home

Another Republican Debate: Christie and Huckabee on #B List

Yet another Republican debate tonight in Milwaukee. At least they are down to 8 candidates for the main event.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee — were bumped from the main stage to the undercard, after they failed to reach a threshold of 2.5 percent in national polls.

That leaves eight candidates left in the main event: billionaire Donald Trump, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), former Florida governor Jeb Bush, former tech executive Carly Fiorina, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.).

Jeb has some catching up to do. And Ben Carson still appears to be ahead of Trump. [More...]

Lindsay Graham didn't even make the #B list.

Former New York governor George PatakiSen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) — were bumped from the undercard entirely, after failing to reach a lower threshold of 1 percent in national polls

< Obama to Appeal Adverse Ruling on DAPA Immigration Program | Senate Military Bill Passes: Prohibits Gitmo Transfers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't know if I can watch another one... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 02:29:41 PM EST
    although it might be interesting to see how these debate moderators treat the candidates...will it be a conservative love-fest?  

    And now, I see the RNC has made the wi-fi password for the media at tonight's debate "StopHillary."

    The Republican National Committee is having some fun with a national press corps they like to complain leans left, making every reporter to type in "StopHillary" to access the wireless network at the fourth Republican presidential debate.

    "We like to force the media to understand that there's two parties at every chance we get," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told POLITICO.

    Jesus, could these people be more immature?

    I mean this?

    "They're having a coronation," Priebus said of the Democrats. "We actually have a real contest and that's the difference. We have ... a lot of good candidates and they've got a couple bad ones and candidates that don't actually want to debate."

    well, I just can't even...

    Not sure there's enough popcorn to make watching allegedly grown people throw sand at each other at all entertaining.

    To make it worth watching, watch Walker (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 02:50:00 PM EST
    as the governor of the state hosting the debate, where he hoped to be on the stage, says that he will be there . . . in the audience.  I so hope that the Fox cameras catch a few shots of him . . . in, in case that I didn't mention it, the audience.

    Parent
    If we're lucky, he'll jump on stage like Kenye (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 02:55:52 PM EST
    West at the Grammys.

    Parent
    That would be a pretty delicious moment... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    tee hee.

    I can't think of a more ignoble, ignorant, craven individual who is more deserving - at this moment - of every bit of ignominy that comes his way.

    Parent

    I think you should watch (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:35:58 PM EST
    This is the last one till some time n Dec.  close to the holidays.

    I believe there will be sharks tonight.   And yes, I said that last time and it was a snoozefesr.

    Still.   I'm watching.

    Parent

    Ha (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    I meant sparks.   But maybe sharks too.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    think the moderators will be sufficiently cowed to let the lies flow freely and not force any confrontation, leaving any sparking up to the candidates.

    Ironically it's almost incumbent on Bush to make some waves, his campaign has been telegraphing an attack on Rubio and he has to do something, he least of all can afford a snoozefest, but then again how much heat can Jeb throw? I wonder if his team has considered steroids?

    The main card of Trump and Carson, by all rights, should be a snooze fest. Trump is slipping a bit but he is cruising in clean air while Carson is swatting away the demons in his mind.

    I expect Trump to throw a few jabs at Carson just to get under his skin, Carson of course has bigger fish to fry, the secular progressive movement fears him and he must never take his eye off the ball, God will take care of Trump and hand him a tenspot to boot. That's his story and he's sticking to it.                        

    Parent

    If Donald is smart he will ignore Carson (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:54:09 PM EST
    I think it could be a long night for Marco.  

    Parent
    Every where (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:00:00 PM EST
    you read the long knives are out for Marco. Did you see the ad Cruz did on Marco about Marco never showing up for work? And when he did show up he sat around and did nothing.

    Cruz seems to be working his way up the food chain and even the pundits are calling him the "dark horse" to win the nomination.

    I wonder if all the revelations about Carson are going to have any effect on his poll numbers.

    Parent

    Cruz (none / 0) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    is the wild card, he craves Carson's voters but he must side with him against the press.  He is definitely too smart to take on Trump at this time. He will continue to lurk until one or both of the outsiders fail.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:08:14 PM EST
    seems to be the theory that he's lying in wait to pick up the anti establishment voters. If he's able to do that then he very definitely could win the nomination.

    Parent
    Cruz definitely (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:09:31 PM EST
    Has the most to gain from a Carson decline

    Parent
    Can you even imagine where the (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    economy would be if McCain had beaten Obama in 2008?

    Not saying it's still where it needs to be, but I feel like with these same old Republican plans, most of us would be trying to sell apples on the street.

    Waiting for Jeb to pull out his light saber and zap anyone who dares bully his way into his time.

    Parent

    Lower taxes (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:24:43 PM EST
    Less regulation

    Blah

    Blah

    There is not a dimes worth of difference in any of these guys, ok Kasich, except that Donald is a protectionist and wants to tax carried interest.  Other than that...

    I forgot about Rand.   Is he still here?

    Parent

    Yes, here to tell us that income (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:29:06 PM EST
    inequality is worse in states and cities run by Democrats...

    God, these people make my head hurt.

    Parent

    The almost-mantra that you forgot, Capt. (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    All of them quickly stepped up to say: No wage increase ... no minimum wage increase.

    Ah yes, what a combo program: Starve everyone but the kazillionaires with the drumbeat of Choking the country's revenue by lowering taxes to the point of No Taxes  AND  Completely resist minimum wage increase with the questionable claim that wages-are-too-high version that Trump enunciated.

    And, if that gets boring: The Repub nativists continue to compete for the harshest, ugliest approach to immigration.  Heck, Romney could pass as a moderate with this bunch.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    I never thought I would say Romney was a good candidate but he's light years ahead of these yahoos the GOP has for 2016.

    Parent
    I joined you in not watching last night (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 05:08:48 PM EST
    After about a half hour.

    It was ridiculous.   They have completely cowed the moderator class.  

    Parent

    I caught philosopher Chuck Terd today (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    He said "we saw the shape of the coming Rubio/Cruz contest"

    ???

    Wait, what?

    Oh, right.  It's Chuck Terd.

    Parent

    The debate (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    hasn't even started and already they are whining. I'm taking a pass as I've heard enough whining out of the GOP for the last couple of weeks to last a lifetime.

    Parent
    A question for (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:02:56 PM EST
    the stand-ups: Given the penchant for Nazi references of some of  these candidates the moderator should ask the question given this week to Jeb! taken from a question asked of readers in the NYTimes Magazine Section in October:

      "If you could go back and kill Hitler as a baby would you do it?"  Jeb! was flummoxed by a time-machine question about knowing what we know now would you invade Iraq took several tries over the course of a week.  But, with this question, he responded quickly and enthusiastically "Hell yeah, I would."   No consideration of any other options, such as keeping baby Hitler away from anti-semitic influences or improving his up-bringing. Or, even praying that the baby would turn out differently.

    While Jeb would get a leg-up on the question, it would still be worth getting the responses of the rest.  My guess is that they would agree with Jeb.

    And, then the follow-up question: if you could go back would you encourage or even force Mother Hitler to have an abortion?  My guess: no abortion, wait until born and go for infanticide. (Note: response of NYT readers: 30% no; 28% not sure; 42% yes).  

    The Follow-up Should Be... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:17:48 PM EST
    ...what else would you do in 1890 ?

    I would love to hear those answers, especially Carson's, I am thinking maybe he would meet with Jesus and Tutankhamun to see if maybe they could store some wine in the Parthenon.


    Parent

    Screw Hitler! How about baby Caligula? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:00:42 AM EST
    Would Jeb! toss the future depraved psychotic emperor into the Mediterranean Sea, thereby saving Helen Mirren, Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole, John Gielgud and Gore Vidal from a serious future professional embarrassment?

    Parent
    Jeb (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 05:31:02 PM EST
    is angry that he is sinking and Rubio is soaring. Jeb is said to be going to sling some dirt on Rubio - who has been described as his former "protégé". The prodigal son.

    How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
    To have a thankless child!

    From my point of view, all that Bush needs to do to discredit Rubio is to identify him as his former protégé.

    He could follow that with a quote from Groucho about how anyone stupid enough to be his protégé should be disqualified, ipso facto, for any consideration for higher office.

    That would (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 05:45:24 PM EST
    be interesting if Jeb said that. Might not help Jeb but it certainly would put a hurting on Rubio.

    Parent
    Marco Rubio is "soaring"? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:08:52 AM EST
    That's a wee bit of an overstatement, given that the guy is currently polling at 11%.

    Parent
    With Rubio doubling Bush in the RCP Average (none / 0) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:47:59 AM EST
    Yes, when compared to Bush, Rubio is soaring. And with Rubio currently atop the establishment list, that would have him soaring under the possibly false notion that Trump will fold (Carson will most assuredly fold).

    So I'd back lentinel on the statement that Rubio is currently soaring and Bush is folding as it is quite likely only one of those two candidates will be around come Super Tuesday.

    The final three:
    Bush or Rubio
    Trump or Carson
    Cruz

    Parent

    Well, 11% ain't "soaring" except ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    ... like you said, which is in a relative sense as compared to Jeb! Bush. And if that's how we're qualifying the use of the term, then that's a very low bar indeed.

    Rubio's in fifth place in neighboring South Carolina, in single digits. Given that we're now two months out from the Iowa caucuses, and GOP voters have thus far been stoutly resisting any attempts by the party establishment to foist one of their own preferred candidates upon the rank-and-file, I'd say he's probably going nowhere.

    Speaking for myself only, Rubio's immigration flip-flops have likely doomed his chances with the now-angry GOP base. And the fact that's he's basically stopped being Florida's U.S. senator to campaign full-time for the presidential nod, well, I can't help but wonder how that's going to actually play out with Republican voters in Florida's own presidential primary. That's your home state, so you probably have a better feel for that than do I from 5,000 miles away.

