There were 11 so-called swing states in 2012 where Obama or Romney won by eight percentage points or less. Three of them--Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin--might be more likely to favor a Walker candidacy (he's governor of Wisconsin and Iowa and Minnesota are adjacent states). Rubio of course is from a crucial swing state--Florida. Bush was governor of Florida. So A Bush-Walkwr ticket or a Walker-Rubio ticket makes sense, strategically. I think this has something to do with the popularity of Walker and Rubio.

Does the adjacent states thing actually make any difference ? These are pretty big states after all. Will somebody in Minnesota really vote for Walker just because he lives a few hundred miles away ? Bearing in mind that Minnesota went for Obama last time despite the fact that their local congressman was on the Romney ticket.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Do you announce for horse races on your off time, Owen? That was enjoyable to read.

I thought it would be more fun (and relevant) than another spirally debate about Hillary Clinton. She already has her own thread for that stuff.

So what do you thing, bbauska - will Walker & Bush be the top two come next spring?

I would like to see Walker. I am afraid it will be Bush.

You're only talking a few percentage points. I imagine name recognition would be higher, way of life and culture is similar, too. Whether it makes enough difference--hard to know. As for Ryan not making a difference last that certainly argues against proximity being a factor but he was only a vice-presidential candidate. My guess is that he still helped a little, though.

And the more ho-hum candidates you got I think it is probably prudent to start looking at these kinds of things. No one in the Republican field that has a chance is getting anyone very excited about their candidacy.

freeman3

Three of them--Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin--might be more likely to favor a Walker candidacy (

I wouldn't be so sure. He's not very popular in Wisconsin any more.

Walker's job approval has fallen to 41%, with 56% disapproving, according to the latest Marquette Law School poll, which has been Wisconsin's leading survey

In a head-to-head contest, in Wisconsin Clinton beat Walker, 52% to 40%

.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

Any republican will have to take some positions to get the nomination that will lose him/her the general election. The core republican primary voter is very far right of the general population and out of step on
- social issues.
- immigration
- minimum wage
- economic issues affecting income disparity. (i.e. taxation of the wealthy and corporations)
for example

Walker recently signed that made Wisconsin a "right to work" state. By 50% to 44%, voters said they oppose the law, which prevents unions from requiring workers to pay dues or representation fees.

Sassenach wrote:Does the adjacent states thing actually make any difference ? These are pretty big states after all. Will somebody in Minnesota really vote for Walker just because he lives a few hundred miles away ? Bearing in mind that Minnesota went for Obama last time despite the fact that their local congressman was on the Romney ticket.

Yes, Americans do think in terms of region.

rickyp wrote:Fate

1. It's not a free society. Our government just banned trans-fats with no authority to do so. Under Obama, whatever he and his agency heads have decided is "best" for America becomes the rule of law, no matter what anyone else wants

.
The FDA doesn't have the authority to ban trans fats? You sure?

Yes.

Seems odd that you support moving heaven and earth to protect America from terrorism by ISIS but when people need protection from stuff that is actually killing them its "hands off".

Comparing apples and hand grenades.

The government cannot create a bubble to keep us free from harming ourselves--and it has no right to do so.

Today FDA acting commissioner Stephen Ostroff said the move “is expected to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year.” It’s extremely difficult to isolate the role of a single nutrient in a fatal heart attack, and this estimation may be optimistic given the currently modest national consumption of trans fats. In the late 1990s, at peak trans fat intake, Walter Willett at the Harvard School of Public Health calculated the effect to be at least 30,000 premature deaths annually. CDC director Thomas Frieden later endorsed an estimate of 50,000. But if Ostroff is right, and there is still much public-health ground to be won through this ban, fine. There is no coherent health argument for a high-trans-fat diet.

Well, "if Ostroff says so" is not quite the legal standard.

Anyway, the ban was close to moot. Since labeling requirements, public education and marketing had forced most foods (85%) to eliminate the use of trans fats.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ts/395972/

(Notice hoiw I linked to a source to provide support for my claim Fate? That's what you could try and do to convince us that your assertions regarding Clinton are accurate. )

I have cited plenty of sources re Clinton.

