Hey, there! Log in / Register
Baker's Trump problem
By adamg on Mon, 02/29/2016 - 8:40am
Baker is trying to remake the Republican State Committee in his image, but Peter Ubertaccio notes state-committee elections are tomorrow and the sort of people who could give Trump a landslide victory here are not the sort of people amenable to Baker's un-frothing pragmatic vision of the Republican party
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
All these machinations. Doesn
All these machinations. Doesn't anyone understand that all this support for Trump might be that people are tired of being manipulated by politics as usual , whatever flavor you vote for, and it has to end. Who would really trust Hillary with their life savings, she is just trying to re-create Camelot in the Clinton image, re-writing history by controlling the writers. Who was really fooled by the setup her daughter got by the TV network? You wouldn't lay down your own money on a bet that it was kosher.Bernie seems like a good guy ,but he is kind of clueless to think he can be a contrarian and a politician at the same time. Trump scares the piss out of everybody because he represents radical change.It don't matter if you are D , R ,or I , Understand that. The rubber is hitting the road here !
Not me
I'm likely going to vote for Trump tomorrow and Clinton in November. Clinton isn't some demon -- she's going to be no better or worse then Obama and while I don't love Obama he hasn't been horrible.
I'm a moderate in a world of extremes. I take issue with Baker on the T but otherwise think he's doing an OK job. I wish someone like him was running for president. Instead we get two tea-party extremists (Rubio & Cruz) plus the impossible-to-pin-down Trump. At Trump's worst he'll be just as bad as Cruz and Rubio so I see this as a false choice. I might as well vote for the candidate which I think is least-bad and hope it sends a message to the national party that someone as crazy as trump still shares my values better than Tea-party extremists.
" . I might as well vote for
" . I might as well vote for the candidate which I think is least-bad ''
Dog , its a shame , isn't it? The once greatest country in the world, fought two fronts in World War 2 , of which heroism and righteousness was re-defined, Iwo Jima , Normandy , and more. With all the natural resources, brain power , access to the two world oceans on two coasts. Sports heroes like Vince Lombardi, Mickey Mantle. And Rocky Bleier too!
Yes, it's horrible
I know I'm a bad person for not voting for the person who I think would make the best president, electability aside. But at this point I'd rather be strategic than dogmatic. (My username aside...)
oh please
There are problems here, but if you want to see a country that's falling apart or is about to, read up on Venezuela, Thailand, South Africa, Brazil, etc... Sure, we have problems and they need serious attention but rote America bashing is so trite.
Which country is specifically now the greatest if we aren't? China? UK? New Zealand? Canada?
Who cares?
That's the most elementary-school-playground crap I've heard in some time. Who's the greatest? Like someone is giving out prizes. All the while the USA has been patting itself on the back for being "the greatest", other countries were doing worthwhile things like looking out for their people's welfare. There are two kinds of people in the world, those who self-promote and those who do worthwhile things, and I guess it's true of countries too.
I don't think Hillary really wants to be president
She just wants to return Whitehouse items without being noticed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1
Just curious
But what's the logic behind voting for trump now and Clinton later? I've heard a couple ppl say that.
Hedging a bet
I really like aspects of Sanders. But it's highly unlikely he'll win the nomination and even less likely he'll win in November. (Same is true for Kasich, BTW.)
So as a voter I have a choice of who I'd like to see Clinton run against. Of the three I'd like it to be Trump. I think she'll stand a better chance of winning and even if Trump wins he'll still be preferable than Cruz or Rubio.
Thats playing with fire though.
Kasich has no real chance of winning the nomination, unless it's a contested Convention, which is still possible. But he's the real winner if you want to not vote Cruz or Rubio and need to put a vote somewhere. I don't agree with his moral positions in some cases, but he turned Ohio around economically and is treated by most members of Congress as a guy who will play ball to get things done, unlike Cruz. And unlike Rubio, I think he can spell his own name without being spotted 4 letters.
So you don't HAVE to vote for Trump if you want to cast a stone in the R ballot. Also, let's not pretend for a minute that any of these losers are remotely electable.
