|
Volkerball posted: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. From what I understand, the old line GOP establishment thinks that Rand Paul is an idiot and symptomatic of whats going wrong. I could be wrong though.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
I think its a bit too early to tell what the GOP will do with Rand. But I don't find it too hard to believe they'll do something similar like with his father. Let him be in the Senate forever and do his own thing as long as he's still caucusing with them and will support their majority leader and whatnot. It certainly helps that Rand Paul has at least seemed to work more closely with the Senate GOP has in the last two years compared to how much Ron didn't work with the House GOP over...two decades?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
The Buffalo News has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Buffalo News has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. It will be interesting to see when the GOP starts demonizing Clinton as she doesn't matter to them anymore. I'm guessing it will ramp up soon over Libya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:It will be interesting to see when the GOP starts demonizing Clinton as she doesn't matter to them anymore. I'm guessing it will ramp up soon over Libya. VINCE FOSTER MATTERS! I'm tired of liberals forgetting the past and erasing it the same way Stalin did!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
My interpretation of 2012 was not so much that the "serious" GOP candidates (Christie, Jeb, Daniels) got out of the way for Mitt because it was his turn or thought he couldn't be beat, as much as they made an assessment that Obama was going to be a tough out, and stayed out accordingly. My read on Rick Perry was that he made the same calculation, but then at the height of the debt showdown fiasco, where Obama looked his worst (in my opinion), he suddenly looked very beatable and this caused Perry to reassess and jump in. Now who knows whether he would have been any better as a candidate with more preparation - I have my doubts because he really seemed to reveal that he is a total imbecile - but either way I suspect he's ruined his brand forever for the Presidency, his humiliation was just to thorough. After this election the idea of putting a "Southern" (Texas counts) rootin-tootin cowboy type atop the ticket is dubious at best, but with his performance in this primary it's a complete nonstarter. I kind of weep for Huntsman because I think he made kind of good moves but then made a terrible decision by running this time, before the wingnut theory of GOP politics had been refuted, that has ended his Presidential ambitions. I don't know if he could have won the 2016 primaries (after a Romney loss there might have been a "not ANOTHER Mormon" thing), but his chances would certainly have been a lot better than this time. As far as Biden vs. Clinton, I suspect Clinton would just get a lot more support by default and I think Biden is just too old whereas Clinton is just borderline too old. I'm hoping that the Biden or Clinton issue works itself out in private beforehand because I think Obama owes Clinton a ton of support in 2016 should she run, and it would be very difficult if he had to publicly choose between his running mate and Clinton in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:As far as Biden vs. Clinton, I suspect Clinton would just get a lot more support by default and I think Biden is just too old whereas Clinton is just borderline too old. I'm hoping that the Biden or Clinton issue works itself out in private beforehand because I think Obama owes Clinton a ton of support in 2016 should she run, and it would be very difficult if he had to publicly choose between his running mate and Clinton in a primary. I don't think it will ever come down to Clinton vs. Biden in the primary, but it would be very easy for Obama to say "they're both great candidates and I'll leave it to our voters to decide." His ability to support either in the general is obviously going to depend on what's happening in the world four years from now, and whether he's got the interest or the drive to campaign again. Beyond Obama and the Clintons, there's nobody in the Democratic Party right now who can raise such obscene levels of money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I kind of weep for Huntsman because I think he made kind of good moves but then made a terrible decision by running this time, before the wingnut theory of GOP politics had been refuted, that has ended his Presidential ambitions. I don't know if he could have won the 2016 primaries (after a Romney loss there might have been a "not ANOTHER Mormon" thing), but his chances would certainly have been a lot better than this time. As long as he thinks seemingly randomly speaking in Chinese durring a Republican debate is a good idea, he doesn't have a chance at the presidency. quote:As far as Biden vs. Clinton, I suspect Clinton would just get a lot more support by default and I think Biden is just too old whereas Clinton is just borderline too old. I'm hoping that the Biden or Clinton issue works itself out in private beforehand because I think Obama owes Clinton a ton of support in 2016 should she run, and it would be very difficult if he had to publicly choose between his running mate and Clinton in a primary. Obama isn't going to endorse anyone in the Primary. The only reason Bill even got into it was because Hillary was running. Other than that, Presidents pretty much keep mute durring the primary beyond broad strokes of how much they like the field.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Obama isn't going to endorse anyone in the Primary. The only reason Bill even got into it was because Hillary was running. Other than that, Presidents pretty much keep mute durring the primary beyond broad strokes of how much they like the field.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
