Dracula 发表于 2016-1-25 01:52
最近的消息，纽约的前市长Michael Bloomberg正在考虑是否作为independent candidate加入到总统竞选中。如果 ...
布隆伯格这两天似乎又没消息了{:200:}
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-1 21:42
Iowa的结果出来了。Cruz赢了，Trump输了，我的预测还是挺准的。
伯爵神机妙算！接下来你估计Ted Cruz会一路过关斩将，还是Donald Trump还是有机会？如果Cruz出线，最终Cruz对Clinton或者Cruz对Sanders你觉得机会怎么样？
晨枫 发表于 2016-2-2 13:11
伯爵神机妙算！接下来你估计Ted Cruz会一路过关斩将，还是Donald Trump还是有机会？如果Cruz出线，最终Cr ...
这次失利对Trump是不小的打击。他很重要的卖点之一就是他是个winner，做生意搞竞选都是赢，很对不少期待强人政治的共和党选民的胃口。现在这个光环被打破，而且Iowa的结果表明很可能民意调查对Trump的支持率有不小的夸大。1个星期后的New Hampshire他是否能赢我都有很大的疑问，尽管前几天New Hampshire的民调他还是领先很多。他就是勉强能赢下来的话，接下来的州主要是在南方，宗教右派的比例比较大，Ted Cruz会有优势。前两次共和党赢Iowa的候选人Mike Huckabee和Rick Santorum后来都输了，说Ted Cruz会过关斩将还为时尚早。但是如果Trump垮了的话，支持他的人大多数会转到Cruz那边，因此他的希望还是不小的。Establishment这边，Rubio昨天的表现非常好，他接下来要是能赢下New Hampshire的话，他会成为Establishment这边的代表，他和Cruz一对一对决的话，我会稍看好他。但是John Kasich最近在New Hampshire民调的表现很不错，超过Rubio的可能性挺大。Rubio下面的道路还是挺坎坷的。而Kasich要是能在New Hampshire表现很好的话，还是挺有希望的。
如果最后是Cruz对希拉里，Cruz的观点太右，我看好希拉里。如果是Cruz对Sanders，那么Bloomberg很可能会参选，Trump说不定会不甘心，可能也会以第三党身分参选。这样很有可能谁也拿不到Electoral College的多数，会由众议院决定总统是谁，11月大选结束后仍然会非常热闹。共和党很可能会在11月的大选中保持众议院的多数，但是Cruz在国会的人际关系那么不好，共和党的主流未必会支持他，可能会和民主党妥协选择Bloomberg。Bloomberg做生意，当纽约市市长表现都非常好，政治观点属于中间，稍微偏一点民主党，同我也挺合拍，他要是能改写历史，成为美国历史上第一个第三党当选的总统的话，对美国会是个很好的结果。
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-2 18:58
这次失利对Trump是不小的打击。他很重要的卖点之一就是他是个winner，做生意搞竞选都是赢，很对不少期待 ...
据说Iowa是党团选票为主，所以对川普不利？
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-2 04:58
这次失利对Trump是不小的打击。他很重要的卖点之一就是他是个winner，做生意搞竞选都是赢，很对不少期待 ...
伯爵可能以前介绍过，我漏过了，能不能再介绍一下：Ted Cruz和Mark Rubio的政纲到底是什么？还有Hillary Clinton的声音很大，但到现在我也没有弄明白她的政纲，能不能也介绍一下？简单地说，谁都在骂奥巴马，但他们要是上台，会怎么做，而不光是要做到这个那个？
晨枫 发表于 2016-2-2 22:26
伯爵可能以前介绍过，我漏过了，能不能再介绍一下：Ted Cruz和Mark Rubio的政纲到底是什么？还有Hillary...
