|
AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jan 22, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:I love the filter applied to that photo -- it makes it look like a Saturday Evening Post cover. Judging by the look of the audience, they may have been depicted in Post covers at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Assuming Hillary Clinton runs and loses the primary, who is the Democratic nominee? Is O'Malley really the only legit option here? I cannot possibly imagine Biden winning. He's 73 next year, will look 80, and he acts like he is 8. Senility could be an improvement. Elizabeth Warren would have trouble attracting moderates in purple or non-blue states. Does Gore make a go of it? Any dark horses?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Assuming Hillary Clinton runs and loses the primary Gonna stop you right there, hoss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Assuming Hillary Clinton runs and loses the primary, who is the Democratic nominee? Is O'Malley really the only legit option here? I cannot possibly imagine Biden winning. He's 73 next year, will look 80, and he acts like he is 8. Senility could be an improvement. Elizabeth Warren would have trouble attracting moderates in purple or non-blue states. Does Gore make a go of it? Any dark horses? So you're assuming Hillary runs and loses the primary to no one. If she loses, the nominee will be whomever beats her. Apparently Republicans require this sort of thing to be explained to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:So you're assuming Hillary runs and loses the primary to no one. I suppose there's a quantum possibility where Hillary runs, Bernie enters the primary as a Democrat, some black sheep event happens to derail Hillary after the filing deadlines, leaving Bernie to win the primary contests. In such an event it's possible there's a challenge to him at the convention, leading to a compromise candidate. It's also true that there's a quantum possibility that a talking T-Rex appears tomorrow in Times Square and decides to run for President, beating Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
You can't win a presidential nomination without a plausible way to rake in an enormous campaign war chest and unlike in the GOP Primary there are no eccentric geriatrics handing out golden tickets to Democrats. Warren might conceivably be able to generate fundraising that was at least a respectable fraction of the already geared up Hillary machine but she'd have to overcome the considerable handicap of not running.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
What would happen if everyone put Warren down as a write in? Do you have to be officially running for your votes to actually count? I assume so, otherwise there's the outside possibility of a Mickey Mouse administration. v well, yeah, I get that. So what happens if we all write in Kanye West? Or Warren? edit: Thinking some more, I suppose the answer is something to do with the Electoral College. Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Mickey Mouse can't actually serve and/or is not an ascertainable individual.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:What would happen if everyone put Warren down as a write in? Do you have to be officially running for your votes to actually count? I assume so, otherwise there's the outside possibility of a Mickey Mouse administration. This depends on the state and, indeed, on the state party bylaws, but mostly, no. The short version is that there's no way for her to get anything even approaching a plurality of delegates without officially declaring a candidacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:What would happen if everyone put Warren down as a write in? Do you have to be officially running for your votes to actually count? I assume so, otherwise there's the outside possibility of a Mickey Mouse administration. Mouse is a social conservative and fiscal libertarian. He has no chance of winning anything outside of a deep red House district.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
I should clarify, I was talking about the general election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's also true that there's a quantum possibility that a talking T-Rex appears tomorrow in Times Square and decides to run for President, beating Hillary. Not unless he's been here for the last 14 years and comes with either a signed certificate of citizenship from the founders or a video of his mad science birth on American soil. He's also going to have to get around the pesky wording of the Constitution since the Founders apparently predicted the future existence of the Air Bud clause and specifically mention persons. I'll totally vote for Ichabod Crane though. There's a time traveling multiple centenarian who not only knows how to email but knows the true intent of the Founders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:I should clarify, I was talking about the general election. Again, it depends on the state. Some count all write-in votes, some require write-in candidates to declare as write-in candidates to have their votes counted. Oklahoma goes a step further: no write-in candidates are allowed for Presidential elections and the bar is so high on third party candidates that they're effectively not allowed either. It's theoretically possible that there would be a huge movement of faithless electors, but the people appointed to the electoral college are typically (again, varies by the state) designated by the campaigns and are the least likely people in the country to defect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Realistically speaking, while a Clinton loss is possible it will not be to any of the current crop of primary opponents. The most they could do is weaken her enough for a more credible challenger to step in and take the victory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Realistically speaking, while a Clinton loss is possible it will not be to any of the current crop of primary opponents. The most they could do is weaken her enough for a more credible challenger to step in and take the victory. So...who?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Realistically speaking, while a Clinton loss is possible it will not be to any of the current crop of primary opponents. The most they could do is weaken her enough for a more credible challenger to step in and take the victory. Late entries will be speculated about right up until Iowa filing deadline but I don't see it as a particularly plausible path to the nomination. Barack Obama already wrote the game-plan for taking down the Hillary machine and step one is getting in early, generating a tonne of buzz and placing yourself on her level for the next year while you fundraise like crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Late entries will be speculated about right up until Iowa filing deadline but I don't see it as a particularly plausible path to the nomination. Barack Obama already wrote the game-plan for taking down the Hillary machine and step one is getting in early, generating a tonne of buzz and placing yourself on her level for the next year while you fundraise like crazy. Joe Biden: vice presidential insurgent
