|
Catching up on the news this morning, and the email thing is relatively unimportant, but it does solidify my belief in the incompetence of the Hillary Clinton machine. Its been pretty clear up to now anyway, and bring real doubt to her ability to either a) win the 2016 election, and if so b) govern at all effectively. EDIT: Why is Obama more in front of this than Hillary again? Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Mar 9, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:Catching up on the news this morning, and the email thing is relatively unimportant, but it does solidify my belief in the incompetence of the Hillary Clinton machine. Its been pretty clear up to now anyway, and bring real doubt to her ability to either a) win the 2016 election, and if so b) govern at all effectively. Remember when she totally hosed up being Secretary of State for four years? No? Because that's a cake job, right? No? I am absolutely not a fan of Hillary but holy poo poo, questions about her ability are dumb as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Catching up on the news this morning, and the email thing is relatively unimportant No record of emails, and a foundation that receives tens of millions from foreign nations and corporations. What could go wrong? Vienna Circlejerk posted:Remember when she totally hosed up being Secretary of State for four years? No? Because that's a cake job, right? No? I am absolutely not a fan of Hillary but holy poo poo, questions about her ability are dumb as gently caress. With the benefit of hindsight, it's a bit difficult to say she did a good job at State.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
There is a difference between a cabinet level position and being the POTUS, relying on popularity and being subjected to a much higher standard of scrutiny and judgement. I'm not saying that she WON'T govern effectively, but there's a pattern present for several decades of circles of confidants shielding and enshrouding Clinton to the her detriment, from Whitewater to the 2008 election. EDIT: ^^^ I was led to believe there are physical copies of the emails, which were turned over weeks ago. EDIT 2: Dug up an old article talking about Clinton's State record: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139110/michael-hirsh/the-clinton-legacy Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:EDIT: ^^^ I was led to believe there are physical copies of the emails, which were turned over weeks ago. Nah she only turned over self-selected emails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Remember when she totally hosed up being Secretary of State for four years? No? Because that's a cake job, right? No? I am absolutely not a fan of Hillary but holy poo poo, questions about her ability are dumb as gently caress. I think the bigger issue is that people remember her campaigning in the past. That "ready on day one!" stuff was pretty dumb and I found her campaign to be ineffective and hilariously bad. It also doesn't help that the right wing hate machine has been vomiting propaganda about her nonstop every since she became the slightest bit prominent. To be honest I think the hard right's massive attempt to mercilessly smear her is a good indicator that they're afraid she might actually win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:EDIT 2: Dug up an old article talking about Clinton's State record: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139110/michael-hirsh/the-clinton-legacy At the time of her departure, seemed like a lot of people agreed she did a good job at State. Sky-high popularity levels. But large swaths of the world are in chaos right now. Libya, where she specifically advocated for intervention, will likely be a focal point of her tenure at State. It's also devolved into chaos, with even a group loyal to Islamic State forming in the eastern part of the country. They've been murdering civilians, and I think just recently kidnapped foreign workers. While Clinton did visit a boatload of countries, a lot of that goodwill was flushed away with the Snowden revelations (& she strongly dislikes Snowden).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
No one cares about the email outside of the pundits. If you're someone who cares about the emails, then you're someone who already doesn't like Hillary from the seventy million little (and big) things that she's been slapped with in the last twenty-five years she's spent in national politics. It has zero traction, it's exceptionally minor on the scandal front and it can't be pressed by actual GOP candidates because it will make their own party look like complete morons for having missed it for so long. The Venn diagram of "People who care about Hillary's emails" and "People who had any chance to vote for Hillary in the first place" have no overlap. Now, is she going to govern well? Debatable, though honestly she has a better shot at it than Obama has had. But in terms of the general her opposition has resumes that read like a Three Stooges script for their ability to run things. Walker's DOA the moment someone actually starts producing stats about Wisconsin, Christie is laughable, Rubio will never get through the primary and I'm not even going to bother trying to justify the likes of Cruz, Perry or Carson. The GOP has Jeb (who looks viable but has his own heavy, heavy baggage) and Paul (which is a really sad statement).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Arkane posted:At the time of her departure, seemed like a lot of people agreed she did a good job at State. Sky-high popularity levels. But large swaths of the world are in chaos right now. Libya, where she specifically advocated for intervention, will likely be a focal point of her tenure at State. It's also devolved into chaos, with even a group loyal to Islamic State forming in the eastern part of the country. They've been murdering civilians, and I think just recently kidnapped foreign workers. If your biggest knock against Hillary's tenure as SoS is that she was unable to completely clean up the foreign policy mess left by the previous administration... well, good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:No one cares about the email outside of the pundits. If you're someone who cares about the emails, then you're someone who already doesn't like Hillary from the seventy million little (and big) things that she's been slapped with in the last twenty-five years she's spent in national politics. It has zero traction, it's exceptionally minor on the scandal front and it can't be pressed by actual GOP candidates because it will make their own party look like complete morons for having missed it for so long. Well, making hay over the emails is just part of the generalized Republican "strategy" of constantly filling the air with anti-hillary scandals (BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI). It's not about substance it's just about keeping the base worked up and keeping everyone else vaguely associating Hillary's name with BAD THINGS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