Ted Cruz和Marco Rubio都属于相当保守的保守派。在2012年和2010年当选参议员的时候都属于Tea Party。Ted Cruz好像是过去4年所有参议员投票记录上最右的一个，Rubio比他稍主流一点，但也很保守。经济上他们都主张减税，缩减政府，反对Obamacare。区别是Ted Cruz更极端，反对任何的妥协，只要自己一方的要求得不到100%的满足，宁可让政府关门，以至于在债务上限问题上，美国国债default，引发整个全球经济崩溃他都不在乎。2013年的时候就是这样，即使他明知道Obama不可能在Obamacare的问题上让步，但就是要向保守党选民表明一个姿态，插手众议院，煽动众议院的Tea Party顽抗到底。去年年底，Paul Ryan担任众议院议长后，同Obama达成妥协，通过了联邦预算，高速公路等一系列法案。也遭到了Cruz的强烈攻击，认为是对保守派原则的背叛。Rubio同Cruz在实际立场上其实差别不大，但是在策略上不是那么极端。在移民问题上，Rubio是拉丁裔，在2012年当选后，加入Gang of Eight，提出法案，主张给予在美国的非法移民获得合法身份的途径。但是当他意识到共和党内，对非法移民越来越强的敌视情绪后，放弃这个法案，但是他在这个问题上摇摆不定的立场现在成为了共和党内攻击的把柄。Cruz也是拉丁裔，但是对共和党内风向的变动更敏锐，加入反移民的队伍要比Rubio早，在这个问题上占些优势。文化问题上，Cruz属于evangelicals宗教右派，反同性婚姻，反堕胎，反穆斯林，强调基督教信仰的重要性。Rubio是天主教徒，接近于Cruz的立场，但是不象他对这些问题那么强调。外交上两个人都猛烈攻击Obama在中东对伊朗，对ISIS太软弱，但也都是在嘴头上唱高调，提不出什么新的可行的解决问题的方法。Rubio进入参议院后专攻外交问题，在外交问题的知识上要比Cruz丰富不少，但我也没有看到什么特别的亮点。两个人都没有什么executive experience。我对Rubio没什么特别的好感，但还能接受。我个人的偏好上觉得希拉里能比他稍强些。General Election的话，我觉得他和希拉里对决的话，机会大致是一半一半。我对Cruz这个人极其反感，他很多问题上那么右的立场在General Election时会是个很大的累赘。和希拉里交锋我不看好他。
克林顿在90年代的时候的政策被称为第三条道路，属于民主党内的右派，尤其是1994年民主党输掉中期选举后，他的实际政策其实和共和党的温和派没有什么区别。属于business-friendly，支持自由贸易。90年代后期美国政府有很多财政盈余，他主张用这些钱降低国债，而不是增加新的福利项目。希拉里基本上继承了他的这些立场。但是民主党内在金融危机后大幅度向左转，Bernie Sanders出人意料的给了她不小的威胁。逼的她现在也向左转，口头上也反对华尔街，反对自由贸易，强调再分配，不过我觉得她真当选的话，选择的政策还是会比较温和，很可能还是会支持Obama政府的Trans-Pacific Partnership。在医疗改革问题上，Sanders主张建立英国加拿大式的single-payer，她则主张维持Obamacare的已有成果。就政治现实来说，她的策略是对的。而且Sanders在建立北欧式福利制度需要的巨大花费和增税问题上非常含糊，一笔带过，让我觉得他其实也很不诚实。其它在文化问题上，希拉里属于民主党的主流，主张禁枪，同性婚姻合法，堕胎合法，进行移民改革等。外交上希拉里从担任国务卿的时候就比Obama更接近于鹰派，在中东问题上更强硬。我的政治观点比希拉里要右一些，但是觉得她也可以接受。John Kasich，Jeb Bush，Michael Bloomberg我觉得比她强，但是和Cruz相比，她要好很多。
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-2 09:48
Ted Cruz和Marco Rubio都属于相当保守的保守派。在2012年和2010年当选参议员的时候都属于Tea Party。Ted...
