Predictions Derby – 12feb15

George Rebane

All evolution chases environment.

Some more news has come in the interval that warrants updating the probabilities that members of our Repub and Dem shortlists will declare their 2016 candidacies.  The updated histograms reflect the rationale given below.  (Please review tutorial here, and then participate with your own numbers which I'll incorporate into the graphs.  Thanks.)

Hillary Clinton – she has been reported to be mismanaging her campaign and staff, and has suffered some losses.  Although she doesn’t always know what she wants or is needed, the lady does have a temper.  I assess that the probability of this evidence given that she will declare or P(E|H) = 0.80 (since she is already so disposed), and the probability of this evidence given that she will bow out or P(E|-H) = 0.95 (having these histrionics has a higher chance of blowing her campaign machinery to an extent where she will take a pass).  Therefore L = 0.8/0.95 = 0.84, meaning her probability of declaring has gone down.

Democrat Other – given that we have only one real contender, and no convincing moves by Warren or Biden (the dufus with no chance), I ascribe that it is twice as likely as not that some other Democrat will declare their candidacy before the Dem convention, therefore L = 2.

Scott Walker – he opened his Iowa campaign office.  That takes money and commitment to people, which he would not do unless he had a good idea that he would run.  Therefore P(E|H) = 0.90, and P(E|-H) = 0.10, giving L = 0.9/0.1 = 9.

Jeb Bush – has begun distancing himself from Common Core the previous embrace of which started causing him a lot of grief with most conservatives.  Therefore P(E|H) = 0.60, and P(E|-H) = 0.33, giving L = 0.60/0.33 = 1.82.

Marco Rubio – has started hiring members of Romney’s former re-election team, and dialing for dollars from Romney’s cadre of funders.  Therefore P(E|H) = 0.90, and P(E|-H) = 0.15, giving L = 0.90/0.15 = 6.

Republican Other – The Repub field is already very crowded.  Since no one off the list of named contenders has made a significant peep, and all the named continue to make noises, I assess that it’s two to one against any other Republican rising to prominence as a contender.  Therefor L = ½ = 0.5.

Comments

[Russ Steele]

"Behind the scenes, though, there are few signs the vice president is taking steps toward mounting a third bid for the top job at the White House. As Hillary Rodham Clinton builds an elaborate campaign-in-waiting, and a few other Democrats nibble around the edges, Biden's name has faded from the mix of expected 2016 candidates.

Biden's aides and longtime political advisers say he isn't organizing in early voting states such as New Hampshire and Iowa, although he'll visit Des Moines on Thursday. He has yet to form an exploratory committee or other apparatus that could rapidly scale up to become a campaign."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150212/us--dem_2016-biden-e1c7c348ca.html

[George Rebane]

RussS 601pm - OK Russ, give us some numbers and rationale, and I'll update Biden. Empty talk is cheap ;-)

[Bill Tozer]

Talk is indeed cheap. After our fearless current Secretary of State came back from Putinville empty handed again, he had not much to say...except that he was not ruled out running for President again.

Bobby Jindal has reversed course and it's going after Commoncore's jugular. Says he and the other governors were fooled and lied to about Commoncore's promises of each state setting up its own standards.
Bush ain't in office, but the former CC cheerleader is now distancing himself from CC. That shows intent to run.
I watch who the lame stream is going after. Right now it's Walker big time, followed by Dr. Carson and they starting to rip into Jindal. Those are the one's the Dem's consider threats. Poor Walker won't say whether he is an evolutionist or a Creationist. Now, that is what it will all get down to, eh? Only in America.
Ok, Dr. Rebane, no numbers for ya. Me bad.

[Paul Emery]

You can eliminate all candidates that don't support the Trans Pacific Partnership which is a requirement to get the big bucks from the establishment that is necessary to carry the day. Clinton is a supporter for sure so the question is which Repub would have the ethical versatility to be a supporter and still carry the Tea Party types who would have to have a strong opposition if they in any way live up to their supposed values. CC is a social issue that doesn't mean any thing to the international Corporations that will make billions when the TPP is passed.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1108pm - You may not be clear on the concept here. In this phase of Predictions Derby we estimate the probabilities that said politicians will declare their candidacy for President given the stream of evidence we get from news reports. In the second phase we'll estimate the probabilities that their party will nominate them to become their Presidential candidate, again from the then incoming stream of evidence. And finally, after the conventions, we'll estimate the probabilities of each candidate winning the Nov 2016 election.

You may be running a different prediction process or just telling us the unquantified prospects of certain candidates.

[Paul Emery]

George
I don't dispute your process here George but to me a much more realistic approach would be to look at each potential candidate with the emphasis on whether they will conform to the needs of special interest groups that fund the candidates. Since there is no way that any major candidate will ever be nominated without their support for the TPP why not eliminate off the bat those who will or shoud not give that support. Romney and Obama certainly did as will Bush 111. There is no way Paul would or any of The Tea Party favorites or Warren. Rubio and Walker? Who knows. I guess my look at this is very pragmatic and yours is more mathematical. I must admit I'm far more cynical than you are about this thing.

[Todd Juvinall]

And Paul Emery voted for Obama because he was a black man, right?

[Paul Emery]

Once again Todd has shown that he's not capable of relating to the topic at hand.

[Todd Juvinall]

Say what? You allege a single reason people won't get elected, or elected, and you voted for Obama for a single issue. Race/color. Right? So, what is the problem Paul Emery, it appears you are unable to even canalize what you wrote here.

[Brad C.]

They are talking about choosing potential candidates to represent the respective political parties - not about voting for candidates in elections.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 950am - Your "more realistic approach" is an approach to reach a different and unidentified conclusion than that stated for Prediction Derby Phase 1 (as I pointed out in my 853am). While you may not be interested in who will declare their candidacies for President of the United States, the rest of the country is very much interested in that question. And this series of posts answers that question in the only way that it reasonably can be answered from the published evidence.

[Paul Emery]

Point well taken George. A look at who is going to declare their candidacy has to take into consideration their motivations for running. Most of the time it's not a serious endeavor but a time for temporary fame and glory for whatever reason. The Republicans actually are much more entertaining in this phase with all kinds of odd candidates that offer endless laughs and chuckles and are a great diversion. In the end it's serious business with big bucks rewarded to the candidate that best pleases special interests. In the last election The Newt was far away the best Conservative in the field but he was just too weird for public consumption. Santorum was the last one standing before Romney took charge because someone had to do it.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Canalize? What's that? Besides I didn't vote for Obama last time around.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1235pm - Exactly. And that is why the Bayes method is the correct approach to assessing such probabilities of throwing their hats in the ring. Events and reports of policy speeches, kissing babies, and tossing mudballs at the other side don't move the needle much because the probability of seeing such evidence for a politician who will ultimately declare candidacy is pretty much the same as the probability for the politician's "time for temporary fame and glory for whatever reason." This calculates the likelihood ratio of such evidence to be close to unity or one, and sticking that in the Bayes formula (cf. tutorial) changes the posterior probability of declaring candidacy little from the prior probability.

So now Paul, with your discerning political sense, please look for the more robust evidence that either speaks for or against such declarations to come.

[Paul Emery]

George how do you assess the possibility of a draft in your formula?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 227pm - Good question. A candidate is drafted during the convention, which will be predicted after the convention starts in Phase 2 of Prediction Derby. It will be represented by 'Other' unless a specific name is mentioned and becomes prominent as a potential draft, then I'll just add that name to the list of contenders who have declared. We will continue assessing the probabilities as usual as the evidence comes in.

