Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
FMguru
Sep 10, 2003

peed on;
sexually

Unzip and Attack posted:

Watching Romney flail to stay relevant has been even more rewarding than his actual loss. Is there any precedent for a losing politician to hang around and snipe rather than actually do anything other than Palin? Did she create a new political cliche?
Usually you just head off to obscurity (sitting on corporate boards, teaching at a school of government, that sort of thing) or go back to your day job. Mondale and Dukakis did the former, Dole and Kerry and McCain did the latter.

What Romney is doing is really odd and kind of unprecedented. He wants to stake his claim as a Power and be a Mover and Shaker in the republican party establishment, despite the fact that his sole claims to relevance are that he ran a so-so presidential campaign that lost to a black guy named Hussein, and was the one-term governor of a solidly blue state that passed a bunch of very liberal legislation on his watch. Why would anyone bother to take his phone calls? I guess it's the way that he has a rolodex full of guys with checkbooks that he might put at their disposal.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

The Warszawa
Jun 6, 2005

Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

De Nomolos posted:

On the other hand, it's probably better to have him talk about the working class and economic populism than a 70-something year old socialist who wants to run from Vermont. Neither is going to draw the female/minority vote, but only one can draw in (maybe) some of the lost white voters that they need in the rust belt. People need to realize invoking the Koch brothers does poo poo-all among these voters because the avg person doesn't read DailyKos. Those people that know who the Koch brothers are already vote reliably Dem in every election. I don't know of any significant # of activists in the base that actually do stay home, even if they hate the candidates.

Bernie Sanders probably wouldn't generate a ton of enthusiasm among minorities or women. Jim Webb will actively depress enthusiasm because it's not that he doesn't have positions specific to women/minorities, it's that he has bad positions specific to women/minorities.

GhostofJohnMuir
Aug 14, 2014

anime is not good
I'm pretty sure young voters not having much personal experience with Hillary is going to matter much, the Clinton name has enough cachet in the popular conscious that I find it unlikely that young voters will approach her like an unknown quantity. Even better for her, the specifics of things like Clinton welfare reform or her abortive attempt at healthcare reform get lost in the haze of time and all that remains is the economic glow which surrounds the Clinton name.

De Nomolos
Jan 17, 2007

TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine

The Warszawa posted:

Bernie Sanders probably wouldn't generate a ton of enthusiasm among minorities or women. Jim Webb will actively depress enthusiasm because it's not that he doesn't have positions specific to women/minorities, it's that he has bad positions specific to women/minorities.

If I was any sort of mover or shaker on the left, I'd want anyone else other than these two to be making that argument in that case, and Elizabeth Warren is more useful in the Ted Kennedy role of crafting legislation (I said the same thing about Obama).

I literally can think of no one else who would help. The bench isn't there.

Misandrist Duck
Oct 22, 2012

Pinterest Mom posted:

You'll remember, of course, that Nixon clawed his way back to relevance after being seen as a joke and two-time loser by vigorously campaigning for Republican candidates and amassing favours in the 1966 midterms.

Funny you should mention that. Mitt Romney filling post-midterm role as key behind-the-scenes GOP player

quote:

Mitt Romney is not running for president. But since last week’s GOP midterm-election romp, he has cemented his role as one of the Republican Party’s key behind-the-scenes players, nurturing relationships with members of Congress and keeping in close touch with longtime consultants.

According to several top Republicans, Romney made more than 80 phone calls to GOP candidates last Tuesday and Wednesday to congratulate them on their victories, including Senate candidates Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. He spent election night in Boston watching returns at the home of former aide Ron Kaufman, stopping in later at the Seaport Hotel to congratulate Massachusetts governor-elect Charlie Baker (R) on his win.

Some confidants also continue to prepare the ground for another Romney presidential campaign, despite his continued disavowals of interest. In the days after the election, a group of Romney supporters began circulating a memo that compared the success of his midterm endorsements with those made by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

tsa
Feb 3, 2014

Unzip and Attack posted:

Watching Romney flail to stay relevant has been even more rewarding than his actual loss. Is there any precedent for a losing politician to hang around and snipe rather than actually do anything other than Palin? Did she create a new political cliche?

