Politics

[bobbyhawks]

Again those signatures will do no good if they are turned in after the cutoff date to get on the ballot for a state.
Of course there is always a write-in option but that is a very long shot.

37 states' deadlines are not until August or September. Collecting the signatures for a third party candidate will take almost no time at all in this scenario, and that can be done starting in June or July to still cause a major disruption in the electoral college. These gigantor campaigns have money, infrastructure, and the Clinton folks to help them gain signatures. Even if Trump has no shot due to the timing, he will still pull every string to sabotage the candidate that replaces him. That way, he can declare victory, even in defeat. It is the Trump way of retreating.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I don't think Trump would go in as a spoiler. He would need a chance to win. And only being in 37 states may not be enough of a chance to win it all. Seriously doubt he would start collecting in June or July unless he completely withdraws for the GOP race. And if he does that he would have no effect on the GOP platform.

[mean]

I don't think his ego would allow him to believe he would be running as a spoiler if he went third-party. He'd still believe he was going to win.

[bobbyhawks]

I don't think Trump would go in as a spoiler. He would need a chance to win. And only being in 37 states may not be enough of a chance to win it all. Seriously doubt he would start collecting in June or July unless he completely withdraws for the GOP race. And if he does that he would have no effect on the GOP platform.

If I'm Trump (little known fact I am and love to post on the KC development forum), I trust the GOP 0% to follow-through with my nomination after all of the in-fighting. I'm starting to gather signatures right now for an imagined third-party called Trump Power, if for no other reason than to threaten the GOP in case they bring up the possibility of a brokered convention. That's why I'm a really really great negotiator.

[earthling]

^You go Mr. Biff Trump...

[earthling]

Case in point that Bernie supporters who don't like Hillary will still support her if they have to...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

As a 'not Trump' thing. If it were Kashich, might be different.

[mean]

Voting for the turd sandwich to avoid the giant douche winning may be a time-honored tradition in American politics, but it's a really dumb one.

[bobbyhawks]

^You go Mr. Biff Trump...

This sums up what is going on more perfectly than about anything else.

[earthling]

Have no interest in either party as a political existentialist but if I were a GOP strategic leader, would kick Trump out of the party, accept possible defeat to DEM Pres (well likely) and focus on maintaining GOP seats in Congress up for grabs - establishment should support moderates and get control back from the far right whackos. They are in a deeper lose-lose situation with Trump in the picture, and the establishment don't want Cruz either. Not that I want them to succeed but is what I would do in their shoes. What a fahreakn mess they are. Polarizing Fox News and far right radio isn't helping them either.

[flyingember]

It was the end result of a primary system where the person that is against the most things wins.

Eventually a politician is going to be against so many things that the majority of voters will be adamantly for something that means they don't vote for them.

Take the list of
gun control
welfare
abortion
immigration
religious rights
business regulations
tax rates

A republican is going to have a strong stance on most of those items because primary voters want to know what candidates think on them.
And if they try to not be *perfect* on something the conservative media will be for the person who is.

In both 2012 and 2016 we saw this with the candidate of the week. Someone jumping in and gaining interest in a tiny minority of the electorate that votes in primaries. And then in the end they've all sniped at each other and a strong general election candidate gets knocked out by the person who's more conservative.

And if you do pick a halfway decent choice it's not hard to kill your chances. In 2008 McCain was not a bad choice in terms of the general election. Then he went and picked a vice president someone who was uninterested in being a politician when it came down to it. Palin quit being governor after the loss and became a celebrity instead, even with a tv show.

In 2012 the person of the week was in play and the party ended up with probably it's 4th or 5th best choice. Obama wouldn't have been hard to beat with a good moderate republican

In 2016 they were heading that way and having so many candidates that they couldn't fit them into one debate hurt and then Trump came out as Mr. conservative almost fascist and knocked most of them out.


The Democrats have a problem that neither candidate is particularly charismatic. There's the "Hillary, really?" choice and an old guy.

Given the choice of someone who's slimy or fascist or a really? choice I'm going for really? with Clinton. Same for Sanders.

If Rubio gets selected, which I doubt, and the democrats had extremely stupid choices I could see going for Rubio. My decision would be tougher with Clinton vs Rubio.