[Paul Emery]

In my view don't count Romney out. He's the perfect big money candidate and could be activated as a last resort if Bush of Walker don't pass the special interest test. Remember, special interest big money LOVED Clinton and Hillary is the extension of the same team.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 450pm - Well, to pull Romney back into the Derby, we need to see something more in the news than your long-held view that Big Money may pull him back in IF the other contenders don't measure up their snuff.

[Walt]

Whoever comes out on to for the Right, ( Scott Walker looks real good for me at this point)
is better than " She who lies through teeth" Warren. She lied her way to the top, and most LIBS knew it voting for her. " By any means necessary" is alive and well in LIB land.

[Bill Tozer]

Van Jones said Warren is the one that every Democrat should vote for, an obvious snub to Hillary. But, the needle does not move as long Lizzy stays in The Commonwealth smoking her peace pipe and chewing on leather to make it nice and soft to thread her beads with. Boy o boy, the liberal wing of the socialist party wants anybody but Hillary....Jim Webb, Lizzy Warren, anybody. But the needle stays put. And old Bernie Sanders, aka, BS, threw his hat in the ring solely to yap about socialism and get his message out. The Needle on the Democrat side remains stuck in neutral.

[Bill Tozer]

Spokespersons for Gary Hart and Liberace have issued press releases the two are weighing the matter seriously and both are considering a run at the Presidency. They plan to register in Chicago when their schedules allow.

[Paul Emery]

Agreed George (5:58). I enjoy the sport of this you know and don't take it seriously. Either way it looks like a romp for Hillary in 06. Americans really like divided government. It keeps anything from getting done. Now that's a Libertarian position for sure.

[Paul Emery]

That's Hillary in 16

[Todd Juvinall]

Hillary is toast. It is all R's inb 16".

[Bill Tozer]

But Mr. Todd, "It's my turn, it's my turn!", Hillary cries aloud pounding her shoe on the table.

[Todd Juvinall]

She an old broad and she has no ideas worth listening to. I recall once when she said, "who would you want to answer that phone at 3 AM" and in real life, I think I would have been better with the Benghazi terrorist attack then her. She is just the philanderer wife who never put up a fight for her failed life as the shirt tale of her hubby. She needs to go retire to the "Library"!

New blood is needed! LOL!

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1215am - Yes, I too enjoy the process of ascertaining beliefs in an unambiguous and reasonable manner. But just to be clear, I do not take it as "sport", and I do take it "seriously". For those not so persuaded, I ask how then do they discover their beliefs in a reasonable and quantitative manner that supports subsequent decision making. The wrong answers to that question abound, and center mostly on brown hunches which emote on previous emotings. This is especially true for people with a small knowledge base, and not even an ideology upon which to hang new evidence as it arrives. Nevertheless, that is the real world.

[George Boardman]

That's what I like about Juvinall: A class act.

Dr. R.: You can skip all of the work and just follow the money. From what I read, Jeb is hoovering up Romney's backers. Add that to the Bush financial backers and you have the Republican nominee.

Hillary already has the liberal money locked up. I'll wait until Labor Day of 2016 to figure out who's going to win.

[George Rebane]

GeorgeB 1037am - Mr Boardman, I'm afraid you and PaulE are ahead of the Prediction Derby game here. We are currently only trying to assess the probabilities of the field of declared candidates for each party. To date no one has declared, and the nation's media are in a daily frenzy trying determine who will/not throw their hat in the ring. RR is making its contribution to this effort as and for the reasons I described in the referenced Predictions Derby tutorial. I believe this approach to be more informative than just the daily fielding of brown guesses.

You and yours want to skip over the intermediate phases of candidacies and conventions, and go directly to the Nov 2016 election with your sure-fire nominated candidates. Well and good. But here we are going to go through a couple of intermediate steps for those (me included) not as prescient as you.

Now that does not mean that we can't take our turn prognosticating the far future, and this is not meant to denigrate that effort. I'm only saying that Predictions Derby is not designed for that exercise, and 'skipping all the work' is not the intention here. But I do invite you to contribute a byline to RR spelling out the reasoning on how things will go between here and Nov 2016. It would then give rise to a rich discussion/debate of exactly what you propose.

[Todd Juvinall]

It is way early and a lot will happen before the picks are secured. GeorgeB looks like he won't make the guess but I bet he is a Hillary fan.

Oh and thanks for acknowledging that I am a class act.

[Bill Tozer]

Hillary has yet to announce her intention to run for the Democratic Nomination. I am grateful for two things. First, I did not donate to the Clinton campaign in 2008. Secondly, they won't be selling my name and e-mail to the Clinton official campaign when she finally decides to let it all hang out.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/activists-hillary-clinton-fundraising-pleas-115199.html

[Bill Tozer]

Well, as of 4 seconds ago, Hilary has still not announced she will emerge from behind Curtain #3 and take the plunge. Hillary Clinton, come on down. Oh, the anticipation is killing me. But, Walt will be disappointed. We were this close to finding out the truth, then Hillary went and hired him as her Clinton Presidential Campaign Manager. We will just have to wait longer to find out what the gobberment has been hiding from us.

http://news.yahoo.com/outgoing-obama-adviser-john-podesta-s-biggest-regret-of-2014--keeping-america-in-the-dark-about-ufos-234149498.html

[Russ Steele]

Here is Hillary's problem, it is Bill

Just a few weeks ago, reports broke that Bill Clinton had flown at least 11 times on “The Lolita Express” — a private plane owned by the mysterious financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. According to Virginia Roberts, who claims to have been one of Epstein’s many teenaged sex slaves, Clinton also visited Epstein’s private Caribbean retreat, known as “Orgy Island.”

“I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?’ ” Roberts said in 2011. The former president, she added, was accompanied by four young girls during his stay — two of whom were among Epstein’s regular sex partners. “And [Jeffrey] laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor.’ He never told me what favors they were.”

Clinton also spent years traveling and partying with Ron Burkle, a billionaire bachelor with a penchant for very young girls. Clinton spent so much time on Burkle’s private plane that it came to be known in Burkle’s circle as “Air F—k One.”

All the press needs to do is find the girls that flew on these sex flights, interview them and then published the results. A parade of once under age girls and their sex adventures could derail Hillary's campaign.

[Walt]

Hillary has plenty to answer for. So does "She who lies through teeth".
Hillary jumped on the " Businesses don't create jobs" bandwagon.
She ran like a coward and resigned when the heat was on. Expect the same if by some chance (and PLENTY of voter fraud) she gets elected.
The way the nation is going ( downhill on skates) the chances of LIBS getting the W.H. get slimmer and slimmer. The last two elections bare that out. Look how many times Walker survived repeated attempts to get removed.. And in the heart of LIB country no less.

The nation has had it with the Left. From Obummercare to illegal amnesty, and everything in between.

[Walt]

Russ. The press will fly cover for "Air pedophile". Just like they did with Sen. Menendez.
The underage hooker got paid off to change her story.

[Bill Tozer]

The girls will disappear. All of them, every last one.

[Russ Steele]

MOMENT? FOR SLOW JOE, IT’S MORE LIKE “LIFE.” Biden has his own Brian Williams moment. “During a CNN/YouTube Democratic debate in June of that year, Biden said he was ‘shot at’ inside the Green Zone in Iraq then later walked back the comment to say that a mortar round landed roughly a few hundred yards away from a structure where he was staying overnight.”

There is only a 20% change that Biden will try to run, he has political baggage every where, and Hillary knows where it is.

[Todd Juvinall]

I was looking forward to the expose by Boardman on the Clinton/pedophile connection. If he does not do one then I agree there will be no outrage from the press sycophants in America. Maybe Pelline will do a series too? LOL!

[George Rebane]

RussS 726am - Where did your 20% come from?

