|
Cuomo vs. Rubio in 2016, with Rubio winning. You heard it here first. Maybe that's more a hunch than anything, but I do think that the democratic party will be unpopular and depressed in four years, while the tea party will have gotten its poo poo together, purged all other factions (except maybe the libertarians) from having a voice in the republican party, and will nominate their own.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:Cuomo vs. Rubio in 2016, with Rubio winning. You heard it here first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Is Cuomo still with Sandra Lee? Because that should disqualify him from the presidency right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I have a feeling that Ted Cruz is actually the name to watch in this space and not Martinez or Rubio. Oh god no. Please, if there is any sort of benevolent supernatural power, don't let this happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Kasich has been trying to rehab his image by handing out candy to storm victims and supporting the school levy here in Cleveland. He's still a scumbag that everyone I know, left and right, loving hates. He'll be out on his rear end next election. I only hope that happens before he can sell the state liquor business and the turnpike to his Wall Street friends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Can somebody explain the appeal of Gillibrand to me? I know very little about her as come on, the election just happened and I'm not a NY resident, but what I do know throws up two enormous red flags: 1. She's a New York democrat with fundraising chops, see also: Schumer, Chuck 2. She was a blue dog. Officially.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
I don't know who gave me this avatar/title combo, but I love you so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:41
|
|
I EVER SPENT
|
Buffer posted:Can somebody explain the appeal of Gillibrand to me? I know very little about her as come on, the election just happened and I'm not a NY resident, but what I do know throws up two enormous red flags: You said it- Can get money. Democrat, but not too Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
People were very critical of her selection but she has actually been a really good progressive voice. She was a blue dog in a red district which got her into the house, but once she was in the Senate she's been a lot more progressive then people thought she was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:Cuomo vs. Rubio in 2016, with Rubio winning. You heard it here first. Cuomo has so little personality. He's very dry. Very. The rest of your post is insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
watt par posted:You said it- Can get money. Democrat, but not too Democrat. So what democrats really want in their heart of hearts is a socially liberal vintage 1990s republican? Well gently caress, Romney should change parties brush off his 1994-era self and give it a shot then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Buffer posted:So what democrats really want in their heart of hearts is a socially liberal vintage 1990s republican? Democrats the voters? Not so much. Democrats the party? Definitely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Buffer posted:So what democrats really want in their heart of hearts is a socially liberal vintage 1990s republican? Someone who is anti-gun control but otherwise one of the more liberal members of the Senate is pretty much exactly what the Democrats want, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Gillibrand's voting record is actually one of the most liberal in the Senate now. She ran really far to the right to win an extremely conservative House district, and now that her constituency's much more liberal she made a lot of convenient about takes. I think she actually flipped on gun control, and she was originally very pro gun. So it's hard to tell what she really believes, but she's a very cagey politician. I don't know how serious her national ambitions actually are, but her and Schweitzer together would be an absolutely fascinating Fantasy Politics ticket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Someone who is anti-gun control but otherwise one of the more liberal members of the Senate is pretty much exactly what the Democrats want, yes. Sticking up for your wall street constituents on the Volker rule and joining in with Schumer, Chuck on Wall Street stuff is the opposite of liberal on the single most important area one can be liberal on. I don't trust her post-senate turn, and combined with a general distrust of New York Dems on economics matters, I do not get being excited about her potential candidacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Buffer posted:Sticking up for your wall street constituents on the Volker rule... is the opposite of liberal Explain this, if you please. The Volcker rule is in theory one of the few financial regulations from the Obama administration that actually matters. (If your argument is "in practice, it's poo poo", I'm certainly open to that, but [citation needed].)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Explain this, if you please. The Volcker rule is in theory one of the few financial regulations from the Obama administration that actually matters. it basically states that commercial banks Canton gauge in speculative trading that's for pride Terry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:it basically states that commercial banks Canton gauge in speculative trading that's for pride Terry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:I think there's some auto correct going on here but I don't know which part. I think it's: "It basically states that commercial banks can't engage in speculative trading that's proprietary."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
