|
Joementum posted:Much like 2012, and 2008, and 2000, and 1988/92. The base can whine all they like, but when Christie dumps $20m onto the Iowa airwaves we'll see how they fare. I'd figure Christie to be a lock for New Hampshire, but would batshittery make Iowa and SC a bit more hostile ground for him compared to Cruz/Paul/whoever?
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Zwabu posted:I'd figure Christie to be a lock for New Hampshire, but would batshittery make Iowa and SC a bit more hostile ground for him compared to Cruz/Paul/whoever? I dunno, I get the feeling Rand Paul would do quite well in New Hampshire due to the heavy preponderance of libertarian crazies (redundant, I know), both due to his own wooing and some reflected popularity from Ron.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I dunno, I get the feeling Rand Paul would do quite well in New Hampshire due to the heavy preponderance of libertarian crazies (redundant, I know), both due to his own wooing and some reflected popularity from Ron. Yeah but didn't "establishment Northeastern candidate Mitt Romney" win NH easily? I guess Ron Paul was just a spoiler, Rand less so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Yeah but didn't "establishment Northeastern candidate Mitt Romney" win NH easily? I guess Ron Paul was just a spoiler, Rand less so. Much as it pains me to admit either is viable, Rand is much more realistic a national candidate than his father, who was transparently staging a vanity campaign with no hopes at all of the nomination (despite his rapid followers' attempts to game this or that primary/caucus). Plus, Romney could at least pretend to have a little New England cred, whereas Christie can't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
In order for a base revolt to work against the Republican establishment pick, it's going to need to be funded. In Balz's report of the meeting Ken Langone and Henry Kissinger organized to convince Christie to run in 2012, David Koch was in the room. That's pretty much the whole game. There are some legal issues with fundraising as the current Governor of New Jersey that might get in the way - and that's probably the main reason Romney didn't pick him for VP - but being mean to a teacher at a political rally isn't going to be even a sliver of wood in his political coffin. Joementum fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Nov 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In order for a base revolt to work against the Republican establishment pick, it's going to need to be funded. In Balz's report of the meeting Ken Langone and Henry Kissinger organized to convince Christie to run in 2012, David Koch was in the room. That's pretty much the whole game. Not necessarily. Look at Sheldon Adelson and Newt Gingrich. One rich bastard with a bug up his rear end can keep a candidate going for months even when it seems clear there's no hope
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Romney eventually triumphed, but it took all of the party establishment's resources to do it, and the long race did a lot of damage to him in the general. It's not clear that it did any damage at all. The election ended up about where predictions based on the fundamentals for Obama said it would be, which makes it hard to believe that the details of the Republican primary had a big effect on how Romney did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Not necessarily. Look at Sheldon Adelson and Newt Gingrich. One rich bastard with a bug up his rear end can keep a candidate going for months even when it seems clear there's no hope Right, but you'll notice that Newt Gingrich was not the Republican nominee for President in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Right, but you'll notice that Newt Gingrich was not the Republican nominee for President in 2012. But you'll recall that Gingrich twice came very close to gathering enough momentum to derail the Romney train. The only reason he didn't was because he was running a book-signing campaign rather than a serious presidential run, so he didn't have the ability to take advantage of the surges when they came.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In order for a base revolt to work against the Republican establishment pick, it's going to need to be funded. In Balz's report of the meeting Ken Langone and Henry Kissinger organized to convince Christie to run in 2012, David Koch was in the room. That's pretty much the whole game. Wasn't that their desperate last ditch effort to find a viable Not-Romeny who wasn't just on a book tour or running against medieval moral decay? 2016 already looks like it's going to be different. Cruz, should he maintain his balance, will be the one true Tea Party Jesus; Paul will be there for the money and the libertarianish wing; Santorum will be back for those who hate the moral cancer of post 1517 society, and for those who love to hear about big strong hands; Christie then has to carefully draw in the skittish and endangered GOP Primary Moderate while almost the entirety of the GOP ground game has already sworn allegiance to his opponents. Of course it still remains to be seen how many also-rans jump in. We've already got Perry and Jindal trying to get into the fray. Many more far right lunatics and crazyland is to diluted to really oppose Christie, one or two viable "moderates" and Christie is on the defensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Rand Paul has the classiest, most Kentucky solution for the problem of "haters" impugning his honor. A slap with a glove and a meeting at the dueling fields, obviously.Rand Paul posted:"I will admit, sometimes we haven't footnoted things properly," Paul agreed. "In fact, I've given thousands of speeches and I don't think I've ever