Let me make it easy for you. I'll use logic . . . oh, whoops. I forgot . . . it's you.

Let me try anyway. Why do you suppose that Bernie Sanders, someone who has NO HOPE of being elected President, is making an impressive run at Clinton right now? It is because even Democrats know what a crook she is.

Fate

The fact that there is not enough evidence to convict Mrs. Clinton is, in part, due to the fact that she destroyed it.

Its amazing how every time there are scandalous assertions about Clinton she manages to somehow destroy all the evidence. BenGhazi, Vince Foster, File Gate, Cattle futures, Loot Gate, Jorge Cabrera, Norman Jung and now this...

Of course, the difference here is she TOLD US she destroyed the server. As always, don't let the facts bother you.

The FDA doesn't have the authority to ban trans fats? You sure?

fate

Yes

.

Why?
Every news report says they are banning trans fats. None says, "Despite not having the legal basis to do so..."
Where are the law suits Fate?

Fate

The government cannot create a bubble to keep us free from harming ourselves--and it has no right to do so

But the government does have a role in protecting people from the harmful actions of others right?
In this case, they would be protecting people from unscrupulous food manufacturers who continue to use ingredients that are known to have deleterious health effects.
Its the same way that meat inspectors went into meat packing plants to protect consumers from unscrupulous meat packers...
Or are you all for the removal of federally Inspected meat products?

Fate

Let me try anyway. Why do you suppose that Bernie Sanders, someone who has NO HOPE of being elected President, is making an impressive run at Clinton right now? It is because even Democrats know what a crook she is?

I think its because a lot of Democrats yearn for the kinds of progressive policies that Bernie is courageous enough to propose and support.
There may be some weariness of Clinton too. And a certain resignation to her candidacy.
But when push comes to shove they'll vote for her over a republican.
See today's polling results?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... president/

In a general election she's 14 points up on walker, 8 on Bush and 10 on Rubio.
Bernie may serve to push her more to the left and create more Democratic enthusiasm for her campaign. She already has the enthusiasm of women and Hispanics and blacks will vote for her 94%...

geojanes wrote:

danivon wrote:So what do you think, bbauska - will Walker & Bush be the top two come next spring?

I'm astounded Walker is doing as well as he is. The only thing he's known for is breaking unions in Wisconsin. I can't think of any other reason we know his name. I guess that gets you front runner status in the GOP? But that will only get him so far I think. Bush, Rubio, Paul and even Cruz have more well-rounded reputations.

That's not entirely correct.

Who else has been elected 3 times in 4 years while undergoing every scurrilous attack the Democrats could muster--and all the money they could possibly raise? Because of his "union-busting" (in truth, it was just permitting the freedom of public employees NOT to join a union), the liberals desperately raised money against him as if he was the Second Coming of Reagan.

rickyp wrote:

The FDA doesn't have the authority to ban trans fats? You sure?

fate

Yes

.

Why?
Every news report says they are banning trans fats. None says, "Despite not having the legal basis to do so..."
Where are the law suits Fate?

We'll see if there will be. You miss, of course, the point.

Unlikely Litigant: "I'm suing today so that all Americans continue to have access to trans fats."

The bigger issue: does the government have the right to ban everything it decides is deleterious to our health? Should we look forward to the day where all seniors will have to wear hip pads to prevent broken hips, which leads to pneumonia and death? Will the government regulate how many hours a day our televisions can be on--to make sure we're not too sedentary? Will the government put monitors on everyone to make sure we are not eating too many calories or burning too few?

All these things, after all, are for our own good.

Fate

The government cannot create a bubble to keep us free from harming ourselves--and it has no right to do so

But the government does have a role in protecting people from the harmful actions of others right?
In this case, they would be protecting people from unscrupulous food manufacturers who continue to use ingredients that are known to have deleterious health effects.

