|
Yeah he def learned his lesson.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
I really hope Walker doesn't go straight for the white vote like some people are suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
ufarn posted:I really hope Walker doesn't go straight for the white vote like some people are suggesting. I mean, he has so much to offer minority voters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
The Republican nominee will be whoever can control the Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage that is the Republican id.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
ufarn posted:I really hope Walker doesn't go straight for the white vote like some people are suggesting. It's how he got elected governor, after all. Sucking up to local AM Radio power brokers in the lily white suburbs of Milwaukee, which have some of the most overwhelmingly Republican whites outside of the Deep South.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
I missed this article and didn't see it posted, but wholly chao this paragraph is the one that gets me. quote:As the three senators addressed the audience of rich donors — effectively an audition for the 2016 primary — they dismissed a question about whether the wealthy had too much influence in politics. At times they seemed to be addressing an audience of two: the Kochs themselves, now among the country’s most influential conservative power brokers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:I missed this article and didn't see it posted, but wholly chao this paragraph is the one that gets me. How many campaign cycles can this go on before the system breaks? quote:Now the Kochs’ network will embark on its largest drive ever to influence legislation and campaigns across the country, leveraging Republican control of Congress and the party’s dominance of state capitols to push for deregulation, tax cuts and smaller government. In 2012, the Kochs’ network spent just under $400 million, an astonishing sum at the time. The $889 million spending goal for 2016 would put it on track to spend nearly as much as the campaigns of each party’s presidential nominee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
katlington posted:How many campaign cycles can this go on before the system breaks? If they spend that much and still lose in 2016, my bet is that will be the last election cycle where that kind of money is thrown around by one group. How can they possibly justify that kind of money in a loss? Plus, Adelson and the Kochs are not getting any younger; I doubt that their kids/legatees have the same appetite for politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Someone's going to replace them; Zuckerberg already threw his lot in with Christie, and Dark Enlightenment advocate and PayPal CEO Peter Thiel donated to Cruz while jerking off about how he thinks "democracy and freedom are incompatible" in a Cato essay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
There must also some pretty serious diminishing returns that will hopefully discourage those numbers from going up the way they have been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Is the consensus on Lindsey Graham running that he is doing so to try and pull the field into a more hawkish position? That said Graham vs Clinton would be all Benghazi all the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
radical meme posted:If they spend that much and still lose in 2016, my bet is that will be the last election cycle where that kind of money is thrown around by one group. How can they possibly justify that kind of money in a loss? Plus, Adelson and the Kochs are not getting any younger; I doubt that their kids/legatees have the same appetite for politics. They're not spending 900 million on the 2016 presidential race, they're spending 900 million on 2016 elections, plural. That's the presidency, sure, but also the Senate and House races and governorships and state houses. It's replacing Democrats with Republicans, but also replacing moderate Republicans with more conservative ones, or scaring moderate Republicans into tacking right. They're seeing a return on their money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
The Michigan legislature was pushed farther to the right in 2014 due to a large part Americans For Prosperity and the Koch brothers throwing money at a lot of tea party candidates. When they withdrew support for Terri Lynn Land everyone finally knew she didn't have a chance. This is the case in just about every other state too. Maybe they're not getting the payout for their investment at the national level, yet, but at the state and local level they are making gains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
radical meme posted:If they spend that much and still lose in 2016, my bet is that will be the last election cycle where that kind of money is thrown around by one group. How can they possibly justify that kind of money in a loss? Plus, Adelson and the Kochs are not getting any younger; I doubt that their kids/legatees have the same appetite for politics. The Kochs, at least, are beholden to nobody. That's the beauty of private wealth, no shareholders or trustees to answer to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
