The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm going to quote you out of sequence, just easier to say what I'm trying to say that way I think, no harm intended, hopefully no foul perceived.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think it's conspiracy nut time to say that ISIS wouldn't exist if not for US interference. It would be to say that this was our goal from the beginning.

We agree on the latter point, I don't particularly believe someone in DC (or wherever) sat down and said "hey, let's invent this"

While the US didn't directly create ISIS, the Bush invasion created a power vacuum, and the Obama withdrawal created an opportunity. It's likely that because we've taken sides in past conflicts - usually against the more secular dictator-type - that we've armed and aided pieces of what ISIS is today.

This is where we take different paths.

I believe it's entirely plausible that there have been conversations -- not saying WH level, just somewhere in the food chain, starting almost certainly in the intelligence community -- along the lines of "let's not squash this, it's still small, let's see if we can turn it into an asset at some point". I think it probably got stronger faster than expected (perhaps with some hidden U.S. assistance aiming toward the "possible asset" theory), I think once it reached a certain point it was like "well that didn't work out so well ... what else could we make out of this sow's ear?".

At that point it isn't a tinfoil hat that I put on, it's a Stovepipe of Raging Cynicism I don.

I don't believe for a moment there's anybody in the administration who gives a damn about the victims -- U.S. or otherwise -- of ISIS beyond how they can be manipulated for political and p.r. purposes. I believe this is considered much more of an opportunity than a crisis ("see, we don't hate Christians or babies, we'll use the military to help them protect the missionaries & the children"). I believe every decision made on ISIS at this point is based on those sorts of political & marketing considerations, not anything involving national security nor a vague notion of "right vs wrong" or anything else.

I'm not suggesting that this administration or any other created ISIS in order to wag some dog. I'm saying that I believe it's extremely plausible (and fairly likely) that every action taken beyond a certain point is along those lines.

And I'm not attempting to suggest that the current administration is the first in history to do so, nor that you wouldn't have similar situations arise with a 180 degree administration in office.

[Edward64]

Not sure why we are striking in Syria vs more in Iraq but let's hope this seriously degrades ISIS.

U.S. airstrikes hit ISIS targets inside Syria - CNN.com

(CNN) -- U.S. jets began airstrikes in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria, early Tuesday, the first strikes against the terror group inside the country since President Barack Obama's announcement this month that he was prepared to expand the American efforts beyond targets in Iraq, a U.S. official told CNN.

The U.S. and "partner nation forces" began striking ISIS targets using fighters, bombers and Tomahawk missiles, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said, though he didn't specify a geographic location.

Citing the ongoing operations, Kirby said the Pentagon would not provide additional details immediately

[Edward64]

CNN talking heads are saying good participation by other Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE and Bahrain.

If they are really up in the air and participating in air strikes, this would be great news and showing they are all-in.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I believe it's entirely plausible that there have been conversations -- not saying WH level, just somewhere in the food chain, starting almost certainly in the intelligence community -- along the lines of "let's not squash this, it's still small, let's see if we can turn it into an asset at some point". I think it probably got stronger faster than expected (perhaps with some hidden U.S. assistance aiming toward the "possible asset" theory), I think once it reached a certain point it was like "well that didn't work out so well ... what else could we make out of this sow's ear?".

Exactly, and I really want to echo the use of the word "plausible". I'm not saying this actually happened. I think it's entirely likely that the Shiites are simply using the CIA as a useful bogeyman.

But given the way the CIA has operated througout its entire history, and given the multiple, multiple known occasions when they have done exactly what Jon describes above (and even more), if it came out tomorrow that this indeed happened in this case, well, I wouldn't be surprised either.


But back to the original point. Let the Shiites blame the CIA for ISIS. I'm fine with that, and I'm sure the CIA doesn't care either. Iraq finally gets "peace" when it's partitioned along "original" sectarian lines (going back centuries), with a Shiite client state of Iran, a Sunni client state of, let's say, Saudi Arabia, and an independent Kurdistan. Oh, and with all the oil revenues figured out.

Sure, it'll never happen, but that's how you get peace, and that's about as hopeful as I am for peace in the area.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The article doesn't give us anything new. Hard not to understand the perspective in Iraq. When an outsider takes sides, even if it's not a side you prefer, the balance of power shifts.

While the US didn't directly create ISIS, the Bush invasion created a power vacuum, and the Obama withdrawal created an opportunity. It's likely that because we've taken sides in past conflicts - usually against the more secular dictator-type - that we've armed and aided pieces of what ISIS is today.

