The Big Ass Second Term/Politics thread part VI: There's an election this year?

interesting article from ABC news...

[quote][b]Worse than Watergate: New revelations from Nixon tapes 40 years after resignation[/b]

How bad a president was Richard Nixon?

On the 40th anniversary of his resignation, a new documentary takes a fresh look at the Nixon tapes to make the case that the already vilified 37th president was not as bad as you may think. ... He was worse.

"The most interesting thing that the American people aren't aware of is the kind of the dirty tricks he pulled on those good events, the things he would hold up as great achievements," said Peter Kunhardt, the director and producer of "Nixon by Nixon: In His Own Words," which debuts Monday on HBO.

"When you begin hearing the behind-the-scenes maneuvering to make those great achievements happen, they were as dirty as the Watergate episode," he continued.

Ken Hughes, the author of a new book about Nixon, "Chasing Shadows," joined Kunhardt for an interview with "Top Line" and said that one of the most shocking recent revelations about Nixon is that he intentionally prolonged the war in Vietnam for political gain.

[b]"He realized if Saigon fell before Election Day 1972, it would take his chances of a second term down with it," Hughes said. "You can hear him discussing that in his keeping the war going, sending more Americans to fight and some to die; and it's for political reasons."[/b]

The documentary lays out which aides to Nixon were aware they were being recorded and those who were unaware. Among those who were unaware: Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

"There is I think an extra degree of openness and candor with the people who don't know they are being taped," Hughes said. "Henry Kissinger clearly did not know he was being taped and was very angry about being taped."

Though Kissinger stayed loyal to Nixon until the end, Kunhardt said, the film demonstrates the "awkward position" that Kissinger navigated in his dealings with the "thin-skinned" president.

"He was put in this awkward position of having to be kind of a 'yes man,' and at the same time do his hugely important job at the same time," Kunhardt said.

In one recording featured in the film, Nixon can be heard asking an aide to have Kissinger's phone lines bugged after it's believed the then-secretary of state talked to a reporter without the White House's permission.

"When you watch Nixon turn on him and let his own suspicions and paranoia question Kissinger and whether they're on the same page, you feel sorry for the guy," Kunhardt said of Kissinger. "You realize that Nixon was all about what he believed in, and if you veered of course, you were kind of left to the side."

For more about the new revelations of Nixon's dirty dealings, and to find out what question Hughes would ask Nixon today if he could, check out this episode of "Top Line."[/quote]
funny... nixon sounds sort of ahead of the game and behind the game at the same time. i mean, it certainly worked out better in iraq and afghanistan, this time around.


side note-- fairly recent research in psychology seems to suggest that one's own neurological makeup and life experience tends to determine political party choice far more than rational thought. go figure, right?

obviously there are a lot of ins and outs, maude, but at this point it seems like we might be pre-programmed upon our stances, just a bit.

So there's like an election next month.

According to 538
Republicans have a 60.4% chance of winning a majority.

NYTimes has various predictors giving these possiblities

72% Rep.
60% Rep.
67% Rep.
66% Rep.
58% Rep.
68% Rep.
95% Rep.

[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0"]Big NY Times story[/URL] on soldiers injured by old pre-1991 chemical weapons in Iraq.
[QUOTE]The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government

Biden's son just got kicked [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/16/report-bidens-son-discharged-from-navy-after-positive-cocaine-test/"]out of the Naval Reserve for doing coke.[/URL]

[QUOTE]Vice President Biden's son Hunter was discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine, a source familiar with the matter confirmed Thursday.

The source spoke anonymously because no permission had been given to speak publicly about a personnel issue.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Biden was discharged earlier this year after failing a drug test in June 2013. A lawyer and former lobbyist, Biden was commissioned as an ensign in the Navy Reserve in 2013. He applied for a commission in the reserve as a public affairs officer at age 42. Because of his age, Biden needed a waiver to apply. The Journal reported that he needed a second waiver because of a drug-related charge when he was younger, a request that is not unusual.[/QUOTE]

He was probably only in the Naval Reserve to help jumpstart a politcal career.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/10/19/National-Politics/Polling/release_368.xml"]Washington Post poll[/URL] finds that Romney still Leads 2016 GOP race. 2nd place? Jeb Bush.

Q: (AMONG LEANED REPUBLICANS) I'm going to read a list of possible candidates for the Republican nomination for president in 2016. If the 2016 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, for whom would you vote? Which candidate would you lean toward?

