Thanks Obama

[Lewkowski]

http://theweek.com/articles/593880/r...rump-seriously

"Who's to blame for Donald Trump? Why the same man who's to blame for everything that goes wrong in America: Barack Obama."

This made me laugh. Quite a bit. :0

[Flixy]

It's funny, but sad that it was said seriously.

[Steely Glint]

I think the question we have to ask is, do Americans actually deserve to have a functioning two party democracy with a serious, centre right party with serious centre right policies? And the answer is no, they do not. They deserve right wing policies as performance art and every four years a new front running Republican candidate who wears an even larger pair of clown shoes than the previous one.

[wiggin]

I think the question we have to ask is, do Americans actually deserve to have a functioning two party democracy with a serious, centre right party with serious centre right policies? And the answer is no, they do not. They deserve right wing policies as performance art and every four years a new front running Republican candidate who wears an even larger pair of clown shoes than the previous one.

While I don't doubt there's plenty of clowns, the recent history of actual front-runners is hardly awful. McCain is not a demagogue, nor is Romney. And you don't need to go far on the left to find nuts either (Kucinich? Sanders? Dean?).

Yes, politicians on both sides of the divide take hare-brained positions during the primaries, and I'd wager the ones on the left are at least more offensive, if not necessarily any more stupid. But most of the people who end up actually running things are more or less serious, though there's obviously plenty of disagreement on policy issues.

[earthJoker]

Well McCain was just a heart attack away of a clown.

[Steely Glint]

While I don't doubt there's plenty of clowns, the recent history of actual front-runners is hardly awful. McCain is not a demagogue, nor is Romney.

And this is the stage the Republican party is at now: the requirement for being their presidential nominee is being "hardly awful". Neither McCain nor Romney were 'good' candidates by any stretch of the imagination, they just got the nomination on the strength of being the candidates least likely to experience a psychotic break.

And you don't need to go far on the left to find nuts either (Kucinich? Sanders? Dean?).

What have they said that's so nutty?

Yes, politicians on both sides of the divide take hare-brained positions during the primaries, and I'd wager the ones on the left are at least more offensive, if not necessarily any more stupid. But most of the people who end up actually running things are more or less serious, though there's obviously plenty of disagreement on policy issues.

Harebrained and extreme positions on the left tend to be variations on "and we should all, like, go back to living together in the trees and be all peaceful and shit maaaaan" *takes draw on bong* - stupid, but hardly offensive.

[Flixy]

McCain is not a demagogue, nor is Romney.

Well, McCain wasn't a demagogue.. but pretty much became one during the election, no? And a questionable (at best) VP choice.

It seems to me the problem, or at least part of it, is that too win votes they pandered too much, became too partisan, too confrontational. But then of course your politicians can't deliver on the promise, and after championing outsiders who say 'bold' things it's not surprising you end up possibly losing your party to exactly that. You can't foster the tea party to gain their votes without expecting to either deliver on those promises (which they can't), or being out-tea-partied yourself.

Or as the article put it:

If Trump's success is a reaction to Barack Obama, it's only insofar as he's an exaggerated version of the way all Republicans have felt, spoken, and acted toward this president over his entire presidency. Trump's voters didn't wake up a month or two ago and decide that they're nativists attracted to someone offering easy answers to complex problems. They're exactly the voters that the Republican Party has been cultivating, full of fear and anger and contempt. It's just that the party itself was incapable of offering them a compelling embodiment of those feelings, so they turned to an outsider.

Promising what you can't deliver isn't of course just a GOP thing, before you start about that.

[Lewkowski]

You don't remember the Dean scream?

[Enoch the Red]

Harebrained and extreme positions on the left tend to be variations on "and we should all, like, go back to living together in the trees and be all peaceful and shit maaaaan" *takes draw on bong* - stupid, but hardly offensive.

