|
messagemode1 posted:How is not paying people until you're absolutely forced to not the logical and most business appropriate decision to make, given the time value of money? This is evidence that her business instincts are as sharp as ever. I think she's learning why it's a bad idea now, even from a purely selfish point of view.
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
I hinted at this yesterday, but the debate criteria guarantee we'll see a gimmicky July. Also of note, since the debate criteria rely on poll averages, is that polling firms are already deciding which candidates to winnow. Bobby Jindal and John Kasich don't appear in every poll. This makes is possible that a single poll with an outlier (say Jindal at 7%) could bump another candidate out of debate contention. A better system? I'd like to see the first couple debates use the style that was in place for the Palmetto State Forum (hosted by Jim DeMint) in 2011: each of the candidates appears on stage one-at-a-time in front of a panel of moderators who ask each candidate the same questions and they each have 15 minutes to answer. The candidates know the questions in advance, so if they want to give a short answer on some economic issue to spend more time on foreign policy, they can do that. And, naturally, there's no reason to limit the number of candidates who appear in one of these, though you could use polling averages to dictate the order of appearance.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yeah. She's got about a 90% chance to win the primary and a 99% chance to win the general. You must have missed the video of her primary opponent being racist against native Americans. The only way she's not getting elected is if she drops dead.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Marco's got class!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I know this is from a week ago, but I cannot resist: "Lord knows we need more statesmen."
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:You must have missed the video of her primary opponent being racist against native Americans. The only way she's not getting elected is if she drops dead. I won't count her opponent out. Latino organizations really want to see a Latino Democrat taking Boxer's seat, so her opponent plus a spoiler could sap enough of Harris's base to see Harris pushed out. California almost had two Republicans running for state comptroller in 2014 using this strategy. More likely though is that Harris's chances for the general are lessened by Republicans failing to put up a good candidate in the primary so that it's Sanchez v. Harris round 2 in the general. And remember: Harris isn't going to get Republican votes in Southern California if a Southern Californian is running
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:You must have missed the video of her primary opponent being racist against native Americans. The only way she's not getting elected is if she drops dead. California has their terrible jungle primary system though. If Harris makes it to the top two, she should cruise. I think the primary is the bigger problem for her due to the uncertainty of so many candidates running and getting the D Vote split 3+ ways. She should still be considered an overwhelming favorite for the top two, but the primary system can lead to weird results when there are 3 Dems, one R, and some potential random third party / vanity candidates.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Marco's got class! Every time I see a photo of that guy I think it's Sam Wurzelbacher. This is actually better, so at least Rubio has that going for him. I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
I can't wait for this campaign's Joe the Plumber style moments. That debate format is gold, because it makes the 12+ Republicans contenders for the most powerful political office in the world dance to the tune of TV ratings. I hope we see big, bombastic plays that force candidates to say things they can't walk back in the general.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Marco's got class! I always thought the main Pawn Shop guy was a solid democrat. Never Meet Your Heroes
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I think she's learning There's your problem.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I think Jeb Bush not being involved in politics for the last 10 or so years is going to help him more than hinder him.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Huckabee is skipping the Iowa Straw Poll. I understand Jeb skipping it but this is kind of surprising to me; I'd think Huckabee would be a favorite to win this beauty contest.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
It's a waste of money for a scampaign to bus supporters to Ames, and that's what the winners have had to do recently.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I know this is from a week ago, but I cannot resist: Lord knows we need more statesmen!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I always thought the main Pawn Shop guy was a solid democrat. - Very wealthy. - Made money by giving high interest loans to poor people and buying their possessions for a fraction of the value during a time of desperation. - Obsessed with gold. - Has weird views on women. - Gun collector. - Employer. - Owns an airplane. - Inherited a business from his father and describes himself as someone who "worked their way up from the bottom." Sounds like a Republican to me.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I hinted at this yesterday, but the debate criteria guarantee we'll see a gimmicky July. Do the RNC even care about winning the White House? Because it really feels like they don't.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Do the RNC even care about winning the White House? Because it really feels like they don't. With control of the individual states as well as Congress, the obstructionist strategy can continue as normal. They dont need the presidency to pass their agenda, and they can prevent the next admin from doing theirs. I hope you like a do nothing government!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Do the RNC even care about winning the White House? Because it really feels like they don't. They did exacerbate the situation by considerably shrinking the number of debates, but the GOP doesn't have a lot of good options. Support for any one candidate is so shallow that you don't have any decent percentage cut-off points. Putting the floor at >10% gets you only Bush, Walker, and Rubio. That would be a fine debate late in the cycle, but would be seen as undemocratic this early. It also removes Fiorina and Carson. That's bad optics because Priebus wants to be able to use "look at our diverse field!" as a trump card when asked about who the GOP represents. Putting the floor at >8% gets you Paul, Huckabee, and Cruz. That would give you a decent number, but still just edge Carson out. Rubio is the only one that reads to voters as Hispanic in that mix. So it would look like 5 white guys and a young Hispanic guy. Putting the floor at >5% allows you to add Carson and Christie right now, but 5% is a scary number. If there's a real drag-out fight this summer then a 5% cut-off could mean 15 candidates on stage. So when you consider their options and concerns about stage managing the look of the debates it leads you inevitably to a "Top X" system as the best option. You can't do Top 5, though, because right now that might exclude Carson. Top 5 might also lead to some gnashing of teeth from the base due to the shallow support I mentioned before. You would have people with statistically significant support getting edged out of debates by fractions of the margin of error. They were supposedly talking about using fundraising as one of the criteria for debate inclusion, but even Republicans thought that would probably send the wrong message. ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:14 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:But who will be Ron Paul???!?  
