|
Fried Chicken posted:His existing machine may not work outside Wisconsin, but the thing is he'll be using the national GOP machine. It's plug and play man, insert candidate, all the components do their job And fail to elect Presidents the past 2 cycles.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And fail to elect Presidents the past 2 cycles. No one said they did their job particularly well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:His existing machine may not work outside Wisconsin, but the thing is he'll be using the national GOP machine. It's plug and play man, insert candidate, all the components do their job he has to get through the primary first, though
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:That was Steve Sailer with a post on racist website VDARE who argued that rather than make inroads with minorities, get more whites to vote. His logic was "whites votes for Romney, of the percent that stayed home X were white, all of them would have voted for Romney because they were white and whites voted for Romney, X+Romney's total > Obama's total, so the GOP needs to make a pitch to activate more white voters". At the time he was ignore by the talking R heads and mocked by data wonks, and the GOP came out with their post election document saying "we need to do better with Hispanics, blacks, women, and youth voters." But the base ate it up and you got that document steadily pushed back, and now stuff like the GOP response to the "Arab voters" comments in Israeli elections where the GOP is in full defense of racially split voting and racial fear GOTV. Actually I'm pretty sure it was Phyllis Schlafly. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/phyllis-schlafly-hispanic-voters-ignore-white-people_n_3361620.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Is Carly Fiorina still a thing? I saw her rattling around a few places in the last few months and thought to myself "She sounds like she is seriously flirting with running like her entire business and political career wasn't a joke. Like are you really saying these things with a straight face?"
Three Olives fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Is Carly Fiorina still a thing? I saw her rattling around a few places in the last few months and thought to me self "She sounds like she is seriously flirting with running like her entire business and political career wasn't a joke. Like are you really saying these things with a straight face? I think she's angling for VP. A woman who can be safely controlled and ignored might be a decent VP pick to try to grab some Republican women voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Is Carly Fiorina still a thing? I saw her rattling around a few places in the last few months and thought to me self "She sounds like she is seriously flirting with running like her entire business and political career wasn't a joke. Like are you really saying these things with a straight face? She's a thing in that she still has a few billion in cash to waste on her own campaign. She's not a thing in that she will never win an elected position higher than condo board.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:In terms of "Who would be more likely to establish a literal theocracy if they could get away with it?" the edge goes to Santorum. Absolutely. Santorum has that burning, self-flagellating Catholic fire. On the other hand, who could be a better face for modern, Prosperity Gospel, FYGM, Christians-as-persecuted, donate-us-$60-million for a church jet American Protestantism, than Ted Cruz, the face that looks like a wet fart sounds? So instead of a theocracy, you get a completely cynical, Huckabee-style religious hucksterism, the way that W used to talk about "faith-based initiatives". Zwabu posted:I don't think Walker has yet shown that he has any political chops whatsoever. You can get even get elected Governor or Senator with relatively poor speaking skills and personal appeal/charisma if you have the right state and setup supporting you, but it's hard to get elected President that way. I'll grant that Walker has done it in Wisconsin so it's a bit more impressive than, say, Rick Scott winning in Florida. And this is (if you'll excuse the pun) gospel truth about Walker. He is a local product, if you've read that amazing article about how he had a circuit tour of all the AM radio stations, and that won his election. He is in no loving way ready for prime time. We joke about Cruz's lovely speechifying, but there is nothing more bland and boring than Scott Walker. You see, if Perry hadn't forgotten the third thing, he had a whole Texas, gun-totin, rootin-tootin personality ready to go, just like the W thing worked. Walker makes Romney look like a dynamic, moving, human-interest story. He is, exactly as you say, paper-thin. He's served his purpose in one state for the Kochs, but who the gently caress says THEY have to be loyal to anyone? People bow and kiss THEIR rings; it doesn't work the other way around. What's Walker's story going to be in all the Right to Work states (Red States) where the unions are already busted? What does he have to offer them? There's just not a compelling narrative other than: these rich people paid me to run for president, my face looks like a bag of Wonder Bread that fell in a puddle, and I'm reading these lines off a card? Plus defeating ISIS is the same thing as killing teacher unions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:She's a thing in that she still has a few billion in cash to waste on her own campaign. Hearing her talk is just amazing, it's like she doesn't know that everyone is aware that she almost single handedly ran one of the largest companies in the US into the ground until she was shitcanned in spectacular fashion. Listening her talk about the business community having answers is just 
