Gyroscopic Investing

So far, she seems to be focusing on income inequality, championing the average American worker, and keeping outside money out of politics.

Is that a reasonable platform for her to run on?

She and Bill (Billary) are worth $55m... Who knows how much their foundation is worth, but it's clear they are some of the most prolific outside money fundraisers in the universe.  The foundation has spent over $50m in travel expenses alone in the last decade.

I can't imagine this would be a winning platform for her.  Even if she gets a pass from some on the left in the MSM, she certainly doesn't fit the "media darling" category like Obama. 

It would essentially be like Romney running on a wealth gap platform.  When it's the central theme in your platform, you're going to face some difficult questions related to your own wealth.

One would think it would be really difficult to gain traction by hitting investment bankers, CEO's and hedge fund managers on outrageous salaries, when you have made over $50m++ in the last decade or so.

Relevant: an article on this subject that I read on Politico yesterday: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/g ... ml?hp=c1_3

Her platform more or less is going to be "I'm the embodiment of the Democratic mainstream but not so liberal that I can't win the general election." Since income inequality is hot on the left right now, that's necessary her thing too. I agree that it's an awkward match, but she's kinds of going for an Obama thing: hoping that people will project what they want onto her and believe that she'll give it to them.

I think she's trying to beat Elizabeth Warren to the populist punch.  If Elizabeth Warren starts splitting the women in primary votes it could be her biggest threat. Can't say I disagree with that route. It's been the tail end of Obama's focus, and Hillary is no civil libertarian, and is sort of a foreign policy hawk, so the best place for a female front runner to get to right out of the gates is to take away any steam your most likely female competitor might have coming out of the gate.

I could be wrong. Interested in Tenn's ideas. He seems to have some pretty profound insights these days.

Pointedstick wrote: Relevant: an article on this subject that I read on Politico yesterday: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/g ... ml?hp=c1_3

Her platform more or less is going to be "I'm the embodiment of the Democratic mainstream but not so liberal that I can't win the general election." Since income inequality is hot on the left right now, that's necessary her thing too. I agree that it's an awkward match, but she's kinds of going for an Obama thing: hoping that people will project what they want onto her and believe that she'll give it to them.

She will have a much harder time with that than Obama.  As I said earlier, the media is not necessarily in love with her they way they were with BO.  Secondly, she's not a blank slate like he was in 07/08.  She has been a political fixture since 1992.

moda0306 wrote: I think she's trying to beat Elizabeth Warren to the populist punch.  If Elizabeth Warren starts splitting the women in primary votes it could be her biggest threat. Can't say I disagree with that route. It's been the tail end of Obama's focus, and Hillary is no civil libertarian, and is sort of a foreign policy hawk, so the best place for a female front runner to get to right out of the gates is to take away any steam your most likely female competitor might have coming out of the gate.

I could be wrong. Interested in Tenn's ideas. He seems to have some pretty profound insights these days.

Good point on primary positioning. 

You have to run two separate elections essentially.  One with the true believers in your party, and then one where you have to convince those in the middle and peel off a few from the other side.

Hillary will resist as long as possible having anything resembling a "platform" wherein she actually has to express what she actually believes about any thing. Better to just spend the time with photo opportunities showing how she relates to "every day people" like you and me.

And then when she gets elected she can stick it to us good and hard, just like Obama.

clacy wrote: So far, she seems to be focusing on income inequality, championing the average American worker, and keeping outside money out of politics.

Her main platform is that she's both female and inevitable.  The rest is positioning to try to awkwardly appeal to the liberal base. 

It comes across as stilted and disingenuous because it is.  One cannot charge exorbitant speaking fees and plausibly claim to fight income inequality.  One cannot proudly never drive your own car and plausibly relate to the average American worker.  And one cannot project a $2.5 Billion campaign and plausibly keep outside money out of politics.  It's all a political facade, which may ultimately be her undoing.  Nobody likes a phony, and if her last name was anything else I don't think she even sniffs the Democratic nomination.  My early prediction is that she wins the nomination but actually depresses the Democratic vote come election time.

Tyler wrote:

clacy wrote: So far, she seems to be focusing on income inequality, championing the average American worker, and keeping outside money out of politics.

Her main platform is that she's both female and inevitable.  The rest is positioning to try to awkwardly appeal to the liberal base. 

