|
Cliff Racer posted:A woman who's election season claim to fame was personally being Bill Clinton's wife. to be fair, being bill clinton's wife is a lot harder than castrating (most) farm animals
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:A woman who's election season claim to fame was personally being Bill Clinton's wife. I'm sure people would be more interested in hearing "First Lady ___"''s opinion than someone who was calling for her experience in castrating as hog as something relevant or useful in politics. But anyways your point is still dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:A woman who's election season claim to fame was personally being Bill Clinton's wife. Well that and being well educated and part of the process of government as a first lady being rather different than "I CUT THE NUTS OFF PIGS SO I CAN MAKE LAWS"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Well that and being well educated and part of the process of government as a first lady being rather different than "I CUT THE NUTS OFF PIGS SO I CAN MAKE LAWS" I'm a mother and a soldier and that's why I'll make a good senator!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
like all you got to do with cattle is wrassle the bullcalves to the ground and pin them while your partner slips a band around their nuts. long as you do it when they're around 3months/300lbs or smaller, it is real easy. I never done hogs but I imagine it is even easier as long as you don't wait too long
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
joeburz posted:I'm sure people would be more interested in hearing "First Lady ___"''s opinion than someone who was calling for her experience in castrating as hog as something relevant or useful in politics. But anyways your point is still dumb. She was also a State Senator and Lt. Col in the National Guard. It wasn't all nut snipping.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
I guess it makes sense to hand off your SOTU response to backbenchers, it almost never works out and just ends up awkward. Compare the President Of The United States flanked by the top lawmakers in the country giving a speech to the entirety of congress versus some dude in an empty room with a speech written days before the actual SOTU was broadcast and a bottle of water just barely out of arms reach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:I guess it makes sense to hand off your SOTU response to backbenchers, it almost never works out and just ends up awkward. Compare the President Of The United States flanked by the top lawmakers in the country giving a speech to the entirety of congress versus some dude in an empty room with a speech written days before the actual SOTU was broadcast and a bottle of water just barely out of arms reach. The SOTU response is pretty much a bullet through the head for presidential ambitions when it comes to the person giving it. Sure, you get the occasional survivor but it's generally considered fatal unless you're strong as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The SOTU response is pretty much a bullet through the head for presidential ambitions when it comes to the person giving it. Sure, you get the occasional survivor but it's generally considered fatal unless you're strong as gently caress. It worked for Andy Guzman... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The SOTU response is pretty much a bullet through the head for presidential ambitions when it comes to the person giving it. Sure, you get the occasional survivor but it's generally considered fatal unless you're strong as gently caress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhvpN4SOTJw
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:It worked for Andy Guzman... Look lots of things work for Andy Guzman. That's because Bill Clinton is generally considered to be one of the best orators of the 20th century so "strong as gently caress" applies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Thank you for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Just got around to watching Huckabee on The Daily Show last night. It's like someone poured the culture war into a suit (and there's a lot of culture war) which we're going to have to listen to for the next two years. It's intolerable. It ain't Shakespeare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
I hope Huckabee convinces republicans that eating like sit and gaining tons of weight is part of the culture wars, so that the GOP base can't get out of the house to vote by November 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:A woman who's election season claim to fame was personally being Bill Clinton's wife. The only thing Joni did in the army was push papers lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 07:16
|
|
Venom Snake posted:The only thing Joni did in the army was push papers lol So how is that an argument against her working in the legislature?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So how is that an argument against her working in the legislature? The army is extremely bad at paper pushing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
That opening. Jesus Christ 1985, I thought those PSAs I had to watch were just accidentally bad. I didn't know you actually liked that style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
