|
Zwabu posted:This doesn't surprise me in the least. There are never any guarantees, but the right should be terrified of a Clinton run. She is well positioned, at this premature date, to clobber the opposition. The standard racism won't be nearly as potent a weapon against her, and she will likely poach off a few percent of the GOP female vote (just my gut feeling). This could lead to comfortable margins in states like VA and OH and a win going away.  you might not have noticed but they're trying to make Benghazi a thing again.
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Everyone else in the primary will jump on Christie, as an easy target and as one of the bigger threats. It's only a matter of time before he blows his top and has an embarrassing headline moment.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
SombreroAgnew posted:Everyone else in the primary will jump on Christie, as an easy target and as one of the bigger threats. It's only a matter of time before he blows his top and has an embarrassing headline moment. Embarrassing headline moments aren't necessarily bad, in the primaries at least. Christie insulting random people who disagree with him is red meat for the base- it's basically a cruder version of Newt's "you debate moderators are evil liberals" shtick.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
The RNC's new delegate penalty (which would reduce to 12 the number of delegates awarded to any state that hops the line) appears to have worked in Florida, which is most likely going to hold a compliant primary in late February/early March instead of in January as it did in 2012. It appears that the grassroots in Florida were none-too-pleased that the home state delegation got shoved in poor hotel rooms in Tampa as punishment for their state's transgression. The impact here is obvious: an early Florida primary would be a significant boost for Rubio or Jeb, shooting them to the top of the delegate counts. However, a Florida primary in the last week of February could still be advantageous for them as it would give them momentum heading into Super Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The impact here is obvious: an early Florida primary would be a significant boost for Rubio or Jeb, shooting them to the top of the delegate counts. However, a Florida primary in the last week of February could still be advantageous for them as it would give them momentum heading into Super Tuesday. Apparently, some Dem SuperPACs are trying to stir the pot on this one still: BuzzFeed was tipped off to a book Rubio put together in 2006 where he spends an entire chapter arguing for Florida's primary date to be moved up. quote:While these states provide the benefit of beginning the presidential election in small communities that can be easily traversed and thoroughly campaign, a larger and diverse state should follow them. Without such a bellwether state on the heels of Iowa and New Hampshire, many groups of Americans will be denied a voice in selecting the most qualified candidate. The only way to change the status quo is to force candidates to be tested by more diverse populations and to address a wider range of issues. Holding Florida's primary early would apply that force. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rubio-argued-in-2006-for-moving-up-florida-primary
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Embarrassing headline moments aren't necessarily bad, in the primaries at least. Christie insulting random people who disagree with him is red meat for the base- it's basically a cruder version of Newt's "you debate moderators are evil liberals" shtick. It's red meat IF you're not perceived as the guy who gave Obama a second term. True or not (it's not, because Obama would have won without Hurricane Sandy), it's what the Tea Party hivemind believes, and Christie will forever be a traitor.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Could someone explain the process of establishing early primary states? Why aren't larger swing states used earlier? I admit to knowing very little about this but it seems like using Ohio, for instance, would give a better picture of a nationally viable candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Naet posted:Could someone explain the process of establishing early primary states? Why aren't larger swing states used earlier? I admit to knowing very little about this but it seems like using Ohio, for instance, would give a better picture of a nationally viable candidate. You have to understand: it is not organized. New Hampshire are Iowa are first because they just happened to be the first a long time ago when these primary things stated becoming formal and now they quite like being first and by golly no one will ever come before them. That's how it goes. Its a Secretary of State thing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Naet posted:Could someone explain the process of establishing early primary states? Why aren't larger swing states used earlier? I admit to knowing very little about this but it seems like using Ohio, for instance, would give a better picture of a nationally viable candidate. I should probably add this to the OP. In fact, I will, but here's my answer from the last time this came up. ------ People will tell you that it's because Iowa and New Hampshire have special attributes and were picked by the parties. That's simply not historically accurate. Before 1972 the primaries were mostly for show, with most delegates just being chosen by the state party leadership. New Hampshire has run the first primary election since the 20's. It used to be on the Town Meeting ballot but has since been moved up. Iowa