|
Kaal posted:A political campaign can act in much the same way. You particularly see this in the primaries. Indeed it is one of the basis of the main complaint about our primary system: A handful of kingmaker states like Iowa always have their primary first, and therefore have an undue impact on the election by guiding the media narrative year after year. In American politics you only see it in primaries, and that's because it only works if you have three or more options (excluding the rare credible third-party/independent candidate). A candidate gaining momentum in a primary is essentially that candidate gaining credibility as an option by virtue of other people selecting them: I'd prefer Herman Cain, but won't say I'm going to vote for him because he's so clearly going to lose, but once he seems credible I jump to him as my preferred plausible candidate. This doesn't work when you're selecting between two options. Mitt Romney was never non-credible against Barack Obama. There was no point where Romney having rising poll numbers would convince someone to abandon another candidate because Romney was suddenly seeming like a plausible option. The Romney campaign was fooling itself into thinking a non-existent phenomenon would save it.
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
Stormageddon posted:See, being poor is as easy as eating nothing but chili. The fact that there are good-tasting, low-cost meals that can be made with relatively little prep time if planned in advance, and that these meals aren't seeing the kind of use they could be, is relevant to the discussion of feeding the poor in America. I'm all for expanding food support, it's both moral and good for the economy, but we could also be doing a better job with education and with making cheap, healthy food available. What's most important is that people eat, but it's a shame how much we end up subsidizing pre-prepared garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
ufarn posted:We (you) might also have had a public option, depending on whether you attribute the abandonment of the idea to Rahm and premature sugar-coating. Prior to joining the Obama White House, Rahm Emanuel was closer to the Clintons than he was to Obama. He would have likely ended up a senior adviser either way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Is Hillary really going to run? The impression I got from her time at Secretary of State was that she was just completely burnt out and exhausted and even if she's thinking four years down the line it seems like she's growing content with the idea of being a dignified elder statesman of the party. If she's really that exhausted, she's got two years to rest up. But beyond that, I'd be careful assuming that the image presented in the media of a world-class politician like Hillary Clinton has anything in particular to do with her actual internal emotional state. She has had a life-long interest in the presidency and she's going to get to spend the next few years being told that she's even more inevitable than the last time she was inevitable. I would be surprised if she declined running for any reason short of changing circumstances ruining her odds of success or her being medically advised that a long campaign would kill her.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
greatn posted:Schweitzer will not play well with women. His huckster Barnum car salesman act a lot of posters here find so charming, the women I've asked about find it lame and another kind of macho bullshit. I kind of agree. It's sort of charming because I find politics fairly ridiculous and I interpret his behavior as reflecting that. At that level, a politician's public persona is always an act, so there's something endearing about how explicitly his is an act. I do agree that it would come off poorly on a national level. He could keep some of his plain-spoken persona, but poo poo like the branding iron is just too much. greatn posted:Of course my sample pool of women are mostly liberal arts professors, so there's obviously not a wide ranging cross section. My recollection is that polling backs this up somewhat. He does better with women than men because, well, he's a Democrat, but he does so with smaller margins than other Montana Democrats or than President Obama in Montana. Of course, this could also reflect unusually popularity with men for a Democrat, and I haven't seen any analysis which would try to distinguish the two.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Romney eventually triumphed, but it took all of the party establishment's resources to do it, and the long race did a lot of damage to him in the general. It's not clear that it did any damage at all. The election ended up about where predictions based on the fundamentals for Obama said it would be, which makes it hard to believe that the details of the Republican primary had a big effect on how Romney did.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
dethslayer666 posted:Major controversy beset Biden's candidacy, beginning on September 12, 1987 with high-profile articles in The New York Times and The Des Moines Register. Biden was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party. Well played.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Presumably if we're talking about Dick Morris then the natural translation would be Toe's Law.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Agricola Frigidus posted:Which doesn't hurt as much in the republican primary as it does in the general election. The problem he will face, and why he will lose, is that the people who care about electability in the general are the same people who are able to organize themselves around a single acceptable candidate like Mitt Romney.