(1) drat. Clinton was prime-time ready even then. Why the hell didn't the Democrats run Clinton in the 80s??? Those laughable clowns Mondale and Dukakis over this guy??? (2) Just about any one of the Democrats who spoke would be completely electable in my part of the country today. If I didn't already know who all of them were, and if they weren't clearly in the 80s, I could guess they were a bunch of establishment Republicans, or as we are affectionately known now, RINOs. If Democrats don't like the sea of red across the south and midwest, or GOP House majorities near historically high levels, MAYBE they should try running normal people like that instead of insane leftists who have nothing more to offer than TAXES TAXES TAXES and shrill harpies screaming about our scary guns and the need to ban them. I'm temporarily in Virginia, and while the Democratic party in this state DOES actually run normal human beings for the 2 senate seats (which, SUPRISE, they actually win doing so) they run complete nutters for the house. The congressman in this district has been in the house for over 2 decades now. Maybe they could try running a sane person against him instead of just forfeiting the seat with some new fruit-loop hippie every 2 years?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:(1) drat. Clinton was prime-time ready even then. Why the hell didn't the Democrats run Clinton in the 80s??? Because Reagan would have used him like a rag?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:(1) drat. Clinton was prime-time ready even then. Why the hell didn't the Democrats run Clinton in the 80s??? Those laughable clowns Mondale and Dukakis over this guy??? Because of your cordial and good relationships with the fruit-loop hippies ITT, we present to you this gift. quote:(2) Just about any one of the Democrats who spoke would be completely electable in my part of the country today. If I didn't already know who all of them were, and if they weren't clearly in the 80s, I could guess they were a bunch of establishment Republicans, or as we are affectionately known now, RINOs. If Democrats don't like the sea of red across the south and midwest, or GOP House majorities near historically high levels, MAYBE they should try running normal people like that instead of insane leftists who have nothing more to offer than TAXES TAXES TAXES and shrill harpies screaming about our scary guns and the need to ban them. I'm temporarily in Virginia, and while the Democratic party in this state DOES actually run normal human beings for the 2 senate seats (which, SUPRISE, they actually win doing so) they run complete nutters for the house. The congressman in this district has been in the house for over 2 decades now. Maybe they could try running a sane person against him instead of just forfeiting the seat with some new fruit-loop hippie every 2 years? WhyweneededtheDLCin1985.txt so why you buggin'? What you describe here is the exact strategy that Democrats used to win the '90s, and they might have won the 2000's with it too if Gore had been a 1% better candidate. We don't use that strat now because the Republican party has scored so many own goals moving to the right that we don't need to make concessions to them anymore. Remember, Republicans weaponized polarization, not us. When Reagan trounced us in the 80's we took it on the chin and did focus groups, moved right. We didn't even impeach over Iran Contra which was bonkers. Low low tax rates in the US can only go so far before you empower the wingnuts who want to drown Federal government in the bathtub. The big secret here was that if you create the military industrial complex with one hand you will never be able to drown it with the other hand. Reducing the size of government and lowering taxes is always just a smokescreen for increasing wealth inequality and crypto-resegregation, so ultimately moderates figure out that Republicans cannot make good on their claims and lefties get to take another crack at reconstructing a proper Welfare State (also we don't really want to take all your guns away--naturally dropping crime rates, police reform, and a push to expand national mental health institutions should deal with most of the problems here). You keep giving us too many chances to be hippy-dippy big government idealists and eventually we get enough mexicans to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because Reagan would have used him like a rag? It's odd enough that he ran against an incumbent Bush. Running a solid candidate against an incumbent Reagan would have been a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:(1) drat. Clinton was prime-time ready even then. Why the hell didn't the Democrats run Clinton in the 80s??? Those laughable clowns Mondale and Dukakis over this guy??? I assume because Bill Clinton is somewhat politically astute, and realized his chances of beating Reagan in 1984 or a Reagan-backed Bush in 1988 were low and he'd get a better opportunity down the road (if not in 1992, then in 1996). Similarly, a number of relatively feasible Republican candidates (including your namesake, or Jeb Bush, for instance) recognized that beating Obama in 2012 would be fairly uphill, and decided to try their luck in another cycle. Chris Christie posted:(2) Just about any one of the Democrats who spoke would be completely electable in my part of the country today. If I didn't already know