Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 10:41:47 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 626
76  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How soon will Pres Hillary Clinton Bomb Iran on: April 17, 2015, 11:45:13 am
This really is getting stupid...

Wasn't there just a thread recently about how people here don't hate on Hillary? Yet I swear I see a thread similar to this at least once a week. One of the curiosities of the Atlas Forum is how they somehow manage to maintain the cognitive dissonance of thinking legions of Hillary hacks run the place and crush the minority of dissenters into the ground, while simultaneously circlejerking about how much they all hate her in countless threads. Truly fascinating.

Anyway, the obvious answer is right before her re-election so she can get a rally around the flag effect and maintain her grip on power (normal).

Yes- it's funny how you're constantly accused of being a Hillary hack, yet there are many anti-Hillary hacks as evidenced by this thread.
77  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Will there ever be another peacetime president? on: April 17, 2015, 11:38:28 am
Carter was president during the war on drugs.
I suppose that along that logic you can say that Calvin Coolidge was president during the war on Christmas.  Frankly I think that including the War on Drugs is nitpicking - considering how, if you do include it, the last peacetime president becomes Kennedy - but if you exclude him, Hoover.

Well does "peacetime" include any moment in a presidency or requires that the entire presidency be peaceful from start to finish? Because if it's the latter Kennedy doesn't count regardless (Bay of Pigs). There's also the fact that we had 16,000 personnel in Vietnam by the time he was killed.
78  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Will there ever be another peacetime president? on: April 17, 2015, 09:48:58 am
Carter was president during the war on drugs.
79  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: By 2:1 ratio, Republicans are more loyal to Israel than US on: April 17, 2015, 09:41:59 am
Barack Obama & Palestinians = brown, you see.
80  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio 31% Bush 30% Cruz 8% Paul 7% on: April 17, 2015, 09:32:39 am
Southerners: 76%
Northerners: 2%
81  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 2016 Florida senate race, democratic primary on: April 17, 2015, 09:09:54 am
Voting for Alan Grayson in the primary is EXACTLY the sort of thing the FDP would do. It'd be an encapsulation of everything wrong with the party: automatically jumping at the more well-known name like its a shiny thing, expecting to be saved by RPOF choices, and of course an overestimation of their support in competitive races.

A Grayson primary win followed a campaign where it looks like the Democrats might FINALLY WIN ONE ending in a close but definitive Republican victory in the general is both hilarious and inevitable.

Don't worry, the spoiled rich Republican kid is heavily favored.

I would expect the guy who beat Allen West and who got 60% in a fairly Republican district in 2014 to be favored over the loudmouthed jerk who's going through a really messy divorce (and didn't he accuse his wife of bigamy at some point?).

Dereich's analysis is correct, and yes, Grayson has accused his wife of bigamy, his political opponents of supporting the Taliban, etc, etc. The only explanation is that the FDP saw what fun the RPOF was having with Allen West and attempted to recreate their own version.

Yes, it sucks that we have to choose between someone who accused his wife of bigamy and someone who would rather caucus with Boehner than vote for Pelosi.
82  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Jeannette Rankin? on: April 17, 2015, 09:08:02 am
I've always been fascinated at how the "wild" west produced radical and suffrage/women-friendly environments prior to the maturation of established politics.
83  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be put to death for the Boston Massacre? on: April 16, 2015, 11:29:22 pm
Life imprisonment, because the class that runs the state has no moral authority to put anyone to death

That's why the state maintains the power to end all life on earth, right? No authority to put anyone to death?
84  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be put to death for the Boston Massacre? on: April 16, 2015, 11:22:54 pm
If anyone should receive the death penalty, he should. That said, I don't care much which sentence he receives.

Well, a case could be made that a terrorist who kills 100 people should be put to death, but a terrorist who kills "only" 3 people is little different than a non-terrorist who shoots 3 people.
85  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 2016 Florida senate race, democratic primary on: April 16, 2015, 09:47:23 pm
Voting for Alan Grayson in the primary is EXACTLY the sort of thing the FDP would do. It'd be an encapsulation of everything wrong with the party: automatically jumping at the more well-known name like its a shiny thing, expecting to be saved by RPOF choices, and of course an overestimation of their support in competitive races.

A Grayson primary win followed a campaign where it looks like the Democrats might FINALLY WIN ONE ending in a close but definitive Republican victory in the general is both hilarious and inevitable.

