|
radical meme posted:This is what amazes me also. Plus, many of those imagined potential voters from eight years ago will be dead by 2016. Everything about Cruz indicates a commitment to doubling down on the conservative.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Here's some comparative data on how the GOP primary polls were looking around this time in previous cycles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Is there a reason to be coy about running for president? I mean in the case of Jeb Bush, He's "exploring the possibility of running for president", why not just go ahead and say, "yeah, I'm running"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:Is there a reason to be coy about running for president? I mean in the case of Jeb Bush, He's "exploring the possibility of running for president", why not just go ahead and say, "yeah, I'm running"? There are expectation of activity level and media availability and fundraising prowess to show once you're officially running.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's some comparative data on how the GOP primary polls were looking around this time in previous cycles. Its good for showing just how fragile the GOP coalition is
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:Is there a reason to be coy about running for president? Not relevant to Jeb, but there's always the Palin/Trump variation, when you make noises that suggest you may run to get your idiot core of mouthbreathing supporters to buy your latest ghostwritten book or whatever, then find some reason to never go through with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
I just want to check in and make sure nothing has changed. So, for 2016, we're aiming to continue the same thing we've been doing where we elect Democratic presidents and Republican congresses, terrible things happen, the Democratic president tries to "govern", but since the Republicans have a better press game, the president gets blamed for everything, no change or progress occurs, except for some token legislation similar to Obamacare, which seems progressive, but is really just a handout to corporations, the Republicans continue to shut down government, and Democrats still eat poo poo and die on everything because they hold the presidency, right? It's going to be Clinton v. Bush, and just as anticlimactic when Hillary wins isn't it? I understand the lesser of two evils, but I can't shake the feeling that the way Democrats most successfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is by winning presidential campaigns. How could anything damage the Republicans worse than their own governance? W drat near ran the whole country into the ground; all it would have taken was electing McCain, and the entire Republican party could have been killed off immediately. There would never have been a Tea Party. But you keep trying to win when you should be letting the Republicans take over and do their worst, thinking you're helping your nation and your country. All you're doing is allowing conservative governance to prevail by giving it oxygen. Look, no matter who wins the presidency, you know realistically that you are gerrymandered to hell and back, and that as 2008-2010 proved, the Republicans don't even need a majority anywhere to stop all forward motion, since that's what they're committed to. Are you just fighting to fight because that's the only thing you know how to do? Horrible poo poo is very likely to come down the pipe here soon, and somehow, you want a non-Republican to be in the hotseat when everyone's looking for someone to blame? Is it really just about electing Supreme Court justices at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Oh look, another poster who slept through the Bush years
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ted Cruz on Jeb's announcement: Um, he battled valiantly against the Islamo-communist threat, didn't he? If W gets to wear a flight suit, Romney counts as a war hero.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:Is there a reason to be coy about running for president? I mean in the case of Jeb Bush, He's "exploring the possibility of running for president", why not just go ahead and say, "yeah, I'm running"? It's a way to say "I'm soliciting (assurances of) donations" while giving yourself an out should your early fundraising projections not meet expectations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:Is there a reason to be coy about running for president? I mean in the case of Jeb Bush, He's "exploring the possibility of running for president", why not just go ahead and say, "yeah, I'm running"? Quite a few things; you don't get very far politically without working within your party. If your party doesn't want you to run then you don't. There's generally a certain amount of requiring party endorsement to run and the parties spend a lot of time discussing among themselves who they think has the best shot. There's also the political side of things, of course, in that you don't want to sabotage future campaigns by saying "yeah I'm loving running, let's DO this!" then turning out to not be the candidate. Wanting it too much also looks pretty bad in that somebody who really, really wants to be president looks extremely suspicious. There's also the snag of either party picking a definitive, solid candidate this early. What if a party says "yup, this is our guy!" and said guy gets hit by a bus and dies. Kind of throws a wrench in things. I think one of the things that hurt Hillary in the past was how incredibly eager she seemed to become president. So yeah, tl;dr: politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Personally I think expecting Presidential candidates to view the office as Cincinattus and the Dictatorship is pretty stupid. I want someone who wants the job, and its attendant responsibilities, stresses, and various drawbacks. We still expect our presidents to exhibit some 18th century reluctant gentleman temporary politician air though
Rygar201 fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
It's all about narrative, and 'reluctant hero' plays a lot better than 'blatantly power-seeking'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:It's all about narrative, and 'reluctant hero' plays a lot better than 'blatantly power-seeking'. ReidRansom posted:It's a way to say "I'm soliciting (assurances of) donations" while giving yourself an out should your early fundraising projections not meet expectations. Its a combination of the two, used to drive more hard commits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Personally I think expecting Presidential candidates to view the office as Cincinattus and the Dictatorship is pretty stupid. I want someone who wants the job, and its attendant responsibilities, stresses, and various drawbacks. We still expect our presidents to exhibit some 18th century reluctant gentleman temporary politician air thiughy It's basic psychology. People get turned off by naked ambition and instinctively act to thwart it, while a reluctant hero responding to popular acclamation is far more appealing. If you are actually driven by naked ambition, you will gain more power by acting like you don't want it. Manipulating the masses is essential to be successful in politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I'm more struck by the continuing belief that they lost in 08 and 12 because conservative voters stayed home. Remember, "demographics" is a made-up socialist fake science, like climatology. It should be noted that there's a strong possibility Cruz doesn't actually believe this, it's just an awfully convenient narrative when he's one of the few big names left that still have a lot of cred with the crazy vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
