2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JoshuaZ » Tue May 26, 2015 10:48 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:It is great news for Clinton, because she'll be able to contrast her position with ACTUAL socialism. Bernie Sanders is a fine guy, but there's absolutely to path to him winning the Electoral College and he knows that better than anyone. It won't be long before Republicans accuse Clinton of recruiting Sanders to make her look more centrist by comparison and to make the Democratic primary look a little less like a coronation.


You mean "absolutely no" right?

It may be worth noting that while the Republican accusations you expect haven't quite started showing up, the far left is already very unhappy with him that he's running as a Democrat at all. See say http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie ... -4-hillary and http://socialistworker.org/2015/05/05/p ... ie-sanders . But I suspect that the Republican claims that Bernie is running to make Hillary look centrist will start pretty soon.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 27, 2015 1:00 pm UTC

The republicans right now have too many of each other to worry overly much about Clinton. Oh sure, they'll oppose her, but the pressing need for them is to distinguish themselves from the pile of like minded candidates.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed May 27, 2015 10:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The republicans right now have too many of each other to worry overly much about Clinton. Oh sure, they'll oppose her, but the pressing need for them is to distinguish themselves from the pile of like minded candidates.

You do realize that the gop bench is really strong, right? Theres no evidence that having a lot of candidates matters more than having crappy candidates.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 28, 2015 12:21 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The republicans right now have too many of each other to worry overly much about Clinton. Oh sure, they'll oppose her, but the pressing need for them is to distinguish themselves from the pile of like minded candidates.

You do realize that the gop bench is really strong, right? Theres no evidence that having a lot of candidates matters more than having crappy candidates.


Strong in the sense of having many candidates, sure, but my point is that exactly that means they have to be very primary focused. Clinton is much more assured of the nomination than any given republican candidate.

So, we can expect republicans to not focus overly on Clinton just yet. Sure, they'll all take turns doing the rote denouncement of democrats and associated policy, as is traditional, but until they're fairly assured of the nom, the biggest threats they actually care about are other republicans.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu May 28, 2015 2:27 pm UTC

The weird open infighting that primaries cause is another reason I hope the UK never follows suit. In a lot of ways its better to thrash all this out behind closed doors

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Thu May 28, 2015 4:46 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You do realize that the gop bench is really strong, right?


It is. Even if the debate caps raise to twelve, you could fill the stage with governors and senators and have a substantive debate about proven records and issues. What remains to be seen is whether the GOP base wants to put twelve governors and senators on the stage or whether they prefer adding in a diverse mix of talk show hosts and CEOs and making this year the same carnival that they had four years ago.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JoshuaZ » Thu May 28, 2015 8:11 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:
sardia wrote:You do realize that the gop bench is really strong, right?


It is. Even if the debate caps raise to twelve, you could fill the stage with governors and senators and have a substantive debate about proven records and issues. What remains to be seen is whether the GOP base wants to put twelve governors and senators on the stage or whether they prefer adding in a diverse mix of talk show hosts and CEOs and making this year the same carnival that they had four years ago.


It looks like they are going to actually do a mix. The Fox debates are going to be restricted to the top ten candidates by polling, but they haven't specified exactly which polls they'll be using and how they'll weight them. See here

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 28, 2015 9:14 pm UTC

That's probably a decent solution. I don't actually need to hear from Santorum and other...niche candidates, and ten is broad enough selection that I think it hits anyone who actually has a chance.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Thu May 28, 2015 9:16 pm UTC

JoshuaZ wrote:The Fox debates are going to be restricted to the top ten candidates by polling, but they haven't specified exactly which polls they'll be using and how they'll weight them. See here


Yeah, that's a week old, and there has been a lot of pushback. I've heard moving up to twelve as a compromise.

Time Magazine did a really good overview of the problems with this plan. tl;dr: polls can't distinguish between candidates whose poll numbers are less than the margin of error and candidates with no support at all. I mean, yikes, if you don't like billionaires deciding who the credible candidates are, let's use the six thousand yokels who just happen to answer the phone that week to make incredibly powerful decisions about the course of the election. Also, polls are rarely in the habit of listing all someteen Republican candidates in polls because people will hang up before you get through them all and can't keep them straight. That's okay for the standard polling methodology, because usually nobody is interested in exactly who is in tenth place. Beyond that, the average American is not properly engaged a year before the election and there's no reason to expect that.

