|
Volkerball posted:Can we stop with this talking point? Just because Romney lost doesn't mean everything Republicans tried to do had a negative impact. I still can't go a day without hearing about Benghazi or Fast & Furious. People listen to that poo poo. In 3 years there'll probably be a whole new scandal and this one will be long forgotten, but don't just write everything that they've attempted already as unsuccessful with a large group of voters. For all we know, Romney got 5% from people who were outraged about a manufactured Benghazi conspiracy and thought Obama didn't do enough about it. That is really silly. We will stop with this "talking point" when you actually bring some evidence to back your position up. Instead of just assuming based on rather weak anecdotal evidence.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is really silly. We will stop with this "talking point" when you actually bring some evidence to back your position up. Instead of just assuming based on rather weak anecdotal evidence. My position was based on the lack of evidence. I said "For all we know," what more do you want? For me to give evidence of the lack of evidence? I can think of 59 million of them. There's polls and ways to get general ideas based on the projections throughout the election, but we can't be certain which positions caused a net positive and a net loss. It's silly to say "This is what lost him the election," or "He lost, so obviously X didn't work for him," without just making an educated guess at best. Would you say that attacking Obama on the "slow" economic recovery didn't work in comparison to his business background? Because he polled higher than Obama most of the season in regards to the economy, and it was the highest priority for voters in tons of polls. I think it was pretty drat effective. All we know for certain is that all his positions and strategic decisions combined weren't enough to beat Obama's. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:My position was based on the lack of evidence. I said "For all we know," what more do you want? For me to give evidence of the lack of evidence? I can think of 59 million of them. There's polls and ways to get general ideas based on the projections throughout the election, but we can't be certain which positions caused a net positive and a net gain. It's silly to say "This is what lost him the election," or "He lost, so obviously X didn't work for him," without just making an educated guess at best. Would you say that attacking Obama on the "slow" economic recovery didn't work in comparison to his business background? Because he polled higher than Obama most of the season in regards to the economy. I think it was pretty drat effective. All we know for certain is that all his positions and strategic decisions combined weren't enough to beat Obama's. Yeah, like I said, its silly. You can't ask people to stop a talking point unless you debunk it. You can't. A position being pessimistic does not make it any moew valid than any other. Edit: Though I just noticed you say "but you can't boil it down to one point!" so I don't even think you disagree with the original "talking point". CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yeah, like I said, its silly. You can't ask people to stop a talking point unless you debunk it. You can't. This is true. But any claims of certainty are just as much a shot in the dark as my claims of uncertainty. Can't disprove it, but that doesn't make it an accurate position to take. quote:Edit: Though I just noticed you say "but you can't boil it down to one point!" so I don't even think you disagree with the original "talking point". No, there's logic to the idea. Might have phrased it wrong with "talking point." It's this in particular that I don't think is a wise approach. cheese posted:Ask Mitt 'Mittens' Romney how well the angle worked. It didn't work then, Volkerball fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Romney tried to hammer Obama on Benghazi and the entire country literally laughed at him in real time. The echo chamber remains the echo chamber, and those are the only folks talking about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Solyndra or whatever the hell else. Obama's lame duck moves--pushing for an AWB, immigration reform, women in combat--will be much better fodder for the GOP in 2016 than any of the 2012 bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Can we stop with this talking point? Just because Romney lost doesn't mean everything Republicans tried to do had a negative impact. I still can't go a day without hearing about Benghazi or Fast & Furious. People listen to that poo poo. I havent seen Fast & Furious in mainstream news for at least a month now, Benghazi also except for the hearings. And no one here is saying these things had a negative impact for Romney now just because he lost, it's because he mishandled both items almost as badly as possible, and he was called out for it at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:I don't necessary disagree with the idea that Biden/someone could make a good ticket, but I do find it a little amusing that you're comparing to one which lost by nearly 200 EV's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
It's effectively impossible to judge the reaction to Benghazi vis-a-vis the top line Presidential polling numbers, coming as it did right after the conventions and just days before the 47% tape leaked. That's some muddy water. But when 4% of people list foreign policy as the most important issue in exit polls, we can infer that it had rather minor impact on how people voted. Maybe Romney harping on it fired up some of the faithful, maybe it drove a few more into the Obama camp or caused some to stay home, but it just wasn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis that Romney desperately wanted it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
FHQ is out with the first look at the Republican primary rules. There are a lot of details there, which you can read but will probably be revised before the first event. The big news is that if Florida tries to jump the gun again it will have its delegation reduced from 99 to 12!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Obama's lame duck moves--pushing for an AWB, immigration reform, women in combat--will be much better fodder for the GOP in 2016 than any of the 2012 bullshit. We've gotten to the point where a President is a lame duck before the first month of their second term is over? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Can we stop with this talking point? Just because Romney lost doesn't mean everything Republicans tried to do had a negative impact. I still can't go a day without hearing about Benghazi or Fast & Furious. People listen to that poo poo. In 3 years there'll probably be a whole new scandal and this one will be long forgotten, but don't just write everything that they've attempted already as unsuccessful with a large group of voters. For all we know, Romney got 5% from people who were outraged about a manufactured Benghazi conspiracy and thought Obama didn't do enough about it. The vast majority of people never gave a gently caress about Benghazi other than maybe for a week after it happened and Fast & Furious was even more obscure outside of the right-wing media bubble. Both of those things mean gently caress-all to the typical voter, why would they have had much of an effect compared to things like the conventions, 47%, the state of the economy, hurricane Sandy, etc? The 5% of voters who would consider switching their vote from Obama to Romney or vice versa do not consume or put weight into right wing media and that's where 99.9999% of the blaming Obama for F&F and Benghazi occured, if they did they never would have been considering voting for Obama in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
