Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[FearfulJesuit]

What's weird is that even in landslide years, the upper limit for the popular vote is about 60% for any single candidate. Johnson got a hair over 61% in 1964; the only other three elections where the winner got above 60% were Roosevelt in 1936, Nixon in 1972 and Harding in 1920.

Basically, if you don't have a spoiler third-party candidate, you're never more than 10% of the voters away from losing- but even so coalitions and party systems last for decades on end. Voting patterns are weird.

[nenjin]

Could you guys explain further what's so bad about Hillary?

Well, I remember when her and Bill were first elected, and White Water came up. That was my first cue that, however much I wanted to like them as Democrats, they were ultimately playing the same game as everyone else: get the power, get rich.

She was soft power in politics all throughout Bill's presidency, and then an actual power as Senator and then Secretary of State. She went after vidya games in the whole Grand Theft Auto thing, voted for War in Iraq then backpedaled like a lot of Democrats did. Voted for TARP. Support for the surveillance insanity over the last few years, rather than opposed to its infringements on our civil liberties.

I like her social politics, but, she's been waiting like 20+ years to be President, and she's as much of a tycoon as Bill. She's been a professional politician for over half her life now. And after Obama, I don't want someone who comfortably slots into business as usual. Maybe she'd surprise me, and not hop straight into bed with corporations and business interests like Obama did. But I really doubt it. She might even return us to a level of fiscal stability we haven't enjoyed since Bill was in office. But, again, I wonder at what cost.

She talks a good game but I don't really believe most of what she says publicly. She's been around too long for that. And like I said above, I'm a little afraid of what she'll do with her first term of freedom. Obama handed the American people to the insurance industry on a silver platter rather than really reforming it for our benefit. I imagine she could do much worse.

[mainiac]

What's weird is that even in landslide years, the upper limit for the popular vote is about 60% for any single candidate.

If parties have more then 60% popular support, they are more centrist than the median voter.  This means there is a strong incentive for primary challengers to challenge centrists and get changes enacted.  This makes the party less centrist then the median voter and makes things competitive again.

[Baffler]

She leans a bit too scarily to the right on a lot of things. For me, she's much too hawk-ish and would only build onto the NSA (from what I can recall of her opinion on the subject). It's a shame, too... not that I can vote (the sad fate of an immigrant; I can't vote until 2018 even though I've lived here since 1997). Otherwise, I'd vote 3rd party.

Would any major candidate do anything to cut down the NSA? I know Elizabeth Warren probably would, but I probably won't be voting for her unless the alternative is Bachmann or some other wingnut in the trench opposite hers.

[mainiac]

Well, I remember when her and Bill were first elected, and White Water came up. That was my first cue that, however much I wanted to like them as Democrats, they were ultimately playing the same game as everyone else: get the power, get rich.

You mean the trumped up scandal sensationalized for political purposes that never actually found a problem with the Clintons?  Your problem with her is that Republicans will resort to witch hunts?

[Angle]

Well, lets see...

Honestly, she doesn't look too bad. The campaign finance reform is especially nice, assuming she follows up on it in anyway whatsoever. I don't like that she supports Israel, but I'd be fooling myself if I though that any influential politician in America these days would ever not, so whatever.

[smjjames]

Could you guys explain further what's so bad about Hillary?

Well, I remember when her and Bill were first elected, and White Water came up. That was my first cue that, however much I wanted to like them as Democrats, they were ultimately playing the same game as everyone else: get the power, get rich.

She was soft power in politics all throughout Bill's presidency, and then an actual power as Senator and then Secretary of State. She went after vidya games in the whole Grand Theft Auto thing, voted for War in Iraq then backpedaled like a lot of Democrats did. Voted for TARP. Support for the surveillance insanity over the last few years, rather than opposed to its infringements on our civil liberties.

I like her social politics, but, she's been waiting like 20+ years to be President, and she's as much of a tycoon as Bill. She's been a professional politician for over half her life now. And after Obama, I don't want someone who comfortably slots into business as usual. Maybe she'd surprise me, and not hop straight into bed with corporations and business interests like Obama did. But I really doubt it. She might even return us to a level of fiscal stability we haven't enjoyed since Bill was in office. But, again, I wonder at what cost.

She talks a good game but I don't really believe most of what she says publicly. She's been around too long for that. And like I said above, I'm a little afraid of what she'll do with her first term of freedom. Obama handed the American people to the insurance industry on a silver platter rather than really reforming it for our benefit. I imagine she could do much worse.