Only two competent candidates
In my opinion - Clinton and Kasich. Bernie just can't be effective (though I admire his principles even if I don't agree with them), Trump's a buffoon, Cruz is way too right to go anywhere and Rubio is too wet behind the ears (haven't we heard enough from the Republicans about how a first term Senator in his 40's isn't up to the job - and the proof is in the pudding of the last 8 years)
The difference between Hillary and Kasich is that Kasich has morals, ethics and principles - that are moderate enough to attract the swing vote. On top of having amazing qualifications, he's the only Republican that can win.
He'll be getting my vote tomorrow.
If it's Clinton v. Anyone else with an R after their name other than Kasich - I may just not vote in November - or write one in. In the meantime I'll pray like hell that Bloomberg jumps in.
Republicans Hate Mrs. Clinton As They Do President Obama
Their obstructionism will continue with the same vehemence. They may be racist and sexist, but they won't hate Bernie Sanders simply because he's an old white man.
Mr. Sanders speaks with truth and conviction and people when people take a moment to hear what he has to say, his message comes through with clarity and reason. Hillary Clinton's condescending tone is off-putting from the start to many people. She also carries lots of heavy baggage, some of which the contents are still unknown.
At the end of the day, Mrs. Clinton is a source of division at a time when the country is desperately in need of unity. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate trying to unite the nation to solve real-life problems that affect all Americans. He has support from Democrats, independents and even some Republicans.
You might say his goals are too high, but that's what we need— working with Congress is an art of compromise; ask for the sky, so you've got room to bargain. He might not get everything he wants, but he'll get a lot more than she will.
I will vote for Bernie Sanders tomorrow.
ditto Elmer
Ditto.
He may not come even close to winning, but its more about voting who you think will do the best job, not will win.
Sadly I think this election will be less about people voting for who they think will do the best job, but rather who will win. There's a big difference between the two.
General Election Polls: Sanders Beats Trump By More Than Clinton
Sanders' truthfulness/favorability ratings far exceed those of Mrs. Clinton. He beats all possible Republican opponents by a wider margin in head-to-head polls.
As of right now, Sanders beats Trump by 6.0 points, while Clinton beats him by only 2.8 points, and she's actually losing when placed against Kasich, Rubio, or Cruz!
If you don't want to risk the next president to be Donald Trump or some other Republican, the best candidate to win in the general election is Bernie Sanders.
Come on Elmer
The match-ups this early don't mean squat AND when people are asked to rank their preference for a socialist his support goes way down.
I like Bernie Sanders. I'd vote for Bernie over any of the people currently with a -R after their name. But Sanders' is going to get eaten alive should he make it past the primary. If Bush managed to turn John Kerry's honorable Vietnam service against him just think what they'll do to Sanders.
Sanders is great. I wish his views were mainstream. But even if he wins MA it will be nearly impossible for him to win the primary let alone November. His numbers elsewhere are bad to horrible. That's why I'm unlikely to vote for him.
BTW, the Sanders/Trump thing shows how horrible our election system is. If we had a no-lost-vote (AKA Priority Vote, etc) then we would be free to vote for who we think is best without risking the opposite candidate effectively getting our support.
Polls
I'm reminded this election that polls don't mean jack right now.
One poll says Sanders is leading. Another poll will say Clinton is leading.
And on and on and on.. You really can't believe the polls these days.
How about we WAIT for the results
instead of trying to predict them. Polls are idiotic and just a waste of resources.
The National Election Isn't For Several Months
In today's primary, voters are tasked with choosing the candidate who has the best chance of winning against the opposing party in November. So, having an idea of how they fare against one another when placed head-to-head is useful information to consider.
Of course, polls are often wrong and they seldom agree with one another, but they provide at least some points of reference. The link I provided presents results from four different polls and also calculates an average.
It's not perfect, but it is another source of information voters can use if desired. Most importantly, it refutes the notion that Bernie Sanders could not win the general election. Indeed, it suggests has the best chance of winning.
Negotiations 101
There has to be an acceptable middle ground. If you are asking $25k for your car (reasonably) and I offer you $5k - you'll be insulted and I'll be told I'm not serious. If Bernie shows up in the White House with these pie in the sky proposals, we'll have 8 more years like the last 8 (assuming he's still alive -hey worked for Reagan up until the last couple years).
I actually hope he does win - because if it's Bernie v. the Donald - Bloomberg gets in.
Sadly for all of us - it's looking like buffoon vs. pathological liar.