[Bill Tozer]

The Clintons know how to compartmentalise. Character is not required. What difference does it make anyhow? Remember what the wife of then candidate William Wet Whistle Clinton said? She said she is not a Tammy Wynette "stand by your man" kinda of woman. Everytime the First Lady put out recipes of her homemade baked cookies her favorable ratings went up. Everytime she spouted her political bents, her ratings went south. Maybe if she published a cookbook full of old family recipes for pecan pie, hominy and grits, collard greens, black eyed peas, and her own Devil's Food cake, her rating might just very well climb back up. Just trying to be helpful living on this alturistic plane.

[Russ Steele]

It was just by best guess, after reading the news and assessing the political environment. I did not do the math.

[Brad C.]

Russ, gunfire can be heard, mostly on Wednesdays and Sundays, here in the Nevada City Green Zone.
I wonder what Hillary, Biden, and Williams would make of this place if they landed here for some reason? Duck and cover? How would we be portrayed in their memoirs?

"As we disembarked from our limos on Broad St. we could hear numerous small arms fire in the hills. It was then we knew we were in the hot zone otherwise know as the Bastiat Triangle."

[George Rebane]

BradC 952am - Well said ;-)

[Brad C.]

lol!
George, do have a summary of the data you are assigning to the candidates somewhere?
I recently heard Scott Walker does not have a college degree. Has this fact or perception been factored into the Walker column?

[Paul Emery]

Russ writes "reports broke......" 9:47

Can you steer me in a direction that broke those reports?

[George Rebane]

BradC 1040am - yes, the data is documented in the series of Prediction Derby posts starting with the first one that contains the tutorial which includes the simple Bayesian update formula - only a calculator is needed. As explained, I started all candidates off from the probabilistic point of total ignorance (0.5) whether any of them would run or not. Walker's lack of college degree has long been known by the media and its reporting or lack thereof has long been discounted by Walker, so it is no longer a current piece of relevant evidence. However, if someone now discovers that he didn't complete his degree because, say, he was really expelled for some dark and murky reason that throws doubt on his character, then that will impinge on his decision to run or not and we would have to include it. Such a revelation has not been made.

So the current probabilities can be easily calculated/verified by plugging in the likelihoods reported in the intervening Prediction Derby posts. I could also publish the spreadsheets which I use to do the calcs, but right now that's a pain in the ass. Maybe I'll do that one every month or two as this feature continues. I hope I have been clear.

[Paul Emery]

George

I appreciate your efforts here but wouldn't be much easier to handicap the likely contenders by analyzing which ones are most likely to attract big money since they are almost surely going to be the nominees? They go for the money first and render the appropriate promises then declare. Of course there are always a few that run for the exposure but know in their own minds they will never win. It is all a predetermined outcome. Just follow the money.

[Russ Steele]

PaulE@11:09AM

Check out these stories in the New York Post.

http://pagesix.com/tag/jeffrey-epstein/?_ga=1.67886425.995960534.1387138026

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1225pm - I'm not sure where the blockage is Paul, but you don't seem to get the national interest in who may or not declare their candidacies. My "efforts" here are no different from those of every other media outlet in the country - ABC, CBS, NBC, FNN, CNN, MSNBC, ..., NYT, WashPost, WSJ, LAT,..., Economist, Weekly Standard, Time, ... . We all understand why declaring candidacy and the uncertainties involved there are important - but apparently you don't. I suggest you send the same exhortation to the above listed outlets and see how (or even whether) they respond.

If you have some evidence about money that you'd like to introduce, that impinges on the politicians forthcoming decision to declare candidacy or not, then please do so. The resulting probabilities that I publish ARE THE MOST PRECISE HANDICAPPING THAT CAN BE DONE GIVEN THE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE. In short, Paul, I'm doing exactly that - you can place bets using these probabilities, or if you have better ones, then share how you got them. Pulling brown numbers out of your butt doesn't cut it.

BTW, congrats on being the King of Mardi Gras, it's a nice honor and you deserve it.

