I miss one of the best discussion boards ever to exist in Delaware’s political spectrum. Moderated by WDEL’s Allan Loudell,  it’s closure coincided with the removal of Al Mascitti, together which pretty well poisoned the well of all imaginative creative discussion in the Delaware virtual world.

Google popped this discussion in a recent search of mine and nostalgia caused me to flick back and reminisce… 

The topic was fascinating… All the regular players commenting back in April 2015 on how this election would pan out… And now…. we enter November….

Here is that fascinating snippet revisited…..


The strategy I have heard from every Republican contender (including those who have not yet jumped into the race) is simply asking “What accomplishments does Hillary actually have?”

She has had some very important government positions, but what did she actually accomplish while in any of these jobs?

Mike from Delaware
Hillary has somethings going for her that Mitt Romney didn’t. First, she’s a woman; second, she’s not a Mormon. The majority of female voters will overlook the mud thrown on Hillary by the right-wing media folks; the “sisterhood” will close ranks. As I’ve said before, Reagan, Papa Bush, and Little Bush’s wives were pro-choice even though their husbands were pro-life. Women see those issues very differently than men. They’ll see Hillary as the first President who’ll truly understand their feelings, needs, and viewpoints.

Hillary is a United Methodist, not a Mormon. The typical DEM voter is moderate to liberal. They’d see a Mormon candidate as being VERY religious, and as the Mormon Church does NOT support LGBT stuff, they’d NOT want to vote for a Mormon. The United Methodists in the U.S., on the other hand, are not as dogmatic, and the U.S. membership would vote to support LGBT stuff. What keeps that from happening is the United Methodist church is a worldwide group, so the votes are taken from around the world. As a result, the fast-growing churches on the continent of Africa are very conservative and as they get more delegates to the churchwide body, due to their growth, they’ve voted down any changes to support LGBT marriage, clergy, etc., within the UM church. So the only reason the UM church has not supported LGBT stuff is due to the African church; European and U.S. Methodists do support LGBT stuff. So my point is many of the United Methodists ARE DEMS, and are moderate to liberal in their political viewpoints, thus making them likely Hillary voters.

I’m curious: Are Democrats as excited about Hillary as non-Establishment Republicans are about Jeb Bush? Only the Establishment/Big Money Republicans want Jeb… is this the same on the other side of the political aisle?

And, if not Hillary who? O’Malley? Warren? Chris Christie? I actually think that Christie would be a tough contender for Hillary to beat.

The current Republican field has quite a few exciting/young candidates offering fresh/new ideas to choose from…and a LOT more diversity than the Democrat candidates.

Mike from Delaware
EarlGrey: I don’t know if they’re new fresh ideas. Sounds like the usual G.O.P. stuff. Cut government, cut benefits to the poor, lower taxes on the wealthy, continue to give corporate welfare to businesses like the oil industry, and my favorite: Social Security is an entitlement that’s going to bankrupt the nation as those Senior Citizens who’ve paid their Social Security insurance premium for 40+ years [in my case, 47 years] are takers just like the welfare folks.

So far I’ve not heard much difference yet. You see, I’d be an old-style Democratic liberal on helping the little guy and conservative on moral issues, kind of like the FDR/Truman/Kennedy Democrats. Thus, why I’m not a Republican nor a Democrat. Republicans have the moral stuff and the DEMS have the ‘helping-the-little-guy’ stuff.

No matter how these young turks in the G.O.P. want to spin Reaganomics a.k.a. Trickle-Down Economics, it never has, and never will work. The theory is great. FB had a picture showing a bunch of wine glasses stacked on top of each other in a pyramid. The top glass gets full and then the wine overflows and trickles down into the next level, and when those get filled, the wine trickles down to the next lower level, and so on. The second photo shows the reality. That top wine glass gets filled and then it just keeps getting larger and larger so none trickles down. Fix that aspect of the problem and I’d gladly buy into to the trickle-down vision. But sadly greed is a major part of the human condition, and those folks on top truly believe they NEED all that, and just are NOT willing to allow the trickle-down happen to the great unwashed lower-class folks. So trickle-down won’t work, and each time our nation’s tried it, the results are the same. Time to find another approach.

Then you aren’t listening Mike. Rand Paul was recently in Detroit offering some very good/fresh ideas on how to breathe life back into that once-great city… Cruz and Rubio also have some very good ideas on how to fix many of the very broken parts of our country’s federal government/economy/banking/world status.

One of my favorite Rand Paul ideas is to place term limits on Congress! That would go a long way to repairing the corruption in government by eliminating career politicians who remain in office till they die.

JFK was also a young/energized senator who changed this country because he had vision and truly loved this country…I would gladly vote for him (though I seriously doubt he could get today’s Democrats to elect him). Maybe we should toss out the “trickle down” theory and go for the “rising tide” theory of JFK.