Bernie Will Tell Wall Street To Clean Up Their Act
Hillary will just ask them to sweep it under the rug.
Ditto for Bernie, Elmer.
I'll be voting for him tomorrow. While I dislike Hillary, she'll get my vote in November if she wins the primaries. There isn't a single moderate Republican with any chance of winning this year at this time. The consequences of one of the extremists winning is just plain scary.
Let's dispel with this fiction
> haven't we heard enough from the Republicans about how a first term Senator in his 40's isn't up to the job - and the proof is in the pudding of the last 8 years
Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Er, no.
Trump scares the piss out of anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Europe in the 1930's. He's an honest-to-god fascist, and I can't come up with any sort of charitable read on how anyone could not notice this. There's no substance to anything he's ever said, other than a general sense of "it's the immigrants' fault."
He Lies
If you read his books it's pretty clear he says extreme things to get in press coverage but then has no intention of following through. He's a con man, a troll, etc. No two ways about it. What does Trump honestly belive? That's anyone's guess but rest assured it's something which helps him personally not what the Koch brothers or defense contractors want. He's too incompetent to become a 1930's fascist even if he wanted to.
Rubio and Cruz are not as sly. They view an America in which woman have few rights and the only thing which matters is what the huge [oil driven] corporations want. They want to make their form of Christianity our national religion and hold it against anyone who isn't a believer. No Thanks.
Trump is plenty bad. The other two are as bad or worse.
Trump's no fascist
If Trump were a fascist, we'd be seeing paramilitary goons marching down our streets waving Trump banners, knocking on doors, and beating the crap out of political opponents to scare the rest of us into toeing the line.
Trump is more Berlusconi than Mussolini.
Not really
There are some superficial similarities between Trump and Hitler, and rather fewer between Germany in the 30s and the USA today, but there are many many differences -- and I don't say that as an apologia for Trump. Hitler was a xenophobic lunatic who nevertheless was a truly gifted public speaker with a shrewd understanding of politics. Trump is a xenophobic gasbag whose ignorance, laziness and narcissism would never allow him to accomplish anything of significance. Hitler had patience and knew how to create alliances, even if he ended up by throwing all his allies under the bus, they worked as long as he needed them to. In contrast, Trump's need for constant and immediate ego-gratification means that he'll never have the patience to create the conditions necessary to build a wall or deport all the Muslims or do much of anything, really. Also consider that unlike the USA today, Germany in the 30s had no history as a stable democracy, and only the weakest of institutions to prevent the widespread abuses of the fascist era -- and it still took over a decade of hard work before he was able to even begin implementing his policies. You may think that people are blind because they don't see the danger of Trump's words, but if you think he could wave a magic wand and do what he wants, or that he's got what it takes to create a "Germany in the 30s" scenario, I'd say you've got a few blind spots yourself.
Damning with faint praise
I'd actually describe him as more of a Mussolini than a Hitler, though I guess the distinction is largely academic. The fact that his supporters (and you're probably not one, but I'm just using this as a for-instance) can't seem to muster a stronger defense against this claim than "Well, sure, he might as deluded and narcissistic as Hitler, but he's WAY less capable of accomplishing his horrifying goals" is itself worrisome.
Well, sure
erik, you're just getting weirder. Have you heard a single Trump supporter make this argument? Seriously.
I am far from a Trump supporter, but he just doesn't scare me as much as he seems to scare a lot of people. Make no mistake, a Trump presidency would suck real hard. But it would suck not because of any of his crazy gasbag proposals, each one of which is DOA, but because of the deficit (to use the analogy of the article you linked to earlier) -- or, to as another poster put it in another thread, the "comb-over chicken coming home to roost". It's what a Trump election would represent, i.e., a deep state of brokenness in this country, broken really beyond healing if he is elected. Eventually I suppose things will get patched up, but there will be plenty of broken crockery in the meanwhile.
All too scarily true,
All too scarily true, authoritarians support Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-your-parentin...
Endorsements
Right up there with polls in being the most pointless and counterproductive activities of our whole electoral cycle.
It's not an endorsement. It's
It's not an endorsement. It's a sociological and psychological analysis of voters who support Trump. And the best predictor of supporting Trump is the voters' tendency to favor authoritarianism.
couple of points
What is more unrealistic: rewriting tax law so that huge corporations, as well as enormously wealthy individuals, are forced to pay their fair share of taxes - thus leading to all kinds of improvements in infrastructure, health care, income inequality, etc., etc.? Or commanding a sovereign nation to build a wall to keep people out of another nation?