I don't think it's conspiracy nut time to say that ISIS wouldn't exist if not for US interference. It would be to say that this was our goal from the beginning.

Stupidity led to this situation. Our practice of anointing leaders based on 30-second sound bytes and a win-at-all-costs two-party system rather than intelligence, understanding and experience.

Well said, Jim.

(he probably has me on ignore and won't see this, but this was an excellent summation of the root causes of ISIS)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Edward64

CNN talking heads are saying good participation by other Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE and Bahrain.

If they are really up in the air and participating in air strikes, this would be great news and showing they are all-in.

"All-in" is more than firing bullets from hundreds of miles away.

[flere-imsaho]

So, to catch up on that illegal immigration crisis we talked about several pages ago:

[PilotMan]

Pretty sure that was a CIA plot to to force the immigration issue to the top of the political food chain.

[flere-imsaho]

If so, it's nice to see the CIA do something with competence, for once.

[Edward64]

Interesting read on the journey to bomb ISIS. Seems as if it was Kerry who drove it.

For Obama, a swift leap from no strategy to a full battle plan for Islamic State - The Washington Post

The day after Obama’s late-August news conference, a Friday, Secretary of State John F. Kerry — a longtime and strong advocate of more aggressive U.S. action in Syria — brought his own policy team together on a conference call.

“We need to get the White House our theory of the case,” he told them.

The team worked throughout the weekend on what emerged as an eight-page strategy document outlining progress on Iraqi government formation and five mutually reinforcing “lines of effort” that spanned the Iraq-Syria border: a military plan including airstrikes against the Islamic State in both countries; training and equipment for Iraqi security forces and Syrian rebels; humanitarian assistance to those displaced in both countries; coordinated international action against foreign fighters and militant funding sources; and countermessaging against Islamic State propaganda.
:
At MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, planners for the U.S. Central Command examined targets developed with air surveillance reports Obama had ordered during the summer and started planning an operation. The goal was to integrate Persian Gulf warplanes into the effort. Those nations had long promised in theory that they would contribute while privately despairing that Obama would move beyond endless talk-fests on the Syria problem and take military action.

The gulf monarchies had listened with cynicism to Obama’s news conference and to his promise that his plan, once it was ready, would include partner nations.

No one had discussed a plan with them, and there had been no request for participation. “We’ve already been consulting for three years,” one senior Arab official said at the time. “Our point to them is, if you’re serious, come and tell us what you’re going to do and we’ll do it with you.”
:
“This is where Kerry wanted to be, over the last year and a half, during all the hours of meetings and relationship building” in the region, a senior State Department official said. “It was the turning point.”
:
As the operational plan against the Islamic State developed and Kerry firmed up the regional commitments, CENTCOM commander Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III began calling his Persian Gulf military counterparts.

Although Obama was briefed on the plan and approved it on a visit to Tampa on Sept. 16, it was not until last weekend that the Arabs conveyed their final lists of contributions to the Syria operation, the Defense Department official said.
:
“We would have been happy to have one flying with us,” the official said of the partners. Instead, they had five — the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar. “Qatar didn’t want to fly strikes,” he said, but contributed air defense with fighter jets protecting the others.

[Edward64]

I'm not sure how valid this straw poll is but my gut tells me neither of the top 3 vote getters have enough support to get to the GOP finish line.

Don't think GOP is ready for Jindal (maybe as VP) so that leaves Santorum, Paul, Christie and Rubio.

Cruz wins Values Voter straw poll again, Biden finishes ahead of Christie | Fox News

Sen. Ted Cruz has for the second straight year won the Family Research Council Action's 2014 Values Voter Summit Straw Poll.

The first-term senator on Saturday received 25 percent of the votes, ahead of Dr. Ben Carson (20 percent) and former Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee (12 percent.)

“I'm optimistic because I’m convinced God isn't done with America yet,” Cruz, R-Texas, said during a speech Friday at the summit.

Former Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum finished fourth. And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Republicans, tied for fifth.

Carson, an Independent, won the vice presidential straw poll with 22 percent of the vote. Cruz, a Tea Party favorite, finished second with nearly 14 percent of the vote, and Jindal came in third with roughly 11 percent.

"Values Voter straw poll reveals that the path forward for the GOP to engage Republican-leaning voters is to put forward true conservative candidates” said Tony Perkins, president of the 31-year-old conservative Christian and lobbying group.