Mitt Romney
21

Jeb Bush
11

Mike Huckabee
9

Rand Paul
9
Chris Christie
6
Marco Rubio
6
Rick Perry
6
Ben Carson
5
Paul Ryan
5
Ted Cruz
3
Rick Santorum
3
Bobby Jindal
2
John Kasich
1
Scott Walker
1

538 says the most likely outcome for the Senate is 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats.

so certain lobbyists and funding groups won this year

cool

I really hope Mitt does run again. I'd be interested to see him get to run for president in an election where he isn't forced to be the anti-Obama. Obama was pretty much the worst opponent for him because it forced him to run against himself.

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]I really hope Mitt does run again. I'd be interested to see him get to run for president in an election where he isn't forced to be the anti-Obama. Obama was pretty much the worst opponent for him because it forced him to run against himself.[/QUOTE]

so you think Mitt can get non-whites to vote for him, while having those non-white voters to be against that of their own racial profiling?

and that the republican platform can come up with policies to support such strategy?

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]I really hope Mitt does run again. I'd be interested to see him get to run for president in an election where he isn't forced to be the anti-Obama. Obama was pretty much the worst opponent for him [B]because it forced him to run against himself.[/B][/QUOTE]

What do you mean by that?

From my POV, he ran more against himself during the primaries than the general. And I don't see that dynamic changing.

Also interested because he would be a good president or interested because it would be interesting to watch.

[QUOTE=GimmeThat]so you think Mitt can get non-whites to vote for him, while having those non-white voters to be against that of their own racial profiling?
[/QUOTE]
What?

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]What do you mean by that?

From my POV, he ran more against himself during the primaries than the general. And I don't see that dynamic changing.

Also interested because he would be a good president or interested because it would be interesting to watch.[/QUOTE]

I think Mitt stays out of the game long enough to avoid a lot of the bloodshed in the primaries that will allow him to prevent a big shift right that ****ed him last time around. He will be able to be himself more because Republican voters will see how shitty the field is compared to Mitt. Without the looming threat of a run against Obama, I think it will be a lot easier to sidestep that type of criticism.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]What?[/QUOTE]


re-defining america in good times and bad times

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]What do you mean by that?

From my POV, he ran more against himself during the primaries than the general. And I don't see that dynamic changing.

Also interested because he would be a good president or interested because it would be interesting to watch.[/QUOTE]


I think it would depend on how much he put his religious point of view on the line in terms of policy making.

if that's where he pick his battle with the senate.

it could drive some Americans away from the republican party.



again.



there's no knowing to how he would/may have budged had he been in office.

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]I think Mitt stays out of the game long enough to avoid a lot of the bloodshed in the primaries that will allow him to prevent a big shift right that ****ed him last time around. He will be able to be himself more because Republican voters will see how shitty the field is compared to Mitt. Without the looming threat of a run against Obama, I think it will be a lot easier to sidestep that type of criticism.[/QUOTE]

It's an interesting strategy, but I don't think it would work.

The Utah Primary is Feb2. Would he skip that?

Then a month later some giant states are up for grabs. (I didn't even notice this the first time I read it, but this also includes the state he was governor of.)
Could he skip Utah and Massachusetts and win?

Florida
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

This means by early March something like 500 of 2300 delegates are already gone. You need almost 1200 to win. So if he stayed out as long as April, he would have to win 2/3 of all delegates going forward. And he wouldn't be the frontrunner.

Also to have a viable run, he would probably have to lock down Republican staffers by probably July 2013, the latest. There would be no way to hide his campaign, I don't think.


This is the schedule so far. It might even get more frontloaded.
[QUOTE]January
Monday, January 18 Iowa caucuses
Tuesday, January 26 New Hampshire
February
Tuesday, February 2 Colorado caucuses
Minnesota caucuses
Missouri
Utah
Saturday, February 6 Nevada caucuses
Saturday, February 13 South Carolina
Tuesday, February 16 North Carolina
Tuesday, February 23 Arizona
Michigan
March
Tuesday, March 1 Colorado caucuses
Florida
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Tuesday, March 8 Alabama
Hawaii Republican caucuses
Mississippi
Ohio
Tuesday, March 15 Illinois
Saturday, March 19 Louisiana
April
Tuesday, April 5 Maryland
Washington, DC
Wisconsin
Tuesday, April 26 Connecticut
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
May
Tuesday, May 3 Indiana
Tuesday, May 10 Nebraska
West Virginia
Tuesday, May 17 Kentucky
Oregon
Tuesday, May 24 Arkansas
June
Tuesday, June 7 California
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
South Dakota
Tuesday, June 28 Utah (tentative if law doesn't change to Feb 2)
States with no tentative dates: Georgia
Kansas
Maine
New York
Wyoming
Last update: 5/7/14

Read more at [url]http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/#v44S2BMkmZW5RPkI.99[/url][/QUOTE]