Can we have an official Ask Jake thread?

[Ballygrl]

He seems like a nice honest Liberal. I don't get to talk to many who are being honest so I have questions that I'd like answered from someone who'll be honest.

Question 1:

What do you think of the possibility of another stimulus? and why would they propose it again especially with the anger out there of the American people?

Question 2:

How do you react when you see some people justifying a possible loss in the mid-terms by saying voter fraud is going on?

Thanks!

[Allentownjake]

He seems like a nice honest Liberal. I don't get to talk to many who are being honest so I have questions that I'd like answered from someone who'll be honest.

Question 1:

What do you think of the possibility of another stimulus? and why would they propose it again especially with the anger out there of the American people?

Zero, it is a base rallying tactic and the GOP Senate leadership smells blood in the water



Question 2:

How do you react when you see some people justifying a possible loss in the mid-terms by saying voter fraud is going on?

They are in denial, voter fraud only works when elections are close and both sides engage in it from time to time.  I don't expect many close elections in 2010, where they exist they will be in places democrats are in charge and the voter fraud will be committed by democrats not the GOP.  In order to commit voter fraud you need a public official to help you.  If the public official is of the same party as the person making the accusation they have had fraud committed against them, I generally call bullshit on any accusation

Thanks!

[Ballygrl]

Thanks for the answers!

[franksolich]

Oh my.

A civilized discussion.

And in the DUmpster, of all places.

Thank you!

[BlueStateSaint]

Okay, Jake, time for another one.  On November 3rd, if the Dems lose as bloodily as I (and others) seem to think that they will, how do you see the DUmp reacting?  Will they call for violence?  Will they work to regain what they have lost?

[Ballygrl]

Oh my.

A civilized discussion.

And in the DUmpster, of all places.

Thank you!

LOL, I wasn't sure where to put the thread, I wasn't sure if Jake read the other forums.

[Ballygrl]

Okay, Jake, time for another one.  On November 3rd, if the Dems lose as bloodily as I (and others) seem to think that they will, how do you see the DUmp reacting?  Will they call for violence?  Will they work to regain what they have lost?

Oh that's a good question, and if I can add another question that would fall in kind of the same category.

As we know, the moderates/independents tend to determine the elections, whereas the conservatives and progressives determine the primaries, so if the Democrats lose badly in the mid-terms how could they possibly use the excuse that Obama wasn't progressive enough? especially when the majority of the country is moderate/conservative. Do progressives actually understand that only a small percentage of the population subscribes to their ideology?

[franksolich]

I too have a question for our colleague from Allentown:

Some times you, sir, admit to Democrat vote fraud, but then in an attempt to appear unbiased or nonpartisan, pair that with allegations that sometimes Republican vote fraud also occurs.

I'm intrigued.

Where, and under what circumstances, can Republicans possibly commit vote fraud.

In your history books, you'll find that there's only ever been about half a dozen Republican "machines" in the 221-year history of the Republic--the most prominent of them being those who ran Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, and the city of Philadelphia..

And guess how long ago that was.

The last Republican "machine," that which ran Pennsylvania for 60 years, was utterly demolished, destroyed, in 1930, right after the Great Depression got underway.  As much as it pains me to say, the Republicans in Pennsylvania circa 1870-1930, produced some real "winners," such as Senator Bois Penrose who in things other than politics resembled very much a recently-late U. S. Senator from Massachusetts.

But that was a very long time ago.

In the meantime, since Aaron Burr and New York in the first decade of the 1800s, Democrat machines have proliferated and thrived, defying the old maxim that things must, inevitably, grow old, decay, and die. 

There isn't enough paper to list all the Democrat state and big city machines that currently exist.

In 2000, Republican were accused of "stealing" Florida for George Bush.

In November 2000, 66 of the 67 then-county election commissioners in Florida were Democrats, and the lone Republican was from a small county--and these Democrat county election commissioners "stole" Florida for Bush?

While anything is possible, that sort of, uh, stretches the credulity.

So I ask you, sir, please--I've been asking this question since the dawn of political message-boards on the internet, and never gotten an answer--tell me where there exists, anywhere in the United States of America, a state or city Republican "machine" capable of distorting election results, such as those Democrat machines in Chicago, Boston, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, Detroit, Seattle, &c., &c., &c., ad infinitum?

