|
People are drastically overestimating Nikki Haley. She's been a disaster as a governor, her state's unemployment is still pretty high, and even a lot of Republicans have turned on her multiple times to override her vetos. She could get primaried by the GOP establishment in SC.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
BootStrap posted:I think there is going to be a serious effort to get Brian Schweitzer to run. He's a moderate Democratic governor, very popular, and very likable. I wouldn't even say moderate, he's a bona fide progressive. He proposed single payer for his state, fought for maintaining campaign finance reform in his state, took on oil pipeline companies pretty hard over spills in the state, and has been outspoken against the PATRIOT act. Add in that he's coming from a red state, and it could be a good package. Problem is, he's from a tiny state population-wise. He's been doing the Dem circuit for a while now (he spoke at our convention in Virginia), so at least activists know who he is. Honestly, I don't know why these Warren supporters don't get behind him. He's got charisma in bunches. Also, his dog 
De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
JesusSinfulHands posted:In the right situation I could see Schweitzer having a decent shot, because he could easily unite the working class + liberal netroots coalition, which precious Democratic politicians are capable of doing. I mean the main reason Obama won the nomination (besides the decent levels of institutional support that Joememtum referred to) over the preferred choice of most of the rich Democratic donors was his ability to unite the liberal netroots/blacks/young voters, compared to the liberal favorites of years past with limited appeal elsewhere (Hart/Bradley/Dean/etc). Schweitzer has a similar broad appeal in the primaries and in the national election could even make states like the Dakotas, Missouri, and Indiana competitive. Honestly, I doubt he'd be able to beat a Governor or Senator from a large state (Cuomo, Clinton, maybe Deval Patrick?) because of the superdelegate format. I wish Baucus would retire and let Schweitzer take his seat in the Senate. That wold make for an awesome, rural duo for MT: the awesome scientist with the bolo tie and dogs and the Big Bopper. Consensus among my MD friends is that O'Malley can't give very good speeches and is sorta like a Mitch Daniels in that he's completely lost in a crowd, Wire or not. Charisma isn't his strong point, and he'd need it to stand out. Mark Warner wants to be President, of that I'm pretty sure. I like the guy. He made a serious effort to build goodwill in every part of Virginia. I mean, even the rural coal country went for him in 2001 and 2008. He has tons of political capital and money. He has progressive values, but he comes from the business world, so ultimately he's used to negotiating a very middle-of-the-road settlement. The activist base will hate him for his work in the Senate on a "grand bargain," but my hope is that he leaves that office to come back and be Governor, since that's a better platform to run for President on. He seemed to enjoy that job more (consecutive terms aren't allowed in VA) and actually accomplished a lot on improving education with a GOP state house. A very Clinton-like character politically, without the baggage. He'd be a shoo-in for at least a very Obama-looking electoral map. However, he too would lose the charisma game. sullat posted:Cabinet level appointees are exempt from the Hatch Act. Her career has to be dead. She wouldn't get anywhere as a candidate, and back in KS (say for Senate) she'd be toxic for basically running Obamacare (at least in the near-future).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Comedy Time: who plays the Ron Paul role next (assuming those kids keep organizing)?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:McDonnell 2012, GiftGate be damned! He will have been irrelevant for 3 years by the time the campaign really gets going, and his last moment will have been the Star Scientific scandal. Also, I don't know if you've heard the man talk, but he's going to stick out in the debates about as well as Tim Pawlenty if Christie, Cruz, and a Herman Cain comedy option are out there yukking it up. Sure, you could say the same for Walker's personality, but he's been a conservative hero in action, picking a fight with unions. McDonnell did nothing unique. He got one-upped on abortion by a number of other governors and his economic record is dependent on the federal government, which is always going to be a liability for Virginia Republicans trying to go national (NoVA is basically the state's only true economic engine now that coal prices are collapsing).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Since he's been governor, the most noteworthy things I can think of that have happened were that the sales tax was raised from 5% to 6%, a stormwater tax was enacted to pay for mitigating the damage that storm runoff causes to the bay, and the gas tax was raised to pay for the DC/Baltimore commuter rail line to run on the weekends. Internet commenters love to howl about the stormwater tax ("rain tax") and about the fact that MD has relatively strict gun control laws. I don't know how much of the gun stuff was his doing though, if any. I'm sure there's been a bunch of other stuff I'm not remembering, he's been pretty progressive overall so it pisses off a lot of the right people. You could probably do a whole offshoot of the Freep thread about things that people say on Post/Sun comments about him/Baltimore City/PG County. Basically, he is a NE big city mayor who enacts the same sort of policies most big city mayors enact. You have a lot of former PG County whites like most of my former coworkers who need someone to blame for their county becoming so "dark," (largely the fault of DC gentrification pushing people out of NE and SE DC) and the former mayor of Baltimore is a good scapegoat because he's a short white liberal who raised a tax. These people complaining are middle class white flighters who wanted McMansions and had to move out to Calvert County or Stafford, VA to get them. The commute sucks and makes them angry and irrational. These are not the sort of voters who will decide a Dem primary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