That's a pretty rosy picture you are painting. Depending on how extreme you want to go, and how you define left, there are those who deny private property rights, who believe in varying degrees of the necessity of a racial revolution among other blatantly racist policies, they advocate ridiculous limitations on free speech and the free exercise of religion, and violent revolution to achieve their goals to name but a few of their less attractive positions.

[Flixy]

But how many of those are running for office (with an actual chance)? I am actually curious here, but word of any extreme lefties getting into congress/white house hasn't reached me.

[wiggin]

And this is the stage the Republican party is at now: the requirement for being their presidential nominee is being "hardly awful". Neither McCain nor Romney were 'good' candidates by any stretch of the imagination, they just got the nomination on the strength of being the candidates least likely to experience a psychotic break.

I disagree. There are any number of thoughtful, serious contenders for the Republican nomination each cycle - Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Graham, and more just this time around. It's just the loudmouths who get the press coverage and the early buzz, precisely because they are loudmouths. Remember Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann last time around? They didn't get even close to the nomination, but they dominated the news cycle in late 2011. There were plenty of better options - Huntsman, Perry, Gingrich - but they didn't get as much press. You can disagree with all of the aforementioned's politics, but I think you'd agree none of them were nuts.

I think that McCain and Romney were actually both decent candidates. McCain had a solid center-right background (including marquee campaign finance legislation), was a bona fide war hero, and was widely respected in Congress. His campaign floundered because of three things: first, he made a disastrously bad choice of VP; second, he had to take some further-right positions in the primaries that he found difficult to walk back in the general; third, he was up against, in Colin Powell's words, a 'transformational candidate'. Romney ran a disciplined campaign and had a solid background as a moderate governor of a lefty state - including a healthcare program that was the inspiration for Obamacare. He had great management experience in both business and politics (and rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics) and generally ran a solid campaign. He ran up against some problems, notably including his rather unlikable and wooden delivery as well as the Obama campaign's ground game in a few firewall states that were the crucial deciding factors. His VP choice, while a bit more right wing than him, is an able and very wonky politician.

These are not nutjobs. They are not bad candidates. Yes, the discourse in the Republican party can at times be poisonous - I'd say worse than in the Democratic party - but the actual people who get the nomination aren't really the issue. Kerry was hardly inspiring in 2004, nor was Gore in 2000 (or Clinton in 2016!), but that doesn't point to a fundamental malaise in the Democratic party, either - it's just very hard to get a good presidential candidate.

What have they said that's so nutty?

Seriously? Kucinish wanted to immediately withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO, ban GMOs, push 'alternative medicines', and had a fundraiser at Hustler's headquarters. Hardly presidential material. Dean actually appeared to HAVE a psychotic break on television. Sanders wants a top income tax rate of 90%, wants a 'political revolution', and appears to think that climate change will make the planet uninhabitable. None of these are remotely electable (though, oddly, Dean comes closest). I could go on.

Just because you broadly agree with many of their underlying policy priorities doesn't mean these are good presidential candidates - any more than a right wing American who agrees with many Republican tropes should find Trump et al as anything other than distasteful and a distraction.

Harebrained and extreme positions on the left tend to be variations on "and we should all, like, go back to living together in the trees and be all peaceful and shit maaaaan" *takes draw on bong* - stupid, but hardly offensive.

Sorry, I realized I wrote that wrong. I meant to say that the right wing demagogues are more offensive in general but the left wing ones are just as stupid. Generally the far left of the Democratic party isn't openly racist or sexist.

It seems to me the problem, or at least part of it, is that too win votes they pandered too much, became too partisan, too confrontational. But then of course your politicians can't deliver on the promise, and after championing outsiders who say 'bold' things it's not surprising you end up possibly losing your party to exactly that. You can't foster the tea party to gain their votes without expecting to either deliver on those promises (which they can't), or being out-tea-partied yourself.

Democratic candidates have the same problem. Their only advantage is that (believe it or not) the party has much better cohesion than the modern Republican party, with far less of a populist fringe gaining real power. There is a progressive wing, yes, but it tends to fall in line when needed. Even so, Clinton has had to take some pretty leftie positions that are comically at odds with her previous record and statements in order to curry favor - e.g. her contortions over the TPP.

