I like Paul Ryan, I like his position on most issues. I was the first (nay, only) Doper to say he was one to watch and that he would be on the ticket in 2012.
What I don’t like is his coyness as to his future intentions. Many pols do this, but he does it to the extreme. He insisted he would not be on the ticket in '12, but then there he was. I know it’s early, but this time he should at least have an official exploratory committee or something. He and his handlers may think what they’re doing is being sly or planned, but to me it’s starting to border on dishonesty.
I’m pretty sure that in general in most workplaces, your ability to take time off, whether it’s comp time or just regular vacation time, is subject to the needs of the work place. If you work in, say, an office where somebody has to be there to answer the phones, and everybody else is taking the day after Thanksgiving off, you won’t be able to take that day off, even if you have vacation time, because somebody’s got to be there. Or whatever. That’s standard policy everywhere I’ve ever worked, and probably doesn’t change with this bill.
Paul Ryan, by virtue of being in the same photo with Patty Murray, will be forced to re-establish his right-wing credentials in the GOP debates and primaries… which, if he does that often and ardently enough, will give more than enough ammunition to his opponent in the general election.
At this point, the only GOP contender that has a shot is Chris Christie, who has the ability to make most primaries and the general election, a debate over personality. And if the GOP AND the country is in poor shape in 2016, then the voters may just prefer his confrontational, albeit nasty, demeanor.
Christie has the unique knack of brushing aside litmus-test questions with disdain. I can see him being asked in a GOP debate about some “liberal” law he supported as NJ Governor, with a nasty aside, then looking at the audience and telling them that these type of questions are part of the mainstream media’s effort to divide the GOP and then assure them that he is the man to vote for if they want to avoid all this nonsense.
For the record, I can’t stand the fat pantload, but I do think he’s great at what he does.
I believe the American electorate is basically centralist. When given a choice between the extremes, they will flip-flop. It’s a very close fit to the results since 1952. Therefore, I predict that the Republicans win the White House. I also predict the main issue will be how to save the bankrupt medical insurance pool.
I’ve looked over which political party wins the Presidency throughout US History … first time one party won 5 straight elections, we amended the Constitution (22nd Amendment) to try and prevent it from happening again.
Paul Ryan wants to dismantle the social safety net that we’ve worked to build up for the past 100 years up. When the 2012 Obama team was testing ads against him, they ran into the problem that people did not believe any politician could hold such insane ideas, so the ads weren’t effective. I would actually love to see him become the nominee, since A) he is a grown-up, and less of a weaselly piece of shit than someone like Romney, and B) we could perhaps have a grown-up debate as a country on whether or not we want to dismantle our social safety net, and C) whoever the Dem nominee is would probably win in a walk.
Interesting ideas, I would like to see your point B) come true. I’m respectfully disagreeing with your point C), I don’t see either side walking away with the election. It may well pivot on the success of the ACA. I’m worried because in six days a whole mess of really, really, REALLY sick people are going to be walking into clinics and hospitals around the US. [scratches head] Very worried …
Short sell Merek, 21 month contract, you’re welcome.
Didn’t the Republicans win it 6 straight times in the latter half of the 19th century? (Lincoln '60 '64, Grant '68 '72, Hayes '76, and Garfield '80) Although Tilden won the popular vote in '76, and by a wide margin.
The Civil War, and it’s aftermath, made it very difficult for the Democrats to successfully negotiate the Electoral College map. Even in the 20th century, Wilson won in 1912 due to a 3 man race, and FDR negotiated a depression-era truce with the solid South segregationists. Eventually, the solid South jumped to the other party, and it took a while before the Democrats could put together a national strategy.
But now, with all the demographic shifts, I think any GOP presidential victory is a long shot. Latino’s, other minorities, and single women all vote overwhelmingly Democrat and they’re growing fast. White males, the bulwark of the GOP, are becoming a smaller percentage of the electorate.
I just changed Wikipedia’s list, so quick hurry look that Johnson was a Democrat.
Aye, you are correct that Reps won six straight elections … however, they only served four consecutive terms. The 1868 election was lost by the incumbent.
Interesting you should bring up immigration. The Reps would be wise to make concessions in this matter and get something passed, and soon. I think they know this, remains to be seen if they’ll move on it. They’d be better off if they weren’t so conservative, but sometimes people get sick of change. Pah, it’s Paul Ryan’s election to lose, Rep’s are due.
Perhaps I’m being optimistic, but I think if we had a real, honest discussion on the merits of what Paul Ryan wants to do with Medicare and Social Security, the American people would realize that he wants to take the country in a wildly different direction. When GWB tried to tamper with Social Security in his second term, it caused outrage even among his own party. These programs are very popular with the public.
The Republicans have been getting a lot of mileage out of the ACA, but the longer it goes on, the more people will realize how helpful it is. I think a campaign in 2016 based on entirely repealing it would not be very popular outside of Republican primary voters. Even in 2012, the idea of the ACA was unpopular, but when you ask people if they want turn back many specific elements of it, they were against it.
The 1868 election had no incumbent. Johnson was irrelevant, having survived his impeachment trial by one vote in the Senate.
Regarding immigration reform, the GOP is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If they make it easier for resident, but illegal Latinos to become citizens then they hasten the flipping of Texas and Arizona to the Democrat column. If they oppose such legislation, they only encourage voter registration drives amongst a traditionally low turnout demographic group.
Eh? They can just do what the Democrats have been asking them to do and make it easier for them to become permanent residents with no right of naturalization.
That’s just an informal proposal, not a plan. And I don’t think it’s workable or even legal. And even if it was, I assume these permanent residents would have children born in this country that would be full citizens.
okay okay … you’re right and I’m wrong … 2 minute bench violation.
I agree with you there, stick them with a fork and see if they’re done. Dems have a habit of self-immolation, just watch and see. They’d do better if they weren’t so liberal.
Once the GOP goes down, the Democrats will lose their #1 advantage, which currently, “Hey, we may not be perfect, but at least we’re not Republicans.” Only this time I’m guessing the GOP doesn’t come back and the Democrats split into two factions, with the more conservative faction absorbing what’s left of the GOP. At the Congressional level, it will happen relatively quickly, since Congress is set on the two faction(party) process. But at the state level, the GOP will hang around for a while.