|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Really, and as has come up innumerable times in the USPol thread and its GOP Rebuilding predecessor, it's a mark of just what a shambles is the GOP that a contradictory lightweight like Rand Paul has to be included in "who is a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination" discussions.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:In the general, he faces the same map as 2012 except he also loses IN and NC to go down in a 358-180 landslide. I have a sneaking suspicion the Clinton campaign's going to run the Kerry 2004 state strategy with maybe Colorado and Virginia in the mix.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I like to think Bush's disastrous administration was so blatantly ruinous to this country that his family is pretty much the Bourbons at this point: Americans will never accept another one has head of state, and even if foreign powers conquered the country and installed him in the seat, the second foreign troops leave, the military will defect en masse to revolutionaries and the Bush family will have to flee the country. I'm sure your average Republican remembers those years fondly regardless of how he or she experienced them at this point. You'd have to hope that the nebulous "independents" would turn out against another Bush.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm sure your average Republican remembers those years fondly regardless of how he or she experienced them at this point. You'd have to hope that the nebulous "independents" would turn out against another Bush. Yeah but the Legitimists were a thing too, and everyone else was like "No shut up, you're dumb": "Hey remember when the Bourbons lost a couple of wars, bankrupted the country with military adventures and frivolous poo poo, ground the poor into the dirt and jeered at them for it, and claimed God told them to do it all? Hell yeah, those were the days, I'll have another!" -Conservatives
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:That's how loving shallow the GOP bench is. These guys are basically carnival barkers because no one else can possibly make it past the base...2000 McCain maybe, I dunno. Something something McCain's black baby. Thanks Karl Rove!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I have a sneaking suspicion the Clinton campaign's going to run the Kerry 2004 state strategy with maybe Colorado and Virginia in the mix. I can't imagine any one would look at Kerry's strategies in 2004 and Obama's in 2008 and 2012 and say "Let's go with what Kerry did."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I can't imagine any one would look at Kerry's strategies in 2004 and Obama's in 2008 and 2012 and say "Let's go with what Kerry did." Somewhere in America, Mark Penn awakens with a start, not knowing why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I can't imagine any one would look at Kerry's strategies in 2004 and Obama's in 2008 and 2012 and say "Let's go with what Kerry did." At this point, if a Democratic presidential candidate thinks they can afford to blow off Colorado or Virginia in the general they don't deserve the White House. You have to use the Obama coalition map unless you can expand it (no Hillary, just because you carried WV and KY in the 08 primary that does not mean you can take it in 16. They didn't like you, they hated the black guy.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:I'm reading Hitchens book at the moment on the Clintons; it's pretty shocking. It was written prior to his neocon conversion in 2003, and it's definitely a critique from the left. Anyone else read it? It's making me really hope Hillary doesn't run, or at least a few other dems do. Like most Hitchens books he took a generic premise and padded it out. Oh gee, a political family is opportunistic and can be dicks? Astounding work as always! This was such a mild 'exposing' too, I guess if that's what makes you hope probably our only shot of a win drops out entirely I don't even know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:At this point, if a Democratic presidential candidate thinks they can afford to blow off Colorado or Virginia in the general they don't deserve the White House. You have to use the Obama coalition map unless you can expand it (no Hillary, just because you carried WV and KY in the 08 primary that does not mean you can take it in 16. They didn't like you, they hated the black guy.) As much as the Democrats can gently caress this up (and I know that their capacity for loving up elections is high), I just can't imagine the credible Republican candidate who wouldn't gently caress up even more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Somewhere in America, Mark Penn awakens with a start, not knowing why. Howard Wolfson lies dormant and dreaming in the Potomac.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Howard Wolfson lies dormant and dreaming in the Potomac.