|
jeffersonlives posted: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. Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the star power to run for President--she held up OK in a Senate race, but I have doubts about her ability to run a 50-state campaign.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Chuck Schumer, who will travel to Iowa soon, announces he will not run for President in the most Chuck Schumer way. OK, the most Chuck Schumer way would be direct to camera on Meet The Press, but it's close.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the star power to run for President--she held up OK in a Senate race, but I have doubts about her ability to run a 50-state campaign. She doesn't seem like the kind of person who wants to run either, at least not so soon after getting elected to the Senate. Booker seems like the only 'outsider' candidate who could mount a legitimate campaign and would also be interested in running.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Gennifer Flowers has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. There are some slightly  pixelated images of Gennifer at that link and also it's The Daily Mail, so click at your own risk. Oh also, Hillary is bi and probably having a relationship with Huma, according to Ms. Flowers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
So, on a historical scale for context, how chaotic is the GOP at the hands of Ted Cruz right now? It sounds like an all-time high, but my brain is not wired to process this amount of implosive density.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
ufarn posted:So, on a historical scale for context, how chaotic is the GOP at the hands of Ted Cruz right now? It sounds like an all-time high, but my brain is not wired to process this amount of implosive density. I think the dynamic between Cruz and right wing media is really interesting. He says and does all of the right things to play to the base, but not so close to the base that they can burn him, and he really is a very intelligent person. Rush, Levin and Hannity are all providing him with lots of political cover right now. I know Scott Walker is a wholly made Koch product from beginning to end but Cruz could be the empty vessel the Koch brothers need to put their man in the Whitehouse. How he rates historically for outright craven self promotion is not within my expertise but after only 8 months on the national scene, he has to be up there with some of the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I think the dynamic between Cruz and right wing media is really interesting. He says and does all of the right things to play to the base, but not so close to the base that they can burn him, and he really is a very intelligent person. Rush, Levin and Hannity are all providing him with lots of political cover right now. I know Scott Walker is a wholly made Koch product from beginning to end but Cruz could be the empty vessel the Koch brothers need to put their man in the Whitehouse. How he rates historically for outright craven self promotion is not within my expertise but after only 8 months on the national scene, he has to be up there with some of the best. The problem is that Cruz is not a very likable person to the establishment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I think the dynamic between Cruz and right wing media is really interesting. He says and does all of the right things to play to the base, but not so close to the base that they can burn him, and he really is a very intelligent person. Rush, Levin and Hannity are all providing him with lots of political cover right now. I know Scott Walker is a wholly made Koch product from beginning to end but Cruz could be the empty vessel the Koch brothers need to put their man in the Whitehouse. How he rates historically for outright craven self promotion is not within my expertise but after only 8 months on the national scene, he has to be up there with some of the best. 8 months right after an election though. With elections so far off, who is else there to occupy the airwaves or even cares to do so right now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Goldwater was at least smart enough to continually call for party unity, going as far as to endorse Nixon in '60. I get the feeling Teddy ain't down with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
I'm ready for Tea Party PUMAs and https://www.cruzis45.com.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Goldwater was at least smart enough to continually call for party unity, going as far as to endorse Nixon in '60. I get the feeling Teddy ain't down with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Ted Cruz is not going to be the 2016 Republican nominee for president because he is totally unelectable and that has to be obvious to the movers and shakers in the party. Hell, Rand Paul would be a more viable general election candidate than Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Gennifer Flowers has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. There are some slightly Flowers is the other gift that keeps on giving. I met her once in New Orleans, she used to run her own cabaret / lounge bar there out of an old converted whorehouse. Seemed nice enough and the whole bar experience was fun, she'd schmooze with everyone after the show. She was like something out of Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil. I wonder what she's up to now other than making stories for the Daily Mail?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Ted Cruz is not going to be the 2016 Republican nominee for president because he is totally unelectable and that has to be obvious to the movers and shakers in the party. Hell, Rand Paul would be a more viable general election candidate than Cruz. One of the problems right now though is the quartet of Cruz-Lee-Rubio-Paul are out to gut the party establishment; maybe not so much Rubio cause he may just be tagging along to stay relevant. I'm not sure how much longer the so called party establishment will last and the money men will still give money to the last man standing, whoever it is. These guys answer more to ALEC, Heritage and talk radio than they do the RNC. Cruz refers to those guys as the "gray beards". edit: when I think of the party establishment I think of the RNC and other longstanding organizations that support the GOP, not the money. Because the money will flow to whoever winds up the nominee and to whoever is aligned with the interest of those giving the money. It was the same with the Democrats. radical meme fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
