2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Buster Bluth]

I think that Obama supporters who throw out the "Republicans are obstructionists" card are forgetting that Obama's first campaign touted him as "the man who can break through Washington gridlock and bring both sides of the aisle together." He constantly pointed to his work with diverse groups in Chicago, when he was a community organizer, as proof of his consensus building ability. That doesn't negate the fact that Obama has not, in fact, had some kind of super majority to do what he wanted. But the lack of support from across the aisle is just an example of how he failed to live up to yet another campaign promise. Build consensus? FAIL. Close Gitmo? FAIL. Transparent government? FAIL.

I don't think Obama has been a terrible President. I disagree with many of his policies and decisions, but I don't buy the accusation that he was trying to transform the country into some kind of Socialist society. However, he failed massively to deliver on his campaign promises......... like most other politicians.

I think that's generally agreeable. I don't think Obama expected the GOP to form opposition like they did though. Republicans and Clinton were able to work together pretty often, I'm willing to say the biggest difference isn't Obama or his arrogance, but the control Fox News has over Republicans.

I think Obama has been a mediocre President. Not good, not bad.

 

[wizards8507]

I think that's generally agreeable. I don't think Obama expected the GOP to form opposition like they did though. Republicans and Clinton were able to work together pretty often, I'm willing to say the biggest difference isn't Obama or his arrogance, but the control Fox News has over Republicans.

I think Obama has been a mediocre President. Not good, not bad.

Except that the Republicans rolled over and played dead. Obama got everything he wanted except for comprehensive immigration reform (despite Rubio's efforts to betray the base).

1. Obama puts forth a budget or proposal.
2. Republicans make a show of protest, but don't do shit.
3. Ted Cruz stands up as a lone ranger of protest. Republicans turn on him.
4. Republican leadership don't want to be blamed for government shutdown.
5. Obama gets exactly what he wants.

Google "Republicans cave" for dozens of examples. They should have acted as an opposition party after landslides in 2010 and 2014, but their blustering never went beyond rhetoric. They didn't actually do anything to stop Obama's agenda.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Uh huh. If you don't have 60 votes you might as well have 41 if the other Party opposes your plan. Being just "one or two votes off" is the same as being a dozen votes off.

That's strong hyperbole, no? We all know that closed door back office dealing occurs daily in DC to get things moving. It is much easier to do when coercing one person to change a vote than 12.

 

[connor_in]

Whole bunch of bla bla bla going on. I just wanna know which candidate will actually push the button. Nuke em all 16

Are you familiar with SMOD 2016 (Sweet Meteor of Death)?

https://twitter.com/smod2016/

https://www.facebook.com/SMOD-in-2016-294031083994824/

 

[RDU Irish]

Uh huh. If you don't have 60 votes you might as well have 41 if the other Party opposes your plan. Being just "one or two votes off" is the same as being a dozen votes off.



I completely agree. Obama should have modeled his plan on a recent one done by a Republican, so it wouldn't have been so extreme. Things like the individual mandate, which no Republicans ever supported during the previous Democratic President, were just too much.

The thing about deal making is it's tough to point out which side won't make a deal. I can point to hundreds of filibusters, shutting down the government, refusing something like a 10-to-1 compromise of cuts and increases, etc when it comes to Republicans. I think Obama is pretty arrogant, but I don't think the Democrats are the ones being so stubborn these days.

It's the Republicans who foolishly go around signing things like Grover Norquist's Tax Pledge, which makes it basically impossible to ever have tax increases be on the table, ever.

It's the Republicans who are at the mercy of Roger Ailes' Fox News and the others like Rush Limbaugh, who make the party more extreme each election cycle. There is simply no liberal equivalent to the control those two have over their party, and they can destroy the political career of dissidents in a way that Democrats simply can't.

Seriously Clark? You only need to find one out of 41 guys to work with on each issue and you are golden. The only constant is Obama. He could not find a single issue to work with a single Republican Senator on ANY deal to get something done and the problem is the 41. That is so implausible that it borders on intellectual bankruptcy.

And Limbaugh and Hannity are whores. They were mocking Trump until he got support, now they carry water for him. Just like they jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon claiming to be "true conservatives". Bullshit, they are whores building an audience.

