|
mcmagic posted:SilentD sounds like the PERFECT Cory Booker voter. Cheers. Thanks for making my point better than I could. I agree; SilentD made your point without advocating homophobia. Before you get offended- I was just joking, like on Top Gear! Everyone already has low expectations of him. Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Jun 13, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I just want to know when http://www.hillaryis44.org/ is going to update. And since I looked it up again real Biden has a '67 corvette convertible and is deeply offended that onion Biden does not have a convertible. (The secret service won't let him drive at all though)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Onion Biden drives a T-top and that's way more badass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I would enjoy seeing Scott Brown torn apart on a national stage, though. Sadly we as a society feel that gladiatorial combat is savage in this day and age, but I completely agree. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Incidentally to Jebchat, Lindsey Graham was on MTP this morning and started shilling for him during the Syria segment. He also believes that immigration reform will deliver the Presidency to the GOP in the next cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
serewit posted:Incidentally to Jebchat, Lindsey Graham was on MTP this morning and started shilling for him during the Syria segment. He also believes that immigration reform will deliver the Presidency to the GOP in the next cycle. They have to pass immigration reform first in order to benefit from it. And they already have their super-stars talking about how they want it dead (because of gays), so he's counting his chickens before they hatch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Neremworld posted:They have to pass immigration reform first in order to benefit from it. And they already have their super-stars talking about how they want it dead (because of gays), so he's counting his chickens before they hatch. If they want immigration reform dead (alienating immigrants) because of gays (alienating gays) then they're counting chickens before they even have a henhouse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Do any of the demographics from 2012 election show the sea-change being here yet? Or is it one of those "Eh Maybe in 2030" type deals? The GOP continuing to double down on Good(bad) Politics seems funny, and at the same time really aggravating.
Nonsense fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jun 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
It depends on a lot of factors (for example, that voting-age population isn't necessarily voting-eligible population, and voting-eligible population doesn't always translate into voting population), but the most cogent strategy I can see is that the GOP is banking on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act, and then being able to push a lot of voter suppression methods that target groups that they're alienating. The demographic sea change matters less if you can disenfranchise the relevant demographics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
The big question is whether the "Obama coalition" will turn out for a Democrat who is not Barack Obama. Obviously, we don't yet have data on that, though 2010 wasn't promising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Hillary has the wattage to bring turnout. All the bitterness of 2008 is past, I'd say, at least among voters if not among the insiders. This post brought to you by Pundit Mojo. "Pundit Mojo: Powered by Nothing!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
All Hillary needs is 90% of the Obama coalition to turn up again and John Kerry's numbers with white women. Now if she got Al Gore's percentage of white women it would be the biggest Democratic landslide in 50 years. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:All Hillary needs is 90% of the Obama coalition to turn up again and John Kerry's numbers with white women. That is what makes everyone salivate over a Hillary run. Something would have to drastically, horribly, Sarah Palin/47% wrong to really make it stop looking like the election is just ceremony.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
The flip side of that coin is, of course, what happens if Hillary doesn't run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The flip side of that coin is, of course, what happens if Hillary doesn't run. I hear someone is just biden his time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I hear someone is just biden his time. Cuom on, he's not the only possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
So really the 2016 situation is quite O'Malleable is what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Yeah, it's certainly not set enough to make Booker on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The flip side of that coin is, of course, what happens if Hillary doesn't run. https://www.readyforhillary.com looks like it's got some bigtime web talent behind it. She's definitely got some high-end fans of course, but a PAC taking contributions for the purpose of "urging Hillary to run?" Considering how easy it is to mask one's involvement in an "unrelated" PAC I would be surprised if this wasn't a very very very early feeler. Get her name out there from the start, play up the 'inevitability' aspect like 2008. On the other hand she did make a pretty definitive statement about taking time off when she left SoS. Whether that means approximately 3 years is up in the air.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:That is what makes everyone salivate over a Hillary run. Something would have to drastically, horribly, Sarah Palin/47% wrong to really make it stop looking like the election is just ceremony. It certainly shouldn't be on policy grounds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The flip side of that coin is, of course, what happens if Hillary doesn't run. If Hillary wasn't running, she wouldn't have said jack poo poo about gay marriage. Now, let me show you my 2016 electoral map.