I do think there's one major difference here. The Republican party has made a religion out of disdaining 'Washington insiders'. If you work in Congress or as part of the executive branch, then you are all that's wrong with our country - the big, bloated government coming to take away your much-loved liberty. The problem is that most able politicians running for the presidency already have quite a bit of experience or connections to Washington. They are poisoning the well, so to speak, and this adds a mystique to political novices... but one that unfortunately bodes poorly for them running a smart, disciplined campaign. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to have a softer view towards 'big government', even though the country as a whole has vanishingly small amounts of trust in politics. This lets them use insiders a bit more than a Republican.

Then again, you get the semi-conspiratorial Democratic lines about the pernicious influence of money on politics, when all of the front runners gladly queue up to take said money. So it's not all easy going for them, either.

[Flixy]

I disagree. There are any number of thoughtful, serious contenders for the Republican nomination each cycle - Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Graham, and more just this time around. It's just the loudmouths who get the press coverage and the early buzz, precisely because they are loudmouths. Remember Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann last time around? They didn't get even close to the nomination, but they dominated the news cycle in late 2011. There were plenty of better options - Huntsman, Perry, Gingrich - but they didn't get as much press. You can disagree with all of the aforementioned's politics, but I think you'd agree none of them were nuts.

I think that McCain and Romney were actually both decent candidates. McCain had a solid center-right background (including marquee campaign finance legislation), was a bona fide war hero, and was widely respected in Congress. His campaign floundered because of three things: first, he made a disastrously bad choice of VP; second, he had to take some further-right positions in the primaries that he found difficult to walk back in the general; third, he was up against, in Colin Powell's words, a 'transformational candidate'. Romney ran a disciplined campaign and had a solid background as a moderate governor of a lefty state - including a healthcare program that was the inspiration for Obamacare. He had great management experience in both business and politics (and rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics) and generally ran a solid campaign. He ran up against some problems, notably including his rather unlikable and wooden delivery as well as the Obama campaign's ground game in a few firewall states that were the crucial deciding factors. His VP choice, while a bit more right wing than him, is an able and very wonky politician.

These are not nutjobs. They are not bad candidates. Yes, the discourse in the Republican party can at times be poisonous - I'd say worse than in the Democratic party - but the actual people who get the nomination aren't really the issue. Kerry was hardly inspiring in 2004, nor was Gore in 2000 (or Clinton in 2016!), but that doesn't point to a fundamental malaise in the Democratic party, either - it's just very hard to get a good presidential candidate.

Didn't Romney try to distance himself from Obamacare though, even though it was based on his own healthcare system? [/quote]

Seriously? Kucinish wanted to immediately withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO, ban GMOs, push 'alternative medicines', and had a fundraiser at Hustler's headquarters. Hardly presidential material. Dean actually appeared to HAVE a psychotic break on television. Sanders wants a top income tax rate of 90%, wants a 'political revolution', and appears to think that climate change will make the planet uninhabitable. None of these are remotely electable (though, oddly, Dean comes closest). I could go on.

Just because you broadly agree with many of their underlying policy priorities doesn't mean these are good presidential candidates - any more than a right wing American who agrees with many Republican tropes should find Trump et al as anything other than distasteful and a distraction.
[/quote]I did not really follow US politics then like I do now - 2000 and 2004 only the general election, a little (and being younger and upset about Iraq war, Patriot Act, etc., had a bit of an anything-better-than-Bush stance, without knowing much at all about his opponents). And from 2008 on the Democratic side I only remember Obama vs Clinton, and in 2012 there was only a contested Republican primary of course, and even now there are far fewer Democratic candidates who seem to be happy with the GOP fighting it out in the streets. Out of curiosity, Dean appeared to have a psychotic break - appears is a pretty important word there (though even then probably not presidential material). How was Dean other than that?

