|
Sylink posted:Why does anyone want Condi Rice to run around here? She is a terrible person right up there with Colin Powell with respect to their involvement and inability to stop the bullshit that was the Bush administration. The discussion is generally who do we think is going to run, not who do you personally want to run.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:The discussion is generally who do we think is going to run, not who do you personally want to run. Condi is still a speculative choice though as most of her friends like Madeline Albright have said over the years that she really isn't a politician, she's a diplomat-foreign policy junky. If she's drafted any more heavily than Christie will be though, she will run, because she tends to view government service as something she'll do if her party needs her. Otherwise I'm sure she's content to move on with her life from the Bush administration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
I fully expect the cycle of "WILL CONDI RUN?! (Probably yes!!!)" followed by "Rice Denies any Interest in Running" to continue every single election cycle until approximately 12 years after her death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
SombreroAgnew posted:I fully expect the cycle of "WILL CONDI RUN?! (Probably yes!!!)" followed by "Rice Denies any Interest in Running" to continue every single election cycle until approximately 12 years after her death. Side issue, and it's only come up a couple times regarding Nate Silver, but one effect of this election I wish had come to fruition is that everyone finally realized that beltway punditry is comprised of nothing but the ravings of half-literate paint chip eaters, which we can safely ignore as even less meaningful than astrology and haruspices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Dang I could easily get behind those 3 things. I wonder how closely Bloomberg is watching the debate in the Republican party. If the Tea Party/Old White Establishment wins the civil war, there would definitely be room in the middle for an independent like him, especially if his buddy Cuomo isn't running. Bloomberg is a strange creature. I think if he ran in 2016 he would definitely be by far the strongest contender in a general election against a Democrat. Everything I've heard from fellow New Yorkers is he's widely liked for his steadfastness even if people don't agree with his priorities. A good example would be the infamous Stop and Frisk controversy. He flat out stated that he's priority is to decrease gun deaths, and that any civil liberties being stepped on was a secondary priority to that ("People have a right to live formost"- was his argument). The fact that he didn't go noodly armed at the controversy won him points with minority leaders in the bronx and east new york, even those who were fighting against the policy because civil rights was for them the primary concern. No one can call him flip-flopping or lacking leadership (in fact, he's too much a leader for a lot people). However, make absolutely no mistake: He will not get out of the GOP primaries. He's nowhere near what a "real republican" is supposed to be these days. That, and I think he much prefers the direct powers of the mayorial office to the futility of the Presidency. Micromanager is definitely the correct term for him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:However, make absolutely no mistake: He will not get out of the GOP primaries. He's nowhere near what a "real republican" is supposed to be these days. That, and I think he much prefers the direct powers of the mayorial office to the futility of the Presidency. Micromanager is definitely the correct term for him. Oh I don't think he'd run in any party's primaries but would instead run as a third party candidate. If the GOP select a Ryan or Santorum-esque candidate, then there would definitely be room in the middle for a third candidate. I just wonder how quickly Bloomberg could build the infrastructure for a presidential run without a party framework
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
In the long run, I think it was a pretty clever move by Christie to embrace Obama. He took a gamble on Mittens not winning and it paid off. Now Christie can set himself up for 2016 as someone who has genuinely not let partisan politics get in the way of taking care of his people and is willing to "work across the aisle". I think, if he could manage to lose some of that weight, that he could also campaign for a "healthier lifestyle" too in the mix - like someone here said, it'd be a good non-threatening talking point. Basically I think Christie is the likely GOP candidate for 2016, he's going to be much more effective than McCain or Romney and has a genuine shot at winning, even though the US economy will probably come back in the next four years and running as a Republican won't be easy. I strongly believe Christie's campaign won't be as dirty as the last two Republican presidential runs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
On the other hand, I think that Christie's notoriety will fade again once the reality of dealing with the hurricane sets in. Recent celebrity aside, I don't see him as a viable candidate. He's going to run for re-election for New Jersey governor in 2013 (a four year term), which is too early to commit to the 2016 race, and he'll be too busy putting the state back together to do a primary run. Not that he's displayed any interest in the position, nor would he be able to keep up with the demands of a national campaign due to his weight.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Nov 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Rudy couldn't capitalize on a good public image following 9/11. It's not a foregone conclusion that Christie can turn this into anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Bloomberg is a strange creature. I think if he ran in 2016 he would definitely be by far the strongest contender in a general election against a Democrat. Everything I've heard from fellow New Yorkers is he's widely liked for his steadfastness even if people don't agree with his priorities. Which party are you expecting to nominate Bloomberg to run against the Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Which party are you expecting to nominate Bloomberg to run against the Democrats? The party of Bloomberg. His net worth is $22 billion. Not all rich people have that much in actual money they can spend at the drop of a hat, but Bloomberg could set aside a cool 1-2 billion if he really wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Well maybe he could be a third party or he could run as a Democrat in the primaries but he's not getting nominated by the Republicans. He's only a Republican in name now so he didn't have to run in a primary against anyone for the mayoral election. He has horrible politics