BTW, I am still not sure any of the current 3 “youngsters” running are going to win…but they are bringing fresh ideas to the table which is a lot more than can be said for Hillary.

Mike from Delaware
EarlGrey: I like the idea of term limits, but also remember the G.O.P. Contract on America Newt used in 1996 that had as one of its key planks term limits for Congress. Funny how when the Republicans got the power, they actually said, we no longer need term limits since we’re now the ones in control. So fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The problem is most members of Congress don’t believe they need term limits, and they’re the ones who’ve got to pass it. This isn’t something a President can do via EO; not even Obama can do that. So that’s one of those bogus issues politicians throw out into the mix knowing full well they’ll never have to deliver on it. Same with Abortion. The Supremes have said abortion is constitutional and to not allow it is un-constitutional. So candidates are simply flapping their gums saying their going to stop abortion. It isn’t going to happen.

The rising tide theory sounds good too, but without legislation from the government taxing those wealthy folks so that their excessive wealth actually gets spread around, it isn’t going to happen. Republicans are against taxing the wealthy, so the rising tide theory doesn’t work either.

See the problem is there are way too many ways for the rich to make tons of money, pay little or no tax on it, and then hold on to it and not pass it on, or spread the wealth. If they don’t have to do it, then it won’t be done. The wealthy control the system, including the government, so much of this is academic. At least the DEMS want the wealthy to pay a bigger tax, which does help. The tax rate for the wealthiest folks had been far higher during the New Deal years [1932-1980] than the rate has been since 1980. Note since 1980 the rich have become even richer and the poor even poorer, with the middle-class becoming a rare breed. So from where I sit, Americans were better off during the New Deal Era than the Trickle Down Era.

So I’m listening to the “youngsters” of the G.O.P., but knowing they all are TEA folks makes me even less believing they’ll not hurt the least of these while protecting the wealthy. Of course it’s still very early until November 2016, so we’ll see how things play out.

I agree that the G.O.P. young turks may not win and it might have more to do with Obama. Obama, himself was a young turk when he ran for Prez with fresh new ideas, etc., etc. The nation was tired after 8 long years of Bush Jr. and his wars. The nation took a chance and elected the young turk. Now folks are a bit tired of the young turk and his new ideas and want some stability. Enter Hillary Clinton. She’s a rock. She’s been there, done that, got the tee shirt, ball cap, and sweatshirt. People remember also that the last time our nation had “good times” where we had a surplus, etc., was during Bubba Clinton’s years as Prez. So many folks just may be willing to over look the baggage [and Bubba’s womanizing] that comes with the Bill and Hillary Show, because they want a an adult to take the reigns of leadership again. As of now, that’s Hillary. Even Jeb Bush doesn’t have that going for him. Hillary is seen by most folks other than the ultra-right wing TEA folks, as being a moderate DEM like her husband. I believe she’ll be a difficult opponent for the Republicans to beat.

Mike: If you fear politicians who will protect the wealthy then you should steer clear of Hillary, Jeb, and Chris Christie. Your candidate should probably be either Elizabeth Warren or Ted Cruz if you are against insulating the rich. Warren’s solutions come from the Left and Cruz from the Right, but both oppose protecting the uber-wealthy (in very different ways). Warren wants higher taxes and Cruz wants a flat-tax and rewards for businesses that relocate/manufacture in the United States. Higher taxes chases businesses to other countries…and with them goes their tax base.

I refuse to vote for either Jeb or Christie because there is no real difference between them and Hillary. HRC and Jeb’s funders are Big Money/Big Business leaders hoping to elect “their own candidate” so they can reap the rewards once that person is in office.

BTW, I’m not a “ultra-rightwing Tea folk”, but do know that Hillary is nothing like Bubba…Bill Clinton (love him or hate him) was a personable guy who truly was a Blue Dog Dem…Hillary is not. She is more like one of your favorite presidents (and my least)… Woodrow Wilson. This week on SNL summed up many of HRC’s “likeability issues”…again I say, she is nothing like Bill.

So far 2016 is shaping up to be like most elections – the lesser of the evils.

At this point, there is no one else who is even remotely viable in the Dems’ camp. And at this point, there is no one in the Republicans’ camp worth of a national race.

Therefore, at this point, Hillary wins 2016 hands down.

Mike from Delaware
EarlGrey: I agree with your assessment of Liz Warren and Ted Cruz. With Liz, I know she’ll not mess with Social Security for folks 55+; with Ted I still don’t know that. So if it were between the two and the election were today, Liz Warren would get my vote.

Sadly, Liz Warren has repeatedly said she’s not running in 2016 [probably in deference to Hillary].

Like I said, it’s early, and Ted Cruz has time to make his case to me that his administration would veto ANY attempt by Congress to change anything in Social Security for the 55+ group that would cut benefits or raise the age of retirement.

In that previous post I wasn’t implying you are an ultra right-wing tea party person, but those youngsters are.

