设为首页收藏本站

爱吱声

 找回密码
 注册
搜索
楼主: Dracula
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[时事热点] 美国总统候选人简评

  [复制链接]
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    21#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-2 11:42:27 | 显示全部楼层
    Dracula 发表于 2016-1-21 14:26
    对Trump持负面看法的比例就是在共和党内都很高,在independent里更是远超过对他持正面看法的比例。Trump ...

    Iowa的结果出来了。Cruz赢了,Trump输了,我的预测还是挺准的。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    22#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-2 18:58:47 | 显示全部楼层
    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。

    评分

    参与人数 3爱元 +10 收起 理由
    Pipilu + 2
    tanis + 2 精彩
    煮酒正熟 + 6 谢谢!有你,爱坛更精彩

    查看全部评分

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    23#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-2 23:48:24 | 显示全部楼层
    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。

    评分

    参与人数 6爱元 +36 收起 理由
    Pipilu + 2
    holycow + 8 谢谢分享
    tanis + 2 谢谢分享
    冰蚁 + 10 谢谢分享
    煮酒正熟 + 6

    查看全部评分

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    24#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-3 01:33:07 | 显示全部楼层
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    25#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-3 01:44:56 | 显示全部楼层
    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。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    26#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-3 02:15:15 | 显示全部楼层
    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/un ... 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.

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    27#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-3 02:51:41 | 显示全部楼层
    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。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    28#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-20 06:13:45 | 显示全部楼层
    刚看到的挺有意思的一篇文章

    Donald Trump, Class Warrior

    By Clive Crook

    http://bloombergview.com/article ... trump-class-warrior

    Charles Murray's recent article for the Wall Street Journal on "Trump's America" offers an interesting explanation of an initially inexplicable phenomenon. I think Murray's right to see support for Trump as an act of protest that's both understandable and even, on its own terms, rational.

    The piece discusses economic pressures and cultural strains across the United States. The economic factor is familiar, but the salience of class and culture, which Murray emphasizes, is too little appreciated.

    Even putting race to one side, America was never the classless society it has imagined itself to be. But tribute is still paid to the idea, and this has obscured the role of class in this strange election. Murray writes about a new merit-based upper class, comprising talented people, educated and socialized at college, and doing pretty well. They have a good opinion of themselves.

    Another characteristic of the new upper class -- and something new under the American sun -- is their easy acceptance of being members of an upper class and their condescension toward ordinary Americans. Try using "redneck" in a conversation with your highly educated friends and see if it triggers any of the nervousness that accompanies other ethnic slurs. Refer to "flyover country" and consider the implications when no one asks, "What does that mean?" Or I can send you to chat with a friend in Washington, D.C., who bought a weekend place in West Virginia. He will tell you about the contempt for his new neighbors that he has encountered in the elite precincts of the nation’s capital.


    That friend would be me. Allow me to elaborate.

    I'm a British immigrant, and grew up in a northern English working-class town. Taking my regional accent to Oxford University and then the British civil service, I learned a certain amount about my own class consciousness and other people's snobbery. But in London or Oxford from the 1970s onwards I never witnessed the naked disdain for the working class that much of America's metropolitan elite finds permissible in 2016.  

    When my wife and I bought some land in West Virginia and built a house there, many friends in Washington asked why we would ever do that. Jokes about guns, banjo music, in-breeding, people without teeth and so forth often followed. These Washington friends, in case you were wondering, are good people. They'd be offended by crass, cruel jokes about any other group. They deplore prejudice and keep an eye out for unconscious bias. More than a few object to the term, "illegal immigrant." Yet somehow they feel the white working class has it coming.

    My neighbors in West Virginia are good people too. Hard to believe, since some work outside and not all have degrees, but trust me on this. They're aware of how they're seen by the upper orders. They understand the prevailing view that they're bigots, too stupid to know what's good for them, and they see that this contempt is reserved especially for them. The ones I know don't seem all that angry or bitter -- they find it funny more than infuriating -- but they sure don't like being looked down on.

    Many of them are Trump supporters.

    Granting the appeal of the straight-talking outsider, one still must ask, why Trump? I mean, he doesn't actually talk straight: In his own inimitable way, he panders like a pro. Shouldn't it matter to someone who usually votes Republican that Trump isn't a conservative -- that, in policy terms, he isn't really anything? He's a liar and proud of it, transparently cynical and will say whatever comes into his head. How could anybody trust this man?

    Yet, contrary to reports, the Trump supporters I'm talking about aren't fools. They aren't racists either. They don't think much would change one way or the other if Trump were elected. The political system has failed them so badly that they think it can't be repaired and little's at stake. The election therefore reduces to an opportunity to express disgust. And that's where Trump's defects come in: They're what make him such an effective messenger.

    The fact that he's outrageous is essential. (Ask yourself, what would he be without his outrageousness? Take that away and nothing remains.) Trump delights mainly in offending the people who think they're superior -- the people who radiate contempt for his supporters. The more he offends the superior people, the more his supporters like it. Trump wages war on political correctness. Political correctness requires more than ordinary courtesy: It's a ritual, like knowing which fork to use, by which superior people recognize each other.

    This isn't the whole explanation of Trumpism, by any means, but I think it's part of the explanation. Supporting Trump is an act of class protest -- not just over hard economic times, the effect of immigration on wages or the depredations of Wall Street, but also, and perhaps most of all, over lack of respect. That's something no American, with or without a college degree, will stand for.