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I figure a good parallel to Christie might be Rudy Giuliani. If I remember correctly, lots of people where convinced that he was going to be the nominee in 2007, and then he completely crashed and burned when the actual primaries started. A pro-choice, pro-gay-rights candidate had to do something a lot more impressive than be mayor of what's perceived as a liberal haven to get through the Republican primary, is how I remember Rudy Giuliani. A solidly conservative governor suddenly plagued by scandal seems a poor analogy, unless you're really limiting this to the basic idea that sometimes candidates with national recognition don't always work out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:New Jersey is perceived as a liberal haven, at least for states that are not on the East Coast. Not to the same extent as NYC, and that's a much bigger deal when you're as squishy a conservative as Giuliani, which Christie is not.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
If Christie wanted to convince me that he'd never engage in petty political retribution, this is a weird way to go about it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:His final EV count, which is the thing that used the special sauce model he developed, was 313-225. How did the various predictions work out further in advance? That's really where the brunt of his effort was focused, I thought.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
SombreroAgnew posted:Yeah but the majority of the time that mindset doesn't apply to banning abortion and harassing gays. They're generally fine with outlawing murder, so it's just a question of defining the fetus as a person, which isn't something the ideology really comments on. I disagree with them, but I don't see it as inconsistent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:The government shouldn't be favoring either side. They're not. If the corporate executives have to forgo their salaries because the company isn't making enough money due to the strike, they would also be eligible for food stamps.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I don't know, let's see how she handled it in 2008, under similar circ- It's absurd to call an abrasively combatative and highly unlikeable potential challenger a "similar circumstance" to having to compete with a once-in-a-generation political talent hitting the public stage at precisely the right historical moment to capture a country looking for the promise of a new beginning.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:it was a comparison of hubris Then using the phrase "similar circumstances" was some spectacularly unclear writing. You can't blame people for jumping all over that. And this is me being charitable and not accusing you of blatant backpedaling.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's understandable, given 'presumptive nominee' was the language used then and in the post I quoted. They bandied the term 'inevitable' about back then too but perhaps that isn't similar enough to basically assuring the primary will be a walk just like people did in 2008. It's reasonable to point out that the "inevitable" candidate can still lose. It's loving bananas to quote a post talking specifically about Rahm Emanuel being a challenger and say it's a "similar circumstance" to 2008, which is what you did. Also, Obama was widely recognized as a serious threat as soon as he entered the race, and as a possible future president as soon as he hit the national stage in 2004. You are misremembering the historical context.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Obama as Brilliant Campaigner is as much propaganda as anything else, especially early on. I'm assuming SedanChair is talking about his unparalleled ability to move a crowd, which was in evidence before he even entered the Presidential race.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Clinton charm. That stuff is largely attributed with getting Obama elected the second time (look at that marathon of a speech at the DNC) Who is doing this attributing? I was a nice speech, but that's not really the sort of thing that decides an election.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's still got to be pretty sweet to have Bill and Barry going 'round the country talking you up. I don't see how that doesn't help you out at least a little. Might well help out at least a little. I was responding to "Clinton charm. That stuff is largely attributed with getting Obama elected the second time."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
The skill set to interact with the media and the public doesn't seem particularly similar to the skill set for being a Navy SEAL. The guy has a great hook for getting on camera but then he needs to be able to indefinitely maintain a marketable person. That's actually pretty hard, as evidenced by all the people who fail horribly at it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Mitt Romney is the most awkward, wooden douche on Earth and he was one successful terrorist attack away from winning the general against an extremely personable, charismatic incumbent with a squeaky clean first term. He wasn't particularly charismatic in public, but he maintained a palatable persona. His big gaffe required someone to capture video at a private event.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:A matter of subjective opinion of course, but there are compilations of his gaffes that are 10 minutes long. The standard for what gets described as a gaffe at Mitt Romney's level is far milder than what a highly-opinionated non-politician can produce when given a microphone. Romney got dragged over the coals for impolitically describing the mainstream Republican perspective on half the country. That's not what I'm talking about when it comes to the sort of things a random yahoo might say. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 21:48
|
|