O'Malley 2016 exploratory committee is now official. A little surprised he's the one going this early. He could have Cardin or Mikulski's seat if he wants it, easily (no idea if he'd want it). One of them will likely be gone in a cycle or 3. May as well get out in front of everyone else and get the publicity if you really want to run, I guess. I expected someone with no other possible future other than the presidency or a cabinet secretary appointment, like Schweitzer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Can I hope he runs just for the 'stache alone? Cause it's pretty good. When was the last time a President had a stache? Or facial hair? Even a nominee for that matter? As far as primary major party candidates: Bob Dornan, 1996. Though I've seen pictures of him with and without a beard. Speaking of Bullet Bob, who will play the bomb-throwing social conservative this time? Even if Huckabee gets in, he will be treated as a front runner and will likely act at least more considerate. He'll do all he can to avoid the killer sound byte, presumably. I'm thinking someone will run a more vocal campaign to push him and others into dealing with those issues, like how Santorum got Romney to look moderate on contraception last time. Then again, Santorum actually got traction. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Id think Cruz would be a bigger star among the "teavangelical" types since he seems to be comfortable talking Jesus than Rand, unless anyone knows otherwise. I don't see how they differ on economics, aside from Rand liking to discuss theoretical gobbledygook and Cruz just being more straightforwardly anti-whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Haven't they had a hard time recruiting a Walker challenger? Larry Sabato currently has him being challenged by a current Madison school board member. Seems like that's not exactly a candidate that'll win back blue collars. If you think about the profile of what the GOP probably wants next time (Governor from a purple/blue state that can claim"job creation", fairly or not), you've gotta think they're going to look hard at Walker and Kasich, and the Dems need to go big in those races (rather than in, say, Texas).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:So I haven't heard of it in this thread before but a person I trust on Maryland politics claims that O'Malley's marriage is basically a sham and he's having an affair. Is this commonly known? For what its worth, the person who told me this is a labor supporting Democrat and not a conspiracy theorist. Are you implying that he's gay and his marriage is a front or he's just generally a cheater?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Good thing the Democrats never nominate any of those. One of the saddest sights ever is attending a Democratic Party convention of some kind and watching people fawn over a dullard like, oh, I don't know...let's say his name was Fohn Jerry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Harry Reid recently speculated that Nevada's legal brothels could cause Republicans to avoid choosing Las Vegas for the 2016 convention, but Sheri's Ranch Brothel is having none of it. As a former Tampa resident, I always wondered if the mobile brothels ever showed back up during the RNC. I know the Super Bowl brought them out in full force. Speaking of, when do the parties usually pick the convention sites?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Scott Walker took some friendly fire on Fox News Sunday today as Chris Wallace asked him about the emails while Pete Shumlin desperately tried to maintain a blank face. Interesting how he keeps talking about turning around a budged deficit. Every single other GOP governor would be hammering the job creation message. Is he just dumb in thinking people care more about budgeting than jobs, or is his record that poor? And why can't the DNC get anyone big to run against him?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Wisconsin already got more chances than they should have to flush him out, plus at this point he's much more useful to national policy attempting to do his job and failing awfully. The GOP made him a poster boy and he's falling apart in real time with a slowly growing chance of a massive political scandal on the horizon, its more beneficial for the Dems at this point to let him act as a cautionary tale. Sucks for Wisconsin but hey they doubled down on the guy its their own drat fault. It would be silly to let a potentially vulnerable governor skate by this year. You know what's even more useful to the Dems? Forcing them to nominate a sitting Senator, likely one of the hardest of the hardliners. This says a lot more about the current state of the party than anything. If it's like Virginia, it's pretty much turned itself into the Ready For Hillary Express. So much drat money and talent going into that while we can't win a loving House seat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:The unsuccessful recall really gave him a shot in the arm and now the Dems are afraid to challenge him. From what I've seen though, plenty of people disapproved of Walker during that time but copious amounts of Wisconsin Nice kept him in his seat because lots of voters didn't feel like the recall was a legitimate way to get rid of him. So the Dems see him going down in drips and drops that may never hurt him badly enough to derail his future and figure their choices are to either let him collapse under his own weight or to try to drag him down there themselves. If you're someone who believes in the phantom popularity of the recall (and the Dems as an organization seem to be), you would rather wait it out than risk giving him a shot in the arm. Once again, that's 11 dimension chess crap. Why wouldn't you run a decent candidate and allow him the chance to pass more bullshit? If he has vulnerabilities, attack now or risk seeing new voting limits come 2016. I agree that the recall was ill advised and makes him look artificially strong though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
