USA Politics

This is not really related to the topic, but I feel like sharing it anyway.

I didn't know POTUS was a way to refer to the US President until last week. Since then, I probably saw it being used probably a hundred times. :p
 
Night Prowler said:
Let's say Hillary wins and is a terrible president; if she chooses to run for 2nd term, will she automatically be the Democratic candidate or will she have to go through primaries again? From what I can see, the last POTUS not to run for 2nd term was Chester A. Arthur like 150 years ago (not counting the ones that died in office).
Click to expand...
No, she has to win the primaries again. And you're wrong - LBJ quit before his second run because he was losing a few primaries.
 
Somewhereonline said:
Incumbent presidents can get challengers in the primaries for second terms but challengers almost never get the nomination with a few exceptions.

Example of a sitting president losing his party's primary for a second term: Franklin Pierce in 1856 (James Buchanan won the Democratic primary over him).
Click to expand...
And that worked out well.
 
How do you guys think Marco Rubio would've fared against Hillary?
 
Somewhereonline said:
Eh, he mostly tried to appease the South and delayed the whole secession movement for four years. In hindsight, we see that was short sighted of him.
Click to expand...
Buchanan is the worst president in US history due to this short sighted nature, which included allowing his Secretary of War (a chap named Jefferson Davis) reallocate federal arms and munitions to areas likely to fall into southern hands.
 
In Buchanan's defence, he thought or hoped he could avert the Civil War.
 
Perun said:
In Buchanan's defence, he thought or hoped he could avert the Civil War.
Click to expand...
And in being wrong, he lengthened the war and increased its human cost astronomically. The South had determined on a path to absolute satisfaction or war a long time before.
 
LooseCannon said:
And in being wrong, he lengthened the war and increased its human cost astronomically. The South had determined on a path to absolute satisfaction or war a long time before.
Click to expand...

True, but I guess the question is whether Buchanan should be vilified because of his failure to prevent war or to adequately prepare for it. I'm leaning towards the former, if only because he did the American thing and be optimistic that the worst could still be averted. Granted, it doesn't make him a better president, but it may help to understand his failure better.
 
I don't think he was a bad person, to be fair. I think he tried everything he thought possible to avoid war, almost like a Neville Chamberlain. Should we vilify such honest efforts? No, we pity those who tried so hard and who failed so miserably. The problem is it takes two to make peace, and they never really had that two. Since the Compromise of 1850 the South was spoiling to fight - and the North was getting more and more tired of caving to Southern demands.
 
Buchanan was also limited by lack of imagination, after all. He lived in the period of time where the US presidency was at its weakest, captivated by the demands of southern slaveowners and subservient to the requirements of industry in the North. Buchanan and his two predecessors shifted back and forth like a sail in a crosswind, unable to resist individual forces. It took someone who imagined a US with a stronger central government to force the presidency out of those doldrums and to ensure the unity of the Union. Someone who conceived of not only winning a civil war, but also using it as an engine of improving the USA. So many presidents, then and old, would have been happy beating the rebellion down. But it took Abraham Lincoln to realized that victory wasn't enough - that part of the ongoing quest of the USA should not only be for life, liberty, and happiness, but also for the common good. For a more perfect union.
 
To one extent, this race is not as interesting, because it is essentially over. But to another extent, this is one of the most frightening things I've ever seen. What if Trump calls on the masses to march on Nov 8?

Anyway.

New state polls put Clinton in striking distance in Utah and Alaska. Both states last voted for a Democrat candidate in 1964, when LBJ crushed Barry Goldwater by 23 points.
 
I could see Clinton narrowly pulling a win in Utah. Mitt Romney coming down hard against Trump is really going to hurt with the Mormons. Alaska I'm not sure about, don't know much about their demographics but Sarah Palin was their governor.

LooseCannon said:
To one extent, this race is not as interesting, because it is essentially over. But to another extent, this is one of the most frightening things I've ever seen. What if Trump calls on the masses to march on Nov 8?
Click to expand...
This has been my main concern for some time now. The election will be over but the Trump supporters won't go away, they'll just get angrier.

Slightly related, very interesting article about the son of the Stormfront creator who recently renounced the White Nationalist movement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html
 
Hillary has a shot in those states because 3rd parties are running well ... she is polling in the 30s (last I looked) .. she may win them in some 4 or 5 way split, but it would be a mistake to think there is any kind of political shift in either of those states.
 
bearfan said:
Hillary has a shot in those states because 3rd parties are running well
Click to expand...
This is especially true in Utah, where Evan McMullen is polling only a couple points back of Hillary.

bearfan said:
a mistake to think there is any kind of political shift in either of those states.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This is a reaction to the outrageousness of the GOP nominee, not anything else. Unless - and this is the rub - unless Trump-style nominees become the GOP norm for president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top