who all of them were, and if they weren't clearly in the 80s, I could guess they were a bunch of establishment Republicans, or as we are affectionately known now, RINOs. If Democrats don't like the sea of red across the south and midwest, or GOP House majorities near historically high levels, MAYBE they should try running normal people like that instead of insane leftists who have nothing more to offer than TAXES TAXES TAXES and shrill harpies screaming about our scary guns and the need to ban them. I'm temporarily in Virginia, and while the Democratic party in this state DOES actually run normal human beings for the 2 senate seats (which, SUPRISE, they actually win doing so) they run complete nutters for the house. The congressman in this district has been in the house for over 2 decades now. Maybe they could try running a sane person against him instead of just forfeiting the seat with some new fruit-loop hippie every 2 years? Same basic problem applies - most districts in Virginia aren't especially competitive in the House race. So you're trying to recruit someone to spend a year of his/her life and lots of their own/family/friends' money getting hit by Republican attack dogs, getting all their dirty laundry aired, just for the privilege of losing the race and hurting any future political career. Nobody rational and electable is going to sign up to run in VA-7 for instance, because it's R+15 so you're screwed even if you're running against Dave Brat,, and even a light-red R+2 to R+5 seat is almost impossible against a relatively clean incumbent outside of a wave year. Plus there's the bench issue: in a blue area, Dems have a wealth of folks with experience in lower elected offices, but in red areas, there's only the occasional School Board member or Town Councillor in elected office as an open Democrat. Based on your description, I think I know which CD you're in, and it's ten-plus points more Republican than the nation. Toss in an incumbent getting a few-point edge, and in a 50-50 year nationwide, that seat is 57R-43D. If Democrats run a lovely candidate, the seat is 62R-38D or something. If they bred some sort of super-candidate from the best qualities of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and poured in the money, they could maybe make the race 52R-48D. And even if they pull off a win (presumably because the incumbent fucks his staffer during a blue-wave cycle), they'd just get creamed an election or two later. By contrast, in a non-Republican-wave year, Virginia statewide races are fairly winnable, so recruiting is easier because there's a realistic chance of victory. Also running in a statewide race gets you more contacts and publicity. Now don't get me wrong, it's important to run 435 House candidates, but that's for reasons of "changing minds" or "building the Party" or "hoping the other guy gets indicted", not because someone's got a chance of winning many of those races.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:(1) drat. Clinton was prime-time ready even then. Why the hell didn't the Democrats run Clinton in the 80s??? Those laughable clowns Mondale and Dukakis over this guy??? Both parties run complete nutters for the house because the most important part of house electoral politics is typically the primary rather than the general. There are a few exceptions (such as my very own NE-02 but not for lack of trying by the nutjobs in state government, I wonder how much of the city they'll snip out to put into the 1st CD) but for the most part you're looking at single-party ownership of seats and the ideological inbreeding that comes with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:The congressman in this district has been in the house for over 2 decades now. Maybe they could try running a sane person against him instead of just forfeiting the seat with some new fruit-loop hippie every 2 years? Candidate recruitment is really hard. Candidate recruitment to run a suicidal campaign against a 20 year incumbent is really, REALLY hard. Some of those seats sometimes don't even have opponents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Why do GOP SOTU responses always sound like Mr. Rogers addressing a roomful of children? I thought Jindal was bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Why do GOP SOTU responses always sound like Mr. Rogers addressing a roomful of children? I thought Jindal was bad. Because you pop a handful of ativan when you're following the president, two handfuls if they're as talented a speaker as Obama. Follow it with a quart of whiskey if it's Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:(2) Just about any one of the Democrats who spoke would be completely electable in my part of the country today. If I didn't already know who all of them were, and if they weren't clearly in the 80s, I could guess they were a bunch of establishment Republicans, or as we are affectionately known now, RINOs. If Democrats don't like the sea of red across the south and midwest, or GOP House majorities near historically high levels, MAYBE they should try running normal people like that instead of insane leftists who have nothing more to offer than TAXES TAXES TAXES and shrill harpies screaming about our scary guns and the need to ban them. I'm temporarily in Virginia, and while the Democratic party in this state DOES actually run normal human beings for the 2 senate seats (which, SUPRISE, they actually win doing so) they run complete nutters for the house. The congressman in this district has been in the house for over 2 decades now. Maybe they could try running a sane person against him instead of just forfeiting the seat with some new fruit-loop hippie every 2 years? Are you dumb because almost every moderate democrat lost in 2014 while the "crazies" did pretty well. The democrat problem isn't one of policy, it's one of messaging. Although it is pretty funny now that the party has shifted farther to the left thanks to 2014 it means that when the party gets back in power it will be TAXES, TAXES, TAXES as opposed to retarded neo-liberal poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