The Kochs should really start smaller and spend to ring the US with ultra-conservative satellite nations first. The same way ideologies get flipped in Civ 5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:The Michigan legislature was pushed farther to the right in 2014 due to a large part Americans For Prosperity and the Koch brothers throwing money at a lot of tea party candidates. When they withdrew support for Terri Lynn Land everyone finally knew she didn't have a chance. This is the case in just about every other state too. Maybe they're not getting the payout for their investment at the national level, yet, but at the state and local level they are making gains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Because as much as the GOP likes to discount education, they're not going to think a guy who only has a High School diploma is good enough. Intellectual heavy weights like Sara Palin and Rick Perry have college degrees. The whole point of being anti-intellectual is to counter all that science and knowledge that disagrees with their positions, not because they actually don't like education. It's great for them and their kids, just not "those" people. I think Walker's background will hurt him, but I don't know that the lack of education will be the biggest thing. Voters - especially Republican voters - like their candidates' resumes to include some straightforward, admired professions. CEO, officer, farmer, rancher, football coach, reverend, all things that point to experience ~running stuff~ while strengthening the candidate's stance as an outsider in relation to Big Gummint. People might not understand what-all Mitt and Jeb's private equity dealings entail, but at least they can go "I'm a businessman!", which the GoP base will respect. Scott Walker is a government mandarin who, prior to running for governor, spent his whole adult life buried in the arcane recesses of the public sector. His primary opponents are going to hammer him over his relative lack of experience in any kind of private enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They've achieved most of their legislative success by buying seats in state legislatures or lower-level Congressional races. It's been a bottom up thing, which does not bode well for the future. They seem to be successfully ruining states (hello WI, KS), which has the added bonus of having younger and more liberal people move out, as they tend to be the ones hardest hit. It's incredibly frustrating because regardless of the actual outcome it's effectively a success for them; long-term conservative control over states, and a business environment that is highly friendly to the type of Gilded Age businesses those two and their friends run. I keep expecting other business interests to band together to try to get control of the Republican party back, but best I can tell that type of stuff would mostly be a state-by-state thing, while these guys can work across the entire country. It doesn't help that we have some odd cultural focus on the Federal level, meanwhile State level politics is where a whole lot of change (and innovation) happens. The amount of people outside Wisconsin or Kansas that actually know what's going on there is minimal. Although there's always time to bitch about California for whatever reason, which to me is becoming like Reagan's mythical welfare queen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Although there's always time to bitch about California for whatever reason, which to me is becoming like Reagan's mythical welfare queen. How so? Genuinely curious, not a dig.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
People bitch about California because Californians come to their state and are shitbags. This is doubly true for red states because you're getting conservatives from California.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
I've been glad to see that CA is actually beginning to right the ship with Jerry Brown in charge, after having to give out IOUs under Arnold's watch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They've achieved most of their legislative success by buying seats in state legislatures or lower-level Congressional races. It's been a bottom up thing, which does not bode well for the future. At least state legislatures are cheaper to buy. Although they seem to be the highest bidders these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Barracuda Bang! posted:How so? California keeps getting trotted out as an example of a failed liberal state with businesses and people choked under regulations and taxes. Much like the mythical welfare queen pointing out that CA's economy is absolutely on fire right now or that most of their former fiscal problems can be traced to GOP intransigence and Prop 13 gets you nowhere because Toyota is relocating to Texas (because Texas bribed the poo poo out of them to do so and they lost 70-80% of their workforce as they were unwilling to leave awful horrible no-good CA). OK so we'll see how well CA does when the tech bubble pops again but the fact remains that large swaths of the country think California is in as bad a shape as Kansas actually is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
