Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
According to one editorial, the GOP made Trump by becoming the "Nobama" party
.
The delusion that Obama caused Trump has been building since last year. This week, it reached the last bastion of rationality on the right: New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. Douthat has a long track record of fairness and good sense. When the madness infects even him, it’s time to clear the air. No, Obama didn’t cause Trump. What caused Trump was the GOP’s decision to negate Obama in every way, and thereby become the party of Trump.
As president, Obama was never a radical leftist. He extended the drone program, the Iran sanctions, and the bailout-recovery policies of George W. Bush. He proposed to cut the national debt through a higher ratio of spending cuts to tax increases than even Bush’s father had accepted and Republican voters preferred. Obama embraced the Heritage Foundation's idea of imposing personal responsibility for health care costs through an individual mandate to buy insurance. He decimated al-Qaida’s leadership, built up troop strength in Afghanistan, and killed Osama bin Laden.
Nevertheless, Republicans opposed Obama at every turn. Whatever he embraced, they rejected. They refused to compromise on health care or offer a realistic alternative. They staged dozens of votes to repeal the new health-insurance law in its entirety. They forced a federal shutdown to protest the law. They took the nation’s credit rating hostage in a debt-ceiling showdown. They urged Iran to reject a nuclear nonproliferation agreement with the United States.
In 2012, Republicans lost the Hispanic vote and the presidential election. An internal autopsy report on this defeat, commissioned by the Republican National Committee, concluded: “We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.” Instead, in 2013 and 2014, House Republicans killed immigration reform. Today, Sen. Ted Cruz hounds Sen. Marco Rubio for having consorted with Obama to support the bill, and Rubio dutifully renounces it.
If Obama had been a leftist, the GOP’s policy of negating him on every issue might have positioned Republicans in the mainstream. Instead, because Obama was a moderate, the GOP’s negation strategy pushed it toward the fringe. Obama was for fiscal responsibility and compromise, so Republicans were for absolutism and drama, risking a federal shutdown and a credit default. Obama was for respecting the Supreme Court, so the GOP was for defying judicial orders. Obama was for using sanctions to pressure Iran into a nuclear deal, so Republicans were for scrapping the deal and daring Iran to provoke a war. Obama, like Bush, was for drawing a clear distinction between terrorists and Muslims. So Republicans were for blurring that distinction.
In Trump, Republican voters have found their anti-Obama. Trump spurns not just political correctness, but correctness of any kind. He lies about Muslims and 9/11, insults women and people with disabilities, accuses a judge of bias for being Hispanic, and hurls profanities. Trump validates the maxim that in presidential primaries, the opposition party tends to choose a candidate who differs temperamentally from the incumbent. Obama is an adult. Therefore, Republicans are nominating a child.
The GOP’s predicament isn’t just that Trump is leading the fight for the nomination. It’s that his only viable opponents are men who claim he’s not conservative enough. In rallies and interviews, Cruz and Rubio call Trump soft on immigration and gun control. They denounce him for praising Planned Parenthood’s work against cervical cancer and breast cancer. They’re outraged that Trump has said he supports government-funded health care to prevent sick people from dying in the streets—as though there were some way other than government-funded health care to guarantee that sick people don’t die in the streets.
How did the GOP end up in this madness? By twisting itself to thwart and vilify Obama. Cruz paints the president as a traitor “who doesn’t believe in the mission of our military and who undermines them at every step.” Rubio, incensed at Obama’s inclusive language, repeatedly excoriates him for “talking about discrimination against Muslims.” Both senators pledge to shred the Iran agreement on their first day in office—apparently out of spite, since renouncing the agreement would free Iran of its nonproliferation commitments without recovering the money that was relinquished in sanctions relief.
What has Obama done to provoke this psychosis? Douthat says he abused executive authority. But that’s circular: Obama resorted to executive action when Republicans blocked the normal channels of government. The GOP’s sabotage began the moment Obama took office, and it exceeds anything done to previous presidents. I’m hard-pressed to come up with an innocent explanation.
