February 2, 2016

Time for every GOP candidate who is not Cruz or Trump to endorse Rubio.

It's that simple.

ADDED: I said it back on June 10th:

178 comments:

SayAahh said...

Exactly!

tim in vermont said...

Yep.

mccullough said...

Jeb's still got some money to burn through and I think he'd endorse Hillary over Rubio

Tank said...

Rubio = Amnesty = the end of America.

It' that simple.

Lucid said...

That still won't get Hillary elected president.

EMD said...

Rubio will ultimately win the nomination, like it or not.

Fandor said...

The "cage match" is over. Time to"kill" the establishment candidate.

Roy Jacobsen said...

Show your work.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...for certain definitions of the term cruel neutrality.

Meade said...

Question is: Is Rubio enough? Old enough. Experienced enough. Enough of a winner.

Tank said...

A lot of Trump and Cruz supporters will not bother to vote for Rubio, the "End of America" candidate.

Q. said...

What about the ones who want to endorse Cruz (or Trump)?

DrSquid said...

How is it that simple? Why shouldn't all of those candidates endorse Cruz? I can think of a few answers, but then it's not so simple

Guildofcannonballs said...


If McConnell wins then all money and structural/logistical support will go to supporting establishment Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Chris Christie in 2016. Period.

Fred Rawlings said...

If Trump is out, a lot of people wont bother to vote...

Brando said...

I don't see why they would--if say Christie comes in second in NH, and Rubio tanks, he can make the argument that he and not Rubio should be the NT/NC (not-Trump/not-Cruz). Plus, as long as they have money coming in, asking any of these egotistical blowhards to drop out is never going to happen.

It's the donors that have to bail, and the campaign staffs to follow. When that happens, the field will winnow down.

Sebastian said...

Yes. But: not Rubio or Cruz. Instead: Rubio/Cruz. Works from most angles. Time for the GOP to unify.

garage mahal said...

Trump got schlonged. The oldsters like Rubio. Why?

Michael K said...

This fits what I understand as Rubio's long term plan.

Trump apparently was subdued last night. It will be interesting to see if he will modify his campaign style now.

I don't think it's over.

Big Mike said...

Carson's voters would help Rubio a lot, but Carson strikes me as being more inclined to endorse Trump than Rubio.

I understand that Jeb Bush flat out hates Rubio and has gone out of his way to pick a fight with him; Bush won't do a 180 and endorse a person he has been heavily trashing. I gather that Jeb's older brother has issues with Ted Cruz so here, too, I predict Jeb would be more likely to endorse Trump than either of the other two. Frankly I think Jeb will stay in way past the point where he's irrelevant. (I have an existence proof of this conjecture -- Jeb reached that point weeks ago.)

Rand Paul might engage in some horse-trading, but I expect his endorsement to eventually go to Cruz.

As for the rest, their support would help Rubio a little, but in my opinion not enough to put him ahead of Cruz. They have no delegates coming out of Iowa, and people who voted for them are more apt to make up their own mind about who to support once their favored candidate drops out.

Bottom line, if Rubio wants the nomination, he shouldn't count on endorsements from candidates who are dropping out. He has to go out and earn that nomination, and he's not starting from a good position.

Big Mike said...

And, Carly, you'd be a better choice for President than anybody else in the race but the lightening didn't strike and it's just not going to happen for you. I'm so sorry.

Brando said...

"Yes. But: not Rubio or Cruz. Instead: Rubio/Cruz. Works from most angles. Time for the GOP to unify."

I think Republicans are much better at hating each other than fighting the Democrats. By the time someone is nominated the Dem oppo jobs will have already been done for them.

Meantime, the Dems decide that genuine scandals are "off limits" and their debates are boring hug-fests. On one hand, the GOP gauntlet should toughen their candidates while the Dems remain untested; on the other, the work of trying to unify a fractious party limits your chances of reaching beyond your base to win the general election.

Brando said...

"Trump apparently was subdued last night. It will be interesting to see if he will modify his campaign style now."

I think we're going to see a lot of Trump-morphing over the next few months. We've seen a lot of that already.

"Bottom line, if Rubio wants the nomination, he shouldn't count on endorsements from candidates who are dropping out. He has to go out and earn that nomination, and he's not starting from a good position."

Endorsements won't mean much, but adding volunteers, donors and ultimately some voters (who seem to like Rubio as a second choice alternative) should be worth a bump. But I agree--he needs to be out there working the local crowds and firing up local volunteers. The key here is ground game, which is how Cruz won in Iowa and how the general election will be decided (it was worth a few points for Obama in '08 and '12). Rubio has been overly dependent on TV.

AReasonableMan said...

Rubio is a vote for the status quo, in the sense that cheap imported labor and trade deals that favor only a few will remain the main order of business. Because Althouse is tenured and doesn't produce anything that's not a problem from her perspective.

garage mahal said...

Could Rubio court Scott Walker's supporter? That would be huge.

Ann Althouse said...

There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position. We don't need excitement and we don't trust radicalism.

mtrobertslaw said...


Rubio has promised amnesty and then citizenship. Better yet, he wants a war with Iran. What a platform!

Lucid said...

ARM - I almost always disagree with what you say, but you are right about Rubio.

Senator Rubio could have had a great candidate, but he showed that he was a hack with the "Gang of 8" foolishness.

Bob Ellison said...

I heard Cindy passed a note to Mindy saying Rubio was a terrible kisser.

Ann Althouse said...

"There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position. We don't need excitement and we don't trust radicalism."

People like this would vote for Jeb or Kasich or Hillary or O'Malley.

Meade said...

Garage, what I want to know is what has happened to your excitement and energy for Hillary? Sander's supporters seem optimistic and buoyant. Hillary's supporters seem defensive and deflated. Where'd it go?

Ann Althouse said...

Rubio can plausibly satisfy voters like that. He's now the clear leader running in that lane for the GOP.

Meanwhile, in the Democratic race, you've just got 2 runners in separate lanes. Nothing to do there.

Amexpat said...

It's too early for the alternate mainstream candidates to pull out after just the Iowa caucus. After New Hampshire is where we'll see some drop out. Kasich has been polling well there, so he could be the big surprise. Christie needs to do well to justify staying in. Rand is justified staying in the race no matter what because he presents a principled and different view than the others. Jeb, however, would be little more than a petulant spoiler if he stays in after doing poorly in NH.

Peter said...

And Trump could still run as a third-party spoiler.

If anything's known about Trump it's that an agreement is never final if he thinks he can do better than whatever he previously agreed to.

Michael K said...

"Carly, you'd be a better choice for President than anybody else in the race"

I thought so and sent her money but she went PC on Muslim immigration and lost me. Too bad.

Trump is right on two big issues, illegal immigration and Muslim immigration. That's what drove his success. It's not enough, as we saw last night, but the issues are not gone. Rubio is weakest on them.

I still think Biden will find a way to get in, like Lautenberg did. Democrats don't care about rules unless Republicans are breaking them.

Tank said...

Hello, Iowa is a tiny non-representative slice of America. There is no reason for any candidate, other than an O'Malley or a Huck type with no chance, to drop out or endorse anyone else.

Rubio is for the End of America. Radical.

chickelit said...

It's still more important that Clinton loses than Trump wins. There's a downward, lazy place she leads to where only she remains on top.

Shouting Thomas said...