But yeah, the elections are a long time away, and I'm still fairly confident the crazies won't make it that far. But did those outside, non viable candidates previously also poll this high, consistently? Not that you can really compare those election cycles, worldwide the current climate has, well, benefited the more fringe rightwing politicians, especially ones that bitch on and on about Islam.

Sorry, I realized I wrote that wrong. I meant to say that the right wing demagogues are more offensive in general but the left wing ones are just as stupid. Generally the far left of the Democratic party isn't openly racist or sexist.

You could argue that airing offensive views is more problematic, as it divides the country more (see the Trump - stormfront thing), whereas stupid ones are, well, just stupid and impossible to actually implement. But obviously I am biased against the right wing demagogues.

Democratic candidates have the same problem. Their only advantage is that (believe it or not) the party has much better cohesion than the modern Republican party, with far less of a populist fringe gaining real power. There is a progressive wing, yes, but it tends to fall in line when needed. Even so, Clinton has had to take some pretty leftie positions that are comically at odds with her previous record and statements in order to curry favor - e.g. her contortions over the TPP.

I do think there's one major difference here. The Republican party has made a religion out of disdaining 'Washington insiders'. If you work in Congress or as part of the executive branch, then you are all that's wrong with our country - the big, bloated government coming to take away your much-loved liberty. The problem is that most able politicians running for the presidency already have quite a bit of experience or connections to Washington. They are poisoning the well, so to speak, and this adds a mystique to political novices... but one that unfortunately bodes poorly for them running a smart, disciplined campaign. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to have a softer view towards 'big government', even though the country as a whole has vanishingly small amounts of trust in politics. This lets them use insiders a bit more than a Republican.

Then again, you get the semi-conspiratorial Democratic lines about the pernicious influence of money on politics, when all of the front runners gladly queue up to take said money. So it's not all easy going for them, either.

Sounds reasonable, what you're saying. Out of curiosity, do any of those semi-conspiratorial Democrats ever become an actual force to be reckoned with Ã* la Tea Party?

Seems to me, but I could of course be very mistaken, that the Democrats may pander to the left wing, but they never used it as a qualification for candidates. Unlike the GOP, and the Tea Party especially. And indeed it's hard/impossible to get someone who's good at politics and governing, but isn't part of the establishment. Reminds me a little of Democrats who were mostly anti war, yet a large number of Democratic politicians voted in favour of Iraq war, Patriot act, etc. at the time.

[Steely Glint]

I disagree. There are any number of thoughtful, serious contenders for the Republican nomination each cycle - Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Graham, and more just this time around. It's just the loudmouths who get the press coverage and the early buzz, precisely because they are loudmouths. Remember Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann last time around? They didn't get even close to the nomination, but they dominated the news cycle in late 2011. There were plenty of better options - Huntsman, Perry, Gingrich - but they didn't get as much press. You can disagree with all of the aforementioned's politics, but I think you'd agree none of them were nuts.

Well, Newt Gingrich is a piece of shit. So there's that. Now, Huntsman I remember was a no-hoper right from the beginning and widely recognised as such because he was actually sensible. I can't remember anything at all about Rick Perry except a vague feeling of distaste. From what I remember it wasn't that there weren't any sensible candidates at all it's just by the time the Tea Party had got done being the Tea Party, he was pretty much the only remotely credible option left so he got the nomination by default. Second place was Rick Santorum. Rick. Santorum.

I think that McCain and Romney were actually both decent candidates. McCain had a solid center-right background (including marquee campaign finance legislation), was a bona fide war hero, and was widely respected in Congress. His campaign floundered because of three things: first, he made a disastrously bad choice of VP; second, he had to take some further-right positions in the primaries that he found difficult to walk back in the general; third, he was up against, in Colin Powell's words, a 'transformational candidate'. Romney ran a disciplined campaign and had a solid background as a moderate governor of a lefty state - including a healthcare program that was the inspiration for Obamacare. He had great management experience in both business and politics (and rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics) and generally ran a solid campaign. He ran up against some problems, notably including his rather unlikable and wooden delivery as well as the Obama campaign's ground game in a few firewall states that were the crucial deciding factors. His VP choice, while a bit more right wing than him, is an able and very wonky politician.