Even if Republicans wanted to cheat, they don't have the tools to cheat.

It's sort of like accusing an armless man of committing armed robbery.

[Allentownjake]

Okay, Jake, time for another one.  On November 3rd, if the Dems lose as bloodily as I (and others) seem to think that they will, how do you see the DUmp reacting?  Will they call for violence?  Will they work to regain what they have lost?

Accusations of voter fraud, laments the country is lost and going to hell, talks of taking up arms, shame to democrats who are pissed off at the party, and of course it isn't DU without mass purges.

[Allentownjake]

I too have a question for our colleague from Allentown:

Some times you, sir, admit to Democrat vote fraud, but then in an attempt to appear unbiased or nonpartisan, pair that with allegations that sometimes Republican vote fraud also occurs.

I'm intrigued.

Where, and under what circumstances, can Republicans possibly commit vote fraud.

In your history books, you'll find that there's only ever been about half a dozen Republican "machines" in the 221-year history of the Republic--the most prominent of them being those who ran Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, and the city of Philadelphia..

And guess how long ago that was.

The last Republican "machine," that which ran Pennsylvania for 60 years, was utterly demolished, destroyed, in 1930, right after the Great Depression got underway.  As much as it pains me to say, the Republicans in Pennsylvania circa 1870-1930, produced some real "winners," such as Senator Bois Penrose who in things other than politics resembled very much a recently-late U. S. Senator from Massachusetts.

But that was a very long time ago.

In the meantime, since Aaron Burr and New York in the first decade of the 1800s, Democrat machines have proliferated and thrived, defying the old maxim that things must, inevitably, grow old, decay, and die.  

There isn't enough paper to list all the Democrat state and big city machines that currently exist.

In 2000, Republican were accused of "stealing" Florida for George Bush.

In November 2000, 66 of the 67 then-county election commissioners in Florida were Democrats, and the lone Republican was from a small county--and these Democrat county election commissioners "stole" Florida for Bush?

While anything is possible, that sort of, uh, stretches the credulity.

So I ask you, sir, please--I've been asking this question since the dawn of political message-boards on the internet, and never gotten an answer--tell me where there exists, anywhere in the United States of America, a state or city Republican "machine" capable of distorting election results, such as those Democrat machines in Chicago, Boston, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, Detroit, Seattle, &c., &c., &c., ad infinitum?

Even if Republicans wanted to cheat, they don't have the tools to cheat.

It's sort of like accusing an armless man of committing armed robbery.

Purging voter rolls of eligible voters and voter suppression.  Mostly done in the South to ethnic minorities.  There are republican machine areas in Lehigh and Northampton county and there has been shenanigans in the past.

Elections are only stolen when the margin of victory is less than 1%.  In that case it is a coin flip anyway on who won.

Barcoded paper ballots seem like a good way of preventing fraud in my opinion.

[Allentownjake]

Oh that's a good question, and if I can add another question that would fall in kind of the same category.

As we know, the moderates/independents tend to determine the elections, whereas the conservatives and progressives determine the primaries, so if the Democrats lose badly in the mid-terms how could they possibly use the excuse that Obama wasn't progressive enough? especially when the majority of the country is moderate/conservative. Do progressives actually understand that only a small percentage of the population subscribes to their ideology?

The labels are kind of stupid right now.  Obama loses the mid terms it is because his economic policies failed. Moderates/Independents could care less about the name of the policy, only if it works.

[Carl]

I will weigh in with one.

Do you feel that the dem leadership in DC right now really believe their policies are workable to create and sustain a growing private economy or more to what we here feel?
That is they are simply looking to consolidate power through the use of the government to create dependency.

[Allentownjake]

I will weigh in with one.

Do you feel that the dem leadership in DC right now really believe their policies are workable to create and sustain a growing private economy or more to what we here feel?
That is they are simply looking to consolidate power through the use of the government to create dependency.

I think the dem leadership in congress put their policies together to reward campaign contributers and any actual policy effects were secondary.  I also believe the GOP leadership did something similar from 2003-2007.

[miskie]

Here is mine..

In your opinion, would President Obama rather have a Democrat majority house and senate that do not work well with him (as has been evident over the last 20 months) or lose at least one of them to Republicans, giving him an 'enemy foil' to rail against ?