Al Gore.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

tsa posted:

Al Gore.

I don't think I agree with this. My recollection is Gore made a pretty concerted effort to take himself out of partisan politics generally and very specifically to avoid talking about Bush and is now an issue activist. I might just be forgetting a lot though from 2000-2004.

Chris Christie
Dec 26, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Aside from Nixon, Reagan was a candidate multiple times. He never lost as the nominee, but I don't see what the big difference is in losing your 2nd run for the Presidency in the primary vs. in the general election. If anything, I would think Romney is more attractive. He made a lot of blunders on the campaign trail, and his G.O.V. operation imploded in hilarious fashion on election day. Despite that, he ran pretty well against THE political superstar of my generation at least. I wasn't around for Kennedy, so I can only go back a few decades, but Obama is without question the most charismatic Democratic candidate I've seen in my lifetime. Bill Clinton was good, but not on Obama's level in my opinion (although after the campaigns ended, he was infinitely more competent and a better POTUS).

I personally would prefer Romney over Bush, however Bush is probably a better candidate. He occupies much of the same space as Romney, and the man can garner Latino votes. It will be interesting to see how he'd fare nationally with the Latino population vs. Florida where he was getting a lot of Cuban support.

I really don't think his name will hurt him. Having lived in Florida from before he ran for governor through after he was out of office, he's really not at all like his brother other than obviously being a Bush and a Republican.

I'm afraid if he declares, Romney won't.

The Warszawa
Jun 6, 2005

Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Chris Christie posted:

Aside from Nixon, Reagan was a candidate multiple times. He never lost as the nominee, but I don't see what the big difference is in losing your 2nd run for the Presidency in the primary vs. in the general election. If anything, I would think Romney is more attractive. He made a lot of blunders on the campaign trail, and his G.O.V. operation imploded in hilarious fashion on election day. Despite that, he ran pretty well against THE political superstar of my generation at least. I wasn't around for Kennedy, so I can only go back a few decades, but Obama is without question the most charismatic Democratic candidate I've seen in my lifetime. Bill Clinton was good, but not on Obama's level in my opinion (although after the campaigns ended, he was infinitely more competent and a better POTUS).

I personally would prefer Romney over Bush, however Bush is probably a better candidate. He occupies much of the same space as Romney, and the man can garner Latino votes. It will be interesting to see how he'd fare nationally with the Latino population vs. Florida where he was getting a lot of Cuban support.

I really don't think his name will hurt him. Having lived in Florida from before he ran for governor through after he was out of office, he's really not at all like his brother other than obviously being a Bush and a Republican.

I'm afraid if he declares, Romney won't.

Jeb Bush hasn't had to campaign among Cubans or Latinos generally since 2002 - non-Cuban Hispanics are a much bigger chunk of Florida than they were 12 years ago, and Cubans are also much less Republican. I honestly think all predictions that rely on performance among Latino voters before the 2004 immigration reform debacle are fundamentally flawed.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Chris Christie posted:

Aside from Nixon, Reagan was a candidate multiple times. He never lost as the nominee, but I don't see what the big difference is in losing your 2nd run for the Presidency in the primary vs. in the general election. If anything, I would think Romney is more attractive. He made a lot of blunders on the campaign trail, and his G.O.V. operation imploded in hilarious fashion on election day. Despite that, he ran pretty well against THE political superstar of my generation at least. I wasn't around for Kennedy, so I can only go back a few decades, but Obama is without question the most charismatic Democratic candidate I've seen in my lifetime. Bill Clinton was good, but not on Obama's level in my opinion (although after the campaigns ended, he was infinitely more competent and a better POTUS).

I think that he'll have a vague cloud of incompetence that will follow him as the result of 2012 no matter what he does. I have a lot of sympathy for the argument it may be entirely undeserved - I still maintain Kerry was a decent candidate and did well in a hard situation to no avail - but it's there. The last memory most of America has of him is post-2012 when everyone (friend and foe) tripped over themselves to discuss how incompetent his campaign was. Right or wrong, that's the image and I don't see how you make a serious run when that's everyone's gut feel about you.

