Elections GOP Road to 2016 Primary Thread

[Lead]

It's a combination of massive corporate propaganda, and deep-seated racism.

It's interesting that welfare didn't have its stigma when it was associated with poor, rural whites. It was seen pretty much as what it was: basic assistance for people in poor enough situations to need it. But starting in the 70s and really kicked up in the 80s with Reagan, welfare took a different turn.

Nowadays, "welfare" is pretty much synonymous with "poor black people." It's knee-jerk, really. So while stigmatizing blacks as being violent or less intelligent was THE go-to strategy in decades past, since about the 1980s it's been the lazy-welfare link (the other two are still there though).

When racism and corporatism team up, amazing things are produced.

I wouldn't say welfare is associated with blacks. It has been unjustly associated with lazy people. I always find it funny when someone brings up anger over welfare programs and then I bring up each one and they back out:
I see, but what about Social Security. Don't you believe we should provide some aid to the elderly who paid into it their whole lives?
Well uhhh, yea I guess so
What about the disabled who can no longer work. They definitely need support in our to pay for their living.
Well uhh, yea I guess so
And how about those who barely get by below the poverty line? Do you think they work minimum wage jobs so they can get federal assistance in order to just get by?
Well uhh, I guess not


If you take 10 minutes to actually think about the systems we have in place, you would immediately dismiss the "fairness" thought that the rich and middle class shouldn't aid those on the lower end of society. You have to think about the larger picture when you think about policies and not just how each individual is affected.

 

[ShoelessRye]

I think there will be a challenger to Hillary from the Dems, maybe Webb, who will push her a fair bit, but when the voters see whomever the GOP is starting to favor, I think we'll see fear of the unknown push them back to Hillary. I don't think many people who would vote Paul just because Hillary is to their right on a few issues. I think many have the suspicion, not unfounded, that Rand's few progressive views won't make up for the rest of the package.

Webb is to the right of Hillary though, I don't think he'll get much traction or push her in any way. If Liz Warren ran it would be huge, but she's not going to. Bernie Sanders might run, but he's been an Indie in the Senate, though caucuses with Dems and though will appease the further left/progressive wing won't get enough money - he HATES fundraising/asking for money and stumping with rah-rah speeches and the like. I'd be surprised if Hillary even agreed to debate him because he'd be dangerous to debate(in a Dem Primary) as a common sense progressive populist, and he's not a legit threat IMO to where Hillary should put herself in a position to look bad. Then again, she might use the debates to flip off the far left and burnish her centrist cred because she knows Sanders wouldn't be a primary threat and those same progressives would hold their nose and vote for her come the GE or not vote at all whereas her centrist gambit could win her moderate GOP converts - especially moderate GOP women voters, which would count as a 2-for-1, in that she gets a +1 from the switch and the GOP candidate gets a -1 on the tally from that switch.

But this is the GOP primary thread so not to digress any further...

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I wouldn't say welfare is associated with blacks. It has been unjustly associated with lazy people. I always find it funny when someone brings up anger over welfare programs and then I bring up each one and they back out:

Are you kidding? It's absolutely associated with poor blacks. Not solely, obviously, but largely.

This interesting study had this association as a given:

http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-welfare-queen-experiment/

Agreed with the rest of your post.

 

[Lead]

Are you kidding? It's absolutely associated with poor blacks. Not solely, obviously, but largely.

This interesting study had this association as a given:

http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-welfare-queen-experiment/

Agreed with the rest of your post.

Do we know the percentages? I grew up in a rural area so the people I remember and know are on welfare are white. I even remember working at McDonalds where this 40 year old red neck would brag about it and try to work as little hours as possible.

My other friend is 22 and she lives alone. She makes about 15k a year and her family consists of an alcoholic father, simple minded mother (they are seperated) and a whore sister. She had no real structure growing up and now she just gets by. She does try school but has to delay often due to bills. She is white as well.


When I worked for an SSD law firm, I can tell you the applications for disability were not centered on blacks either. If I had to "stereotype" who the typical applicant was, it would be a married woman who is attempting to leave the workforce and essentially be a stay-at-home mom (sometimes without the mom part) with extra income for the household through SSD. They would list psychological claims for their disability that weren't really applicable like "anger problems" or broad things like "knee hurts" with no diagnosis from doctors. They didn't last long in the application process.

