|
Hieronymous Alloy posted: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!!!!" I think the same, there's a reason it came out at the same time as Netanyahu's campaign rally in Congress.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Joementum posted:A lot of people run for President. There are currently 182 candidates registered with the FEC. Astute observers will note the presence of Jeff Boss on the candidate list. He ran for Senate in New Jersey on the "NSA DID 9/11" (all caps, of course) party line. Perpetual candidate Jack Fellure, who wants to replace the US Constitution with "God's law from the Bible" is running again as well. Former Minnesota Senate candidate Ole Savior is running, though his campaign website hasn't been updated. It also lists "affordable prescription drugs for everyone" under the header "alarming trends"  I have no idea why HRM Caesar St. Augustine de Buonaparte keeps running. He claims that he sent President Clinton a letter in 1996 declaring war on the US and, since Clinton never replied, he won and is now the official Emperor of America, which would seem to make the Presidential election superfluous at best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Arkane posted: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.    I think that hairline is going to disagree with you also, Rubio is so incredibly awkward at times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Huntsman was actually The Only Sane Man in the 2012 Republican Primary. I disagree with him on a lot of things and think he would have taken this country in the wrong direction (especially if given a Republican Congress,) but if a Republican was going to win 2012 I would have chosen him in a heartbeat. He's basically what Marco Rubio is now. Hell, to continue the comparisons, Depends on how you define sane. Huntsman proposed probably the most regressive tax plan of any candidate (including 9-9-9), people don't seem to realize he was an extremist because he wasn't frothing at the mouth like most of the rest of the candidates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
QuintessenceX posted:
I dont think it's so much the hairline as it is the attempts to act as though it isn't receding like Lee after Gettysburg.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Rubio's problem isn't his hairline. It's that whenever he tries to say something important he sounds like a little boy playacting. His Cuba tantrum was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Depends on how you define sane. Huntsman proposed probably the most regressive tax plan of any candidate (including 9-9-9), people don't seem to realize he was an extremist because he wasn't frothing at the mouth like most of the rest of the candidates. socially liberal/fiscally conservative/gently caress-the-poor is a super common identity in America, though. Huntsman, in some weird alternate reality where he had a chance at the nomination, offered a better chance to do what Rand Paul thinks he can do in the General, which is make inroads in the democratic constituencies of college youth and professionals. He was their shot at reclaiming the Dewey/Rockefeller liberal pro-business Republicans who drifted toward the Democrats after the GoP became bugfuck cryptofascists, which is an easier path for them than reaching out to the poor and minorities. With a more viable platform, a good resume and way more likability than any other Republican in 2012, Huntsman could have posed a greater challenge to Obama than anybody else in the field. Huntsman was the candidate the GoP needed, but (fortunately for america) not the candidate they deserved or got. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Huntsman was the candidate the GoP needed, but (fortunately for america) not the candidate they deserved or got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Arkane posted:No record of emails, and a foundation that receives tens of millions from foreign nations and corporations. What could go wrong? It's a NGO you twit. Do you think former President Carter is making a secret run for the white house on foreign money? Arkane posted: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. This is literally the opposite of reality, the man can't speak for poo poo, nor has he ever looked good on television before
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Rubio's a nonstarter. GOB nullifies any possible advantage he might have had before the amnesty flap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I have no idea why HRM Caesar St. Augustine de Buonaparte keeps running. He claims that he sent President Clinton a letter in 1996 declaring war on the US and, since Clinton never replied, he won and is now the official Emperor of America, which would seem to make the Presidential election superfluous at best. Illusion of choice to placate the plebeians. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:And, in all likelihood, so shall it be with Rubio. Even if the base suddenly forgave Rubio for the grave sin daring to suggest mild compromise on a single issue, I don't see where he gets the money for a serious run this time around. jeb has the Very Serious People, Walker and Cruz have the tea party grassroots and the senile ultraconservative billionaires, Rand has the crowdfunding and the Dark Enlightenment Techno-Feudal Shitlords, Huckabee/Santorum/Walker have the churches. I don't see where Rubio carves out a niche unless the field narrows in a big hurry. He's not going anywhere, though, as "The Florida Democratic Party gets its poo poo together for the first time in twenty years and seizes his Senate seat" would seem an unlikely event. He can always try again in 2024 or (if Hillary happens to preside over a bad recession or a major terror attack) 2020, when the party has given up on some of these other losers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Dark Enlightenment Techno-Feudal Shitlords Fantastic band name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Even if the base suddenly forgave Rubio for the grave sin daring to suggest mild compromise on a single issue, I don't see where he gets the money for a serious run this time around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Hillary won't pick a Hispanic running mate, there are too many white racists to court. I would love to be proven wrong, but I imagine that Hillary's craven team and her wicked donor base will prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Comedy option: Clinton/Lieberman
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:People who wanted Jon Huntsman to be President and still have hope that Republican primary voters will vote for someone who could feasibly win in 2016 without Hillary imploding. So you don't think Jeb will be the nominee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hillary won't pick a Hispanic running mate, there are too many white racists to court. I would love to be proven wrong, but I imagine that Hillary's craven team and her wicked donor base will prevent it. White racists: a target demographic for the Democratic Party in 2016 who totally won't be chased away by the guy who's already in office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Arkane, you are very good at betting on the stock market but oh so bad at guessing political nominations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So you don't think Jeb will be the nominee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