Three Olives fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
You can convince yourself that Scott Walker can't win the nomination, especially if you purposefully ignore the rather large organization of national Republican campaigners he's hired in the last month, but the idea that Ted Cruz has a better shot is farcical. Unless something has drastically changed in the last four years (spoiler: it has not) the nomination process post-1972 is still party driven and Cruz's charisma, which means "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others", might play to the colonial cosplay crowd (doubtful, in my opinion), but it's totally lost of his colleagues and the people with the money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:Absolutely. Santorum has that burning, self-flagellating Catholic fire. On the other hand, who could be a better face for modern, Prosperity Gospel, FYGM, Christians-as-persecuted, donate-us-$60-million for a church jet American Protestantism, than Ted Cruz, the face that looks like a wet fart sounds?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:You can convince yourself that Scott Walker can't win the nomination, especially if you purposefully ignore the rather large organization of national Republican campaigners he's hired in the last month, but the idea that Ted Cruz has a better shot is farcical. Unless something has drastically changed in the last four years (spoiler: it has not) the nomination process post-1972 is still party driven and Cruz's charisma, which means "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others", might play to the colonial cosplay crowd (doubtful, in my opinion), but it's totally lost of his colleagues and the people with the money. Walker is going to play to the same "would you have a beer with him?" crowd that Bush did in 2006. He offers nothing, but he's "personable."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
America welcomed a black man it's about time America opened it's heart to men with faces that look like the Comedy/Tragedy masks just got caught selling your grandma a reverse mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Timby posted:Walker is going to play to the same "would you have a beer with him?" crowd that Bush did in 2006. He offers nothing, but he's "personable." Walker has actual governing accomplishments he can cite, ones that conservatives love and, even better, liberals hate and try to discredit. Cruz has no accomplishments and has to run on his record of "fighting", most of which involved disastrous opposition to his own party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Bush is going to eat Walker alive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Hearing her talk is just amazing, it's like she doesn't know that everyone is aware that she almost single handedly ran one of the largest companies in the US into the ground until she was shitcanned in spectacular fashion. It's always fun to remember that when she was ousted, HP's stock gained $3 billion in valuation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
I'm sorry but it takes real vision and leadership to see the value in flying Ben Affleck around to talk about tech things and stamping your company's name onto iPods. (Still my favorite move HP ever made) Go Carly!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Walker has actual governing accomplishments he can cite, ones that conservatives love and, even better, liberals hate and try to discredit. I hear you, and I know you probably know far better what people inside the beltway think about Cruz. I also don't see how "governing accomplishments" actually count for a quarter of a fart in a windstorm with the kind of candidates Republicans have to choose from this year. Nor did they really matter for candidate Obama in 2008, did they? I mean, I think it's a loser's battle to try to stage a GOP candidate's argument around legislative accomplishments if you're running against Hillary. On another note, not to indicate that I support Cruz or any of that poo poo: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-23/cruz-s-wife-heidi-said-to-take-unpaid-leave-from-goldman quote:Heidi Cruz, 42, a Harvard Business School graduate who worked in President George W. Bush’s administration, joined Goldman Sachs in 2005 and was promoted to managing director, the firm’s second-highest rank, in 2012. She serves as regional head of the Houston office in the private wealth-management unit, which serves individuals and families who have on average more than $40 million with the firm. It's not like Cruz is exactly disconnected