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 »

mandatory lesbian: Dec 18, 2012

icantfindaname posted:

Looking into this more it seems like he did in fact get straight D's, and left after losing the election for student council president, in order to run for the State Assembly. He also used shady / illegal tactics in that election apparently. The student newspaper endorsed his opponent, so he had his campaign workers steal the papers off the racks, and was caught.

Okay but that's hilarious and I'm pretty sure it was also the plot to a movie I saw once.

# ? Apr 9, 2014 13:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 20:13

THE BOMBINATRIX: Jul 26, 2002; by Lowtax

Remember that time Hermann Cain was the front runner for the Republican nomination? Remember how wonderful that was? I'll be happy if Hermann Cain and the Trump-ster are running again. God, they're the best.

# ? Apr 9, 2014 21:48

pig slut lisa: Mar 5, 2012; irl is good

From the DnD pics thread:

Rhesus Pieces posted:

# ? Apr 10, 2014 00:24

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Oh look, the wrong Huskies.

# ? Apr 10, 2014 01:14

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

SedanChair posted:

Oh look, the wrong Huskies.

Pontiac Northern for life. :colbert:

# ? Apr 10, 2014 02:25

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

FYI: Martin O'Malley's exploratory committee is called the O'Say Can You See PAC.

Clever.

# ? Apr 11, 2014 19:55

Cigar Aficionado: Nov 1, 2004; "Patel"? Fuck you.

I was shocked at how charisma-less O'Malley was when I first really saw him at the 2012 DNC.

# ? Apr 11, 2014 23:40

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Alex DeLarge posted:

Remember that time Hermann Cain was the front runner for the Republican nomination? Remember how wonderful that was? I'll be happy if Hermann Cain and the Trump-ster are running again. God, they're the best.

If another Cain run leads to more fake ads like this, it would be the best possible thing that could happen for this republic.

e: "leads to," not "produces." Obviously Cain's team didn't make that one.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Apr 12, 2014

# ? Apr 11, 2014 23:45

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Majorian posted:

If another Cain run leads to more fake ads like this, it would be the best possible thing that could happen for this republic.

e: "leads to," not "produces." Obviously Cain's team didn't make that one.

Clicked hoping it was the rabbit-shooting ad, was only moderately disappointed to find it was not.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 03:44

pig slut lisa: Mar 5, 2012; irl is good

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Clicked hoping it was the rabbit-shooting ad, was only moderately disappointed to find it was not.

This is the 'conomy on stim-a-lis. ANY QUESTIONS!?!?

# ? Apr 12, 2014 04:19

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

You can watch a livestream of the New Hampshire Freedom Summit here: http://www.nhfreedomsummit.com/

It's featuring a lot of possible Presidential contenders, none of whom will win the nomination, including Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders is also speaking in New Hampshire today. You will not be surprised to learn that it's at a separate event.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 16:10

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

Really, you don't think Rand has a chance?

# ? Apr 12, 2014 17:49

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

I think Rand has about the same chance that Obama had at this point it 2006. Party activists actually care about him and enough Senators take him seriously enough to consider him a "leader."

# ? Apr 12, 2014 19:06

Cliff Racer: Mar 24, 2007; by Lowtax

He's missing one thing that Obama had, the most crucial thing of all. The media does not love him and he is not telegenic.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 20:38

Dancer: May 23, 2011

Can anyone explain to me how Trump is actually A Thing, ever? Like, somewhere someone decides "Yes, I should add Trump to speak at my conference because he has a legitimate contribution to the discussion". Who is that guy?

# ? Apr 12, 2014 20:42

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Dancer posted:

Can anyone explain to me how Trump is actually A Thing, ever? Like, somewhere someone decides "Yes, I should add Trump to speak at my conference because he has a legitimate contribution to the discussion". Who is that guy?

"I should add Trump to my conference because it will generate lots of publicity and news stories, even though he's an idiotic blowhard."

