Gyroscopic Investing

Mountaineer wrote: Joe Manchin vs. Rand Paul

So what did you think about the irony of a superrich Rockefeller repesenting in the Senate one of the poorest states in the US?

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Joe Manchin vs. Rand Paul

So what did you think about the irony of a superrich Rockefeller repesenting in the Senate one of the poorest states in the US?

He lived in an adjacent neighborhood to mine.  His kid went to school with mine.  He made large donations to the school system - consequently, the schools my kid and his went to were arguably the best in the state.  He was a "nice" man, relatively down to earth.  In my opinion, his wife had most of the smarts in the family - he had the name.  I think of him in his Senate role just about the same as I do most politicians.  And, for what it's worth, Joe Manchin went to the same high school that I did and grew up about 200 yards from my wife's home.  West Virginia might be poor in financial numbers, but not in the things that count - God, guns, and hard working pragmatic people (mostly). 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: West Virginia might be poor in financial numbers, but not in the things that count - God, guns, and hard working pragmatic people (mostly). 

Ironic then that Manchin was one of the ones strongly pushing a major federal gun control bill two years ago.

PS,

I am genuinely curious why you believe the republican field to be materially better suited to win a general election than the dem field (other than Hillary).

Care to expand?

moda0306 wrote: PS,

I am genuinely curious why you believe the republican field to be materially better suited to win a general election than the dem field (other than Hillary).

Care to expand?

The Republican field includes several people who have 1) name recognition 2) appeal to moderates and/or key swing vote blocs, and 3) substantial experience in purple states

Examples:

Scott Walker (Nationally known, gov of purple state Wisconsin)
Marco Rubio (Nationally known, hispanic, senator from purple state Florida)
Jeb Bush (Nationally known, gov of purple state Florida)

I'm not even bringing up Rand Paul or Chris Christie, who are decent candidates though I don't feel they could get through due to their disadvantages. Ben Carson and Ted Cruz make up the sideshow and should be ignored.


On the Democratic side, besides Hillary, the field is full of unknown nobodies (Jim Webb, Amy liabilityLastNameThatsImpossibleToPronounceOrRemember), left-wing extremists with zero appeal to independents who have operated in deep-blue strongholds for their entire political careers (Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley), and perennial losers (Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders).

Warren is the strongest non-Hillary candidate due to her name recognition, gender, and populist message. But she is simply too far left for this country barring some kind of pro-leftist catastrophe that suddenly (temporarily, even) shifts the country leftward. Under current conditions she would probably be defeated 44-56 in the general election.

Simonjester wrote: a recent poll that claims that "the number 1 problem in America today" "is government" may play well to the limited government side of the republican field, i have my doubts it will be enough to overcome the establishment big gov side of the republican party... but whichever establishment guy does get the nod in the primary's will undoubtedly pay lip-service to "government is the problem" and use it to pull tea party, libertarian, and independents away from the -all big government all the time- liberal democrat nominee..

PS,

Personally I find Marco Rubio to be a complete joke.  His tax plan is a joke (that other thread recently went through some of the ins/outs of it), and on a personal-likability standpoint, all I can think is somewhere between weak public presence at best, and at worst that ridiculous water-drinking episode (unfair to hold it against the guy, but that's the voting public for you)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ZxJVnM5Gs.  He doesn't seem like a "bad guy," but definitely doesn't command much respect, nor is he more traditionally amiable.  He just seems to carry this nebulous presence to him that neither commands much respect nor much likability. 

Bush is a Bush... which is unfair to hold against him, but we will, and in some ways ISN'T unfair since he hangs with the same band of brothers.

Scott Walker I could see.

Perhaps I'm less sensitive to "liberalism" getting elected since Obama made it happen... twice.  Personally, I think independents of today are more attracted to authenticity and presence than simply being "middle-of-the-road."  Bernie Sanders is a lefty... but he's a genuine one, and one that I believe a lot of independents could get behind considering what a wing-nut he is in some ways.  That isn't to say he has much of a chance to win a primary, or even a general election, but if independents can break for Obama, they can break for other liberal candidates.  Especially if we don't have a recession by 2015.  People might not be happy with the state of the economy, but they reliably vote on its flow... not the stock.  And the trend is that "things are getting better" (even if they're really not) in peoples' eyes.

But I guess we will see. 

moda0306 wrote: Perhaps I'm less sensitive to "liberalism" getting elected since Obama made it happen... twice.  Personally, I think independents of today are more attracted to authenticity and presence than simply being "middle-of-the-road."  Bernie Sanders is a lefty... but he's a genuine one, and one that I believe a lot of independents could get behind considering what a wing-nut he is in some ways.  That isn't to say he has much of a chance to win a primary, or even a general election, but if independents can break for Obama, they can break for other liberal candidates.  Especially if we don't have a recession by 2015.  People might not be happy with the state of the economy, but they reliably vote on its flow... not the stock.  And the trend is that "things are getting better" (even if they're really not) in peoples' eyes.

