[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2015-April-16, 05:59, said:

A semi-serious question: Has anyone attempted to classify the personality trait (personality disorder imo) that would lead to someone putting himself/herself through the idiocies of a campaign?

I don't think that politicians have a personality disorder. But now I am thinking of the average, mediocre politician. Think of school boards, city councils, etc. They are driven by ideals. They will have to campaign, but it will be limited: An article in the local newspaper, handing out flyers, discussing with the public, handing balloons to the kids, you know. I can even see that it mighht be fun to do.

Neither do I think that athletes, actors or entrepreneurs have a personality disorder. They are driven by different characteristics, but that is all normal.

The personality disorder lies in the hunt for success, the drive to want to be the very best. It doesn't matter whether it is in politics, sports, entertainment, or business. But when you want to be the very best, you will have to do things that normal people would not do. No normal person would want to be scrutinized for one and a half year. But a normal person would not give his whereabouts so that he can get drug tested at any given time or place. But if you want to win the Olympics, you will have to do that.

I am a scientist. I like to think that I am a good scientist. But I don't have the drive to be the best scientist in the world (or the city where I live). I am a father. I like to think that I am a good father. My kids seem happy and are doing well. I don't think I am the best father in the world. I am a bridge player. I like to think... you get the picture.

I just think it is okay to be just "good" at the things that you are good at (and "good enough" at the things that you are not so good at). That doesn't make me really successfull in any single thing that I am good at. But I think it makes normal people succesfull overall.

Rik

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2015-April-16, 08:26, said:

It might be fun to take the Narcissism exam mentioned in the article Helene posted. I can see how profs might score high on self-absorption. Not me, of course.

I really don't understand why we need the term "narcissism". After all, I am not a narcissist...

Rik

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2015-April-13, 07:25, said:

Comparing now, has the Obama presidency been as successful as Clinton's? Can the Rs produce a better candidate than GWB? I think the answers are no and probably. So it would seem that the Rs have a very good chance.

Personally, I think that managing to get Obamacare passed will be Obama's legacy. And that, by itself, will make his presidency better than Clinton's presidency.

Can the Rs produce a better candidate than GWB? You are really placing the bar high. When I look at the potential Republican candidates, .... Oh, I guess they might not be able to do that.

I am part of the 40% who will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. Sometimes it is because I like the Democratic candidate. But, above all else, it is because of what I see in the Republican party and my dislike of virtually everything that the Republicans stand for. Typical of the Republican mentality is the rejection of the expansion of Medicaid in the Red States. Here we have a program that will help tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of poorer Americans at virtually no cost to the states, and Republican governors have opted out of Medicaid expansion. All because of their hatred for Obamacare and everything it represents (healthier citizens?).

I would say it was cutting off their noses to spite their faces, but the noses they are cutting off are not there own.

I will never forget the video of my Congressman, Frank LoBiando, a Republican from Atlantic/Cape May Counties NJ, angrily pursuing John Boehner as he was leaving the House floor after refusing to keep the House in session to pass relief measures for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Boehner, like most Republicans, would rather see the Northeast US fall of the face of the earth than reach out to help people in distress. And, I am sure that the news footage of NJ Governor Chris Christie (another Republican) together with President Obama visiting Brigantine Beach (just north of Atlantic City) after Hurrican Sandy was also eating away at most of the Republican leadership. I like Frank LoBiando. He is a good guy and a good Congressman. His opponent in the last election was a collegue of mine in my law firm, so I voted against LoBiando, but he won anyway. Chris Christie is an entirely different matter. He cares about New Jersey, but he does so many truly strange things that I can't possibly support him.

My impression of the Republican thought process in analyzing an issue is essentaily this:

1) Will it promote the national Republican agenda?
2) See point 1.
3) See point 1.
......

10) Will it be of benefit to the people of my district and the United States?

I may be giving them too much credit. Most of them don't get to point 10.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-16, 09:49, said:

I don't think that politicians have a personality disorder. But now I am thinking of the average, mediocre politician. Think of school boards, city councils, etc. They are driven by ideals. They will have to campaign, but it will be limited: An article in the local newspaper, handing out flyers, discussing with the public, handing balloons to the kids, you know. I can even see that it mighht be fun to do.