  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    29#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-20 12:25:13 | 显示全部楼层
    holycow 发表于 2016-2-20 08:22
    按照常理,川普上次辩论已经被打爆了。但是现在谁也不敢说他真的被打爆了 ...

    Trump现在又和教皇开上了战。昨天用的词是disgraceful。今天可能回过味来,意识到和教皇对骂可能不明智,要丢不少选票,用词缓和了很多。Trump骂起人来没有顾忌,脑子想到什么就说出来这一点,他的支持者可能喜欢。对我来说要是他当上总统主持外交事务的时候,就他这一点,我都觉得很可怕。

    点评

    有话直说,其实中国政府暗地是喜欢的,玻璃心的穆斯林不喜欢。  发表于 2016-2-24 21:23
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    30#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-21 16:22:51 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-2-21 16:43 编辑
    南京老萝卜 发表于 2016-2-21 13:12
    小布什下架了。伯爵能说说,他这个“孙权”为啥当不成么?他这种貌似主流的要想上位,必须怎么办?

    谁能 ...


    今年是anti-establishment 年,民主党共和党都是这样。Jeb Bush的父亲哥哥都是总统,算是establishment最典型的代表,今年确实不是他的时候。他也没能争取到共和党的Establishment 团结到自己周围。要是Establishment很早的时候就一致支持他的话,John Kasich很可能就不会参选,New Hampshire的时候Jeb 可能会升到第二,他的momentum会有不少的变化,结果也未可知。他本人的charisma 也确实不怎么样。前几天他的哥哥George W. 为他拉选票。我看了不少报道,印象都是George W. 在这方面比Jeb 强的太多,一下子就能让选民感到亲近,和选民建立一种联系。如果今年是George W. 选的话,能比他强很多

    另外Jeb Bush好像是所有选举人里,竞选经费筹措的最多的。他的superpac 就筹了超过1亿美元,最近一个月在电视广告上特别能花钱。这一次却输的这么惨。而领先的Donald Trump却几乎没花过多少钱。金钱对选举的作用是被大大夸大了。

    Jeb Bush下去的话,受益者应该是Rubio。接下来会是Trump, Cruz, Rubio 3人争夺。谁都拿不到多数的可能性挺大。说不定真得到7月份Cleveland共和党全国代表大会的时候才能决定共和党候选人,这会是现代美国历史上,自采用primary制度后的第一次。那两天电视直播的收视率会非常高。如果这真发生的话,共和党候选人是谁都有可能,比如有些地方提到众议院议长Paul Ryan的名字。

    民主党方面,在Nevada的选举,希拉里得到76%黑人的选票,对比一下,8年前Obama也不过只得到83%。黑人是民主党政治联盟的重要组成部分,这么高的支持率应该能保证希拉里顺利在党内选举中获胜。希拉里这个人我没有好感,但她的立场属于中间偏左,能力上也还行,我觉得比Trump, Cruz和Rubio都强。她我还能接受。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    31#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-23 23:11:22 | 显示全部楼层
    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

    Marco Rubio: full-blooded conservatism with a smile

    To some the Republicans’ best hope is a shallow opportunist; to others, an extremist. Might Marco Rubio be both?

    http://www.economist.com/news/un ... ers-extremist-might



    HIS father Mario, a struggling bartender; Oriales, a hotel maid and devoted mother; Pedro, his garrulous, cigar-smoking grandfather, known to the grandchildren as Papá; an elder brother, also Mario, who became a Green Beret: the supporting cast in Marco Rubio’s back-story is a technicolour pageant of striving Cuban immigrants turned patriotic Americans. If Mr Rubio somehow manages to seize the Republican nomination from Donald Trump—a feat that, after his second-place finish in South Carolina, he seems best-placed to achieve—Americans will hear his story often. But what, exactly, is its moral?

    In Mr Rubio’s telling, his biography is a fable of America, which “changed the history of my family”. In no other country could someone who, as a child, was taken by his father to ogle the dreamlike mansions of the rich, rise to the Senate, and possibly beyond. It follows that America must not forsake its rugged individualism: “We don’t want to become like the rest of the world,” Mr Rubio insists, delighting his many fellow exceptionalists.

    It is also, of course, a story about Mr Rubio’s own exceptionalism—as some voters, knowing American meritocracy is often more promise than reality, intuitively understand. “It’s really cool,” said a young man cradling a baby after a rally in Rock Hill, South Carolina, “that he could navigate through all these obstacles—it wasn’t just handed to him on a silver platter”. The contrast with some other candidates, privileged in money, schooling or connections, is plain. As for his difficulties with mortgage payments and ill-advised property dealings, which some have used against him: Mr Rubio adduces them, like his student debt and rueful talk of post-dating cheques in pinched times, as yet more evidence that he alone can “talk to people who are living the way I grew up”.

    With its hardscrabble, everyman beginning, the tale also has a gratifyingly upbeat pay-off, featuring a photogenic family—his student-sweetheart wife is a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader—as well as success. And, as no other candidate could, Mr Rubio recounts all this as insinuatingly as a Hollywood weepie. Were he not a politician, it has been said, he could have been a televangelist; he might also have made it as a stand-up comic. His scripted jokes are actually funny, and, contrary to the impression created by his robotronic malfunction in the Republican debate in New Hampshire, he ad-libs with an easy charm. He can explain complex subjects, such as the national debt, persuasively. He banters about hip-hop.