Romney's 'solid background as a moderate governor' was more of a liability because he was required to repudiate most of it to even get the nomination in the first place, then the repudiation itself proved a liability because it allowed the democrats to make fun of him in the general. His business background turned into a liability as well because he had no counter for the Democratic narrative that his 'business background' largely consisted of firing people.

Now as for McCain... well, consider this. Imagine you're trying to decide who to interview for the position of President of the United States. You get a CV from a candidate which has the following:

* 'solid centre right background' well, that should be pretty much given
* 'bona fide war hero' that's admirable and while it's certainly a mark in his favour he wouldn't be required to personally strafe insurgents from the cockpit of an F-16 as president, it's not terribly relevant
* 'widely respected in congress' i.e 'not actively despised', well, that's nice but not an outstanding recommendation

You're not going to put that CV in the bin, but it's not exactly going to the top of the pile is it? Only when so many of the other CV's ended up having drool all over them does he get selected for interview.

He was adequate at best, and he's the best the Republican party could come up with. Then you factor in the problems you mentioned that he had during the main campaign, two of which were as a direct result of how extreme and delusional the Republican party is becoming, the problems with the Republican party become apparent.

Seriously?

Seriously. As in, it was a genuine request. I don't know what half those people have said.

I don't know why Dean ends up on that list. "Screaming" is not a policy.

Just because you broadly agree with many of their underlying policy priorities doesn't mean these are good presidential candidates - any more than a right wing American who agrees with many Republican tropes should find Trump et al as anything other than distasteful and a distraction.

This Kucinish guy sounds like a genuine moonbat, but comparing Sanders to Trump is disingenuous.

[wiggin]

Before I respond to both of you, I want to emphasize that I'm responding to posts claiming that the GOP has no 'serious' candidates with 'serious' policies, that the candidates are clowns and the nominee is the person 'least likely to experience a psychotic break'. Yes, I know there was some hyperbole there, but that was not coming from a place of 'I disagree with right wing policies', but rather from a place of 'there is no right wing candidate in America who appears even slightly acceptable'. This is what I'm disagreeing with; if all you meant to say was that you don't like the right wing in America, we can drop this argument here and now. It's your prerogative.

Didn't Romney try to distance himself from Obamacare though, even though it was based on his own healthcare system?

Yes he did, on some woolly excuse about state vs. federal policies. It was necessary because it has become an article of faith among the GOP that Obamacare is wrong - just as, for example, Hillary Clinton has had to do all sorts of mental gymnastics about her previous role in the Obama administration (as well as votes on e.g. the Iraq war) in order to match up with Democratic needs. Hell, other Democratic candidates have run afoul of party shibboleths like abortion (anything less than complete support for pro-choice campaigns is unacceptable), gun control (ditto), and issues important to unions. It's something you can disagree with, but it doesn't suggest Romney was not a pragmatic candidate capable of running the country with a modicum of skill and common sense.

I did not really follow US politics then like I do now - 2000 and 2004 only the general election, a little (and being younger and upset about Iraq war, Patriot Act, etc., had a bit of an anything-better-than-Bush stance, without knowing much at all about his opponents). And from 2008 on the Democratic side I only remember Obama vs Clinton, and in 2012 there was only a contested Republican primary of course, and even now there are far fewer Democratic candidates who seem to be happy with the GOP fighting it out in the streets. Out of curiosity, Dean appeared to have a psychotic break - appears is a pretty important word there (though even then probably not presidential material). How was Dean other than that?

The near-coronation of Hillary this year is abnormal; normally the Democratic field is much more crowded, and the dearth of viable candidates is actually something Democrats should be deeply concerned about going forward (especially since there are so few Democratic governors nowadays to pull candidates from).

