2016 Presidential Primaries: Senator Agua Bottle vs Senator Aqua Buddha

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2016 Presidential Primaries: Senator Agua Bottle vs Senator Aqua Buddha

«‹›261 »

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

jeffersonlives posted:

The political center has moved right on some issues and left on some issues. I don't know how to precisely measure that overall, but the generic "Overton window" stuff that gets pushed drastically overstates the case in this timeframe. By 1992 you've got a billionaire independent presidential candidate making a serious run from the far, far right of the Republicans economically, basically the same point or even a little further than the tea party people are at now when they're still far, far to the right of the Republican establishment, and then the Republicans running and winning on the Contract With America, which still looks pretty nutty today.

DWNominate, while not perfect, has the Democrats moving slightly leftward until the mid 1990s and that they are now going in the other direction while the GOP is out in crazy town. That clearly moves the middle right.

Obama is also to the right of both Clinton and Carter.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 16:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 13:26

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

mcmagic posted:

DWNominate, while not perfect, has the Democrats moving slightly leftward until the mid 1990s and that they are now going in the other direction while the GOP is out in crazy town. That clearly moves the middle right.

The political center of the country or even the parties and the political center of the House of Representatives is not one and the same. I don't think you'll get much dispute that the House itself has become polarized, but that's for largely political reasons, including but not limited to the increased effectiveness of gerrymandering, conservative Democrats becoming Republicans, and better whip operations.

mcmagic posted:

Obama is also to the right of both Clinton and Carter.

But to the left of LBJ and progressive hero FDR.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 16:56

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

mcmagic posted:

Obama is also to the right of both Clinton and Carter.

Looking at this, Obama appears to be to the left of Johnson who instituted both the Great Society and Civil Rights legislation. Is his rightward bent just a product of escalating the Vietnam War or something because both those programs are drastically left of anything Obama has even hinted at trying to accomplish, let alone pass.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:00

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

A Winner is Jew posted:

Looking at this, Obama appears to be to the left of Johnson who instituted both the Great Society and Civil Rights legislation. Is his rightward bent just a product of escalating the Vietnam War or something because both those programs are drastically left of anything Obama has even hinted at trying to accomplish, let alone pass.

Yeah this didn't make sense to me either. Hence the problems with DWNominate.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:06

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Oh, Tiger Beat On The Potomac, you're just so adorable sometimes!

TPM posted:

The frostiness between Politico and Nate Silver resurfaced once again this week, with the co-founder of the Beltway insider's favorite outlet taking a shot at the polling guru's supposed pomposity.

In an interview with The New Republic, Politico editor-in-chief John Harris admitted that Silver wasn't one of his lifelines in the 2012 campaign.

"I will be drummed out of the profession, but I didn�t [read Silver]. My plate is full here," Harris said. "I know why people found him interesting and entertaining, and some people found him illuminating. There are people in our gang who think he is overblown and get worked up about Nate Silver. I don�t give a drat."

He later tipped his hat to Silver before levying the criticism.

"I admire how he has built a franchise," Harris said. "I roll my eyes at how he gets up on his high horse quite a lot on different topics."

Jim VandeHei, Politico's executive editor who helped found the publication with Harris, also participated in the interview, saying that some of Silver's "stuff goes on and on" and that he uses "numbers to prove stuff that I don�t think can be proved by numbers alone."

Silver and Politico have been involved in some very public quarrels in the last year. The feud was seemingly initiated by a piece written in late-October of last year by Politico's media reporter Dylan Byers, who wondered if Silver was destined to become a "one-term celebrity" if Mitt Romney defeated President Barack Obama. After correctly forecasting the 2012 presidential election in all 50 states, Silver said that Politico tries to cover politics like sports but "not in an intelligent way at all.�

Any questions if the tension between the two sides would subside after 2012 was answered in February, when Silver and Politico's investigative reporter Ken Vogel went back-and-forth in a Twitter spat.

"getting up on his high horse" = "daring to be right and pointing out that other people are wrong"

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:10

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

FMguru posted:

Oh, Tiger Beat On The Potomac, you're just so adorable sometimes!
"getting up on his high horse" = "daring to be right and pointing out that other people are wrong"

I guess the are still butt hurt over a scientific attempt at making predications somehow being better than gut pundit feelings and analysis?