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I can't imagine any one would look at Kerry's strategies in 2004 and Obama's in 2008 and 2012 and say "Let's go with what Kerry did." I'm guessing you weren't around for her 2008 campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:At this point, if a Democratic presidential candidate thinks they can afford to blow off Colorado or Virginia in the general they don't deserve the White House. You have to use the Obama coalition map unless you can expand it (no Hillary, just because you carried WV and KY in the 08 primary that does not mean you can take it in 16. They didn't like you, they hated the black guy.) I think she has a chance in Arkansas, which Bill won in '92 and '96. I don't see states where I expect her to perform significantly worse than Obama, other than all of the swing states being tougher to win because of lower minority turnout.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Like most Hitchens books he took a generic premise and padded it out. Oh gee, a political family is opportunistic and can be dicks? Astounding work as always! I feel like that's just like a pretty solid chunk of non-fiction books. Like a book's 400 pages but could have been 40. AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I think she has a chance in Arkansas, which Bill won in '92 and '96. Yeah, but in 1992 Bill Clinton had been elected Arkansas governor like 5 times. In 2016, it'll have been 20 years since a Clinton's been on a general election ballot in Arkansas - it's not like she's a local at this point... AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I don't see states where I expect her to perform significantly worse than Obama, other than all of the swing states being tougher to win because of lower minority turnout. "all the swing states being tougher to win" sounds like a serious problem - Obama won Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado by 1, 2, 3, and 4 points respectively. Even a point or two across all the swing states suddenly makes the math a lot harder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:"all the swing states being tougher to win" sounds like a serious problem - Obama won Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado by 1, 2, 3, and 4 points respectively. Even a point or two across all the swing states suddenly makes the math a lot harder. I don't believe those numbers are all correct. It looks to me like Hillary would just have to win every state that Obama won by 5.37% (Colorado's margin) or more in 2012. That would have her losing Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, but winning the electoral college 272-266.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
All Hillary needs to do is sway white women at the same rate as John Kerry to more than make up for a slight decline in black enthusiasm. If she pulls Gore's number with white women she'll win in a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Outside of Jeb running, I'm not seeing any Republican that'll take Florida from her. Virginia just proved they can stomach McAuliffe, so I see no reason why they'd be against Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I think she has a chance in Arkansas, which Bill won in '92 and '96. I don't see states where I expect her to perform significantly worse than Obama, other than all of the swing states being tougher to win because of lower minority turnout. She'll out perform Obama in Arkansas of course, but that doesn't mean anything whatsoever. And as AATREK CURES KIDS pointed out, she can't afford to go shedding percentage points off of Obama's totals in swing states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Excuse the politically naive question, but why do people use SCOTUS appointments as an argument for voting D when they require confirmation by the (probably R in 2016) senate? Couldn't a GOP Senate just force the POTUS to make a conservative pick then? Is it just insurance against a really radical choice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Excuse the politically naive question, but why do people use SCOTUS appointments as an argument for voting D when they require confirmation by the (probably R in 2016) senate? Couldn't a GOP Senate just force the POTUS to make a conservative pick then? Is it just insurance against a really radical choice? There are too many Senators who won't hold up a Supreme Court nominee without a valid reason. Also the Senate is all but certain to be Democratically controlled after 2016 since the 2010 Tea Party crew is up for election that year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Excuse the politically naive question, but why do people use SCOTUS appointments as an argument for voting D when they require confirmation by the (probably R in 2016) senate? Couldn't a GOP Senate just force the POTUS to make a conservative pick then? Is it just insurance against a really radical choice? While the Senate has to approve, it doesn't get to propose nominees. They will generally defer to the President's choices for the most part, but it does help to have a friendly Senate to get them confirmed. At worst, a President with an uncooperative Senate could wait until the next election and hope control changes hands. He can leave a seat open for a while. 