For my part, I will take the populist movement that offers some clear ideas of how to get things done, and that will work to ensure that everyone in this country is better off. I will skip the populist movement that preys on uneducated people's worst nativist fears.
Thus the confusions of
Thus the confusions of rhetoric, There is legal immigration , and illegal immigration, Rights bring responsibilities.
Donald, is that you?
I ask mostly because Malcolm made some interesting points, and you managed to pivot to a canned response about illegal immigration that had nothing to do with the conversation.
Dont get cute, you see my
Dont get cute, you see my name up there.Canned bullshit, that is my perception. I dont need a script to do my thinking. You just tried to deflect my comment, more rhetorical machination. Vague and general. You got your vote , I got mine.
That's funny
You ignored my specific question about your vague and general statement about how America isn't great anymore.
Where is better than here? Oh, I see - you can't answer that one so moved on, right?
Re: the wall
Folks keep pointing out that Mexico has no reason whatsoever to build said wall, since net immigration has swung back into Mexico. (i.e. over the last decade, more people have left the US for Mexico than vice versa) But I'm starting to see the logic of this: if I were a country that shared a long border with a country run by Donald Trump, I'd build as tall a wall as I could.
indeed
I'd want to keep out those gringos myself if their fearless leader were Donald Drumpf.
That's exactly what Bernie's done
But that's exactly what he's been doing since 1981. He's not new to this gig - if anything, he's got more practical experience on how to build consensus among people with really disparate political ideologies than anyone else in government. And he's done that as both an administrator and a legislator, and at every level from municipal to federal.
I believe there are many members of Congress that have such a personally-felt enmity towards the Clintons that it seems likely that these congresscritters will continue their ridiculous "burn the country to save it" behaviour under a Hillary presidency.
Otoh, no one in government seems to actually hate Bernie. They disagree with him, they argue against him, they express frustration at his doggedness. But they also often end up co-writing legislation with him and mediating workable compromise with him. He's been working with people who hold different ideologies to achieve practical results for a long time.
Jeff , I think Bernie
Jeff , I think Bernie confuses socialism with capitalism and will just get stuck in the mud trying to accomplish what he would like. I dont understand suppporting universal healthcare but surcharging premium policies. They arent all Cadillac plans for corporate big wigs. Some people divert wages to have better health plans, And to touch on Hillary , one word , uranium !
If Baker decides to endorse
If Baker decides to endorse Trump , people will think that he will be desperate as Chris Christie in hopes of getting a higher position in the Trump administration. It will ruin Bakers association in the established Republican Party , also ruin his reputation if Baker decides himself to run for President one day.
Why doesn't he do what fellow "moderate" MA GOP member
Scott Brown did, and endorse him? Why pretend your party isn't made up of leaders like Trump and voters who love every word of it? I'm sure if you make Trump's bloviating more vanilla, it sounds a lot like what Charlie and the rest of the GOP thinks. Sanders 2016 if you're tired of the divisiveness.
Mayor Walsh is running
Mayor Walsh is running against Baker for Governor in 2018
I dont see that
Happening. Walsh isn't an idiot, he ran for Mayor when he did for a reason, it was an unopposed seat. I dont see him challenging the highest approved Gov in the country.
I can't imagine that to be true
On the nuts/bolts side, I don't feel like Walsh has a specific proven track record he can run on. Boston is doing fine, he's not made any huge errors, but I don't see what's that much different than if Connolly would have won.
On the campaign side, I don't feel like he is a particularly articulate or personable candidate. I don't think he's a bad guy or anything, but he's not very charismatic. Of course, neither is Baker but he's very popular based on his perceived effectiveness to date.
Is not a Baker problem its a GOP problem.
Trump is exactly what republicans have been clamoring for, for the last 40 years. The whole talk radio/conservative movement poured gasoline on anything that didn't move and now they have a freak of populism taking over their party. In Massachusetts republicans make up 11 percent of the electorate. Like the national party they relied on party faithful to secure nominees for office and then marketed their ideas to independents in the general. Now those independents are grabbing republican ballots in the primary and swallowing up the wing nut base. You reap what you sow. Pass the popcorn this is going to be fun.
