|
Looking back, I think the only time the democratic presidential primary has had an obvious early frontrunner who then went on to win it was 2000. The only other years I can think of that anyone was perceived to be in that position was 2008, and maybe 1984? Whereas the republicans seem to have had someone clearly in front straight out of the gate every year other than 2008 since 1976. I used to think this was due to the parties' differing views on authority, but they seem to be switching now. Maybe a 'next in line' nominating process is a sign of a dominant party in presidential politics? gagelion fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jun 12, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
On balance it's way better to be the presumptive nominee than a scrappy underdog (a once in a lifetime, historical, incredibly well financed underdog is a little better) not that Hillary has absolutely any say in the matter.gagelion posted:Looking back, I think the only time the democratic presidential primary has had an obvious early frontrunner who then went on to win it was 2000. Hillary seems likely to have as strong a position as Gore did in 2000. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Then using the phrase "similar circumstances" was some spectacularly unclear writing. You can't blame people for jumping all over that. That's understandable, given 'presumptive nominee' was the language used then and in the post I quoted. They bandied the term 'inevitable' about back then too but perhaps that isn't similar enough to basically assuring the primary will be a walk just like people did in 2008. Cantor just got knocked over by a guy whose whole campaign could have been funded by Cantor's dinner bills and change. Let's go on talking about presumed victory and how the other guy has no chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:On balance it's way better to be the presumptive nominee than a scrappy underdog (a once in a lifetime, historical, incredibly well financed underdog is a little better) not that Hillary has absolutely any say in the matter. Yeah I wasn't counting years where there was already a president since that's kind of assumed to be a walk, unless youre the whig party. :p
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's understandable, given 'presumptive nominee' was the language used then and in the post I quoted. They bandied the term 'inevitable' about back then too but perhaps that isn't similar enough to basically assuring the primary will be a walk just like people did in 2008. The big difference between now and then is that if Clinton isn't inevitable someone has to actually beat her, no one is putting forward any names that seem remotely feasible. Every story written about Hillary in the run up to her 2008 candidacy mentioned Obama. FAUXTON posted:Cantor just got knocked over by a guy whose whole campaign could have been funded by Cantor's dinner bills and change. Let's go on talking about presumed victory and how the other guy has no chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
It seems like every time we get one of these upset elections, the presumed winner underestimates their opponent and totally checks out. I can't believe people still haven't learned their lesson after Hillary 2008 and Coakley....
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
I'm not sure how you'd characterize Hillary as checked out in 2008, she made some bad tactical calls and worse staffing decisions and her surrogates were mostly terrible but on a personal level she was her campaigns strongest asset. She won every debate and overcame a humiliating 3rd place finish in Iowa basically single-handedly in 5 short days, nobody sleepwalks there way into 21 state victories. Barack Obama in 2008 wasn't some dark horse running a fly-by-night operation he had outspent her by 6 million dollars by the time Iowa rolled around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's understandable, given 'presumptive nominee' was the language used then and in the post I quoted. They bandied the term 'inevitable' about back then too but perhaps that isn't similar enough to basically assuring the primary will be a walk just like people did in 2008. Rahm Emanuel will not beat Hillary (or anyone else) in 2016. I almost doubt he'll even win reelection as Mayor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's understandable, given 'presumptive nominee' was the language used then and in the post I quoted. They bandied the term 'inevitable' about back then too but perhaps that isn't similar enough to basically assuring the primary will be a walk just like people did in 2008. It's reasonable to point out that the "inevitable" candidate can still lose. It's loving bananas to quote a post talking specifically about Rahm Emanuel being a challenger and say it's a "similar circumstance" to 2008, which is what you did. Also, Obama was widely recognized as a serious threat as soon as he entered the race, and as a possible future president as soon as he hit the national stage in 2004. You are misremembering the historical context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:I'm not sure how you'd characterize Hillary as checked out in 2008, she made some bad tactical calls and worse staffing decisions and her surrogates were mostly terrible but on a personal level she was her campaigns strongest asset. She won every debate and overcame a humiliating 3rd place finish in Iowa basically single-handedly in 5 short days, nobody sleepwalks there way into 21 state victories. Barack Obama in 2008 wasn't some dark horse running a fly-by-night operation he had outspent her by 6 million dollars by the time Iowa rolled around. Word, I understand she was hitting the ground running after Iowa, but was she not phoning it in before that, or have I just fallen prey to the media spin?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
gagelion posted:Word, I understand she was hitting the ground running after Iowa, but was she not phoning it in before that, or have I just fallen prey to the media spin? She campaigned pretty hard before Iowa, even got the endorsement from the Des Moines Register. The polls leading up to the caucus were a bit all over the place, but mostly showed a tighter race than what it wound up being, which was why Obama's win there was huge. But it wasn't because Clinton didn't put up a fight. The funniest part was watching the election threads here go from near ecstatic jubilation to suicidal despair in the course of a few days after New Hampshire. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
