2016 Presidential Horse Race

[ACamp1900]

Watch with audio.

Oh boy, dshans is going to shit...

 

[pkt77242]

Interesting clip from ABC News

$200,000 for a dinner with Hillary.

Ah the life of a One Percenter.

To be fair expensive dinner fundraisers are common. Paul Ryan had one at 50K a plate and Romney had multiple as well. I disagree with the practice but it is very common.

 

[Irish#1]

while the latter's dysfunction induced institutional paralysis and prevented it from stopping a hostile takeover by a candidate who's likely going to destroy the party. Which of those is a more desirable outcome for the country?

I see what you did there.

 

[Rack Em]

Why did Dublin vote in the mock election poll? Maybe Trump should build a wall around Ireland......

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think you're glossing over the impact of the size of each party's field of candidates and assigning too much credit (or blame) to the party national committees.

That supports my point. The GOP's decision to allow such a massive field of candidates was the first in a series of failures that allowed Trump to hijack the party. Had they exerted the same level of institutional control over the process that the DNC did--by limiting the field to Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich early on--it's virtually inconceivable that Trump would be the nominee today.

Even if neither national party exerted any influence whatsoever, I still think HRC would have beaten Bernie head to head and Donald would have beaten the field with a plurality of support.

I seriously doubt it. Trump is only the nominee today because of the GOPe's dysfunction/ Priebus' malpractice. And perhaps Hillary still would have beaten Bernie without the DNC undermining him at every turn, but even with the entire party establishment against him, he took a lot of big states from Hillary. Who can say how things would have turned out had the playing field been more even?

Bernie's supporters have the energy because of who they are, not how many of them there are. Students, revolutionaries, and millennials are simply more energetic than blue-collar workers.

That would be a plausible retort if Trump's supporters weren't feeding off the same populist energy. Our entire political system is in the process of a globalist v. nationalist realignment.

 

[ACamp1900]

Why did Dublin vote in the mock election poll? Maybe Trump should build a wall around Ireland......

He moved here recently I believe ....

 

[Irish#1]

Really? Launder money? More charges of voter fraud? I state Hillary was rewarded for her years of service over Bernie who has no history of being a Democrat, and you just make stuff up? Shouting longer and louder doesn't make your charges true.

DWS did what political parties do. The Republicans were doing the same thing to prevent Trump from being their candidate. They just weren't very successful at it. I personally voted for Bernie, but I can accept the fact that Hillary won more votes than Bernie and move on from there.

You need to do a little more homework. Bernie didn't realize he was truly a democrat. He decided to run as a democrat because he knew that was his only chance. While maybe having good intentions, people who run as a third party (independent, liberal or whatever) are simply wasting time and money. Bernie knew what his best shot was.

 

[wizards8507]

Why did Dublin vote in the mock election poll? Maybe Trump should build a wall around Ireland......

#MakeTheUKGreatAgain

 

[Rack Em]

He moved here recently I believe ....

Legally, I hope.

 

[EddytoNow]

First of all, it's Mark Levin. Second of all, he's an actual genius. Earned his bachelor's degree summa cum laude at age 19.

If you promise to read it, I'll send you a copy of Plunder and Deceit or Ameritopia at my cost.

Thanks, I'll correct the spelling of his last name in the OP. But I was taught the difference between fact and opinion years ago. I've also listened to Levin during long drives. He is long on biased opinion, unsupported accusations, and inaccurate facts and short on objectivity.

 

[dshans]

Oh boy, dshans is going to shit...

Well, I do that regularly.*

Now I suppose that I'll have to watch (and listen to with the audio) the clip.

I'll get back to you.



Maybe.



*You see what I did there?

 

[EddytoNow]

You need to do a little more homework. Bernie didn't realize he was truly a democrat. He decided to run as a democrat because he knew that was his only chance. While maybe having good intentions, people who run as a third party (independent, liberal or whatever) are simply wasting time and money. Bernie knew what his best shot was.

