|
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.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
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
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:What we really need is a castro/castro ticket. Keepin it in the family Joe McCarthy just shat his grave
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I didn't know Obama posted on these forums! Good night, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:That's a picture from 2009 at age 61. I would hope she didn't look 69 back then! Here's how she looked stumping for Landrieu: I'm reminded of a recent Gravity Falls moment, because I watch cartoons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkkHFHAHubk "SHE'S DOING THE BEST SHE CAN, SOOS"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
As long as Clinton refrains from rehiring Mark Penn (and similar douchenozzles), I'll be happy. Remember Mark Penn? What a human turd.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I see either hide or hair of Penn, Howard Wolfson, or that puling little racist poo poo Lanny Davis, and I will find the nearest third-party candidate. Haha, barf. Now I remember why I volunteered for Obama in the primaries so vigorously last time around.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
AYC posted:I'm voting Green, as I do in every federal election. I'd yell at you for being a dumbass, but at least you live in California and your vote doesn't matter, anyway. As long as you filled out your census.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Debatable, but we should all agree that ranked choice ballots are long overdue for this system
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
It's party rules that dictate primary/caucus dates, not federal law. Parties could change the dates independently-- but some state governments pay for the ballots for the primaries, so they'd need the state governments to comply in those instances, unless the parties wanted to pay for the ballots themselves. In 2008, Florida moved up its primary uninvited. The Republicans chose to allow it and recognize the results, and all the candidates campaigned in the state. You'll remember that Giuliani retreated there and bet his house on it. The Democratic party initially chose to reject the results from Florida (and there was no campaign there except for Clinton's) but then later chose to half-recognize them. For example, the DNC could tell the West Virginia Democratic Party that it could hold early presidential caucuses. There's nothing really preventing it, other than the risk of pissing off Iowa and New Hampshire voters. (Just an example, since it was mentioned before, but I wonder if a good ground effort across that state might work for the party the way it did for Kennedy in the 1960 primaries.) Nameless_Steve fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
If Gore had won New Hampshire in 2000, he would have been President. It came down to 3 electoral votes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
The closest states in 2012 were North Carolina (R), Virginia (D), Ohio (D), and Florida (D). If the only change in 2016 was that the Republicans swept those states-- not unlikely-- Democrats would still win 272-268.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
State ... D votes - R votes ... (margin) FL... 4,237,756 - 4,163,447 ...... (~74,000) D+0.88% VA... 1,971,820 - 1,822,522 ...... (~149,000) D+2.98% OH... 2,827,710 - 2,661,433 ...... (~166,000) D+3.87% I had to look up the Michigan apportionment proposal. I had assumed it was Maine/Nebraska style, but it's different. It just shaves off a couple delegates to the losing party unless it's a 20-point blowout, effectively reducing Michigan's 15 electoral votes to 9 plus change. If it had been in effect in 2012, Obama would have gotten 12 EVs and Romney would have gotten 3, despite the 10-point landslide being Obama's 8th biggest margin. (The 2014 Michigan Senate race resulted in a similar margin for the Democrats.) But, yeah, if it passed, that would send the Republican over the top, as long as the Republican wins in FL, VA, NC, and OH and no other states pass similar legislation to water down their own EVs. Nameless_Steve fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
!!!BREAKING NEWS!!! Jim Webb Launches Exploratory Committee Does he have the right stuff to officially enter?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Autodidactic learning is pretty cool in theory, and smart important people have excelled in their fields without formal schooling. Besides Lincoln, there was John Frank Stevens, the most productive Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal. Today in the Great State of Maine, you don't need a law degree to pass the bar and begin practicing-- but you do need at least a bachelor's and at least one year of Law School to take the bar in the first place. Sort of like when college football players skip senior year to go straight to the draft, except with less self-inflicted tragedy when things don't turn out well. Anyone who has been to college knows that college is basically:
