|
De Nomolos posted:He wouldn't want to cross the Clinton's this early in his career. Are these no-hope, no-threat, name-boosting primary runs really considered "crossing" anybody, though? I have a hard time seeing why Billary would be offended by a feel-good primary campaign that would probably end before any actual primary votes were cast PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Nov 11, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
evilweasel posted: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? Cruz's support is a mile deep and an inch wide outside of Texas. Even this early in the cycle when only those who are deep into partisan politics are paying attention, Cruz is barely over 5%. He'll spend the next year+ being Cruz, build his war chest, lose both IA and NH (if he declares at all) and go back to his safe Senate seat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:This has the first 35 in static vertical format if that helps you at all. Also goddamn, I forgot how great these were. I love On The Campaign Trail and have recommended it to several friends over the years. I didn't realize there are more than the 35 static ones, I'm going on a .gif binge tonight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:Cruz's support is a mile deep and an inch wide outside of Texas. Even this early in the cycle when only those who are deep into partisan politics are paying attention, Cruz is barely over 5%. He'll spend the next year+ being Cruz, build his war chest, lose both IA and NH (if he declares at all) and go back to his safe Senate seat. Oh I know he wont win, but he'll spend the entire time throwing bombs. Its his entire strategy for getting ahead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Oh I know he wont win, but he'll spend the entire time throwing bombs. Its his entire strategy for getting ahead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So what would stop him from throwing bombs? What would actually foil his plans? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgzssDOTMXs&t=40s
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So what would stop him from throwing bombs? What would actually foil his plans? The threat of a funded primary opponent in 2018/2024/etc and a pledge that he'll be denied chairmanships and plum committee appointments regardless of seniority whenever the GOP holds the majority in the Senate if he goes too far and puts the eventual candidate at risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:The threat of a funded primary opponent in 2018/2024/etc and a pledge that he'll be denied chairmanships and plum committee appointments regardless of seniority whenever the GOP holds the majority in the Senate if he goes too far and puts the eventual candidate at risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So what happens if the maniacs primary the people who make those threats? What if he goes full-tilt mandrill and founds the Cruz Party? Then a lot of wonderful name-collisions will happen as hardcore party members are encouraged to download helpful apps to help them find the 'Cruziest' places to go when on vacation, find the best American glory halls and setting up some Koch-backed aggressive door-to-door 'Cruzing'
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
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? Ohio wasn't rigged. I was an election monitor in Ohio in 2004 - they bussed a load of us in from Michigan and other law schools because they didn't have enough people there. We got no training other than a fifteen minute speech once we got there (at 9 am or so, long after the polls had already opened), the large central office was remarkably disorganized and it took another hour to get everyone to their assigned precinct. Once we got there (in my case a 90% Dem ward) we heard nothing for the rest of the day and never saw a single other person from the party until the polls closed. Most of that might be how things normally work, no biggie, and I remember being optimistic on the bus back, but what I should've thought about was that we were in the middle of Toledo and they clearly didn't have the resources to cover the whole city in the biggest source of pure D votes in the state. FWIW, the GOP didn't even bother to send monitors and didn't need them because the polls weren't rigged after all  This also goes to Kerry's competence but who knows it's entirely possible the Ohio state party was enough of a trainwreck on its own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:What if Cuomo were to run as a Republican? I didn't think I could loving hate Andrew Cuomo even more, but here I am. What a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
I don't see anyone being able to outflank Hillary in the primary. Foxnews has done and amazing job equating liberals or progressives as evil, so Bernie Samders won't get any traction. Warren May or may not run but she's terrible at debating, Omalley is boring to listen to, and Castro just isn't ready yet. Can we get pot legalization on a lot of 2016 ballots? It just seems pretty obvious that it's gonna be Hillary vs whatever semi moderate likable business wing republican that had to veer hard right to fend off the lunatics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
