quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
1) Yes, it would.
2) Because all voters, not just registered party members, would be choosing candidates. In the last election, 9% of voters chose Trump/Clinton, the choice the other 91% had to live with. (I'm not gonna look for it--I posted it several times before the election -- the NYT has a nice graphic on this)

1) I'm not sure I see that happening then.
2) Where were the other 91% of registered voters? That they didn't give enough of a damn to show up and vote sure means something.
I like the idea I floated near the end of the election cycle. No party affiliations allowed on ballots. Everyone who meets the criteria and wants to run can run. First primary is in the Spring, and it narrows the field to 10 candidates. The next primary would be in mid-Summer and would narrow the field down to 5 or so. The November election would still not have any allowance for party affiliation on the ballot. Top two Electoral College winners are Pres/VP. Without an Amendment, we'd still be saddled with the 50%+1 EC vote requirement or it goes to the House, but even then, the election would be more open and, ultimately, more representative of America. I'd also love to see the field of 5 only be able to spend X number of dollars and those dollars solely coming from the Federal Government.

In California presidential elections mean nothing. Presidential candidates rarely come here except to fund raise. We have open primaries. What usually happens is people pick someone to vote for that's just going to fuck with the inevitable winner. For instance, this year in the primaries I and many conservative friends voted for Bernie just to fuck with Hillary. I've seen it where many Dems will do the same to prevent a possible electable republican, say for a house race, from winning.
Does it work? Probably not. Hillary was going to win Dems here regardless and she did. All it does is reduce voting to the lowest common denominator.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I'm thinking a lot along this line. The republicans have started to replace politicians with conservatives. I'm interested in how that plays out. I actually think a lot of that was precipitated by those on the left screaming about corporate bosses. But, I personally don't see that movement as something that will split the party.

The internal battle for the Republican party could get "bloodly" in a metaphysical sense.

Here is an interesting article: Trump's Unintended Consequences: The Republican Party Reveals Itself

The essence of the article is that Trump's ascendance has publicly revealed the rot in the core of the party.

Trump has done a lot of that, btw, playing the kid in the "Emperor's New Clothes" story, by pointing out the nakedness of a lot of our institutions. For that, if nothing else, he should be commended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

On the other hand the socialist in the democrat party seem to be heading for a split. For instance, even in California, 40% of union members are registered republicans. I don't see them going with a socialist party or wasting a vote on a libertarian. Since the union's supply big money to the Democratic Party, and Trump has made greater effort toward jobs, I see a possible split there. If Trump actually shows he's working on jobs and beating down the republicans in the party that remain uninterested in labor, that split will more likely happen. Hillary et al, showed that the Dems only seem to care for them as voters and not constituents. If the Dems fracture, the socialist wing of the party will pull away the leftist population of labor but I don't see the republican union members voting pure union interests any longer. Which I think was demonstrated in this last election and will only steamroll.

I'm fairly confident that the union membership at least, are done with the Democratic Party, especially if Trump is even middlin' successful. The Dems have flat-out told them (union members) that they aren't interested in doing anything for them, other than accepting their votes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Also, a lot of the forgotten democrats have always felt a little outside because, at least for the last decade or so, they have been ignored by the democrats pandering to identity pockets of the electorate. While Trump's squashing of PC stereotypes has the left and the media in a tissy, many of the more conservative democrats will (or have) applaud and move to the inside with republicans. That, of course, is if Trump continues to strong arm the entrenched power brokers remaining in the party.

My home state of Kentucky is primarily Democrat, but on all national elections, votes Republican. Trump got (from memory) something in excess of 60% of the overall vote. It has been trending up in Republican registrations for years, but Democrats still hold a substantial advantage.

Yet, almost all state offices are now Republican. We voted overwhelmingly for Trump. The only thing that keeps so many people registered as "Democrat" are 1) local politics, and 2) inertia.

I think a major "problem" within the political culture, in which Trump is seen as being railroaded out of his Presidency, or if he is wildly successful, would cause a quicker than a "generational replacement" change from Dem to Rep.

