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 »

De Nomolos: Jan 17, 2007; TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine

He might be well-served to do the old strategy of only entering a few select primaries where he can cause damage strategy. Concentrate on NH, where he's likely sharing media markets in some cases with VT, for example. His resources won't be endless, but he'd get more publicity coming in 2nd there than being another Kucinich. This was what George Wallace did to irk LBJ in 1964 and McCarthy did in 1968. He can then spin that as "the country is ready for my ideas," earn media, and then get a real insurgency going.

Then again, that could turn out like the Rudy strategy.

# ? Mar 6, 2014 23:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 22:43

DynamicSloth: Jul 30, 2006; "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

De Nomolos posted:

This was what George Wallace did to irk LBJ in 1964 and McCarthy did in 1968. He can then spin that as "the country is ready for my ideas," earn media, and then get a real insurgency going.

Strategies that pre date the modern primary system (and didn't even really work at the time) aren't much of a model to go on. Second place in a neighbouring state, in what is likely to be a lopsided two to three candidate race isn't going to earn you any media, or, much more importantly, money.

There will almost certainly be a lefty "keep her honest" candidate in the primary somewhere on the competitiveness scale between Bill Bradley and Dennis Kucinich, Bernie is as good as the Democrats can hope for to fill that slot in that he'll do a classy job and bring some real intellectual rigour (not in that he'd be any more likely to win). That candidate isn't going to earn media by winning primaries though, because they'll be out of the running a split second after the real votes start being counted, Hillary wins Iowa and New Hampshire and the party will start circling the wagons very quickly. There will however be a whole year before any votes are cast where the media will be happy to inflate the prospects of every dark horse and rabble rouser plenty ample time for Bernie to make a real meal of it if he wants to.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 00:25

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Joementum posted:

He'd get more national coverage from literally setting a pile of money on fire than the figurative approach of a third party Presidential campaign.

Also known as the K-Foundation style of campaigning.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 02:44

De Nomolos: Jan 17, 2007; TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine

First off, while it is an antiquated system, McCarthy was partially responsible for damaging LBJ enough to push him out.

Wallace's campaign, while below the radar, in many ways started the white working class backlash of the 1970s that gave us Nixon and then Reagan. If Bernie ran a campaign focusing on places that would really gravitate towards the message (namely, lower income communities, places hit hard by globalization or gentrification and the collapse in wages brought on by declining unionization), he could lay more groundwork for a more left-leaning party later on.

A lot of voters in inner cities are already receptive to the message, as are many younger people. We just have too many urban machine politicians and Obama-style liberals representing those places, for various reasons. The De Blasio campaign, while hardly perfect, started to show that those voters are receptive to a more forcefully populist message at least on some level.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 02:47

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Also known as the K-Foundation style of campaigning.

Bernie 2016: It's Grim Up North

# ? Mar 7, 2014 03:00

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Joementum posted:

Bernie 2016: It's Grim Up North

Bernie 2016: Justified And Ancient

# ? Mar 7, 2014 03:34

Spatula City: Oct 21, 2010; LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING

I don't think Hillary's age is actually that big a deal, because women live longer than men, and are usually active longer, too.
One reason i'm reluctantly resigned to her as the next president is that she's probably going to have coattails. Obama drove up the minority turnout, but Clinton's opportunity to drive up female turnout may be a huge deal for Congress and Senate races in 2016.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 03:45

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Sadly, Thad McCotter was already the first Presidential candidate to drive an ice cream van.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 03:46

Ian McLean: Sep 9, 2012; statpedia.org
Post Stats on Anything

https://www.facebook.com/notes/divine-pharaoh/a-scenario-for-a-utopian-society/939453186184

# ? Mar 7, 2014 03:57

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Joementum posted:

Sadly, Thad McCotter was already the first Presidential candidate to drive an ice cream van.

A KLF-themed campaign seems perfectly suited to handle the issue of a 3am phone call.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 04:10

Alec Bald Snatch: Sep 12, 2012; by exmarx

A take back Lemuria platform seems like it'd play well with the New Hampshire crowd.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 04:55

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

FMguru posted:

A KLF-themed campaign seems perfectly suited to handle the issue of a 3am phone call.

If you want a picture of the future of politics, imagine a hand, picking up a phone call at 3 am - eternally.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 05:05

Old Kentucky Shark: May 25, 2012; If you think you're gonna get sympathy from the shark, well then, you won't.

Joementum posted:

He'd get more national coverage from literally setting a pile of money on fire than the figurative approach of a third party Presidential campaign.

Honest question: how'd Ross Perot manage it? Setting even larger piles of money on fire?

I wasn't old enough back then to follow it.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 11:15

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Old Kentucky Shark posted:

Honest question: how'd Ross Perot manage it? Setting even larger piles of money on fire?