Amazingly, I agree with ARM. Althouse doesn't produce anything and she isn't ready to give up on the suicide ideology of feminism.

Pretending that she really once had a bitch is too comforting. It's a lifelong lie.

And, that means she can't give up the corrupt bigotry scam. Worked for her and her son, didn't it?

Bay Area Guy said...

@Tank

A lot of Trump and Cruz supporters will not bother to vote for Rubio, the "End of America" candidate.

Really? So, they will stay home and allow Hillary or Bernie to win, thereby getting the biggest Amnesty they've ever seen. Who are these fools?

Shouting Thomas said...

Rubio will deliver an amnesty, too.

He's no better.

traditionalguy said...

The rumors of Trump's demise are just rumors. NYC Values FTW.

Original Mike said...

"Who are these fools?"

Apparently Tank, for one.

MikeR said...

Only one I care about dropping out is Bush. And I don't even care about him, since no one votes for him anyhow. But his brain-dead Establishment supporters ought to drop out and transfer their support. He can stay in the race as long as he likes and the rest of us will just route around him.
Personally I'll be happy with a two-person race, Rubio and Cruz. The Establishment will (eventually) support Rubio, but I don't know that it matters any more who the Establishment supports.

Shouting Thomas said...

But you do realize, Althouse could just be telling us what the establishment Republican strategy will be, right?

A 3 way tie in a non-predictive state isn't the end for Trump. NH is the first real primary.

Brando said...

"Really? So, they will stay home and allow Hillary or Bernie to win, thereby getting the biggest Amnesty they've ever seen. Who are these fools?"

The same kind of people who see Rubio's flip-flop on one issue (that he at least seems chastened by) and consider it unforgivable, but consider Trump's repeated flip-flops on that same issue and dozens of others and consider this just a sign of his brilliant ability to get the best deal.

Roger Sweeny said...

I'm just glad that Cruz won while opposing ethanol subsidies. It was the right position to take and it required courage.

David said...

Pithy.

Bay Area Guy said...

Why are folks giving up on Cruz? He's gonna do well on Super Tuesday - the SEC primary. Texas, Alabama, Georgia - a buncha Southern States.

Rubio, on the hand, needs the South Carolina endorsements of Tim Scott and Trey Gowdy, to make a big dent there. Nikki Haley would be nice too.

Jo Thomas said...

I think they should endorse Cruz. At least he stands up for the Constitution even when he has to do it alone. Rubio shows he will go along with the establishment to gain power and lie to his constituents while doing it.

Original Mike said...

Brando said: "The same kind of people who see Rubio's flip-flop on one issue (that he at least seems chastened by) and consider it unforgivable, but consider Trump's repeated flip-flops on that same issue and dozens of others and consider this just a sign of his brilliant ability to get the best deal."

Yeah, I wish somebody would explain that to me.

garage mahal said...

"arage, what I want to know is what has happened to your excitement and energy for Hillary?"

I'm cruelly neutral this election. Hillary will win it all, nothing will change, and, in the end, we're all screwed. The GOP will just screw quicker.

Original Mike said...

"I'm just glad that Cruz won while opposing ethanol subsidies. It was the right position to take and it required courage."

Agreed.

Laslo Spatula said...

"There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position. We don't need excitement and we don't trust radicalism."

Undoubtedly.

I don't think you could find a government worker on any level who believes things need to change.

Me, I want rivers of blood.

I am Laslo.

Big Mike said...

The trick for the GOP is to have Hillary win the nomination with an undercurrent of "aw shit, it's her after all."

Paddy O said...

"If Trump is out, a lot of people wont bother to vote..."

If Trump is the candidate, a lot of people won't bother to vote...

Paddy O said...

"I'm just glad that Cruz won while opposing ethanol subsidies."

This is huge indeed. Cruz won while actually taking a real risk with his positions. Hard to see future candidates supporting ethanol no matter what happens. Trump showed his true self, not really principled on any other issue besides his self.

chickelit said...

Cruz has zero cross-over appeal while Rubio at least has some. I know it's important for some to elect ideologues, but there you go again.

Unknown said...

It is that simple. If you want the same old bait and switch that you have come to know and love.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Why?

wildswan said...

The majority who won or did well made a point of saying that the country is in a mess. But is it the billionaires or is it heavy handed Big Government enabling the billionaires? Anyhow I don't think it will be possible from now on for anyone to ignore the problems caused by the kind of recovery Obama has caused where even those who work mostly have low paying jobs and millions upon millions can't get jobs. Hillary is out because she is tied to the previous administration. That's her "experience" so she has to run on charm to win. I wish we were looking at Scott Walker and Carly Fiorina but we aren't. It will be a straight out debate of socialism vs. capitalism to solve the economy.

Racism, women, immigration I think will fall by the wayside. Hillary can't very well play the woman card with the Raptor in the background, the Republicans supported Hispanic and black candidates - the real issue became the best way out of Obama's rotten economy. More of the same or less is more?

Jeff Gee said...

"Not a lot of Twitter chatter about Jeb!'s speech but then the only one who could see it is Haley Joel Osment." --@StarkTTT

Carol said...

The oldsters like Rubio. Why?

The old love a nice young man who pays respect. The Establishment types know he's pliable and that they can surround him with their own when in office, as the Dems did with Obama.

No worries.

Tank said...

Bay Area Guy said...

@Tank

A lot of Trump and Cruz supporters will not bother to vote for Rubio, the "End of America" candidate.

Really? So, they will stay home and allow Hillary or Bernie to win, thereby getting the biggest Amnesty they've ever seen. Who are these fools?


People who are done making believe that the Reps and Dems are different. Hillary and Bernie are just a faster destruction. A lot of us are not voting for the lesser evil anymore. Evil is evil. Go ahead and vote for Rubio; I hope you'll apologize to your kids and grandkids for Ending America.

BDNYC said...

Whatever tension exists between Jeb and Rubio is nothing compared to how the Bush family feels about Trump and Cruz. Jeb will not play spoiler.

mccullough said...

The turnout for Republicans last night was a record. About 120,000 voted in Iowa Republican race in 2008 and 2012 and about 180,000 last night. Would be interesting to find out who the newer voters voted for.

Henry said...

ARM wrote: Rubio is a vote for the status quo, in the sense that cheap imported labor and trade deals that favor only a few will remain the main order of business.

That's an odd name to lead that sentence with. Starting with Reagan, the Republicans shifted from isolationism to free-trade internationalism, but it is Bill Clinton who really set our economic system in it's current trajectory. Almost everything we experience in 2016 is the result of Clinton's economic model -- a free-trade, high-stakes-growth-oriented rush to greater tax receipts.

Clinton succeeded because he believed in that model. He is probably the smartest president on economic issues that we've ever had. Free trade is seen as a categorical good in almost every viable economic theory. And free trade has benefited the global economy in ways that far exceed its costs (see Hans Rosling).

The boom-bust cycle that rides shotgun with Clinton's economy is more debatable. And, of course in the present, we have to deal with all the unforeseen consequences of even the measurably good policies.

damikesc said...

Jeb Bush is more damaging to the GOP than Trump.

There, I said it.

chickelit said...

Carolwrote:The old love a nice young man who pays respect. The Establishment types know he's pliable and that they can surround him with their own when in office, as the Dems did with Obama.

This is incisive. One sees it all the time in business, entertainment, academe --literally everywhere. Existing (established) frameworks simply insert a new "talent" into the key slot and voila, change without change!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Ann Althouse said...

