Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Badger]

There's no question he was qualified. Charisma-wise, however, he must have been quite a letdown for Republicans.

 

Heh, I was too young to fully appreciate.  But, I am usually immune to charisma, for better or worse.

[薔薇語]

Gov. Gary Johnson is now at 13% a CNN poll, 12% in a CBS poll, and 11% in an NBC poll. A small uptick post convention. 

 

Soar. 

[megaplayboy]

Gov. Gary Johnson is now at 13% a CNN poll, 12% in a CBS poll, and 11% in an NBC poll. A small uptick post convention. 

 

Soar.

Where are the votes coming from?

[薔薇語]

Do you mean "which candidate is losing votes", then the answer per a previous 538 link I posted would suggest it is from both Sec. Clinton and Trump.

 

Soar.

[Badger]

Where are the votes coming from?

 

You're asking in this campaign?  Where have you been for the insanity of the last 6 months? 

 

On a serious note:  I think at this point everyone should expect anything.

[Starlord]

Viewers for Trump RNC speech fall well below McCain

[megaplayboy]

Trump makes Dubya look like a fusion of Hammurabi, Solomon, Pericles and Marcus Aurelius.

[薔薇語]

Rep Schultz has resigned as DNC chair. The wiki-leaks scandal has gone a good way in tarnishing her already bad reputation with many Democrats. She has also been hired on by Sec. Clinton in her Presidential Campaign (big surprise? )

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN1040TO

Soar. 

[Old Man]

Leave it to the Dems to follow up the RNC convention disaster with their own. It's their own fault for leaving DWS in charge for so long. Man was she a disaster. Perhaps now the Democrats will start mounting a coherent campaign strategy.

[Iuz the Evil]

Rep Schultz has resigned as DNC chair. The wiki-leaks scandal has gone a good way in tarnishing her already bad reputation with many Democrats. She has also been hired on by Sec. Clinton in her Presidential Campaign (big surprise? )

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN1040TO

 

Soar.

Seriously Hillary? What the actual...

 

Anyway, that's a very out of touch decision that's going to get a LOT of play.

[megaplayboy]

I dunno. Once we're past the convention, the head-to-head matchup is going to consume most of the oxygen in the room. At that point, save the airing of grievances for the post-mortem.

[Lawnmower Boy]

I dunno. Once we're past the convention, the head-to-head matchup is going to consume most of the oxygen in the room. At that point, save the airing of grievances for the post-mortem.

[Iuz the Evil]

I dunno. Once we're past the convention, the head-to-head matchup is going to consume most of the oxygen in the room. At that point, save the airing of grievances for the post-mortem.

Yeah, "sit down and shut it we need to win" isn't going to be real compelling for an awful lot of aggrieved folks, and there appears little likelihood she will address grievances after winning. Assuming the voters from Bernie's camp won't turn out for Trump isn't the same as getting them to turn out for Hillary. I just do not see the up side to hiring DWS, the optics are terrible it looks like payoff for improper support. And it will get brought up by the opposition as "yet another example of crooked Hillary and her insider Washington cronies" (or some such attack), probably more than once. Expect to hear about it during the convention.

[薔薇語]

I dunno. Once we're past the convention, the head-to-head matchup is going to consume most of the oxygen in the room. At that point, save the airing of grievances for the post-mortem.

 

Perhaps this is the case. Perhaps post-convention this becomes a non news story. But I think it will not simply go away. Sec. Clinton has been attacked as standard corrupt politician with an air of nepotism. Trump, his campaign, or the various Anti-Sec. Clinton PACs just need to drive home the idea of Crony and Nepotistic politician with targeted ads. Ones that discuss how Rep. Schultz work to dismiss the Secretary's biggest challenger. How she still refuses to release her Wall-street speech transcripts*, and various shady practices that have funneled money to the Clinton Foundation and vise versa. These needn't be things that actually increase Trump's voter turnout. They might have that function but I kind of doubt it. But if they are targeted to Democratic / Progressive / Liberal voters, they could suppress turn out and / or increase turnout for Dr. Stein or Gov. Johnson. 

 

*Of note on this point: I think it would be a suicidal move for the Trump campaign to push this narrative, but any campaign or PAC against Sec. Clinton and Trump both could push this style message. 

 

Ultimately I think it was a tone deaf message. I think it would have been far better to disavow Rep. Schultz (possibly bad politically and obviously personally) or simply to ignore the event and neither help nor hinder the Rep. Then help her out if Sec. Clinton gains the presidency. She would have 4 years of news to quell any issues related to such quid-pro-quo actions. Perhaps if Sec. Clinton was running in a Republican race, she could make a strong conservative claim towards "loyalty" and "in-group protection" but such messages don't play well to Liberally minded folks.

 

Soar.  

[megaplayboy]

That's how it works though, the convention is pretty much the last chance to complain publicly until after the election. Because beyond that point in time, you are actively undermining not only the nominee but everyone else down-ticket.

