|
A Winner is Jew posted:If Hilary runs you could also have a scenario of the next three presidents being democrats just based upon the way demographics are shaping up right now.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
SombreroAgnew posted:The thread's new high bar for electoral hubris. Honestly, if we put forward a candidate who tried to run the Southern strategy in 2008 in a Democratic primary, we deserve what we get.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Allen West is planning a run as well! The 2016 Republican primaries can't start soon enough! Brigadier Sockface fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Oh boy! The 2016 Republican primaries can't start soon enough! The presidency...of the United States?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Allen West is insane, but he's the smart kind of insane, like Ted Cruz, not the ridiculous kind of insane, like Michele Bachmann. I don't think he can win the primary, but his candidacy would suck up a lot of the enthusiasm from the Tea Party crowd that other candidates are banking on for support and if he made it through Iowa he'd want to stick around until at least Florida. He'd also, in combination with Reince's enthusiasm to take back the debates from "left-wing" media, push the conversation in the primary well to the right. He'd be like a Rick Santorum that people actually paid attention to. This is a minor meta-point, but if you're posting a link to an article, please include at least a short quote or a description of it. Joementum fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Sharing a debate stage with Cruz, Santorum and West would make Marco Rubio look moderate as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
I wasn't really following the 2008 primary much, but can one party's primary affect the other party's similarly to how it can push its own candidates to the right or left like we saw with Romney?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I have to wonder how indebted Booker is to Wall Street. We've only seen him at the mayoral level. The man believes in doing the right thing. And showing off. I could see it as possible that once he hits the Senate he could be considerably more independent there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
It's probably reasonable to assume that unless something major happens (like, say, the Earth's crust breaking open and Magog crawling out to begin a ten-thousand year reign of terror) that every presidential candidate will be indebted to Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Well _yes_. Everything's relative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:The man believes in doing the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
ufarn posted:I wasn't really following the 2008 primary much, but can one party's primary affect the other party's similarly to how it can push its own candidates to the right or left like we saw with Romney? e: Everyone viable is indebted to Wall Street and the primary is mostly deciding which person or whose pet issue you like most. If it's O'Malley vs. Cuomo, I'd back the one who talks about appointing judges as a priority. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
ufarn posted:I wasn't really following the 2008 primary much, but can one party's primary affect the other party's similarly to how it can push its own candidates to the right or left like we saw with Romney? This wasn't really an issue in 2008 because the Democratic primary was such an insular turf war that nobody really cared that Tom Tancredo and Fred Thomson were saying stupid things. I bet Obama and Hillary's advisors still don't know that movement conservatives were beating up on an empty Giuliani (at the time the "frontrunner") podium at the Values Voter Summit in September 2007. And 2008 is really the only year there was a truly open primary on both sides simultaneously since the invention of the modern primary system, so it's hard to draw any conclusive conclusions from how that went.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
It is probably instructive to note that Obamas team during the re-elect was doing everything in their power to ensure Romney was the candidate they ran against aside from straight-up donating to him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
serewit posted:It is probably instructive to note that Obamas team during the re-elect was doing everything in their power to ensure Romney was the candidate they ran against aside from straight-up donating to him. I do remember them figuring (correctly) that Romney was going to be the nominee long before he locked it up, and they started running negative campaign ads against him before he'd wrapped up the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