There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position... People like this would vote for... or Hillary or...

Trusted?!?

Trusted to do what exactly?

Birkel said...

"There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position. We don't need excitement and we don't trust radicalism."

...says the woman who voted for Obama.

Perhaps we should just hire a placeholder for four years who can keep the country on track. You know, add 5 trillion in debt, add a bunch more regulations, negotiate some sweetheart insider deals and apologize for Iranian nukes.

That seems right, eh, Althouse?

BDNYC said...

Rubio is clearly the mainstream candidate with the most crossover appeal. He is electable.

Cruz is fairly consistent in his conservatism but he's an asshole. Independents and squishy moderates will not vote for him. Anti-Canadians will stay at home.

Trump is not a mainstream candidate, he's a populist. Like Ross Perot, he might win over some blue collar whites. But I think many reliably Republican voters will stay at home if he's the nominee.

Hagar said...

I don't think so, Professor. I would not spend a lot of money if I was a single digiter, but it's not time to choose a horse until after at least South Carolina.

And while Rubio indeed is a charming young man, he talks too much and too fast.

David Blaska said...

I like Ted Cruz but he’s too wet behind the ears. As was Barack Obama. People forget JFK had six years in the House of Reps and eight years in the U.S. Senate. And he still committed the Bay of Pigs, got rolled by Khruschev in Vienna. Rubio always runs hot, in the McLuhan sense. Paul Ryan is Mr. Cool under fire. Paul Ryan for President. (The preceding was a paid political advertisement from the Secret Koch Bros Worldwide Conspiracy, Raoul Koch, Treasurer.)

exhelodrvr1 said...

Tank,
"I hope you'll apologize to your kids and grandkids for Ending America."

So by your logic, will you be apologizing to your kids and grandkids for Ending America Sooner?"

Tank said...

No, they might as well get started on the new world.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...


Time for every GOP candidate who is not Cruz or Trump to endorse Rubio.

Time for folks who feel Government controls too much of their time and wealth to understand that:
..Bush, Christie, Kasich, and Santorum are career establishment politicians who clearly favor Big Government over personal liberty;
..Huckabee, Fiorina, and Santorum have some respect for economic Liberty but believe Government can and should control moral behavior;
..Dr. Carson, while doubtless an excellent surgeon, is as much a political cypher as The Donald.
..Rand Paul, the only guy in the batch who believes in both economic and social Liberty, is not realistically electable.

Cruz
..believes Government has grown too large and powerful in controlling the economic and social Liberties of the citizens;
..will unabashedly destroy Hillary and/or Bernie in a public forum.

Only question left to doubt is can Cruz overcome the Media.


Fabi said...

Althouse produces nothing? How vulgar.

Value is created when you enhance raw materials. When you enhance (add knowledge to) raw materials (her students) you've produced something (value) and fostered wealth.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Oh - left out Rubio. Put him in with the career politicians political elite crowd.

Henry said...

I dunno. Jeb and Christie still have the Guiliani strategy to fall back upon.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position.

Hillary is a corrupt, incompetent, lying, despicable human being. Other than that, she meets every requirement.

Tank said...

If the Vagina or the Angry Old White Man are elected, the Reps "might" oppose their attempts at amnesty.

If Rubio is elected, who will successfully oppose amnesty?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

That assumes those endorsements would help Rubio.

Brando said...

"If Rubio is elected, who will successfully oppose amnesty?"

Besides Rubio himself, who now opposes amnesty, just as Trump does? Or was only Trump's switch a genuine change of heart?

Or besides the GOP Congress which successfully opposed amnesty when Bush tried immigration reform ten years ago?

samanthasmom said...

I'm an unaffiliated voter. Neither party wins without a substantial number of us supporting them. While I vote consistently, I don't vote consistently for one party or the other. I have left the presidential box blank when I haven't been sufficiently satisfied with either candidate, but I've never stayed home. Rubio is the Republican Obama to me. Insufficiently prepared to be president and just as lazy. Refusing to vote for him does not equal voting for either Clinton or Sanders. It's just refusing to vote for him. While the results of the election will always be an "either/or", that's not the way it is for an individual voter. There's always a blank vote or a write in or two for "Mickey Mouse" out there. Give me someone to vote for instead of someone to vote against. Rubio, Clinton, Sanders are all unacceptable to me. It doesn't matter if one is less unacceptable than the others. Unacceptable is unacceptable.

Writ Small said...

The turnout for Republicans last night was a record. About 120,000 voted in Iowa Republican race in 2008 and 2012 and about 180,000 last night. Would be interesting to find out who the newer voters voted for.

I read the comment section on CNN yesterday afternoon about the flood of new Republicans registering last minute, many coming over from the Democrat side. The Trump supporters were certain this was all for their guy. I thought that could be it, too.

The final delegate count. though, suggests it was the anti-Trumps coming out. Trump's famous negatives may have had a late-breaking effect.

CStanley said...

I think for the most part, Iowa caucus goers agreed with this (thus Rubio's last minute comeback.)

AReasonableMan said...

Henry said...
it is Bill Clinton who really set our economic system in it's current trajectory. Almost everything we experience in 2016 is the result of Clinton's economic model -- a free-trade, high-stakes-growth-oriented rush to greater tax receipts.

He is probably the smartest president on economic issues that we've ever had.

Free trade is seen as a categorical good in almost every viable economic theory. ... we have to deal with all the unforeseen consequences of even the measurably good policies.


GDP and some elites benefit from free trade. But, you can't eat GDP or the fattened elites, at least for the moment. In the real world, for most US citizens, their wages have declined or remained unchanged, with the increases in productivity and GDP captured almost entirely by a small slice or the republic. It is delusional to characterize this as an 'unforeseen consequence'.

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
Althouse produces nothing? How vulgar.


The good news is that we now have a confirmed candidate for class suck-up. Who says politics doesn't change anything?

CEL said...

Only the most rabid Hillary supporters trust her. No one else.

Gahrie said...

How about Rubio backing Cruz to defeat trump?

Original Mike said...

"I read the comment section on CNN yesterday afternoon about the flood of new Republicans registering last minute, many coming over from the Democrat side. The Trump supporters were certain this was all for their guy. I thought that could be it, too."

It still could have been the case. Trump might have done worse without the cross-over vote. I have never understood how Trump could garner significant conservative support, given that he is not one himself. Maybe he doesn't.

Gahrie said...

Only the most rabid Hillary supporters trust her. No one else.

They don't either...they just don't care.

Gahrie said...

There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position. We don't need excitement and we don't trust radicalism.

Then how the Hell could you have voted for Obama the first time?

RLB_IV said...

Three coins in the fountain
Each one seeking nomination
Thrown by three hopeful candidates
Which one will the fountain bless?

Rubio, oddly enough.

Henry said...

GDP and some elites benefit from free trade. But, you can't eat GDP or the fattened elites, at least for the moment. In the real world, for most US citizens, their wages have declined or remained unchanged, with the increases in productivity and GDP captured almost entirely by a small slice or the republic. It is delusional to characterize this as an 'unforeseen consequence'.

