|
Bodhidharma posted:I think Ted Cruz wants the job bad enough that he'd be willing to do anything for it. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he ran as an Independent just to split the vote for the Republican nominee. Cruz has a monumental ego but I don't think he has the combination of gall and optimism to Huey Long it. The parties are more resilient than Long gave them credit for, anyway. I doubt that Cruz could successfully shatter a fifty-year-old coalition just by spoiling one election cycle, and I doubt that any resultant realignment would make Ted Cruz more viable as a candidate even if he could.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
blunt for century posted:What's the point of announcing when you're going to announce your candidacy? Isn't that effectively the same as just announcing your candidacy? Theoretically, I guess you could just be announcing your 'decision', which could be "I'm not going to seek the nomination." It's almost certainly not going to be, but it could be. If you're an R with any measurable amount of presidential buzz then what the gently caress have you got to lose?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
The whole exploratory committee is because you need to do something in order to legally raise funds, but doing so doesn't have the same disclosure requirements that officially declaring does, so you can see how much support you can get behind the scenes before you lay your cards on the table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The whole exploratory committee is because you need to do something in order to legally raise funds, but doing so doesn't have the same disclosure requirements that officially declaring does, so you can see how much support you can get behind the scenes before you lay your cards on the table. Ah, that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Huckabee would be [a viable candidate] as well if he started showing evidence that this is anything more than a pure grift this time. Huckabee should be MC'ing the Blue Collar Comedy Tour is what he should be doing. He could play his bass. Shoot, he could join that with his presidential run and call the tour bus his The Theocrats!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
The best thing about the Obama-Romney debates is less that he landed those absolutely brutal burns, but that they were straight-up, "no, gently caress you" defenses of poo poo Romney had been flailing at like a scorned lover for six months. All that poo poo about shrinking the military? "Hey fucko, this isn't the dreadnought era anymore and nobody fights with swords - holy gently caress we have boats planes land on and other boats that go underwater while you're shittering around about bayonets." Benghazi? "Please proceed, Governor." (Also the straight-up scolding he gave Romney in defense of the State Dept.) It was some political aikido poo poo or something, few things political put a smile on my face as it did seeing that poo poo go down and knowing the election was loving over. After the way everyone spun Biden-Palin, I wasn't sure the dismantling of Ryan would seal the deal since they'd just act like Biden ran up the score like a big ol' meanie head with his whole being in the senate when Ryan was still learning how to read. It's nice to see that kind of blatant assbeating when the guy with the bad ideas is getting his rear end beat, but it wasn't really the final nail like that third debate was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Also untrue. There were at least three in 2008. Who is your third? Romney obviously, Perry eh kinda, but who is your third? Huntsman had no backing, Christie never entered the race, Santorum and Newt were not establishment backed, they had billionaires footing the bill. Are you counting Ryan?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
I honestly think Kasich would be the most dangerous nominee the GOP could put up in 2016 and don't get why there hasn't been more establishment movement to draft him. He brings a lot of the same things to the table that Jeb does but without the same baggage. - Control of a large, wealthy swing state (and in his case it is current. - A vague reputation as a ~Reasonable Guy Moderate~ that somehow coexists with conservative credentials that should be adequate for anybody who is not a foaming-at-the-mouth blood-for-the-blood-god apocalypse cult tea party true believer. - Ability to expand beyond the traditional conservative demographic base. - Serious executive experience in both public and private sectors, including some of that black-box finance/private equity shenaniganry the Very Serious People fawn over. - While not obama/clinton/reagan-level personable, pretty decent charisma by the standards of this republican field, probably about on par with Hillary. Has a similar kind of hard-nosed reputation to her. Plus: - Legislative background. - A blue-collar upbringing, rendering him resistant to the Romney syndrome. - A show on Fox! Say what you want, but I don't see Walker/Snyder winning in Milwaukee/Detroit the way kasich has won in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Show me another Republican who can win Cuyahoga County and somehow garner over a fifth of the statewide black vote while simultaneously repressing the hell out of the black vote. Is there some incredibly toxic bad blood between him and major establishment players that I don't know about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Who is your third? Romney obviously, Perry eh kinda, but who is your third? Huntsman had no backing, Christie never entered the race, Santorum and Newt were not establishment backed, they had billionaires footing the bill. Are you counting Ryan? That was 2012, wasn't it? In 2008 I assume the three were McCain, Romney, and Thompson.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:That was 2012, wasn't it? In 2008 I assume the three were McCain, Romney, and Thompson. I completely forgot about Thompson