那像Ted Cruz那么极端，对于他的政策主张的operability有什么设想吗？比如说，他当总统了，政府关门了，接下来怎么办？evengelical有missionary的倾向，他是不是会在国际上更加倾向干涉主义？另一方面，极端保守派有时也会退回到孤立主义，说不好。回到我以前提到的美国社会的政治分化，伯爵认为这言过其辞，从现在两党竞选的front runner来看，伯爵还是这样认为吗？
克林顿还能反对TPP？那是她一手推动的呀。现在美国的经济是大问题，还是老问题：下层人民无法从经济增长中得益，她有什么想法吗？Ted Cruz呢？
常挨揍 发表于 2016-2-1 23:30
布隆伯格这两天似乎又没消息了
本来就是放放风，看看有什么动静吧。
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-2 10:48
Ted Cruz和Marco Rubio都属于相当保守的保守派。在2012年和2010年当选参议员的时候都属于Tea Party。Ted...
我是坚决不看好希拉里。她这种选民咋说就怎么迎合，再配上邮件门，诚信上会被人攻击死。美国人对这点非常不能容忍。
Sanders 要是上台我看也是胡搞。北欧式福利做梦去吧。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-2-3 02:04 编辑
晨枫 发表于 2016-2-3 00:07
那像Ted Cruz那么极端，对于他的政策主张的operability有什么设想吗？比如说，他当总统了，政府关门了， ...
跟历史上其它时期相比，今天的美国社会还不是分化的很厉害。比如60年代末，各大校园几乎整天都在反战游行，同警察都发生流血冲突，100多个城市黑人爆发骚乱，犯罪率大幅度上升，国内各种左派右派的极端组织像Black Panther进行恐怖主义的活动，马丁路德金、Malcolm X、肯尼迪的弟弟司法部部长Robert Kennedy都是被暗杀，还有1968年民主党全国大会的混乱。今天美国国内要比那个时期稳定和谐的多。1972年大选民主党提名的是George McGovern和今天的Bernie Sanders差不多，在美国政治都是属于很左，而且不切实际。而现在Bernie Sanders尽管表现不错，赢得民主党提名的可能性还是很小。共和党一边我看好Ted Cruz，但是Establishment一边还是有相当的机会。因此同美国历史上其它时期相对比，我不觉得今天的情况很特别，不觉得美国是在衰落，对它的未来还是挺有信心的。
你提到的过去40年的技术进步对教育程度低人群的收入增长几乎没有什么帮助，导致美国贫富差距逐渐加大，这确实是一个问题，而且可以说几乎无解，最大的希望是未来的技术进步的性质或许会有不同，对unskilled workers会更有利。现在政府能做的，可能是增加一些福利措施，增加一点最低工资，将Trump和Sanders支持者的怨怒消减一些。
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-2 11:33
跟历史上其它时期相比，今天的美国社会还不是分化的很厉害。比如60年代末，各大校园几乎整天都在反战游行 ...
和60年代相比，社会分化或许并不严重，那也是美国历史上社会分化最严重的年代，南北战争时代除外。不过和80-90-00年代相比，现在的分化可以说更严重吗？
技术进步对unskilled worker恐怕不会有利，因为对unskilled worker有利的技术进步必定是门槛较低的，而门槛较低的就难以维持垄断或者独享的地位，必定导致竞争力迅速流失，因为别人也在做。增加福利只有在中产阶级社会才做得到，大头贡献、顺手拉动小头；如果阶层分化，要上层拉动中产加下层，上层就脚底抹油溜啦。最大的问题在于：Trump和Sanders的支持者的怨怒是self defeating，this is not people power, this is collective self destruction。
冰蚁 发表于 2016-2-3 01:01
我是坚决不看好希拉里。她这种选民咋说就怎么迎合，再配上邮件门，诚信上会被人攻击死。美国人对这点非常 ...
搞政治的都这样，都是选民咋说就怎么迎合。例外也有，像1964年的Barry Goldwater，到美国最贫困的Appalachia地区发表演说攻击约翰逊的war on poverty，在南方发表演说主张将在南方非常受欢迎的Tennessee Valley Authority私有化，到佛罗里达老年人集中的选区拉选票主张废除social security，到农业地区主张废除政府对农产品的价格保护。Goldwater确实是非常的authentic，那年的总统大选他也输的特别惨。我读的历史书讲到这一段的时候都怀疑他是不是脑子有问题。
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-2 12:33
跟历史上其它时期相比，今天的美国社会还不是分化的很厉害。比如60年代末，各大校园几乎整天都在反战游行 ...