I wasn't old enough back then to follow it.

Buying huge blocks of TV time for his cue card proto-powerpoint explanations was a part of it, no doubt.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 11:26

Brown Paper Bag: Nov 3, 2012

What was Perot's platform?

# ? Mar 7, 2014 11:42

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Basically think of libertarians mixed with the tea party fixation on the deficit.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 12:21

abelwingnut: Dec 23, 2002

Was he the one that wouldn't shut up about a flat tax or was that Forbes?

# ? Mar 7, 2014 13:01

dilbertschalter: Jan 12, 2010

Perot was a weird candidate in that while when it came to major issues his positions seemed to mirror those of the elites* (deficits bad, don't ban abortion), but he ran as a populist. Most of his supporters were middle class and some were rich, with only a small percentage being poor.

*NAFTA/trade being a big exception.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 13:16

Lee Harvey Oswald: Mar 17, 2007; by exmarx

So my state, Tennessee, is one of 22 states calling for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. There's no way this bullshit passes, right, even if a Republican wins in 2016?

# ? Mar 7, 2014 13:57

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

Abel Wingnut posted:

Was he the one that wouldn't shut up about a flat tax or was that Forbes?

Probably Forbes. Perot may have been tilting at windmills but flat tax is a loving lovely-pants-on-face retarded idea that is best taken as an indicator of even worse beliefs held by the worthless jackass squabbling about it, MRAism, anti-choice, bitcoins, denial/hatred of science, etc. Perot was at least a guy you could listen to for more than 30 seconds without wanting to take the fucker out back, beat his brains in with a cinderblock, and light the corpse on fire.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 14:00

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Lee Harvey Oswald posted:

So my state, Tennessee, is one of 22 states calling for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. There's no way this bullshit passes, right, even if a Republican wins in 2016?

Nope. Even putting aside the fact that the debt is a useful tool on both sides (even if just for a propaganda weapon), you need 3/4 of the states to approve it and the Republicans currently control just over half of state legislatures.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 14:05

De Nomolos: Jan 17, 2007; TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine

Lee Harvey Oswald posted:

So my state, Tennessee, is one of 22 states calling for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. There's no way this bullshit passes, right, even if a Republican wins in 2016?

Considering that it would take congress passing it with 2/3 first, no.

The only way to go around that is to get an Article V convention, which takes 34 state legislatures to pass. It's a quirky idea some activists and academics throw around (Larry Lessig has), but such a convention could be easily taken over by activists, so we'd probably end up repealing direct election of Senators.

I think we're applying a bunch of unrelated nuttery to Perot. I know he's down the memory hole, but aside from the national debt, he was primarily focused on stopping NAFTA and general protectionism/economic nationalism. If anything, I think he may have come out for a VAT tax (Pat Choate, his 1996 running mate, has long pushed for that).

The debt was tied in to that due to the Japanophobia at the time (they were buying up a lot of US real estate and companies and we weren't used to the concept of countries owning our debt since pre-Reagan we didn't have that) and dovetailed well with the nationalism.

De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Mar 7, 2014

# ? Mar 7, 2014 14:06

notthegoatseguy: Sep 6, 2005

I watched one of those Perot commercials a while back. He talked about acrss the board spending cuts, including to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, elimination of a ton of tax credits and benefits, and higher taxes on top income brackets. I think he said $300k annually was his cut off mark for an income tax hike.

He also wanted to uncap SS/Medicare taxes, which only take into account the first $100,000 of income.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 14:41

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

He had some good policy ideas, but those were contrasted with absolutely horrible ones. Imagine a more likeable Ron Paul without hard drives full of Rule 34: Constitution images or parents murdered in a dark alley by fiat currency.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 15:47

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Perot was basically We Have To Get The Deficit Under Control NOW NOW NOW. His argument was that government wasn't working and our country was drifting towards disaster so we needed an outsider anti-politician with a record of Getting Things Done to come in, pop open the hood, and fix poo poo. Outsider perspective, lots of charts and technical yet clear explanations of things (the rare candidate who talked up, rather than down, to voters), and the promise of bypassing a broken system to take care of problems that gridlock was causing. He said very little about social issues, and some of his solutions were left of center (shrink the military and reduce the US footprint abroad now that Cold War was over, raise taxes on the rich and cut their social security benefits, keep jobs in America and gently caress "trade deals" like NAFTA). It was a weird mix of things that appealed to a lot of people - at least until the candidate's shtick got overexposed and some of his uglier side leaked through (a lot of his heroic biography was exaggerated, he had Old Person problems with blacks and gays and Latinos, he was crazier than a shithouse rat).

# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:26

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Meanwhile in Kentucky, Rand Paul Fans seek to address a little hurdle for his presidential dreams

Herald Leader posted:

FRANKFORT � State Sen. Damon Thayer introduced a bill Thursday afternoon that would clear the way for U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to seek re-election to the Senate and run for president on the same Kentucky ballot in 2016.

Thayer, R-Georgetown, and other allies of Paul said the proposal would make clear that an existing state law prohibiting candidates from appearing twice on the same ballot applies only to those seeking state and local offices.

Paul, who is openly flirting with a run for the White House in 2016, and his supporters say he already has the ability to pursue both seats at the same time, but the legislation filed Thursday would thwart any legal challenges to his potential multiple candidacies.

The U.S. Supreme Court, they said, already ruled on the matter when it decided in 1995 that an Arkansas state law imposing term limits on federal officials was unconstitutional.

"Federal law governs federal elections, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that states cannot impose additional qualifications beyond those in the Constitution," said Doug Stafford, Paul's senior adviser.

Stafford said Paul's supporters "are not seeking to change the law, but rather to clarify that the Kentucky statute does not apply to federal elections."

Lynn Zellen, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, whose office is in charge of elections, said that if a candidate filed to run for two federal offices at the same time, Grimes would likely "seek guidance from the attorney general and or the courts."

Stafford said Paul is grateful to Thayer for introducing the measure. Thursday was the final day to introduce new bills in the state Senate this year.

Thayer said later Thursday that Paul winning the Republican presidential nomination "is not an outside chance."

"In many places he is listed as the frontrunner, both in quantitative polls and qualitative analysis by pundits," Thayer said. "If he wins the Republican nomination, I think it's important to give Kentuckians a chance to vote for or against someone from their own state."

Paul has said he is undecided on whether he will run for president and won't make a decision until after the midterm elections in November.

Dan Bayens, Paul's spokesman, said the senator is "100 percent committed to running for re-election to the Senate."

"Regardless of what other decisions he makes, he'll be on the ballot for Senate in Kentucky in 2016," Bayens said.

The bill appears to have little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled House, with Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, saying that "we kind of take the position over here that a man (who) can't decide which office he wants to run for isn't fit to hold either office."

While Stumbo's opposition is hardly surprising, what has caused consternation among allies of Paul's is what appears to be a small group of Senate Republicans who oppose the bill.

State Sen. Chris Girdler, R-Somerset, said Thursday he remains "personally opposed" to the bill.

Girdler called Thayer his friend but said he doesn't "believe that you should be able to run for two offices at the same time."

"One thing that we do have in common on this is that we both would love to see our next president be from the Commonwealth of Kentucky," Girdler said of Thayer. "However, I just disagree with the means to the end."

Thayer said U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who enjoys a key endorsement from Paul this year, is "strongly behind this," making calls to Republican state senators, including Senate President Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, in recent days.

"I know he's in favor of this, and he's been working behind the scenes to try to help," Thayer said.

Stivers declined to say whether he would support the bill.

"It will be something for discussion," he said.

Thayer acknowledged Thursday that the chances of the bill reaching Gov. Steve Beshear's desk were "quite small."

"We're used to Speaker Stumbo killing lots of good Republican bills down there," Thayer said of the House.

The senator added that he thinks "this is actually a bipartisan bill because it could effect a Democrat."

"For example, what if the Democratic nominee for president decides that John Yarmuth would be a good selection to be their running mate?" Thayer said. "This would allow him to run for Congress and vice president."

Stumbo scoffed at the idea that the bill could help Kentucky Democrats.

"I don't know of any Democrats that are in that situation," Stumbo said. "Most of us know which office we want to run for."

I'm not too familiar with other states, but is this a common thing?

# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:34

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

I don't care if he gets allowed to do this, but I feel like it should be an existing stipulation to presidential office runs in every state. None of this back-up plan poo poo, lay it on the line.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:38

Cliff Racer: Mar 24, 2007; by Lowtax

It is currently law in some states but not others. Its useful for certain groups, like politicians who have a house or state senate seat on lockdown but want to run for office anyway. I think we had someone run nationally recently who also ran and retained statewide office. Kerry in 04, Biden as VP in 08 or possibly just one of the primary candidates.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:44

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

joeburz posted:

I don't care if he gets allowed to do this, but I feel like it should be an existing stipulation to presidential office runs in every state. None of this back-up plan poo poo, lay it on the line.