This might seem like a bit of an odd question, but everybody seems to be pointing at Clinton as the obvious front runner. Now, I'm not an insider, so all of this is second hand and hearsay... people point out all the Clinton allies that wouldn't run, but they ignore all the Clinton enemies. I mean, wasn't that a big reason a lot of the big establishment names jumped behind Obama in 2008? From what I hear, the Clintons have long memories, and hold grudges, and backing Obama was partially to push off the reckoning that would come with a second Clinton presidency. Now that they've pissed off Hillary Clinton with that incredibly bitter primary fight (seriously, the Democratic primaries were harder fought than the actual election), won't they try to double down and push Hillary back to 2020, and hope 73 is too old? Obama made nice somewhat by giving Hillary the SoS, but I can't see the 08 civil war being healed over that easily. Assuming Hillary runs in '16, what then? Who would the anti-Clinton factions put up? Will the anti-Clinton faction even still exist in four years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
She's done a good enough job at State that she's not as polarizing as she used to be and the spectre of a general election fight about Hillarycare is sort of...not an issue now. There are probably a bunch of insiders who do still hate her and vice versa, but she's a Clinton and doesn't need them. With Bill making $100M a year or whatever ridiculous number he's racked up on speeches this whole time and his capability to raise money by breathing, she doesn't even need a huge outside primary warchest as badly as Biden or some other people are going to. Caveat: if they both run, yes, all of those people will flip to Biden, Obama will not be able to take a side himself and the fight will be a bruiser.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Assuming Biden is not running, I don't think the average Obama bundler or supporter has much animus after seeing Hillary leading the State Dept. and Bill's White House staff filling out a good portion of the executive branch. The anti-Hillary candidate will be a doomed challenger from the left who might get lucky and become VP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
There's a decent chance that a Hillary candidacy expands the map to some southern states. Bill Clinton was (and is) very popular in the south, and I don't expect the animus of a woman candidate to be as great as it was against a black man in those areas. Hillary could have a very real chance of picking up places like Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas while maintaining the existing Obama map. I don't really see where the Republicans go from here in terms of building a winnable EC coalition, especially if Obama passes immigration reform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
If Clinton were to run the party would largely step aside similar to how all the "serious" candidates got out of Romney's way this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
watt par posted:If Clinton were to run the party would largely step aside similar to how all the "serious" candidates got out of Romney's way this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
A lot of Hillary's old enemies aren't enemies anymore. She's turned into the beloved by all elder stateswoman of the party thanks to this term as SoS, which is one of the strangest turnarounds of any politician's image I can recall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
waffle posted:I think you're probably right for Clinton, but I don't know why any serious candidates would have done that for Romney, since he wasn't exactly a terribyl respected candidate. More likely that the big Republican names were too new to really want to run for President this year. He got the money locked up early on, hence why he was able to outspend Gingrich and Santorum up to 20:1 in Florida and elsewhere when it looked like they had an outside chance. The smart ones saw that Romney did his homework between 2008-11 to secure the Uncle Pennybags support. The other side of that was the smart ones knew Obama still had a half-decent chance at re-election. Romney was a burner candidate. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 09:28
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:Is Cuomo still with Sandra Lee? Because that should disqualify him from the presidency right there. I'm basically running on an "anybody but Cuomo" platform. Somebody sell me on Deval Patrick because he looks like the main challenger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Yes he is. Also they're not married. That's fine for you and me, but that might not fly in Middle America. - Does not associate with Sandra Lee Policy stuff that is nice but won't go anywhere: - For gun control - Against death penalty
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:A lot of Hillary's old enemies aren't enemies anymore. She's turned into the beloved by all elder stateswoman of the party thanks to this term as SoS, which is one of the strangest turnarounds of any politician's image I can recall. They might not dislike her any more, but she and Bill will leave them out in the cold for the rest of their lives. Once they realize there's zero chance of any favors ever coming from the Clinton camp their way they might reconsider their support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:They might not dislike her any more, but she and Bill will leave them out in the cold for the rest of their lives. Once they realize there's zero chance of any favors ever coming from the Clinton camp their way they might reconsider their support. I wonder if a meaningful split within the DLCers could be a beneficial thing that could be exploited, probably not. I do think a Hillary administration would probably be vaguely on the left on domestic policy than her husband or Obama. I wouldn't expect anything major from her, but I haven't heard her have the venom for left-liberals that Obama has.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I wouldn't expect anything major from her, but I haven't heard her have the venom for left-liberals that Obama has. I think this is largely because nobody goes around pretending Hillary is some far-left paragon (well, nobody except Fox News) the way they do with Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think this is largely because nobody goes around pretending Hillary is some far-left paragon (well, nobody except Fox News) the way they do with Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