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I completely forgot about Thompson To be fair, it sounded like everyone did. His campaign was the textbook definition of 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:What's the point of announcing when you're going to announce your candidacy? Isn't that effectively the same as just announcing your candidacy? When you announce officially a whole lot of rules suddenly kick in. Plus you get a lot more coverage for "official campaign announcement" than for most other random-rear end speeches. PupsOfWar posted:I wonder if Cruz jumping in will prompt any of the other major players to advance their timetables so as to prevent him from having the airwaves all to himself for (possibly) a matter of weeks or months. I don't know that that'll be a thing. Like is the media suddenly going to ignore Jeb Bush or Rand Paul or whoever because they haven't formally announced yet and Cruz has? I mean maybe Cruz gets slightly more press coverage than otherwise after today, but I can't imagine they'll ignore the other (soon-to-be) candidates. SpiderHyphenMan posted:Well the thing is, barring an economic collapse, a terrorist attack, or Hillary Clinton completely imploding, I don't think there's any GOP candidate that could win the general election. Honest question because I was in middle school at the time - were folks talking like this in 2000? Like "oh well obviously Al Gore's gonna be our guy and that Bush man is laughable with his accent and lovely policies in Texas and I can't imagine Gore losing"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Politics was mostly about blowjobs back then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
But sadly not in the highly productive Mr. Show version of a society run on blowjobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
My pappy used to say, when it comes to politics, I'm always right, and you're always right. And the person more right wins the day, we'll because they were a better lier..
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:There's the two Roosevelts, the Adams' presidencies, uh The last time the republican party won a presidential election without a Bush or NIxon on the ticket was in 1928. That's pretty ridiculous on its own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Honest question because I was in middle school at the time - were folks talking like this in 2000? Like "oh well obviously Al Gore's gonna be our guy and that Bush man is laughable with his accent and lovely policies in Texas and I can't imagine Gore losing"? Things generally seemed pretty not-hosed-up back then. Most people didn't care or see the election as that significant. Bush didn't have the image he had today and his campaign heavily leaned on the idea of 'compassionate conservatism'. Honestly it felt like nobody really started paying attention until the Florida recount and then poo poo kicked off real quick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:The last time the republican party won a presidential election without a Bush or NIxon on the ticket was in 1928. That's pretty ridiculous on its own. That is amazing
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Things generally seemed pretty not-hosed-up back then. Most people didn't care or see the election as that significant. Bush didn't have the image he had today and his campaign heavily leaned on the idea of 'compassionate conservatism'. He made promises of no nation building as well, think people were feeling it after Somalia and Yugoslavia. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/7/bush-a-convert-to-nation-building/?page=all Remember, Al Gore invented the Internet thing also? I am pretty sure I remember D&d being huge supporters of McCain back then also. Enigma89 fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:He made promises of no nation building as well, think people were feeling it after Somalia and Yugoslavia. McCain is odd because he runs almost entirely on cold calculating spite. He got burned real bad by Rove and the gang and made it his goal in life to cut at Bush however he could. He seemed reasonable for a while because his zeal for making GBS threads on Bush brought him in brief alignment with reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Things generally seemed pretty not-hosed-up back then. Most people didn't care or see the election as that significant. Bush didn't have the image he had today and his campaign heavily leaned on the idea of 'compassionate conservatism'. And there was Ralph Nader's (relative) popularity and appeal to a demographic that seems to have either become more marginalized or gained a new perspective in the past 15 years. Ah, those were the days. Real Name Grover fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
I know the image got pulled in here from 538, but here's the word on Cruz http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lets-be-serious-about-ted-cruz-from-the-start-hes-too-extreme-and-too-disliked-to-win/ I'm in the boat that thinks he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. The real question is how will mess with the eventual nominee. Will he pull them to the right (to their detriment in the general)? Will he do some damage to their brand (again, to their detriment in the general)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:I know the image got pulled in here from 538, but here's the word on Cruz That's my totally subjective Hot Take on this. Honestly, it isn't hard at all to campaign against Ted Cruz. Just reshoot "Daisy" and you're done. SpiderHyphenMan fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Things generally seemed pretty not-hosed-up back then. Most people didn't care or see the election as that significant. Bush didn't have the image he had today and his