|
Booker's pretty clearly preparing to run for Senate in 2014 and I'm becoming convinced that he's running whether Lautenberg retires or not.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Booker's pretty clearly preparing to run for Senate in 2014 and I'm becoming convinced that he's running whether Lautenberg retires or not. Lautenberg is 88 right now, I've gotta think he'll call it a career. Since Christie has already stated he's going to run for re-election as Governor, Senator would seem to be the next step for Booker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Booker's pretty clearly preparing to run for Senate in 2014 and I'm becoming convinced that he's running whether Lautenberg retires or not. It's really kind of startling when you think about all the places you can't mount a Presidential campaign from. Businessman, journalist, entertainer, activist, lobbyist, pundit, academic, athlete, religious leader - go home. The judiciary, House of Representatives, executive appointment (Secretary of X, Ambassador to Y, Director of Z), statewide offices that aren't Governor, county or city-level positions - no way. Even the semi-backdoor of skipping the Senator/Governor requirement by getting on a ticket as Veep doesn't seem to work very well. I can't think of any House member who got a VP slot on a winning ticket (Ferraro in 84, Kemp in 96, Ryan in 12 all lost - and I just noticed they were all tickets that were challenging a sitting President. Hmmm), but I haven't thought back that far. Biden, Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush, and Mondale were all Senators, Agnew was a Governor, Humphrey, Johnson, Nixon, Barkely, and Truman were Senators. Wallace held a bunch of posts in FDR's cabinet. You have to go back to Garner who was Speaker of the House in 1932 when he ran and won as FDR's VP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
George H.W. Bush's highest elected office before Vice President was as a two term House member. He did rotate through a number of appointed positions in the 70s, including CIA director, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and ambassador to the UN. He was a plausible although ultimately losing candidate for the presidential nomination in 1980 as the establishment alternative to Reagan with that resume.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
Someone asked me who else besides Hillary and maybe Biden were looking at a run in 2016. I came up with Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer (Deval Patrick as a long-shot). No Dem in the Senate looks poised for a Presidential run, and we've run through Congress and everything else being a tough launching pad. It's gonna be Hillary if she wants it. I'm not sure Biden will go for it if she doesn't, and from there it's the governors. I have a tough time imagining someone coming from left field to shake it up... I guess Elizabeth Warren, but she'd be like a 300/1 shot because I think she's content to try to be an unofficial Ted Kennedy heir in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Someone asked me who else besides Hillary and maybe Biden were looking at a run in 2016. I came up with Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer (Deval Patrick as a long-shot). No Dem in the Senate looks poised for a Presidential run, and we've run through Congress and everything else being a tough launching pad. After the 2012 elections, there are 72 Democratic senators and governors. I'd estimate at least 40 of them have presidential ambitions, and that number feels low. Literally almost all of them are thinking about it and talking the possibilities out with spouses and such right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:After the 2012 elections, there are 72 Democratic senators and governors. I'd estimate at least 40 of them have presidential ambitions, and that number feels low. Literally almost all of them are thinking about it and talking the possibilities out with spouses and such right now. There's an old saying about how all 100 Senators, when they look into their bathroom mirrors in the morning, see a future President looking back at them. e: And you're right about GHW Bush, I'd forgotten that he'd maxed out at the House level before becoming an establishment appointee/functionary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 09:24
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:After the 2012 elections, there are 72 Democratic senators and governors. I'd estimate at least 40 of them have presidential ambitions, and that number feels low. Literally almost all of them are thinking about it and talking the possibilities out with spouses and such right now. Yes, but how much of that is based in reality? I consume a LOT of political news and nobody is talking much about Governors Abercrombie, Dayton, Gregoire, Hickenlooper, Kitzhaber, Lynch, Malloy, Shumlin, etc. I just named eight Democratic Governors. I know a few of you could name the state every one of them is governing without the aid of Wikipedia, but the average voter nationwide MIGHT go 2/8 out of blind luck or because they live in or border those states. These Governors are non-factors in a Presidential race. The only ones that will matter are the ones I named previously: Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer because they're all making noise in various ways to get noticed nationally. There's a reasonable chance Deval Patrick would run if the field lacked Hillary or Biden. On the Senate side of the coin, Warren is the only one I can see of that caucus making a run in 2016 and she'd only make that run because it'd probably be her last chance to do so. 2016 is Hillary's to lose... not even that. It's Hillary's to decline. If she runs, she's the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:Secretary of Defense Cory Booker will personally lay down suppressing fire at Firebase Charlie in Afghanistan. With a minigun, Predator-style. I think it'd be more likely for them to make Booker HUD secretary, though. quote:Businessman, journalist, entertainer, activist, lobbyist, pundit, academic, athlete, religious leader - go home. I don't know about that. I mean sure, nowadays people like Romney - or, reaching back, Rockefeller - have to hold real political office, but I bet in 20-odd years they'll be able to just buy the Presidency more effectively than