Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't think running against her hurts anyone's ability to get her future support, unless they run a totally pitiful campaign like Webb. I would not be surprised to see her find a good portfolio for both O'Malley and Sanders.

O'Malley? Sure. He ran a tepid campaign that did not give any clear reason to vote for him over Hillary, and did not hurt her at all. In my view, that was pointless, and I think many candidates decided it wasn't worth the candle. "I agree with Hillary, I like her, but I'm not her, so vote for me" just wasn't a compelling story. Good enough to avoid being pushed off later, but why bother with the work and risk of a presidential campaign to do that?

Sanders is a completely different story, on every level. He actually does offer a different reason (pink bunnies and rainbows). I highly doubt that he'll be offered, or that he'd accept, a core position in a Clinton administration. I truly don't think he cares -- while I don't like his policies I do admire his integrity. He'll campaign for Clinton and push his supporters to support her.

[Hank Chinaski]

I couldn't figure out why Flower hates Trump so much, until I heard Donald explain last night that he is seriously hung. I'd completely forgotten Paigow had told us when she and Flower hooked up she was surprised how under endowed he was #jealousloser

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Primaries are awesome because Alabama Democrats and Vermont Republicans actually get to cast a vote that might matter.

I get it. I do. And all Rs should have their voices heard and votes counted. And I give any Rs in the Bronx props for fighting the good fight. But under the principle of "One person; one vote" I find it manifestly unfair that the vote of Bronx Rs carries 43 times the influence towards picking a nominee as an R vote in the reddest county of Alabama. But the entire system of delegate distribution is pretty messed up on that count.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rson-and-cruz/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I highly doubt that he'll be offered, or that he'd accept, a core position in a Clinton administration.

I think he won't accept, thus will not be offered. If he campaigns for her as you predict, and I think he will, I think she'd being willing to offer a cabinet position. I don't think he wants one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I get it. I do. And all Rs should have their voices heard and votes counted. And I give any Rs in the Bronx props for fighting the good fight. But under the principle of "One person; one vote" I find it manifestly unfair that the vote of Bronx Rs carries 43 times the influence towards picking a nominee as an R vote in the reddest county of Alabama. But the entire system of delegate distribution is pretty messed up on that count.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rson-and-cruz/

I don't know the Republican party allocation math very well, but on the Democratic side, the way delegates are allocated gives an additional voice to stronger democratic states - we factor in the total Dem. vote in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections as a factor, not just population - so Texas has about 7% of the electoral votes but only gets about 5.3% of the delegates to the Democratic Convention, while New York has 5.3% of the electoral votes but gets 6.2% of the Convention delegates.

There is always a debate within the party as to how much weight to give to the Democratic vote and how much to the total population - the first tilts toward liberal candidates, the second toward moderates. Interestingly, the allocation formula developed this year, contra all the bellyaching, favors Bernie rather than Hillary.

Delegates are then allocated within each state to congressional districts by the state party, and each state party selects from a list of authorized approaches.

From the look of that article, New York Republicans decided they'd allocate evenly among CDs (as most states choose to do) regardless of how much republican vote comes from that CD. So the disparity in vote representation is mainly within the state - if the Bronx is way over the mean, somewhere in Long Island there is a yuge number of Rs who elect the same number of delegates as the little rump caucus in the Bronx. But I expect overall that Texan Rs still elect more delegates than NY Rs, even if the NY distribution is really lumpy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not sure I buy his state and local level analysis. For one thing, I don't think a key difference between New York, for example, and Utah is which party runs things locally (and go visit Minnesota!). But even more importantly, I think the better observation is that local political issues are simply far less "partisan" at least as to the things that municipalities actually do. States more so, but still not to the degree of the federal government. The parties do their darnedest to try to make thing partisan, and there's partisanship around the edges, but ultimately everyone agrees we need roads and schools.

Also, the minimum wage is a funny issue to use to show Dems being unreasonable. For some reason, it's such an article of faith among right-leaning economists that minimum wages are bad that the significant evidence that any harm is small, if it exists at all, must be ignored. (Not saying the question is settled, just saying it's not "unreasonable" to consider what the empirical work suggests.)