footnoted any of those speeches... I've written scientific papers. I know how to footnote things. But we've never footnoted speeches. And if that's the standard I'm going to be held to, yes, we will change and we will footnote things." It's quite a relief that Rand is not in charge of local laws anymore. Source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:But you'll recall that Gingrich twice came very close to gathering enough momentum to derail the Romney train. The only reason he didn't was because he was running a book-signing campaign rather than a serious presidential run, so he didn't have the ability to take advantage of the surges when they came. Which ultimately boils down to the quality of the candidate. Money gets you exposure, but if people don't like what they see it's not going to get you anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Perry actually kinda sorta has a shot this cycle, at least enough to make me tangentially interested. It depends on just how much of his performance was due to genuine pain medication problems and/or what happens if Christie -doesn't- run and Rand Paul turns out to be R. Paul. There's a low, but non zero chance that he winds up the most plausible moderate by default.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Wasn't that their desperate last ditch effort to find a viable Not-Romeny who wasn't just on a book tour or running against medieval moral decay? 2016 already looks like it's going to be different. Cruz, should he maintain his balance, will be the one true Tea Party Jesus; Paul will be there for the money and the libertarianish wing; Santorum will be back for those who hate the moral cancer of post 1517 society, and for those who love to hear about big strong hands; Christie then has to carefully draw in the skittish and endangered GOP Primary Moderate while almost the entirety of the GOP ground game has already sworn allegiance to his opponents. Exactly. Of all of Christie's opponents, Paul and Ryan are the most dangerous, because they can dip their toes in both pools. While Cruz, his dad, Santorum and whoever bang on about the apocalypse, Ryan and Paul will appear to be moderates who just care about the budget and civil liberties. What advantage has Chris Christie got if he hasn't got the advantage of not being in the room with seven dwarves? Being a loudmouth who hugged Obama? It's not like he's going to snag a bunch of crossover dem votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
I think it also matter a bit how Perry's home-state fundraising goes in early 2015. He's got three problems to overcome: he won't be in office any more, so he can't grant favors, he'll be in a split field with many donors preferring to give to Cruz, and (as you said) he still has to prove that 2012 was a fluke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Exactly. Of all of Christie's opponents, Paul and Ryan are the most dangerous, because they can dip their toes in both pools. While Cruz, his dad, Santorum and whoever bang on about the apocalypse, Ryan and Paul will appear to be moderates who just care about the budget and civil liberties. What advantage has Chris Christie got if he hasn't got the advantage of not being in the room with seven dwarves? Being a loudmouth who hugged Obama? It's not like he's going to snag a bunch of crossover dem votes. Until Cruz finally stumbles and is declared a RINO by the Terror, I don't think it's correct to think of him as just another one of the crazies. If he can manage 4 more years of walking on the balance beam, being the hero of the Tea Party should make him one of the top contenders. Paul just has to follow daddy's playbook to remain in the field and soak up the money. He'll probably even do better. What happens to Christie if Santorum wins Iowa, Paul wins New Hampshire and Cruz wins South Carolina?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Cruz has the most upside for being the Great Wackadoodle Uniter - I might even give him the highest percentage chance of anyone at being the nominee at this moment with no real clear frontrunners and a lot of people with warts or that may or may not run - but he also has a relatively high chance of just completely imploding and not even being a factor in a year and a half. Such is being Ted Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Exactly. Of all of Christie's opponents, Paul and Ryan are the most dangerous, because they can dip their toes in both pools. While Cruz, his dad, Santorum and whoever bang on about the apocalypse, Ryan and Paul will appear to be moderates who just care about the budget and civil liberties. What advantage has Chris Christie got if he hasn't got the advantage of not being in the room with seven dwarves? Being a loudmouth who hugged Obama? It's not like he's going to snag a bunch of crossover dem votes. Christie probably has a decent amount of crossover appeal. The DNC has certainly given him kid gloves treatment and there are plenty of blue dogs that respond well to someone being a loudmouth bully.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
