2016 Democratic Presidential Primary

Glen Contrarian said:

If you don't think Hillary can stir up the base, you're greatly underestimating her. But the base of either party simply isn't enough in a presidential election, as the GOP simply doesn't seem to get. Hillary's greatest advantage...is the GOP's insistence on doing whatever it takes to piss off the minorities in its eternal quest to stir up its increasingly way-far-to-the-right-of-Goldwater base. As long as your politicians keep playing the "I'm-more-conservative-than-the-other-guy" circular firing squad game, the Dems will hold the White House.

Click to expand...

You are correct, neither party has the base to win elections by themselves and haven’t since 1975 when 51% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats immediately after the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation. Yet in 1976 Ford came real close to winning the presidency. Reagan won in 1980 when 45% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats and only 25% as Republicans.

So who the candidates are is more important than the size of the base when it comes to presidential elections. Also whom the voters are mad at or happy with. In 2008 the voters were just plain tired of Republican rule, Obama won 53% to 46% over McCain, a 7 point margin. Yet party affiliation was 36-25% Per Pew Research a margin of 11 points in favor of the Democrats. In 2012 the numbers were 32-24% Democratic advantage with Obama winning reelection by a 51-47 margin.

Section 9: Trends in Party Affiliation | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Today I do not have figures from Pew, but I do Gallup and as of 9 November 2014 Gallup places party affiliation at 28% each for the Republicans and Democrats. My point is your demographics are included in these numbers, they take the entire electorate and break them down by party. I think that is a much simpler way.

As for Hillary or Warren or whomever, any Democrat will be very hard to beat. This is because of the Electoral College. Obama beat Romney by 4 points in the popular vote, but by 62-38 margin in the Electoral College. Unless Obama fatigue sets in big time like Bush fatigue did between 2006-08, regardless of whom the Democrats run they start out with a 247-191 trustworthy states advantage in the Electoral College. But that can change based on whom the candidates are and on whether Obama fatigues lasts another two years and how the economy is doing.

Perotista said:

You are correct, neither party has the base to win elections by themselves and haven’t since 1975 when 51% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats immediately after the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation. Yet in 1976 Ford came real close to winning the presidency. Reagan won in 1980 when 45% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats and only 25% as Republicans.

So who the candidates are is more important than the size of the base when it comes to presidential elections. Also whom the voters are mad at or happy with. In 2008 the voters were just plain tired of Republican rule, Obama won 53% to 46% over McCain, a 7 point margin. Yet party affiliation was 36-25% Per Pew Research a margin of 11 points. In 2012 the numbers were 32-24% Democratic advantage with Obama winning reelection by a 51-47 margin.

Section 9: Trends in Party Affiliation | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Today I do not have figures from Pew, but I do Gallup and as of 9 November 2014 Gallup places party affiliation at 28% each for the Republicans and Democrats. My point is your demographics are included in these numbers, they take the entire electorate and break them down by party. I think that is a much simpler way.

As for Hillary or Warren or whomever, any Democrat will be very hard to beat. This is because of the Electoral College. Obama beat Romney by 4 points in the popular vote, but by 62-38 margin in the Electoral College. Unless Obama fatigue sets in big time like Bush fatigue did between 2006-08, regardless of whom the Democrats run they start out with a 247-191 trustworthy states advantage in the Electoral College. But that can change based on whom the candidates are and on whether Obama fatigues lasts another two years and how the economy is doing.

Click to expand...

Have you ever thought of political analysis as a career? Just a random question.

TeleKat said:

Have you ever thought of political analysis as a career? Just a random question.

Click to expand...

No, politics and election prediction has been my hobby since I first watched the 1956 Democratic and Republican conventions on TV. My career has been military all my life. 20 years active, another 26 as a Department of the Army Civilian. I would never change that.

The bottom line is politics is fun, it is entertainment for me. I would have that no other way either.