There's always a Mayor or State Rep that will make the jump in. At least have a justifiable reason to dump some money in there so AFP has to spend more money there and not in Florida or Pennsylvania where the Dems should be favored. Florida alone is important enough to orient a war of attrition strategy around, if only to finally have a non-maniacal Secretary of State in charge of their voting during a Presidential election. And speaking of Hillary: I want her to be the nominee if only because a helluvalot more decent Dem candidates will jump in to House and Senate races in swing and even red states if she's on the ballot. Let's face it: an ambitious senate candidate in Kentucky or Ohio or Missouri would be much better off sharing the ballot with her than any other possibility. We saw what she did in blue collar areas in the 2008 primaries. Elizabeth Warren isnt going to get that, as much as you may want. Hillary can fake it. Warren is still a Harvard and Massachusetts Academic. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
He might be well-served to do the old strategy of only entering a few select primaries where he can cause damage strategy. Concentrate on NH, where he's likely sharing media markets in some cases with VT, for example. His resources won't be endless, but he'd get more publicity coming in 2nd there than being another Kucinich. This was what George Wallace did to irk LBJ in 1964 and McCarthy did in 1968. He can then spin that as "the country is ready for my ideas," earn media, and then get a real insurgency going. Then again, that could turn out like the Rudy strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
First off, while it is an antiquated system, McCarthy was partially responsible for damaging LBJ enough to push him out. Wallace's campaign, while below the radar, in many ways started the white working class backlash of the 1970s that gave us Nixon and then Reagan. If Bernie ran a campaign focusing on places that would really gravitate towards the message (namely, lower income communities, places hit hard by globalization or gentrification and the collapse in wages brought on by declining unionization), he could lay more groundwork for a more left-leaning party later on. A lot of voters in inner cities are already receptive to the message, as are many younger people. We just have too many urban machine politicians and Obama-style liberals representing those places, for various reasons. The De Blasio campaign, while hardly perfect, started to show that those voters are receptive to a more forcefully populist message at least on some level.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Lee Harvey Oswald posted:So my state, Tennessee, is one of 22 states calling for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. There's no way this bullshit passes, right, even if a Republican wins in 2016? Considering that it would take congress passing it with 2/3 first, no. The only way to go around that is to get an Article V convention, which takes 34 state legislatures to pass. It's a quirky idea some activists and academics throw around (Larry Lessig has), but such a convention could be easily taken over by activists, so we'd probably end up repealing direct election of Senators. I think we're applying a bunch of unrelated nuttery to Perot. I know he's down the memory hole, but aside from the national debt, he was primarily focused on stopping NAFTA and general protectionism/economic nationalism. If anything, I think he may have come out for a VAT tax (Pat Choate, his 1996 running mate, has long pushed for that). The debt was tied in to that due to the Japanophobia at the time (they were buying up a lot of US real estate and companies and we weren't used to the concept of countries owning our debt since pre-Reagan we didn't have that) and dovetailed well with the nationalism. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Perot was basically We Have To Get The Deficit Under Control NOW NOW NOW. His argument was that government wasn't working and our country was drifting towards disaster so we needed an outsider anti-politician with a record of Getting Things Done to come in, pop open the hood, and fix poo poo. Outsider perspective, lots of charts and technical yet clear explanations of things (the rare candidate who talked up, rather than down, to voters), and the promise of bypassing a broken system to take care of problems that gridlock was causing. He said very little about social issues, and some of his solutions were left of center (shrink the military and reduce the US footprint abroad now that Cold War was over, raise taxes on the rich and cut their social security benefits, keep jobs in America and gently caress "trade deals" like NAFTA). It was a weird mix of things that appealed to a lot of people - at least until the candidate's shtick got overexposed and some of his uglier side leaked through (a lot of his heroic biography was exaggerated, he had Old Person problems with blacks and gays and Latinos, he was crazier than a shithouse rat). And then he debated Al Gore on NAFTA and was right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
