|
Ninjasaurus posted:Carson is clearly a joke candidate and I'm cynically assuming he's just trying to raise his profile by running and doesn't actually expect to get the nomination. In the same way that paper makes a worthy opponent to scissors, maybe.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Carson is clearly a joke candidate and I'm cynically assuming he's just trying to raise his profile by running and doesn't actually expect to get the nomination. Jeb Bush is one of the most credible Republicans for a run right now. He governed a state with a large Hispanic population and is wife is Mexican. Portman's son is gay and the Senator supports marriage equality. These are both a serious problem with the evangelical part of the base. A Bush/Portman ticket would be potent in the general because they're economic conservatives with records on social issues that attract moderates. The issue is that the primary voters consider them both RINOs even worse than Romney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Jeb Bush is hell-bent on making education a for-profit enterprise, so I'm sure that'll give him brownie points with the Tea Party lunatics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Knight posted:The next great "See, I'm not racist" hope, Ben Carson, is already taking fire for not forsaking all other gods and worshiping at the altar of guns: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
sullat posted:In the same way that paper makes a worthy opponent to scissors, maybe. Why do you think that? The odds favour Hillary in a matchup against Bush, but he's one of the least bad candidates the Republicans have. His only problems are his poor governorship, ludicrous economic ideas, and brother, which are things the voters will learn to ignore. skaboomizzy posted:Jeb Bush is hell-bent on making education a for-profit enterprise, so I'm sure that'll give him brownie points with the Tea Party lunatics. Yes, but he said illegal immigration can be an act of love. Of course, that's not an angle Hillary will use to attack him, so that'll be a millstone during the primary but not if he reaches the general. Of course, he's backpedaled lately with strong opposition to Obama's new immigration executive order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
I think if Jeb runs and actually wins the nomination he will end up being too tarnished in the general due to the way he'd have to perform for the Republican base in the primaries like McCain and Romney were to actually beat Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
This whole speech putting immigration into the '16 elections is bad for Jeb. He's the most liberal candidate when it comes to that on the GOP side, and he'll never survive the primaries if he gets hammered on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Why do you think that? The odds favour Hillary in a matchup against Bush, but he's one of the least bad candidates the Republicans have. His only problems are his poor governorship, ludicrous economic ideas, and brother, which are things the voters will learn to ignore. It being far too early to say for sure, but so far I don't think any of the Republican bench is going to be very competitive with Hillary/???. But Bush III and Rob "Rob who?" Portman don't seem like they'll get much traction. I realize that they both have the kooky economic ideas that enrich their friends and that the tea party loves, but there are plenty of guys who have those and don't have all the baggage associated with the Bush name. Scott Walker may be universally despised, but he's got big money behind him, got the union-busting street cred amongst the far right, while someone with a bit more involvement with the evangelicals would probably do better in the primaries than a Catholic convert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
My read is that Carson is a joke/gimmick candidate that doesn't actually realize he's a joke/gimmick candidate, unlike Herman Cain. I feel like Carson has been huffing too many right wing farts over the last year or two and started to believe his own right wing press.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Being in Virginia, Jim Webb stuff has started showing up on FB. People either are apathetic or hate him (more often because of his environmental stances?). There's one guy who's excited about him. He posts at least 3 things a day about police brutality. I guess that's his constituency because of his support for sentencing reform?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
I was thinking about the electoral college and how the republicans look so much stronger visually on the map than their final electoral totals, so I got bored and spent a few minutes making some cartographic maps, including a hypothetical one for 2016 (yes I know this has been done before). 2008 really highlights just how empty big sky country is around Wyoming. It becomes immediately clear just how big a deal it is the Democrats have the west coast and northeast locked up - quite the sea of blue up there. The south has substantial power, and texas on its own, but the Republican totals are very weak beyond that. (I goofed, Technically the electoral totals are slightly wrong since I used the post-census map so the Dems actual performance was even better) _______________________________________________________________  2012 is of course very similar to '08, the difference being the loss of North Carolina, Indiana, and Nebraska's 1st. Personally If I knew nothing about US geography and population distribution I'd have guessed the Democrats won in 2008 narrowly and the Republicans narrowly in 2012. The cartographic electoral representation shows just how far away the Republicans (still) are in 2012, despite their gains. _______________________________________________________________  A hypothetical 2016 map, with swing states in gray. (I was liberal in my definition of 'swing state' since we are pretty far out). The midwest is clearly the name of the game for Republicans - they've got to make major inroads there to have a real shot at winning the white house. Edit: I should mention this (very hypothetical) map would give Democrats 186 EVs vs Republicans 125 EVs Eregos fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