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:12

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

etalian posted:

I guess the are still butt hurt over a scientific attempt at making predications somehow being better than gut pundit feelings and analysis?

Just because a guy calls 50 out of 50 states correctly in a Presidential election (an election that we referred to as a "squeaker" and a "toss-up") doesn't mean he knows anything about anything.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:14

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

mcmagic posted:

DWNominate, while not perfect, has the Democrats moving slightly leftward until the mid 1990s and that they are now going in the other direction while the GOP is out in crazy town. That clearly moves the middle right.

Obama is also to the right of both Clinton and Carter.

You're citing that minuscule tick at the end of that graph as evidence of a rightward shift? Is that graph adjusted for the wars and associated spending on the military? I'll be happy to grant the rightward slouch on stuff like domestic spying and generally everything military related for that matter. Taxes? Dems have been calling for more and higher brackets, higher rates on the wealthy, and fixes to cap gains fuckery. They've wanted to penalize offshore hoarding and liberalize drug policy. The fact remains that the House is full of GOP dipshits and the Senate couldn't get cloture on a resolution to get off their asses if the chairs were on fire. That isn't 'Democrats moving leftward,' it's the GOP (largely the ones from 2010, with some from 2008 and '12) being total loving tools about preventing anything from getting a vote in the Senate unless they get to fingerpaint all over it with their own poo poo, much less getting anything passed out of the house.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:21

ufarn: May 30, 2009

I am on my iPad, so someone else will have to embed the images, but the perceptual change in political polarity has barely changed, so welcome to te new normal: http://themonkeycage.org/2013/06/13/what-if-a-party-re-branded-itself-and-americans-never-noticed/.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:26

pangstrom: Jan 25, 2003; Wedge Regret

FMguru posted:

Just because a guy calls 50 out of 50 states correctly in a Presidential election (an election that we referred to as a "squeaker" and a "toss-up") doesn't mean he knows anything about anything.

That "admired how he built up his franchise" is backhanded, too. It's basically saying he's a nothingburger who schemed and self-promoted his way into creating a nothingburger brand. It's the only way people can compliment Paris Hilton and the Kardashians. "Well, they've made a name for themselves and they're making money!" Harris doesn't think this way about his own endeavors, naturally, it took him a long time to come to terms with the possibility that people could be so shallow and opportunistic before he realized what Nate Silver was up to I bet.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:27

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

The Entire Universe posted:

You're citing that minuscule tick at the end of that graph as evidence of a rightward shift? Is that graph adjusted for the wars and associated spending on the military? I'll be happy to grant the rightward slouch on stuff like domestic spying and generally everything military related for that matter. Taxes? Dems have been calling for more and higher brackets, higher rates on the wealthy, and fixes to cap gains fuckery. They've wanted to penalize offshore hoarding and liberalize drug policy. The fact remains that the House is full of GOP dipshits and the Senate couldn't get cloture on a resolution to get off their asses if the chairs were on fire. That isn't 'Democrats moving leftward,' it's the GOP (largely the ones from 2010, with some from 2008 and '12) being total loving tools about preventing anything from getting a vote in the Senate unless they get to fingerpaint all over it with their own poo poo, much less getting anything passed out of the house.

Those "higher taxes on the wealthy" are even lower than Clinton's rates in the 90s and there are no coherent bills that would even get 50 votes in the senate to end the drug war or end the capitol gains tax treatment. NTM we've completely abandoned the idea of any more fiscal stimulus for years along with any other direct spending to create jobs NTM's Obama's sequester that in his BEST CASE scenario was going to be leverage for some horrible grand bargain that would cut Social Security.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:28

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

pangstrom posted:

That "admired how he built up his franchise" is backhanded, too. It's basically saying he's a nothingburger who schemed and self-promoted his way into creating a nothingburger brand. It's the only way people can compliment Paris Hilton and the Kardashians. "Well, they've made a name for themselves and they're making money!" Harris doesn't think this way about his own endeavors, naturally, it took him a long time to come to terms with the possibility that people could be so shallow and opportunistic before he realized what Nate Silver was up to I bet.