gagelion posted:Word, I understand she was hitting the ground running after Iowa, but was she not phoning it in before that, or have I just fallen prey to the media spin? She phoned in her Iraq war vote. Other than that that isn't really an apt description of her faults.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:I said Democrat, Bloomberg hasn't been one for 13 years. So? He can change to Democrat as well as anyone can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So? He can change to Democrat as well as anyone can. Yes, so could Mitt Romney but neither of them will, neither have any bearing on my assertion that no "Democrat" could out fundraise Hillary this cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Conor Friedersdorf wrote up an endorsement for Russ Feingold over Hillary Clinton. I love Russ Feingold, and would back him over Clinton in a second, but at this point, I don't think he'd stand a chance. Rahm Emanuel has waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much baggage to have a chance in hell at the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Also, there is a 0% chance that Rahm would ever run against Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Conor Friedersdorf wrote up an endorsement for Russ Feingold over Hillary Clinton. The same can be said of Brian Schweitzer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:You're stretching "similar" beyond what the word can bear, Hillary is more popular than she was in 2008 but more importantly she's running against an empty field. You can't overtake a frontrunner from the right in a Democratic primary and there doesn't seem to be anyone who can credibly mount a (successful) challenge from the left, it sure as poo poo isn't going to be Rahm Emmanuel, although I don't know where the notion he'd even think of trying came from. Ask Mitt Romney about how easy it was running against an empty field. I realize the Democratic base is pretty different from the Republican base and the circular-firing-squad effect will be far more minimal even at worst. But being the obvious, nigh-inevitable candidate can carry its own baggage too, everyone's fishing for another option who isn't you. Yeah, she served as Secretary of State fairly recently and did a good job, but Romney was only a couple years out of office in 2011 too. Tatum Girlparts posted:Comparing literally any incarnation of Rahm to 2008 Obama is maybe the funniest joke in this entire site. Rahm is a repugnant human with the charm of a wet fart, not even going into his policy issues. Seriously, I can sell myself Hillary as a reasonable candidate, with a lot of positions I disagree with but also with the political connections and experience presidents need to get things done. Rahm is basically the Democratic Ted Cruz, a douche who's totally wrapped up in enhancing his political power and influence and generally just Playing The Game and Being A Smug rear end in a top hat. It's not quite a perfect fit, Cruz is a Republican outgroup member and Rahm is a Democratic ingroup member, but they're a match in terms of the "nakedly self-interested sociopath" vibe they both project. If there's a dark-horse candidate I just can't see it being Rahm. It better not be. 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I keep hearing that Cruz is a lot smarter than he seems, that he doesn't believe the poo poo he's saying, that he's a complete charlatan who just loves winning arguments and will do anything to win, etc. But that characterization is belied by the fact that he genuinely seems to think that he has a chance of being elected president. In an era where Majority Leader Eric Cantor just lost a primary by 12 points after outspending his completely unheard of wingnut challenger by 5 million to $100k, do we really, really, really think that writing off the 30% of the GOP that gets out the vote the hardest is a gimme, especially if they do manage to unite around a single Now, sure, in the regular order of things this just means the general will be Goldwater-esque, but a)he thinks he's Right (they all do) and b)when you're the nominee of one out of two parties in 201x you are absolutely never worse than 60/40 six months out and who knows maybe the economy tanks in September 2016 again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Seriously, I can sell myself Hillary as a reasonable candidate, with a lot of positions I disagree with but also with the political connections and experience presidents need to get things done. Rahm is basically the Democratic Ted Cruz, a douche who's totally wrapped up in enhancing his political power and influence and generally just Playing The Game. Hillary is like everyone's Plan B. She's an acceptable alternative if nobody better shows up. I'm not thrilled with her, but there doesn't seem to be anybody particularly impressive in the wings of the Democratic party, and she would be orders of magnitude better for the country than having any current Republican in office. Rahm isn't going anywhere beyond Chicago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I think Hillary being "plan B" is pretty much a D&D sort of position. I think she is number one by a longshot in most Democrats' minds. poo poo I know that she's warmongering reptilian scum and I still get excited every once in a while when I think about her running.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Conor Friedersdorf wrote up an endorsement for Russ Feingold over Hillary Clinton. Is Russ Feingold actually running for president or is this just Friedersdorf being a jackass yet again
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Is Russ Feingold actually running for president or is this just Friedersdorf being a jackass yet again Friedersdorf being a jackass. Feingold has barely even been in Iowa, and as far as I know hasn't been talking to the people you normally talk to if you're planning to run. Of course, we're still more than two years out, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think Hillary being "plan B" is pretty much a D&D sort of position. I think she is number one by a longshot in most Democrats' minds. poo poo I know that she's warmongering reptilian scum and I still get excited every once in a while when I think about her running. So do I, but it's not necessarily regarding any kind of eagerness for her style of leadership. I just love seeing conservatives stare blankly into the wreckage of the illusions they'd built up over months or years. There's something about the video of that crazy drinking lady on election night haranguing her contemporaries for backing ronpaul and not being big enough assholes on facebook, or whitepeoplemourning*.jpg thousand-yard stares that makes me smile. It's not the brief, humorous laugh of a good punchline, it's the kind of warm, fulfilled happiness that comes with being content in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Ask Mitt Romney about how easy it was running against an empty field. Mitt Romney is a horrible comparison. Hillary is a very popular first or second choice among a mega majority of the Democratic Party. Mitt Romney was at best everyone's hold your nose and vote for him choice among the Republican Party. People hated Romney so much that they seriously contemplated voting for a Pizza Man, a Drugged up Cowboy, and a goddamn Sky Admiral instead of him. Meanwhile Hillary lost the choice between her and the coolest candidate choice in generations. Nobody thinks Romney is likable, let alone likable enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Rahm isn't going anywhere beyond Chicago. He'll be facing a legitimate threat and could likely lose Chicago. Why stand for contested election to an office you wanted on your original path to 2016?