    This is a visibly fractured GOP field, and the party establishment's karma, richly courted through 30 years of repeatedly and disingenuously playing its own base for fools, has apparently finally caught up with them. If anyone's potentially well-positioned to take advantage of the prospective carnage, I'd offer that it could well be the neo-McCarthyist Ted Cruz, who's proved himself to be a terribly polarizing figure nationally in his own right.

    But honestly, right now I wouldn't bet the farm on any of these clowns making it through the process in one piece. No small wonder why the RNC establishment is very worried at this point. Winding up with a badly flawed nominee who's likely unacceptable to U.S. voters at large could have serious repercussions for other Republican candidates downticket.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Rubio (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    Has climbed to 4th place in South Carolina in a PPP poll out today, BEFORE the results of the debate.

    Parent
    He's at 13% (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    Isn't (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    it kind of hysterical in a way that we're talking about someone at 13% "climbing". LOL.

    Parent
    Well, Woo-HOOOoooo!!! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    Why, 13% is positively stratospheric in the neverland that the GOP establishment! Back here on planet Earth, if we translate that poll into raw numbers, I'd say that there are probably more South Carolinians who prefer Bernie Sanders at this point.

    Parent
    Point is (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:49:44 PM EST
    He is slowly rising. And that is before debate results are factored in.  Trump and Carson aren't going to win, so their votrs have to go somewhere.

    (And Bernie is at 18%, not exactly syelkat, so Woo Hoo, back at you).

    Keep sticking your head in the sand.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:37:31 PM EST
    their votes may have to go somewhere but first of all I'm not sure Trump is going to implode. Carson seems to be imploding but Trump is very adept at managing the press and his life has been tabloid fodder for decades. There's nothing new there about Trump.

    If their votes go anywhere I would bet on Ted Cruz. He's more in line with them than Rubio. The people who like Rubio are some of the beltway blatherers which makes it even less likely that he is going to take off in the primary. The majority of these voters are anti establishment and Rubio smells like the establishment to these voters.

    Parent

    I'm not (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    sure that debate helped him much. The only one it seemed to have helped was Rand Paul.

    I don't see Rubio doing well in SC for a variety of reasons. That state is more of a Trump/Carson kind of state and/or Huckabee.

    Cruz and Bush are aiming their guns at Rubio. I wonder if either will be able to land some hits.

    Parent

    Y'all (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:40:20 PM EST
    are just going to have to watch the insanity fest and report it here for the rest of us that do not have the stomach to watch it.

    Jeb Bush is so garbled (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:20:40 PM EST
    He's about to practice his love of women and put food on a family...I guess it's genetic.

    Parent
    And Carly is hiding a sack (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:23:31 PM EST
    Limes behind that podium that she obviously is sucking on off camera :)

    Praise the Lord we have Botox for frown lines

    Parent

    if I (none / 0) (#86)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    didn't know better, I would swear the Carly is the demon spawn of Ann Coulter and Dick Cheney.

    Parent
    A bunch of losers. The Republican Debate (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:25:58 PM EST
    was a bust,   pretty much for all, especially the viewer who wanted to learn about, and have their candidates explain their policies and ideas as set forth as the debate theme--economics.

      The problem was with the fundamentals (no policies and no ideas), and the candidates (respond with stump and canned speeches). And, when in doubt say, Obama or Hillary. And, in a good sign for Bernie Sanders, he was lambasted, too.  

     The only electricity in the air was that conjured up by the suspense of who Trump will attack.  But, Trump was, once again, tame and lame--save for a little swipe at Fiorina.  

    Kasich tired hard to show that he was the only sane one on the stage, and, according to him the only one electable--since Hillary must be stopped (no offense to women, since he has tow daughters, you know).

      The only improvement for Jeb over the last debate was his suit and tie--he ditched the undertaker attire.  Rubio was doing his usual faux-gravitas only to be called out by the only conservative, self-designated, Rand Paul--who noted that Rubio's tax plan starts a new give away, welfare program to undeserving poors.

     And, it must be a Texas thing, Cruz, like Perry, would eliminate departments, five for Cruz, but like Perry, he could not name all of them, repeating Commerce to make the five--oops.

    Carson is clearly a light weight. he bluffed his way through using his sleepy demeanor to advantage.  He was just happy that he had a chance to defend his lies, by claiming that Hillary lied. After that, he was ready to go home. Fiorina's high point was when Trump wondered why she always interrupts.  

    Of course, the Republicans will see winners across the board.  All wanted to repeal Obamacare, none wanted to raise the minimum wage, all had tax plans that cut taxes with no answer for the missing revenue, except for "growth" or everyone likes it, as Trump said. And, no gotcha questions and no re-directing when answers when off into the wild blue yonder.

    Question... (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:07:54 AM EST
    ...I saw the Cruz clip, did he name 4 or 5 ?

    I guess every election, some idiot is required to add an additional agency set for disbanding.

    Parent

    Looks like he only (none / 0) (#90)
    by desertswine on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    could name four.  Pic of the Moment. Oops.

    Parent
    Well, he did (none / 0) (#117)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:58:15 PM EST
    name five agencies, just not five different agencies.  Perry, on the other hand, had less ambitious goals--he was going to eliminate three, but could only name two (even with prompting by Ron Paul).  Cruz was not even called on his missing department or his duplication(apparently Energy)by moderators or other candidates.

      But, then these were very nice non-gotcha moderators--it took Rand Paul to point out that China was not included in TPP, after Trump's babble about China being missing from the document.  The WSJ editor, "Jerry" acknowledged Paul was correct and then both proceeded to help to wall off Trump from China.    

    Parent

    "How to interrupt Jeb! Bush" - (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    Amy Davidson, The New Yorker

    When it was finally, really, Bush's turn, his expression was broken up by his lopsided smile, and his answer, to a question about how he'd encourage economic growth, by incoherencies and word pretzels. ("The growth that we don't have makes--makes the deficit grow"; "I think we need to repeal every rule that Barack Obama has in terms of work in progress, every one of them. ... For those that are already in existence, the regulation of the Internet, we have to start over, but we ought to do that.")


    Marco Rubio has (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 03:29:02 PM EST
    just too much irony in his diet. In response to a question about how he would compete against Mrs. Clinton's knowledge and experience, he said he welcomed the question because the election would be generational and the future.  The futuristic ideas were tax cuts, reduction/elimination of regulations, large increases in the defense budget, and family values. Rubio is, in reality, the world's oldest young man; or, maybe, the world's youngest old man.

    In a salvo across Rubio's bow, Cruz called for the end of sugar subsidies, such being "corporate welfare." A major donor of Rubio's is Jose (Pepe) Fanjul, a Cuban-American sugar tycoon of south Florida. Cruz seems to be taking advantage of competing sweeteners made of corn syrup. Iowas being a big corn producer.  

    Lakers at Miami (none / 0) (#14)
    by fishcamp on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:27:55 PM EST
    Could be one of Kobe's last few games.

    Is he even in Miami? (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:57:12 PM EST
    His name isn't in the box score. The Lakers, while terrible, are probably better without him these days.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:59:58 PM EST
    Just get Lou Dobbs off the screen

    Fun thing to read while waiting for debate. (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    PPP Uses the Power of Pyramids to Figure Out Which Republican Candidate Has the Weirdest Supporters.

    One of the charming things about Public Policy Polling is that they have a habit of asking weird questions that no one else will. Today's example: What do you think the pyramids were built for? This is for South Carolina only, and sadly, they only asked Republicans. Still, the breakdown by candidate gives us a peek at which of them has the weirdest supporters. Results are on the right. Link



    Rubio (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:12:10 PM EST
    Raising minimum wage will lead to robot take over, or something.

    Favorite recent tweet (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:15:20 PM EST
    Roombas are cyborg anchor babies.

    Parent
    Rubio sounds like a robot. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:21:02 PM EST
    And here comes Fiorina to rattle off some lies.

    Parent
    Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    don't create more jobs because I know a Mom who doesn't have one.

    Parent
    Robot or metronome? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    It is striking--the speed and staccato of Rubio's speech.  Maybe he is confusing earnestness and youthful passion with a rapid, and loud, metronome.  After the first rapid rhythm, you want to say "Do a change up ... vary the pace and the pitch" etc.; and, by the fourth lecture, the ears tune it out.  

    Parent
    Question to Florina (none / 0) (#32)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    She's asked since under Democrats hundreds of thousands of jobs have been added each month - and under Bush only 13,000 jobs were added - how would she respond to the assertion that Democrats do better with jobs than republicans...

    Her answer:

    I met a woman who said to me, "Carli, I'm afraid for my children."

    The crowd goes wild, and the chumps asking the questions look dumb as posts.

    What is the point of these stupid shows?

    Bartiromo's question to Fiorina (none / 0) (#100)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    That question--which contained an economic indictment of whatever job programs the Repubs promise--was not addressed at all by Fiorina (nor any other candidate.) IMO, the Democrats should repeat the question and the number evidence, as much as time allows in the coming days.  

    The unanswered question is the key to that whole supposed "debate."

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:37:04 AM EST
    Dramatically falling employment in the Great Recession and its aftermath has left us with a jobs shortfall of 5.6 million--that's the number of jobs needed to keep up with growth in the potential labor force since 2007.

    ....., but the reality is that if we add 246,000 jobs a month going forward, it will take until August 2017 to hit the employment level needed to return the economy to the labor market health that prevailed in 2007.

    link

    Parent

    Does people being out of work really warrant (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:07:41 AM EST
    a "heh"?

