Buttload of Faith: the 2016 Presidential Primary Thread (Pt 2)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/business/donald-trump-unions.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer=

on the other hand...

canada ted trending

Rubio is also the best-looking of the lot (imo), which I think counts for something with the pundit class

He is, but I don't think Republicans are buying his rage. Maybe that's what Trump is somehow exposing, the phoniness of Rubio's rage or Chris Christie's rage. Or Carly Fiorina's. But then, if you don't have the rage, like Jeb or Kasich, you don't win either unless maybe you're Ted Cruz and you've got some slippery thing going on that folks can identify with.

one of the dumbest moves i can recall (cruz campaign confirms that yes this is something they're doing for some reason) - https://twitter.com/ggreeneva/status/693281396354347014

https://humanizingthevacuum.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/blood-inheritance-and-privilege-marco-rubios-problem-and-ours/

The End of the Republican Party as We Know It, part 37:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/01/rick_perlstein_historian_of_conservatism_on_donald_trump_and_the_gop_crack.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

The idea being that Trump just sails past the fail-safe point that Goldwater and Nixon and Reagan and W. honored (whatever their motives--recounting something from Perlstein's Goldwater book that I'd forgotten, Goldwater's pulling back is presented as a moral decision).

Those Cruz mailings are going to endear him to millions. Trump's political instincts mystify me, but Cruz's are recognizably awful.

Big thread--maybe someone can start part 3 after Iowa?

Wooooowww at that Cruz mailer. Remind me again why he's universally disliked?

If Trump is defeated, do you think the Republican Party can right itself, or do you think Trump has opened up a permanent wound?

[Pauses.] Let the record show that I’m speechless. I have no easy answers for this one. What would it mean to right the ship? You have some very profound and fundamental problems. You have every senator who has ever worked with Ted Cruz turning toward Donald Trump, because they can’t stand Cruz. You have much of the infrastructure of the conservative movement explicitly saying that Donald Trump is unacceptable. That’s a pretty profound breach, especially for liberals who are so used to seeing conservatives and Republicans as united strategic geniuses. Again, I have to end on that note of humility. Where was the original contradiction? Where did this come from? Is it, you know, really just this one guy with big hair? Is this situation the result of the failure of political economy as practiced by the Democrats and the Republicans? I don’t have any good answers, and anyone who does, I think, is being glib.

potential new board description in last sentence

I like it when knowledgeable people admit they don't have the answers.

One of my favourite things too. I think the main reason I wanted Romney to lose the nomination last time--besides the fact it would have been fun to see him lose--is that I wanted people who tend to make statements/predictions on political matters with such declarative authority to maybe admit "All that stuff I say that I know will happen for sure, truthfully I haven't got a clue." I tend to equivocate, but this time I got caught up in that too: early on, I said with absolute declarative authority that there was no way Trump was going to win the nomination (or even last very far past Iowa). Pretty clearly, I didn't have a clue when I said that.

Iowa hasn't even voted yet! I still don't think he'll get the nom

True--I'm jumping the gun a bit. Interesting listening to this yahoo out of Buffalo, Tom Bauerle, coming home on Friday. He's a Cruz guy who's decided that after Thursday's debate and non-debate, Trump is now the certain nominee.

It would be amazing to see the fallout if Iowa went Cruz, with someone out of nowhere second and Trump third--maybe there's an inherent sliver of potential chaos attached to a caucus state. That Cruz mailing isn't a good start in that direction.

don't know if anyone finds this surprising but NYT endorses Hill: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html

tbf alot of the 'nobody could've seen this coming' was a result of ppl ignoring the data in favor of assumptions. to an extent it was totally fair to ignore the data in favor of assumptions - polling data that far out from the primaries is nearly meaningless (trump didn't go away but ben carson did, and alot of the rationale for why trump would go away - inexperienced, gaffe prone - were also true for carson and were largely why he went away), hell nate silver will remind you that polling data this close to the primaries isn't especially useful either. ppl discounted the numbers when if it had been rubio or jeb! w/ those numbers they would've been the obvious front runner. i think the horserace day-by-day strategic, uh, brilliance of trump has been overstated in importance. he's been very effective at picking off the latest challenger yes but ultimately the reason his supporters support him isn't because this gambit or that but because they like his personality and share a common ideology w/ regard to the issues they care about most. these are pretty normal reasons for a candidate to become a frontrunner. the only reason it appears insane here is because the republican base is insane. trump could still blow it, either in iowa or down the road and if he does it may be for the reasons ppl thought he couldn't possibly win. either way assumptions will be tested.

