|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Breittbart Primary! Trump - Romney - Pataki CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Just trudged through pages of weird race chat with basically the embodied manifestation of white economic progressives blind to issues of race, and wanted to see if anyone was going to note that half the black population are also women, so that might foster some support for Hillary since she has a fair bit of credibility when discussing women's issues (and the first female president will be a big deal, historically). Not entirely sure if someone mentioned that or not, but it's worth remembering. I'll be very interested to see the post-general-election breakdown of demographics to see how well Hillary does with men and women voters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because an unknown white guy who promises to "clean up" is much more threatening than a known quantity, even if they've been bad in the past. Yeah honestly a lot of the time people just want to vote in a new, president(ial) top executive to office to bump their numbers a bit & maybe boost their Fortune 500(0) rating & just NOT touch anything. Sorry, I mean GDP numbers, not Fortune 500 ranking. Frankly sometimes I think Congress operates a little more sensibly than the White House
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Feather posted:So no I can't understand why even 10% of the minority (or ar least African-American) community would support Hillary over Bernie simply because she is currently mouthing the right words. Uh this is American politics where most of the electorate votes against their own best interests and elections can go one way or another based on inane idiocy. Mouthing the right things and appearing appealing on the surface is how you win elections. Bernie should also be mouthing these same things and attempting to appeal to minority voters but the guy has never campaigned outside of Vermont and had to appeal to a large minority constituency. THE BOMBINATRIX posted:Trump - Romney - Pataki Trump is definitely #1 but as a voter who is picking candidates based on how insane they are I don't think Romney or Pataki are good alternatives when much better options exist. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Uh this is American politics where most of the electorate votes against their own best interest Do you think it's possible that those people actually just evaluate their own interests differently than you do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you think it's possible that those people actually just evaluate their own interests differently than you do? No. Most people who vote are misinformed and many vote for people who actively work against their economic interests for very strange reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:No. Most people who vote are misinformed and many vote for people who actively work against their economic interests for very strange reasons. What's your source for this claim? Most conservatives that I know are highly religious voters who are voting along those lines, or are philosophically against the idea of the government providing financial aid to people--even to themselves, or who are racist and are voting for the whiter party, or who are single-issue voters about gun rights. Many of them are also misinformed, but they have interests other than economic interests. The failure to recognize this is a bad one, and is part of the reason why Democrats and other liberals can't make inroads into the conservative community. Unless these other interests are what you mean by 'strange reasons'. How do you think supporting Hillary over Sanders is working against the Black community's self-interest?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What's your source for this claim? I was not referencing Black voters specifically if you read the post. And what you described is people voting against their own economic self interest for strange reasons such as "Single issue X which the president has little control over" "Racism" etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you think it's possible that those people actually just evaluate their own interests differently than you do? Yes, but that doesn't mean they're evaluating them correctly. These are the type of people who rail about the evils of labor unions, while ignoring the fact that if it weren't for labor unions we'd still have child labor and a 100-hour work week and no minimum wage. They carp about government interference in their lives while voting for people who want to regulate who we can marry or whether women should be allowed to decide not to carry a pregnancy to term. They vote these people into office because they promise to gently caress over the folks below them on the social ladder, and that's the only way they can feel better about their own lives. If you are honest-to-god prioritizing your guns or whether or not gay people can get married over an economically stable country where everyone has jobs, health insurance, and access to a good education, then you are hosed in the head six ways to Sunday. Highly religious or not, they are just wrong. Whether they got that way by listening to charismatic conservative sociopaths or because they are old, angry, spiteful racists, they are just wrong, and I'm really tired of people telling me I have to treat their opinions as valid. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:I was not referencing Black voters specifically if you read the post. I know, which is why the beginning of my post dealt with conservative voters. However, in your post you talked about how Sanders needs to mouth the right things to the Black community, unless somehow they're not a minority. quote:Mouthing the right things and appearing appealing on the surface is how you win elections. Bernie should also be mouthing these same things and attempting to appeal to minority voters but the guy has never campaigned outside of Vermont and had to appeal to a large minority constituency See? quote:And what you described is people voting against their own economic self interest for strange reasons such as "Single issue X which the president has little control over" "Racism" etc. Okay. Do you get that these people think of these 'strange things' as their interests--that these things are very important to them? The president also does not have a ton of control over the economy, and yet you're talking about economic self-interest above all else. What the president mostly has is control over supreme court appointments: with abortion, gun rights, and lots of other issues controlled by 5-4 decisions, the choice of president can and will absolutely have a huge effect on these issues, which are very important to these people. Alter Ego posted:Yes, but that doesn't mean they're evaluating them correctly. There are also people who acknowledge this, but rate other issues as more important that these. Sure, there's a lot of incoherence in their messaging, but at the end of the day, if people actually think that abortion is a terrible, sinful thing that the government should prohibit, then it is not at all strange that they would put that ahead of economic interests. I don't fully understand the economic self-interest argument either. I happen to be in the incredibly lucky percentage who is going to inherit, at some point, a giant amount of money. It would be in my economic self-interests to vote for the Republicans because they'll keep the capital gains tax low, or to almost nothing. I also am, at least to appearances, a white male, so a lot of the other Republican policies don't directly affect me or work against me. But I support the Democrats, and would support a much more far-left party that took away nearly all of my eventual inheritance. Is this stupid of me? The 'economic self-interest' argument always seems like a libertarian appeal. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Dolash posted:Just trudged through pages of weird race chat with basically the embodied manifestation of white economic progressives blind to issues of race, and wanted to see if anyone was going to note that half the black population are also women, so that might foster some support for Hillary since she has a fair bit of credibility when discussing women's issues (and the first female president will be a big deal, historically). On a guess she's going to lose White Men, but destroy in White Women and Women in general. I am looking at the cross tabs for PPP's newest poll of NC which isn't exactly nationally representiative, but its something to have as a datapoint. Clinton hits around 80% or better in every match up against Republicans among African-Americans. Those numbers are pretty good, not as strong as what Obama pulled down against Mitt (96% per NYT exit poll) but still really strong. She also wins women by at least 5-6 points on the field and right about where Obama was in 2012. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't fully understand the economic self-interest argument either. I happen to be in the incredibly lucky percentage who is going to inherit, at some point, a giant amount of money. It would be in my economic self-interests to vote for the Republicans because they'll keep the capital gains tax low, or to almost nothing. I also am, at least to appearances, a white male, so a lot of the other Republican policies don't directly affect me or work against me. But I support the Democrats, and would support a much more far-left party that took away nearly all of my eventual inheritance. Is this stupid of me? Uh, no? It just means you're not a selfish prick. Unfortunately, it puts you at odds with literally every conservative on the face of the earth, because selfishness is at the very root of conservative philosophy: gently caress you, I got mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Uh, no? It just means you're not a selfish prick. Unfortunately, it puts you at odds with literally every conservative on the face of the earth, because selfishness is at the very root of conservative philosophy: gently caress you, I got mine. Okay, so how am I not voting against my economic self-interests?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, so how am I not voting against my economic self-interests? Technically, you are, but there's a broader point when it comes to rich people voting for liberal economic policies. They sacrifice economic benefit for a broader social benefit. Your inheritance (in a perfect world) would turn into money that funds the construction of and repair to roads, bridges, and schools. It could be used to fund programs that make college easier for middle- and low-income students. It could be used to do any number of positive things that would help other Americans that don't have what you have. Who are the poor people who vote conservative benefiting? Nobody. They're doing it out of spite. They believe their lives will be better if gays can't marry or "undesirables" can't vote for the "wrong" people or if their guns don't get regulated, but they won't be. What's worse is that a lot of them know it. They do it to hurt blacks, Latinos, Muslims, gay people, insert "objectionable" ethnic or social group here. How are those people voting in their best interests? Just because they think that doing so is in their best interests? My head hurts now. I'm terrible at these kinds of arguments. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:These are the type of people who rail about the evils of labor unions, while ignoring the fact that if it weren't for labor unions we'd still have child labor and a 100-hour work week and no minimum wage. They carp about government interference in their lives while voting for people who want to regulate who we can marry or whether women should be allowed to decide not to carry a pregnancy to term. They vote these people into office because they promise to gently caress over the folks below them on the social ladder, and that's the only way they can feel better about their own lives. Holy false choice! I hardly know where to start with this, but I'll just point out that if you believe a fetus is at some point a person, abortion becomes a civil rights issue writ large. There's nothing inherently hypocritical about that position. quote:If you are honest-to-god prioritizing your guns or whether or not gay people can get married over an economically stable country where everyone has jobs, health insurance, and access to a good education, then you are hosed in the head six ways to Sunday. Putting aside for a moment the laughable Democratic fantasy land you've constructed out of HOPIUM, you realize the pro gay marriage argument is a Constitutional issue of individual rights... just like the anti-gun control argument? You're basically saying that individual rights should be supported - unless they're ones you don't personally agree with, then they're open to scorn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Technically, you are, but by doing so, you are benefiting others. Your inheritance (in a perfect world) would turn into money that funds the construction of and repair to roads, bridges, and schools. It could be used to fund programs that make college easier for middle- and low-income students. It could be used to do any number of positive things that would help other Americans that don't have what you have. Or it can be used to subsidize oil companies, buy the F-35, and build bigger prisons. But again, my point is that saying that people are working against their economic self-interests is a terrible argument: We want some people to vote against their economic self-interest, we want others to vote for their economic self-interest. A better way of saying it would be that we want people to vote in the communal interest. quote:Who are the poor people who vote conservative benefiting? Nobody. They're doing it out of spite. They believe their lives will be better if gays can't marry or "undesirables" can't vote for the "wrong" people or if their guns don't get regulated, but they won't be--and a lot of them know it. I'm not arguing whether or not their interests are morally right or good, but many conservatives honestly believe that gay people are sinful and, in order to 'save' them it's necessary to condemn their behavior. Likewise, others believe that abortion is a terrible sin and is harming our country--even if this belief is actually incoherent when you really break it down. Many people believe that they really need their guns for self-defense--often for totally racist reasons, but the belief is still quite real to them. You are blaming individuals for cultural problems, and you're accusing them of 'spite' in doing so. I'm not confident that if I grew up in Oklahoma, surrounded by conservative media and almost never meeting anyone who held a different view, that I wouldn't be conservative myself. It's not like the people born in Oklahoma are inherently warped and spiteful. TheDisreputableDog posted:
This isn't true. It's about equal rights. This is a horrible analogy, but then, so are most of yours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Or it can be used to subsidize oil companies, buy the F-35, and build bigger prisons. Hence my caveat "in a perfect world".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Zelder posted:White people support Hillary over Bernie: ... For my part I'm as baffled by "white support" of Hillary or any other conservative. Let me qualify that. I get why affluent or very wealthy people (of any race) would support Hillary. I even get why a large fraction of feminists (of any gender or race) would (breaking race barriers to the office as Obama did was important, likewise gender). I don't get how that's a majority. Historically she's pursued or supported programs that mainly hurt everybody who isn't rich. Some of those policies have outsized impacts due to racism. She ran a campaign with racsism as a component in '08. So, yeah, my "bafflement" isn't restricted to racial lines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Hence my caveat "in a perfect world". But we're not in a perfect world. I'm voting in this one. And I know that the money is going to be used for a lot of terrible poo poo. And yet I'm still voting that way, because in aggregate it's better. The point that I'm making is that the 'economic self-interest' appeal is terrible, because that just extends the status quo where the ultra-wealthy work against the good of society and for their own interests. That's not what we want. We want people who have privilege and power to recognize the broader, non-economic interests at work. Feather posted:... Did you manage to find your response to my post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, so how am I not voting against my economic self-interests? Social insurance is in your economic self-interest, because even a large inheritance doesn't guarantee that you won't suffer some calamity, for example that you or a loved one won't get some expensive cancer that burns through your parents' money and leaves you uninsurable (if the Republicans succeed in repealing the ACA's shall issue rule). It would have to be a truly ridiculous pile of money to be enough to assure that no calamity is beyond your means, and at that point then yes the Republican party is the one looking out for your economic self-interests, although unless you're inheriting an executive position at a bank, if you're depending on returns from financial markets it's very questionable whether deregulating financial institutions and letting them openly defraud stock and bondholders is actually in your economic self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:But we're not in a perfect world. I'm voting in this one. And I know that the money is going to be used for a lot of terrible poo poo. And yet I'm still voting that way, because in aggregate it's better. Then I think you're going to be waiting for a very long time, if what we've seen up to this point is any indication. This generation doesn't have an FDR to sit the wealthy elite in a room during a Depression and tell them "I am the best loving friend you have right now, and I'm the only thing standing between you and a mob outside that wants to string you up by your feet. It's time for some changes."