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
ErIog posted:They did exacerbate the situation by considerably shrinking the number of debates, but the GOP doesn't have a lot of good options. Support for any one candidate is so shallow that you don't have any decent percentage cut-off points. When have they ever had a problem with ignoring democracy to push an agenda before?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:It's a waste of money for a scampaign to bus supporters to Ames, and that's what the winners have had to do recently. I'm actually surprised more campaigns aren't skipping it now that it's become increasingly known to just being about who buys it. Plus last cycle Pawlenty sunk his campaign trying to win it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So just say gently caress it and refuse to let polls dictate who gets to debate, and the RNC gets to say who is in the debates and who isn't. It looks really bad and it burns your own supporters to explicitly shut their candidate out of debates. You need an ostensibly neutral metric, so you can claim your hands are tied. The goal is to piss off as few people as possible, while also not embarrassing your future candidate and not letting a crazy get their big break.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I hinted at this yesterday, but the debate criteria guarantee we'll see a gimmicky July. Choice linked tweet from a 538 guy in the article: https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/601127653714833409 If I'm reading Fox News rules correctly, the 10 are... Jeb Bush Rubio Walker Rand Paul Cruz Huckabee Carson Christie Perry Kasich Lol at Kaisch. Has he even declared?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Choice linked tweet from a 538 guy in the article: Christie hasn't either.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Do the RNC even care about winning the White House? Because it really feels like they don't. In Canada, Prime Minister Harper is refusing to participate in the traditional two debates, possibly because he got crushed in the last election's French-language debate. But four of the other parties will be at the usual debates, and so far none have committed to joining Harper's proposed new debates. So a best-case scenario is four candidates all saying why they're better than the current government, while Harper has five debates against Jean-François Fortin, who does not speak English.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Christie hasn't either. Neither has Bush except for that one time on accident.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:Neither has Bush except for that one time on accident. I can't believe campaign finance laws are so pathetic and unenforced - high profile, high visibility unenforced - that a candidate can straight up say "I'm running for President" then declare takesies-backsies so he can keep loading up on the unmarked dollars first.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Marco's got class! Should have gone with 'Chumlee', IMO.  Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:- Very wealthy. Don't forget getting a Christmas card signed by Dean Heller. Seriously, who gives a poo poo about Dean Heller? At least get Sandoval, who will shortly be a Senator anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Dolash posted:I can't believe campaign finance laws are so pathetic and unenforced - high profile, high visibility unenforced - that a candidate can straight up say "I'm running for President" then declare takesies-backsies so he can keep loading up on the unmarked dollars first. It's fine because Bush won't win the primary.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Vermont Democrats pay back the Independent Senator who supported them in their races. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/05/21/sanders-endorsees-dont-return-the-favor quote:When Democrat Peter Shumlin was locked in a close race with Republican Brian Dubie in 2010, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pitched in by holding a series of rallies that helped Shumlin win the open seat.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
And I betcha even that traitor Sanders will betray Sanders and end up nominating Hillary Clinton!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:Vermont Democrats pay back the Independent Senator who supported them in their races. There's no way they wouldn't have you know the party just shuts off money towards people if they want right?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Marco's got class! Well we probably shouldn't even bother having an election now that it's all locked up and what not
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
"You want a Presidential nomination? Lemme call my buddy who's an expert on nominations." *Cut to Cialis commercial for 5 minutes* "Best I can do is 5th place in Iowa. Take it or leave it. I'm giving you a deal here!"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:Vermont Democrats pay back the Independent Senator who supported them in their races.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:What exactly is the problem here? If someone supports you, you are obligated to support them against a candidate you may feel is better? It's not a problem, just a daily reminder that your average democrat politician is a dick at best.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:It's not a problem, just a daily reminder that your average democrat politician is a dick at best. Cronyism is definitely not being dickish.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Oh I missed shumlin on the first read through and thought both were state level politicians but lol at the idea of the mayor of Burlington getting anything from a sitting president.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Cronyism is definitely not being dickish. I want this preserved in stone as a monument to D&D. It's beautiful.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 16:14
|
|