An idea that occurred to me last time around that seems to have struck some pundits as well is to treat the debates like a reality show. Have a debate every week starting with every declared candidate, and every week you vote someone off the stage until you're down to a field where everyone is pulling at least 10% of the audience. Obviously, some people would vote for the most credible candidates and others for the most entertaining, but anyone who loses would obviously have neither quality. (And they'd still be able to campaign, naturally.)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 28, 2015 9:22 pm UTC

It is a depressing moment to realize that emulating reality television might be an improvement for democracy.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu May 28, 2015 10:04 pm UTC

Interestingly, because of how we vote, with so many candidates we could easily see the candidate that wins the primaries get less than a quarter of the vote. I want to see the winner get 15% of the vote, but I think that's at the bottom-end of likely. The end result is that it's barely a step above random selection.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu May 28, 2015 11:01 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Interestingly, because of how we vote, with so many candidates we could easily see the candidate that wins the primaries get less than a quarter of the vote. I want to see the winner get 15% of the vote, but I think that's at the bottom-end of likely. The end result is that it's barely a step above random selection.

None of this matters very much in deciding who gets the nomination. The nomination is mostly, or the plurality of it, is decided by endorsements earned. If you get those endorsements from party leaders, you get a piece of their political machinery. Those in turn provide the framework for a successful campaign. Even if you were grassroots popular, if you don't have endorsements, the very same party leaders will shut you down. You'll mysteriously have drops in the polls, or people coming out of the woodwork to denounce you. They refer to it as the invisible primary. http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/how_to ... p?page=all

And Tyndmyr, I mean the GOP bench is strong in that they have several routes and/or backups that are competitive vs Clinton/generic Democratic candidate. Say Jeb has a scandal where he molests children. He would back out, and then Rubio or Walker would take over. Same thing happens if one of them has a really bad gaffe or makes a mistake. You couldn't do that if you were Hilary for 2016, or 2012 Romney or 2008 Mccain. Any of them could make decent presidents. Try saying that to 90% of the field in 2012 or 2008.

PS The GOP bench is so strong, I even discounted Rand Paul just because the other choices are so "good".

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Fri May 29, 2015 5:11 am UTC

I'm pretty much opposed to limiting candidates in debates. I run candidate debates and forums for public office, and it's pretty much our policy that if you're on the ballot, you get an invite.

That being said, debates with a large number of people suck. Honestly, you can't do it.

I've done a 12-candidate forum before. We decided actually instead of a "debate" we were going to do a mini town hall. Separate people into 12 classrooms and have all of them rotate one at a time taking questions. This has drawbacks, of course (no crosstalk, don't know what was asked in other rooms, etc.).

But honestly, I have never seen a good debate with more than, say, 3-4 people. You can't get meaningful back-and-forth and honestly, if you don't have that, you just have a bunch of people talking in a row. And half the time by the time you're done with the 12-person row you've really forgotten who said what.

The problem of how to handle a large number of candidates is a tough one indeed.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri May 29, 2015 5:20 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:The problem of how to handle a large number of candidates is a tough one indeed.


Yeah, if only there was software that allowed a multi-person debate without limits on the number of participants.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Fri May 29, 2015 6:01 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:The problem of how to handle a large number of candidates is a tough one indeed.


Yeah, if only there was software that allowed a multi-person debate without limits on the number of participants.



Someone register forums.Republicanprimaries.com right now. We'll mail them all pre-made account info and get this rolling.


EDIT: Republicanprimaries.com appears to be free. Let's do it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri May 29, 2015 10:35 am UTC

sardia wrote:And Tyndmyr, I mean the GOP bench is strong in that they have several routes and/or backups that are competitive vs Clinton/generic Democratic candidate. Say Jeb has a scandal where he molests children. He would back out, and then Rubio or Walker would take over. Same thing happens if one of them has a really bad gaffe or makes a mistake. You couldn't do that if you were Hilary for 2016, or 2012 Romney or 2008 Mccain. Any of them could make decent presidents. Try saying that to 90% of the field in 2012 or 2008.

PS The GOP bench is so strong, I even discounted Rand Paul just because the other choices are so "good".