You missed my main point. Hillary was a long-time Democrat. Bernie was not. The Democratic National Committee supported the long-time Democrat over the Independent, and you are surprised by that? It goes on all the time. Why do you think many primary elections are open to party members only? It's obvious, the parties do not want an outsider, nor do they want cross-over voters choosing their candidate.

 

[wizards8507]

That supports my point. The GOP's decision to allow such a massive field of candidates was the first in a series of failures that allowed Trump to hijack the party. Had they exerted the same level of institutional control over the process that the DNC did--by limiting the field to Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich early on--it's virtually inconceivable that Trump would be the nominee today.

I very much disagree. We spent the entire 2012 primary season looking for the "conservative alternative to Mitt Romney" and we never found one. Trump compounds the problem because you're looking for both the conservative alternative to Trump and the establishment alternative to Trump. When Trump made the race about immigration, that eliminated Rubio from the conservative lane due to his support of the Gang of Eight. We've also seen that the party hates Cruz even more than they hate Trump, so I don't see any way he would have risen to the top of a three or four man field, either. Kasich probably would have had the best shot to emerge from that group with the dynamics at play this year, but he's just so Kasich-y. He didn't play well outside of the Midwest.

That would be a plausible retort if Trump's supporters weren't feeding off the same populist energy. Our entire political system is in the process of a globalist v. nationalist realignment.

That's because the Republican Party is a different coalition than the Democrat Party. The white working class Trump supporters were the most energetic Republicans because the Republicans don't have students, urbanites, or "community organizers."

Does the Diverse Democratic Party Have Room for the White Working-Class? - The Atlantic

 

[wizards8507]

Thanks, I'll correct the spelling of his last name in the OP. But I was taught the difference between fact and opinion years ago. I've also listened to Levin during long drives. He is long on biased opinion, unsupported accusations, and inaccurate facts and short on objectivity.

Read his books, don't judge him by his radio show. His books are extraordinarily well sourced, with more history and philosophy than you'd get from almost any other writer.

 

[Irish#1]

You missed my main point. Hillary was a long-time Democrat. Bernie was not. The Democratic National Committee supported the long-time Democrat over the Independent, and you are surprised by that? It goes on all the time. Why do you think many primary elections are open to party members only? It's obvious, the parties do not want an outsider, nor do they want cross-over voters choosing their candidate.

I got your main point, but I think you missed mine. I wasn't questioning why/how HRC got the nod. I questioned your statement that Bernie finally realized he wasn't a libertarian, but was actually a democrat. My contention is that Bernie only ran as a democrat because it was his only viable option toward getting nominated.

 

[RDU Irish]

You missed my main point. Hillary was a long-time Democrat. Bernie was not. The Democratic National Committee supported the long-time Democrat over the Independent, and you are surprised by that? It goes on all the time. Why do you think many primary elections are open to party members only? It's obvious, the parties do not want an outsider, nor do they want cross-over voters choosing their candidate.

I think you are both making valid points. As to Eddy's point - I think Trump blowing up the RNC has value in realigning the party away from the wacknut extreme right bible thumpers that have hijacked it for so long. He shows you can win the nomination without pandering to those folks.

 

[BGIF]

To be fair expensive dinner fundraisers are common. Paul Ryan had one at 50K a plate and Romney had multiple as well. I disagree with the practice but it is very common.

"To be fair" aka here comes the deflection.

It's the Democrats that rail against the one percenters.

So thanks for acknowledging that their hypocrisy is commonplace.

 

[MJ12666]

Your first sentence has nothing to do with my comment. But whatevs.

Secondly, outside of the usual "but... But... What about Hillary" response, I would argue that being forthcoming to the IRS and the American public are vastly different things. The IRS doesn't care if you have unsavory, albeit legal, relationships. They don't care if those relationships tie you to unsavory organizations, countries or people. They care about whether you broke the law by violated the law by circumventing the tax code. He's been investigated seven straight years because he's shady. They may not have anything legally against him, but the American public deserves to know that story. Just like every other presidential nominee as far as I can remember.

