|
Zero_Grade posted:
That part seems unavoidable with most of the floated options.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
StarMagician posted:You're right, blaming Republicans for the failure of Detroit sounds like a winning strategy. It wasn't the politicians in control of Detroit's finances who bankrupted it, it was the "politics of inequality." Detroit's been in a bad situation for years, but it's undeniable that the city was forced into declaring bankruptcy by the emergency manager appointed by the Republican Governor, in a year where the state was boasting about budget surpluses. Hell, if anything a DNC in Detroit could be a rallying cry for labor: "The Republicans are trying to kill Unions, like they tried to kill Detroit. They failed here, and they'll fail again (If you vote for us)". It would really depend on what situation the city's in two years from now, but I do think that if they played the optics right it could be a pretty great convention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:Jeb Bush was out talking about amnesty in public again today. He's certainly going to try. Apparently after leaving office he went on a spree of signing up for every board of directors he could just to make money, and there's a strong chance that's going to blow up in his face down the line. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/jeb-bush-im-thinking-about-running-for-president/ You really want as many people running in the GOP Presidential as possible to make it drag on as long as possible. The real get would be Romney running again (he won't). But Bush and Paul are definitely running, and Christie is probably running, barring an indictment. Those are some heavy hitters. Has Ted Cruz made any moves yet? I'm also pulling for Perry, Huckabee, and Santorum to hop in. Maximum shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Also, they were in Charlotte for 2012 - does that cut against Atlanta/Florida as being SouthEast or against Philly for being MidAtlantic or does it really not matter? The midatlantic stops at Virginia at maximum extent, so Charlotte wouldn't count as being a midatlantic city. Acebuckeye13 posted:Detroit's been in a bad situation for years, but it's undeniable that the city was forced into declaring bankruptcy by the emergency manager appointed by the Republican Governor, in a year where the state was boasting about budget surpluses. Hell, if anything a DNC in Detroit could be a rallying cry for labor: "The Republicans are trying to kill Unions, like they tried to kill Detroit. They failed here, and they'll fail again (If you vote for us)". Detroit's convention facilities kinda suck, which is reason enough to not do it there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:I'm also pulling for Perry, Huckabee, and Santorum to hop in. Perry is definitely in. He has thick rimmed glasses and sometimes wears sweaters now, so you know he's smart!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/jeb-bush-im-thinking-about-running-for-president/ Maximum shitshow is any number of Sky Admiral level insane candidates, a couple psychotic Santorum level candidates, and a vast array of "moderate" and "reasonable" level candidates. Enough of the last category to keep any one of them from consolidating enough reasonable votes to outlast the insanity roller-coaster of true conservative darlings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Maximum shitshow is any number of Sky Admiral level insane candidates, a couple psychotic Santorum level candidates, and a vast array of "moderate" and "reasonable" level candidates. Enough of the last category to keep any one of them from consolidating enough reasonable votes to outlast the insanity roller-coaster of true conservative darlings. So 2012, except one candidate has a different first name. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:So 2012, except one candidate has a different first name. Got it. No, you need more "reasonable" conservatives. Last time it was just three total and two of them were gone by the time the roller-coaster started. This time we have to hope that none of that category blow all their money on Iowa straw polls or open a debate by talkin' chinaman gibberish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
The list is basically: Christie, Bush, Paul, Ryan, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Rubio, Perry, and Santorum. I hope they all run. Hell, throw Dr. Ben Carson in there too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:The list is basically: Christie, Bush, Paul, Ryan, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Rubio, Perry, and Santorum. I hope they all run. Hell, throw Dr. Ben Carson in there too. No Kasich or Walker?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:No Kasich or Walker? Kasich will probs run
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:No Kasich or Walker? In a field of big personalities, those guys are Pawlenties at best. And in terms of bizarre behaviour, their potential is minimal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
We need the Cain train back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:The list is basically: Christie, Bush, Paul, Ryan, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Rubio, Perry, and Santorum. I hope they all run. Hell, throw Dr. Ben Carson in there too. *The fact that the one not-poo poo stance Perry has is considered a "weakness" to Republicans is so loving depressing. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I really hope Cruz runs, just to push everyone as far right as possible. I remember in 2012 when Perry got absolutely savaged by the other candidates on immigration. As a reminder, Perry (surprisingly) supports in-state tuition rates at state universities for illegal immigrants, and every other candidate used it against him. The key is that Perry's stance on immigration actually matters for governing in Texas, and "Deport them all" is not a valid stance since Texas's population is 35% Hispanic, so his stance will still be a "weakness"* come 2016. In addition to his egomania, Cruz has burned too many bridges both in Texas and with the GOP party elders to not make a run at 2016 as a "true voice of conservatism uncompromised by Washingtonian taint" candidate. His political career is at this point more of less entirely bet on a presidential run, with the usual fallback of Huckabee-esque wingnut welfare as a parachute if he fails.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Indianapolis' Mayor and convention people say DNC bid is unlikely to even be submitted. One of the reasons cited is the fundraising costs and another is that some conventions already booked would overlap with DNC dates. Some chattering among Indiana's political class is that Indy's inclusion in that list was probably a political move itself to cause other cities to submit serious bids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Sancho posted:We need the Cain train back. 9-9-9 with an 8-inch pizza. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:In a field of big personalities, those guys are Pawlenties at best. And in terms of bizarre behaviour, their potential is minimal. Kasich is actually more passionate than you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF0_Qe4zNrE
