|
Speaking on the Dem side, I personally think Rahm's gearing up his run and Hillary doesn't know how to stop him.
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Rahm isn't going anywhere beyond Chicago. He'll be facing a legitimate threat and could likely lose Chicago. Why stand for contested election to an office you wanted on your original path to 2016?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:I am dreaming of a Rand Paul vs Ted Cruz brawl in 2016 where they both try to out-right each other. ...and its Billionaire Brucie winning from behind....
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:The difference between advocating immediate military action and actually doing it lies in a dozen senior officers staring at you in slack-jawed horror. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSaWuLiV4mw Or, as some call it, the Bush Presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Joementum posted:He recently backtracked on that when asked about military aid to Israel. Well, that does make sense. Foreign policy's largest constituency is the elite, and Rand's opinions are entirely populist in their reflection.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If Hillary doesn't run, then any Democrat who can pull together an organization after the date she declares she's not running has a realistic chance of winning the nomination. Poor, poor Rahm. At least with Rahm, you know he'd nominate Obama to the Supreme Court for revenge.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In 2016 the Dems have a good shot (depending on retirements / primaries) of taking Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Despite popular belief, 2016 IL is a tossup for both Senate and potentially President, depending upon a few factors.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:For President? No way. Last time Illinois voted for a Republican president was 1988, and demographic shifts in Illinois favour the Democrats. It may be closer because they're not voting for a home-state candidate, but I don't see what factors outside of "massive scandal" could tip Illinois. You don't toss a B into building a machine and not expect that to turn out come '16. Choice is more who wants what then who'll vote for what. States coming dangerously close to passing strict voter restrictive measures. If you're optimistic for Hillary carrying the state, you underestimate how much downstate hates Chicago and how much white is willing to gently caress over black. And yes, "massive scandal" is all but assured in Illinois. Only question is who takes the blame for what more than the other. We're likely to elect a Nixon-like governor who owns his own intelligence subsidiaries. If you don't think that means some bodies gonna get unburied and blamed on the D's, I dunno what to tell ya. E: Alter Ego posted:Senate yes, President no. There is no way IL is a tossup on a national scale unless everyone in Chicago dies. *unless Chicago purges the black wards' voter rolls, state implements strict voter supression measures, and a hometowner runs for President in '16.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Except, you know, without the violent tendencies and creepy open marriage. Piss Reid off in Vegas and see about that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:What factors did you have in mind, the sky turning into blood and hamburgers eating people? State economy/government collapsing with a concerted and hundreds-million PR campaign to blame dems. Or, same things which turned Michigan and Wisconsin to R. How many on this forum would've predicted Wisconsin going hard-R in 2006? E: Yeah, they went D in 2012. Maybe MO from '96 to '00 is the better comparison. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well he did win the popular vote. Popular vote means nothing. You have to win the electoral vote to win Presidency. Popular vote merely aids toward that end.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Abolish the electoral college. Alternative to abolishion within current framework: create regional partnerships that govern regions as a level inbetween state and federal.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Ganon posted:What happens if she has a health problem after winning the nomination but before picking a VP? You cover it up as best as possible, assign it to a complication related to the female gender so you can label any attack as sexist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Name the political party dedicated to appealling to those people. New Black Panther Party
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
The burning question I have is, who's on Biden's and Clinton's shortlist?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
oilcheck my rear end posted:It is almost certainly the realm of political fan fiction, but I really hope I don't put it in the realm of fiction. Funny, now Biden's got binders full of women.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 19:56
|
|
runs again.
|
Riptor posted:I would think Hillary would pick some white guy White, Jewish guy? \/\/\/\/ Whos said Lieberman isn't on a list? My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Who's an up-and-coming female who isn't from New York and has held a governorship or Federal office that needs the boost and isn't constantly mentioned despite not planning to run and being better off a Senator? Man, I can see the primary campaign season now: Clinton-Warren v. Biden-Emmanuel, Clinton-Emmanuel v. Biden-Warren; Clinton-Castro v. Biden-Warren; Biden-Castro v. Clinton-Emmanuel
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:What the hell does Rahmbo add to anything except lovely ideas? Nixon thought the same about Daley. Kennedy used his papal connections to lobby Daley and promise federal funds. Nixon was embittered and driven insane. Kennedy won office and raped to his pleasure as the most important man in the world. Are you a Nixon, or a Kennedy?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Yeah, but JFK didn't name Daley as his running mate. Daley didn't want to be his running mate. Daley was happy with his feudal kingdom.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:It's not hard to dig up evidence of Kennedy and Johnson men stuffing boxes in Texas and Illinois. Thing is, Nixon was doing the same thing. Thing is, Nixon didn't have a papal network on his team to assist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Are you implying the Church helped stuff the ballots for Kennedy? That's the story which I heard from family, confirmed through an archdiacal connection, asked a Kennedy cabinet member about, and had independently repeated to me by a Chicago billionaire, so yes, that is what one may take away as an implication.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Wabbit posted:You should go hang out with your all your awesome connections and billionaire friends instead of being here. Not friends. People I take money from. I do hang out with my awesome connections. Its pretty chill. One has an office next to a cigar shop, and his cousin helped the owner through some permit issues, so when we go its a free cigar a week. Sometimes, the cousin shows and there are discussions brass tax [in the most literal sense]
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:arriviste.txt Thank you. Its hard work, I put the hours in and knock the turf when needed. E: Its also smart politics. How else do you think governors and presidents are made?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:He won it last year as well and he was running for president long before winning either one. Ted's running. Its well known and he owns up to it. Paul is also running and thinks Ted a primary challenge for his strong demographics. If Paul can't knock Ted out, Paul will have to run for Senate and lobby for veep pick to better position himself for a 2020/2024 run. Christie is also running and expected to have monopoly over the 'business/moderate' wing of the party. Ryan is also attempting to run, for what I'm unclear; hes been shoring up his 'serious persons' network. Is Newt running? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Mitt's attitude seems to be that he doesn't need to change, he was right all along, now he's going to graciously give America a chance to make up for the huge mistake they made in 2012. Why should he change? Obama is the guy who sucked. I'm pretty sure Mitt isn't running again. Why would he need to, when one of his former partners wants to run?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Yeah, here's something: if Romney runs again, can we get a camera crew to just follow his staff around? I want to know who signs up to work on Romney III. One half mormons, one half the most opportunistic of the staffers. Its a sitcom that writes itself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Na man, he's right. It's like in a computer game, when you grab the enemies capital you win. Which is why Russia is a client state of France after Napoleon's famous capture of Moscow and the subsequent glorious parade back home. The capital was St. Petersburg; Soviets moved it to Moscow
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Serious question: Assume Rauner/whoever candidacy faces against Hillary/Emanuel. What are your election predictions?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:What would adding Emanuel to your ticket provide? The stink of unpopularity? 270 to win, and if Illinois is a toss-up or Lean R, and someone in Chicago offers to make it a 100% D for the veep slot, what do you do?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Yeah, sitting VP Castro needs a whip of a VP candidate as he goes for the Presidency. I really don't get what having Castro on your ticket adds. Hispanics aren't a solid ethnic bloc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
joeburz posted:You also think Rahm Emanuel is anything other than a negative in the minds of a majority of people in Chicago. I am completely baffled at you A. considering IL anything but solid dem in 2016 and B. thinking Rahm Emanuel is the solution to the non-existant problem. Trust me, I am drat well aware. Name an alternative that doesn't result in Council Wars 2: Now With Riots. A transfer of power from promotion, we can deal with. A transfer of power because of the people? Do you want everyone's pension to disappear? Vienna Circlejerk posted:Forums' own beltway insider thinks Illinois is in play. Forums own sees the adbuy size and groundgame hired. You don't put that much in from someone with a purely capitalist mindset and not anticipate some great RoI.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:We did have Dick Cheney as VP for eight years. He was Acting President for far longer than I had ever wanted to see in my life.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Now he'll say his boss saw Mark Penn being incredibly skilled at...something. Getting free air time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Really? There are no prominent Latino Dem politicians you can think of? Not even a pair of them? In Texas? Can they bring in 2 bil by adding them to the ticket? E: You want a veep who can bring in the money you can't and say the poo poo you won't, while also being so reviled that they don't pose a threat to your power. Like, take Republican threats to their logical extreme. Obama impeached, Senate convicts, removed from office. President Biden: Is that something anyone really fears? No. Now take a president clinton. Clinton inpeached, senate convicts. President Emanual: Is that something anyone really fears? E2: Why did Clinton come to Chicago earlier this year? To size up Rahm's bank. Latino turnout can be increased 1% with a veep pick or you can do 24/7 Spanish ads on telemundo from 1 Jan 2015. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Emmanuel as a VP pick isn't even the craziest part of that scenario. Rauner is pro-choice in that he chooses not to answer any questions on choice. He is also on audio in favor of decreasing the minimum wage. When it comes down to decreasing the minimum wage vs. anti-choice, which issue has more Republican support?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I see what you're trying to imply, and you're wrong. There are so many pro-life Christians who vote for the pro-life candidates that would stay home if the frontrunner was some pro-choice economist. The Republican party structure would love more time to focus on economic issues, but they know they have to beat the drum on religious wedge issues to keep that part of their base going. I know it's easy to see the Republicans as a monolith because we're all viewing them from a very left perspective, but they are a coalition of religious conservatives and economic conservatives, not a unified bloc. I realize. Its like with Romney: any coalition can be bought for the right price. And re: the Clintons, their rep is that you're either with the Clintons or you're against the Clintons. How does a Cuban pick get them access to the non-Clinton patronage network?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Adar posted:You're right MIGF, the Republican reaction to Mitt Romney 2012 will be to nominate a pro-choice economic candidate. 70% of the GOP will find him appealing for reasons such as A shitload of bribe money.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes money makes the Republican base forget about core issues. Mitt Romney knew this, that's why he's president and has his hands full with ISIS and Ebola. Again, it's para-world. Romney 2012: A core issue of Republican base turnout and not General turnout
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:I can't tell if I'm not understanding you or if you just wrote something incredibly stupid. I'm saying you don't need to win the evangelicals to win the Republican primary. You can just pay them off to sit out the primary; what are they gonna do, vote Democrat in the general? Now, are there any extremely anti-choice Republican women you can add to balance this out with a better documented record of being less crazy than Palin?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 09:30
|
|