|
Shirley Sherrod was good, too. 
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Nice Davis posted:You left out You can't sack anyone at Transport, Transport's loving important - it's got trains, buses, cars, trucks and poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:25
|
|
Ray LaHood
|
The Warszawa posted:You can't sack anyone at Transport, Transport's loving important - it's got trains, buses, cars, trucks and poo poo! You can't cut funding, you will regret this!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:I don't think you can really hold Ferraro responsible for Mondale's loss. I love reading these threads until I can't figure out who's kidding whom
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
How the gently caress did Norm Mineta not end up with a new appointment? He's like the Shimon Peres of the US government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any idea on who Biden's VP pick might be, if ever? I imagine that would matter as much as McCain's did, given their ages. Why, this enterprising fellow, of course!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
Obviously Biden's VP would be Julian Castro. ...and then he retires due to his age and we have a good president for the first time in decades 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Why, this enterprising fellow, of course! Diamond Joe/Worm 2016: The Dr. Jill Biden Beer Garden needs to happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
crowfeathers posted:Julian Castro. What's Castro like day to day? Pretty good guy? EDIT: His smile really freaks me out in the way Michele Bachmann's eyes do, but that's not a defining trait politically, heh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:
The smart folks absolutely do not think that is the case. I know people that run trading desks and their are ramping up risk procedures in preparation for another crash. If either Hillary or Biden were to run the Democrats would have a huge age problem. Both Clinton and Biden would be older than Reagan if elected. Sorry about coming in late but if you look at the ages of the potential candidates the Democrats would have a serious generational gap problem if Clinton or Biden won the nomination. evilwaldo fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:How the gently caress did Norm Mineta not end up with a new appointment? He's like the Shimon Peres of the US government. Bro is 81. I realize that's like the new 55 for healthy elites, but drat man. Can a dude go fishing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:The smart folks absolutely do not think that is the case. I know people that run trading desks and their are ramping up risk procedures in preparation for another crash. No. If elected Hillary would be still be younger than Reagan by eight months. His record is safe. Had McCain (72) or Bob Dole (73) won they would have been older than him though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:If either Hillary or Biden were to run the Democrats would have a huge age problem. Both Clinton and Biden would be older than Reagan if elected. I am pretty sure it's functionally impossible at this point for the Democrats to develop a reverse age gap problem for 2016. Who, exactly, are the Republicans going to nominate with appeal to the young folk?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I am pretty sure it's functionally impossible at this point for the Democrats to develop a reverse age gap problem for 2016. Who, exactly, are the Republicans going to nominate with appeal to the young folk? He's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I am pretty sure it's functionally impossible at this point for the Democrats to develop a reverse age gap problem for 2016. Who, exactly, are the Republicans going to nominate with appeal to the young folk? "RP" is written on the alley wall in a substance and color unknown to man. In the distance, a child screams.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Also in regards to the economic conditions you're responding to a 9 1/2 month old post, but since then the U-3 rate is still generally trickling down, the Dow is still generally trickling up, the consumer confidence ratings are on an upward trend, and the Democrats broke House Republicans on the debt ceiling and taxes. Predicting this kind of thing three years from now is still folly, and perhaps your friends are right in predicting another crash, but the narrative at the time of the election was that whomever won was probably going to preside over and get credit for a slowly and gradually recovering economy, and to date that still seems roughly on course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:The smart folks absolutely do not think that is the case. I know people that run trading desks and their are ramping up risk procedures in preparation for another crash. Biden has 580,000 likes on Facebook HRC has 235,000 likes Noted popular Senator Cory Booker has 185,000 likes Chris Christie has 113,000 likes (Rand Paul has 1,167,000 likes, which is 26,000 more than his dad)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Facebook likes can easily be bought. Look at the "scandal" surrounding Romney's inflated likes during the general election. Please don't use likes as a metric for anything ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Facebook likes can easily be bought. Look at the "scandal" surrounding Romney's inflated likes during the general election. I am aware of all of that but don't think Noted Old Person Joe Biden or anyone else on this list has been buying likes in the last six years. (watch this space when that number becomes 10,580,000 in roughly 18 months)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