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
There'll be no Thunementum in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:It should be Detroit. Rick Snyder turned us into a right to work state. They've been union busting like no tomorrow. People here are pissed. If they want an extremely pumped up and receptive crowd it should go to Detroit. The optics from inside the venue would be amazing. It may be more beneficial to point to Wisconsin here. Scott Walker is the face of the anti-union movement there and the whole 'job creation by eliminating unions' thing didn't pan out too well considering that the state has clearly not benefitted from that policy in any way, being one of the most significant job loss leaders in 2012. Granted, the unemployment rate has shrunk in the past year in accordance with national trends...but only at the sixth lowest rate of any state with significant changes in unemployment over the past year (see page four on this BLS report for 2013-2014 changes in employment). I haven't had the chance to check the median wages there but I can't imagine those numbers are much better. Also, while the unions unfortunately lost the recall election they still have a pretty strong presence so the dems would turn out support and do shore up at least some support from unions by being there. There's a surprisingly diverse community up there, though I admit I'm not all that informed as to where they break and can't really say anything about it. I know there are a lot of Sikhs up there, for example, but I'm not even going to guess where they trend politically, assuming there is a trend in the first place. Bifner McDoogle fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Kasich is actually more passionate than you think. Kasich had a willingness to bend the law and sidestep the entire state legislature to get the Medicaid expansion in Ohio and increased the speed limits in the state. His relatively clean record and willingness to tell his legislature to gently caress off would be a good cover to make him seem likable in a presidential run, fortunately for labor rights the guy looks like he crawled out from under a rock and is willing loudly insults police officers during his speeches so he has no real chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Given that Hillary came out full-throated against Snowden today, 2016 will be pretty mind blowing if Hillary is the D nominee with an anti-Snowden, anti-civil liberties stance and Rand is the R nominee with a pro-Snowden, pro-civil liberties stance. This forum will contort into pretzels in order to defend Hillary's stance on Snowden. "Well I agree with what Snowden did, but Hillary is 100% right, he should AT LEAST STAND TRIAL. What's wrong with that?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Given that Hillary came out full-throated against Snowden today, 2016 will be pretty mind blowing if Hillary is the D nominee with an anti-Snowden, anti-civil liberties stance and Rand is the R nominee with a pro-Snowden, pro-civil liberties stance. This forum will contort into pretzels in order to defend Hillary's stance on Snowden. "Well I agree with what Snowden did, but Hillary is 100% right, he should AT LEAST STAND TRIAL. What's wrong with that?" Rand Paul will contort himself into saying the same thing though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Rand Paul will contort himself into saying the same thing though. Rand Paul has basically defended him, and said he should be given a light sentence. Regardless of the nuances, they stand on opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. I imagine many Democrats will get behind Hillary on this issue and her stance will effectively become their stance. Going to be interesting to see that happen if those are the respective nominees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Given that Hillary came out full-throated against Snowden today, 2016 will be pretty mind blowing if Hillary is the D nominee with an anti-Snowden, anti-civil liberties stance and Rand is the R nominee with a pro-Snowden, pro-civil liberties stance. This forum will contort into pretzels in order to defend Hillary's stance on Snowden. "Well I agree with what Snowden did, but Hillary is 100% right, he should AT LEAST STAND TRIAL. What's wrong with that?" Because it's literally impossible for someone to support Hilary and disagree with her on something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Rand Paul has basically defended him, and said he should be given a light sentence. Regardless of the nuances, they stand on opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. I imagine many Democrats will get behind Hillary on this issue and her stance will effectively become their stance. Going to be interesting to see that happen if those are the respective nominees. A sentence still requires a trial. Rand Paul also said he would be okay with drones killing petty thieves so even if he's saying something that's more attractive (for young/whatever voters) he'll probably mess it up somehow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Rand opposes gay marriage, women's rights, anti-discrimination legislation, progressive immigration reform of all stripes, and is essentially indifferent to how someone is treated if they are a criminal or a foreigner. If he campaigns on a civil liberties platform, he'll be flanked pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