技术进步不大可能对教育程度低的人有利。现在的经济政策讨论都开始正经讨论人工智能技术发展可能导致的工作流失问题。
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-2 12:44
搞政治的都这样，都是选民咋说就怎么迎合。例外也有，像1964年的Barry Goldwater，到美国最贫困的Appalac ...
单独这样迎合没事儿。就怕希拉里现在的这个邮件门。两个一起，我觉得对希拉里会产生放大效应，极其不利。
冰蚁 发表于 2016-2-2 09:47
单独这样迎合没事儿。就怕希拉里现在的这个邮件门。两个一起，我觉得对希拉里会产生放大效应，极其不利。 ...
对她这个人的观点本来就两极化，象苹果一样，果粉永远是果粉，果黑永远是果黑，基本上不因为什么事情改变，邮件门只不过让黑们更黑而已。只要最后不被刑事起诉，不会有太大影响。
黑天鹅事件是大选到一半的时候来个刑事起诉。
holycow 发表于 2016-2-2 13:03
对她这个人的观点本来就两极化，象苹果一样，果粉永远是果粉，果黑永远是果黑，基本上不因为什么事情改变 ...
两极的人不用考虑了。重点是民主党中间这拨人。不然如何解释 Sanders 这么异军突起的。Sanders 的主张其实和希拉里并没有太大不同，希拉里又这么会迎合改变的。
晨枫 发表于 2016-2-2 22:26
伯爵可能以前介绍过，我漏过了，能不能再介绍一下：Ted Cruz和Mark Rubio的政纲到底是什么？还有Hillary...
刚看到的
What sort of president might Ted Cruz make?
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21689978-iowa-what-sort-president-might-ted-cruz-make
OF THE top two Republicans in Iowa, one is a universally recognisable type. Short on policy, long on ego and bombast, promising to redeem a nation he disparages through the force of his will, Donald Trump’s strongman shtick is familiar from Buenos Aires to Rome, inflected though it is by reality TV and the property business. The other, Ted Cruz, champion of the caucuses, is the scion of a particular version of America and of a peculiar era in its history; a politician who repels or baffles many of his compatriots, even as others rally to his godly standard.
Superficially the senator from Texas is a classic overachiever, whose ability to surmount Himalayan obstacles—such as winning that office in his first-ever political race—bespeaks and fuels an adamantine self-confidence; the sort whose warp-speed ascent is powered by strenuous calculation and fearsome intelligence. Don Willett, a judge and long-term acquaintance, describes Mr Cruz as a “freakishly gifted” lawyer; watching him argue at the Supreme Court, during his stint as Texas’s solicitor-general, was “like watching Michael Jackson unveil the moonwalk”.
Like many modern politicians, if not Mr Trump, he is uncannily disciplined. On the trail he tells the same jokes, accompanied by the same gestures and self-satisfied chuckles, reproducing chunks of his book, “A Time for Truth”, verbatim. In good lawyerly fashion, he stretches the bounds of taste and honesty rather than blatantly violating them.
Yet for all these formulaic talents, in his outlook and appeal Mr Cruz is an idiosyncratic product of the convulsions that followed the financial crisis and Barack Obama’s election, and of his upbringing. Like many of his core beliefs, his evangelical faith—“To God be the glory”, began his victory speech in Iowa—came from his father Rafael, a Cuban refugee who fled to Texas, turned to drink, then found God and is now a zealous preacher. By all accounts, Mr Cruz’s Christianity is profound and sincere: Chip Roy, formerly his chief of staff, recalls visiting his condo to pick up his suit and spying a Bible and other devotional books at his bedside. It is audible in his cadences and susurrations, his frequent references to scripture, disgust at the Supreme Court’s defilements and injunctions to prayer: “Father God, please,” he asks supporters to murmur, “continue this spirt of revival, awaken the body of Christ.”