richardfun posted:And he's trying his darndest to make up for thos sensible decisions by appointing Larry Summers as Fed chairman... gently caress me. Of all the people to choose. I thought he was going to drop this after all the outcry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:gently caress me. Of all the people to choose. I thought he was going to drop this after all the outcry. You should have been disabused of that idea when the very first thing Obama did after the outcry was to force a House Committee to cancel testimony by Greenwald about Snowden just so that Obama could stand up and give a "full-throated defense" of Summers in a special meeting with Congressional Democrats. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Adar posted:I am aware of all of that but don't think Noted Old Person Joe Biden or anyone else on this list has been buying likes in the last six years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:No. If elected Hillary would be still be younger than Reagan by eight months. His record is safe. Had McCain (72) or Bob Dole (73) won they would have been older than him though. Eight months is not a huge deal at that age. You are talking about serious age related issues if Hillary runs. Just campaigning will be a challenge considering another two year push from 2014. If she runs she will have to wrap up the nomination early. Age will be a major issue for the Democrats. The party will have to repackage both Hillary and Biden to appeal to a younger crowd. The choice of VP will be a major issue as well if either one runs. jeffersonlives posted:I am pretty sure it's functionally impossible at this point for the Democrats to develop a reverse age gap problem for 2016. Who, exactly, are the Republicans going to nominate with appeal to the young folk? You will be looking at Jindal, Ryan, and Paul leading the younger arm of the party. I doubt Christie gets the nomination, he is out in front far too early. evilwaldo fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:You will be looking at Jindal, Ryan, and Paul leading the younger arm of the party. I doubt Christie gets the nomination, he is out in front far too early. Jindal is a lightweight joke who has massive disapproval ratings in his 58% Romney home state, Ryan is not running, and Paul is still a member of the Paul family. And young candidate does not necessarily translate to creating a generational gap problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Jindal is a lightweight joke who has massive disapproval ratings in his 58% Romney home state, Ryan is not running, and Paul is still a member of the Paul family. And young candidate does not necessarily translate to creating a generational gap problem. It is easy to poke holes in everyone Jet but you will likely see the three of them run and they have laid groundwork in Iowa already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:It is easy to poke holes in everyone Jet but you will likely see the three of them run and they have laid groundwork in Iowa already. Ryan is decidedly not doing the things he needs to do to be running, instead burying himself in policy work, and Jindal probably still has aspirations but he's completely imploded his standing in the party both locally and nationally. Paul is absolutely running; at the end of the day, the question remains about whether you really think a Paul can be nominated to a national Republican ticket? Ron certainly couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Ryan is decidedly not doing the things he needs to do to be running, instead burying himself in policy work, and Jindal probably still has aspirations but he's completely imploded his standing in the party both locally and nationally. The 2016 race is not won in 2013. Not even close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:Age will be a major issue for the Democrats. The party will have to repackage both Hillary and Biden to appeal to a younger crowd. The choice of VP will be a major issue as well if either one runs. Really just having the potential to be the first female president I think is enough to mitigate the age issue. Young people like the idea of change even if said change candidate is old. The Republicans inevitable middle aged white dude lineup isn't going to attract young people beyond the Paul fans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
I'm curious whether people here think Christie could actually win the Republican nomination. Sure, he's got charisma in spades, but it would seem like he's too socially liberal (particularly on gun control) for the base, not to mention any residual anger over his praising Obama for the Sandy response. Maybe he could win by default just because the other candidates are so terrible (a la Romney in 2012)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:The 2016 race is not won in 2013. Not even close. Of course not, but it can be lost. Jindal is a tough sell to begin with for a lot of reasons, starting with the obvious one that nobody will mention (his ethnicity) but including his complete dearth of charisma and speaking ability, his lack of a natural geographical or ideological constituency, and the fact that he's pretty darned unpopular in his home state. As with Marco Rubio more recently, the idea of Bobby Jindal was quite appealing to Republicans 5-10 years ago, but the actual Bobby Jindal at this point looks like a guy whose national future would cap out at backbench House member. I don't think the visual of a 53 year old Rand Paul is going to cause a surge in youth enthusiasm for the Republican ticket, but at least