|
Sir Tonk posted: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) Gallows humor is still humor, and we'd mostly all prefer laughing to crying. Uncontrollably. Until we pass out.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted: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." That'll be the first time Reid has successfully whipped the caucus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
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. Considering the fact that Congress has to up the debt ceiling again and pass a budget there will probably be some sort of compromise that gets him through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:Considering the fact that Congress has to up the debt ceiling again and pass a budget there will probably be some sort of compromise that gets him through. Where is the horse that Senate Dems are getting in such a deal? "Vote for Summers and... Obama won't veto a debt ceiling increase?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
There are about a half dozen Democratic Senators who would actually vote against Summers, but that's the ceiling. Leahy, Sanders, Warren, and Brown are definite nos with Merkley, Markey, and Durbin on the fence, though I seriously doubt Durbin would buck Obama on this appointment. He'll make a show at hearings, but that's the extent of it. On the Republican side, there's also a small group that might be willing to go against the banking lobby (from which Summers will have overwhelming support). There's the Paul-Lee-Cruz triumvirate of End the Fedism and they'd likely be joined by banking-skeptical Vitter and perhaps one or two others - McConnnell and Cornyn being possibilities there to shore up their anti-Obama cred. But make no mistake: Summers will be the next Fed chair, if appointed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Adar posted:(Rand Paul has 1,167,000 likes, which is 26,000 more than his dad) Rand Paul is working the anti-abortion email circuit like a penny slot right now, I imagine that has something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Of the boring generic white Republicans posted on the last page, I think my Governor, Mike Pence, probably wants to be President. But after winning a Gubernatorial race with only a plurality (49%), running against a Democrat who had been out of politics for two decades and a superstar from Survivor, and it was a race he was widely expected to waltz to victory, I think the national interest and national money has probably dried up. But I wouldn't be surprised if he was shortlisted for a VP nominee, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Where is the horse that Senate Dems are getting in such a deal? "Vote for Summers and... Obama won't veto a debt ceiling increase?" Democrats should get a grand bargain with tax reform and entitlement reform, that's what they want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Is Castro worth a poo poo? He's been doing a pretty good job, I think, considering the city he's in charge of. Managed to open up public preschools, which considering San Antonio has the worst schools in the state is certainly an improvement -- the local Dems played it up a lot because it's unabashedly a good thing. Right now it seems like he's going to get an anti-gay discrimination law passed, so there's been a lot of negative press from conservatives, so if you look around you can go and see the sort of thing that'll get pulled up if he goes national. His mother was in La Raza, and that pulls out the racists like crazy. But I like him well enough, and he seems to be courting national politics lately so a VP pick doesn't seem out of the question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Is Castro worth a poo poo? I ask that honestly, I really know nothing about the guy. Seemed like an okay speech, but I didn't form an impression of him and I haven't been around to watch him govern. He is, inevitably, judged by his predecessor, Henry Cisneros, the same way Rick Perry is judged by George Bush and so on. Cisneros actually seemed like a really competent guy, but had a personal fuckup that cost him. That doesn't mean he would've been a bad national politician, but we never found out. crowfeathers posted:He's been doing a pretty good job, I think, considering the city he's in charge of. Managed to open up public preschools, which considering San Antonio has the worst schools in the state is certainly an improvement -- the local Dems played it up a lot because it's unabashedly a good thing. Right now it seems like he's going to get an anti-gay discrimination law passed, so there's been a lot of negative press from conservatives, so if you look around you can go and see the sort of thing that'll get pulled up if he goes national. His mother was in La Raza, and that pulls out the racists like crazy. But I like him well enough, and he seems to be courting national politics lately so a VP pick doesn't seem out of the question.  ). Unless something big changes though, don't expect him to be VP in 2016, Castro's said he's planning to stay as mayor here for another term after this one, which would keep him as mayor of San Antonio until 2017. He's also said he isn't going to run for the Governorship, which would be a key stepping stone for VP. Even without the VP possibility, I do wish he'd for Governor, since Perry's stated he's not running for re-election; without Castro running it means we're probably going to a have another goddamn Republican Governor. Cisneros was before my time, but my dad's evaluation of him is "He was a really great mayor, but then he hosed around on his wife and screwed all that up, and screwed us out of a good future Representative."  To note, my dad's also happy with Castro as mayor, and we'd both love it if Castro ran for President in 2024.
fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Aug 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Is Warren able to single-handed hold Summers up indefinitely? It would be the single most incredible "gently caress you wall street" move she's pulled and I've watched a lot of her hearings. It isn't like she'd suffer for it in the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Theoretically yes. She won't because she needs the rest of the Democratic caucus to actually y'know work with her at some point down the road plus there's any number of Republicans who'd be more than happy to put a hold on him. e: That came out a bit kinkier than expected. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
fade5 posted:As someone who lives in San Antonio, Castro's been doing an excellent job as mayor, and I'm very happy I voted for him. As crowfeathers noted, he got the Pre-K for SA passed, and is working on passing an anti-gay discrimination law, both of which are awesome, and a good reminder that not all of Texas is a regressive shithole (just most of it Demographics are stronger for a Democratic pickup of the governor's seat in 2018 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
foot posted:Demographics are stronger for a Democratic pickup of the governor's seat in 2018 anyway. Someone who isn't poo poo has to run and lose though. They can't keep throwing Chris Bells at the Texas GOP until Hispanics decide to start voting and the whole thing flips to 55% Democrat. They have to work for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Is Warren able to single-handed hold Summers up indefinitely? She could theoretically place a hold on his nomination, but realistically no she couldn't. Honestly, Summers isn't an objectively terrible person for the post. He's absolutely a lovely choice, but that's because he's being judged against superior alternatives and is being selected because a)he's Obama's bro and b)he's a Wall Street whore. And the appointment of somebody who seems to widely be believed to be more of a "hawk" and less likely to continue open-ended easing while unemployment is still sky-high is just another sign that Obama's econ team is a bunch of Rubinite assholes who have closed ranks around a President who mostly thinks like them in the wake of being conclusively proven wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
According to Robert Costa, Ted Cruz is just about as good at making friends in the GOP as Chris Christie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
And Ronald Reagan was a friendless outsider with a limp handshake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Is Warren able to single-handed hold Summers up indefinitely? Isn't "Democratic Senator from MA" pretty much a lifelong position barring an extreme fuckup? I don't see her going "gently caress you Wall Street" and being punished by the electorate, considering most of the electorate feels the same way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Yeah pretty much, seems like a lot of recent Dem senators stick around there for awhile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Some PPP New Hampshire runs for comedy's sake: Paul 20 Christie 19 Jeb Bush 14 Ayotte 12 Cruz 10 Rubio 7 Ryan 7 Jindal 3 Santorum 2 Clinton 57 Biden 12 Warren 11 Booker 4 Cuomo 2 Gillibrand 1 Warner 1 O'Malley 0 (ouch) Schweitzer 0 Biden 36 Warren 20 Booker 9 Cuomo 7 Gillibrand 1 O'Malley 1 Schweitzer 1 Warner 1 Warren 33 Cuomo 14 Booker 12 Gillibrand 5 O'Malley 4 Warner 2 Schweitzer 1 (ouch)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Oh man, those O'Malley numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Some PPP New Hampshire runs for comedy's sake:  That Cruz number is slightly surprising to me, but I guess at this stage it's largely name-recognition driving this result (especially in NH). Are we really approaching a situation where Rand Paul could win the nomination? I can't imagine any state scenario where his numbers don't plunge once he opens his mouth. Edit: What the hell?!? Why did it post two GIFs? Sorry...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Are we really approaching a situation where Rand Paul could win the nomination? I can't imagine any state scenario where his numbers don't plunge once he opens his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Are we really approaching a situation where Rand Paul could win the nomination? I can't imagine any state scenario where his numbers don't plunge once he opens his mouth. Well, Ron Paul got 23 percent in New Hampshire in 2012; whether or not Rand is in Ron's high floor/too low ceiling scenario is, I guess, an open question, but I'd also venture a guess that 20 won't be anywhere near the number required to win the actual 2016 NH primary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Well, Ron Paul got 23 percent in New Hampshire in 2012; whether or not Rand is in Ron's high floor/too low ceiling scenario is, I guess, an open question, but I'd also venture a guess that 20 won't be anywhere near the number required to win the actual 2016 NH primary. I suppose if there were enough cross-tabs and polls with varying candidate selections, we could work out a flowchart that indicates to whom, for example, Kelly Ayotte's voters would move if she doesn't run. Watching that flowchart evolve as the primaries draw closer could be very enlightening, but boy howdy do I not have the time to whip it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Some PPP New Hampshire runs for comedy's sake:
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Hog/Hague 2016. drat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Of course Rand Paul is going to do well with NH Republicans. I wouldn't expect anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Zero_Grade posted:More evidence that if neither Clinton or Biden run, things get really interesting (yeah yeah, normal disclaimer about being 3 years out etc). If neither of them run, either a domestic drone went horribly awry or we are in the Mirror Universe and everyone mysteriously grows a goatee overnight. jeffersonlives posted:Well, Ron Paul got 23 percent in New Hampshire in 2012; whether or not Rand is in Ron's high floor/too low ceiling scenario is, I guess, an open question, but I'd also venture a guess that 20 won't be anywhere near the number required to win the actual 2016 NH primary. Rand can absolutely hit 30+ and win NH. He can also hit 10 and is much more likely to hit 10 than 30. His problem is more that the GOP is guaranteed to have at least one candidate sharing his approximate space on the spectrum who isn't Rand Paul than his actual ability to win a vote. (It's also that he can't cleanly sweep the early states, but none of them can do that so get ready for another round of Anyone But The Frontrunner no matter who that is)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 09:32