FMguru
Sep 10, 2003

peed on;
sexually

evilweasel posted:

I think that he'll have a vague cloud of incompetence that will follow him as the result of 2012 no matter what he does. I have a lot of sympathy for the argument it may be entirely undeserved - I still maintain Kerry was a decent candidate and did well in a hard situation to no avail - but it's there. The last memory most of America has of him is post-2012 when everyone (friend and foe) tripped over themselves to discuss how incompetent his campaign was. Right or wrong, that's the image and I don't see how you make a serious run when that's everyone's gut feel about you.
Yeah, once you LOSE a presidential election you are supposed to go away because you are a LOSER. Nixon's 1960/1968 doubleshot went down as one of the greatest comebacks in history because things like that are so rare. Romney already faced the voters once, and got decisively rejected. What possible logic (other than a total lack of other viable candidates) justifies giving him another bite at the apple?

Kerry's campaign wasn't perfect (few are) but he did OK. He came within one rigged state - Ohio - from defeating a sitting president during wartime. That's pretty impressive.

ComradeCosmobot
Dec 4, 2004

USPOL July

FMguru posted:

Yeah, once you LOSE a presidential election you are supposed to go away because you are a LOSER. Nixon's 1960/1968 doubleshot went down as one of the greatest comebacks in history because things like that are so rare.

Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan, Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson all came back for another shot. Cleveland even won (though unlike Nixon, he'd won the presidency before)

And if you want to stretch the comparison before the Civil War, there's William Henry Harrison, Martin Van Buren (if you count his ill-fated Free Soil campaign of 1848), John Quincy Adams, and of course the original bad boy: Andrew Jackson.

ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Nov 11, 2014

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug

FMguru posted:

Yeah, once you LOSE a presidential election you are supposed to go away because you are a LOSER. Nixon's 1960/1968 doubleshot went down as one of the greatest comebacks in history because things like that are so rare. Romney already faced the voters once, and got decisively rejected. What possible logic (other than a total lack of other viable candidates) justifies giving him another bite at the apple?

Kerry's campaign wasn't perfect (few are) but he did OK. He came within one rigged state - Ohio - from defeating a sitting president during wartime. That's pretty impressive.

The problem the right runs into is that Romney is one of very few potentially electable people they have. They have a poo poo load of crazies and really old fucks and then bland, inoffensive, white bread R-Money. While the crazies are all cannibalizing each other Romney is just kind of hanging around, not doing much remarkable other than occasionally saying something dumb. Of course, the major issue is that, like you said, he already lost once. The Democrats would need to gently caress up hard to give Romney a win.

Polygynous
Dec 13, 2006
welp

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The Democrats would need to gently caress up hard to give Romney a win.

We're doomed. :ohdear:

Prokhor Zakharov
Dec 31, 2008

This is me as I make another great post


Good luck with your depression!

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The problem the right runs into is that Romney is one of very few potentially electable people they have. They have a poo poo load of crazies and really old fucks and then bland, inoffensive, white bread R-Money. While the crazies are all cannibalizing each other Romney is just kind of hanging around, not doing much remarkable other than occasionally saying something dumb. Of course, the major issue is that, like you said, he already lost once. The Democrats would need to gently caress up hard to give Romney a win.

If you're looking at Romney and saying "boy this guy might be our best shot" then are in such serious trouble.

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

by Athanatos

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The problem the right runs into is that Romney is one of very few potentially electable people they have. They have a poo poo load of crazies and really old fucks and then bland, inoffensive, white bread R-Money. While the crazies are all cannibalizing each other Romney is just kind of hanging around, not doing much remarkable other than occasionally saying something dumb. Of course, the major issue is that, like you said, he already lost once. The Democrats would need to gently caress up hard to give Romney a win.

What if Cuomo were to run as a Republican?

Fuck You And Diebold
Sep 15, 2004

by Athanatos

No way would he make it through the primary.