Perotista said:

No, politics and election prediction has been my hobby since I first watched the 1956 Democratic and Republican conventions on TV. My career has been military all my life. 20 years active, another 26 as a Department of the Army Civilian. I would never change that.

The bottom line is politics is fun, it is entertainment for me. I would have that no other way either.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Just thought I'd ask because you're pretty damn good at it. Not to blow smoke up your ass, but I love seeing your posts because they give me a clear, accurate, and nonpartisan analysis of the race or event in question.

TeleKat said:

Fair enough. Just thought I'd ask because you're pretty damn good at it. Not to blow smoke up your ass, but I love seeing your posts because they give me a clear, accurate, and nonpartisan analysis of the race or event in question.

Click to expand...

Greetings, TeleKat. :2wave:

He's been our "go-to" guy for a long time, and we appreciate him, cause it's a lot of work, although he says it's his hobby! It would give me a major headache! Since he doesn't care either way, he is as unbiased as one can get! Thanks for giving him the kudos he deserves! :thumbs:

TeleKat said:

Fair enough. Just thought I'd ask because you're pretty damn good at it. Not to blow smoke up your ass, but I love seeing your posts because they give me a clear, accurate, and nonpartisan analysis of the race or event in question.

Click to expand...

I try. Being once an election is over I compare my results to the professionals like Nate Silver, Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, Rothenberg and others. I did pretty good, missing only North Carolina and Kansas. The wave was a bit bigger than I thought. I also came real close in the House, I predicted a pick up of 9 Republican seats, they picked up 13. Not bad.

I posted all my predictions on my blog and I made an early start for 2016. That is just a SWAG. But thanks for the kind words.

Glen Contrarian said:

And the key is in your last seven words - "Dark horses do well for the Democrats." I don't ever remember the GOP having a dark horse candidate win a presidential election. Ever.

And I don't think you have any realistic hopes of one on the horizon, either, thanks to the increasing polarization of the parties. Liberals by their very nature are more likely to listen to someone they've never heard of, even if that person looks and sounds differently, and even if they've got a funny name. Conservatives, OTOH, are less likely to do so, but are more likely to pay more attention to someone more familiar to them.

I know that may sound offensive to you, but it's not meant to be offensive...and both ways certainly have their advantages and disadvantages. But the above is why dark horse candidates do well for the Dems...and not so much for the GOP.

Click to expand...

Um... I think there's been some kind of miscommunication here. Because I wasn't arguing for a GOP dark horse. I was arguing for Warren. :lol:

Glen Contrarian said:

If you don't think Hillary can stir up the base, you're greatly underestimating her. But the base of either party simply isn't enough in a presidential election, as the GOP simply doesn't seem to get. Hillary's greatest advantage...is the GOP's insistence on doing whatever it takes to piss off the minorities in its eternal quest to stir up its increasingly way-far-to-the-right-of-Goldwater base. As long as your politicians keep playing the "I'm-more-conservative-than-the-other-guy" circular firing squad game, the Dems will hold the White House.

Click to expand...

She has never shown she can stir anything up other than controversy. She's just not an exciting candidate. No one ever "gets a thrill up their leg" about Hillary Clinton.

Not debating "my politicians" as you like to call them. This thread is about the Democratic Party. I have stuck to the topic of the thread and will continue to. That you decided to, for some unknown reason, make comments that have nothing to do with the topic makes no sense to me. You really brought no relevant point to the debate. Have a nice day.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, they both are, in a way. Neither are appealing, on issues, to the average person, certainly.

Click to expand...

Bases are always in second place to prudence. Only in retrospect do the bases rally to their leader. They forget about the internal dissent from the time period. The rest of the time, the base is in a perpetual state of displeasure. Washington, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, Kennedy, and Reagan all went through it and all rehabilitated to fantasy true believer status.

This lead me to believe that bases need bones to be fed while being directed straight to the center.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

The Republicans don't have the same base they did back in the day. Their base these days is, firstly, reactionaries, and secondly, the politically ambivalent who are just tired of Dems never getting anything done on any metric, liberal or otherwise.