    Heh, people are out of work..people in this country are suffering. Heh.

    Sounds like you and Rush are of one mind: you don't care who suffers as long as you get to be proven right..

    Heh

    Parent

    Oh good grief (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:13:35 PM EST
    As you well know the heh was for:

    She's asked since under Democrats hundreds of thousands of jobs have been added each month - and under Bush only 13,000 jobs were added - how would she respond to the assertion that Democrats do better with jobs than republicans...


    Parent
    Oh, good - Ben Carson's going to school (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:31:28 PM EST
    us on lies...

    Lordy.

    Hard (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    ball at Carson, ducks with weak humor, calls it a lie, calls Hillary a liars, redoubles on the scholarship lie, declares him self honest, applause, case closed. Wow.

    Kasich just killed whatever minimal (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:35:27 PM EST
    chance he ever had to get the nomination, calling BS on the GOP line on immigrants.

    Bush agreed with Kasich (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    Trump had an opening to blast Rubio on immigration and passed....

    Rubio gets a bye on immigration.

    Parent

    More audience applause (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:53:10 PM EST
    for the Kasich/Bush approach than the Trump/Cruz approach....

    Very interesting....Republicans may give Rubio a pass on immigration....

    Parent

    Bennie (none / 0) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:03:49 PM EST
    the Blade gets a pass on it also.

    Parent
    Who? (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:17:56 PM EST
    Ben (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:22:34 PM EST
    the Blade Carson, you must not read Charlie Pierce

    BTW: he just pretty much called for a re-invasion of Iraq.

    Parent

    Ah, got it (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    Carson has no idea what he is talking about....

    The others have a least detail to spout.....

    Parent

    Rubio lost any chance he had (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:38:53 AM EST
    because of his immigration stance. So has Jeb and Kasich....

    Parent
    On CBS morning news (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    Rubio continued to dodge/evade the implications of the immigration issue displayed by the candidates last night.  Even when asked directly--after he performed an intricate set of dance steps around the issue--he would not say what his position is on deportation as a Repub/his approach.  

    Very specifically, Rubio was asked this a.m. whether he favored the deportation of the parent(s) of those Dreamers earlier addressed by the Obama executive enforcement discretion policy ... i.e, would he pursue deportation of the millions of parents effected by the 5th Circuit's action this week. Several attempts on the CBS show to clarify his immigration position went wanting as he first focused on the human suffering involved here and then quickly turned to we-need-to-enforce-the-law.

    Sooner or later, Mr. Rubio will run out of dodges.  Words will be captured on screen ... and, should he make it to the general election, he will be sliced-&-diced from all sides.

    Parent

    Kasich (none / 0) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:35:50 PM EST
    keeps butting in.

    They (none / 0) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    are all piling on Trump now, Bush manages to bring up Clinton.

    Carly (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:49:50 PM EST
    gets softball,
    Q: Obamacare sucks what would you do about it?

    A: Repeal it and replace it with free market, we are at the mercy of the regulators and insurance companies, one of them have to go.

    Terrible questions (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:54:47 PM EST
    They are basically asking the candidates to please give their sound bites from their stump speech about lowering taxes and cutting spending......

    Boring as hell.

    Parent

    Yep - they're just giving stump speeches, (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:05:59 PM EST
    and getting no challenge to speak of.

    Not one single moderator has pointed out that this so-called "fair" flat tax is anything but.  The billionaire who pays a million in taxes still has $999,000,000 - the guy who makes 40,000 only has $36,000.  That's fair?

    A flat tax is no less regressive than a sales tax; sure, everyone pays the same percent, but it takes a bigger bite from those at the lower end than it does at the top end.

    Basically, they're all preaching "reform," when what they've really designed are ways to keep moving money up the chain.

    I can't stand these people.

    Parent

    More Importantly... (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:21:19 AM EST
    ...it is not going to happen just because candidate X is president. Not to mention the love states rights and a flat tax will basically take away their right to tax.

    Parent
    In addition to the Ides of March (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:41:31 PM EST
    It is wise to be skeptical of the word "reform" because it has many meanings.  (Yep, I like to harp on that word, and the deception associated with it.)

    Parent
    Rand Paul (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:12:57 PM EST
    gave Rubio grief about increases in military spending blowing a hole in the deficit.

    That will be a good Hillary line of attack on Rubio.

    I had to (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:22:57 PM EST
    turn it off.

    Boring and insulting.

    So glad Rubio let us in on the reason (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    the big banks are even bigger: it's the government and all those pesky regulations...

    Good God, these people are insane.

    Actually (none / 0) (#54)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 05:47:42 AM EST
    That is true across all businesses models.
    As the level of regulation mounts, it is unsustainable for small business to compete.
    Compliance Departments are a must for any business to succeed , banks and others, to navigate the layers upon layers of regulation, federal , state and local, that they must comply with.


    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 05:54:16 AM EST
    ignorant of history then. When banks started being deregulated is when they started merging and getting bigger and bigger. The ones with the money were able to eat up all the smaller banks. I remember the day when you couldn't even bank across state lines.

    Parent
    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#58)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:16:17 AM EST
    WASHINGTON--Small banks are scoring big victories in their efforts to relax postcrisis rules by delivering a consistent message to lawmakers and policy makers: We're not Wall Street.

    Since the 2010 Dodd-Frank law ushered in a spate of new regulations, community bankers have fanned out across Washington to emphasize the differences between small "Main Street" banks focused on local lending and Wall Street firms they say are fixated on transaction volume. In conversations with lawmakers, small bankers argue many of the rules intended to address problems at the big banks are weighing heavily on community banks, impeding their ability to grow, make a profit and lend.

    The pushback is working. Last week, the Federal Reserve and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau moved to relax restrictions on lending and acquisitions for smaller banks, satisfying two hard-fought priorities of the Independent Community Bankers of America, an industry trade group.

    Struggle to Define Wall Street `Culture'
    Community banks are now setting their sights on additional wins, including legislation to ease international capital rules, additional mortgage lending relief for banks with up to $10 billion in assets and a broad exemption from enforcement by the CFPB.

    And....

    A report from Harvard University could add fuel to a debate in Congress over providing regulatory relief for community banks.

    The report, released earlier this week by the Kennedy School of Government, underscores a mantra in the industry that's often ill-defined: Small banks have been squeezed by regulation.

    The paper, using data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., shows a steep decline in market share for community banks over the last two decades, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Researchers defined community banks as institutions with $10 billion or less in assets.

    Parent

    Your (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:32:05 AM EST
    cut and paste does not address my question with regards to history.

    Parent
    I just (none / 0) (#64)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:55:55 AM EST
    Point out inconvenient facts in your narrative.
    In my world, a 20 year study
    The paper, using data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., shows a steep decline in market share for community banks over the last two decades, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Researchers defined community banks as institutions with $10 billion or less in assets.

    Is a good sample.

    Rubio was correct, why else would small banks be doing this

    Since the 2010 Dodd-Frank law ushered in a spate of new regulations, community bankers have fanned out across Washington to emphasize the differences between small "Main Street" banks focused on local lending and Wall Street firms they say are fixated on transaction volume. In conversations with lawmakers, small bankers argue many of the rules intended to address problems at the big banks are weighing heavily on community banks, impeding their ability to grow, make a profit and lend.


    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:01:54 AM EST
    good grief. Yes, I'm well aware of the wingnut welfare talking points that Rubio is putting forth. I was talking about history over the last 30 or so years. You want to talk about something that happened recently.

    And that actually backs up what I was saying above. That small banks have been squeezed by deregulation because it has allowed the big banks to run over them. Rubio glosses over that fact doesn't he? Maybe if he actually showed up for his job he might learn some facts and be able to move past regurgitating wingnut welfare talking points.

    Parent

    You never cease to amaze (1.00 / 2) (#67)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:17:01 AM EST
    I apologize, the study coming out this week only goes back 20 years, not thirty.

    And that actually backs up what I was saying above. That small banks have been squeezed by deregulation

    Why are community bankers fighting the NEW REGULATIONS of Dodd Frank?

    Since the 2010 Dodd-Frank law ushered in a spate of new regulations, community bankers have fanned out across Washington to emphasize the differences between small "Main Street" banks focused on local lending and Wall Street firms they say are fixated on transaction volume. In conversations with lawmakers, small bankers argue many of the rules intended to address problems at the big banks are weighing heavily on community banks, impeding their ability to grow, make a profit and lend.

    Parent

    "You never cease to amaze me" (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:53:53 AM EST
    Gets you a one.

    You come to a Left leaning site and spout unsourced talking points--and the pop off with insults?  

    Parent

    Yeah, Trevor Unsources quotes are... (none / 0) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:24:18 AM EST
    ...hardly proving anything, look I found this one:
    TrevorBolder doesn't know what he is talking about.

    It's a quote and mocking your belief, then it is settled.

    Parent

    PLease (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:37:51 PM EST
    Even though community banks' earnings saw a rise of 12% to $5.3 billion in the second quarter of 2015, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation FDIC, their number seem to be on the decline. With one community bank or credit union disappearing on an average each day, some medium and small businesses are finding it difficult to get loans. Today there are 1,524 fewer banks with assets under $1 billion than in June 2010 (before the Dodd-Frank regulations were signed into law); there were about 7,500 in 2010. (For those following along, that's a decrease of closer to 20%, not 40%, as Florida Senator and Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio has claimed.)