2016 is going to be a bad year for Rs in the Senate, as they will be defending a lot of close seats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Excuse the politically naive question, but why do people use SCOTUS appointments as an argument for voting D when they require confirmation by the (probably R in 2016) senate? Couldn't a GOP Senate just force the POTUS to make a conservative pick then? Is it just insurance against a really radical choice? This is also why the Dems have people like Sri Srinivasan on the potential short list. He is: 1) A solidly liberal jurist 2) Extremely well respected in the legal community and clerked for Sandra Day O'Conner, so he isn't seen as partisan. 3) Immigrant and minority whose parents came from India with nothing and he worked his way up to the top of his class at Stanford Law. 4) He was a Law Professor at Harvard, but he was primarily a lecturer and not a writer, so he doesn't have a long paper trail of comments or activism anyone can point to. 5) Serves on the DC Circuit Court (AKA the Supreme Court Training Ground). Conservative groups and Senators will be upset about #1, but #2-5 makes it so they don't really have a fig leaf to oppose him. There will be enough Senators who feel they don't have the cover to deny a guy like this a seat on the court. It's the same reason why they filibustered Goodwin Liu for years to keep him away from the DC Circuit and a potential Supreme Court nomination. Sri would be the "easy confirmation pick" of an Obama or Hillary admin while the "Liberal Dream" picks would be Goodwin Liu or Pam Harlan probably. They would all function pretty similarly if they got on the bench. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
I would go ahead and make a few extra copies of my birth certificate right now if I was that guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I would go ahead and make a few extra copies of my birth certificate right now if I was that guy. There's no citizenship requirement for SCOTUS, you just have to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. No age requirement either. Technically no species requirement. Note to the producers of the "Air Bud" series of movies: I have a copyright on Judge Bud and am willing to accept offers from you to buy this idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks for the responses. I had forgotten about the class of 2010 thing as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I would go ahead and make a few extra copies of my birth certificate right now if I was that guy. I want to see a Birther movement spring up around a SCOTUS appointment. I will die a happy man. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
That would be even better than the last House leadership election, when a bunch of people (teabaggers who didn't want to vote for that rotten no good RINO Boehner) pointed out that hey there's nothing in the rules that says the Speaker has to be a sitting member of the house and tried to draft Newt Gingrich an such like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
FMguru posted:That would be even better than the last House leadership election, when a bunch of people (teabaggers who didn't want to vote for that rotten no good RINO Boehner) pointed out that hey there's nothing in the rules that says the Speaker has to be a sitting member of the house and tried to draft Newt Gingrich an such like. Paul Broun and Louis Gohmert voted for Allen West in 2012, who was no longer a member. Colin Powell and David Walker also got a vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Anyone know how safe the seats in Senate class 1 are? If the 2018 election isn't really at risk of giving the senate to the republicans than gently caress voting for Hilary since a democratic senate can keep Ted Cruz off the supreme court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Anyone know how safe the seats in Senate class 1 are? If the 2018 election isn't really at risk of giving the senate to the republicans than gently caress voting for Hilary since a democratic senate can keep Ted Cruz off the supreme court. No, they can't, the same way that a Republican Senate won't prevent Hillary from naming good justices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:There's no citizenship requirement for SCOTUS, you just have to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. The other scenes will be hard but no less plausible than a dog playing baseball. Maybe Judge Bud pees on decisions he disagrees with or rules corporations are dogs or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:corporations are dogs That would be better than the current system, since a dog has a few rights but less than a person, and it it mauls anyone the owners are accountable for the dog's behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:You need that scene where the Republicans are huddled around a constitution and then, exasperated, shrug and put their hands in the air. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP HIM THERE IS NOTHING HERE ABOUT DOGS. There also needs to be a smug guy standing off to the side saying, "If we go by a STRICT interpretation of the Constitution, this is Constitutional."
