|
Nietzschean posted:This but Newt Gingrich instead. Say what you will, Gingrich was the only candidate for 2012 running on increasing allocations to NASA.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Nietzschean posted:I do not pretend to know the inside and out of politics, so explain it to me like I'm foreign or something: Why is Hillary the presumptive next president? What about her, her party, her potential opponents, or whatever else, make this true? There are two parts to this: "Why is she the presumptive democratic nominee?" and "Why is she favored over [Republican Candidate] in the general?" She is the presumptive nominee because she has already cleared the Democratic field of potential serious rivals by locking up the donor class and securing the loyalties of the most powerful operators. This is something she was able to do due to connections and expertise she has accumulated over a lifetime in the political theatre. Progressive/lefty democrats are poo poo at fundraising and marketing themselves, while all the money and influence in her own ideological set - centrist corporate democrats - has defaulted to her. She will enjoy massive, insurmountable advantages in money and name-recognition over any democratic challengers, which is why ambitious and powerful democrats (cuomo) aren't even bothering to stick their toes in the water. Two of the three people who are expected to challenge, at this point, are protest candidates who nobody will take seriously. Sanders representing the lefties and Webb representing the disgruntled Reagan Democrats. This time there just isn't a charismatic, buzz-generating Obama-type figure sitting around who is capable of rousing the Left while simultaneously securing defections from within the more centrist Democratic mainstream (Obama didn't come out of left field: he had been getting major hype for a while and was expected to run for President someday, if not so soon). Obama also got strong initial support from various powerful democrats (reid, durbin) who opposed Hillary. That group isn't really prepared for another hard primary fight like that, for various reasons. The closest thing to an Obama is probably Rubio, actually, and he'll have a tough path to the republican nomination. As far as the general goes, - again, an edge in name-recognition and probably money. Nobody fund-raises like a Clinton. - advantageous demographics. - the GoP's ongoing identity crisis. - the fact that she's running to succeed a fairly-popular democratic incumbent and is intimately bound up with another, even-more-popular former democratic president. Compare the republicans' situation, where the last Republican president was hated by more-or-less everybody and their current frontrunner is his less-charismatic little brother. I wouldn't say "presumptive next president" but she's extremely well-positioned by the standards of non-incumbent candidates. My Imaginary GF posted:Say what you will, Gingrich was the only candidate for 2012 running on increasing allocations to NASA. I really don't mind Newt's weird space futurism much. Of all the things you could latch onto for purposes of mocking Newt, that seems a weird one. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
mooyashi posted:Man when web searches were new and you knew how to use boolean it looked like magic. Now Google is so good that typing in Ask Jeeves style questions is the best way to find what you're looking for, but still makes me feel really stupid for having to do it. google is really bad about having multiple concepts in a single query, which only affects my job, apparently
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Republicanism is defined by "trickle down", or: the complete opposite of that, you dumb poo poo. I have almost never come across a Republican voter who has any handle at all on actual GOP policy positions. Yet here they are anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Her likely opponent is a toy phone. Her next most likely opponent is a Bush. The next after that is Ted Cruz. She might as well be running against Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Sarah Palin. The field against her is so incredibly weak, she would have trouble losing if they found JonBenet Ramsey's bones in her trunk. They've spent the past 20+ years railing against the Clinton name, and any troublesome items from her tenure as SoS have been turned into loving farces by the GOP's incessant witch hunts. I think it's still way too early to tell. If the economy is still puttering along by 2016, it's not going to be easy for her. If the economy takes off like gangbusters she's going to have an easier time. It's going to be a referendum on whether voters think the country is headed in the right direction, and Obama's presidency has not been bad, but not been stallr enough to guarantee a victory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
pfft what do you know about elections, Putin you can't stuff ballots in New Hampshire the way you can in Volgagrad: they will shoot at you with their guns and chase you with their snowmobiles, hollering "live free or die!" from betwixt their syrup-rotted teeth