But I guess we will see.

I suppose I see Obama as a historical anomaly; even though he was an inexperienced nobody, he was following an exceptionally bad Republican president, faced against a very weak opposing ticket, and represented the first realistic black presidential candidate coming right at the time when the country was ready for such a thing. Independents broke for him out of protest for how bad Bush was, how old McCain was, how stupid Palin was, and the impact of white racial guilt (I'm racist if I don't vote for the black guy). It was the perfect storm for him. The really impressive thing IMHO isn't that he beat McCain but that he beat Hillary. And I think a lot of that can be traced to Hillary's own mis-steps. Whatever else you can say about Obama, he's a fantastic campaigner, and Hillary really wasn't. That's why I don't think she's a shoe-in for victory of she gets the nomination. She's weaker than she looks. She's not very likable, her foreign policy is the same pro-war stuff that people are exhausted by, and she looks old and ugly.

Bernie Sanders is the Ron Paul of the left wing. He's a crank. He even looks the part. Nobody is going to elect a crazy old man to be the president. Ron Paul was genuine too; that's clearly not enough.

I agree with you that Warren has a chance, but I just don't see it happening. She'll have to play that two-step game of portraying herself as the socialist champion during the primary and a heartland moderate during the general election. Obama avoided this by being as non-specific about his actual platform as he could, which was possible because he was pretty much a nobody with no record, but Warren can't fall back on this because she's already a public figure known for having a lot of serious left-wing policy ideas that she can't just pretend don't exist. Warren is far more leftist than Obama is, despite all the bloviating from the right about how supposedly socialist Obama is. He's about as far left as the country can go and the guy never saw a foreign land he didn't want to assassinate people in or a pesky whistle-blower he didn't want to imprison.

Pointedstick wrote: I agree with you that Warren has a chance, but I just don't see it happening. She'll have to play that two-step game of portraying herself as the socialist champion during the primary and a heartland moderate during the general election. Obama avoided this by being as non-specific about his actual platform as he could, which was possible because he was pretty much a nobody with no record, but Warren can't fall back on this because she's already a public figure known for having a lot of serious left-wing policy ideas that she can't just pretend don't exist. Warren is far more leftist than Obama is, despite all the bloviating from the right about how supposedly socialist Obama is. He's about as far left as the country can go and the guy never saw a foreign land he didn't want to assassinate people in or a pesky whistle-blower he didn't want to imprison.

Everyone has a chance if its above 0%, but Warren is below 10%.  It'll never happen unless Clinton completely and unredeemingly torpedoes herself and the country U-turns hard left.

Clinton is a lock for the Presidency, especially as civil war splits the Republicans apart.  Deal with it now so its not such a shock next year.  She'll be another Obama-cum-NeoCon.  So that's at least less bad than a true leftwing nut, right?

Elizabeth Warren is the new Dukakis, albeit with a skirt. With her history of lies she is a suitable replacement for Hillary.

MachineGhost wrote: Clinton is a lock for the Presidency, especially as civil war splits the Republicans apart.  Deal with it now so its not such a shock next year.  She'll be another Obama-cum-NeoCon.  So that's at least less bad than a true leftwing nut, right?

I disagree that it is a done deal. Republicans despise her. She's ugly and not very charismatic. She's an unabashed neocon, foreign policy-wise. Her domestic policies are going to sound awfully familiar to the stuff Obama's been ineffectively, half-heartedly peddling for years. She's also somewhat bumbling and incompetent; if you unwind all the media hype, she's either not stood out or even outright failed failed at many to most of the things she's done--not unlike the current POTUS so we know that's not a deal-breaker--but it's not a strength, either. Finally, there are open questions about her health.

IMHO her best strengths are:
1. Female; lots of independent and conservative women are going to vote for her after swearing up and down to their friends and husbands they won't (which will affect the polls)
2. Name recognition; association to husband's successful and popular presidency and long history of public presence
3. As a slightly-left-leaning centrist, she's not too hard of a sell to independents

She is a bad liar. Voters want good liars.

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: West Virginia might be poor in financial numbers, but not in the things that count - God, guns, and hard working pragmatic people (mostly). 

Ironic then that Manchin was one of the ones strongly pushing a major federal gun control bill two years ago.

Actually, not ironic at all but there is more to the story that I do not feel comfortable sharing on an internet forum that would be necessary to understand.  Uncle Vinny might be watching. 

... Mountaineer

Reub wrote: Elizabeth Warren is the new Dukakis, albeit with a skirt. With her history of lies she is a suitable replacement for Hillary.

What is her history of lies?  I've only read about her bloviating at Wall Street which seemed pretty truthful to me!

If Clinton is not going to win, we need a Dark Horse surprise.  I agree with PS points...  she's got a heck of lot of negatives, but voters may decide that the sexual issue is more important just for sake of principle, just like they did with Obama and the skin color issue.

Voters are anything but intelligent.