The immigration debate illustrates the madness. Four years ago, Republicans campaigned against illegal immigration but emphasized their support for legal immigration. Now that distinction is all but lost. Cruz, who has renounced his prior advocacy of visas for foreign workers, complained at a rally in Oklahoma on Sunday that “the Democrats support immigration.” Even Douthat, in his column on Obama, writes nostalgically, “It was possible to be a culturally conservative skeptic of mass immigration in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton. Not so anymore.” Note the absence of the word illegal.
So, yes, Obama led to Trump. But that’s only because the Republican Party decided to be what Obama wasn’t. And what Obama wasn’t—insecure, bitter, vindictive, xenophobic, sectarian—is what the GOP, in the era of Trump, has become.
As Trump swept through Super Tuesday primaries, taking seven states and boasting that he will unify a Republican Party upended by his candidacy, Christie was reaping ridicule for his decision to support the real estate developer-turned-political force. Even before his positioning behind Trump during his victory speech spawned the hashtag #Free Chris Christie, his endorsement drew a slew of irate hometown newspaper editorials that ran Tuesday.
"We're fed up with his opportunism, we're fed up with his hypocrisy," wrote six Gannett-owned newspapers, including the Asbury Park Press, the Cherry Hill Courier-Post and the Morristown Daily Record, in a joint editorial asking for Christie to quit or be recalled. "We're disgusted with his endorsement of Donald Trump after he spent months on the campaign trail trashing him, calling him unqualified by temperament and experience to be president," they wrote.
A Washington Post opinion writer said that Christie, once beloved as a straight-talker who got things done, had ruined his reputation. The New Hampshire Union-Leader declared that they'd been wrong to endorse him for the GOP presidential nomination. "Rather than standing up to the bully, Christie bent on his knee," the New Hampshire-based paper wrote. And a poll conducted last week showed Christie's support among voters has slid from a lackluster 33% to a limp 27%.
Christie pulled out of the presidential race on February 10 after a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary. But after stepping out of the political ring, Christie endorsed Trump on February 26, declaring him the candidate most likely to beat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Major political organizers and donors have chastised Christie, with his own national finance co-chair, Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, summing it up as "an astonishing display of political opportunism." South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a fellow Republican, told ABC on Sunday that "none of us understand why he did this."
Former Republican New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman told the Newark Star-Ledger that she was "ashamed" Christie would endorse someone who has "employed the kind of hate-mongering and racism that Trump has." Christie hasn't done himself any favors, trying to shut down reporters on Monday who wanted to ask questions about Trump's hesitation in disavowing an endorsement from white supremacist leader David Duke. "No, I won't permit you to" ask questions about that, Christie said.
Perhaps the most brutal excoriation has come online. News media and viewers alike took note of Christie's slack-jawed quizzical look as he stood behind Trump during the candidate's Super Tuesday speech in Florida. An MSNBC tweet said, "caption this: What was on Chris Christie's mind during Trump's #Super Tuesday speech?"
"The Daily Show" provided one answer, showing a series of screengrabs of Christie's odd expression with subtitles. "What have I done?" one reads. "Dear God. What have I DONE?" Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash tweeted his answer: "it's staged to look like a hostage situation." Soon enough, the hashtag #Free Chris Christie was zinging through cyberspace.
Super Tuesday was the most difficult set of states for Sanders, but he can still regain lost delegates later where demographics favor him. Remember he performed better than 538 or the other pundits predicted, which had Clinton leading by much higher margins than the final result.
Massachusetts, for example, showed Clinton ahead by 11, but she won by 2. (Nevada showed her ahead by 25, but she won by 5)
Clinton's best day is behind her, Sanders adviser says
Sanders now trails Clinton by more than 600 delegates, casting substantial doubt on the possibility he can can overtake her by the time of the party's convention in July.
"We do not think the calendar ahead looks nearly as good as yesterday" for the former secretary of state, Sanders aide Tad Devine told reporters at a briefing with campaign manager Jeff Weaver. "We understand that we have a long road ahead of us that we have to take if we're going to win the nomination."