has run caucuses since the 19th century, but in 1972 the Democratic state party chairman wanted to make sure all the delegates at the state caucus had copies of the party platform. He needed time to print that and had a just crappy mimeograph machine so he pushed the precinct caucuses up to January so he'd have enough time. Seriously. It just so happens that the 1968 candidate selection process had been such an absolute disaster that Congress stepped in to reform it and the new delegate selection system was introduced for the 1972 election. And Iowa was first that year because Rich Bender had a bad printer. In 1976 Bill Gardner became Secretary of State for New Hampshire and New Hampshire now has a law that says it must be the first primary election ("of its type", to allow Iowa's caucuses to go first). Bill Gardner is still SoS and guards the state's position fiercely. It's really that simple: they lucked into it back in the day and guard the position because it gets the states a lot of attention. The date and type of each primary contest is set by either the state legislature, or if they are not interested in doing so, by the state-level parties. Because, you know, Federalism and freeeeedddddooooommmmm and don't tread on me so the national parties are left to influence the process by creating sets of rules that define how delegates from those contests are apportioned. But in doing so they must ensure that the process is one that doesn't anger their grassroots activists in the various states.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:It's red meat IF you're not perceived as the guy who gave Obama a second term. True or not (it's not, because Obama would have won without Hurricane Sandy), it's what the Tea Party hivemind believes, and Christie will forever be a traitor. We're too far out for that kind of prediction. The Tea Party hivemind largely believes what it's told to believe, that's why it's the Tea Party hivemind. If Fox News did a full court press lauding Christie for a few months he'd be back on top again.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We're too far out for that kind of prediction. The Tea Party hivemind largely believes what it's told to believe, that's why it's the Tea Party hivemind. If Fox News did a full court press lauding Christie for a few months he'd be back on top again. Would he? Seems to me the Tea Party has decided Fox is too liberal for them now.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Naet posted:Could someone explain the process of establishing early primary states? Why aren't larger swing states used earlier? I admit to knowing very little about this but it seems like using Ohio, for instance, would give a better picture of a nationally viable candidate. In theory, big states are more difficult and expensive to campaign in so front-loading the primaries with a bunch of big states means that only the top, best-funded candidates with high name recognition will succeed. As Joementum pointed out, they just kind of lucked into the NH/IA combination, but it's turned out to work pretty well for giving lesser-known candidates a shot so there hasn't been much incentive to fool with it. Stringing them out also gives the whole nomination process (and the eventual nominee) more media exposure, with multiple stories over weeks and months, rather than one big day then it's all over.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Would he? Seems to me the Tea Party has decided Fox is too liberal for them now. They say that all the time, but they still watch FN all day and parrot their talking points on FB/TPC. Only the Freeper types would go as far as to actively not watch FN and I doubt all that many of them can resist Hannity's allure.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
It's never not awe-inspiring how the GOP drags out the long knives for their former bestie Chris Christie because he acted like a grown-rear end adult one time after the federal government helped his state recover from the massive flooding following a loving hurricane. It will never stop being amazing to me.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Today's PPP poll tested some different 2016 contenders.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Today's PPP poll tested some different 2016 contenders. Shouldn't be at all surprising that more Republicans than Democrats like Chris Brown 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Today's PPP poll tested some different 2016 contenders. Hahaha this is so entertaining. Republicans: Chris Brown: 9% Rihanna: - Also, I was surprised to see that Justin Timberlake was the top contender on both sides, until I realized that he was the only while male over the age of 20.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Justin Timberlake will turn 35 on January 31, 2016. Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Republicans Less Willing To Confront Feelings About Justin Timberlake
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Hahaha this is so entertaining. Interesting that republicans like Adele so much though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
This is so weird to see:
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
This is her only chance to stack a few million in honoraria before the race begins. That appearance at least has some kind of peripheral relevance to the job she's angling for. After all how will we ensure the nation's real estate portfolio is economically sound without consulting the dumbest group of professional lemmings who ever drew breath? I mean Realtors?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
For some reason, you must spell it "REALTORS(R)".