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Arkane posted:So...who? If the answer to that was obvious, Hillary wouldn't be considered the presumptive nominee at this point. There is this guy named Oback Barama, though. He was actually born in Mozambique but the Democratic Party made up some fake birth notices that they planted in a local paper 50 years ago just in case they needed somebody to beat Hillary again this cycle. Keep an eye out for him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I suppose there's a quantum possibility where Hillary runs, Bernie enters the primary as a Democrat, some black sheep event happens to derail Hillary after the filing deadlines, leaving Bernie to win the primary contests. In such an event it's possible there's a challenge to him at the convention, leading to a compromise candidate. You know how Republicans bemoan voting for Hillary just on the idea of making a woman president as stupid? I would vote for a talking T-Rex for the historical nature of it. The first dinosaur President. Even if he promised to repeal PPACA and denied global warming and was pro-life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Mickey Mouse can't actually serve and/or is not an ascertainable individual. I'm pretty sure that if they could, Disneys lawyers would argue to overturn this. And its not like President Mouse wouldn't have some very popular policies. All of Florida will be converted into just more Disneyland, ensuring less lines. US Armed Forces will be replaced by The Avengers. Gyges posted:Not unless he's been here for the last 14 years and comes with either a signed certificate of citizenship from the founders or a video of his mad science birth on American soil. He's also going to have to get around the pesky wording of the Constitution since the Founders apparently predicted the future existence of the Air Bud clause and specifically mention persons. T-Rexes are mostly found in Montanna, so we know that it was born in America. The problem, though, is that T-Rexes only live to 28, so there's no way that one cna be old enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:You know how Republicans bemoan voting for Hillary just on the idea of making a woman president as stupid? The talking T-Rex's physical inability to sign legislation alone would make it the ideal Republican candidate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:You know how Republicans bemoan voting for Hillary just on the idea of making a woman president as stupid? Well of course he'd deny global warming. We're still 3 degrees below normal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The talking T-Rex's physical inability to sign legislation alone would make it the ideal Republican candidate. I'm picturing a t-Rex in a suit struggling to pick up a pen from the resolute desk before giving up and bellowing "Debbie get in here!!" In frustration and it is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Joe Biden: vice presidential insurgent If you're the Vice President and you have to run an "insurgent" campaign you're already 2 steps behind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:It's just the baggage and eventual campaign damage she'll bring in to office will be worse than most new presidents. It's pretty clear going in these things, if she's elected, will impede her ability to govern. My preference for someone other than Hillary is that I want someone with a clean slate. Bullshit. You are projecting Obama's failings onto Hillary. Her "baggage" is decades of cultivated alliances and favors owed her. Obama wishes he had her baggage. There are two popular lines of attack used by Hillary detractors that are mutually exclusive. One is the Obama II, electric boogaloo, complaint you just posted. Another is to complain that she has made to many accross the aisle friendships and is thus not left enough. Both these complaints are bullshit. But even if one were true, it would invalidate the other. Cultivating personal friendships across the aisle is how you prevent partisan gridlock and govern effectively. . Call it professionalism if you can't bring yourself to call it leadership. It's also drat impressive. How cool could any of you be towards people who did to you what republican leaders in the senate did to her? Could you put the past behind you and mend fences and reach out a helping hand to old enemies? Be honest. And give respect where it's due. Her ability to govern is not determined by how mysoginistic the base gets. It's determined by her working relationships with the legislature. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/nyregion/30hillary.html?pagewanted=print Her long term strategy has been brilliant. Cultivate friendships with her bitterest rivals then help them when they wanted to go against their own party line. Look at the issues she worked on with them that passed. Helping foster kids. Improving healthcare regulations. Expanding tri-care. She got GOP leaders to approach her on things she wanted to do anyway getting both her policy goals and their public gratitude. Wow. Or meaningless crap like bennet's flag burning bullshit that didn't stand a chance. It cost her nothing to throw in but won her his friendship. Find across the aisle friendship pics like these for Obama: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/07/06/john-mccain-hillary-clinton-favorite-democrat/ http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dnFdIuCdo3U/VAzvYnZnyaI/AAAAAAAAMeg/LCmxkHBKEpQ/s1600/130502_kissinger_clinton_ap.jpg And yet her voting record is 95% on the Democratic Party line. So accusations that she is a DINO are bullshit. Hillary doesn't have obamas kind of charisma that woos crowds. Her charisma is a one on one thing where the people talking to her know she is listening and taking them seriously and feels she cares about them. She is to governing what Obama is to getting elected. In closing: http://politicalmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/getShitDone.jpg