I would honestly love for Rand Paul to be the (R) nominee because I want to see if there's anything else hilarious that can fall out of that tree when you shake it. We've had plagiarism, we've had the Southern Avenger, we've had Aqua Buddha, and I'm hoping there's more somewhere he's been able to hide so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I would honestly love for Rand Paul to be the (R) nominee because I want to see if there's anything else hilarious that can fall out of that tree when you shake it. We've had plagiarism, we've had the Southern Avenger, we've had Aqua Buddha, and I'm hoping there's more somewhere he's been able to hide so far. Maybe he was a ghost writer for his dads newsletters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:I didn't think I could loving hate Andrew Cuomo even more, but here I am. What a piece of poo poo. What a prick!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
I know it's probably a little early for this, but I'm looking at the Dem field for the first time since the 2014 midterms were settled and I'm thinking it's kind of weird. I don't think Clinton is as "inevitable" as everyone says, and some of the GOP folks, despite being pants on head crazy, seem viable. My biggest worry is President Rand but in a primary with people like Dr. Carson I don't see him winning any of their beloved straw polls anytime soon
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I would honestly love for Rand Paul to be the (R) nominee because I want to see if there's anything else hilarious that can fall out of that tree when you shake it. We've had plagiarism, we've had the Southern Avenger, we've had Aqua Buddha, and I'm hoping there's more somewhere he's been able to hide so far. - the fact that he runs his own physician certification group, that he used to certify himself. - the budget he wrote where he zeroed out the budget for basically any agency he'd never heard of (I worked for one of those agencies at the time and he never bothered to explain why he'd do that, but we had a super ambiguous name that said nothing about what we did, but losing us would gently caress up IT security something fierce). - go back to 2007-08 when no one knew who he was and he was running around on his father's campaign, I'm sure he was much closer to Lew Rockwell then. I mean, I'm sure he'll totally sanitize himself and get people like Mitch to be surrogates, but he'll lose the sort of people who inspired the creation of LF in the process, unless they've finally, inevitably sold out, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:The threat of a funded primary opponent in 2018/2024/etc and a pledge that he'll be denied chairmanships and plum committee appointments regardless of seniority whenever the GOP holds the majority in the Senate if he goes too far and puts the eventual candidate at risk. I don't buy it. All of these plans rely on managing to convince Cruz he can't win, and I don't see him accepting that. I'm sure they'll give it a shot but he didn't spend the last few years undermining GOP leadership to advance himself in the primaries to give up now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't buy it. All of these plans rely on managing to convince Cruz he can't win, and I don't see him accepting that. I'm sure they'll give it a shot but he didn't spend the last few years undermining GOP leadership to advance himself in the primaries to give up now. Except for the fact that he was born in Canada so he cannot be president. Period. You'd think he'd see the writing on the wall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Nereid posted:Except for the fact that he was born in Canada so he cannot be president. Period. You'd think he'd see the writing on the wall. Doesn't make him ineligible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Nereid posted:Except for the fact that he was born in Canada so he cannot be president. Period. You'd think he'd see the writing on the wall. Yes, maybe something will convince Ted Cruz not to undertake a doomed, messiah-sociopath crusade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Nereid posted:Except for the fact that he was born in Canada so he cannot be president. Period. You'd think he'd see the writing on the wall. It's always surreal to see someone try to post something definitive when it is definitively wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders is working with a political aide to the Gore, Kerry, Kerrey, and Dukakis campaigns (insert obvious joke here) on forming a strategy around a Presidential campaign.quote:“If he runs, I’m going to help him,” Devine said in an interview. “He is not only a longtime client but a friend. I believe he could deliver an enormously powerful message that the country is waiting to hear right now and do it in a way that succeeds.” Now, obviously, Sanders isn't going to win the nomination, but he appears to think he's got a shot at a serious-enough campaign that he'd be able to get into debates against Hillary and push the party agenda to the left. The rejection of a Nader-esque third party bid would be key to this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bernie Sanders is working with a political aide to the Gore, Kerry, Kerrey, and Dukakis campaigns (insert obvious joke here) on forming a strategy around a Presidential campaign. If we wants to mount a serious campaign I don't know why he would work with a political aide associated with those people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Three of those four people won the Democratic nomination 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, maybe something will convince Ted Cruz not to undertake a doomed, messiah-sociopath crusade. If it ends with him nailed to a cross and left to die, I don't think we should stop him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Oh I know he wont win, but he'll spend the entire time throwing bombs. Its his entire strategy for getting ahead. Do you suppose he might be making it as miserable for the other candidates as possible to try to squeak out a win in future elections? I feel like he just assumes he'll be president some day. If not this cycle then the next one. He's completely unelectable as far as the presidency goes but I feel like he has the whole "plucky, young underdog" thing going on in his head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Do you suppose he might be making it as miserable for the other candidates as possible to try to squeak out a win in future elections? I feel like he just assumes he'll be president some day. If not this cycle then the next one. He's completely unelectable as far as the presidency goes but I feel like he has the whole "plucky, young underdog" thing going on in his head. I think that his strategy since getting elected has been to increase his stature by getting leadership stuck in impossible situations then attacking them for whatever solution they pick (for example shutting down the government over Obamacare, knowing full well it's not going to work and seeking only to be able to run as the guy who fought Obamacare while the other guy caved). His goal is to run a tea party campaign for the Presidency against the Republican establishment and he's been positioning himself for that for two years. I just don't see the bribe that he can be offered short of a guaranteed VP slot and/or the promise he will be the official nominee next time that gets him to avoid bomb-throwing. His path to the nomination is to make every other candidate unacceptable to the base. I don't see him caring enough about chairmanships to give up what he sees as his shot at the Presidency based on that. He definitely won't care about a primary challenge, he's not at all vulnerable to one. What are they going to do, run a candidate arguing to Texas Republicans that Ted Cruz was too conservative?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
I don't think Sanders will be any more effective than Kucinich. The media won't treat them as anything but a protest vote since he doesn't look or act very "Presidential" and even if he's not a weird little elfin man that the media goaded into talking about UFOs (and who was an Bashir al-Assad apologist) like Kucinich, he still bills himself as a socialist, which screams "I am a candidate running as a protest, don't take me seriously." Having been through 2 Nader campaigns and Kucinich in 2004 myself, I can't say it left me very idealistic about these sorts of candidacies. Who was talking about Nader's issues after that campaign? No one new who wasn't already on board and marginalized politically by the mainstream, that's for sure But hey, might as well do it since the rest of the party is inept. Maybe it's time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What are they going to do, run a candidate arguing to Texas Republicans that Ted Cruz was too conservative? Really I think that sums up the biggest problem the GOP is running into right now. Their entire platform is "nobody is ever conservative enough and the only correct action is to shove America further to the right, all the time." Turns out that the crazies came out of the woodwork and said "hey that's a great idea, let's do that!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't buy it. All of these plans rely on managing to convince Cruz he can't win, and I don't see him accepting that. I'm sure they'll give it a shot but he didn't spend the last few years undermining GOP leadership to advance himself in the primaries to give up now. Compare the 2010/2012 crop of candidates to 2014. The RNC/etc learned from their mistakes and in nearly every winnable race they had someone who wasn't going to sink their own candidacy/the party in general by making a ridiculous gaffe or controversial statement (and as a result, I can't think of a statewide race where the Republican was favored going into election day and lost.) Cruz fell in line and went to Kansas to help Roberts after backing Milton Wolf in the primary. He's obviously in it for his own brand but he's also smart enough to understand that his realistic ceiling (especially in his mid-40s) is TX-GOV, VP candidate in either a very weak or very strong GOP year, or eight to nine term Senator if he lives that long. ToxicSlurpee posted:Really I think that sums up the biggest problem the GOP is running into right now. Their entire platform is "nobody is ever conservative enough and the only correct action is to shove America further to the right, all the time." Turns out that the crazies came out of the woodwork and said "hey that's a great idea, let's do that!" Again, look at 2014. The right wing wanted Broun or Handel in GA, McDaniel in MS, Wolf in KS, Brannon in NC, Bevin in KY, Carr in TN. They all lost to safer incumbents/establishment