And Bill Clinton is a moderate with zero principles with huge intelligence and off the charts charisma - one on one charisma not teleprompter empty suit stuff. With zero principles, he is wide open to making deals and highly motivated to getting shit done so he can get to chasing skirts.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think that's generally agreeable. I don't think Obama expected the GOP to form opposition like they did though. Republicans and Clinton were able to work together pretty often, I'm willing to say the biggest difference isn't Obama or his arrogance, but the control Fox News has over Republicans.

I think Obama has been a mediocre President. Not good, not bad.

Curious what you think his positive accomplishments have been.

 

[connor_in]

Except that the Republicans rolled over and played dead. Obama got everything he wanted except for comprehensive immigration reform (despite Rubio's efforts to betray the base).

1. Obama puts forth a budget or proposal.
2. Republicans make a show of protest, but don't do shit.
3. Ted Cruz stands up as a lone ranger of protest. Republicans turn on him.
4. Republican leadership don't want to be blamed for government shutdown.
5. Obama gets exactly what he wants.

Google "Republicans cave" for dozens of examples. They should have acted as an opposition party after landslides in 2010 and 2014, but their blustering never went beyond rhetoric. They didn't actually do anything to stop Obama's agenda.

Thus part of the reason for the popularity of Trump as a candidate

 

[Buster Bluth]

Google "Republicans cave" for dozens of examples. They should have acted as an opposition party after landslides in 2010 and 2014, but their blustering never went beyond rhetoric. They didn't actually do anything to stop Obama's agenda.

They didn't do anything to stop Obama's agenda other than hundreds of filibusters, shutting down the government, and oppose him on generally every measure he put forth.

If you google "Republicans cave," if your results are anything like mine, the top hits are rushlimbaugh.com, breitbart.com, washingtontimes.com, and theblaze.com. Speak of the devil, there are some of the entities responsible for the extreme GOP we have today.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Seriously Clark? You only need to find one out of 41 guys to work with on each issue and you are golden. The only constant is Obama. He could not find a single issue to work with a single Republican Senator on ANY deal to get something done and the problem is the 41. That is so implausible that it borders on intellectual bankruptcy.

Serious as a heart attack that during the Obamacare passage it was the GOP who wouldn't work with the other side. And I say that as someone who has never said a generally positive thing about Obamacare.

And Limbaugh and Hannity are whores. They were mocking Trump until he got support, now they carry water for him. Just like they jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon claiming to be "true conservatives". Bullshit, they are whores building an audience.

Stunning that Ailes' bitch, Hannity, wouldn't support an outsider who basically told the GOP to fuck off the moment he announced his presidency.. They aren't building an audience so much as preparing to accept defeat.

 

[connor_in]

Joan Walsh encouraged to keep speculating why Hillary isn't winning twitchy.com


SMDH

 

[woolybug25]

Curious what you think his positive accomplishments have been.

I know you are talking to Buster, but here are my thoughts.

- Authorized the assassination of Osama Bin Laden
- He created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
- As of January 2016, a record 64 consecutive months of overall job growth.
- Negotiated a deal with Swiss banks permitting the US government to gain access to bank records of criminals and tax evaders.
- Unfroze the secondary market for SBA loans which immediately brought liquidity to community banks. This was all part of his Financial Stability Plan.
- Repealed the reprehensible “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.
- Issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other. Laying the groundwork for the legalization of Gay Marriage.
- Strengthened the Endangered Species Act.
- Blocked all oil and gas drilling in Bristol Bay, Alaska, one of the most pristine environments in North America, and Wooly's prime time spot.

Those are just the one's i'm sure about. There are several that, regardless of the knee jerk reactions from his detractors, can't really be judged in the near term. The reality is that all Presidents are looked at under a better light as time goes by. Obama will too.

 

[wizards8507]

They didn't do anything to stop Obama's agenda other than hundreds of filibusters, shutting down the government, and oppose him on generally every measure he put forth.

You seem to think the purpose of the Congress is to do what the President wants, and the American people can fuck off. Americans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. Americans don't like the Affordable Care Act. Americans don't like drone strikes on American citizens living abroad (though they do support drone strikes on foreign terrorists). Americans don't like bulk phone metadata collection. On what basis are Republicans the bad guys for opposing things that the American people oppose?