Don't worry, the spoiled rich Republican kid is heavily favored.
86  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: President Obama to support removing Cuba from terrorist sponsors list on: April 16, 2015, 09:41:56 pm
Honestly, Obama's new Cuba policy is probably one of the best things to come from his Presidency.

Indeed. And it's something that Hillary pushed for years. But really I don't give either of them too much credit for this no-brainer move that should have/would have happened 20 years ago if not for the Miami Cuban lobby.

You know who has been pushing to keep the embargo in place for years? Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Because she has no brains.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/01/25/wasserman-schultz-says-cuban-embargo-should-remain/

She has to pretend to be anti-Cuba to maintain influence with her Cuban buddies in the majority party. That's her job. And it's the job of the rest of the country to overrule her.
87  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio's logo has a tiny red lower 48 map of the US dotting the i on: April 16, 2015, 09:24:57 pm
The "little green men" are preparing to invade Sarah Palin's house as we speak...
88  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 2016 Florida senate race, democratic primary on: April 16, 2015, 08:13:46 pm
Alan Grayson
89  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for TPP on: April 16, 2015, 08:06:58 pm
If anybody here should be upset, it is me Smiley Because if anybody is going to get hurt, it is Mexico: we are in a direct competition with China, and we are going to loose much of the privilleged access given by NAFTA.

But I am happy.

China is not a part of this deal, thankfully. In fact, I think the main reason Obama is for it is that it draws America's East Asian allies into a closer multilateral cooperation with us, while the economic consequences are a wash. He wants to deter China from trying to push the U.S. out of the region.
90  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: hillary campaign will accept lobbyist donations on: April 16, 2015, 07:16:55 pm
Disappointing - if Obama can run successful campaigns without accepting lobbyist donations, I don't see why Hillary can't.


It's funny, Bill DeBlasio was actually Hillary's campaign manager then:

Quote
In response, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager, Bill de Blasio, wrote a letter to Mr. Lazio's campaign manager, Bill Dal Col, that said Mrs. Clinton would take up the challenge only if Mr. Lazio secures written promises that independent political organizations that support his campaign would cease negative advertising and other attacks against her. Mr. de Blasio also said Mr. Lazio would have to release his income tax returns, something he has repeatedly promised to do this summer. President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton released their tax return in April.
91  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire on: April 16, 2015, 06:53:28 pm
I don't think it's really so farfetched that she has genuine center-left economic convictions, given the issues (health care, children, women's rights) that have been consistent for her for over 40 years. But at the end of the day, you're right, I don't really give a sh__ what's in Hillary's heart of hearts, which is something none of us will ever find out anyway (same goes for any other pol). I care that she'll be a strong advocate for working families because it'll be in her interest as a Democrat. I do think she was to the left of Obama on economics in 2007-08, but very few people noticed, in part because the economic collapse was only looming then and not yet realized.

Here is an article about Hillary's time on Walmart's board. Walton needed a woman on the board so he brought her on, and she agreed, a position that amounted to about four meetings a year. She was not Walton's first choice, she was the only woman, she was young, she was an outsider, and by all accounts she was the only liberal on the board. Walton hated unions and by all accounts, every other member on the board was against them. She did not speak out for unions. She did use her position to successfully push for more environmentally friendly stores, and she pushed for women's representation with very limited results. Then she left.

As an aside, at the time Hillary accepted the position, Wal-Mart was already within 2 years of toppling Sears Roebuck as the nation's largest retailer. Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country, and here is a huge local company (whose revenues today are over 4 1/2 times state GDP), probably more modest in 1988, but still. It's not like she picked some obscure, unimportant anti-union company and sought them out as representative of the type of company she'd like to sit on the board of.
92  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Are you going to join Hillary? on: April 16, 2015, 04:41:26 pm
I'm a gay, white male. So obviously....no.

So is Hillary's campaign manager.
93  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire on: April 16, 2015, 03:07:39 pm
Yes, I'm sure she's completely controlled by donations that amount to literally 0.2% of her expected total fundraising...
94  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside) on: April 16, 2015, 12:40:42 pm
kal sort of has a point, too. Anyone who lived through Howard Dean's Joe Trippi/Meetup.com summer 2003 campaign, capped up with a baseball-bat themed "September to Remember" fundraising drive, and then endorsements from SEIU and AFSCME, where he almost literally came out of nowhere in April to a commanding lead in the New Hampshire primary -- only to see it all collapse within weeks, will always be impressed with the volatility of polls. Not to mention Hillary's own turnaround from a 30-37 (and worse) deficit the Saturday before the New Hampshire primary to a 3-point victory.
95  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire on: April 16, 2015, 10:53:03 am
Why do people refuse to understand the concept of rhetoric? What she says on the campaign trail is not necessarily what her policy goals will end up being.