Click to expand...

Back in the day is when, exactly? I can't think of a time in the past 70 years where that was really different (at the very least, from the perspective of liberals).

The political Democrats today are literally conservatives. All they ever do -- because since they've shirked the idea of supporting liberal policy, it's all they can do -- is try to keep things the way they are. That is a type of moderate conservatism (in action, if not necessarily in root cause).

Click to expand...

Democrats are more moderate than in the past, which may make them seem more conservative. They also are more Hamiltonian than Republicans, which may come off as more conservative. That being said, I'd not exactly consider Democrats all that conservative under many definitions of the word. I do agree they have been influenced by the Reagan years, but I would temper that with a reminder of both the loss of the Blue Dog democrats as well as the Truman democrats.

The plan of "appealing to the moderates" hasn't worked, because the fact is, we still have a lot of liberals in this country. And the Democrats are losing more of them every election by continuing to be nothing but moderate conservatives, and gaining a few more moderates hasn't made up for losing so many liberals.

We don't have a liberal major party. We have conservatives and reactionaries.

Click to expand...

I thought it worked quite well for Democrats. While Republicans were disorganized and increasingly outwardly populist, Democrats were capitalizing on the idea that they were the "sane" party-which also meant being less ideologically driven (despite Tea Party protests to the contrary).

Some of this is merely the result of traditional ebbs and flows in electoral victories ( Americans growing tired of one party being in power for too long), but some of it was successful strategy at appealing to the moderates.

Die-hards won't get you there. It's falling into the same trap many Republicans have been falling into over the past decade.

I'll address each of the candidates individually:

Clinton: She is leading in the polls right now by an extraordinary amount, but once people actually start to care about 2016, her lead will certainly decrease as time goes on. Claiming that Hillary is a lock because "omg she's leading in polls a year before the election" makes no sense. Opinions change over a year, people. Clinton does have numerous factors going against her, including the fact that she represents the democratic establishment, coming from the Obama administration. I didn't vote for her in the poll because a Clinton presidency would be even less progressive than what we have right now.

Warren: I would enthusiastically vote for Warren. I disagree with this idea that Warren will lose in a landslide because she's "far left" or whatever. Warren has a populist style that would appeal to working class voters who voted Romney over Obama.

Webb: Although Webb is better than Hillary, he's not going anywhere. He's terribly underfunded, as evidenced by his kind of pathetic 2016 website. I doubt that his exploratory committee will evolve into a full scale campaign, and if it does, it'll about as successful as Huntsman or Paul were in 2012. Again, Webb's populist rhetoric is the kind of appeal that could pull the white working class to the democratic party, but his anti-immigration stance is enough to push Hispanics towards the republican or stay home, depending on who the candidate is. I did vote for Webb in the poll, although in a hypothetical 2016 election, I'm not sure if I would support him. He is pretty progressive on most issues, but his immigration stance is unappealing. However, it is just a hypothetical scenario, and one that is unlikely to happen.

Sanders: He's more interesting. Sanders also has the same populist thing going on as Warren and Webb. In fact, this is evidenced by the 2012 election, when Sanders received a higher percentage of the vote than Obama in Vermont. Despite the fact that he's an Independent, he's been a hero for the left wing of the democratic party for awhile now. I find it hard to believe that he would receive much opposition from voters by becoming a member of the democratic party in order to run, although I'm sure that some of his primary opponents will try to take that angle. I would enthusiastically vote for Sanders over all of the other options provided in the poll.

Biden: Nobody with half of a brain would want Biden to run for the nomination unless they're looking a victory for the republicans. I don't dislike Biden personally, but the man is practically a gaffe machine and is attached to an unpopular administration.

O'Malley: Idk why this guy is even taken seriously. No one even knows who he is outside of Maryland, and he doesn't represent any faction of the party that isn't better represented by one of the better candidates.