    Consumers are also facing the repercussions of the law due to reduced products and service offerings by the small banks. According to the Mercatus Center survey, 64% of small banks considered making changes to the "nature, mix, and volume of mortgage products and services" they offered, due to the new regulations of Dodd-Frank.
    These are not hard to find, believe me, I do not make these things up. I just read a lot

    The Wall Street Journal article admits that Dodd Frank has raised costs for small banks, but there are less of them every day. They are giving up the marketplace to the larger banks.  If that is muted, so be it.

    http://tinyurl.com/nvhm5ad


    Parent

    Why are banks fighting regulations? (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:57:51 AM EST
    Oh good grief.

    Because they do not like regulations.  Easy pie.

    You have cited nothing to support your point that Dodd Frank is causing the big banks to get bigger.....This is just more Right Wing Theology.   You throw in a study that does nothing to prove your point.

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    It's putting the smaller banks out of business, they cannot compete, they are begging for relief from REGULATION.

    Simple math, the less competition in the marketplace (Less small banks) the more business for the larger banks (They get Bigger)

    Parent

    Sen. Rubio is not correct, and ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:46:12 AM EST
    ... he doesn't know what he's talking about. And neither do you, because all you're doing here is cutting and pasting from the Wall Street Journal, which has long been a cheerleader for the banking and financial services industries.

    It was the LACK of financial regulation that was the principal cause of the 2008 economic crash, because large parts of the financial system were allowed to operate with little or no oversight, which led to excessive and irresponsible risk-taking that bordered on near-catastrophic.

    The calls to repeal Dodd-Frank are nothing more than the GOP doubling down on stupid. And given Sen. Rubio's own personal history of foolish and shortsighted financial decision making, some of which has skirted the boundaries of outright malfeasance, he has absolutely no business whatsoever lecturing anyone about fiscal discipline and management.

    Only a true ignoramus / moron would take Rubio seriously -- or for that matter, any of the other dumb jackasses who were onstage last night as well.

    Aloha.  

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#73)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    since Kasich is at least more reasonable on immigration . . .  Is he the stealth front runner?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    That makes him Jon Huntsman, Jr. of this cycle. He's dead in the water but doesn't realize it yet.

    Parent
    I agree, Donald (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    It was the LACK of financial regulation that was the principal cause of the 2008 economic crash,

    And guess who tried but were opposed by the Demos?

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10-- The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    snip

    'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

    Link

    Parent

    The all-powerful Barney Frank.. (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    Really, how hard did the Republicans "try" to reverse their course of fanatically championing the deregulation of EVERYTHING for the last few decades?

    And lets not forget that beloved-by-Republicans economic/financial genius of trickle-down Alan Greenspan, who loudly proclaimed to America that fraud on Wall Street was a negligable concern..

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    are arguing with a Bush apologist who doesn't even realize his link is dated 9/2003 when the GOP controlled congress. Barney Frank was in the minority at that time and had no power to do anything. But as we already know facts are not going to get in the way with Jim and his Bush apologia narrative.

    Parent
    You don't understand, Ga (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:39:20 AM EST
    Barney Frank was able to neutralize all opposition to his agenda by harnessing the occult powers of darkness that all yankee-liberal-queers are able to tap into..

    Jim's mentor Glenn Beck is currently smearing a "book" on the wall of his padded cell all about it..

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    And Drudge is insisting that Hillary wears a wig. So it must be true. Right? These people are stinking nuts.

    Parent
    Unhinged..really friggin unhinged (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    I firmly believe they've been hoping for an attack worse tha 9/11 just so they can crow "Heh"! "At least Bush protected us better than Obama did!"

    Parent
    On one hand you argue that Obama had to follow (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:08:16 PM EST
    Bush's direction...on this hand you say well, it's okay if the Demos opposed Bush...he should have forced them...OTOH you say well, Obama had to do what Bush said...

    Which is it??

    And you forget the legislation is brought to the floor via the committee system. Barney was the ranking minority member. He opposed it.

    So, the facts are. Bush tried and the Demos opposed.

    Parent

    Bush tried.. (none / 0) (#184)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 10:22:09 PM EST
    Maybe the GOP should adopt that as an all-purpose campaign slogan for 2016 -- if Bush wasn't currently held in the same esteem as a virulent form of  STD..

    So, the upshot is still Bush: incompetent, weak, and ineffectual -- at protecting the economy and at protecting the nation.

    That's how history will justly  remember him -- that is, if he's remembered at all.

    Parent

    Doesn't trying count?? (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 08:59:07 AM EST
    If so, what about Obama's desire to close GITMO??
    His desire to legalize people who are in the country but the authorities don't know they're here??

    And Bush did protect the country. Only one successful terrorist attack after 9/11... the LAX attack on el Al's ticket counter...

    OTOH Obama has Ft Hood, Boston Marathon, Little Rock recruiting office, Chattanooga recruiting office...

    Of course what you want to do is argue that since Bush, with a fragile majority, should have found a way to rein in Fred and Fan.

    Okay.

    Facts are. Bush tried and the Demos opposed. Without that act by the Demos the housing bubble would not have happened.


    Parent

    3000 dead on 9/11 (none / 0) (#188)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    and umpteen thousand dead men, women, and children dead, maimed, traumatized, and uprooted in Iraq and Afghanistan..

    That's some bang up job.

    The only thing Bush was ever committed to protecting was the unborn and the rights of the uber-rich..

    Parent

    See my comment to FlJoe (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 02:08:32 PM EST
    for some actual and factual information.

    Or you can continue to make things up and ignore others.

    Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.


    Parent
    Bush easily topped Clinton.. (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 11:10:11 PM EST
    He hit the trifecta.

    Not only did he publicly declare Bin Laden a non-priority, he left 3000 Americans unguarded and then dragged the country into a wasteful, unnecessary war.

    As Bush's final act, he shamed his own far-right followers so badly that they were forced to hide out in the Tea Party in a pathetically desperate attempt to evade responsibility and save face.

    Parent

    "In my world" (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:02:36 AM EST
    What condescending tripe.....

    You think you are the only one who has ever worked in the world of business or finance?

    Show us any study that says Dodd Frank is causing the decline in market share of small banks.

    You haven't done that but pretend you have.  That shows poor reasoning.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#93)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    Small Banks are saying it , not me.
    They are lobbying for repeal or relief from Dodd Frank regulation,
    Which is what Rubio promised

    Parent
    Your quote (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:52:36 AM EST
    doesn't support your theory.

    The Harvard study shows declining market share for community banks.  Yes, and so how does that support your theory?

    Your unsourced quote says that that report will be used to argue that regulations have caused the decline in market share.

    The Harvard Study does not show that.

    Your quote proves nothing.  
     

    Parent

    Here's a sort of a tutorial on (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    the campaign to weaken Dodd Frank, which you may find enlightening.

    And here's a little something from the WSJ that might be helpful.

    Happy reading.

    Parent

    Anne, (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:08:05 AM EST
    that is hilarious.

    The headline says it all--from the Wall Street Journal, for those who don't click the link:

    "Dodd-Frank's Effect on Small Banks is Muted"

    Parent

    Kasich (none / 0) (#56)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 06:21:54 AM EST
    The only one of the lot who sounded human was John Kasich.
    Rand Paul was also on the human side, but sounded sometimes befuddled to me.

    Trump's forté has been his spontaneity - but he was canned as could be.

    Kasich showed some intelligence and compassion.

    However, I wound up feeling that HRC is extremely vulnerable to any of these people - due to the truly lackluster right-leaning Obama administration's policies.

    Especially the adherence to the never-ending wars and the failure to close Gitmo.

    Obama didn't truly challenge any of the ethos of the GW Bush presidency - and so it has become entrenched. The new normal.

    And HRC has swallowed it whole.

    This will be tough.

    IMO Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 06:45:31 AM EST
    Pushing the TPP trade deal, with many congressional Dems going along, will hurt the Dems in 2016 more than not closing Gitmo.

    The never ending wars a definite minus. What would also damage the Dem chances in 2016 is if they agree to any more entitlement "reforms" between now and the election.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:19:42 AM EST
    I totally agree with you.

    I think that the Dems are in trouble - and they don't even know it.

    Singing the mantra "Sanders can't win" isn't helping either.

    Parent

    I think that the Dems have (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:37:02 AM EST
    forgotten that Dubya was a two term president and chose to believe that surely the American public couldn't possibily elect one of the passengers in the Republican clown car. If they would elect Duyya to a second term, after his disastrous first term, it is not a stretch to believe that they would elect a Republican this time around.

    Parent
    The Dems (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:40:17 AM EST
    in general may have that attitude but however it seems Hillary does not. There is a reason why she has so many people on the ground in the states. She knows that the Koch Money Machine is going to be coming full blast in 2016.

    Parent
    I think you are missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:54:06 AM EST
    Which is the actions of Obama and the Dems in Congress could very negatively impact the chances of Dem candidates come election time.

    NAFTA lost Dems support among blue collar white voters. Putting SS and Medicare on the table lost Dems support among Seniors.

    A Dem president pushing through, what has been described as a truly horrible trade pact, will hurt the Democratic Party. The decision to maintain and begin to once again expand the never ending wars will dampen the enthusiasm of people who want the wars to end. Any more "reforms" (i.e. cuts) to SS and Medicare signed into law by a Dem president, will lose more Seniors come voting time.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:56:43 AM EST
    in other words it sounds like it is up to Obama as to whether the Dems win in 2016 or not.


    Parent
    I really thought this point (none / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:17:33 AM EST
    was clearly stated.

    ...

    the actions of Obama and the Dems in Congress could very negatively impact the chances of Dem candidates come election time.

    I think you have been around politics long enough to know that the Republicans tie all Democratic candidates to unpopular bills signed into law by a Democratic president and passed with Democratic votes.