This is essentially true regarding the legal analysis. However, I don't believe that you will get the information that you itemized above from reviewing a tax return. For example, what exactly did you learn from reviewing HRC's tax returns?

 

[phgreek]

Has there been one mention of the Clinton Foundation's work during the DNC?

No...because this foundation does ...nothing of note. If they did, wouldn't it dovetail nicely with the whole sham about Hillary being a kind motherly change maker...finger down my throat....

Sometimes I think if you have a room full of elephants, it is better than just one.

 

[gkIrish]

"To be fair" aka here comes the deflection.

It's the Democrats that rail against the one percenters.

So thanks for acknowledging that their hypocrisy is commonplace.

This.

 

[woolybug25]

This is essentially true regarding the legal analysis. However, I don't believe that you will get the information that you itemized above from reviewing a tax return. For example, what exactly did you learn from reviewing HRC's tax returns?

You learned how much income she and Bill made from the Clinton Foundation. You found out about her real estate dealings. You saw how philanthropic they were. You found out how much they paid in taxes. You saw a detail of their business dealings. You saw a personal balance sheet. Shall I go on?

I don't care (although, you don't get audited 7 years straight if you aren't into shady shit) what is in his tax returns from a legal sense. I care about what effective tax rate he paid and how he manipulated his earnings to do so. I want to see what companies he's tied to and how that relates back to his platform. I want to see what assets he claims. As I said before, there is no personal document a public figure has that is more telling than their tax returns. He has also never been vetted for public office. His tax returns are a public interest and he has no right to continue if he doesn't give them up for vetting.

This is the first time in my life where republicans say that they don't care about this. It's quite telling.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Why did Dublin vote in the mock election poll? Maybe Trump should build a wall around Ireland......

He moved here recently I believe ....

Pretty sure he also built a wall around his golf course there

 

[pkt77242]

"To be fair" aka here comes the deflection.

It's the Democrats that rail against the one percenters.

So thanks for acknowledging that their hypocrisy is commonplace.

LOL.

You can want to change a rule but still use it while it is legal.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I very much disagree. We spent the entire 2012 primary season looking for the "conservative alternative to Mitt Romney" and we never found one. Trump compounds the problem because you're looking for both the conservative alternative to Trump and the establishment alternative to Trump. When Trump made the race about immigration, that eliminated Rubio from the conservative lane due to his support of the Gang of Eight. We've also seen that the party hates Cruz even more than they hate Trump, so I don't see any way he would have risen to the top of a three or four man field, either. Kasich probably would have had the best shot to emerge from that group with the dynamics at play this year, but he's just so Kasich-y. He didn't play well outside of the Midwest.

This is just another way of saying that the coalition of voters that the GOP has represented since the 50s finally started to unravel, and no one candidate was able to unite the party, thus creating an opening for someone like Trump to hijack the party with an energized plurality. And you may be right, but it doesn't really disprove my point. It's difficult to pick out cause and effect between the unraveling of the coalition and the incompetence of the GOPe.

That's because the Republican Party is a different coalition than the Democrat Party. The white working class Trump supporters were the most energetic Republicans because the Republicans don't have students, urbanites, or "community organizers."

Does the Diverse Democratic Party Have Room for the White Working-Class? - The Atlantic

I don't see how that statement or the linked article is responsive to my point that Bernie and Trump supporters are largely animated by the same sort of populist sentiment. That's a new development this election cycle, and it's not something that has any obvious parallels in recent US history.

I think you are both making valid points. As to Eddy's point - I think Trump blowing up the RNC has value in realigning the party away from the wacknut extreme right bible thumpers that have hijacked it for so long. He shows you can win the nomination without pandering to those folks.

The conservative "fusion" that has defined the post-WWII GOP coalition is anti-communists, economic libertarians, and social conservatives. Perhaps this three-legged stool was bound to collapse after the demise of the Soviet Union. But in any case, it's ridiculous to assert that the social conservatives have been somehow holding the GOP back or wielding disproportionate influence within the party. Of the three, they've had far less power over the platform than the warhawks and the free-marketers.