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:pfft what do you know about elections, Putin I know how to win elections, that's all that counts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I think it's still way too early to tell. If the economy is still puttering along by 2016, it's not going to be easy for her. If the economy takes off like gangbusters she's going to have an easier time. It's going to be a referendum on whether voters think the country is headed in the right direction, and Obama's presidency has not been bad, but not been stallr enough to guarantee a victory. It also comes down to the perceptions, not the reality. What people think and what is objectively true are often wildly deviant if surveys about things like unemployment and the ACA are to be believed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016 And yet 8 years ago there was no shortage of chat about how Rudy was going to coast in to the general election and take on Hilary. Cigar Aficionado posted:Republicanism is defined by "trickle down", or: the complete opposite of that, you dumb poo poo. Sounds like she perfectly embodies a College Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Uh Republicans haven't been trickle-down in forever. It's all about small(er than Walmart) businesses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:Republicanism is defined by "trickle down", or: the complete opposite of that, you dumb poo poo. The "bottom" is small businesses. The small businesses are hedge funds. e: beaten
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
I just applied for a job on Hillary's website and got the "Thanks for signing up to volunteer" page after I submitted my application  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:I just applied for a job on Hillary's website and got the "Thanks for signing up to volunteer" page after I submitted my application sounds like you got it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:I just applied for a job on Hillary's website and got the "Thanks for signing up to volunteer" page after I submitted my application If you want an actual place to submit your resume, get on the mailing list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The only things people really quibble with are: One weakness in the general is that Clinton is attempting to keep Democratic control of the White House for another four years -- that's hard to do. The campaign will emphasize (scratch that: is) her gender, a change from the 2008 campaign when it was hardly mentioned at all, as a way to appeal to women and to mark her election as a transformative, historical moment. This is smart, as it also baits Republican loudmouths - particularly on talk radio - into misogynist attacks (though they'd probably do so anyways), which forces her Republican male opponent into an awkward position. Whoever the GOP nominee is will have to criticize his own hard-right supporters, or risk looking complicit. The bile is going to spew like from a firehose in her direction. One major GOP weakness is to have another "legitimate rape" meltdown that alienates socially-liberal but economically moderate-to-conservative middle class voters. But the Republicans might have wisened up since then. Hillary Clinton could struggle with turnout. Democrats are betting on 90s nostalgia, when the economy was good, as a way to mobilize voters. Nostalgia is a tricky proposition in campaigns. It might not work if the GOP candidate more convincingly positions himself as representing the future. Obama beat Clinton partly because he did the same thing. Clinton is trying to do two things. She's running on nostalgia and also positioning her campaign as moving forward with the little arrow in her logo. If anyone can pull this off, it's probably a Clinton. Vladimir Putin posted:I think it's still way too early to tell. If the economy is still puttering along by 2016, it's not going to be easy for her. If the economy takes off like gangbusters she's going to have an easier time. It's going to be a referendum on whether voters think the country is headed in the right direction, and Obama's presidency has not been bad, but not been stallr enough to guarantee a victory. There's real grumbling about Clinton here. People were disappointed in Obama, but they're not even enthusiastic enough about Clinton to be disappointed. It comes across as somewhat grudging, even if she's still popular within the party. People shouldn't underestimate the GOP, either. Romney was a terrible candidate because he was quite literally part of the 1% and he screamed that. But the Republicans in other elections have managed to sell conservatism as a way to benefit Joe and Mary Schmoe. Whether or not their arguments are factually true is kinda beside the point. Barring some major unforeseen economic collapse, the economy will probably improve in 2016, as it tends to do during election years, which will also help Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