Oh, absolutely. I favor the republicans overall this time around(though it's hardly a sure thing) in part because of this. If Hillary tanks it, the backup options drop off pretty rapidly in terms of realistic electability. You've got what, Warren, Biden, Sanders, and O'Malley even tossing the idea around? And O'Malley is outright doomed, and Sanders is kind of a long shot.

That said, I fully expect the Republican side of things to quickly devolve to mudslinging to more rapidly eliminate participants if this ridiculously broad selection goes on too long. So, that *could* make a lot of the republicans look bad in short order if things get dirty enough.

Djehutynakht wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:The problem of how to handle a large number of candidates is a tough one indeed.


Yeah, if only there was software that allowed a multi-person debate without limits on the number of participants.



Someone register forums.Republicanprimaries.com right now. We'll mail them all pre-made account info and get this rolling.


EDIT: Republicanprimaries.com appears to be free. Let's do it.


Frankly, that just seems like a handy domain name to own in general, I'm surprised it's not taken.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri May 29, 2015 10:46 am UTC

http://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=R ... maries.com

It's owned by a squatter, so while you could purchase it, it won't be cheap.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Fri May 29, 2015 12:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, absolutely. I favor the republicans overall this time around(though it's hardly a sure thing) in part because of this. If Hillary tanks it, the backup options drop off pretty rapidly in terms of realistic electability.


Short of assassination, I can't imagine Clinton "tanking it". She's been embroiled in "scandals" more or less consistently since 1992, and both she and the public have gotten very effective at rolling with them. She is not going to break down and confess at the Benghazi hearings, she knows that there is no smoking gun in the email system, and we'd have heard about it if had been an actual quid pro quo from a Clinton Foundation donation. Beyond that, we've got what -- Republicans are totes jelly that plutocrats will pay a lot of money to hear her speak? Is that a bad thing?

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Fri May 29, 2015 1:07 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:Short of assassination, I can't imagine Clinton "tanking it".

She's currently the only candidate with Secret Service protection... actually, according to Wikipedia,
Wikipedia wrote:Today, the Secret Service is authorized by law to protect
[...]
former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes except when the spouse divorces or remarries. From 1997 until 2013, legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former Presidents and their spouses to a period of 10 years from the date the former President leaves office. President Barack Obama signed legislation reversing this limit and reinstating lifetime protection on January 10, 2013.
If I were paranoid, I would think that the President did this in order to protect her specifically. (She was still covered by the 10-year-rule in 2008.)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri May 29, 2015 2:42 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, absolutely. I favor the republicans overall this time around(though it's hardly a sure thing) in part because of this. If Hillary tanks it, the backup options drop off pretty rapidly in terms of realistic electability.


Short of assassination, I can't imagine Clinton "tanking it". She's been embroiled in "scandals" more or less consistently since 1992, and both she and the public have gotten very effective at rolling with them. She is not going to break down and confess at the Benghazi hearings, she knows that there is no smoking gun in the email system, and we'd have heard about it if had been an actual quid pro quo from a Clinton Foundation donation. Beyond that, we've got what -- Republicans are totes jelly that plutocrats will pay a lot of money to hear her speak? Is that a bad thing?


I agree that it's probably not going to be scandal that gets her, if anything. She's used to that, and is more resiliant on that front than most. If she flops, it'll be something like her last go-round. She'll simply fail to be as personable and what not as someone else, and her popularity will crumble. I think she has a limited base that's genuinely excited about her, rather than just kind of accepting her as okish.

But all candidates have a chance of dropping out early. Health issues or whatever just happen sometimes. So, I suppose it's still a factor.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri May 29, 2015 5:29 pm UTC

I argue its the opposite. She isn't affected by scandals because democrats have no other choice . they're giving her a pass because not having her is worse.

Is there any evidence that a lot of mud slinging matters to a candidates electability?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri May 29, 2015 5:41 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I argue its the opposite. She isn't affected by scandals because democrats have no other choice . they're giving her a pass because not having her is worse.

Is there any evidence that a lot of mud slinging matters to a candidates electability?


Also a decent interpretation. But one that might mean she's more vulnerable to swing voters/lack of enthusiasm from her base.