    Parent

    Close (none / 0) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:19:46 AM EST
    Actually, it is up to the Obama coalition,

    the one that voted for him in 2008

    If they turn out in the same numbers, odds are that Democrats will most likely win

    Big If

    Parent

    Not a big (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    if. The big if is if the GOP can cobble together anything to eke by in 2016. Millions of GOP voters are going to die in the next year. Who are they going to make them up with?

    Parent
    Millions? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 11:01:59 AM EST
    If you consider 2 million as millions (none / 0) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    Then yes possibly millions (but likely not millions)

    Parent
    What you (none / 0) (#85)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:25:54 AM EST
    call the Obama coalition... I'm not sure that it ever existed.

    I wonder what would have happened if the economy hadn't tanked right before the election ---

    I wonder what would have happened if McCain had chosen a human being for a running mate instead of that walking disaster.

    I wonder what would have happened if there hadn't been a huge campaign to shame black people into abandoning HRC and voting for Obama out of a conviction that, as a black person, he might do something about poverty in the inner cities and redistribution of wealth. Or, even more naively, that they owed him the vote out of a sense of racial identity. Or that it would be good for the image of black people.

    By now, everyone knows that the inner cities are still a mess - and income distribution is worse than ever.

    I would be very surprised if black people would flock to the Dems yet again out of fear of the alternative.

    It is a phenomenon that Carson is rarely, if ever, referred to as a black person - and he is at the top of the polls in the supposedly racist republican party.

    No.

    The Dems are in deep trouble.

    They should be welcoming Sanders - and touting his ideas and honestly.

    Instead, all they are saying is that "he can't win" - and that we should flock to HRC.

    My contention is that I am very close to feeling that it is she that can't win.

    Parent

    lentinel: "The Dems are in deep trouble. They should be welcoming Sanders - and touting his ideas and honestly. Instead, all they are saying is that 'he can't win' - and that we should flock to HRC. My contention is that I am very close to feeling that it is she that can't win."

    Oh, really. And you base that contention upon -- what, exactly? You are entitled to your doom-and-gloom opinions, of course, but such relentlessly negative opining is hardly representative of mainstream Democratic voters.

    While Bernie Sanders is likely not going to win the nomination, he has already won philosophically, in the sense that his candidacy has successfully moved the Democrats' internal debate and discussion away from the La-La Land of DLC triangulation and back toward left of center, which is quite frankly where we need to be at this point in this campaign.

    Everybody knows that given the current stakes, this is going to be a tough and brutal campaign. This is an "all hands on deck" moment, and should Mrs. Clinton be our nominee, I expect that Sen. Sanders will play a prominent role in turning out the liberal Democratic vote on her behalf.

    As for yourself, you have your own choice here. If you truly seek change, then you must be willing to actually work for it personally, and get your hands dirty in order to achieve it. Otherwise, your talk is cheap unless you prove yourself willing to back it up with action.

    In that regard, I hope that you choose to join us and be part of something that's potentially historic, rather than decide to sit in the bleachers and boo everyone as the parade passes by.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    back with your "you've got to get your hands dirty" mantra. People do not have to behave in a manner that you dictate in order to have and express an opinion.

    I honestly find your tone - one of high superiority - to be offensive.

    Join "us" or sit in the bleachers? Who is "us"?
    You?

    Who are you to dictate my choices for me?

    You sound like a self-righteous republican.

    Parent

    You! It was you!! (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:58:49 PM EST
    I knew it, I knew, I knew it!

    It was you all along, you low down, lazy, Lucifer!  

    Boy, oh boy, what a glorious day; we finally got to the bottom of whose responsible for all the problems in the world.

    Thank you, Geezuz!......Hall-el-YOU-iah!!!

    So now, lentinel, you know what you have to do.
    That's right, just take that little yellow pill we left you, with a full glass of water. (It'll go quicker that way)

    Oh, and you won't need a jacket where you're going (know what I mean? heh, heh)

    Buh-bye, baby...........


    Parent

    Donald, I gave you a (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:23:41 PM EST
    "One" for your insulting, supercilious, and offensive comment to lentinel.
    This type of rhetoric is unworthy of you, and you know it.
    Shame on you.

    Parent
    Brought to you as a public service, (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:09:37 PM EST
    For the definitionally disabled:

    "supercilious,"..................

    arrogant, haughty, conceited, disdainful, overbearing, pompous, condescending, patronizing, imperious, snobbish, snobby, smug, scornful, sneering,  hoity-toity, high and mighty, uppity, snooty, stuck-up, snotty, snot-nosed, too big for one's britches...........  

    (it's a start.)

    Parent

    Wow. Donald's comment was all this???? (3.50 / 2) (#140)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:23:03 PM EST
    No, you're right, (none / 0) (#141)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 11:11:46 PM EST
    I should have left out, "too big for one's britches."

    He may be skinny, for all I know.

    Parent

    Whenever I throw caution (3.50 / 2) (#142)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    to the winds and chide a commenter, all hell breaks loose. Just sayin'.

    Parent
    You got it confused, oculus (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:49:13 AM EST
    A joke is just a joke,
    ------------------------

    But THIS is a pompous, bloviating chide:

    "Prissy, fetch Miss lentinel her smelling salts."

    and lentinel didn't deserve it.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#169)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    Poor lentinel ... he can only "dish it out."

    But then, we need to act outraged or offended or insulted, periodically.  It may be a good outlet for venting as we await whatever else. I agree with Donald: The dramatic & persistent and over-the-top gloom and doom that is the lentinel trope gets to be insulting in itself.  Periodically.  IMO.

    Parent

    And I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    with you.
    Lentinel is not insulting anyone by pointing out the negatives regarding the Democratic Party and its policies and politicians.
    If those of you who are more, shall I say, cheerleaders for the party cannot take criticism of the party, then that's on you, not
    lentinel.
    Go ahead and disagree with her all you want, but over-the-top, insulting phrases such as were used by Donald should have no place in intelligent discourse.
    IMO.

    Parent
    While I hear & respect you, Zorba (none / 0) (#181)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:58:26 PM EST
    it is my opinion that the lentinel drumbeat has gone way beyond critique/disagreement/etc.  In a nearby post, for example, he refers to the "monsters" of the party ... perhaps, that is simply over=the=top.  My point: Lentinel unleashed may be Lentinel unleashed; but, that means that we all get to be unleashed.

    Seriously.  I have no problem with criticism or with disagreement or with other ideas by anyone.  But--look at this dispassionately, Zorba--the criticism gets to cut both ways.  There isn't purity on the one side, and malevolence or bad thoughts on the other.  

    And, seriously #2, the fact that people like myself have our own strong feelings & attitudes doesn't transform us into mindless pom-pom types.  

    I have acknowledged that lentinel's approach gets to me/irritates me because it seems so negative.  Not because of disagreement about the party's direction or the country's direction.  Rather, because there really is no way to respond in a discussion sense because--imo--the ferocity of lentinel's language precludes discussion.  And, I do understand and accept that attitude so long as myself (and others who feel the same) are able to respond with the same degree of opposing feeling.

    Maybe--if anyone can help bridge the chasm here, you can, Zorba.  People respect your opinion.  How do we allow both sides of this political opinion equal force?

    Parent

    Christinep, (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    It is NEVER appropriate to use anger-laced pejoratives, insults, put-downs, humiliation, or, bullying of any type when addressing another human, especially in an open forum like here on TL, where we're ALL just guests.

    You're not the only one here who gets a little annoyed at the constant drumbeat of negativity on issues close to your heart. But, there are other ways to address those things than with a verbal caveman's club. And, I'm really surprised that you, who has been on the receiving end of more "mean girl's" gangbang attacks than almost anyone here (except, maybe jimaka....) should side with this cowardly bullying crap, I guess "disappointed" is the best word to describe how I feel about your position. There are better ways to state your feelings than the punk bullying that was used here, and, you know it.

    I've been lucky; Because of my heredity, background, and years in the Corps I was never a victim of bullying. But, I've certainly witnessed too much of it, and hate it, regardless.

    Let's just try to grow up a little, show a little respect for each other, and, actually be who we claim to be. O.K?

    Parent

    Yes, there is some emotional growth needed (none / 0) (#190)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 01:42:57 PM EST
    All the way around ... myself included.  

    I do disagree that Donald's comment was unusual in the context of anger-based/resentment-based commentary not uncommon here. While Donald can get-on-a-high-horse in opposing rejoinders, from time to time, there have been numerous other examples of high-horse attitudes witnessed in recent years.  Heck ... I've done the same; and, so have you btw.

    Overall, I agree with the direction of your comment here about the disservice to the blog and people on it that all forms of bullying effect.  The phrase "all forms of bullying" is used to cast a light on the reality that bullying comes in many more forms than a direct anger with put-down comment ... e.g., the holier-than-thou sermon has its own hush-up quality; the short body-chop seeks to wound the opposition while avoiding the responsibility of argument; the anybody-who-doesn't-share-my-view-is-evil/unhinged, etc. is a game-playing device to impugn character; and, the word-guerilla character jab & run are some examples.

    We could all learn.  

    Parent

    Running out the door. (none / 0) (#192)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 02:10:03 PM EST
    to be continued.................:)

    Parent
    Basically, (none / 0) (#193)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    What Shooter said.

    Parent
    he's also been a puppet a pauper a pirate a poet (none / 0) (#166)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 11:32:33 AM EST
    a pawn and a king..he's been up and down and over and out..

    Parent
    It existed (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    call the Obama coalition... I'm not sure that it ever existed.

    A larger than usual voting bloc of minority and young, emboldened and activated by promises of a new beginning, no more politics as usual.