# ? Apr 12, 2014 20:43

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

De Nomolos posted:

I think Rand has about the same chance that Obama had at this point it 2006. Party activists actually care about him and enough Senators take him seriously enough to consider him a "leader."

Obama had no significant policy differences with the consensus of the Democratic party in 2008. Rand Paul had at least one (and probably several) significant differences which would cost the donor base of the Republican party significantly should he win.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 21:14

SatansOnion: Dec 12, 2011

Deteriorata posted:

"I should add Trump to my conference because it will generate lots of publicity and news stories, even though he's an idiotic blowhard."

I'd replace "even though" with "because", myself. The outraged/defensive articles and columns practically write themselves! If you're running some conservative shindig and need eyeballs on you, inviting the Trump is basically playing the game in easy mode.

SatansOnion fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Apr 12, 2014

# ? Apr 12, 2014 21:21

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Joementum posted:

Obama had no significant policy differences with the consensus of the Democratic party in 2008. Rand Paul had at least one (and probably several) significant differences which would cost the donor base of the Republican party significantly should he win.

Also, the reason Obama had "no chance" was because of a presumptively invincible Hillary. There's no similar issue on the Republican side, the situations aren't at all analogous.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 21:53

Pook Good Mook: Aug 6, 2013; ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES DRESS CODE AT ALL COSTS!

This message paid for by the Men's Wearhouse& Jos A Bank Lobbying Group

evilweasel posted:

Also, the reason Obama had "no chance" was because of a presumptively invincible Hillary. There's no similar issue on the Republican side, the situations aren't at all analogous.

Pretty much what I was going to say. Obama was the only one who had the foresight to build a ground game beyond New Hampshire, he was smart enough (and had the money) to set up a national campaign before it was clear he'd need one. The only two ways it could have gone in 2008 was Hillary was going to steamroll everyone and win 45-50 states or someone (not necessarily Obama) could stick with her and run it out like he did. Obama because the go to for the "eh, we would vote for Hillary in the general but she's not our first choice" crowd.

Rand's problem is that there are probably 5 guys in the GOP on equal footing to get past the primaries and none of them are presumptive. You can't build a coalition as an underdog if no one is actually the favorite.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 22:13

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Rand actually has a national organization, one built up more than Obama's was at this point in the primary and one that has potential to grow a lot larger. Rand also has potential to compete in all of the early primary states. But Rand is opposed to the neoconservatives who still control the party's donors outside of the Kochs and the Kochs are willing to compromise on that issue if its gets them their other priorities. Rand also has built that organization by surrounding himself with paleoconservative racist hangers on from his father's campaigns which the media will delight in exposing as soon as Rand starts polling ahead and appearing in debates.

He's also Rand Paul and if you've ever watched him speak without prepared remarks you know the problem there.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 22:19

ChampRamp: Mar 29, 2010; SAVE_US.CHR

Joementum posted:

He's also Rand Paul and if you've ever watched him speak without prepared remarks you know the problem there.

There's also the problem that he has problems with prepared marks*

*citation needed.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 22:52

Pirate Radar: Apr 18, 2008; You're not my Ruthie!
You're not my Debbie!
You're not my Sherry!

Paul has been bad-mouthing the military-industrial complex lately, which will win him no friends on his side of the aisle leading into 2016.

# ? Apr 12, 2014 23:26

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

ChampRamp posted:

There's also the problem that he has problems with prepared marks*

*citation needed.

Don Black, private conversation, 2004

WAIT gently caress

# ? Apr 13, 2014 00:08

Cigar Aficionado: Nov 1, 2004; "Patel"? Fuck you.

Paul has an outside shot of securing the nomination, a much better chance than Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee say, but he has absolutely no shot at winning the general (too right wing, the Tea Party association, emotionally volatile), and for that reason I don't think he'll ultimately be the nominee. He's going to put up a hell of a fight though.