As for mud slinging...ehhh, one-off gaffes aren't really a big deal. Can't remember the study that showed that last go-round, but most everybody can survive an error until it's truly extreme with minor polling results. People are factionalized enough that they won't shift teams with every bit of news. But if someone slowly builds a perception as a terrible person, well, that has to matter. Sure, factors like money and such still matter as well, but perception affects those too. I mean, I'll vote red if I grow convinced that someone there really is an excellent candidate, but there are certain ones that have absolutely no chance. Santorum, say. He could say all the right things at this point, but given his past, I wouldn't trust him. That's not just about mud-slinging, mind, but O'Malley's on my "no way, ever" list because the dude's a dick.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Fri May 29, 2015 7:09 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I argue its the opposite. She isn't affected by scandals because democrats have no other choice . they're giving her a pass because not having her is worse.


Speaking for myself (a Democrat), I look at it differently. She was investigated throughout Bill Clinton's presidency over Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and complicity in the suicide of Vince Foster by an overzealous independent prosecutor and was found only in the waning months of her 2000 Senate campaign to have done nothing illegal. We've already had a comprehensive Congressional report on the Benghazi attack and when it found no wrongdoing from the administration, Republican leaders immediately formed another one. All the hullabaloo about the NYT expose that Clinton "may have violated federal law" with her private email server didn't go away even when the NYT acknowledged flaws in its reporting and that the laws were enacted after she left the State Department and prior to that administrators had wide latitude in how they managed their records. The Clinton Cash book seems to be all smoke and no fire.

I'm not saying the next allegation against her isn't going to be true and serious. I'm just saying that twenty of years of crying wolf have lead me to not reevaluate my position on Hillary Clinton every time an accusation is made against her.

I'm not sure whether mudslinging has any effect. I'm certainly concerned that Republicans in Congress hate Clinton and will impede the federal government under her administration as much as they have under Obama's. But I think that's their problem and they should get over it on their own time.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sat May 30, 2015 3:12 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, absolutely. I favor the republicans overall this time around(though it's hardly a sure thing) in part because of this. If Hillary tanks it, the backup options drop off pretty rapidly in terms of realistic electability. You've got what, Warren, Biden, Sanders, and O'Malley even tossing the idea around? And O'Malley is outright doomed, and Sanders is kind of a long shot.


Warren has repeatedly declared that she won't run pretty vocally, so I don't think she will. I thought I heard something about one of her aids slipping up and admitting that they hope to use her popularity with the liberal base to influence Hillary's positions.

I haven't heard anything about Joe Biden lately but honestly I'm really hoping. I like Joe Biden.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Sat May 30, 2015 6:37 am UTC

Joe Biden is 113 years old. I would only consider voting for him if I really liked his running mate.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Sat May 30, 2015 9:04 am UTC

I don't know why people are saying O'Malley is doomed.

Obama was a virtual unknown before that election, and he trounced Hillary.

Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
DLA Piper $628,030 $601,030 $27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919 $617,919 $3,000
EMILY's List $605,174 $601,254 $3,920
Morgan Stanley $543,065 $538,065 $5,000
Time Warner $411,296 $386,296 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $406,640 $402,140 $4,500
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
Cablevision Systems $336,288 $306,900 $29,388
University of California $329,673 $329,673 $0
Kirkland & Ellis $311,441 $294,441 $17,000
Squire Patton Boggs $310,596 $305,158 $5,438
21st Century Fox $302,400 $302,400 $0
National Amusements Inc $297,534 $294,534 $3,000
Ernst & Young $297,142 $277,142 $20,000
Merrill Lynch $292,303 $286,303 $6,000
Credit Suisse Group $290,600 $280,600 $10,000
Corning Inc $274,700 $256,700 $18,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $273,550 $265,450 $8,100


https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... =n00000019

People thinking Hillary is going to be some refreshing impact for the country are bound to be disappointed. She's about as well intentioned as her triangulating, smarmy husband.

If it comes to worse I'll still vote for her over the Republican plutocrat/theocrat wackjob that will inevitably be chosen by the Republican primary since people like Jon Huntsman who actually stand a chance in general elections will never be selected.

But I'm not particularly hopeful if she becomes the Democratic candidate. She was a step back from Obama, and look how establishment Obama turned out despite the whole maverick image he sold himself as.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat May 30, 2015 9:11 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:People thinking Hillary is going to be some refreshing impact for the country


Does anyone think that? The only thing she has going for her is name recognition, which might hurt her more than it helps her.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sat May 30, 2015 10:51 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
Lucrece wrote:People thinking Hillary is going to be some refreshing impact for the country


Does anyone think that? The only thing she has going for her is name recognition, which might hurt her more than it helps her.