    Plus the normal Democratic voting bloc carried Obama in 2008,

    And yes, the economic crash helped. Economic pain always helps the party out of power,

    So the state of the 2016 economy will also come into play, if it continues in stagnate mode, bodes well for change, if it comes to life with economic growth, it bodes well for stay the course

    Parent

    My point was (none / 0) (#84)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    that it is up to the Democrats to disassociate themselves from the most Republican-like aspects of the Obama administration.
    And, alas, they are numerous and substantial.

    If they don't, imo, they will lose.

    And they will deserve to lose.

    Parent

    Lose to WHo Exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    ...while I agree 100% with what you are saying about republican like policies, but I strongly disagree that it will cost them this election.

    I find it so odd that this cycle so far has proven that liberal policies are popular, yet for some reason, they just can't get past unpopular  policies that lean right, like TPP & the Middle East, that will cost them more votes then they will garner.

    GITMO is 100% on Obama, he is signing legislation against something he campaigned on, and something that is immoral and IMO unconstitutional.  He has failed people with absolutely no rights.

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    no idea if it will cost the dems the election - their adherence to policies they claim do not reflect their values.

    But the repubs are campaigning on getting money to the middle class - job creation --- democratic positions.

    Their stands on abortion are draconian - but the dems are not coming out unequivocally for the rights of women to choose.

    Same with the death penalty.

    Maybe this and maybe that.

    So - with the repubs seeming to project a populist image - and new faces - and dems being somewhat wishy washy with a face that has been around the block -- and on both sides of just about everything - It looks iffy to me.

    I make an exception for Sanders - who just voted against the military appropriations bill on principle.

    Sanders - the one being shunned or marginalized by so-called progressives...

    So - although it seems to me that the republicans are gargoyles - the lot of them - I really have no sense that they might not well prevail come Nov of '16 - because I don't see much that the dems are offering except the time-weary threat that the repubs are worse....


    Parent

    The GOP is making noise like they (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    give a rat's a$$ about the poor or what's left of the middle class, but underneath that micro-veneer, in the details of their plans, is all the evidence anyone needs to know that they can't wait to get their hot, sweaty little hands on more money for the wealthy.

    Did you know that Rubio's tax plan would exempt from tax all income from investments?  So, if you're fortunate enough to be collecting dividends and interest, you'd get to do it without having to hand Uncle Sam any of your passively-earned money.

    How much of the rest of the population will get that kind of tax break?

    Flat taxes - pure regression that only benefits the wealthy.  Wage reduction - that's not going to help anyone earning a minimum wage, now, is it?  Get rid of the ACA and replace it with...something in the private sector: guarantee you that's not going to help anyone who actually needs the help.

    Raise the retirement age AND lower benefits?  Who does that help?  

    And none of these plans is going to create jobs. Republicans don't really know how to create jobs - they just want to make it easier for thems that has to have more, and thems that have nothing to keep their needy little hands out of the pot.

    Dems are going to wipe the floor with whoever the GOP nominee is, and be exposed for what and who they really are: greedy little SOB's who don't give a flying fk about anyone but themselves.

    This "populist" image is a crock - why you would for one second buy into it is beyond me, unless it makes it easier for you to whine - yes, you are whining - about the Dems.

    Parent

    Wine not whine. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 03:53:45 PM EST
    This "populist" image is a crock - why you would for one second buy into it is beyond me, unless it makes it easier for you to whine - yes, you are whining - about the Dems.

    Of course it's crock.
    Who said I bought into it?

    And as for the worn-out "whining" epithet...

    I am hardly whining.

    I am simply saying that the democrats may well lose in 2016 - even if they are running against people who represent everything you say they do.

    Look.

    Bush won twice. Incredible.
    Reagan won twice.

    Things happen. It's not whining to point that out - and in so doing - perhaps prevent another the election of another republican gargoyle in 2016.

    Parent

    You never fail to point it out. (2.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 03:04:38 AM EST
    lentinel: "Things happen. It's not whining to point that out - and in so doing - perhaps prevent another the election of another republican gargoyle in 2016."

    Quite often, that's all you do. For someone who wears her politics on her sleeve, you have shown a real penchant for constantly dissing your own side because they somehow fail to meet your expectations.

    Yes, Gitmo and TPP are disappointments. But politics if often full of disappointments because that's the nature of the beast. You constantly have to compromise and defer immediate gratification, and yes, it can be frustrating.

    But do you honestly think you're going to get better policies from the current GOP? Because that's your alternative here. Under our present system with only rare exceptions, you choose between candidates of the two parties. And if you decide to not choose between the two and sit it out, then you've effectively removed yourself from the discussion and process, and that choice will be made by others for you without your input.

    You keep talking up Bernie Sanders, and I think that's great. But if you feel that strongly about his candidacy, then what are you actually doing to support him? Get out there, get involved, volunteer to make phone calls and canvass your neighborhood on his behalf, or offer to host a local gathering of Sanders supporters. You might even consider running to be a delegate for Bernie at your state Democratic convention.

    (You'd be surprised at how easy it actually is to be selected as a county or state convention delegate in some precincts and districts. In many instances, all you have to do is put your name forward for consideration. And state convention delegates in many states vote for the delegates to the national convention, so it's important.)

    Perhaps your frustration with the system and process would be alleviated through your own active and direct involvement. You're smart and observant, and you'd surely be an asset to whatever campaign you'd join. The Democratic Party is a big tent, and you'd be welcomed should you choose to step inside.

    And I'm sure there are a number of good, issue-oriented Democrats in your locale whom you'd like and who are running for local offices, and who'd genuinely appreciate the knowledge and passion you'd bring to their campaigns.

    If you ever decide that you want to get involved, but are unsure how to take that first step, you can e-mail me -- just be sure to also let me know here in a TL thread if you do, so I'll be on the lookout for it -- and I'll gladly help you identify the Democratic officials in your home district and introduce you to them. And who knows, some of them may even be people you already know from the neighborhood!

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You're unhinged, Don. (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:04:05 AM EST
    I am involved.
    As involved as you.
    Perhaps more than you.

    I have been involved with local democratic party politics in New York City. I was even on the ballot some years ago.

    Good luck to you and your threads.

    Good luck to your least-worst philosophy.
    Maybe it'll work this time.

    Have you considered getting your own blog?

    You could set your own rules for commenters!
    You could tell them what they must do to be qualified to comment!

    Until then, it would be nice if you could restrict your responses to posts to the content therein, and leave the kitchen wisdom elsewhere.

    Parent

    Many of us have been politically active (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    for many years. But Donald doesn't actually give a sh*t about that, lentinel. He only considers your involvement legitimate if you've made yourself into a party insider, like him. If you don't get to schmooze with the insiders, you ain't nuthin'.

    Funny thing is, it's actually the outsiders (like Kshama Sawant, Seattle's socialist city councilwoman) who are doing the real work of promoting democracy and economic equality. The $15 hr minimum wage fight is the one she started. And now it's spreading across the country. There is no Democratic party insider who EVER would have originated that.

    Parent

    Well said! (none / 0) (#176)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    Good to see you again, shoephone.

    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:29:16 AM EST
    By no stretch of the imagination is the TPP trade pact a compromise position. It is a horrible give away to International corporations and an assault on American workers.

    Parent
    You are also assuming (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:39:50 AM EST
    That mist voters, even Democratic ones, outside of the most tuned in, couldn't tell you what TPP stands for, let alone what it is or what the benefits/shortcomings are.

    So, my guess is, this won't even be in the top ten reasons why most people vote for for or against Democratic candidates.  Neither will the newest defense appropriations bill.

    Parent

    You are assuming (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:52:58 AM EST
    That it passes with Democratic votes and is signed into law by a Democrstic president that the American public will not be informed non stop of Obama's assault on American workers.

    The fact that Republicans are in favor of some draconian policy has never stopped them from assigning the blame for that policy completely to Democratic politicians. More often than not they win the messaging war on those issues. For historical reference see the migration of white male, blue collar workers and seniors from the Democratic Party to the Republicans.

    Parent

    Since (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:11:01 AM EST
    Republicans hold majorities in both houses, it DID NOT pass without Republican votes, and since most of the Republican candidates support it, I'm not sure how you see that they can successfully "pin it on the Democrats".

    Sure, will some voters who do not understand what's going on be outraged at the Dems?  But you don't think there's going to a barrage of ads the other way?

    And it still isn't going to affect most people's votes one way or the other.  It just isn't.  There are many other reasons, some substantive, some superficial, why people will vote the way they will.

    Parent

    Meant to tyoe (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:15:09 AM EST
    Republicans WILL vote for it.  Not that they did already.

    (Bad part of posting whole on the phone)

    Parent

    I am not sure that HRC agrees with you (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:34:49 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton evidently thought it might impact voters decisions enough to change her stance from calling it the "Gold Standard" of trade agreements to coming out against it.

     NAFTA changed the voting patterns of voters. Republicans who strongly support drastic cuts  or eliminating SS and Medicare persuaded a large number of seniors that Obama and the Democrats were the ones threatening their well being.

    While unions are no longer the force they once were in the US, their members will be aware of the worse parts of the TPP deal and they will be discussed with their family members. Other Democratic voters who have a union family history still read what Unions write about the issues even thought they may no longer belong to a union.

    Parent

    I'm not sure Clinton agrees with herself, (none / 0) (#156)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:20:38 AM EST
    but that's a different can of worms, I think.

    None of the current Democratic field for president supports the TPP, so aren't voters more likely to punish their members of Congress than a Democratic nominee who is opposed to the TPP?

    But let's also remember that this is not a done deal, and from what I've seen, it's not clear that Congressional approval is guaranteed.

    Granted, it's more than disappointing that we're even at this point, with the clock ticking down and the timeline moving forward - and since the media loves a good fight and as much drama as possible, my guess is they will cover the crap out of any fighting between the yays and the nays, with special emphasis on the parties' respective candidates for the nomination.