I also think that Mitch McConnell may cause a shift in registrations and party identifications, if he continues to be less than helpful to Trump, as many "Kentucky Democrats" change party registration in order to vote against him in a primary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

As an old guy it's my nap time now, so I'll respond to your post later. But I would like to say, quickly, I've been wondering what you Kentuckians were going to do about Mitch. I don't see him lasting long but it's tough for a state to replace a senior guy like that with a freshman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
1) Yes, it would.
2) Because all voters, not just registered party members, would be choosing candidates. In the last election, 9% of voters chose Trump/Clinton, the choice the other 91% had to live with. (I'm not gonna look for it--I posted it several times before the election -- the NYT has a nice graphic on this)

1) I'm not sure I see that happening then.
2) Where were the other 91% of registered voters? That they didn't give enough of a damn to show up and vote sure means something.
I like the idea I floated near the end of the election cycle. No party affiliations allowed on ballots. Everyone who meets the criteria and wants to run can run. First primary is in the Spring, and it narrows the field to 10 candidates. The next primary would be in mid-Summer and would narrow the field down to 5 or so. The November election would still not have any allowance for party affiliation on the ballot. Top two Electoral College winners are Pres/VP. Without an Amendment, we'd still be saddled with the 50%+1 EC vote requirement or it goes to the House, but even then, the election would be more open and, ultimately, more representative of America. I'd also love to see the field of 5 only be able to spend X number of dollars and those dollars solely coming from the Federal Government.

In California presidential elections mean nothing. Presidential candidates rarely come here except to fund raise. We have open primaries. What usually happens is people pick someone to vote for that's just going to fuck with the inevitable winner. For instance, this year in the primaries I and many conservative friends voted for Bernie just to fuck with Hillary. I've seen it where many Dems will do the same to prevent a possible electable republican, say for a house race, from winning.
Does it work? Probably not. Hillary was going to win Dems here regardless and she did. All it does is reduce voting to the lowest common denominator.

Imagine if there was one singular open primary to determine/rank all candidates. Every state would have one on the same day. the Top 10 vote winners become the field. That might shake shit up. You wouldn't have been able to vote 'for' Bernie to fuck with Clinton, since that's your only vote and that would mean you wouldn't be able to actually vote for the candidate you actually supported.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I think a healthy society is one that encompasses both "liberal" and "conservative" values.

I don't know how you can support Trump and support the above. Clinton did the above... Where has Trump reached out to Democrats?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I think a healthy society is one that encompasses both "liberal" and "conservative" values.

I don't know how you can support Trump and support the above. Clinton did the above... Where has Trump reached out to Democrats?

Butch

Can you tell me of a time, a person of stature within the Democrat party who has reached out to Trump? Not the one or two Congresscritters who are up for election in states he won ...

In other words, when did "the resistance" start, and who isn't a part of it, on the Democrat side?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Policy, experience, background information, etc. were all meaningless to the respondent. His followers are into a cult-of-personality.

Ya that's right. None of them have had a thought in decades. We should take away their right to vote shouldn't we?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I give Canadians no weight in opinion on this issue.

Nobody gives a fuck what you give weight to, you are completely irrelevant once you click the OK button

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

By David Powers

Because “It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood…and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.”

So, this is David Powers admiring Obama, in his own stumbling way, while all the rest of you were hating on him.

Zing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

With foes to his Left and Right, and virtually the entire corporate media on his back, he is desperately trying to reverse America's chronic decline.

This explains it all.

He appeals to simple minds who think all of the solutions are easy, and the only reason that any problems exist in society is because of evil establishment politicians, liberals or foreigners.

He appeals to people who are stupid enough to think that he is intelligent enough to fully understand his duties, that he wouldn't rather simply bask in the adulation of his mindless followers while doing absolutely nothing, that the actions he does take are informed by anything but his own narcissism.

I have no doubt that Trump considers himself a great leader and president, but I also think he is crippled by his own delusions of grandeur, which lead him to believe he knows things he doesn't know, is capable of things he cannot do, and is someone he can never be.

At this point, to be a Trump supporter is to openly declare yourself profoundly unintelligent, profoundly cynical, or too wrapped up in your own biases to realize what is going on.

He is probably the most humiliating thing that has ever happened to America... the end result of years of a declining education system, trickle down, Internet conspiracy sites, fear, hate, anger, and stupidity.
America has shown the world that most of the ugly American stereotypes are truer than everyone thought.

The people have chosen idiocracy because they are too ignorant to know that that's what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier

FR

I think the reason Hillary lost is that she had such a short memory.