I read an article about Houston in Texas Monthly a few years ago that resonated with me about the rising importance of cities in an era where National and State governments can be dysfunctional and out of touch.

But what followed was more nuanced and less traditionally optimistic. “Sociologists and historians agree on this concept I’ll call metrolocity, because sovereign governments have simply forfeited their leadership position,” Hobby said. “This is, of course, a sad story you know well, so I will not dwell on it . . . but cities in general, and Houston specifically, must confront the urgency of the day’s events and fashion solutions in real time. Shutdowns and political spin cycles just aren’t a luxury cities can afford.”

A similar sentiment was expressed a few weeks later by Harris County judge Ed Emmett in his annual State of the County address, delivered at the same Hilton Americas ballroom before another crowd of local boosters. Emmett is a pragmatist too, a Republican who knows how to reach across the aisle; he did so particularly well when working with former mayor (and Democrat) Bill White to meet the needs of the region during Hurricane Ike. In his speech, Emmett declared that while the county’s responsibilities to its citizens are expanding exponentially, “it is not at all clear that we can count on the same level of federal and state support that we have enjoyed in the past.” He added, “Harris County—as the largest player in the region—needs to work with all partners, public and private, to make sure that the services and infrastructure necessary for continued regional vitality are developed in a timely fashion. I realize that some will engage in so-called turf battles. Others will try to strangle government growth by imposing arbitrary limits on revenue, not realizing their shortsightedness. And still others will focus only on the short-term politics involved. We must resist all hindrances.”

This kind of talk was not exactly typical fare in Houston. Dark clouds seemed to be gathering on Harris County’s usually sunny horizon—and, by extension, over other places in Texas with megacity potential, like the Dallas–Fort Worth area and the San Antonio–Austin corridor. With contemporary federal and state governments increasingly paralyzed by partisanship or locked into poll-driven economic policies—Governor Rick Perry’s decision last year to turn down Washington’s Medicaid expansion is a glaring example—local governments are finding themselves, increasingly often, with fewer dollars and lots more to do. As Mayor Annise Parker put it, “We have made choices that impact the city, and the city has to take up the slack.”

- See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics....cCBPm6dD.dpuf

In our area, the local elections are nominally non-partisan, though the city has trended Democratic while the county has trended Republican. Either direction, it's pretty moderate. And the problems that cities face are pretty (sometimes literally, as the current pothole initiative shows) concrete rather than ideological.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I have not been exposed to one rational person who would vote for Trump. I suspect you haven't either. If that's the case, you're pulling shit straight out of your ass for why people are voting for him, because all evidence we have seen points to support strictly from small-minded bigots who hate Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, LGBT, and losers (somehow defined as anyone but them). Your globalization argument is just ridiculous.

TM

I think you and Sebby are both right for the reasons articulated by Paul Krugman. Here's the part in particular that I mean:

Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base. I’m talking about the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class.

What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn’t have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again — surely everyone knows that’s the real slogan, right? — while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he’s not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters.

Although I am related by blood and marriage to several Trump supporters, I'm not sure I know anyone rational who is planning on voting for Trump. I do know that he speaks to people who have been frustrated with the fact that the GOP keeps promising to [eliminate Obamacare, stop illegal immigration, balance the budget, etc.] and fails to do it despite holding a majority in both houses. I know why, and you know why, and Trump knows why, but these voters don't. And the GOP is to blame by making promises in 2010, 2012, and 2014 that they simply could not keep. Obama will veto any change to Obama care, and the GOP doesn't have the votes to override his veto.

And to Sebby's point about Trump surfing an anti-free trade wave - absolutely. (At least I think he made that point.). Elites in both parties are totally committed to free trade. And it has been an article of faith since Bill Clinton pushed confirmation of NAFTA (negotiated in the GHWB administration) that free trade was a good thing for the US, and if you opposed it, you were a moron. And that it was the natural state of affairs and fighting it would be like Canute ordering the waves not to get his feet wet. (Related: I miss Spanky.)