Cuomo: Anyone who thinks this guy has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination didn't pay any attention to his reelection campaign this year. (He essentially campaigned as a full-on right winger.) The man would be crushed in a primary, as he deserves to be.

Perotista said:

No, politics and election prediction has been my hobby since I first watched the 1956 Democratic and Republican conventions on TV. My career has been military all my life. 20 years active, another 26 as a Department of the Army Civilian. I would never change that.

The bottom line is politics is fun, it is entertainment for me. I would have that no other way either.

Click to expand...

Oh, wow - you've been there, done that, and helped make the t-shirt, so to speak. I am sorta jealous 'cause that meant you lived through the sixties and the Summer of Love - that must have been an exciting time...and I missed it by a decade. That, and you also heard the Stones, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and Janis Joplin when they were new and fresh...and I can just imagine how you feel when you see eighth-graders today wearing Jimi Hendrix t-shirts like they do here in Washington state. I've long thought that centuries from now, the music of the sixties and early seventies will be seen as just as classic as, and perhaps even more important than, what we think of as classical music by Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.

But that also meant that you watched the 1968 Democratic convention, and the assassination of the Kennedys, the rise of Vietnam, and the Civil Rights struggle. IMO for anyone interested in American history, the 1960's has to be the most interesting decade of all (even more so than the 1860's)...and you lived it!

And one more thing - don't let your memories be lost once you pass away! Write a book, even if it's only published for free online, so that those that come after you can understand what you've seen, and learn from the lessons you have to teach....

Cheers!:drink:drink

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Um... I think there's been some kind of miscommunication here. Because I wasn't arguing for a GOP dark horse. I was arguing for Warren. :lol:

Click to expand...

Ah. Sorry - my bad. It was probably my hair-trigger defensiveness affecting my perception. Again.

MarineTpartier said:

She has never shown she can stir anything up other than controversy. She's just not an exciting candidate. No one ever "gets a thrill up their leg" about Hillary Clinton.

Not debating "my politicians" as you like to call them. This thread is about the Democratic Party. I have stuck to the topic of the thread and will continue to. That you decided to, for some unknown reason, make comments that have nothing to do with the topic makes no sense to me. You really brought no relevant point to the debate. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

1. It's all too easy for someone to dismiss those from the other side as unexciting, just as I don't see anyone from the conservative side as 'exciting'. That said, you probably haven't heard Hillary speak in person, and I have. She's smarter and better than you think - I came away thoroughly impressed with how she quickly and readily answered tough questions with hard-and-fast replies and easily-verified statistics...and that's something I've never seen any other politician do. I strongly suspect that she had a heck of a lot more influence on her husband's presidency than people think....

Those who are polarized against her will never consider her at all...but those who are on the fence, who do listen before making up their minds, are much more likely to vote for her than you might think.

2. And when it comes to a different topic being brought up on a thread...that's *normal* for threads of any significant length. Over the twenty years I've been doing online discussions, it's been very rare for a thread of more than a few dozen posts to stay strictly on topic.

SocialDemocrat said:

Webb: Although Webb is better than Hillary, he's not going anywhere. He's terribly underfunded, as evidenced by his kind of pathetic 2016 website. I doubt that his exploratory committee will evolve into a full scale campaign, and if it does, it'll about as successful as Huntsman or Paul were in 2012. Again, Webb's populist rhetoric is the kind of appeal that could pull the white working class to the democratic party, but his anti-immigration stance is enough to push Hispanics towards the republican or stay home, depending on who the candidate is. I did vote for Webb in the poll, although in a hypothetical 2016 election, I'm not sure if I would support him. He is pretty progressive on most issues, but his immigration stance is unappealing. However, it is just a hypothetical scenario, and one that is unlikely to happen.

Click to expand...

If I recall, Webb voted in favor of the DREAM Act. Speaking as an open borders advocate myself, Webb's immigration stance isn't really all that bad. He is strongly in favor of securing the borders, sure, but he's also for some form of amnesty for those already here. This could serve as a good compromise on the issue. :shrug:

Glen Contrarian said:

Oh, wow - you've been there, done that, and helped make the t-shirt, so to speak. I am sorta jealous 'cause that meant you lived through the sixties and the Summer of Love - that must have been an exciting time...and I missed it by a decade. That, and you also heard the Stones, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and Janis Joplin when they were new and fresh...and I can just imagine how you feel when you see eighth-graders today wearing Jimi Hendrix t-shirts like they do here in Washington state. I've long thought that centuries from now, the music of the sixties and early seventies will be seen as just as classic as, and perhaps even more important than, what we think of as classical music by Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.

But that also meant that you watched the 1968 Democratic convention, and the assassination of the Kennedys, the rise of Vietnam, and the Civil Rights struggle. IMO for anyone interested in American history, the 1960's has to be the most interesting decade of all (even more so than the 1860's)...and you lived it!

And one more thing - don't let your memories be lost once you pass away! Write a book, even if it's only published for free online, so that those that come after you can understand what you've seen, and learn from the lessons you have to teach....

Cheers!:drink:drink

Click to expand...

I was drafted in the army back in 1966, made a career of it. I went to Thailand in May of 67 and that along with being a farm boy, I missed the decade of free love. But I was in High School when JFK was shot, pure shock and anger. The Cuban Missile Crisis was interesting not knowing if a nuke would be landing on us at any time. That worried me more than it did my dad, he was a WWII vet. He took it all in stride, no big thing.

I was in Thailand in 1968 when the Democratic Convention was held. But I read about it in the Stars and Stripes and in the Bangkok Post. I never thought such a thing could happen. MLK and RFK's assassination, terrible. I thought the whole world had gone mad. What was interesting, I was stationed in Laos as part of the secret war in Civilian Clothes beginning in 1969 when Nixon came on TV and said we had no troops stationed in Laos. I followed that up with 2 years in Vietnam and 3 more in Thailand.

Yeah, interesting times. I have thought about writing a memoir about my 10 years in Southeast Asia, May 1967 through July 1976. I haven't. I would have to run it all pass the military and get their okay for non-fiction, real life etc. Now fiction is another matter.

On civil rights, what really sticks in my mind is Birmingham in 1963, the police using dogs and fire hoses on peaceful demonstrations. To me that was the turning point in the movement. At least for me, I doubt without Birmingham the 1964 civil rights bill would have never been passed. Birmingham got most peoples attention.

From what I see being posted on DP I think most people in their posting do not put what happened in the 1960's into the context of the times and can not understand the why's, what was done and why. This goes from the anti-war protesters to the soldiers in Vietnam to the Civil Rights movements to even the killing of Oswald by Ruby. To what is perceived as a huge cover up of JFK murder by the government. Lots of reasons and nuances that are not in the history books. History is written with 20-20 hindsight, that makes it very hard to really understand the times, the reasons and whys, the fears. But I suppose most history is like that.

TeleKat said:

If I recall, Webb voted in favor of the DREAM Act. Speaking as an open borders advocate myself, Webb's immigration stance isn't really all that bad. He is strongly in favor of securing the borders, sure, but he's also for some form of amnesty for those already here. This could serve as a good compromise on the issue. :shrug:

Click to expand...

He voted against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which was supported by the Republican president of the time. And although he voted for the Dream Act, he is one of the most "anti-immigration" politicians in the party. It's not a full right-wing stance, but when Democrats are very dependent on the Hispanic vote, it would be risky to nominate a candidate that a republican could potentially position themselves to the left of on immigration.

SocialDemocrat said:

He voted against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which was supported by the Republican president of the time. And although he voted for the Dream Act, he is one of the most "anti-immigration" politicians in the party. It's not a full right-wing stance, but when Democrats are very dependent on the Hispanic vote, it would be risky to nominate a candidate that a republican could potentially position themselves to the left of on immigration.

Click to expand...