    These attributes bolster his claim that, in a field of Republican gargoyles, he is likeliest to prevail in November. Yet the longer he remains in the race, the louder two key criticisms will become. They seem contradictory, but both contain elements of truth. One is that, beneath the altar-boy haircut, winning smile, chirpy voice, football talk, jokes and jokes about football, Mr Rubio is as ideologically extreme as anyone in the contest. The other is that the feel-good narrative masks a void.

    The pollster in the sky

    “Marco Rubio,” Jeb Bush once said, “makes me cry”, a remark that would have been prophetic had he not added “for joy”. Mr Bush was Florida’s governor during Mr Rubio’s lightning rise through its house of representatives, which took him, in short order, from whip, to majority leader, to become, aged 34 (he is now 44), its first Cuban-American speaker. Alongside the portraits of his grizzlier predecessors that hang in the capitol in Tallahassee, his is startlingly boyish. Mr Bush presented him with a sword, symbolising conservatism; at least, that is what it symbolised then.

    Strikingly, in the tussle that ended with Mr Bush’s withdrawal on February 20th—a face-off that, in a saner primary season, might have been the headline drama—most of Florida’s Republican establishment lined up behind the former governor. “They all went one in one direction like fish in a tank,” says Johnnie Byrd, a previous Florida speaker and among the minority who favoured Mr Rubio. Gratitude for Mr Bush’s patronage helps explain why the “Jebbies” picked him; some may just have jumped too early. But the preference also reflects a sense, even among the operators in Tallahassee, that the younger man’s breakneck ambition was offputting. Dwelling on opinion polls, fundraising, the mechanics of the game, Mr Rubio’s memoir, “An American Son”, reinforces the image of a pure politician. “Did God read polls?” he asks when, during his long-shot bid for the Senate in 2010, his wife tells him to trust the Almighty.

    Both the resentment, and the air of weightless ambition, have been reinforced by his luck. For if Mr Rubio could not rely on a parental Rolodex, as he puts it, his career has been blessed in other ways: seats opening up at serendipitous moments, money and well-paid jobs magically materialising. Norman Braman, a Miami car-dealing tycoon, took a lucrative shine to him, donating generously and employing his wife. Not long after he secured the Florida speakership, Mr Rubio landed a $300,000-a-year post at a politically connected legal firm (he once specialised in land-use law). Some of his jobs were not terribly demanding, suggesting, to his critics, a pattern of absenteeism stretching to his poor attendance record in the Senate.

    “He’s just like Barack Obama”, worried a woman in Florence, where Tim Scott, a South Carolinian senator, whooped Mr Rubio onto the stage like a boxing announcer. The implicit concern is that he has more offices to his name than achievements, or, some say, principles. They point, above all, to his gymnastics over immigration: running for the Senate, he opposed a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, then embraced it as part of a doomed reform in 2013; now, in the xenophobic heat of the campaign, he downplays that idea, arguing that terrorism has upended even unrelated aspects of his policy. (This revision could forfeit some of the Hispanic votes that Republican apparatchiks covet—though given the tensions between Hispanic communities, confidence that he would deliver them might be naive.)

    Still, anyone who thinks Mr Rubio entirely devoid of convictions should watch his farewell speech in Tallahassee in 2008. “God is real,” Mr Rubio passionately declared: “He loves you...whether you are an embryo or behind bars.” God’s providence, and Mr Rubio’s gratitude for it, often feature in his story. His faith is longstanding: as a boy, he would don a sheet after mass and pretend to be a priest. (It is also ecumenical: in Miami, he attends both Catholic and Baptist churches, and during a childhood spell in Las Vegas went to a Mormon one.)

    And for all his pole-climbing, his philosophy has been consistent. A better reading of his flip-flop-flip on immigration may be that his liberal stance was an anomaly. His tougher line today—no Syrian refugees; fewer family-reunion visas—fits into an ultra-conservative outlook that his story has sometimes camouflaged.

    Smile and smile and be a Tea Partier

    A standard critique of Republican strategy is that it exploits social issues to divide and distract groups whose economic interests lie in more redistributive government. Mr Rubio’s tactic, alleges an old adversary from his days in Florida politics, is to “use [his background] as a shield to push forward his agenda”. Or, as Mr Rubio writes in his memoir of Barack Obama: “his personality and language gave an impression of moderation, but his ideas and voting record” revealed a zealot.

    Take his avowed commitment to helping the little guy. He acknowledges the alienation some members of minorities feel, drawing on his own experiences in cosmopolitan Miami. He speaks warmly of early intervention for disadvantaged toddlers, and of leniency towards mildly straying youngsters. He can be insightful about America’s precarious place in a globalised, post-industrial economy. But when it comes to taxation, his priorities lie elsewhere. One of his favourite lines is that the poor are not made richer by making the rich poorer. Under his plans there is no fear of that: his proposal to scrap taxes on capital-gains and dividends would instead make the rich richer.