It comes across as stilted and disingenuous because it is.  One cannot charge exorbitant speaking fees and plausibly claim to fight income inequality.  One cannot proudly never drive your own car and plausibly relate to the average American worker.  And one cannot project a $2.5 Billion campaign and plausibly keep outside money out of politics.  It's all a political facade, which may ultimately be her undoing.  Nobody likes a phony, and if her last name was anything else I don't think she even sniffs the Democratic nomination.  My early prediction is that she wins the nomination but actually depresses the Democratic vote come election time.

While Hillary sure seems like a phony, it certainly is possible to live a rich lifestyle while fighting for the middle class politically. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt did it. He was no factory worker.

moda0306 wrote: While Hillary sure seems like a phony, it certainly is possible to live a rich lifestyle while fighting for the middle class politically. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt did it. He was no factory worker.

No doubt.  One should not write off well-meaning people so quickly just based on class.

It's just that Hillary's latest "I'm every woman" routine with a dash of Lizzy Warren social justice is all transparently against her nature. She has so many personal weak spots for others to attack on these precise issues that I honestly don't see why Democrats aren't actively looking for a better candidate.  She truly doesn't seem to represent mainstream Democratic values these days, but doesn't project as a centrist either.  It's a given that Republicans won't vote for her, but I'm struggling to understand her appeal to many Democrats.

Tyler wrote: It's just that Hillary's latest "I'm every woman" routine with a dash of Lizzy Warren social justice is all transparently against her nature. She has so many personal weak spots for others to attack on these precise issues that I honestly don't see why Democrats aren't actively looking for a better candidate.  She truly doesn't seem to represent mainstream Democratic values these days, but doesn't project as a centrist either.  It's a given that Republicans won't vote for her, but I'm struggling to understand her appeal to many Democrats.

DON'T YOU GET IT TYLER SHES A WOMAN AND INEVITABLE

I totally agree with you. But the more I think about it, the more I'm coming to believe that she and Obama portend the future: candidates who are unashamedly running pure popularity contests rather than even the semblance of political campaigns, and who craft their messages to to the people too dumb to see through the appealing rhetoric while winking knowingly at the people they truly represent, who can feel safe in the knowledge that they're the real constituents. This article nailed it: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/h ... ml?hp=t2_r

NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton sounded like a woman on a mission after her long drive into the heartland: “There’s something wrong,”? she told Iowans on Tuesday, when “hedge fund managers pay lower taxes than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80 when I was driving here over the last two days.”?
But back in Manhattan, the hedge fund managers who’ve long been part of her political and fundraising networks aren’t sweating the putdown and aren’t worrying about their take-home pay just yet.

It’s “just politics,”? said one major Democratic donor on Wall Street, explaining that some of her Wall Street supporters doubt she would push hard for closing the carried interest loophole as president, a policy she promoted when she last ran in 2008.

According to my theory, the Republicans would probably be best served by going with Marco Rubio. He's young, attractive, well-spoken, relatable, and non-threateningly hispanic. Because none of any of the candidates' true platforms or positions actually matter at all; what they say on the campaign trail is bound to be carefully tailored to appeal to the low-information voters. This is clearly, obviously Hillary's strategy. Republicans better get with the times.

MangoMan wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I'm coming to believe that she and Obama portend the future: candidates who are unashamedly running pure popularity contests rather than even the semblance of political campaigns, and who craft their messages to to the people too dumb to see through the appealing rhetoric while winking knowingly at the people they truly represent, who can feel safe in the knowledge that they're the real constituents.

Good insight.
I used to watch American Idol with my teenage daughter back around 2008, and the process of the election of the Idol was the same as the election of the POTUS. The most talented contestant didn't necessarily win, the most popular one did. Simon Cowell's opinion didn't count, only the SMS votes of the American public.

Are we really starting this with Obama, though?  I was thinking about past U.S. presidents, and trends towards this affect, and while presidents have always have had to have a pound of vague speechiness to every ounce of actual sound analysis (when it comes to presidents' interaction with the public, anyway), I have to think the superficiality of the popularity contest, if it started with anyone, would be Ronald Reagan... and continued pretty consistently through today.  I mean even Clinton, who I like on some levels, was mostly well-liked not because he posed good arguments and lead policy well, but because he connected with people (oh... and was lucky enough to be president during a phenomenal economy).