Oh, I definitely agree that she should be backing up her rhetoric with concrete policy proposals that actually move the needle in a significant way. I think people are more surprised that she's talking about income inequality than they should be, because that big element of her '08 campaign was generally ignored.
96  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire on: April 16, 2015, 10:48:01 am
"Let's finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart," she said. "The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation's wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let's close that gap. Let's start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas."

... in June 2007.

Echoing Elizabeth Warren, she said,

"We've had millions of Americans just drop out of the labor force," she said. "Corporate profits, however, are at a 40-year high. So here we contrast very high corporate profits, and the average American family has lost $1,000 in income in the last seven years...we face new threats that neither the president nor federal regulators have adequately acknowledged or addressed...I don't think we'd be comfortable with our own government speculating in real estate or buying up companies, and we should be doubly uncomfortable with the idea of a foreign government doing these things in our country...Finally, we need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other complex financial products... We canít let Wall Street send the bill to your street."

... in November 2007.

Who is this new Hillary?
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside) on: April 16, 2015, 10:24:14 am
Excellent post, IceSpear. The case for Hill dog's victory is indeed strong.
98  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery on: April 16, 2015, 10:19:06 am
I) Fundraising

Myth #1: Hillary was a financial juggernaut in 2007-2008, with Obama running on a shoestring budget.

Fact: Obama outraised her multiple times, occasionally by blowout margins. And this wasn't only towards the end of the primary, he was outraising her as early as Q2 of 2007. There's simply no evidence that Obama had any trouble whatsoever keeping competitive with fundraising, which is a hallmark of a serious candidate.

Now, does anyone seriously believe any of the D-list candidates currently running against her are capable of being competitive with Hillary in fundraising? As I type this, Hillary is raising ungodly amounts of money from the Democratic donor class, which this time is nearly unanimously behind her (more on this point later.) Meanwhile, O'Malley, Chafee, and the rest are all dithering in their exploratory committees. That's just making their already inescapable hole even deeper.

Myth #2: Money doesn't mean everything! <insert example here>.

Fact: Yes, there are examples of candidates who got drastically outspent winning. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most of the time, the better funded candidate wins. And even in cases where the candidate with less money won, they still usually had enough to at least stay competitive. That will not be so this time. Hillary is going to completely demolish the competition in terms of fundraising. It will not be remotely close.

II) Establishment Support

Myth #3: The Democratic establishment overwhelmingly backed Hillary in 2007, just like they're doing now.

Fact: The Democratic establishment was in no way united behind Hillary. Not only is this clear from the fundraising figures above, it is also clear from endorsements. In case you guys forgot, Ted Kennedy was a huge backer of Obama. Many other Democratic politicians backed him as well. Hillary had more endorsements overall, but it was not anything close to unanimous. As for Hillary, at this point in 2007 she had the support of a single Senator. This time she has the support of 27 Senators before she even declared her campaign, more than a majority of the Democratic caucus. Yeah, #Hillaryover50. As for her "competition", they have nothing. In Maryland, both Senators have endorsed Hillary. Same for the Senators and Governors in Virginia and Rhode Island. Sanders' Senate colleague has endorsed Hillary. If none of these people can win endorsements from high ranking politicians in their home states, where exactly are they going to do so?

III) Polling

Myth #4: Hillary was polling just as strong/almost as strong in 2007/2008 as she was now.

Fact: Hillary's poll numbers aren't even in the same universe now as they were in 2007/2008. I will illustrate using the RCP averages.

(For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring Elizabeth Warren's support since she is clearly not running. Some might scoff at this, but if anything it's TOO generous to the non Hillary candidates, since three separate pollsters (Marist, CNN, and YouGov) have all confirmed that Hillary actually gains the most when Warren is excluded. Not surprising when you consider the gender factor. However, since I have no way of knowing what the actual breakdown is, I will simply ignore it entirely.)