Only those who attended the summit in Washington were eligible to vote. And roughly 2,000 people had registered to attend the event, the group said.

Florida GOP. Sen. Marco Rubio finished 6th, 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney finished 8th, Democratic Vice President Biden finished 18th, New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie finished No. 19 and presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton finished No. 23 out of 25, according to the group.

[Edward64]

60 minutes interview recapping what I thought Obama had already conceded to.

Log In - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama acknowledges in an interview to be broadcast Sunday night that the United States underestimated the rise of the Islamic State militant group while placing too much trust in the Iraqi military, allowing the region to become “ground zero for jihadists around the world.”

In some of his most candid public remarks on the subject, Mr. Obama says in the interview with the CBS News program “60 Minutes” that it was “absolutely true” that the United States had erred in its assessments of both the Islamic State — also known as ISIS or ISIL — and the Iraqi military.

And while describing a range of measures to sharpen military pressure on the extremists, he said that, ultimately, a political outcome was necessary to ease frictions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims “in Iraq and Syria, in particular.”
:
The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, suggested on Sunday that the airstrike campaign might not be enough to contain and then destroy ISIS, and that American ground forces might ultimately have to be deployed.

“These are barbarians,” Mr. Boehner told George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.” “They intend to kill us. And if we don’t destroy them first, we’re going to pay the price.”

Mr. Stephanopoulos asked, “If no one else will step up, would you recommend putting American boots on the ground?”

“We have no choice,” said Mr. Boehner, who previously said only that “somebody’s boots have to be on the ground.”

Mr. Obama, in the “60 Minutes” interview transcript, reiterates his opposition to deploying any significant number of American ground forces.

“We just have to push them back, and shrink their space, and go after their command and control, and their capacity, and their weapons, and their fueling, and cut off their financing, and work to eliminate the flow of foreign fighters,” Mr. Obama said.

The Boehner comment is somewhat surprising. I can't believe the GOP believes boots on the ground is a winning proposition. Maybe its just to sound tough.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/177263/sl...t-actions.aspx

Despite their overall approval of U.S. military action in Iraq and Syria, more Americans oppose (54%) than favor (40%) sending U.S. ground troops there. The relatively low level of support for ground troops could be related to Americans' reluctance to engage in another extended fight in Iraq. A majority of Americans continue to describe the 2003 Iraq War as a mistake for the U.S. And, as of June, a majority still backed President Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq.

[JPhillips]

“These are barbarians,” Mr. Boehner told George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.” “They intend to kill us. And if we don’t destroy them first, we’re going to pay the price.”

Then he continued saying, "But of course we won't actually vote on this and have any responsibility. We'd prefer to bitch no matter what happens."

[Autumn]

I'm not an isolationist, but I just wish politicians could be honest about our foreign policy. They intend to kill us? Who cares. If that was the worry we just would stop visiting Iraq and Syria. China doesn't even have the ability to invade us, I'm not worried about ISIS. I realize people aren't ready to hear complex foriegn policy decisions, but the fact that we always explain things in these stark terms isn't helping the populace be able to understand why we choose to do what we do.

[miked]

I wonder about their strategy of not voting for spending unless there are equal cuts when it comes to boots on the ground. We won't fund the fighting of Ebola for 50M, which is likely a more plausible threat, but hey, let's spend another trillion fighting terrorists.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At that point it isn't a tinfoil hat that I put on, it's a Stovepipe of Raging Cynicism I don.

I would like to see Jon in a stovepipe hat (a cigarette hanging out of his mouth, natch)

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, to catch up on that illegal immigration crisis we talked about several pages ago:

Ok, I'll bite: so why did the numbers plummet?

SI

[flere-imsaho]

The numbers seem to rise each year (of the three, of course) in March, which I assume is due mainly to weather.

The questions of why the spike this year and then why the sudden drop are good questions it would be great to have sane and thoughtful answers to. I don't have those answers, but I'd love to see them.

But bear in mind, the rhetoric over the summer was that this was an increase that wasn't going to stop, therefore a "crisis". Well, it's not that, clearly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The numbers seem to rise each year (of the three, of course) in March, which I assume is due mainly to weather.

The questions of why the spike this year and then why the sudden drop are good questions it would be great to have sane and thoughtful answers to. I don't have those answers, but I'd love to see them.