meristem posted:Who is going to be HRC's VP? both parties nominate susanna martinez
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, making hay over the emails is just part of the generalized Republican "strategy" of constantly filling the air with anti-hillary scandals (BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI). It's not about substance it's just about keeping the base worked up and keeping everyone else vaguely associating Hillary's name with BAD THINGS. I agree, though my point's more that I don't think it's really worth the time. Or the amount of words being wasted on it here. Plus as I said, it's going to heavily come down to her opposition in the general. This may be another clown car primary and it's very possible her opponent is going to be so stupendously bad that she'll walk through it. I mean, just resume-wise, you're talking about pitting a former First Lady/multi-term senator/Secretary of State who has multiple decades of experience dealing with every level of the system against a guy who can't manage to keep Wisconsin from defaulting on debt payments and who thinks that international terrorism is no more complicated than public employee union negotiations. The question of governing ability there is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, making hay over the emails is just part of the generalized Republican "strategy" of constantly filling the air with anti-hillary scandals (BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI). It's not about substance it's just about keeping the base worked up and keeping everyone else vaguely associating Hillary's name with BAD THINGS. I honestly think it's going to work in her favor. Clinton scandal mongering has become background noise to the point where I suspect most of the general public just tune it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
meristem posted:Who is going to be HRC's VP? A white man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Now, is she going to govern well? Debatable, though honestly she has a better shot at it than Obama has had. But in terms of the general her opposition has resumes that read like a Three Stooges script for their ability to run things. Walker's DOA the moment someone actually starts producing stats about Wisconsin, Christie is laughable, Rubio will never get through the primary and I'm not even going to bother trying to justify the likes of Cruz, Perry or Carson. The GOP has Jeb (who looks viable but has his own heavy, heavy baggage) and Paul (which is a really sad statement).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm just resigned to thinking that HRC won't be terrible, at least relative to what we've had in the last forty or fifty years and to what we could have for the next eight or more. I'm tired. What does that say about the electorate? Probably nothing, I guess. edit: What I'm saying is, I'm ready for Hillary, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Al Gore Nah, nah man. Tipper Gore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, making hay over the emails is just part of the generalized Republican "strategy" of constantly filling the air with anti-hillary scandals (BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI). It's not about substance it's just about keeping the base worked up and keeping everyone else vaguely associating Hillary's name with BAD THINGS. The e-mail story was broken (and is being heavily reported) by the NY Times. Maureen Dowd wrote a scathing Op-Ed about it this weekend. And this is a Republican strategy of some kind? Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nah, nah man. Tipper Gore. The GOP would run with a Tipper for Nanny State 2016 campaign featuring Eminem, cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The e-mail story was broken (and is being heavily reported) by the NY Times. Maureen Dowd wrote a scathing Op-Ed about it this weekend. And this is a Republican strategy of some kind? Makes sense. It's almost like the so-called "liberal media" really... isn't! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:I think Marco Rubio has more of a chance than Rand Paul. Rand is more likely to stick around to the end of the primaries than Rubio, but that's because Rubio will actually end his campaign if it's clear he's not going to win. Rand will follow the exact same trajectory as his father did in 2012. Oh, I fully expect so. But should Rand somehow make it out of the primaries I think he'd have a vague shot. He'd get the gauranteed 45% Not-A-Democrat vote, and he's got enough youth/guile/snake oil to get some sway versus Hillary. He'd probably still lose in the long run, but he's sadly got more of a chance at it than most of the GOP field. Which, as I stated, is a pretty sad statement considering it's a Paul we're talking about. Rubio might do okay in the general, but I agree - he'll bail in the primary early when he can't get traction. Randpaul will hold out until the end for that sweet sweet moneybomb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