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
President Gaga holy gently caress I'm down meat dresses for everybody. Also, I've stopped hearing anything about Jon Huntsman. He seems sorta okay. He's also photogenic as gently caress. Why doesn't he do anything these days? Edit: besides the fact the rest of his party has gone insane. Phobophilia fucked around with this message at 04:25 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Also, I've stopped hearing anything about Jon Huntsman. He seems sorta okay. He's also photogenic as gently caress. Why doesn't he do anything these days? He has a fellowship at Brookings. That's why.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:He has a fellowship at Brookings. That's why. If it helps, Phobophilia, he's really not okay. Consider that his position on global warming is "it exists," but his policy prescriptions are indistinguishable from politicians who don't believe that anthropogenic global warming is a thing. So he acknowledges the threat that global warming poses, but thinks we shouldn't actually act accordingly. It's arguably worse than the non-believers.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:If it helps, Phobophilia, he's really not okay. Consider that his position on global warming is "it exists," but his policy prescriptions are indistinguishable from politicians who don't believe that anthropogenic global warming is a thing. So he acknowledges the threat that global warming poses, but thinks we shouldn't actually act accordingly. It's arguably worse than the non-believers. There are those who go further than admit that anthropomorphic climate change is real and even that it's a big deal, but also that given worldwide reduction in hydrocarbon burning is a non-starter figure that the scientific community's assessment or consensus, if such a thing can be accepted as extant, are that sea level will change as well as the shoreline, resulting in serious changes in the global economy, which are inevitable and that the thing to do is ride it out and invest your money in projects and companies that will profit off of the poo poo storm that's coming.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Today's PPP poll tested some different 2016 contenders. I know this is a joke, but Justin Bieber is a Canadian! And yet Republicans don't seem to mind a "non-native born citizen" too much in this case!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I know this is a joke, but Justin Bieber is a Canadian! And yet Republicans don't seem to mind a "non-native born citizen" too much in this case! Adele is a foreigner as well, but they'll vote for her. Rihanna is also not a native American, having been born in Barbados, but they will not vote for her. Or for Obama. It's like there's some sort of pattern here, but I just can't figure out what it is.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Interesting that republicans like Adele so much though. To be honest they probably didn't like her until they saw her on TV.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Adele is politically conservative, afaik, or at least went on a rant a while ago about the UK taxing her too much. That's probably a bit of where it comes from.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
serewit posted:Adele is politically conservative, afaik, or at least went on a rant a while ago about the UK taxing her too much. That's probably a bit of where it comes from. She's working for no one but me.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
serewit posted:Adele is politically conservative, afaik, or at least went on a rant a while ago about the UK taxing her too much. That's probably a bit of where it comes from. John Lennon had a similar issue, so don't judge too quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:John Lennon had a similar issue, so don't judge too quickly. Well today's PPP music poll shows that Republicans don't much like John. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well today's PPP music poll shows that Republicans don't much like John. To be honest, I think this poll says more about McCartney than Republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:To be honest, I think this poll says more about McCartney than Republicans. He's still alive, still working, and ridiculously rich. What's not to like? I'm disappointed in the poor showing for Harrison.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Arrowsmith posted:He's still alive, still working, and ridiculously rich. What's not to like? Did Harrison narrate Thomas the Tank Engine? I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:John Lennon had a similar issue, so don't judge too quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
PPP please stop helping the Republicans by testing all these superficial non-politicians for a potential Reagan 2.0.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:52
|
|