National, April 16th 2007: Clinton +9
National, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +39

Iowa, April 16th 2007: Edwards +3 (!)
Iowa, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +51

New Hampshire, April 16th 2007: Clinton +8
New Hampshire, April 16th, 2015: Clinton +44
Swing: Clinton +36

South Carolina, April 16th 2007: Clinton +7
South Carolina, April 16th 2015: Clinton +43
Swing: Clinton +36

The numbers speak for themselves. You're either insane or willfully ignorant if you think Hillary's numbers in the 2008 cycle are anywhere near what they are now.

Myth #5: Okay, Hillary leads by a huge margin, but it's only because of name recognition.

Fact: Name recognition is a part of her leads, but it can't explain them away, or even greatly reduce them for that matter. If it's only because of name recognition, why is she crushing Biden everywhere who has name recognition just as high? If it's only because of name recognition, why is she demolishing Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Russ Feingold, etc. in their home states when most Democrats in those states know who they are and like them? Hell, she even stomps Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and I would consider her a viable opponent against Hillary.

Myth #6: Okay, people are polling horribly now, but they can come out of nowhere just like Obama did.

Fact: Obama did not "come out of nowhere." He was widely talked up as a potential candidate after his 2004 DNC speech. And the fundraising figures and polling numbers show he did not begin as a nonentity once he entered the race either. He immediately gathered a solid base of support (both among the electorate and donor base), unlike the clique of literal 1%ers currently running against Hillary. Just see for yourself how high he was polling even in the early stages of the race through those links from earlier.

IV) Miscellaneous

Myth #7: Well, Hillary got destroyed in 2008, so she's clearly vulnerable anyway

Fact: No, it was actually the closest presidential primary campaign in history, and she arguably won the popular vote. And this was against a stellar candidate like Obama. Considering that, what exactly can Lincoln Chafee do against a FAR stronger Hillary?

Myth #8: She was inevitable in 2008 too!

Fact: This was a retrospective media narrative based off no evidence at the time, simply because "David beats Goliath" sounds a lot more interesting than "strong 2nd place defeats frontrunner", and to simultaneously lionize Obama and bask in the defeat of their hated nemesis Hillary. If you need evidence, read this. The author went back and delved into news stories from 2007-2008, and references to Hillary's "inevitability" were very thin, particularly after Obama entered the race. It's simply not based in reality.

However, even if they did describe her that way, that would simply reflect the idiocy of the media rather than showing anything about Hillary, because of the polling numbers above. How exactly would someone leading by mere single digits nationally and in NH/SC, but TRAILING in Iowa be "inevitable"? The answer is that they wouldn't be, and anyone who described them that way is literally retarded. But again, very few people did.

Myth #9: But Democrats/liberals/progressives/the left/the base/minorities hate Hillary!

Fact: No, they actually all love her. Read the crosstabs of any Hillary favorability poll for proof. I'm sorry, but your personal hatred of Hillary Clinton does not speak for the entire Democratic Party, as much as you wish it to be so. As for minorities, a little noticed fact is that African Americans are one of her strongest core groups of support now, and she cleaned Obama's clock amongs Hispanics in the 2008 primary, another inconvenient fact that went down the memory hole.

Myth #10: I'm an annoying Hillary hack because I consistently point out stubborn facts

Fact: No, actually most of my detractors are the hacks. All of the empirical evidence is on my side, while all the anti-Hillary hacks have is their own wishful thinking.

V) Conclusion

Hillary is inevitable. Get over it.


99  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: President Obama to support removing Cuba from terrorist sponsors list on: April 15, 2015, 07:40:35 pm
re. Snowden: He's a traitor that literally committed treason and should be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law. His dissemination of the information he stole can be described as nothing less than careless, and he has undermined the US's soft-power and counter-surveillance capabilities on the world stage.

I'll agree with Snowdon prosecution the day Keith Alexander (former NSA head) is prosecuted for mass spying of citizens without court mandate.

Not to mention lying to Congress.

I can understand why Snowden must be prosecuted. If he wasn't, then it would basically send a signal that anyone can just steal all of the NSA's files, and escape consequences (If that's the case, what's the point of secrecy?), but he did do a lot of good as well, and it was due solely to the unknown abuses and dishonesty of the NSA.
100  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: President Obama to support removing Cuba from terrorist sponsors list on: April 15, 2015, 07:06:53 pm
Honestly, Obama's new Cuba policy is probably one of the best things to come from his Presidency.

Indeed. And it's something that Hillary pushed for years. But really I don't give either of them too much credit for this no-brainer move that should have/would have happened 20 years ago if not for the Miami Cuban lobby.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 626


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines