2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Caliga]

He claims a net worth of 70 billion. 

[sbr]

Here is the DNC's response to Trump joining the race (as far as I can tell it is real)

[Razgovory]

I hope Trump wins.  He is rich.  He knows how to run a business.

Governments are not much like businesses.

[jimmy olsen]

America has changed some with regards to women and nerds since the 90s, but I don't know if it's changed enough for that. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_should_go_full_nerd_the_democratic_frontrunner_should_offer.html

Why Hillary Clinton Should Go Full Nerd

The Democratic front-runner should offer voters her authentic, geeky self.A
mong the most awkward moments of Hillary Clinton's last campaign for president was her speech in Selma, Alabama, on the 42nd anniversary of Bloody Sunday. The substance of her speech was unremarkable, but the style was unfortunate. Clinton tried to soar with inspirational rhetoric—"Yes, that long march to freedom that began here has carried us a mighty long way"—but it fell flat. And worse, the Chicago-raised Clinton adopted a strange Southern drawl that at times mimicked, poorly, the cadences and rhythms of a black preacher. Instead of connecting with her audience, Clinton—who has real allies in black political leadership and a genuine commitment to voting rights—looked fake.

When we talk about Clinton, we often talk about this inauthenticity. "Despite sharing her husband's poll-driven risk aversion," wrote columnist Damon Linker in a piece last year for the Week, "Hillary Clinton has never played the game on his level, and her vulnerability to backlash against gratuitous displays of patent insincerity is already becoming glaringly apparent." Linker's view is a version of former Clinton adviser Mark Penn's: "Hillary is cold, removed, needs to be authentic," he said, suggesting she be "as likable as possible" but not "reach too far." And in turn, this reflects a more hostile assessment from conservative speechwriter Peggy Noonan in her 2000 book The Case Against Hillary Clinton, "She lacks historical heft, is not a person of real size and authenticity." Carl Bernstein, discussing his biography of Clinton, said it this way: "This is a woman who led a camouflaged life and continues to."

But there's an obvious double standard here: What politician is utterly authentic? Who are the lawmakers who show their realest selves to the public? And what does it even mean to be "authentic" in a singular sense when all of us are authentic in different ways at different times?

For Clinton in particular, this entire line of questioning and criticism is deeply unfair. After all, there was a time when Hillary Clinton was incredibly authentic, or, at least, gave us a glance at one of her authentic selves. "One needn't approve of what she says or does (though often it is highly approvable) to recognize her as real," wrote journalist Paul Greenberg in 1992, during the Democratic primaries. At the New Republic, Elspeth Reeve uncovers a 1992 profile of Clinton in which observers and reporters praise her as "charming," "delightful," "extraordinary," and "unbelievably articulate." This Hillary Clinton—still new on the national stage—was ambitious, driven, and feisty. She was as political, knowledgeable, and as fluent in the language of policy as her husband. And people liked her for it.

Or they did, until she revealed too much. "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life," she said to reporters about her career, unleashing waves of criticism from angry and affronted Americans. Clinton was too real, and she paid a political price. Hillary and her allies would spend the next two decades, right up to the present, burying the tough, passionate Clinton and playing up the one who wouldn't raise hackles, who was her "softer side" more than she was a political partner.

But even as Clinton has accommodated the backlash, she chafes against it. According to Gail Sheehy, who has profiled Clinton and been her biographer, the former first lady once confessed deep frustration with her public image. "I just don't know what to do anymore, nothing I do works. ... I understand that I'm really threatening to men, that the velocity of change between men and women and the way the country is going and for one generation to the boomers is overwhelming, especially to men," she said. "I'm threatening to them and I don't know what to do about it." Clinton came back to this territory during her 2000 Senate campaign, during an unusually introspective press conference. " 'Who are you?' and all of that. I don't know if that is the right question," she said. "Even people you think you know extremely well, do you know their entire personality? Do they, at every point you're with them, reveal totally who they are? Of course not. We now expect people in the public arena to somehow do that. I don't understand the need behind that."


Hillary Clinton is running for president again, and it's clear she's still accommodating the backlash against her more authentic self. Unlike her Republican opponents who announced their campaigns with big rallies and elaborate staging, Clinton had a quieter initial rollout. She released a short video—focused entirely on her supporters—and embarked on a "listening tour" across early-primary and swing states. All of this was meant to diffuse the sense that Clinton is entitled—a "coronated" candidate foisted on an apathetic party. I don't know if that has worked, although I think the description is false. What I can say, however, is that these scripted events have made her seem more relatable and more real. Just not in the way you might expect.


During her "listening tour," Clinton spoke to Iowans about substance abuse, mental illness, and building treatment capacity for both; to Nevada high schoolers about immigration reform, vowing to "do everything I possibly can" to help immigrants; and to community college students about job training and education. And in speeches across the country, she's staked new and more liberal ground on criminal justice reform and voting rights, pushing an expansive plan for universal voter registration.

What comes across in every instance is her enthusiasm for policy. When the discussion is concrete, when it involves problems and solutions, Clinton is clear and compelling. No, she doesn't have the effortless charm of her husband or the equally effortless cool of Barack Obama, but she's intense, devoted, and honestly interested in helping. Here's the New York Times on her stop in New Hampshire:

There is not a lot of I-feel-your-pain hugging at these events, and few uproarious moments. But Mrs. Clinton brings a wonkish intensity, arriving at each round table armed with specific data points. She said, "The average four-year graduate in Iowa graduates with nearly $30,000 in debt," and, "In New Hampshire, 96 percent of all businesses are considered small businesses." She nods, jots down notes and interjects conversations with words of encouragement: "That's interesting," and, "That's a very good point."

There's another way to put this: Hillary Clinton is a nerd. You see it at every stage of her life. As a kid she went door to door collecting census data, asking homeowners if they had "any children in the home who are not in school" so that the Census Bureau could understand the discrepancy between the total number of children and those who are enrolled in school. As a student at Wellesley, writes Carl Bernstein, she developed "a better system for the return of library books" and "studied every aspect of the Wellesley curriculum in developing a successful plan to reduce the number of required courses." Writing in the Atlantic, Peter Beinart collects other examples of Clinton's earnest, and authentic, nerdiness:

In 1993, she took time off from a vacation in Hawaii to grill local officials about the state's healthcare system. In his excellent book on Hillary's 2000 Senate race, Michael Tomasky observes that, "In the entire campaign, she had exactly one truly inspiring moment" but that, "over time it became evident to all but the most cynical that she actually cared about utility rates."

Looking ahead to 2016, Clinton will face one of two attacks from her eventual Republican opponent, if not both: that she can't relate to ordinary Americans, and that she's long in the tooth—a candidate for yesterday, not tomorrow.

An elite among elites, there's no way that Clinton can refute the latter. But she can sidestep it, and take on the former, by embracing the ambition, the earnest wonkery, and the nerdy enthusiasm that have defined her entire life. Instead of moderating the parts of her that caused her trouble in 1992 (and beyond), she should step on the throttle and ride with them. Not only does it fit her, but it fits the moment, too.

Earlier this year Parks and Recreation ended its seven-season run on NBC. Initially modeled on the American version of The Office, the show shifted gears in its second season. It became gentler—a comedy of errors, not a comedy of awkwardness—and in its own way, radical. As critic Alyssa Rosenberg wrote for the Washington Post, rather than capitulate to the hopelessness of present politics—in which gridlock and obstruction are the rule—Parks and Recreation stood out as a "celebration" of government that "distinguished itself from other television that's broadly considered liberal (and from so much of real-world politics), by arguing for a theory of change and a specific role for government."

It did this through its heroine, Leslie Knope, played with aplomb by comedian Amy Poehler. For seven seasons, viewers could watch Knope—a talented and dedicated public servant—make the case that government, when used with passion and integrity, can be a force for good. Yes, the projects were often minor: a festival here, a park there. And her obstacles weren't hostile politicians as much as they were bumbling citizens and indifferent colleagues. But her basic philosophy was one of civic engagement. "I am very angry. I'm angry that Bobby Newport would hold this town hostage and threaten to leave if you don't give him what he wants. ... Corporations are not allowed to dictate what a city needs. That power belongs to the people," said Knope in fourth-season debate with a political opponent. And in the season finale, Leslie gave her final take on what it means to be a public servant. "When we worked here together, we fought, scratched, and clawed to make people's lives a tiny bit better," she said. "That's what public service is about: small, incremental change every day."