But bear in mind, the rhetoric over the summer was that this was an increase that wasn't going to stop, therefore a "crisis". Well, it's not that, clearly.

So this happens every February, March, April, May, June, and July?

[ISiddiqui]

So in reading up why (no one really has an answer), I read the reason why Honduras (who had double the amount of undocumented children reach the US) has had such a dramatic increase in homicide in the last 5 years. Wouldn't you know it, another US backed coup. This would be the one that Hillary Clinton admitted to doing a few days ago (and Kerry agrees with her that it was the 'right' thing to do). Are we ever going to learn?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So in reading up why (no one really has an answer), I read the reason why Honduras (who had double the amount of undocumented children reach the US) has had such a dramatic increase in homicide in the last 5 years. Wouldn't you know it, another US backed coup. This would be the one that Hillary Clinton admitted to doing a few days ago (and Kerry agrees with her that it was the 'right' thing to do). Are we ever going to learn?

I really hope the Democrats don't nominate her for president, because with all the goons the Republicans have she'd probably end up winning.

[ISiddiqui]

Like anyone else on the Democratic side with a chance of winning is any better?

[NobodyHere]

I'm not sure who else in the Democratic party is in play at this point for the nomination. Biden maybe?

[Coffee Warlord]

Sadly, I think the Republicans are going to do what they're been exceptionally good at - trot out a clusterfuck of a candidate that's utterly unelectable.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Sadly, I think the Republicans are going to do what they're been exceptionally good at - trot out a clusterfuck of a candidate that's utterly unelectable.

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

Romney: Certainly electable. Not a great candidate, but with a couple fewer gaffes, and a little better PR he could have made it closer, even won.

McCain: Perfectly electable except a) wasn't helped by Bush Fatigue and b) went full crazy around the time he selected Palin (fully manifested by the time the financial crash happened and he started acting like an idiot).

Bush II: Obviously electable.

Dole: Certainly electable, but didn't have the charisma and Gingrich blew it for him anyway.

Etc....


I think what you're reacting to is that the current bench has a bunch of guys who look pretty unelectable pretty quickly: Cruz, Jindal, Christie, etc....

[gstelmack]

As a Republican unhappy with the party, it would take an awfully bad candidate to get me to change my mind away from "vote for whoever is running against Hillary".

[molson]

Is Biden a serious candidate? That seems like a terrible idea.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

Romney: Certainly electable. Not a great candidate, but with a couple fewer gaffes, and a little better PR he could have made it closer, even won.

Here I disagree. Obama was infinitely beatable by a stronger candidate in 2012. If Romney's the best you can come up with (and from that crop, he was probably the best pick of a wide variety of idiots), you got problems.

I think what you're reacting to is that the current bench has a bunch of guys who look pretty unelectable pretty quickly: Cruz, Jindal, Christie, etc....

Yes, this is more of a comment on the last few years. I just can't see anyone who has the slightest chance in hell at flipping the purple states back to red.

Strangely, probably the strongest mainstream candidate is Jeb Bush, who is doomed from his name alone.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

As a Republican unhappy with the party, it would take an awfully bad candidate to get me to change my mind away from "vote for whoever is running against Hillary".

Are Cruz, Jindal or Christie bad enough candidates? Serious question.

If Clinton gets the nomination (which seems likely), the choice of the GOP candidate will matter more than usual, given that Clinton is so very well known by now that who is voting for and against her should be solidified even at this very, very early juncture.

The GOP will start with a sizable group who will be voting against Hillary. If they nominate a candidate that doesn't alienate that group, then they'll have a real chance. But go too milquetoast (Romney) and the tea party sympathizers might decide it's pointless to vote against Clinton to get Romney instead. Go too tea party (let's say Cruz, for argument), and you've got a repeat of the Senate races they've lost, only on a national scale, so essentially a guaranteed loss.

It's a tough one, as I don't see a national candidate who fits the "sweet spot" and doesn't have serious baggage (Christie probably fits the sweet spot, but once a national campaign gets underway he'll just be overcome by corruption investigations).

Originally Posted by molson

Is Biden a serious candidate? That seems like a terrible idea.

A sitting VP is always a serious candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden runs to make a race of it, but I think even he knows he's going to have an uphill battle against the Clinton machine.

The only other Democrat I've heard in the mix is former Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, but I very much doubt he can take on Clinton.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Here I disagree. Obama was infinitely beatable by a stronger candidate in 2012. If Romney's the best you can come up with (and from that crop, he was probably the best pick of a wide variety of idiots), you got problems.