writing or answering test questions about what you read; going to class to hear teachers say the same thing as the textbooks; and being graded on whether the textbook's information is inside your head now. A college degree is basically a piece of paper that proves you read and understood a certain bunch of textbooks. Of course, there's no alternative reliable way to prove a person read those same textbooks without a college degree, so...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Also I'm confused, who is the beautiful man in that picture?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Well, you know, a college football player who skips Senior Year and then goes undrafted is SOL, and may or may not be able to finish his degree without the scholarship money, but if you try to Lincoln it up and fail, you can probably still finish law school.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Just imagine Scott Brown, dejectedly walking along the highway in the pouring rain, attempting to thumb it with no success. Sad piano music plays.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:No COMMUNISTS! Both parties have been INFILTRATED BY THE ENEMY! Wake up AMERICA! Perry is another DESPOT and we must form another party to overthrow this takeover! This idiot use to be democrat before he became republican. Then he tried to force vaccines onto our children which has caused DEATH and STERILIZATION once given the shot! He continued to try to force this onto "We the People"! Th worst of two evils is an worse for of EVIL! Please anyone whom has an ear let them hear this..........Prepare for the worst and pray for the best! Both parties are DEMONS! If we do not form "THE FREEDOM LOVING" party of libertarianism with constitutional loving members we will all be SACRIFICED TO SATAN! Ron Paul WHERE ARE YOU? The hole is becoming a trap now what????? Sink or swim!!!! Enough of the DISEASED FEW RULING and time for THE SANE TO STAND UP AND YELL FREEDOM! I'm invoking Poe's Law.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Debate & Discussion > 2016 Presidential Primary: "Glasses Make You Smexy" Edition 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
The next Democrat's VP slot will be worth only half of the usual bucket of warm piss. Dems can win in 2016 and again in 2020, which is what we need to get a sane SCOTUS majority, but 2024 on top of all of those? Five in a row? I'm optimistic, but not THAT optimistic. No party's held onto the White House for 20 uninterrupted years in a row since FDR-Truman, and before that, not since Jefferson-Madison-Monroe-Q.Adams. Voters like to hand the Oval Office over to the other party every 8 years or so just to make sure they still can. Even during eras of one-party dominance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
VP slot is a good launching point for Republicans, sure. But when was the last time a Democratic VP was elected to a first term as POTUS? Just once: Martin Van Buren. We've always preferred fresh faces, even before the right-wing smear machine started convincing their listeners that Democratic Presidents' names are swear words.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
If you want to group post-Civil War US history into partisan dynasties: (I forgot there were no colors, but that might have made this better) 1861-1933 Republican dominance: 12.03/18 terms Lincoln-Lincoln/Johnson-Grant-Grant-Hayes-Garfield/Arthur-Cleveland-Harrison-Cleveland-McKinley-McKinley/Roosevelt-Roosevelt-Taft-Wilson-Wilson-Harding/Coolidge-Coolidge-Hoover 1933-1969 Democratic dominance: 7/9 terms Roosevelt-Roosevelt-Roosevelt-Roosevelt/Truman-Truman-Eisenhower-Eisenhower-Kennedy/Johnson-Johnson. 1969-1993 Republican dominance: 5/6 terms Nixon-Nixon/Ford-Carter-Reagan-Reagan-Bush 1993-present... Potential Democratic dominance(?) 4/6 terms Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Obama-Obama Since 1969, 7/12 elections have been won by Republicans. Carter and Clinton might have looked like blips before 2008, but potentially 1992 really did start a new age for Democrats. Doing the math (5/(52*4)=0.025) to seeing how long Lincoln served out of his term made me surprisingly upset. I guess that's still a hot button for me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The problem with this is that Gore was (or nearly was) elected and the only reason that you're excluding Johnson and Truman is that they assumed office after their President died. That's true, because being President already gives you an incumbent advantage. I'm optimistically assuming no Democratic President will die, resign, or be removed in the next 10 years, which would completely change the playoff picture. Also true, Gore won the election, but obviously he wasn't elected. If the Electoral College had been comprised of nonpartisan upstanding members of the community, as originally intended, they surely would have recognized there was no objective winner in Florida and split their EVs, something I'm sure much more in line with the Founding Fathers' original idea for why the Electoral College existed in the first place. Seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Tech bubble? There's no tech bubble. Last time, it was fueled a bunch of all-hat-and-no-cattle dotcoms, like pets.com, Epidemic.com, onmoney.com, etc., who were buying huge servers and airing Super Bowl ads before they had cash inflow. Maybe today Google and especially Facebook are overvalued, but it wouldn't make too much of a dent in the economy if reality ensued. For