I feel for the GOP voters

[Glen Contrarian]

I don't even mean this to be condescending. On the dem side there is a centrist status quo candidate and a further left candidate to choose from. On the Republican side there is a religious conservative and whatever trump is. Kasich would seem to be a more standard non-emotion based GOP candidate but right now is mathematically out of the picture at this point.

If a Republican voter wanted to cast a vote for a policy-based candidate and not an emotion-based candidate at this point... They are screwed. That's a crappy place to be if you are a conservative policy wonk.

Thing is, there's larger issues at play than 'just' the GOP and the Democratic party. Most nations throughout history have a dominant race, ethnicity, or religion...and there are many instances of, when a different demographic begins to gain in power or influence, the dominant demographic "circles the wagons", so to speak, to preserve its own dominance.

The GOP set itself up to be front-and-center for this process with Nixon's "Southern Strategy", in which they reached out to the "negrophobes" of the Deep South who so strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act...and what was once the Democratic "Solid South" is now the strongest base of the GOP...and the leaders of the Deep South are in many cases the very children of those who opposed desegregation. It's not an accident that Mississippi never finalized ratification of the 13th Amendment banning slavery until 2013 (yes, 2013).

It was bad enough when the GOP flip-flopped on the Voting Rights Act, from near-total support to near-total opposition in just over two years...but they were only reflecting what the GOP rank-and-file was saying: "We want our country back!" I'm sure you remember the signs at the Tea Party rallies. But then came Trump, who tapped into the anti-WASP sentiment that had been growing decade-by-decade in the GOP and skyrocketed after the first presidential election of Obama.

In other words, what's going on now in the GOP is nothing different that has happened to many other nations in the past in times of major demographic shifts: the dominant demographic tends to do whatever is necessary to preserve its position of dominance. Please note that this isn't a conspiracy or a deliberate act on their part - it's the reaction of millions of people due a gradual shift in perception and attitude. And none of us can know how far this will go or how bad it can get.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Thanks for the link. That was a most interesting and well written article. I agree with most of it. Hillary will have to be one hell of a president (and she won't be by a long shot) for Sanders' supporters to pack up their tents and go home. The fire is lit and win or not Sanders' supporters may just organize nationally and locally to begin to do the grunt work of building a party more aligned with their beliefs. A Hillary presidency would be a place holder at best.

Yeah, there's essentially no way that Hillary will be a good president, and in fact I expect her to be a worse president than Obama, who was a so-so president overall. Obviously, they'll be better than a Cruz or Trump presidency, but the reality is that Hillary better be used to getting attacked on the Left and on the Right.

What's really going to be instructive is if/when the second financial collapse happens under her presidency. It's essentially impossible for me to believe that she'll lift a finger to stop it. The question, I think, which will define her presidency, is what decision she makes when that happens. She can either be Hoover or she can be FDR. The choice will be hers. Personally, I suspect that she'll be like Hoover, but we'll see.

 

[reinoe]

Kasich is a delusional, self-righteous moderate....

Yep. I find his "aww shucks can't we all just talk and hug" schtick to be insulting and phoney.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I don't even mean this to be condescending. On the dem side there is a centrist status quo candidate and a further left candidate to choose from. On the Republican side there is a religious conservative and whatever trump is. Kasich would seem to be a more standard non-emotion based GOP candidate but right now is mathematically out of the picture at this point.

If a Republican voter wanted to cast a vote for a policy-based candidate and not an emotion-based candidate at this point... They are screwed. That's a crappy place to be if you are a conservative policy wonk.

Hillary is not centrist. She may very well govern from a center left position, but that remains to be seen. While campaigning she has espoused a leftist agenda and as a Senator and then Secretary of State she was anything but a centrist, so there is no actual proof that she would govern from a center left position - only a hope. Voting in favor of the Iraq War doesn't erase her progressive left credentials she has built over a lifetime.

Bernie? Well, Bernie, is left of left. A great guy, but far, far left.

That being said, you are correct about the GOP. Kasich is the only reasonable alternative available and unless he is able to have the most effective floor machine ever wielded at the GOP convention, the Republicans are going to be stuck with an unelectable nominee in the general election.

Cruz is said to be a Constitutionalist, but he has given more than just hints that in his view, the Bible overrules the Constitution - that eliminates him for me.