    Parent

    Sound bites readily availble for Republican PACs (none / 0) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    Adelaide, South Australia
    November 15, 2012

    "So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to opecn free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

    ...
    Here are some of the other words Clinton used to describe the TPP before she left the State Department in 2013: "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality" and "high-standard." (To read more of her comments in full, check out our previous article on this subject.)

    Source:

    I seem to remember another candidate who voted for it before he voted against it. IIRC that didn't work real good.

     Hopefully,  it is not a done deal.

    Parent

    Pew's (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    polling showed that trade agreements are way down there in consideration for most voters.

    Parent
    Polls, huh. Polls are good (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    What was the question asked in the Pew poll?

    Were the respondents asked to rank signing trade agreements? People gave signing trade agreements a low priority. Since they are overwhelming against NAFTA styled trade agreements, having more signed into law would definitely rank real, real low. They don't want them signed. That is very different than not caring about them.

    July 2015

    U.S. Polling Shows Strong Opposition to More of the Same U.S. Trade Deals from Independents, Republicans and Democrats Alike

    Recent polling reveals broad U.S. public opposition to more of the same trade deals among independents, Republicans and Democrats. Though Americans tend to support trade, they oppose an expansion of status quo trade policies, complicating the push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
    ...

    Repeated polls have found trade-related outsourcing to be the foremost problem on the minds of U.S. voters. During an election cycle focused on job creation, a July 2012 poll conducted by the Mellman Group and North Star Opinion Research asked voters to name "the single biggest obstacle for creating  manufacturing jobs in America today." "Our trade policies encourage outsourcing" was the top response.36 Similarly, a September 2010 NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that the impact of trade and outsourcing was one of the only issues on which Americans of different classes, occupations and political persuasions agree. Eighty-six percent said outsourcing of jobs by U.S. firms to low-wage foreign nations is a top cause of our economic woes - by far the top concern, with deficits and health care costs well behind. Interestingly, the only causes that got a majority of support were related to corporate greed, not excessive regulation. Sixty-nine percent of Americans thought that "free trade agreements between the United States and other countries cost the U.S. jobs" - a new high for "free trade" opposition. Among those surveyed, Republicans were even more concerned than Democrats. Also noteworthy is that those who found no real impact from trade deals overtook those who felt that trade deals have been beneficial.



    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    a link to an extensive breakdown by Pew link

    Personally haven grown up in textile country in SC I don't see where they make things better or worse. The textile mills were moving out of the country for years before any trade agreement was ever passed. As long as businesses operate on the cheap labor model to maximize profits they are going to go where they can pay people nothing trade agreement or no trade agreement.

    Parent

    How question are framed are important (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:02:15 PM EST
    Americans Tend to Support Trade in General, But Oppose More-of-the-Same Trade Policies: Some recent polls that proponents of status quo trade policy have errantly claimed as endorsements of the TPP actually have confirmed what polling has consistently shown: the U.S. public tends to support the goal of expanded trade while opposing the content of TPP-like deals....

    ...

    General support for trade is not surprising. Past polls, including ones by these same polling groups, have found majority support for trade but majority opposition to the content of status quo trade deals.28 As mentioned, a January 2014 Hart/Chesapeake poll found 62 percent opposition to Fast Tracking the TPP. Among those with strong opinions, opponents outnumbered proponents by more than three to one (43 percent strongly opposing versus 12 percent strongly favoring). The poll also asked respondents to assess the strength of common arguments for and against the TPP. While 50 percent or more of the respondents found seven anti-TPP arguments convincing, none of the pro-TPP arguments were ranked as convincing by a majority of respondents



    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#172)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    She's a politician trying cover her left flank.  If she were in office right now, though, my guess is she would sign it.

    Does that make me less likely to vote for her?  No, because I don't fall in love with politicians.  And count me as one of the voters for whom TPP isn't high on my radar.  I know it should be, and I'm certainly not an uneducated person, nor one who is ignoring politics, but I haven't paid that much attention, as there are literally a hundred other things I think about instead of TPP.  

    I work in a city of highly educated people, many of whom are directly working with this topic.  I would bet you all the money I have right now, I could ask my colleagues (all people with advanced degrees at a government agency, and from what I can glean, all fairly to pretty left leaning), and maybe one of them would have an interest and good understanding about the pitfall vs the benefits of TPP. Most people here aren't even following the election except for the nonsense of the Republicans, for the most part.  I could walk down the streets near where I work (downtown DC) and I would find very few people who were well-versed in TPP, and that it was an issue on which they vote.

    If it ain't hapoen' here, I can't imagine too many people elsewhere who don't have time to read blogs or who don't care about an election a year out, are going to have TPP in their top things when considering their candidate.

    Parent

    Well we agree on one thing (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    I agree if Hillary was president right now she would sign the bill and it would once again be the gold standard of trade bills.

    I can see where it is not a priority with you. Not something you care enough about to spend any time thinking about. I can see where possibly many of your collegues,  people with advanced degrees working for government agencies, don't think it is a priotity for them either.

    But do you really think that just because it doesn't affect you and your highly educated colleagues, the people who it will affect are completely ignorant about the deal?

    Union workers and their representatives have had quite a bit to say about it. They may or may not read blogs but they normally read the literature from their unions telling them why they should be against this and to contact their Congressmen/woman.

    The person who hears that their job will be off-shored or that they will receive lower wages or pay a lot more for their medicine or they might get sick from eating unsafe food due to this piece of legislation might care quite a bit even if you do not.

    "Apparently, the TPP's proponents resorted to such extreme secrecy during negotiations because the text shows TPP would offshore more  American jobs, lower our wages, flood us with unsafe imported food and expose our laws to attack in foreign tribunals," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch."When the administration says it used the TPP to renegotiate NAFTA, few expected that meant doubling down on the worst job-killing, wage-suppressing NAFTA terms, expanding limits on food safety and rolling back past reforms on environmental standards and access to affordable drugs."

    Surprise! The New Trade Deal Is Written for and By Corporations
    Excessive copyright and investor protections? Check. A company can sue a country for raising its minimum wage? Check.



    Parent
    Are Americans as indifferent to our trade (none / 0) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 05:40:37 PM EST
    policies as you claim and is Hillary the only politician worried about what people might think about her position on trade deals (TPP)? I think not.

    High- profile races in the 2014 midterm congressional elections featured both candidates competing to portray themselves as the greater opponent of unfair trade. Republican challengers sought to outdo the fair-trade voting records of Democratic incumbents by proclaiming their own rejection of existing "free trade" agreements (FTAs), while the incumbents touted their votes against the FTAs.14 Even incumbents who could not themselves claim a fair trade record still campaigned with the anti-unfair-trade frame by attacking their opponents on offshoring, voicing opposition to tax policies that incentivize offshoring or citing instances of being "tough on China."15
    ...
    ...57 percent of candidates in competitive congressional races in 2012 also campaigned on trade policy via ads or campaign websites. Out of more than 125 paid ads used by congressional candidates across 30 U.S. states,18 only one indicated support for any trade deals modeled on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).19 Meanwhile, Senate candidates who employed ads against status quo trade policies won seats in Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Such campaigning both reflected and reinforced the U.S. public's broad rejection of the trade status quo enshrined in NAFTA-style FTAs.
    ...
    ...the only way for Democrats to squander the significant advantage that robust fair trade advocacy brings for them is to start sounding too much like Republicans, blur the line between the parties, and insist on "passing more trade agreements."
    ...
    Unsurprisingly, Democrats regain the upper hand when their position is described as blocking more NAFTA-like deals and aggressively creating jobs.

    Source

    Parent

    Edit (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:41:32 AM EST
    You're assuming that most voters, outside of those most tuned in (like on blogs) COULD tell you about TPP.

    Nope.

    Parent

    You're assuming (none / 0) (#150)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 07:50:28 AM EST
    that those presumed to be tuned in (like on blogs) actually have a clue.

    Parent
    Well, there's that (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 08:11:43 AM EST
    To quote NYShooter (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 06:17:17 AM EST
    Brought to you as a public service:

    For the definitionally disabled:
    "supercilious,"..................

    arrogant, haughty, conceited, disdainful, overbearing, pompous, condescending, patronizing, imperious, snobbish, snobby, smug, scornful, sneering,  hoity-toity, high and mighty, uppity, snooty, stuck-up, snotty, snot-nosed, too big for one's britches...........  

    (it's a start.)

    Also there is a fine article about anti-knowledge you might want to read. Link

    Or, as humorist Josh Billings put it, "The trouble with people is not that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."


    Parent
    A little about the TPP trade pact (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    From Naked Capitalism:

    WASHINGTON - Today's long-awaited release of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership's (TPP) reveals that the pact replicates many of the most controversial terms of past pacts that promote job offshoring and push down U.S wages while further expanding the scope of the controversial investor-state system and rolling back improvements on access to affordable medicines and environmental standards that congressional Democrats forced on the George W. Bush administration in 2007.

    "Apparently, the TPP's proponents resorted to such extreme secrecy during negotiations because the text shows TPP would offshore more  American jobs, lower our wages, flood us with unsafe imported food and expose our laws to attack in foreign tribunals," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "When the administration says it used the TPP to renegotiate NAFTA, few expected that meant doubling down on the worst job-killing, wage-suppressing NAFTA terms, expanding limits on food safety and rolling back past reforms on environmental standards and access to affordable drugs."
    Link

    By no stretch of the imagination, would I consider this a job creation program for people in this county nor legislation that a party wanting to campaign on populist's credentials would be pursuing prior to the election. If Obama and the Dems push this through Congress, voters might come to the conclusion that the Dem's populist rhetoric is a crock as well.