Delegate-rich Michigan, California, and New York are key opportunities for Sanders, they said. In Michigan, at least, Clinton leads Sanders by 20 points among likely voters, according to a Feb. 29 Marketing Resource Group poll reported by Real Clear Politics. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Weaver called Sanders' performance on Tuesday, when he won four states including Vermont and narrowly lost Massachusetts, "a fantastic night. We shot for five, we got 4.9"
Sanders vastly outraised Clinton in February
Her rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, raised $43 million in February, with $6 million of that coming on Monday. Sanders' campaign has not announced its cash on hand, but as of the end of January, he had nearly $15 million in the bank.
edited 2nd Mar '16 12:27:08 PM by SolipsistOwl
At this time, the "Sanders still got it!" chant sounds more and more like "WE GOT IT THIS ITME GUYS. THIS TIME!" than anything else
And I dont have anything against grumpy grandpa, i really like him. But it seems like the day is Clintons and there is nothing wrong with that.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
That's the exact opposite of what I said. But when the polls, delegate numbers, and momentum in the opposing camp's favor; the Sanders' campaign needs to prepare for the likely conclusion. That doesn't mean giving up but it does mean acknowledging that the Democratic Primary will likely cease to be a competitive race by the end of March.
edited 2nd Mar '16 12:40:07 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Actually, there is. Neither are likely to be the nominee (barring epic backroom wheeling in Rubio's case or a total Clinton implosion in Sanders'). Rubio is certainly in worse shape though and is done if he loses Florida, Sanders has more room to lose but that room is shrinking.
edited 2nd Mar '16 12:43:53 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Potential indictment of Hillary could be convention wild card
“There is no way Secretary Clinton and her staff have not violated classified information laws — both misdemeanors and felonies,” said Joseph E. diGenova, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. “The FBI is conducting a serious, criminal investigation. This is not a security review.”
Clinton has been under fire for using her private email server for official communications while serving as secretary of state. More than 1,000 emails were retroactively deemed classified.
Di Genova, who handled public corruption and espionage cases as a prosecutor, said he would expect the FBI to recommend charges within the next two months. The Democratic National Convention is in July.
“It could and should come down by then. The people deserve to know if the person who may be president of the United States has violated federal law,” he said.
edited 2nd Mar '16 12:47:01 PM by SolipsistOwl
@ 114139
And if/when he loses the majority of states are you going to accept that or will you be saying then that Clinton stole the election?
And similarly, that is a fair point that Massachusetts was a near tie, but by the same token, so was Oklahoma (and I'm guessing that in a lot of cases there's been a pretty close split in the vote- like I know Minnesota was 60-40).
I swear, the Trump campaign must be paying you to post disinformation.
edited 2nd Mar '16 12:48:14 PM by Hodor2
Much of Sanders' campaign is about momentum.
The numbers for him to win have never added up, but time and again Five Thirty Eight and other pundits are forced to recalculate their formulas when Sanders pulls out a surprise showing. He can continue to close the gap through slimmer and slimmer margins as the convention goes on.
@Hodor2: Yes, the Boston Herald is "misinformation."
edited 2nd Mar '16 12:50:33 PM by SolipsistOwl
![]()
![]()
Obama had better numbers in certain post-Super Tuesday states (thanks to minority support) than Sanders does.
I'm not saying a Sanders win is impossible, but its incredibly unlikely at this point and will only get closer to impossible until Sanders pulls out serious upsets and fast.
edited 2nd Mar '16 12:52:16 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Final Massachusetts results:
- Hillary Clinton: 51% (561,204)
- Bernie Sanders: 48% (537,582)
That's 26K more for Sanders than Obama in 2008 and 140K less for Clinton.
Looking at it, I'm not quite sure why (I'm sure someone does), but the order of the primaries seems like it was different in 2008
, including a lot more states already voting by earlier February.

Not really. Unless he manages to catch all or most primaries here forward.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman