|
Why is it that everyone instantly assumes Clinton has the lock on every other candidate? If Obama taught us anything, it's that prior experience in this party means nothing. Personally, I think her foreign policy in Syria and Egypt has been awful, and Deval Patrick gave a better speech at the DNC than she's ever given. It's a little premature to think she's got this all wrapped up so early. Juan Castro has to be in the talk as the guy of the future as well. Probably not 2016, but I think he and Patrick are the two most promising people in the party today.
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
sullat posted:As long as Ailes is willing to forgive and forget (he really wanted Christie to run in '012) he won't get any flak from the media machine. His opponents may dredge it up on the fringier sites, but if Fox is backing him, it won't get any traction. This from a couple pages back, but another thing to keep in mind with Christie is that people's opinions of Romney over the next couple years is really going to have an effect on their opinions of him. If Romney goes down as the complete failure and they try to erase him from history a la George W, then he could get some points for being the one who threw him under the bus before it was cool. Of course, either way, the fact that he seemingly supported Obama could be the nail in the coffin, even if Romney gets remembered for giving a valiant effort (he won't.) Brigadier Sockface posted:I doubt there is even a chance of Cuomo, Gilibrand and O'Malley running against each other in a competitive primary. They way I understand it is that they're all close to the Clintons and if Hillary would step aside the Clinton machine Bill and Hillary would anoint one of them. Why vote when you can have the Clintons do it for you? 
Volkerball fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It very nakedly became a money making sideshow this year and one Ron wants to keep in the family. I think Rand will put an obviously non-serious effort into 2016 just to keep the fundraising train rolling, get himself on TV more, and maybe wiggle his way onto some VP lists. It will be interesting to see if the Isn't Rand gaining steam in the Republican party though? He endorsed Romney, but he also criticized him a bit too. He might be more politically viable if he just stays the current course. Might be able to draw in some libertarian nepotism votes as well. I could see the libertarian party moving forward with Gary Johnson or a new guy, and just making sure the nominee pays enough lip service to the great L. Ron Paul Hubbard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 13:04
|
|
ution comes along as many of them hate him.
|
watt par posted:Was it this? Gotta catch em all...Ron Paul!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVjfa0Alz5o
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
The Landstander posted:Local edition: a Western New York State Senator, Republican Marc Grisanti, won in 2010 on a mixture of dumb luck and on his entrenched Democratic opponent not so much as spending the money he had fundraised for his reelection. He was then a key Republican vote for the passage of the gay marriage bill - and found himself with a more favorable, but still swingy, constituency after redistricting. Are you insinuating that by reaching across the aisle and making a deal happen instead of just bickering with the Republicans is going to hurt Cuomo? The guy worked with him, and he helped out his campaign. His party is irrelevant. No one is going to attack him for that at the primaries in person, because all he has to do is respond with “Why don’t we have a little discussion about an actual agenda, and issues, and progress, and what’s good for the people as opposed to just hyperpartisan rhetoric," like he's already done, to massive cheers. That platform has worked pretty well for a few other guys if I recall correctly. He's for raising the state’s minimum wage, reforming campaign finance laws, and decriminalizing marijuana. I doubt he's going to lose too much of the progressive vote unless someone shows up who is an amazing speaker, or something drastic happens.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I guess if Rand tacks hard towards the RONPAUL crowd it might work, but all the I know a few people who like Rand because of his name (son of Ron Paul, that is), and because he throws them a bone here and there for funding. Ryan couldn't be a Libertarian. Sure economically he fits them, but there's no way he flip-flops on legalizing gay marriage, military funding, and pretty much every other social position the GOP old guard hold dear. Besides that, no one with the slightest bit of a reputation would jump to the Libertarian party strategically. They are irrelevant by default because they are Libertarian. Too economically right for the left, too socially left for the right. Too weird to live, too rare to die. They have about as much a chance of co-opting the Republican party as they do co-opting the Democratic party. Edit: Oh yeah, and gently caress Chris Christie. Don't become an apologist just because he jumped on the Romney is poo poo train before it was cool. That goomba bastard doesn't belong in politics. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 10:00
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yeah if people in this thread could stop pretending Christie is a liberal ally and will flip parties entirely on the basis of not being petulant during the storm, that would be nice. No poo poo. All he was doing was getting the stink of Romney off of him. If he went down as supportive of this disaster campaign, it'd hurt him in 2016. Just so everyone is clear. Chris Christie is a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. He's got a huge base of the right who like him because he's got that "don't take no poo poo" attitude, and a lot of people were pissed at him for not running during the primaries and leaving them with Romney. He was the keynote speaker at the RNC for fucks sake. He will be Chris Christie (R) for as long as we all live. This should be blatantly obvious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
Petey posted:I'm pretty confident (for several reasons) that Arkane made the money he said he did. As am I. Now lets see him dump it all into Americans Elect for Huntsman only to have Roemer get the nomination.  Assuming anyone even gets their minimum threshold in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Reagan wouldn't make it out of the primaries in the current GOP I wouldn't put my money on that if he had Lee Atwater in his corner.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:And if there's at least one "serious" candidate other than her in the race the debates will include the issue candidates and partisans. There's always a handful, so you'll get events with Clinton, Biden and Grayson on the stage. Oh god, please let this happen. The pure entertainment value of this combined with whatever the gently caress the GOP throws together??  Guys, don't forget about Cuomo. I wouldn't be surprised if he exceeded expectations as well. The Democratic party is a lot less predictable than the GOP. 4 years is a lifetime for someone to sweep the nomination out from under Hilary, assuming she decides to run.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
Jonked posted:Nobody pays attention until there is a horse race. Yeah, but you could still have the full primary process. Just have all the votes at the end instead of dividing them all throughout. This sounds logical, but really seems like it would cut down on the comedic value.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Jonked posted:I'm not sure that's true - under the system I suggested, California would have 242 points and would hold their primary before Colorado with 166 points, as would Texas with its 240 points. Even Michigan, the ninth largest state in the US, would go before Colorado with 168 points - pretty much every large state besides New York would be in the first half of the primary season. Which, on the other hand, undermines the whole 'competitive small states go sooner to give underdogs a chance' thing, since it seems to drastically front ends the primary season with big states that are only marginally competitive. If it was actually put in place, the first five primary states would be New Hampshire, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. The smallest state among those five besides NH would be Virginia, the 12th most populous state. About 17% of the US population would have had a chance to vote, and we'd still be in the first month. I like the concept. I wish that districts were set up based on mathematical equations as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
naysayer posted:Moreover, how do you account for the correlation between testosterone and strong utilitarian decision making? For the sake of comedy, please elaborate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:A lot of Biden's "gaffes" aren't actually gaffes, he likes to push buttons. His biggest problem is actually message discipline, not gaffes. Exactly. I remember when he first found out that people were all over his "back in chains" comment, his response was "That's the part they're upset about??" He's a passionate, likable guy, and he owned his debate against Ryan. Most of Biden's credibility is going to depend on how the economy goes the next 4 years. If things go backwards, or don't improve quickly enough, he might be seen as a continuation of the same failed policies going up against the fresh, new face of Chris Christie. Christie can come off as moderate and bi-partisan when he needs to, and when he's upset about something that you're upset about, he owns. That'd be an interesting election cycle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
cheese posted:Ask Mitt 'Mittens' Romney how well the "double down on Benghazi as a scandal" attack angle worked. Can we stop with this talking point? Just because Romney lost doesn't mean everything Republicans tried to do had a negative impact. I still can't go a day without hearing about Benghazi or Fast & Furious. People listen to that poo poo. In 3 years there'll probably be a whole new scandal and this one will be long forgotten, but don't just write everything that they've attempted already as unsuccessful with a large group of voters. For all we know, Romney got 5% from people who were outraged about a manufactured Benghazi conspiracy and thought Obama didn't do enough about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is really silly. We will stop with this "talking point" when you actually bring some evidence to back your position up. Instead of just assuming based on rather weak anecdotal evidence. My position was based on the lack of evidence. I said "For all we know," what more do you want? For me to give evidence of the lack of evidence? I can think of 59 million of them. There's polls and ways to get general ideas based on the projections throughout the election, but we can't be certain which positions caused a net positive and a net loss. It's silly to say "This is what lost him the election," or "He lost, so obviously X didn't work for him," without just making an educated guess at best. Would you say that attacking Obama on the "slow" economic recovery didn't work in comparison to his business background? Because he polled higher than Obama most of the season in regards to the economy, and it was the highest priority for voters in tons of polls. I think it was pretty drat effective. All we know for certain is that all his positions and strategic decisions combined weren't enough to beat Obama's. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yeah, like I said, its silly. You can't ask people to stop a talking point unless you debunk it. You can't. This is true. But any claims of certainty are just as much a shot in the dark as my claims of uncertainty. Can't disprove it, but that doesn't make it an accurate position to take. quote:Edit: Though I just noticed you say "but you can't boil it down to one point!" so I don't even think you disagree with the original "talking point". No, there's logic to the idea. Might have phrased it wrong with "talking point." It's this in particular that I don't think is a wise approach. cheese posted:Ask Mitt 'Mittens' Romney how well the angle worked. It didn't work then, Volkerball fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:Looking forward to Christie vs Rubio. Likable establishment guy vs electable base guy. Christie won't have the "nobody else can win" argument Romney had. I'm looking forward to the debates. Christie is going to own them, Rand Paul is going to be hilarious, Santorum will be Santorum, and it will be glorious. Edit: Speaking of which, why isn't Santorum on those polls? Since it's all based on name recognition at this point, I'm sure he'd be at least in the top half of that field. If that dude can get some money and keep his foot out of his mouth, he could easily make it into the later stages of the primary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:If by successful you mean became a serious Presidential contender, no. Quoted for posterity. Right above you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Did that speech launch Clinton into a successful Presidential campaign in 1988? That wasn't the question. Like Joementum said earlier, these speeches are usually done by lower level guys to propel them more into the spotlight without the risk of damaging the reputation of one of your big players. I believe Al Gore was also involved in one around then as well. That has been successful a few times.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Rahm doesn't have any more of a chance to get the nomination than Kucinich did. Calm down guys. So many people would have to bow out for him to be involved, and I'm not even sure he could beat out all the others who are waiting for that scenario to pop up as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Majestic posted:As much the idea that the activist base sees Obama as a liberal, was the point. Maybe there are plenty of people who get out and knock on doors who still feel that way. He didn't say the base sees Obama as a liberal. He said Obama has become increasingly liberal, and that the base isn't going to be so quick to jump into a moderate. His views "evolved" on gay marriage, and he's certainly taken a tougher tone about regulating the financial sector. While he may be to the right of you, the point is that people further left of Obama are going to have a better chance at exposure because people aren't going to be so concerned with losing the election. The base is going to want to keep moving forward. As for your second point, everything is speculation at this point. State-wide precedents don't mean anything nationally. He made a decent argument.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Rand Paul's filibuster at 9 hours plus. That poo poo really needs to get reformed. http://israndpaulstilltalking.com/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Joementum posted:No, and I'm not wading into the credentialing debate people have been having here. You can be an idiot and go to great schools and you can be a genius and go to crappy schools. I'm just basing my opinion of Rand's intelligence on having listened to his speeches, his television interviews, and read some of his opinion pieces. He's trying to do the same thing Newt does where he projects more intelligence than he actually has, but the difference is that Newt's a bookworm and can at least fake it by dragging out some historical trivia. Rand's just lazy in his studies and ends up shocked that he's not the only person in the room who knows the NAACP was founded by Republicans or says stupid things, like his deep concern that drones will allow the federal government to figure out what type of mail you're receiving because they'll use the drone to peek in your mailbox. And he's a dick about it, which makes Rand that much more insufferable. The fact that Newt was a viable Republican nominee for much of the last primary just shows
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:My next door neighbor's husband is also Jewish. Let's vote for her. Who's she related to? More nepotism for the nepotist God.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Americans love being ordered around and Chris Christie is "guy who stands up in the lecture hall and schools the professor" chain e-mail in human form. Bill Clinton pulled that move to his advantage any number of times (usually when somebody questioned his numbers). Yeah, you guys are really underestimating his appeal. Romney wasn't so much moderate as he was uninspiring. He just comes off as spineless. Christie is going to own every debate and get cheers from just about everyone. If he loses the primary, then I think it's evident the GOP has finally eaten its own face off.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 02:28
|
|