you can sell me on him (or Rubio or a couple dozen other men and women below 60) as a plausible nominee. Perhaps the theoretical rise in youth libertarianism will actually translate to the ballot box for Rand as it did not for Ron, Bob Barr, or Gary Johnson, but I don't see a heck of a lot of actual reasons to believe that. UnclePlasticBitch posted:I'm curious whether people here think Christie could actually win the Republican nomination. Sure, he's got charisma in spades, but it would seem like he's too socially liberal (particularly on gun control) for the base, not to mention any residual anger over his praising Obama for the Sandy response. Christie needs a lot of things to break right. Frankly, the Republicans are a lot more likely to nominate a noncontroversial (within the party at least) establishment player who is minimally palatable to the right, because that's usually what they do. And we're not even talking about those guys and gals, the John Thunes or the Scott Walkers or the Jeb Bushes or the Mike Pences or the Kelly Ayottes, because they're inherently boring potential candidates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Age will be a complete non-issue in the Dem primaries. For one, as I've just pointed out, both Biden and Hillary are pretty popular with the young. For another, Biden doesn't look 70 (Hillary does look 65 but ehh makeup can do a lot and she's still a Clinton.) Most importantly, neither of them have any desire to raise the question so if they both run it won't be an attack line. If only one does, that person's still winning. jeffersonlives posted:Of course not, but it can be lost. Jindal is a tough sell to begin with for a lot of reasons, starting with the obvious one that nobody will mention (his ethnicity) but including his complete dearth of charisma and speaking ability, his lack of a natural geographical or ideological constituency, and the fact that he's pretty darned unpopular in his home state. As with Marco Rubio more recently, the idea of Bobby Jindal was quite appealing to Republicans 5-10 years ago, but the actual Bobby Jindal at this point looks like a guy whose national future would cap out at backbench House member. I agree with the Jindal part. Rand is absolutely a serious candidate at this point because he's in the unique position of uniting two of the three GOP wings. Nobody else in this carnival game right now can claim that. On the other hand, he's still a Paul and opposition to the Civil Rights Act is still A Thing Christie and the talk show circuit (this includes Limbaugh et al, who are not paid to elect Rand Paul) will hammer him on. Like Hillary, the biggest problem he has is that Iowa sucks for his constituency. If he can keep his dad's coalition together and ride a 2nd place Iowa finish to a NH win, it's doable but tricky. The fact that Christie will probably be well under 300 by election time is very concerning. I don't think he needs "a lot", because the catch here is that his best early state is actually Nevada. If he is a plausible contender by that point he will pick up NV and have media momentum heading into Super Tuesday. It really depends on who his competitors are, and of the five you mentioned, only one, Walker, is the right combination of running/has potential/has money/not a Bush. There's also the relative certainty that the civil war will not be fully over at that point and every single wingnut may well coalesce around, say, Cruz; if the same wingnut takes both Iowa and SC, the establishment then has to pick a candidate and it's probably going to be the likable moderate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Adar posted:The fact that Christie will probably be well under 300 by election time is very concerning. I don't think he needs "a lot", because the catch here is that his best early state is actually Nevada. If he is a plausible contender by that point he will pick up NV and have media momentum heading into Super Tuesday. It really depends on who his competitors are, and of the five you mentioned, only one, Walker, is the right combination of running/has potential/has money/not a Bush. There's also the relative certainty that the civil war will not be fully over at that point and every single wingnut may well coalesce around, say, Cruz; if the same wingnut takes both Iowa and SC, the establishment then has to pick a candidate and it's probably going to be the likable moderate. I saw Christie about a week ago, and he actually looked like he was gaining weight again, not losing it. I'll believe he's particularly likely to run when he slims down a la Huckabee and not just when he's threatening to, basically. Most of the generic inoffensive names on the red side won't run and I was really playing random names off the top of my head; the point is that there are quite literally dozens of generic Republican statewides of roughly the right age, and in a field that looks pretty open I think at least one or two will emerge over the next two years. I don't know which ones. Cruz is a weird one, because he has as much upside to just take the nomination in a borderline walk as anyone if he catches fire, but he's boxed in a lot by potential candidacies of Perry and Paul; he's kind of the Democratic version of Kirsten Gillibrand for me in that he's obviously preparing to run and there are circumstances where it is very to see him winning but the path has so many drat obstacles in terms of other candidates right now, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:gently caress me. Of all the people to choose. I thought he was going to drop this after all the outcry. The only hope seems to be the Senate not being willing to confirm him...