 

[Lead]

Webb is to the right of Hillary though, I don't think he'll get much traction or push her in any way. If Liz Warren ran it would be huge, but she's not going to. Bernie Sanders might run, but he's been an Indie in the Senate, though caucuses with Dems and though will appease the further left/progressive wing won't get enough money - he HATES fundraising/asking for money and stumping with rah-rah speeches and the like. I'd be surprised if Hillary even agreed to debate him because he'd be dangerous to debate(in a Dem Primary) as a common sense progressive populist, and he's not a legit threat IMO to where Hillary should put herself in a position to look bad. Then again, she might use the debates to flip off the far left and burnish her centrist cred because she knows Sanders wouldn't be a primary threat and those same progressives would hold their nose and vote for her come the GE or not vote at all whereas her centrist gambit could win her moderate GOP converts - especially moderate GOP women voters, which would count as a 2-for-1, in that she gets a +1 from the switch and the GOP candidate gets a -1 on the tally from that switch.

But this is the GOP primary thread so not to digress any further...

I'd make a Dem primary thread if there were significant competition at this point but this has been enough for me to post on thus far. I bring in an occasional Hilary/Dem subject once in awhile since this is essentially the only primary-esq thread thus far.

 

[Makani]

Are you kidding? It's absolutely associated with poor blacks. Not solely, obviously, but largely.

This interesting study had this association as a given:

http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-welfare-queen-experiment/

Agreed with the rest of your post.

I think everyone knows that welfare is not a black thing, but when white people get it they're "down on their luck" and when black people get it they're lazy and abusing the system. I'm in favor of responsible spending, but whenever an idea comes out in favor of a weaker safety net I ommediarely wonder about its origins.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Do we know the percentages?

Percentages are irrelevant, the comment was about with whom it was associated.

 

[Lead]

Percentages are irrelevant, the comment was about with whom it was associated.

Yea, and if you read our discussion, that's what we were talking about along with the enitre rest of my post you cut off. I read his article and noticed it listing the percentages the media portrayed it based on race and wanted to compare it to the data. Analysis is useful.

 

[Lead]

I think everyone knows that welfare is not a black thing, but when white people get it they're "down on their luck" and when black people get it they're lazy and abusing the system. I'm in favor of responsible spending, but whenever an idea comes out in favor of a weaker safety net I ommediarely wonder about its origins.

The rural areas in media do get their share of being rednecks on welfare but I agree you hear a down on their luck factory worker who lost their job far more often in the narrative. The "lazy" who abuse it are not limited to a single race.

 

[Makani]

Webb is to the right of Hillary though, I don't think he'll get much traction or push her in any way. If Liz Warren ran it would be huge, but she's not going to. Bernie Sanders might run, but he's been an Indie in the Senate, though caucuses with Dems and though will appease the further left/progressive wing won't get enough money - he HATES fundraising/asking for money and stumping with rah-rah speeches and the like. I'd be surprised if Hillary even agreed to debate him because he'd be dangerous to debate(in a Dem Primary) as a common sense progressive populist, and he's not a legit threat IMO to where Hillary should put herself in a position to look bad. Then again, she might use the debates to flip off the far left and burnish her centrist cred because she knows Sanders wouldn't be a primary threat and those same progressives would hold their nose and vote for her come the GE or not vote at all whereas her centrist gambit could win her moderate GOP converts - especially moderate GOP women voters, which would count as a 2-for-1, in that she gets a +1 from the switch and the GOP candidate gets a -1 on the tally from that switch.

But this is the GOP primary thread so not to digress any further...

I was just using Webb as an example of someone who might gain steam based off not having the Clinton baggage and having a decent chance of winning a general election. I agree that Hillary has a lot of options though, I think this is where the GOP has really hurt itself. Hillary can afford to go right and know that the lefties in the party will never vote for most of the people the Republicans trot out. I like Sanders, and I hate to say it as a Kucinich donator in '08, he just doesn't seem very presidential. I think he'd make a great Vice-President, even if the ticket might be a little unbalanced geographically with him and Hillary. My main concern is actually voter apathy. I don't think many people are "excited" for Hillary, and if the Republicans put out a family values mannequin you could see record lows in turnout. It doesn't take much to win 51% of 35%.

 

[Lead]

Want to host a victory party in Des Moines? Aim for 30%

Recent polls of voters in the states most likely to kick off the 2016 presidential race do little to reveal who will ultimately carry those states, but for the GOP field of relative unknowns, they highlight just how far they all have to climb.

 

[Lead]

The Bobby Jindal Contradiction

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal came to Washington this week to make his case for education reform. It was part of his bid to burnish his credentials as the "ideas candidate" as he mulls over a presidential campaign. His proposal shared many similarities with Jeb Bush's educational reforms, but the governor chose to focus on their one big disagreement—over the Common Core educational standards.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

^Sounds more like an independent run than GOP primary run as well.

