|
DynamicSloth posted:You can easily tell whether or not the U.S. "won" a war if the General in charge becomes President shortly thereafter (with the debatable exception of World War I). I assume you're hinting at Gen. Leonard Wood, who should have won the 1920 nomination if not for Harding crookedness, but his war involvement was minimal. I guess Teddy was such a big personality that his Colonel status was just enough. I guess the further from conscription in time of war we get (and the smaller the forces get), the less we will see military service matter. There just aren't as many people who serve anymore, especially in the upper classes.
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:You can easily tell whether or not the U.S. "won" a war if the General in charge becomes President shortly thereafter (with the debatable exception of World War I). Apparently we lost the Mexican War, because Winfield Scott lost the election to that upstart motherfucker Taylor! 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Apparently we lost the Mexican War, because Winfield Scott lost the election to that upstart motherfucker Taylor! You prefer to side with an elitist like Old Fuss and Feathers against a man of the people like Old Rough and Ready?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Except from Petraeus himself kind of hinting at it? He's been embarrassed on the public stage enough by this point that he's definitely not appearing anytime soon though. Yeah he sure loves hinting at running for president, what with his never a political party, steadfast refusal to even mention his own political beliefs outside of work related stuff (that is to say, war policy,) and of course the real kicker, doing nothing to seed a run in 2010/11 when Obama looked to be vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You prefer to side with an elitist like Old Fuss and Feathers against a man of the people like Old Rough and Ready? Huh. Apparently my memory's been wrong for the last several years, because Old Fuss and Feathers (  ) actually ran against Franklin Pierce, not Taylor.Nevertheless, yes. Yes, I do.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There would have been at most 2 presidents who could've had two terms between him and Reagan and one of those had 5-ish years. Shot, declined re-election, resigned, sucked, and sucked. It was indeed a hard time to be President. Johnson declined reelection, Nixon could have had two terms if he didn't do Watergate, Ford and Carter could have had more terms if they weren't so unpopular. This is very relevant to the 2020 election because I think it's not possible for a party to hold the White House for 16 years any more, since the last time that happened was under FDR and Truman. The last two men from the same party to serve two consecutive full terms were James Madison and James Monroe. I think voters just need to blame the incumbent for their problems sometimes and that's why I don't think the Democrats' current advantage can last forever.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Shot, declined re-election, resigned, sucked, and sucked. It was indeed a hard time to be President. Johnson declined reelection, Nixon could have had two terms if he didn't do Watergate, Ford and Carter could have had more terms if they weren't so unpopular. I would have agreed with you 4 years ago but after seeing how little the Republicans care about reaching out to the voting blocs that have completely abandoned them I'm not so sure. A sway in the popular mood is one thing, but they weren't going to get a more ideal situation when it comes to national mood than 2012. Going up against Hillary who is already a known quantity when they haven't fixed their real problems with demographics? I just don't see it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Shot, declined re-election, resigned, sucked, and sucked. It was indeed a hard time to be President. Johnson declined reelection, Nixon could have had two terms if he didn't do Watergate, Ford and Carter could have had more terms if they weren't so unpopular. I'm pretty drat sure it's going to be Hillary in 2016, and I think she will be a competent and reasonably popular president, which makes re-election likely. Bush Sr. is the only president since Carter to lose re-election, and before that you have to go back to Hoover. So I can see a 16 year Democratic reign. Beyond that, who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I'm pretty drat sure it's going to be Hillary in 2016, and I think she will be a competent and reasonably popular president, which makes re-election likely. Bush Sr. is the only president since Carter to lose re-election, and before that you have to go back to Hoover. So I can see a 16 year Democratic reign. Beyond that, who knows. Jeb should stand down, help George P. Bush beat Ted Cruz in 2018, and in 2024, we'll probably be ready for a Bush again. New voters would have no real memory of the Bush administration.