What the Clinton clip shows is that the parties should go back to making a tape of their response instead of doing it live, though then it becomes a question of whether any networks would carry the response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:(1) drat. Clinton was prime-time ready even then. Why the hell didn't the Democrats run Clinton in the 80s??? Those laughable clowns Mondale and Dukakis over this guy??? If people actually wanted centrist Democrats in office, they would still be there. As a red state Democrat, trust me, they run, they just don't win anymore. Ed; also wow "Shrill harpies?" can we avoid using overtly misogynistic language ITT, please? oldswitcheroo fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Although it is pretty funny now that the party has shifted farther to the left thanks to 2014 Have they? From my perspective everyone is shifting more and more to the right, doubling-down on supply-side trickle-down bullshit regardless of affiliation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Have they? From my perspective everyone is shifting more and more to the right, doubling-down on supply-side trickle-down bullshit regardless of affiliation. I think he was referring to the mass exodus of Senators like Landrieu, Pryor, etc. who formed the right side of the Democratic party. Now that they're gone, a more liberal Senator is now the median Democrat, if only though attrition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Have they? From my perspective everyone is shifting more and more to the right, doubling-down on supply-side trickle-down bullshit regardless of affiliation. Warren has actually been to shape policy and Obama has his new crusade against the rich oldswitcheroo posted:I think he was referring to the mass exodus of Senators like Landrieu, Pryor, etc. who formed the right side of the Democratic party. Now that they're gone, a more liberal Senator is now the median Democrat, if only though attrition. Pretty much
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Have they? From my perspective everyone is shifting more and more to the right, doubling-down on supply-side trickle-down bullshit regardless of affiliation. Go watch the State of the Union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Also remember that the State of the Union address doesn't matter. But yes it's still worth watching.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
baw posted:Also remember that the State of the Union address doesn't matter. I mean it is fairly important if you're discussing rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I mean it is fairly important if you're discussing rhetoric. Extremely important if discussing what the rhetoric will be in 2016 primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Extremely important if discussing what the rhetoric will be in 2016 primaries. And of course they'll move rightwards from there in the general, but the fact that we're seeing this large leftward shift now means there's the solid potential for moving stuff at least a little leftward relative to now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Are you dumb because almost every moderate democrat lost in 2014 while the "crazies" did pretty well. The democrat problem isn't one of policy, it's one of messaging. Although it is pretty funny now that the party has shifted farther to the left thanks to 2014 it means that when the party gets back in power it will be TAXES, TAXES, TAXES as opposed to retarded neo-liberal poo poo. Crazies that won? He's talking about red districts. Candidates that were far to the left won in very blue districts, unless you can show me a red or even purple district where "crazies" or Progressive Caucus types won. Crazies have to run in red districts (like mine) because no one sane wants to waste their time. Voters don't reward that sort of "bravery." De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:If people actually wanted centrist Democrats in office, they would still be there. As a red state Democrat, trust me, they run, they just don't win anymore. The centrist branch of the Democratic party is now centrist Republican. I'm trying to say that even on 9gag, which generally leans liberal, there is a realization that there's been a shift in the public consciousness, and in response to that a lot of 'Textbook Liberals' are simply stunned into silence.  . Not everyone is at fault for this. Obama's lack of performance has killed the chances of future Dems to improve their social standing in the House, Senate or elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:21
|
|