from a wealthy donor base when his wife is #2 at loving Goldman. So your position is that if they can only get him elected, Walker is the Koch and establishment choice because he's more manageable and likeable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:You can convince yourself that Scott Walker can't win the nomination, especially if you purposefully ignore the rather large organization of national Republican campaigners he's hired in the last month, but the idea that Ted Cruz has a better shot is farcical. Unless something has drastically changed in the last four years (spoiler: it has not) the nomination process post-1972 is still party driven and Cruz's charisma, which means "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others", might play to the colonial cosplay crowd (doubtful, in my opinion), but it's totally lost of his colleagues and the people with the money. I'm not saying Cruz has a better shot. I'm saying that for all his shortcomings he's smarter and as far as I can tell a better speaker than Walker. Because Cruz has played up the role of Warrior of the Right I don't think he could ever get the money and support of Walker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:I hear you, and I know you probably know far better what people inside the beltway think about Cruz. I also don't see how "governing accomplishments" actually count for a quarter of a fart in a windstorm with the kind of candidates Republicans have to choose from this year. Nor did they really matter for candidate Obama in 2008, did they? It did matter, remember "executive experience"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It did matter, remember "executive experience"? That's what I was talking about in that long-rear end post about a page back. Neither Hillary nor Mitt, nor any of the others who tried to claim their experience as a selling point won. I mean, if you look at the whole Republican field together, you have Scott Walker killing the unions, and Jeb's decade old Florida work which was all copycat work of his brother. People like Herman Cain talk about executive experience. Out of the rest of the Republican field, what policy achievements is anyone running on? I mean, there's all sorts of elder statesman Republicans who could run on the experience ticket. Where are they? Really, even for Hillary, talking about experience is a minefield. Obama hit her hard on the Iraq War vote and others , and that's not even considering the other parts of her voting record that may not be popular today. It's almost like the more you actually GOVERN, the more liable you are to have your actions thrown back at you. I'm only going on like this because I assume I'm on everyone's ignore list by now, but really, a guy like Cruz NOT having any governing experience makes him seem safer for the primaries and the general, based on the values today's Republicans vote on. Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:That's what I was talking about in that long-rear end post about a page back. Neither Hillary nor Mitt, nor any of the others who tried to claim their experience as a selling point won. I mean, if you look at the whole Republican field together, you have Scott Walker killing the unions, and Jeb's decade old Florida work which was all copycat work of his brother. People like Herman Cain talk about executive experience. It didn't work in 2012 because Obama had an actual record at that point and had been President for four years. It almost worked for Clinton and McCain, remember? Neither of those victories were inevitable. McCain especially might have won if the economy hadn't imploded. Look at the 538 projections over time: https://web.archive.org/web/20081023074655/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Walker has already peaked. Cruz is very unlikely to win but he will get a turn in the catbird seat, probably after he makes a meal out of some of the dimmer contestants in the debates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It didn't work in 2012 because Obama had an actual record at that point and had been President for four years. It almost worked for Clinton and McCain, remember? Neither of those victories were inevitable. McCain especially might have won if the economy hadn't imploded. Look at the 538 projections over time: https://web.archive.org/web/20081023074655/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ Point taken. What's cool is that we'll get to see it play out in just a little while as Hillary, with her Senate votes and choices as SecState runs up against... someone? I mean, Jeb, maybe, talking about how he implemented NCLB and did what else that was basically identical to what his brother was doing? McCain feels like a relic from an older time, before the Tea Party, back when the Hastert Rule still meant something, and old military veterans with long, LONG resumes were the Republican establishment choice. Before the Dark Times. Before Sarah Palin. Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:After watching his declaration today I cant help but agree that Cruz sour-babby face is going to hurt him. When was trying to bask in the applause and make his Bellamy salutes to the crowd, he looked like he was wincing. I don't think his eyes and cheek muscles can work together to display a proper human smile. Even McCain could muster a convincing grin through his war-ravaged face. Its going to be a long campaign for Ted looking like petulant as punctuation for everything he does. Every time I see Cruz, I think of Pierrot. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:back when the Hastert Rule still meant something