Dean I included just because he was another early front-runner with wildly inadequate policies who got eclipsed by a more mainstream contender once actual primaries were held. His rather ridiculous response to a substandard election result does bring some legitimate questions about his equanimity and stability (something rather important in a US president), but I don't actually think he was nuts. His policies were the normal progressive Democrat mix that had no chance in a general. 'Nutty' is in the eye of the beholder, but I wouldn't place his policies any further on the nutty spectrum than Michele Bachmann, who was in a similar position last time around.

But yeah, the elections are a long time away, and I'm still fairly confident the crazies won't make it that far. But did those outside, non viable candidates previously also poll this high, consistently? Not that you can really compare those election cycles, worldwide the current climate has, well, benefited the more fringe rightwing politicians, especially ones that bitch on and on about Islam.

Bachmann and Paul and Cain all polled very well early on. I think the difference with Trump is money - he doesn't need donations or support from the party machinery to keep being a loudmouth further into the primaries, so the question isn't how well he polls now but how well he will do in actual primaries. I don't know. But currently I think it's challenging to say that Trump represents something fundamentally wrong with the GOP so much as something fundamentally wrong with Donald Trump. Ted Cruz is a much better example of an 'insurgent' candidate (and possibly Ben Carson), and I think they follow the profile much closer than Trump.

You could argue that airing offensive views is more problematic, as it divides the country more (see the Trump - stormfront thing), whereas stupid ones are, well, just stupid and impossible to actually implement. But obviously I am biased against the right wing demagogues.

Quite. And you could argue that the batshit economic arguments put forth by, say, Sanders, is a good way to scare businesses off from investing further in the US until it's certain his brand of politics won't make it to the White House. And I think you underestimate how much the God and guns crowd find Democratic rhetoric to be divisive.

Sounds reasonable, what you're saying. Out of curiosity, do any of those semi-conspiratorial Democrats ever become an actual force to be reckoned with Ã* la Tea Party?

Seems to me, but I could of course be very mistaken, that the Democrats may pander to the left wing, but they never used it as a qualification for candidates. Unlike the GOP, and the Tea Party especially. And indeed it's hard/impossible to get someone who's good at politics and governing, but isn't part of the establishment. Reminds me a little of Democrats who were mostly anti war, yet a large number of Democratic politicians voted in favour of Iraq war, Patriot act, etc. at the time.

As I mentioned, there are some shibboleths in the Democratic party (like, say, the 2nd amendment or Obamacare is to the GOP), but they're different in that they tend not to have the strong anti-DC bias that seems so damaging to the GOP at the moment. I think this is a legitimate critique of the current GOP process, even though nominations in recent election cycles have not in fact gone to political novices outside of some Congressional seats.

Well, Newt Gingrich is a piece of shit. So there's that. Now, Huntsman I remember was a no-hoper right from the beginning and widely recognised as such because he was actually sensible. I can't remember anything at all about Rick Perry except a vague feeling of distaste. From what I remember it wasn't that there weren't any sensible candidates at all it's just by the time the Tea Party had got done being the Tea Party, he was pretty much the only remotely credible option left so he got the nomination by default. Second place was Rick Santorum. Rick. Santorum.

Gingrich, Perry, et al may be politicians you violently disagree with, but they are not clowns. See the preface to my post. Santorum is the Sanders of the 2012 GOP; not a great candidate, but all of the other good ones wisely stepped aside when it became clear Romney was the winner.

Romney's 'solid background as a moderate governor' was more of a liability because he was required to repudiate most of it to even get the nomination in the first place, then the repudiation itself proved a liability because it allowed the democrats to make fun of him in the general. His business background turned into a liability as well because he had no counter for the Democratic narrative that his 'business background' largely consisted of firing people.

Yes, being a moderate is a liability in a partisan primary. It is for Clinton as well. That doesn't mean Romney was a bad candidate, just that he had to tack to the right to get the nomination. His electoral issues were not because he was crazy, or not serious, or nearly psychotic. It was because Obama ran a smart campaign and Romney wasn't a great speaker. Do you honestly want to tell me that Romney didn't have the nous to run the US?