meristem posted:Who is going to be HRC's VP? From one of the leaks from a "Clinton Insider", Tim Kaine is at the top of the list. That said, 30 years of being a DC power couple means about everyone no matter how tenuously connected to the Clinton's and their strategic discussions can claim to be a "Clinton Insider", having worked closely with them or their staff at one point or another. Newt Gingrich is probably closer to being a Clinton Insider than most claiming it, at least he was actually in the same room as them at some point. Really without knowing for 100% certainty who the GOP candidate will be you can't really guess who will be brought in to shore up support for the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:voters in a general election don't think of campaigns that way I don't know that it has to be that complicated, even for relatively low-information voters. It's not a complicated message to say this guy is hiring all the same people who architected the policies of the previous Bush administration that were obviously disastrous. It's not even hard to turn it into a debate zinger - "you say you are your own man, but how can we trust that when (some number that the Dems will have pushed in the media) percent of your foreign policy team worked for your brother...and we all know how that turned out. Are you hiring these people to tell you what not to do?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The e-mail story was broken (and is being heavily reported) by the NY Times. Maureen Dowd wrote a scathing Op-Ed about it this weekend. And this is a Republican strategy of some kind? Makes sense. The reason I put "strategy" in quotation marks is because I was hesitant to imply that the Republican Party has one. It's just sort of a rampaging incarnation of political Id at this point, constantly regurgitating and devouring the same stories over and over again in order to fill the incessantly craving maw of the twenty-four-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week news cycle. For what it's worth I suspect that the email story breaking now was Hillary deliberately pre-leaking a potential "scandal" in order to get it out of the way before the serious campaigning starts. But the reason we're all still talking about it a week later is because Fox News et. al. latched onto it, because they always have to latch onto something, because hillary benghazi ratings viewer numbers angrryyyy "where there's smoke there's fire!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Oh, I fully expect so. But should Rand somehow make it out of the primaries I think he'd have a vague shot. He'd get the gauranteed 45% Not-A-Democrat vote, and he's got enough youth/guile/snake oil to get some sway versus Hillary. He'd probably still lose in the long run, but he's sadly got more of a chance at it than most of the GOP field. Which, as I stated, is a pretty sad statement considering it's a Paul we're talking about. Rubio might do okay in the general, but I agree - he'll bail in the primary early when he can't get traction. Randpaul will hold out until the end for that sweet sweet moneybomb. When I first turned 18 I might have voted for Rand. Now I know better, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The e-mail story was broken (and is being heavily reported) by the NY Times. Maureen Dowd wrote a scathing Op-Ed about it this weekend. And this is a Republican strategy of some kind? Makes sense. Hey arkane, who are you pulling for this time? Your guy Huntsman isn't in (I had to actually look his name up he was so forgettable). Are you walking with Walker or standing with Rand? Or Jebbing with JEB? I always laugh when I think about that post you made about Huntsman where you had the picture of Obama riding a bicycle....and Huntsman riding a dirt bike! How could he lose? How could America not see what you saw?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Titus Sardonicus posted:Honestly, I'm just resigned to thinking that HRC won't be terrible, at least relative to what we've had in the last forty or fifty years and to what we could have for the next eight or more. I'm tired. What does that say about the electorate? Probably nothing, I guess. As much as I dislike Hillary I must confess she at least tries to, at the very least, not gently caress up America. I'd sure as hell rather have her than "let's burn the whole thing down and start over" GOP candidates or the actively malicious and racist shits that party attracts. I know it won't happen but I'd also rather have Hillary than one of the Pauls. If my choice is between Hillary and a Republican you bet I'd yank that lever for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Any of those fuckers ginning up conspiracy theories about the Human Rights Campaign/Hillary Rodham Clinton? It honestly sounds like something that'd get play on the AM band and FNC, and I want to make sure I haven't missed the opportunity to laugh at idiots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:From one of the leaks from a "Clinton Insider", Tim Kaine is at the top of the list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
So have Republicans started taking credit for the better job numbers yet by citing their takeover of Congress or are they still using the "that's not the real unemployment rate" tactic? It must be frustrating that an improving economy and better job numbers are actually bad for them in their eyes so I'm expecting a shift soon from "they're cooking the books! Smoke and mirrors!" to "see what happens when the GOP is in charge? Jobs!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I figure it'll be whoever provides the most perceived electoral advantage a couple of weeks before the convention. Is there a swing state she needs? Then she'll put that state's governor or senator on the ticket. In trouble with a key demographic? Boom, added to the ticket. Concerns about her age? Abracadabra, an energetic young veep. Base making loud grumbling noises? Then she'll pick someone with progressive bona fides. It'll all depend on exactly what she needs in June 2016. My bet is Clinton/one of the Castros.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So have Republicans started taking credit for the better job numbers yet by citing their takeover of Congress or are they still using the "that's not the real unemployment rate" tactic? It must be frustrating that an improving economy and better job numbers are actually bad for them in their eyes so I'm expecting a shift soon from "they're cooking the books! Smoke and mirrors!" to "see what happens when the GOP is in charge? Jobs!" They're using both lines simultaneously, most of their base doesn't have enough going on between the ears for the cognitive dissonance to be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So have Republicans started taking credit for the better job numbers yet by citing their takeover of Congress or are they still using the "that's not the real unemployment rate" tactic? It must be frustrating that an improving economy and better job numbers are actually bad for them in their eyes so I'm expecting a shift soon from "they're cooking the books! Smoke and mirrors!" to "see what happens when the GOP is in charge? Jobs!" As far as I can tell, the GOP still seems to be in recovery denial mode - Jeb Bush recently referred to the recovery as a "so-called recovery" and blamed Obamacare for acting as a "job suppressor".