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It didn't work in 2012 because Obama had an actual record at that point and had been President for four years. It almost worked for Clinton and McCain, remember? Neither of those victories were inevitable. McCain especially might have won if the economy hadn't imploded. Look at the 538 projections over time: https://web.archive.org/web/20081023074655/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ McCain was always going to lose. In 2008, Nate Silver didn't adjust for the convention bounce when making projections, so the very sharp drop in Obama's lead in late-August was just the McCain/Palin convention bounce, something that was always going to be temporary. Once you take McCain's convention bounce out of the equation, Obama took the lead after Hillary dropped out and never gave it up. e: I just read a few 538 blog posts from 2008. I had forgotten that PUMAs were something that was discussed as a serious factor impacting the election. Pinterest Mom fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Timby posted:Walker is going to play to the same "would you have a beer with him?" crowd that Bush did in 2006. He offers nothing, but he's "personable." there is no world where walker is even halfway as personable as GWB GWB might be a fucker, but I* still probably wouldn't mind going fishing with the dude. Whereas I wouldn't go so far as to sit next to Walker on a bus. GWB had the whole gaw-shucks-y'all thing voters - especially republican ones - just love to death. Walker is a pair of uneven fish eyes hammered onto a plank. *certified Lowest Common Denominator american voter PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
So how many pages has it been since Jim Webb was last mentioned?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
So what's the forum's read on The Atlantic by now? Partisan rag? Tabloid trash? Reputable source? The Paranoid Style of Ted Cruz
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Ted Cruz is about to have his book come out, correct? No, everyone who runs has a book come out. Not only is it free money as you're getting free press for your book while you're in the news, but it lets you tour on a different circuit than you would on the campaign. They overlap, but you're getting out into a less restrained area and that lets you better judge where you stand with the people. Also it makes you shitloads of money. So everyone gets in it for the money and good campaigns use it as another data stream on top of the money. Joementum posted:You can convince yourself that Scott Walker can't win the nomination, especially if you purposefully ignore the rather large organization of national Republican campaigners he's hired in the last month, but the idea that Ted Cruz has a better shot is farcical. Unless something has drastically changed in the last four years (spoiler: it has not) the nomination process post-1972 is still party driven and Cruz's charisma, which means "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others", might play to the colonial cosplay crowd (doubtful, in my opinion), but it's totally lost of his colleagues and the people with the money. Personally I'd say that Cruz has a smaller percentage chance, but far easier shot than Walker. Walker is a loving idiot who couldn't beat Dr. Ben Carson in a debate and will be eaten alive should he take the stage. Cruz on the other hand is red hot crazy and has less than zero qualms about burning everything to ash in his attempt. Walker has to hope Bush crashes and be the only establishment guy around. Cruz just has to succeed in being the biggest, hottest, ball of rage in the field. Cruz is attempting to do the same thing in his Presidential run that he did in his Senate campaign, burn the establishment by being the Pied Piper of insanity. His entire game plan is predicated on the expectation that there's more insanity in the primary than there is "reasonableness". It's not all that insane an idea, but history isn't really doing it any favors. Walker's hopes lie on the much more reliable strategy of the establishment guy winning in the end, but also require that of all the possible establishment guys he gets chosen. The thing is that in any situation where Walker gets a shot, Ted Cruz is successfully burning down the party to his gain. And what's the Republican Party going to do, jump on the Paul train? Any scenario where Paul is positioned to possibly be the savior is where the Establishment is too paralyzed by fear and loathing to do anything. Which leaves Rand Paul and Ted Cruz battling it out for the nomination as a crippled Bush takes his seat by Chris Christie and frantic calls go out for Mitt Romney to save the day. Cruz has the least chance of winning among the "possible" candidates, but so far his campaign seems to be running exactly as it needs to should that gap ever open. Sadly Bush isn't going to gently caress up worse than Romeny and he will successfully route the rest of the field as the Establishment Candidate does. Of course no matter what Cruz wins because he's sure as poo poo not going to be out conservatived, so when the Republican Candidate loses the election he'll be there to tell everyone he told them so. Bolstering the crazy gently caress legend of Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, conservative hero.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:So what's the forum's read on The Atlantic by now? Partisan rag? Tabloid trash? Reputable source? Constant shifting of rhetorical focus, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