    The exigencies of the primaries have sharpened Mr Rubio’s tone. But, in content, he is a veteran hardliner. Dan Gelber, formerly the Democratic minority leader in the Florida house, calls him “the best spokesman that the severe right-wing could ever hope for” (adding that he “was never dishonest or disreputable”). Indeed, while Mr Rubio is more clubbable than his fire-breathing rival Ted Cruz—witness his ongoing stream of endorsements from congressmen and governors—he and Mr Cruz, another Cuban immigrant’s son and devout first-term senator, have more in common than either cares to admit.

    For example, though Mr Rubio doesn’t deny climate change, as Mr Cruz does, he says, in effect, that America shouldn’t do much about it. He claims gun controls fail wherever they are tried. Like Mr Cruz he wants to abolish the department of education; ditto, naturally, Obamacare. He opposes abortion unless the mother’s life is endangered. He wants the legalisation of gay marriage to be reversed.

    His upbringing shaped his global outlook as well as his morality. His focus on foreign affairs may partly be designed to imbue his youthfulness with gravitas. But it can also be traced to the seething entrepôt of Miami-Dade, which, quips Mr Gelber, may be the only county with a foreign policy. What he somewhat prematurely calls “the Rubio doctrine” reflects the congenital neoconservatism of many exiles: he may not be quite as hawkish as his revered Papá, who thought Margaret Thatcher should invade Argentina as well as the Falklands, but it is close. He says he would cancel the nuclear deal with Iran on his first day in office, and undo the normalisation of relations with Cuba. He wants to send American troops into Syria, and take on Bashar al-Assad and Islamic State at once. He threatens to pack off more terrorists to Guantánamo.

    The final chapter

    “Just because someone is wrong,” Mr Rubio says, “doesn’t mean they are bad”. Wrong is wrong, however, and, beyond the politesse, he shows little appetite for compromise on the neuralgic issues that will continue to divide America under its next president. That might hamstring him in the White House; more immediately, it might prevent him reaching it. His well-honed formula—robust conservatism with a smile—will attract some voters who share his instincts but are repelled by harsher rhetoric. Whether it can convert moderates in sufficient numbers is unclear.

    That is where the story comes in. “It makes him a whole person, a real person”, said a supporter in a barn in Gilbert, as the obligatory country music rolled. Transmuting astringent economics into compassion, promising tolerance without a cost, wreathing jeremiads in sunshine, the story might even do the trick. Mr Rubio’s inauguration is the climax its logic demands. In the end, its meaning is simple. The moral of the story is its teller, Marco Rubio.

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    32#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-2-25 00:58:00 | 显示全部楼层
    刚看到一篇挺有意思的关于superpac 的文章。

    Twilight of the Super PAC
    The campaign groups are enriching the people who run them—but are they helping anyone else?
    DAVID FRUM
    http://www.theatlantic.com/polit ... r-pacs-2016/470697/

    In his standard stump speech, Senator Bernie Sanders vows that millionaires and billionaires will no longer be able to buy elections if he wins the presidency. But what if the most venal corruptors of American democracy are not the buyers but the sellers—and their self-interested agents?

    Late Sunday night, CNN reported a remarkable allegation. An anonymous Jeb Bush bundler estimated that Mike Murphy, the director of Bush’s Right to Rise, had billed the super PAC $14 million for his services—more than 10 percent of all the super PAC’s revenues. Murphy fiercely disputed the claim, and the next day CNN updated the original post with additional information.

    As you read, ask yourself how you’d feel about this explanation if it were your donation at issue, especially the phrases I’ve bolded for emphasis:

    Charlie Spies, the attorney and treasurer for the Bush-allied super PAC Right to Rise, said the Bush bundler's characterization was wildly inaccurate.

    "That amount is wildly wrong, not even in the ballpark of what Mike's potential compensation could have been," said Spies. "We put vendor per vendor compensation caps in place to ensure that nobody made more than a certain amount of money. That amount is confidential, as is standard for most contracts; we have confidentiality provisions." Refuting the anonymous bundler's assertion, Spies added that "there is no way any so-called bundler would have any idea how much any vendor was making. The only people who would have any way of knowing that are the vendor themselves, myself as a treasurer and counselor, or our governance committee, which is a three person committee of senior donors and political leaders that was put in place to make sure that all compensation was reasonable and something donors would be comfortable with."


    In other words: “How dare you accuse us of wasting money! Because of our total non-transparency, there’s no way any of our supporters can know whether we’ve used their money wisely or not!”

    Super PACs are new phenomena in American politics. They are a product of two judicial decisions: the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, delivered in January 2010, and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, two months later. Together, these two decisions enabled the creation of a new entity: a political action committee that could accept unlimited donations so long as it did not coordinate its expenditure with any political campaign.

    Advocates of campaign-spending limits were left aghast. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama delivered a rare—perhaps unique—reprimand to the Supreme Court justices assembled in a row only a few yards away from him. “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.”

    And the spending came: hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of political spending, denominated in gifts in the millions and tens of millions and even hundreds of millions.

    But what did it all buy?

    In an interview on election night 2012, Chris Wallace challenged Karl Rove: “[American] Crossroads, which you helped found, spent—what?—$325 million, and we’ve ended up with the same president, the same Democratic majority in the Senate, and the same Republican majority in the House. Was it worth it?”

    Many donors expressed similar frustrations, in public and—even more forcefully—in private.

    American Crossroads would soon fade from the scene. Fundraising would decline to $100 million in 2014. In that year, Crossroads backed eight U.S. Senate candidates. Six lost. The two who won had received comparatively minuscule amounts, leading some to scoff that Crossroads had achieved a return on investment of only 1 percent.