baw posted:Which accounts of the election have you read? Between Bobby's behind-the-scenes arm twisting and papa Joe's relentless pursuit of campaign funds (he acquired a lot of money through very shady dealings,) as well as the Kennedy's love affair with the media, Nixon was running a comparatively honest and straightforward campaign. Hell, Kennedy know about ongoing secret high-level discussions within the Eisenhower administration about taking a more hawkish stance on Cuba, and with that knowledge he came out saying that the current administration was being too dovish. Since Nixon was unable to explain the current aggressive stance that was being planned against Cuba, he was forced to argue (against his own personal beliefs and policy initiatives) that a tougher approach wasn't the answer. Now that's tricky. Campaign funds in those days were all shady, it was basically an unregulated wild west, see Nixon, Richard Milhouse "$1.5 million from the Shah of Iran, approximately $10 million from Arab interests, and $2 million from a wealthy French man named Paul Louis Weiller." As for favourable press coverage and criticizing the incumbent administration's foreign policy in such a way as to avoid disclosing classified briefings from the CIA, those are hardly dirty tricks. baw posted:Yeah he def learned his lesson. There is a great desire to make Nixon a Shakespearean tragic figure, molded by 1960, but of course this is ignoring that Nixon was always a piece of poo poo. He cut his teeth on communist witch hunts, he earned the tricky dick moniker in 1950 for calling his opponent "pink right down to her underwear", house of cards'd his way into the VP slot and had the man who'd go onto officiate his daughter's wedding run an anti catholic campaign against Kennedy (on the basis that papists would repeal the 1st amendment). DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
radical meme posted:If they spend that much and still lose in 2016, my bet is that will be the last election cycle where that kind of money is thrown around by one group. Leaving aside that there's plenty of money being tossed around on the winning side in that scenario, the one thing you should never bet against is how divorced from reality the rich are. I mean, look at how much money they chucked at Karl Rove, and their response was basically, "You know what went wrong? We didn't spend enough!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:California keeps getting trotted out as an example of a failed liberal state with businesses and people choked under regulations and taxes. Much like the mythical welfare queen pointing out that CA's economy is absolutely on fire right now or that most of their former fiscal problems can be traced to GOP intransigence and Prop 13 gets you nowhere because Toyota is relocating to Texas (because Texas bribed the poo poo out of them to do so and they lost 70-80% of their workforce as they were unwilling to leave awful horrible no-good CA). Good to know, thanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Is the consensus on Lindsey Graham running that he is doing so to try and pull the field into a more hawkish position? No one is going to take Lindsey Graham seriously except John McCain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:No one is going to take Lindsey Graham seriously except John McCain. He sure can pick 'em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:so we'll see how well CA does when the tech bubble pops again but the fact remains that large swaths of the country think California is in as bad a shape as Kansas actually is. We've got a big rear end manufacturing sector so whenever the stupid app bubble bursts I don't think we're going to go all Kansas, on the other hand living in the Bay Area might become cheaper so that'd be nice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:California keeps getting trotted out as an example of a failed liberal state with businesses and people choked under regulations and taxes. Much like the mythical welfare queen pointing out that CA's economy is absolutely on fire right now or that most of their former fiscal problems can be traced to GOP intransigence and Prop 13 gets you nowhere because Toyota is relocating to Texas (because Texas bribed the poo poo out of them to do so and they lost 70-80% of their workforce as they were unwilling to leave awful horrible no-good CA). Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Holding CA up as some sort of failed state since the Republicans lost control has been a long-term thing - the blackouts Enron caused were blamed on us not building enough power plants initially, and some people still think that's what caused it, even though it was a massive fraud and energy deregulation was the last thing Republicans in the state before they impaled themselves on prop 187. The best part is CA sends way more money to the federal government than it receives, which is then used to prop up states with lower taxes and shittier governments. Overall CA is roughly average or better than average in most areas, and has been even during the bad times. Red states may be able to attract some established businesses, but without the skilled workforces moving they aren't going to be created new ones and new industries. And they are very hostile to the skilled workforce (especially the non-White Christian parts), hence the workers from Toyota not moving. I just hope Walker (and whichever other lovely swing state Governors run) gets raked over the coals for his states performance compared to the rest of the country. Christie's too much of an rear end in a top hat to win, Jeb will forever be haunted by his brother's shadow, Perry.. just can't, and Cruz I don't think could win a general. I could easily see someone trying to pull an Ernst and largely stay unknown and not really stand for much of anything, with any record, and just have a shitload of money running against the democrats. As long as Hillary doesn't gently caress up and Bill and