I certainly agree. I was responding to "electable", which Romney surely was. But "electable" doesn't equal "strongest".

Strangely, probably the strongest mainstream candidate is Jeb Bush, who is doomed from his name alone.

Were Bush and Clinton to get their nominations, does the electorate finally say "fuck it, we're done"?

[Coffee Warlord]

It'd be amusing, to say the least.

[JPhillips]

If minorities turn out in 2016 the Dem will win. The GOP has narrowed their base to the point that in a high turnout national election they won't win.

Now we'll still have to endure months of process and campaign stories, but the decider in 2016 is turnout.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Is Biden a serious candidate? That seems like a terrible idea.

One more on this.

If Clinton decides not to run and Biden does (and Clinton deciding not to make it much more likely that Biden does), then I'd say Biden becomes a very formidable candidate, unless Clinton was stepping aside to throw her weight behind an acolyte (Gillibrand or Booker?).

Biden would have a significant fundraising, organizational and GOTV advantage over any GOP candidate in this instance with combined backing from the Clintons and, presumably, Obama. The GOP would need to nominate a candidate whose universal appeal and organization could eclipse this. A very tall order, IMO.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Are Cruz, Jindal or Christie bad enough candidates? Serious question.

I would put Christie at the same low level as Clinton (Christie's bridge stunt was very Clinton-esque), and I've seen what Hillary is like at the national level, so I'd give him a shot to see if he can do better.

Cruz is an idiot, I'd be shocked if he got nominated. He might be bad enough to get me to pull a libertarian protest vote, or vote him for President but then vote Democrat in the House and Senate to limit the damage.

I don't know a lot about Jindal, you'll have to point me to the descriptions of things he's done that are worse than the kind of stunts Hillary has pulled, aside from him being a religious conservative (he's not getting evolution pushed through the schools nationally no matter how much he believes in it, for example).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I would put Christie at the same low level as Clinton (Christie's bridge stunt was very Clinton-esque), and I've seen what Hillary is like at the national level, so I'd give him a shot to see if he can do better.

If Christie vs. Clinton ends up being Bridge-Gate vs. Benghazi, I think Clinton wins. For one, Benghazi's pretty much run its course and very few Democrats aren't going to vote for her because of it. Bridge-Gate hasn't quite finished, by comparison, and the risk to Christie here is that tea party-types view it as the kind of corruption from a guy who's already weak on the issues (to them) enough that they pull their votes.

Cruz is an idiot, I'd be shocked if he got nominated. He might be bad enough to get me to pull a libertarian protest vote, or vote him for President but then vote Democrat in the House and Senate to limit the damage.

Yeah, I've yet to see a convincing argument for how a Cruz nomination is a success for the GOP. I don't even think he could beat Bernie Sanders.

I don't know a lot about Jindal, you'll have to point me to the descriptions of things he's done that are worse than the kind of stunts Hillary has pulled, aside from him being a religious conservative (he's not getting evolution pushed through the schools nationally no matter how much he believes in it, for example).

Well, Jindal just dropped himself into the middle of the Common Core debate (he's currently against it, after having been a big proponent earlier on), so he's more or less created a lose-lose situation for himself. He also is on record as being earnestly in support of exorcism. And his biggest national exposure, giving the GOP "response" to the SOTU a few years back, was a colossal bomb. He may yet be a decent candidate, but he's operating at a big handicap right now.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Like anyone else on the Democratic side with a chance of winning is any better?

Hillary certainly isn't my ideal president, but I'd love to see her win if only because:

1) It would drive the Republicans crazy, probably crazier than Obama ever has.
2) It would be funny to see all the people who randomly view Hillary as some sort of progressive princess (and Obama as a weak compromiser) finally come to their senses when Hillary makes compromise after compromise.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Hillary certainly isn't my ideal president, but I'd love to see her win if only because:

1) It would drive the Republicans crazy, probably crazier than Obama ever has.
2) It would be funny to see all the people who randomly view Hillary as some sort of progressive princess (and Obama as a weak compromiser) finally come to their senses when Hillary makes compromise after compromise.

It would make 3 straight democratic presidents who are portrayed as "evil far-left liberals who will bring ruination to our great country" who rule from the right of Richard Nixon.