Yeah, as far as he's concerned, Nate's so-called "math" is just a gimmick that he's been able to play extremely well and make quite a name for himself with. Well, gimmicks tend to fall out of favor pretty quickly - we'll see how much freight this "math" of his can haul once 2016 rolls around. Real political sophisticates will stick with what works - carefully parsing the writings of Peggy Noonan and Jake Tapper for insights.

What's really hilarious about Silver is that there's nothing tricky or difficult about what he's doing. His particular model was really sophisticated, full of Bayesian feedback loops and third-order effects, but there were a lot of place doing less complicated poll aggregations (like Talking Points Memo) that got results almost as good as Silver's. This isn't voodoo, and Silver isn't some scam artist with an engaging but impenetrable patter - it's basic stats 101 stuff that a half-bright high-schooler can understand. But to the innumerate hacks at Politico, it looks like pure snake oil.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:54

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

The funniest part of that Politico interview was when the interviewer asked them whether Politico was a difficult workplace for women and they demanded to know who'd told him that.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 17:57

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

TAP has an interesting article up about how Rick "Oops!" Perry seems to be lining himself for a serious run at the Presidency in 2016.

quote:

But his latest decisions�including a string of more than two dozen vetoes�seems to only further confirm what most Texas insiders have been saying for months: Perry is paving the way for a second act and a second bid for the White House. And he�s not moving toward the center.

The series of vetoes has placed him clearly on the right and in a position to play to a national audience. Republicans dominate the Texas Legislature, and any bill that passes through it by definition has significant Republican support. Among other things, Perry chose to kill a measure meant to stop wage discrimination against women and a bill to require transparency for dark-money groups�both issues Tea Party Republicans at the national level have opposed. (Significantly for state governance, he also vetoed measures to allow the legislature some oversight of the University of Texas Board of Regents, which has been at war with the school�s president, Bill Powers.) Perry also took out his veto pen for smaller line items, like nixing $1.5 million�pocket change in the budget�that would have funded the University of Texas�s Mexican-American Studies Center. In doing so, he could both take a small swipe at the university and also offer a nod to those in his party not so pleased by studies of Mexican history or culture.

Meanwhile, Perry is also burnishing his conservative credentials in other ways. During the regular legislative session, his presence loomed darkly over Medicaid expansion, preventing more moderate Republicans from considering measures that would increase healthcare coverage for low-income residents�one-in-four Texans are uninsured. He brought the legislature back for a special session to task them with passing redistricting maps�hoping to keep a couple Congressional seats in Republicans hands, which could win him some favors in Washington. He added to the agenda a charge to pass an abortion ban for all pregnancies over 20 weeks, which would make Texas among the most restrictive states in the country. Just to keep things interesting he also added a measure to prevent groping from Transportation Security Administration officials at airports�a major focus for Tea Party folks and followers of conspiracy-theorist Alex Jones. All of it puts Perry on the far right, socially and politically.

Economically, Perry�s making his case by going to enemy territory�liberal states on both coasts�and urging companies, in particular gun manufacturers, to relocate to Texas. He ran television ads in California and Illinois noting why businesses would be better off in Texas, and just yesterday prompted a confrontation with Connecticut's Governor Dannel Malloy when he started urging gun makers in Connecticut to relocate, after lawmakers passed gun control measures in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting. Perry�s interest in business has always been a big part of his political platform, as he often reels off the companies that move to Texas for its super-business-friendly climate. (If only consumers in the state got such a good deal.)

Plenty in Austin are speculating as to whether Perry plans to make another bid for governor or simply wait to run for president. At the very least, a presidential bid would give Perry a chance remake his national image and be remembered for something other than �oops.� While it�s hard to think of another politician screwing up quite that badly and then seeing national success, plenty of folks have come back from disappointing runs and recreated themselves. A run for president, and showing the country he�s not an idiot, would help Perry regardless of whether he�s actually got a shot at winning or simply angling for a presidential appointment. But Perry�s term is up in 2014, and he�s already held the office longer than anyone else. Another bid for governor is risky at best; Attorney General Greg Abbott, who�s made a name for himself suing the Obama Administration, already has $18 million in the bank and a significant staff ready for the 2014 race. Perry, however, currently commands a huge lead over Abbott in polls. Polls aren't nearly so nice when it comes to his presidential aspirations. Perry garnered a paltry 10 percent measure of support in the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, while Ted Cruz, the state's newly elected senator and a Tea Party favorite, got a whopping 25 percent. Perry faces choppy waters either way, but there's no question he's gearing up for a run for something.