The two guys who could actually win the general election are Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. They are the two favourites to actually win the nomination as well. Everybody else is fatally flawed. They just need to find a way to get through the primary, which will be typically brutally conservative and naturally favour the Rand Pauls, Mike Huckabees, and Ted Cruzes of the world.

Sidenote: The 2016 GOP Primary is going to be a poo poo show: Bush, Christie, Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Rubio, Ryan, Jindal, Perry, and Santorum could all run. The debates would be incredible.

Cigar Aficionado fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Apr 13, 2014

# ? Apr 13, 2014 02:59

Alec Bald Snatch: Sep 12, 2012; by exmarx

Cigar Aficionado posted:

Sidenote: The 2016 GOP Primary is going to be a poo poo show: Bush, Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Rubio, Ryan, Jindal, Perry, and Santorum could all run. The debates would be incredible.

I have a hunch the trickster imp Reince Priebus or whoever's in charge of the RNC next year will put a lot of pressure on the debate hosts to up the threshold to something like 10-15% to keep most of the fun ones off tv.

# ? Apr 13, 2014 03:11

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

Cigar Aficionado posted:

Sidenote: The 2016 GOP Primary is going to be a poo poo show: Bush, Christie, Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Rubio, Ryan, Jindal, Perry, and Santorum ~~could~~ are going to all run. The debates ~~would~~ will be incredible.

Fixed that for you. Though I doubt Huckabee is going to run and I have doubts about Santorum as well.

# ? Apr 13, 2014 04:04

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 3 days!

Cigar Aficionado posted:

The two guys who could actually win the general election are Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. They are the two favourites to actually win the nomination as well. Everybody else is fatally flawed.

How are these two not fatally flawed?

# ? Apr 13, 2014 05:04

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

How are these two not fatally flawed?

Comparatively speaking. They do have an actual possibility of winning the general though, probably not a good probability but high enough to make it worth a bet.

# ? Apr 13, 2014 07:11

SavageBastard: Nov 16, 2007; Professional Lurker

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

How are these two not fatally flawed?

By elections not being decided solely by partisan liberals?

# ? Apr 13, 2014 15:18

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

I think he is referring to the stink of the Bush name. But people will have forgotten why W was bad by 2016.

# ? Apr 13, 2014 15:50

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 3 days!

And Christie's bridge issue, which has nothing to do with party. Leave either issue (this, Jeb's brother issue) alone, and people will forget about them. But they're going to have to contend with Republican attacks for months, then the Democratic winner is going to follow up for a few more.

I mean sure, they're best positioned among the group of crazy people they're running against, but both are starting with large anchors around their necks.

# ? Apr 13, 2014 16:02

Huge Liability: Mar 2, 2010

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Clicked hoping it was the rabbit-shooting ad, was only moderately disappointed to find it was not.

# ? Apr 13, 2014 16:22

Whiskey Sours: Jan 25, 2014; Weather proof.

Republican primary voters won't care about Bridgegate, but they will care about this:

# ? Apr 13, 2014 16:23

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

# ? Apr 14, 2014 00:42

SavageBastard: Nov 16, 2007; Professional Lurker

Is "House Rabbit" code for something? Is there a "Field Rabbit Society?"

# ? Apr 14, 2014 00:46

Cigar Aficionado: Nov 1, 2004; "Patel"? Fuck you.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

How are these two not fatally flawed?

They are "moderates" (despite Jeb having a hard on for pro-life and anti stem cell policy) who can appeal to Latinos (or at least not get blown out in the Latino vote), basically. They have name recognition, no tea party baggage, and have donor class support. They're definitely the top tier candidates, along with maybe Rand Paul.

I don't think Bush can actually win the general due to it being impossible to argue for Bush in a "Bush vs Clinton" nostalgiafest (if Hillary is indeed the Democratic nominee), but he could definitely win the GOP Primary, and if Hillary gets derailed, he could definitely beat a Joe Biden or Martin O'Malley or whatever. So could Christie. Nobody else has a chance.

# ? Apr 14, 2014 00:54