mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-08-05, 20:28   #1
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default 2016 U.S. presidential election

Hmm...

There seems to be no thread for the 2016 U.S. presidential election yet.

Even this early, there's been substantial discussion reported in the media, so let's get started.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-05, 20:40   #2
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default GOP pre-emptive strikes

Recently, NBC and CNN announced that they will broadcast programs about Hillary Clinton:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/rnc-says-no-debates-if-nbc-and-cnn-dont-pull-clinton-movies/

NBC announced its miniseries last month. It is a four-parter starring Diane Lane with no set air date. CNN announced last week it was planning a feature-length movie on the former secretary of state’s life to premiere in movie theaters and television next year. Both networks have said the programs will have no effect on the news or reporting sides of the networks, and neither has said how Clinton will be portrayed.

“NBC News is completely independent of NBC Entertainment, and has no involvement in this project,” Erika Masonhall, a spokeswoman for the network told ABC News.
Republicans are really, really worried that every U.S. demographic group except older white males is going to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2106, so preemptive attacks are already in progress:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/rnc-hillary-clinton_n_3708062.html

The RNC has launched prior preemptive attacks on Clinton's nascent candidacy. In May, the group released an ad centered on Clinton and the State Department's response to the 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi.
Now, the RNC is trying to pressure NBC and CNN not to air those broadcasts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by abcnews.go.com

The Republican National Committee has a message for NBC and CNN: If they don’t pull their planned Hillary Clinton miniseries and movie, no RNC partnered 2016 debates for them.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus wrote a letter to the heads of both networks to “express his deep disappointment” in their decision to either air a miniseries in NBC’s case or a movie in CNN’s, writing that the networks are “promoting former Secretary Hillary Clinton ahead of her likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016."
Priebus is presenting this as a complaint about unfair political coverage:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20130805_ap_b4ca05583a544802ad1bec4b68ac9328.html?c=r

RNC chairman Reince Priebus called a planned NBC miniseries on Clinton and a CNN documentary on the first lady an "extended commercial" for a future Clinton presidential campaign. In separate letters to the networks, he urged them to cancel "this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production."
Now, at first glance, this could be a cut-off-nose-to-spite-face move: Republicans threaten to respond to TV coverage of Hillary by reducing the potential TV audience for their own primary debates? Hunh?

But Zeke J. Miller claims, in an article at time.com, that Priebus has a different real motive: Priebus may really be aiming to reduce the number of GOP primary debates.

"The Hidden Motivation Behind GOP Threats to Boycott NBC, CNN"
http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/05...rss-topstories

Quote:
Originally Posted by time.com

Republican Party officials believe the 20 GOP primary debates during the 2012 cycle hurt their party and Mitt Romney, the eventual nominee. CNN’s John King, in particular, drew attacks when he questioned former Speaker of the House New Gingrich about his prior marital infidelities in a debate before the South Carolina primary, while Republicans have long been weary of working with NBC given the liberal-leanings of its cable network MSNBC. Priebus has previously proposed a more modest 10 to 12 debates, in part to protect better-funded candidates from insurgents who capitalize on their time before the cameras.
Priebus and other GOP officials want to change RNC rules about debates:
Quote:
The autopsy recommends changing the RNC rules to include penalties for Republican state parties or candidates if they participate in debates unsanctioned by the RNC.
but they've run into resistance:
Quote:
... the effort to cut back on the number of debates has run into headwinds from Republican state parties in early states, who in many instances see revenue from co-hosting the debates and associated events.
So, Priebus's letter to NBC and CNN may be
Quote:
designed to make that easier when the Republican National Committee meets in Boston next week to discuss the debate schedule, according to one member of the Republican National Committee. “If they have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC’s Summer Meeting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor,” Priebus wrote in his letter.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-05, 22:11   #3
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

170148 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
vote for Hillary Clinton in 2106,
... err, 2016, that is ...
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-06, 00:48   #4
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

9,547 Posts
Default


Check-in in 18 months.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-06, 00:51   #5
chappy
 
chappy's Avatar
 
"Jeff"
Feb 2012
St. Louis, Missouri, USA

13×89 Posts
Default

I was just discussing the debate thing with a friend (who in the spirit of full disclosure is a blogger for a progressive leaning website whose name rhymes with www.crooksandliars.com if that gives you any indication of their political positions :)

And I recall the whole discussion after the election about the number of debates being the problem--as part of all the soul searching and finger pointing that went on after the election.

However, we are already seeing a number of high-profile Republicans making moves to run. We have Tea Party leadership acting like they aren't going to support any of the nationally known names for presidency. The East-coast moderate Republicans are already being vilified by the far right and the libertarian wings of the party.

15 years ago I'd have bet any amount of money that Hillary Clinton would never be president. Now I'm thinking that's not a bad bet. Clinton/Warren '16! I've not heard a Republican that could get my vote throw his (and that I can use the masculine pronoun with such certainty is part of the problem) yet.
chappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-06, 00:54   #6
chappy
 
chappy's Avatar
 
"Jeff"
Feb 2012
St. Louis, Missouri, USA

48516 Posts
Default

current odds on the election.