    Along with the noisy grumbling about Crossroads’ effectiveness, more unnerving doubts were quietly expressed within the conservative world. Had the money all been spent on the intended purposes? Had too much been spent on salaries, fees, expenses, and other forms of personal inurement? Politico’s Ken Vogel reported these whisperings in his June 2014 book, Big Money—and predicted Crossroads’ likely demise. In the current cycle, Crossroads has only spent $116,495 to date, according to the tally kept by OpenSecrets.org.

    Disappointment did not, however, lead to disillusionment. After all, the super PAC connected to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign—Restore Our Future—had delivered powerful results. During the 2012 primary season, the ad barrage launched by Restore Our Future had crushed one Romney alternative after another. Restore Our Future saved the day during Romney’s moment of maximum danger: the 10 days between his 12-point defeat by Newt Gingrich in the January 22 South Carolina primary and his crushing 14.5-point victory in Florida on January 31. The Super PAC fired off $15.4 million on television and radio advertising in Florida, 92 percent of it negative. “Of all the spots that ran in Florida for the last week, 68 percent were attacks on Newt Gingrich,” The New York Times reported on primary day.

    It was this experience that convinced so many people, pundits and professionals alike, that Donald Trump could not win in 2016. Yes, he might start with a big bump of media attention. But that the decisive moment, the super PACs would open their guns upon him—and down he’d go.

    The 2016 super PACs certainly had the funds to do it! In addition to the nine-digit haul at Right to Rise, super PACs aligned with Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker all raised amounts somewhere between handsome and staggering. Yet in this Republican presidential contest, “never in the history of political campaigns has so much, bought so little, so fleetingly.”

    Or more exactly…

    Never has so much bought so little of what it was meant to buy. Obviously the funds expended on behalf of Jeb Bush have bought a great deal for a great many people. Even if the estimate of Mike Murphy’s take is overstated—or possibly confuses gross billings by his firm with net income to himself—the 2016 super PACs have provided princely incomes for their principals and comfortable livelihoods for hundreds more. The question that is bound to occur to super PAC donors is: “Are we being cheated?” Increasingly, super PACs look like the political world’s equivalent of hedge funds: institutions that charge vastly above-market fees to deliver sub-market returns.

    Disgust with the costly ineffectiveness of super PACs may explain one of the most important mysteries of the current phase of the 2016 campaign. We keep hearing that Marco Rubio has replaced Jeb Bush as the new darling of establishment Republicans. Yet Rubio’s fundraising has lagged. Rubio’s super PAC, Conservative Solutions, raised $14.4 million in the second half of 2015—the period in which Jeb Bush’s candidacy cratered. In January 2016, by which time Bush was plainly doomed, and Rubio cast by almost all reporters as theoretical front-runner, Conservative Solutions raised only $2.46 million.

    That’s not going to stop anybody, least of all Donald Trump, who not only leads nationwide, but (as of mid-January) is ahead by 26 points in Rubio’s must-win Florida.

    A long time ago, I wrote a history of the 1970s. One of its sub-themes was the emergence of the post-Watergate campaign-finance system. I was surprised to learn that some of the strongest proponents of limits on campaign donations were the donors themselves. Many had felt extorted by the 1972 Richard Nixon re-election campaign. That campaign had targeted executives in federally regulated industries, notably aviation, with a strong message of “Nice little price-regulated airline you have here, it would be a shame if the president’s appointees disapproved your requests for fare increases to keep pace with inflation.” The president of American Airlines was asked for gift equivalent to one-quarter of his annual salary. The squeeze was so tight that executives at many companies succumbed to the temptation to seek artful contrivances to reimburse themselves from the company treasury—a serious violation of the law. (18 corporations were successfully prosecuted for illegal donations to the Nixon campaign.) In testimony to Congress, corporate executives insisted that they would gratefully welcome a legal excuse to say “No” to political demands.

    And flashing forward in time, one has to wonder: How voluntary, really, were those gifts to Right to Rise? The campaign finance system is often described as organized bribery, but to many of those writing the checks, it must often feel like organized blackmail. How many would have appreciated some way to reply to the call from the Jeb Bush campaign: “Sure! Gladly! Love Jeb! Happy to give the legal maximum!”—in a world in which the legal maximum was $5,000 or $10,000 or $25,000. Like all human beings, multimillionaires have finite funds and infinite possibilities to expend those funds. Some must regard the local hospital or the homeless shelter or the city opera or their alma mater as more deserving causes than the ambitions of this politician or that. But the politician can retaliate, and the hospital, the homeless shelter, the opera, and the alma mater cannot. So it’s the politician who shoves his or her way to the head of the giving queue.

    But having shoved his or her way forward, how much does the politician truly benefit from the super-PAC system? The politician’s natural interest is to spend as little as possible on consultants’ fees. That’s not in the consultants’ interest, obviously. The effect of the super PAC system is to put the consultants, not the politicians, in charge of the largest pools of political money—and then to wrap those consultants’ takings in layer upon layer of non-transparency and non-accountability.