[earthling]

If it's Trump vs Clinton, would expect Clinton will get in as a not Trump momentum than not Clinton momentum. To many moderate independents (myself included), Hillary isn't trustworthy but all of her points are not as far left as Obama/Sanders - she's considered moderate by European standards. Trump is simply whacko to many moderates (though deep south GOP voting moderates seem to like him). Outside the South, would expect Hillary to get more moderate vote over Trump or Cruz but yeah many moderates would go for Kasich or Rubio than Hillary if the option were there.

Moderate/liberal represent over 55% and while moderate trend is shrinking over years in favor of one or other identity, conservative identity has been dropping a bit since 2010 according to...



And if taking moderates out, conservative trend shrinking on social issues...

[FangKC]

The thing with conservative, and more moderate, voters (mostly older people) is that when you start asking them specific questions they tend to get less conservative. For example, with Social Security and Medicare policy. Many older or retired Republicans support these programs, and don't want them cut.

Even on some social issues like abortion and gay rights. There are a lot of conservative and moderate women who still want reproductive freedom, and wouldn't deny another woman the option of an abortion--even though they themselves may not have one. There are many economic conservatives, that are socially liberal on issues. They are turned off by politicians focusing so much on things like reversing gay marriage, or shutting down the government to defund Planned Parenthood.

Many of these economic conservatives also have become less extreme on gay rights issues. We have seen a lot of movement in a short time just on support for gay marriage. Even among conservative people, they have seen close friends, or members of their own family, come out of the closet, and even get married to a same-sex partner. With that they have evolved on gay rights issues themselves. Even among Catholics, whose own church doesn't support gay marriage and teaches against it, they ignore their church on this issue. Many do the same on issues of family planning and contraception.

I know many Catholics who ignore the Catholic teachings on birth control simply for economic reasons. They realize they cannot afford six or eight children anymore--even with two parents working. I had one Catholic friend put it this way. "When Catholic schools have free tuition, then I might consider giving up birth control. I can't afford tuition, housing, insurance, clothes, and food for six kids. I can barely afford it for two." While he's conservative, he doesn't want poor people to not have birth control services either. "I don't want them have six or eight kids either, because then I will have to pay more in taxes to take care of their kids."

One of the problems with some of the more extreme conservative candidates is that historically, taxes are very low. So the economic argument for even lower taxes isn't playing so highly with economic conservatives who are socially liberal. Since their taxes are already pretty low, they are more concerned about the cultural idealogy issues of overturning gay marriage, overturning Roe vs. Wade, religious freedom laws (that scare away companies), or at least the time politicians are devoting to this effort. Some of them don't see any point in continuing to litigate these issues when politicians should be dealing with climate change, chronic unemployment, infrastructure falling apart, the overall federal debt, the cost of prescription drugs, and high student loan debt for their kids leaving college. They also don't care as much about these issues when they have a 23-year-old college graduate living in their basement who can't get a job, or one that has a job but can't afford to leave their house because of student debt. They also don't care about these issues when, while their taxes might be lower, they still can't afford to send their kids to college.

Among my friends, I would guess that I know as many Republicans as Democrats and independents. The thing I've been surprised about is seeing how many of my Republican friends are already saying they will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee. Even more surprising are the number who have stated they will vote for Hillary--as opposed to just not voting at all. That includes men. What appears to be the consensus among them is that they are unwilling to vote for someone who appears to be so willing to be openly sexist, racist, and xenophobic. They are also worried about how Trump would deal with trade, our foreign commitments, and allies. They are willing to abandon their party before they will elect such an openly-racist demagogue. This is even true if Trump would stop staying these things in the general election, because he has already said them in the past. It's that history that haunts them, because it will be brought up over and over if he's president. They worry about how this appears to the rest of the world--that we would elect such a nasty person. Who will he insult next?

I think in the end, many Republican women will also vote for Hillary simply because the alternative is Trump. It's not just the Roe vs. Wade issue per se. It's because many feel that Trump has made many demeaning comments about women, and that he might continue to do it if elected president. That there is nothing he thinks that he doesn't say out loud. Like he would date his daughter, that he has a large penis, or that Romney would have gotten on his knees for an endorsement. As one of my friends put it, "I have spent a lot of time raising my children in a manner that they respect women as equals (sons), and that they should expect equal treatment as women (daughters). This comes down to simple things like expecting both of them to do the same chores (lawn-mowing, dishwashing, housecleaning). I have expected my husband to demonstrate this as well. I have taught them that words have consequences. So why would I want to elect a president that would be making statements to the contrary, and have our leader be sending mixed, or insulting, messages?"