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It certainly shouldn't be on policy grounds. Given the field of realistic GOP nominees with plausible chances at the office you can unequivocally say it's based on policy as well. Art of the possible, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Given the field of realistic GOP nominees with plausible chances at the office you can unequivocally say it's based on policy as well. Art of the possible, etc. I don't buy that the "art of the possible" is to move the party rightward when the presidential electorate is moving leftward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Has anyone registered HillaryIs45.com yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Has anyone registered HillaryIs45.com yet? This is pretty much the easiest thing in the world to check. Answer: Yes, but there isn't much content. http://www.hillaryis45.com
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Hilary wouldn't be giving speeches at some weird real estate conference, if she weren't gunnin' for a runnin', but things can still get in the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Obama didn't really move a lot of mountains with his turnout, did he? Democrats would need to lose VA OH CO and FL to lose in 2016. And a more 'blue collar' white candidate would probably do better with the exurbs in swing states. Here's a graphic Nate Silver made: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't buy that the "art of the possible" is to move the party rightward when the presidential electorate is moving leftward. I really don't want to derail into the :worms: that you're heading towards. Maybe in 30 years when the GOP hydra has much fewer heads and it's not a lock with the big two parties for absolutely all intents and purposes. It's almost like there isn't a very relevant part of political history in this country where one major party faded into irrelevance and the major opposing party's internal coalition (that helped it gain prominence as an effect of being a broad farmer-populist party) split up within a generation since they didn't have a 'big bad' to rally against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:That is what makes everyone salivate over a Hillary run. Something would have to drastically, horribly, Sarah Palin/47% wrong to really make it stop looking like the election is just ceremony. Ha, as if her mind were shallow and undeveloped enough to produce Palin/Romney style gaffes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I really don't want to derail into the :worms: that you're heading towards. Maybe in 30 years when the GOP hydra has much fewer heads and it's not a lock with the big two parties for absolutely all intents and purposes. It's almost like there isn't a very relevant part of political history in this country where one major party faded into irrelevance and the major opposing party's internal coalition (that helped it gain prominence as an effect of being a broad farmer-populist party) split up within a generation since they didn't have a 'big bad' to rally against. This seems like a pretty poor argument to get people to vote for bad dems. I don't see it as a victory in itself to have someone with a D next to their name in the white house if they are going to continue to move the Overton Window rightward. I'm still waiting to hear why I should "salivate" with the idea of Hillary in 2016 from a policy basis or anything other than "she's not an evil republican." You do realize that if the Dems keep moving to the right, the GOP "hydra" isn't going to say "wow look we better move leftward" they are going to eat that ground and continue to move the goal posts. How do you think Mitt Romney's health care plan goes from "the personal responsibility option" to "evil socialism"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This seems like a pretty poor argument to get people to vote for bad dems. I don't see it as a victory in itself to have someone with a D next to their name in the white house if they are going to continue to move the Overton Window rightward. I'm still waiting to hear why I should "salivate" with the idea of Hillary in 2016 from a policy basis or anything other than "she's not an evil republican." You do realize that if the Dems keep moving to the right, the GOP "hydra" isn't going to say "wow look we better move leftward" they are going to eat that ground and continue to move the goal posts. How do you think Mitt Romney's health care plan goes from "the personal responsibility option" to "evil socialism"? The same way the GOP went from 1994 to 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The same way the GOP went from 1994 to 2012. You're just talking about blue team beating the red team without acknowledging how far right the center of debate has moved in that time. The GOP's 1996 presidential nominee's platform is pretty much where the DEMOCRATS are 17 years later. The right has won on policy grounds in that time period. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You're just talking about blue team beating the red team without acknowledging how far right the center of debate has moved in that time. The GOP's 1996 presidential nominee's platform is pretty much where the DEMOCRATS are 17 years later. The right has won on policy grounds in that time period. You're just indulging in detached idealism without considering what happens when people stay home on election day because Mike Gravel didn't win the primary. It isn't a bunch of Democratic governors passing anti-choice, anti-worker, bigoted legislation in the states, it's a bunch of 2010 GOP fuckasses who rode in on the backs of butthurt idealists who didn't vote because DADT wasn't repealed yet and PPACA wasn't the goddamn NHS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You're just talking about blue team beating the red team without acknowledging how far right the center of debate has moved in that time. The GOP's 1996 presidential nominee's platform is pretty much where the DEMOCRATS are 17 years later. The right has won on policy grounds in that time period. The 1996 Republican platform is too long to post, so I'll just extract the highlights to show why you're dumb: quote:Because a dynamic and growing economy is the best way to create more and better paying jobs, with greater security in the work place, we believe in lower taxes within a simpler tax system, in tandem with fair and open trade and a balanced federal budget. Eh, gently caress it  , but that's about the first tenth of the '96 GOP platform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