    Parent

    The Repubs (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    are campaigning on trickle down to help the middle class. Magically the middle class is supposed to do better with no raise in wages and supposedly out of the goodness of their hearts the wealthy in this country are going to help the middle class. The question I have for the Republicans is why haven't they done it before? Why didn't trickle down solve all our economic problems during the Bush Administration instead of costing the country millions of jobs?

    Parent
    You realize he is signing (none / 0) (#91)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    the Defense Appropriations Bill? It's not a bill about Gitmo. Gitmo is just a small add-on and has been for the last 6 years.

    Sign it. Don't sign it. The outcome will be the same.

    Parent

    The republicans, (none / 0) (#104)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:43:31 PM EST
    on the other hand, if there is a feature that goes against their alleged principles in a bill, they filibuster - they boycott - they threaten to close down the government.

    We, the progressive dems, we give a little sigh, shrug, sign and go home.

    Parent

    Since the vote was 91-3 (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:57:23 PM EST
    Please explain how you would have the Democrats do anything?  They AGREED to the bill.

    I guess we should wait and see if Bernie Sanders will stick up for his principles and filibuster, since he was one if the three to vote against it. Are you advocating for him to do so?

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 03:46:20 PM EST
    "democrats" already did something.

    They voted for the bill.
    They own it.

    Except for Sanders and two others.

    No.

    Sanders doesn't have to filibuster.
    He made his stand.
    Reminiscent of the few sage enough to vote against the Iraq war resolution.

    Parent

    Yes Kasich (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:51:36 AM EST
    extolled the saving of those who have savings in a bank....

    And since the FDIC already protects $250,000 in each account I can't figure out who he was speaking of...

    Of course as an "executive" he'll figure it all out and let us know.

    Parent

    Policy Substance Intrudes on GOP Debate (none / 0) (#96)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:36:34 PM EST
    - John Cassidy, The New Yorker

    The Save Broadcast Media Initiative, otherwise known as the 2016 Republican primary process, rolled into downtown Milwaukee on Tuesday night.  At times, matters of real substance intruded on the rote recitations of Obamaphobia and supply-side economics.


    GOP "Plans:" Wishes and Fairy Dust (none / 0) (#102)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    - Salon

    After hours of hearing one candidate after another indulge the childish fantasy that we can cut taxes and balance the budget, apparently only by cutting food stamps, Rand Paul broke every rule in the Republican playbook and pointed out that military spending is a huge sinkhole for taxpayer money.

    "How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures?" Paul sniped at Marco Rubio during one particularly heated moment in the debate. "You can not be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs that you can't pay for."

    Rubio, facing a clearly unexpected challenge to the widespread Republican notion that you can cut taxes and eliminate the debt without cutting a dime on Republican-cherished budget items like the military, got flustered and tried to deflect with fifth grade debating tactics. "We can't even have an economy if we're not safe," he whined. "There are radical jihadists in the Middle East beheading people and crucifying Christians." Luckily, we were all spared him whipping out an American flag and a cross and asking us to pray for him, but you could feel it was probably coming if Paul kept pressing his point.




    Meanwhile, another very important debate ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    ... was taking place yesterday in Louisiana, where Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Bel Edwards has taken the gloves off in pursuit of his prize with a hammer and axe. And last night, he cornered his GOP opponent, Sen. David Vitter, in the televised gubernatorial runoff debate, and drew some serious blood.

    I hope he mentioned the diapers (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    No, but he didn't have to. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    The debate was a veritable celebration of political rock throwing and personal invective. When Vitter accused Edwards of lining his pockets by voting to raise state legislators' pay to the princely sum of about $16,500 / yr., Edwards was having none of it. "Sen. Vitter, you've been lying sideways in the public trough since 1992," he fired back. "Your own pay has been raised 40% since you've been in Congress. You make more per month [in the U.S. Senate] than I make in a whole year [in the state legislature.]"

    But the real fireworks came at the end, when Vitter dismissed his opponent as an attorney who was "living by the lawyer's code." Edwards looked Vitter coldly and squarely in the eye and said, ""Part of the code is not tolerating those who [lie, cheat, and steal.] You are a liar and you are a cheater, and I won't tolerate that."

    It was great political theatre, and John Bel Edwards is obviously under no illusions regarding the underhanded nature of his opponent. Accordingly, he's pulling no punches, and he's playing for keeps.

    Aloha.


    Parent

    Carson (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    is having his imaginary conversations with  generals again:
    And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq. And if -- outside of Anbar in Iraq, there's a big energy field. Take that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I've learned from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there.
    .  

    Sorry Ben dropping a least a couple of combat divisions into hostile territory half a continent away should never considered as any form of easy, said every general(who wasn't a fool)ever.

    Like W (none / 0) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:58:45 PM EST
    Carson obviously never watched The Princess Bride.

    Parent
    That's Rambo Carson to you, General (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    now it's (none / 0) (#186)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    imaginary intelligence.
    When MSNBC's Tamron Hall told Williams on Wednesday that the Chinese are not in Syria, Williams remained steadfast.

    "From your perspective and what most people know, maybe that is inaccurate," Williams told MSNBC. "From our own intelligence and what Dr. Carson's been told by people who are on the ground who are involved in that region of the world, it has been told to him may times over and over, that the Chinese are there."



    Parent
    Carson (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    Refused to reveal his "source" but said there is lots more "information" he has that is not being reported by the main stream media.

    If you haven't seen it find Susan Rices reaction to Carsons speculation about China in Syria.  It's funny.   In an apocalyptic sort of way.

    Parent

    Can Mitt Jump in Now? (none / 0) (#133)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:10:11 PM EST
    With an "I owe it to my party and nation to help in this desperate situation".

    Why not? (none / 0) (#134)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:27:26 PM EST
    With all the candidates in the race, especially the two front runners, so vulnerable, I'd be very surprised if the real "powers that be" didn't have a ringer on hand "just in case."

    Parent
    Didn't Think I Would Ever See... (none / 0) (#160)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    ...Romney refereed to as a ringer.

    Parent
    In this case, (none / 0) (#194)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    "ringer" doesn't have to mean being a sure-thing, winner. I think just being a proven, viable candidate would meet that definition.

    I just brought it up because I saw a streaming headline on one of those news programs, and a big picture of a smiling, confident looking Mitt Romney appeared. The headline said something like, "Republican Insiders hitting the panic button."

    Look, I think we all know that there are Party Leaders who have been pulling the strings for many years, and, who have been holding back doing anything early in the race. They've been hoping that, after the initial back & forth, up & down jockeying that goes on, a reasonable, potentially winnable candidate would show up. Well, that hasn't happened, and, the unthinkable has. There is now a better than 50/50 chance that a totally destructive loser may have gamed the system into grabbing the Candidate's spot.

    I'm pretty sure there are enough behind the scenes power brokers who now have the feeling that, "enough is enough," and must move soon to put an end to the madness. In that case, a Mitt Romney Candidacy would fill the bill pretty well, don't you think?

    I mean, he came very close to winning last time around, and he might just be their best shot at beating Hillary. Take away the "totally psycho" label that (most) all of the current ones have hanging around their necks, and the election might not look like the guaranteed disaster it has now.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 06:57:50 PM EST
    But Mitt keeps saying he isn't interested.   I will be amazed if he does it.
    The path they are talking about at this point, I was just hearing this yesterday, involves entering late and fighting it out for delegates very possibly right up to the convention.

    Can you imagine.

    If we go all the way to the convention and the smoke filled room boys try to snatch the nomination away at the last minute.   It would be all out balls out war.   The Republican Party would explode.   So I really hope it does happen.  It would be a once in a lifetime thing to watch but I don't think we could possibly be lucky enough for that to happen

    I hope I'm wrong.  RUN MITT RUN

    Parent

    You know, there's one thing I'm sure of, (none / 0) (#196)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:12:33 PM EST
    and, that's that we don't have an Ef'n clue what's going to happen.

    Now, tell me, if someone had laid out for you, a year or two ago, the scene we've got today as their prediction of what would happen, you probably couldn't dial 911 fast enough to have them taken away. Am I right?

    I've been struggling with this eerie feeling for the past few months; every time I saw a poll showing Hillary beating this one, and that one, by so many points. Yeah, it went up and down a little, but it always was a comfortable lead. So, as a business man, when things are going well, I always try to figure, " what can go wrong?" You know, stay ahead of the curve....anticipate. And, a picture of that freaken Mormon always materialized in my mind. I bet you could tell me what director would be perfect to make that happen.

    Anyway, I don't want to go nuts playing mind games about it, but, seeing Mitt become The Candidate is the image that scares me the most. And, I'll bet you can come up with a hundred scenarios going another way. But, I'll bet you again I can counter them as fast as you come up with them. The world's fastest political Ping-Pong Game! Ha!

    More to come...............

    Parent

    I guess I agree (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 13, 2015 at 09:31:56 PM EST
    Mitt coukd be a more formidable candidate than any current choice.   I just can't imagine him actually doing it.
    That said, I agree with the rest also that prediction of this election cycle is a fools errand.  
    The fact that many people are already saying the republican nominating process could go to the convention, with superpacs keeping way more people in for longer than ever before, it's possble that might be seen as an "excuse" for Mitt to get into a convention floor fight.

    Please Jesus.  May we be so lucky.

    As far as scaring me I find great comfort in a factlet I have heard several times lately.  It's impossible to win the presidency without around 40% of the Latino vote.   Mitt got a bit over half that and with the way things have gone lately I think half Mitts share is a real possibility.

    I ain't worried about winning the general.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:38:48 PM EST
    All he would do is split the Bush vote.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:43:09 PM EST
    Look laughably desperate

    Parent