PupsOfWar
Dec 6, 2013

CubsWoo posted:

I mentioned this in the midterm aftermath, but the only serious candidates on the R side will be Christie, Walker, Jeb and maybe Jindal or Romney (who I don't think will run.) Cruz is good at making noise and raising money but not much else, Rubio needs another term in the Senate and possibly a term or two as FLGOV before running (could be an interesting VP pick, though) and Paul won't risk his seat if he has to choose between the two.


I think counting Cruz out is a bit harsh.

Not that he would have a shot at winning the nomination, but he could certainly play spoiler here and there along with affecting the entire rhetorical environment, as others have mentioned. Santorum '12 demonstrated that the days of goofy ultraconservative evangelicals being competetive with much more highly-qualified moderates are far from over. You may also be overrating how much Rand cares about his Senate seat. It's not as if he has been a super active legislator, and almost everything he's done with the seat seems geared toward raising his national notoriety. He hasn't assumed a full-fledged attack-dog role against the Republican establishment the way Cruz has, sure, which some may interpret as a cautious approach to accrue influence in the Senate, but it could just be that he is not as crazy as Ted.

PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Nov 11, 2014

Nameless_Steve
Oct 18, 2010

"There are fair questions about shooting non-lethally at retreating civilian combatants."
Julian Castro probably won't make a primary bid, but it would be interesting if he did, just for the sake of earning enough recognition to become the running mate. He'd be a good running mate; although he'd be unlikely to bring in Texas (who are used to dismissing San Antonio liberals), he could invigorate Latinos and young voters across the nation.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Nameless_Steve posted:

Julian Castro probably won't make a primary bid, but it would be interesting if he did, just for the sake of earning enough recognition to become the running mate. He'd be a good running mate; although he'd be unlikely to bring in Texas (who are used to dismissing San Antonio liberals), he could invigorate Latinos and young voters across the nation.

If you're looking for Latino candiates positioning themselves for 2016 potential, I'd say to look at Louis Gutierrez before Castro--he'e the La Rossa to Castro's milquetoast moderation.

Ganon
May 24, 2003

Nameless_Steve posted:

Julian Castro probably won't make a primary bid, but it would be interesting if he did, just for the sake of earning enough recognition to become the running mate. He'd be a good running mate; although he'd be unlikely to bring in Texas (who are used to dismissing San Antonio liberals), he could invigorate Latinos and young voters across the nation.

I hope they pick him, especially if the Republican VP is Susana Martinez or Rubio.

CubsWoo
Aug 17, 2005

Where the big boys RAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGH FUCK YOU

PupsOfWar posted:

I think counting Cruz out is a bit harsh.

Not that he would have a shot at winning the nomination, but he could certainly play spoiler here and there along with affecting the entire rhetorical environment, as others have mentioned. Santorum '12 demonstrated that the days of goofy ultraconservative evangelicals being competetive with much more highly-qualified moderates are far from over. You may also be overrating how much Rand cares about his Senate seat. It's not as if he has been a super active legislator, and almost everything he's done with the seat seems geared toward raising his national notoriety. He hasn't assumed a full-fledged attack-dog role against the Republican establishment the way Cruz has, sure, which some may interpret as a cautious approach to accrue influence in the Senate, but it could just be that he is not as crazy as Ted.

The RNC wants 2016 to be 2014 redux in terms of strategy and everything I've heard says that Cruz and Paul will play ball. If either of them don't, or if Huckabee decides to make a go of it, they won't win nationally and will generally be ignored by the major Governors running. The general feeling is that the 2016 primary field is going to be much more moderate than 2008/2012.

Zwabu
Aug 7, 2006

Why is Romney's effort to "remain relevant" so mysterious to anyone? It seems obvious enough that he's doing things that leave the door open to run again. He may or may not decide to do so (or he may have already decided he IS going to run), but all his actions make sense in that context.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

CubsWoo posted:

The RNC wants 2016 to be 2014 redux in terms of strategy and everything I've heard says that Cruz and Paul will play ball. If either of them don't, or if Huckabee decides to make a go of it, they won't win nationally and will generally be ignored by the major Governors running. The general feeling is that the 2016 primary field is going to be much more moderate than 2008/2012.

Since when does Cruz do anything that is not in Ted Cruz's personal interest? He's been positioning himself for the run by throwing various other Republicans under the bus so he can run against them, why is he going to stop now?