Now as for McCain... well, consider this. Imagine you're trying to decide who to interview for the position of President of the United States. You get a CV from a candidate which has the following:

* 'solid centre right background' well, that should be pretty much given
* 'bona fide war hero' that's admirable and while it's certainly a mark in his favour he wouldn't be required to personally strafe insurgents from the cockpit of an F-16 as president, it's not terribly relevant
* 'widely respected in congress' i.e 'not actively despised', well, that's nice but not an outstanding recommendation

You're not going to put that CV in the bin, but it's not exactly going to the top of the pile is it? Only when so many of the other CV's ended up having drool all over them does he get selected for interview.

He was adequate at best, and he's the best the Republican party could come up with. Then you factor in the problems you mentioned that he had during the main campaign, two of which were as a direct result of how extreme and delusional the Republican party is becoming, the problems with the Republican party become apparent.

A few comments. Being a center (left or right) candidate is not guaranteed. Plenty of mistakes have been made by both parties in this regard. The war hero wasn't about bombing people, it was about his integrity and strength of character while being tortured for years in a Viet Cong prison camp. His respect in Congress was pretty bipartisan for a long time, and his history of making bipartisan compromises is very important in a president. That's a great resume, not just a so-so one. If he hadn't been running against Obama, he had a fantastic chance of becoming president. Gore was hardly nominated on the strength of his CV, and Hillary has all sorts of political liabilities that should have given a strong contender a shot at unseating her, except there isn't one. Isn't it equally concerning that the Democrats can't find anyone suitable other than Hillary?

You don't like the GOP, I get that. I often find their policy platforms problematic as well. But that doesn't mean they don't settle on serious, reasonable candidates most of the time.

I don't know why Dean ends up on that list. "Screaming" is not a policy.

See above what I said about Dean, but policy is not the only thing that puts you in the loony bin. His policies were pretty normal progressive wing stuff, but definitely unelectable. I don't recall if there were any particularly ridiculous ones, but I'm sure there were a few (like, say, Sanders' rather ridiculous comment that unsecured education loans should have similar interest rates to home or car loans). If you really care I can dig back and find some stuff.

This Kucinish guy sounds like a genuine moonbat, but comparing Sanders to Trump is disingenuous.

No, I'm comparing Sanders to Cruz and Bachmann, who are the real perennial unelectables that get serious air time early in the primary season. It doesn't show a weakness in the party, it rather shows that they flirt with demagogues and then plump for someone mainstream. Trump is unusual as noted above, but he's not a symptom of the GOP's problems.

[Loki]

Lewk, any thoughts on candidates who pretty much want to overturn the constitutional order of this country polling at 63%?

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, any thoughts on candidates who pretty much want to overturn the constitutional order of this country polling at 63%?

Haven't seen that number at all. Link?

As I've said previously a crowded (extremely crowded) field plays in Trump's favor. He has name recognition and is saying things that are politically incorrect which the base loves. He really needs his feet held to the fire on what are his thoughts on the constitution. I remain convinced that Trump will not be the candidate and really can't wait until actual voting starts taking place so Trump can GTFO already.

[Loki]

Those are the combined numbers of Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Huckabee. Trump and Cruz alone are at over 50%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

I don't think Trump will be the nominee either, but Cruz is a realistic possibility.

[wiggin]

Lewk, any thoughts on candidates who pretty much want to overturn the constitutional order of this country polling at 63%?

You do realize that's at most 15% of the electorate, yes?

[Loki]

Which is enough to control one of the main institutions of this country.

[RandBlade]

Harebrained and extreme positions on the left tend to be variations on "and we should all, like, go back to living together in the trees and be all peaceful and shit maaaaan" *takes draw on bong* - stupid, but hardly offensive.

The left can be just as mendacious as the right. You don't just need to look at the far left extreme leaders like Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge who were all just as bad as the Nazis but the modern left wingers who still support Mao etc like the leaders of the left in the UK.

