The Observation Deck

There are two races that occur in every presidential cycle, and they both attract the same and different people.

The nomination race is far and away the more intriguing, from a political science perspective. Winning the nomination is a complicated process where you need to outperform the expectations that you have set, but too much or else you will raise the expectations for the next race. You do this until you have enough momentum that it just snowballs from there. It's part of why Iowa is important, but rarely picks the nominee in modern times. Winning Iowa becomes a curse if you stumble in NH or SC or Nevada because you have raised the next expectations past what you can accomplish. Just ask Huckabee (winner of Iowa 2008) or Santorum (winner of Iowa 2012). Ironically, the same holds true for both Republican and Democrats (in years with no sitting president in the race).

The presidential race comes down to one simple question : For the undecideds, which candidate would you rather hang out with at a BBQ.

There you go. Pure and simple. If you are actual undecided by the time the nominees have been coronated, it probably means you don't care that much about politics and/or you have no strong leaning on the central tenets of the party platform. If that's the case, it comes down to who you like and would rather hang out with chatting at a BBQ.

Yes, this oversimplifies a LOT, but if you look at the results from the past 10 elections, it holds up farewell. Being completely unbiased, who would be more fun to talk to (again, assuming you do NOT disagree with their politics. If you do, then you will vote for the other side):

Obama or Romney?
Obama or McCain? (probably as close as a toss up as there is; McCain might be a hoot to talk to)
Bush2 or Kerry?
Bush2 or Gore?
Clinton or Dole?
Clinton or Bush1 or Perot?
Bush1 or Dukakis?
Reagan or Mondale?
Reagan or Carter?
Carter or Ford?

Anyways, true undecideds, appear to go with the individual who has the most personality and is more interesting than the other candidate(s). Again, IMHO.

Martin O'Donnel or Pat Paulson?

Is 'Political Science' a watered-down history degree that has more weight in getting into law school?

ryan costa wrote:Is 'Political Science' a watered-down history degree that has more weight in getting into law school?

Political Science is neither a watered down history degree but nor is it inherently better at getting into law school. However, they are both fine majors.

Ryan,

As best as I could express this...

History shows us which leaders HAD power. Political Science people study how those leaders GOT that power, and how politicians will likely GET power in the future.

Both disciplines have their purpose.

Back to the banjo.

Patrick Wadden wrote:I am more concerned about the 2 Supreme Court seats that will come in to play.

What a difference a week can make. Things just got a whole lot more interesting.

Lori Allen _ wrote:This does not excuse the illegal use of the executive pen!

Lori,
You are usually thorough with your research, but why not in this case? First off, there is nothing illegal about using executive orders. If they were, they wouldn't exist. As for Obama using the action more than others, sorry, not true in the least. Please do the research. With a quick search, I came up with these numbers:

T. Roosevelt 1081
F. Roosevelt 3522
H. Truman 907
D. Eisenhower 484
J. Kennedy 214
L. Johnson 325
R. Nixon 346
G. Ford 169
J. Carter 320
R. Reagan 381
G. Bush I 166
B. Clinton 364
G. Bush II 291
B. Obama 147

So, as you can see, an executive order has been a very popular way to get things done. Especially when the Congress expressly states they will block anything and everything the executive wants to do. It seems to me to be a case of "careful what you ask for, you just might get it" kind of thing. My research? It came from here, and dates to 2012:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ex ... orders.asp

And please remember, it was Bush II that let the towers fall by ignoring the evidence all around him. He did not keep us safe, or our country would not be in the state we are in right now. Iran, the number one terrorist nation on earth, please! When was the last time the Iranians droned a wedding party or bombed a hospital? 9/11 truth begins at home. IMO

With all due respect, according to https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power :

In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order. Many other executive orders are on file and could be enacted at any time.

I am still trying to fathom, what was the emergency that required Obama to sign an executive order allowing hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees into this country with little to no screening process? Many of these people strap bombs to women and small children. Better yet, how is this beneficial to those already in the country legally?

I am also still trying to figure out the emergency that required Obama to sign an executive order revoking nuclear sanctions on Iran? How is this keeping the homeland safe? See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /78904642/

Here is another executive order regarding the closure of Guantanamo and transferring suspected terrorists out of the facility: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_of ... Facilities

This executive order bans waterboarding and other interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists: http://waterboarding.org/node/43 . Who is this benefiting?

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here? Who are these executive orders benefiting? Think about it. It sure does not appear to be those here, in this country, legally.

While this may or may not prove anything, I am still waiting for this one to be explained. The lip movements seem to match the words, it sounds like Obama, and looks like Obama. I am still researching this, however.




FWIW.

Finally, I do not excuse all of the executive orders issued by other presidents in the past. Likewise, that does not excuse the current president.

My thoughts Brigit, please blame the spelling on the pc.

Trump does not feel my "personal pain", true, but he does feel the pain of America...... if America were fixed, if it were GREAT again, then I can take care of me & my family, but there is so much wrong now, that it effects our families, our neighborhoods the whole world. What America does, effects the whole world, don't you want to be safe??? Isn't that more important than anything? # 1 on my list.

We gota fix this. Why did we send 1 1/2 billion dollars to Iran, or Irac, whoever, That's like saying to your spouce. Honey, I gave our neighbors thousands of dollars to have a wedding for their kids, & their kids, We can't fix our own home, but we should help .. Also, we have to borrow the money and pay interest on it, but we did a good thing.

When my family is fed, then I will feed yours. sorry, but were fist, Donald will make and keep us SAFE....... and great again,

Not to mention the jobs, the jobs & the income, employment with growth, then will come everything else.

I want our service men & women to have all the power and the support they need to get the job done, with as few casualties as posssible. if not us,
the US,
then who?

Donald Trump will make us safe

l don't want to talk to any of them, I would like to talk to Donald Trump, and he is not on your list.

The lifeline program began in 1984 under the Reagan Administration. It was expanded to include cell phones in 2008 under the administration of George W. Bush.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The rest were from not-Iraq.

Burney or Trump... that's it.

jackie f taylor wrote:Burney or Trump... that's it.

Clinton is still leading the Democratic pack, but Trump will have an easier time with her than with Bernie ("Bernie, you're a socialist." "Yup, and let me tell you about Democratic Socialism.") His followers are equally fervent, if not more so. Meanwhile Hillary has truckloads of baggage.

Prepare yourself for a big disappointment if Trump is elected. I think he's going to turn out to be far more pragmatic than his current followers will be happy with - somewhere far to the left of Reagan. And since he has no experience in foreign affairs, expect him to hide in the White House bunker the first time a crisis goes south on him. He's playing the role of Republican primary candidate now. The role will change if he's nominated, and again if he's elected.