The rare occasion where I agree with Arkane. All the other stuff he didn't say is irrelevant, people will find a way to downplay or poo poo on her Snowden stance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
If Clinton gets the nomination, Democrats are going to have to deal with the fact that she's historically been an enormous hawk, from the distant past to today. If she loses the nomination, it might be because she is an enormous hawk. Thanks to the Ukraine bullshit Snowden will probably be in Russia for many more years to come anyway. Obviously Planet Clinton thinks that the worst of the Snowden revelations are behind us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
What's Huntsman think of Snowden? I also wonder how she'll feel if she has to debate someone who disagrees in the primary. Didn't she at least get squishy on Iraq because of Obama?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Hillary is 40 pounds of poo poo in a 30 pound bag but the GOP has made it clear they intend to use the SCOTUS to enact all their terrible legislation and RBG is getting up there so I can't take the chance of 6 conservatives on the bench. I think Clinton will be terrible for the country (more stupid neoliberalism and police state fun) but it's better 8 years of her than another lifetime for some currupt justice we can't get rid of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Edward Snowden is not going to be a major issue in the Democratic primary and Rand Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee. The eventual Republican nominee will be advised primarily by the neo-conservatives who dominate the Republican foreign policy braintrust. Edit: and of course Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is not appreciably different from the President under whom she served as Secretary of State. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Not so fast. Rand Paul is hiring a lot of the same staff that Romney had in 2012 and we all can remember what a well-oiled machine the Romney campaign was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Radish posted:Hillary is 40 pounds of poo poo in a 30 pound bag but the GOP has made it clear they intend to use the SCOTUS to enact all their terrible legislation and RBG is getting up there so I can't take the chance of 6 conservatives on the bench. I think Clinton will be terrible for the country (more stupid neoliberalism and police state fun) but it's better 8 years of her than another lifetime for some currupt justice we can't get rid of. Hillary is a competent politician and will be an extremely skilled president. As I've said in another thread, until we start sending more liberals to congress the presidents stance on a lot of these issues don't mean poo poo. Policy keeps shifting to the right not because liberals keep getting sold out but because conservatives keep winning enough small important battles through sheer intransigence and then keep pushing right that the whole country shifts right. This is the new normal. There isn't going to be a return to the collegiality of the past for a generation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:Hillary is a competent politician and will be an extremely skilled president. As I've said in another thread, until we start sending more liberals to congress the presidents stance on a lot of these issues don't mean poo poo. Policy keeps shifting to the right not because liberals keep getting sold out but because conservatives keep winning enough small important battles through sheer intransigence and then keep pushing right that the whole country shifts right. This is the new normal. There isn't going to be a return to the collegiality of the past for a generation. Seriously we can't keep making fun of people not knowing what the president does when they say Obama is an evil puppetmaster communist and then go on to act like the president's views mean anything if the rest of the lawmaking structure doesn't agree with her. Even if you vote Sanders for president if the congress is controlled by republicans and right wing democrats what's going to happen if you expect him to be a diehard, uncompromising, socialist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Hillary's ability to win concerns me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:Hillary is a competent politician and will be an extremely skilled president. As I've said in another thread, until we start sending more liberals to congress the presidents stance on a lot of these issues don't mean poo poo. Policy keeps shifting to the right not because liberals keep getting sold out but because conservatives keep winning enough small important battles through sheer intransigence and then keep pushing right that the whole country shifts right. This is the new normal. There isn't going to be a return to the collegiality of the past for a generation. Yes I totally agree that focusing on local and congressional seats needs to be a huge priority. I held my nose and vote Mcauliff in VA since the alternative would have been a real nightmare. Winning the AG seat as well was a godsend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Hillary's ability to win concerns me. I'm not that concerned about her ability to win, for a couple of reasons. Yes, her 2008 run had its share of fuckups, most notably the Mark Penn-isms, but this is also cast against the shining light of one of the most brilliantly-run insurgency campaigns I've ever seen. Say what you want about President Obama, Candidate Obama (particularly his 2008 incarnation) was a world-beater and Hillary's campaign never really managed to get itself reorientated to face that sort of challenge and as such came off as flailing. Secondly, given the opposition field looks to be, if anything, even more populated by lunatics, nobodies, and also-rans than in 2012, I have a hard time coming up with a GOP candidate that would give her serious trouble (not that I don't expect the sexist dog-whistle and outright misogyny to get cranked up to 11, of course). This of course presumes there's not some great white hope waiting in the wings which we're all not aware of, but that's the sort of thing that by definition you only know about once it's exploded onto the scene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
I'm not sure if establishment guy backed by the senate leadership counts as "insurgent". It's not like he was Jesse Jackson.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 19:28
|
|