But at the very least, this started with George Well he seems like a good guy to get a beer with Bush.  Absolutely no substance.  Just folksy, affable charm.  Obama's vague-yet-rousing (to some) speeches aside, one of his biggest problems (politically) is that he's too stammery, detailed and professorial when being questioned... not too folksy like the "popular kid."

Part of the problem is that the statistical game is SOOO well figured out now that people know exactly what combination of switches they have to pull and in what states to get the nomination (and the important issues in swing states) and still lead well into a general election, that the political implications of going out on a limb and actually making a stand are more clear...

You'll lose.

In 1945, these implications were less clear... the path was less certain because we didn't have polls and sociological statistics, and and the electoral college so bloody-well figured out, that there was a bit more freedom to be imperfectly political without losing yourself the election.  You could also, most likely, cater to crowds far more individually than you can today, where NASCAR dads see on Youtube 2 days after you decide to go off on the 47% to a group of rich guys.  You have to be far more careful with that today.  Which means that the only place you can be unique is in the charisma department, because being unique anywhere else has been polled to lose you 3% of undecided voters in Ohio.

Because the main swing states are in the rust belt, talking about the "middle class" losing to monied interests is going to play well, even with people who are pretty conservative on various other issues (Reagan democrat types).

Yeah, you're probably right that it started earlier, and that they've just got it down to a science today. Regardless, that's clearly where we are. If you want to know what someone will do once in office, you need to completely ignore every word that comes out of their mouth and examine their actual record; what they did in the past is probably what they'll do in the future. So, with that in mind, what are we likely to get from a Hillary Clinton presidency?

Foreign policy belligerence, increased military spending, wall street friendly policies, likely wall street friends will fill key appointments. Higher taxes, more support for domestic spying, expansion of low-income transfer payment programs. More illegal immigration, more gun control, less domestic oil & gas exploration. More corporate welfare for targeted, favored industries.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-vot ... ry-clinton

I would say even their record is a bit suspect.  It seems that once someone becomes president, the power of the executive branch becomes a lot less scary to them as president than it was to them as a senator (coughObamacough).

Pointedstick wrote: Yeah, you're probably right that it started earlier, and that they've just got it down to a science today. Regardless, that's clearly where we are. If you want to know what someone will do once in office, you need to completely ignore every word that comes out of their mouth and examine their actual record; what they did in the past is probably what they'll do in the future. So, with that in mind, what are we likely to get from a Hillary Clinton presidency?

Foreign policy belligerence, increased military spending, wall street friendly policies, likely wall street friends will fill key appointments. Higher taxes, more support for domestic spying, expansion of low-income transfer payment programs. More illegal immigration, more gun control, less domestic oil & gas exploration. More corporate welfare for targeted, favored industries.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-vot ... ry-clinton

Don't leave out the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment.  We will become a nation of screwers and breeders so the almighty state can raise the little bastards while the screwers and breeders begin anew.  Not too far from that now for many.  After all in our new world, money is thicker than blood ........

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Yeah, you're probably right that it started earlier, and that they've just got it down to a science today. Regardless, that's clearly where we are. If you want to know what someone will do once in office, you need to completely ignore every word that comes out of their mouth and examine their actual record; what they did in the past is probably what they'll do in the future. So, with that in mind, what are we likely to get from a Hillary Clinton presidency?

Foreign policy belligerence, increased military spending, wall street friendly policies, likely wall street friends will fill key appointments. Higher taxes, more support for domestic spying, expansion of low-income transfer payment programs. More illegal immigration, more gun control, less domestic oil & gas exploration. More corporate welfare for targeted, favored industries.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-vot ... ry-clinton

Don't leave out the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment.  We will become a nation of screwers and breeders so the almighty state can raise the little bastards while the screwers and breeders begin anew.  Not too far from that now for many.  After all in our new world, money is thicker than blood ........

... Mountaineer

To be fair, our country was built on screwers and breeders taking other people's shit via the guns of the state so they can continue to screw and breed.  They just didn't see it that way.

Wagons West!!

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Yeah, you're probably right that it started earlier, and that they've just got it down to a science today. Regardless, that's clearly where we are. If you want to know what someone will do once in office, you need to completely ignore every word that comes out of their mouth and examine their actual record; what they did in the past is probably what they'll do in the future. So, with that in mind, what are we likely to get from a Hillary Clinton presidency?