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Shot, declined re-election, resigned, sucked, and sucked. It was indeed a hard time to be President. Johnson declined reelection, Nixon could have had two terms if he didn't do Watergate, Ford and Carter could have had more terms if they weren't so unpopular. While I don't disagree that blame goes to the guy in charge for better or worse, there are some serious factors in play that make the present electoral terrain different, biggest of all being demographics. In short, "minorities" as a bloc tilt hard to the Democratic ticket for a number of reasons. The largest two minority groups, Latinos and blacks, broke hard for the Ds in the past couple elections and the GOP just can't stop loving up on outreach. Women are less of minority group but are also a strong D demo. GOP won't shut up about how rape isn't such a bad thing and how insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives for who they consider whores (read: pretty much every woman between like 15 and 60 including nuns) so that goes against them. Basically "white male" is less of a trump card than it ever has been and the GOP just can't stop thinking it still can win alone.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Shot, declined re-election, resigned, sucked, and sucked. It was indeed a hard time to be President. Johnson declined reelection, Nixon could have had two terms if he didn't do Watergate, Ford and Carter could have had more terms if they weren't so unpopular. Nixon did have two terms, unless you mean two full terms.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Nixon did have two terms, unless you mean two full terms. Right, and so did Johnson. I did mean full terms, sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I'm pretty drat sure it's going to be Hillary in 2016, and I think she will be a competent and reasonably popular president, which makes re-election likely. Bush Sr. is the only president since Carter to lose re-election, and before that you have to go back to Hoover. So I can see a 16 year Democratic reign. Beyond that, who knows. Voters are reactionary and have no memory and Presidents are held responsible for whatever happens in the world so projecting in 2014 that Democrats will probably hold the Presidency until 2025 is insane. (The one time it's happened in modern times (Roosevelt-Truman) it was coming off the biggest economic collapse of all time, going through the entirety of World War 2, and formal term limits hadn't been implemented yet).
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:Voters are reactionary and have no memory and Presidents are held responsible for whatever happens in the world so projecting in 2014 that Democrats will probably hold the Presidency until 2025 is insane. Counterpoint: Incumbents are historically favored (1960-1980 was an aberration) and the Republicans don't appear to have anyone ready for 2016. I mean since 1932 we've had 13 presidents, 9 of which have served more than one term, and two of which didn't even serve a full term (Ford and JFK). computer parts fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Another contender has joined the game: James Webb.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Another contender has joined the game: James Webb. One term senator with no accomplishments. Next.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:One term senator with no accomplishments. Next. Know who else was a one term senator with no accomplishments?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Know who else was a one term senator with no accomplishments? Webb doesn't have a huge cult of personality though. And he isn't getting one.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Another contender has joined the game: James Webb. He also made some very troubling statements about women in combat that today's Democrats aren't going to want to hear. But that was a long time ago so maybe it won't matter. His "pragmatic centrism" also may make it more difficult for him to get primary momentum. Where did you hear that he was interested?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
The democratic bench sure is terrible...