RussS 1231pm - Given these reports and what the Repubs would do with them after Hillary declares, how do you think they impact the prob that she'll declare? I'd estimate the P(E|H) and P(E|-H) values and then get the likelihood needed for the Bayes update from the usual L = P(E|H)/P(E|-H). Let me know.

[Paul Emery]

George

I don't disagree either about the national interest or the methodology in your approach to determining who is likely to declare. I only question the importance. It really means nothing if a Santorum or a Biden enter the race because hey they are not going to win. The real battle is for the special interest money and the implied policy promises that go along with accepting that support. Right now it looks like we have three candidates who are actively soliciting and raking in the dough (promises of). That's Clinton, Bush and Walker with Romney waiting in the wings if there is a stumble.

Sometimes a Herman Cain comes along who ran in '12 primarily as a self promoter who knew he had no chance to win but suddenly emerged as a viable candidate. It took just a quick look under the hood at his personal life and he was gone, as I'm sure he knew would happen, but nonetheless he succeeded in branding himself on the national stage as a innovative and creative person much to his benefit.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 517pm - Paul, you're dodging my question. Why do you think everyone in the world is going through the very same exercise that RR is conducting, only not so rigorously?

[Paul Emery]

Russ

Scott in an earlier post recommended using this criteria to determine the veracity of a story. Makes sense to me. The Washington Post is not considered to be a very credible source, much like the National Inquirer so that kind of test would be useful.

"Everyone should always filter everything they hear and read through a process of:
1 Common sense - is what is being reported even possible?
2 Double check with other sources.
3 Is there a contrary story or another side of the story with facts.
4 If a speech or article is quoted, try to read the full text.
5 Is audio or video available? "

[Account Deleted]

Paul - How would your method of determining front-runners have worked when Obama first ran for pres? I don't remember him having any 'big' money when he started. At least that we knew of. I have a feeling there was a lot going on behind the scenes before he threw his hat in that was kept very quiet.
Directed to another post: Scott Walker not having a college degree - what does that have to do with being pres?
I've had enough of college educated idiots as president.
Joe Biden running for pres? You must be joking. The only reason he's a heart beat away from being president now is that he is Obama's big insurance policy. The man is a glad-handing moron and he has family problems (especially the son). The probability of him seriously making a run is south of zero.

[George Rebane]

ScottO 604pm - JoeB is such a joke that I have never followed his off stage life. But if he has terminal family problems as a candidate, then we should modify his prob of declaring candidacy. What're your estimates for P(E|H) and P(E|-H) where E is your evidence of family problems, and H is that he will declare candidacy.

[Account Deleted]

His son is currently the biggest problem.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/revealed-joe-bidens-cocaine-using-navy-busted-son-now-working-huge-ukraine-company/#I3xJBh6iJB0eryKQ.97
I just have to laugh at Dems that thought Palin was not Veep material and then turn around and vote for Obama/Biden.
Dumb and Dumber doesn't even begin to describe those two. More like Idiot Lying Pawn and Imbecile Court Jester.
And that speaks volumes about the fine electorate our govt run education system has produced.

[Russ Steele]

Paul@05:34PM

Common sense: I think that former President Clinton womanizing is part his history and the court records.

Second Source: Vanity Fair The Comeback Id in 2008. Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton’s post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton’s medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say “no.” Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self.

Second Source: What would you call the fight logs with Clinton listed as a passenger with others in the story a reliable source?

A Contrary Side of the Story: Do you have one?

Read the Full Text: Usually a good idea.

No Audio or Video: Not right time yet.

[George Rebane]

RussS 919pm - I would say that such info about Sweet Willie would sway Hillary if it were broadcast nationally. Have any of the big media outlets run with this story yet? I haven't heard a peep.

[Paul Emery]

Russ

George

Everyone in the world going through that exercise is normal in any election and is useful for talk shows and television blather as well as functioning to fill a little ink in printed media. I personally don't think it's of major importance compared to following the money-special interest trails. It's fun to talk about though.

