|
Journalists keep saying Paul Ryan will bring substance to the conversation, but I though 2012 exposed him as an emperor with no clothes. 
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
"I gotta say, Scott Walker at least had the sense to drop out after it was obvious he was going to win. But here's all these losers who are doing even worse than he was wasting the time of the American people. Why are they even allowed here?" -Donald Trump tomorrow, probably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I mean, he might as well. This is the most positive traction he's had his entire run. Could've picked a better brewery, but I won't hold that against him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Politicians should drink more. Like our Canadian founding fathers 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Journalists keep saying Paul Ryan will bring substance to the conversation, but I though 2012 exposed him as an emperor with no clothes. Journalists are both impossibly stupid and in constant need of things to 'expertly' analyze to fill air time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
zoux posted:Lindsay Graham is turning into the guy from Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Presidential politics is a rough trade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Journalists keep saying Paul Ryan will bring substance to the conversation, but I though 2012 exposed him as an emperor with no clothes. Yes, to anyone with a brain. However, even acknowledging that would just be way too "partisan" for your average journalist. Much like the old unwritten rules about presidential indiscretions, there is a mainstream consensus not to acknowledge certain realities about the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Presidential politics is a rough trade. What. Who said that. What a terrible thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Ryan being Speaker is the closest he's ever going to get to being President. Which would be great if he got voted out next year. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Years ago I thought that everyone participating in the debate should be required to drink at least enough to blow a .08, for hilarity and accidental honesty. According to Herodutus’ Histories, this was how the Persians made decisions. They'd get completely plastered, debate and come to a conclusion. When they'd sobered up in the morning, they'd see if they still wanted to go through with what they'd decided on. If not, then it was time to get shitfaced again. Herodutus Book I, Chapter 133 posted:[3] They are very partial to wine. No one may vomit or urinate in another's presence: this is prohibited among them. Moreover, it is their custom to deliberate about the gravest matters when they are drunk; [4] and what they approve in their deliberations is proposed to them the next day, when they are sober, by the master of the house where they deliberate; and if, being sober, they still approve it, they act on it, but if not, they drop it. And if they have deliberated about a matter when sober, they decide upon it when they are drunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I believe you'll find most people don't own all that much land these days. Seems like it's much the same nowadays. All the monied, secure people vote, a way less proportion of the underclass do too
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:To be fair, Officer Slam would be a baller alias as a pro wrestler. Come on, bro. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:I just want to say that if you haven't already you should follow Cher on Twitter. I mean not just because she is a fabulous gay icon but almost everything she posts is adorably unhinged, even when you might agree with her. This is a couple of pages back, but Cher helped out Nick Diaz get over 100k signatures on his white house petition. Nick Diaz is a UFC fighter that got suspended 5 years for pot with test results that aren't humanly possible entirely because he showed up to a commission hearing with decent attorneys and didn't kowtow to the NSAC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Ahahahahahahahahaha http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/campaigns-gripe-over-greenrooms-at-third-gop-debate-215226 quote:During a tense 30-minute meeting at the Coors Event Center, which was described by three sources present, several lower-polling campaigns lashed out at the RNC. They accused the committee of allotting them less-than-hospitable greenroom spaces while unfairly giving lavish ones to higher-polling candidates, such as Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Click on the link for hilarious pics of several of the greenrooms. They're all delightfully weird and different. They stuck Rubio's people in what is pretty clearly the video room for CU's basketball teams and Fiorina & co got a training/rehab room. No clue how they'll approach the jacuzzi. Rand Paul basically got a changing room/cell. The article unfortunately didn't include pics of Christie's bathroom. quote:“This is ridiculous,” fumed Christie’s campaign manager, Ken McKay. “We’re in a restroom.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:Ahahahahahahahahaha Maybe this is what Christie was so pissed about on the quiet car. Good lord the whole GOP race is such a hilarious shitshow I don't ever want it to end. We all thought nothing could top the 2012 primaries, oh how wrong we were.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Good lord the whole GOP race is such a hilarious shitshow I don't ever want it to end. I used to think following politics was a lofty pursuit. And now here I am reading thousands upon thousands of words about what may as well be the wacky stoner comedy version of a presidential primary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Come on, bro. I'd vote for a guy who crashed Big Show's dad's funeral with a Bluesmobile, tied the coffin to it, and drove off with it while yelling "YER DADDY'S DEAD!!!" over the loudspeaker. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:Produce these polls. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html Clinton is either trailing or neck and neck with every serious contender except for Trump. Biden was looking great, but of course he was essentially untested and his numbers would have gone down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Wheres the data on Bernie? Or is it just for Clinton?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Wheres the data on Bernie? Or is it just for Clinton? They've got Sanders against Bush and Trump, but not the less likely candidates. Mostly Sanders shows up in the primary polls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