I was involved in 3rd party building just after 2000. It only works locally where you don't need the massive startup costs. Otherwise, cash will flow to the best investment. Public financing is the only way it will ever be possible. That and/or proportional representation. Neither is coming soon. There are too many structural issues. And if Bernie does cost the Dems in 2016, he will absolutely be pilloried and exiled from the media outlets he needs to get his message beyond Democracy Now. How many times does CNN bring on a 3rd party/iconoclast/outlier and actually treat them like a serious person. When Nader makes it on, it's treated the same way as when Jesse Ventura is on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Is there something I'm missing about Elizabeth Warren's personality that leads people to think she can be the anti-Hillary? She strikes me as too much of a professorial type who is more suited for issue advocacy, not executive leadership. This has nothing to do with her stances, just her personality. She would seem a perfect fit to lead the Liberals in Canada, but nothing about her seems to say "Commander-In-Chief" to me, and much of the Dem base, the ones that are "Ready for Hillary," and low info indepndent voters seem to still care about that sort of thing. Before someone mentions Obama as a professorial type as well, remember that personality is the whole reason why we first heard of him anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:By the way, when are you planning to announce that you're running for Senate in New Hampshire? I see what you did there. But seriously. Where are the Happy Warriors?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Rand Paul is, like, the Marco Rubio of foreign policy. These are the standard paleo libertarian responses with regards to the World Wars. Read Thomas Woods' Politically Incorrect Guide to US History. Spoilers: the Fed caused everything bad and no war should have ever occurred because The South Was Right and the WWs didn't have to happen but did because of Internationalism and because we just HAD to care about what Germany did in Europe (basically the Lindbergh stance). Pure Ron Paul (Woods is/was at the Mises Institute). I have no doubt that Rand internalized all of this over the decades and probably still believes it, but is craven enough to break from his dad when it really matters because he sees a path to the Presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:North Carolina was not important in either 2008 or 2012. In 2012 Obama won the national popular vote by four points and lost North Carolina by two, which to say that it was a full six points more Republican than the nation as a whole (same was true in 2008). The convention being held in NC was more out of respect for how far the Democrats had come there, not because of electoral strategy, which would suggest somewhere in Virginia or Ohio. What's unfortunate about Virginia is that for a large, important state, we have no big arenas. The biggest metro area is a suburb and has to go to another federal jurisdiction for entertainment and there are no pro teams (nor will there be) in the 2nd and 3rd largest metros, which are both considerably smaller than Cleveland or Cincinnati. Also one is just a big Naval base. The good thing is that, at the state level, Team Blue is doing especially well since the state GOP basically imploded last year and either chased out its most promising candidates or is watching them go to prison.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
I could see that for a state convention. There's no distance between the mainstream of the GOP and Liberty at all now that they've gone to the right of even the previous Christian Broadcasting Network University graduate governor. They need zealous volunteers for The Cause to overcome the new statewide advantage (in even years) for Team Blue and no one knows zealotry like LU. Think about it: the next 3 federal generals will be against Warner (who even still wins in SW), probably Hillary (in her team's proverbial backyard) and Tim Kaine, who ran ahead of Obama. And they have 0 statewide offices. And their only prior statewide officeholder not going to jail left the party. The only statewide figure they have who isn't seen as a loser is Eric Cantor, though his speakership may matter some in fundraising.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Puella Magissima posted:Our lovely former governor Bob McDonnell. 2013 was a great year for Virginians, what with McDonnell being publicly shamed and the Republicans imploding in the gubernatorial elections. I don't know if Bolling is a true independent yet, but seeing as how he didn't lift a finger for anyone last year after almost running as an independent, and he trashed the party at every turn, he's a functional independent at the least. What's left of the GOP power structure now is everyone that Cuccinelli backed, except in NoVA where a lot of wealthy national donors are left but surrounded by Dem Voters. Also, those are the sorts of Republicans the Liberty U crowd hates, and they should. The business wing of the GOP has co-opted the evangelical wing for too long without them realizing that. Virginia is still a competitive state if only because Dem voters don't vote, and especially not in the odd years when the GA is up for election. This is where having some corrupt local machine politicians like in NJ would help us. That, and union GOTV is limited to poorer parts of NoVA (PW County, esp) and pockets of SW and Hampton Roads, but especially in SW it's mostly blue collar unions like the UMW whose rank and file is too strongly anti-Obama to get them to help Dems. Of course, the craven Hillary will probably have better luck swaying those sorts. Maybe. I'm wondering how many of Hillary's blue collar supporters have left the party entirely since 2008. I know former Clinton Dems who now like Rand Paul. It's stupid, but it's based entirely on a strange belief that Clinton and now Paul are both anti-big government and pro-workingman, which is barely rhetorically coherent and completely incoherent on every other level. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:What's all this about neurosurgeon politicians? Our Democratic Lt. Governor in Virginia is a Pediatric Neurosurgeon and Professor of Pediatric Neurosurgery, fwiw.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