If a market crash or terrorist attack makes the country more likely to vote for a Bush I'm just completely done here. I'll just go wander into the woods and eat twigs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Arkane, you are very good at betting on the stock market but oh so bad at guessing political nominations. If you think my stock performance is impressive, you'd faint if you saw my Intrade returns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Comedy option: Clinton/Lieberman Clinton/Gore: the Second Coming 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hillary won't pick a Hispanic running mate, there are too many white racists to court. I would love to be proven wrong, but I imagine that Hillary's craven team and her wicked donor base will prevent it. If I know one thing its that democrats cannot win the presidency with a brown man on the ticket
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:If I know one thing its that democrats cannot win the presidency with a brown man on the ticket I think the question actually is, can the Democrats win without a white guy on the ticket somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:From one of the leaks from a "Clinton Insider", Tim Kaine is at the top of the list. Slate Action posted:I think the question actually is, can the Democrats win without a white guy on the ticket somewhere. A very silly question. Deval Patrick would be the best Veep on pure cynical identity politics grounds. If Clinton can shore up the Obama coalition all she needs to do is bring the share of white women back up to where it was under Kerry or Gore and she'll have a crushing mandate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Arkane posted:If you think my stock performance is impressive, you'd faint if you saw my Intrade returns. Still super pissed that I got scared off of Intrade, because the SEC couldn't decide what to do with it and being a fed means making questionable monetary exchanges can be bad for your career. A buddy of mine bet like 50k on Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:I think the question actually is, can the Democrats win without a white guy on the ticket somewhere. Maybe, but Hillary's so familiar at this point that I doubt the general electorate will react to her like they would any other woman candidate. How much of the white male vote does Hillary even need, if she can maintain the Obama coalition with only mildly depressed turnout and pad the gender-gap a bit? Thirty-five? Thirty? Less? I don't think placating white racists will be a priority regardless of how dumb Hillary's staff are. Any dork can look at the numbers and realize they're better off trying to energize minority voters again than going after white hillbillies in Sullivan County, PA, Rowan County, KY or Graham County, NC. She'll get (modestly) better hillbilly numbers than Obama anyway, by default. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
New NBC/WSJ poll.  I'm surprised Lindsey Graham has such high name recognition and negatives among Republican voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'm surprised Lindsey Graham has such high name recognition and negatives among Republican voters. Someone's up on Sunday watching Meet The Press.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
That's a good poll question. Scott Walker's support is a bit illusory...absent his epic victories against the whining Democrats in Wisconsin, he's an empty shell onto which people can project their ideal candidate. Sorta like Perry for that month he was the frontrunner in 2012. We'll see how he does under the spotlight. Jeb Bush's numbers are interesting, but I imagine Romney would've been somewhat similar in 2012. And yeah that reinforces my belief that Rubio is the major dark horse here. The question becomes where can he win? I don't imagine Iowa will be friendly territory. New Hampshire I guess? There's not an easy path for him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:That's a good poll question. Polling had no indication of how the primary is going to go, unless we want a repeat of 2012 were every month it's a new "TOTALLY CONFIRMED NOMINATION GUYS THIS GUY HAS HIGH POLLS ITS IN THE BAG"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
The bigger takeaway from that poll is that likely GOP primary voters are most familiar with Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:The bigger takeaway from that poll is that likely GOP primary voters are most familiar with Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. That, and Biden's negatives are higher than I'd expect from Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Honestly surprised Ben Carson's name recognition is that low. also Warren's negatives are real low, which is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
What is the GOP's path to victory? I've been playing with electoral college numbers and having a hard time coming up with a way Hillary would lose without things going really badly for the Democrats.  Starting with the 2012 map, let's say Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin flip red after historic post-VRA vote suppression efforts. Is Iowa, consistently blue excepting 2004, going to go against Hillary? Michigan?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:That, and Biden's negatives are higher than I'd expect from Democrats. quit gropin women and small girls biden it was cool when you were just flirting with republican congressmens' moms
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:New NBC/WSJ poll. Warren seems pretty viable. baw fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:What is the GOP's path to victory? I've been playing with electoral college numbers and having a hard time coming up with a way Hillary would lose without things going really badly for the Democrats. Wouldn't be too hard for the GOP to get a path to victory - they'd just need to take back Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and one of Colorado, New Hampshire, or Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Arkane posted:That's a good poll question. This feels weird typing out but I agree with everything Arkane just said. ~40 on the negative scale seems to be to be the bar for former candidate/president baggage (Sorry Jeb and Rand, you inherit daddy's/brother's baggage polling-wise). Walker's margins there are just him being one of the least known candidates, they're somewhat comparable to Jindal (people who know Jindal are really tepid about him) and Carson (his is a very self selecting audience), and Fiorina (I had to look her up to refresh my memory of who she actually is as well). High unknown on Walker means we can also assume some of the positive support is softer than if that number was lower, a comparatively good sign for Rubio, who fills a similar niche. Also the descriptions of Walker I've read don't make it sound like he will be able to convert all those who don't know him and his softer supporters during the scrutiny of a presidential campaign. Cruz's negative is high because even people on the right are sick of his act. Christie's scandals have mired his numbers low, I didn't expect them to be that low though, that is pretty damning. And as for Graham, maybe they have heard the same rumors about him that the folks in this thread have heard. At the very least, Rubio can put the Rudy Guiliani primary campaign strategy to another test! Florida is the only state that matters! Ed; But I don't really think any of them shift the GE playing field all that much. Walker puts WIsconsin more into play than it otherwise would be and Rubio maybe makes Florida into more of a tossup than a potential lean, but Florida is going to be in play no matter what in a Presidential cycle. And even if you flip Wisconsin (and all the others), the Dem still wins outright with Florida. This is what I've got for my map. 
oldswitcheroo fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:56
|
|