    In his final weeks as a candidate, Jeb Bush often pointed out that he was the one candidate most willing to tangle with Donald Trump. That was true of the words he spoke from his own mouth. But that’s not how his super PAC spent its money. “Trump has had few better allies than Right to Rise,” observed Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard. "Right to Rise, like an all-pro right guard, helped clear a path for Trump by blocking several of his would-be tacklers, in particular Marco Rubio.”

    Is this really what Jeb Bush would have wished? Is this what he’d wish now—now that Trump seems to be driving inexorably toward the nomination? Or is this a case of a staff on autopilot spending other people’s money to advance its own agenda—while taking a slice of every dollar for themselves as they did so?

    On the other hand, perhaps it is what Jeb Bush would wish. Perhaps Jeb Bush's resentment of Marco Rubio raged so intensely that he’d rather see his worst political enemy win the Republican nomination than his former political protégé. Perhaps Bush preferred to wreck his party to exact his revenge. In which case, all those lovely valedictories to Jeb Bush’s high character would seem radically misplaced.

    We’ll never know the truth, because the super PAC system insulates politicians from responsibility for the ugliest things their supporters do. After it’s all over, Jeb Bush will claim that it was not he personally, but a zombie super PAC beyond his control, that preferred Trump to Rubio. Don’t blame me, Jeb Bush will say—blame Murphy. And the Republican world will do it. The Republican world already is doing it. And isn’t taking the blame part of why they pay you the big bucks?

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    33#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-3-1 02:59:09 | 显示全部楼层
    刚看到的一篇文章。原文很长,我只贴过来开头的一小部分。

    The Die-Hard Republicans Who Say #NeverTrump

    By Megan McArdle

    Over the past week, as it’s begun to sink in that -- no foolin’ -- Donald Trump might really be the nominee, I began to notice a trend among family and friends who are stalwart Republicans. These are people who consistently vote, and consistently vote (R) straight down the line. And they are tortured because they cannot bring themselves to vote for the Republican nominee this year, if the Republican nominee is Trump.

    “She’s beside herself,” my mother said of a near relation, who is apparently seriously considering voting for a Democrat for the first time. I wanted to understand this phenomenon better. I asked on Twitter whether this was a real thing, just as the hashtag #NeverTrump began trending. And I got an earful. So I invited lifelong Republicans who had decided that they couldn’t vote for Trump in the general, even if he got the nomination, to tell me their stories. Hundreds of e-mails poured in, and are still arriving. They're informative.

    What surprised me? First, the sheer number of people who sat down and composed lengthy e-mails on a weekend.

    Second, the passion they showed. These people are not quietly concerned about Trump. They are appalled, repulsed, afraid and dismayed that their party could have let this happen. They wrote in the strongest possible language, and many were adamant that they would not stay home on Election Day, but in fact would vote for Hillary Clinton in the general and perhaps leave the Republican Party for good.

    Third was the sheer breadth. I got everything from college students to Midwestern farmers to military intelligence officers to former officials in Republican administrations, one of whom said he would “tattoo #NeverTrump” on a rather delicate part of his anatomy if it would keep Donald J. Trump from becoming the nominee. They were from all segments of the party -- urban professionals, yes, but also stalwart evangelicals, neoconservatives, libertarians, Tea Partiers, the whole patchwork of ideological groups of which the Republican coalition is made.

    Fourth was what they didn’t say. Some people talked about economic liberty issues, like taxes, or Obamacare, but that was a minority. “Lack of substance” was another minor issue -- often present, but never alone.

    The main arguments were his authoritarianism, his lack of any principle besides the further aggrandizement of one Donald J. Trump, his racism and misogyny, and his erratic behavior, which led a whole lot of people to write that they were afraid to have him anywhere within a thousand miles of the nuclear launch codes.

    后面的在

    http://bloombergview.com/article ... -who-say-nevertrump

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    34#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-3-2 23:48:44 | 显示全部楼层
    tanis 发表于 2016-3-1 10:58
    看了伯爵转的开头。 按现在已有的投票结果看,这些人是少数啊~ 明天Super Tuesday,快要见分晓了~:) ...

    现在看来共和党要想阻止Trump成为他们的候选人,最大的希望已经不是Rubio一对一击败他,而是Rubio,Cruz,Kasich在接下来的选举中能各赢几个州,让Trump无法获得共和党代表的多数。这样将由在Cleveland举行的共和党全国代表大会决定共和党候选人。这个能实现的可能性不是很大,但还是有的。如果真是contested convention的话,很可能不会选择Trump,但他也很可能会恼羞成怒,以第三党身份坚持参选,这会保证希拉里获胜。

    这些发誓宁可投希拉里,也不投Trump票的共和党人是少数,但我估计也不是很少,而且可能对大选会有很大的影响。Virginia现在已经是摇摆州,这些establishment 的共和党人在华盛顿附近的特别多。这些人反水能保证希拉里赢下Virginia。其它的摇摆州应该也会有一定影响。目前betting market的赌注还是希拉里有三分之二的概率成为总统。我的政治观点属于中间偏右,对希拉里还可以接受,因此现在还不是特别的panic。但如果Trump真成为总统的话,我确实觉得会是美国的灾难。就是对中国来说也是很不好的消息。中美之间贸易战爆发的可能性挺大。而且以Trump随便骂人的嘴,以及他对外交事务一窍不通却自以为是不愿学习,因为小的摩擦比如南海就和中国开仗的可能性我觉得都有。

    评分

    参与人数 1爱元 +2 收起 理由
    tanis + 2 精彩

    查看全部评分

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    35#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-3-3 02:19:50 | 显示全部楼层
    冰蚁 发表于 2016-3-3 01:25
    trump 上台贸易战可能性不大,但是法律上的摩擦会多。trump 的本质是商人,希望中国更守一点贸易规矩。打 ...