mdemone posted:We've gotten to the point where a President is a lame duck before the first month of their second term is over? It's not correct but I've seen this usage of "lame duck" before to refer to second presidential terms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Lame duck connotes a lack of power due to imminent removal from office. That absolutely doesn't apply to a man who was literally sworn in last week. Give it at least a month, come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
I wouldn't call him a 'lame duck,' but Obama's certainly seemed less powerful since the 2010 midterms, much like Clinton after 1994. At least, this is the impression I've gotten.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:I wouldn't call him a 'lame duck,' but Obama's certainly seemed less powerful since the 2010 midterms, much like Clinton after 1994. At least, this is the impression I've gotten. Well, he went from having majorities in both houses to dealing with a republican house majority, so that might have affected your impression somewhat. Lame duck has nothing to do with if you have power - it's a specific reference to someone who is still in office but has already had their successor elected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Clinton is up 45/43 on Christie, 50/42 on Perry. and 46/45 on Rubio in 2016 matchups...in Texas. These are the types of polls that will tempt Hillary a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Clinton is up 45/43 on Christie, 50/42 on Perry. and 46/45 on Rubio in 2016 matchups...in Texas. I will personally carry her around, if I have to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Per Thomas Burr of the Salt Lake Tribune, Jon Huntsman has closed out his campaign's federal account after paying another $250k out of his own pocket to retire the remainder of his debt, just to shovel some more dirt on the Huntsman grave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Per Thomas Burr of the Salt Lake Tribune, Jon Huntsman has closed out his campaign's federal account after paying another $250k out of his own pocket to retire the remainder of his debt, just to shovel some more dirt on the Huntsman grave. Poor Arkane. Now what will he do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Per Thomas Burr of the Salt Lake Tribune, Jon Huntsman has closed out his campaign's federal account after paying another $250k out of his own pocket to retire the remainder of his debt, just to shovel some more dirt on the Huntsman grave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Clinton is up 45/43 on Christie, 50/42 on Perry. and 46/45 on Rubio in 2016 matchups...in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
The first declared candidate is already running campaign ads in Texas (click to watch the ad).quote:"Lee L. Mercer, Jr. of Houston, Texas is announcing his campaign for President of the United States in 2016 as a democrat to save America with Intelligence Management Education," the ad says."He is campaigning a Special Election Government Platform New Neutral Developed Intelligence Second U. S. Government that was patented in 2000 by the U.S. Department of Justice and Defense research and development testing." I'm glad to know that if you get appointed Conservator President of the United States you get power of attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
SombreroAgnew posted:Clinton/Castro 2016, let's roll. Castro (either one) is going to have to win a statewide election before getting plucked for that ticket. Fortunately there's a gubernatorial election in 2014 and Perry won't be running this time, so we're probably looking at Dewhurst and a handful of crazies on the right and may luck out if the vote gets split enough. Then one Castro leaves for the Hillary ticket and the other takes his spot as governor. Works out perfect. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Castro (either one) is going to have to win a statewide election before getting plucked for that ticket. Fortunately there's a gubernatorial election in 2014 and Perry won't be running this time, so we're probably looking at Dewhurst and a handful of crazies on the right and may luck out if the vote gets split enough. I don't know, how big of an outcry would there really be if you picked a mayor of a large city for the VP slot?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Mercer said he "invented a computer government," adding his platform is based on "a new computerized government that will run the office of the President of the United States with a computer." Boldly forging forward into the exciting future of 1970s, Allende-era Chile
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Per Thomas Burr of the Salt Lake Tribune, Jon Huntsman has closed out his campaign's federal account after paying another $250k out of his own pocket to retire the remainder of his debt, just to shovel some more dirt on the Huntsman grave. Goodnight, sweet prince....unless you're selected to run in a 3rd party ticket with Bloomberg
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Boldly forging forward into the exciting future of 1970s, Allende-era Chile Wow. Interesting stuff. I never knew there was a real-life Multivac.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The first declared candidate is already running campaign ads in Texas (click to watch the ad). http://www.agonybooth.com/agonizer/Mercer_for_President_2008.aspx A review of his 2008 website. I'll vote for him if I can join the ESCMI(AT)BaCI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
SombreroAgnew posted:As late as Feb 2012 Perry was saying he wanted to run another term, and just yesterday Perry was talking about how Greg Abbot won't run against him in the primary. I've never heard anything from his camp other than "He's thinking about it, it's a long way off, but probably." Perry's lost a lot of his popularity, but I'd still be wary (although I saw a poll putting Bill White over him in a 2014 match-up). Castro might be in striking distance of Big John for the Senate that same year, though. Time will tell on both, it's still early. I read something a few weeks back that indicated Perry's fundraising mechanism was gearing itself down pretty heavily, and really, there has to be a lot of pressure for him to step out of the way by this point. I think he's done. As for picking a big city mayor, in Castro's case I think it would be less about highest office than still being relatively untested. If it were someone a little older who had been in the game longer, there would probably be fewer problems with it. I think they're going to want to see that he can handle himself well through a larger election before taking a risk on him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
First woman president following the first black president. It's a narrative that could work. The thing about Hillary is that if she gets elected in 2016, that should be enough time for the gerrymandering of 2010 to lose it's power and the House could be a tossup at that point. With a Democratic House, Senate, and a ball buster in the Oval Office we could see some really astounding changes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Edit: nevermind, didn't realize that post was 4 days old.
Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:FHQ is out with the first look at the Republican primary rules. Am I reading it right in that any state having a primary prior to April 1st can use winner-take-all allocation? I thought the Republicans were kind of moving away from that in order to try to generate opportunities for engagement and drama like what happened with the Dems in 2008. e: Deeply amused they have an official gently caress Ron Paul section.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Am I reading it right in that any state having a primary prior to April 1st can use winner-take-all allocation? I thought the Republicans were kind of moving away from that in order to try to generate opportunities for engagement and drama like what happened with the Dems in 2008. Then 2012 happened and they decided that maybe it wasn't the best idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Am I reading it right in that any state having a primary prior to April 1st can use winner-take-all allocation? I thought the Republicans were kind of moving away from that in order to try to generate opportunities for engagement and drama like what happened with the Dems in 2008. The rules are a bit unclear because the process and the punishment sections are slightly contradictory. Rule 16(c)(2) posted:Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other process to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national convention that occurs prior to April 1 in the year in which the national convention is held may provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis. Rule 17(a) posted:If any state or state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(2), the number of delegates and the number of alternate delegates to the national convention from that state shall each be reduced by fifty percent (50%). Any sum presenting a fraction shall be decreased to the next whole number. No delegation shall be reduced to less than two (2) delegates and a corresponding number of alternate delegates. If any state or state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(1) of The Rules of the Republican Party with regard to a primary, caucus, convention or other process to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention by conducting its process prior to the last Tuesday in February, the number of delegates to the national convention shall be reduced to nine (9) plus the members of the Republican National Committee from that state, and the corresponding alternate delegates shall also be reduced to nine (9). Since 16(c)(2) was changed from "shall" to "may" it's unclear how 17(a) could be invoked. Josh at FHQ believes that the switch will be made back to "shall" at the Republican rules meeting next month, which he'll be attending. We'll have to wait and see how this one shakes out. Certainly there will be people there looking back at 2012 and wishing that the nominating process hadn't gone on quite as long who will try to allow winner-takes-all primaries prior to April 1, but there will also be representatives from potential 2016 campaigns who will not want this to happen. For example, I'm betting Rubio wants Florida to be winner-takes-all and I'm betting Christie does not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The rules are a bit unclear because the process and the punishment sections are slightly contradictory. Yeah that's what got me- I was thinking having winner-take-all primaries make sense to have early on so if the season just ends up being a cursory acknowledgement of the clear frontrunner it resolves quickly but if it's an actual race it transitions to proportional allocation and becomes more competitive. Then I read the punishments and wondered if there was a typo somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
SombreroAgnew posted:
There would be airs of McCain-Palin with an old codger and an untested neophyte a heartbeat away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Oops 
Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/04/hillary-clinton-exits-politics-her-enduring-legacy.html If you listen really carefully you can almost hear a Trans-Am revving its engine
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
From that article:quote:She’s sitting down to write a book, and what else, no one quite knows. Intimates say that it’s true she isn’t really sure about 2016. If she does it, it’s hard to see how the nomination won’t be hers for the asking. And if the economy is good and the Republicans are still crazy, she’d have to be thought the odds-on favorite. So she's still thinking about it and is writing a book? Yup, definitely sounds like she's for-sure-not-running 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
I heard a Carville interview yesterday (at Super Bowl media row of all places) where he suggested that the crazytown Republican reaction to stuff like Benghazi and the Hagel nomination has made Hillary more likely to run because she's terrified of those Republicans regaining control of the foreign policy apparatus. It was an interesting take.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 01:02
|
|