serewit posted:It is probably instructive to note that Obamas team during the re-elect was doing everything in their power to ensure Romney was the candidate they ran against aside from straight-up donating to him. Axelrod post-campaign said they were looking at Romney, Perry, and Huntsman as the 3 candidates to watch. Though honestly, I think him throwing Huntsman in there was to toss a bone to the Morning Joe crowd than actually seriously thinking he was possibly going to get the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Axelrod post-campaign said they were looking at Romney, Perry, and Huntsman as the 3 candidates to watch. Though honestly, I think him throwing Huntsman in there was to toss a bone to the Morning Joe crowd than actually seriously thinking he was possibly going to get the nomination. Huntsman was the least likely but possibly the biggest threat so they had to watch him more closely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Huntsman was the least likely but possibly the biggest threat so they had to watch him more closely. I doubt he was ever likely enough to win to be a real "threat", enough to alter campaign strategy anyway. They were probably watching him closely since had he garnered enough attention to have a moderating effect on the entire primary, he could have drawn a more likely winner (at the time) "conservative" like Perry into making some hypocritical statements. Or maybe that's too "11-D Chess" of me, but it's the only reason I could come up with a realistic reason to keep an eye on him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Huntsmania is a strange disease which crippled the minds of dozens of pundits and analysists with totally irrational projections; you never know, there could have been a White House outbreak. E: "Obama administration exaggerates reasonableness of Republicans" also is an ongoing theme, even at this late date. SombreroAgnew fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Well, part of the reason Huntsman was made Ambassador to China was to remove that threat. Turned out that it didn't matter because he was (impossibly) the more boring Mormon in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
dinoputz posted:I doubt he was ever likely enough to win to be a real "threat", enough to alter campaign strategy anyway. They were probably watching him closely since had he garnered enough attention to have a moderating effect on the entire primary, he could have drawn a more likely winner (at the time) "conservative" like Perry into making some hypocritical statements. Or maybe that's too "11-D Chess" of me, but it's the only reason I could come up with a realistic reason to keep an eye on him. Huntsman was a threat the same way that Pennsylvania was in play; neither was likely, but if they had happened, it would have been a sign that the Democrats had dangerously miscalculated their metrics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Turned out that it didn't matter because he was (impossibly) the more boring Mormon in the primary. I'm kind of boggling at the fact there were two. And I don't know how you can say Romney was boring, the entire 2012 presidential run was pretty entertaining. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
serewit posted:It is probably instructive to note that Obamas team during the re-elect was doing everything in their power to ensure Romney was the candidate they ran against aside from straight-up donating to him. Three things... What? How? Why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Three things... What? How? Why? Basically they decided Mitt couldn't generate necessary GOP enthusiasm and running against Mr. Burns would be easy. e: Also they thought he was weird, which is totally a dogwhistle for Mormon and they should be ashamed!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:They would bring up Mitt's policies and background as if he was the only other candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:e: Also they thought he was weird, which is totally a dogwhistle for Mormon and they should be ashamed! Haha yeah the defensiveness on that one was never not funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:As is usually the case, Nate Silver has something insightful to say about Hillary Clinton's popularity and how it will affect her (presumed) 2016 campaign: The thing is, Hillary Clinton is still a hawk. We knew that in 2008, and we know that she spent the first Obama term always being on the hawk side of internal foreign policy debates. If the Democratic electorate, for whatever reason, is in a paticularly anti-war mood in 2015, she may run into some of the same rough dynamics. It seems unlikely at this point that Obama will doing anything in foreign policy that would really turn off the Democratic base, but it's still possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well, part of the reason Huntsman was made Ambassador to China was to remove that threat. It didn't work because it was another move, much like the sequester and untold other Obama policy gently caress-ups, that was built on a complete misreading of how extreme the republican party is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:And 2008 is really the only year there was a truly open primary on both sides simultaneously since the invention of the modern primary system, so it's hard to draw any conclusive conclusions from how that went. How are you defining "truly open"? 1988 had the "Seven Dwarves" on the Democratic side while Bush, Dole. and Robertson fought it out. Even 2000 had simultaneous real primary campaigns for both sides. Unless you're hand waving races where the expected winner actually won, which I'd remind you in 2007 we all thought was the state of the 2008 Democratic primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I have to wonder how indebted Booker is to Wall Street. We've only seen him at the mayoral level. The man believes in doing the right thing. And showing off. He railed against people who were attacking private equity during the 2012 campaign and defended Bain Capital. He's 100% pro finance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