Twenty years ago a character like this might have had a sharper, more negative edge, like Reese Witherspoon's Tracy Flick in Election. Now, however, she's admired.  And while Knope isn't a Hillary Clinton surrogate—although she keeps a photo of Clinton in her office—you can read her as a sunny take on the Clinton type: tenacious, ambitious, and incredibly smart.

Parks and Recreation wasn't a blockbuster series, but it was popular. And in its popularity, it showed a greater appetite for the kind of woman reflected in Knope. Indeed, it's no accident that, in 2015, Poehler—and her former Saturday Night Live colleague Tina Fey—have become feminist celebrity icons on the strength of these kinds of characters and performances.

The Hillary Clinton of 1992—long buried by controversy, circumstance, and political necessity—would have thrived in this moment. Indeed, today's world is much more ready for the kind of woman who would snark about baking cookies on national television.

In an environment where voters want someone new, but also want constructive progress, "Hillary as civics nerd" is appealing. And it seems Clinton is making that bet, leaning on her past as a wonk and an advocate to connect to Democratic voters, while channeling the punchy confidence of her national debut. "I may not be the youngest candidate in this race," she said in her inaugural campaign speech on Saturday, "but I will be the youngest woman president in the history of the United States."

Rather than wow the audience with rhetoric, Clinton structured her speech with policy, giving the audience a clear view of what she would do for the country—the battles she would "fight"—if elected president. She would protect and improve the Affordable Care Act; push a higher minimum wage; change the tax code to rein in Wall Street; cut small-business taxes; build green infrastructure; provide job training and aid for "distressed" communities; pass universal paid leave and child care; make college debt-free; ban discrimination against LGBT Americans; and make retirement more secure.


If Clinton had tried to mimic Obama—tried to inspire Americans like the president she wants to succeed—it would have rung false. Instead, she talked policy and told thousands of people exactly what she would do.


It was a necessary speech, and Clinton is strongest when she sticks with the concrete—the nuts and bolts of government. That was true in her 2000 Senate race, it was true during the best moments of her 2008 presidential campaign, and it's true now. And so, as she reintroduces herself to the Democratic Party, and the American electorate as a whole, she should embrace her nerdiness. Not only is it effective—a persona perfect for a moment when Americans want solutions more than inspiration—but, after years of keeping it under wraps, it's the most authentic move she could make.

[jimmy olsen]

Hmm... this makes me wish eccentric billionaries ran in every election. Is there a leftist ecentric billionare we can draft to run for the other side as well?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/donald-trump-2016-seven-reasons-to-fear-119069.html#ixzz3dNTQHpv1

Seven Reasons the GOP Should Fear Donald Trump

He's a nuisance, a hothead and totally unqualified. But that's what they said about Ross Perot.

By MATT LATIMER
June 16, 2015


Donald Trump, you've already performed one campaign miracle. You've cheered me up.
Frankly, I didn't think anyone could lift my spirits so quickly after the season finale of "Game of Thrones." But Trump's entry into the 2016 race has everyone in Washington smiling again. Especially the Democrats. How much fun did the folks at the DNC have over crafting this response? "Trump's entry adds much-needed seriousness to the GOP field." (Whoever came up with that line is just clever enough to be dangerous.) 

Of course, the Democrats can afford to laugh, but the Republicans–well, not so much. And for seven key reasons.

#1. Money Talks

Unlike the other candidates, the wealthy real estate mogul doesn't have to worry about soliciting donors, or crafting positions to appeal to special-interest money, or meeting absurd fund-raising expectations that they foolishly set for themselves. That saves him a lot of time to devote to his favorite pastime–self-promotion. If he wants to fight all the way to the convention, he could probably find more than enough money simply by searching the couch cushions at Mar-a-Lago for loose change.