NYT endorses Kasich: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html

idk how much a NYT endorsement is worth on the Dem side but on the Rep side you'd probably prefer they don't endorse you

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/12494974_10156429228390623_234325197527024804_n.jpg?oh=5dbc2d955f21df3cbe7bba3d355b53f8&oe=573B11A0

lol

Where was the original contradiction?

(*ahem*) supply side (*ahem*) trickle down (*ahem*) deregulation

*christian*

Mrs. Clinton can be more hawkish on the use of military power than Mr. Obama, as shown by her current call for a no-fly zone in Syria and her earlier support for arming and training Syrian rebels. We are not convinced that a no-fly zone is the right approach in Syria, but we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.

man this is some spineless shit. her military record is disastrous. it's telling that -- in what is supposedly an endorsement in the democratic primary -- her contrasts with republicans are highlighted

the thing that strikes me about this race is the growing perception that, one way or another, this is endgame for american democracy, that the legislature is unwilling or unable to perform its prescribed duties and that the next president will more or less openly rule by fiat. of course when the supreme court strikes down rule by executive order this spring (an outcome the obama administration is openly courting, presumably because they assume it will give the democrats an electoral advantage) that will throw another wrinkle in things. all of the arguments of just a few years ago over the "nuclear option" in congress seem quaint and hollow now.

(this also neuters one of the key anti-bernie arguments, because you can answer "how will he work with congress?" the with "the same way clinton will- by ignoring them".)

Hilary's military record now is a hell of a lot less disastrous than Bush, Obama, Clinton (I), and what it will be in eight years...

I consider the Non-Invasion of Iran to be on the Pro side for the Obama admin's use of military power.

What point are you trying to make by observing that her record is less disastrous than it will be if she becomes president (xp).

man this is some spineless shit. her military record is disastrous. it's telling that -- in what is supposedly an endorsement in the democratic primary -- her contrasts with republicans are highlighted

― k3vin k., Saturday, January 30, 2016 5:36 PM (43 minutes ago)

yeah that is appalling. it's telling that a lot of the pro-hillary arguments basically elide her awful foreign policy.

yeah as much as i can wince whenever bernie addresses foreign policy and hillary clearly knows her shit so much more that a sanders administration would be so so much more likely to do or not do what i like than a clinton one

What point are you trying to make by observing that her record is less disastrous than it will be if she becomes president (xp).

― boxall, 30. januar 2016 19:06 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Mainly just joking. But I honestly don't think her record can be described as 'disastrous'. Yet...

there are legitimate arguments that our intervention in libya and the surge in afghanistan, both of which she strongly advocated for and neither of which faced unanimous support w/in the administration, were disastrous. it's fair to argue that if obama had listened to her re: syria it would have been disastrous and that her judgment there (which btw she hasn't changed on) can be considered as part of her record. she may have voted for a war or two as senator as well iirc.

her foreign policy is one of the things that would prevent me from voting for her in the general. really p much "supreme court team captain for 4-8 years" is her biggest selling point for me.

NYT should've brought back Judith Miller to write the endorsement for old times' sake

the growing perception that, one way or another, this is endgame for american democracy, that the legislature is unwilling or unable to perform its prescribed duties and that the next president will more or less openly rule by fiat

your personal perception, you mean? this has happened before and IIRC the late 20th century model of "bipartisan" US governance is the anomaly, not at all the norm.

worth remembering that in 1979-1980 the smart chatter concerned the twilight of the presidency

then all of a sudden the pageantry was restored

then all of a sudden Nancy Davis saved my soul

hardly worth the trouble!

said Jane Wyman

"your personal perception, you mean? this has happened before and IIRC the late 20th century model of "bipartisan" US governance is the anomaly, not at all the norm."

the perception of the people i talk to, mostly. it's not about whether or not "the norm" is being breached but what direction economic and social forces are driving governmental institutions, which is to say an increasingly strong executive, an increasingly weak legislature, and no particular foreseeable trends that could change that.