If I recall correctly that's not possible and Kentucky is merely bringing itself in line with a Federal court case which held that states aren't allowed to add additional restrictions on eligibility for Federal elections beyond residence in a state (including "you can't run for two offices at once")

# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:47

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Cliff Racer posted:

It is currently law in some states but not others. Its useful for certain groups, like politicians who have a house or state senate seat on lockdown but want to run for office anyway. I think we had someone run nationally recently who also ran and retained statewide office. Kerry in 04, Biden as VP in 08 or possibly just one of the primary candidates.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the Constitutionality of Kentucky's law. The Constitution forbids anyone from holding two Federal offices at once, but says nothing about running for them. There have been numerous instances of candidates running for two offices at once elsewhere.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:47

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

ComradeCosmobot posted:

If I recall correctly that's not possible and Kentucky is merely bringing itself in line with a Federal court case which held that states aren't allowed to add additional restrictions on eligibility for Federal elections beyond residence in a state (including "you can't run for two offices at once")

Waiting for Scalia's slippery-slope argument where he posits that interpreting as such would allow someone to run for every single position they qualify for on a ballot of their local/state.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:30

notthegoatseguy: Sep 6, 2005

joeburz posted:

I don't care if he gets allowed to do this, but I feel like it should be an existing stipulation to presidential office runs in every state. None of this back-up plan poo poo, lay it on the line.

Most recent candidates who haven't followed this advice: Paul Ryan for VP 2012 and Joe Biden for VP in 2008. Both ran for their House and Senate seat, respectively, despite being selected as VP nominees.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:40

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

Abel Wingnut posted:

Was he the one that wouldn't shut up about a flat tax or was that Forbes?

Forbes was the flat tax guy with that creepy constant rictus grin. I kept waiting for him to go on about Huey Lewis during the debates.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:13

Ballz: Dec 16, 2003; it's mario time

Taerkar posted:

Meanwhile in Kentucky, Rand Paul Fans seek to address a little hurdle for his presidential dreams

I'm not too familiar with other states, but is this a common thing?

Wouldn't surprise me if the Florida Legislature does this for Marco Rubio, too.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:25

De Nomolos: Jan 17, 2007; TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine

FMguru posted:

Perot was basically We Have To Get The Deficit Under Control NOW NOW NOW. His argument was that government wasn't working and our country was drifting towards disaster so we needed an outsider anti-politician with a record of Getting Things Done to come in, pop open the hood, and fix poo poo. Outsider perspective, lots of charts and technical yet clear explanations of things (the rare candidate who talked up, rather than down, to voters), and the promise of bypassing a broken system to take care of problems that gridlock was causing. He said very little about social issues, and some of his solutions were left of center (shrink the military and reduce the US footprint abroad now that Cold War was over, raise taxes on the rich and cut their social security benefits, keep jobs in America and gently caress "trade deals" like NAFTA). It was a weird mix of things that appealed to a lot of people - at least until the candidate's shtick got overexposed and some of his uglier side leaked through (a lot of his heroic biography was exaggerated, he had Old Person problems with blacks and gays and Latinos, he was crazier than a shithouse rat).

And then he debated Al Gore on NAFTA and was right.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 20:16

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

De Nomolos posted:

And then he debated Al Gore on NAFTA and was right.

Actually, he was completely wrong on one of his major arguments. There was no "huge sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico. Instead, Mexicans came to the US for jobs, and the huge sucking sound was from manufacturing jobs going to China, which had nothing to do with NAFTA.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:11

ReidRansom: Oct 25, 2004

Deteriorata posted:

Actually, he was completely wrong on one of his major arguments. There was no "huge sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico. Instead, Mexicans came to the US for jobs, and the huge sucking sound was from manufacturing jobs going to China, which had nothing to do with NAFTA.

While the rise of Chinese manufacturing did head off that prediction a bit, he wasn't all wrong on that, especially in sectors like automotive manufacturing.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:27

Shear Modulus: Jun 9, 2010

Taerkar posted:

Meanwhile in Kentucky, Rand Paul Fans seek to address a little hurdle for his presidential dreams

I'm not too familiar with other states, but is this a common thing?

LBJ did this when he ran for VP. He got elected to both offices but resigned the Senate seat, which got filled by an appointee. The common myth is that the Texas legislature changed the law to explicitly allow this (pretty much the same thing the article says KY is contemplating). I don't know if that's actually true though.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 23:59

Alec Bald Snatch: Sep 12, 2012; by exmarx

ReidRansom posted:

While the rise of Chinese manufacturing did head off that prediction a bit, he wasn't all wrong on that, especially in sectors like automotive manufacturing.

It was less removing trade restrictions as it was tax incentives to move factories south and overseas.

# ? Mar 8, 2014 01:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 22:43

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

Deteriorata posted:

Actually, he was completely wrong on one of his major arguments. There was no "huge sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico. Instead, Mexicans came to the US for jobs, and the huge sucking sound was from manufacturing jobs going to China, which had nothing to do with NAFTA.

The effect of NAFTA on the textile industry was huge.

# ? Mar 8, 2014 05:27

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

«‹›261 »