Final Obama SOTU Speechifying Open Thread

by Ugh

For your commenting pleasure.  I found some video from the future of his remarks here.  Oh my.  Enjoy!

Comments

[Ugh]

In the spirit of the season, I'd vote for this guy (via russell at TiO)

[sapient]

"Democracy does require basic bonds of trust ..."

[Countme-In]

More than half the room can't be trusted, and that's being kind.

[sapient]

More than half the room can't be trusted, and that's being kind.

Samantha Power, Ashton Carter and others who are constantly maligned here are not among those who can't be trusted. IMHO.

[Tony P.]

Obama came dangerously close to admitting that what American democracy needs is a better electorate.

He's absolutely right that changing a congressman here or a president there is not enough to fix what ails this government of the people, by the people, and for the people. But he manfully resisted pointing out that the people are collectively nuts enough to contemplate He, Trump giving the next state-of-the-union speech, which is more restraint than I'd have been able to muster, since I am less PC than Obama is.

Nonetheless, even if my man Bernie wins the presidency, I will still miss the hell out of Obama's speeches.

--TP

[bobbyp]

If there is no vitriol, there is no politics. If there is no politics, we have tyranny.

[Donald Johnson]

Decent speech, left out some things, was exactly right on others. Unfortunately in America a decent speech that refers to reality is probably better than we deserve.

You want to fight about Power, sapient? Some other time.

[Donald Johnson]

Since it does say open thread, here is a link to a superb speech by a Muslim praising a Syrian Christian monk, something I saw at Rod Dreher's blog just now.

http://www.friedenspreis-des-deutschen-buchhandels.de/1042759/

Dreher drives me nuts sometimes ( the majority of the time, actually), but he is worth reading just for some of his links sometimes.

[Marty]

I am si happy we are supporting our local Native Americans. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/01/12/battle-brewing-over-tribe-casino-plans-for-taunton/PF0prqIFoC66GfmCitHAoM/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=

[Hartmut]

Noble savages often turn out to be pretty savage nobles if given the opportunity.

Well at least (American) Indian casinos don't finance the Israeli settler movement with multimillion dollar amounts (unlike Mr.Adelson's).

[Countme-In]

Things don't just happen. They are well-planned out:

Let a decent Republican, now fed up and retired, tell you exactly how its supposed to go (hat tip Washington Monthly) :

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult

Keep it up. We're almost there. Trump, Cruz and company are just the edges of the Force 500 whirlwind these new savages are reaping for the country.

[Countme-In]

Glum anti-American faces just after they received the sad news that the two American boats and crew were released unharmed by Iran, and that cancer, one of their favorite diseases for eliminating the poor, could be licked if they gave a sh*t.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/13/1469254/-What-did-Republican-lawmakers-hate-about-President-Obama-s-State-of-the-Union-address

[wj]

Trump, Cruz and company are just the edges of the Force 500 whirlwind these new savages are reaping for the country.

Come on, Count, you've got to stay optimistic. Perhaps they will reap the whirlwind for the GOP, and not for the country as a whole.

Not that this seems like a wonderful choice. But sometimes you have to amputate in order to save the patient. I'm just hoping it will be amputating the nut cases from the GOP, rather than having to amputate my party completely....

[Countme-In]

I'm still channeling McConaughhey's "Rust" character from "True Detectives".

Once political sepsis/gangrene sets in you've got to eliminate more than just the dead tissue.

Fear not, I've been thinking about the late comedian Red Skelton for some reason this morning, so maybe things will start looking up.

May God Blesth, everyone.

[Marty]

Red:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM

[John M. Burt]

My current best-case scenario for American politics is that the former party of Lincoln will go the way of Lincoln's former party, the Whigs.
That will open up the ecological niche of "one of the two dominant parties", allowing one of the parties to the left of the Democrats (or a fusion of two or more of them) to expand to fill it. The Democrats can then resume their historical position as the nation's responsible conservative party.
That is the time when I can finally in good conscience stop voting as a Democrat and join the new party.
The shorter is, "Paint the electoral map blue, then start painting it green".

[Countme-In]

Either the stock market stops going down right here, or it crashes.

If so, Trump's polls will soar and the guns will be in charge.

[Michael Cain]

My current best-case scenario for American politics is that the former party of Lincoln will go the way of Lincoln's former party, the Whigs.

Since the only thing they don't seem to be able to win is the Presidency, that's kind of a long shot. My prediction is that neither Hillary nor Bernie will have long coattails, and that the Republicans hold the US House and Senate as well as their current lead in governorships and statehouse chambers.

I'm kind of a nut on the topic, but I don't think the Dems nationally appreciate just how little enthusiasm there is in the rest of the country for a candidate from the northeast urban corridor.

[Michael Cain]

For clarity, my last sentence should read "for a candidate who is a politician from the northeast urban corridor.

[wj]

I'm not sure how long Bernie's or Hilary's coattails will be. But the impact down-ballot of the Republican nominee might (might) make it look like coattails. That is, there might be an influx of voters-against, who would keep on going down the ballot sheet.

I'd say there is no chance of the Republicans losing the House (although their margain might be cut). But in the Senate it could be another story. First, they have Sentors at risk in states which voted for Obama. Twice.

Second, even some of their less at-risk Senators are finding that it is difficult, even for moderates, to avoid being tarred with the national brush. That is, they keep getting asked to comment on the potential Presidential nominees -- even though they are trying hard to focus on local and state issues.

The combination could lead to a loss of control of the Senate. Which would be important, given the number of, for example, Supreme Court justices who are getting not just old but ancient. (They may not feel ready to retire. But death is no respecter of individual preferences.) And then there are the Appeals Court vacancies, which a Democratic Senate might get around to actually acting on.

[cleek]

for a candidate who is a politician from the northeast urban corridor.

2012: IL v UT
2008: IL v AZ
2004: TX v MA
2000: TX v TN
1996: AR v KS
1992: AR v TX
1988: TX v MA
1984: CA v MN
1980: CA v GA

so, that's two people from the NE corridor in the past 35 years ?

[cleek]

and, if it's Sanders on the Dem side, VT is definitely not part of the 'urban' anything. the entire population of its biggest city could fit into an average college football stadium.

i don't know where Clinton is from these days.

[cleek]

Romney i guess is from MA, too.

[wj]

It's sometimes a little fraught to figure out where someone is "from" given how much people in this country more around. For the purposes of a Presidential nomination, it's important because the Presidential and VP nominees have to be from different states. I think the only viable answer is "where are you currently registered to vote?"

That admittedly makes it great for carpetbaggers, but what alternative is there? Use where they were born, even if they haven't lived there since they hit elementary school? (And that makes Cruz from Alberta??? Hmmm.... Well, at least it would give him total options for a VP pick.))

[Matt McIrvin]

I think Romney's official residence at the time was indeed in Massachusetts; you can see the Mormon temple he theoretically went to from Route 2.

[russell]

I found some video from the future of his remarks here.

I think he's gonna steal Luther's gig and be his own anger translator.

I don't think the Dems nationally appreciate just how little enthusiasm there is in the rest of the country for a candidate from the northeast urban corridor.

I imagine that folks in most of the country would be hard pressed to find Vermont on a map.

That said, it's surely northeast, but as cleek notes, it's one of the least urban states in the nation.

Northern New England overall is more rural than most of the west, WY and MT excluded.

Sanders does have the Brooklyn accent, though.

[hairshirthedonist]

...it's important because the Presidential and VP nominees have to be from different states.

Huh?

[Michael Cain]

...it's important because the Presidential and VP nominees have to be from different states.

I believe that the restriction says that an elector (that Electoral College thing) can't vote for both a presidential candidate and a vice-presidential candidate from the elector's state. In practice, not much of a problem, although Dick Cheney quickly changed his residence back to Wyoming (from Texas) after he was selected as the VP candidate.

[Countme-In]

This guy left a journal which is basically a bullet-pointed version of the Republican Party's platform, especially, but not exclusively, under Donald Trump:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/john-russell-houser-journal-dylan-roof

[byomtov]

I don't think it's that hard to define what state someone is from. We do it all the time for various purposes. Where are you registered to vote? Where did you pay resident taxes?

On the other hand, the restriction seems pretty useless to me, though maybe it's important to fanatic federalists.