In the alternate universe where Ted Cruz has won Iowa and is the presumptive favorite every single other person in the field will be facing enormous pressure to throw their campaign to Serious Candidate Rand Paul. I say specifically Rand Paul because the day after Cruz wins Iowa and polls as the NH frontrunner is the exact day the establishment has a heart attack and flails around for Serious Candidates who can somehow salvage the upcoming implosion in a way that somehow mends the fences, and in that universe, Serious Candidate Rand Paul is the hero they deserve. The universe where Cruz wins Iowa but isn't the NH frontrunner is the universe where Chris Christie or some other Serious Candidate is a lock so no one cares.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:Rand Paul has the classiest, most Kentucky solution for the problem of "haters" impugning his honor. A slap with a glove and a meeting at the dueling fields, obviously.  Rand seriously seems to have an anger problem. He's joking about this, of course, but it's telling that the joke he uses is basically "I want to shoot at you for insulting me." Keep in mind his constant flipping out whenever someone brings up the racist implications of his opinion of the Civil Rights Act. If he's serious about 2016 he'd better learn to get that poo poo under control before he throws a red-faced, teary-eyed, unpresidential tantrum in a debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think it also matter a bit how Perry's home-state fundraising goes in early 2015. He's got three problems to overcome: he won't be in office any more, so he can't grant favors, he'll be in a split field with many donors preferring to give to Cruz, and (as you said) he still has to prove that 2012 was a fluke. I think you will find he has solved all of these problems with some snappy glasses. Perry 2016. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Andy Kaczynski, who has also written a story about Rand's plagiarizing, notes that it is forbidden in the Kentucky constitution for its officeholders to duel.quote:Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God. Because of course that's in the Kentucky oath of office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Because of course that's in the Kentucky oath of office. Paul wouldn't have sworn that oath though, would he?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Paul wouldn't have sworn that oath though, would he? Only if the American flag in the room had no gold fringe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Only if the American flag in the room had no gold fringe. And so we see the birth of the Sovereign Senator movement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Andy Kaczynski, who has also written a story about Rand's plagiarizing, notes that it is forbidden in the Kentucky constitution for its officeholders to duel. Man, Jackson really did scare the poo poo out of Clay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Only if the American flag in the room had no gold fringe. Do federal officers have to take both oaths? I'm genuinely unaware. I assumed they'd just have to take the federal oath.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
To be fair, Rand's insane comment acknowledged that he would not be able to hold office if he accepted the "duel challenge," so we can at least admit that he has been keeping up on the current legal details regarding fights to the death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:To be fair, Rand's insane comment acknowledged that he would not be able to hold office if he accepted the "duel challenge," so we can at least admit that he has been keeping up on the current legal details regarding fights to the death. But it clearly says "nor have I sent or accepted a challenge," not just accepted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:But it clearly says "nor have I sent or accepted a challenge," not just accepted. Either way, the text of his comment indicates that he understands that. What I'm saying is that Rand Paul knows an awfully lot about duels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Which would be more effective in the war on terror: letters of marque or duels?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Which would be more effective in the war on terror: letters of marque or duels? Letters of Marque. Or has our subcontracting to private military firms not been an effective tactic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Does Paul address the Senate with the knuckles of one hand against his desk with the other hand behind at the back?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Andy Kaczynski, who has also written a story about Rand's plagiarizing, notes that it is forbidden in the Kentucky constitution for its officeholders to duel. You also have to swear that you've never participated in a duel in order to be admitted to the bar in Kentucky.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Which would be more effective in the war on terror: letters of marque or duels? Generational clashes in the Paul family come in the strangest forms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Generational clashes in the Paul family come in the strangest forms. I can think of one method they could use to resolve this debate...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I can think of one method they could use to resolve this debate... Is bicycle jousting using brooms as lances and trashcan lids as shields considered a duel? Because if not Rachel Maddow better watch out next time she bikes to work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Which would be more effective in the war on terror: letters of marque or duels? Obviously if you can get an agreement to Champion Warfare, you've got to go the duel. Otherwise letters of marque are the better choice, fighting fire with fire and all that. No drones allowed unless your opponent is coming out of a liquor store with a weapon and no less than $50 in cash though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Lee Harvey Oswald posted:That will help with the Republican base, as Republicans have an arbitrary hatred (because they're rear end in a top hat bullies) of public school teachers. This ad should take care of that
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
nachos posted:This ad should take care of that God drat, but that's a fine spot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 02:54
|
|