Americans Clearly Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Mexican Immigrants

Americans Tilt More Negative Toward Affordable Care Act

In U.S., 65% Support Drone Attacks on Terrorists Abroad

Americans Disapprove of Government Surveillance Programs

ETA: Full disclosure, those links are clearly the right wing propaganda from the notorious Gallup.

 

[beryirish]

I know you are talking to Buster, but here are my thoughts.

- Authorized the assassination of Osama Bin Laden
- He created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
- As of January 2016, a record 64 consecutive months of overall job growth.
- Negotiated a deal with Swiss banks permitting the US government to gain access to bank records of criminals and tax evaders.
- Unfroze the secondary market for SBA loans which immediately brought liquidity to community banks. This was all part of his Financial Stability Plan.
- Repealed the reprehensible “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.
- Issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other. Laying the groundwork for the legalization of Gay Marriage.
- Issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other.
- Strengthened the Endangered Species Act.
- Blocked all oil and gas drilling in Bristol Bay, Alaska, one of the most pristine environments in North America, and Wooly's prime time spot.

Those are just the one's i'm sure about. There are several that, regardless of the knee jerk reactions from his detractors, can't really be judged in the near term. The reality is that all Presidents are looked at under a better light as time goes by. Obama will too.

That you Rubio?

 

[woolybug25]

That you Rubio?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

That you Rubio?

Ha. I said the same thing! Well played.

 

[IrishLax]

Uh huh. If you don't have 60 votes you might as well have 41 if the other Party opposes your plan. Being just "one or two votes off" is the same as being a dozen votes off.

Parties have never been homogeneous voting blocks though. That's why there is a whip, etc. Obama having no political short game is his fault. If he and his party were physically incapable of wrangling even one vote from the "opposition" then 1) they had bad legislative leaders or 2) they had bad policies. Or both.

Like you can't take a policy that was wildly unpopular with the American public at large AND didn't even have full support of his own part and say "it's all the Republicans fault!" You talk about Obamacare, but there were MANY Democrats (like ND's own Joe Donnelly) who behind closed doors ADAMANTLY opposed the legislation because it was unpopular among their constituents and then got whipped/coerced/bought into supporting it. If you have to spend all of your political capital on your own party then I guess I can see how you wouldn't have any left over to get votes from the opposition. And that's exactly what happened.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

You seem to think the purpose of the Congress is to do what the President wants, and the American people can fuck off. Americans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. Americans don't like the Affordable Care Act. Americans don't like drone strikes on American citizens living abroad (though they do support drone strikes on foreign terrorists). Americans don't like bulk phone metadata collection. On what basis are Republicans the bad guys for opposing things that the American people oppose?

Americans Clearly Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Mexican Immigrants

Americans Tilt More Negative Toward Affordable Care Act

In U.S., 65% Support Drone Attacks on Terrorists Abroad

Americans Disapprove of Government Surveillance Programs

ETA: Full disclosure, those links are clearly the right wing propaganda from the notorious Gallup.

Why not try and use an impartial poll then to make your points, like Pew Research?

For example:

In a Pew Research Center survey conducted in May, a solid majority (72%) of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 76% of independents and 56% of Republicans – say undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay in this country legally if they meet certain requirements.

 

[wizards8507]

Why not try and use an impartial poll then to make your points, like Pew Research?

That was sarcasm dude. Gallup is not right wing or conservative in any way.

 

[kmoose]

Americans don't like drone strikes on American citizens living abroad (though they do support drone strikes on foreign terrorists).

In U.S., 65% Support Drone Attacks on Terrorists Abroad

I'd be really interested to see those results if the question was changed to "Would you support drone strikes in foreign countries against American citizens who are known supporters of terrorism and actively engaged in activities in support of those terrorist organizations? "

 

[IrishLax]

Why not try and use an impartial poll then to make your points, like Pew Research?

Sarcasm?

 

[wizards8507]

I'd be really interested to see those results if the question was changed to "Would you support drone strikes in foreign countries against American citizens who are known supporters of terrorism and actively engaged in activities in support of those terrorist organizations? "

Launch airstrikes in other countries against suspected terrorists - 65 / 28 / 8
Launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists - 41 / 52 / 7
Launch airstrikes in the U.S. against suspected terrorists living here - 25 / 66 / 9
Launch airstrikes in the U.S. against U.S. citizens living here who are suspected terrorists - 13 / 79 / 7

 

[BleedBlueGold]

That was sarcasm dude. Gallup is not right wing or conservative in any way.

