QuestionAlways
QuestionAlways's JournalCould Someone Please Tell Me Why Obama Supports Fast Track and TPP
If Congress approves fast-track authority, many concerns about the TPP may not even be debated. Changes would not be allowed in ANY trade agreement’s language for 6 years. Lawmakers would have to decide whether to vote “yes” or “no” on any trade deal that may be flawed, but they would not be able to fix it. Fast track ties the hands of elected officials.
Members of Congress wouldn’t have a chance to amend TPP language that could cause all kinds of problems. It could endanger American food and consumer safety, undermine labor rules, eliminate Buy American provisions, weaken environmental protections, and even restrict the freedom of the Internet. Yet, the TPP does not even restrict currency manipulation by other countries.
If the TPP is good for the U.S., lawmakers shouldn’t be concerned about it being debated out in the open on the House and Senate floors. Under the Constitution, Congress is granted the sole authority to debate and approve trade legislation. Lawmakers need to do their job and take a good look at this secretive trade deal rather than rush it through without full inspection. A quick up or down vote will not give the TPP the scrutiny it needs. U.S. workers and industries deserve better.
So could someone please tell me why Obama, a President who I twice voted for, supports this?
Please Help Me, I Don't Understand
why people blame Hillary Clinton if there is no real primary. What is she suppose to do, give out millions of dollars to possible opponents and urge them to run. And maybe she has such a big lead in the polls because most Americans support her stands on the issues, or don't really care about the issues, or just think she is the most likely Democrat to beat the Republican candidate. This is not her fault and she should not be attacked for it.
Please Help Me, I Don't Understand
why people blame Hillary Clinton if there is no real primary. What is she suppose to do, give out millions of dollars to possible opponents and urge them to run. And maybe she has such a big lead in the polls because most Americans support her stands on the issues, or don't really care about the issues, or just think she is the most likely Democrat to beat the Republican candidate. This is not her fault and she should not be attacked for it.
Why I Support Hillary Clinton (show me where I am wrong)
She would be the winner because she would be the first Female POTUS and that fact alone would make her a winner. In 2008, there were 10 million more female voters then there were male voters, yet there has never been a woman POTUS. Its their turn, and this is coming from a male. And let's face it, no Republican could say she is not qualified to hold that office. The same effect Obama had on the non-political Black community in getting them involved and voting, Hillary would have on the non-political female community, mothers and daughters would flock to the polls to take part in this historic event.
Hillary may be far to the right of me on most issues, and she voted for the war in Iraq, but I don't care because she may be the last best hope to save democracy in America. Money is undermining our political process, and that will only be changed by overturning Citizen United by the SCOTUS. The Justices Hillary would select could help do that, Justices selected by a Republican President would never do so.
Nothing the 221,316 users of this site want will occur, until the role of money in politics is reduced.
As much as I would love Elizabeth Warren to be our candidate, she will not run because, I am told, she does not like campaigning.
So While Rome Burns, We Just Fiddle
Every day on this site we see examples of how horrorible it would be if the Republicans took over the WH. But instead of making sure we have the strongest candidate possible we fight with each other and call each other names. It is almost as if the Republicans hired agent provocateurs to come to this site in order to tire us out and weaken us. We should be building up our own candidates, not attacking other Democrats. Be reasonable, be civil, be constructive and always be aware we can not let the perfect be the enemy the good. The barbarians at the gate were also elected by the people, so we can not make-believe they stand no chance of being elected and are just clowns. They watch and listen to us, and learn how they can reduce the vote for whoever is our candidate in the general election.
So While Rome Burns, We Just Fiddle
Every day on this site we see examples of how horrorible it would be if the Republicans took over the WH. But instead of making sure we have the strongest candidate possible we fight with each other and call each other names. It is almost as if the Republicans hired agent provocateurs to come to this site in order to tire us out and weaken us. We should be building up our own candidates, not attacking other Democrats. Be reasonable, be civil, be constructive and always be aware we can not let the perfect be the enemy the good. The barbarians at the gate were also elected by the people, so we can not make-believe they stand no chance of being elected and are just clowns. They watch and listen to us, and learn how they can reduce the vote for whoever is our candidate in the general election.
