|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:This is drifting into that cartoon that does the rounds around here of "Reagan did [X Horrible Thing], but he was so personable!" If the litmus test of a GOP candidate is that he is charismatic but still abominable on the issues, I mean what are doing? Handing out points for second-best? Typically, these threads have been who we think will be the nominee and discussing stories going on surrounding the campaign, not who we want to be the nominee.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:It's like they can't comprehend why Romney lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Rick Santorum is thinking about running again. Get ready for him to be an early front runner on name recognition alone. Now he did this wrong this time. Too close to actual Christmas for this to have the early Christmas feeling to it his announcement had for the 2012 race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Typically, these threads have been who we think will be the nominee and discussing stories going on surrounding the campaign, not who we want to be the nominee. Oh sure, but SedanChair was originally selling George W. Bush as someone who is both morally superior to the current wave of GOP candidates and an actual good statesman. These are both demonstrably false, and he wasn't particularly well-thought of for his presidential debates, either, several of which he effectively lost, despite his competition being pretty wooden. I mean, does anyone really have to go into how much of a dumpster fire Bush's second term was, alone? It's completely disingenuous to just blame the specter of party politics when the Bush administration was mired in cronyism, dysfunction, and scandal on nearly every front. The Bush administration collapsed under the weight of its own bullshit. It's really irrelevant to color this as Bush just being a provincial who strived to be harmless despite the reality. That excuses nothing whatsoever. He completely poisoned the well for future GOP candidates, especially on foreign policy. By 2012 this evolved into a candidate unable to articulate his Bush era positions on any number of issues on account of how politically toxic they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Oh sure, but SedanChair was originally selling George W. Bush as someone who is both morally superior to the current wave of GOP candidates and an actual good statesman. These are both demonstrably false, and he wasn't particularly well-thought of for his presidential debates, either, several of which he effectively lost, despite his competition being pretty wooden. You took a completely different message from SedanChair's post than me. He addressed how "statemanlike" Bush appeared and linked to a debate performance in which he thought Bush did well, and talked about how Bush handled himself well in hostile press conferences. Nowhere in there is he actually advocating for any of Bush's policies, or even mentions them. He's just saying that, as a candidate and as a politician, he did very well and knew how to carry himself in these situations rather compared to Mitt Romney shouting "ANDERSON!". Don't fall for the echo-chamber of demonzing posters just because they think a Republican is doing a good job presenting himself and communicating and mixing that into approval for what the Republican stands for. Saying "George Bush presented himself well in this part of the debate" is much different than the often-trotted out "Nixon was a secret liberal" I also don't at all buy into the left-wing meme that John Kerry trounced Bush at each of the debates. First one, sure, but as we saw in 2012's post-analyses, it is pretty common for the challenger to have a good first debate. I remember watching the 2nd and 3rd debates in 2004. They were boring, and besides that stupid "wire" conspiracy theory, nothing at all memorable happened in them. And if the headline is "nothing happened", the incumbent wins. notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:He completely poisoned the well for future GOP candidates, especially on foreign policy. By 2012 this evolved into a candidate unable to articulate his Bush era positions on any number of issues on account of how politically toxic they are. I really wonder what alternative to Bush era neocon imperialism will arise in the GOP. It would seem that openly acknowledging these policies were a horrible failure would be a necessary first step to moving on, but that hasn't happened. We're at the point where most of us probably know a fair number of rabid GOP supporters will now acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq in particular was a total disaster and never should have been undertaken (despite the fact that all these people rabidly supported the invasion at the time and denounced any critic as a traitor). But we have nothing but Bush retreads espousing the same policies, candidates doing the same while remaining mum on the actual track record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:You took a completely different message from SedanChair's post than me. He addressed how "statemanlike" Bush appeared and linked to a debate performance in which he thought Bush did well, and talked about how Bush handled himself well in hostile press conferences. At the risk of talking about a poster in absentia when he is certainly reading the thread, here is what he actually said: quote:I propose that Bush was a reasonably statesmanlike, quick-witted and competent president compared to the 2012 field. . . Bush was also capable of surviving a hostile press conference, because he apprised himself of facts outside the echo chamber. That's gone now. . . Despite his belief in functionally bigoted policies, Bush genuinely deplored bigotry. He never used coded language to divide Americans. His wars slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims, but at least he had the decency to reiterate the difference between Islam and the political entities he was fighting. . . A lot of people say we never saw Bush during the election because