|
Unless all the economists are wrong, the democrat will be riding a huge economic wave into the next election, and should be the odds-on favourite to win it. If Hillary chooses to run, she'll have the primary sewn up and an extremely high probability of winning the general. (Then America can discover, as Australia has, just how much latent misogyny exists in their country). While I have a lot of affection for Biden, I find it hard to get excited about him as president, and hard to imagine him getting a huge groundswell of support. Warren would be insane to run and people should honestly stop talking about it. It's a bad idea and anyone around her with a lick of sense will tell her so. It is nice to see at least three women being discussed as potential candidates though.
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
Volkerball posted: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. You think wrongly. The general consensus is she's been an excellent SoS, and that really filled the only hole in her game last time, the lack of experience. If she wants it, its hers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
Wanting someone to run just because they're married to the current president and seem likeable is indicative of fundamental problems with the way you view the political process. For a country that fought so hard to throw off the shackles of a monarchy, there seem to be quite a few of you in love with the idea of political dynasties.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
greatn posted:Hillary's campaign wasn't a mess at all. It was run expertly. The initial strategy was messed up by Obama winning Iowa because the campaign was relying on Iowa and New Hamshire to just momentum her to the nomination, but after South Carolina they course corrected and ran at parity with the Obama campaign. It was just too late due to how the primary worked. Her campaign was awful. They didn't even know there were states with proportional allocation and states that were winner take all. The campaign was a mess of entitlement-complexes, arrogance and outright incompetence. That campaign is a huge black mark against her, but I believe that a woman as capable and intelligent as she is wouldn't make that mistake of complacency twice. Despite my comments about dynasties earlier, I do hope Clinton runs in 2016. Not because i want another centre-right candidate running, but because I believe she'd slaughter whoever the GOP puts up, and while Scalia and Thomas might last another four years on the bench, I'm not convinced they can last another 8 or 12. Despite the many things I dislike about Obama, Sotomayor was a superb nomination, and I think another 3 people like her on the supreme court would change the direction of the country for a long time to come. edit: OrangeKing posted:I still haven't gotten a clear indication of whether this was actually true, a complete fabrication, or somewhere in between. It was true, it was well documented at the time. Mark Penn was an overpaid hack. "The Turbine", indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I remember it being discussed extensively for quite a long period during the 08 primary. I thought there was evidence in terms of discussions he had had about strategy in TV interviews and such, but I can't offer more than vague memories on that, and you've obviously done more work looking it up, so I apologize for stating it with such certainty when you're clearly better informed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:He vetoed a good samaritan law that protected people who call 911 after witnessing an overdose because it might let drug dealers "off the hook." Yeah, people seriously need to stop doing this with Republicans, it was the same with John Huntsman: "Oh, he's so reasonable, he doesn't think the Earth is 6000 years old, he should run as a Democrat, I'd vote for him!" while ignoring his positions on well... everything. Christie has awful positions on 99% of things, he is far from the least reprehensible Republican, the fact that he briefly behaved like an adult, something that would be unremarkable in most of the world, is no reason to start lionizing him. The soft bigotry of low expectations, to borrow from their phrasebook.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
While I don't think Hillary will be noticeably to the left of Obama, I agree that the democrats holding the presidency for 16 straight years is a big deal, especially when you look at the age of a lot of the SCOTUS justices. Obama will probably get one, possibly two nominations. If it's the former it won't shift the ideological makeup at all. You put Hillary in there for eight years after that, and she's probably replacing Scalia and Thomas, (preferably with a Marxist fetus), and that's extremely significant. That will have ramifications for literally decades. Plus if she continues to oversee an economic recovery with policies that the population as a whole perceives as "left-wing" (even if they are not really) that does significantly shift the Overton window, at least on economics. I want Hillary to run not because I'm a big fan of her politics, but because I think she will crush the general, and the above two factors will shape the country for some time to come. Plus America really just needs to get the female president thing out of the way so it can become normal rather than extraordinary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Joementum's link posted:After eight years of an increasingly liberal Obama, activists will want to replace him with another liberal; in fact, they'll expect it. Why move to the middle when you've just had spectacular success with a liberal president? Well that's certainly a thing. I guess I don't know who this Christian Heinze character is but it doesn't do wonders for my confidence in his analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's a silly just-for-fun ranking from one of the writers for The Hill, with obviously subjective criteria, but you have to pull out the sentence about whether Obama is a liberal. 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. I'd only read the Democrat one at that point, the Republican one seems much more tongue in cheek. It would be nice if he'd actually done the scoring thing honestly and seen which way the rankings come out, but giving Rubio 6/10 on gaining female support when he had in the previous line admitted he was losing women by 11 points in his previous races, but theoretically they should like him, is clearly just post-hoc assigning scores to get the rankings he wants.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well, Allen did hold a gun to God's head and fired a few shots until he got him to agree to speak. You really are the best thing about these threads.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
What service are you using now Adar? I miss Intrade too 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
While I think many of Adar's points are decent, I also think that to expect someone as competent as Hillary Clinton to have learned nothing from the last go-around is absurd. I suppose it's possible that she's so arrogant she thinks it was a fluke and she can do the same thing again, but I'd think it's more likely she's got people analyzing every aspect of what she did wrong (and most of it is sufficiently obvious that there are discussions of it all over the internet) and will correct it next time. I think she took far too much for granted, and had some weaknesses exposed last time around, but I just don't believe she'll make the same mistakes again. I think that gives her far too little credit. In the same way that you can't read too much into the polling at this point, I also don't think you can read much into her campaign strategy at this point. Adar, I know you're going pretty heavily in on Biden. Are you expecting to use that later to arbitrage when people suddenly realize he's a lot more viable than they thought, and his odds shorten, or do you really think it's a good bet that he'll take the whole thing?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:It would be great if we could push a message like "If you want cheap disposable crap that breaks when you look at it wrong, buy Chinese. If you want to help put Americans to work and buy something durable and high-quality, cough up a little extra and buy American." As already stated, this is just not true. You can buy cheap, shoddily put together stuff out of China extremely cheap. You can also buy very well put together, high quality stuff out of China for a reasonable amount of money (still cheaper than elsewhere). This idea that China doesn't know how to make good stuff is just nonsense (and probably a little racist). It's a big place. They make a whole range of stuff to a whole range of quality standards. If you buy things at three cents a unit, don't expect them to have rigorous quality control, but that's got nothing to do with it being made in China.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 08:48
|
|