Be interesting to see how this all shakes out. He's been on the stage in TX for an awful long time, and he doesn't have nearly the juice he once had (see Ted Cruz taking the Senate nomination from Perry's hand-picked choice). I think he had his one shot at the White House and he blew it - you can come back from mistakes like his 2012 campaign, but not in the sort of crowded field that 2016 looks like it will bring.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 18:30

Alec Bald Snatch: Sep 12, 2012; by exmarx

FMguru posted:

This isn't voodoo, and Silver isn't some scam artist with an engaging but impenetrable patter - it's basic stats 101 stuff that a half-bright high-schooler can understand. But to the innumerate hacks at Politico, it looks like pure snake oil.

That's really what it is- lashing out over feelings of inadequacy. Never mind that stuff like smoothing operations actual pollsters use all the time, which they rely on for their auguries and divinations, are way more complicated than like you said high school level stats stuff like probability distributions.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 18:51

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

comes along bort posted:

That's really what it is- lashing out over feelings of inadequacy. Never mind that stuff like smoothing operations actual pollsters use all the time, which they rely on for their auguries and divinations, are way more complicated than like you said high school level stats stuff like probability distributions.

They make their livings through uncertainty, by pushing breathless horse-race stories full of exciting nonsense but very little fact or analysis. Nate is the wet blanket who turns on the lights and tells everyone that the party is over and it's time to go home.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 19:14

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

marchantia posted:

This is kinda a bummer. I'm still stuck in my liberal fantasyland where he didn't want to run in the recall, but that he would want to run for governor in 2014. Especially if our resident rear end in a top hat Walker has his eyes foolishly set on 2016...c'est la vie.

So, I added Hillary Clinton on twitter and got followed by some weird group that linked to the website Give 'em Hill, which is the weirdest slogan I've heard in a while that is being used to sell some pretty weird merch.

So it begins...#hillaryis45 (also that dude has shoulder problems)

With people (?) like Gogol V Barnacle on their team, I'm sure they'll do great things for the cause of Hill.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 19:28

Alec Bald Snatch: Sep 12, 2012; by exmarx

Deteriorata posted:

They make their livings through uncertainty, by pushing breathless horse-race stories full of exciting nonsense but very little fact or analysis. Nate is the wet blanket who turns on the lights and tells everyone that the party is over and it's time to go home.

What's even funnier are people like Sam Wang at PEC, who despite being featured back in WSJ in 2004, isn't even on their radar. And he actually published his methodology as a way of saying any idiot could do what he's doing. I remember Nate Silver had a piece last year about how the reaction from the pundit establishment was exactly the same as the old guard baseball press when sabermetrics became a thing; these guys were afraid for their jobs because a new way of accomplishing the same task which they had no hope of understanding came along and they felt threatened by it.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 19:31

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Deteriorata posted:

They make their livings through uncertainty, by pushing breathless horse-race stories full of exciting nonsense but very little fact or analysis. Nate is the wet blanket who turns on the lights and tells everyone that the party is over and it's time to go home.

Pretty much. All the day-to-day drama and micro-controversies and "gaffes" and media buy patterns and hard-hitting new ads and reshuffled campaign staffs - all the stuff that creates a dramatic narrative - turns out to have essentially no effect on the outcome of elections. It turns out you can understand everything you need to know about an election just by looking at the unemployment rate, quarterly GDP report, and some poll averages in a couple of key states.

It's a stake to the heart of Politico's entire business model and reason for being.

# ? Jun 18, 2013 19:46

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

drat, Joementum, how did you miss this terrific part of Perry's "freedom from religion" bill signing? He's obviously running if he's got this kind of support.