his name is poison; I'd guess that the field of panderers was also repellent to him and it was with no great sense of anguish that he excused himself from campaigning. Bush is "competent," "statesmanlike," "outside the echo chamber," and "never used coded language to divide Americans?" This is about more than how he merely appears, and is also rubbish. quote:Nowhere in there is he actually advocating for any of Bush's policies, or even mentions them. He's just saying that, as a candidate and as a politician, he did very well and knew how to carry himself in these situations rather compared to Mitt Romney shouting "ANDERSON!". Don't fall for the echo-chamber of demonzing posters just because they think a Republican is doing a good job presenting himself and communicating and mixing that into approval for what the Republican stands for. Saying "George Bush presented himself well in this part of the debate" is much different than the often-trotted out "Nixon was a secret liberal" Bush's campaign was on-message and had an effective strategy, which is more than can be said for either of his general election opponents. For what it's worth, I agree that Bush is a better politician than any Republican who ran in 2012, but this isn't saying much when he systematically burnt down the party platform from 2005-2008. In fact, he's very much responsible for ushering in a wave of hysterical extremists. The entire Perry campaign was an open attempt to re-capture that Bush magic, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Bush's campaign was on-message and had an effective strategy, which is more than can be said for either of his general election opponents. For what it's worth, I agree that Bush is a better politician than any Republican who ran in 2012, but this isn't saying much when he systematically burnt down the party platform from 2005-2008. In fact, he's very much responsible for ushering in a wave of hysterical extremists. The entire Perry campaign was an open attempt to re-capture that Bush magic, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Bush is "competent," "statesmanlike," "outside the echo chamber," and "never used coded language to divide Americans?" This is about more than how he merely appears, and is also rubbish. drat dude, I never said I liked the man, but the electorate chose him for a reason. I promise that I was right there chain-smoking and screaming at Alberto Gonzales on C-SPAN along with you.  George W. Bush is a very bad manHaving said that, his image was put together well. He had surrogates do the divisive attacks while he looked above it all. Santorum, Perry etc. did those attacks personally. Also you are kind of pulling one-word quotes out of context there. I said he was reasonably competent and statesmanlike compared to the 2012 field. Do you remember the primaries? e: I also don't buy the whole "Bush destroyed the party platform" bit. Bush tried to push for immigration reform and his party wouldn't give it to him. Yes, he tacitly (e: VVV openly) approved anti-gay planks, but that was pretty mainstream in 2004. Most of the stuff that is thrown at Bush would be more accurately leveled at the party, Congress and the right-wing entertainment industry. I'm just saying, if you keep attacking the apelike caricature of Bush instead of the actual man, some "reasonably competent and statesmanlike" contender is going to come along with his style and blindside you. You keep saying "BUT HIS POLICIES" as if this were Athens in the time of Pericles and not the United States. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Nov 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, he tacitly approved anti-gay planks, but that was pretty mainstream in 2004. Not so tacitly, really
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Most of the stuff that is thrown at Bush would be more accurately leveled at the party, Congress and the right-wing entertainment industry. I'm just saying, if you keep attacking the apelike caricature of Bush instead of the actual man, some "reasonably competent and statesmanlike" contender is going to come along with his style and blindside you. You keep saying "BUT HIS POLICIES" as if this were Athens in the time of Pericles and not the United States. I actually quite agree with this. Bush was terrible, but fundamentally he was a politician rather than a pundit; the same cannot be said for many contemporary GOP candidates. For all the well-deserved mockery, Bush was a competent speaker and knew how to surround himself with smart people - essential qualities in a leader. He poisoned the well for the Bush family and the 2008 election, but certainly not for the folksy yet determined Republican candidate. The idea that Americans have fundamentally shifted and simply won't respond to that brand of conservatism is alluring, but really can't be borne out by the polling. 2016 will be a real fight - all the more so if Democrats sit on their laurels and revive the idea of the silent liberal majority that was so popular back in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
quote:Also you are kind of pulling one-word quotes out of context there. I said he was reasonably competent and statesmanlike compared to the 2012 field. Do you remember the primaries? I'm not going to block quote you again because this is getting silly. George W. Bush and his terrible presidency are entirely the reason we got the field in 2012 that we did. The expertise he surrounded himself with was the same crew that was behind Romney. George W. Bush is the reason that, in the debates, neither Romney nor Ryan would articulate what their Afghanistan/Iran strategy was or what their budget plans were. You have said that he meant well and disliked the Republican political climate and direction. This is pretty rich, given that he is entirely, unapologetically responsible for it even if we read the Bush presidency as Bush occupying the White House while Cheney was in the basement making policy. If he's secretly affable, that's totally immaterial. It's ludicrous to suggest that the most autocratic administration in