I feel a better economy will steer voters right, figuring it will accelerate the recovery after a decade of taxation and government over reach. Obama is the most liberal President of the 21st century and Republicans have Jeb Bush, brother of the most popular 21st century Republican President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:One problem is that a lot of people in both parties feel that the recovery has mainly benefited the wealthy few. Clinton might be running in the wrong election. Had she won in 2008, the same recovery happened, and now Obama was running today on a platform of spreading the economic recovery out more equitably, then who knows? I think it's just the opposite. Obama was able to get elected with his rhetoric precisely because the economy was in the shitter. When the economy's good people don't really want it to be monkeyed with too much. They will not support redistribution in favorable economic times. When the economy is bad, though, you can get them to agree that some kind of reform somewhere is necessary. This is where McCain messed up. Obama had policy positions that addressed the economic meltdown before things got really nuts whereas McCain had to scramble and pull theatrics in order to look like he had any idea what was going on after the fact. It also helped that McCain ran a bad campaign in general, but if the economy hadn't cratered the way it did then I think his odds would have been much better. People would not have been willing to listen to any policy positions concerning economic reforms. They don't want politicians to fix what they perceive as not broken. ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I think it's just the opposite. Obama was able to get elected with his rhetoric precisely because the economy was in the shitter. When the economy's good people don't really want it to be monkeyed with too much. They will not support redistribution in favorable economic times. When the economy is bad, though, you can get them to agree that some kind of reform somewhere is necessary. This is where McCain messed up. Obama had policy positions that addressed the economic meltdown before things got really nuts whereas McCain had to scramble and pull theatrics in order to look like he had any idea what was going on after the fact. It wasn't only McCain. The perception by 2008 was that the GOP leadership was rotten to the core and incompetent after 8 years of catastrophic polices. 2008 was completely foreseen after 2006.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
As I've been saying, there is no issue with Clinton's gender, the entire issue is one of trust. Can you trust a woman who allowed the rise of ISIS despite ample warnings and specific calls for intervention, who takes money from a dictator who has sparked a fued with the Pope, and who has deleted all evidence of her and her most trusted staffs' administrative actions during her tenure as Secretary of State? Look, this has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman, this has everything to do with not being able to trust that she is who she says she is. Hell, who does she even say she is other than the wife of an ex-President? What does she stand for that is unique to her candidacy? Bush, he stands for someone you may disagree with at times, and whom you can always trust at his word. What has Hillary done to earn your trust?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:As I've been saying, there is no issue with Clinton's gender, the entire issue is one of trust. Can you trust a woman who allowed the rise of ISIS despite ample warnings and specific calls for intervention, who takes money from a dictator who has sparked a fued with the Pope, and who has deleted all evidence of her and her most trusted staffs' administrative actions during her tenure as Secretary of State? Look, this has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman, this has everything to do with not being able to trust that she is who she says she is. Did you just google republican talking points and copy/paste?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Someone needs to post the electoral map showing how the GOP basically needs to pull off a miracle and win OH-FL-VA or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Did you just google republican talking points and copy/paste? As a middle-American democratic, this is my heartfelt take on Clinton's candidacy. I don't trust that she'd be willing to put my interest at heart in front of her own interest. With Biden, I trust that he'd do whats right for the nation. With Jeb, I trust that he'd put the national interest in front of his own, even if I disagree with his policy framework to achieve those interests. With Clinton? Please, give me an example which unambiguously expresses 'selfless and willing to engage with those outside her machine'. FAUXTON posted:Someone needs to post the electoral map showing how the GOP basically needs to pull off a miracle and win OH-FL-VA or whatever. IL-Wisconsin
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:As I've been saying, there is no issue with Clinton's gender, the entire issue is one of trust. Can you trust a woman who allowed the rise of ISIS despite ample warnings and specific calls for intervention, who takes money from a dictator who has sparked a fued with the Pope, and who has deleted all evidence of her and her most trusted staffs' administrative actions during her tenure as Secretary of State? Look, this has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman, this has everything to do with not being able to trust that she is who she says she is. Don't troll. Axetrain posted:Hillary isn't so much a strong candidate so much as her potential opponents are extremely weak. She certainly has the advantage right now but anything can change during the long upcoming campaign and I don't think she is in quite as good a position as people here seem to assume. But she's heading into