The Insect Court
Nov 22, 2012

by FactsAreUseless

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The Democrats would need to gently caress up hard to give Romney a win.

Obama beat Romney because he was willing to run a campaign with a populist tinge to it. But he was careful to avoid making a broader criticism of the sort of predatory neoliberal vulture capitalism that Romney represented, because he supported it. There are plenty of PE bigwigs who are major Democratic donors. And it's been clear for some time that Obama just identifies personally with the CEOs and fund managers in a way he doesn't with the community activists and labor leaders. He's a politician who finds economic populism personally distasteful. The danger is that Democrats wind up with a Hillary campaign that refuses to engage in what it sees as pandering to the rabble and we see a repeat of 2014 where Democrats don't have any coherent economic agenda.

Nameless_Steve
Oct 18, 2010

"There are fair questions about shooting non-lethally at retreating civilian combatants."

My Imaginary GF posted:

If you're looking for Latino candiates positioning themselves for 2016 potential, I'd say to look at Louis Gutierrez before Castro--he'e the La Rossa to Castro's milquetoast moderation.

Gutierrez on the national stage? Hmm... he'd make Rubio or Cruz look like a Tio Tomas. That would be a hell of a way to win Latinos back into the fold.

My main concern is that Clinton/Gutierrez (for example) will be 69 and 63 years old, respectively. We haven't had a ticket run that old in a long long time, if ever. We still need youth turnout, especially to coordinate the ground effort and help with downballot races, and I'm wondering if it would expose us to a "totally radical" attack from the "young" Republicans

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug

The Insect Court posted:

The danger is that Democrats wind up with a Hillary campaign that refuses to engage in what it sees as pandering to the rabble and we see a repeat of 2014 where Democrats don't have any coherent economic agenda.

The Democrats have never had a coherent economic agenda and never will. One advantage the GOP has on that front is that their plan is simple; remove regulations, lower taxes. It's simple and they can easily harp on "well yeah you'll take home more money and trickle-down economics will totally work this time, we swear."

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The Democrats have never had a coherent economic agenda and never will. One advantage the GOP has on that front is that their plan is simple; remove regulations, lower taxes. It's simple and they can easily harp on "well yeah you'll take home more money and trickle-down economics will totally work this time, we swear."

The Democrats absolutely have a coherent economic agenda. It's just not simplistic.

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

My Imaginary GF posted:

If you're looking for Latino candiates positioning themselves for 2016 potential, I'd say to look at Louis Gutierrez before Castro--he'e the La Rossa to Castro's milquetoast moderation.

Rahm, no one outside of Chicago cares about Gutierrez.

Mitt Romney
Nov 9, 2005
dumb and bad
I'm not too enthusiastic about a Hillary Clinton candidacy but like someone mentioned in a previous thread, if she ran a campaign on lowering the medicare age to 55 I think it would motivate the democratic base quite a bit, even if it would never get passed once she became president.

Assuming Obama does a big executive order regarding immigration closer to the 2016 election, which base would it motivate more?

Fuck You And Diebold
Sep 15, 2004

by Athanatos

Ganon posted:

I hope they pick him, especially if the Republican VP is Susana Martinez or Rubio.

What we really need is a castro/castro ticket. Keepin it in the family :v:

Nameless_Steve
Oct 18, 2010

"There are fair questions about shooting non-lethally at retreating civilian combatants."

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

What we really need is a castro/castro ticket. Keepin it in the family :v:

Joe McCarthy just shat his grave

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Kalman posted:

Rahm, no one outside of Chicago cares about Gutierrez.

That's not true. Gutierrez cares about Gutierrez.

And regarding the age issue, I'm not sure whether Republican attacks on someone for being too old will resonate well with their base. Especially when that base is older whites.

I expect a group to try it out and for limited polling and focus groups to be conducted on this issue before 'Too old' has a national rollout as a talkingpoint.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

My Imaginary GF posted:

That's not true. Gutierrez cares about Gutierrez.

And regarding the age issue, I'm not sure whether Republican attacks on someone for being too old will resonate well with their base. Especially when that base is older whites.