I suspect that most politicians start out that way. By the time they get to the level of campaigns that receive grueling scrutiny the media, politics has become their career. They learn to live with the pain, because it's the only way to continue in the profession they think they're good at. Is it really a "personality disorder" to be able to grin and bear it? IMHO, it shows fortitude, an admirable character trait.

And politics is hardly the only profession where things like this happen. In most professions, as you advance in experience, you also usually get more responsibility heaped on you, and this makes your job more difficult. You might get promoted from an individual contributor to a team leader and then to a manager. You no longer have to just be good at the technical details, but also deal with supervising and reporting on others, planning large projects, etc. That's often not what you signed up for when you first learned to do your job, but someone has to do it.

I've steadfastly avoided letting myself get promoted into jobs like that. But I don't have a family to provide for, so my needs are meagre, and I can afford to be unambitious.

[awm]

billw55, on 2015-April-13, 07:25, said:

Consider GW Bush. He was not a particularly compelling candidate, and the country was coming off a Clinton presidency that was successful in some ways, particularly economically. And yet, there was still a very close election that Bush probably won.

Comparing now, has the Obama presidency been as successful as Clinton's? Can the Rs produce a better candidate than GWB? I think the answers are no and probably. So it would seem that the Rs have a very good chance.

There are a few things missing in this analysis. In particular:

1. The country was actually entering a recession at the time of the 2000 election, a fact which people seem to forget due to the overall very strong economy during the Clinton presidency. The current economic perspective at the time of the election is a much better predictor of the winner than the overall economic performance during the incumbent party's term. In fact each time we've had a change of parties in the white house in my lifetime (Carter, Bush 1, Gore, McCain being the losing candidates) we had an economic downturn just before the election. Of course this could happen again (congressional republicans could even CAUSE it to happen by threatening to default on the debt again).

2. Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, and likely would have won the electoral college barring some shenanigans involving the Florida ballots.

3. The demographics of the country have changed considerably since the 2000 election, in particular with substantially more minority voters (esp. Latino voters). In addition, the Latino vote has moved substantially in the favor of democrats. Given their recent policies on immigration, it will be hard for republicans to reverse this trend (even if they nominate Jeb Bush, who's in favor of immigration reform, the overall views of his party and lack of ticket splitting will pose a serious challenge).

4. It's hard to imagine Jeb Bush being a better candidate than GWB, if only because his brother so damaged the family name. What better candidate are they likely to produce? None of the clowns now running would seem to have a legitimate shot...

[cherdano]

I would like to point out that anyone who is confident that either Hillary or the Republicans are going to win this election is throwing away money by not betting for or against her on one of the popular betting markets.
(Or maybe they are not as confident as they are claiming to be on BBF.)

[mike777]

awm, on 2015-April-17, 23:38, said:

There are a few things missing in this analysis. In particular:

1. The country was actually entering a recession at the time of the 2000 election, a fact which people seem to forget due to the overall very strong economy during the Clinton presidency. The current economic perspective at the time of the election is a much better predictor of the winner than the overall economic performance during the incumbent party's term. In fact each time we've had a change of parties in the white house in my lifetime (Carter, Bush 1, Gore, McCain being the losing candidates) we had an economic downturn just before the election. Of course this could happen again (congressional republicans could even CAUSE it to happen by threatening to default on the debt again).

2. Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, and likely would have won the electoral college barring some shenanigans involving the Florida ballots.

3. The demographics of the country have changed considerably since the 2000 election, in particular with substantially more minority voters (esp. Latino voters). In addition, the Latino vote has moved substantially in the favor of democrats. Given their recent policies on immigration, it will be hard for republicans to reverse this trend (even if they nominate Jeb Bush, who's in favor of immigration reform, the overall views of his party and lack of ticket splitting will pose a serious challenge).

4. It's hard to imagine Jeb Bush being a better candidate than GWB, if only because his brother so damaged the family name. What better candidate are they likely to produce? None of the clowns now running would seem to have a legitimate shot...

1) enter a recession..leave one is such nonsense feel free to describe and debate
2) popular vote is nonsense/states matter, local districts matter
3) minority votes become majority votes when counting elections in states and local dist.
4) clowns will never win. If you cannot find someone to battle Ms. Clinton, say so.

[gwnn]

Doesn't Rand Paul have a shot? I'm hardly an expert on American politics but he's certainly less nutty and more appealing than his father, and his father won two primaries if I recall correctly?