To her, it doesn't matter if Trump hired a lot of women in his organizations. It's the derogatory and insulting statements he had made in the past, and continues to make. It's not just about women. She lives in Phoenix, and many of her kids' friends are from Hispanic families that have lived in Arizona for a century or more--well before statehood. The insinuation that Mexicans are "bad people" infuriates her, and she worries about the message that sends to young people. She says that her kids' generation is among the least racist she has encountered in her life. She doesn't want to elect a president that would send the message to a new generation of young people that it's okay to be racist, or discriminate against anyone.

So while she has been a Republican, she won't be voting for Trump.

Another of my Republican friends is male, and he works in software development management--mostly for military contracts. He is very concerned about Trump's xenophobic statements and attitudes about immigration and minorities. He has an wife who is half-Asian and half-Hispanic. He hires many software developers who have immigrated from other countries. In fact, he has to do this because they cannot find enough employees here with the qualifications as it is. If he can't hire staff to do the work, his company will lose contracts. If they can't get contracts for that reason, he might be out of a job.

While he is Republican, he also has juvenile diabetes. So he has benefited from Obama's health care reform because insurance companies can no longer consider pre-existing conditions in coverage. This affected him every time he changed jobs, because he would have to go a year without many of his treatments and medications being covered. And he had good jobs with good insurance. But no matter how good the insurance plan was, any pre-existing condition-related costs weren't covered for the first year after he accepted a job. He worked in a field where many times in his early life, he changed jobs often. As do many Americans now. Insurance was a financial issue for him. At some point soon, he will need a kidney transplant, and possibly two, before he dies (he's in his early 50s, and it's not uncommon for kidney transplant recipients to require a second donated kidney). Without this provision, had he needed a kidney transplant during the period he wasn't fully-covered by insurance, it would have had terrible financial implications for his family. At some point, he will also probably require major heart bypass surgery because of the life-long diabetes damage. In addition, one of his three children also suffers from juvenile diabetes. so the same thing is in play for that child.

If Trump, or any Republican, would get rid of the Affordable Care Act, it would have serious consequences for his family. There are millions of people in this country with diabetes who would be also be, and they benefited from that one provision in the law. So even my Republican friend is concerned about overturning Obamacare.

It's not just changing jobs by choice either. Many Americans lose their jobs when they get laid-off. Not because they accepted a new job by choice. If they have health conditions, this affects them even when they had no control over their job situation. Many went uninsured during long periods of unemployment, when they could least afford to pay for their medical costs. A huge percentage of bankruptcies are the result of huge medical bills. It's not necessarily because people are just bad managing their money, and run up debt like drunken sailors on leave.

The other issue here is with Trump supporters. While he polls highly in many states, how many will actually turn out to vote for him in a general election? Polls can mislead, because those polled often don't turn up to vote. Winning a primary doesn't mean much, because primary voters tend to be the most active base voters. Trump's primary base voters might actually turn out to be only about 30 percent of the general election voters. A lot of registered voters don't turn out for the primaries, but vote in the general election. This is especially true among non-party affiliated voters and independents.

Last night on Ruckus, columnist Steve Rose of the Kansas City Star ( a Republican) stated that if Trump is the nominee against Clinton, he fears the potential could be a replay of the Goldwater-Johnson race with Clinton winning in a landslide, and that because of down-ballot races, that Congress might end up back in control of the Democrats. It's certainly more likely to happen in the Senate. It could also have an effect on governor's races.

States with open primaries can also produce strange outcomes. When any registered voter can vote in a primary, you can get Democrats and independent voters casting ballots in a Republican primary. With the Democrats, it could be spoiler votes. With the independents, it could result in their preferred candidate (Rubio or Kasich) losing to Trump in that primary. Then, the independents either don't vote in the general election, or decide to switch to Clinton instead of voting for Trump.

In this election season, we are also seeing something I haven't seen in my lifetime. You have the leaders of the Republican party already saying they won't support Trump if he is the party nominee, or even if he gets elected President. Nor have I seen a situation where a group of GOP national security experts has come out to say they would oppose their own party's nominee in this way.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/610061/go ... nald-trump

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/po ... party.html

Or that even before the nominees are chosen, some Republicans stating they would vote for Hillary over Trump.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... rges.html#

[earthling]

^And what makes this all the more complicated is that it's all about electoral state votes, not populate vote.

Is still too early of course but here is Gallup's assessment as of March 3, interesting read...