In Iowa, some were plainly impressed. “He’s a man of faith,” purred a cheering woman at a restaurant that poked from the snow of Manchester into the milky sky. Mr Cruz would be the most insistently religious Republican nominee in decades.
He would also be the most ardently devoted to the constitution, a fervour itself influenced by his creed—for him, as for the Founding Fathers, Americans’ rights are bestowed by God—and by his background. Before he fled Cuba, Rafael Cruz was tortured, which helps to explain why, for his son, freedom is always imperilled and government constantly on the verge of despotism. To hear him tell it, Obamacare is not just regrettable but tyrannical; gun controls are the high road to the gulag. That vigilance over liberty is widespread in Texas, where he spent most of his childhood (he was born in Canada, which Mr Trump says might disqualify him). He was among a group of teenagers who learned a mnemonic version of the constitution and regurgitated it at clubby lunches. Daniel Hodge, a former colleague and now the governor’s chief of staff, reckons Mr Cruz is a Texan “from his head to his boots”. His lucky pair are made of ostrich skin.
Defying Reagan
Calling him as a demagogue overlooks the authenticity of these convictions. Better to say that his beliefs, skilfully angled and promoted, have fortuitously chimed with the evolving mood of conservative voters, especially with the emergence of the Tea Party and the backlash against Mr Obama’s agenda and the bail-outs that followed the crash. The fights Mr Cruz picked as solicitor-general—for religious liberty, the death penalty and states’ rights, against abortion and gun control—both reflected his philosophy and set up his long-shot campaign for the Senate. (He is said to have relaxed by playing several chess games at once.) His hardline antics in Washington—most strikingly, his flamboyant effort to “defund” Obamacare, which helped to bring about a partial shutdown of the government in 2013—both served his instincts and laid the ground for a presidential run.
Critics say the Obamacare stunt tarnished the Republican brand, jeopardised America’s economy, and had just one beneficiary: Mr Cruz. Yet distancing himself from his fellow Republicans is as central to his pitch as excoriating Hillary Clinton. In his book Mr Cruz quotes Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” Despite Reagan’s status in his personal pantheon, alongside God and the constitution, he does not observe it. In 2013 he likened those who eschewed his kamikaze tactics to appeasers of Nazism; now, on the stump, he lambasts mainstream Republicans as corrupt and pusillanimous.
This push to portray himself as the lone ranger of true conservatism seems to be working. “Talk doesn’t do it for me,” said a man wearing an NRA jacket at Bogie’s Steak House in Albia, where, positioned beneath a stuffed deer, Mr Cruz made his usual, casually thuggish attack on the mainstream media: “You’ve got to look at what somebody’s done.” Not surprisingly, however, it has incurred a cost.
Politicians often get on better with the public than with people they actually know; to label one ambitious—especially a 45-year-old junior senator running for president—is tautological. But the antipathy inspired by Mr Cruz transcends the routine gripes. It has followed him through the litany of elite institutions in which, for all his digs at the establishment, he has spent his adult life: from Princeton, to Harvard Law School, to a clerkship on the Supreme Court and his bumptious spell on the campaign for George W. Bush in 2000. (His wife, whom he met on the campaign, is a managing director at Goldman Sachs.) He went back to Texas, later to criticise Mr Bush’s bloated conservatism, only after being passed over for jobs in the administration he felt he deserved. He became an outsider, at least rhetorically, after flopping as an insider. As both Bob Dole and Mr Trump recently put it, “Nobody likes him.”
In fact that isn’t altogether fair. David Panton, his room-mate at both Princeton and Harvard, describes him as “a loyal friend” and “extremely polite, kind, and respectful”. At least some of his former colleagues like as well as admire him, speaking fondly of his wit, impersonations of characters from “Scarface” and “The Princess Bride” and generosity to underlings. In Texas Mr Hodge remembers him as “the guy who came with his wife to my mother’s 60th birthday party”. But the damning judgment does seem to hold for one influential subset of Mr Cruz’s acquaintances: his Republican colleagues in the Senate. Not one has endorsed him.