For unforeseen consequences I was thinking in less binary terms. Free trade arguably creates different winners and losers than "elites" and "most US citizens." There's some good discussion about labor displacement going on at the moment. Megan McArdle summarizes one study here. But blaming free trade ignores the role of automation in that displacement. In addition, the talking point on "declining or unchanged wages" (true!) ignores the statistics on total compensation which are far less amenable to a talking point. Here is a chart that supports your point, but read the text:

This data excludes healthcare and other benefits. If you factor those in these numbers go up dramatically. Benefits were about 5% of compensation in 1950 and are now about 20% of compensation — but that's overall compensation as defined by GDP. For those in the middle class, some estimate that benefits are 31% of compensation.[5][7] Thus the total compensation, including healthcare and other benefits would be about 50% higher than wages alone, which would dramatically increase wage growth over this time period.

And you elided my callout to Hans Rosling. There are huge improvements to the health and wealth of the global poor in the same time frame as the Davos free trade economy. Take a look here. Bonus: Look at which city contains your elites.

jr565 said...

Tank wrote:
Rubio = Amnesty = the end of America.

Even if he is for it, he has republicans in congress to keep him honest. The president is not the CEO who just gets stuff done. Its congress that proposes the laws. If Repubs keep congress and dont want amnesty they dont introduce any bills that do that. But they introduce bills that, say, build the wall.
Rubio has said nothing until a wall is built. It will take a while to build a wall. Maybe longer than Rubio's 1st term. So, lets not get too worried over Rubio's stance.
He was trying to do the "reach across the aisle" thing and get a bipartisan bill passed. in retrospect that was a mistake. But if he is the one pushing the agenda it would probably look different than Obama's push for immigration.

eric said...

Unless you're a Trump and Cruz fan. In that case, Rubio, Jeb, Kasich and all others need to start viciously attacking each other in order to take Rubios spot.

eric said...

Blogger jr565 said...
Tank wrote:
Rubio = Amnesty = the end of America.

Even if he is for it, he has republicans in congress to keep him honest.


I hope this was meant to be funny.

Republicans in Congress want Amnesty as badly as Democrats do.

Tank said...

Gahrie said...

There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position. We don't need excitement and we don't trust radicalism.

Then how the Hell could you have voted for Obama the first time?


John McCain?

eric said...

Blogger Tank said...
If the Vagina or the Angry Old White Man are elected, the Reps "might" oppose their attempts at amnesty.

If Rubio is elected, who will successfully oppose amnesty?


It's worse than that. If Rubio is elected, the meme will be that Republicans don't have a problem with Amnesty. That he was elected because Republicans want to legalize (but not give Citizenship to) all the illegals here.

Just listen to Michael Medved for an hour. Amnesty Republicans will move immediately for comprehensive immigration reform the minute Rubio is elected and they'll talk about how tough it is, how they are hiring more border guards, etc.

It'll be worse than Obama, because at that point you'll have both parties working together to screw us all over.

Tank said...

Thank you Mr. eric.

jr565 said...

eric wrote:
I hope this was meant to be funny.

Republicans in Congress want Amnesty as badly as Democrats do.

Not true at all across the board (though true for individuals, certainly) But if that's true, how would a cruz or a Trump deal with immigration anyway?

The only sticking issue with immigration is the question of legalization and citizenshp In some regards, things like a guest worker program and E-Verify make sense. And you would need to have immigration reform that addresses that in a meaningful way. Bush was pushing that.
But the Gang of 8 was 8 people. A lot of repubs gave Rubio crap for being part of that 8. Cruz is not the only repub who's "good" on immigration. And when he was pushing his alternative, he too was discussing the nuances of immigration and touting these immigration reforms that fell short of legalizing all illegals.

AReasonableMan said...

Henry said...
There are huge improvements to the health and wealth of the global poor in the same time frame as the Davos free trade economy.


No one is disputing this, but it came at the expense of economic advancement for many US citizens. Ultimately US politicians should be acting in the broad interests of their US subjects (don't laugh). It is very hard to argue that this is currently true. Even your saint, Clinton, acknowledges this.

jr565 said...

eric wrote:
It's worse than that. If Rubio is elected, the meme will be that Republicans don't have a problem with Amnesty. That he was elected because Republicans want to legalize (but not give Citizenship to) all the illegals here.

A guest worker program wouldnt' legalize EVERYONE but it would legalize those who got a job, who were illegals. If they don't get citizenship I actually am quite ok with there being a legal process in place that determines whether they can work here. That allows us to not provide benefits and stuff to those who don't actually have the paperwork. And the govt could tell companies, only a percentage of your workforce can be guest workers, or they'd have to justify why they can't hire americans over illegals. If companies can't or wont abide by the law you could penalize companies. Having them have identification lets us know who they are. Its not ALL bad.
Its better than letting companies just hire illegals.

Oso Negro said...

I will be so pleased if Cruz secures the nomination, I will send a photo of myself in shorts to Meadehouse. You have been dissing him all along, Professor. Examine your biases.

jr565 said...

As Rand Paul says:
"I was there and I saw the debate. I saw Ted Cruz say, “we’ll take citizenship off the table, and then the bill will pass, and I’m for the bill.”

The bill would involve legalization. He can’t have it both ways. But what is particularly insulting, though, is that he is the king of saying, “you’re for amnesty.” Everybody’s for amnesty except for Ted Cruz.

But it’s a falseness, and that’s an authenticity problem — that everybody he knows is not as perfect as him because we’re all for amnesty. I was for legalization. I think, frankly, if you have border security, you can have legalization. So was Ted, but now he says it wasn’t so. That’s not true."

If you have a secure border you can have legalization. Not citizenship, necessarily, but certainly a guest worker program. That's legalization. Does Ted think the agriculture industry wouldn't need guest workers? Americans are not going to be picking lettuce for a couple of bucks an hour.

jr565 said...

If Rubio got the nom what if he picked Cruz as his VP? They can balance each other out on immigration.

Henry said...

Even your saint, Clinton, acknowledges this.

There's that name again.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Samantha,
"It doesn't matter if one is less unacceptable than the others."

So a pinhole in a tire is as bad as a blowout?

Brando said...

"Even if he is for it, he has republicans in congress to keep him honest."

Absolutely. Back in '05-'06, McCain, Bush and Co. tried doing comprehensive immigration reform and it went nowhere--and this was before "Trump made immigration an issue" (as his supporters claim). Why does anyone think Congress is going to bowl over now? They became more pro-amnesty in the past ten years?

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
There are a lot of people who just want a solid person who can be trusted in the position. We don't need excitement and we don't trust radicalism.

How far we've fallen when someone running on preserving our constitutional liberties is labeled a radical.

jr565 said...

"Rubio, Clinton, Sanders are all unacceptable to me. It doesn't matter if one is less unacceptable than the others. Unacceptable is unacceptable"

But those might just be the choices you are left with. If the choice is Trump (who I despise) versus Sanders, I'd have to go with Trump. Because my only other choice is Sanders. If I wrote in my ideal candidate, I'm still going to get Trump or Sanders.
Trump is a blowhard. Sanders is a socialist. i'd take the blowhard (though I'd certainly hold my nose)
Hopefully he gets knocked out before then, and that's what the primary is for.
But less unacceptable is better than unacceptable.

Kansas City said...

Endorsing Rubio would mean sacrificing self interest for the good of the party and presumably the country. Top tier politicians almost never sacrifice their own best interests for any other cause.