I think the Democrats are going to be looking at their safest possible choice in 2016. It is rather unlikely to see significant turnaround on the economy in the next four years unless Obama is willing to hit the streets and spend years drumming up support for some major stimulus/direct investment/WPA action. An effort which would be stalked, poisoned, and hacked to pieces by the House in almost any case anyway. The markets could nosedive at any time for any one of a dozen reasons, home prices could crash, Ahmadinejad could muse some more about which countries he would prefer not to be running into at the U.N. cafeteria any longer. Fear-inducing things which seem to push voters toward fear-indulgent (conservative) voting. So voters are likely to be flirting with giving the presidency back to the Republicans because why the hell not/what's the worst that could happen/_______. I'm thinking that unless Obama dazzles this term, which would be wildly out of character for him, we're looking at Hillary as the only moderately safe bet for the Democrats to retain the presidency. But I agree that there are much more urgent things to be worried about in the federal sphere. We may find ourselves quickly longing for 2009-2012 when we could at least count on nothing much happening regarding terrible, terrible SS/Medicare reforms. Regress never sleeps and its warriors have their eyes on the prize this term.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:I think the Democrats are going to be looking at their safest possible choice in 2016. It is rather unlikely to see significant turnaround on the economy in the next four years unless Obama is willing to hit the streets and spend years drumming up support for some major stimulus/direct investment/WPA action. An effort which would be stalked, poisoned, and hacked to pieces by the House in almost any case anyway. The markets could nosedive at any time for any one of a dozen reasons, home prices could crash, Ahmadinejad could muse some more about which countries he would prefer not to be running into at the U.N. cafeteria any longer. Fear-inducing things which seem to push voters toward fear-indulgent (conservative) voting. Deepwater Horizon didn't make a dent in Obama's reputation, but the emergency work in New York might bite Bloomberg severely in the rear end. Or not at all. Bad things aren't necessarily bad to incumbent politicians. In fact, high unemployment has proven to work in the favour of incumbent Democrats, so it's going to be really hard to predict the impact of all the upcoming events, however cataclysmic. Unfortunately, this is likely to be something left only to pundits to discuss the consequences of, since it's going to be too nebulous for someone like Nate Silver to measure. Obama is a uniter and not a divider, and that's going to help him a lot in these cases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
The economy will have rebounded significantly in four years; Romney's "12 million new jobs" promise was based on estimates of what will happen if nobody does anything to promote growth. I think it's Hillary's if she wants it. To be honest, I grew to dislike her intensely during the later phase of her 2008 campaign, but have warmed to her since seeing her in action on the world stage. Biden could probably put up a fight, but I can't see Cuomo, Patrick, Schweitzer et al having a sniff. If it is Hillary, is it safe to call VP for someone like Patrick, Booker or Castro (Julian)? Inspiring dudes who help out demographically and would have a shot in 2020?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Jawidar posted:The economy will have rebounded significantly in four years; Romney's "12 million new jobs" promise was based on estimates of what will happen if nobody does anything to promote growth. Do you think Hillary would be content with just one term, or do you mean 2024? Because if Hillary runs and wins, that means no Democrats gets a chance in 2020. And if she loses, the VP has to wipe that loser brand off pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Right now, I just want to see a Joe Biden v. Chris Christie debate. I have no idea whether that would be good for the country, but I'm pretty sure it would be hilarious to watch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
sullat posted:Do you think Hillary would be content with just one term, or do you mean 2024? Because if Hillary runs and wins, that means no Democrats gets a chance in 2020. And if she loses, the VP has to wipe that loser brand off pretty quickly. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Jawidar posted:I meant in the event that she loses, but thinking about it I could see her being a one-term President even if she won: she'd be 77 by the end of her second term - not prohibitively old in this day and age, but as old as Reagan was at the end of his. I disagree that VP candidates inevitably are inevitably tainted as a loser, though the bad ones definitely are (e.g. Palin) The statistic that gets tossed around is that the only losing VP candidate to successfully run for president was FDR. Although, part of the issue is that using the VP slot to let a lower level politician gain exp is a newer one. Primarily they were used to gain support from other regions/factions of the nation/party, and would be about the same age as the president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:35
|
|