|
Well, the big news from Reince is that he wants to have the next convention in June or July and has said point-blank "no more August conventions". The reason is obvious: the candidate can't spend funds they've raised for the general election until they've been nominated, so nominate them sooner. You can expect the Democrats to bump their convention up as well if the Republicans do this. He also wants a shorter primary and fewer debates, but the national committee has less control over that than they do the convention, where they have total control. He did float the regional rotating primary idea, which is very interesting, but unlikely to happen. If the conventions get moved, the question is then what do the states do about their state-level candidate primaries? It's in the party's interest, for example, to ensure that they have a single candidate for Governor and Senator (at the least) in each state by the time of the convention, but right now some states don't hold those primaries until very late in August.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
Wouldn't a super-super Tuesday be absolutely murder for candidates in terms of logistics and funding? It sounds like something that would reward a money advantage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure if there's a technical reason that primaries have to take place in the same calendar year of the election they're for (at the very least, I can't see a situation in which IA/NH legislatures wouldn't write new laws to push their primaries back to nov/dec) so I'm not sure that earlier conventions would really do much other than make the primaries start sooner and extend over the same approximate length of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
serewit posted:I'm not sure if there's a technical reason that primaries have to take place in the same calendar year of the election they're for (at the very least, I can't see a situation in which IA/NH legislatures wouldn't write new laws to push their primaries back to nov/dec) so I'm not sure that earlier conventions would really do much other than make the primaries start sooner and extend over the same approximate length of time. As it is, state primaries are over by June, and everyone twiddles their thumbs until August. They could easily move the convention date up a month or six weeks without impacting the primary calendar at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
What's also interesting about the RNC report is that it says there should be no debates before September 1, 2015. That date is after the Ames Straw Poll, so the party is using this to claw back some of the relevance of that event as a winnowing tool for the early primary. Few candidates are going to want to drop out of the race before they've had at least one chance on national TV and that'll probably mean that they're less willing to spend big on Ames. That could actually work against the RNC, since that event is a big fundraiser.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
It's all about making it harder for the fringe candidates who have some level of grassroots or sugar daddy-based funding to get name recognition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Chris Christie to a room full of black people: "It's harder to hate up close." Ah yes, the great compromises between the north and south, always great for black people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Uh, so I guess this is the first official time Hillary has said she's for marriage equality. So, there's that in case there was any remaining doubt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RP9pbKMJ7c
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Uh, so I guess this is the first official time Hillary has said she's for marriage equality. So, there's that in case there was any remaining doubt. Pretty important housekeeping in preparation for a 2016 run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Joementum posted:What's also interesting about the RNC report is that it says there should be no debates before September 1, 2015. That date is after the Ames Straw Poll, so the party is using this to claw back some of the relevance of that event as a winnowing tool for the early primary. Few candidates are going to want to drop out of the race before they've had at least one chance on national TV and that'll probably mean that they're less willing to spend big on Ames. That could actually work against the RNC, since that event is a big fundraiser. I can't see how moving up the national convention could work in the Republican party's favor. Everything leading up to the convention is candidates fighting over their own party members for convention delegates, after the convention it's about convincing the rest of the country to vote for them. Can you imagine Mitt Romney having three and a half months trying to sell his image and message on the issues to the independent voter instead of eight weeks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Pretty important housekeeping in preparation for a 2016 run. Yeah, I think it's safe to say that being against gay marriage is an untenable position for a Democratic nominee now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well, the big news from Reince is that he wants to have the next convention in June or July and has said point-blank "no more August conventions". The reason is obvious: the candidate can't spend funds they've raised for the general election until they've been nominated, so nominate them sooner. You can expect the Democrats to bump their convention up as well if the Republicans do this. He also wants a shorter primary and fewer debates, but the national committee has less control over that than they do the convention, where they have total control. He did float the regional rotating primary idea, which is very interesting, but unlikely to happen. I thought they wanted to move the convention later for just that reason? The donation limits are $2,500 for the primary and $2,500 for the general election, and from what I understand the general election period starts when the candidate formally accepts his party's nomination. It makes sense to have the convention be later so you have maximum time to solicit $5,000 donations from people, rather than be limited to $2,500.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Uh, so I guess this is the first official time Hillary has said she's for marriage equality. So, there's that in case there was any remaining doubt. I really wish people had headlined this as "Hillary Clinton announces 2016 presidential run" instead of "Hillary Clinton announces support for gay marriage."