Get ready for a Republican 2016 candidate running as a populist. And which Republican will carry the banner for the interests of the working man? Rick Santorum, of course.quote:Hints of that pitch came last Thursday during a fiery speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s summer conference. Santorum cast himself as a populist conservative. “When all you do is talk to people who are owners,” he warned, the GOP becomes nothing more than a social club for entrepreneurs. Good luck with that, Rick. It should be noted that this is not entirely dissimilar to his 2012 campaign strategy of casting himself as the outsider, the man of the people, but he was still firmly on the side of capital then. Seems like his realized his mistake, but he's not going to get another chance like he had in 2012. If you wanted to run against the avatar of big money, well that was Mitt Romney, and when Newt was making half hour films about the terrors of vulture capitalism, Rick fled the field. Romney isn't going to be running in 2016 and if an anti-Wall Street campaign as a populist Republican can work (and it's not clear it can), it definitely won't work when Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are the targets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:You're just indulging in detached idealism without considering what happens when people stay home on election day because Mike Gravel didn't win the primary. It isn't a bunch of Democratic governors passing anti-choice, anti-worker, bigoted legislation in the states, it's a bunch of 2010 GOP fuckasses who rode in on the backs of butthurt idealists who didn't vote because DADT wasn't repealed yet and PPACA wasn't the goddamn NHS. So as long as the Dems are marginally better than horrible republicans they should get an electoral black check? Baruch Obamawitz posted:The 1996 Republican platform is too long to post, so I'll just extract the highlights to show why you're dumb: So I'm COMPLETELY out of my mind when I say that the political center has moved far to the right since 1994? Of course it's not going to be a 1 to 1 match but it's clearly rightward. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So as long as the Dems are marginally better than horrible republicans they should get an electoral black check? People like you are why Russ Feingold isn't a Senator anymore and the the reason so many states went harder to the right in 2010, setting up the current Gerrymander. You're the progressive version of the stereotypical republican lost in the desert searching for the one true conservative Messiah. The thing is, I agree with you to an extent. I would prefer a more left wing candidate. I just don't see America electing President Sanders though. Losing in 2016 would be disastrous. That's likely two Supremes appointed by a Republican as well as a probable war hawk in the White House. No matter how much the emotional left wants to paint Mainstream Democrats as the same as Republicans, they just aren't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Good luck with that, Rick. It should be noted that this is not entirely dissimilar to his 2012 campaign strategy of casting himself as the outsider, the man of the people, but he was still firmly on the side of capital then. Seems like his realized his mistake, but he's not going to get another chance like he had in 2012. If you wanted to run against the avatar of big money, well that was Mitt Romney, and when Newt was making half hour films about the terrors of vulture capitalism, Rick fled the field. Romney isn't going to be running in 2016 and if an anti-Wall Street campaign as a populist Republican can work (and it's not clear it can), it definitely won't work when Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are the targets. FMguru fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:People like you are why Russ Feingold isn't a Senator anymore and the the reason so many states went harder to the right in 2010, setting up the current Gerrymander. You're the progressive version of the stereotypical republican lost in the desert searching for the one true conservative Messiah. Gonna have to call bullshit on that one considering I donated to Feingold in 2010 and I would've definitely voted for him if I lived in Wisconsin. BTW I also did vote in 2010, because my member of congress at the time, Rush Holt, gave me a reason to vote for him. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:So I'm COMPLETELY out of my mind when I say that the political center has moved far to the right since 1994? Of course it's not going to be a 1 to 1 match but it's clearly rightward. The political center has moved right on some issues and left on some issues. I don't know how to precisely measure that overall, but the generic "Overton window" stuff that gets pushed drastically overstates the case in this timeframe. By 1992 you've got a billionaire independent presidential candidate making a serious run from the far, far right of the Republicans economically, basically the same point or even a little further than the tea party people are at now when they're still far, far to the right of the Republican establishment, and then the Republicans running and winning on the Contract With America, which still looks pretty nutty today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 16:49
|
|