campaign heavily leaned on the idea of 'compassionate conservatism'. I'd  myself that it'll be a Bush/Walker ticket, which will probably win. It has just the right combination of pleasing both the base and reaching out to moderates. The trick is that the Bushes know how to use Clinton-style triangulation to win elections, and they are very, very good at it. The downside is that the GOP is running a dynastic ticket. (Which is bad for America.) But as political attack, that's neutralized by Hillary Clinton running on the other side.I'm not sure Bush will ignite a surge of Democratic voters against him. Yes, probably so with core Democrats, but the Dems need a lot more than that to win. They also need socially liberal but economically moderate-to-conservative middle-class voters, and they won't rush out to vote against a Republican unless they play hard on right-wing social war issues. Bush won't do that. The other thing is that Bush *might* pivot to endorsing gay rights. Count me pessimistic - knowing the GOP - but here's chatter why not to be: quote:When Bush officially launches his presidential bid later this year, he will likely do so with a campaign manager who has urged the Republican Party to adopt a pro-gay agenda; a chief strategist who signed a Supreme Court amicus brief arguing for marriage equality in California; a longtime adviser who once encouraged her minister to stick to his guns in preaching equality for same-sex couples; and a communications director who is openly gay. And he speaks Spanish. Florida is his home state, where he served two terms as governor and won handily. If he wins, Columba Bush will become the first Hispanic first lady. He did well with the Hispanic vote, although it declined to about even during his re-election campaign. Ted Cruz is a joke who will crash and burn. He needs support from powerful people to win, and the powerful people in the GOP hate his guts. He's also blowing his load way too early. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Honestly, it isn't hard at all to campaign against Ted Cruz. Just reshoot "Daisy" and you're done. These days, 'Daisy' would've been a pro-Goldwater ad. Republicans can't really run on "my opponent is just TOO right-wing and conservative!" during their circus of a primary, at least not directly, that'd actually be the legitimizing thing. At best I can see them sidling up to the idea by talking about how a vote for Cruz is a vote for Hillary since he can't win a general election *Cough BecauseHe'sTooWingnut Cough*. Basically I expect Cruz'll handle any such accusations like so:  It's like when you see the Democrats put out stuff that says "Oh no, not Cruz! We're terrified of the Republicans nominating such a powerful, ideologically pure Conservative! Anything but that!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Jeb Bush is doing this again except he's calling it "inclusive conservatism." I don't buy that line of reasoning at all. I hear it thrown around, but ask people (who aren't already decided on which party they're voting for) about their feelings of the Clinton years vs. the Bush years, and I will loving buy and eat a hat if anything approaching a majority has similar feelings across both time periods. The attack isn't "you have a relative who was president", it's that mother fucker was George Bush.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Things generally seemed pretty not-hosed-up back then. Most people didn't care or see the election as that significant. Bush didn't have the image he had today and his campaign heavily leaned on the idea of 'compassionate conservatism'. I can really feel for that. The 90s bubble had popped but no one thought it was that big a deal unless they'd been wiped day-trading or something...they just sobered up, figured real estate is where the long term investment is. I voted unexcitedly for Gore, but like most people figured either candidate would be a bland single termer. Then when the recount came it was when I first really saw people I'd previously known as reasonable slide into conspiracy theory stuff. That might have burned itself out without 9/11 but after that half the country was looking to bomb everywhere, and half of what was left started saying "if there's a next election...." and then it was a solid slide to Iraq, Truthers, and Birthers. And this is all leaving out the actual media rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
paid for by Citizens for Alf Landon's Ghost
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Hillary is also going to have the option of using the narrative: "Remember the 90s? Life improved immeasurably over 8 years of my Democratic husband's administration, and then we elected a Bush who ruined it all. We've had 8 years of very, very good economic progress since then, should we elect another Bush to undo all of that once more?" I mean, so many words, but if her campaign can't find a way to exploit that narrative then they deserve to lose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
How are u posted:I mean, so many words, but if her campaign can't find a way to exploit that narrative then they deserve to lose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
You joke but Hill '16 slap bracelets would own poo poo in a "remember the 90s?" way that many voters would actually probably be receptive to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
Hot Jesus alf landon lived a long time shoulda run against reagan in the primary of '80
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