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
I always figure when the topic of marriage comes up Hillary just doesn't want to comment because any time the words "Clinton" and "Marriage" appear in the same sentence a billion subtle references or wisecracks are launched, often in the same editorials or articles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:I thought they wanted to move the convention later for just that reason? The donation limits are $2,500 for the primary and $2,500 for the general election, and from what I understand the general election period starts when the candidate formally accepts his party's nomination. It makes sense to have the convention be later so you have maximum time to solicit $5,000 donations from people, rather than be limited to $2,500.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
lala da vinci posted:I don't believe you are allowed to actually spend that money until after accepting the nomination though. Am I right there? That was a pretty big problem for Romney. He was getting defined by Obama early on and couldn't really effectively fight back against it. Yeah, you can't spend general election funds until you're officially in the general election, which is when you're officially nominated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
lala da vinci posted:I don't believe you are allowed to actually spend that money until after accepting the nomination though. Am I right there? That was a pretty big problem for Romney. He was getting defined by Obama early on and couldn't really effectively fight back against it. Yeah but the situation was unique in that one party had ran unopposed in his primary and thus had a lot more cash banked (and also unusable after the convention), but Romney + his superpacs were always spending as much as the President the problem wasn't that they didn't have access to capital it was that their message stank and they're delivery was even worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
If the spending limits aren't a big problem what's the point of moving up the convention? Dodging the worst part of hurricane season?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Yeah but the situation was unique in that one party had ran unopposed in his primary and thus had a lot more cash banked (and also unusable after the convention), but Romney + his superpacs were always spending as much as the President the problem wasn't that they didn't have access to capital it was that their message stank and they're delivery was even worse. Access to capital actually was a problem. Campaigns get preferential rates when it comes to ad buys. When the numbers for the 2012 campaigns were crunched it turned out that $10 of PAC spending was equal to $1 of direct campaign spending. It doesn't matter how much money you can take in if you can't spend it, and it's especially problematic if that money is the most effective money you have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:If the spending limits aren't a big problem what's the point of moving up the convention?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
It's not as though he can suggest actual policy changes though - he'd be gone in seconds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 11:45
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The Reince Priebus dream team supposedly put their heads together to come up with a solution to this whole losing the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections thing, this and paying Karl Rove's lost couch change to people to go to minorities and tell them how swell the GOP is is literally all he came up with. That's not true at all. If the RNC plan to chain delegates to state districts had gone through, Dems could kiss the presidency goodbye for 8 years, minimum. It's the same brain trust that had Republicans own the narrative from the 80's to Obama minus the Clinton era. Hyuck hyuck, these guys are retarded is a pretty poor sentiment to be throwing around based on nothing but changing demographics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Yeah but the situation was unique in that one party had ran unopposed in his primary and thus had a lot more cash banked (and also unusable after the convention) You can roll over extra primary funds into the general election. quote:but Romney + his superpacs were always spending as much as the President the problem wasn't that they didn't have access to capital it was that their message stank and they're delivery was even worse. Romney + his Super PACs maybe, but the Romney campaign did hit a cash wall in the summer of 2012. They ran practically no ads over the summer while the Obama campaign had what many consider their most effective ad - the one with Romney singing America the Beautiful. (Insert a rant from me here about how none of that mattered because the effect of campaign ads lasts about a week.) The Europe trip was actually thought up as a way to bridge the primary - general election funding gap for Romney because they figured that he'd get a bunch of free media from traveling around and visiting all of these places. Which he did, just maybe not exactly the media they were hoping to get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That's not true at all. If the RNC plan to chain delegates to state districts had gone through, Dems could kiss the presidency goodbye for 8 years, minimum. It's the same brain trust that had Republicans own the narrative from the 80's to Obama minus the Clinton era. Hyuck hyuck, these guys are retarded is a pretty poor sentiment to be throwing around based on nothing but changing demographics. Yep, this. Don't think the RNC can't and won't trot out latinos in some states that they do alright with them. And don't think they won't tone down the abortion rhetoric and trot out all their female governors (which they are better at then we are). The Republicans still win state office by a huge margin. With a little trickery and ratfucking (and fooling Democratic groups to go along with it for their specific groups gain) we could see them come roaring back. Also 2016 will have been eight years of team D, people might just want a change. Dismissing the Republicans is dangerous. Though after eight years of moving forward on social issues we might be due for a few years to move our economic issues faster to the right. It's only natural and proper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
