|
De Nomolos posted:I'm actually in VA now (I've moved back and forth). notthegoatseguy posted:Are you an elected official at the local, state, or federal level? Are you employed by the city/county/state due to a political appointment? Do you seemingly switch between government offices and campaign work, based on which candidate you worked for actually won? In these cases, you have a good chance of being part of your state delegation. Last time (2012) there were two ways to get to go to the DNC Convention as a normal person: (a) CD-level conventions picked 8 delegates each (4 men, 4 women) and (b) the state convention picked 20-something at large DNC delegates. At the state convention there are gonna be slates from the campaign(s) and 99% of the time everyone on the winning campaign's slate wins. The CD level conventions are made up from folks who go to the county-level caucuses. If the county level caucuses don't hit their quota, everyone in that caucus moves onto the CD convention. So if you fill your county-level caucus with your buddies, that'll be a big bloc at the CD convention (which you mentioned isn't gonna be full) which can vote for you. You can also team up with other folks in your CD doing the same thing - their buddies vote for them and you, and your buddies vote for you and them. Realistically, the Presidential primary would be March 1st (Super Tuesday), the CD convention would be in April, and the State Convention would be in June. So you could theoretically back Sanders November-March, turn around and spend 2 months being a super-volunteer for Hillary, and still be seen as an active Hillary person or even campaign as a "Unity ticket" (which seems to be popular even when it's not actually unifying anything).
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:VA would be a great place for the parties to hold early primaries so that they can get the candidates in there and hopefully have them test their own GOTV efforts on the State Senate elections in 2015. Honestly, if they come and do the primary stuff in 2015 and just randomly toss a "hey go vote this Nov. too" thing out there, we'd come out ahead no matter how much noise they made. If they get Dems to show up at their polling place, then the local Parties will put a sample ballot in their hands and hopefully they go straight-D (this would mark the first time sample balloting has been useful). I used to care about honest discussion of the issues or wanting all the races and candidates to get full and serious consideration from the voters, but then I realized that the radicalization of the Republican Party means that the differences are stark enough that a cursory glance tells a lot of voters what they need to know. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:I can't keep them straight. Lessig is related to both, and they had some link to Aaron Swartz's group, and there's the "Super PAC to end Super PACs," but there's the "Anti-Corruption Pledge" and the "Anti-Corruption Act" and "Move To Amend" and I have no idea. Anti-corruption bills? In my Virginia? It's more likely than you think. I found this about Represent.Us, accusing them of conflating "dependence corruption" with actually taking bribes. Plus the sorts of web ads where they accuse folks of taking quid-pro-quo bribes just because they took campaign contributions without any actual evidence of a "quo pro". So they're certainly aggressively messaging and playing fast-and-loose with the facts to get attention.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:I'm generally skeptical of "lobby reform" because it seems to be assumed by liberals supporting them that a neutral state of governing w/o lobbyists would favor them. As if only money is influencing and it only moves things towards Wall Street because it's money. To add on to this, the Koch Brothers/the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy are already a step ahead on this game - pushing their views through law schools and economics departments so that if they can't directly influence legislators at least they'll be molding them as they come into the system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Who exactly is his constituency... I feel like it's one of those "keep trying to compete for working class to middle-class whites" sort of things. Obviously if it worked it'd be great, but I think the reality is that given the choice between Diet Republican Tough Guy and Republican Tough Guy, folks are gonna go with the actual Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Man he has bad handwriting. Pautacki = Former NY Gov George Pataki Pentze = Mike Pence That's gonna be like an all-time list, right? Jim Gilmore is thinking about running in 2016? It'll have been 15 years since he was a mediocre-at-best Virginia Governor and the last I heard his name was when Mark Warner trounced him in 2008.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Is this technically possible in todays primary format? I have no idea. It's possible, but it'll never happen. Only if you have a back-and-forth like Obama-Clinton but with a third candidate also pulling some delegates. Basically the problem is that superdelegates, endorsers, and donors are going to jump on a bandwagon the second they see momentum in someone's favor after the first couple of contests. Nobody wants to be the last guy on the bandwagon, and nobody wants to donate money to a candidate who is likely to throw in the towel a week or a month later. So it's only in exceptional circumstances like 2008 where you continue to see two candidates hanging on like that, and even then, those two blew the other candidates away early on. Plus if the party doesn't want a floor-fight (and it doesn't) it can lean really hard on the superdelegates to come down one way or the other to swing the balance (in the event of a tie) or they can give one of the candidates the moon to get them to drop out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:If Mitt did