Russ, anything is possible when it comes to Slick Willie but as of now it's confined to tabloids. I don't know much about the Vanity Fair article you refer to. That stuff is pretty dated as we speak so I'm inclined to think if it had legs it would have jumped out by now. I would think the big bucks behind Hillary would have vetted that by this date. This stuff was alleged to have happened with Slick Willie (the flight logs) were 13 years ago according to the link you provided me that refers to none other than the National Enquirer for their source

"The National Enquirer reports flight logs reveal Epstein — before he was arrested and jailed for soliciting teenage masseuses — picked up the former president at a Japanese naval airport and flew with him to Brunei on May 25, 2002."

http://pagesix.com/2015/02/04/bill-clintons-shady-friendships-outed-by-tabloids/

Scott

You have to remember that in '08 the original front runners were John Edwards and Hillary. There has always been a strong anti Clinton faction competing for the big special interest bucks so when John Edwards was busted for bonking his videographer while his wife was in the hospital fighting cancer they shifted to Obama and supported his campaign.

I don't expect any bombshells coming out about Hillary because she will be the hedge bet for the bucksters to insure the Repubs don't nominate any anti business Tea Party or fringe Republicans such as Cruz, Paul, or possibly Rubio they cannot live with. It's the perfect hedge bet because remember they don't care what "party" someone is in they only care if they can control them with money. They know for sure about Bush lll or Clinton 2 because they've been there and done that.

I am far more cynical than any of you who actually seem to think it makes a difference who is elected.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1128pm - Boy, it sure made a difference that Johnson, Reagan, and Obama were elected. So count me belonging to that more naïve and less cynical camp.

[Account Deleted]

"....any anti business Tea Party or fringe Republicans..."
Please - not anti business. Not sure where that idea comes from.
You should say anti fascist or anti govt/business collusion.
It certainly does make a huge difference who is elected pres. Maybe you mean it doesn't make any difference between who "big money' (whatever that is?) wants to be elected. Paul is certainly fringe with honest but nationally unelectable ideas. Cruz and Rubio are very much mainstream. Leave it to the left wing press and news media to display them to the low info voters as 'fringe'. These days, any one running for office that dares to enforce the law is depicted as a lunatic.

[Paul Emery]

Scott

You must have missed out on the confab that the Chamber of Commerce called when Cruz was strutting his stuff a few months ago in which they made it clear that no money would be coming from them if Cruz were to get the nomination. This was triggered during the near government shutdown a couple of years ago.

"The recent fiscal crisis has opened a major rift between the tea party wing of the Republican Party and business groups that traditionally have backed Republicans, with many business leaders now vowing to get involved more in GOP primaries to try to counter insurgent candidates.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/28/business-groups-to-take-stand-against-tea-party-ca/#ixzz3RvlTw3m8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Brad C.]

Getting your party's candidate in office is paramount.
The money will flow to those candidates whom supporters think could win against the opposing party, and who also would be beholden to supporter's special-interest wishes.

[Account Deleted]

Didn't miss that, Paul. What you are missing is that the National Chamber of Commerce represents the average business owner like the National Chiefs of Police represent the cops, or the labor unions claiming to represent the workers. TP and conservatives are the most pro-business groups out there. Just not your crony capitalist type of business.
"Near govt shut down" - you do buy into what ever the news media tells you, Paul. The feds were up and running just fine. You apparently missed that the feds were out in force shutting off public (and private) areas to tax paying citizens. The public needed to be "punished" and the Rs needed to be blamed. All kabuki theater for the low info crowd.