"[Nelson Rockefeller's withdrawl] does give a certain atmosphere of no competition.... The only thing I know about the Presidency the next time is this - I can't run." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 14, 1960. "Q. Mr. Mohr: We understand that the power of decision is entirely yours, Mr. President. I just wondered if you could give us an example of a major idea of [Nixon's] that you had adopted in that role, as the decider and final– THE PRESIDENT. If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don’t remember." ~ August 24, 1960. They were such good buddies 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Tell me what I don't know about Jeb Bush. If you ask me, he would be - by far - the GOP's #1 choice for their nominee and also the scariest opponent for a Democrat in the general. As we all know, when it comes to picking a nominee, most Republicans won't choose a candidate based on ideology, religion, etc. (Romney is a Mormon, for crying out loud...) Their sole motivation is to pick the nominee that has the best chance of beating the Democrat candidate. And in 2016, it will have been over 30 years since a Republican not named Bush has won a presidential election... I think Jeb would have the nomination for 2016 if he wanted it, no contest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
DonT15 posted:Tell me what I don't know about Jeb Bush. His being the brother of the man by far regarded as the worst president in recent memory is far more of a liability than the idea that "those Bushes are the ones who know how to win the White House for the GOP". Americans, even many Republicans, are resistant to the idea that the GOP President has to be only from one family. This is a potential problem for Hillary too but her resume and experience stand alone just fine now and she is not tainted by association with a failed Presidency (assuming the economy doesn't crater in the next few years). It's possible that two terms would be enough time since his brother's presidency, but I suspect not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:"[Nelson Rockefeller's withdrawl] does give a certain atmosphere of no competition.... The only thing I know about the Presidency the next time is this - I can't run." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 14, 1960. Yeah, he didn't like or trust Nixon. He kept Nixon around because he served as a link to the far-right of the Republican Party, and he only reluctantly endorsed his candidacy in 1960.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
If Jeb Bush was nominated, I'm pretty sure all the Democrats would have to do is run ads of him with GW.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
I don't know. That's how I feel, but some of my GOP friends quite like JB. Even those who don't like GWB. I don't understand it either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
He's the smart one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
The thing with Rand Paul is that despite him being a bit of a gadfly and beating McConnell's candidate in 2010 is that apparently he's built actual ties with McConnell to the point where McConnell is bringing on a Paul-land advisor to handle his re-elect (Jesse Benton). It's entirely likely that McConnell is just trying to stave off a primary challenge by linking himself to Paul but the flip side of that is that barring some epic backstabbing McConnell seems likely to support Paul for reelection. I think the real questions with Paul are how crowded the presidential field is going to be and whether he can find a way to wink-nudge his dad's crowd while looking enough like a sane candidate that he can bring in some non-Paul tea party votes. If he can do that in a crowded field I could see him (best case) making what will appear to be a viable run until the crowd thins and everyone realizes his ceiling is like 30%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
DinosaurEggSalad posted:The thing with Rand Paul is that despite him being a bit of a gadfly and beating McConnell's candidate in 2010 is that apparently he's built actual ties with McConnell to the point where McConnell is bringing on a Paul-land advisor to handle his re-elect (Jesse Benton). It's entirely likely that McConnell is just trying to stave off a primary challenge by linking himself to Paul but the flip side of that is that barring some epic backstabbing McConnell seems likely to support Paul for reelection. Isn't 30% enough depending on the competition, since the Republican primaries are winner-takes-all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