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Social insurance is in your economic self-interest, because even a large inheritance doesn't guarantee that you won't suffer some calamity, for example that you or a loved one won't get some expensive cancer that burns through your parents' money and leaves you uninsurable (if the Republicans succeed in repealing the ACA's shall issue rule). Sure, but probabilistically, there's a much greater likelihood that nothing will happen and I'd get to just enjoy having a ton of money--and even, if I wanted to be a do-gooder, giving that money to charities I think are cool, like Medicine sans Frontiers et al, confident that none of it would be spent on tanks and locking people up for 20 years for their 'third strike' of stealing a pack of smokes. Do you get my point? The economic self-interest argument is incredibly flawed, both because it's cynical as poo poo and basically libertarianism, and because we want people who have huge amounts of money and power--the kind of people you're talking about above, who are so rich that they need fear nothing--to actually work for the good of society in general. If you don't believe that's even possible, then I guess the argument makes more sense, but it is possible. Alter Ego posted:Then I think you're going to be waiting for a very long time, if what we've seen up to this point is any indication. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by waiting. I didn't say anything about waiting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Social insurance is in your economic self-interest, because even a large inheritance doesn't guarantee that you won't suffer some calamity, for example that you or a loved one won't get some expensive cancer that burns through your parents' money and leaves you uninsurable (if the Republicans succeed in repealing the ACA's shall issue rule). Alternatively, things get lovely enough that the proletariat comes and takes your large inheritance
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by waiting. I didn't say anything about waiting. You said "We need people who have privilege and power to recognize the broader, non-economic interests at work." In a world where Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and every other rich scumbag in the country is shelling out to elect scummier and scummier people to influential political positions, the few rich people who actually do recognize there's a problem (like Warren Buffett) count for very little. It will take a very, very long time--if it ever happens at all--to get a 1% class in this country that is altruistic to the point where it's no longer an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sure, but probabilistically, there's a much greater likelihood that nothing will happen and I'd get to just enjoy having a ton of money This is the case for all insurance (has to be or it couldn't work), that doesn't mean paying for insurance is against your economic self-interest. Obdicut posted:and even, if I wanted to be a do-gooder, giving that money to charities I think are cool, like Medicine sans Frontiers et al, confident that none of it would be spent on tanks and locking people up for 20 years for their 'third strike' of stealing a pack of smokes. Then voting Republican is definitely against your interest because they will tax you to pay for locking up people and bombing cafes, and you won't even get the benefit of social insurance should you need it! Obdicut posted:Do you get my point? The economic self-interest argument is incredibly flawed, both because it's cynical as poo poo and basically libertarianism, and because we want people who have huge amounts of money and power--the kind of people you're talking about above, who are so rich that they need fear nothing--to actually work for the good of society in general. I'm fine with people voting in their economic self-interest all the time, because that means the top 1% will lose by sheer numbers. That's like the whole reason the rich allied with the racists and the fundies post-WW2 in the first place, to break the New Deal coalition by peeling away people who could be convinced to vote against their self-interest by fearmongering about the blacks/gays/abortionists/libertines/whathaveyou
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
The 1% of this country are so socially and economically isolated from everyone else there is no way they are ever going to become altruistic without some sort of catastrophe or massive political upheaval.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is the case for all insurance (has to be or it couldn't work), that doesn't mean paying for insurance is against your economic self-interest. Not necessarily. If huge blocks of the population represented by insurance end up with discount deals through negotiation while uninsured and underinsured pay full price, insurance can work out being a very good deal unless you are uncannily healthy and accident free. Of course, such a system means that either individuals or government taxes are picking up the huge bill for the uninsured and underinsured. But just like any group buy program, insurance is capable of being win win for the company and users.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Feather posted:For my part I'm as baffled by "white support" of Hillary or any other conservative. Let me qualify that. I get why affluent or very wealthy people (of any race) would support Hillary. I even get why a large fraction of feminists (of any gender or race) would (breaking race barriers to the office as Obama did was important, likewise gender). And instead they're supposed to support.... ? An old white man from the whitest state in the union, who's talked around the topic of race so much he's actively being called out for avoiding it? The guy who's trying not to have the phrase 'mass arrest' show up in his press kit? That guy from Rhode Island who nobody remembers? Vermin Supreme? Seriously, if my option as a demographic is between someone who at least pays lip service to my needs and someone who tries to pretend the problem isn't there, I don't see what's so mystifying. Particularly when the former is 75-95% likely to win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Not necessarily. If huge blocks of the population represented by insurance end up with discount deals through negotiation while uninsured and underinsured pay full price, insurance can work out being a very good deal unless you are uncannily healthy and accident free. Well yes that's true, in the situations in which the insurance is collective bargaining with enough power to negotiate lower prices for its members it can be win-win, although that seems like even more reason for hypothetical-FYGM-Obdicut not to vote Republican, since the person who becomes uninsurable and is stuck paying sucker prices may be him or a loved one. You have to have an assload of money for PPACA or UHC to actually be a bad risk for you economically compared with what Republicans are offering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