Sure, but there is this to keep in mind:

Immigration

More Americans Favor Border Security over Amnesty | The Fiscal Times

The majority of Americans seem to favor a middle of the road option with an emphasis on securing the border. I would personally rather someone far more relaxed on immigration, but as far as what will win....

We should also keep in mind that while there might be a few Republicans that get the bright idea to run to the left of such a position, but that will lose them pretty much all of their base. Republicans of all stripes are overwhelmingly in favor of locked-down borders and no amnesty. And they have proven they will lynch their own on that issue. Just look at Eric Cantor.

Perotista said:

I was drafted in the army back in 1966, made a career of it. I went to Thailand in May of 67 and that along with being a farm boy, I missed the decade of free love. But I was in High School when JFK was shot, pure shock and anger. The Cuban Missile Crisis was interesting not knowing if a nuke would be landing on us at any time. That worried me more than it did my dad, he was a WWII vet. He took it all in stride, no big thing.

I was in Thailand in 1968 when the Democratic Convention was held. But I read about it in the Stars and Stripes and in the Bangkok Post. I never thought such a thing could happen. MLK and RFK's assassination, terrible. I thought the whole world had gone mad. What was interesting, I was stationed in Laos as part of the secret war in Civilian Clothes beginning in 1969 when Nixon came on TV and said we had no troops stationed in Laos. I followed that up with 2 years in Vietnam and 3 more in Thailand.

Yeah, interesting times. I have thought about writing a memoir about my 10 years in Southeast Asia, May 1967 through July 1976. I haven't. I would have to run it all pass the military and get their okay for non-fiction, real life etc. Now fiction is another matter.

On civil rights, what really sticks in my mind is Birmingham in 1963, the police using dogs and fire hoses on peaceful demonstrations. To me that was the turning point in the movement. At least for me, I doubt without Birmingham the 1964 civil rights bill would have never been passed. Birmingham got most peoples attention.

From what I see being posted on DP I think most people in their posting do not put what happened in the 1960's into the context of the times and can not understand the why's, what was done and why. This goes from the anti-war protesters to the soldiers in Vietnam to the Civil Rights movements to even the killing of Oswald by Ruby. To what is perceived as a huge cover up of JFK murder by the government. Lots of reasons and nuances that are not in the history books. History is written with 20-20 hindsight, that makes it very hard to really understand the times, the reasons and whys, the fears. But I suppose most history is like that.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Before you write your memoirs, I want to read your anthology! Are you close to wrapping it up? After I read that then I look forward to reading your autobiography. I believe it would sell lots of books, because you seem to have lived a most interesting life - and we probably don't know the half of it! :mrgreen:!

Perotista said:

I was drafted in the army back in 1966, made a career of it. I went to Thailand in May of 67 and that along with being a farm boy, I missed the decade of free love. But I was in High School when JFK was shot, pure shock and anger. The Cuban Missile Crisis was interesting not knowing if a nuke would be landing on us at any time. That worried me more than it did my dad, he was a WWII vet. He took it all in stride, no big thing.

I was in Thailand in 1968 when the Democratic Convention was held. But I read about it in the Stars and Stripes and in the Bangkok Post. I never thought such a thing could happen. MLK and RFK's assassination, terrible. I thought the whole world had gone mad. What was interesting, I was stationed in Laos as part of the secret war in Civilian Clothes beginning in 1969 when Nixon came on TV and said we had no troops stationed in Laos. I followed that up with 2 years in Vietnam and 3 more in Thailand.

Yeah, interesting times. I have thought about writing a memoir about my 10 years in Southeast Asia, May 1967 through July 1976. I haven't. I would have to run it all pass the military and get their okay for non-fiction, real life etc. Now fiction is another matter.

On civil rights, what really sticks in my mind is Birmingham in 1963, the police using dogs and fire hoses on peaceful demonstrations. To me that was the turning point in the movement. At least for me, I doubt without Birmingham the 1964 civil rights bill would have never been passed. Birmingham got most peoples attention.