I don't see this current executive as any stronger than the prior ones, but I see right-wingers trying to assert that Obama's executive orders are somehow worse, more controlling and illegal. The right-wing arguments seem pretty weak on this

http://www.infowars.com/study-obama-has-issued-more-restrictive-executive-orders-than-past-six-administrations/

Figures compiled by the Federal Register also show that while Obama has issued 229 executive orders, to George W. Bush’s 292 and Bill Clinton’s 308, the total length of Obama’s orders equates to 1,086 pages.
Bush’s orders comprised 922 pages and Clinton’s just 781 pages.
“Not all executive orders are created equal,” said John Hudak of the Brookings Institution. “Some are quite forceful, making dramatic changes to policy. Others are more routine, housekeeping issues.”

So Cruz still doesn't know what he would replace Obamacare with....

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/30/uncomfortable-question-for-ted-cruz-on-obamacare-silences-the-room/?action=click&contentCollection=Americas&module=MostPopularFB&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

Mark never had health care until Obama care,” Mr. Valde continued. “What are you going to replace it with?”

Mr. Cruz expressed condolences and pivoted quickly to a well-worn answer assailing the health care law.

Mr. Cruz said “millions of Americans” had lost their jobs and their doctors as a result of the law, and that many had “seen their premiums skyrocket.”

He said he had often joked about a pledge by Mr. Obama that premiums would drop: “Anyone whose premiums have dropped $2,500, as President Obama promised, should vote for Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Cruz said. “I’ll take everybody else.”

Many in the room laughed.

Mr. Valde — who said in an interview later that he did in fact intend to caucus for Mrs. Clinton — pressed on.

“My question is, what are you going to replace it with?” he said.

hero

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaBsYMuUcAASBXA.jpg

well i never

Genuinely not sure what the CDs are supposed to signify there.

"I don't see this current executive as any stronger than the prior ones, but I see right-wingers trying to assert that Obama's executive orders are somehow worse, more controlling and illegal. The right-wing arguments seem pretty weak on this"

i'm far from a right-winger, and i don't see the executive orders as "bad"- they're the only possible response to a fundamentally broken (and universally despised) legislature. i also don't see this as a partisan issue, but a long-term historical trend, particularly clear when you look at the leading candidates from both parties this year, all of whom exemplify, in various ways, a fetishization of autocracy. i don't think the notion that executive orders should be judged qualitatively as well as quantitatively is a bad point, either. combine the sweeping use of executive orders with the fairly novel (that i know of) claimed executive right to selectively enforce laws on the books and the long-term trend is definitely towards greater centralization of power in the executive.

as for whether the orders are unconstitutional, the court will be ruling on the issue this year, and i for one have very little doubt as to how they'll rule- i do not see this as an issue that will split the conservative majority. the only question is what the reaction will be to that ruling, and i genuinely have no idea myself.

tried to make a Mean To Hillary thing but hey who wants to see a Katha Pollitt cartoonface, ewwww

Genuinely not sure what the CDs are supposed to signify there.

I think the image is from South Park back in the days when a CD burner was part of one's system pretty routinely, they signify "this guy is sitting around at his computer all day" i.e. it's a joke one can't really make any more because the forum on which you're making it is certainly the internet and we're all the guy who wants the hot pocket

He uncharacteristically used one scripted line, citing a Bible verse from “two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians,” drawing some chuckles from the audience. Back on his plane, an angry Mr. Trump reviewed his page of notes and saw he copied “2 Corinthians” exactly as emailed from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who suggested its usage in the Liberty speech.

With social and cable media highlighting his gaffe, Mr. Trump blamed it on a momentary lapse of listening to someone other than himself. “I’m self-funding my campaign; no one can tell me what to say or do,” Mr. Trump said. “I do better that way.”

Mr. Perkins said: “I gave him the reference as you would find it in any English Bible.”

xp That makes sense - I can see the South Park guys thinking "This guy just burns CDs and leave them around, that's what they do, on the internet".