quote:Also 2016 will have been eight years of team D, people might just want a change. This doesn't quite follow, since most of the really politically prickly stuff is coming from belligerent Republican representatives and state-level politicians. Then there's the whole endless gridlock thing, the 5-4 Supreme Court, and so on. Democrats can run partially on "Republicans are lovely at governing" for a while, and they should.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:This doesn't quite follow, since most of the really politically prickly stuff is coming from belligerent Republican representatives and state-level politicians. Then there's the whole endless gridlock thing, the 5-4 Supreme Court, and so on. Democrats can run partially on "Republicans are lovely at governing" for a while, and they should. A lot of this has to do with outside events and the waxing and waning of coalitions, of course, but the point remains that it is surprisingly hard to hand over power to your party's chosen successor after the end of your second term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
FMguru posted:There is something of a track record of two-term presidencies having trouble handing off power to a successor of the same party. Truman gave way to Ike, Ike couldn't get his VP to succeed him, LBJ got replaced by the other party, Nixon/Ford didn't make it past 8 years, Reagan was anomalously able to hand the keys to his successor (a measure of how truly rotten the Dukakis campaign was, IMHO), Clinton couldn't do the same for Gore, and the less said about the end of Dubya's second term, the better. But if it turns out that the economy recovers substantially by the end of Obama's second term (a big if), the Democrats will be uniquely well situated to handover to a successor, particularly if it's someone well known and mostly respected like Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The Reince Priebus dream team supposedly put their heads together to come up with a solution to this whole losing the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections thing, this and paying Karl Rove's lost couch change to people to go to minorities and tell them how swell the GOP is is literally all he came up with. The 5 of the last 6 idea is overwrought, it's more of a statistical trick than a real sign of the current state of the GOP. Priebus is certainly concerned that the GOP are less popular, and the Democrats have more states locked down for 2016 than the Republicans. The Democrats only won 5 of the last 10 elections, which makes the GOP sound healthier than they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:But if it turns out that the economy recovers substantially by the end of Obama's second term (a big if), the Democrats will be uniquely well situated to handover to a successor, particularly if it's someone well known and mostly respected like Clinton. In general, I agree with you - 2016 should be a cakewalk for Hillary if she wants it. It's just there's this very real and durable tendency of voters to vote for the other party after eight years. Handoff-successions like Reagan-Bush are the exception, not the rule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:But if it turns out that the economy recovers substantially by the end of Obama's second term (a big if), the Democrats will be uniquely well situated to handover to a successor, particularly if it's someone well known and mostly respected like Clinton. Thus the republicans doing their damnedest to prevent that recovery. FMguru posted:The economy was roaring along like gangbusters in 2000, and look how much good it did for the guy trying to succeed Bill Clinton. Well, to be fair, he did get more votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:This doesn't quite follow, since most of the really politically prickly stuff is coming from belligerent Republican representatives and state-level politicians. Then there's the whole endless gridlock thing, the 5-4 Supreme Court, and so on. Democrats can run partially on "Republicans are lovely at governing" for a while, and they should. Presidential hand offs don't always work. Also coalitions tend to fracture once they are in power as the internal issues come up (any progressives who thought the party gave a flying gently caress about their environmental or class inequality issues are now rightly learning they have no place in this party, where as social liberals are getting everything and more along with the neoliberals, the anti war crowd also got rightly taken to the woodshed) and various groups realize the people who count are just taking their votes. But those coalitions also strengthen when the party is out of power and they can rail against the evil president, while not realizing their own party will screw them in a second (again, see the anti war, environmentals, and anti neoliberals and what they thought a Democrat would do). In 