Friday Open Thread [4.10.15]
Hillary is running. She will formally announce her presidential candidacy via social media at Noon EST Monday, while she’s en route to Iowa to begin a brisk early-states tour. Thus, no tedious announcement that she is thinking of running, and then setting up an exploratory committee, and then officially announcing. She is just announcing and then jumping right into campaigning. That is good.
I found this humorous. Click through to watch the video on Youtube.
EXCLUSIVE: a sneak preview of Hillary Clinton's 2016 announcement video. https://t.co/jZpToeXF7S
— Daniel Drezner (@dandrezner) April 10, 2015
An Economist/YouGov poll conducted this past weekend found that while Americans support the nuclear negotiations, they still distrust Iran and many doubt that any good outcome will be reached. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. 61% — including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents — back negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
Another poll from Reuters/Ipsos shows a significant partisan divide over U.S. policy toward Iran and a divide inside the parties themselves.
Overall, 36% support the framework of a deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. That includes 31 percent of Republicans, 50 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of independents. 46% are unsure, and that includes 39 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of independents. The remaining small minority are opposed to the deal.
60% of all respondents (54 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 72 percent of Democrats) say the United States should not become militarily involved in the Middle East unless it is directly threatened. A small minuscule minority, just 7 percent of all respondents (5 percent of Democrats, 11 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of independents) support military force as the sole way the United States ought to use to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
More polling from Reuters: “A majority of Americans believe businesses should not be allowed to refuse services based on their religious beliefs in the wake of controversies in Indiana and Arkansas over gay rights and religious freedom, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday…The poll, conducted April 6 to 8, also found that 52 percent of Americans support allowing same-sex couples to marry, far more than the 32 percent who oppose it…The survey results suggest a split over the issue between Americans and some of the politicians who represent them…Fifty-four percent said it was wrong for businesses to refuse services, while 28 percent said they should have that right. And 55 percent said businesses should not have the right to refuse to hire certain people or groups based on the employer’s religious beliefs, while 27 percent said businesses should have the right
The day Dick Cheney dies (and please be soon), the entire population of this planet shall rejoice. Yes even Republicans. I am sure they are embarrassed sharing a party and species with that vile contemptible pile of excrement. Jay Brookman:
In more rational times, in fact in almost any other time in American history, the suggestion that a U.S. president is willfully attempting to undermine the country from within — that he in fact is committing treason — would disqualify the speaker from further serious discourse. Even at the deepest depths of the Iraq War, for example, top Democratic leaders certainly questioned Cheney’s judgment and wisdom, but they did not publicly question his patriotism. They left conspiratorial muttering about Halliburton stock, etc., to the chatrooms, blogs, email chains and occasional backbenchers, where it belonged.
“7 percent …support military force as the sole way the United States ought to use to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.”
In a way I’m happy that 93% of Americans are not idiotic maniacs. And yet, 7% is a shitload of idiotic maniacs. About 65,000 Delawareans fit the bill, give or take a few thousand.
.
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/life/2015/04/09/state-legislators-lobbyists-link-arms-runway/25544881/
I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
Hey, Delaware, we can be proud. When it comes to referring students to the criminal justice system, we’re number 2! But don’t worry. We’ll get those bitches in Virginia next year.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/10/17089/virginia-tops-nation-sending-students-cops-courts-where-does-your-state-rank
“The Center’s analysis found that in Delaware, special schools for troubled kids helped drive up that small state’s rate to second after Virginia. Florida ranked third.”
I’m ready for Hillary (to stop spamming me).
Good luck with that. I was at a marketing conference and one of the speakers was the guy who handled Obama’s campaign email operation.
His main takeaway that that there was no upper limit to the number of emails they could send out. Every time they thought that they were pushing the envelope and were about to get a spike in “unsubscribes” they didn’t, and the donations never trailed off.
Nancy Reagan just endorsed Hillary. I don’t know how to feel about it, but I do imagine heads are exploding in Conservatopia.