[Paul Emery]

Scott

I don't think you can ignore the fact that big business prefers safe middle of the road politicians they can control with the dollar. that is pretty much established fact and is the reason they will support Bush, Christie or Romney over more conservative types because they do not like to shake things up and would rather exert quiet control by having their hands on the money spigot. I know I'm beating a drum here but the Trans Pacific Partnership is a huge deal and they won't support anyone who does not buy into its secret dealings which should be the devil incarnate to any Tea Party supporter. Romney was in as is Clinton, Obama and almost surely Bush because it's in the family tradition to support nternational trade deals such as NAFTA, WTO and the TPP.

[Account Deleted]

"I don't think you can ignore the fact that big business prefers safe middle of the road politicians..."
You originally just said 'business' - now you've changed that to 'big business'. We're talking past each other, Paul. Please note that words mean things. Not trying to play gotcha, but it's hard to discuss topics when you dodge and weave all over the place.
Even 'big business' doesn't even accurately describe the difference I'm trying to explain. The size of the business really doesn't matter as much as how entwined the business is with govt. I think it's safe to say that the bigger the business is, the more they tend to want stability and lots and lots of govt regulation. But there are plenty of big companies that are stridently libertarian and plenty of small companies that exist only to service govt contracts or to serve private companies that only need their services to full fill needless govt regs.
And then there are the large banks and a lot of Wall Street. They looooove big govt and lots of regulation. Also they love the Fed right now. Big time. Obama and his hench-woman, Yellen are systematically destroying the middle class. Yellen even admitted her policies would hurt the savers in the middle class. The worst part of it is the ever-growing illusion that the middle class's pensions are doing great with the growing bubble in the stock market. No doubt there is a lot of money to be made in the market right now for the players, but for the pensions it will be worse than '08. Big govt always leads to an ever-widening gap between the wealthy and the middle class. The poor don't have and never will have anything no matter what the govt does, so I don't include them in any talk about a wealth gap.

[Paul Emery]

Scott

I don't think we have a fundamental disagreement on this. Thanks for the respectful discussion.

[drivebyposter]

"I don't think you can ignore the fact that big business prefers safe middle of the road politicians they can control with the dollar. that is pretty much established fact and is the reason they will support Bush, Christie or Romney over more conservative types"

No doubt, but keep in mind that an awful lot (most perhaps?) of what drives primary elections to the middle is the fact that states that are out of play in the Presidential general election have a lot of say in the primaries. Most California Republicans are a far cry from a rancher in Utah.

Really, it's kind of a peculiar system. There's a lot to be said for the concept of the head of the ruling party or coalition running the executive branch of a country. They can get booted in an instant and there's typically a lot more in the way of resume building before you get the gig. Political flyweights like Bush II or Obama are a kind of scary result of marketing to the mob.

[George Rebane]

re ScottO's 1205pm - "Big govt always leads to an ever-widening gap between the wealthy and the middle class. The poor don't have and never will have anything no matter what the govt does, so I don't include them in any talk about a wealth gap."

That has been a strong tenet of the RR socio-political view. The bigger government gets, the bigger becomes the inequality between the haves and have nots (see also Gini Index), and conversely, the smaller becomes the per capita GDP. Progressives like to contradict that by pointing to Red China, but that's a no brainer because they had a big hole to climb out of and they did it by liberalization and permitting more local control.

[Account Deleted]

drivebyposter is partly correct about why primaries typically drive the politics to the middle. Remember also that both major parties love to brow beat the electorate about how any candidate that is perceived to be too much to the left or right (according to the establishment) will ultimately fail in the national election. Hence, we have Obama running as anti-gay marriage and claiming to sit at the feet of R Lugar for foreign policy wisdom.
With the electoral college being gutted, voters such as California Rs can only make a difference in the primaries. In the national election for pres anyone in California not voting for the Dem candidate may as well just throw their vote in the waste paper basket. The Dem party wrote the book on how to disenfranchise voters.

[Russ]

I get an ad for one of these in my mail box almost everyday now. They seem to be growing in popularity.

http://patriotdepot.com/just-say-no-to-monica-lewinskys-boyfriends-wife-t-shirt/?