Father, son and the ghost of holiness
As he must, Mr Cruz strives to make a virtue of this unpopularity. His strategy rests on mobilising alienated conservatives, in particular the millions of white evangelical Christians who, his team believes, can swing elections when they are galvanised to vote. Conversely his appeal to moderates is limited. He has had little to say to or about the poor, beyond his perpetual gratitude that, when his father was washing dishes for 50 cents an hour, no one helped him. His flagship economic policy is a regressive flat-rate income tax of 10%. Ethnic minorities, anyone concerned about climate change (which he denies) and non-Christians alarmed by his piety should also look elsewhere. Ditto homosexuals: “This shall not stand,” Mr Cruz declares of gay marriage. That grandiloquent but fuzzy pledge exemplifies his basic gambit: making impossible vows to disoriented voters which are all, at bottom, a promise to reverse history and revive a fairy-tale idea of America.
His game-plan may itself betray a form of cognitive dissonance—because, beyond Iowa and parts of the South, those elusive evangelical legions may not really exist. If the bet comes off, though, the rest of the world is in for a period of abrasive unilateralism. Mr Cruz demonstrates little more interest in foreign alliances than he does in domestic ones; the only foreign leader he namechecks approvingly is Binyamin Netanyahu. He evinces an unholy relish for “carpet-bombing” Islamic State and making the desert glow. Indeed, the violence of his language might interest a psychoanalyst. He says he would “rip to shreds” the nuclear deal with Iran; after introducing his flat tax, he would abolish the IRS, along with numerous other agencies. His insurgent approach to government mostly involves destroying things. He denounces Mr Trump as a man others in Washington can do business with, and, compared with Mr Cruz, he may well be.
One of the scriptural aphorisms Mr Cruz like to cite is “You shall know them by their fruits.” He deploys it to support the claim that he would conduct himself in the White House as he has in the Senate. His supporters believe that. “He’ll do what he says he’s going to do,” said a woman holding a baby and wearing a Cruz football shirt at a campaign event in Centerville. If so, the fruits of a Cruz presidency would be confrontation and rancour.
冰蚁 发表于 2016-2-2 10:10
两极的人不用考虑了。重点是民主党中间这拨人。不然如何解释 Sanders 这么异军突起的。Sanders 的主张其 ...
Sanders怎么算是民主党中间这拨人，他是很左的左派，现在民主党的构成是中间派缩小，左派势力增大，所以他才能得势，连带着希拉里也被迫左转
本帖最后由 冰蚁 于 2016-2-2 13:42 编辑
holycow 发表于 2016-2-2 13:25
Sanders怎么算是民主党中间这拨人，他是很左的左派，现在民主党的构成是中间派缩小，左派势力增大，所以 ...
我不是说 Sanders 是中间派。是想说选民的中间派可能不愿意投希拉里了。左派里也分的，比如温和的，极左的。Sanders 的极左背景不见得就讨人喜欢，甚至左派本身。所以嘛，我觉得民主党内对希拉里的厌恶情绪上升才是导致Sanders上升得那么快的主要原因。象奥巴马那时候击败希拉里，年轻人的选票拿到很多。这些人真能懂什么候选人的政策。奥巴马那会儿也没什么象样主张拿出手的，就靠“change, change”的迎合人心，选民看其顺眼，也就顺势上台了。所以我说 Sanders 这会儿也差不多。选民看希拉里不顺眼了，纵然不喜欢 Sanders，也会去投他。
冰蚁 发表于 2016-2-3 02:40
我不是说 Sanders 是中间派。是想说选民的中间派可能不愿意投希拉里了。左派里也分的，比如温和的，极左 ...
年轻人更容易被理想主义感染。Sanders主张大学免费，single payered health care 等社会主义主张更容易煽动起他们。另外希拉里的personal charisma确实不怎么样，尤其是比克林顿差多了。