I expect a group to try it out and for limited polling and focus groups to be conducted on this issue before 'Too old' has a national rollout as a talkingpoint.

Old people tend to be well aware of the effects of age. They generally don't want someone their own age running the country.

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

Deteriorata posted:

Old people tend to be well aware of the effects of age. They generally don't want someone their own age running the country.

But old Republicans love Reagan? :psyduck:

ShadowCatboy
Jan 22, 2006

by FactsAreUseless

Cicero posted:

In case you missed it last time around: ShadowCatBoy's amazing gif series, On the Campaign Trail (D&D with Republican Primary candidates).

For 2016 I'm thinking maybe we should do some sort of kickstarter or patreon account for him for a repeat performance.

Well snap. Pretty timely of you to mention this, as I've actually just finished a few gifs recently. I've been meaning to get back to this recently since I've had to deal with my masters thesis, applications, standardized tests, and a huge workload overall for the past year or so and On The Campaign Trail just fell off the wagon. Even though I try to complete anything I start, I end up striking while the iron is cold.

In any case, my original plan was to just quietly post updates in the Political Cartoon thread, but since the topic's been broached I suppose it wouldn't be too gauche for me to put updates here. :v:

I'll also try to convert everything to static vertical images at some point too, since I know that is the preferred format for some people. That, and I'll also fix the name so it properly includes "Trail."

Part 69!

Part 70!

Part 71!

Fuck You And Diebold
Sep 15, 2004

by Athanatos

ShadowCatboy posted:

Well snap. Pretty timely of you to mention this, as I've actually just finished a few gifs recently. I've been meaning to get back to this recently since I've had to deal with my masters thesis, applications, standardized tests, and a huge workload overall for the past year or so and On The Campaign Trail just fell off the wagon. Even though I try to complete anything I start, I end up striking while the iron is cold.

In any case, my original plan was to just quietly post updates in the Political Cartoon thread, but since the topic's been broached I suppose it wouldn't be too gauche for me to put updates here. :v:

I'll also try to convert everything to static vertical images at some point too, since I know that is the preferred format for some people. That, and I'll also fix the name so it properly includes "Trail."

Part 69!

Part 70!

Part 71!

This has the first 35 in static vertical format if that helps you at all. Also goddamn, I forgot how great these were.

Fuck You And Diebold fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Nov 11, 2014

PupsOfWar
Dec 6, 2013

Mitt Romney posted:


Assuming Obama does a big executive order regarding immigration closer to the 2016 election, which base would it motivate more?

GoP base is already motivated, so I would think this would mostly help the Democrats unless the GoP manages to spin it into scaring the working class badly enough.

PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Nov 11, 2014

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Mitt Romney posted:

I'm not too enthusiastic about a Hillary Clinton candidacy but like someone mentioned in a previous thread, if she ran a campaign on lowering the medicare age to 55 I think it would motivate the democratic base quite a bit, even if it would never get passed once she became president.

Assuming Obama does a big executive order regarding immigration closer to the 2016 election, which base would it motivate more?

Democrats, absolutely. Especially compared to promising it and then not delivering.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

De Nomolos
Jan 17, 2007

TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine

Nameless_Steve posted:

Gutierrez on the national stage? Hmm... he'd make Rubio or Cruz look like a Tio Tomas. That would be a hell of a way to win Latinos back into the fold.

My main concern is that Clinton/Gutierrez (for example) will be 69 and 63 years old, respectively. We haven't had a ticket run that old in a long long time, if ever. We still need youth turnout, especially to coordinate the ground effort and help with downballot races, and I'm wondering if it would expose us to a "totally radical" attack from the "young" Republicans

I guess you haven't caught on that MIGF thinks literally every Illinois pol is on track to be nominee for Prez/VP. See: Vice President Rahm Emmanuel, President Bruce Rauner.

Either Castro (preferably Julian, let Joaquin run the DCCC) is absolutely capable and progressive enough to get low info but D-learning young and Latino voters onboard. He won't run against Hillary, though. He wouldn't want to cross the Clinton's this early in his career.

De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Nov 11, 2014

  • Locked thread