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/...onference-ever/

"Surrounded by Santa Claus impersonators � not just one, not two, not three, but a whopping 10 of them � Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed House Bill 308, the so-called Merry Christmas bill, into law recently. The bill expressively permits school districts to educate students about the history of traditional winter celebrations and allows students, teachers and school officials to offer traditional holiday greetings, including: "Merry Christmas.""

# ? Jun 18, 2013 19:57

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

The Gay Wizard responds to Poltico's harumphing about Silver thinks he's soooooooooooo smart just because he predicted 50 out of 50 state results in the 2012 election without spending any time transcribing background quotes from Mitt Romney's deputy director of press relations. The tl;dr version: lol, u mad?

Nate Silver (PBUH) posted:

Hi Tom,

I thought it was a good interview. It's striking how preoccupied Harris and VandeHei are with the perception that Politico is too "insidery". My personal critique of their work cuts a little deeper than that, however. It's not that they are too "insidery" per se, but that the perceptions of Beltway insiders, which Politico echoes and embraces, are not always very insightful or accurate. In other words, the conventional wisdom is often wrong, especially in Washington.

Now, it would be one thing if Politico were to describe the conventional wisdom and then hold it up to a critical examination. That would be extremely useful and interesting. I thought Ben Smith, back when he wrote for them, had a real knack for that. And they have a few other journalists who I really enjoy reading. But in most of the "Behind the Curtain" pieces, by contrast, there's a lack of perspective -- in particular, a lack of perspective about the role that Politico plays in formulating the conventional wisdom which they then "report" upon.

Furthermore, Harris and VandeHei seem to lack very much curiosity for the world outside of the bubble. Harris claims it's not worth his time to read 538, and VandeHei characterizes my work as "trying to use numbers to prove stuff". Instead, what 538 is really about is providing a critical perspective, and scrutinizing claims on the basis of evidence (statistical or otherwise). In order to do that, you have to believe that there is some sort of truth outside the bubble -- what would be called the "objective" world in a scientific or philosophical context. Politico, by contrast, sometimes seems to operate within a "post-truth" worldview. Some people think that is the very essence of savvy, modern journalism, but my bet is that journalism is headed in another direction � toward being more critical and empirical.

thanks,

Nate

He actually does nail them - nail them good and hard - in that last paragraph.

e: Charlie Pierce, on Politico: "These guys are one small step away from telling people that, if they can draw this pirate, they can be political reporters."

FMguru fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jun 18, 2013

# ? Jun 18, 2013 20:07

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

mcmagic posted:

Those "higher taxes on the wealthy" are even lower than Clinton's rates in the 90s and there are no coherent bills that would even get 50 votes in the senate to end the drug war or end the capitol gains tax treatment. NTM we've completely abandoned the idea of any more fiscal stimulus for years along with any other direct spending to create jobs NTM's Obama's sequester that in his BEST CASE scenario was going to be leverage for some horrible grand bargain that would cut Social Security.

Again, you're confusing the lovely state of the house with bad bills coming from Democrats. What are your thoughts on the CPC's budget proposal? It didn't get voted on but Grijalva (I think he's the chair) releases it yearly.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 01:57

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

The Entire Universe posted:

Again, you're confusing the lovely state of the house with bad bills coming from Democrats. What are your thoughts on the CPC's budget proposal? It didn't get voted on but Grijalva (I think he's the chair) releases it yearly.

The people's budget is great lets elect more people who would support it. I can tell you Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker and dems like that aren't those people.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 02:46

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

mcmagic posted:

The people's budget is great lets elect more people who would support it. I can tell you Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker and dems like that aren't those people.

They definitely aren't people who would introduce it but they drat well know how bad they'd look vetoing/voting against it with as high profile as they'd be. They know what the growth of youth voters and immigrant voters symbolizes and to be honest it's beneficial in the long run that 2010 happened and showed what happens when the voters who believe in moving left get frozen out after the campaign.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 04:06

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

The Entire Universe posted:

They definitely aren't people who would introduce it but they drat well know how bad they'd look vetoing/voting against it with as high profile as they'd be. They know what the growth of youth voters and immigrant voters symbolizes and to be honest it's beneficial in the long run that 2010 happened and showed what happens when the voters who believe in moving left get frozen out after the campaign.

