|
DynamicSloth posted:The reason Cruz will ultimately do much better than Walker is because there is room for only one establishment backed sensible candidate and they will soak up all the sensible establishment money and that man's name is Jeb Bush. Fried Chicken posted:
Franco Potente posted:That was 2012, wasn't it? In 2008 I assume the three were McCain, Romney, and Thompson. It was a point about fundraising, so McCain ($37m), Romney ($54m), and Giuliani ($59m). Rudy pissed it all away stupidly, but he raised piles of cash in 2008. Thompson ($21m) is why I said "at least", but he doesn't really count. There also could have been multiple "establishment" (a term we should really retire, it's not 1964 any more) candidates in 2012: quote:Sixty people, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and prominent business executives, sat facing a small table with a phone on it. The phone allowed David Koch, the industrialist and conservative billionaire, and John J. Mack, the former chairman of Morgan Stanley, to call in and encourage [Christie's] candidacy. The money's always there, it just needs the proper vessel. And Jeb doesn't have a monopoly on it.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
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"? I'll just echo that no one seemed to care, and the role of the president seemed more like celebrity figure head after Clinton. Everyone was so comfortable back then in every way, it just really did not seem to matter. I remember watching the debates in my dorm with two other people. One guy was a big time Republican and he wasn't even crazy (yet). W was running as a "compassionate conservative" and Gore was basically sleepwalking. No one was excited for Gore, but no one was excited for Bush either. The running joke was that they were the same, what's the difference, vote for whoever. Vote for Nader, why not? But no, there was no pre-ordained candidate like Clinton. Certainly not Gore, who was just an awful candidate at the time. It was only after he lost, disappeared from the scene for a while and grew a crazy man beard that Gore found his voice. Had 2004 era Gore run in 2000, he would have cleaned the floor with Bush.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cornyn-wont-support-cruz-2016quote:Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said on Monday that he won't back his fellow Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) during the 2016 Republican presidential primary. Not surprising, but also not good for Cruz. All of the people I know in Houston that're associated with the oil/gas industry (they're all Republicans) think Cruz is insane and didn't vote for him last time, but they also didn't vote for the Democrat. Not sure if they're going to bother with the primaries, it'll likely depend on whether or not he's still around since Texas is so late in the process. edit Omi-Polari posted: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: Holy poo poo I would love to see Freep if Bush did this at the convention. Talk about a collective revolt. He'd be better off saying that they're going to decriminalize weed, then all the young white men could justify voting the way they wanted to anyway. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
I don't see any GOP nominee coming out for marriage equality, but they surely could avoid making opposition to it a cornerstone of their campaign. Same deal with marijuana decriminalization. They're going to be pretty silent on social issues, and focus their rhetoric on fear-mongering over Iran and ISIL, tax cuts to "unleash the american economy", and deficit/debt reduction though cutting social entitlements. Also, they'll be going on and on about repealing Obamacare and replacing it with three question marks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Lengthy profile on Kasich Worth a read. Didn't realize/remember him running for the 2000 nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:The running joke was that they were the same, what's the difference, vote for whoever. Vote for Nader, why not? Billionaires for Bush or Gore was a great example of this: http://web.archive.org/web/20000815052937/http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com/ http://www.billionairesforbush.com/ If I remember, in 2004 they dropped the "Gore" but didn't add "Kerry" to the name, people cared (more) at that point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
yo Joe, as a Vermonter do you have any thoughts on why Rand doesn't poll better in New Hampshire? Just name recognition? I can't imagine a randpaul victory map that doesn't involve winning in new hampshire and probably making waves in Nevada. He needs that momentum to stay competitive until the west votes. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Hell, I can answer that one. Rand ain't his daddy. The more clever libertarians (aka, those over the age of 35 or so) realized quite some time ago that Rand doesn't buy into the libertarian bullshit nearly as much as Ron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Ron Paul was in the single digits in New Hampshire at this stage of the 2012 race. Rand Paul is polling in the low double digits in New Hampshire, currently. (Obligatory, "He's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya" reference)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:I'll just echo that no one seemed to care, and the role of the president seemed more like celebrity figure head after Clinton. Everyone was so comfortable back then in every way, it just really did not seem to matter. I remember watching the debates in my dorm with two other people. One guy was a big time Republican and he wasn't even crazy (yet). W was running as a "compassionate conservative" and Gore was basically sleepwalking. No one was excited for Gore, but no one was excited for Bush either. The running joke was that they were the same, what's the difference, vote for whoever. Vote for Nader, why not? But no, there was no pre-ordained candidate like Clinton. Certainly not Gore, who was just an awful candidate at the time. It was only after he lost, disappeared from the scene for a while and grew a crazy man beard that Gore found his voice. Had 2004 era Gore run in 2000, he would have cleaned the floor with Bush. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vepcauRpinA is really not off for how the voter mood was at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:
Walker was elected to a state Assembly seat in Milwaukee County and won three elections for Milwaukee County Executive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