now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The reasons Giuliani lost had little to do with his lack of political standing, he just didn't run a great campaign and had a very poor set of results come for his candidacy in the early contests he was not seriously contesting. You're also forgetting that Giuliani was a terrible person with a really messy personal life and not a lot of charisma to smooth it all out. He's a very nasty guy, and he comes across that way. I remember his RNC speech in 08, that was really one of the nastiest speeches I've ever really heard. Then you throw in all the poo poo that was going on with his wife and how his kids don't want to associate with him, and now you got the makings for a guy who can't go anywhere. Especially the part about his kids. Remember, on 9/10/01, Giuliani's career was in decline. After his first term, things weren't going that good for him. Giuliani essentially spent 2008 running on 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Someone asked me who else besides Hillary and maybe Biden were looking at a run in 2016. I came up with Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer (Deval Patrick as a long-shot). No Dem in the Senate looks poised for a Presidential run, and we've run through Congress and everything else being a tough launching pad. Everyone in Mass thinks Patrick is going to run, and right wing talk media is salivating over Governor Scott Brown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Because "Mayor of an important city" isn't one of the four places you can launch a successful Presidential campaign from. Governor, Senator, VP, General of a winning war - that's it. I'd add Secretary of State. Six of them became presidents, and possibly a seventh soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Everyone in Mass thinks Patrick is going to run, and right wing talk media is salivating over Governor Scott Brown. For what it's worth I'm in Massachusetts and a politics nerd and I don't see Patrick going for it at all; it's always been my thought that he wants to be appointed to some high level office like Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Randallteal posted:I'd add Secretary of State. Six of them became presidents, and possibly a seventh soon. Again, there's a small sample size for Mayor. Only four presidents even ran for the mayorship, and three won their races (TR ran in NYC and lost). All of them eventually held higher office before they ran for president. I wouldn't discount any mayor winning directly from that position but it would certainly most have to be from a huge city like New York or Chicago. Basically if you think that Schweitzer is qualified to run being Governor of Montana, you have to say the same of Bloomberg for actually managing an area where people live. Giuliani was a horrible candidate and human being in general so that's not a weakness of the office altogether.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
Randallteal posted:I'd add Secretary of State. Six of them became presidents, and possibly a seventh soon. Nothing wrong with being a SoS, but it's not sufficient to earn a spot at the top of a major party's national ticket. You still need to pass through the Senate or a Governorship (or serve as Veep or win a war). It's why Condoleeza Rice was never a credible suggestion for a Republican candidate, nor Henry Kissinger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The seventh (Clinton) will have been a US Senator, as was Buchanan, Van Buren (also a Governor), John Quincy Adams, and Monroe (also a Governor). Madison went House to SoS to President, but that was 200 years ago and still in the shadow of the founding. Bryan is a near-example, but his stint as SoS came more than a decade after he lost his second Presidential campaign. Kissinger was never credible because he's not a natural-born citizen - he's ineligible. That's why. (I'll leave it unsaid why Condoleezza Rice was not considered a serious possibility in the Republican Party of the early 21st century, and it's got nothing to do with the political limits of the State Department.) That said, I think a purely diplomatic/SoS background would doom a candidate, but mostly because those posts really inhibit your ability to network and fundraise and develop a constituency within the party elite that can get things moving early on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Booker is doing his food stamp challenge this week. Living off of $33 and some change for a week's worth of food. I also learned he's a vegetarian. Not sure if that'll make his food stamp challenge easier or harder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Booker is doing his food stamp challenge this week. Living off of $33 and some change for a week's worth of food. I also learned he's a vegetarian. Not sure if that'll make his food stamp challenge easier or harder. I wonder. Meat's getting pretty expensive these days (even a drat pot roast is getting costly) but I assume that it's getting equally expensive to eat, I dunno, tofu.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
That is not how you get protein on the cheap. You buy beans and eggs and chick peas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That is not how you get protein on the cheap. You buy beans and eggs and chick peas. Chick peas! Might as well starve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Tofu isn't terribly expensive, either. Like 2-bucks. But yeah, better protein sources that are much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
The point of it isn't really to show how you can fulfill all nutritional needs on a budget because you're a food genius, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Booker is doing his food stamp challenge this week. Living off of $33 and some change for a week's worth of food. I also learned he's a vegetarian. Not sure if that'll make his food stamp challenge easier or harder. Unless you're buying nothing but the processed Boca/Morningstar stuff, it's definitely cheaper to be a vegetarian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