the internet, you have Amazon, who have learned well from the last bubble and now have a bunch of real-world infrastructure, valuable assets and reliable revenue. Lots of cattle, yeehaw. The zeitgeist is just too pessimistic right now for us to be in a bubble. For more thoughts, see: http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-bubble-2014-9 Our current wealth/income disparity may be a destabilizing force (see late 18th century France), but otherwise this economy is stable and growing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Uber quite clearly would not exist without billionaires wanting to pump money into it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How many political parties in American history have been as blatantly bad about everything and as unlikeable to anyone who isn't them, ever, outside the goddamn Confederacy? If the Republicans can field a sane candidate in 2024 who doesn't openly hate the America of 2024, yeah, they may win. And if a rat was capable of photosynthesis, I might keep one as a pet. After sniveling elitist weaklings Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis, who would have seen Bill Clinton coming? After Hoover, who would have foreseen Eisenhower? There are a lot of midterms between now and 2024. Plenty of time to rebrand the Republican party, if they're smart about it. Maybe this time, it will be a good version of the party, instead of the perverted version of anti-scientific corporatist racist pidgeon-hawks we see today. Something a bit more libertarian to fit with the younger crowd, probably. That, or they could exploit the complacency caused by 16 years of economic growth and find some wedge issue to motivate their base while the Obama/Clinton coalition forgets to vote because it's such a nice day outside.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Real endorsements, already? Has Clinton even formed an exploratory committee yet? And didn't she learn from last time? Getting people on your bandwagon before they see the other options tends to result in them jumping off.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Don't think Hillary lost last time because Howard Dean endorsed her too early. No, but whereas in 2007 endorsing the inevitable Hillary in the first place had no effect, Ted Kennedy's switching his endorsement to Obama was a major event in the race. Not that Dean is that kind of power player, but I still think you should see the whole menu before you order. It's too early for people to be paying attention so it will get less coverage than it would have otherwise. I don't want Hillary to cruise to the nomination. I'm supporting her this time around, but I want her to earn it, and I want a vigorous and lively primary season. When she was down in 2008, she claimed that staying in and drawing out the primaries: gave the Democratic party and liberal ideas exposure and energy; created the campaign infrastructure and volunteer base that was such a boost come Election Day; and made the eventual nominee a better candidate. Was that a position of convenience? Probably, but true nonetheless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Just how much of your perception of the Bush family is based upon Lil' Bush? Question: was Pappy Bush really obsessed with saltines, or was that an invention of the show?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ted Cruz on Jeb's announcement: What could be more heroic than dodging the draft by going to France? How many draft dodgers who went to France still managed to kill a man?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Actually Mike the funniest thing is that you think anyone agrees with you on this point, and also that you seem to not be recanting this "anti-dancing" stance at all. I'm opposed to Christians dancing, too. For the straight white males, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
OH GOD! YOU'VE AWOKEN THE SHEEPLE!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
I love when Bill Maher makes an okay-to-good joke and gets nothing, and then he gets all upset that his audience doesn't understand his genius.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
You know how the Chewbacca costume has that elaborate water cooling system? They should do the same thing and run a bunch of tubes pumping cold water under Rubio's shirt. Or maybe they could fit some ice in his high heels.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Sp1r0_Agn3W posted:and probably even then. the idea people like cruz have of a man that may or may not have existed politically 30 years needs to be taken out back and shot. Reagan may or may not have existed? That's the best gaslighting I've ever heard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:What is going on Is that a Star Trek uniform?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Did she change her name to Tyler Perry's Hillary Clinton at some point? Because daaaamn Nameless_Steve fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Rubio's in fourth place tonight. He's gonna be out of a job by January, which means one of two things: He'll either spend the next three years frittering around Iowa, or he'll get a Fox News show. Place your bets now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Seconded
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 03:51
|
|