|
De Nomolos posted:It warms my heart to see that the base still likes Rick Perry enough to group him with their favorite joke candidates...and ahead of Mittens. Rick Perry is the living embodiment of the adage "Only take what you can handle, and always know your dealer."
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Hahaha, why is Joe Scarborough on here? Voted for him, Donald Trump, and the Cain Train. That primary would be magical. This isn't voting in bad faith because those are honestly the candidates I want to run the most. PS What does it say about things that the three least favorite choices are the two most electable hopefuls and one of the most competent GOP politicians these days (Boehner).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Hahaha, why is Joe Scarborough on here? It says that the Republican base is delusional and are in for another disappointment when the establishment doesn't back Ted Cruz or Ben Carson.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Bring back the Cain Train.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Christie told David Koch and friends that he's dropped 85 pounds.quote:Behind closed doors at David Koch’s Upper East Side apartment Friday night, Gov. Chris Christie told conservative donors that he has shed 85 pounds since undergoing weight loss surgery last year. The governor’s appearance – inside Mr. Koch’s sprawling 18-room duplex – was strictly off limits to the press, but a guest told us that Mr. Christie was pressed by donors about his health. He did not reveal his current weight, although he said he understood he had to slim down if he wanted to move beyond Trenton. And he brought the house down with a joke: “A doctor once told me you have to have the right relationship with the food you eat. And believe me, for many years, I had a great relationship with the foods I ate.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Do Democrats really dislike Christie? His rear end in a top hat behavior in regards to teachers seems to appeal to both parties and I don't think many people really care about the Sandy fund thing. Honestly my gut feeling is in a toss up between Christie and Clinton in a national election I would give the slight edge to Christie as conservative Dems flipped for him and he doesn't have the lack of personality issue that Mitt did. I really can't see Hillary motivating people to vote like Obama was able to in either of his elections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
John Cornyn sticks the knife deep in Cruz, twists, with the least favorable comparison possible.quote:"Maybe the experience we've seen with President Obama -- who moved quickly through the Senate without actually serving a full term as senator, then running for president -- and the deficit in his own resume when it came to actually running a state like governors do is something the voters will weigh in their minds." 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Radish posted:Do Democrats really dislike Christie? His rear end in a top hat behavior in regards to teachers seems to appeal to both parties and I don't think many people really care about the Sandy fund thing. Honestly my gut feeling is in a toss up between Christie and Clinton in a national election I would give the slight edge to Christie as conservative Dems flipped for him and he doesn't have the lack of personality issue that Mitt did. I really can't see Hillary motivating people to vote like Obama was able to in either of his elections. Lot of throat-clearing going on. (And mcmagic would like to tell you a thing or two about his relationship with Cory Booker.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
ufarn posted:They liked him plenty much, until the bridge scandal reminded them of who he is and what he's done. His JOBS NUMBERS were a big part of his case and those aren't looking as good these days, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
New England conservative dems might (might) go for Christie, but I know tons of mildly conservative or outright Republican women in Texas of all places that actually respect Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Yeah I was "scared" of him until the bridge scandal, basically the field is going to have to be as completely devastated as it is now for him to make it through and even if he does he's going to be a much softer opponent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Secondhand, but as I hear it, not leaving Bill over his affairs plays very well with right-leaning women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Secondhand, but as I hear it, not leaving Bill over his affairs plays very well with right-leaning women. My impression is that Hillary has become a very sympathetic figure with a lot of women, left and right, not so much due to her policies but just for the poo poo she's had to put up with in the last 20 years and persevered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
If you look at the crosstabs for the Christie/Clinton head-to-heads there's no evidence of real crossover appeal for Christie. There will be less during the actual campaign, should he get the nomination - and remember, to do that he's going to have to clarify his appeal to the party base. The party realignment is basically complete at this point and whatever was happening in 1984 isn't any more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
And let's not forget this jem from last year. This was before the Bridgegate scandal took off too. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:he's going to have to clarify his appeal to the party base A noun, a verb, and 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:A noun, a verb, and 9/11. You won't be far off, especially with Hillary as the opponent, we'll be hearing a lot about Benghazi. And it will certainly make Christie's job easier to be running on national security issues. But he's also going to have to spend a lot of time reminding people about his cultural issue positions (pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc.) that significantly weaken his appeal to theoretical crossover Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