national polls are for chumps anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:national polls are for chumps anyway Right, chumps who vote. Nate Silver does a much better job of breaking down the polling info than anyone else, and he's certainly not excited about the Democratic chances for pulling off a win next year. Any way you look at it, it'll be a tough election for liberals. And so far there isn't really public awareness of that fact since the Republican field looks like a circus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Is it even likely Sanders can get the nomination . Ugh. Hillary may cost us the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Right, chumps who vote. Nate Silver does a much better job of breaking down the polling info than anyone else, and he's certainly not excited about the Democratic chances for pulling off a win next year. Any way you look at it, it'll be a tough election for liberals. And so far there isn't really public awareness of that fact since the Republican field looks like a circus. Look at Obama's national polls against Romney in Oct 2011 and you'll see that his numbers match Clinton's current numbers. National polls don't matter right now (or ever really). Swing state polls matter and they don't start until later in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Is it even likely Sanders can get the nomination . Ugh. Hillary may cost us the Presidency. Sanders has never really had much of a chance of getting the Democratic nomination, and he'd have an extremely difficult path to victory in the general election. He struggles to compete with the Republican front-runners even though they haven't even really turned their attention toward him. He's only had maybe a month or so of attacks from the right, otherwise he's been ignored. Hillary Clinton has the advantage of being a known candidate, and so her numbers have been fairly consistent and predictable since entering the race. There aren't a whole lot of surprises there, or undecideds who simply don't have an opinion of her. Her numbers are probably as low as they're going to get, particularly against GOP candidates that remain relatively noncommittal in the public sphere. Carson, for example, is doing great right now because he's coming across as a conservative evangelical who is otherwise a blank slate that moderates and conservatives can project their opinions onto, and hasn't been subjected to much in the way of detailed negative campaigning. His numbers will certainly go down as he becomes more well-known.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Right, chumps who vote. Nate Silver does a much better job of breaking down the polling info than anyone else, and he's certainly not excited about the Democratic chances for pulling off a win next year. Any way you look at it, it'll be a tough election for liberals. And so far there isn't really public awareness of that fact since the Republican field looks like a circus. State polls are what matter because of the brilliant  Electoral College.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Is it even likely Sanders can get the nomination . Ugh. Hillary may cost us the Presidency. If Sanders can't get enough votes to win the primary, he wouldn't be a better candidate in the general. It's that simple.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
That's a bit like saying that the only polls that matter are the ones conducted on Nov. 2. State polls are more accurate predictors of the actual outcomes of the state elections, but national polls are quite sufficient for gauging party support on a national level. The writing is clearly on the wall that this is going to be a tough election for Democrats, unless the Trump Circus gets the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:State polls are what matter because of the brilliant State polls might not matter as much in 2020 if the GOP grows their legislature control in 2018 in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and possibly Colorado. They'll try and split the electoral votes up by districts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
sullat posted:Pretty much. Bernie will get a good speaking place at the convention and will probably stump for Hillary on things like $15 min wage and other planks of the Democratic platform that he's been pushing. Did he formally join the party in order to participate in the Democratic party? Can't remember. He formally registered as a Democrat in order to get onto the New Hampshire ballot (and probably some other ballots as well).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:State polls might not matter as much in 2020 if the GOP grows their legislature control in 2018 in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and possibly Colorado. They'll try and split the electoral votes up by districts. People have been talking about this being the way the Republicans can win back the Presidency but they still have not done this at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:People have been talking about this being the way the Republicans can win back the Presidency but they still have not done this at all. If they lose the 2016 election due to demographics and also grow their majorities in 2018 (fueled by Clinton hate) they will have a lot more reason and motivation to. They've been testing the waters each of the last few years. It's just a matter of time in my opinion, unless there is some kind of shift in state politics where it keeps the GOP from having perpetual control of state legislatures. Wisconsin for example might be majority GOP for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Yeah I know it's a possible strategy their exploring. They're also moving hard on the voter suppression which to me is worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:If they lose the 2016 election due to demographics and also grow their majorities in 2018 (fueled by Clinton hate) they will have a lot more reason and motivation to. They've been testing the waters each of the last few years. 2020 is a long time from now. Will the Clinton machine finally be able to mobile the party top down for races other than the president? It seems pretty clear that getting Democratic control in at least one chamber will be essential for her creating her own legacy if elected. She can't expect to cram things in via a wave election like Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Am I misremembering or wasn't the Senate and House controlled by the Democrats in 2008 and 2010 was when it started going down hill. Meaning Obama could have put through what legislation he needed. Democrats are basically idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Am I misremembering or wasn't the Senate and House controlled by the Democrats in 2008 and 2010 was when it started going down hill. Meaning Obama could have put through what legislation he needed. Something something Lieberman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Am I misremembering or wasn't the Senate and House controlled by the Democrats in 2008 and 2010 was when it started going down hill. Meaning Obama could have put through what legislation he needed. lol once again, people like to casually forget about ARRA, ACA, lilly ledbetter, etc etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Am I misremembering or wasn't the Senate and House controlled by the Democrats in 2008 and 2010 was when it started going down hill. Meaning Obama could have put through what legislation he needed. A lot of good stuff got passed. The Democrats only had a supermajority for 9 months. Led by Lieberman, Nelson, Pryor and etc essentially.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
moller posted:Something something Lieberman. Something something Blue Dogs, Ben Nelson, Bart Stupak, etcetera. Any rear end in a top hat who tries to make a case that the Democrats could have just rubber-stamped anything they wanted in 2009-10 is, on the basis of their idiotic statements, either aggressively ignorant of the composition of the legislature at that time or so incredibly shallow as to believe the Democratic caucuses in the legislative houses are a Pelosi-clone army. Assuming, of course, they aren't simply making poo poo up to cover for the lingering damage caused by the Bush administration or the dysfunction trademarked by the tea party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Something something Blue Dogs, Ben Nelson, Bart Stupak, etcetera. A lot of good stuff got killed by Lieberman alone, such as lowering the medicare age to 55.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:40
|
|