|
Amused to Death posted:Out of people who did bother to vote, some exit polling from an AP article says the share of white votes Democrats got was down quite a bit in most races. I'm definitely thinking Democrats are going to try to attract more white people for the next 2 years. They have to to keep the rust belt. Good thing all they have to do is run on stuff like the minimum wage, manufacturing, solid economic stuff. You know, stuff everyone likes. Or were you expecting them to bring out white hoods or something?
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:They have to to keep the rust belt. I'm expecting more tax breaks and welfare 'reform'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I'm expecting more tax breaks and welfare 'reform'. I'm expecting charter school adoption to supplement public education as a party plank along with national roll-out of "pay-for-success" models in social services. I'm also expecting Hillary to reach these, or similar, conclusions in 6 to 9 months, at which time she'll announce for 2016. By then, I expect the issues will have shifted to "Ebola: Nuke West Africa?," "ISIS: Is Obama Weak for Refusing to Authorize Nuclear Force?," and "Russia: The New Nazis?" My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'm expecting charter school adoption to supplement public education as a party plank along with national roll-out of "pay-for-success" models in social services. I don't think charter schools will be a party plank if only because education is viewed as a local issue and any attempts to apply a top-down change to it has lots of backlash (see: common core).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
Six to nine months? I fully expect Clinton to announce by March at the latest. Campaigns need to start in the first quarter of the year before the election to get the infrastructure and fundraising roots necessary to start building that national organization. I highly doubt Clinton isn't in the race by, say, St. Patrick's Day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Who? Wait, is Cotton being seriously considered as a presidential candidate? If so the 2016 Republican primary just a hell of a lot more entertaining
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
March? I expect January. Truthfully, I expect her to create a wormhole and announce in 2013. Clinton/Clinton 2016 - technically not from the same state in space/time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Six to nine months? I fully expect Clinton to announce by March at the latest. Campaigns need to start in the first quarter of the year before the election to get the infrastructure and fundraising roots necessary to start building that national organization. I highly doubt Clinton isn't in the race by, say, St. Patrick's Day. She's doing that; its just going public about it that this wave election has thrown in doubt. Once you announce, you start getting questioned about issues. And right now, Clinton isn't so sure where she stands on issues. Dr. Tough posted:Wait, is Cotton being seriously considered as a presidential candidate? If so the 2016 Republican primary just a hell of a lot more entertaining His name is being bandied about. He's one to keep an eye on; of course, the real person to keep your eye on is Rauner. E: computer parts posted:I don't think charter schools will be a party plank if only because education is viewed as a local issue and any attempts to apply a top-down change to it has lots of backlash (see: common core). They are; is that the conclusion that Hillary will reach? My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't think charter schools will be a party plank if only because education is viewed as a local issue and any attempts to apply a top-down change to it has lots of backlash (see: common core). While Democrats have been pretty favorable towards charter schools, I think it's a bad tactic to really publicize it. Teacher's Unions generally hate charter schools, and they're also one of the more dependable Democratic supporters, although pissing off one of their largest support groups seems like a total move the Democrats would take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Meltathon posted:While Democrats have been pretty favorable towards charter schools, I think it's a bad tactic to really publicize it. Teacher's Unions generally hate charter schools, and they're also one of the more dependable Democratic supporters, although pissing off one of their largest support groups seems like a total move the Democrats would take. This man understands Clinton 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
The NYT says Hillary's gonna go on a "listening tour" soon, and the WaPo says Hollywood's elite are already hitting up donors for a Hillary PAC. That these two papers are getting tips on her candidacy leads me to believe it'll be announced fairly soon (I'm guessing by the end of the year).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
The NYT story says early next year because she wants to avoid any association with Landrieu's incoming loss in December.