|
|
|
Is there any chance the Democrats are grooming an unknown "up and comer" to go against Hillary like they did with Obama? I wasn't into politics until Obama won the primaries so I really don't know if he was actually a surprise for the political junkies as he was for the rest of America. If I was in charge I would have my pick in a virtual reality training room debating holograms of Hillary and conservatives all day. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Sep 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Everyone knew Obama was going to run for President after his 2004 DNC keynote speech, most people just thought it would be in 2012 not 2008. That said, I don't think Hillary's going to fall for the same trick twice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
There's also not as much of a launchpad for an Obama '08-style candidate so far. If I had a gun to my head and had to pick a guy I'd say Booker who's making loud noises about being left of where center is currently on a variety of issues like criminal justice. That might be a good place to start come 2016 but I would hesitate to bet on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Is there any chance the Democrats are grooming an unknown "up and comer" to go against Hillary like they did with Obama? I wasn't into politics until Obama won the primaries so I really don't know if he was actually a surprise for the political junkies as he was for the rest of America. Not really. The deeper bench beyond Clinton and Biden is pretty well-known at this point. Cuomo and Gillibrand are Clinton's handpicked successors, but everyone (except Diamond Joe) is waiting to see what her next move is. Also yeah everyone knew Obama was gonna run after 2004. There were a few pieces here and there around 2005-6 about him getting cozy with Reid, Durbin, Harkin, etc. that in retrospect make his run in 2008 seem obvious in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Well I suppose my only hope is that the electorate will drag Hillary to the left a bit but I'm really doubtful about that. At least thing won't be completely horrible from 2012-2020.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Well I suppose my only hope is that the electorate will drag Hillary to the left a bit but I'm really doubtful about that. At least thing won't be completely horrible from 2012-2020. The best thing that could happen to American politics right now (or the near future rather) is that a Democrat wins in 2016 and 2020, while in the latter election a heavy focus on state races is made. This will win back the state seats just in time for the next census, which will put an end to the permanent majority of the Republican House. Plus in 2020 Scalia and Kennedy will be 84 and Alito will be 70 so the chances of breaking the 5-4 lock are pretty likely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Is there any chance the Democrats are grooming an unknown "up and comer" to go against Hillary like they did with Obama? I wasn't into politics until Obama won the primaries so I really don't know if he was actually a surprise for the political junkies as he was for the rest of America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:It's hard to talk about "the Democrats" as an entity of action while excluding Hillary and Biden. There could be some sentiment to that effect and that matters sometimes, but that's it. Nobody was grooming Obama, really, he was showing signs of being a rising star himself and had a good story and so he got the DNC keynote and then he impressed people again etc. There's always luck involved but there probably won't be a recruitment effort like there was for the GOP in 2012. According to "Game Change" a significant faction of Democratic Party leadership including Harry Reid had serious reservations about the viability of a Hillary candidacy in 2008 for various reasons (including, if I recall, her position and vote on the Iraq invasion as well as the decades long backlog of GOP attack material against her), or outright thought she couldn't win, and set about drafting an alternative who might have a better chance to win. Obama was recruited in large part because he showed a strong ability to raise funds in addition to his obvious "star power" and not being as vulnerable on Iraq (granted he didn't have to vote on it). I think in the aftermath of the 2008 and 2012 races the same attitude towards Hillary does not exist. She is widely viewed as the most viable candidate from either party at the moment, and everyone has seen the clown car situation that has arisen with major GOP candidates. I think the Democratic Party will probably view Hillary as the best chance to win in 2016, and win easily and safely, rather than a serious vulnerability to throw away a chance on what should be a very winnable race for the Democrats as many viewed her in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
api call girl posted:There's also not as much of a launchpad for an Obama '08-style candidate so far. If I had a gun to my head and had to pick a guy I'd say Booker who's making loud noises about being left of where center is currently on a variety of issues like criminal justice. That might be a good place to start come 2016 but I would hesitate to bet on it. My belief is that Booker is trying to use his Senate campaign organization to build the base of a presidential-caliber national organization. That's probably for 2020 or 2024, and it's not going to be incredibly easy for him to pivot from 2013 special primary/2013 special general/2014 regular general to immediately running for president in 2016, but on the other hand having three test runs and three opportunities to build a donor and volunteer base isn't the worst thing...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
The two groups to watch leading up to the 2016 primary are OFA (who will probably do nothing) and DFA (who will probably get behind a dark horse). I don't expect the DFA challenge to be successful, but Dean did say that Hillary will definitely have a challenger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Joementum posted:The two groups to watch leading up to the 2016 primary are OFA (who will probably do nothing) and DFA (who will probably get behind a dark horse). I don't expect the DFA challenge to be successful, but Dean did say that Hillary will definitely have a challenger. I'd imagine DFA and the DFA types are going to go crazy trying to draft Warren into the race. We've had the discussion at length around here over whether that will be a worthwhile endeavor and I don't think a whole lot has changed, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 18:11
|
|