Okay. Pretty much the only thing that I remember from the Clinton years were the monica lewinsky scandal, Bill hurt his knee at one point, Bosina war, nothing of the poltics though since I was younger and didn't pay attention to politics at the time.

I agree though that she's way too establishment and well, wheres the fresh new faces and all that. Theres also that huge number of lobbyists she employed, which I didn't know about before, so yeah.

There can always be one of those dark horse candidates like Obama was back then.

[nenjin]

Well, I remember when her and Bill were first elected, and White Water came up. That was my first cue that, however much I wanted to like them as Democrats, they were ultimately playing the same game as everyone else: get the power, get rich.

You mean the trumped up scandal sensationalized for political purposes that never actually found a problem with the Clintons?  Your problem with her is that Republicans will resort to witch hunts?

There were a few questionable conflicts of interest in that, witch hunt or no.

[mainiac]

There were a few questionable conflicts of interest in that, witch hunt or no.

At least half a dozen republican senators voted against the debt ceiling increase at the same time they were shorting US treasury bonds.  That's not only a questionable conflict of interest but it's highly illegal (possibly treasonous).  But we dont drag them through the mud for reasons that are really, really obvious if you think about it.

Everyone has "conflicts of interest".  The difference is that some people have enemies willing to engage in witch hunts.  Democrats in high office are #1 in that list.

[smjjames]

Speaking of the debt ceiling, when is the next fight over it going to be? While the Republicans do have a majority in the senate, it's not an outright majority,  you can bet that the Tea Partiers will be doing their best to block the whole thing.

[nenjin]

There were a few questionable conflicts of interest in that, witch hunt or no.

At least half a dozen republican senators voted against the debt ceiling increase at the same time they were shorting US treasury bonds.  That's not only a questionable conflict of interest but it's highly illegal (possibly treasonous).  But we dont drag them through the mud for reasons that are really, really obvious if you think about it.

Everyone has "conflicts of interest".  The difference is that some people have enemies willing to engage in witch hunts.  Democrats in high office are #1 in that list.

Your partisan spirit is noted, but I wasn't making a comparison. All that is why I happen to not vote Republican by the by. But it doesn't mean I should condone it in the people I choose to vote for, either.

[smjjames]

Well, lets see...

Honestly, she doesn't look too bad. The campaign finance reform is especially nice, assuming she follows up on it in anyway whatsoever. I don't like that she supports Israel, but I'd be fooling myself if I though that any influential politician in America these days would ever not, so whatever.

Huh.

Make sure surveillance doesn't go too far, like Snowden did. (Aug 2014)

That's... interesting.

But yes, still overtly hawkish (she insists on peace while trying to get involved all over the world. Can't have your cake and eat it too) and against media (her opinion on video games and violence scares me quite a bit).

You know, it would be nice if there was a category regarding science and space. The technology section doesn't say anything regarding NASA or spaceflight though.

'Change system from the inside, not from the outside. (Nov 2007) ' I don't know.... She's a hell of an insider, but I guess it takes one to know one? Otherwise seems progressive on government reform.

As far as foriegn policy goes, at least she'll be stronger at it than Obama for one.

[nenjin]

If only because Obama bought her the time necessary for the Americans to support more armed conflicts, which I'm not sure it actually does. Obama has gotten a pretty bad rap in foreign affairs, but his overriding goal has been not to get us into anymore lengthy armed conflicts. Which sucks for Syrians and Iraqis and Ukrainians...but domestically I think it's more appreciated than the talking heads make it out to be.

But that is sorta my worry too....at the helm, would she decide some American Adventurism was in order? Seems like every president either wants that moment or gets it presented to them at least once in their administration.

[mainiac]

Your partisan spirit is noted, but I wasn't making a comparison.

If you think my goal was to say republicans suck then you took exactly the opposite meaning I was trying to say.  The point is that trumped up charges could be made for anyone.

[smjjames]

The report thing for the torture stuff came out and surprise, surprise (in a sarcastic tone), the basic take from that is that they didn't provide accurate intel or even quality intel and that detainees often made up stuff.

But yeah, the CIA seems to have gone rogue more or less.

They're supposedly not doing it anymore, but do we really know for sure?

Edit: I should note that this was all during the Bush era.