    这还是把Trump当一个传统政客来对待,嘴上说当选后会大幅度提高对中国的关税,真正上任后会听从专家的建议,维持现状。但是以Trump的ego和对自己能力的自信,我不认为他上台后会听从所谓的专家。Trump从事的是房地产,同中国的贸易对他的财富影响不大。就从他自己的利益来说,还想笼络他的支持者,再干4年,是会兑现将工作带回美国这个诺言的。而且以Trump那张嘴,同中国有严重分歧的时候,是能公开骂得出口的,而且他骂人的水平很高,是既阴损又能击中别人的软肋。骂到习近平头上,我觉得就从维持国内的威望来讲习近平也不能丢这个面子。中美关系可能会很紧张。Trump对国际关系的知识一窍不通却还不屑于学习,还自视甚高,因为小事双方都下不了台,从而引发军事冲突我认为完全有可能。

    点评

    真正成功的商人很少意气用事  发表于 2016-3-11 14:17
    没事的,真的被人骂被人蔑视的时候,国内媒体一般不会报道的啦。国内报道出来的外国人都是要么狠愚蠢、要么很葱白我们的,哈哈  发表于 2016-3-3 14:46
    还是别想得那么远啦。。。 太祖说了么,“听其言,观其行”  发表于 2016-3-3 02:59
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    36#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-3-3 03:08:05 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-3-3 03:11 编辑
    冰蚁 发表于 2016-3-3 02:53
    最近 trump 和 newyork times 的那个关于筑墙的传言很说明问题的。背后天晓得 trump 的身段能软到什么程 ...


    你这个回答很印证我刚看到的一句话

    "People see whatever they want to see in Trump, & then they refuse to see anything else"


    http://www.theatlantic.com/polit ... pping-point/471840/

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    37#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-3-5 02:32:01 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-3-5 02:37 编辑

    刚看到的

    Donald Trump's Very Human Failing

    By Megan McArdle

    http://bloombergview.com/article ... -very-human-failing

    Poor Donald Trump.

    Those aren’t words that one normally hears about the presidential candidate. But they were what floated through my mind during Thursday night’s Republican debate when Fox News's Chris Wallace began grilling him about the details of his plan to cut taxes by about a trillion dollars a year, then make up for it by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.” Asked where, specifically, he mumbled through some agencies, at which point Wallace dryly said, “Please put up full screen number four.”

    “Full screen number four,” as you might already have guessed, had numbers on it. And those numbers showed what everyone paying attention already knew: Trump’s numbers were arrant nonsense. Trump, looking a trifle dazed, said, “Let me explain something,” and launched into a tirade about saving hundreds of billions of dollars by negotiating the sweet deals that pharmaceutical firms are getting from their congressional hirelings. Wallace’s eyes assumed the delighted gleam of an apex predator smelling blood in the crisp autumn air. “Let’s put up full screen number two,” he said.

    I don’t really have to tell you what was on “full screen number two,” do I? Oh, heck, I will anyway. The U.S. government spends $78 billion a year on pharmaceuticals, not the $300 billion Trump claims. Apparently, The Donald is such a great negotiator that drug companies are going to be paying us to use their products. Which is, I suppose, one way to create jobs.

    It is a columnist’s privilege to conjure up mental dialogue for candidates at such moments. And what I imagined Donald Trump to be thinking was this: “You didn’t tell me there’d be math on this test. Everyone said there was no math!” And that was a perfectly fair inference to draw from the quadrennial Republican tradition of promising completely unrealistic tax plans without having a way to pay for them.

    But it’s hard to feel too sorry for him. Trump is the front-runner, and he has reached that location with some rather loathsome tactics, on the debate stage and off. One of the hallmarks of his campaign has been an utter refusal to do the basic homework that a candidate needs to do, such as familiarize himself with the details of some policy areas and, indeed, the details of his own plans. So far Trump hasn’t bothered, nor found advisers who could help him with his term papers -- which is worrying, given that there are no makeups for the pop quizzes with which reality routinely peppers our nation’s presidents.

    Instead, he has displayed a penchant for making up numbers on the fly. Most candidates are afraid to do this; they prefer to make up numbers only after long deliberation, carefully handcrafting artisanal figures designed to please the eye while being, however tenuously, connected to reality. There are some benefits to the more spontaneous approach embraced by Donald Trump, most notably that you get numbers that are much more convincing to an audience that doesn’t know what the real numbers are (read: 99 percent of the voting public).

    But there are some drawbacks, too, and those came out in force Thursday night. As Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz relentlessly attacked, Trump kept trying to repeat his favorite standbys: He’s employed tens of thousands of people, his polls are great, everyone tells him how great he is, Marco Rubio is short. That was enough when there were 10 people on the stage and you only heard it every 20 minutes or so. But with just four people there, it began to fall flat, and he knew it. There wasn’t enough time between the last time he’d told you he’d created tens of thousands of jobs and the current iteration, so it acquired the plaintive ring of your great-uncle telling you, yet again, how popular he was with the nurses during World War II. And then the moderators had the gall to actually force him to look at his own imaginary numbers and try to defend the indefensible.