He can't run for both President and Senator due to Kentucky rules which state you can only be listed on one ballot for simultaneous elections - so if he decides to run for President, he's basically giving up his Senate seat.

He'll never run third party.

Actually what will happen is that he will wait till the last day to turn in his filing papers for Kentucky Senate while giving the President run a go. If his libertarian message doesn't resonate he'll turn in those filing papers. He'll surely have people on the ground in Kentucky watching things. There's also a push to change the primary to a caucus which would benefit Rand. So he's running no doubt.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

lol you know whats funny? no one even knew or gave a shit about jeb. And all of a sudden he's winning poles? Fuck off with that shit, we dont need another bush or a clinton. ill take paul

The media is pushing him HARD! It's gross.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

I know it's first. It generally goes for an evangelical/more conservative candidate though so it's going to be different in contrast to a national poll when your talking about the difference of Romney's votes affecting Bush.

Santorum led Iowa last cycle with Paul third in the popular vote. Can you not see what I'm saying in a Iowa poll isn't going to tell us how much Romney dropping out affected Bush and Walker?

Do you think you're telling me something? I was on the ground in Iowa in the thick of Presidential politics. Attended the Ames Straw Poll. I helped out the Paul team and volunteers on the ground. Met with Ron, Rand, and their family.

I ate and shit statistics and Iowa/NH politics for months. I can give you overviews on all 99 counties.

 

[Lead]

Do you think you're telling me something? I was on the ground in Iowa in the thick of Presidential politics. Attended the Ames Straw Poll. I helped out the Paul team and volunteers on the ground. Met with Ron, Rand, and their family.

I ate and shit statistics and Iowa/NH politics for months. I can give you overviews on all 99 counties.

Then I'd like you to see you continue using this thread in coming months. Can you tell me how close Ron's team is with Rand's new operation? The articles I'm posting keep talking about how he has a dangerous game right now of appeasing his fathers following while also finding a way to branch out not only to other GOP voters but independents as well.

I was just comparing the difference of Iowa from other states and the nation as a whole. It's farther right than what we will be seeing after.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Yea, and if you read our discussion, that's what we were talking about along with the enitre rest of my post you cut off. I read his article and noticed it listing the percentages the media portrayed it based on race and wanted to compare it to the data. Analysis is useful.

But you just gave personal anecdotes.

My point is, welfare is associated with poor blacks. Whether that does or doesn't match with the real numbers or with someone's personal experience is irrelevant. The public perception is certainly pointed in that direction.

This is so prevalent it even reared its ugly head among liberals. In the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary's campaign was rightly criticized for using the standard conservative coding to describe white voters. There was all this talk of her speaking on behalf of "Working Americans" and "hard-working Americans" and "blue-collar, working Americans" when referring to whites (largely rural and working-class).

The logical assumption is that nonwhites don't work or at least not at hard. And if they're not working, that means they're welfare.

 

[Lead]

But you just gave personal anecdotes.

My point is, welfare is associated with poor blacks. Whether that does or doesn't match with the real numbers or with someone's personal experience is irrelevant. The public perception is certainly pointed in that direction.

This is so prevalent it even reared its ugly head among liberals. In the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary's campaign was rightly criticized for using the standard conservative coding to describe white voters. There was all this talk of her speaking on behalf of "Working Americans" and "hard-working Americans" and "blue-collar, working Americans" when referring to whites (largely rural and working-class).

The logical assumption is that nonwhites don't work or at least not at hard. And if they're not working, that means they're welfare.

If the media is portraying a race as on welfare in X% of their stories and X% of that race is on welfare, I don't see a problem with that. Your link had like 65% or something like that though. I wasn't assuming it was anywhere close to that but was curious about the statistic.

I looked it up and it's 32% (the media portrays double that in their stories)

I think it would be weird to ban phrasing like hard working from a campaign speech. Voters want to hear that they have great qualities and politicians let them hear it. If she was only using that verbage in rural areas, I could see a problem. I wonder what it would look like for a GOP candidate to actually say something like that to a black audience. Rand Paul is scheduled to speak at a historically predominant black college in Iowa sometime this month. Hopefully they will have video of the visit to see what issues he discusses. He's been the candidate that's worked the hardest to reach out to lost demographics the GOP has little hope for in votes.

 

[Lead]

A big change for the GOP 2016 hopefuls at CPAC

 

[jehosafats]

Republicans have a deep bench alright. Deep in delirium. Walker is the weediest of them all. What possessed him to think he could win a national election?