Under the vegetable posted:I'm glad you weighed in by saying baseless speculation with authority. He's just giving his opinion man, which is what I asked for.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
eternalname posted:Is there any chance of Sanders putting up a believable primary challenge against Clinton? Not even winning, just the outcome being perceived as in doubt to a reasonable person. Unlike Ron Paul he's only running in a field of 2 (maybe 3 if O'Malley or Webb ever officially declare, I doubt both will) so media will likely play him up a bit just out of boredom, the initial donation burst indicates he has a chance at securing a decent ground game, if his campaign managers are really good and he lasts until debates, because that's probably the first time most Americans will even know who he is, and does well and connects, there will probably be a poll at some point where he's within less than 10 points of Hillary among likely democratic primary voters. So yeah, it's possible, and would be a lot of fun to watch, but don't get your hopes up. I should also point out that Rick Santorum and Herman Cain were both once considered serious challengers to Mitt Romney in 2012, soooooo. (Hell they were both frontrunners in national polls at one point, but the field was so wide I don't think they ever topped 33% so I don't consider that as important)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:I'm glad you weighed in by saying baseless speculation with authority. Please don't disparage the credentials of the smartest boy in America.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Theoretically, Sanders would need to win Iowa to have a shot at the nomination. The Iowa caucus has a strong progressive streak, and that's the only early state he could really compete in. NH, SC, and NV are less friendly ground for a socialist. For NH, forget that he's socialist, he's from Vermont and nega-Vermont hates that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:30
|
|
Skwirl posted:Unlike Ron Paul he's only running in a field of 2 (maybe 3 if O'Malley or Webb ever officially declare, I doubt both will) so media will likely play him up a bit just out of boredom, the initial donation burst indicates he has a chance at securing a decent ground game, if his campaign managers are really good and he lasts until debates, because that's probably the first time most Americans will even know who he is, and does well and connects, there will probably be a poll at some point where he's within less than 10 points of Hillary among likely democratic primary voters. So yeah, it's possible, and would be a lot of fun to watch, but don't get your hopes up. I'd be happy with a Santorum level challenge by Sanders to Hillary. No real chance, but nothing so immediately weird and disqualifying that he's laughed off the stage, never to return.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Neither Rick Santorum or Herman Cain were 'serious' candidates against Mitt Romney outside of, perhaps, their own minds. The media will gladly flog the horse race narrative as long and hard as they can, but realistically the 2012 election was decided long before a debate or primary was held. Obama losing to anyone the Republican Party could muster would have been the biggest political failing since... gently caress, I dunno, Mike Dukakis?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Obama didn't "come out of nowhere" unless you want to say Bernie's going to run for prexy in '20 or '24. He definitely peaked faster than people expected, but if Hillary had won the nomination in '08 he'd probably be running now.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:you really did just start paying attention to politics in the last week, didn't you? No, I was paying pretty close attention in that election cycle, considering I voted for Obama and all. I was aware of Obama before then but he did not seem like a legitimate contender at all this early in that cycle. Edwards seemed like the only strong opposition to Hillary; Obama's campaign exploded very quickly. I don't see how you can say that at this point in his campaign, Obama seemed like anywhere close to a favorite for the election, and pretty much everyone was convinced that Hillary was a sure bet.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:For NH, forget that he's socialist, he's from Vermont and nega-Vermont hates that. As much as Joe and I go off about how loathsome the granite state is, there's really not that much resentment between them and us or, at least, we'd never let it matter in the face of the rest of the country.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure vermont and nh are brought together by their mutual distaste for mass
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Cubey posted:No, I was paying pretty close attention in that election cycle, considering I voted for Obama and all. I was aware of Obama before then but he did not seem like a legitimate contender at all this early in that cycle. Edwards seemed like the only strong opposition to Hillary; Obama's campaign exploded very quickly. I don't see how you can say that at this point in his campaign, Obama seemed like anywhere close to a favorite for the election, and pretty much everyone was convinced that Hillary was a sure bet. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004397.php http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/us/politics/18obama.html?_r=1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700736.html?nav=hcmodule http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/reid.obama/ out of nowhere, except for party activists since 2004, at least Senators Durbin, Harkin and Reid before he announced...