#2. Expectations

He's a nuisance, a hothead, totally unqualified, a spoiler. But enough about Pat Buchanan, whose surprisingly strong, populist, "mad as hell" primary campaign against George H. W. Bush in 1992 left the Bush faction reeling all the way to their defeat in the general election. That nobody thinks Donald Trump has any hope of winning a primary, much less a single debate, makes it all the easier for him to surprise reporters simply by doing better than expected. If Donald Trump can manage a clever quip or two in the first debate, poke fun at himself, and not set his lectern, or the moderator daring to question him, on fire, he'll impress the hell out of nearly everyone. Besides...

#3. The Front-runners Are Safe and Boring

You don't spent 14 seasons out-grandstanding a pack of desperate ego maniac celebrities and not know a thing or two about commanding attention. With all due respect to Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, they can't hold a candle, much less a soundbite, against the likes of Joan Rivers and Gary Busey. Trump knows how to take complicated issues and fit them into bumper-sticker phrases that can appeal to regular Joes (and Janes), even if they sound crazy to everyone else.

#4. The Ross Perot Precedent

A wacky billionaire with a hair-trigger temper and penchant for bizarre digressions decides to run for president. Where have we heard that one before? Oh, yes, when the allegedly nutty Ross Perot grabbed the highest number of votes of any third-party candidate in history, depriving Republican George H.W. Bush any chance of holding onto the White House against a candidate named Clinton. 

#5. Voters Like Crazy

Speaking of Perot, this was a man who once claimed Cuban assassins had been sent to kill him. A man who dropped out of the presidential race, before dropping back in, because of an alleged Republican "plot" he uncovered to disrupt his daughter's wedding. He picked as his running mate a totally unprepared candidate who at one point in the vice presidential debate confessed that his hearing aid wasn't working. His campaign theme song was–and this is no joke–Patsy Cline's "Crazy."  And yet H. Ross Perot was at one point the frontrunner for the presidency and still, after finding himself immersed in plotlines that would be rejected as too far-fetched for "American Horror Story," managed 19 percent of the popular vote. In other words, one out of five Americans thought he wasn't too crazy to be president.

#6. The Incredible Hulk Syndrome

As much as his fellow GOPers would love to mock and torment Trump, the smarter among them will work hard to restrain themselves. For one simple reasons: much like Bruce Banner, you don't want to make an unpredictable billionaire angry. A third-party bid, railing against the GOP, could very well destroy whatever plausible chance the party has to defeat Hillary Clinton (who Trump has said he likes "very much.")

#7. The Agenda Setter

As James Baldwin once put it, "the most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose." Donald Trump doesn't need the presidency. He doesn't need to win anyone's favor.  He can just let his what is euphemistically called "hair" down and let it fly. And because the press will love to cover him, he will have the other GOP candidates following one rabbit hole after another, depending on whatever Trump feels like talking about that day – trade with China, Obama's place of birth, life on other planets, or the plotline of "Mr. Belvedere." Candidates, brace yourselves. You are about to go on one wild, crazy ride.

Which makes the rest of us pretty happy.

[The Minsky Moment]

Hmm... this makes me wish eccentric billionaries ran in every election. Is there a leftist ecentric billionare we can draft to run for the other side as well?

George Soros, but he is not eligible.  Born in Tamasland.

[jimmy olsen]

Hmm... this makes me wish eccentric billionaries ran in every election. Is there a leftist ecentric billionare we can draft to run for the other side as well?

George Soros, but he is not eligible.  Born in Tamasland.

I don't know much about him, but as far as I know he's not nearly as eccentric as the Donald, or even Ross Perot.

[The Minsky Moment]

He's pretty eccentric, just a LOT smarter.

[KRonn]

And he could bail out the Treasury!   

He claims a net worth of 70 billion.  Our national debt is c. 14 trillion.

I know, but don't confuse things with the facts! It's a good sound bite.   

[jimmy olsen]

Wow, that's quite a shift. Click on the link to check out the graphs.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.aspx

Democrats in the U.S. Shift to the Left

by Frank Newport
Story Highlights
•47% of Democrats are socially liberal and economically moderate/liberal
•This is up 17 percentage points since 2001
•Democrats remain more liberal on social than on economic issues

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Democratic candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination face a significantly more left-leaning party base than their predecessors did over the last 15 years. Forty-seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now identify as both socially liberal and economically moderate or liberal. This is compared with 39% in these categories in 2008, when there was last an open seat for their party's nomination, and 30% in 2001.