[Nigel]

OT, but I think fascinating:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/14/the-ge2015-polling-fail-put-down-to-unrepresentative-samples/
The evidence from BSA suggests that those who are contacted most easily are less likely to be Conservative voters. The survey made repeated efforts during the course of four months to make contact with those who had been selected for interview. Among those who were contacted most easily – that is they were interviewed the first time an interviewer called – Labour enjoyed a clear lead of no less than six points, a result not accounted for by the social profile of these respondents. In contrast, the Conservatives were eleven points ahead amongst those who were only interviewed after between three and six calls had been made.

This was part of the conclusion of a report into the notable failure of opinion polling to get anywhere near the UK election result. I've never seen this variable analysed like this before.

[Slartibartfast]

Obama came dangerously close to admitting that what American democracy needs is a better electorate.

Something Obama and I agree on!

I include myself, especially, in that wish for betterment.

[cleek]

I don't think it's that hard to define what state someone is from.

depends on the meaning of "from".

ex. i've lived in NC for 19 years, but i'm still a NYer at heart. it's hard to wash that corrosive north-eastern coastal elitism away!

[wj]

There are at least four different ways that "from" could reasonably be defined:
1) where you were born
2) where you grew up (which shapes your view of the world)
3) where you spent your career (which also shapes your views)
4) where you live now (i.e. where you are registered to vote)

The last one is, as far as I can see, the constitutionally relevant definition. But, as we saw in the case of Mr Cheney, can be the least relevant to how you see the world and what you care about. . . which is what the founders were actually concerned about.

[hairshirthedonist]

. . . which is what the founders were actually concerned about.

I'll accept your mind-reading and note that the founders lived in different times, when people didn't move about nearly as much as they do now. I've lived for some amount of time in six different states, though I've only held what could be called permanent residency in two of them. That would have been exceedingly rare in the time of the founders.

The rule is really silly at this point.

[wj]

Is it really mind-reading when there is evidence that the discussions turned on the importance of making sure that at least two different sets of interests (states) were represented in the executive branch?

I'm quite willing to take credit for successful mind-reading, even over time. But I'm not sure this qualifies as evidence that I've achieved it.

[cleek]

The last one is, as far as I can see, the constitutionally relevant definition

but i think what Michael Cain was getting at is your 2 & 3 - who you are. because, why would voters care where candidates file their income tax ? voters care about the kind of story they can tell themselves about the candidate and that's a "born and bred" thing more than a mailing address thing.

[wj]

I'd agree that 2 & 3 are more relevant. But that doesn't seem to be what the Constitution requires/allows.

But perhaps the Supreme Court can have a fun time arguing the matter at some point. Although, should the situation arise, it would probably be at least as fraught as Bush v Gore -- especially as it might call into question the electors' vote on both candidates.

[russell]

The rule is really silly at this point.

Do the electors still vote separately for POTUS and VPOTUS? Or do they just vote for the ticket as a whole?

The language as of the 12th A still (weirdly) allows for mixing tickets. That is, we could have ended up with Gore and Cheney, or Obama and Ryan.

Or Obama and Palin!

One can only imagine the humorous hijinks that would ensue.

[hairshirthedonist]

I guess when you consider how silly the whole electoral system is, the same-state thing is peanuts. It's like complaining about a picture being hung crooked in the fun house at a carnival.

[Marty]

I guess when you consider how silly the whole electoral system is

It is the singularly optimum system to accomplish the goal of best case government by the citizens.

[bobbyp]

Do the electors still vote separately for POTUS and VPOTUS?

I believe they do, but they are carefully vetted. :)

[Hartmut]

If the original idea had been followed, there would have been a Bush/Gore, a Bush/Kerry, an Obama/McCain and an Obama/Romney presidency. And each of these is less silly than many earlier couplings that would have resulted from the Winner=Potus, Loser=VPOTUS principle.
I guess a number of presidents would have been murdered by their vice guys since there would have been an actual incentive.
So, now imagine the Sanders/Cruz presidency. Would it be better for Bernie never to let Ted out of his sight and preferably very close, so an assassin would risk killing the anointed one too or would he try to keep as great a distance as possible since Cruz himself would pose the danger. The VPOTUS would have to get body cavity searched each time he would meet the president in order to protect the latter.