but he basically fits right in with most national Democratic politicians these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Why does anyone want Condi Rice to run around here? She is a terrible person right up there with Colin Powell with respect to their involvement and inability to stop the bullshit that was the Bush administration. The answer to every "Why does everyone here..." question is: go and find me two posts in this thread where someone unequivocally advocated for it. I'll wait. As for Condi as a candidate, I think the best we can hope for is that someone for the "traditional" wing of the Republican party wins the nomination, rather than one of the radicals or Tea Parties. I was actually really glad that Romney was the nominee this time instead of Santorum or Gingrich because it focused the race on some of the serious policy differences between the two parties rather than becoming a clown show. This meant that Obama advocated for some positions (for example upper class tax hikes) that he would not have had to do against Rick Santorum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Rudy couldn't capitalize on a good public image following 9/11. It's not a foregone conclusion that Christie can turn this into anything. Chris Christie doesn't come off as a festering bitter rear end in a top hat though. I really hate Rudy Giuliani.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The answer to every "Why does everyone here..." question is: go and find me two posts in this thread where someone unequivocally advocated for it. I'll wait. You think he wouldn't have proposed/campaigned on tax hikes for the rich if his opponent had been one of the loons?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
richardfun posted:You think he wouldn't have proposed/campaigned on tax hikes for the rich if his opponent had been one of the loons? He wouldn't have needed to, imagine an Akin-esque rape chat falling out of sweatervest or jowlies mouth. Election over. Instead of 47% we would have gotten "babykiller!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
richardfun posted:You think he wouldn't have proposed/campaigned on tax hikes for the rich if his opponent had been one of the loons? Obama probably wouldn't even have showed up for the debates if it was Santorum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:The party of Bloomberg. His net worth is $22 billion. Not all rich people have that much in actual money they can spend at the drop of a hat, but Bloomberg could set aside a cool 1-2 billion if he really wanted to. I have to preface this by saying that I literally have next to no idea what Bloomberg's ideologic stances are. That said: I would love to see him run as an independent simply so we could see how far an independent candidate with big-party levels of funding could go nowadays. Perot '92 got, what, 20% of the popular vote? If Bloomberg is less insane (and chose a better running mate) he could net a bit more. My enthusiasm for Bloomberg 2016 would be tempered by whether his candidacy would result in a far-right monstrosity winning because of Democrats splitting their votes, but goddamn if I don't want viable third-party choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Well maybe he could be a third party or he could run as a Democrat in the primaries but he's not getting nominated by the Republicans. He's only a Republican in name now so he didn't have to run in a primary against anyone for the mayoral election. He has horrible politics but he basically fits right in with most national Democratic politicians these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
The time is actually pretty ripe for a wealthy third party guy to run, although we'll be in a better position to judge this after 2014. We were just talking about this in one of my electoral politics seminars - fundamentally a third party guy's best shot to make a substantial showing is to sniff out and impending or active factional battle in one or both of the major parties and exploit it. It doesn't take a genius or a wizard to realize that the GOP, while they will do their best to suppress it, has a battle coming. For that matter, the Dems may well too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Condi is still a speculative choice though as most of her friends like Madeline Albright have said over the years that she really isn't a politician, she's a diplomat-foreign policy junky. If she's drafted any more heavily than Christie will be though, she will run, because she tends to view government service as something she'll do if her party needs her. Otherwise I'm sure she's content to move on with her life from the Bush administration. Well, the whole she's maybe probably gay thing would kill her in any primary race. Especially if the Santorum branch comes out again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:The time is actually pretty ripe for a wealthy third party guy to run, although we'll be in a better position to judge this after 2014. We were just talking about this in one of my electoral politics seminars - fundamentally a third party guy's best shot to make a substantial showing is to sniff out and impending or active factional battle in one or both of the major parties and exploit it. It doesn't take a genius or a wizard to realize that the GOP, while they will do their best to suppress it, has a battle coming. For that matter, the Dems may well too. That said, I have a gut feeling that Bloomberg wouldn't do it. It doesn't seem to be his style, and I think he'd be happier with the direct control that mayor of New York City over the 'soft' control of being a third party spoiler. But I don't think anybody really knows besides Bloomberg himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Jonked posted:Bloomberg being Perot without the crazy is either an amazing vision for the future, or something that will have me waking up in a cold sweat from 2014 til November 2016. I'm honestly not sure at this point. Ron Paul(off mic): you won't be mayor forever He got them to remove the term limits once, they won't do it in perpetuity. He has to go somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Jonked posted:Bloomberg being Perot without the crazy is either an amazing vision for the future, or something that will have me waking up in a cold sweat from 2014 til November 2016. I'm honestly not sure at this point. He'd also split New York against the Democrats. Not that he's in the can for them, but he doesn't seem like he'd want to do that considering his socially liberal stances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Well, the whole she's maybe probably gay thing would kill her in any primary race. Especially if the Santorum branch comes out again. Perhaps, this is the time for the Republicans to get over their lil' problems, and nominate the first allegedly gay black woman for president?