The way the political Overton window is right now that budget couldn't get more than 80 votes in the house. You're making my point for me.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 05:22

Bastaman Vibration: Jun 26, 2005

Didn't see this posted but I suppose this makes sense, as two politicians from New York, Cuomo and Hillary Clinton, are already expected to run. Gillibrand would never run against Clinton due to her history with her anyway (at least I doubt), but since she's got at least a little bit of support I suppose coming out and saying this is a win/win for her anyway. If Clinton runs, Gillibrand can say she got on the ground floor. If Clinton doesn't run, she could run against Cuomo, appearing as a moderate New York liberal against a conservative New York Democrat.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306243--sen-gillibrand-i-am-personally-urging-secretary-clinton-to-run

Kirsten Gillibrand posted:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016 and plans to "support her in any way" possible.

"I am personally urging Secretary Clinton to run," Gillibrand said during an event at the Third Way think tank on Tuesday. "I've told her I plan to support her in any way I can."

Gillibrand's statement came the same day that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) announced her support for Ready for Hillary, the super-PAC that is trying to draft Clinton to run for president in 2016.

Gillibrand's comments are a reiteration of previous statements she has made. An aide to Gillibrand noted that even during the 2012 Democratic national convention in Charlotte, N.C., the senator from New York had voiced support for Clinton to run in 2016.

In March 2012, Gillibrand told BuzzFeed that she planned to be "one of the first" to urge Clinton to run in 2016.

"I�m going to be one of the first to ask Hillary to run in 2016," Gillibrand said in the interview.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 05:37

UltimoDragonQuest: Oct 5, 2011

If Clinton is in, Cuomo is out.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 06:09

pangstrom: Jan 25, 2003; Wedge Regret

FMguru posted:

The Gay Wizard responds to Poltico's harumphing about Silver thinks he's soooooooooooo smart just because he predicted 50 out of 50 state results in the 2012 election without spending any time transcribing background quotes from Mitt Romney's deputy director of press relations. The tl;dr version: lol, u mad?
He actually does nail them - nail them good and hard - in that last paragraph.

Yes, exactly. The telling aspect to that interview was how they go all Stanley fuzzy Fish every time the interviewer tried to connect what they were doing to some principle or goal.

FMguru posted:

e: Charlie Pierce, on Politico: "These guys are one small step away from telling people that, if they can draw this pirate, they can be political reporters."

loving LOL

# ? Jun 19, 2013 15:06

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Gillibrand is going to be much more formidable than people think at some point, it just might not be 2016. She's 46, there's lots of time.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 15:14

kylejack: Feb 28, 2006; I'M AN INSUFFERABLE PEDANTIC POMPOUS RACIST TROLL WHO BELIEVES VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. I SUFFER FROM TERMINAL WHITE GUILT. PLEASE EXPOSE MY LIES OR BETTER YET JUST IGNORE ME!

jeffersonlives posted:

Gillibrand is going to be much more formidable than people think at some point, it just might not be 2016. She's 46, there's lots of time.

I think the Generals that testified before her in committee have already learned that.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 15:18

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Gillibrand might be the smartest person in the Senate and she manages to come off as folksy and charming instead of aloof. She's also a vicious political operator and appeals to close to every wing of the Democratic coalition, basically everyone except the single-issue gun voters. And being a pretty, charismatic blonde mother in the digital age never hurts, if we're just talking raw political plusses.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 15:29

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

mcmagic posted:

The way the political Overton window is right now that budget couldn't get more than 80 votes in the house. You're making my point for me.

The CPC has been gaining members, not losing them. However, the Overton Window is not the partisan balance of the elected members of house and Senate, it's a term for the spectrum of discussion against an absolute scale of right to left. That can affect those elections, but mainly through the primary process. Saying it's "not in a place right now for congress to do x" is like saying your car's not the right color to change lanes.