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The NYT story says early next year because she wants to avoid any association with Landrieu's incoming loss in December. This is some not-bad political thinking: quote:And a Republican-led Senate creates a handy foil for her to run against: Rather than the delicate task of trying to draw a stark contrast with an unpopular president in whose administration she served, her loyalists say, Mrs. Clinton can instead present herself as a pragmatic alternative to what they predict will be an obstructionist Republican Congress. There's no good way for Hillary to deal with Obama - he's popular with the Democratic base but not with the general public - so she'll just run against whatever Ted Cruz said the day before and try to ignore Obama as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is some not-bad political thinking: I don't know my political history well enough - how easy/hard/common is it for a candidate of the same party as the previous president to distance themselves from that president's policy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:I don't know my political history well enough - how easy/hard/common is it for a candidate of the same party as the previous president to distance themselves from that president's policy? I'd figure Hillary would have a better shot at it than Gore did in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:I don't know my political history well enough - how easy/hard/common is it for a candidate of the same party as the previous president to distance themselves from that president's policy? Ask Al Gore; he managed pretty well (and was pretty stupid for doing so). eta: Hillary can't run against Obama or the people who are emotionally invested in Obama will turn against her (as many already have and are continuing to do so). On the other hand, she could do something like propose age 55 eligibility for Medicare that would be mad-popular politically and help motivate Dem turnout. vvv Not gonna happen. I think she'd pick someone like Julian Castro. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is some not-bad political thinking: Synergizes well with an Emanuel pick for Veep; use him to boost the narrative of willingness to reach across the aisle to reach bi-partisan compromise, as long as it isn't totally loving insane. Wonder who Ari's been calling lately. Spiritus Nox posted:I don't know my political history well enough - how easy/hard/common is it for a candidate of the same party as the previous president to distance themselves from that president's policy? If nothing else, as a white woman, she's naturally distanced from Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Ask Al Gore; he managed pretty well (and was pretty stupid for doing so). Has it ever been done in a way that actually benefitted the candidate, then? Willa Rogers posted:eta: Hillary can't run against Obama or the people who are emotionally invested in Obama will turn against her (as many already have and are continuing to do so). On the other hand, she could do something like propose age 55 eligibility for Medicare that would be mad-popular politically and help motivate Dem turnout. I get this - but does she necessarily have to run against Obama (explicitly criticize his policy or such) to avoid being seen as a direct continuation of his policies? Is there any precedent to the contrary? Spiritus Nox fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Has it ever been done in a way that actually benefitted the candidate, then? John McCain did a decent job at distancing himself from Bush. Spiritus Nox posted:I get this - but does she necessarily have to run against Obama (explicitly criticize his policy or such) to avoid being seen as a direct continuation of his policies? Is there any precedent to the contrary? I feel like to answer this we need a better understanding of why Obama's poll numbers are sinking. I've read one article that suggested the decline was that people just are starting to view him as less competent in general, or are just sort of blaming him for Washington dysfunction rather than actually disliking specific policies. I don't really know very much about this issue though. If his decline is policy-driven then she's got to avoid being seen as a continuation of his policies, but if it's not that - if it's just people start to feel if Obama was a little more competent he'd have managed to make congress compromise/beaten ISIS/ebola/whatever - then she doesn't have to run against him or distance herself from his policies. She'd want to run on the same general policies but project an air of competence. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:I get this - but does she necessarily have to run against Obama (explicitly criticize his policy or such) to avoid being seen as a direct continuation of his policies? Is there any precedent to the contrary? She might propose different policies but she's not dumb enough to run against OBAMA--THE MAN, or politically tonedeaf enough to directly critique his decisions. I'm guessing her strategy will be "Obama made a great start; here's how we can make it better" about the ACA. Then again, with SCOTUS's now agreeing to take up the ACA subsidies issue, and the GOP's vow to dismantle the individual mandate, it might be back to the drawing board for healthcare reform by the time her candidacy picks up steam, which would give her a clear shot to propose less of a clusterfuck than the current law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's no good way for Hillary to deal with Obama - he's popular with the Democratic base but not with the general public - so she'll just run against whatever Ted Cruz said the day before and try to ignore Obama as much as possible. I'm thinking more he'll campaign for her selectively in favorable parts of favorable states, which is pretty much how he handled this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I'm thinking more he'll campaign for her selectively in favorable parts of favorable states, which is pretty much how he handled this year. What favorable parts of favorable states? I'm not sure there are many left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:She might propose different policies but she's not dumb enough to run against OBAMA--THE MAN, or politically tonedeaf enough to directly critique his decisions. I'm guessing her strategy will be "Obama made a great start; here's how we can make it better" about the ACA. Dismantling the individual mandate isn't going to happen and worst case scenario with the current Supreme Court case is that various red states have their healthcare forcibly taken away from them until and unless they established an exchange or declared the federal exchange their exchange (it's only states that refused to set up an exchange that would be affected).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What favorable parts of favorable states? I'm not sure there are many left. Cities mostly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eally-like-him/