FMguru posted:He was the big mover/shaker behind the billion dollar Revel casino debacle, and his handling of NJ's pension funds is nearly criminal (he gave it all to Wall Street funds managed by his friends, fees have skyrocketed and performance has collapsed). Atlantic City just lost a third of its casinos and the rest are teetering. You could just see Hillary Clinton standing next to the shuttered husk of the Trump Taj Mahal saying that we can't afford to let Chris Christie do to America what he did to Atlantic City. So what you're saying is that Christie is basically an extra-large Gyp Rosetti.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So what you're saying is that Christie is basically an extra-large Gyp Rosetti. I'm not saying you're wrong. I will say Christie is very familiar with belts, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:And let's not forget this jem from last year. This was before the Bridgegate scandal took off too. I feel like this is the perfect example - Republicans love that confrontational attitude and will demand to see more of it, while conservative Democrats will see Christie as a bully, a Governor "punching down" at a school teacher. I imagine any Independents empathizing with the male Governor berating the female teacher probably weren't going to vote for Hillary anyhow. The more of this sort of stuff there is, the harder it'll be for Christie to disavow it in the General.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:I'm not saying you're wrong. I will say Christie is very familiar with belts, though. Also the blocking of traffic between NJ and NY.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Democrats are about ready to betray teachers as well, though. Deprecation of schooling and the spiteful coring out of the teaching profession until it's no more prestigious or well-compensated than day care workers. That's what all Americans want out of school, to keep their kids away from home so they can work. Christie will be a breath of fresh air, a moderate who puts teachers in their place. Democrats will love him if he gets to the general, not that Hillary would be in danger. She'll put those teachers in their place just fine, but without so much open-gobbed shouting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Democrats are about ready to betray teachers as well, though. Deprecation of schooling and the spiteful coring out of the teaching profession until it's no more prestigious or well-compensated than day care workers. That's what all Americans want out of school, to keep their kids away from home so they can work. Christie will be a breath of fresh air, a moderate who puts teachers in their place. Democrats will love him if he gets to the general, not that Hillary would be in danger. She'll put those teachers in their place just fine, but without so much open-gobbed shouting. Why are we acting like Michelle Rhee has much of a constituency outside of Very Serious People Who Watch Morning Joe? The average Dem voter votes Dem in part because of education. In most localities, this doesn't play out the way in does in NY. The education issue is different everywhere. Dems in VA and NC are pushing raises and opposing charters, with few exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Why are we acting like Michelle Rhee has much of a constituency outside of Very Serious People Who Watch Morning Joe? When it comes to making policy, what other constituencies matter?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:When it comes to making policy, what other constituencies matter? The People Who Own Morning Joe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Radish posted:Do Democrats really dislike Christie? His rear end in a top hat behavior in regards to teachers seems to appeal to both parties and I don't think many people really care about the Sandy fund thing. Honestly my gut feeling is in a toss up between Christie and Clinton in a national election I would give the slight edge to Christie as conservative Dems flipped for him and he doesn't have the lack of personality issue that Mitt did. I really can't see Hillary motivating people to vote like Obama was able to in either of his elections. Two words - Clinton charm. That stuff is largely attributed with getting Obama elected the second time (look at that marathon of a speech at the DNC), Hilary will have that running 24/7 in her favor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Couple of questions: a) Why is everyone so keen on Warren? Even if she is nominated she's going to have to trim her sails and become a centrist to win an election. So why does it matter if it is Biden, Warren or Clinton in terms of instinctive politics/track record? Isn't the status quo + real politic + democratic party machine going to force a centre-left (in US terms) candidate to adopt technocrat centrist policies? Surely then it just a matter of picking the best crisis manager and team leader. b) If Christie or Perry is convicted would that make either of them ineligible to run/serve as POTUS?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Clinton charm. That stuff is largely attributed with getting Obama elected the second time (look at that marathon of a speech at the DNC) Who is doing this attributing? I was a nice speech, but that's not really the sort of thing that decides an election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:Couple of questions: a) Because she speaks a populist, leftist message which is more than 99% of democrats. Elizabeth Warren could trim down significantly and still be speaking more to things I care about than Hillary will. On top of that, the assumption is that on the bizarre chance she got into office she'd govern to her policies not to her campaign, which in her case means actual financial reform and the like. A lot of people want another FDR and Warren or Sanders are the only two major politicians who seem to embody that sort of 'gently caress business, worry about the people' mantra. b) Neither of them are going to be convicted so its a moot point. On the off chance that they were it'd crush their chances but much like airbud, there is nothing explicitly saying you can't be president from inside a jail cell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Who is doing this attributing? I was a nice speech, but that's not really the sort of thing that decides an election. It's still got to be pretty sweet to have Bill and Barry going 'round the country talking you up. I don't see how that doesn't help you out at least a little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