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:If you're the Vice President and you have to run an "insurgent" campaign you're already 2 steps behind. tbf, I don't know a point in his life when ol' silver-dollar Joe was 2 steps ahead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm picturing a t-Rex in a suit struggling to pick up a pen from the resolute desk before giving up and bellowing "Debbie get in here!!" In frustration and it is fantastic. Imagine a T-rex ordering pants like LBJ, idly munching on a goat thigh while occasionally belching and talking about how low his dinosaur nuts hang.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:tbf, I don't know a point in his life when ol' silver-dollar Joe was 2 steps ahead. SA gave him a free pizza in 2008: the truest show of goon respect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Bullshit. You are projecting Obama's failings onto Hillary. Her "baggage" is decades of cultivated alliances and favors owed her. Obama wishes he had her baggage. well put, except that clinton's face is the picture they chose to illustrate "american political establishment" in the new dictionary
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I suppose there's a quantum possibility where Hillary runs, Bernie enters the primary as a Democrat, some black sheep event happens to derail Hillary after the filing deadlines, leaving Bernie to win the primary contests. In such an event it's possible there's a challenge to him at the convention, leading to a compromise candidate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
She's not that brilliant. Look at how poorly she ran her 2008 campaign. I think that's a good indicator of how she'd run any organization, including running the country. Did she or her campaign even know how a caucus worked in 2008? All signs point to her hiring the same loyal idiots for 2016 and not the best people. Odds on Mark Penn getting hired again by Clinton? She couldn't even open her mouth in 2014 without saying something stupid that got her unwanted attention. Even in 2008 she was saying stupid things like "took fire while landing in Bosnia" which will get played on tv ads 24/7 against her. The Democratic party needs a better candidate than Clinton. I think she is a risky candidate for the general election. Her campaign won't be nearly as well run as OFA and the GOP campaign will be better than 2012 and have more outside money and organization than 2012. Mitt Romney fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:She's not that brilliant. Look at how poorly she ran her 2008 campaign. I think that's a good indicator of how she'd run any organization, including running the country. Did she or her campaign even know how a caucus worked in 2008? All signs point to her hiring the same loyal idiots for 2016 and not the best people. Just look at how she runs her Foundation and you'll see the type of executive leadership which Clinton brings to the table. Worse than Nixon. I'm caucusing for Biden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Assuming Hillary Clinton runs and loses the primary, who is the Democratic nominee? Is O'Malley really the only legit option here? I cannot possibly imagine Biden winning. He's 73 next year, will look 80, and he acts like he is 8. Senility could be an improvement. Elizabeth Warren would have trouble attracting moderates in purple or non-blue states. Does Gore make a go of it? Any dark horses? dnc adopts Necromonger Law, mick foley wins the nomination
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Is "black sheep" some kind of in-joke - or worse, at New England reference? I meant to type "black swan" event, rather than sheep. Sorry for the confused metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:She's not that brilliant. Look at how poorly she ran her 2008 campaign. I think that's a good indicator of how she'd run any organization, including running the country. Did she or her campaign even know how a caucus worked in 2008? this is also incredibly stupid, clinton was blindsided by the best campaigner america has seen since kennedy at the least, and hadn't bothered to build up a solid machine before because victory was inevitable (or so they thought) clinton is as far from a risky candidate as you can get and still be a presidental candidate, especially against the clowns the republicans would put her up against like, can you see walker even walking away alive from a foreign policy debate with her?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:dnc adopts Necromonger Law, mick foley wins the nomination if we are adopting necromonger, corpse of Reagan with VP Elanoor Roosevelt wins the democratic nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this is also incredibly stupid, clinton was blindsided by the best campaigner america has seen since kennedy at the least, and hadn't bothered to build up a solid machine before because victory was inevitable (or so they thought) I think it's incredibly stupid that she was "blindsided" by a candidate that had been running for 2 years prior. Her campaign manager thought certain states like CA awarded their delegates in full and not partial for example. Her entire campaign reeked of mismanagement and stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I think it's incredibly stupid that she was "blindsided" by a candidate that had been running for 2 years prior. Her campaign manager thought certain states like CA awarded their delegates in full and not partial for example. Her entire campaign reeked of mismanagement and stupidity. It was also incredibly bad at trying to woo people during events with her biggest supporters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I think it's incredibly stupid that she was "blindsided" by a candidate that had been running for 2 years prior. Her campaign manager thought certain states like CA awarded their delegates in full and not partial for example. Her entire campaign reeked of mismanagement and stupidity. yes, because she wasn't expecting to need to campaign. she had most of the big donors sewn up, she had a good amount of support and inertia behind her, she was looking towards the general election - under the established Rules, the nomination was hers. then some dark horse candidate suddenly gained momentum - pretty much out of nowhere - and before she knew what the gently caress she was losing. it was arrogance and complacency, and she's not doing that again. obama changed the rules of the game, in a very real sense. that is not going to happen in a general election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:48
|
|