Maybe Ford when he pardoned Nixon. Maybe Johnson when he decided not to run. Maybe George Bush I when he endorsed a tax increase. Maybe George Bush II when he rejected recommendations and authorized the surge in Iraq. Cannot think of others. It does not happen often.

Rusty said...

GDP and some elites benefit from free trade. But, you can't eat GDP or the fattened elites, at least for the moment. In the real world, for most US citizens, their wages have declined or remained unchanged, with the increases in productivity and GDP captured almost entirely by a small slice or the republic. It is delusional to characterize this as an 'unforeseen consequence'.

This from the guy who less than a year ago touted how great the economy is doing. Welcome aboard.
BTW. It isn't free trade that killed the economy.
cheers

Anglelyne said...

eric: It's worse than that. If Rubio is elected, the meme will be that Republicans don't have a problem with Amnesty. That he was elected because Republicans want to legalize (but not give Citizenship to) all the illegals here.

...Amnesty Republicans will move immediately for comprehensive immigration reform the minute Rubio is elected and they'll talk about how tough it is, how they are hiring more border guards, etc.

It'll be worse than Obama, because at that point you'll have both parties working together to screw us all over.


Bingo. Well, they're always working together to screw us over, it's just that sometimes the 'pubs are forced to pretend that they're in opposition, which slows things down slightly.

Rubio's nomination would be a screaming yeeeeeeeee-hah! to Washington, signaling that the big scare they had about immigration restriction this election cycle is no longer a threat. They can be confident that the public will roll over, and that they can do whatever they damned well please. And what pleases both branches of our one party system is continued high-level uncontrolled illegal immigration, and massively ramped-up legal immigration.

dreams said...

Rubio has been the choice of the establishment from the get-go. Why? Because he is a conventional bland slick talking JFK like pretty boy politician. He hasn't any executive experience and the first thing he did after getting elected Senator was to jump into bed with the despicable and habitual liar Chuck Schumer.

Anglelyne said...

Brando to jr565: "Even if he is for it, he has republicans in congress to keep him honest."

Absolutely. Back in '05-'06, McCain, Bush and Co. tried doing comprehensive immigration reform and it went nowhere...


Still peddling this delusional bullshit, I see.

Uh, McCain, Bush, and Co. are Republicans. The only thing that kept "comprehensive immigration reform" from going anywhere was the massive public rage-dump that put the fear of God in electorally vulnerable Republicans. The idea that any but a handful of Republicans (like Sessions) wouldn't love to be able to get away with "reform" is laughable.

...and this was before "Trump made immigration an issue" (as his supporters claim).

His supporters are correct about this. The other candidates and their donors would rather it all went away.

Why does anyone think Congress is going to bowl over now? They became more pro-amnesty in the past ten years?

Pro-amnesty then, pro-amnesty now, and they'll bowl over as soon as they think they can safely get away with it. Like when they get the green light from a Rubio nomination/election.

cubanbob said...

@henry the positions you credit to Bill Clinton were actually passed by de facto President Newt Gingrich when de jure President Bill Clinton was handed vet proof legislation.

Brando said...

"Uh, McCain, Bush, and Co. are Republicans. The only thing that kept "comprehensive immigration reform" from going anywhere was the massive public rage-dump that put the fear of God in electorally vulnerable Republicans. The idea that any but a handful of Republicans (like Sessions) wouldn't love to be able to get away with "reform" is laughable."

This makes no sense at all. If a majority of Republicans (not just Bush, McCain, etc.) favored amnesty, and the public outcry got them to dump the issue, then why do you think that's not likely to happen again? Your theory is self-defeating.

Ok, maybe you think they all secretly want amnesty, tried to pull one over on honest patriots like yourself, but were stopped by a public outcry (pre-Trump, yes, but hey let's not let facts get in the way of your anger) and would love to try again under President Rubio who learned nothing from his amnesty defeat. But why would this second group of 2017 Republicans be less likely to listen to the public outcry--especially now that Trump is in the picture?

dreams said...

Thew best thing about Iowa is that there was a strong Republican turnout which bodes well for Republicans in the general election.

jr565 said...

anglelyne wrote:
Uh, McCain, Bush, and Co. are Republicans. The only thing that kept "comprehensive immigration reform" from going anywhere was the massive public rage-dump that put the fear of God in electorally vulnerable Republicans. The idea that any but a handful of Republicans (like Sessions) wouldn't love to be able to get away with "reform" is laughable

And what makes you think that woudlnt' be in play if Rubio decided to go full amnesty? Repubs who went on board wouldn't face the rage dump and be vulnerable to lose their jobs?
The other point though is that neither Trump or Cruz are actually that different when you get past their talking points. So, if anything, their supporters would have even more Rage directed at them when they reveal that their position isn't quite as hard line as they are PRETENDING it is now. The worst thing for a Trumpbot would be if he actually won. Because then the Trumpbots are going to howl "I voted for THIS?"
Same with Cruz. He pretends like his pushing of an alternative to the gang of 8 proposal was a poison pill, but that is bull sh*t. He was on tv touting his alternative which, while not legalizing everyone was humane, and allowed guest workers to work here. If that was a poison pill then he deliberately lied about his stance in the news and on tv and actually made his alternative modest proposal seem like the reasonable one. If it was bull, then he was saying "here's the reasonable proposal. I'm not actually for it." What person would get on tv and say they are not reasonable on an issue, if they are offering THAT position as the reasonable position.
Rand Paul rightly called him out on his hypocricy.


cubanbob said...

jr565 said...
If Rubio got the nom what if he picked Cruz as his VP? They can balance each other out on immigration.

2/2/16, 11:03 AM"

Two Cubans in the executive branch? I never thought there would be a noche buena in the White House.

Anyway back to reality, Cruz is off putting. No doubt brilliant and possibly a bit arrogant but of all the Republicans despite his faults he is the closest to a conservative small government candidate that has a chance of winning. People here keep saying he has no crossover appeal, perhaps that is true but then again neither does Hillary and Cruz unlike Clinton doesn't have felony issues to deal with.

2016:
Cruz For President
Hillary For Prison

The bumper stickers write themselves.

Henry said...

@cubanbob -- NAFTA was initiated by George H.W. Bush. But Clinton was a huge advocate for the bill and an articulate defender of free trade as a U.S. priority, particularly in contrast to the labor wing of his own party.

Clinton also brought Robert Rubin into his administration and eventually named him Treasury Secretary. The three-headed dog of Rubin, Greenspan, and Lawrence Summers refined a monetary policy of low-interest rates, high growth, and global financial interventions. Thus was laid the groundwork for the boom-bust cycle of the last 20 years and the reliance on bailouts and debt transfer as a way to manage crises.

I have no problem giving Clinton a lot of credit for global economic growth over the last 20 years. I also have no problem with assigning him most of the blame for the NASDAQ and Bank crashes of the George W Bush administration. Wage stagnation and underemployment in the U.S. invoked by ARM (weirdly with Rubio as scapegoat) surely has been fed by these policies as well, though China trade is a lot more pertinent than Canadian and Mexican trade.

Clearly we can spread the credit and blame around, but Clinton is notable both as an advocate for the global economic system and as a historical pivot, the man whose administration tailored many of the policies that has driven boom and bust since.

Brando said...

"The worst thing for a Trumpbot would be if he actually won. Because then the Trumpbots are going to howl "I voted for THIS?""