the arguments in this thread are just RIDICULOUS
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
A3th3r posted:the arguments in this thread are just RIDICULOUS But why would they be arguing against their own best interests!?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:You said "We need people who have privilege and power to recognize the broader, non-economic interests at work." In a world where Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and every other rich scumbag in the country is shelling out to elect scummier and scummier people to influential political positions, the few rich people who actually do recognize there's a problem (like Warren Buffett) count for very little. It will take a very, very long time--if it ever happens at all--to get a 1% class in this country that is altruistic to the point where it's no longer an issue. It will take a long time and a lot of effort to do anything worthwhile. What other options do we have? VitalSigns posted:
Yeah, but that sheer numbers thing also means that minorities can get really easily hosed. Look, this is a total derail by this point, but what I'm saying is that the economic self-interest argument is janky and complex and can lead to hosed up places. It was in the economic-self interest of slave-holders to keep their slaves. It was in the economic self-interest of white union members to exclude blacks from the higher-paying jobs. It is in the economic self-interest of white property owners to prevent black families from moving in near by. If you extend the frame outwards, you can eventually make an argument that in a very broad, very long term communalism is in their economic self interest, but it is not a straightforward argument, and it leaves you very vulnerable to counter-arguments appealing to that person's short-term or apparent and more simply explained economic self-interest. I really think a better future lies in appealing to people's actual sympathy and humanity, and encouraging those values in our society, rather than the more cynical calculation of self-interest. Anyway, as I said, this is a total derail and I'm going to stop engaging with it now. To pull it back on target: The reason why Sander's economic argument presented in the wake of Ferguson is tone-deaf and silly is because the police assaults on black communities really matter to Black people in the here and now, and dismissing that to focus on long-term economic benefits which are much harder to calculate and not particular to the Black community is really short-sighted and will never convince Black people in general to vote for him. An Angry Bug posted:Obdicute, whether or not you're right, you're being an obnoxious and condescending prick about it. Hey, at least I managed not to call anyone a prick, though I'd like to take this time to say that disreputable dog is in fact a big ol' prick in a bad way. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Obdicute, whether or not you're right, you're being an obnoxious and condescending prick about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
In actual news, Jeb has switched up his campaign managers. Looks like he's tired of stumbling through basic public appearances and is getting ready to hit back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yeah, but that sheer numbers thing also means that minorities can get really easily hosed. Look, this is a total derail by this point, but what I'm saying is that the economic self-interest argument is janky and complex and can lead to hosed up places. It was in the economic-self interest of slave-holders to keep their slaves. It was in the economic self-interest of white union members to exclude blacks from the higher-paying jobs. All of these people you're talking about who benefit are a tiny minority of rich people. Slavery was definitely not in the economic interest of those too poor to own slaves because its existence depressed wages. And excluding black people from collective bargaining is not in the interest of rank-and-file union members, you're just creating wage competition and scabs if you do that. Using black strikebreakers was a common business tactic to undermine unions, solidarity is always in the workers' best interests. Telling black people they can't join your union is one of the best possible examples of people acting against their own interests because of irrational prejudice. But anyway, if you're done engaging with the derail then I am too, though I do think it's an interesting discussion if maybe a bit off-topic for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Are we seriously arguing that the solution is to suck up to the ultrarich enough that they'll see the light and stop being sociopaths? This is actually a thing that people actually think?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Are we seriously arguing that the solution is to suck up to the ultrarich enough that they'll see the light and stop being sociopaths? This is actually a thing that people actually think? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:In actual news, Jeb has switched up his campaign managers. Looks like he's tired of stumbling through basic public appearances and is getting ready to hit back. It wasn't his former manager who forced him to screw up all the time, bit a faster talking flim-flam man could help with damage control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
That article suggests Bush isn't going to heavily contest Iowa. Taking that first state can do a lot to push a more mid-range candidate into the top tier, who's competitive there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Dolash posted:That article suggests Bush isn't going to heavily contest Iowa. Taking that first state can do a lot to push a more mid-range candidate into the top tier, who's competitive there? Walker, Huckabee. Maybe Rubio. Comedy answer: Santorum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:53
|
|