Trump? This nothing but a game to Trump. I don't think he actually believes what he says. I truly think that he paid a NY marketing firm to develop a strategy of slogans and positions that he could assume that would get him support from both sides of the political spectrum so he could "win" the White House. That scares me.

 

[poweRob]

Um, an arrogant asshole?

And yeah, I'm not happy by any means. I am all about Kasich right now. Sadly, I have a better chance of waking up and finding Brad Pitt naked in my bed.

Good luck with both of those.

 

[poweRob]

Hillary is not centrist. She may very well govern from a center left position, but that remains to be seen. While campaigning she has espoused a leftist agenda and as a Senator and then Secretary of State she was anything but a centrist, so there is no actual proof that she would govern from a center left position - only a hope. Voting in favor of the Iraq War doesn't erase her progressive left credentials she has built over a lifetime.

Bernie? Well, Bernie, is left of left. A great guy, but far, far left.

That being said, you are correct about the GOP. Kasich is the only reasonable alternative available and unless he is able to have the most effective floor machine ever wielded at the GOP convention, the Republicans are going to be stuck with an unelectable nominee in the general election.

Cruz is said to be a Constitutionalist, but he has given more than just hints that in his view, the Bible overrules the Constitution - that eliminates him for me.

Trump? This nothing but a game to Trump. I don't think he actually believes what he says. I truly think that he paid a NY marketing firm to develop a strategy of slogans and positions that he could assume that would get him support from both sides of the political spectrum so he could "win" the White House. That scares me.

IMO... Hillary will slide hard to the right after the primary. It's all a part of clintonian politics of triangulation. When you get the nomination, you secured your base for the general election so then you turn around and kick your base in the balls repeatedly because you wont have to worry about them going to the other side... Meanwhile you pull a few more votes from the right because they enjoy watching you kick the left in the nuts.

I see the same thing in cruz. He's one of those guys who says "Constitution" a lot with no details or context. He uses the word in a most meaningless way. Just saying the word repeatedly is just a new way to pimp nationalism. Don't even need to form coherent sentences when you do that...

"I believe in the Constitution and God bless patriot eagle freedom!"

 

[poweRob]

I've thought about the probable breakup of both parties, which would be a wonderful thing. Of the two current ruling parties the GOP appears to be the most likely though the Democrats won't be far behind. But what might the GOP become? I can't decide what I think in that regard.

Seems to me that the GOP will more than split. I see it breaking into 3 or 4 pieces. There are the Teabaggers. They are the religionists. They are the Trumpeters, and there are the old traditionalists/establishment. The Teabaggers and the religionists co-mingle but I am not certain they are one and the same.

The Trumpeters appear to be the only ones interested in smaller and less intrusive government. They want real reform. They do not support establishment politics as far as we know. Teabaggers have said as much but now that we have them in state and federal positions we know differently. The religionists of course want moral reform and some form of theocracy. They have either disguised themselves as Teabaggers or they have found a Teabag/Religionist alliance to be mutually beneficial.

For the moment I feel as if we will see three separate groups: Trumpeters, Establishment GOP, Teabagger/Religionists. Which one will be the "GOP"? I haven't a clue.

Religionists will fall by the wayside. They will never be the leading force in the GOP ever again. And already haven't been for some time. They've been reduced to searching for alliances like you stated.. With the tea party folk for now. The tea party Corp IMO is just the most corporatist faction of the GOP. They are where the money is. Which is what the struggle has been in the GOP for several years now.

Establishment old corporate power of the chamber of commerce vs the tea party new corporate influence opened up by citizens united ruling.

The dems are having a not as big but similar civil war where the Clinton blue-dog style of " go for the corporate cash" establishment wing vs the old school "let's stick with unions for money" branch. It's all just about following the money.

 

[Frank Apisa]

If there is a brokered convention at the GOP convention... I couldn't think of a better setting for Gary Johnson and the libertarian party to make great strides this election.

Don't think he'd win but the % of total votes he'd probably get could boost the libertarian party into making a three party system in the future. Unless their rise fuels a Whig-like dissolving of the current GOP.

Three things:

One: The Libertarian Party, in my opinion, is NEVER going to be a major party. The best it can do for our nation is to continue what is has been doing for years now...to damage the Republican Party to the point (and not further) that it remains the minority party.