Foreign policy belligerence, increased military spending, wall street friendly policies, likely wall street friends will fill key appointments. Higher taxes, more support for domestic spying, expansion of low-income transfer payment programs. More illegal immigration, more gun control, less domestic oil & gas exploration. More corporate welfare for targeted, favored industries.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-vot ... ry-clinton

Don't leave out the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment.  We will become a nation of screwers and breeders so the almighty state can raise the little bastards while the screwers and breeders begin anew.  Not too far from that now for many.  After all in our new world, money is thicker than blood ........

... Mountaineer

To be fair, our country was built on screwers and breeders taking other people's shit via the guns of the state so they can continue to screw and breed.  They just didn't see it that way.

Wagons West!!

And you are proposing this is good?  And we should not learn from history? Should we continue to emulate those corrupt screwers, breeders, and statists pigs?   

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I'm not making value judgments on it yet.  Just mentioning it in the context that you alluded to the country that we will become.

I'm just point out that we've always been there (and it looks like you agree, or perhaps just for the sake of debate for a second).  It just looked a little different.

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

I'm not making value judgments on it yet.  Just mentioning it in the context that you alluded to the country that we will become.

I'm just point out that we've always been there (and it looks like you agree, or perhaps just for the sake of debate for a second).  It just looked a little different.

Hey moda,

Would I kid about such things as impregnating with abandon, seeing it as a responsibility to populate the world, living on the toil of others, plundering, pillaging, raping with gusto, and then gladly giving the hard earned fruits of labor to the biggest screwers on the planet?  No way man, no way!  You know, like:

impregnating the populace with lies,
populating the populace with dumbdom,
stealing taxes raping pillaging eliciting contributions from those few who gave a shit damn hoot,
funding an incompetent  ever learning government,
or making a value judgement?

No way man, no way. 

... Mountaineer

Here's a piece that I believe perfectly nails Hillary's platform and I don't expect it to change much. Probably will work too.

http://takimag.com/article/all_you_need ... in_mcinnes

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Don't leave out the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment.  We will become a nation of screwers and breeders so the almighty state can raise the little bastards while the screwers and breeders begin anew.  Not too far from that now for many.  After all in our new world, money is thicker than blood ........

For me, the fact that someone can equate the statement "it takes a village to raise a child" with "we will become a nation of screwers and breeders..." is both a testament to the effectiveness of marketing, and a realization that we're going to get lots more of it.  Because it works.
--------------------------------------
Edit to add clarification:

For me "it takes a village to raise a child" is a fairly innocuous statement, and actually has some truth in it.  For example, my wife and I would really like to find some sort of real (vs. virtual) community that we like and can be a part of to raise our 5 y/o.  Perhaps it is both of us pining for the bygone days of our own childhoods where there were far fewer adult-directed and structured activities, and a more general level of trust between people.

Now, I know Hillary Clinton wrote a book called It Takes a Village.  And my general sense from the things I heard about it at the time on conservative talk radio and Fox News was just general villification and not much thoughtful analysis.  I will admit that I've not read the book, nor have I ever sought thoughtful analysis about it (mainly because, let's be honest, it seems unlikely that it is a *real* book, but is just self-promotion).  So it could be that the book indeed advocated the U.S. becoming a nation of screwers and breeders, but I find that unlikely.

I don't doubt that the book advocates a bigger role for the government.  But this is pretty standard for a Democrat, no?

But my main point is that you made the jump quite readily from the title to a standard Republican attack phrase.

Similar, in my mind, to declaring as fact that libertarians have no empathy.

Tenn,

Thanks for the added comments.  Perhaps I should clarify where I was coming from with my original comments too.

Hillary's village comment struck me as a promotion of the state being ever more responsible for dictating how children should be raised and what parents can and cannot do (one very small example - Michele's food in the school cafeteria program - according to what parents tell me, most kids trash most of it - you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink).  I have not read Hillary's book either, but it seems to me, the state is ever more involved in the minutia of child rearing.  I was raised by a village also - but the village was my parents, my grandparents, and my aunts and uncles - and everyone knew that my parents called the shots, not the other do-gooders regardless of whether they thought my parents were right or wrong.  Send your kid to school with a sandwich made in the shape of a pistol and see what happens - or have your kid make a racist comment (that is pretty much everything these days, at least as described by the tolerant "intolerants") and see what happens.  Or so I'm told by those with kids in the public school system; maybe they are wrong.