It is either Hillary Clinton or a Republican as the next POTUS & this is why
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026315137It is either Hillary Clinton or a Republican as the next POTUS & this is why
First we must look at the numbers that describe the general political environment, which within elections are held, according to the Gallup polls: Source: Gallup.com
According to Gallup an average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, Democrats hold a modest edge over Republicans in Party identification, 30% to 26%. When pressed, most independents will say they lean to one of the two major parties. For example, an average of 17% of Americans who initially identified as independents subsequently said they "leaned" Republican, 15% were independents who leaned Democratic, with the remaining 11% not expressing a leaning to either party. Since partisan leaners often share similar attitudes to those who identify with a party outright, the relative proportions of identifiers plus leaners gives a sense of the relative electoral strength of the two political parties. In 2014, an average 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were Democratic-leaning independents, while 42% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents. With 13% being true independents who by their choices between parties determine who win elections. These voters, on the whole, do not follow politics closely and do not have a strong ideological foundation, so they tend to vote against something, as much as for something.
This would seem to bode well for any Democrat, but party identification does not tell the whole story , after all there are Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative Democrats. Where a voter falls on the political ideology spectrum is just as important, if not more so, in determining a person's vote.
Americans are more likely to identify as conservatives (38%) than as liberals (23%). But the conservative advantage is down to 15 percentage points as liberal identification has edged up. When Gallup began asking about ideological identification in 1992, an average 17% of Americans said they were liberal.
The rise in liberal identification has been accompanied by a decline in moderate identification. At 34% in 2013, it is the lowest Gallup has measured, and down nine points since 1992. Since 2009, conservatives have consistently been the largest U.S. ideological group. The percentage of conservatives has always far exceeded the percentage of liberals, by as much as 22 points in 1996.
Democrats are increasingly likely to Identify as Liberal. Currently, 43% of Democrats say they are liberal, a nearly 50% increase from 29% in 2000. Over the same period, the percentage of Democrats identifying as moderate is down to 36% from 44%, and conservative Democrat identification is down to 19% from 25%. These changes are a telling indicator of the shift in the Democratic Party, from a party that was more ideologically diverse to one that is increasingly dominated by those from the left end of the ideological spectrum.
In fact, the rise in liberal identification among all Americans is due exclusively to the changes among Democrats. Independents are no more likely now than in the past to describe their political views as liberal. The main change in independents' views is that they increasingly call themselves conservative. That could be related to recent developments in party identification, with fewer Americans now identifying as Republicans and more as independents. Thus, the change in independents' ideological preferences may be attributable to former Republicans, who are more likely to be politically conservative, now residing in the independent category.
Americans' political views are undergoing unmistakable change, contributing to greater political polarization in the country. Now, the plurality of Democrats consider themselves to be politically liberal, whereas a decade ago, Democrats were most likely to say they were moderate.
Meanwhile, Republicans, who have always been overwhelmingly conservative, have become increasingly so. One manifestation of that may have been a series of primary election challenges for long-serving GOP members of Congress by candidates aligned with the Tea Party movement.
These data confirm the tendency for Americans who identify with the two major parties to be more ideologically homogeneous than was the case in the past, a tendency that appears to be matched by the increasing polarization between Democratic and Republican members of Congress.
According to CNN in 2008, the last presidential election without an incumbent, 70.4 million women cast ballots versus 60.7 million men.
Having set the stage, let us now look at the possible Democratic candidates:
Elizabeth Warren is not running. According to a friend who would know, she hates political campaigns and running for office. Each day that passes with no action on her part proves him right.
Bernie Sanders is a self-described Socialist, low information voters think of Russia
Joe Biden is described by the Media as having foot-in-mouth disease and would be effected by third term voter fatigue
Martin O'Malley's "rain tax" caused his hand-picked successor's surprise loss to a Republican. Will be called just another Tax and spend Democrat.
Jim Webb is very conservative on climate change and he also said Democrats could "Do a better job with white people." He has declared several months ago, but is having trouble rising money.
Andrew Cuomo has been buffeted by the recent corruption arrest of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and criticism from his controversial decision to scrap the panel investigating public corruption
Jerry Brown, I was on his staff for his first presidential campaign in 1976 against Carter, he recently had surgery for cancer and is not interested in running
Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but her views on economic and social issues are closer to the average Democrat, then are the views of any Republican. She will be attacked from the right for being weak on national defense, but the policies she recommended as SoS argue against that, and she has more foreign policy experience then any Republican. In the era of Citizen United, she can raise as much money as the Republicans and she will appoint center-left judges to the Supreme Court, rather then far right judges; so maybe Citizen United will be reversed. She will be the first woman POTUS, and this will attract female voters who may not be Democrats.
She will be a winner, and our next President
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Sep 26, 2014, 01:17 AMNumber of posts: 259