Obama can work on driving turnout, the Presidential election looks OK. I just don't see Hillary herself driving youth turnout like Obama did, although maybe young women would come out for her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Holding CA up as some sort of failed state since the Republicans lost control has been a long-term thing - the blackouts Enron caused were blamed on us not building enough power plants initially, and some people still think that's what caused it, even though it was a massive fraud and energy deregulation was the last thing Republicans in the state before they impaled themselves on prop 187. The best part is CA sends way more money to the federal government than it receives, which is then used to prop up states with lower taxes and shittier governments. Overall CA is roughly average or better than average in most areas, and has been even during the bad times. Red states may be able to attract some established businesses, but without the skilled workforces moving they aren't going to be created new ones and new industries. And they are very hostile to the skilled workforce (especially the non-White Christian parts), hence the workers from Toyota not moving. Perry can't because there's a significant chance he's in jail in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
California is a failed state in their minds because it does everything the exact opposite of what conservatives like to do: high taxes, raises taxes, big liberal cities, huge latino population, tolerance of gay people, some strong regulations (especially air pollution) and labor protections, not very Evangelical, freewheeling culture, and so on. By their ideology California should be this flaming bankrupt shithole that people are fleeing in droves, the American equivalent of the late-period Soviet Union. And yet, California is thriving right now. Huge budget surpluses, giant diverse economy, new billionaires and new Fortune 500 companies being created every day. Say, did you hear one of our homespun little hippie companies (run by a genuine out-n-proud homosexual gaylord) just booked the largest quarterly profit in the history of capitalism? I drive by the Tesla factory on the way to and from work every day. The wait list to buy one of their $80,000 electric sedans is almost a year long. They can't make them fast enough, and the plant now employs as many people as when it was making light trucks for Ford/Mazda, and they're looking to expand. Note that this isn't being done in Wisconsin or Mississippi or Kansas - it's happening in California, which is literally impossible according to wingnut theology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Is the consensus on Lindsey Graham running that he is doing so to try and pull the field into a more hawkish position? In my dreams, he's running just so he can make a dramatic out-of-the-closet reveal the moment he pulls into the lead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
axeil posted:Perry can't because there's a significant chance he's in jail in 2016. Rick Perry's not going to jail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Rick Perry's not going to jail. In fact, any conviction will be reversed on appeal, so no worries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
axeil posted:Perry can't because there's a significant chance he's in jail in 2016. How likely is that? Would he actually go to jail while his appeals are ongoing, or is there some way around that? I assume he'd drop out if it became likely that he'd be convicted, but maybe he's crazy enough that the conviction would happen before he does so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Imagine goateed long-haired Pastor Rick Perry in jail, denim cut-off sleeves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Pervis posted:I just hope Walker (and whichever other lovely swing state Governors run) gets raked over the coals for his states performance compared to the rest of the country. Christie's too much of an rear end in a top hat to win, Jeb will forever be haunted by his brother's shadow, Perry.. just can't, and Cruz I don't think could win a general.   Walker will probably have tons of Koch et al. money to campaign however he wants, with whatever message he wants (or however his staff wants), so his abysmal record as governor won't matter (he has won three times in Wisconsin, after all). Christie is probably in the same boat, except he has a personality and an actual "career" outside of the governor's office behind him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Doctor Candiru posted:Looking at the basic job creation rates (which doesn't actually mean much, but is important for visibility), Walker and Christie are both restricted to playing the "Well, it's because of those Democrats in the legislature!" cards. That will certainly not doom, them, though, because the contest has nothing to do with actual or even ostensible ability anymore. Except that Walker has had a Republican majority for his full term as Governor  It should also be pointed out that Walker has never had to win Wisconsin with a Presidential Election electorate, which is what he would be facing in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Yeah it seems that wingnut perception of California is perpetually stuck in the 2000s. Acknowledging that it has a budget surplus now is pretty inconvenient for them when they still rag on the state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 21:00
|
|