Also, you ought to realize that Trump's candidacy is a repudiation of those two ideologies as well, including your favored economic libertarianism.

 

[pkt77242]

This.

Why? Most of the times in our political system, the winners get to make the changes. Handicapping yourself while the other team doesn't have to follow the handicap just means that you are more likely to lose and then less likely to get the change you want.

 

[GATTACA!]

You learned how much income she and Bill made from the Clinton Foundation. You found out about her real estate dealings. You saw how philanthropic they were. You found out how much they paid in taxes. You saw a detail of their business dealings. You saw a personal balance sheet. Shall I go on?

I don't care (although, you don't get audited 7 years straight if you aren't into shady shit) what is in his tax returns from a legal sense. I care about what effective tax rate he paid and how he manipulated his earnings to do so. I want to see what companies he's tied to and how that relates back to his platform. I want to see what assets he claims. As I said before, there is no personal document a public figure has that is more telling than their tax returns. He has also never been vetted for public office. His tax returns are a public interest and he has no right to continue if he doesn't give them up for vetting.

This is the first time in my life where republicans say that they don't care about this. It's quite telling.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but do we know this for sure? Do other billionaires get audited less frequently? When you're making that much money each year I would think maybe the IRS would want to keep a closer eye on you than your average Joe.

 

[BGIF]

LOL.

You can want to change a rule but still use it while it is legal.

You're sounding like Trump's Financial Advisor now.



But the point wasn't doing something controversial, it's about doing that thing as common practice while lambasting the other guy for doing what you're doing.

Watch the video.

Do the Dems sing "Look for the union label" while their leaders dine on caviar and eggs?



Speaking of "Look for the union label" I remember that use to be a standard ad run multiple times during Democratic Convention Week. I haven't heard it lately. Off the 800,000 new jobs Obama was patting himself on the back for last night, how many are in the garment industry? Has he gotten any garment/textile jobs back that NAFTA Bill send out of country or was he just talking about fast food jobs and nail polish shop jobs last night?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Obama's speech has been brilliant.

He's so good in this kind of setting.

 

[MJ12666]

You learned how much income she and Bill made from the Clinton Foundation. You found out about her real estate dealings. You saw how philanthropic they were. You found out how much they paid in taxes. You saw a detail of their business dealings. You saw a personal balance sheet. Shall I go on?

I don't care (although, you don't get audited 7 years straight if you aren't into shady shit) what is in his tax returns from a legal sense. I care about what effective tax rate he paid and how he manipulated his earnings to do so. I want to see what companies he's tied to and how that relates back to his platform. I want to see what assets he claims. As I said before, there is no personal document a public figure has that is more telling than their tax returns. He has also never been vetted for public office. His tax returns are a public interest and he has no right to continue if he doesn't give them up for vetting.

This is the first time in my life where republicans say that they don't care about this. It's quite telling.

Well a tax return does not include a balance sheet but that's okay. So you don't have to go on. But you seem to have looked at her returns closely. So how much did they contribute to charity over the past five years and approximately how many different charities did they make contributions to?

 

[woolybug25]

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but do we know this for sure? Do other billionaires get audited less frequently? When you're making that much money each year I would think maybe the IRS would want to keep a closer eye on you than your average Joe.

They are audited at a significantly higher rate, but 7 years of audits is pretty remarkable.

“No-Change” Audit Results of the Super-Rich. Overall, returns for wealthy taxpayers are audited by the IRS at a significantly higher rate than taxpayers at lower income levels. For FY2014, the IRS audited 16.22% (24.16% for FY 2013) of returns for individuals having $10,000,000 or more in adjusted gross income and 10.53% (15.98% for FY 2013) for individuals having $5 million to $10 million in adjusted gross income but only audited 0.86% of all returns filed by individuals (with the vast majority of individual returns being conducted remotely via correspondence between the IRS and the taxpayer). Why does the IRS audit a significantly higher percentage of wealthy vs. less-wealthy taxpayers? Quite simply. . .”because that’s where the money is,” not because of “politics or religion.”