this with a big advantage right now and we haven't even gotten to the almost certain freakshow clusterfuck the Republican primaries will be. If she had the campaign chops Obama has then I would probably start betting money on her, but she doesn't, not by a long ways. Pretty much this, although to be fair, Ben Carson makes it easy to make a non-racial (or veiled racial) argument against him due to being gaffe-prone even by GOP dark horse candidate standards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I seriously doubt this. There's probably a significantly higher proportion of people who are reliable democratic voters but don't like Obama because he's black; especially in the South. Do these people really still exist? I don't know anything about the South from personal experience, but it seems to me after 40 years they probably don't
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I feel a better economy will steer voters right, figuring it will accelerate the recovery after a decade of taxation and government over reach. Oh, that 21st century, with its storied history of Presidents, what a data set. In a potential Hillary White House, what role would Bill fill? There's a sort of inherent sexism attached to the First Lady role, in her time at Bill's White House people gave Hillary poo poo constantly for trying to get political and she didn't even hold any real power, but Bill has the advantage of having been President once already and there's no precedent for a First Gentleman. Could he hold an actual position in government? I'm also curious what the policy and political differences between Hillary and Bill are. Nobody I know of thinks Hillary's a lightweight or that Bill would just be President through her, but that suggests she has her own distinct agenda. I recall she had quite a push on healthcare, could she try and build on Obamacare?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Dolash posted:Oh, that 21st century, with its storied history of Presidents, what a data set. He'd be America's Ambassador of Funk. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Why do people even discuss third parties? They're not just politically infeasible; they're mathematically impossible in plurality systems. In that case there's a Fields Medal waiting for the person who can explain the 10 mathematical impossibilities that exist in the UK House of Commons. Daduzi fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
So to sum up the last 5 pages. Vote Hillary because she isn't a Republican and is going to get the nomination. I think this may be the first election I actually do not vote in. Unless Sanders actually makes some moves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:So to sum up the last 5 pages. Vote Hillary because she isn't a Republican and is going to get the nomination. Where do you live?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do these people really still exist? I don't know anything about the South from personal experience, but it seems to me after 40 years they probably don't No, they do not. A Southern reliable Democratic voter who doesn't like Obama is called a "Republican". Like pull-the-level-for-a-straight-ticket Republican. The white racism against blacks is a far more powerful force in the South than any policy position. The only reason there WERE Reagan Democrats was because of the Southern Strategy, where Lee Atwater talked about how you couldn't say friend of the family anymore, and had to talk about tax cuts. Reagan was clearly pro-loving black people, so even Dems voted for him. Here's why Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner: The DNC, on a primal level, realizes that this is not a game any more. They have had their asses handed to them on every level from dogcatcher to Senator, and literally their last bastion against complete Republican dominance in ALL American politics is the Presidency. It's also the only race they haven't been gerrymandered out of yet, and the only one in which they have a structural advantage. The DNC is working from a position of almost complete weakness, because they're still, on some level, trying to play this game as an old-style gentlemens' sporting contest, where the two parties compete to promote their views of America. Only the Republicans are not playing this game any more. They have paid the refs, and have brought knives to the field. The Republicans DO NOT have to have good policies or ideas to win; they only have to stab their opponents, and have the backing of their megadonors to buy the refs. Still and yet, the Democrats of this country and this forum especially, see themselves as the only smart, non-crazy people remaining. It's true! Unless you fall into your id, and call for the pregnant wife of a murderer cop to suffer from GOP attitudes toward health care, to call out their inequality under the law for ten pages, most of the people here are concerned with the welfare of the nation. Most conventional, non-troll posters genuinely want to do things like have a government that saves the environment, cares for the poor, helps the sick, and is progressive in closing the inequality gap. I mean that sincerely, the heart of this forum is in the right place. There's just a deep sense of discomfort here, which is constantly manifested whenever someone makes it clear they're going to vote third party or