|
InvincibleMadHouse posted:I noticed Julian Castro mentioned a few pages ago and it was intoned he dare not challenge Hilary Clinton at this point in his career, but what really was to say that the upstart Barack Obama wouldn't have dared the same? It may be a novice prediction but what else precludes his candidacy and nomination considering his political trajectory and visibility are somewhat comparable to Obama's? Not comparable at all. Castro went from big city mayor (a position no one outside of your city hears of unless the city in question is NYC or to a lesser extent Washington or Chicago) to Secretary for the most obscure Cabinet department this side of Commerce, HUD. He is in the Obama Cabinet at a time when that's political poison (Clinton ditched at the end of the first term), he's still something of a nobody, and he's not going to resign from the Cabinet to run for President on a hopeless bid. And, yes, you would probably have to resign from a Cabinet position to run for President, it's not like being a Senator where you can just take a month off of work to go campaigning. EDIT: Also, Barack Obama was elected President at 47. Julian Castro is literally 40 and will be 42 in 2016. That's incredibly young to make a Presidential bid. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Nov 12, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
aslan posted:Well, conveniently, that same couple of decades covers a generation's worth of cultural change where a college degree went from "a nice but not strictly necessary thing to have" to "something which is essentially necessary to acquire a middle-class job." If the fact that Obama, Bush 43 and Clinton all fit this profile doesn't sway you, let's just pay attention to the fact that Dukakis, Kerry, and Romney did, too, and Gore and Bush 41 fit at least half. That still leaves Bob Dole as half credit and John McCain as an exception in terms of candidates in this period. McCain doesn't have a graduate degree unless NVA prison camps have gotten some sort of accreditation at some point and he went to the Naval Academy. Dole didn't go to an Ivy, but he did eventually get a law degree.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
You know, after all the anti-intellectualism candidates push in the GOP it's refreshing to hear someone just say "I went to the best school. You have to be really smart to get in.  "
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Trump is giving a Castro-style neverending speech. It's amazing. Trump is a natural born politician. He has so much self-confidence that its contagious.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Donald Trump winning it all would destroy the GOP. Could you imagine the initial war between Trump and Boehner/McConnell? And how Trump would crush them?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
I'm starting to feel like a low-class loser for not watching The Apprentice all these years. Middle America, you were right the whole time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
echronorian posted:I'm starting to think jeb is actually dumber than W. He just has no political instincts whatsoever. George W. Bush was a people person, Jeb Bush seems the type who hates human contact. Jeb reminds me more of his dad than his brother.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
I really want a primary poll of New York. I know they vote late, but it'd be hilarious to see Trump leading by 20 or so. Also Pataki at 1% if he's lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Montasque posted:They still hate. Trump's entire popularity is build on his horrific fear mongering targeted at Latinos. Absolutely, and that is one of the most significant developments of this race. Trump has disentangled xenophobic rear end in a top hat rhetoric from the other right wing policies that accompany it. Trump has clearly learned something from the European far right... Xenophobia and populist economics are a potent cocktail.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Rocks posted:Is Trump a lot like Perot? He was before my time. What was he like as a candidate? Perot's closest brush with Trumpness is when he gave a speech to the NAACP in which he repeatedly referred to black people as "you people," including descriptions of how crime and poverty were real problems for you people's community. This didn't really go over too well with African American voters. For the most part, though, Perot focused on economics, especially his unique brand of protectionism, lambasting NAFTA as a move that would destroy American workers as all their jobs went to Mexico. Perot (back in the days of network television domination) would use his fortune to buy 15 minute infomercials over the air where he'd address the American people uninterrupted with bar graphs and pie charts about the economic effects of the deficit and free trade as if the American people were adults. Perot's eccentricities, like dropping out of the Presidential race and then jumping back in and explaining it by saying that he thought that the Republican Party was going to try to sabotage his daughter's wedding, didn't help people take his candidacy that seriously, but he did do pretty impressively well for a third party candidate in 1992. In 1996 his constituency was much more limited...while in 1992 his main audience was non-ideological and just built on anger at the political system, his 1996 demographic were mostly people on the kookier, paranoid faction of the right wing. EDIT: Ross Perot was so economically focused that it also damaged him a bit in that it was clear that his real stance on issues like abortion was that he didn't give a poo poo about abortion one way or another, which isn't really an inspiring message for pro-life or pro-choice types. (He eventually came down as soft pro-choice) Patter Song fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, that's what a so called "constitutional convention" is. It nearly happened in the 1910s over the Direct Election