Two: Anyone who supposes that ANY new political party's ascendancy will somehow improve the political climate in a democracy like America IS DREAMING. The same corrupting, undesirable influences that are making the Democratic and Republican Parties so unappealing to many...will contaminate them the moment they achieve prominence.

Three: People like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are going nowhere. The are today's Ralph Naders, Ross Perots, and George Wallaces.

 

[Socrates1]

I don't even mean this to be condescending. On the dem side there is a centrist status quo candidate and a further left candidate to choose from. On the Republican side there is a religious conservative and whatever trump is. Kasich would seem to be a more standard non-emotion based GOP candidate but right now is mathematically out of the picture at this point.

If a Republican voter wanted to cast a vote for a policy-based candidate and not an emotion-based candidate at this point... They are screwed. That's a crappy place to be if you are a conservative policy wonk.

Very funny the dem's have a corrupt serial liar headed for prison , and an old white coward commie dragging a pair of loaded depends around ! :lamo Get real ! :lamo

 

[poweRob]

Very funny the dem's have a corrupt serial liar headed for prison , and an old white coward commie dragging a pair of loaded depends around ! :lamo Get real ! :lamo

I will take your great insight errr incite into consideration... Just as soon as I find my long lost tin foil hat.

 

[tres borrachos]

Good luck with both of those.

Oh thanks. You have to ruin my day, don't you? :boohoo:

May the fleas of 1000 Donald Trumps infect your trousers.

 

[poweRob]

Oh thanks. You have to ruin my day, don't you? :boohoo:

May the fleas of 1000 Donald Trumps infect your trousers.

I was once just feet away from Johnny depp when I was an extra in a movie. I'm sure he remembers me. Do you want me to put in a good word for you?

 

[FieldTheorist]

Hillary is not centrist. She may very well govern from a center left position, but that remains to be seen. While campaigning she has espoused a leftist agenda and as a Senator and then Secretary of State she was anything but a centrist, so there is no actual proof that she would govern from a center left position - only a hope.

That's a completely illusory history or else a profound misunderstanding of the definition of "Leftism."

 

[Socrates1]

I will take your great insight errr incite into consideration... Just as soon as I find my long lost tin foil hat.

Well hop on that stagecoach and get them there bones a rattling . :lamo

 

[Beaudreaux]

That's a completely illusory history or else a profound misunderstanding of the definition of "Leftism."

I don't remember, nor do I see in part that you quoted, where I discussed a history of nor the definition of "Leftism." Therefore, given your unrelated focus, I can understand your confusion at reading what I did actually state.

 

[FieldTheorist]

I don't remember, nor do I see in part that you quoted, where I discussed a history of nor the definition of "Leftism." Therefore, given your unrelated focus, I can understand your confusion at reading what I did actually state.

That's an extremely absurd response. Either you're denying that you said the word "leftism" (which is patently false, and scrolling up two posts will confirm that) or else you think that when you use the word "leftism" completely inappropriately it's completely fine because you weren't talking about the definition of the word whilst using the word. If it's the latter, then would you mind defending why I'm not wrong when I say "Ted Cruz is a devout Leftist."? I didn't talk about the definition of the word leftism there, so apparently it's now okay that I'm wildly abusing the term, according to you.

Also, I didn't say a history of Leftism, I said the history of Hillary Clinton. It's hard to call a died-in-the-wool neoliberal capitalist, who is center-right on social issues, a "Leftist."

 

[Beaudreaux]

That's an extremely absurd response. Either you're denying that you said the word "leftism" (which is patently false, and scrolling up two posts will confirm that) or else you think that when you use the word "leftism" completely inappropriately it's completely fine because you weren't talking about the definition of the word whilst using the word. If it's the latter, then would you mind defending why I'm not wrong when I say "Ted Cruz is a devout Leftist."? I didn't talk about the definition of the word leftism there, so apparently it's now okay that I'm wildly abusing the term, according to you.

Also, I didn't say a history of Leftism, I said the history of Hillary Clinton. It's hard to call a died-in-the-wool neoliberal capitalist, who is center-right on social issues, a "Leftist."

I don't understand what the big deal is here, but you did not mention Hillary and you did tie the term "history" to the term "Leftism" which I, again, stated neither in my posts. Here's your post again, please tell me where you said the word Hillary:

"That's a completely illusory history or else a profound misunderstanding of the definition of "Leftism."

