|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I've noticed the left seems terrified of Rubio so I'm going with that. Much the same way we were "terrified" of Sarah Palin, yes.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Anyone have any idea as to why Carson has been polling so well? It seems like he's hitting pretty much the same numbers as Rubio, Bush, and Walker. I know the polls are meaningless at this stage, but I'm still curious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Name recognition, same reason the other guys at the top of the polls are at the top.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Anyone have any idea as to why Carson has been polling so well? It seems like he's hitting pretty much the same numbers as Rubio, Bush, and Walker. Because voting for him will SEND A MESSAGE to WARSHINGTON about WE THE PEOPLE etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
The Rubio thing really reveals how little respect for minorities the people pushing him as the key to non-white votes have. Obama got his surge through the primary organically, he rose based on charisma and the ideas he was saying which were both fairly strong contrasts to the rest of the field, he shook up the idea of the Democrat side of things as stuffy nerds or elder statesmen who don't know how to talk when not at a podium. No poo poo he had a lot of non-white support, he was a really good candidate who was also the best chance they had to have the first black president. Identity politics are a thing but what gave him an extra kick was, ya know, not making GBS threads his pants all the time forever. You have to have charisma and ability, and the votes need to come to you. You can't just throw a crown on the first dark skinned guy you see and go 'yep, line up, browns, this is your new beacon of hope' because what a shock, non-white voters are human beings too and they respond to that poo poo with 'wait who are you to tell me that'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Firebert posted:I can't recall anyone using the VP spot to vault into anything other than the presidency. He might be able to challenge Cruz for his seat in 2018. Breckinridge used it to get a confederate generalship conferred upon him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The thing that gets me is how much since 2008 the GOP has focused in on its messaging, rather than the message itself. Time and again we hear GOP figures going on about how they need to retool how they communicate their vision to the parts of the electorate that don't vote for them, rather than spending much, if any, time examining if that vision actually holds any real appeal for those outside their eroding base. The media empire they've built is really harming them. No one wants to step in front of the 24/7 Fox/Drudge/Limbaugh conservative rage machine to try and get it to tone itself down or move to the center on a couple of issues. That 2012 election autopsy report was viable for about 15 minutes before the machine tore it apart; poor Rubio tried to push for a change on immigration policy and he got consigned to the Outer Darkness for the last two and a half years. Why risk your comfy Wingnut Welfare sinecure on a suicide mission? FMguru fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Breckinridge used it to get a confederate generalship conferred upon him. Generalissimo Castro has a certain nolstalgic ring to it
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I think, deep down, a lot of party professionals so understand just badly much the demographic landscape is tilting against them. It's just that no one wants to be the one who tells evangelicals to knock it off with the gay bashing, or to tell the nativists that they need to come to terms with the reality of Latino immigration. So much easier to pretend that it's still 1980 and all the party's problems are the fault of a biased media or weak candidates. I think this is much complimented by how enough of the base are true believers that any attempt to change course, or even just not be extreme enough, risks a primary challenge. The beast has slipped its leash, and no one wants to risk getting bit to reign it in (in part since the animal never got its rabies shots because gently caress BIG VETERINARY tell me what I can or can't do!).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Anyone have any idea as to why Carson has been polling so well? It seems like he's hitting pretty much the same numbers as Rubio, Bush, and Walker. He has a grassroots religious thing about him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The thing that gets me is how much since 2008 the GOP has focused in on its messaging, rather than the message itself. Time and again we hear GOP figures going on about how they need to retool how they communicate their vision to the parts of the electorate that don't vote for them, rather than spending much, if any, time examining if that vision actually holds any real appeal for those outside their eroding base. In 2008 people were predicting 20+ years out of power, our comeback started 16 months later. If the last 6 years of legislative gains at all levels (and a decent amount of state level executive) represent being out of touch or stuck with a diminished base, I hate to think about what that means for the left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:
Well, minus the Senate in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Anyone have any idea as to why Carson has been polling so well? It seems like he's hitting pretty much the same numbers as Rubio, Bush, and Walker. Tons of people hate (or claim to hate) "professional politicians", so there's always a niche for somebody that comes from outside that context, regardless of their other flaws. Relying on people that don't care about your process tends to produce a low ceiling, however. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I think, deep down, a lot of party professionals so understand just badly much the demographic landscape is tilting against them. It's just that no one wants to be the one who tells evangelicals to knock it off with the gay bashing, or to tell the nativists that they need to come to terms with the reality of Latino immigration. So much easier to pretend that it's still 1980 and all the party's problems are the fault of a biased media or weak candidates. Actually Mark Levin was freaking the gently caress out yesterday because Fox News has been saying too many positive things about gays and trans people. They're being relegated to RINO status by the really hardcore conservatives now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:In 2008 people were predicting 20+ years out of power, our comeback started 16 months later. Ah, so I was right about the debilitating brain injury then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:In 2008 people were predicting 20+ years out of power, our comeback started 16 months later. A lot of it has to do with gerrymandering rather than raw popularity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The Rubio thing really reveals how little respect for minorities the people pushing him as the key to non-white votes have. Obama got his surge through the primary organically, he rose based on charisma and the ideas he was saying which were both fairly strong contrasts to the rest of the field, he shook up the idea of the Democrat side of things as stuffy nerds or elder statesmen who don't know how to talk when not at a podium. No poo poo he had a lot of non-white support, he was a really good candidate who was also the best chance they had to have the first black president. Identity politics are a thing but what gave him an extra kick was, ya know, not making GBS threads his pants all the time forever. This post is pure hilarity, Rubio is one of like 6 candidates battling for frontrunner status who happens to be latino. If he's good enough, he'll win the nomination. If not, he won't. Only one side is slapping a crown on someone and screaming LOOK GUYS ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE HISTORIC FIRST.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:A lot of it has to do with gerrymandering rather than raw popularity. And vote suppression.   
Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:In 2008 people were predicting 20+ years out of power, our comeback started 16 months later. A lot of those gains were thanks to 2010 redistricting. Even when democrats draw 50% of the votes, republicans can hold 60% of the seats with the current maps. A great system, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:A lot of it has to do with gerrymandering rather than raw popularity. We somehow gerrymandered the Senate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:This post is pure hilarity, Rubio is one of like 6 candidates battling for frontrunner status who happens to be latino. Because when I think "process operating at 100% efficiency", I think the GOP presidential primary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Ah, so I was right about the debilitating brain injury then. Cool cool, stay classy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Obama got his surge through the primary organically, he rose based on charisma and the ideas he was saying which were both fairly strong contrasts to the rest of the field, he shook up the idea of the Democrat side of things as stuffy nerds or elder statesmen who don't know how to talk when not at a podium. Nah he did it the old fashioned way taking advantage of an intraparty rift to build a support infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:We somehow gerrymandered the Senate? Uhh yeah. The Senate is gerrymandered by design. Also recall that only a third of it is up for election at a time, and the 2014 batch was favorable to the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:We somehow gerrymandered the Senate? The senate comes pre-gerrymandered. You could win a majority in the senate with a tiny fraction of the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Nah he did it the old fashioned way taking advantage of an intraparty rift to build a support infrastructure. FMguru fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Nah he did it the old fashioned way taking advantage of an intraparty rift to build a support infrastructure. Well yea, figured that was a given
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Feather posted:It's pure fantasy that Hillary's rhetoric is any indication of future intent. Lots of very gullible or very stupid democrats all put their Hillary-tinted glasses on hoping or believing otherwise. The partisans know it's bullshit but are too invested in Party Uber Alles to give a poo poo. It's worth noting that the sets of partisan, gullible and stupid democrats have an intersection that is not the empty set. Presidential candidates do tend to actually keep their campaign promises though. Clinton's big campaign promises: - Raise taxes and cut spending to control the deficit. - Produce a surplus - Employ more cops and implement harsher penalties for felonies and drug crimes. - Make a work requirement and job training programs part of welfare / TANF. - Universal Healthcare - Allow gays to openly serve in the military. - Appoint pro-choice justices and support federal funding for abortion access. He accomplished most of them, failed on healthcare, and compromised on gays serving in the military. George W. Bush's big campaign promises were: - Eliminate the surplus through tax cuts (in the late 90's conservatives were really worried about the surplus because they thought it indicated that the government was keeping more tax money than necessary and that it would lead to the U.S. Treasury buying up private stocks and exercising control over private corporations.) - Immigration reform - Prescription Drug benefits for Medicare patients. - Banning gay marriage. - Banning