One is better to get things done, the other better to get reelected. 

[Allentownjake]

Here is mine..

In your opinion, would President Obama rather have a Democrat majority house and senate that do not work well with him (as has been evident over the last 20 months) or lose at least one of them to Republicans, giving him an 'enemy foil' to rail against ?

One is better to get things done, the other better to get reelected. 

This isn't 1994, if he thinks it is he's a moron.  He might have a foil to rail against.  Bill Clinton had an improving economy and was able to work on a few legislative issues in the period of 1995 to the 1996 election. 

I don't see an improving economy, and I don't see Obama able to work with the GOP without facing a serious primary challenger.

You also have to remember, people perceived as losers in DC get less jobs in lobbying etc.  Obama has a whole bunch of spoiled supporters he has to take care of.  He'd rather keep the house, that keeps his friends in the lobbying firms making big $$$$$

[miskie]

This isn't 1994, if he thinks it is he's a moron.  He might have a foil to rail against.  Bill Clinton had an improving economy and was able to work on a few legislative issues in the period of 1995 to the 1996 election. 

I don't see an improving economy, and I don't see Obama able to work with the GOP without facing a serious primary challenger.

You also have to remember, people perceived as losers in DC get less jobs in lobbying etc.  Obama has a whole bunch of spoiled supporters he has to take care of.  He'd rather keep the house, that keeps his friends in the lobbying firms making big $$$$$

This is a good answer, and almost exactly how I would have answered the same question myself. The only difference is I do expect a primary challenger regardless. And I expect it to be HRC. The signal will be if after January 2011 she decides to step down to 'be with family' - though it is possible she will become a kingmaker as Palin seems to have for the GOP.

[Allentownjake]

This is a good answer, and almost exactly how I would have answered the same question myself. The only difference is I do expect a primary challenger regardless. And I expect it to be HRC. The signal will be if after January 2011 she decides to step down to 'be with family' - though it is possible she will become a kingmaker as Palin seems to have for the GOP.

2012 is an eternity away, economically, he may pull an LBJ.  Open primary opens up all kinds of possibilities.

I don't expect a GOP congress to improve the economic situation that much.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 12% to 13.5% U3 and an over 20% U6 by March of 2011.

I of course view this as a regulatory failure and a broken banking system.  I expect the TBTF banks to have another liquidity crisis by year end, particularly with the what is going on in Europe.

I don't think the sun is coming up from the deleveraging till half way through 2013-2014.

2012 might be the first Independent President since George Washington.  Some Billionaire that mixes social moderate policies and is a fiscal conservative.

[miskie]

2012 is an eternity away, economically, he may pull an LBJ.  Open primary opens up all kinds of possibilities.

I don't expect a GOP congress to improve the economic situation that much.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 12% to 13.5% U3 and an over 20% U6 by March of 2011.

I of course view this as a regulatory failure and a broken banking system.  I expect the TBTF banks to have another liquidity crisis by year end, particularly with the what is going on in Europe.

I don't think the sun is coming up from the deleveraging till half way through 2013-2014.

2012 might be the first Independent President since George Washington.  Some Billionaire that mixes social moderate policies and is a fiscal conservative.

Agree, though Id pin that as unlikely for the reasons you list (Obama = LBJ) - as for an Independent president - it's not out of the realm of possibility, but I think its more likely that one of the parties gets remade into an independent, populist sort of thing. At this time, I'd say its the GOP thats getting the full image makeover. Love them or loathe them, the TEA partiers seem to be transforming the Republican brand, instead of going 'I'.. - I suspect memories of one H. Ross Perot have quite a bit to do with that. Especially when one considers several of his planks, Perot was TEA before TEA was cool. But Perot split the vote, and torpedoed his own campaign with the worst running mate in history.. Not to mention his own crazy "I'm in.. I'm out.. I'm in..." antics.   

[Allentownjake]

Bloomberg is candidate A.  I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Gates is candidate B if the economic conditions are shitty enough.

Perot, was pretty much right on every issue from Nafta to the national debt.  He had absolutely no political experience. 

He had no real media experience either.

Gates or Bloomberg would fit the bill properly.  Gates has plenty of media experience. Bloomberg has been mayor of a major city for 3 terms.

Both men could fund their own campaign and still have substantial wealth.