The left is not just hippies but has some very nasty and potentially very violent revolutionary tendencies amongst many of its most extreme supporters.

[wiggin]

Which is enough to control one of the main institutions of this country.

If the nuts control said institution, it won't stay a 'main' institution for long. The reason the GOP has national legitimacy is because on a national level most of their leaders are right wing but not crazy. If the inmates take over the asylum, the GOP will lose, heavily.

[Loki]

Which means we either end up with a one-party state or a party still sufficiently powerful to block any new legislation.

[wiggin]

Not at all. Each party has gone down the path of populism or extreme views in the past, but has been yanked back to the center after the post-election hangover when it becomes clear their position was unacceptable. If either the Dems or GOP ever go too far and stay there, you'll naturally get another party forming, seeded by the centrists who leave the nutjobs. It would have to get pretty bad for that to happen, though, since it's far more likely that the party itself will just change. You just don't get Barry Goldwater being nominated for president every time (not that Goldwater was crazy; he was just too far to the right for the general electorate).

[Loki]

You're confusing the party and the voters. The party might have made stupid decisions in the past, but the party wasn't made up predominantly of people who want to wipe the floor with the constitution. It's one thing when voters support candidates that have some extreme positions. But here we're talking about voters supporting pathological liars, racists, and ignoramuses. We're talking about 60% of the voters wanting to ban all Muslims from entering the country (based on a poll, not on their support of candidates holding such views). We're talking about voters who are actually more likely to support someone the more he lies and the more outrageous statements he makes.

[Flixy]

The left can be just as mendacious as the right. You don't just need to look at the far left extreme leaders like Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge who were all just as bad as the Nazis but the modern left wingers who still support Mao etc like the leaders of the left in the UK.

The left is not just hippies but has some very nasty and potentially very violent revolutionary tendencies amongst many of its most extreme supporters.

Left wing politicians in the UK still support Mao, or communism in general? Not here. Besides, those more extreme on the left tend to vote for, say, the communist party and not Democrats/labour etc. Even our socialist party isn't communist anymore, and while they support stupid economic policies, they are far from violent. Only the antifascist fringe comes to mind when speaking of violent lefties, and they are supported nor defended by any politician. Maybe the animal party supports ecoterrorists, but I even doubt that.

Also the Khmer Rouge is probably a bad example since even other communist regimes did not support them.

[Flixy]

Lewk, any thoughts on candidates who pretty much want to overturn the constitutional order of this country polling at 63%?

I do wonder how many of those claim to want politicians who support the constitution and want everything as (they think) the founding fathers intended.

[Loki]

I wonder that as well. Haven't heard much talk about the importance of the constitution in this election, except from the tiny libertarian camp. This is the election where Santorum said a "higher law" should take precedence over the constitution, where half the candidates want to eliminate freedom of religion, where Trump mocked those who support freedom of speech, where the 8th amendment (due process) has been thrown out of the window, and where candidates are trying to outdo each other in the amount of surveillance they would force upon the American people. The sane (but not necessarily competent) wing of the GOP (Bush, Kasich, Christie, Rubio) is polling at about 20-25%.

[Lewkowski]

Those are the combined numbers of Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Huckabee. Trump and Cruz alone are at over 50%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

I don't think Trump will be the nominee either, but Cruz is a realistic possibility.

Be more specific when you say overturn the constitutional order of this country.

[RandBlade]

Left wing politicians in the UK still support Mao, or communism in general? Not here.

Until a few months ago I would have said no, but in case you haven't been following UK politics our mirror image to Trump now leads Labour. The Shadow Chancellor literally quoted from Chairman Mao's little red book in his response to the Autumn Statement.

Besides, those more extreme on the left tend to vote for, say, the communist party and not Democrats/labour etc.

Same is just as true for the extreme right.

[Loki]

Be more specific when you say overturn the constitutional order of this country.

Violate multiple basic parts of the constitution and not even pretend that the actions are constitutional.