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:He'll be facing a legitimate threat and could likely lose Chicago. Why stand for contested election to an office you wanted on your original path to 2016? Because it's either lose Chicago and maybe take Chief of Staff or a CabSec position in a Clinton admin, or leave Chicago anyway, weaken Clinton, drain her warchest, and possibly have her lose as a result. Then you're out on both and you've just hosed over a Clinton. The sharper of the two, no less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So do I, but it's not necessarily regarding any kind of eagerness for her style of leadership. I just love seeing conservatives stare blankly into the wreckage of the illusions they'd built up over months or years. There's something about the video of that crazy drinking lady on election night haranguing her contemporaries for backing ronpaul and not being big enough assholes on facebook, or whitepeoplemourning*.jpg thousand-yard stares that makes me smile. It's not the brief, humorous laugh of a good punchline, it's the kind of warm, fulfilled happiness that comes with being content in the moment. Thank you for reminding me this exists. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Ask Mitt Romney about how easy it was running against an empty field. The Democratic primary is also unlikely to see the dynamic where certain candidates total inability to fundraise on their own is ameliorated by rich sugar daddies cutting them multi million dollar cheques. Without Adelson, Romney's primary journey would have been a lot smoother.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:Thank you for reminding me this exists. Man, that was a nice trip down memory lane. FAUXTON posted:There's something about the video of that crazy drinking lady on election night haranguing her contemporaries for backing ronpaul and not being big enough assholes on facebook Do you have a link? Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Man, that was a nice trip down memory lane. http://youtu.be/wLoqti0lzAw IMO the best part is her yelling about Romney winning the popular vote when California's polls hadn't, or just had, closed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-gay-marriage-npr-terry-grossquote:“So, just to clarify, just one more question on this, would you say your view evolved since the '90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view?" Gross asked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Terry Gross is a perfect human being  e: vvv if she could, she would woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I can't help but feel like giving an honest goddamn answer would have served her so much better. "I believed it then and believe it now, but it wasn't politically feasible to come out in support of it publicly and the actions I took were those actions that were possible at the time to give it weight" or "I didn't support it then, but I've been convinced I was wrong, and I support it now." or even "I have no particular stance on gay marriage, but the people do, and I believe their voice should be heard." If it wasn't just about politics, if it was honestly her opinion changing, well, she pretty much just managed to convince me that that (which is what I thought before listening to her) is wrong and that she did, in fact, change her opinion solely for political reasons and doesn't care one way or the other. Especially since the host was giving her the benefit of a doubt and actually arguing she was did support support it. So... good job there, Hillary? :/ You managed to move me from "She was always right, but had to hide it for political reasons" to "She doesn't give a poo poo, and only supports it for political reasons." Gonna go finish listening now. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Don't see Gay marriage purity being an issue in the primary given that a millennial candidate would be constitutionally barred from running, every old Democrat has "evolved" on the issue since the 90s, including Barney Frank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Which makes her equivocating even funnier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
That's the worst part! I don't care if she's pure, I don't care if she's always supported it or changed her mind or doesn't even care about it that much. So long as she's willing to back it at all she's fine. All she is doing a convincing job in this interview of making me really, really dislike her though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
To be way fairer than she deserves she's not wrong in saying 'not that many', especially in her position, were public about their gay rights support then. To be honest asking an old guard about their 'evolving' on gay rights has no real purpose other than to be smug, it's really hard to work up more than 'yea that was a dumb answer to a dumb question' to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:To be way fairer than she deserves she's not wrong in saying 'not that many', especially in her position, were public about their gay rights support then. It's because anyone claiming to have "evolved" on the issue is full of poo poo. What happened is: the media became more gay-friendly -> people became more gay-friendly -> politicians feel like they can be gay-friendly. I'm no Hillary hater but her answer amounts to "I am an empty suit who does and thinks whatever the polls say I should."
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
"I didn't think it was right or important before, but like the rest of America, my opinion has changed over time." ...I think it's a pretty reasonable answer? I mean, I felt the same way too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:39
|
|