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Cruz is a weird one, because he has as much upside to just take the nomination in a borderline walk as anyone if he catches fire, but he's boxed in a lot by potential candidacies of Perry and Paul; he's kind of the Democratic version of Kirsten Gillibrand for me in that he's obviously preparing to run and there are circumstances where it is very to see him winning but the path has so many drat obstacles in terms of other candidates right now, I guess. Ted Cruz's biggest obstacle is Ted Cruz. At some point the candidate needs to convince other Republican party actors that they are a reasonable candidate for President and Cruz's ability to piss off virtually every one of his colleagues is approaching Gingrichian levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ted Cruz's biggest obstacle is Ted Cruz. At some point the candidate needs to convince other Republican party actors that they are a reasonable candidate for President and Cruz's ability to piss off virtually every one of his colleagues is approaching Gingrichian levels. Eh, I dunno, his colleagues in the Senate really aren't that important (most of them are of course still seeing a future president in their own mirror) and most of the rest of the important party actors are eating up his failure to adhere to senatorial comity with a spoon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
richardfun posted:The only hope seems to be the Senate not being willing to confirm him... If the President has to give a "full throated defense" to his own party, there's a pretty good chance Summers won't get through, depending on whether the banks pressure the GOP on his behalf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:If the President has to give a "full throated defense" to his own party, there's a pretty good chance Summers won't get through, depending on whether the banks pressure the GOP on his behalf. I sincerely hope you're right about this, although there don't seem to be very many examples of Democrats blocking nominees from the left... Hedera Helix fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
richardfun posted:The only hope seems to be the Senate not being willing to confirm him... This is why I was hoping Obama would drop it. If he's got the GOP and his own party against it, then I don't see him pursuing Summers. I don't think Obama wants a Harriet Miers situation. The X-man cometh posted:If the President has to give a "full throated defense" to his own party, there's a pretty good chance Summers won't get through, depending on whether the banks pressure the GOP on his behalf. This would be a hilarious turn of events. The Dems mostly vote against and the GOP votes for him with enough Dems to confirm. (not hilarious in a good way)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ted Cruz's biggest obstacle is Ted Cruz. At some point the candidate needs to convince other Republican party actors that they are a reasonable candidate for President and Cruz's ability to piss off virtually every one of his colleagues is approaching Gingrichian levels. Speaking of Ted, this article is the most revealing to date that I've read about the relationship between Ted and his dad, Rafael. Personally, I think his dad is a pretty creepy guy. The fact that National Review even wrote a piece about him in many ways shows a connection there that is gonna come up and be explored during any potential run by Ted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:If the President has to give a "full throated defense" to his own party, there's a pretty good chance Summers won't get through, depending on whether the banks pressure the GOP on his behalf. Don't count on it. All indications point to Reid whipping the party in line behind a Summers nomination. Immediately after Obama's defense on July 31, Reid was quoted as saying "Whoever the president selects, this caucus will be for that person, no matter who it is."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:50
|
|