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Is it not obvious that Rubio is running for the next cycle's frontrunner? Marco Rubio is running on the off chance that he can actually secure a place on the ticket, however his next step is to become Governor of Florida. From there he can wait out President Clinton and run from the Governor's Mansion in 2024. Running for President gives him a reason to leave the Senate and clear out any competition for the 2018 race without risking damaging his credentials by a possible 2016 loss of his seat.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Don't forget Kennedy, WJ
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
I don't know if there's a name for anything less than "non-entity", but that will be Jim Webb if he chooses to run.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004397.php That's all fine and well, now show me opinion polls that had him ahead of Hillary in May of 2007. Or Edwards for that matter; in fact, wasn't Edwards the favorite at this point in that cycle? I don't mean he was unheard of when I say that he came out of nowhere; I mean his campaign did not seem like a legitimate threat at all. And it didn't. Anyone who says they predicted he would win the party nomination in May of '07 is lying through their teeth and you know it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Cubey posted:That's all fine and well, now show me opinion polls that had him ahead of Hillary in May of 2007. Or Edwards for that matter; in fact, wasn't Edwards the favorite at this point in that cycle? which is why he didn't have any party institutional support, as described above
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:47
|
|
Cubey posted:That's all fine and well, now show me opinion polls that had him ahead of Hillary in May of 2007. Or Edwards for that matter; in fact, wasn't Edwards the favorite at this point in that cycle? It was definitely a huge upset, but he, Edwards and Clinton were all seen as 'serious' candidates. I'm not sure Sanders has reached that level.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
eternalname posted:It was definitely a huge upset, but he, Edwards and Clinton were all seen as 'serious' candidates. I'm not sure Sanders has reached that level. Of course Sanders hasn't, I'm just trying to keep a faint glimmer of optimism in my withered heart
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:49
|
|
Cubey posted:Of course Sanders hasn't, I'm just trying to keep a faint glimmer of optimism in my withered heart Let your heart wither and die, embrace the circus we live in. It's more fun here
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Cubey posted:That's all fine and well, now show me opinion polls that had him ahead of Hillary in May of 2007. Or Edwards for that matter; in fact, wasn't Edwards the favorite at this point in that cycle? Like I really do hate to make this kind of pedantic point, but you seem to be arguing from different things - no one would say that he was the favorite to win the party nomination, but he was a legitimate threat to the favorite. Obama was certainly not the favorite or the most prominent, well-known candidate, he was an underdog and he had to fight an uphill battle. But at the same time, he did have institutional support and a certain degree of establishment backing (less than Clinton, more than Bernie) and was regarded as a serious contender in a way that I don't think Bernie is. It doesn't really matter what term you want to use for it ultimately, I guess, but Obama's success in 2008 is not really a good model for a Bernie run or a reason to hope. They're very different situations.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
eternalname posted:Let your heart wither and die, embrace the circus we live in. It's more fun here I'm tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, broke, lost my job 5 months ago and have not heard back from the dozens of jobs I have applied at because everyone in this town is unemployed and fighting for every open position everywhere. It's hard to just sit back and enjoy the circus when the circus is having a negative impact on the lives of me, the people I know and the people in the town I live in. Bob Ojeda posted:Like Of course they're different situations, I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison because I'm not THAT delusional. Like I said, I'm just trying to keep a faint glimmer of optimism in my withered heart.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
I hope for a Walker/Bush ticket just for the ad potential.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Sorry man, that sounds like some loving despairing poo poo. My heart goes out to you and I hope things get better.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:not gonna lie, i'm sort of morbidly curious to see what jeb would do to the world and america if allowed lol if you think a safe distance will be possible.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:not gonna lie, i'm sort of morbidly curious to see what jeb would do to the world and america if allowed He'd show Iran just how good of a deal they'd been offered by providing a genuine stick to Obama's carrots.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Forget the sandman.... I'm Ready For HillaryTM Also, why do people assume that Hillary in 2016 will have the same governing plan as her husband's administration two decades ago? I recognize she hasn't been specific on policy, but it's clearly not 1994 and yet every chicken little leftist I know is going nuts.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