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. But she doesn't have to defend him. She ran against him! That's all she has to say. It's not like that Tennessee Democrat who tried to distance herself from the president; Hillary was literally his opponent. She's got anti-Obama cred out the rear end, for those who want it. She can even run against Obamacare but not on a full repeal of it, and stand the 40-repeal-Obamacare-bills-and-not-one-viable-alternative Republicans on their head. She doesn't need to endorse anything Obama has done. She only has to say "That's not how I would have done it but now that it's done it is what it is, and I'm not into denying reality or destroying the nation for the sake of my party. Unlike some people I still find X million people having healthcare where they didn't eight years ago to be a net gain." Realpolitik with Hillary! 'PPACA is not what I would have done but neither is it a finished work, and we don't endorse everything about it but it's a start and unlike the party of denial, we are for working with reality. You go to war with the army that you have just like our great founder George Washington did in 1776 :Sarahsperg:.' Hillary doesn't have to either fully endorse or condemn it and a realistic looking stance is one of those things that maybe one or two remaining voters who actually care will appreciate, in contrast to infantile hate speech disguised as politics for adults. Realpolitik is going to come as a relief to so many Americans after the Republicans' eight-year sulk. How many repeal-Obamacare bills and not one viable alternative? Lovingly caress your Republican grifters! And speaking of Israel vis-a-vis Hillary's campaign, now that you mention it, neoconfederate senators colluding with the Prime Minister of Israel in espionage against the United States' ongoing negotiations is a story that doesn't just eclipse Benghazigate, it dwarfs it. It engulfs it. It consigns it to the realm of trivia for good. Unlike Benghazigate, it has substance. I would like to see a factfinding commission determine if Tom Cotton should be prosecuted for collusion with foreign nationals to undermine the Executive branch's negotiations with a foreign, hostile nation, to see if there appears to be any real substance to what I'm hearing. In the interest of national security and national integrity Cotton should be prosecuted if thats' the case. But for some odd reason I doubt that creep from California who always gets to play Ken Starr will be interested in taking this one up. Lovingly caress your Benghazigate bullshit, this is real. Just try to accuse Hillary of some intangible personal flaw (such as being a woman, mayhap?) that could have possibly precipitated things going south in those quagmires of the ME and Russia after the neoconfederates' collusion with a spying foreign power against the president. In fact, she doesn't have to prove that the neocons did anything illegal at all. They actively worked to undermine ongoing negotiations with a hostile foreign power. Are all Republicans free traders that can write their own ticket with foreigners now? I thought Republicans valued loyalty. Stand with Hillary. For the sake of all that we believe in as Americans, stand with your country and don't support those who actively work against it! And once again, though he certainly deserves it, she doesn't have to endorse Obama during campaign if it will cost her a single vote. She can later, if she wants, when all the dust is settled. It's not like the good he's done this country doesn't stand on its own, especially considering how George W. Bush gutted the economy literally to the point of collapse, for a cute little finishing touch before Obama arrived. Of course there are a good few Republicans with a lot of money who would burn the country to the ground to win full control of the government. And some of them will stoop to the lowest acts to do it. Which means they may try some more hurly-burly abroad or crash the economy for the sake of winning next election. "Though some are actively working to take us out of the running as a modern nation, the United States is not yet a provincial backwater and we are not going back to the past, not on my watch. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, for it will soon be here. Stand with Hillary in 2016." So yeah, I dunno, I think the Hillary campaign kind of writes itself in this regard. She just has to deliver it with a bit of chutzpah. SnakePlissken fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
How are u posted:A presidential election is an entirely different beast. Sarah Palin won election to her governorship too. Walker has the charisma of a wet paper towel, and there are some things that money just cannot buy. Especially in this social media age. You can't compare Alaska to Wisconsin... DynamicSloth posted:The reason Cruz will ultimately do much better than Walker is because there is room for only one establishment backed sensible candidate and they will soak up all the sensible establishment money and that man's name is Jeb Bush. But Cruz will never have a chance to win the nomination. Walker does. I don't know how you quantify "doing better" though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
For those going on about Kasich: do you really think he would have won Cuyahoga County if the Democrats ran a competent candidate that wasn't DOA months ahead of the election?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Subliminally through 90's themed campaign kitsch. Hill '16 slap-bracelets. Neon pink and neon green "3rd jersey" campaign colors. Campaign staffers in silk patterned shirts and Ikeda overalls with one strap undone. It can be done without having to dip into referencing Bill and Bush by name. She wins every state except Oklahoma and Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Except Clinton's healthcare proposal during the primary was essentially the PPACA. Other than her Iraq war vote it was the only substantive difference between her and Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Joementum posted:No, his advisers are already moving the goalposts and saying this could be like Reagan in '76, with Cruz building toward a future victory.* He'll stay in the Senate and keep being a giant rear end in a top hat and he'll probably draw a primary challenger in 2018. That, and the fact that print media and network news controlled discourse in this country. I maintain that had the Internet existed in 1980, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected dogcatcher, let alone President.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Except Clinton's healthcare proposal during the primary was essentially the PPACA. Other than her Iraq war vote it was the only substantive difference between her and Obama. So? Nobody will care what she said in 2008 as long as she spouts the right platitudes now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Joementum posted: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.  