The idea of Warren being 'another FDR' is pretty adorable, even Sanders as that role is pretty far fetched.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The idea of Warren being 'another FDR' is pretty adorable, even Sanders as that role is pretty far fetched. They're the closest (major, office-holding) politicians we have to that, today. When you're trying to duck a pinochet, you'll take a homeopathic FDR any day of the week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
>Caros, thanks for that. Point a) seems a bit optimistic but I'll defer to your judgement. I'd just say that Clinton and Obama both looked slightly left of centre before nomination and governed from the centre. I can't see anything changing much for any future Democrat POTUS. b) I though there were some laws regarding Senators and Congressmen on convictions debarring them holding office. Of course, president is a different office but I thought there might be an Amendment on that. Guess not...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's still got to be pretty sweet to have Bill and Barry going 'round the country talking you up. I don't see how that doesn't help you out at least a little. Might well help out at least a little. I was responding to "Clinton charm. That stuff is largely attributed with getting Obama elected the second time."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:>Caros, thanks for that. Point a) seems a bit optimistic but I'll defer to your judgement. I'd just say that Clinton and Obama both looked slightly left of centre before nomination and governed from the centre. I can't see anything changing much for any future Democrat POTUS. b) I though there were some laws regarding Senators and Congressmen on convictions debarring them holding office. Of course, president is a different office but I thought there might be an Amendment on that. Guess not... It might be optimistic, but both are well left of centre at the moment, which would suggest that even if they were dragged in they'd likely end up still left of every other democratic politician out there. Moreover, both seem to actually believe the policies they espouse rather than simply trying to win a primary. Bernie for example, is thinking of a presidential run with the goal of forcing Hillary (or whoever) to the left on my economic positions. To think he'd just shrug and govern the same way she would after becoming president seems to be defeatist and unrealistic in my view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Caros posted:b) Neither of them are going to be convicted so its a moot point. On the off chance that they were it'd crush their chances but much like airbud, there is nothing explicitly saying you can't be president from inside a jail cell. And you can pardon youself! It might be a little questionable to do this, but who would have the standing to sue over it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And you can pardon youself! Congress could impeach and convict I guess? Theoretically I mean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Congress could impeach and convict I guess? Theoretically I mean. Actually, I guess President Perry couldn't pardon himself: US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 posted:he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States I guess Perry would have to rely on the Texas Board of Pardons for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually, I guess President Perry couldn't pardon himself: I wonder who appoints the Texas Board of Pardons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Caros posted:a) Because she speaks a populist, leftist message which is more than 99% of democrats. Elizabeth Warren could trim down significantly and still be speaking more to things I care about than Hillary will. On top of that, the assumption is that on the bizarre chance she got into office she'd govern to her policies not to her campaign, which in her case means actual financial reform and the like. A lot of people want another FDR and Warren or Sanders are the only two major politicians who seem to embody that sort of 'gently caress business, worry about the people' mantra. I hate it when people say things like this, as saying "Warren would be the next FDR" is completely devoid of the context that allowed FDR to be the President he was. The fact of the matter is, there will never be another president like Franklin Roosevelt. In 1932 Roosevelt was an exceedingly successful and popular Governor in one of the most populous states in the country with a legendary family name, an incredibly amount of wealth, a deep understanding of politics, and most importantly, was facing a seemingly heartless and ineffective Republican candidate after three and a half years of the worst economic crisis in American history. Combined with a friendly media and overwhelming congressional support after he came into office, Roosevelt had a unique ability to enact his policy goals with no meaningful opposition. What made Roosevelt so successful, however, was his ability to surround himself with exceedingly competent people, and to place exactly the right people in the right place to maximize their effectiveness. Does Elizabeth Warren have that ability? She doesn't have much executive experience to my knowledge, so there's really no way to know. But she's not going to be another FDR no matter how progressive she is, and urging her to run before her first term as Senator has even concluded is only going to lead to disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:00
|
|