I am ready for Hillary Clinton Bringing Back the 90's. Honestly though, it's a testament to the endurance of America's political dynasties that the Clintons and the Bushes just held in there for the eight years of Obama's presidency and are just ready to get right back to it as soon as he's out the door. Obama will be understandably tired once his term is up, but I wonder if he's done with Presidential politics entirely? Does he have some kind of young gun heir to be groomed, a political machine to be passed on? He's fairly young so far as Presidents go, he's got a few more decades to influence politics and work on his legacy. My favorite idea is I remember Bill floating the possibility that the two-term prohibition on Presidencies just meant two consecutive terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
My god, scary thought: Whereas Democrats have traditionally gone for the underdog and Republicans for the establishment figure, the two parties may have switched and now Cruz is the Republican underdog running a conservative insurgency of a campaign against Jeb's Clinton '08 style of announcing in the summer. A Cruz '16 nomination is a real possibility, just as Hillary seems now an inevitability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:All that poo poo about shrinking the military? "Hey fucko, this isn't the dreadnought era anymore and nobody fights with swords - holy gently caress we have boats planes land on and other boats that go underwater while you're shittering around about bayonets."] Yeah, it's kind of amazing how little he managed to remain ignorant about that revolution in military affairs that happened seventy years ago. For all their wankery about WWII, Republicans sure are good at missing the lessons of that war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:If George Romney, born to American parents in Mexico, wasn't eligible, wouldn't that exclude Cruz too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
How are u posted:Hillary is also going to have the option of using the narrative: "Remember the 90s? Life improved immeasurably over 8 years of my Democratic husband's administration, and then we elected a Bush who ruined it all. We've had 8 years of very, very good economic progress since then, should we elect another Bush to undo all of that once more?" I think she might be forced into defending the Obama years more than the Clinton years. It's not quite so easy considering the major accomplishment was Obamacare which Democrats so far still seem afraid to run on. Foreign policy was her major role with Obama and, well, the Middle East is in a state of crisis and there is a lot of controversy with Russia. It's not Obama's fault or her fault but it doesn't seem like it will be too hard for a Republican to try and sell a message that Democrats are weak there. A Bush v. Clinton election makes me very nervous. I don't think he would have a shot if not for the Clinton name taking the edge off the dynasty stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
The Clintons aren't a dynasty in the strictest sense because there is no hereditary line. The Clintons are a power couple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:George Romney probably was eligible, as even people back then thought. He ducked out of trying to win the GOP primary because he wasn't a very good candidate, before it even became an issue anyway. He stopped running because he came back from a trip to Vietnam and said he'd been "brainwashed" into supporting the war there earlier, which derailed his campaign. It also led to our of the all-time greatest political burns when Eugene McCarthy said, "in Romney's case, a light rinse would have been sufficient."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I think she might be forced into defending the Obama years more than the Clinton years. It's not quite so easy considering the major accomplishment was Obamacare which Democrats so far still seem afraid to run on. Foreign policy was her major role with Obama and, well, the Middle East is in a state of crisis and there is a lot of controversy with Russia. It's not Obama's fault or her fault but it doesn't seem like it will be too hard for a Republican to try and sell a message that Democrats are weak there. A Bush v. Clinton election makes me very nervous. I don't think he would have a shot if not for the Clinton name taking the edge off the dynasty stuff. Barring major catastrophe, the 8 years of the Obama administration will be remembered more fondly than the W Bush administration by pretty much any measure. The economy has been improving steadily and foreign affairs have been tense but mostly tame. If Bush comes out with "do you really want 8 more years of this?", the retort is simply "as opposed to the disaster that was the 8 years before that?". The housing bubble and financial crash afterwards are still fresh on peoples' minds, and while Clinton is terrible on the issue, no Republican candidate is going to come out for more regulation and controls. The land wars in Asia are still fresh on peoples' minds, and while Clinton is terrible on the issue, no Republican candidate is going to come out for a more peaceful agenda. It may just be optimism on my part, but if it ends up being Bush v Clinton, Hillary should be able to hammer in over and over that there's no daylight between W and Jeb. The general campaign gives candidates the advantage of being able to address each other more or less directly (if one candidate raises a question, the press will get an answer from the other one or excoriate them for dodging it). I dare (and presumably Hillary will as well) anyone to substantively explain the policy differences between W and Jeb in a way that will resonate. What is Jeb going to say? "Well, I'm going to cut taxes even more", "I'm going to deregulate and privatize more than my brother", "I'm going to spend so much on defense that the world will be scared of us"? And we've all seen the adviser Venn diagram, the same exact thing is going to happen for domestic policy. What's the response there, "Well, unlike my brother I'm hiring these people to tell me what not to do"? I don't think that stuff is going to fly outside of a Republican primary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 12:29
|
|