SI

[JPhillips]

Jindal's voice makes him unelectable nationally. He'll be a laughung stock well before election day.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If Christie vs. Clinton ends up being Bridge-Gate vs. Benghazi, I think Clinton wins.

Hillary has a MUCH longer list than Benghazi. I brought up the bridge because of its political retaliation angle, whereas Benghazi is a straightforward incompetence / CYA scandal they all have tons of.

But it's not really a point I presented to debate, I just threw out there that as a Republican who could be swayed to vote for a moderate candidate no matter what party, Hillary is the type of candidate who would drive me back into the fold quicker than most. Maybe Pelosi and her hypocritical ideas about wealth (take it away from everyone else, but she needs hers so she can continue to fight for the masses) would drive me faster.

[ISiddiqui]

I mean, yes, it's 2 years away, but it seems like the only Republican who can actually beat Hillary Clinton is probably Jeb Bush. And even then, Jeb has his issues with the Tea Party, causing a potentially raucous primary.

It's become a curious thing - the Dems were known for their crazy ass primaries and the Reps would get behind the leader once he emerged. It seems to have flipped.

[stevew]

I just can't wait to hear about White Water and Vince Foster again.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Hillary has a MUCH longer list than Benghazi.

Originally Posted by stevew

I just can't wait to hear about White Water and Vince Foster again.

I completely understand the point you're making, Greg, but my counter-point is that pretty much everything on that list has been litigated in the court of public opinion already. I know the GOP thinks they're going to get a lot of mileage out of bringing up all the old Clinton skeletons, but I really don't see it, to be honest.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I completely understand the point you're making, Greg, but my counter-point is that pretty much everything on that list has been litigated in the court of public opinion already. I know the GOP thinks they're going to get a lot of mileage out of bringing up all the old Clinton skeletons, but I really don't see it, to be honest.

Not to mention that she simultaneously gets to say "that was Bill" and enjoy the impact of Bill's 60% approval rating.

[ISiddiqui]

It's like they didn't learn anything from the 1990s (if they bring up Whitewater and all that silliness again).

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I completely understand the point you're making, Greg, but my counter-point is that pretty much everything on that list has been litigated in the court of public opinion already. I know the GOP thinks they're going to get a lot of mileage out of bringing up all the old Clinton skeletons, but I really don't see it, to be honest.

Again, I could not care less about the public at large, I was telling you how I'm thinking leading up to this election. I've seen enough bad out of the Republican party that I could be talked into voting for a different candidate (I'm actually seriously considering voting for Kay Hagan for Senate as I can't stand Tom Tillis, for example), but I just can't envision a scenario under which I personally would vote for Hillary.

And Clinton skeletons are the gift that keeps on giving, as in we keep finding new ones. If you think I'm limiting myself to Bill's terms in office, then you are wrong.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Again, I could not care less about the public at large, I was telling you how I'm thinking leading up to this election.

Sorry, I misunderstood you, then.

And Clinton skeletons are the gift that keeps on giving, as in we keep finding new ones. If you think I'm limiting myself to Bill's terms in office, then you are wrong.

If they're "giving", they're not giving a lot. The family's been in the public spotlight for over 2 decades. Unless there's something truly spectacular, it's diminishing returns, IMO.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If minorities turn out in 2016 the Dem will win.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that minorities don't enjoy the two-party system as much as us white folks do. Still looking forward to the day when minorities have not only a vote, but a choice.

[JPhillips]

Easy. Look at the percentages, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians all vote heavily Dem. If the GOP would stop going after minorities all the time I have no doubt they could get more votes.

edit: Look at an electoral map. I'd say the Dems have a very high chance at 242 votes while the GOP has 191. If the Dems turnout, which is always a question, getting the last 29 is a whole lot more likely than the GOP getting the last 80.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that minorities don't enjoy the two-party system as much as us white folks do. Still looking forward to the day when minorities have not only a vote, but a choice.

I'm curious, Dutch. Why do you think minorities don't vote GOP as much as they vote Democratic?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Easy. Look at the percentages, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians all vote heavily Dem. If the GOP would stop going after minorities all the time I have no doubt they could get more votes.

edit: Look at an electoral map. I'd say the Dems have a very high chance at 242 votes while the GOP has 191. If the Dems turnout, which is always a question, getting the last 29 is a whole lot more likely than the GOP getting the last 80.

The GOP goes after minorities? Maybe they should stop cheering when things like the Voting Rights Act gets neutered.