modern history was somehow not his responsibility. A photo op with Sikhs doesn't make him statesman-like in the least. His thumbprint was inescapably on every 2012 GOP candidate. He convinced much of the GOP establishment that all you needed to run for president was fundamentalism and to repudiate all budgetary math, giving rise to a wave of insane morons with qualifications that indeed make Bush seem great by comparison. In his first election he lost the popular vote, and let's face it, probably the election itself if anyone bothered to count correctly. In his second election he won narrowly against a candidate who couldn't get out from under him while the real Democratic momentum was in Howard Dean's candidacy, which fundamentally became the model for Obama's in terms of its approach to fund-raising and gaining support. In addition to observing that Bush was a better campaigner (yes), your posts clearly asked us to cut Bush some slack. No. Not ever. Lastly, my problem is not that you could buy a Bushism daily calendar for eight years and "lol he started the Iraq War to avenge his dad and fight Gog and Magog!" It's that he was a demonstrably horrible president in every aspect aside perhaps from campaigning. But his campaign style birthed a thousand horrors in its wake. quote:I actually quite agree with this. Bush was terrible, but fundamentally he was a politician rather than a pundit; the same cannot be said for many contemporary GOP candidates. For all the well-deserved mockery, Bush was a competent speaker and knew how to surround himself with smart people - essential qualities in a leader. He poisoned the well for the Bush family and the 2008 election, but certainly not for the folksy yet determined Republican candidate. The idea that Americans have fundamentally shifted and simply won't respond to that brand of conservatism is alluring, but really can't be borne out by the polling. 2016 will be a real fight - all the more so if Democrats sit on their laurels and revive the idea of the silent liberal majority that was so popular back in 2000. All the folksy Republicans lost to the establishment candidate, who lost because had nothing but "the economy is not getting better enough!" to run on, because the well is not only poisoned, it's stuffed with dead Americans, burnt money, and repugnant social policies that only 47% of voters want. The 2016 election will surely be a fight, but Democrats have a growing demographic advantage that they have learned how to exploit with a superior campaign infrastructure. Democrats have the clear advantage until further notice. Are there better GOP candidates waiting in the wings than Romney? Surely, I can't imagine most plausible nominees having a worse summer than Romney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 08:42
|
|
|
Jon Huntsman has been named co-chair of No Labels with nominally Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, in the next step of his 2016 Americans Elect campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Jon Huntsman has been named co-chair of No Labels with nominally Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, in the next step of his 2016 Americans Elect campaign. Now I know why we haven't seen much of Arkane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Now I know why we haven't seen much of Arkane. It was either his real life duties as Being Jon Huntsman™, or the fact that there isn't much for him to be smug about post-election. Six of one... On another note, fellow Ohioans, be prepared: Miami Herald posted:To create buzz and lure donors, other Republican contenders with less prominent profiles will have to start early — traveling, campaigning for other candidates and accessing free media. We saw Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal start down this route already. A long list of able GOP governors (e.g., Virginia’s Bob McDonnell, Ohio’s John Kasich, New Mexico’s Susana Martinez) and Sens. Bob Portman, of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, among others, may take that avenue. These candidates by sheer persistence will need to break through the crowd and media din to find their own space in the contest. I've heard some minor rumors about Kasich considering a second presidential run (His first was in 2000; I don't think he lasted long enough to get to any primary voting states). I'm interested to see how this goes considering the dynamic between Husted and Kasich as of late (Husted has been partially bucking against state GOP members to either redefine himself as more moderate to seek higher office or just get away from the stench of SB 5). If Kasich starts popping up in Florida, Virginia, and Colorado, get yo' popcorn ready, Buckeyeian members, because this train ain't got no tracks. Edit - Here's an article discussing Kasich's previous Presidential run. I had no idea Google had an awesome archive of newspapers like this, so now it looks like I'm going to waste hours/days of my life staring at this stuff. Fucitol fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Nov 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Now I know why we haven't seen much of Arkane. He did show up to brag about how his 2012 Intrade bets made him $200k (dance puppets, he knew it was going to be Obama all along).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:He did show up to brag about how his 2012 Intrade bets made him $200k (dance puppets, he knew it was going to be Obama all along).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Even that makes zero sense as the odds didn't even exist to score such a windfall. This is the internet my friend. We are all 18 year old female Intrade millionaires.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Even that makes zero sense as the odds didn't even exist to score such a windfall. He said he made a bunch of other bets as well, including non-political ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