[mike777]

ms. Clinton may only need fl. to win. ohio and fl to win.

not tens of millions.

think parts of these states..not whole state.

you may keep thinking entire usa...no no no..think
\
part of florida...think part of ohio.
---------


many keep thinking she needs to win across usa no no no
-------------------

think she needs to win tiny tiny parts of fl and ohio.
--------

American election is not I repeat not 330 million votes,, this is wrong thinking.
----------

election will be tiny tiny votes in few states...

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2015-April-21, 03:05, said:

Doesn't Rand Paul have a shot? I'm hardly an expert on American politics but he's certainly less nutty and more appealing than his father, and his father won two primaries if I recall correctly?

Have a shot to win the R nomination? Maybe. To beat Clinton? No.

[hrothgar]

gwnn, on 2015-April-21, 03:05, said:

Doesn't Rand Paul have a shot? I'm hardly an expert on American politics but he's certainly less nutty and more appealing than his father, and his father won two primaries if I recall correctly?

"Lies more" is not the same as "less nutty"

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2015-April-21, 06:26, said:

Have a shot to win the R nomination? Maybe. To beat Clinton? No.

I meant the first, yes.

[ArtK78]

gwnn, on 2015-April-21, 03:05, said:

Doesn't Rand Paul have a shot? I'm hardly an expert on American politics but he's certainly less nutty and more appealing than his father, and his father won two primaries if I recall correctly?

When you state that Rand Paul is "less nutty and more appealing than his father," you are really setting the bar high.

[gwnn]

ArtK78, on 2015-April-21, 15:03, said:

When you state that Rand Paul is "less nutty and more appealing than his father," you are really setting the bar high.

Well it was just an honest assessment of his chances. If his older, nuttier, and creepier father also had (for a few weeks) some sort of outside chance to get the nomination, or so it seemed, then he (Rand) should have more chances than Ron. That was my logic, and I certainly wasn't endorsing him as a great candidate.

In other news, what about Marco Rubio? He can talk like an intelligent person although still regurgitating the Republican mantras. Somehow he's not slimy as Ted Cruz though (I know, not very high a bar either).

[hrothgar]

Arguably, the Koch brothers have decided to throw their money behind Walker

http://www.nytimes.c...tt-walker/?_r=0

This could get interesting

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2015-April-21, 16:34, said:

Well it was just an honest assessment of his chances. If his older, nuttier, and creepier father also had (for a few weeks) some sort of outside chance to get the nomination, or so it seemed, then he (Rand) should have more chances than Ron. That was my logic, and I certainly wasn't endorsing him as a great candidate.

In other news, what about Marco Rubio? He can talk like an intelligent person although still regurgitating the Republican mantras. Somehow he's not slimy as Ted Cruz though (I know, not very high a bar either).

Currently I think Rubio is the most likely R winner. Versus Clinton, seems close.

[blackshoe]

gwnn, on 2015-April-21, 16:34, said:

Well it was just an honest assessment of his chances. If his older, nuttier, and creepier father also had (for a few weeks) some sort of outside chance to get the nomination, or so it seemed, then he (Rand) should have more chances than Ron. That was my logic, and I certainly wasn't endorsing him as a great candidate.

What is it about the Pauls that makes them nutty and creepy to you?

[gwnn]

Extreme libertarianism such as eliminating the IRS altogether, going back to the gold standard, ...... Some stuff that libertarians want I agree with but stuff like "flat tax" (i.e., everyone needs to pay 100k$ or whatever each year in taxes) makes me wonder if they really thought any of it through.

[gwnn]

This was a shocking article on Rand Paul although I know that not everything in it is unbiased.

http://www.vox.com/2...udget-president

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2015-April-22, 08:05, said:

Extreme libertarianism such as eliminating the IRS altogether, going back to the gold standard, ...... Some stuff that libertarians want I agree with but stuff like "flat tax" (i.e., everyone needs to pay 100k$ or whatever each year in taxes) makes me wonder if they really thought any of it through.

The thing is with income taxes is that defining taxable income is difficult. The definition changes all the time. IN fact tinkering with the definition may be the favorite pass time of all politicians, all the time.

For sake of example say a flat tax on wages, but what are wages? Are health care benefits wages? Are subsidized lunch rooms, wages? Is a company rewarded fancy vacation a wage?