But one can think that free trade is a net good and still be concerned enough to try to give some sort of a cushion to those whose jobs went to Mexico or China because of it. And one can also think that free trade is wonderful on concept but that the Chinese and Japanese and the EU don't play by the rules explicitly (see Airbus) or as a result of cultural norms (Japan and South Korea) or by gaming their currency (hello, Red China!). Or the complete lack of labor or environmental protections in emerging markets, creating a kind or regulatory arbitrage for business.

All of these things were ignored by the GOP (and, other than by lip service, the Democrats). But working class conservatives could see that as they lost their jobs at Goodyear or GM, the business wing of the party was reaping enormous benefits from free trade. Trump is saying the things that no other GOP leader would say and that no Democratic leader since Gephardt (and maybe Bernie) would say.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I know why, and you know why, and Trump knows why, but these voters don't. And the GOP is to blame by making promises in 2010, 2012, and 2014 that they simply could not keep. Obama will veto any change to Obama care, and the GOP doesn't have the votes to override his veto.

That and actually doing those things would be objectively, and subjectively to the donor class, terrible.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I get it. I do. And all Rs should have their voices heard and votes counted. And I give any Rs in the Bronx props for fighting the good fight. But under the principle of "One person; one vote" I find it manifestly unfair that the vote of Bronx Rs carries 43 times the influence towards picking a nominee as an R vote in the reddest county of Alabama. But the entire system of delegate distribution is pretty messed up on that count.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rson-and-cruz/

Dear Imaginary Niece,

I'm curious about something, and I hope my question doesn't offend - in your view, what makes a Republican a Republican? It seems like there's a stereotype that Jane GOPer is (1) socially conservative (pro-life at a minimum); (2) fiscally conservative (tax cuts and a goal to balance the budget): (3) national security issues (strong military, increases in defense spending seem uniform, but I think post Iraq there might be some variance between neo-cons and traditional pro-military conservatives); and (4) pro-business policies (free trade, reduced regulations, etc.)

Have I missed any core elements? And which would you say are the most important? My brother is registered with the GOP, and national security is his big one. My brother in law is mostly concerned with taxes. And I have a cousin who is all about the social issues - abortion, mostly. I don't think she cares all that much about gay marriage (she opposes it, but with no where near the level a intensity as she has about abortion).

It seems like this primary season is one in which various parts of the GOP are battling over which values are more important. Does it seem that way to you, too?

Kind of like the Democrats from 1968 to 1992. (I maintain that Carter won in 1976 as a reaction to the the cesspool of Nixon Administration scandals that we collectively call "Watergate.")

[ThurgreedMarshall]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...d=ss_fb-bottom

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Although I am related by blood and marriage to several Trump supporters, I'm not sure I know anyone rational who is planning on voting for Trump. [And lots of other stuff.]

I think your nuanced and in-depth reading of conservative support of Trump is one that I'm not sure Trump voters would understand.

They surely know his companies export every job they possibly can while he bullshits his way through every stump speech about forcing Apple to build iPhones here. Or maybe they just don't care? I'm struggling to understand (and maybe you can help, given your perspective) just what the difference is between Romney's bullshit about bringing jobs back and Trump's.

You say all this stuff was ignored by the GOP, but EVERY candidate pays lip service to this shit. Is it solely because Trump is considered anti-establishment that, in your opinion at least, they believe him when talks that shit?

As far as I can see, aside from talking about the war as a mistake and being completely crude and disgusting at all times, the only difference between him and the establishment candidates is he's thrown away the dog whistle.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...d=ss_fb-bottom

TM

And let's add Iowa to the list thanks to Mitch McConnell's War on The Supremes.

Edited to add: Reap as ye sow, assholes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

And I give any Rs in the Bronx props for fighting the good fight.

Just an aside, but you may want to check out how many Bronx Republican Party Poo-Bahs have held a seat in Rikers before saying this. That particular party is notably corrupt. Start by looking up Guy Valella and Joseph Savino....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Just an aside, but you may want to check out how many Bronx Republican Party Poo-Bahs have held a seat in Rikers before saying this. That particular party is notably corrupt. Start by looking up Guy Valella and Joseph Savino....

Maybe they should build a wall to keep I-ties out?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe they should build a wall to keep I-ties out?

If the Spuyten Duyvil can't do it, a wall won't either.