The Hill posted:Real estate tycoon Donald Trump cast doubt Monday on whether Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can run for president, because Cruz was born in Canada. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Just watched the Ted Cruz speech. Say what you will about the guy but he sure can fire up a crowd. Looking forward to the circus. When are the first debates... August?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
I'm not convinced the 'debates' will turn out as awesome as y'all think. Debates are mostly just dodging the question and repeating memorized bits of your stump speech. So, whoever goes into it with the stump speech that a small majority of the population prefers, will probably end up being regarded as the winner of that debate. "Proceed, governor" may have been the best thing to come out of the debates last go, but it wasn't much good, and didn't matter in the least to initial or long term reactions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Joementum posted:You can convince yourself that Scott Walker can't win the nomination, especially if you purposefully ignore the rather large organization of national Republican campaigners he's hired in the last month, but the idea that Ted Cruz has a better shot is farcical. Unless something has drastically changed in the last four years (spoiler: it has not) the nomination process post-1972 is still party driven and Cruz's charisma, which means "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others", might play to the colonial cosplay crowd (doubtful, in my opinion), but it's totally lost of his colleagues and the people with the money. Jeb Bush: Does nothing to excite the GOP base, but nothing will be better for Dem turnout (particularly the youth vote) than the very idea of Dubya's brother in the White House. Scott Walker: Disastrous policies in Wisconsin will be the focus of the national spotlight, and Walker doesn't have nearly enough charisma to deal with that. Marco Rubio: Looks like he's doing all he can to shed his RINO status, from begging the people at CPAC "take me back! I didn't mean what I said about immigration!", to signing on to the Iran letter. Unless poo poo goes REALLY BAD with Iran in the next year and a half, that letter is just gonna keep looking worse and worse. Ted Cruz: Is insane and hated by everyone. Rand Paul: Is just Ron Paul's genetically unaltered clone. Chris Christie: Is basically a fat Richard Nixon. Mike Huckabee: Literally the antagonist of Footlose Ben Carson: Not an actual candidate Bobby Jindal: Hahahahhahaha And I think the same thing applies here. Like I figure someone at the GOP Headquarters has to be thinking "Holy poo poo, are any of these jokers not fatally flawed in some way?" and at that point the question of the nomination becomes "Which of these people requires Hillary Clinton to gently caress up the least?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:"Proceed, governor" may have been the best thing to come out of the debates last go, but it wasn't much good, and didn't matter in the least to initial or long term reactions. How quickly you've erased 'Let him die!' *cheers*, from your memory
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Well, at least there's no one in the Republican field (with even a snowball's chance in Hell shot at winning) who's destroy-the-world crazy like say Palin. Any Republican would be their own brand of disaster that'd make us nostalgic for the Obama years in short order, but we're probably not looking at any true believers. Just something nice and mild like overturning Obamacare and re-invading Iraq. Aside from who's got the best chance at winning, who of the candidates who have a real shot would be the worst Presidents?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
To be clear, my opinion of Walker's chances is confined to the primary, which I believe he has a chance (though certainly no guarantee) of winning, as does Jeb and a few of the other contenders. Ted Cruz does not. He thinks he does, but he is incorrect. I am totally certain that I'll be proven correct on this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Joementum posted:To be clear, my opinion of Walker's chances is confined to the primary, which I believe he has a chance (though certainly no guarantee) of winning, as does Jeb and a few of the other contenders. Are you willing to  ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:42
|
|