I agree Hillary’s big Achilles Heel is her lack of being very likable. Ole Bubba has charisma, a guy who’d have a beer with you, go to a ball game and eat a hot dog with, and just be a regular “Joe”, whereas Hillary comes across cold and aloof. However, at this moment, she is the adult in the room and the nation might be ready to have someone a bit more experienced and mature vs. another Young Turk after 8 years of the Young Turk Obama. People have fond memories of the Clinton years so the appeal to go back to a better time is in her favor. Sort of they did it before, so maybe they can do it again.

Mike: Hillary is attempting to coast in on Bill’s credentials, but she’s nothing like him.

Americans by-and-large are sick of the state of our country and the world, thanks in large part to this administration. Hillary was actually a part of this administration and The First Lady under the Bill Clinton administration. She can’t run on an actual record and must depend on “the past” that her president hubby accomplished.

How many companies would hire a man for the impressive resume of his wife? Same thing here…Bill has the record of accomplishment and Hillary hasn’t really accomplished anything beyond receiving high-powered government jobs thanks to who her husband was… what would be said of a Republican woman who did the same? Again, judge the candidates by what they have done and their own past records… and don’t assume Hillary will be Bill Clinton 2.0

BTW, The Clinton Machine is expected to spend more than 2 BILLION dollars to buy Hillary the Presidency… sure sounds like she is backed by the ultra-rich she condemns in speeches. This 2B is twice what 0bama spent to buy the Presidency…so much for the myth that Republicans are with the uber-rich and Democrats despise the 1%ers.

kavips: Both Rand Paul and Scott Walker are currently beating Hillary by a few points… a few months back, no one was close to her. Hillary just isn’t an exciting candidate and does not have the charisma of Bill Clinton, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or many others soon to join the 2016 race.

Mike from Delaware
EarlGrey: Sadly, the conservative Supreme Court ruled that businesses are people and can donate as much money as they like. So the reality is both parties will spend Billions of dollars on radio/TV/press ads – such a waste of money – but that is a market-driven way to run a campaign.

A better way would be like what Norway does. The government pays for the campaigns, and it is only 3 weeks long. Norway has televised debates, etc., just no radio/TV/press ads. So no fundraising. Until our system evolves to some version of that, where money isn’t a factor, the wealthy folks in the U.S. — be they liberal or conservative — will continue to grease the skids of their favorite candidates as they continue to buy elections [The Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist come to mind for the conservative side of the aisle].

This is one area where the socialists have a better idea, but heaven forbid we’d ever use a socialistic idea in the good ole U.S. of A. Take the good ideas from socialism and throw the rest out, is my motto. Same with capitalism. In other words, make a hybrid version that uses the best from both capitalism and socialism; that is what we Americans do best, making a system our own. Good luck getting that past the G.O.P./TEA Party folks though.

Mike: My main point was the hypocrisy of Hillary condemning WallStreet/Big Money with one hand and receiving billions from the exact same people/businesses (plus questionable contributors from Saudi Arabia) with the other hand.

I actually agree with the “Norway solution” you suggest…limit each candidate to a set monetary number for their campaign and let American citizens actually hear all the candidates in a series of debates.

And yes, Grover and the Kochs do fund Republican candidates BUT the Left is as well…the hypocrisy is the Democrats demonizing the Right for doing the exact same thing they themselves are doing (George Soros, Media Matters, Bill Gates…etc.)

It would also be great if NO political parties were listed/shown on the ballot and people were forced to know who they were actually voting for rather than pulling a L or R lever for a straight-ticket choice.

Although big donors can be found on both sides, the best measurement is which side actually gets grass-roots support?

48% of Obama’s funding came from donors under the $200 level. 9% of Republicans were small donors…


So big funding is not equal, and never should be arbitrarily equated as so between the two parties.

To understand why, go here.


Citizens United now allows elections to be bought by a handful of players. Less than 10% of America has ever given to a political campaign.

kavips: I agree..and that’s how Republicans ended up running Mittens R. Money in 2012. If Big Money wins out this time, the Republicans will nominate Jeb Bush, and Hillary will win the nomination from the Democrats. There is very little difference between these two.

The grassroots in the Republican party support Cruz, Paul and Walker…the Establishment Republicans (i.e. Big Money) support Jeb and Christie.

Mike from Delaware
EarlGrey and Kavips: I think we all may be on a similar page and have a basic agreement.

The key for a Ted Cruz though is to not be a TEA robot and really lay out clearly what he wants to do, including his stand on Social Security and abortion, assuming he’s not going to try to stop it [thus possibly gaining female voters – again the Court has already ruled]. If he can do that and not lose his G.O.P. support, you never know, he might be able to energize folks like me to actually vote for a TEA party candidate, but we’ll have to wait and see/hear what happens between now and November 2016. If Ted is smart, he could cause a major upset, but that’s a large IF.

We’ve already had 8 years of Julius Rosenberg as president. Do we really have to balance it out with another 8 years of Ethel?