I think people are underestimating the potential for the Paul team among evangelicals. Both of them have been big backers of homeschooling (Ron's group is writing a damned curriculum) and their abortion credentials are stellar. Also, regardless of Rand's state's rights position on same sex marriage, I think you'll see fewer and fewer people focusing on that issue since it's less potent than stuff like abortion and "religious liberty" right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
FYI: Martin O'Malley's exploratory committee is called the O'Say Can You See PAC. Clever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
I think Rand has about the same chance that Obama had at this point it 2006. Party activists actually care about him and enough Senators take him seriously enough to consider him a "leader."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Anyone here ever been a presidential delegate? I sort of want to be my state's only O'Malley delegate in 2016, just because.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
I actually did attend our state convention in 2012 as a state delegate (which anyone who wants to be one can be, just about) if only to support a friends attempt to go. From what I gathered, if you can get noticed at your district convention and get on the slate of DNC delegates there, you have good odds. I didn't even try for that. However, if you live in a very blue district, you'll be competing with a lot more people. The good news is that I've moved to a blue city in a deep red district now, where the local committees are very small. My odds have improved, at least. If I remember correctly, I was one of nearly 300 state delegates from my old district. My new one sent about 70 despite being allotted many more. I know someone from a rural district that sent about 40 and got to go despite being 20-something and only a Obama volunteer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:At your local city level, recruit and organize the delegation to your Congressional District. If it's apportioned in the district based on Dem election results, you'll be able to get a couple folks in as delegates if you get folks to vote as a bloc for you (especially if your city fills its delegate quota and the other areas don't). Even if that fails you get a second bite at the apple with that bloc at the DPVA convention, where there will be 90 people running for a handful of open delegate slots and if the presidential campaign doesn't have a full slate for those slots you may have a chance. Of course my only experience with that was in 2012, so your mileage may vary. How much does it depend on who you back for president? I didn't do any of this in 2008. I knew a lot of Dean backers in 2004 and none of them went.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's the list of cities that the DNC is considering for the convention: There's absolutely nothing to gain from holding it in SLC or Nashville. New York is almost always a disaster for events like that. A Chicago convention when you may possibly have a primary fight between Hillary and some number of left wing grassroots candidates could be an interesting juxtaposition (but odds are that won't come to pass, Dems will get in line). I guess the proper theory would be that a convention in a swing state with an important Senate race would matter most. So...Indianapolis? Any Florida city (is Rubio vulnerable?)? Phoenix (is McCain vulnerable?)? Any Pennsylvania city? Of course, I'm skeptical of how much holding a convention somewhere matters in its ultimate vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:It's going to be Atlanta, Indy, or Phoenix. Probably Atlanta. After the way they handled snow this past year, I'd expect Atlanta's public safety mobilization is pretty poorly funded. Indy and Phoenix have recently hosted Super Bowls, so I'd say they're prepared.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:Why isn't Detroit the obvious favorite there? Dems have been struggling to hold ground in nearby states, it highlights both the recovery the auto industry has made but also the wealth inequality and lack of action on jobs and economic security that republicans have shown. Also holy poo poo it's 2014 is there really nothing better for us to be talking about? "Detroit" is becoming shorthand for "failed Democratic governance" in GOP circles. The GOP candidates in our city council election (in VA mind you) are literally running on the slogan "Stop Us From Becoming Detroit: Vote Republican." I don't think they won't the centerpiece of the convention to be a bankrupt city.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:At this point catchphrases that appeal to the Fox News demographic have no traction with much of America. I don't really see the problem there considering that's a population that Dems shouldn't even be pretending to appeal to. You don't think the average low-info voter would find it odd that a major political party wishing to tout improvement of the country would hold their big party in a bankrupt city? Do you just really want it in your home town or something? Because it's really a lovely thing to host. I lived in Tampa for 2 Super Bowls and my Tampa friends said the RNC was worse for traffic and crowd control by far.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Most Americans don't see things the way you and Bernie Sanders do, whether it's right or not. They'll see a Democratic convention in a decaying dump that they're saying is the fault of the other guys...at a convention occurring after 8 years of a Democratic president. Most voters who make the difference in Presidential years know gently caress all about Rick Snyder or unions or even why Reagan was bad. Those people who know and talk like you always vote Dem or are petulant 3rd party voters. Why cater to those groups when it's those low info Obama voters you need? You'd be trying to use a convention selling 4 more years to not only sell 4 more years but to also explain away the conventional wisdom. You won't do that at a convention that's really just a big glitzy TV ad. Or you can have it in Miami and talk about how we have a bright shiny diverse new party and future. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 23:47
|
|