spending in the bill, even though it had been drastically reduced — it didn’t go over well back home.

Here’s how the Kansas City Star covered it:

The House has barely passed a new farm bill that has been stripped of roughly $80 billion in annual spending for nutrition programs, including food stamps. … Incredibly, Rep.  Tim Huelskamp of KS-01 — one of the most farm-centered districts in the United States — was one of just 12 GOP votes against the measure.  Other local GOP Reps —  Vicky Hartzler, Sam Graves, Kevin Yoder, Lynn Jenkins, Mike Pompeo — were yes votes. 

What made Huelskamp’s vote especially damaging was that he no longer served on the House Agriculture Committee. He had been booted from the panel the previous December by then-Speaker John Boehner as punishment for voting repeatedly against the party leadership during the GOP’s first term in the majority.

In other words: Huelskamp couldn’t even tell his constituents that he had battled inside the committee for a stronger bill to better represent their interests, because he no longer served on the committee. All of this triggered a primary challenge in 2014 — one that Huelskamp, despite having lost the support of the Kansas Farm Bureau and the Livestock Federation, successfully fought off. With the assistance of allied conservative outside groups, Huelskamp won a closer-than-expected contest against Alan LaPolice, a former education official, by 10 points. 

Huelskamp, feeling validated by the victory, pursued no course-correction upon his return to Congress. His first vote in January 2015 was against Boehner’s reelection as speaker, signaling that he would continue to buck the party leadership whenever possible. It was clear, however, that opponents in his district — and Huelskamp’s enemies in D.C. — smelled blood in the water.

For 2016 they recruited a stronger candidate, Marshall, and poured money into the Big First on his behalf. Huelskamp, sensing danger, pleaded with Speaker Paul Ryan to reinstall him on the Agriculture Committee. Ryan was non-committal, angering some conservative allies of Huelskamp who believed the GOP leadership was undermining one if its own members. (In truth, the battle in Huelskamp’s district was unusually asymmetrical; he had the support of Senator Ted Cruz and national tea-party groups, but was opposed by some of Cruz’s most prominent allies, and also by the Ricketts family, who funded the #NeverTrump movement earlier this year.) 

In the end, despite representing a deeply conservative district, Huelskamp’s political purity — he scored 100 percent with FreedomWorks, 100 percent with the Club for Growth, and 92 percent with Heritage Action in 2014 — could not save him. That’s likely because Huelskamp’s constituents, and Republicans voters in general, are less ideological and more results-oriented than once assumed.

Exhibit A is Donald Trump, who scored primary victories in some of America’s most conservative jurisdictions despite a long record of liberal stances on everything from abortion to entitlement reform. In a scorecard of policy positions, Trump would likely have ranked as the least conservative of the 17 Republican presidential candidates. Yet historic numbers of GOP voters were willing to overlook his policy portfolio.

Why? Because none of Trump’s competitors could compete with his message of anti-establishment resentment, or with his messianic promises to protect Americans from economic and national security threats, or with his pledge to purge Washington of its indolent bureaucrats and incompetent politicians. Trump rode a wave of anti-Washington rage to the GOP nomination; it’s the same wave that carried Republicans to the House majority in 2010.

The difference is, whereas incoming members like Huelskamp believed the electorate’s anger was rooted in ideological conviction, Trump proved it was more the byproduct of institutional distrust. Voters care about certain policies, of course. But they seem to care more about whether elected officials are responsive to their needs and reflective of their concerns. Even small-government voters want government to work well for them.

What’s ironic is that Huelskamp’s fellow conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have a common saying: The American people think Washington has forgotten about them and no longer represents them. That’s true. And it’s a serious problem. But if you represent Kansas’s first congressional district, getting kicked off the Agriculture Committee — and then voting against the Farm Bill — does little to solve it.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438652/lesson-tim-huelskamps-loss

 

[cupper]

I would say that the article is no less reliant on weak sources and speculation than many posted that go as far as to say all progressives are lazy or stupid (almost literally).

edited for tone

No. It's true. We're all lazy and stupid. I'll give them that.  [