Great another liar, enters the race.
The thought of another Clinton or Bush in the oval office triggers my gag reflex. When are we going to pass meaningful term limits and put a stop to family dynasty’s? Que the good candidates???
How many bimbos will Bill get caught banging in the WH? That fact that Hillary couldn’t leave this loser shows she has no balls.
@waterpirate “Que the good candidates???”
You mean Warren?
The regard to which both the left and right wings hold for a particular candidate is probably a good indicator of that candidates chances. There is widespread disappointment in Obama from the progressives and hate (if there were a stronger word I would use it) from the right. Go through the list of possibles in 2016 and it becomes clear who America would generally support. Even Bush (does anyone really want another one?) is disliked by progressives and conservatives alike.
If Clinton announces tomorrow, barring any surprises, progressives will hold their nose and conservatives will attack. Conservatives will have big problem, because they have to attack a woman, which plays into Clintons hands and progressives will defend because you know, womanhood. In short, it’s kind of a perfect storm for Clinton, which pretty much sucks all the air out of the 30 or so GOP candidates. Will it be a tsunami? It wouldn’t surprise me.
And yes, I’m on the Clinton train. As a man, I have accept that men haven’t done all that well in the last few decades. I’m voting for a woman. It’s time. It’s Hilary.
I am not a Obama fan because he made a lot of big promises to a lot of people on the election trail and did not deliver on them. That makes him disingenious to me cause he lied to his base.
If you are going to support Hillary based on her gender, I would urge you not to vote. Que the good candidate means we are still waiting, none on the field as of yet.
If Republicans attack Hillary on being a woman then attacking back on those comments would be what any decent, thinking person would do. Her gender shouldn’t be an issue, and if it’s used against her those who claim to vote “on issues” should be the loudest in calling out this crap. Because, ya know, her gender has nothing to do with her positions. (exactly the way a person’s race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. has nothing to do with issues)
So can we please stop saying things like: “Conservatives will have big problem, because they have to attack a woman, which plays into Clintons hands and progressives will defend because you know, womanhood.” What does “womanhood” even mean in this sentence? It comes across as snarky and seems to feed into the meme of a man having to fight with one arm tied behind his back rather than simply not being a sexist ass, but maybe I’m misreading it.
As a woman I don’t automatically vote for a woman. I have called out sexism against women I would never vote for, but that wasn’t me defending their policies or ideas. That was me trying to get the discussion back to their policies and ideas. It’s tiresome to hear people constantly call out women for what they wear, if they shed a tear, how they parent, if they sound shrill, if they’re hot/if they’re not, etc. – none of which has anything to do with their positions. Take that path with a woman candidate (while not taking it with any man) and we’ll have a problem.
And does saying, “As a man, I have accept that men haven’t done all that well in the last few decades. I’m voting for a woman. It’s time. It’s Hilary.” mean that you’ll vote for any woman running for President, ’cause it’s time?
Would I like to see a qualified woman President who agreed with most of my positions? Sure. But I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for an unqualified woman who I didn’t agree with on policy. These sort of comments are kinda what I’m expecting from Republicans. Oh, we can’t attack Hillary because of womanhood! Oh, she’s ahead in the polls because people just want to elect a woman even tho they don’t agree with her positions. They lessen Hillary (and other women) by reducing them to their gender.
FYI: I’m not a huge Hillary supporter. Too corporatist for me. Which probably explains why in 2008 I was an Obama supporter. Imagine that. A Progressive woman who didn’t support the woman candidate. And, if John Edwards hadn’t been shown to be completely insane (talk about dodging a bullet. What he did was politically unforgivable) I would have supported him over Hillary if the primary had come down to those two. Because I agreed with him on the issues.
If you were telling me why you supported a candidate and I were to say to you, “Whatever. You’ll vote for the white guy because you’re a white guy” I bet you’d find that dismissive and insulting. And it would be both of those things.