If memory serves there was a movie called The War Room made after
Bill won the first time. I found the Wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Room

"The film follows James Carville and George Stephanopoulos at first
during the New Hampshire Primary, and then mostly in Little Rock,
Arkansas, at Clinton Campaign Headquarters."

Across the back wall there was a large banner.

It's The Economy Stupid

She and her team were stupid. They forgot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
1) Yes, it would.
2) Because all voters, not just registered party members, would be choosing candidates. In the last election, 9% of voters chose Trump/Clinton, the choice the other 91% had to live with. (I'm not gonna look for it--I posted it several times before the election -- the NYT has a nice graphic on this)

1) I'm not sure I see that happening then.
2) Where were the other 91% of registered voters? That they didn't give enough of a damn to show up and vote sure means something.
I like the idea I floated near the end of the election cycle. No party affiliations allowed on ballots. Everyone who meets the criteria and wants to run can run. First primary is in the Spring, and it narrows the field to 10 candidates. The next primary would be in mid-Summer and would narrow the field down to 5 or so. The November election would still not have any allowance for party affiliation on the ballot. Top two Electoral College winners are Pres/VP. Without an Amendment, we'd still be saddled with the 50%+1 EC vote requirement or it goes to the House, but even then, the election would be more open and, ultimately, more representative of America. I'd also love to see the field of 5 only be able to spend X number of dollars and those dollars solely coming from the Federal Government.

In California presidential elections mean nothing. Presidential candidates rarely come here except to fund raise. We have open primaries. What usually happens is people pick someone to vote for that's just going to fuck with the inevitable winner. For instance, this year in the primaries I and many conservative friends voted for Bernie just to fuck with Hillary. I've seen it where many Dems will do the same to prevent a possible electable republican, say for a house race, from winning.
Does it work? Probably not. Hillary was going to win Dems here regardless and she did. All it does is reduce voting to the lowest common denominator.

Imagine if there was one singular open primary to determine/rank all candidates. Every state would have one on the same day. the Top 10 vote winners become the field. That might shake shit up. You wouldn't have been able to vote 'for' Bernie to fuck with Clinton, since that's your only vote and that would mean you wouldn't be able to actually vote for the candidate you actually supported.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I think a healthy society is one that encompasses both "liberal" and "conservative" values.

I don't know how you can support Trump and support the above. Clinton did the above... Where has Trump reached out to Democrats?

Butch

Can you tell me of a time, a person of stature within the Democrat party who has reached out to Trump? Not the one or two Congresscritters who are up for election in states he won ...

In other words, when did "the resistance" start, and who isn't a part of it, on the Democrat side?

Firm

Where the hell were you the last 8 years ? The repubs were the ultimate political stonewall for the 6 years they could be, most prolifically demonstrated by blocking Obama's supreme court nominee.

Any repub that even suggested let alone tried to reach out to Obama, had their...hands cut off by the RNC and the caucuses.

Let this country go from a centrist black democrat in the white house to a white RINO who has no hole for his tiny peg, as batshit crazy as they come and now...oh now, yes now kinkroids, we are to 'reach out' to poor Trump now.

Yeaaa right.

If you want dems to start acting AS repubs will debate bills, offer amends. and when they do come to a vote, have some approved.

Then as the whole bill makes it to the floor, vote unanimously against it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier

FR

I think the reason Hillary lost is that she had such a short memory.

If memory serves there was a movie called The War Room made after
Bill won the first time. I found the Wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Room

"The film follows James Carville and George Stephanopoulos at first
during the New Hampshire Primary, and then mostly in Little Rock,
Arkansas, at Clinton Campaign Headquarters."

Across the back wall there was a large banner.

It's The Economy Stupid

She and her team were stupid. They forgot.
CAVAET--- THEY DID NOT FORGET- THEY WERE CORPORATE LIBERALS!
How can you support and embrace big business and really help anyone?
When will people wake up?
CORPORATE LIBERALS only throw crumbs and money at a few social issues, often will raise taxes, and increase and fund more government programs,
they will NOT go against big business.
THEY WILL NOT GO AGAINST THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

TRUTH!
[sm=agree.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I give Canadians no weight in opinion on this issue.