    It is not news that Donald Trump has no interest in, or command of, policy. But as the moderators kept asking him about details, I became fascinated by how he gets his numbers. How, for example, did he decide that he could save the U.S. government $300 billion a year on its prescription drug spending? It’s such a specific figure, and not what you would necessarily come up with off the top of your head, because made-up numbers, in my experience, tend to come in fives and tens. (People wildly guessing at numbers they don’t know tend to count like this: 5 million, 10 million, 25 million, 100 million, 150 million, 500 million.)

    Actually, I think I know where he got it. Americans spend about $300 billion a year on retail prescription drugs. Now, I cannot say for certain that this is where the number came from, but they are awfully close. And I think we can trace a plausible chain of events:

    1. Donald Trump reads somewhere that “America spends almost $300 billion a year on prescription drugs.”

    2. In his head, “America” turns into “the U.S. government.”

    3. An incipient sound bite is born: “America spends $300 billion a year on prescription drugs. I can negotiate and knock that down by [some wildly implausible, yet unprovable, percentage].”

    4. Time passes without using the sound bite. In his memory, it is compressed into “I could save $300 billion a year on drugs by negotiating.” This is the sound bite that he eventually utters in public.

    5. A Fox News debate moderator asks him about it.

    This is part of a pattern with Trump’s pronouncements, at least on health care, the area I’m most familiar with. He lazily grabs a sound bite here and there, but because he doesn’t do the boring, necessary work of actually learning what they mean -- much less formulating a plan -- these sound bites have a tendency to mutate. Eventually, enough mutations occur that his monsters take on a life of their own and turn on their master, as they did in Thursday’s debate.

    Lest you think that I am being unduly harsh on Mr. Trump, let me point out that this is a very common human failing. Everyone who reads has a half-remembered collection of statistics that they haul out in conversation. It is particularly noticeable if you happen to be in my line of work, both because I have to check my own collection carefully to eliminate the mutations before I can write them down, and because spending so much time on various policy areas means that I notice a lot of the ones emitted by other people.

    But those other people have an excuse that Mr. Trump cannot offer: They have other things to do. They are busy doing their day jobs, raising families, keeping up the house and yard, and hopefully getting a little rest and fun in between. It’s not their job to understand every issue and remember the numbers correctly.

    Unfortunately, that’s the job Mr. Trump is running for. To be sure, he’d have a lot of help -- at least, if he can find any advisers willing to work with him. But he’s going to have to do a lot of long, hard, boring work before and after their briefings, understanding the details of the situations he’s faced with and the policies he is proposing to address them. The man in charge of the world’s largest military, its biggest nuclear arsenal, its most productive economy, cannot get by like a Boy Scout in the wilderness, building a fire by rubbing two statistics together. Particularly not if they’re both rotten.

    And before you say, “Well, he’s not president yet,” remember that the other candidates left on stage have been doing this for months -- years, really. They know their issues. They know their policy plans. They have answers that aren’t just made up on the spot. You might not like the answers they give, but at least they’ve shown they’re willing to do the work it takes to become president. Trump isn’t. He hasn’t shown us that he’s capable of it.

    I started this column by saying “Poor Donald Trump.” But the folks we should really be feeling sorry for are the American people, who might end up having their country run by someone who can’t be bothered to find out what’s happening in it.

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    38#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-3-5 07:55:52 | 显示全部楼层
    水风 发表于 2016-3-5 07:54
    这个怎么看怎么像希拉里团队推出的广告。

    这篇文章的作者Megan Mcardle的政治观点属于共和党温和派,比如她反对Obamacare。
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    39#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-3-6 15:08:30 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-3-6 15:23 编辑
    常挨揍 发表于 2016-3-6 14:48
    俺记得是川普跟共和党有协议,如果没选上共和党候选人也不以独立候选人参选 ...


    那个协议没有任何法律效力,Trump现在在各个问题上的立场都是一天一变,那个协议不会对他有任何约束。而且如果他赢得的代表最多,却因为幕后交易在代表大会上失利的话,换成是我,都会很愤愤不平。在那种情况下,Trump会以第三党身份参选的可能性非常大。

  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    40#
     楼主| 发表于 2016-3-6 15:13:40 | 显示全部楼层
    澹泊敬诚 发表于 2016-3-6 15:00
    退选的人在之前那些州里的的票怎么处理 不计入总票数 还是大伙按比例分? ...

    在代表大会投票第一轮上,退选的人的代表也还是必须投他们的票。第二轮以后,所有的代表都不受任何约束,那时候就会有很多幕后交易。1972年以前,两党的代表基本上不是选民选出来的,候选人都是这么产生的。1972年以后primary制度建立起来以后,这种情况还没发生过。如果发生的话,那两天共和党代表大会的电视直播会收视率非常高。

    点评

    给力: 5.0 涨姿势: 5.0
    给力: 5 涨姿势: 5
    那退选的人还有可能在第二轮复活?  发表于 2016-3-7 01:20

    手机版|小黑屋|Archiver|网站错误报告|爱吱声   

    GMT+8, 2024-5-23 13:14 , Processed in 0.101256 second(s), 26 queries , Gzip On.

    Powered by Discuz! X3.2

    © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

    快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表