From what I see being posted on DP I think most people in their posting do not put what happened in the 1960's into the context of the times and can not understand the why's, what was done and why. This goes from the anti-war protesters to the soldiers in Vietnam to the Civil Rights movements to even the killing of Oswald by Ruby. To what is perceived as a huge cover up of JFK murder by the government. Lots of reasons and nuances that are not in the history books. History is written with 20-20 hindsight, that makes it very hard to really understand the times, the reasons and whys, the fears. But I suppose most history is like that.

Click to expand...

I sorta know what you mean about being far away from what's happening. I remember when I was on the Ranger back in '83, the only news we got was a one-page brief once a month...but that was also how I found out that the coup in Guatemala (or was it Honduras) happened the day after we held an air show on board for the general who conducted the coup the next day...gee, why were we there?

Thailand...well, if Pattaya was any indication, that was probably better than the Summer of Love any day of the week.

And worrying about ICBM's flying our way from the USSR...I remember those days when my friends and I were Absolutely Sure the missiles would be coming any day now, and so we had our guns and our plans to strike out on our own once the bombs fell. People today have no clue what it meant to be living under that nuclear sword of Damocles. I remember when my ship pulled in to the World's Fair in Vancouver B.C. back in '86 - the Chinese pavilion was grand, and I wanted so much to go inside the biggest pavilion - the Soviet one - but my friends and I were pretty sure that if we did, we would be noticed and targeted for contact by Soviet agents...or at least be noticed by agents of our own side and thus lose our security clearances, no trial, no appeal, but instant loss of our security clearances...and you know what that does to a military career. Man, but I never understood until much later how it sucked to be living with such paranoia.

Life is indeed much, much better these days...if incredibly more complicated.

polgara said:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Before you write your memoirs, I want to read your anthology! Are you close to wrapping it up? After I read that then I look forward to reading your autobiography. I believe it would sell lots of books, because you seem to have lived a most interesting life - and we probably don't know the half of it! :mrgreen:!

Click to expand...

In some ways pol, it was also a sheltered life. In the military we would never put up with racial strife, we could get rid of the undesirables. Walk into any PX on any post and you will see GI's married to all sorts of foreign nationals and different races. All normal. A soldier always has a job, so there was not worrying about losing one's job. On active duty all healthcare was compliments of the Army. No worries of the average Joe.

But it was one great life and so was working for the Army as a civilian. All the advantages of the military community, the comradeship. I wouldn't even try to put it into words, today even though retired from both active and army civilian, the retired military community is always there.

Glen Contrarian said:

I sorta know what you mean about being far away from what's happening. I remember when I was on the Ranger back in '83, the only news we got was a one-page brief once a month...but that was also how I found out that the coup in Guatemala (or was it Honduras) happened the day after we held an air show on board for the general who conducted the coup the next day...gee, why were we there?

Thailand...well, if Pattaya was any indication, that was probably better than the Summer of Love any day of the week.

And worrying about ICBM's flying our way from the USSR...I remember those days when my friends and I were Absolutely Sure the missiles would be coming any day now, and so we had our guns and our plans to strike out on our own once the bombs fell. People today have no clue what it meant to be living under that nuclear sword of Damocles. I remember when my ship pulled in to the World's Fair in Vancouver B.C. back in '86 - the Chinese pavilion was grand, and I wanted so much to go inside the biggest pavilion - the Soviet one - but my friends and I were pretty sure that if we did, we would be noticed and targeted for contact by Soviet agents...or at least be noticed by agents of our own side and thus lose our security clearances, no trial, no appeal, but instant loss of our security clearances...and you know what that does to a military career. Man, but I never understood until much later how it sucked to be living with such paranoia.

Life is indeed much, much better these days...if incredibly more complicated.

Click to expand...