I stated that Hillary:

Hillary is not centrist. She may very well govern from a center left position, but that remains to be seen. While campaigning she has espoused a leftist agenda and as a Senator and then Secretary of State she was anything but a centrist, so there is no actual proof that she would govern from a center left position - only a hope. Voting in favor of the Iraq War doesn't erase her progressive left credentials she has built over a lifetime.

I didn't discuss the history nor the definition of "Leftism." Given that Hillary has moved her position to that mirroring Bernie's, she is in fact espousing a leftist agenda. She has worked to maintain her bona fides as a Progressive Left politician her entire public life. I can give you links to her saying just that. She doesn't even like to call herself a Liberal, rather she calls herself a Progressive, which is late 19th century (since you'd like to talk about history) and early 20th century term to differentiate Socialists in the US from Communists around the world - especially when compared to the USSR after 1917. Now, we have Bernie saying Democratic Socialist in an attempt to differentiate himself even further left from the positions of the Progressives - all of which are Socialist in basic nature and have Marxism in their current defining foundation and positions.

To try (as it appears that that's what your doing) to defend Socialism against "Leftism" and Progressivism as if they are not currently one and the same here in the US (not Communism, not by a long shot, and not Socialism as it's practiced in Venezuela although we're headed there fast) is a disingenuous position.

 

[FieldTheorist]

To try (as it appears that that's what your doing) to defend Socialism against "Leftism" and Progressivism as if they are not currently one and the same here in the US (not Communism, not by a long shot, and not Socialism as it's practiced in Venezuela although we're headed there fast) is a disingenuous position.

1.) Perhaps a more grammatically clear sentence would have been "That's a completely illusory history of Hillary Clinton or else a profound misunderstanding of the definition of "Leftism."

2.) I have no problem with the term Progressive (it's a bit nebulous, but fine), and Leftism means Socialism. I'm taking all of these terms and trying to distinguish them from the term "Liberal" or whatever else it is that Hillary Clinton tells the public she is. She's center-right on social issues and is neoliberal capitalist. There's literally not a damn thing that's "Leftist" about those positions.

3.) She can pretend to be whatever she wants during this primary cycle, no one should be confused about her true positions. She's always been a Reagan Democrat/Goldwater Republican, and she will always be one even if she likes to play someone else on TV. She flirted a little bit with helping people from time to time as First Lady, but after that she went right back to the pro-Barry Goldwater Republican she's always been, only with a D next to her name. Much like Senator Sanders, she also hasn't changed her views since about 1965, but her views are disastrous for the middle-class and working families. Not quite as disastrous as Ted Cruz or John Kasich would be, but not much less.

 

[tres borrachos]

I was once just feet away from Johnny depp when I was an extra in a movie. I'm sure he remembers me. Do you want me to put in a good word for you?

He was hot in 21 Jump Street.

 

[Ntharotep]

I don't feel sorry for anyone who clings to partisan politics.
I kind of feel sorry for my country because it seems happy to be duped every four years but that sympathy dulls each and every election...

 

[Beaudreaux]

1.) Perhaps a more grammatically clear sentence would have been "That's a completely illusory history of Hillary Clinton or else a profound misunderstanding of the definition of "Leftism."

2.) I have no problem with the term Progressive (it's a bit nebulous, but fine), and Leftism means Socialism. I'm taking all of these terms and trying to distinguish them from the term "Liberal" or whatever else it is that Hillary Clinton tells the public she is. She's center-right on social issues and is neoliberal capitalist. There's literally not a damn thing that's "Leftist" about those positions.

3.) She can pretend to be whatever she wants during this primary cycle, no one should be confused about her true positions. She's always been a Reagan Democrat/Goldwater Republican, and she will always be one even if she likes to play someone else on TV. She flirted a little bit with helping people from time to time as First Lady, but after that she went right back to the pro-Barry Goldwater Republican she's always been, only with a D next to her name. Much like Senator Sanders, she also hasn't changed her views since about 1965, but her views are disastrous for the middle-class and working families. Not quite as disastrous as Ted Cruz or John Kasich would be, but not much less.

I'm a Goldwater Republican. I knew Senator Goldwater. Hillary Clinton is not nor has ever been a Goldwater Republican.

Look, what you and are discussing cannot be debated to a finally of fact - it's more opinion than science. You believe what you believe, and the same for me. Let's just agree that on this we will never agree, and move on.