OctoberBlues posted:I'm going to start ending all of my emails with "Onward," I prefer the more formal "Excelsior,"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Oh look, another poster who slept through the Bush years He's literally an accelerationist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He's literally an accelerationist. I'm aware, I'm just not sure how anyone can think that's a valid view. The Bush years were horrible Republican misrule and for enduring them we weren't rewarded with socialist bliss. Why would eight more years of a lovely Republican administration, and their accompanying SCOTUS picks lasting decades, push America leftward when the Reagan years and the Bush years didn't? Its the same idiocy that affects inflation hawks, IMO. Clearly the next Republican disaster will be the one to usher the American public to glorious class concipusness and mass intersectional socialist wonder just like hyperinflation is right around the corner, no really
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I'm aware, I'm just not sure how anyone can think that's a valid view. The Bush years were horrible Republican misrule and for enduring them we weren't rewarded with socialist bliss. Why would eight more years of a lovely Republican administration, and their accompanying SCOTUS picks lasting decades, push America leftward when the Reagan years and the Bush years didn't? Its the same idiocy that affects inflation hawks, IMO. Clearly the next Republican disaster will be the one to usher the American public to glorious class concipusness and mass intersectional socialist wonder just like hyperinflation is right around the corner, no really Because clearly, if Cruz gets the Presidency, when he runs America off the cliff with his right-wing views he'll take the GOP with him!* *note Reagan was considered right-wing even in 1980
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Because clearly, if Cruz gets the Presidency, when he runs America off the cliff with his right-wing views he'll take the GOP with him!* Reagan was considered incredibly right wing for the Cold War period, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's some comparative data on how the GOP primary polls were looking around this time in previous cycles. In 1987 you had two (maybe three) favorites, in 1999 you had two obvious favorites, in 2007 you had obvious two favorites, then in 2011 you had three favorites, but one of those is Sarah Palin  and now in 2014 you're got Mitt Romney aka the guy who lost in 2012 leading the pack, and a scattering of single-digit hanger-ons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Rand Paul is already running anti-Jeb ads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Man, you can see the fracturing in the Republican party starting after 2007. Well, it's simply easier to become nationally known now through the Internet, and that matters a lot for the people who don't have the establishment's press resources on their side. I think there's an argument to be made that maybe one or two charismatic non-establishment candidates could have been doing speaking circuits, TV/radio spots, etc., in those elections, but it takes the Internet to be able to support Palin and Carson and Santorum and Cain and Cruz and so on having national profiles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:Is it really just about electing Supreme Court justices at this point? Yep and on that note I'd like to wager five bucks that mark penn ends up on the bench while Hilary is president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yep and on that note I'd like to wager five bucks that mark penn ends up on the bench while Hilary is president. Toxx or nothing 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's some comparative data on how the GOP primary polls were looking around this time in previous cycles. You got this for the dems as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
.
BristolSOF fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ted Cruz on Jeb's announcement: What could be more heroic than dodging the draft by going to France? How many draft dodgers who went to France still managed to kill a man?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
BristolSOF posted:Fixed this for you. Thanks, that's much more succinct. (Though it does leave out the ironclad rule of Republican primaries, that it was Romney's turn.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Carly Fiorina is hiring a political director and a communications director for a Presidential campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Carly Fiorina is hiring a political director and a communications director for a Presidential campaign. Who? Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Dec 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
She basically destroyed HP as a company and then ran against Barbara Boxer in 2006 for California's Senate seat. The primary of that campaign produced one of the strangest political ads of all time, the infamous Demon Sheep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo_Ejfc5hW8 Her politics are basically Mitt Romney's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Carly Fiorina is hiring a political director and a communications director for a Presidential campaign. A Whitman/Fiorina campaign bleeding millions in every media market might just be the stimulus boost we needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Haven't checked in in a while. Am I wrong for thinking Romney 2016 should be a done deal? I mean, he wanted to be President bad enough to go through the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and now he's sitting at the top of a bunch of GOP primary polls AND polls at or near the top of the list in potential general match-up vs. Clinton. Seems to me it would be crazy not to take another shot with strong starting position like that. I lived in Florida for Jeb's entire tenure as Gov. and liked him well enough. He might even be a better general candidate in some ways than Romney. But I really like Romney and would prefer him at this point. Is he just doing an "aw shucks, I don't know" routine to make himself look better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:A Whitman/Fiorina campaign bleeding millions in every media market might just be the stimulus boost we needed. I imagine that's part of the reason all the GOP polling firms keep giving her good numbers internally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Has Hillary had to stake out a position on the Cuba developments yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Has Hillary had to stake out a position on the Cuba developments yet? http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-cuba-113661.html posted:“I am deeply relieved by Alan Gross’s safe return to the United States, and I support President Obama’s decision to change course on Cuba policy, while keeping the focus on our principal objective — supporting the aspirations of the Cuban people for freedom,” Clinton said in a statement late Wednesday. “It is great news that Alan is finally home with his family, where he belongs.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:Haven't checked in in a while. Am I wrong for thinking Romney 2016 should be a done deal? He's a two-time loser; the main reason he's as high as he is in current polling is the utter weakness of the rest of the field combined with only-other sorta-serious contended Jeb not really being in play yet. As in 2008 and 2012, the only way he gets the nomination is if there's no other slightly-less-empty suit in the room once the crazies have eaten each other alive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Right now it's mostly name recognition muscle-twitch. At the same point in previous election cycles you had Joe Lieberman and Rudy Giuliani as leading their races.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:46
|
|