Those are some pretty different numbers than Pew though, which is why I'm asking. On that particular issue anyways.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Sarcasm?

Serious question: How does one know if a poll is actually biased or not? I'm not kidding. I looked into it before I even posted and nothing suggested that Pew is right or left. I hear people source Pew all the time as a very reputable source. I mean, honestly, which are the best resources for polling information? Because clearly, I'm missing something.

 

[irishfan]

Serious question: How does one know if a poll is actually biased or not? I'm not kidding. I looked into it before I even posted and nothing suggested that Pew is right or left. I hear people source Pew all the time as a very reputable source. I mean, honestly, which are the best resources for polling information? Because clearly, I'm missing something.

FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster Ratings | FiveThirtyEight

This is probably one of the more extensive poll ratings out there.

 

[wizards8507]

Serious question: How does one know if a poll is actually biased or not? I'm not kidding. I looked into it before I even posted and nothing suggested that Pew is right or left. I hear people source Pew all the time as a very reputable source. I mean, honestly, which are the best resources for polling information? Because clearly, I'm missing something.

PPP skews left. Rasmussen skews right. Everyone else is somewhere in between. Even PPP and Rasmussen aren't that bad.

FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster Ratings | FiveThirtyEight

This is probably one of the more extensive poll ratings out there.

I was going to post this, but it doesn't really apply in this case. Those polls are based on election results. Public opinion surveys can't really be audited in the way FiveThirtyEight is trying to do here.

 

[kmoose]

Launch airstrikes in other countries against suspected terrorists - 65 / 28 / 8
Launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists - 41 / 52 / 7
Launch airstrikes in the U.S. against suspected terrorists living here - 25 / 66 / 9
Launch airstrikes in the U.S. against U.S. citizens living here who are suspected terrorists - 13 / 79 / 7

I read the link. I saw the numbers. The question you ask can provide very different responses. Many people are likely to err on the side of caution when dealing with people who are only suspected of something. However, if they are a KNOWN, ACTIVE supporter of terrorism, most people would likely respond completely differently.

 

[IrishLax]

Serious question: How does one know if a poll is actually biased or not? I'm not kidding. I looked into it before I even posted and nothing suggested that Pew is right or left. I hear people source Pew all the time as a very reputable source. I mean, honestly, which are the best resources for polling information? Because clearly, I'm missing something.

Gallup and Pew are both very well known, very reputable non-partisan polling services. Gallup has been the gold standard in all things polling since the WWII era. Very recently -- as in the last 5 years or so -- they've had some heavily publicized (minor) issues come up with people basically saying that some other places may have more accurate methodology.

So I don't know how to tell just by looking at a study or poll whether or not there are flaws/bias, but there are a number of household names -- such as Gallup and Pew -- that you can at least trust that they tried to do things correctly.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster Ratings | FiveThirtyEight

This is probably one of the more extensive poll ratings out there.

Thank you.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Gallup and Pew are both very well known, very reputable non-partisan polling services. Gallup has been the gold standard in all things polling since the WWII era. Very recently -- as in the last 5 years or so -- they've had some heavily publicized (minor) issues come up with people basically saying that some other places may have more accurate methodology.

So I don't know how to tell just by looking at a study or poll whether or not there are flaws/bias, but there are a number of household names -- such as Gallup and Pew -- that you can at least trust that they tried to do things correctly.

Thanks.

 

[wizards8507]

I read the link. I saw the numbers. The question you ask can provide very different responses. Many people are likely to err on the side of caution when dealing with people who are only suspected of something. However, if they are a KNOWN, ACTIVE supporter of terrorism, most people would likely respond completely differently.

8 U.S. Code § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

In other words, if you join a foreign army, you lose your American citizenship. However, ISIS isn't a recognized country so they don't count. Interestingly, Ted Cruz has a solution to that.

Join ISIS, lose US citizenship? Lawmakers target Americans sympathizing with terror groups | Fox News