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:My bet is Clinton/one of the Castros. Julian probably ticks the most boxes out of anyone available: - Young, to balance Hillary age. - Fresh-faced and charismatic, to help counter been-there-done-that apathy. - Can help drive hispanic turnout. - ~Reasonably~ progressive, to help energize the base. - Direct executive experience, to counter the inevitable dumb "Hillary has never run anything!" accusations aimed at people who don't understand what StateDep is. But if the GoP is dumb and don't manage to nominate Jeb or a moderate latino veep (martinez, rubio), the Dems might figure they don't need help with the latino vote and pick some bland Virginian or other to help secure the Mid-Atlantic. I would certainly prefer a Castro over Warner or Kaine or Webb, just to boost whichever Castro's resume and prep him as a top-of-the-ticket candidate in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Wabbit posted:Hey arkane, who are you pulling for this time? Your guy Huntsman isn't in (I had to actually look his name up he was so forgettable). Are you walking with Walker or standing with Rand? Or Jebbing with JEB? Romney: Bush Gingrich: Christie Santorum: Huckabee Paul: Paul Perry: Walker Huntsman: Rubio Bachmann: Cruz Cain: Carson
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
This may have gotten lost in the ben-emailaquiddickgate scandal, but we have a new contender! A Mr. Everson has thrown his hat into the ring. Everson who, you ask? I really have no idea, other than "former IRS" chief. I'm sure that will endear him to the public. He does claim that he will spend a whopping $250,000 of his own money on the campaign, but curiously, he is neither promoting a Fox News show or a book tour, so I can't figure out his angle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Wabbit posted:Hey arkane, who are you pulling for this time? Your guy Huntsman isn't in (I had to actually look his name up he was so forgettable). Are you walking with Walker or standing with Rand? Or Jebbing with JEB? Huntsman turned out to be a bad candidate, but he was a good bet. My thesis was that the winner of NH was ~always gonna be the 2012 nominee, because the Republicans needed an electable candidate and NH punches that card. If Romney had stumbled & Huntsman was a good candidate, Huntsman would've won NH. Easy to be critical with hindsight. If I was betting on someone to be the nominee this time around given the relative odds, it'd be Marco Rubio. He is a good orator, personable, and telegenic. One can't ignore how much looks and relate-ability play into these things. It is much harder to figure things out this year, because the Republicans have at least 3 candidates who are theoretically electable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:one of the Castros.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Huntsman turned out to be a bad candidate, but he was a good bet. My thesis was that the winner of NH was ~always gonna be the 2012 nominee, because the Republicans needed an electable candidate and NH punches that card. If Romney had stumbled & Huntsman was a good candidate, Huntsman would've won NH. What happened to the hard on you had for Rand a couple of months ago?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
sullat posted:This may have gotten lost in the ben-emailaquiddickgate scandal, but we have a new contender! A Mr. Everson has thrown his hat into the ring. Everson who, you ask? I really have no idea, other than "former IRS" chief. I'm sure that will endear him to the public. He does claim that he will spend a whopping $250,000 of his own money on the campaign, but curiously, he is neither promoting a Fox News show or a book tour, so I can't figure out his angle. A lot of people run for President. There are currently 182 candidates registered with the FEC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:48
|
|