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-m ... aign=tiles

It does seem to me that Rubio is really the only one who could realistically beat Hillary at least with current conditions.

[FangKC]

I even wonder if Rubio could beat Clinton. Once the debates happen, people are going to see a very seasoned and experienced political debater, and her political machine, going up against someone who is not good in a debate situation, and few accomplishments as a senator. Rubio often comes across as awkward and amateurish. At times he seems visually nervous, whereas Clinton always appears steady and calm. This plays heavily on the minds of undecided voters who worry about whose finger is on the nuclear arsenal. Despite her many negative attributes, Clinton is pretty unflappable under stressful situations. She has been fairly consistent all of her political career. I've encountered even sexist men who worry about having a woman as president in a crisis that will acknowledge that at least Hillary has an experienced former president as her primary adviser. They will also grant that Hillary is strong, and tough as nails. Few people will point at Hillary as weak on security and defense--even among Republicans. That used to be the common refrain used against Democrats.

I have two elderly Republican aunts who have both mentioned this to me before. "I don't worry about Hillary being president, because Bill is there to give her advice." Clinton also has an advantage in that she already knows many world leaders, and her experience with them will give her an advantage as president. The world is a treacherous and unpredictable place, and for many, in the end they want stability. Rubio has the hard task of convincing security-minded voters as to why he should be president instead of someone with a lot more experience, and who people in his own party will not refer to as weak.

One of my conservative relatives recently said that he thinks Hillary could beat Rubio in a bar fight.

Even though Obama hadn't been in the Senate very long before he ran for president, Obama was a much more polished candidate that Rubio is. Obama was a great orator, and could pull in a lot new, "aspirational" voters that responded to a positive message. I don't see Rubio pulling that off.

The other subtle advantage I see Clinton having is that many Americans still remember Bill Clinton's presidency as one of national peace, economic stability, and growth. The previous Clinton years had good job growth, a good stock market, no big overseas wars, and leaving us with a federal surplus. So many people will not be willing to risk an unknown quantity such a Rubio. The other thing is that the economy is improving. Rubio doesn't have a terrible economy to point at, and convince enough voters to give the Presidency back to the Republicans. Obama has wound down two wars, so Rubio doesn't have a lot of casualties to criticize. It even appears that Obama might oversee regaining control over some cities in Iraq under ISIS control, and if the Syrian cease-fire holds, there is even less reason to elect Rubio.

I also wonder if the anti-establishment Trump voters, whipped into a frenzy simply by Trump running, would just stay home, since they see Rubio as the Republican establishment choice.

Rubio may not even be able to hang on to the loyalty of his home-state voters in Florida. Current polls show Trump ahead of him. Obama won Florida in 2008 and 2012. If Hillary can hang on to the Obama coalition, she might beat Rubio even in his home-state. This is especially more likely if Bernie Sanders runs as her vice president, and brings along his younger voters, and independents, than have not supported Clinton thus far.

In some polling I've seen, in a Trump-Clinton race, Clinton is projected to win 240 electoral votes. So she only needs to come up with 30 more to win. In a matchup with Trump, polls indicate that he is only beating Clinton in Texas by 2 points. In a Rubio-Clinton contest, Clinton is projected to win Texas. Texas! Texas is 38 electoral votes, and more than enough for Clinton, added to the other 240, to win. She wouldn't need any of the other tossup states--including Florida.

The fact that Texas would even be in play for Clinton is surprising. With Rubio as nominee, it appears more likely to happen than if Trump is nominee. However, I have seen reporting that the Republican hold on Texas might be eroding. Because of demographic changes, more red states are at risk at flipping blue than blue states flipping red. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada will probably be the first to flip blue. That may not happen in 2016, but it will probably happen by 2020, which means Clinton might have an easier time getting re-elected than that during this cycle.

I think that is why Republican leaders are panicking. They are seeing polling that we aren't. It's not just the presidential race. They are seeing the effect of the presidential race on the outcome of House and Senate seats, and Governor's races.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/po ... v=top-news

The fact that Clinton might win twice is making conservatives soil their pants. Imagine how many Supreme Court justices she may get to appoint? It's possible that 4 or 5 justices could be picked by Clinton during two terms. It''s not just older judges dying or retiring. Even a younger one conservative justice could get cancer, have a fatal heart attack, or die in an accident. In 8-10 years, in the conservative's mindset, a revamped Supreme Court could overturn the death penalty, abortion restrictions, Citizen's United; address marijuana legalization, drug crime sentencing guidelines; uphold EPA rulings on the Clean Air Act, and allow the EPA to regulate fracking (under air and water pollution laws). They could overturn religious discrimination bills enacted by the states, or uphold the rights of transgendered citizens, grant employment, housing, adoption rights to gay people nationwide (based on the marriage precedent); and make rulings on voting rights, voter ID laws, restoration of voting rights to felons, etc.

