Unless they are old enough to offer first-hand testimony, their opinions can be dismissed. And that so called “music”. A bunch of noise, you ask me…
I’m truly baffled as to why you think that’s a bad thing.
All that peace and prosperity wasn’t good enough, was it?
My answer would be “Why does it matter? And why would it matter over the next two terms, either?”
You will anyway, won’t you? 
For the little it is worth (and again polls are at this point worth little and a single poll worth even less), the latest poll from NH, the first in the wake of the debate, has Hillary ahead of Bernie there for the first time in 2 1/2 months. Her favorable to unfavorable there is +40 (66 to 26) and very divided by party lines with ind/undecideds giving her a +7.
At my recent reunion, the reunion classes donated something like $68 million to the school. This must all be due to the strength of MIT’s football team. 
I was just observing I don’t think he’s a particularly good fit in the D party, and that someone with his leadership potential might do more good for the country if he applied his skills in rehabilitating the GOP. Instead, he left it to fester. I mean, yeah it’d have been an epic and probably a losing struggle, but even if he gets the POTUS job he’ll still have to get that beast in line. I don’t cotton to most GOP philosophy, but an unchecked Democratic party isn’t good for anyone. There needs to be a balance.
This is the CW, but I have always believed it is wrong and a form of results based hindsight. I think in all the multiverse of possible scenarios in the 2004 election, there was a vanishingly small percentage that involved Bush losing. I think Kerry actually landed pretty far on the bell curve in that direction and ran a very good campaign.
It means a lot. Now that the real data is coming in as opposed to the ridiculous online polls, we are seeing that those of us who are sober political observers were right: Hillary won, AINEC.
So let me see if I have the plan straight:
-
Have the “media pundits” declare Clinton the winner of the first debate, while the online polls and Twitter counts favor Sanders, and never mind that there is no standard definition of “the debate winner.”
-
Report that the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses had overwhelming support for Sanders, but because of the multi-tier levels of caucuses, “controlled by the mainstream party powers,” Clinton got the most delegates and “won the states.”
-
At the convention, report that Sanders won most of the “people’s delegates,” but the mainstream party types strongarmed the “superdelegates” and the unpledged delegates to vote for Clinton, which is why she appears to have won at all, much less by a landslide.
-
Enough people claim that Sanders is the “real” Democratic nominee, and claim they will either write in his name or vote Republican, that he decides to run as an independent candidate.
Just as the Republican Party and its (supposed) big corporation masters planned it all along.
Careful what you wish for. Sanders runs independent, the Republican nominee might come in third.
You forgot #5.
- Megyn Kelly votes for Trump.
I thought he was more than bombastic. Take the issue of bank reform. Bernie says in no uncertain terms that we need to re-instate Glass-Steagal, and also break up the large banks to head off the risk of another public bailout of too-big-to-fail institutions. Hillary says she went in there and told them to “cut it out”. C’mon, obviously she can’t countenance a full solution on this issue because she is funded by Wall Street.
Take the issue of free college tuition. I thought Bernie made an excellent point in highlighting the fact that a bachelor’s degree is today’s equivalent of a high school diploma decades ago, and that society agreed to educate its youngsters to the point that they can contribute to society. Hillary makes some noises in this direction, but nothing as clear and direct.
I thought it was like that on many issues: Bernie pulls no punches while some of the others seem to hedge their rhetoric.
Not really. Hillary worked the rules to her advantage. Politics is like that.
Yes, perhaps. The more I think about Webb’s position on China and the Middle East, the more it seems like he’d expand the military and get us into conflicts as POTUS. I liked what I saw of him overall, but I disagree with him about the Iran deal, and I disagree about provoking China. Meh, I’ll keep an eye on him, maybe he can sell me on his ideas given the chance, but again I think a domestic, public focus is what the country needs right now.
Yeah, you are probably right. But to me, he won the debate by having the best positions on the most relevant issues. I’d like to see a president who isn’t bought and is fully focused on benefiting the country overall and not the usual special interests. Hillary doesn’t fit that description and I suspect will only deliver compromised solutions to the issues Bernie introduces.
Thanks for that, very interesting.
Don’t take this personally, but I am curious how you, as a conservative, can also be a champion of data-driven governance. After all, the data shows that climate change is real and man-made, and that trickle-down economics is mostly a fantasy, to name just two issues. Yet every GOP candidate champions the opposite of those positions, contrary to the data.
Is the idea for conservatives to not take a comprehensive view of the data at all, but to simply take measurements of how effectively they get people to accept that the world is 6000 years old, or that women don’t need health care, or what? Isn’t the point of GOP ideology today to omit inconvenient data? Without sound judgement at the top driving what goals the data is driving government to do, it could lead to terrible results for the public at large. Which leads us back to the importance of having leaders who aren’t bought…
There is a faction of conservatism that is at least ostensibly all about the data. The majority of economics Ph.D.'s are very conservative.
Citation please?
According to 538, which I trust, it’s not a majority: more like 40%.
Mea culpa. But that is assuredly still much higher than in other social sciences. And my point still applies to that 40%.
Apparently not so, at least per 538.
Other sources come to similar conclusions:
I’d go ahead and call your claim at least “truthy” since even liberal economists endorse many conservative policies, like free trade and low capital gains taxes and oppose anti-gouging laws. And it’s hard for Republicans to win the allegiance of people who explore the nature of reality for a living when most prominent Republicans reject reality as a policy. Even when those professors would otherwise agree with you.
Adaher, you are starting to sound surprisingly center-left lately. What happened? Not that I’m complaining. 
Anyway, it’s easy for me to see how someone can be in the top 1%, or the top 10% or whatever, and absolutely rationally accept the validity of the best data available, and just be selfish and want your taxes low and for your hegemony to not be challenged.
That’s 74% Democratic; 26% Republican. And the “conservative” takeaway is “Unlike other scientists, many economists are conservative.” :dubious:
The first half of this quote commits the same logic error as “Those who like filet mignon should love McDonald’s! It sells meat-like food.”
And the second half of the quote seems to admit that you already knew you were making a fallacy. :dubious:
No such thing as an unchecked Democratic party. The GOP can be nothing other than poison; the herd of cats that is the Democratic party is its own check (even if it would be overstatement to call it “balance”).
Yes, anyone who imagines the Democratic Party would become a single-bloc monolith has never tried herding cats!
When the Whig Party imploded, the Republican Party emerged from the ashes of the Whigs’ anti-slavery faction. Let’s hope that when the present Republican Party implodes, it is the pro-conservative faction that survives, rather than the pro-lunacy faction.
When parties collapse it’s because they don’t represent anyone anymore ,or at least not enough that a third party comes along and replaces them because they represent the opposition better.
The Republican Party doesn’t lack for representation. We are still a 50-50 country. When we’re a 70-30 country then we can talk about the death of the Republican Party.