I'm pretty confident (for several reasons) that Arkane made the money he said he did. Good for him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Petey posted:I'm pretty confident (for several reasons) that Arkane made the money he said he did. Well thank Christ we still live in an America where it's trivial for the rich to get richer
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
Petey posted:I'm pretty confident (for several reasons) that Arkane made the money he said he did. As am I. Now lets see him dump it all into Americans Elect for Huntsman only to have Roemer get the nomination.  Assuming anyone even gets their minimum threshold in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:
I have to respect you for your undying hatred of Bush. But I think you may be looking for this man: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 22:48
|
|
amounting to "Bush ruined the party by hiring neocons and pandering to fundamentalists"
|
SedanChair posted:I have to respect you for your undying hatred of Bush. But I think you may be looking for this man: Yes and any suggestion that Bush was above the fray is simply incorrect. Also Reagan is notable in this context for not destroying his own party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yes and any suggestion that Bush was above the fray is simply incorrect. The disaster that is the GOP is the direct result of Reagan. Very little has changed for them since his political reign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The disaster that is the GOP is the direct result of Reagan. Very little has changed for them since his political reign. Reagan wouldn't make it out of the primaries in the current GOP
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Reagan wouldn't make it out of the primaries in the current GOP He would be a RINO today despite being considered an extremist in the 1970's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Reagan wouldn't make it out of the primaries in the current GOP I wouldn't put my money on that if he had Lee Atwater in his corner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:He would be a RINO today despite being considered an extremist in the 1970's. Someone needs to pretend to be a Republican seeking the nomination and parrot Reagan exactly to see what the reaction would be. Sadly no one would take them seriously enough for it to work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I have to respect you for your undying hatred of Bush. But I think you may be looking for this man:
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Interesting quote from Brian Schweitzer:quote:Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Sunday that he has "warm regard for the people of Iowa and New Hampshire" when asked what he thought about a 2016 presidential run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Trast posted:Someone needs to pretend to be a Republican seeking the nomination and parrot Reagan exactly to see what the reaction would be. Sadly no one would take them seriously enough for it to work. And then if they do win and are really popular show up to the convention dressed as Willy Wonka, refuse the nomination, yell "gotcha fuckers!" and run cackling into the night like a madman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:Interesting quote from Brian Schweitzer: Positioning himself as an outsider, talking up Iowa and New Hampshire... At the very least, he sure doesn't plan on disappearing after he's out of office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Apparently, campaign people come together every four years to talk about the election. Buzzfeed: Republicans to Obama school Choice quote from one of the Republican attendees. quote:“We weren’t even running in the same race,” one downtrodden Romney aide told BuzzFeed after hearing the details of the Obama operation. “They were just amazing.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Mike Bloomberg is trying to draft Hillary Clinton into running...for mayor of New York City.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Wikipedia's list of "potential candidates" is hilariously broad. Their standard for inclusion is "must have been mentioned as a potential candidate in two media sources". Jack Markell? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
It would appear someone who contributed to that Wikipedia page doesn't much like Mike Beebe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It would appear someone who contributed to that Wikipedia page doesn't much like Mike Beebe. They don't seem to be a fan of Biden either. I really wonder what that Cory Booker picture is supposed to be. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
richardfun posted:Apparently, campaign people come together every four years to talk about the election. Buzzfeed: Republicans to Obama school I wonder how many started to believe they had this in the bag, for sure, and were truly crushing Obama's campaign? They were so proud of that one cell phone app.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Chronojam posted:I wonder how many started to believe they had this in the bag, for sure, and were truly crushing Obama's campaign? They were so proud of that one cell phone app. Probably more than a few. I don't doubt the Obama campaign had some of these kinds of victory-is-certain types and the reason we're not hearing about them is that Obama won. And then I consider the vast array of data available to the Obama campaign and the volunteer infrastructure they possessed, and think there probably weren't that many who believed they were going to win as an article of faith alone, since the campaign seemed to have a very clear view of how things were going. There may have been all manner of people certain of victory but it's probably due to the fact that they saw it coming, and had numbers to show. The Romney campaign seemed to just rely on this massive underlying dislike of the President that did not actually exist, which would explain why so many conservatives waved 2010 around like it was a prelude. It served the narrative and was a data point, which was apparently enough for the Romney campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:23
|
|