Alcohol and cigarettes are worse. They're not "banned," just regulated.

Its the same way that meat inspectors went into meat packing plants to protect consumers from unscrupulous meat packers...
Or are you all for the removal of federally Inspected meat products?

Not even the same. I wonder if you'd mind refraining from sheer stupidity?

See today's polling results?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... president/

In a general election she's 14 points up on walker, 8 on Bush and 10 on Rubio.
Bernie may serve to push her more to the left and create more Democratic enthusiasm for her campaign. She already has the enthusiasm of women and Hispanics and blacks will vote for her 94%...

Uh-huh. You might want to actually look at that poll a bit. Firstly, it's "adults," not even "registered voters." Secondly, it's "+- 10%." That kind of range should not inspire much confidence. Thirdly, Bernie Sanders is unknown to 51% of the respondents. In fact, among self-described Democratic primary voters, Sanders only has a mark of 40 percent who are willing to support him IF he is the nominee! This is not a group of people who know much. It's also a measure of the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary.

If you think she's so far out in front, I'll tell you what: I'll give you (only) 2:1 odds that she won't win by 10% in the popular vote in the general election. Do we have a deal?

I'm sorry, perhaps I missed the memo. What the deuce do trans fats have to do with the Republican Nomination?

Ray Jay wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Does the adjacent states thing actually make any difference ? These are pretty big states after all. Will somebody in Minnesota really vote for Walker just because he lives a few hundred miles away ? Bearing in mind that Minnesota went for Obama last time despite the fact that their local congressman was on the Romney ticket.

Yes, Americans do think in terms of region.

They do, but I think "region" differs in size and scope depending where you are. I do think that the Mid-West staters pretty much identify with each other (perhaps the culture vacuum is part of that ). So Iowans will warm to a Wisconsinite or a Minnesotan perhaps (or maybe walker is able to "work" Iowa more easily than anywhere else)

On the other hand some states are not even in a single "region" in terms of the way people think. I suspect that the North pacific states are split between coast/city and interior (we have of course heard of the "Inland Empire" of eastern WA and environs). I'm not sure that the states of Georgia and Alabama think of themselves having much in common with south Florida (the panhandle, maybe).

But certainly there are identities that work - there is a New England, a Bible Belt, a "below the belt" South, a Mid-West, a South-West etc etc.

It is not necessarily always that strong and other factors will come into play.

rickyp wrote:danivon

The way I see it, Paul has a section of the vote, and while it's not exactly the same as for his father, it's similar

Interestingly of all the potential candidates he polls best against Clinton. Probably his appeal to Independents and non-Clinton Dems.
But he would still lose based on polling to date.
Bush is -5
Walker - 6
Rubio -4
Paul -3.6
Cruz -7.7
Christie -10.7
Carson -11

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

But that is also Rand Paul's problem. He is popular with Independents and some anti-Clinton Democrats. But the same things that appeal to them also turn off many Republicans. He was castigated for how he filibustered on surveillance issues.

He has a solid constituency within the GOP - a large portion of his father's supporters (but not the true-believer Libertarians) added to others who can see he has other more "traditional" conservative positions. But outside that, I think a lot of Republicans, whether the "traditional" voters looking for a social conservative, or the "moderate" voters who are not ideologically tied to economic strictures (while not being tax and spend fans either) are not going to trust him enough. And there will always be an alternative from their "wing" who is better for them.

I expect he will do as his father did - hang on in there, get some interesting results in some states but ultimately not be competing with the main rivals. It's more of a policy position thing for him and his supporters than a personal thing, I think.

I liken it to the candidacy of Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour Leadership here. He will have strong support from a small minority, and will lose. But the point is not to see him as leader, but to show how strong the Left is in the party.

California has its own split between the coast and the interior, with the coast being liberal and the interior being conservative. And we have our own "inland empire" (in fact I did not realize that there were other places called inland empire) and it is conservative overall. It's just that the coastal cities overwhelm the interior demographically.