moderate Republicans. Even close race losers like Scott Brown and Gillespie were more moderate than the bigger losers in 2010/2012. If you're looking at that trend and thinking the GOP is going to go more right wing in 2016 I'm not sure what else could convince you. Huckabee and Cruz may run but I think the frontrunners have the discipline not to follow them into untenable positions that would jeopardize the general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:Compare the 2010/2012 crop of candidates to 2014. The RNC/etc learned from their mistakes and in nearly every winnable race they had someone who wasn't going to sink their own candidacy/the party in general by making a ridiculous gaffe or controversial statement (and as a result, I can't think of a statewide race where the Republican was favored going into election day and lost.) Cruz fell in line and went to Kansas to help Roberts after backing Milton Wolf in the primary. He's obviously in it for his own brand but he's also smart enough to understand that his realistic ceiling (especially in his mid-40s) is TX-GOV, VP candidate in either a very weak or very strong GOP year, or eight to nine term Senator if he lives that long. They were much more successful in Senate campaigns, yes. I am sure they'll do the same for 2016 Senate and try to do the same for 2016 Presidential primaries and that many candidates will fall in line. I'm sure they know they need to try to keep Cruz in line. I'm also sure that I know Cruz can't win the general - but I don't think that he can't win the primary. I think he believes he can win that and I do not believe he'll handicap himself and I don't think the RNC has a credible threat to keep him restrained. Cruz is not a party-first guy, he's a Cruz-first guy. He could have won a lot of friends in high places by smoothing over the shutdown fight but instead he threw gas on the fire to increase his popularity with the base - what leverage do they have now that they didn't have before? I mean obviously I am rooting for him to throw as many bombs as possible so I've got a bias, but I assume you also want him not doing that and have a similar bias
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
I think it will be telling if Cruz goes against a new AUMF in Iraq. He could potentially Nixon his way to victory by getting out early against supporting a failing Iraqi government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
About that age problem Hillary may have... http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/11/how_old_is_hillary_clinton_many_americans_don_t_know.html?wpsrc=fol_fb quote:Young people don’t even perceive Clinton as particularly old. According to a recent Pew survey, an incredible 69% of 18-29 year olds think Clinton is either in her 50s or younger. Just 27% accurately place her age as between 60 and 69, while only 2% say she’s older than 70.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ I think people are severely underestimating the demographic shift 2016 brings in the Democrats' favor. 2012 was supposed to be a "close" race, yet everyone who knew anything about statistics knew Obama was going to win and it wouldn't be much of a fight. The same, IMO, applies for 2016. Really, I'm already assuming a President Clinton and a democratic re-taking of one (if not both) of the chambers of Congress. The main thing that interests me in 2016 is the legal weed referendums.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Three of those four people won the Democratic nomination One of them actually won the popular vote and electoral colleges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
AYC posted:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ There is no possibility of the Democrats retaking the House. They won the popular House vote in 2012 and it did virtually nothing. The map is gerrymandered specifically to blunt the demographic shift.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There is no possibility of the Democrats retaking the House. They won the popular House vote in 2012 and it did virtually nothing. The map is gerrymandered specifically to blunt the demographic shift. I was thinking the Senate, especially when you consider the fact that the 2010 class of nutjobs is up for re-election. And yes, the Democrats will probably not have the House until 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:About that age problem Hillary may have... There's no doubt that perception is huge. No one talked about Romney's age (65) and it was the main thing on everyone's minds with McCain (72). McCain looked very old because of his cautious movements and slow speech, which were partly from age and partly from being tortured in Vietnam. Romney and Hillary both look and act more youthful than they are. Of course, if Romney runs for president again, it's unlikely that anyone will criticize his age, and pointing that out will give Hillary an easy defense since she's seven months younger than Mitt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
AYC posted:I was thinking the Senate, especially when you consider the fact that the 2010 class of nutjobs is up for re-election. The Senate is doable, but tricky. There's another thread on it though: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3680204
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:52
|
|