that they're not excited about Hillary, or especially when I point out that Hillary is literally the only speed bump stopping the GOP from taking the entire government of America without a single good idea; taking every office in the land based on mere spite, hatred, dirty money, dirty politics, and collusion. The GOP has NO GOOD IDEAS, AND THEY ARE WINNING. That creates existential dismay in people who want to believe this is still a sane nation playing a sane game, and that the madness of the GOP and Tea Party is just a temporary phase, a glitch. The DNC is already sending out Hillary materials because they can't afford for this race to even get close. She is as far right as they can really get, and they count on the same thing this forum mocks in the GOP: Namely, that no matter how much you hate Clinton, the policies and personality of the GOP nominee will be so terrifying that all of you on this forum will still go out and pull the Straight (D) lever because otherwise, the GOP will destroy America. As hyperbolic as that sounds, it really is what's going to happen when the Democrats finally lose the White House, on some fluke or another. The DNC has no strategy that can counter the Republican Money+Viciousness attack on any level lower than the presidency. Democrats aren't getting elected. Terrified people don't allow an open field for primary candidates to compete and wound each other. Terrified Democrats double down when they find a Hillary Clinton: she's far enough right that she can draw in what used to be the middle, and she has SUCH name recognition and "inevitability" that they simply HAVE to go with her. gently caress the process, gently caress people choosing the candidate, gently caress a plurality of views: if Hillary doesn't win in 2016, (and we've already had this conversation at length) the country will be dirtfucked into an unrecoverable pile of poo poo. There's no "moderate" projections of GOP action should they take the presidency and the congress. My question is how the DNC allowed themselves to fall so far, to be stuck in a Monopoly game where the GOP owns every poo poo property on the board except for Park Place and Boardwalk, and the GOP is just putting hotels everywhere. It's a TERRIBLE strategic position when you really have only one bastion to fight from. So, Hillary it is, and you'd better pray to black baby Jesus and white Allah that she wins, and Democrats keep winning, because you don't have a choice if you still believe in the welfare of common Americans. Enigma89 posted:So to sum up the last 5 pages. Vote Hillary because she isn't a Republican and is going to get the nomination. YES. GOOD. Join us in sabotaging the Hillary campaign and finally destroying this nation. I keep gaining more converts every day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
What if I'm motivated purely out of spite for those currently in power over me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:What if I'm motivated purely out of spite for those currently in power over me? Welcome to the Republican Party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Where do you live? California but I will be moving to NY by election time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
Any ideas on campaign slogan? http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/13/ben-carson-launch-presidential-bid/25723743/ quote:Dr. Ben Carson is expected to officially declare his decision on whether to run for president May 4 in his hometown of Detroit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
"I'd like to think of myself as a nationalist." ~ Mike Huckabee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsuA5LosuWA
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:"I'd like to think of myself as a nationalist." ~ Mike Huckabee How has he gone his whole life not hearing that word before? It kind of reminds me of when evangelical Christians make up their own meanings for things like "Truth." And then they just start capitalizing it mid-sentence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Man gently caress this already. I'm voting for Charles Palantine. We Are The People
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:California but I will be moving to NY by election time. Weren't you discussing voting for Paul in seriousness like a month or two ago? Also your vote is inconsequential anyways so it's not worth the argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do these people really still exist? I don't know anything about the South from personal experience, but it seems to me after 40 years they probably don't People like my aunt are. In 2008 she was about as avid a Hillary Clinton supporter as anyone. Obama gets the nomination and that just opened up the floodgates. I sometimes wonder if now that the black man is out of office if she'll go back and vote Hillary like she wanted, but probably not. I imagine after 8 years of swallowing ever spoon of bile that Fox and Friends has fed her that she is pretty much a lost cause. My Imaginary GF posted:He'd be America's Ambassador of Funk. That role has already been filled by George Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
The US has never had an official Ambassador of Funk, but in 1970 Richard Nixon appointed Pearl Bailey the Ambassador of Love.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 13:35
|
|