The Next U.S. President

[Arneb]

Yeah, the animals are quite appropriate.

Maybe Hillary is a viable candidate because she isn't too donkey-ish. We had an article here in our left-leaning news magazine that denigrated her and Bill for redesigingin the Democratic Party into a more centrist GOP (reform of the Penal Code, deregulation of the banking sector...) thus committing treason to true liberal values. Indeed, it seems the GOP now who are in trouble for being too pure.

I used to think that winning parties would become more and more radical, until they started losing, upon which they would have to moderate in order to put together a winning combination again. However, I'm no longer very sure that this conjecture stands up to scrutiny.

As a case in counterpoint, Bavaria's Social Democrats, which have never been in power in their state n the almost 70 years our fine democracy has existed are the looniest lefties you will find this side of Die Linke. I can imagine the development you think of, but in there are a lot of cirumstances where it's powerlessness that makes you radical because your beautiful dreams of pure ideology never have to stand a reality test. In Germany, Social Democrats started to become a serious contestant for Chancellor when they started to accept capitalism.

I think the GOP will be back once it accepts all those darn librul biases of reality: from evolution to abortion, global warming, the need for state-sponsored health care, taxes, up to and including the existence of other countries that are not subject to American wilfulness. It gives me some sense of hope remebering that it was the Repuclicans who aborted slavery - although some of their leading personell probably still regret that mistake.

[Arneb]

On the occasion of Super Tuesday, FAZ published results from a CNN poll askin who people would vote for in a putative head-to-head conest:
Clinton 52 - 44 Trump
Clinton 47 - 50 Cruz
Clinton 48 - 49 Rubio

Sanders 55 - 43 Trump
Sanders 57 - 40 Cruz
Sanders 53 - 45 Rubio

This leaves mes scratching my head a bit, escpecially since I always thought Bernie was unelectable. So the glib, unprincipled, ego-centric moderate Democrat beats the vulgar, unprincipled, ego-centric billionaire but not the staunch, dyed-in-the-wool bigots from the moralinic-acid soaked Tea Party orthodoxy - who in turn get beaten by the dyed-int-the-wool principled self-styled "Socialist". What does that even mean?

Yeah, Ok, polls from the pre-convention period don't predict outcomes, whatever, but this total lack of internal consistency puzzles me. If one thing, they tell me that people really don't like Hillary.

[Мастер]

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you

[Enzo]

They poll people coming and going about who they would/should vote for, but it turns out the polls about who you THINK will win are much more predictive of the outcome than voting plans stated.

[Arneb]

That is often the case, but AFAIK, Trump who nobobdy thought could win anything, just showed a big fat middle finger to that theorem.

[Мастер]

They poll people coming and going about who they would/should vote for, but it turns out the polls about who you THINK will win are much more predictive of the outcome than voting plans stated.

I find a lot of people have trouble distinguishing between believing something will happen, and wanting it to happen.

[Arneb]

Interesting article on Slate taking apart a new Republican meme: Since everything that is bad about America is Obama's fault, so is Donald Trump. Instead, the article makes the case that Trump is the storm Republicans are reaping after sowing the wind that everything about America is going South since and because Obama took office: If you foster a climate in which the simplest acts of politcal prudence are seen as treason to the course, don't whine when some vulgar bullshitter from New York makes a Presidential bid out of it instead of some talking head from Capitol Hill.

Which sounds entirely reasonable to me.

[Мастер]

Hmm, I guess Weimar is responsible for Hitler.

[Arneb]

And I'd disagree. The fact that no-one wantedWeimar is responsible for Hitler. Demokratie ohne Demokraten is an oft-used phrase that characterizes this well. And disproportionate as it sounds: It seems quite as if the Republicans and theri angry white men do NOT want to keep Democraxy in America as it is: As the endless but not fruitless debating, pandering, compromising, interest-balancing that it acutally is, by peaseful means, on a common ground of respect for the opposite part. And if the biggest party in a country reneges on that common ground, yep, Democracy there has a problem.

Edited to add: And of course, not to forget:Hitler is responsible for Hitler.

[Мастер]

And I'd disagree.

Not making the argument, just a parallel to the argument discussed in the article you linked.

The things that bother me about Obama are actually the same things that bother me about many of his critics.

[Arneb]

Yes, I can see that - and indeed it's in the article in the beginnung saying that Obama did a lot of things any Republican Prsident would have done: Drones, killing Bin Ladin, not closing Gitmo, etc.

[Мастер]

Yes, I can see that - and indeed it's in the article in the beginnung saying that Obama did a lot of things any Republican Prsident would have done: Drones, killing Bin Ladin, not closing Gitmo, etc.

Word is, he may close Gitmo. By moving it to the US, which I think generally misses the point of why people want Gitmo closed.

[Heid the Ba]

Yes and no, by moving the inmates to the US there is an admission that normal laws apply and that there is no magic "enemy combatant" classification.

[Мастер]

Yes and no, by moving the inmates to the US there is an admission that normal laws apply and that there is no magic "enemy combatant" classification.

I saw some statement about how the CIA drone pilots are illegal combatants, as they are not military personnel.

I lack the requisite legal expertise to say whether that's the case. I am slowly transforming myself into a self-trained unlicensed human rights lawyer, but the process is far from complete.

[Heid the Ba]

I saw some statement about how the CIA drone pilots are illegal combatants, as they are not military personnel.

I lack the requisite legal expertise to say whether that's the case.

It isn't my area of law, but generally to be covered by the various treaties you have to be uniformed and identifiable at a distance as a belligerent. Sitting on an air force base, flying a liveried drone while wearing civvies would probably be ok, sitting elsewhere, or flying an unmarked drone would probably not be. But I could be talking out my jacksie.

This is one of the major problems with Bush/Rumsfeldt dicking about with International Law, US personnel (and by extension everyone else) can't expect to be protected by something their presidents flout.

[Мастер]

It is definitely not my area of law (since it isn't "none"), but if they're not subject to US jurisdiction because they're in Cuba, then I would think they ought to be subject to Cuban jurisdiction. However, my ideas of how things ought to be are often not the same as how they are.

[Heid the Ba]

The whole rationale for using Guantanamo is the disputed jurisdiction, Cuba says it is theirs while the US obfuscates and everyone else thinks the US is either very stupid or lieing.

[Мастер]

The whole rationale for using Guantanamo is the disputed jurisdiction, Cuba says it is theirs while the US obfuscates and everyone else thinks the US is either very stupid or lieing.

This is what makes no sense to me. Certainly it is possible for Cuba and the US to disagree on various things. But the prisoners are unambiguously under the control of the US. So the US position is, they believe they should have jurisdiction, but then claim they don't because Cuba disputes it?

That is a rather odd position to hold.

[Heid the Ba]

I have never been clear as to why the US say it is outwith the US since as you say the prisoners are clearly under their control.

[Мастер]

It gives me some sense of hope remebering that it was the Repuclicans who aborted slavery - although some of their leading personell probably still regret that mistake.

The mistake being to "abort" slavery? Indeed, many modern Republicans are against abortion.

This site has maps which show the outcomes of the presidential elections on a state-by-state basis. I suspect the congressional and Senate elections are highly correlated, but haven't verified that. From 1880 until 1944, with very few exceptions (Tennessee in 1920, a few states in 1928), Democrats won every state that seceded from the US in 1960/61. (Not counting West Virginia, which seceded as part of Virginia, and subsequently seceded from Virginia to rejoin the US.) In 1948, Strom Thurmond was a third party candidate and won many southern states, a feat repeated by George Wallace in 1968. Apart from the third-party candidates, Republicans started to win some southern states in 1952, and Goldwater (Hilary Clinton's preferred candidate) won a whole bunch in 1964, almost the only states he won. Since then, it has been common for Republicans to win southern states, although Democrats still take some.

So, the party alignment that existed 150 years ago does seem to have changed, although I think this is probably not unusual over such a long time period - a lot of European countries have had violent revolutions since then

[Arneb]

I heard the strong association of the South with the Democratic Party broke when the Democrats officially renounced racism, Evangelical Christianity and an anti-aobortion stand, going for civil rights instead. AFAIK, the term Southern Democrat refers to someone who works for the interests of lower-class people, as long as they're white and evangelical.

[Lianachan]

I didn't know that Hillary Clinton is fucking bat-shit crazy.

[Arneb]

However, we DID know the Daily Mirror is fucking bat-shit crazy.

[MM_Dandy]

I'm pretty sure a similar source (if it wasn't the Mirror itself) claimed that Obama would do the same.

[Lianachan]

The same claim is made in several news sources, although CNN say she was only joking.