She is a woman. Therefore, she is revolutionary and we must vote for her.

User avatar
Christo
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Christo » Sun May 31, 2015 11:55 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:She is a woman. Therefore, she is revolutionary and we must vote for her.


Sarcasm?
www.cuttingroomcomic.com - a twice a week webcomic about recently released and upcoming movies.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JoshuaZ » Sun May 31, 2015 11:46 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:I don't know why people are saying O'Malley is doomed.

Obama was a virtual unknown before that election, and he trounced Hillary.


Obama gave a major speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Even at his lowest he was polling at an order of magnitude higher than O'Malley is and Hillary was at her highest in 2008 polling at half what she is now. I'm curious, what probability do you assign to O'Malley winning?



Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
DLA Piper $628,030 $601,030 $27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919 $617,919 $3,000
EMILY's List $605,174 $601,254 $3,920
Morgan Stanley $543,065 $538,065 $5,000
Time Warner $411,296 $386,296 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $406,640 $402,140 $4,500
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
Cablevision Systems $336,288 $306,900 $29,388
University of California $329,673 $329,673 $0
Kirkland & Ellis $311,441 $294,441 $17,000
Squire Patton Boggs $310,596 $305,158 $5,438
21st Century Fox $302,400 $302,400 $0
National Amusements Inc $297,534 $294,534 $3,000
Ernst & Young $297,142 $277,142 $20,000
Merrill Lynch $292,303 $286,303 $6,000
Credit Suisse Group $290,600 $280,600 $10,000
Corning Inc $274,700 $256,700 $18,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $273,550 $265,450 $8,100


https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... =n00000019[/quote]

These are almost completely private donations by employees from those corporations. She was a senator in New York, where many of these banks have a lot of employees. These numbers make sense purely in that context and don't reflect her as being especially beholden to the banks, (she is beholden to a variety of interests including banks, but this isn't good evidence for that).

People thinking Hillary is going to be some refreshing impact for the country are bound to be disappointed. She's about as well intentioned as her triangulating, smarmy husband.


I don't think almost anyone expects anything amazing out of her. And while you may not like her triangulating husband, he presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity. [/quote]

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:46 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Lucrece wrote:People thinking Hillary is going to be some refreshing impact for the country


Does anyone think that? The only thing she has going for her is name recognition, which might hurt her more than it helps her.


Yeah, I don't think that.

Granted, I also don't think that her likely opposition, Jeb Bush, is that either. That'll just be an exceedingly tiresome election, in which I'll almost certainly elect to vote third party.

Lucrece wrote:I don't know why people are saying O'Malley is doomed.

Obama was a virtual unknown before that election, and he trounced Hillary.


Because he's a jackass. MD is roughly as blue as a state can be, and he's kind of hated here. Not *entirely*, because at the extremes, there's always someone willing to root for anybody, but we went red over choosing his Lt Gov/chosen heir. That was viewed as basically impossible, but if his highly democratic home state will vote republican to spite him, he's goddamned doomed.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:44 pm UTC

As a Rockefeller republican (we still exist! I swear!) living in Kentucky, would anyone like to join me in a campaign to support Pataki? "Patuckianna" I suppose. I don't like the Dems this year, but the only two Repubs that I found remotely acceptable are Pataki and Christie, and Christie is pushing it. Really would've like Rob Portman.

It's been 8 years of a Dem president, it's likely to go Repub unless they dredge out yet another Dominionist (which they might), and I really don't like the idea of President Bernie "No GMO" Sanders. So yeah, we need to nominate someone relatively sane.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:35 pm UTC

I'm not overly fond of Christie, but I don't know who Pataki is at all.

In theory, I like your "nominate someone relatively sane" idea, but in practice...

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:51 pm UTC

Beyond the blandness of the candidates, it seems to me the big problem with this election cycle is the absurd amount of money being thrown around. It's been widely reported that the Clinton campaign is aiming for 2 BILLION dollars, and that's just one candidate for one party. That's the GDP of a small country.

But money is free speech, right?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:01 pm UTC

Money is just money. If I don't care about any of the options, I'm not really that worried about the selection process itself at that point. It's already mostly failed.