2016 people will be tired of eight years of Democrats, the wishy washy ones anyways. And a good portion of the Democratic base, those I went over above, will have realized voting Democratic does gently caress all for the issues they care about and they just get shat on by a D instead of an R. Republicans will be pumped though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The economy was roaring along like gangbusters in 2000, and look how much good it did for the guy trying to succeed Bill Clinton. You can't run on "I'm not Bill Clinton!" and then complain that the electorate didn't give you credit for his accomplishments. There are so few presidential elections that its kinda hard to come up with these sorts of "Its never happened before!" things without looking at why. Bush 41 for example did some ill advised stuff politically ("read my lips, no new taxes") and had his base split in a three way race.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The Reince Priebus dream team supposedly put their heads together to come up with a solution to this whole losing the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections thing, this and paying Karl Rove's lost couch change to people to go to minorities and tell them how swell the GOP is is literally all he came up with. These are the people who maintained that calling Obama a "metrosexual black Abe Lincoln" would break the back of his campaign. Or at least, these are the circles in which they all travel. More outreach at CPAC (apologies if posted): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQf9_oflU9s
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
What's the GOP take on some of the swing state Governors that will be looking for something new come 2016. Specifically Sandoval or Kasich? I know Kasich is relatively disliked, but having a governor/former governor that is likely to deliver one of those vital swing states seems like a good plan, even if one of them is Rick Scott.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:What's the GOP take on some of the swing state Governors that will be looking for something new come 2016. Specifically Sandoval or Kasich? I know Kasich is relatively disliked, but having a governor/former governor that is likely to deliver one of those vital swing states seems like a good plan, even if one of them is Rick Scott. Sandoval is pro-choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You can't run on "I'm not Bill Clinton!" and then complain that the electorate didn't give you credit for his accomplishments. He avoided Clinton because of the backlash against the AWB, Kosovo/world policing, and blowjobs. And that's leaving out NAFTA and Clintons unleashing of Wall Street and the damage that caused to the rust belt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Guys, start holding your breath, Rick Perry is going to announce by the end of this year whether he'll run for President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q5rbg45pmk This could be* the most important political decision of the year. * could be, but is not
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
I, for one, eagerly await another round of debates featuring the Governor of the Great State of Vicodin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
So why did Hillary Clinton endorse gay marriage? Probably because she's gay.quote:If you think that her support of lesbian and gay rights is something new, I’m sorry, she has repackaged herself so successfully but if you just do a little research on Hillary Clinton you know that her love of homosexuality goes back a very long way. I remember even when she was First Lady, that would be not the beginning of her support for this, but this would be one of the more notable things, on the UN Convention on the Rights of Women, she oversaw the whole thing, the Beijing conference. It was shocking. This was a shocking thing. I think it was in ’94 I remember interviewing women that I knew who came back from the conference and I have mentioned this on the air before but I have to mention it again, under Hillary’s leadership there were even tents on lesbian lovemaking, they we remaking sure that people defined gender there were five genders, not just two genders. Well, if Dick Morris said it, it's probably true. That'd be a big milestone though. The first female and the first gay President?! Wait, though, if there are five genders she might not be the first female President. I'm going to have to get back to you on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
There was almost a unity ticket in the 2012 Republican primary that would have ended Romney's chances.quote:It’s one of the great untold stories of the 2012 presidential campaign, a tale of ego and intrigue that nearly upended the Republican primary contest and might even have produced a different nominee: As Mitt Romney struggled in the weeks leading up to the Michigan primary, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum nearly agreed to form a joint “Unity Ticket” to consolidate conservative support and topple Romney. “We were close,” former Representative Bob Walker, a Gingrich ally, says. “Everybody thought there was an opportunity.” “It would have sent shock waves through the establishment and the Romney campaign,” says John Brabender, Santorum’s chief strategist. Impressive. What could possibly have gone wrong with this arrangement? quote:But the negotiations collapsed in acrimony because Gingrich and Santorum could not agree on who would get to be president. “In the end,” Gingrich says, “it was just too hard to negotiate.” Shocking. I am shocked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 13:13
|
|