This combined group of Democrats consists of 25% who are pure liberals -- identifying as liberal on both social and economic issues -- and 22% who are social liberals but moderate on the economy. At the other end of the ideological spectrum, a scant 7% of Democrats are socially and economically conservative. Most of the rest of Democrats have more mixed ideological leanings, with 18% moderate on both social and economic issues, and 12% socially moderate or liberal but economically conservative.

These data are from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, which since 2001 has included questions asking Americans to rate themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal on social and economic issues. The trends for the entire country show a shift toward more liberal self-identification, and that trend is even more pronounced among Democrats on social issues. More than half of Democrats (53%) describe themselves as socially liberal at this point, up from 35% in 2001. On the economic front, Democrats remain most likely to say they are moderate, but among the rest who don't call themselves moderate, economically liberal has become a more frequent self-label than economically conservative.

Implications

Americans' perceptions of their social and economic views on the ideological spectrum are quite general, and such labels don't always translate directly into specific policy and issues positions. Ideological labels, however, are helpful in understanding voters' positioning in the election year to come. The shift leftward appears to fit with trends on very specific issues such as same-sex marriage.

Primary voters can vary from state to state, but broadly these national trends broadly suggest that Democratic candidates can be somewhat more left-leaning in their policy and issue prescriptions in the 2016 election campaign than in the past.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton faces a more liberal base than she did when she last ran for president in 2008, and no doubt will be calibrating her positions accordingly. The shift in the electorate may help explain the attention being garnered by long-shot candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont who has used the label "socialist" to describe himself and who is avowedly liberal across the board. Two other announced Democratic candidates -- former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Republican senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee -- have taken liberal positions in the past. In the 2016 election, they will be seeking to connect with the electorate on that basis, while also attempting to position themselves against Clinton on specific issues.

One consideration for Democratic candidates is the fact that their party's base is somewhat more liberal on social issues than on economic issues, suggesting that candidates may need to temper their liberalism on the economy a little more than they do on their social positions.

A second consideration for Democrat candidates, as always, is the need to be sensitive to the general election demands should they win their party's nomination. While 47% of their party base is socially liberal and either moderate or liberal on the economy, that same percentage among Republicans and Republican independents is only 7%, and some votes from the GOP will be necessary to win in November 2016.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 6-10, 2015, with a random sample of 1,024 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

[MadImmortalMan]

Hmm... this makes me wish eccentric billionaries ran in every election. Is there a leftist ecentric billionare we can draft to run for the other side as well?

George Soros, but he is not eligible.  Born in Tamasland.

Warren Buffett is eligible. So are Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and the Wal-Mart kids. Although, Allen owns the Seahawks so people might hate him.

[Tonitrus]

Hmm... this makes me wish eccentric billionaries ran in every election. Is there a leftist ecentric billionare we can draft to run for the other side as well?

George Soros, but he is not eligible.  Born in Tamasland.

Elon Musk is out too.

[Tonitrus]

Hmm... this makes me wish eccentric billionaries ran in every election. Is there a leftist ecentric billionare we can draft to run for the other side as well?

George Soros, but he is not eligible.  Born in Tamasland.

Warren Buffett is eligible. So are Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and the Wal-Mart kids. Although, Allen owns the Seahawks so people might hate him.

Steve Ballmer!

[Barrister]

Hmm... this makes me wish eccentric billionaries ran in every election. Is there a leftist ecentric billionare we can draft to run for the other side as well?

George Soros, but he is not eligible.  Born in Tamasland.

Warren Buffett is eligible. So are Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and the Wal-Mart kids. Although, Allen owns the Seahawks so people might hate him.

Steve Ballmer!

Now that would be entertaining...

[Eddie Teach]

Warren Buffett is eligible. So are Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and the Wal-Mart kids. Although, Allen owns the Seahawks so people might hate him.

Gates has the same problem as Steve Forbes, too many whacks from the ugly stick.