I don't think John Bohener has changed much since 2007...unfortunately nor do I think he has learned the lessons of that time frame.

I don't expect a professional politician to be able to get us out of this mess.

The other possibility is Petraeus with a business leader running mate.  I could see those two estates coming together to give an FU to the 3rd estate (the Washington chattering class of both parties).

We need a Washington and a Jefferson.

[Ballygrl]

The labels are kind of stupid right now.  Obama loses the mid terms it is because his economic policies failed. Moderates/Independents could care less about the name of the policy, only if it works.

That's kind of the point though, Progressive Economic Policy hurts more than it helps, we're not a nation of Progressives who just want to give out hand-outs or receive them.

[Ballygrl]

This isn't 1994, if he thinks it is he's a moron.  He might have a foil to rail against.  Bill Clinton had an improving economy and was able to work on a few legislative issues in the period of 1995 to the 1996 election. 

I don't see an improving economy, and I don't see Obama able to work with the GOP without facing a serious primary challenger.

You also have to remember, people perceived as losers in DC get less jobs in lobbying etc.  Obama has a whole bunch of spoiled supporters he has to take care of.  He'd rather keep the house, that keeps his friends in the lobbying firms making big $$$$$

Do you seeing Obama facing a challenge within the party in 2012? I have to say the Clinton's surprised me, I thought for sure by now Hillary would've jumped off a sinking ship. Do you see anything going on with the Clinton's involving 2012? Also, I kind of think it was a bad move for the Democrats to get rid of Howard Dean, did you think it was a bad move then? or do you think it's a bad move now?

Take your time answering, I don't want you to get overwhelmed having all these questions thrown at you.

[miskie]

I have to say the Clinton's surprised me, I thought for sure by now Hillary would've jumped off a sinking ship.

Though you aren't asking me, I expect she will continue to wait until after midterms, and the seating of the new congress. Leaving after an election cycle is considered the right time to do so, any other time labels you as a quitter.

[Ballygrl]

Bloomberg is candidate A.  I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Gates is candidate B if the economic conditions are shitty enough.

Perot, was pretty much right on every issue from Nafta to the national debt.  He had absolutely no political experience. 

He had no real media experience either.

Gates or Bloomberg would fit the bill properly.  Gates has plenty of media experience. Bloomberg has been mayor of a major city for 3 terms.

Both men could fund their own campaign and still have substantial wealth.

I don't think John Bohener has changed much since 2007...unfortunately nor do I think he has learned the lessons of that time frame.

I don't expect a professional politician to be able to get us out of this mess.

The other possibility is Petraeus with a business leader running mate.  I could see those two estates coming together to give an FU to the 3rd estate (the Washington chattering class of both parties).

We need a Washington and a Jefferson.

Very interesting!

BTW I'm not a fan of Boehner at all, and would love to see an over-haul of both parties elected officials and have all new faces. It just seems like it's business as usual once they're elected, though I hope the Tea Party Candidates if elected won't go the same old same old route.

[Ballygrl]

Though you aren't asking me, I expect she will continue to wait until after midterms, and the seating of the new congress. Leaving after an election cycle is considered the right time to do so, any other time labels you as a quitter.

I'm actually surprised at the polling info I saw on her recently, I personally don't think she's been an outstanding Secretary of State and didn't think she warranted such high approval numbers.

[BlueStateSaint]

Do you seeing Obama facing a challenge within the party in 2012? I have to say the Clinton's surprised me, I thought for sure by now Hillary would've jumped off a sinking ship. Do you see anything going on with the Clinton's involving 2012? Also, I kind of think it was a bad move for the Democrats to get rid of Howard Dean, did you think it was a bad move then? or do you think it's a bad move now?

Take your time answering, I don't want you to get overwhelmed having all these questions thrown at you.

Bally, I don't see the Clintons "jumping ship" until after the bloodbath of 11/2/10.  Just a thought.  Then, Obama is fair game.  But, as I have posted in the past, Obama changed the rules at the DNC to favor the imcumbent--him--in 2012, at the least (RedState had a piece on this some months ago).  Hillary would face a lot steeper climb this time than in 2008.  'Course, maybe Obama knew that he'd probably face a primary challenge from Hillary, so that's why he did two things--1) The aforementioned above changing of the rules; and 2) Made Hillary his Secretary of State, in the idea of "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."