So I've been reading about what's been happening in NJ and I keep hearing that he needs to not only consider a 2016 bid, but also his current 2013 governor race. Given how much legwork and fundraising is required to run for president these days, wouldn't holding a current office actually be a hindrance? And even if it wasn't I don't see why his governorship would be considered all that important to him, except as a fallback plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
SilentD posted:He railed against people who were attacking private equity during the 2012 campaign and defended Bain Capital. He's 100% pro finance. Thank you, SilentD. Yes, given his current position and location, he'd have to say that and do that. However, even a moment's thought would make you realize that someone who is a shirtsleeves rolled up reformer at heart often changes perspective on where the real problems are, once the problems they face change. If elected to higher office, he'll start running into situations where the moneybags are the problem. As opposed to being mayor of a small city that is incredibly hosed, where they're the solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Thank you, SilentD. Yes, given his current position and location, he'd have to say that and do that. No, he'll pull Schumer and act like all the Dems from those places and join Nancy "the Bush cuts should only expire on incomes over 1 million because that's not that much money here" and the Schumer "wall street is our town" chorus. Urban area socially liberal Democrats = Republicans on economics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Three things... What? How? Why? Michael Hastings wrote a little book about his coverage of the campaign called Panic 2012, apparently Obamas team was doing oppo work on Romney in 2011 and helping his primary challengers by glomming on to whatever negative stories they were releasing about him (Bain, tax returns, etc.) IIRC, it was Obama staff who leaked the whole tax return story to the press just so the other primary campaigns would pick up on it and embarrass Roms. The Obama team also started the car elevator story, Politico ran it as a piece coming from a 'rival campaign' instead of from Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:How are you defining "truly open"? 1988 had the "Seven Dwarves" on the Democratic side while Bush, Dole. and Robertson fought it out. Even 2000 had simultaneous real primary campaigns for both sides. Unless you're hand waving races where the expected winner actually won, which I'd remind you in 2007 we all thought was the state of the 2008 Democratic primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Thank you, SilentD. Yes, given his current position and location, he'd have to say that and do that. How did that work out for us last time, again...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:So I've been reading about what's been happening in NJ and I keep hearing that he needs to not only consider a 2016 bid, but also his current 2013 governor race. Given how much legwork and fundraising is required to run for president these days, wouldn't holding a current office actually be a hindrance? And even if it wasn't I don't see why his governorship would be considered all that important to him, except as a fallback plan. The dude's already running his campaign for governor, it's way too late to back out now. Also Sarah Palin didn't quit the governorship of Alaska until about 9 months after she lost the vice presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
The banking industry has such a massive influence over the well being of Northern New Jersey. Dude's knee deep in finance. I don't think he's going to evolve his views on it. Essex county is a suburb of Manhattan. His he worships the Goldman Sachs god. anime was right fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I love these "secretly a super-liberal" theories. Booker is in a weird position vis a vis "progressive bonafides" in Newark. Many of the typically progressive institutions in the city - the education leadership, the public works, the city unions, basically the entire local infrastructure and city government right down to stuff like the watershed board - were completely co-opted by the deeply corrupt longtime former mayor Sharpe James and really did need to be torched. At the same time, the city became borderline insolvent for a variety of boring reasons having to do with lost revenue, and one of the few things the city really has going for it is its financial industry (there's a reason everything in Newark is named "Prudential," for example). So yeah, Booker's been fighting with the local public unions, and yeah, the budget got slashed in spots where you'd prefer not to slash, and yeah, he's spent a lot of time looking for investment in Newark, and yeah, he's said some nice things about the financial industry. Does that mean Booker's a true economic neoliberal or a pragmatist that inherited a truly terrible and corrupt situation that he vowed to clean up? Hard to tell, and there are things pointing in the other direction; he does genuinely seem to give a poo poo about stuff like poverty and constituent service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
Exactly. Would I be surprised if Booker stayed glued to the financial industry? Not really. Do I judge it more likely he might change his mind than, say, Andrew Cuomo? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 18:02
|
|