This is the only part of your post I have to disagree with, because a Trumpite has the benefit of never having to consider facts. If Trump won, and granted immediate amnesty, they would convince themselves it wasn't really amnesty and that he was playing three dimensional chess.

Sort of reminds me how some Obama fans (like Andrew Sullivan) used to argue that no matter what Obama did, it was a sign of his brilliance, that he was playing a game way beyond all of us. Trump supporters seem to go that way too--he can deny facts and backtrack on any position and it's all good. Do you really think if he got elected and broke his promises they'd even face that reality?

Remember, people like Angylene believe that Trump is the one who made immigration an issue, and in the same post points out the rage-dump from ten years ago that stopped the GOP from giving everyone amnesty (even though Trump was chastising Romney for being hard on illegal immigrants as recently as 2012). We are talking about people beyond the reach of reason.

jr565 said...

Here's Mickey Kaus on Cruz:
http://www.kausfiles.com/2015/05/21/cruz-and-amnesty-round-ii-the-telltale-video/

Kaus, you'll know is actually a dem who is very anti illegal immigration:

He asks " Did Ted Cruz support an immigration solution that involved legalizing the 11 million or so illegals now in the U.S.? He then goes to a video of Cruz saying the following:

"And I’d like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system, and in particular about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows. If this amendment is adopted to the current bill the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.** They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed under the terms of the bill they would be eligible for LPR status as well, so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principle objective — to provide a legal status for those who are here illlegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen …

And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view if this committee rejects this amendment, and I think everyone here views it as quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment, in my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representantives. I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass, and so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together and this amendment — I believe if this amendment were to pass the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically, and so I would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment. …"

That was not a poison pill when he was addressing the advocacy groups talking about his own compromise. Unless he was completely lying to them about his intentions.
interesting to note how he would phrase his solution as the common sensical approach where people of good faith can come together around and find consensus, and which does what all common sensical people of good faith wants. But yet he's actually opposed to it.
So then, are these not the principles that people of good faith can find consensus on? Then why did he suggest that they were?
Purely as a rhetorical argument his position here makes literally no sense if he's saying its' really a poison pill.
The actual truth is he was offering his solution as a middle ground position. And shifted to be 100% opposed to amnesty when it became more popular to do so.

Fabi said...

I'm cruelly neutral when it comes to adding value and creating wealth, ARM. I'll always support those who engage in that behavior and occasionally defend them from a baseless attack.

damikesc said...

Endorsing Rubio would mean sacrificing self interest for the good of the party and presumably the country. Top tier politicians almost never sacrifice their own best interests for any other cause.

Maybe Ford when he pardoned Nixon. Maybe Johnson when he decided not to run. Maybe George Bush I when he endorsed a tax increase.


KC, what happened to Bush I (the Dems lambasted him for doing what they wanted) is why that kind of thing isn't done.

Fabi said...

The neutrality aspect meaning regardless of profession or blog hosting credentials.

dreams said...

Another good thing about Iowa was that Cruz won while opposing Iowa’s sacrosanct ethanol. Cruz has shown principled political courage unlike the establishment and some well respected bloggers who favor the conventional Rubio even though he has already proven that he can't be trusted.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

"Cruz won while opposing Iowa’s sacrosanct ethanol. "

It's not quite that simple.

He wants to stop what he says is the EPA's "blend wall," which has kept the amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline below 10 percent.

The blend wall is "keeping ethanol from expanding its markets," as it has done overseas, Cruz said.

The EPA had delayed the targets for how much biofuel should go into gasoline because of opposition from the petroleum industry. But in November, President Obama ordered refiners to mix 14.5 billion gallons of ethanol into gasoline, bringing the amount above the 10 percent threshold.


That's not exactly opposing ethanol. It's promising more ethanol. He is opposing subsidy so that is a plus.

Lydia said...

Anyone who thinks Senator "Praise God, Let's Carpet-Bomb Them into Oblivion" Cruz has cross-over appeal is delusional.

dreams said...

Yeah, I saw the video of Cruz and the farmer but given the reaction of the Iowa Governor I still think Cruz took a principled position though I haven't it followed it closely.

tim in vermont said...

Rubio is a vote for the status quo, in the sense that cheap imported labor and trade deals that favor only a few will remain the main order of business. Because Althouse is tenured and doesn't produce anything that's not a problem from her perspective. - ARM

Who'd a thunk ARM could be so ... racist.

tim in vermont said...

Anyone who thinks Senator "Praise God, Let's Carpet-Bomb Them into Oblivion" Cruz has cross-over appeal is delusional.

"We came, we saw, he died." - Hillary Clinton

And she said that about an invasion that unleashed the current waves of refugees on Europe.

Gahrie said...

John McCain?

As bad a candidate, and frankly senator, McCain was, there is no way he could have been this disastrous and unconstitutional as Obama. He was clearly the lesser of two evils.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kansas City said...

damikesc,

Yes, one way doing something against your self interests and in the country's best interests hurts you is the opposing party will use it against if they can. That is why it is against your self interest, such as the Ford pardon of Nixon.

So, yes, that is why they don't do it. My point is they don't do it because they are interested only in themselves. Thus, a Jeb Bush will not give up his candidacy to help the country and his party. He will give up only when he concludes he has no chance, at which time giving up really is in his self interest.

Michael said...

Those of us who made it through the great recession with capital have done very well. There are huge segments of the population, the middle class in particular, that are still hanging on by their teeth. The average liquidity of the average American does not allow for a broken down car at the same time as a big co-pay. Disaster looms over them in a very real and immediate sense. Every day we read about new "regulations" that are descending on us, regulations that appear out of thin air and all of them designed to make it difficult to start a business, to navigate life. Once again it is the economy stupid. There are tens of millions of unemployed. Growth last Quarter was marginal. The Dems are blind to these realities and believe the fuzzy rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street crowd can be translated into policy that will matter. It won't. They can't.

It is worth listening to Rubio's speech last evening. He could make a good, even great, President for us. His "purity" on immigration is questionable but in the end no candidate is going to toss out 12 million illegals; not Trump, not anybody. There will be an accommodation.

AReasonableMan said...

tim in vermont said...
Who'd a thunk ARM could be so


So you are arguing that the status quo is racist? How progressive of you.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Someone may have already mentioned this but I heard Rush, about an hour ago, defend Rubio against charges that Rubio is "establishment." He said he considered Rubio to be really close to Cruz on policy and, although he didn't completely absolve Rubio from the Gang of Eight immigration incident, he hinted that Rubio might have had good reasons for going along with that. (He pulled back from going into detail but I think Rush probably would have said that Rubio may have thought immigration reform was inevitable and he was in there trying to shape it in the most conservative way he could, under the circumstances.) I didn't hear the whole segment but I thought to myself that he might have just elected Rubio.

Rush went on to say that there were three Reaganesque guys who did well last night and that this was a great sign for things to come. I'm assuming he was including Trump with Cruz and Rubio.

Rush also said that the establishment people may latch on to Rubio as the better choice of the remaining viable contenders but that doesn't mean Rubio is an establishment candidate. Lesser of evils for establishment politicos, now that Bush, Kasich, and Christie appear to be out of it.

AReasonableMan said...

Henry said...
invoked by ARM (weirdly with Rubio as scapegoat)


This is somewhat stupid. Noting that he would be a reliable guardian of the status quo is hardly scapegoating. I notice that you failed to provide any argument that he would be anything other than a reliable guardian.