Nobody gives a fuck what you give weight to, you are completely irrelevant once you click the OK button

Funny how the American right has no problem and hasn't for 40 years, very regularly, vocally and prominently as rather very publicly...denigrating Europe. It's politics, its tax/spending regime and economics are all ridiculous and amounts to a form of socialism...always fair game.

But those 'damn fereners' should just shut the hell up about us Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier

FR

I think the reason Hillary lost is that she had such a short memory.

If memory serves there was a movie called The War Room made after
Bill won the first time. I found the Wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Room

"The film follows James Carville and George Stephanopoulos at first
during the New Hampshire Primary, and then mostly in Little Rock,
Arkansas, at Clinton Campaign Headquarters."

Across the back wall there was a large banner.

It's The Economy Stupid

She and her team were stupid. They forgot.

Too easy to write because there we were in recessions in 1992, 2000 and 2008, we were not during 2016, in a recession. That some felt that the recovery didn't lift all boats...it must be something else.

Must be all of those 'establishment' politicians and regulations and profiting off illegal immigration. Must be all of things that have taken away the good, working, white christian world we lived in back then but nothing that wasn't left un-addressed by any politician for 20-30 years.

Now it had to be the establishment, this time seen in the face of an uppity lefty, woman lawyer no less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier

FR

I think the reason Hillary lost is that she had such a short memory.

If memory serves there was a movie called The War Room made after
Bill won the first time. I found the Wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Room

"The film follows James Carville and George Stephanopoulos at first
during the New Hampshire Primary, and then mostly in Little Rock,
Arkansas, at Clinton Campaign Headquarters."

Across the back wall there was a large banner.

It's The Economy Stupid

She and her team were stupid. They forgot.

Too easy to write because there we were in recessions in 1992, 2000 and 2008, we were not during 2016, in a recession. That some felt that the recovery didn't lift all boats...it must be something else.

Must be all of those 'establishment' politicians and regulations and profiting off illegal immigration. Must be all of things that have taken away the good, working, white christian world we lived in back then but nothing that wasn't left un-addressed by any politician for 20-30 years.

Now it had to be the establishment, this time seen in the face of an uppity lefty, woman lawyer no less.

Obama had a recovery??? Reagan had a recovery. Obama doubled the debt and never had a growth above 2.6%. The best you can say is he proved Keynesian economics to be worthless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier

FR

I think the reason Hillary lost is that she had such a short memory.

If memory serves there was a movie called The War Room made after
Bill won the first time. I found the Wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Room

"The film follows James Carville and George Stephanopoulos at first
during the New Hampshire Primary, and then mostly in Little Rock,
Arkansas, at Clinton Campaign Headquarters."

Across the back wall there was a large banner.

It's The Economy Stupid

She and her team were stupid. They forgot.
CAVAET--- THEY DID NOT FORGET- THEY WERE CORPORATE LIBERALS!
How can you support and embrace big business and really help anyone?
When will people wake up?
CORPORATE LIBERALS only throw crumbs and money at a few social issues, often will raise taxes, and increase and fund more government programs,
they will NOT go against big business.
THEY WILL NOT GO AGAINST THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

TRUTH!
[sm=agree.gif]

>Little could further from the truth.

Repubs favor elimination of net neutrality in the interest of the corporations that would profit.
Dems don't
Repubs favor deregulating 40 year old water and air rules in support of corporate profits
Dems don't.
Repubs every year without fail, vote for either a status quo or increase in farm welfare in the interest of agric. corps.
Dems don't
Repubs deregulate banking, once again allowing risky banking at banks known to be too big to fail, in a direct regulatory windfall for wall street and banking corporations.
Dems don't
Repubs want to lower corp. taxes which is nothing more than raising corp. profits.
Most dems don't.
Repubs vote against or marginalize federal consumer protection in the interest of corp. profits.
Dems don't.
Repubs vote for a pipeline that will not change the oil marketplace in any way but just give favors to the investor class and the corporate fossil fuel industry.
Dems don't

I am sure I could go on and on but save those for another time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Trump's squashing of PC stereotypes . . . many of the more conservative democrats will (or have) applaud and move to the inside with republicans.

If that's the case, then voters have the mentality of school children arguing on the playground, trying to talk tough.

Frankly, I don't think your characterization is fair to Republicans, who, despite this election, by and by are better than that.