Anthony Scalia (vacant seat)
Anthony Kennedy, 80 in July, 2016.
Clarence Thomas, will be 68 in June, 2016.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, almost 83 now.
Stephen Breyer will be 78 in August.
John Roberts, 61 now.
Samuel Alito, 66 in April.
Sonia Sotomayor, 62 in June.
Elena Kagan, 62 in April.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I was one who would have been considered an economic conservative but a social liberal. However I am evolving. And the reason is Bernie Sanders. Economic and social systems are changing and I think those changes will be major in future years. Instead of voting for my interests I will probably be voting with my 5 granddaughters in mind. What kind of a country will they be living in 10, 15, 20 years and beyond? With regards to health care what is so magical about turning 65 and now health care is provided by the government? Or if you are poor you can have Medicaid but if you get a job and make too much money you lose your health care. Education is important but a college education is becoming more and more expensive.
Bernie is connecting with many of the younger generation and I can see why. He has me thinking of how I was when I was in my younger 20's.
Trump says he is going to make America great again. The problem is this country wasn't all that great to begin with. We just happened to be better off than other countries.
Cruz just scares me.
Rubio lost me when he backed off immigration reform envisioned by the gang of 8 of which he was a part of. And there are other reasons.
Kasich is one I could vote for if Hillary gets the Dem nod.
Hillary is way better than Trump, Cruz and Rubio.
I know it is a long shot but I don't know who I would vote for if it was Sanders v Kasich.

[flyingember]

Instead of voting for my interests I will probably be voting with my 5 granddaughters in mind. What kind of a country will they be living in 10, 15, 20 years and beyond?

this is deserving of respect, no matter how you vote. I wish more voters thought this way.
I have no belief that congress today as a whole cares about how things will be after they die. We need to shake this attitude up with voters that look to the future

to me, the key aspect when looking at the future is the health of the environment and how laws affect the path we take. Everything in our economy is based around having water to drink and food to eat and so much of the discussion is over if humans are causing global warming and not about making our country more resilient to even natural climate change.

And this isn't a hypothetical issue. Europe is fighting the kind of rapid social change that comes from a middle eastern migration. One of the triggers of the Syrian civil war was a drought. Imagine Mexico or Central America gets hit with a major drought and causes a multi-million person migration north. No amount of political speeches could stop that many people from entering the US. Imagine the shock to the system of 3-5 million refugees.

I don't want to live in a country where politicians prioritize a fighter jet over food relief

[grovester]

This actually gives me hope for the country.

[FangKC]

I am always happy to see when anyone is thinking of future generations when they vote. At this point in my life, I'm thinking more about what the country, and world, will be like for the young people in my family, than for myself.

[FangKC]

Is Roy Blunt's Senate seat in trouble?

A new poll out on Friday from Public Policy Polling posits that Blunt is part of a tarnished Republican brand and that his own approval ratings aren't faring so well. The PPP poll reports Blunt's approval rating rests at a low 25 percent, with 48 percent disapproving of his performance in the Senate and 27 percent reserving judgment.

The PPP narrative puts Blunt in a group of establishment Republican Senators that include John McCain (Arizona), Richard Burr (North Carolina) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa), who may show a weakness in this election cycle because of their already meek standing among voters and their unyielding resistance to letting President Barack Obama nominate a Supreme Court replacement for the recently deceased Antonin Scalia.

PPP finds that Blunt's stance against filling Scalia's seat until Obama's replacement is elected doesn't square with how Missourians feel about the issue. The poll reports that 56 percent of respondents think Scalia's seat should be filled this year, and 66 percent think the Senate should at least consider an Obama nomination, rather than the leading Republican Senate's sentiment that it will refuse to consider any nomination. Finally, PPP says 56 percent of respondents say they'd be less likely to vote for Blunt if he held firm on an anti-nomination stance.

http://www.pitch.com/FastPitch/archives ... =hootsuite

[aknowledgeableperson]

Looks like the power brokers of the GOP made a mistake to start to rally behind Rubio. Kasich would have been the better option.