When the country is staunchly for pro-choice protections for women, for equality for LGBTQ people, for higher taxes on the upper echelons of society's wealthy, for a paring back of the war budget, for infrastructure spending, and for reining in the excesses of the corporate class, the overton window in society is not where you're saying it is. Now, if you want to blame lovely party leadership or primary candidates or money or whatever for that disconnect, that's fine. Saying that it's good electing a loving politician given the likely options is not some grave shift in political discourse, it's electoral speculation. I wager the majority of people who vote Den would love someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to be in all 535 seats of Congress, plus the White House, as well as a far more progressive court. However, that's not always possible since primaries don't always have someone like that running. Why? Especially when a lot of candidates have won primaries by running on progressivism? Sure as poo poo isn't the loving overton window if that's the case.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 18:03

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

jeffersonlives posted:

Gillibrand might be the smartest person in the Senate and she manages to come off as folksy and charming instead of aloof. She's also a vicious political operator and appeals to close to every wing of the Democratic coalition, basically everyone except the single-issue gun voters. And being a pretty, charismatic blonde mother in the digital age never hurts, if we're just talking raw political plusses.

She's really tried to be non controversial since she's been in the senate and if she has moved slightly to the left of her house voting record we wouldn't really know because she really hasn't been in the middle of many controversial issues. She's terrific in a room though thats for sure as well as extremely charismatic. I agree that she's very formidable.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 18:11

TheGreyGhost: Feb 14, 2012; �Go win the Heimlich Trophy!�

jeffersonlives posted:

Gillibrand might be the smartest person in the Senate and she manages to come off as folksy and charming instead of aloof. She's also a vicious political operator and appeals to close to every wing of the Democratic coalition, basically everyone except the single-issue gun voters. And being a pretty, charismatic blonde mother in the digital age never hurts, if we're just talking raw political plusses.

What you're describing to me is a Clinton-esque democrat though for the most part. While I agree she's one of the best parts of the Democrats right now, I'm a little bit worried that people will get fatigue from that brand of politician, especially if Hilary runs in 2016. That kind of voter fatigue is what paves the way for some nightmare like President Rubio.

# ? Jun 19, 2013 18:34

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

TheGreyGhost posted:

What you're describing to me is a Clinton-esque democrat though for the most part. While I agree she's one of the best parts of the Democrats right now, I'm a little bit worried that people will get fatigue from that brand of politician, especially if Hilary runs in 2016. That kind of voter fatigue is what paves the way for some nightmare like President Rubio.

I think she's more like Obama than Clinton in that she's been kinda vague on policy and would be a player on the national level because of her charisma and personality. She would be EXTREMELY hard for the GOP to demonize in the way they have Obama and Clinton though.

mcmagic fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jun 19, 2013

# ? Jun 19, 2013 19:04

Democrazy: Oct 16, 2008; If you're not willing to lick the boot, then really why are you in politics lol? Everything is a cycle of just getting stomped on so why do you want to lose to it over and over, just submit like me, I'm very intelligent.

mcmagic posted:

She's really tried to be non controversial since she's been in the senate and if she has moved slightly to the left of her house voting record we wouldn't really know because she really hasn't been in the middle of many controversial issues. She's terrific in a room though thats for sure as well as extremely charismatic. I agree that she's very formidable.

What do you make of her stances on DADT and sexual assaults in the military?

# ? Jun 20, 2013 18:37

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Democrazy posted:

What do you make of her stances on DADT and sexual assaults in the military?

Those aren't really controversial are they? It's not like anyone can run against her on either of those issues.

# ? Jun 20, 2013 21:28

oldfan: Jul 22, 2007; "Mathewson pitched against Cincinnati yesterday. Another way of putting it is that Cincinnati lost a game of baseball."

Yes, we actually have a nuttier potential candidate than Allen West. John Bolton is touring the early primary states. To plan a run. For president.

# ? Jun 25, 2013 01:55

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

President Walrus would be cool in concept.

# ? Jun 25, 2013 01:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 13:26

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

jeffersonlives posted:

Yes, we actually have a nuttier potential candidate than Allen West. John Bolton is touring the early primary states. To plan a run. For president.

Everyone watch A Perfect Candidate, hopefully it will turn out the same way.

I hope to hell Bolton runs. No chance he would win, but he'd be like a more insane version of Guilliani in the primaries.

Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jun 25, 2013

# ? Jun 25, 2013 02:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2016 Presidential Primaries: Senator Agua Bottle vs Senator Aqua Buddha

«‹›261 »