You can feel free to color in Kentucky, its not a swing state even in a blowout year. Minnesota is far more of a swing state. Of course if you are going to leave even the "likely" states grey then there is no point-they take up far too much of the map.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:You can feel free to color in Kentucky, its not a swing state even in a blowout year. Minnesota is far more of a swing state. Of course if you are going to leave even the "likely" states grey then there is no point-they take up far too much of the map. Excuse you, MN's been blue every election since Nixon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Eregos posted:A hypothetical 2016 map, with swing states in gray. (I was liberal in my definition of 'swing state' since we are pretty far out). The midwest is clearly the name of the game for Republicans - they've got to make major inroads there to have a real shot at winning the white house. In case anyone's curious (I was) this map gives Democrats 186 'safe' EVs and Republicans 125. That's a fairly sizable gap. If you give Republicans Kentucky, Arkansas and Montana (which I think are all pretty safely Republican) you still only get 186-142.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
If the Republicans can't win Virginia in a 6th year midterm wave, is it a swing state?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:If the Republicans can't win Virginia in a 6th year midterm wave, is it a swing state? Can they win it in a 8th year non-wave election? Virginia is a swing state because a sufficiently appealing R and sufficiently crazy D will make it go red, whereas Minnesota went blue even for Mondale and Dukakis
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:If the Republicans can't win Virginia in a 6th year midterm wave, is it a swing state? That map defines swing state pretty liberally as essentially any state that either party could have a hope of contesting that is not completely insane. Many states on there aren't swing states except in fever dreams of one party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
sullat posted:Scott Walker may be universally despised, but he's got big money behind him, got the union-busting street cred amongst the far right, while someone with a bit more involvement with the evangelicals would probably do better in the primaries than a Catholic convert. I've been discussing politics with my dad again after watching Game Change (highly recommended movie, Julianne Moore nails it as Sarah Palin) and he seems to be all fired up for Scott Walker. My dad just wants a President who "knows how to encourage business" (he watches CNBC every single day) and knows what they're doing when it comes to foreign policy (he's criticized Bush and Obama for the messes they've made in the Middle East). And of course, being a Republican, he loves the union-busting Walker did. Why does Walker have traction? Is he really seen as a candidate who would be good for business?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:I've been discussing politics with my dad again after watching Game Change (highly recommended movie, Julianne Moore nails it as Sarah Palin) and he seems to be all fired up for Scott Walker. My dad just wants a President who "knows how to encourage business" (he watches CNBC every single day) and knows what they're doing when it comes to foreign policy (he's criticized Bush and Obama for the messes they've made in the Middle East). And of course, being a Republican, he loves the union-busting Walker did. Remind your dad that the two Presidents most clearly identified as businessmen were George Bush and Herbert Hoover. Running the government like a business hasn't worked out too well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:I've been discussing politics with my dad again after watching Game Change (highly recommended movie, Julianne Moore nails it as Sarah Palin) and he seems to be all fired up for Scott Walker. My dad just wants a President who "knows how to encourage business" (he watches CNBC every single day) and knows what they're doing when it comes to foreign policy (he's criticized Bush and Obama for the messes they've made in the Middle East). And of course, being a Republican, he loves the union-busting Walker did. Union busting = Great for business. Koch support is a cherry on top. Also I'm pretty sure he's talked about tax cuts. No idea how you look at Scott Walker and think that Wisconsin has prepared this guy to make all the right choices in Foreign Policy though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