Most of the interesting bits happen long before we get to the election itself.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Money is just money. If I don't care about any of the options, I'm not really that worried about the selection process...

You are a definite minority in the voting pool, though.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:27 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not overly fond of Christie, but I don't know who Pataki is at all.

In theory, I like your "nominate someone relatively sane" idea, but in practice...


George Pataki is the guy who unseated Mario Cuomo as governor of NY, and he won re-election twice rather convincingly (especially for NY). He is much more than relatively sane, but he is also quite dull. He was pro-gay rights and acknowledged climate change before it was cool, but also pro-gun control and pro-choice. He's been running for vice-president since 2012 and I don't think he ever got on a short list. It's anyone's guess why he decided to declare for president this time around, but I think it's because he knows he'll be too old to do it four or eight years from now and running for president was on his bucket list.

Nice guy. But if all the stars aligned and he won the New Hampshire primary, he wouldn't have a plan for what comes next. The Republican party left him a long time ago.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:23 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Money is just money. If I don't care about any of the options, I'm not really that worried about the selection process...

You are a definite minority in the voting pool, though.


Granted. But I think even those who are heavily partisan are pretty frequently disappointed in their options. They might vote for Clinton because at least she's not Bush, or vice versa, but...by the general election, most of the sorting has already happened.

Tirian wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not overly fond of Christie, but I don't know who Pataki is at all.

In theory, I like your "nominate someone relatively sane" idea, but in practice...


George Pataki is the guy who unseated Mario Cuomo as governor of NY, and he won re-election twice rather convincingly (especially for NY). He is much more than relatively sane, but he is also quite dull. He was pro-gay rights and acknowledged climate change before it was cool, but also pro-gun control and pro-choice. He's been running for vice-president since 2012 and I don't think he ever got on a short list. It's anyone's guess why he decided to declare for president this time around, but I think it's because he knows he'll be too old to do it four or eight years from now and running for president was on his bucket list.

Nice guy. But if all the stars aligned and he won the New Hampshire primary, he wouldn't have a plan for what comes next. The Republican party left him a long time ago.


I looked him up a little. Not terribly enthused. Getting past arguing over abortion needs to happen for the republicans, sure. But...that's not a big consideration for me, because Roe v Wade is not getting overturned no matter what the candidate says to the base.

Being pro-death penalty is not a point in his favor for me. Neither is being pro-gun control. In fact, in the republican party, that alone is probably a showstopper for him. Not that he seems to have a ghost of a chance regardless, but even if he suddenly got notoriety, I can't see him attracting support.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Being pro-death penalty is not a point in his favor for me. Neither is being pro-gun control. In fact, in the republican party, that alone is probably a showstopper for him. Not that he seems to have a ghost of a chance regardless, but even if he suddenly got notoriety, I can't see him attracting support.


The death penalty may have been a one-off, I'd hear him out on that if he felt like clarifying. The people and legislature of New York had supported reenacting the death penalty for years, but Mario Cuomo had unapologetically vetoed it every time it came to his desk, as it was contrary to his Catholic morality. It may have been that Pataki was not in favor of killing folk so much as ceding to the will of the electorate.. I certainly don't recall him as a bloodthirsty man, although the prison-industrial complex got the same boost in NY that it had gotten throughout the rest of the nation in those times.

I agree with you that his positions on gun control make him unelectable and unqualified for the Republican vice-presidential nod. Still, he might make a grassroots splash in New Hampshire if everyone else melts down at the same time.

Speaking of melting down, Rand Paul seems to be acting like he'd rather be right than president. Kentucky had set things up so that he could run for President and for his Senate seat in 2016; I wonder if he'll lose both over his Patriot Act intransigence.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 02, 2015 7:29 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:I agree with you that his positions on gun control make him unelectable and unqualified for the Republican vice-presidential nod. Still, he might make a grassroots splash in New Hampshire if everyone else melts down at the same time.


I can't imagine what sort of meltdown you'd need to get to that point.

Speaking of melting down, Rand Paul seems to be acting like he'd rather be right than president. Kentucky had set things up so that he could run for President and for his Senate seat in 2016; I wonder if he'll lose both over his Patriot Act intransigence.


I doubt it. The Patriot act dealie is getting him lots of publicity. In fact, I think that's *why* he's making such a big deal of it. Headlines and attention are lovely things for those who would be king.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests