Can you register for every party (are there just two?)?
Just saw this. Technically, the US has a lot of different parties. There are the Greens, the Libertarians, the "American Independent Party," you can register as no affiliation. At various times in history we've had (a quite strong) Communist party, a Segregation party (also awkwardly well supported), Whigs, etc., etc.
Someone, and I forget who, asked what happens if there is a tie in the Electoral College. This tested my memory of 12th grade US Government class, so I had to Google it. The answer is the House of Representatives would choose. But, it wouldn't be as straightforward as simple majority vote. Instead, the representatives for each state would vote, and whichever candidate gets the most votes from the congressmen in said state would get that state. At that point, it becomes a race to 26. Now, the question then becomes what happens if there is a 25/25 tie, or if votes within a state are tied. That gets into constitutional crisis/minutia level that I can't be bothered to Google.
I think the only thing that can cost Trump the nomination at this point is Trump. He obviously delights in pushing his outrageousness to new limits but if he divides his party much further than he has now I think many of his supporters will turn against him. It's almost sewn up, not quite. Georgia is Trump's and Clinton's, just announced. Very high turnouts everywhere, Trump has brought huge levels of interest to this election.
Thanks for that. Very hard to follow. No wonder the imperialist arm of American foreign policy struggles to democratise the parts of the world it interferes with. In China, where people vote too, they vote for which communist party person they prefer at local and broader level. Not great, but not a million miles from the confusing American system. So called democracy has many versions and interpretations.
Trump with the nuclear codes is very scary.
Sorry Seth, just wanted to point out that it's absolutely not true. Never in my life have I seen a ballot or heard of this kind of elections taking place locally. Nor have my parents, my relatives, my neighbors, my colleagues or my friends. And I don't live in a remote village - my hometown is one of the richest/the most developed cities in China apart from the world famous places like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, etc. My point is, nobody knows how and why these delegates are 'elected'. There's no transparency at all. In fact we don't really have a voting system. The elected are not elected but specifically chosen by the government. (Do you think the Communist party would be willing to offer the power of choosing 'their' people to anyone else? Wouldn't that jeopardize their position?) I don't know what you were told or what you saw when you were here. Whatever that was, it was probably a lie or a fake show. We ARE a million miles from say Taiwan when it comes to elections, let alone the US....
By the way, on the original topic, I honestly can't believe Trump will win the Primary Election. Will probably go down as the biggest farce in the Republicans history.
Thanks for that. Very hard to follow. No wonder the imperialist arm of American foreign policy struggles to democratise the parts of the world it interferes with. In China, where people vote too, they vote for which communist party person they prefer at local and broader level. Not great, but not a million miles from the confusing American system. So called democracy has many versions and interpretations.
Trump with the nuclear codes is very scary.
Sorry Seth, just wanted to point out that it's absolutely not true. Never in my life have I seen a ballot or heard of this kind of elections taking place locally. Nor have my parents, my relatives, my neighbors, my colleagues or my friends. And I don't live in a remote village - my hometown is one of the richest/the most developed cities in China apart from the world famous places like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, etc. My point is, nobody knows how and why these delegates are 'elected'. There's no transparency at all. In fact we don't really have a voting system. The elected are not elected but specifically chosen by the government. (Do you think the Communist party would be willing to offer the power of choosing 'their' people to anyone else? Wouldn't that jeopardize their position?) I don't know what you were told or what you saw when you were here. Whatever that was, it was probably a lie or a fake show. We ARE a million miles from say Taiwan when it comes to elections, let alone the US....
By the way, on the original topic, I honestly can't believe Trump will win the Primary Election. Will probably go down as the biggest farce in the Republicans history.
Thanks for clearing this up. I am obviously wrong. Is there no vote on anything at all?
Looks like Trump has the nomination sewn up. Very difficult to see Cruz or Rubio doing enough to beat him.
Clinton has taken the lead, but seemingly failed to land a knockout blow, so the democrats roll on.
I think it's actually the other way round. Clinton is 99% there and Trump about 90%.
It doesn't look that way because Sanders has won 5 states about of 15 and effectively drawn one of the others. But Clinton has pulled in massive wins in some of the bigger states. Put all of Bernie's wins together and they don't add up to even half of what Hilary won in Texas. Moreover, she has 90% of the superdelegates sewn up so her lead in delegates is currently 1,000 to 371 with 2,382 needed to win (according to Real Clear Politics).
By contrast, Trump has less than half of the delegates so far. He has 285 v 161 for Cruz and 87 for Rubio (who looks like toast to me). The winning post is 1,237.
Looking at the numbers it does look like Clinton has it sewn up and Trump is still in a fight.
Difficult to right Bernie off completely in a two horse race.
On the republican side it seems Cruz and Rubio are splitting the anti-Trump vote, So whilst it looks close, Trump has the momentum at the moment and the others are doing each other as much harm as they are doing themselves good.
Thanks for that. Very hard to follow. No wonder the imperialist arm of American foreign policy struggles to democratise the parts of the world it interferes with. In China, where people vote too, they vote for which communist party person they prefer at local and broader level. Not great, but not a million miles from the confusing American system. So called democracy has many versions and interpretations.
Trump with the nuclear codes is very scary.
Sorry Seth, just wanted to point out that it's absolutely not true. Never in my life have I seen a ballot or heard of this kind of elections taking place locally. Nor have my parents, my relatives, my neighbors, my colleagues or my friends. And I don't live in a remote village - my hometown is one of the richest/the most developed cities in China apart from the world famous places like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, etc. My point is, nobody knows how and why these delegates are 'elected'. There's no transparency at all. In fact we don't really have a voting system. The elected are not elected but specifically chosen by the government. (Do you think the Communist party would be willing to offer the power of choosing 'their' people to anyone else? Wouldn't that jeopardize their position?) I don't know what you were told or what you saw when you were here. Whatever that was, it was probably a lie or a fake show. We ARE a million miles from say Taiwan when it comes to elections, let alone the US....
By the way, on the original topic, I honestly can't believe Trump will win the Primary Election. Will probably go down as the biggest farce in the Republicans history.
Thanks for clearing this up. I am obviously wrong. Is there no vote on anything at all?
One of the most interesting statistics I've heard so far, is that only 12,000 people participated in the Democratic primary in Nevada, while 100,000 people participated in the Nevada Republican primary.
I am curious about the Greens and how big their party is in the US? I am guessing there will be a lot of red-neck americans who are so misogynist that they will be unable to vote for a woman President. This could ease up the Trump vote.
I am curious about the Greens and how big their party is in the US? I am guessing there will be a lot of red-neck americans who are so misogynist that they will be unable to vote for a woman President. This could ease up the Trump vote.
The Greens are pretty small. I've looked at voting Green in the past.
Third parties in the states have a ridiculous uphill battle. First off, just getting candidates on the ballot is a massive challenge, be it for president or congress. Second, to get federal election funding, you need to have a certain percentage of the vote. For President, it's 5%. It is incredibly hard to reach this with little to no fiscal funds. It's a real shame.
As for what was learned last night, Clinton is pulling away, and it's just hard to see a way back for Sanders. The order of the states voting in the Democratic party has not been particularly kind to him. Had some key liberal or swing states come up earlier, particularly those in the midwest with strong labor traditions like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, it might have been a different story.
On the Republican side, everything I've read is pretty unanimous that, for Trump to have a hard time getting to the nomination, one of Cruz or Rubio need to drop out now. Neither are going to. People are saying Rubio needs to win his home state of Florida, on March 12, in order "to be taken seriously." But by then, it may well be too late. As for Cruz, there are rumors that within the Republican higher ups, he is considered to be worse than Trump by some. He is a deeply dislikable man, petulant and selfish--and this has nothing to do with his politics, just him as a person.
In short, Bill Clinton may as well start picking out the drapes and meeting the female members of staff at the White House.
I'm intrigued as to whether the Republican delegates would consider going against the primary results if Trump effectively wins them but not massively.
I'm intrigued as to whether the Republican delegates would consider going against the primary results if Trump effectively wibs them but not massively.
The vast majority of delegates are pledged i.e. legally bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to unless that candidate releases them. If the vote goes to more than one ballot (i.e. if nobody gets a majority in the first vote at the convention) then I think there may be rules releasing delegates after X number of ballots but I'm a bit hazy on the details.
Personally speaking I've been Googling "UK Immigration Laws" for some time now...
Get in quick before we shut the borders!!
Don't let in Marxists now, do you?
Surely you need an atheist Marxist Jew to make up for the fact that the Millibands' have turned out to be such disappointing Capitalists?
@North Lower Neil They couldn't run within the party, at least not without some sort of coup. Were it a razor thin margin, I could maybe see Cruz trying to push it, but honestly, the one who would be most likely to push it is Trump, and short of seismic shifts in the next week or two, I think he's the nominee.
What one of the candidates (again, probably Cruz) could do is run as an independent, as the likes of Rand Paul and Ross P. have done in the past. I don't think it's very likely though, again, I think that were Trump to lose the nominee, he'd run as an independent. Cruz winning the Republican nomination and Trump running as an independent is the dream to someone left leaning until you realize "oh, it's Hillary ."
Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York has been thrown out as a potential independent candidate. The problem is, by the end of his three terms as NY mayor, he wasn't all that popular with New Yorkers. He's a very rich, old fashion Libertarian New York Jew, and I just don't think he holds much national appeal.
Lastly, Bernie Sanders, should he lose the nomination, could run as an independent. He is registered as an independent in the Senate, even though he usually votes with the Democrats. I just can't see this one either, with Trump also on the ticket the focus will be on keeping him from the White House.
It should be noted that, at present, Trump is polling around 37% nationally.
I'm a pretty big opponent of Hillary Clinton's, attacking her from the left, but one thing I don't really understand is why she is so feared from the right. 20 years ago, when she was first lady, she made an incredibly audacious attempt at universal healthcare for all, to her immense credit. She was VILIFIED nationally, call disgusting things and considered a Communist for years. But I haven't heard anything like that really since she moved into the Senate and discovered that being center-left and taking corporate money is a sweet gig.
She's unlikely to raise taxes, at least not drastically. There will probably be a lot of talk about corporate tax loopholes, at which point a watered-down bargain will be struck and little will change. She'll maintain Obamacare, which is contrary to the attacks on it, a drastic expansion of privatized healthcare. Basically, Americans are now mandated to get healthcare through private, for profit entities. Costs have gone up drastically, and weirdly, so have health insurance company profits. Same for pharmaceutical companies. The number of takeovers in the industry of late has been immense in scale, and it's a great indicator that the money is still sweet. Meanwhile, our health outcomes in relation to money spent is poor.
Clinton will probably continue the mild Government spending/hiring Obama has started, which has resulted in some great Government programs. But frankly, those that are benefiting from the upturn in our economy are mostly the rich and upper middle class. Working class and those close to poverty continue to be cut adrift, and that is disproportionately African-Americans, Hispanics, and women.
I disagree with a fair few of her moves as Secretary of State. Bombing Assad seems like a pretty stupid move with hindsight. Oh, and it seemed dumb at the time, mustard gas or otherwise. Letting Egypt crush the revolution and return the Government to the U.S. backed Army was fun, and a real squandered chance at organic democracy in the middle east region. Bombing Libya...well at some point we as a country need to figure out a better foreign policy conflict resolution than sending guns or dropping bombs. Four people died in Benghazi. More than that die from lightning strikes in the states every year. I continue to not understand that one, truth or lies.
She'll continue to support planned parenthood, but as many states show, just because abortions are legal and should be "accessible within reason" as is the law of the land, the term "within reason" is interpretable, and the President has little say over the matter. There is a case before the Supreme Court dealing with that as we speak. I remain happy that Scalia is dead, and I do not like to revel in the death of others.
Personally speaking I've been Googling "UK Immigration Laws" for some time now...
Get in quick before we shut the borders!!
Don't let in Marxists now, do you?
Surely you need an atheist Marxist Jew to make up for the fact that the Millibands' have turned out to be such disappointing Capitalists?
@North Lower Neil They couldn't run within the party, at least not without some sort of coup. Were it a razor thin margin, I could maybe see Cruz trying to push it, but honestly, the one who would be most likely to push it is Trump, and short of seismic shifts in the next week or two, I think he's the nominee.
What one of the candidates (again, probably Cruz) could do is run as an independent, as the likes of Rand Paul and Ross P. have done in the past. I don't think it's very likely though, again, I think that were Trump to lose the nominee, he'd run as an independent. Cruz winning the Republican nomination and Trump running as an independent is the dream to someone left leaning until you realize "oh, it's Hillary ."
Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York has been thrown out as a potential independent candidate. The problem is, by the end of his three terms as NY mayor, he wasn't all that popular with New Yorkers. He's a very rich, old fashion Libertarian New York Jew, and I just don't think he holds much national appeal.
Lastly, Bernie Sanders, should he lose the nomination, could run as an independent. He is registered as an independent in the Senate, even though he usually votes with the Democrats. I just can't see this one either, with Trump also on the ticket the focus will be on keeping him from the White House.
It should be noted that, at present, Trump is polling around 37% nationally.
I'm a pretty big opponent of Hillary Clinton's, attacking her from the left, but one thing I don't really understand is why she is so feared from the right. 20 years ago, when she was first lady, she made an incredibly audacious attempt at universal healthcare for all, to her immense credit. She was VILIFIED nationally, call disgusting things and considered a Communist for years. But I haven't heard anything like that really since she moved into the Senate and discovered that being center-left and taking corporate money is a sweet gig.
She's unlikely to raise taxes, at least not drastically. There will probably be a lot of talk about corporate tax loopholes, at which point a watered-down bargain will be struck and little will change. She'll maintain Obamacare, which is contrary to the attacks on it, a drastic expansion of privatized healthcare. Basically, Americans are now mandated to get healthcare through private, for profit entities. Costs have gone up drastically, and weirdly, so have health insurance company profits. Same for pharmaceutical companies. The number of takeovers in the industry of late has been immense in scale, and it's a great indicator that the money is still sweet. Meanwhile, our health outcomes in relation to money spent is poor.
Clinton will probably continue the mild Government spending/hiring Obama has started, which has resulted in some great Government programs. But frankly, those that are benefiting from the upturn in our economy are mostly the rich and upper middle class. Working class and those close to poverty continue to be cut adrift, and that is disproportionately African-Americans, Hispanics, and women.
I disagree with a fair few of her moves as Secretary of State. Bombing Assad seems like a pretty stupid move with hindsight. Oh, and it seemed dumb at the time, mustard gas or otherwise. Letting Egypt crush the revolution and return the Government to the U.S. backed Army was fun, and a real squandered chance at organic democracy in the middle east region. Bombing Libya...well at some point we as a country need to figure out a better foreign policy conflict resolution than sending guns or dropping bombs. Four people died in Benghazi. More than that die from lightning strikes in the states every year. I continue to not understand that one, truth or lies.
She'll continue to support planned parenthood, but as many states show, just because abortions are legal and should be "accessible within reason" as is the law of the land, the term "within reason" is interpretable, and the President has little say over the matter. There is a case before the Supreme Court dealing with that as we speak. I remain happy that Scalia is dead, and I do not like to revel in the death of others.
Fish, Limey, perhaps you can enlighten us?
If Blomberg is a non starter can you see any third party Billionaires stepping forward? There's surely a chance with two such polarising candidates running off against one another? Someone on here mentioned Oprah a few days ago but I can't see somebody like her on the left of the spectrum wanting to split the democratic vote. Maybe our old friend will give it one more go (just kidding but I love the gif).
I am a big believer that every election needs a deranged, megalomanic rich person. It's just, that's become so mainstream now.
As I was writing my last post, I was thinking that, had they not had such mainstream success in the primaries, I could see both Cruz and Sanders splitting from their respective parties and running. But because both have had success in the mainstream, but not enough success to indicate they could change the race, it's hard to see it happening.
Trump SHOULD be that deranged billionaire, but as I said, it's all gone a bit mainstream.
It's a very strange year. Like World Cups, elections come around every four years and there's a fair amount of luck and chance involved. Right now the old Libertarian guard has aged to a point where they're pretty irrelevant (Lieberman, Paul Sr.). Apart from Paul Jr. who is a deeply unlikeable fellow, and Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico) a man without a job or a home in politics at the moment, there isn't really anyone stepping in to fill that void. The Republicans have shifted SO far to the right as a result of the Tea Party and it's even more Christian-Conservative spin-offs that many of the moderates have been dumped out of office and thus relevancy in the last five years.
On the other side, there is a group of young(ish) progressive relatively new to Government, namely Warren and Booker. Both are new enough in the national spotlight that they wouldn't risk going up against Clinton even in the primaries, so neither would take the third-party route as I think both are intent on being the progressive block of the Democrats for the next decade or two.
Beyond that, there's Chuck Schumer of New York, but he also falls into the too Jewy too rich not particularly likable enough category, and he is a longtime friend of the Clintons and wouldn't dare mess with their political vehicle. Biden's time came and went, same for John Kerry, though both have excelled in their current roles (i.e. do decent things behind the scenes but don't be in front of the camera enough to make too many cock ups).
The Republicans have seen a huge changing of the guard in the last 5-10 years. The Democrats are starting to see one. What's left are some young, ambitious politicians who are too inexperienced to chance their hand now (throw Nikki Hailey of South Carolina into that on the Republican side, and the Castros for the Dems), or old party members whose time has passed (McCain, Kerry, Biden, Schumer, Mitch McTurtle, etc.).
I am a big believer that every election needs a deranged, megalomanic rich person. It's just, that's become so mainstream now.
As I was writing my last post, I was thinking that, had they not had such mainstream success in the primaries, I could see both Cruz and Sanders splitting from their respective parties and running. But because both have had success in the mainstream, but not enough success to indicate they could change the race, it's hard to see it happening.
Trump SHOULD be that deranged billionaire, but as I said, it's all gone a bit mainstream.
It's a very strange year. Like World Cups, elections come around every four years and there's a fair amount of luck and chance involved. Right now the old Libertarian guard has aged to a point where they're pretty irrelevant (Lieberman, Paul Sr.). Apart from Paul Jr. who is a deeply unlikeable fellow, and Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico) a man without a job or a home in politics at the moment, there isn't really anyone stepping in to fill that void. The Republicans have shifted SO far to the right as a result of the Tea Party and it's even more Christian-Conservative spin-offs that many of the moderates have been dumped out of office and thus relevancy in the last five years.
On the other side, there is a group of young(ish) progressive relatively new to Government, namely Warren and Booker. Both are new enough in the national spotlight that they wouldn't risk going up against Clinton even in the primaries, so neither would take the third-party route as I think both are intent on being the progressive block of the Democrats for the next decade or two.
Beyond that, there's Chuck Schumer of New York, but he also falls into the too Jewy too rich not particularly likable enough category, and he is a longtime friend of the Clintons and wouldn't dare mess with their political vehicle. Biden's time came and went, same for John Kerry, though both have excelled in their current roles (i.e. do decent things behind the scenes but don't be in front of the camera enough to make too many cock ups).
The Republicans have seen a huge changing of the guard in the last 5-10 years. The Democrats are starting to see one. What's left are some young, ambitious politicians who are too inexperienced to chance their hand now (throw Nikki Hailey of South Carolina into that on the Republican side, and the other Cruz's for the Dems), or old party members whose time has passed (McCain, Kerry, Biden, Schumer, Mitch McTurtle, etc.).
Reading that article reminded me of my early 20's. I went from being politically active and idealistic to a cynical bastard in about as much time as those congressmen. Reality really is a bitch.
Clinton's IT guy was granted immunity against prosecution yesterday by the Department of Justice, the strongest suggestion so far that they (the DOJ) have enough to prosecute Hilary over the email server issue. There are suggestions now that the remaining Republican candidates will all stay in the race in order to prevent Trump from reaching the 1237 delegate count required for him to be the nominee. This will allow the delegates to vote for whomever they want, the plot thickens. Trump's behaviour in the debates is definitely working against him. Even people who strongly support his views are turned off by the insults.
Comments
Someone, and I forget who, asked what happens if there is a tie in the Electoral College. This tested my memory of 12th grade US Government class, so I had to Google it. The answer is the House of Representatives would choose. But, it wouldn't be as straightforward as simple majority vote. Instead, the representatives for each state would vote, and whichever candidate gets the most votes from the congressmen in said state would get that state. At that point, it becomes a race to 26. Now, the question then becomes what happens if there is a 25/25 tie, or if votes within a state are tied. That gets into constitutional crisis/minutia level that I can't be bothered to Google.
For more (the site is from 2012 but quite informative)
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/an-electoral-college-tie-explained/
Georgia is Trump's and Clinton's, just announced. Very high turnouts everywhere, Trump has brought huge levels of interest to this election.
By the way, on the original topic, I honestly can't believe Trump will win the Primary Election. Will probably go down as the biggest farce in the Republicans history.
Clinton has taken the lead, but seemingly failed to land a knockout blow, so the democrats roll on.
It doesn't look that way because Sanders has won 5 states about of 15 and effectively drawn one of the others. But Clinton has pulled in massive wins in some of the bigger states. Put all of Bernie's wins together and they don't add up to even half of what Hilary won in Texas. Moreover, she has 90% of the superdelegates sewn up so her lead in delegates is currently 1,000 to 371 with 2,382 needed to win (according to Real Clear Politics).
By contrast, Trump has less than half of the delegates so far. He has 285 v 161 for Cruz and 87 for Rubio (who looks like toast to me). The winning post is 1,237.
Difficult to right Bernie off completely in a two horse race.
On the republican side it seems Cruz and Rubio are splitting the anti-Trump vote, So whilst it looks close, Trump has the momentum at the moment and the others are doing each other as much harm as they are doing themselves good.
Got to go to work now......
I am guessing there will be a lot of red-neck americans who are so misogynist that they will be unable to vote for a woman President. This could ease up the Trump vote.
Third parties in the states have a ridiculous uphill battle. First off, just getting candidates on the ballot is a massive challenge, be it for president or congress. Second, to get federal election funding, you need to have a certain percentage of the vote. For President, it's 5%. It is incredibly hard to reach this with little to no fiscal funds. It's a real shame.
As for what was learned last night, Clinton is pulling away, and it's just hard to see a way back for Sanders. The order of the states voting in the Democratic party has not been particularly kind to him. Had some key liberal or swing states come up earlier, particularly those in the midwest with strong labor traditions like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, it might have been a different story.
On the Republican side, everything I've read is pretty unanimous that, for Trump to have a hard time getting to the nomination, one of Cruz or Rubio need to drop out now. Neither are going to. People are saying Rubio needs to win his home state of Florida, on March 12, in order "to be taken seriously." But by then, it may well be too late. As for Cruz, there are rumors that within the Republican higher ups, he is considered to be worse than Trump by some. He is a deeply dislikable man, petulant and selfish--and this has nothing to do with his politics, just him as a person.
In short, Bill Clinton may as well start picking out the drapes and meeting the female members of staff at the White House.
Lord help us all.
If people are worried about Brexit then they have no idea what problems either of these clowns will cause on the global stage.
@North Lower Neil They couldn't run within the party, at least not without some sort of coup. Were it a razor thin margin, I could maybe see Cruz trying to push it, but honestly, the one who would be most likely to push it is Trump, and short of seismic shifts in the next week or two, I think he's the nominee.
What one of the candidates (again, probably Cruz) could do is run as an independent, as the likes of Rand Paul and Ross P. have done in the past. I don't think it's very likely though, again, I think that were Trump to lose the nominee, he'd run as an independent. Cruz winning the Republican nomination and Trump running as an independent is the dream to someone left leaning until you realize "oh, it's Hillary
Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York has been thrown out as a potential independent candidate. The problem is, by the end of his three terms as NY mayor, he wasn't all that popular with New Yorkers. He's a very rich, old fashion Libertarian New York Jew, and I just don't think he holds much national appeal.
Lastly, Bernie Sanders, should he lose the nomination, could run as an independent. He is registered as an independent in the Senate, even though he usually votes with the Democrats. I just can't see this one either, with Trump also on the ticket the focus will be on keeping him from the White House.
It should be noted that, at present, Trump is polling around 37% nationally.
I'm a pretty big opponent of Hillary Clinton's, attacking her from the left, but one thing I don't really understand is why she is so feared from the right. 20 years ago, when she was first lady, she made an incredibly audacious attempt at universal healthcare for all, to her immense credit. She was VILIFIED nationally, call disgusting things and considered a Communist for years. But I haven't heard anything like that really since she moved into the Senate and discovered that being center-left and taking corporate money is a sweet gig.
She's unlikely to raise taxes, at least not drastically. There will probably be a lot of talk about corporate tax loopholes, at which point a watered-down bargain will be struck and little will change. She'll maintain Obamacare, which is contrary to the attacks on it, a drastic expansion of privatized healthcare. Basically, Americans are now mandated to get healthcare through private, for profit entities. Costs have gone up drastically, and weirdly, so have health insurance company profits. Same for pharmaceutical companies. The number of takeovers in the industry of late has been immense in scale, and it's a great indicator that the money is still sweet. Meanwhile, our health outcomes in relation to money spent is poor.
Clinton will probably continue the mild Government spending/hiring Obama has started, which has resulted in some great Government programs. But frankly, those that are benefiting from the upturn in our economy are mostly the rich and upper middle class. Working class and those close to poverty continue to be cut adrift, and that is disproportionately African-Americans, Hispanics, and women.
I disagree with a fair few of her moves as Secretary of State. Bombing Assad seems like a pretty stupid move with hindsight. Oh, and it seemed dumb at the time, mustard gas or otherwise. Letting Egypt crush the revolution and return the Government to the U.S. backed Army was fun, and a real squandered chance at organic democracy in the middle east region. Bombing Libya...well at some point we as a country need to figure out a better foreign policy conflict resolution than sending guns or dropping bombs. Four people died in Benghazi. More than that die from lightning strikes in the states every year. I continue to not understand that one, truth or lies.
She'll continue to support planned parenthood, but as many states show, just because abortions are legal and should be "accessible within reason" as is the law of the land, the term "within reason" is interpretable, and the President has little say over the matter. There is a case before the Supreme Court dealing with that as we speak. I remain happy that Scalia is dead, and I do not like to revel in the death of others.
Fish, Limey, perhaps you can enlighten us?
As I was writing my last post, I was thinking that, had they not had such mainstream success in the primaries, I could see both Cruz and Sanders splitting from their respective parties and running. But because both have had success in the mainstream, but not enough success to indicate they could change the race, it's hard to see it happening.
Trump SHOULD be that deranged billionaire, but as I said, it's all gone a bit mainstream.
It's a very strange year. Like World Cups, elections come around every four years and there's a fair amount of luck and chance involved. Right now the old Libertarian guard has aged to a point where they're pretty irrelevant (Lieberman, Paul Sr.). Apart from Paul Jr. who is a deeply unlikeable fellow, and Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico) a man without a job or a home in politics at the moment, there isn't really anyone stepping in to fill that void. The Republicans have shifted SO far to the right as a result of the Tea Party and it's even more Christian-Conservative spin-offs that many of the moderates have been dumped out of office and thus relevancy in the last five years.
On the other side, there is a group of young(ish) progressive relatively new to Government, namely Warren and Booker. Both are new enough in the national spotlight that they wouldn't risk going up against Clinton even in the primaries, so neither would take the third-party route as I think both are intent on being the progressive block of the Democrats for the next decade or two.
Beyond that, there's Chuck Schumer of New York, but he also falls into the too Jewy too rich not particularly likable enough category, and he is a longtime friend of the Clintons and wouldn't dare mess with their political vehicle. Biden's time came and went, same for John Kerry, though both have excelled in their current roles (i.e. do decent things behind the scenes but don't be in front of the camera enough to make too many cock ups).
The Republicans have seen a huge changing of the guard in the last 5-10 years. The Democrats are starting to see one. What's left are some young, ambitious politicians who are too inexperienced to chance their hand now (throw Nikki Hailey of South Carolina into that on the Republican side, and the Castros for the Dems), or old party members whose time has passed (McCain, Kerry, Biden, Schumer, Mitch McTurtle, etc.).
An interesting article on the Congressional Tea Party class of 2010, who burned so brightly, replaced so many incumbent candidates, and are now going home:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/house-republican-tea-party-class-2010-leaves-congress/463227/
There are suggestions now that the remaining Republican candidates will all stay in the race in order to prevent Trump from reaching the 1237 delegate count required for him to be the nominee. This will allow the delegates to vote for whomever they want, the plot thickens.
Trump's behaviour in the debates is definitely working against him. Even people who strongly support his views are turned off by the insults.