They are actually more pro-Clinton than I would have guessed.
chappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-06, 03:30   #7
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11·157 Posts
Default

Crash course on American politics, please? In Canada we can elect the same leader over and over again, and it's really more of a Party thing and a Leader thing anyway. We're looking to have ours in a couple of years also. Leaders have all been elected.

At this point in time, the parties in US government are still looking to elect their leaders, right? Or is Hillary Clinton definitely the democrat leader?
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-06, 04:22   #8
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

2×3×1,693 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
Crash course on American politics, please? In Canada we can elect the same leader over and over again, and it's really more of a Party thing and a Leader thing anyway. We're looking to have ours in a couple of years also. Leaders have all been elected.

At this point in time, the parties in US government are still looking to elect their leaders, right? Or is Hillary Clinton definitely the democrat leader?
Everything is speculative and futuristic at this point. First the candidates declare. Then they campaign for the party Primary Elections. Then the winners of the Primaries campaign in the General Election. This supposes just the two major parties. There may be "third party" candidates, though the system so favors the major parties that their actual chances are virtually nil. They may serve to pull the major party candidates one way or another.

The certain big winners are advertisers and the media which run the ads. It is a protracted mess in which serious issues tend to be submerged in a great deal of posturing and nonsense. Whatever positions candidates take while running will likely bear small resemblance to what they do if elected.
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-06, 12:12   #9
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

This article shows no awareness of Priebus's hidden agenda (if Zeke Miller is correct), but does point out why Priebus will get what he (really) wants:

"RNC threat to networks over Hillary Clinton programs: Is it wise? Is it real?"
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...ise-Is-it-real

Quote:
. . .

The networks have no room to wiggle, says Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor from Tufts University in Medford, Mass. “This crosses a line,” he says, adding “this is an Edward R. Murrow moment for them.” Both the networks have no choice but to stand up for the integrity of their independence as broadcasters, he says.

. . .
So, the networks will refuse to change plans, and Priebus will be able to push through his desired debate rule changes. Overt win + covert win!
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-06, 13:20   #10
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
Crash course on American politics, please? In Canada we can elect the same leader over and over again, and it's really more of a Party thing and a Leader thing anyway.
What I think you want would be contained in an explanation of the difference between your parliamentary system and our (U.S.) presidential system.

Wikipedia has two overviews -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system . Though neither is quite up to Wikipedia's desired standards as articles, they (or, rather, the second one) look sufficient for your crash course.

Quote:
We're looking to have ours in a couple of years also. Leaders have all been elected.
There are major differences in the "Leader thing" between our systems (AKA "it all depends on your definition of Leader").

There's head of state, head of government and party leader, for instance.

In particular, there may be differences in how we think of "party leaders".

Let me first run through my understanding (please correct me where I'm wrong!) of Canadian leadership:

Canada's head of state is, constitutionally, the British monarch. However, that constitutional head-of-state role has been delegated almost entirely to the Governor General. Canada's head of government is, constitutionally, the prime minister. The prime minister is elected by the House of Commons, and is usually (always?) the party leader of whichever party holds the majority of seats in the House of Commons (or is the leading party of the coalition that holds the majority of seats).

(I don't know details of how your parties select their leaders, or even what different levels of leadership there are in each party.)

Different structure in U.S.:

The president is both head of state and head of government. (The president often delegates some tasks to the vice-president, but the vice-president has very little prescribed constitutional role.)

Each party elects its own national committee chairperson as party administration head, but you probably don't see their names mentioned outside the U.S., and shouldn't think of them as party leaders in the same sense as your prime minister. (Right now the Republican National Committee chair is Reince Priebus and the Democratic National Committee chair is Debbie Wasserman Schultz.) They usually operate "behind the scenes".

Perhaps your sense of U.S. "party leader" would be more along the lines of: Who are the most prominent and/or powerful politicians of each U.S. party?

During a presidential campaign, the leading presidential candidates are often deemed "party leaders". The elected president in office is often considered his party's "leader" in most senses. But powerful members of Congress are also often deemed to be among the "party leaders", as would sometimes be past (successful) presidents.

Quote:
At this point in time, the parties in US government are still looking to elect their leaders, right?
Substitute "presidential candidates" for "leaders" there, and you'd be spot on. Each party's presidential candidate will be selected in the summer of 2016 at the respective national party nominating conventions.

Quote:
Or is Hillary Clinton definitely the democrat leader?
She's definitely a "leader" in the sense of a powerful politician (even though she currently holds no office). She's also considered the front-runner among possible presidential candidates for the 2016 election, though she hasn't yet announced that she's running for that office.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2013-08-06 at 13:49
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-08-06, 19:47   #11
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

265538 Posts
Default

If Hillary wins will she earn the honor of being the first U.S. president to piss on the Constitution while sitting down, or does that distinction go to FDR?
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dutch Election Day (a.k.a. political nightmare!) VictordeHolland Soap Box 19 2017-10-31 12:35
election fraud? davar55 Lounge 4 2016-07-03 13:56
Abortion debate (moved from 2012 election thread) Christenson Soap Box 112 2016-07-01 15:15
Black Republicans and the presidential election jasong Soap Box 11 2012-06-05 19:34
Election, 2004... Xyzzy Soap Box 50 2004-11-08 20:25

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:39.

Fri May 7 07:39:23 UTC 2021 up 29 days, 2:20, 0 users, load averages: 1.13, 1.72, 2.00

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.