greatn posted:The point of it isn't really to show how you can fulfill all nutritional needs on a budget because you're a food genius, though. Yeah if he power games this it will just lead to jerks saying the money is sufficient and poor people are dumb. $33 per week will get you almost 5 mcdoubles per day!  mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That said, I think a purely diplomatic/SoS background would doom a candidate, but mostly because those posts really inhibit your ability to network and fundraise and develop a constituency within the party elite that can get things moving early on. Yeah, this. If you're an appointee you don't get the opportunity to meet bundlers and campaign operatives and build relationships with them. I'd imagine the main reason Senators and Governors have the easiest path to the presidency is due to the fact they've had to go through at least one campaign that requires significant fundraising and consultancy and have a chance to assemble a good team around them. HW Bush is basically the only exception to this in the modern era and he's the patriarch of an extremely established, politically active WASP old money family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Yeah, even living cheap is still not that cheap. It would be a very homogeneous diet, with each meal being practically the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah if he power games this it will just lead to jerks saying the money is sufficient and poor people are dumb. McDoubles are a clear health choice. Grains: Buns Meats: Beef Patties Dairy: Cheese Vegetables: Ketchup 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
You eat beans and rice. That is what you. A 10lb bag of rice is like $10 and will last a month or so depending on how much you eat. Then you buy shitloads of canned beans. You might be able to pull off stir fries but IDK. Not healthy but doable. Alternatively, ramen and a multivitamin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Not healthy but doable. Fairly sure this is what it's meant to prove. And also that this is actually really bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Sylink posted:You eat beans and rice. That is what you. why would you buy canned beans? surely the bags of dried ones are cheaper per pound
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
Riptor posted:why would you buy canned beans? surely the bags of dried ones are cheaper per pound It takes loving forever to prepare the dried ones. You have to let them soak overnight, whereas rice can cook in 20 minutes. Plus, a giant can of black beans isn't all that expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:It takes loving forever to prepare the dried ones. You have to let them soak overnight, whereas rice can cook in 20 minutes. Plus, a giant can of black beans isn't all that expensive. I cook dried beans all the time, all it takes is forethought. I use a slowcooker so that I can ignore it while it cooks, but you can use a stove pot just as well. Cooking up a week's worth of beans and rice is really easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Is there some connection between being a bootstrapping right-winger and bragging about cooking dry beans? I swear I'm starting to notice it over and over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is there some connection between being a bootstrapping right-winger and bragging about cooking dry beans? I swear I'm starting to notice it over and over. Yes, the connection is that they pretend to have had to suffer by doing something that poors do even thought they never actually had to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I cook dried beans all the time, all it takes is forethought. I use a slowcooker so that I can ignore it while it cooks, but you can use a stove pot just as well. Cooking up a week's worth of beans and rice is really easy. You really shouldn't use a slow-cooker to cook kidney beans, they will never get to a high enough temperature to leach all the toxins out unless you run it on high for hours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is there some connection between being a bootstrapping right-winger and bragging about cooking dry beans? I swear I'm starting to notice it over and over. Dave Ramsey (right wing financial douche) always tells people to bootstrap themselves by eating nothing but "rice 'n beans, beans 'n rice." Painful to listen to for two hours a day at work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:You really shouldn't use a slow-cooker to cook kidney beans, they will never get to a high enough temperature to leach all the toxins out unless you run it on high for hours. Actually what I do is soak them overnight, then bring them to a high boil for 10 minutes and scoop off the foam, then put them in the slowcooker and add in spices, onions and garlic. And I use mixed beans in any case. Sometimes I'll go further and add in grilled veggies and sausage and just turn it into a bean soup. It can't take more than a half hour of work all told, and it makes at least a dozen meals. I just put some in a bowl, add cheese or a fried egg, and reheat. Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
See, being poor is as easy as eating nothing but chili.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Stormageddon posted:See, being poor is as easy as eating nothing but chili. The fact that there are good-tasting, low-cost meals that can be made with relatively little prep time if planned in advance, and that these meals aren't seeing the kind of use they could be, is relevant to the discussion of feeding the poor in America. I'm all for expanding food support, it's both moral and good for the economy, but we could also be doing a better job with education and with making cheap, healthy food available. What's most important is that people eat, but it's a shame how much we end up subsidizing pre-prepared garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Food insecurity and nutrition education are related issues in a sense, but I think they should be kept separate. It strikes me as a little paternalistic when you're talking about people who need help to eat saying "and you should eat better while you're at it." Michelle Obama doesn't try to get white bread taken off of EBT or something; that would be seen, correctly, as really condescending and it would distract from the issue of healthy eating. Oh, uh, to tie this to the primaries: Mike Huckabee, famous obese consumer of fast food, will drop dead very soon because it is incredibly dangerous to get fat again after bariatric surgery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:12
|
|