Original Mike said...

Brando said: "even though Trump was chastising Romney for being hard on illegal immigrants as recently as 2012"

Any rebuttal from the pro-Trump crowd?

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
I'm cruelly neutral when it comes to adding value and creating wealth


I am guessing that your job involves making useless predictions, either financial advisor or gypsy palm reader. Adding value to hot air.

Original Mike said...

"This from the guy who less than a year ago touted how great the economy is doing."

That line of BS is no longer useful.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
That line of BS is no longer useful.


This is a bit whiny. The economy is going unbelievably well compared with the end of the Bush Jr presidency and has outperformed our economic peers for years now. What it is not doing is fairly sharing the fruits of that success, but this problem predates Obama. I realize complex issues with multiple facets are difficult for you guys to get your head around but not everything can be summarized in a few talking points gleaned from eGOP Central.

Original Mike said...

Worst economic recovery in US. history.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
Worst economic recovery in US. history.


Talking point from eGOP Central. Longest postwar period without a recession. Unemployment levels below 5%. It is easy to cherry pick. What is important is relative performance and on this measure the US is outperforming its peers.

jr565 said...

ARM wrote:
Talking point from eGOP Central. Longest postwar period without a recession. Unemployment levels below 5%. It is easy to cherry pick. What is important is relative performance and on this measure the US is outperforming its peers.

As you say, its' easy to cherry pick. And the unemployment rate is not really below 5%. For any critiques of this economy just listen to Bernie sanders. He'll put you straight.

jr565 said...

What is the growth rate? Its pretty anemic at 2% or so.

Original Mike said...

Careful, jr. You'll have an ARM can't-stop-posting nervous breakdown on your conscience.

averagejoe said...

Rubio is utter garbage. A liar and a phony. A sleazy, oily worm. I wouldn't turn my back on that rat. The republican Obama. How the hell can people listen to the words and speeches of liars like Bill Clinton, Barry Obama, and Marco Rubio and not see how insincere and false they are?

AReasonableMan said...

Let's listen to one of Obama's harshest critics Ross Douthat:

"The economic picture is better than it was in 2012, when Republican primary voters settled for Mitt Romney and an incumbent president was re-elected pretty easily. (In both Iowa and New Hampshire, the unemployment rate is currently under 4 percent.) The foreign policy picture is grim in certain ways, but America isn’t trapped in a casualty-heavy quagmire the way we were in 2004, when Democratic voters played it safe with John Kerry and George W. Bush won re-election.

As Michael Grunwald argued recently in Politico, the worst-case scenarios of the post-Great Recession era haven’t materialized. Obamacare is limping along without an imminent death spiral, and health care costs aren’t rising as fast as feared. The deficit has fallen a bit, and inflation is extraordinarily low. The stock market is wobbly, but we haven’t had a double-dip recession.

On the cultural front, out-of-wedlock births are no longer rising. Abortion rates have fallen. Illegal immigration rates are down.

The state of the union isn’t all that one might hope, but it could clearly be a whole lot worse."

It was in fact a lot worse under Bush Jr. We aren't living in lotus land but we aren't doing all that badly either. I would add that income inequality is a persistent problem that suppresses growth and Obama has found no way to improve that particular problem.

Balfegor said...

I honestly don't understand how Rubio is seen as a credible candidate for the Presidency. I guess I haven't adapted to the post-Obama era where the only qualification needed for the presidency is a bit of the gift of the gab. But really, what on Earth makes people think Rubio would be a competent president? That he is articulate and defends Republican policy positions effectively on the television? So could hundreds of 20 year-old university sophomores -- that's what debate clubs are for.

It would be one thing if he were a Goldwater-esque (or Sanders-esque, or Cruz-esque) ideologue, where of course he hasn't ever done anything but talk -- no one in power would have trusted him with major responsibility because they disagree -- but his ideology is what the base wants. But Rubio is basically in the same camp as people like Bush III or Christie -- centre-right, moderate, generally unexciting . . . the sort of people who used to have to demonstrate their ability to get things done in a half-way competent matter before people started bandying their name about for the most powerful executive office in the world.

Establishment Republicans need to think very carefully before endorsing Rubio -- it would be a sign to all of us that they don't really care about responsibility and governance and the upholding of confidence. They'd become just another faction who care about winning and nothing else, and they'll figure out how to pick up the pieces of their victory afterwards. And to their credit, I think they have worried hard about whether Rubio would be able to govern effectively. I imagine that's why so many major players in the Republican party have conspicuously held back from endorsing Rubio even if -- from a purely electoral perspective -- he looks like he has the best chance of winning. He's hilariously unqualified for the office he seeks.

He'll probably win in a landslide.

AReasonableMan said...

Balfegor said...
Establishment Republicans need to think very carefully before endorsing Rubio -- it would be a sign to all of us that they don't really care about responsibility and governance and the upholding of confidence.


You don't think that ship has already sailed? Do you recall McCain and Palin? Selected during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Completely unserious.

jr565 said...

ARM Obama had almost 8 years, and he cant get about a low 2% growth rate? And you want to say its a good economy?

AReasonableMan said...

The prevailing conditions are clearly fairly unfavorable for economic growth, the BRICS are tanking and the Euro zone is in permanent recession. If you listen to anyone who knows what they are talking about, not eGOP mouthpieces, the general consensus is that the US is performing better than its peers. That has not always been the case in the past. Growth rates are dependent on a lot of things besides presidential policies, which probably don't even make it into the top 10 major factors affecting growth. Remember all the handwringing about Obama's energy policies, you can't give oil away now. Either the handwringing was BS or the effect of those policies was minor.

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: Time for every GOP candidate who is not Cruz or Trump to endorse Rubio.
It's that simple.


Well, it can't be that simple or it would have happened in big way already. I think Rubio is the most electable of them all, but this election obviously isn't about electability on either side -- witness Hillary Clinton's undead viability. This election is about partisan purity!

Partisan purity, puritan parties, expunge the impure! Reinheit ├╝ber alles!

Michael Fitzgerald said...

LMAO @ Althouse again: What has Rubio done except lie and flip-flop on the signature issue that he ran on?

chickelit said...

ARM wrote: Growth rates are dependent on a lot of things besides presidential policies, which probably don't even make it into the top 10 major factors affecting growth.

One direct result is the labor inefficiencies caused by the affordable care act. For example, in retail, companies switched from having a few full-time workers to armies of part-timers. This was done to avoid healthcare obligations mandated by 40+ hour workweeks. Managements assuaged what little guilt they felt by pointing out that workers had access to Obamacare. What they never point out is that the subsidies they used to provide to full-timers were just subsumed into profit in a one-off windfall. Now that this has been normalized into the bottom lines, a reversal is impossible without a one time "reverse" windfall.

Part-time labor is subject to much higher turnover and the consequent inefficiencies of constant training.

Fabi said...

I guess you were so anxious to be snarky that you missed my 12:25 clarification, didn't you, ARM?

AReasonableMan said...

chickelit said...
Part-time labor is subject to much higher turnover and the consequent inefficiencies of constant training.


I heard this discussed on 'Marketplace' yesterday. The market forces that you bring up are making them reconsider their policy.

Henry said...

ARM, you've just used your last 10 comments or so defending the status quo that Rubio supposedly represents. If you have an actual position besides reflexive spin, you might want to clarify it.