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Lote posted:There also needs to be a smug guy standing off to the side saying, "If we go by a STRICT interpretation of the Constitution, this is Constitutional." Can we have a Scalia caricature fuming and saying that even though the Constitution doesn't explicitly say dogs can't be judges he knows that what the founders really meant was that they couldn't?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Lote posted:There also needs to be a smug guy standing off to the side saying, "If we go by a STRICT interpretation of the Constitution, this is Constitutional." Ron Paul is already going to be starring in Atlas Shrugged Part 3, so if he does this and a couple more movies he can get his union card, wait, nooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Looking at Class 3 seats, I'm not sure why there is a general consensus that Republicans will have a bad year. Many of the freshman Tea Party types who might be theoretically vulnerable in a presidential year that should favor the Democratic Party are in red states (Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana) and the ones who are in blue states are relative moderates (Illinois, Pennsylvania). The state most likely to flip to Democrats is Wisconsin. (It is a weird state of affairs where Rob Johnson and Tammy Baldwin represent the same state.) Luckily for Democrats, most of their incumbents are in deep blue states who survived the 2010 wave and they will likely no need more than a few states to flip, assuming the Republicans take the Senate this year by a seat or two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Looking at Class 3 seats, I'm not sure why there is a general consensus that Republicans will have a bad year. Many of the freshman Tea Party types who might be theoretically vulnerable in a presidential year that should favor the Democratic Party are in red states (Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana) and the ones who are in blue states are relative moderates (Illinois, Pennsylvania). The state most likely to flip to Democrats is Wisconsin. (It is a weird state of affairs where Rob Johnson and Tammy Baldwin represent the same state.) Luckily for Democrats, most of their incumbents are in deep blue states who survived the 2010 wave and they will likely no need more than a few states to flip, assuming the Republicans take the Senate this year by a seat or two. So there's a couple of things in the Democratic advantage. First, the seats they do have to defend are pretty strong, really only Bennet being a race that would need financial support. So the DSCC has to spend less money on defense. Second, the DNC and the presidential campaign (Hillary) will be spending big on landscape defining media and fieldwork. So aspiring Democratic senate hopefuls will get access to state of the art databases, polling, etc and have the potential media presence outside their campaign funding size. Third, never underestimate the damning power of the Republican primaries. McCain is going to have a serious challenger from the right even if he keeps tacking right every chance he gets. With a crowded republican presidential primary it gives Democratic candidates down ballot a prime opportunity to force Republicans to take a stand on an issue. If Cain runs again and proposes an electric pizza fence, its pretty easy to get a Republican senate primary candidate to take an stand on said pizza fence. Also, I think there's a bit of quiet calculus that 2014-2016 the republicans will control the senate and sour America's mouth to the prospect of them doing it again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
In 2016 the Dems have a good shot (depending on retirements / primaries) of taking Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Republicans have a shot at taking Colorado. Also, Arizona, Arkansas, and Alaska are long-shot, but possible pickups for the Dems depending on circumstances. While the Republicans only long-shot, but possible, is Nevada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Looking at Class 3 seats, I'm not sure why there is a general consensus that Republicans will have a bad year. Many of the freshman Tea Party types who might be theoretically vulnerable in a presidential year that should favor the Democratic Party are in red states (Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana) and the ones who are in blue states are relative moderates (Illinois, Pennsylvania). The state most likely to flip to Democrats is Wisconsin. (It is a weird state of affairs where Rob Johnson and Tammy Baldwin represent the same state.) Luckily for Democrats, most of their incumbents are in deep blue states who survived the 2010 wave and they will likely no need more than a few states to flip, assuming the Republicans take the Senate this year by a seat or two. Here's my list of seats that might be possible to flip in 2016 if things break correctly (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016#Race_summary ) GOP->Dem FL (Rubio) IL (Kirk) IN (Coats) LA (Will have a new Senator since Vitter is assuredly going to win the governor's race in 2015. Dunno if it's appointed or special election) MO (Blunt) NH (Ayotte). She kicked rear end in her last election but I'm including NH because they're so drat fickle. OH (Portman) PA (Toomey) WI (Johnson) Dem->GOP CO (Bennet) NV (Reid) OR (Wyden) WA (Murray) I'm being more than a little inclusive in this list but there are so few Dem seats up for grabs that aren't in like CA or MD that it's impossible for it to not look bad for Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 20:57
|
|