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Perhaps, this is the time for the Republicans to get over their lil' problems, and nominate the first allegedly gay black woman for president? Pretty sure Oprah is a democrat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Nothus posted: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. As a resident of Ohio, one thing I can say for certain about John Kasich is gently caress that guy. And now that I've gotten that out of my system, I think you're right, nobody here likes him--hell, he even managed to piss of law enforcement, how does a Republican governor even do that? (Hint: http://youtu.be/KF0_Qe4zNrE). He's clearly had Presidential ambitions in the past (was apparently on the short list for VP in 1996 and formed an exploratory committee for 2000) but now I think he's more into looting public assets for Wall Street and genuinely doesn't give a gently caress about anything else. I could be wrong, though, but hopefully a loss in 2014 will kill any chances of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
As a Marylander, I don't know what to feel when I see Gov. O'Malley's name on the list for potential candidates for the Democratic ticket. I can see Sen. Benjamin Cardin in the Democratic primaries for sure, but not so much Gov. O'Malley. Sure, Question 6 being voted into state law recently happened while he was at the helm, and he approved a similar bill earlier this year back in March, but that doesn't mean that he should be inside the Oval Office. Now that I think about it, I don't really like the idea of O'Malley being in White House.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
HereticMIND posted:As a Marylander, I don't know what to feel when I see Gov. O'Malley's name on the list for potential candidates for the Democratic ticket. I don't think O'Malley has a real chance unless Biden and Clinton retire and he gets the Clinton endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Perhaps, this is the time for the Republicans to get over their lil' problems, and nominate the first allegedly gay black woman for president? Condoleezza Rice deserves better than to have the Republican Party nominate her for the Presidency. Pirate Radar fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:I have to preface this by saying that I literally have next to no idea what Bloomberg's ideologic stances are. That said: I would love to see him run as an independent simply so we could see how far an independent candidate with big-party levels of funding could go nowadays. Perot '92 got, what, 20% of the popular vote? If Bloomberg is less insane (and chose a better running mate) he could net a bit more. My enthusiasm for Bloomberg 2016 would be tempered by whether his candidacy would result in a far-right monstrosity winning because of Democrats splitting their votes, but goddamn if I don't want viable third-party choices. pangstrom fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
greatn posted:Ron Paul(off mic): you won't be mayor forever
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Comedy Time: who plays the Ron Paul role next (assuming those kids keep organizing)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Comedy Time: who plays the Ron Paul role next (assuming those kids keep organizing)? Comedy option, LaRouche.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:he could also campaign for a "healthier lifestyle" too in the mix - like someone here said, it'd be a good non-threatening talking point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:He's basically a technocrat and not a natural politician. I think he's a good mayor and I think he'd wilt on the national stage. He's short, he isn't really a natural politician, he'd probably get painted as a New York City limousine liberal, and he'd be 74 in 2016. The talk of Bloomberg being anything but an embarrassment in 2016 is silly. The guy is at best considered a mayoral fascist in most states outside of NY. He is dead in the water with the GOP, and I don't think using his disgusting wealth to buy a campaign is going to endear him to many Democratic voters. The myth of some great “independent” block in America that he could tap into is just that, a myth. Bloomberg has no future beyond his purchased fiefdom of NYC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Jonked posted:God, you learn something new every day. I didn't realize the mayoralty had a term limit in New York City. My gut still says that Bloomberg won't run and if anything he'll go for the senator seat since that seems to be the natural progression, but well, Bloomberg. I'm pretty sure that both Schumer and Gillibrand could turn Bloomberg into paste if he tried to run for either of their seats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Comedy Time: who plays the Ron Paul role next (assuming those kids keep organizing)? It very nakedly became a money making sideshow this year and one Ron wants to keep in the family. I think Rand will put an obviously non-serious effort into 2016 just to keep the fundraising train rolling, get himself on TV more, and maybe wiggle his way onto some VP lists. It will be interesting to see if the  ution comes along as many of them hate him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It very nakedly became a money making sideshow this year and one Ron wants to keep in the family. I think Rand will put an obviously non-serious effort into 2016 just to keep the fundraising train rolling, get himself on TV more, and maybe wiggle his way onto some VP lists. It will be interesting to see if the Isn't Rand gaining steam in the Republican party though? He endorsed Romney, but he also criticized him a bit too. He might be more politically viable if he just stays the current course. Might be able to draw in some libertarian nepotism votes as well. I could see the libertarian party moving forward with Gary Johnson or a new guy, and just making sure the nominee pays enough lip service to the great L. Ron Paul Hubbard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:Isn't Rand gaining steam in the Republican party though? The party leadership doesn't trust him, and for good reason. He's been a bit of a gadfly at times in the Senate. I expect he'll have a qualified challenger in his next Senate primary. quote:I could see the libertarian party moving forward with Gary Johnson or a new guy, and just making sure the nominee pays enough lip service to the great L. Ron Paul Hubbard. I don't think Johnson's going to go back to the well with the LP in 2016 and, even if he does, they might not take him. He managed 0.98% of the vote this time. Now granted, that's the LP's best showing ever, but even Nader managed 2.74% in 2000 and the goal is to hit 5% so that you qualify for matching funds. He didn't even come close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 13:18
|
|