point of return posted:Isn't 30% enough depending on the competition, since the Republican primaries are winner-takes-all? I mean a) 30% is the best best best possible amount (I'm assuming he could pick up his dad's 15-20% plus a big segment of the population that went Cain-Gingrich-Sanatorum) and b) that's only possible if the field is both crowded and sort of lovely and c) still he might be able to steal New Hampshire and Nevada that way before enough candidates drop out and the establishment rallies around someone. The problem for Paul is that even if the field is crowded, it might be crowded in a different way than 2012; instead of Romney and a bunch of weak candidates trying to appeal to an unsatisfied conservative base it's more likely its going to be crowded with Christie, Rubio, Ryan, McDonnell and maybe Walker/Sandoval/Jindal, all of which could generate excitement with various wings of the party. In that case Paul's hope would be rack up delegates and 'momentum' before the a single candidate emerges from each wing (I.e multiple Christian social conservatives, multiple slightly more moderate governors, etc).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
point of return posted:Isn't 30% enough depending on the competition, since the Republican primaries are winner-takes-all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
DonT15 posted:Tell me what I don't know about Jeb Bush. Beyond the associations to his brother, Jeb's wife has always been pretty vocal about not wanting him to run. 2016 is going to be another bloodbath year, especially if Hillary decided to run and takes the primary. Hillary Clinton running against a Bush with the Obama campaign team behind her.. well the attacks on Romney will look like fluffy happy endorsements compared to what will hit the air. So I doubt Ms. Bush would be too happy with Jeb dragging her into that environment. Plus, the Clinton name carries more weight with hispanics than even the latino frienly Jeb can counter, whatever inroads the GOP could potentially make would be neutralized out of the gate. If they want to swing away from the fringe Christie is their best bet, Jeb comes with to many strings. He walks in weak due to his family associations, gets no real demographic help where it is needed, with the only possible net positive being a good chance at taking Florida. I would be beyond shocked if this is the direction they went.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
DonT15 posted:Tell me what I don't know about Jeb Bush. It would be impossible to separate JB from GWB.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
I said this in another thread, but Mike Huckabee will be a strong candidate for the Republicans in '16. He has a way of moderating his tone that most of the other Republicans don't, and he's incredibly likeable. He's also got the "next-in-line" thing going for him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
ProFootballGuy posted:I said this in another thread, but Mike Huckabee will be a strong candidate for the Republicans in '16. He has a way of moderating his tone that most of the other Republicans don't, and he's incredibly likeable. He's also got the "next-in-line" thing going for him. If he ran in the primaries, he'd automatically have the white evangelical crowd locked up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
ProFootballGuy posted:I said this in another thread, but Mike Huckabee will be a strong candidate for the Republicans in '16. He has a way of moderating his tone that most of the other Republicans don't, and he's incredibly likeable. He's also got the "next-in-line" thing going for him. He actually could because he's likeable, and has the additional advantage that he could soft pedal the culture war, Bible thumping crap because those voters already know he's one of them, he's got their vote by default.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Huckabee's been done for years. He makes way too much money jamming with the Nuge and Def Leppard once a week to bother with politics again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Huckabee is too busy making mad cash by sitting on the side and complaining to actually go out and do something anymore. He took the Palin train all the way to the bank. He won't run again, he has seen how its far more lucrative to bitch about things and not be responsible for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Jeb Bush has also been an astronomical dick on death penalty. I'm sure he'll get a lot of kudos out of that at the primary. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Plus, despite his likable demeanor, Huckabee would get eviscerated in a general election. All of those demographic problems that the GOP is slowly realizing they need to try and fix? He would make them worse. The Democratic Party could run Anthony Weiner and would still have a shot at it. Lets not forget that Huckabee was a guy who was standing with Akin till the end and castigating other republicans for criticizing him. He's proposed quarantining citizens with HIV. He wants to rewrite the constitution to meet 'god's standards'. Despite paying lip service to respecting the dignity of undocumented (or as he puts it, illegal) immigrants, he wants them to essentially self-deport.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