[薔薇語]

So? Isn't that exactly what someone in the GOP would want? Or folks who simply dislike Sec. Clinton or want her to President? I am not seeing the issue here for why, when Sec. Clinton does something with such terrible optics of corruption, why someone would not use that as a political tool. 

My point about the Presidency was that in four years, the sting of the issue would go away and be trumped by other policy issues and scandals that would be more pressing than one that occurred four years ago. 

Soar. 

[megaplayboy]

So? Isn't that exactly what someone in the GOP would want? Or folks who simply dislike Sec. Clinton or want her to President? I am not seeing the issue here for why, when Sec. Clinton does something with such terrible optics of corruption, why someone would not use that as a political tool. 

 

My point about the Presidency was that in four years, the sting of the issue would go away and be trumped by other policy issues and scandals that would be more pressing than one that occurred four years ago. 

 

Soar.

I was talking in-party, not generally. People who want to achieve progressive goals and elect Democrats won't achieve it by picking fights and publicly airing grievances post-convention. Instead they will further depress turnout and consequently further set back such goals. At the convention, they have a public forum to complain, and then the Clinton campaign will have to try to address those concerns. But it shouldn't look like a hostage negotiation.

[Ranxerox]

<snip>

 

Ultimately I think it was a tone deaf message. I think it would have been far better to disavow Rep. Schultz (possibly bad politically and obviously personally) or simply to ignore the event and neither help nor hinder the Rep. Then help her out if Sec. Clinton gains the presidency. She would have 4 years of news to quell any issues related to such quid-pro-quo actions. Perhaps if Sec. Clinton was running in a Republican race, she could make a strong conservative claim towards "loyalty" and "in-group protection" but such messages don't play well to Liberally minded folks.

 

Soar.

Just because "loyalty" doesn't mean much in liberal circles (which is actually news to me) doesn't mean that Secretary Clinton doesn't care about it. Hillary Clinton is being always accused up lacking morals and being the sort of person who throws others under the bus in the name of her own ambition, and it sounds like people are upset that she didn't throw a friend under the bus.

 

Rep Schultz was accused of many things by the Bernie Sanders' camp, but what was actually proven against her?  A big, fat nothing; that's what.  This is after a hack of the DNC's emails that would have presumably uncovered any wrong doing had there been any.  Still, the Sanders camp demanded Schultz's firing and the name of political unity they are getting there wish.  If they want Schultz pilloried  and cast out into the wilderness also, well sorry, they are going to just have to want.   

[薔薇語]

Appeals to loyalty are not as common nor.as effective among traditional liberals. When asked about why some act is right or wrong, liberals appeal more to issues of harm, oppression, and a bit of propotionality in fairness. Messages that stress those virtues also play better. Appeals to authority or in group loyalty or sacredness are less attractive to them. Likewise, hard core libertarians are far more invested in oppression and proportional fairness. This is one of the central points of moral foundation theory by Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind.

 

Sec. Clinton could make a case with wider appeal in a Republican race that she must stick behind DWS because 'duh!’. Not that it has no appeal in Democratic circles, but it would not be as widely appealing.

 

Soar.

[Clonus]

Rep Schultz has resigned as DNC chair. The wiki-leaks scandal has gone a good way in tarnishing her already bad reputation with many Democrats. She has also been hired on by Sec. Clinton in her Presidential Campaign (big surprise? )

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN1040TO

 

Soar. 

 

I don't understand.  Why was it a scandal?  

[Old Man]

Because she was fairly obviously pro-Clinton during the primaries, to the active detriment of Sanders.  The wikileaks leak pretty much confirmed that, and Clinton hiring her on looks a lot like protection if not a quid pro quo.

 

That said, my real beef with DWS was her total lack of competence.  I'm literally hoping Hillary is hiring her to go sit on a beach somewhere and STFU, but I doubt it.

[Clonus]

Because she was fairly obviously pro-Clinton during the primaries, to the active detriment of Sanders.  The wikileaks leak pretty much confirmed that, and Clinton hiring her on looks a lot like protection if not a quid pro quo.

 

That said, my real beef with DWS was her total lack of competence.  I'm literally hoping Hillary is hiring her to go sit on a beach somewhere and STFU, but I doubt it.

 

Yes but why is that a scandal?  Did people expect the party brass to be neutral to the non-Democrat who came in to try to take over?   If so, why?  

[Old Man]

Given that they let him run as a Democrat, yeah.  More or less.

[Badger]

Given that they let him run as a Democrat, yeah.  More or less.

 

It's cute, how naïve that is. 

[Old Man]

On the contrary, it's pure realpolitik.  Hillary would have been much better off if the DNC had at least given the appearance of being impartial during the primaries.  Bernie's biggest plank was that the system is rigged, and DWS went ahead and proved it.  Now the DNC convention is kicking off, the point in the campaign that is supposed to unify the party around the nominee, and Bernie supporters are pissed.