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Another contender has joined the game: James Webb. Doesn't see, like he'd be very well positioned to run to Hillary's left and you can't run an insurgent Democratic campaign from the right. I also doubt a guy who walked away from a winnable re-election battle is hungry enough for the long campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:He also made some very troubling statements about women in combat that today's Democrats aren't going to want to hear. But that was a long time ago so maybe it won't matter. His "pragmatic centrism" also may make it more difficult for him to get primary momentum. Where did you hear that he was interested?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Doesn't see, like he'd be very well positioned to run to Hillary's left and you can't run an insurgent Democratic campaign from the right. I also doubt a guy who walked away from a winnable re-election battle is hungry enough for the long campaign. Oh I know: this is a proxy by business interests to push Hillary from the right, to counteract some of the pressure she'll get from activists on the left. Hillary Clinton, wise centrist who threads the needle between James Webb and Bernie Sanders! Some deep-pocketed hedge fund operators will write him checks, and he'll go around warning about the dangers of liberal overreach and backlash and try to scramble some of the messaging coming from the Elizabeth Warren corner of the party.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Oh I know: this is a proxy by business interests to push Hillary from the right, to counteract some of the pressure she'll get from activists on the left. Hillary Clinton, wise centrist who threads the needle between James Webb and Bernie Sanders! Some deep-pocketed hedge fund operators will write him checks, and he'll go around warning about the dangers of liberal overreach and backlash and try to scramble some of the messaging coming from the Elizabeth Warren corner of the party.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:I'm still convinced Vilsack was intended to be a stalking horse for the Hillary '08 campaign, but given how spectacularly that fizzled out I don't know why they'd try it again or why anyone would volunteer to be the sad sack failure campaign. I seriously doubt Webb will actually run, he probably just misses being important enough to talk to reporters. This will definitely get him booked on Morning Joe a few times at least.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Know who else was a one term senator with no accomplishments? Hitler?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The democratic bench sure is terrible... Luckily the Republican bench is even worse. The Democrats are stuck with uninspiring hacks like Warren and Booker who will never become national figures. Webb was a serious VP contender in 2008.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Luckily the Republican bench is even worse. The Democrats are stuck with uninspiring hacks like Warren and Booker who will never become national figures. Warren is "uninspiring"? There's many people trying to draft her into the primary as we speak, despite the fact that she's said in no uncertain terms that she won't run.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Luckily the Republican bench is even worse. The Democrats are stuck with uninspiring hacks like Warren and Booker who will never become national figures. Warren and Booker don't belong in the same category. Warren isn't perfect but she's about as good as we can get these days on financial issues. Booker is a 3rd way neo liberal hack. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 22:06 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The democratic bench sure is terrible... The Democrats are drat lucky to have a candidate poised to retain the White House after two terms with a President likely to close out with a 46% approval rating.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
richardfun posted:Hitler? Actually, yes! 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The Democrats are drat lucky to have a candidate poised to retain the White House after two terms with a President likely to close out with a 46% approval rating. Was any other Democrat really gonna have a chance at a better approval rating? Seriously, up to this point, the only White House scandal has been that it was occupied by a black family; that's pretty miraculous for a modern presidency. Given the makeup of Congress, I don't see how anything more could have been accomplished up to this point. edit: I don't know that he deserves a better approval rating; but, I think we may look back on this presidency as either the beginning of the new normal of obstructionism or a golden age of mediocrity before the complete destruction of the middle class. radical meme fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The Democrats are drat lucky to have a candidate poised to retain the White House after two terms with a President likely to close out with a 46% approval rating. Counterpoint: the last time one of them closed out with a rating above that, he literally had Alzheimer's and didn't do anything for half his term. Approval ratings > 50% are very 20th century.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Warren and Booker don't belong in the same category. Warren isn't perfect but she's about as good as we can get these days on financial issues. Out of curiosity: who is/was better than her and also viable as a candidate?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Warren and Booker don't belong in the same category. Warren isn't perfect but she's about as good as we can get these days on financial issues. Booker is a 3rd way neo liberal hack.  And Booker is a talented 3rd way neoliberal hack.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
#anyonebuthilary I'm only half kidding and yeah, like I said - I don't think Petraeus has any designs on the presidency, but some important conservative people have wanted him to run. The sick part is that if someone does convince him it fits into the whole myth of 'reluctant hero' just like his so-called demotion to centcom after McChrystal got fired.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:#anyonebuthilary 10 years ago I would have been on the train with you. But after seeing Bush signing anything Tom Delay put on his desk and the current crop of Congressional Republicans I would be perfectly fine keeping America a one-party state for the next two decades until the Boomers start dieing in decent numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The democratic bench sure is terrible... Do you mean terrible in terms of the horse race against the GOP or do you mean terrible in terms of policy? From a horse race standpoint the Dems are doing fine.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Adar posted:Counterpoint: the last time one of them closed out with a rating above that, he literally had Alzheimer's and didn't do anything for half his term. Approval ratings > 50% are very 20th century. Yeah it was such a shame watching Clinton struggle with the early stages of Alzheimer's.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
amanasleep posted:
Also, he's Batman.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:43
|
|