That's up there with "You're no Jack Kennedy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:So? Nobody will care what she said in 2008 as long as she spouts the right platitudes now. It'll be hard to say you would've done something different when you're on record advocating for literally the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:It'll be hard to say you would've done something different when you're on record advocating for literally the same thing. What voters believe about PPACA and what it's actually doing only occasionally intersect with each other. She's on record advocating for healthcare reform, not this crazy Obamacare mess that does (insert lie here).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Didn't Edwards run an ad after a debate where she contradicted herself blatantly during that debate? I don't think integrity will really matter that much honestly and there are so many different fables about Obamacare the average person isn't really going to care about the specifics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
It's a moot point because all she'll say is it needs to be strengthened and Medicaid expanded. She's not going to run against a program popular with dem voters. Even her instincts as a politician aren't that bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
"So, Senator Cruz, what kind of music do you like?" "Well, on 9/11..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
jesus
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Wait, hold on. How did "rock music" respond to 9/11 anyway? E: 2016 Presidential Primary: I actually intellectually find this very curious, but on 9/11
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Real Name Grover posted:Wait, hold on. How did "rock music" respond to 9/11 anyway? Rock music actually caused 9/11.   (release date of both these albums: 9/11/2001)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What voters believe about PPACA and what it's actually doing only occasionally intersect with each other. She's on record advocating for healthcare reform, not this crazy Obamacare mess that does (insert lie here). I don't think she really has anything to gain by running away from the ACA. The people that hate it aren't going to vote for her anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
So he suddenly really liked country music in the wake of 9-11, I wonder what his thoughts were about U2, a band that bridged classic rock with alternative rock in the early 90s and then played the Superbowl halftime show with a very large tribute to the victims of 9-11.Real Name Grover posted:Wait, hold on. How did "rock music" respond to 9/11 anyway? Later on, Pearl Jam did Bushwacked. But that was more of a response to the Iraq War Mark II, where Yellow Ledbetter was a response to Gulf War Mark I. CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Real Name Grover posted:Wait, hold on. How did "rock music" respond to 9/11 anyway? Not enough songs about putting boots in asses 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:So he suddenly really liked country music in the wake of 9-11, I wonder what his thoughts were about U2, a band that bridged classic rock with alternative rock in the early 90s and then played the Superbowl halftime show with a very large tribute to the victims of 9-11. "Bushleaguer," but yeah, I suppose. God 2003-2004 sucked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Early evidence of Giuliani angling for VP slot
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
One of Cruz's big talking points is that there are "millions of voters" who have sat out the past elections when the GOP nominated a mushy middle of the road candidate and that a true conservative like him would bring those millions out to vote for him. He has talked about these millions of absent voters in the past and he made the same statement in his speech at Liberty. Is there any data anywhere that shows that these "millions of voters" exist anywhere other than in Cruz's warped mind? The idea that they exist is a major part of his imagined road to victory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Real Name Grover posted:"Bushleaguer," but yeah, I suppose. God 2003-2004 sucked.  "Born on Third, thinks he hit a triple" I need to look up the name of a song before I post.radical meme posted:Is there any data anywhere that shows that these "millions of voters" exist anywhere other than in Cruz's warped mind? The idea that they exist is a major part of his imagined road to victory. CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Rock music actually caused 9/11.  Was also released on 9/11/01. Leftover Crack would later refer to the album as "Tower Tumbling" and The followup album of course was  and featured the fantastic song "Super Tuesday" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01WJVkog9_E And that's how rock and roll did 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
To be fair, Gary Moore set the bar pretty high for the rock 'n' roll community's response to terrorism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyEMnA70Kb0
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
radical meme posted:One of Cruz's big talking points is that there are "millions of voters" who have sat out the past elections when the GOP nominated a mushy middle of the road candidate and that a true conservative like him would bring those millions out to vote for him. He has talked about these millions of absent voters in the past and he made the same statement in his speech at Liberty. Is there any data anywhere that shows that these "millions of voters" exist anywhere other than in Cruz's warped mind? The idea that they exist is a major part of his imagined road to victory. This has been a Republican stand-by call for nearly forty years. It's one of their favorite fictions that if the 'silent majority' would simply stand up and be counted, they would win in a landslide in every race. That way they're the clear majority being unfairly oppressed by the minority because, darn it, the last candidate just wasn't conservative ENOUGH. IE there's zero proof at all but it fits their narrative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Real Name Grover posted:Wait, hold on. How did "rock music" respond to 9/11 anyway? I can't say that I blame him
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Robert Reich is teasing a potential run on Facebook. Serious contender, or hopeful pretender?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
fleur_de_leet posted:Robert Reich is teasing a potential run on Facebook. Serious contender, or hopeful pretender? Joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:25
|
|