of Senators amendment, something sitting Senators who liked not having to run statewide were pretty reluctant about. And yeah, Congress ended up caving rather than letting the con-con happen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Another glorious thing about a Trump Administration: Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul would be in the Senate knowing that the president of their party absolutely despises them (and, in Graham's case, Graham would know that he called the President of the United States a jackass on national television). I'm envisioning a situation where Mitch McConnell strikes a deal with Trump where McConnell gets some piece of legislation signed in return for moving Lindsey Graham's office to the basement of the Dirksen building or something. Offices with windows are reserved only for Senators ready to Make America Great Again. How about this for comedy: Trump/Cruz ticket, Vice President Cruz spends the entire term trying to secretly plot with Boehner and McConnell to have Trump impeached so he can become President, the Democrats bail Trump out to dick over Cruz.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:There's a fly in the ointment: there is not a single legislator of either party who will return Cruz's phone calls, so he's not plotting anything with nobody. True. Ted Cruz is the only person in politics who is so transparently Frank Underwood-y that I'd suspect him of trying to use the VP slot as a short-circuit to the Oval Office in the middle of the term, but Ted Cruz has the Achilles Heel that everyone who knows Ted Cruz despises and distrusts Ted Cruz.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Is this even arguable? Of course, out of the people listed on that poll, Donald Trump is most likely to change things. It doesn't specify that that's changing things in a positive way, mind. Ben Carson would also change things, but only because he'd be a president with no idea of what the presidency does who doesn't actually know any of the movers and shakers in Washington. Ted Cruz would also shake things up, probably by having tanks shell Congress when Congress doesn't pass legislation he wants.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/ "We need a big, beautiful wall." I can't wait to see how luxurious this wall ends up being.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:A few days old but this is a good article on it. George P. Bush's dream job path goes "Texas Land Commissioner for two terms, elected governor of Texas in 2022, run for President in 2028 after one-and-a-half terms," but it'll get trickier actually pulling it off. Texas doesn't have term limits and there's no guarantee Abbott will move on in 2022, and even if Abbott did resign every Republican worth a drat in TX has 2022 circled on their calendars for a bid for governor. George P. Bush will have to survive the primary from hell that year. Yes, talking about things six years down the road sounds absurd, but in an effectively one-party state like Texas where every up-and-comer has to wait for the guy in front of him to get promoted in order to advance, that's how state GOP politics works.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:IIRC the 14th amendment has the Equal Protection Under the Law clause, right? Have Republicans had any real answer for what they'd do about that in their fantasy scenario of taking it all out? The serious answer is that the amendment would eliminate the first sentence of the Fourteenth (where birthright citizenship is), not the whole amendment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Dolash posted:We might as well dissect /pol/ memes, what's the over-under on Trump saying "cuckservative" at the next debate? Next to 0, he prefers less complicated insults like "loser" that don't have as much to unpack in them. The real question is does he wear the Make America Great Again hat during the debate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Nate Silver gives Bernie a 5% chance of winning, with his odds increasing if Hillary scandals keep popping up: So...according to Nate Silver, the guy who is leading the GOP primary in national polls by double digits, has leads in early states and later states in polls, has infinite money to draw on, and is running against a field of drooling inbreds has a 2% chance at his nomination. A guy who is behind by 20% nationally, down by a similar margin in Iowa and maybe sort of tied in New Hampshire depending on the poll you listen to, has no support in later states besides maybe his home state of Vermont and a few others, has a low budget campaign and is running against a former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State has a 5% chance at his nomination. I don't understand Nate Silver these days.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Nate's predictions are usually also weighted by historical trends and other external factors not in the polling. If you understood it... you would be nate silver. Your record isnt as good as his, let the man work. I'm well aware of the other factors Nate Silver uses, I've been reading his site regularly since March of 2008. Nate Silver is arrogant and overconfident these days and his record seriously isn't as good as people say it is (he completely miscalled Congress in 2010, has a terrible record on governor races, and does amazingly poorly at any international election he writes about). He is resting on his laurels from the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, both of which there were plenty of other commentators who did just as well as he did at predicting election returns (with 2012 you could literally copy out the polling average for 49 states and flip a coin for Florida and have a 50% chance of tying Nate Silver). Silver is in willful denial over Trump because Trump isn't part of his worldview.