I made the screwers and breeders comment not as a Republican attack phrase at all - I have little value for labeling and name calling; I leave that to the talking heads on both sides of the aisle.  I made my comment based on my observation of the rate of out of wedlock children drastically increasing in the past several decades, and the rate of increase in single parent "collections of individuals".  I also made the comment because of my impression that the family as the basic unit of society is rapidly being discarded, led in a large part by a government that is trying to take the place of the family, i.e. the ultimate nanny state.  I see similarities to what happened in Nazi Germany and communist Russia.  I am concerned for my grandchildren and greatgrandchildren; I strongly doubt they will have the freedom that you currently have with your 5 year old so enjoy the experience while you can. 

Your perspective may differ, and that is of course OK.  I have too many years of water under the dam (I am priviledged to have lived long enough to have greatgrandchildren) to think the current state of affairs in our country is a good thing.  True, there are many things that are much better than when I was a kid, but there are even more things that have gone backwards.  Material stuff - yep, it's better; I like my iPhone, my reliable vehicles, and my laptop.  The less tangible, and in my opinion the more important, stuff like much of what we describe on this forum - much worse.  YMMV.

I think the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment of years past by Hillary is just symbolic to me of the pending downfall of America, at least the America that I knew and treasured.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: I think the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment of years past by Hillary is just symbolic to me of the pending downfall of America, at least the America that I knew and treasured.

... Mountaineer

That's just a part of getting old, I think. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who had great grandchildren who didn't think the world had gone to pot. You live long enough, and eventually you'll see all the things that were sacred and treasured when you were a child be profaned and discarded. But society goes on. It's all a part of the natural evolution of cultures.

Simonjester wrote:

TennPaGa wrote:
Hillary's village comment struck me as a promotion of the state being ever more responsible for dictating how children should be raised and what parents can and cannot do (one very small example - Michele's food in the school cafeteria program - according to what parents tell me, most kids trash most of it - you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink).

it struck me as being a "the state knows best.. the state should raise your children.... the state can and should be able to tell (force) you to raise your kids according to their rules" type statement to me..

i didn't see any implication about screwers and breeders in the comment... but the idea of dependents handing over future generations of dependents to be raised by the government to be dependents seems implied...

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I think the "it takes a village to raise a child" comment of years past by Hillary is just symbolic to me of the pending downfall of America, at least the America that I knew and treasured.

... Mountaineer

That's just a part of getting old, I think. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who had great grandchildren who didn't think the world had gone to pot. You live long enough, and eventually you'll see all the things that were sacred and treasured when you were a child be profaned and discarded. But society goes on. It's all a part of the natural evolution of cultures.

PS,

I think you are correct for the most part.  I do not particularly agree with your last sentence however.  I have heard that statement about "natural evolution of cultures, etc." many times.  I do not believe it is natural, as in the way things were intended to be, anymore than death or homosexuality or murder or stealing is "natural".  But that is a topic for another discussion.

On the topic of "family degradation" that I mentioned earlier, perhaps this statement from Pope Francis will be illuminating; I just now read it.  A snippet:
Today’s catechesis is dedicated to an aspect central to the theme of the family: the great gift that God gave to humanity with the creation of man and woman and with the sacrament of marriage. This catechesis and the next one will treat the difference and complementarity between man and woman, who stand at the summit of divine creation; then the two after that will be on other topics concerning marriage.

Full article:  http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/ ... erale.html

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: I do not believe it is natural, as in the way things were intended to be, anymore than death or homosexuality or murder or stealing is "natural".

Of course they're natural. "Natural" is not a synonym for "good." More like "inevitable."

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I do not believe it is natural, as in the way things were intended to be, anymore than death or homosexuality or murder or stealing is "natural".

Of course they're natural. "Natural" is not a synonym for "good." More like "inevitable."

The important definition of natural: As described in Gn 1 and 2.  (I'm not going to argue with the Big Guy who said it was "good".)  Inevitable, yes, after Gn 3. 

... Mountaineer