watt par posted:Huckabee's been done for years. He makes way too much money jamming with the Nuge and Def Leppard once a week to bother with politics again. Yeah, 2012 was his year and he sat it out. In 2016 he'll just be 10-years out of governorship, with only a fading memory of what he did as governor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah, 2012 was his year and he sat it out. In 2016 he'll just be 10-years out of governorship, with only a fading memory of what he did as governor. This too. I don't think it's a question that if he had made a serious run in 2012 he could have waltzed away with the nomination and I have to assume he knew it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Buffalo News has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. People fuckin' love Hillary Clinton in Western New York, honestly not surprised. I keep seeing Jindal saying reasonable things (most recently condemning Mitt Romney on 47% part 2) and...I'm sorry, I'm still not buying it. Certainly not on the "moderate" path; he has the baggage of cultural poo poo like the exorcism/anti-evolution stuff, and his record as governor wasn't very moderate, was it? I recall he was part of the "no stimulus funds" brigade. I'm not really sure what niche he could fit into.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
There's nothing moderate about what Jindal's doing here it's just political survival 101. Any half sensible politician would know the Republicans can't double down on "47%" and open minority bashing (especially now that it's definitively 52%). I can't imagine any Republican ever hoping to run for a statewide office again would stand behind those comments and the canny ones will use it as good opportunity to separate themselves from Romney's growing failure stench.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Jindal and Rubio are being so transparent about 2016 it's a bit off putting. That corpse is still warm, guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:There's nothing moderate about what Jindal's doing here it's just political survival 101. That was the most recent, but Jindal has done a few things like that by now - this Politico piece has most of them. My favorite was Jindal, an intelligent design proponent, saying the GOP needs to stop being the 'stupid party'. He also included this: quote:“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.” (And yeah, his motivations are exceedingly obvious)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Jindal is loving dreaming if he has eyes on the Presidency. Jesus. "We just not be the party of the stupid...hey guys, want to hear about this exorcism I witnessed?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Well let's just hope you've been taking some speech-givin' lessons, Bobby. It really is amazing how those big speech opportunities on the national stage can make or break you. Obama 2004 DNC Keynote? Has the mojo, clearly. Jindal SOTU rebuttal? Does NOT have the mojo. 2012 DNC: Booker? Mojo. Castro? Mojo. O'Malley? No mojo. Zwabu fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Nov 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Well let's just hope you've been taking some speech-givin' lessons, Bobby. How does Clinton in 88(?) fit into this
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
^^^ Clinton's 88 speech was widely panned but the difference was he bounced back from it and from a rocky start in the '92 primary. In contrast, Evan Bayh's keynote address in...'92 or '96 was something he never really got over and now he is just the perennial VP-short-list guy. Chris Hayes on his weekend MSNBC featured Gov Cuomo on his "What we now know this week that we didn't know last week" segment, talking about Cuomo's lack of support for Democrats running for the NY State Senate. Cuomo said that he didn't work against Republicans due to those that voted for the same-sex marriage bill that passed in part due to some Republican support, but Hayes pointed to one Republican who was defeated in a primary race and Cuomo didn't support that Democrat (Hayes didn't make it clear if that specific Senate seat went blue or stayed red). Hayes also pointed that one Brooklyn Democrat, elected as a Democrat, has announced that he'll be caucusing with Republicans and with two seats still going through a recount, the Dem majority is a thin margin and there might be a 30-30 tie. Hayes said that Cuomo is purposely doing this so that, when he runs for POTUS, he can tout bi-partisan support working with a Republican Senate that he wouldn't be able to do if it changed over to Democrats in both houses. notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
ProFootballGuy posted:I said this in another thread, but Mike Huckabee will be a strong candidate for the Republicans in '16. He has a way of moderating his tone that most of the other Republicans don't, and he's incredibly likeable. He's also got the "next-in-line" thing going for him. Huckabee will never be President. He doesn't want to be, for one thing, because he's making a killing on the sidelines commentating and writing books. And while he may lock up the white religious vote, 2012 was a clear indicator that that group is shrinking... however, Huckabee is somehow further right than Romney on social issues so not only does he basically get the same number of white votes that Romney got (or less, as demographics shift), he also loses more independents disgusted by his social views.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 21:09
|
|