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Hillary might need Obama's help in African-American communities, the last refuge for high approval ratings for Obama, and after the race-baiting incidents made by both campaigns in 2008. (I thought it was interesting that she's hired Sean Wilentz, who wrote this piece on the racial politics of the 2008 election.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
That's what the thinking was pre-election. I think that's been discounted now. Willa Rogers posted:Hillary might need Obama's help in African-American communities, the last refuge for high approval ratings for Obama, and after the race-baiting incidents made by both campaigns in 2008. May be better to adopt charter schools as policy than associate with Obama anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's what the thinking was pre-election. I think that's been discounted now. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Dismantling the individual mandate isn't going to happen and worst case scenario with the current Supreme Court case is that various red states have their healthcare forcibly taken away from them until and unless they established an exchange or declared the federal exchange their exchange (it's only states that refused to set up an exchange that would be affected). 35 states out of 50 didn't set up their own exchanges. 15 did. The subsidies are much more integral to the survival of the law than the mandate (which will be neutered or dropped within a year, due to subsidy clawbacks and the political unpopularity they will generate). eta: Medicaid expansion will be here to stay. Forced purchase of insurance that costs $1200/month without subsidies, not so much. etaa: It's 15 states that have their own exchanges, not 14. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What favorable parts of favorable states? I'm not sure there are many left. Two years is an eternity in politics. Remember how a short year ago everyone thought Christie's run was over?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's no good way for Hillary to deal with Obama - he's popular with the Democratic base but not with the general public - so she'll just run against whatever Ted Cruz said the day before and try to ignore Obama as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Two years is an eternity in politics. Remember how a short year ago everyone thought Christie's run was over? Over the next 2 years, I really don't know what Obama could do to improve his favorability ratings--and I don't think he cares.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Over the next 2 years, I really don't know what Obama could do to improve his favorability ratings--and I don't think he cares. The economy is probably going to keep improving over that time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Over the next 2 years, I really don't know what Obama could do to improve his favorability ratings--and I don't think he cares. Republicans can shut down the government again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Republicans can shut down the government again. Much like RTW in Michigan and the shutdown, it'll be fine if they do it long enough before 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Much like RTW in Michigan and the shutdown, it'll be fine if they do it long enough before 2016. It would of been so much better if the ACA rollout had even been somewhat successful...
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Much like RTW in Michigan and the shutdown, it'll be fine if they do it long enough before 2016. Democrats alone can't open the government this time. Hieronymous Alloy posted:The economy is probably going to keep improving over that time. I find this to be an overly-optimistic assessment. I'm not so certain that its more likely to keep improving than not, given the trends in energy and the over-reliance of many nations upon high prices to maintain current spending levels with a refusal or inability to institute austerity measures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The economy is probably going to keep improving over that time. "That Republican majority in congress sure improved things huh?  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Should Maine expect even deeper educational cuts than the ones their colleges are currently enacting? Will LePage veto the propositions passed through polls? How lower should we expect minimum wage to drop?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Dismantling the individual mandate isn't going to happen and worst case scenario with the current Supreme Court case is that various red states have their healthcare forcibly taken away from them until and unless they established an exchange or declared the federal exchange their exchange (it's only states that refused to set up an exchange that would be affected). I wouldn't be surprised if the individual mandate goes away. It's not popular, and there is a chance Obama let's it go in a deal with the GOP where he gets a new set of golf clubs in exchange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
daslog posted:I wouldn't be surprised if the individual mandate goes away. It's not popular, and there is a chance Obama let's it go in a deal with the GOP where he gets a new set of golf clubs in exchange. Hell no. The individual mandate is the keystone that holds the whole thing together. Without that it all falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 03:40
|
|