To Gennifer's credit, I can totally buy that "She's eaten more pussy than I have" is something Bill would say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:To Gennifer's credit, I can totally buy that "She's eaten more pussy than I have" is something Bill would say. I know I've heard that quote (allegedly from Bill) before as well, but I can't place it for the life of me. Did Flowers make this claim previously, or am I thinking of someone else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Your party is clearly a mess if your 'big guns' now are Cruz, Paul, and whoever. Not including Rubio anymore due to the immigration thing backfiring on his racist base.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
And Christie. As much as we'd hate it, the base is going to line up behind him just like they did for McCain and Romney.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
...and subsequently whine about how he lost because he wasn't a "true" conservative?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
radical meme posted:One of the problems right now though is the quartet of Cruz-Lee-Rubio-Paul are out to gut the party establishment; maybe not so much Rubio cause he may just be tagging along to stay relevant. I'm not sure how much longer the so called party establishment will last and the money men will still give money to the last man standing, whoever it is. These guys answer more to ALEC, Heritage and talk radio than they do the RNC. Cruz refers to those guys as the "gray beards". The money will stop flowing if the unelectable become the leaders. Sure you'll still be rolling in the windfall from the Council of Repugnant Rich White Billionaires, but all the other money is going to dry right up. You've got to stay sane enough that all that business money doesn't think you'll actually turn the economy to ash if you don't get your way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Christie's name keeps on coming up for 2016, but I'm convinced that he's going to play it smart and sit this one out. When 2016 turns into another embarrassing clusterfuck of a GOP primary and Hillary walks into the Oval Office, the republicans will realize that doubling down isn't working anymore and they'll spend the next 4 years lining up behind Christie, building him a national organization and smoothing over things with the elements of the base who freaked out over him thanking Obama for helping out with Sandy. Come 2020 Christie will be 58 and probably be looking rather svelte after his bypass surgery, and will be a popular former governor from the northeast with national name recognition billing himself as an old fashioned conservative who's center on social issues. Most of the country will recognise him as that guy who used to be fat and funny on Letterman who looked presidential standing on rubble a handful of years ago. Christie is dangerous because he's a republican who's terrible, but not literally an insane human monster so he looks down right great compared to everyone else in his party..
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
2016 is Christie's only real chance given the shrinking white vote, and even then it's not that likely. He's obviously intending to run given his hooking up with the Romney money people and the special election chicanery this year to ensure he has a clean re-election without Booker on the ballot to drive up Democratic votes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
And in 2016 he will still be knee deep in his Jersey Jackass personality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Yeah, in general you have to take your shot because 4 years later who knows what things will look like (not to mention that if you fail now you can take another run then anyway). In the meantime an Obama can come along, and even if you don't make any mistakes yourself a huge political liability can just land on you. Plus, there is no indication that the 2016 competition will be much better than the 2012 cast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
I would also think that an open field due to a term limited POTUS would be a far more ideal time to run than going for a run against a sitting President.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I would also think that an open field due to a term limited POTUS would be a far more ideal time to run than going for a run against a sitting President.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:2016 is Christie's only real chance given the shrinking white vote, and even then it's not that likely. He's obviously intending to run given his hooking up with the Romney money people and the special election chicanery this year to ensure he has a clean re-election without Booker on the ballot to drive up Democratic votes. He's also got the highest chance of an R win, period. If the people putting in money can get him onto the big ticket without too much of a scuffle in the primaries, he could potentially flip NJ, and even if he's a loudmouth he's got the least disgusting policies while still being electable, which would win him a good chunk of moderate vote. I mean like, IMO he'll be on the ticket if the people with money put winning over "who is the person that screws over the poors the most" since he has the highest shot, he just will have the hardest shot of surviving a primary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Waterbed posted:He's also got the highest chance of an R win, period. If the people putting in money can get him onto the big ticket without too much of a scuffle in the primaries, he could potentially flip NJ, and even if he's a loudmouth he's got the least disgusting policies while still being electable, which would win him a good chunk of moderate vote. He's also the only possible candidate I can think of that could serve the party as a symbolic move away from the teabagger hardliners, if he/his campaign is adroit enough to flip his cooperation with Obama in the aftermath of Sandy from albatross to asset. This presumes of course those maniacs can be re-leashed, and that their former masters wish so to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Waterbed posted:and even if he's a loudmouth he's got the least disgusting policies while still being electable, which would win him a good chunk of moderate vote. He's still gonna have to pander to the base some in the primary, and it's hard to say two years out how much crazier they'll be. And there's the outside possibility that the crazies will have enough of their own money to go toe to toe with the establishment. A big uncertainty is what if the base gets their act together and decides on a preferred guy, as unlikely as that may seem? Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
The FEC has told Stand With Rand PAC that they cannot use Rand Paul's name in the title of their group unless he explicitly endorses them. Their response: "Rand Paul? Oh no, this group has nothing to do with Rand Paul!"quote:This Committee responds to its pending RFAI by noting that it is unaware that the late Ayn Rand, noted philosopher and author and of Atlas Shrugged, is seeking election to federal office. With respect to 11 CFR 102.14(a), this regulation was promulgated to ensure a candidate's name was not used to raise funds or disseminate information the candidate objects to under the guise of being authorized by the candidate (Special Fundraising Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names by Unauthorized Committee, 50 Fed. Reg. No. 136, (July 15, 1992). It was not enacted to suppress citizens' first amendment rights to engage in robust political speech. Rather, the Commission must allow the maximum of first amendment freedom of expression in political campaigns commensurate with Congress' regulatory authority (Common Cause v. FEC, 842 F.2d at 448). Such overbroad application of 102.14(a) would prohibit citizens from banding together and using almost any common name; for example, a youth-oriented PAC named Think Young would share the name of 3 Congressmen and would thus be impermissible. With 435 Representatives and 100 Senators many first, last, and even middle names would be prohibited from such broad overreach. Thus, the use of just a first or last name is insufficient to trigger such a harsh restraint on speech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The FEC has told Stand With Rand PAC that they cannot use Rand Paul's name in the title of their group unless he explicitly endorses them. Their response: "Rand Paul? Oh no, this group has nothing to do with Rand Paul!" Yes, I too remember when Senator Ayn Rand was elected to the Senate from the great state of Kentucky and was an overly-hyped Presidential candidate. I really don't know how you get more disingenuous than this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
In case anyone wasn't yet convinced this was a comically disingenuous response. That image of Paul is at the top of every page on the site. I wonder where those Follow Us links go.   Those are some lovely follows and likes too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Does the FEC get to say "Nice try, now cut it the gently caress out"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Does Rand hate the PAC or something? I can't imagine a group not at least asking for his endorsement first instead of pulling this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Does Rand hate the PAC or something? I can't imagine a group not at least asking for his endorsement first instead of pulling this poo poo. I think they have sights on being a "super PAC" for Rand and you can't do that while coordinating with the candidate you're pushing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Does Rand hate the PAC or something? I can't imagine a group not at least asking for his endorsement first instead of pulling this poo poo. If you are one of the Pauls it's probably not a great idea to go around endorsing any group that springs up in support of you considering the type of people who tend to form such groups and the inevitability of them doing something that embarrasses you. They've got enough problems with their own staff sending out newsletters about the coming race war or having white nationalist wrestling alter egos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If you are one of the Pauls it's probably not a great idea to go around endorsing any group that springs up in support of you considering the type of people who tend to form such groups and the inevitability of them doing something that embarrasses you. They've got enough problems with their own staff sending out newsletters about the coming race war or having white nationalist wrestling alter egos. If this PAC turns out to be run by ex-aide, the Southern Avenger, then Rand can finally begin to live up to his father's legacy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Rename them Libertarian Avengers, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the star power to run for President--she held up OK in a Senate race, but I have doubts about her ability to run a 50-state campaign. Warren is way too far on the left economically to ever be nominated in the Democratic party. Those economic views are a direct threat to the upper class residents of NY, CA, DC, and all the other power centers of the Democratic party. Plus Clinton moved the party right on economic issues, was voted back into office. Obama moved it further right and got voted into office again (and he was the progressive choice). Obama especially has made it clear that moving to the right on economics isn't a problem with progressives at all as long as you tack left socially. Rich urban people control the Democratic party, someone like Warren would cause a revolt among those people and ruin the party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Yet somehow she got elected in one of the richest (and finance-heavy), most urban states in the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:48
|
|