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:I just assume everyone in this thread is trolling save (possibly) Joementum. Joementum trolls harder than anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Nate Silver doubting Trump means his entire reason for being is called into question quite frankly. My point was simply that claiming that it's more likely that Sanders is the Democratic nominee than Trump as GOP nominee is prima facie absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He said current goon favorites are not very likely to win their respective nominations as of current data. Cue meltdowns about how he claerly doesn't know anything because otherwise he'd agree with them. Honestly, 5% for Sanders is probably too high. My issue was solely with the idea that Sanders is somehow more likely to be Democratic nominee than Trump GOP nominee. Vox Nihili posted:So first of all, that "prediction" was acknowledged as a shoot-from-the-hip estimate without any real statistical basis, so it should be treated with a grain of salt. Secondly, consider the number of republican contenders with a legitimate shot versus the number of democratic candidates. Third, look at the republican party's own interests. Bernie may be an outsider, but at least he is actively in favor of what the democratic party wants. Trump has promised big tariffs, for example, which makes him #1 on the republican party's hit list. In short, the party will do whatever it takes to oppose him. Finally, consider the relative unimportance of nationwide pollling this early on. Most of the experts say that it has almost no predictive value at this point. It's not the national polls that interest me, it's Trump's massive lead in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire combined with his basically unlimited funding (for the purposes of the election...even the most expensive presidential campaign will be in the hundreds of millions range, which Trump can easily afford) that can't be cut off. He's in a far more enviable position than insurgent candidates in previous cycles like Huckabee 2008 who had no appeal north of the Mason Dixon line and no money to capitalize on his Iowa win or Santorum 2012 who had basically no money or infrastructure at all and was completely reliant on SuperPAC sugar daddies to keep his anti-Romney candidacy alive. There's also the stunning relative weakness of the establishment candidates vis a vis Romney 2012. Romney was always the Establishment's one candidate in 2012 and that never faltered (especially after Chris Christie decided to pass on running).   Jeb Bush at his most popular (back in the spring before Trump jumped in) could barely hit 15%. Mitt Romney, at his absolute lowest point during Rick Perry's late entrance into the race (around the first of September, so exactly four years ago), was polling at 17%, and rarely ever dipped below 20%. Jeb Bush is a far, far weaker candidate than Romney was at this point. He's in single digits in Iowa, a state establishment candidate Romney tied Santorum in in 2012, and is barely out of double digits in New Hampshire, which is the Establishment Candidate must-win for the last two cycles for the GOP. His national average is closer to Bachmann 2012 than Romney 2012. I'm not saying Trump will necessarily be the nominee, I'm saying that the 2012 comparisons have a big Mitt Romney-shaped hole in the Establishment Candidate slot that Jeb Bush does not fill and that because you can't just have "Not-Trump" win, but an actual living human being running against him, Trump's chances are a hell of a lot higher than 2% of getting the nomination.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:At this point I think we can say that Trump is doing a little better than Perry et al. did in 2011, but his polling does resemble another failed Republican candidate from 2007: Do you remember that cycle? Rudy Giuliani pulled out of Iowa and New Hampshire (the first two contests, the ones whose winners will have their faces plastered on everything and be treated as serious candidates) to put all his effort into Florida, voting way at the end of the month. Huckabee won Iowa, McCain won New Hampshire, and the two of them plus Romney (second place in both) were the only three candidates anyone had time for. Giuliani placed fourth in Florida as everyone expected he would with such a dumbass strategy. Giuliani was an amazingly poor fit for Iowa, obviously (mayor of NYC vs a very rural state). Trump is not only not pulling out of Iowa and New Hampshire, he's leading both and is doubling down. He has Santorum 2012's Iowa field guy, he is holding mega-town halls in NH, he is giving children helicopter rides at the Iowa State Fair. This is not a man about to make Giuliani's absurd decision to bow out of IA and NH.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:In which Bill Kristol calls for Sam Alito to run for President Along with Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan. But yes, I'd love to see the GOP field expand even more. I'd also love to see a sitting Supreme Court Justice at a Presidential Debate, especially the way they're run these days. Alito would have to recuse himself on every court case for the next decade after he has to talk on stage with those bozos. Alito aside, come into the pool, former governor Daniels and Congressman Ryan! The water's fine. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:The top income tax rate in 1952 was 91% and the average corporate tax rate was 52%, yet somehow the world didn't end. I would like you to explain why, please. ...You do realize that 1952 was before the AMT and it was totally possible and indeed common for the wealthy to use deductions to dodge literally all of their taxes, right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Philthy posted:
No, that's not it at all. It's far worse, ESPN bought them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Why on earth is Trump even running as a Republican? He could run just as easily as an Independent who just really loving hates Mexicans. Because he wants to be President.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Yes I read that...I meant why did he not run again? Its not like he doesn't have the money (I think his father is a billionaire)? There's one other element to Huntsman's failure. He was ambassador to China...for the Obama Administration. To Republicans, Huntsman's acceptance to that post was treason against the party and seen as supporting the Obama Administration. As much as politicians say things like "country before party" or "politics stops at the water's edge," if you actually believe that like Huntsman apparently did you're incredibly naive. Chris Christie still hasn't lived down hugging Obama for coming to visit a disaster site.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Can you imagine Palin trying to figure out which fork to eat at a formal dinner with a bunch of diplomats? Forks? She'll be eating salads with a knife. She's a maverick.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
 Congratulations to Dr. Ben Carson for making his way into double digits in the RCP average and taking second place!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Jeb Bush realizes that it is August and the polls don't matter yet. His massive field organization, money and super PAC money will take care of the rest until primaries. None of which Trump has. Money, something a Donald Trump campaign will lack. OK, then, Mittens.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:Trump has tons of money but I don't think even he would spend a overly significant portion of it on his campaign. Jeb has superpacs funded by multiple people richer than Trump is. Even the highest estimates of the amount spent on this campaign for a single candidate is somewhere between half a billion and a billion dollars (primary plus general). If Trump feels that he has a real chance at this, I could easily see him investing a trial balloon sum of a hundred million and singlehandedly match Right to Rise PAC's cash on hand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
So this is fun. Quinnipiac's poll of the primaries got the favorability/unfavorability numbers on the candidates among members of their party. (The favorability of the Democratic candidates with Democrats and Republicans with Republicans) fav/unfav % among Dems: Biden 83/6% for +77% Clinton 76/11% for +65% Sanders 54/8% for +46% Webb 11/10% for +1% O’Malley 12/13% for -1% Chafee 8/10% for -2% It's interesting that "only" 87% of Democrats have an opinion of Hillary Clinton. Also check out the bottom three for having unfavorables matching or surpassing their favorables. fav/unfav % among Republicans: Rubio 72/3% for +69% Carson 62/6% for +56% Huckabee 64/15 for +49% Walker 52/5% for +47% Bush 59/17% for +42% Fiorina 49/8% for +41% Cruz 54/13% for +41% Kasich 36/5% for +31% Jindal 36/5% for +31% Perry 45/16% for +29% Trump 59/30% for +29% Santorum 38/20% for +18% Christie 39/32% for +7% Paul 35/35% for +/-0 Pataki 15/17% for -2% Gilmore 6/11% for -5% Graham 23/28% for -5% Rand Paul is the most hated Republican by Republicans with 35% disapproval, followed by Christie's 32% and Trump's 30%. Notice Marco Rubio's absurd halo.Also notice that Jeb Bush and Donald Trump have the exact same favorable number, 59% of Republicans. Finally, look at Lindsay Graham and laugh at how a guy with only 51% of Republicans taking an opinion could have 28% disapproval.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I know Jeb's a mess, but when is he going to start blasting Trump with the firehose of money? Or start spending it in any meaningful way? Right to Rise announced major ad buys in IA, NH, and SC are coming soon. When "soon" is isn't exactly clear, but it probably means "after Labor Day."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:And the conservative elite will deploy the same messages to attack Trump in the media, trying to convince voters that he's a stealth (or not-so-stealth) Clintonite who's going to raise their taxes to give Social Security and healthcare to people who "don't deserve it". This is exactly why Trump has doubled down on deporting not only illegal immigrants, but their citizen families etc. Trump wants to have a ready-made answer to that complaint: that those "people who don't deserve it" are headed for the classy, luxurious Trump Internment Camps while they wait to be processed for deportation across the Great Wall of Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
  Des Moines Register Iowa poll. I should point out that Mike Huckabee (4%) is the 2008 winner of the Iowa Caucus, while Rick Santorum (1%) is the winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucus.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Fun fact of the day: Walker+Bush+Rubio+Kasich=22% Trump=23%
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
So, a reminder: Last cycle there were ~120,000 people participating in the Iowa Republican Caucus (the GOP has a far more sensible system than the Dems do in Iowa and have a vote at the caucus rather than the shouting in the gym thing) and slightly under a quarter million in the New Hampshire Republican Primary. This is despite the fact that 2012 didn't have a Democratic contest competing for attention (New Hampshire lets Independents vote in either and Iowa apparently allows you to walk into whichever caucus you want) and despite the fact that the esteemed Dr. Google Ron Paul, who scored slightly over 20% in both IA and NH, probably was bringing some nontraditional voters to the contests. Point is, a very small number of people participate in these contests. This is always worth remembering...we're measuring the enthusiasm of the sort of people who want to go to a gym in Iowa at 7PM on a weeknight to express their opinion that Ted Cruz should be President.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
From the same Iowa poll, favorability amongst Iowa Republicans. Oh, Jeb! Also, Lindsay Graham is doing a pretty good job on his campaign to make himself the most hated man in the GOP.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 17:35
|
|