human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research - Partially privatize social security by letting people choose to invest part of their payments in private stocks. - Project U.S. strength abroad, take a hard line on Russia, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and avoid foreign entanglements like Kosovo or Bosnia (lol) - Appoint pro-life justices and ban federal funding for abortion access. He attempted all of them and accomplished most of them. Obama's big campaign promises: - Remove combat troops from Iraq before he leaves office. - Increase troops in Afghanistan. - Reach a comprehensive climate agreement with china and pass a cap-and-trade plan in the U.S. - Pass a stimulus package. - Healthcare reform with no individual mandate, a public option, mandatory medicaid expansion, and allow the government to negotiate prescription drug prices. - Pass credit card reform and establish a consumer financial protection bureau. - Immigration reform. - Appoint pro-choice judges and allow federal funding for abortion access. - Close Guantanamo bay prison in his first year. He attempted all of them and accomplished most of them. He traded away prescription drug pricing for support from the pharmaceutical company, ended up supporting a mandate, and originally had mandatory medicaid expansion until the Supreme Court. He tried and failed to close Guantanamo, and pass Cap-and-Trade and immigration reform. Getting politicians to commit to hard promises during a campaign is generally a good way to get them to follow through. Even Mitt Romney refused to back out of the commitments he made during the primary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The Rubio thing really reveals how little respect for minorities the people pushing him as the key to non-white votes have. Obama got his surge through the primary organically, he rose based on charisma and the ideas he was saying which were both fairly strong contrasts to the rest of the field, he shook up the idea of the Democrat side of things as stuffy nerds or elder statesmen who don't know how to talk when not at a podium. No poo poo he had a lot of non-white support, he was a really good candidate who was also the best chance they had to have the first black president. Identity politics are a thing but what gave him an extra kick was, ya know, not making GBS threads his pants all the time forever. Obama had the Kennedy machine at his fingertips and connected that to modern IT best practices and his own spin from his community organizing experience. There was nothing organic behind it, he had all his ducks lined up in a row before he set foot in a stage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:And vote suppression. We suppressed enough racist voters to get a black Senator elected from the south, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Remember in the primary when Obama promised to only take public funding and wouldn't hire lobbyists? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
A...very confusing non sequitur.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Obama had the Kennedy machine at his fingertips and connected that to modern IT best practices and his own spin from his community organizing experience. There was nothing organic behind it, he had all his ducks lined up in a row before he set foot in a stage. I wasn't trying to imply it was some grassroots thing, I meant organic as in politically organic, he wasn't just grabbed because he was darker than Hillary and shoved with a "SEE YOU GUYS LIKE THAT RIGHT VOTE HERE", he did normal political poo poo and was charismatic enough to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:We suppressed enough racist voters to get a black Senator elected from the south, yes. If you actually knew anything about Tim Scott, you'd know why the Klan members from the South felt safe voting for him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:How are we not mentioning Ted Strickland as VP? Sure, he's an old white dude. But he's a (relatively popular, from personal experience) former governor from Ohio who lost to John Kasich in the 2010 wave. Ted Strickland did nothing but stupidly try to appease Republicans when he should have known he was doomed no matter what. He only won in 2006 because his opponent was Ken loving Blackwell and Ohio's midterm voters are more racist than they are conservative. More importantly, though, Strickland is running for Rob Portman's seat in 2016 and actually has a decent shot at winning on name recognition alone since even I sometimes have trouble remembering who my state's junior senator is. This would be awesome and would totally redeem his mediocre governorship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Remember in the primary when Obama promised to only take public funding and wouldn't hire lobbyists? I agree, public funding of elections would be superior, and I'm tired of these so-called progressives and their complicity with the corporate funding of elections. That's why I support Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Daydreaming about a New Reagan to descend from the clouds and carry them off to the land of landslide electoral victories is just another way of avoiding the issue (that the demographics of the presidential electorate have turned decisively against the Republicans and that this demographic change still has a long way to run). Democrats did this in the 1970s and 1980s, endless wishing for "another JFK" who would dazzle and inspire and heal all the rifts of the post-civil right Democratic Party (to the point of running his drunk and disorganized younger brother in a catastrophic insurgent campaign against a sitting Democratic president). It didn't work for them, and it's not going to work for the GOP. To be fair to Republicans, it's possible that they simply can't pivot while the demographic transition is ongoing. Like until white votes hit some threshold where they're an even smaller portion of the electorate than they