She's part native American. Hadn't you heard?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -new-book/

PS, you've got some sound analysis going on in here.  I can't really disagree with much if anything in your last couple/few posts.

Reub wrote: She's part native American. Hadn't you heard?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -new-book/

I'm 1/64th Cherokee, does that mean I have Native American ancestry???

MachineGhost wrote:

Reub wrote: She's part native American. Hadn't you heard?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -new-book/

I'm 1/64th Cherokee, does that mean I have Native American ancestry???

Probably more than Warren does.

Libertarian666 wrote: No. I'd prefer Warren, even though I disagree with her on everything that I've heard from her. Hillary is just an abominable human being.

I more or less agree with this sentiment. Let Warren be the first female president if it's to happen this cycle. She's got real successes and earned her place without having to be attached to powerful men. And Warren at least is probably less likely to be destructive abroad like Hillary surely would.

It seems like whats wrong with Clinton isn't her political positions so much as she herself as a woman.  Why?  What exactly is abominable about her?

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: No. I'd prefer Warren, even though I disagree with her on everything that I've heard from her. Hillary is just an abominable human being.

I more or less agree with this sentiment. Let Warren be the first female president if it's to happen this cycle. She's got real successes and earned her place without having to be attached to powerful men. And Warren at least is probably less likely to be destructive abroad like Hillary surely would.

She's got real successes? Isn't she really a female Obama? Can we stand more successes like his?

Reub wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: No. I'd prefer Warren, even though I disagree with her on everything that I've heard from her. Hillary is just an abominable human being.

I more or less agree with this sentiment. Let Warren be the first female president if it's to happen this cycle. She's got real successes and earned her place without having to be attached to powerful men. And Warren at least is probably less likely to be destructive abroad like Hillary surely would.

She's got real successes? Isn't she really a female Obama? Can we stand more successes like his?

Though they have similar backgrounds, she's the the white female version of an Obama who actually did anything noteworthy.

- Both were academics; Warren did it for a long time, was respected in her field, and published novel work, while Obama did nothing of note, achieved no real renown and in fact appears to have spent much of his time during that period of his life in phony-baloney nonprofits that are all but scams, and a law firm that appears to specialize in racial grievance litigation.
- Both ran for senate; Warren beat a relatively popular incumbent after a difficult race, while Obama beat a pitiful stand-in who offered virtually no opposition after the previous strong candidate left the race in disgrace due to a scandal.
- Both have been Senators; Warren was instrumental in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while Obama did basically nothing while in office except use it as a springboard to the presidency.
- Both have written books; Warren has written or co-written 9 on a variety of serious subjects that showcase her intellectual vigor, while Obama has written two, both of which are basically paeans to his own narcissism.
- I could go on...

Also, just because bashing Obama is fun, Obama

MachineGhost wrote: It seems like whats wrong with Clinton isn't her political positions so much as she herself as a woman.  Why?  What exactly is abominable about her?

She's totally corrupt, starting no later than her miraculous commodity speculation results, has accomplished exactly nothing of note in her political career, and is a devout feminist who "stands by her man" when he is caught cheating on her.

I'm sure I could dredge up quite a bit more, but I think that is enough.

I do wonder, in the context of knowing that "some sort of government-run healthcare plan was going to be enacted," whether Hillary would have set up a better one than Obama, but I have serious doubts.  I think she would have designed a lightly different colored package gift to insurance companies and flaming bag of dog shit for small businesses.

This is why I actually like Bernie Sanders, though I disagree he's a Ron-Paul-esque crank... but I like him for the same reason I like Ron Paul.  They're like the political equivalent of your old great uncle that has no qualms about shitting his pants, and letting everyone know it happened.  I can't help but respect the honesty.  And truly, some of their ideas are good. 

Personally, if I could get some real global warming legislation (with nuclear plants, as a concession to certain conservatives (though most are too embedded in big coal/oil to support nuclear, IME)), a non-inflationist fed chairman, and a single-payer universal healthcare system in exchange, I would love to see a Rand Paul type get the presidency to spearhead other topics.

moda0306 wrote: Personally, if I could get some real global warming legislation (with nuclear plants, as a concession to certain conservatives (though most are too embedded in big coal/oil to support nuclear, IME)), a non-inflationist fed chairman, and a single-payer universal healthcare system in exchange, I would love to see a Rand Paul type get the presidency to spearhead other topics.

First, we must stop issuing debt and just rely on issuing non-debt currency.  Thereafter, we can implement the Citizen's Dividend for all.  Afterwards, the government can downsize strictly into a centralized/standardized/principal-based-rules/enforcer/negotiator/authority mechanism for the true free market and its market failures...  and get out of the business of being in business and picking winners and losers, including social entitlements and corporate welfare.  No need for ultimately economically-insolvent "solutions" like single payer universal healthcare.

The real problem here isn't the voters, its the land known as DC.  It is not in their vested self-interest of power, money, influence and wealth to make themselves redundant.  So, it will take a crisis to raise a new world order.