the shadow toker posted:Forget the sandman.... People are really dumb and knee-jerk.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
the shadow toker posted:
Women can't have separate plans from their husbands.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I too believe things on no basis whatsoever. Did you hear it also creates vampires? Well it would kind of help if we could actually loving read it, maybe fewer people would believe baseless things about it then.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
I think that will be one of the main attacks against Hillary that she'd be Bill 2.0.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:28
|
|
Hollismason posted:I think that will be one of the main attacks against Hillary that she'd be Bill 2.0. drat that sounds horrible i dont miss the 90s at all
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:He'd show Iran just how good of a deal they'd been offered by providing a genuine stick to Obama's carrots. So he'd murder tens if not hundreds of thousands of people for no reason? Well yeah that does sound like a Bush presidency.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:So he'd murder tens if not hundreds of thousands of people for no reason? Well yeah that does sound like a Bush presidency. Both are good
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Both are good Shut up Meg.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Caros posted:So he'd murder tens if not hundreds of thousands of people for no reason? Well yeah that does sound like a Bush presidency. The reason is to preserve peace and stability in the mideast, where it still exists. America bought it once, we'd buy it again while learning from our mistakes. Who needs ground forces in Iraq when you can deploy ten times the current drone force and accomplish the same objectives? And before you call it murder or any of that piddlywinkle poo poo, let me ask you this, do any of the folk who are weaponizing nukes in Iran vote in the primaries?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Don't forget Kennedy, WJ Also Schumer, though he couldn't say anything publicly for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The reason is to preserve peace and stability in the mideast, where it still exists. Ohhhh, so we're bombing them to bring peace in the middle east. Yeah, that makes total sense and isn't at all similar to loving to maintain virginity. I certainly think things are much more stable there since our last pointless intervention based on a lie about WMD's, don't you? And I already called it murder in the post you're replying to so its a little late. To answer your question however, I don't think so. Considering I'm of the opinion that Iran is not currently weaponizing nukes in any real fashion it's sort of tough to argue about the voting rights of non-existent people.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Caros posted:Ohhhh, so we're bombing them to bring peace in the middle east. Yeah, that makes total sense and isn't at all similar to loving to maintain virginity. I certainly think things are much more stable there since our last pointless intervention based on a lie about WMD's, don't you? Much more stable than had Iraq descended into this anarchy while Iran possessed the nukes they were developing in 2003 before Operation Iraqi Freedom.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
I have a Ben Carson theory that makes him a more tragic hero. Every little kid he saved, he did so by taking a little piece of his brain and putting it in their heads, until he just ran out.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
eternalname posted:Is there any chance of Sanders putting up a believable primary challenge against Clinton? Not even winning, just the outcome being perceived as in doubt to a reasonable person. No. There is a lockstepness to Democratic voters this time around which is quite unusual. Back in May 2007, when everyone was calling Hillary inevitable and a juggernaut and all that, it was actually a decently close race. Hillary had the support of about 35-40% of Democrats, Obama had about 25%, and John Edwards about 15% (Al Gore was also drawing about 12% support). But there was a Rasmussen poll in May of 2007 that had Hillary only up on Obama by 2 points, 35% to 33%. In other words, she was definitely the frontrunner, but she had very legitimate competition. Here's a summary of all the polls back then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates This time around, for whatever reason, Hillary is truly the anointed one. She's consistently running 50 points higher than her next opponent, who is typically the not even running Elizabeth Warren. Hillary's almost 60 points up on Sanders and O'Malley. It's actually pretty unprecedented. She'll also get all the money and all the establishment support, unlike last time when key people like Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid supported Obama. This thing is going to be all but over before it even starts, really. Iowa polls will be laughable. She'll win there, win New Hampshire, and it will be game over by February 1st. Cigar Aficionado fucked around with this message at 06:24 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:58
|
|