I don't see how anyone looks at Walker and sees anything except a massive failure. The state is doing far worse than most states in job creation and growth, and it's falling behind in a lot of areas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:I don't see how anyone looks at Walker and sees anything except a massive failure. The state is doing far worse than most states in job creation and growth, and it's falling behind in a lot of areas. The same way one looks at Ryan and sees the future face of the national GOP. Walker knows he'd only get a Veep pick in an attempt to turn Wisconsin R. However, there are other R governors to keep your eye on with more electoral vote flipping potential and stronger patronage networks than Walker in the midwest. For an R President, you need NY/NE, Cali, Chicago, or Texas as a patronage base. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:For an R President, you need NY/NE, Cali, Chicago, or Texas as a patronage base. Vinnick 2016!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:For an R President, you need NY/NE, Cali, Chicago, or Texas as a patronage base. Comedy option: Florida. Although I wouldn't wish Rick Scott being in charge on my worst enemy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Comedy option: Florida. Your likely Floridian comedy option has a Texas patronage network with tendrils in NY and Cali.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Your likely Floridian comedy option has a Texas patronage network with tendrils in NY and Cali. I consider the Bush dynasty a completely different kettle of fish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:In case anyone's curious (I was) this map gives Democrats 186 'safe' EVs and Republicans 125. That's a fairly sizable gap. If you give Republicans Kentucky, Arkansas and Montana (which I think are all pretty safely Republican) you still only get 186-142.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Arkansas is a bit of a wild card given that Hillary and Bill are from there, with the counter-point being that Arkansas has swung heavily Republican since 1992/1996. 2016 might show whether the "home-state advantage" is truly dead or not. Doubly so if Christie is the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
TARDISman posted:Excuse you, MN's been blue every election since Nixon. Well excuse you right back, the state has been trending conservative for decades and is no longer the liberal paradise it once was. It was pretty blow-outy in 2008 and 2012 (10 and 8 point wins respectively) but was only 51/48 Kerry in 2004 and 48/46 Gore in 2000, though you can thank the third parties for that odd result. edit: Realistically speaking a "toss up state" list would probably look like this, assuming completely generic race with no homestate advantages: Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado and maybe Nevada though that one is probably D favored at this point. Everything else can be said to lean to one side or another. Cliff Racer fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Doubly so if Christie is the nominee. I'd be surprised if both Christie was the nominee and he took Jersey.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Re: Scott Walker - how many U.S. Presidents have not had a college education?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Lincoln only had a year or two of school as a kid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Re: Scott Walker - how many U.S. Presidents have not had a college education? Harry Truman was the last one. Don't know how many before him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Washington definitely didn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:I don't see how anyone looks at Walker and sees anything except a massive failure. The state is doing far worse than most states in job creation and growth, and it's falling behind in a lot of areas. And worse than the US as a whole, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Lincoln only had a year or two of school as a kid. Wasn't Lincoln a lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Wasn't Lincoln a lawyer? In those days the requirements for being a lawyer were a lot less strict. He read a couple of books, and was admitted to the bar before they had exams and stuff. Probably helped that he was a state rep at the time. He got a job with one of his wife's relatives, where he presumably learned how to do lawyering. Like being a vampire hunter or a doctor, it was just something you could decide to do and just pick up along the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Wasn't Lincoln a lawyer? He was a country lawyer. His law education he did himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
sullat posted:In those days the requirements for being a lawyer were a lot less strict. He read a couple of books, and was admitted to the bar before they had exams and stuff. Probably helped that he was a state rep at the time. He got a job with one of his wife's relatives, where he presumably learned how to do lawyering. You can still "read law" via an apprenticeship in a bunch of states today and it substitutes for a law degree when you sit the bar exam in that state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:You can still "read law" via an apprenticeship in a bunch of states today and it substitutes for a law degree when you sit the bar exam in that state. Heck, in California you don't need either, you can just take the bar exam. But I think in Lincoln's day, there was no actual exam, just an "evaluation" by the bar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:04
|
|