Better and more complimented, indeed you're right. 1980-83 I was stationed with the 11th ACR in Fulda guarding the East German Border and the Fulda Gap. Where everyone expected WWIII to start. I never made it to Central America, but it had always sounded interesting. Now in Elementary School in the 1950's we all participated in duck and cover drills. Every town of any size had their fallout shelters with pre-placed dried food etc. The only time I worried about Nukes was when I was a kid, Cuban Missile Crisis. All the rest became old hat, just what one did.

I think most people can adjust to anything as long as they have their routine. I am glad I was in the army when I was, the old work hard and play hard army. I probably would have been kicked out doing what we did back then today. Yeah, Thailand of 67-69 and 73-76 was probably just like Pattaya, only a heck of a lot cheaper. Laos was even cheaper.

Perotista said:

Better and more complimented, indeed you're right. 1980-83 I was stationed with the 11th ACR in Fulda guarding the East German Border and the Fulda Gap. Where everyone expected WWIII to start. I never made it to Central America, but it had always sounded interesting. Now in Elementary School in the 1950's we all participated in duck and cover drills. Every town of any size had their fallout shelters with pre-placed dried food etc. The only time I worried about Nukes was when I was a kid, Cuban Missile Crisis. All the rest became old hat, just what one did.

I think most people can adjust to anything as long as they have their routine. I am glad I was in the army when I was, the old work hard and play hard army. I probably would have been kicked out doing what we did back then today. Yeah, Thailand of 67-69 and 73-76 was probably just like Pattaya, only a heck of a lot cheaper. Laos was even cheaper.

Click to expand...

Pattaya - I had to chuckle at the price comparison.... I've often said I wish every American could spend a few months living over there, so they could learn how to be grateful for what they've got.

Fulda Gap - yeah, that's where we expected it to begin...and we weren't enthusiastic about your chances there. But then, I strongly doubt that the Soviets could have launched an attack there without us knowing about it at least a month in advance.

And yeah, I remember those duck-and-cover drills. I told my son about it - he thought it was silly. And I guess when it comes to a hundred kiloton-warhead or so going off nearby, duck-and-cover probably was pretty silly...but it didn't seem silly at the time.

Glen Contrarian said:

1. It's all too easy for someone to dismiss those from the other side as unexciting, just as I don't see anyone from the conservative side as 'exciting'. That said, you probably haven't heard Hillary speak in person, and I have. She's smarter and better than you think - I came away thoroughly impressed with how she quickly and readily answered tough questions with hard-and-fast replies and easily-verified statistics...and that's something I've never seen any other politician do. I strongly suspect that she had a heck of a lot more influence on her husband's presidency than people think....

Those who are polarized against her will never consider her at all...but those who are on the fence, who do listen before making up their minds, are much more likely to vote for her than you might think.

2. And when it comes to a different topic being brought up on a thread...that's *normal* for threads of any significant length. Over the twenty years I've been doing online discussions, it's been very rare for a thread of more than a few dozen posts to stay strictly on topic.

Click to expand...

We'll see in 2016. She's going to lose, no doubt in my mind, and it will because she can't get the people that voted for Pres Obama to come out and vote for her. They will stay home. That equals a win for the GOP.

Glen Contrarian said:

Pattaya - I had to chuckle at the price comparison.... I've often said I wish every American could spend a few months living over there, so they could learn how to be grateful for what they've got.

Fulda Gap - yeah, that's where we expected it to begin...and we weren't enthusiastic about your chances there. But then, I strongly doubt that the Soviets could have launched an attack there without us knowing about it at least a month in advance.

And yeah, I remember those duck-and-cover drills. I told my son about it - he thought it was silly. And I guess when it comes to a hundred kiloton-warhead or so going off nearby, duck-and-cover probably was pretty silly...but it didn't seem silly at the time.

Click to expand...

Yep, everyone seems to take the duck and cover drills seriously. IKE was president then and I think they were just an exercise to have us doing something so we would think we were safe. Something like that anyway. You know the old idle hands routine.

Oh we had some surprises for the Soviets and Warsaw Pack if they ever did. But I am sure they knew what we had and thus wasn't about to come that way. Only the public didn't know it.