My favorite analysis
Probably just because I'm a dev, but this makes a lot of sense:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/gop-overwhelmed-by-debt
Donald Trump as technical debt.
Ooooh
Possibly just because I'm a software project manager, but I think this is brilliant.
Massachusetts Republicans are not national Republicans
In Massachusetts, party identification traditionally reflects ethnicity: if you are Irish or Italian, you're probably a Democrat; if you're a Yankee, you're probably a Republican. The labels have less to do with ideology; Bill Weld was a liberal, while Billy Bulger was a conservative. That's changing, of course, but the reality is that Republicans are 11% of the electorate here more because Yankees have shrunk as a proportion of the population than because of any turn to the left among the voters, I think. We have plenty of "read my lips: no new taxes" idiots in this Commonwealth, and the prince of them all is "Democrat" Robert DeLeo.
what?!
I am a Yankee with ties to the Mayflower, and while I'm not officially part of the Democratic party, I can assure you I have never once, in my life, voted Republican. On the other hand, most of the Irish Catholic residents of the humdrum little suburb where I grew up were (and are, judging by their FB posts) card-carrying Republicans.
Why Trump is getting those numbers
Yesterday, Trump had two Disney IT workers who had to train their own H1B replacements up on stage with him.
Call our senators. Try the "populist" Liz Warren first, and ask them about the H1B program that's gutting IT careers. And here's what you'll get: "The Senator supports a fair and comprehensive immigration reform..."
The Republican puts displaced IT workers on stage with him. Hillary makes six figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. Local pols mouth meaningless platitudes.
That is why Trump is getting those numbers.
OK, I'll bite.
Sounds like we have a problem with economic policies that encourage businesses to outsource jobs, while at the same time creating a reserve labor pool of immigrants in dire straits themselves because they're beholden to their employers to maintain their green cards. If pressed to respond directly to the question "how would you fix this?" in front of a crowd, I'd probably say something like "We need a major overhaul of the existing system, which I've explained in detail on my website but which I don't really have time to go through point by point right this moment."
The exact problem you've just described is not a failure in immigration policy, it's a failure in economic policy. H1B visas are a complete clusterfuck, but they are but a tiny facet of a larger problem, and neither this tiny facet nor the larger problem can be fixed overnight. In fact, doing what Trump is proposing will instantly make everything worse for all parties involved, because Disney is not going to turn around and rehire those two guys at their old wages.
This is, in a nutshell, my problem with the modern GOP. You're looking for simple answers to complex questions, and there are no simple answers to anything. There are simple platitudes, which you can spout endlessly and hope that the rubes packed into your rallies will buy into, but which fall apart the moment you pay any attention to their particulars. Ask Donald what he'd like to do to help those two white-collar guys he hauled up onstage. I'd be very interested to hear the answer, since he has pretty adroitly managed to avoid giving one in the last 18 months.
Mr. Ellison - quick question
Why do you keep giving so much money (millions) to Marco Rubio?
I don't get it. You don't seem like a traditional values kind of guy.
This is one time I really wish
we had "None of the above" on the primary ballots.
Bernie Sanders Is The Closest You're Gonna' Get
In my lifetime, the only candidate offering a chance to fix the broken system.
This whole election would
This whole election would suddenly make a TON more sense if The Donald announced at the end of March that his entire campaign was a Brewster's Millions-esque plot for him to inherit the rest of his father's family fortune.
Same here
I'm a moderate and I have no idea who I'm going to vote for tomorrow. I don't even know which ballot I'll take,
Maybe I'll take a Republican one and write in Tom Brady. At this point, that seems as good as any other choice.
Actually, no
Staying at home and watching reality TV would be a better choice than wasting your time and others' time to cast a meaningless ballot for someone who has no interest in running. If you want to vote for an underdog candidate, go for it. If you want to vote for the favored candidate, go for it. But to vote for Tom Brady doesn't even rise to the level of a meaningless gesture -- it's a meaningless, invisible gesture that sends no message to anyone.
Which is why we need
"None of the above" as a ballot choice.
#AnyoneButTrump
Is my new favorite hashtag...
#AnyoneButHillary
Has a better ring to it, but not bad.