The joke about criticizing Rubio as a status quo candidate is that the one candidate that is explicitly running on the status quo, Obamanomics now and forever, is Clinton.

AReasonableMan said...

Henry said...
ARM, you've just used your last 10 comments or so defending the status quo that Rubio supposedly represents.


Not exactly. In retrospect, knowing what we know now, Obama's failure to directly address the causes of increasing income inequality within the US during his first term represents a lost opportunity. Frustration over this is the basis for Bernie's campaign and to some degree Trump's. This failure was more understandable at the time since the economy was such a basket case with the hangover of the property bubble bust that no one wanted to rock the boat any more than necessary. In his second term he hasn't been able to do much of anything with respect to economic policy, the Republican congress likes things just the way they are, record corporate profits and flat wages. Rubio would maintain that course. I would guess that economically there would be very little difference between Rubio and second term Obama. 'Replace and repeal' Obamacare is called rebranding in the retail industry.

mccullough said...

ARM,

Obama is a free trade supporter (TPP) and amnesty supporter. Neither of these positions favors working class citizens.

Obama is in favor of redistributing wealth to these folks whose jobs are displaced by globalism, illegal immigration and H1B visas (as well as those whose jobs are displaced by technology). He thinks it's fine if the rich get rich through cronyism and political connections, as well as through more honorable means, as long as the rich pay more in taxes to help everyone else. It's an interesting view that might become the standard political position in 20 years.

The GOP view is that globalism and technology are great and that the working class should just work three jobs or start their own businesses and pull themselves up by the bootstraps like W and Jeb did and that even though the employment participation rate is at an all time low that's just because taxes on the rich are too high and Obama's policies have hurt the economy. They, like the Dems, also lik cronyism and making wealth through political connections because neither they nor their family members could ever get wealthy otherwise since they don't have any skills other than influence peddling.

The more populist view is that free trade has benefitted the rich almost exclusively and that the working class, while having access to cheaper foods and cheaper goods, have shit jobs or stagnant wages and are worse off than they were 30 years ago. They hate globalism and want good jobs here and not handouts from the rich, who call them bitter clingers but are happy to send working class kids off to die in the Middle East and other shitholes while the wealthy send their kids to Ivy League schools to study gender bending nonsense.



Birkel said...

Income inequality:

If the lowest worth someone can have is zero, and it is, and the highest is unbounded, then a world of increasing wealth will see income inequality increase. That is a mathematical certainty.

The only way to make it false is to decrease the expansion of wealth at the top.

Thus, "A Reasonable Man" suggests we implement socialist policies to impoverish Americans.

mccullough said...

We already have some socialist policies in the US. No candidate is proposing to repeal Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANG, SNAP, Section 8, etc. Some candidates are proposing to repeal Obamacare (but not Medicare Part D), some are proposing to maintain/tweak Obamacare, and some are proposing to expand Obamacare into a European type single payer.


chickelit said...

Birkel said...
Income inequality:

If the lowest worth someone can have is zero, and it is, and the highest is unbounded, then a world of increasing wealth will see income inequality increase. That is a mathematical certainty.

The only way to make it false is to decrease the expansion of wealth at the top.


I used to believe all that too, birkel -- to the extreme of writing a "parable" supported by a Boltzmann-like distribution of wealth see for example here. The Boltzmann analogy even predicts a narrower distribution of wealth in "cooler" economies.

The problem, birkel, is that people don't like being reduced to mathematical probabilities, and people vote. People don't like seeing delegates awarded based on probabilities like coin tosses.

chickelit said...

The caveat at the end of my link is a most important one: individuals in such a model must be free to exchange energy: a rich person must be free to become poor and vice versa. This is perhaps why we resent seeing intergenerational wealth transfer: it doesn't seem random at all that two or three generations of Bushes or Clintons can be rich and entitled. It looks contrived.

chickelit said...

mccullough wrote (in part)...and pull themselves up by the bootstraps like W and Jeb did...

I hope you meant that partly in jest. I've seen wealthy families work that way: Jr. goes off on his own and his net worth seemingly goes to zero. The family likes it because Jr. looks like he "made it on his own." But upon closer look, you see how the advantages creep back in, little by little, slowly and surely.

cyrus83 said...

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. Perry, Walker, and Jindal were the only serious candidates sensible enough to figure out it just wasn't their year and get out before the voting started (Graham and Pataki I don't think ever had serious candidacies). I think either one of those three would have been a fine choice, and the ability to check the ego is ironically a bit of confirmation of that idea. Unfortunately, none of them ever got going.

While 12 people contesting the primary isn't a bad thing in itself, at least half the people running should have seen the writing on the wall by now...particularly Jim Gilmore, who might have a record for lowest vote total ever received by an official candidate in any presidential primary poll (12 when I looked - soundly beaten by the "other" category).

Paul is stubborn like his father and will likely stay in it as long as he can to prove some point or other, and I suspect Bush will also stay in because of pride. Their egos just won't let them admit the game is up and move on. If Santorum and Gilmore don't quit this week, I seriously think they've lost touch with reality. The others might need the New Hampshire results to see the light.

Personally I'm fine with either Cruz or Rubio. I can understand Rubio's appeal to the middle, but to be honest, if the Democrats can only come up with an unabashed socialist and someone who, along with her entire inner circle, doesn't take national security seriously, I would almost rather go for broke on Cruz. The time to nominate someone closer to the ideological base is when the public either can't stand the other party's incumbent president and/or clearly finds the incumbent party's ticket distasteful - i.e. Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008.

chickelit said...

If Santorum and Gilmore don't quit this week, I seriously think they've lost touch with reality.

It just occurred to me that they may be dependent on donations for sustenance. Jeb! may be the same. What will Jeb! do with his life he fails here?

Put yourself in poor Jeb's shoes.

mccullough said...

Jeb made $22 million over the last 9 years as a consultant to companies like Bank of America and Deutsche Bank.

He still knows a lot of people and so will be able to make a lot of money consulting for big companies much like Hillary can continue to make big money consulting for large companies. Just like John Boehner and Harry Reid will make big money consulting for large companies. And Bob Dole. Etc.

For guys like Santorum, running for President probably helps keep his name going in the relevant circles so that he can consult for large companies.



AReasonableMan said...

mccullough said...
the working class, while having access to cheaper foods and cheaper goods, have shit jobs or stagnant wages and are worse off than they were 30 years ago.


Which brings us back to my original point, you can't eat GDP. By focusing solely on growth we ignore the sacrifices in quality of life that are required to maintain that growth. A rebalancing in priorities is required.

Rusty said...


Talking point from eGOP Central. Longest postwar period without a recession.


Psst. Don't look now.

Without the fed feeding the market there'd be no "growth" at all. As it stands it is simply trading dollars, (taking them out of one pocket and putting them in the other.), in the hope that someone innovates and adds their own. When no wealth is being created no real economic growth occurs. Calling welfare payments growth is just stupid.

AReasonableMan said...

Rusty said...
Calling welfare payments growth is just stupid.


Since you are the only person doing this I am going to agree with you wholeheartedly.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
Calling welfare payments growth is just stupid.

Since you are the only person doing this I am going to agree with you wholeheartedly.


Just repeating what democrats have said.

Chinas economy is tanking. ACA is tanking. Record levelo of people not looking for jobs. Low economic growth rate.
Yep. Everything is peachy. If you have a public sector job, eh ARM.

Rusty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.