are now, it could be the case that ditching an advantage in the white vote to compete for minority votes is a bad call. Like a decision that makes sense when non-whites are 35-40% of the electorate (in the 2020s or 2030s) doesn't make sense when they're only 25% of the electorate. Suppose Republicans faced a policy choice which would cost them 5% of the white vote but gain them 10% of the non-white vote. Numerically, this is currently a bad deal, losing them 1.25% of the vote, but 10-20 years down the line (when it's 60/40), that would be a good deal, earning them 0.25% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Those sties don't even try to be humorous. They're just making bank on pageviews from straight-up faking news. The Onion just reports from the future though. We only think it's funny because surely GW Bush isn't going to wreck the US economy that Clinton got roaring, right?  mugrim posted:I'm not saying its a good move mind you, but her primaries will not be pretty, and Castro is a media darling who would take the center stage and my guess is she's still not quite over having 08 "taken" from her by a young minority who inspires her base more than she does. If it gets her the White House I really don't think she's going to care as much as you think. Let her VP be the media darling while she gets to hold the power and get poo poo done, but he'd have to have Charisma that makes Obama an Reagan look like Bush jr and Kerry to pull it off. Clinton would sooner pick Castro because of Obama in 2008, since having that young face as part of her campaign would help much more than hurt. Besides she's still going to have Bill if she wins so the "well what if someone with Charisma overshadows her" risk is going to be there regardless of her VP pick. In the event that Rubio looks like he'll get tapped as the GOP VP pick I'd be shocked if Clinton doesn't try to announce Castro as her VP first unless the guy has insurmountable issues. Like going out at night to kill and eat neighborhood pets or something. Other than Castro having some horrific secrets I can't see him being passed over by Clinton unless someone pretty amazing crops up in the next few months. Fried Chicken posted:No, it was still lovely. FDR was pushing stuff I like, and I acknowledge that the court was corrupted by partisans, but "I'll break one of the pillars of the state" is not a good act. There were other, more intelligent ways to handle it. Kansas is going to be such a shitshow and if the feds don't get involved it's going to make Wisconsin look like the Garden of Eden. Firebert posted:I'm curious if Julian Castro being tapped for VP would help or hinder his future political ambitions. A Dem president being elected for 16+ years seems hard to imagine and I can't recall anyone using the VP spot to vault into anything other than the presidency. He might be able to challenge Cruz for his seat in 2018. The only way he'd turn down being tapped for VP is if he simply does not want to be VP or President ever. If he wants to be President there's literally no better credential to point to than "I was VP for 4-8 years." Even being governor wouldn't be as big unless you worked miracles for your state. Plus if he's VP he also has direct access to Bill and if I wanted to be president I can't think of many people who would be better at coaching you for a run. Castro with possibly 8 years as VP and Clinton resources could be a political juggernaut in a 2024 election as long as Clinton's time in office isn't terrible for the country. I can't see Castro being some lifeless husk like Gore anyways. Though the real issue is that if this all happened, by 2024 the GOP will have gone through some sort of massive change because it simply won't have the demographics to win national elections by then. Unless the states they hold keep expanding suppression programs like Crosscheck. Though 2020 will be a presidential election so maybe if the country's in good enough shape the Democrats can retake some states and make changes in their favor like the GOP did in 2010.  duz posted:His twin brother is currently in the House and would be the Castro brother to run for Cruz's seat. Julian is executive, Joaquin is legislative. A freshman senator whose twin is also VP would be a pretty hilarious thing to see in the senate because you just know some old fucker would see Julian, mistake him for Joaquin, and start talking down to him about something they disagree on. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So what is general consensus in this thread on who will be the GOP nominee (granted a lot could happen prior to nomination) Jeb with Rubio as his VP pick unless they have a burning hatred of one another. Comedy option: Huckster and Santorum running on a platform of American Theocratic Excellence. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:George W. Bush's big campaign promises were: Reminds me of when I was in school back during the surplus one of the TIME magazine articles was "what could we do with Clinton's Surplus?" One of the first answers was "buy Bill Gates/Microsoft" since he was worth about as much as the surplus at the time, and a few others were listing companies you could buy with the money, and I think maybe 1 or 2 of the options were tax cuts or social safety net related.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:he wasn't just grabbed because he was darker than Hillary and shoved with a "SEE YOU GUYS LIKE THAT RIGHT VOTE HERE" Again, unless you're arguing some SHADOW CABAL is doing the same for Rubio, I don't understand what you're trying to say. He's just going to be one of like ten people on a debate stage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Jeb with Rubio as his VP pick unless they have a burning hatred of one another. They won't do this because any Republican victory will be a squeaker, and Florida won't be able to cast its electoral votes for the whole ticket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:17
|
|