get it, who would be his running mate this time? Nikki Haley. Romney endorsed her in 2009, she's apparently conservative enough, and she's a minority woman. She's also currently in office (where Romney's been out for a while). happyhippy posted:Can't think of anyone to be honest, as all the usuals have bad mouthed Mitt a lot. Honestly, I don't think that the current comments against Romney would matter much. If Romney's winning come late fall, some of the also-rans are going to realize they don't have a shot, and switch to a more positive message or switch to attacking Democrats exclusively or switch to attacking other non-leading candidates. Then after they get whomped in Iowa/New Hampshire they'll drop out and endorse Romney, leaving them decently enough in the campaign's graces to still have a shot at VP nomination. Biden and Edwards had both been in the Democratic primary before dropping out and getting picked by the winner. Cheney essentially picked himself for Bush, and the 2012 Republican field was really weak. I don't think it's inconceivable that a fellow primary candidate gets tapped for GOP VP, but it hasn't happened in a while (Reagan picking GHWB seems to be the only example, but it's a small sample size).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Joementum posted:RNC sanctioned debate schedule: Am I correct in thinking that Debate #2 in California in September is the already announced Reagan Library debate? I guess they were smart enough to blink on the question of whether or not that would count as an approved debate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How many had been planned at this point in 2011? Debates have a tendency to just spring up, especially when you gather a bunch of power hungry narcisissts and an audience that absolutely adores empty rhetoric and attempts at one-upmanship. The RNC has imposed rules which disqualify from the official debates those candidates who participate in unofficial/unsanctioned debates. It remains to be seen if they will successfully enforce this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Mother Jones has an article up pointing out that since the 2012 cycle, Romney has become more deeply involved in running Solamere Capital, an investment firm started by his son Taggart and a former Romney-for-Prez staffer. If he runs again, he'll face pressure for Solamere to disclose its investors and publicize details of its investments, which might show conflicts of interest, highlight potential favoritism, or reveal that he's still making money off slashing or outsourcing American jobs. Of course, if he doesn't do it, he looks even more like he's got something to hide than he did with the tax returns--who's going to be the first of his primary opponents to step up and hammer him on it? See that's my thing with Romney2016 - if he had spent the last 2 years doing charity or whatever, he'd have an argument for "turned over a new leaf" or "all that vulture-capitalism stuff is in my past", but instead he went right back to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Presumably there is something in Christie's oppo binder (not full of women). Hey hey hey, don't judge, plenty of girls go for the rear end in a top hat-types, you don't know, maybe Christie's got mad game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:(1) drat. Clinton was prime-time ready even then. Why the hell didn't the Democrats run Clinton in the 80s??? Those laughable clowns Mondale and Dukakis over this guy??? I assume because Bill Clinton is somewhat politically astute, and realized his chances of beating Reagan in 1984 or a Reagan-backed Bush in 1988 were low and he'd get a better opportunity down the road (if not in 1992, then in 1996). Similarly, a number of relatively feasible Republican candidates (including your namesake, or Jeb Bush, for instance) recognized that beating Obama in 2012 would be fairly uphill, and decided to try their luck in another cycle. Chris Christie posted:(2) Just about any one of the Democrats who spoke would be completely electable in my part of the country today. If I didn't already know who all of them were, and if they weren't clearly in the 80s, I could guess they were a bunch of establishment Republicans, or as we are affectionately known now, RINOs. If Democrats don't like the sea of red across the south and midwest, or GOP House majorities near historically high levels, MAYBE they should try running normal people like that instead of insane leftists who have nothing more to offer than TAXES TAXES TAXES and shrill harpies screaming about our scary guns and the need to ban them. I'm temporarily in Virginia, and while the Democratic party in this state DOES actually run normal human beings for the 2 senate seats (which, SUPRISE, they actually win doing so) they run complete nutters for the house. The congressman in this district has been in the house for over 2 decades now. Maybe they could try running a sane person against him instead of just forfeiting the seat with some new fruit-loop hippie every 2 years? Same basic problem applies - most districts in Virginia aren't especially competitive in the House race. So you're trying to recruit someone to spend a year of his/her life and lots of their own/family/friends' money getting hit by Republican attack dogs, getting all their dirty laundry aired, just for the privilege of losing the race and hurting any future political career. Nobody rational and electable is going to sign up to run in VA-7 for instance, because it's R+15 so you're screwed even if you're running against Dave Brat,, and even a light-red R+2 to R+5 seat is almost impossible against a relatively clean incumbent outside of a wave year. Plus there's the bench issue: in a blue area, Dems have a wealth of folks with experience in lower elected offices, but in red areas, there's only the occasional School Board member or Town Councillor in elected office as an open Democrat. Based on your description, I think I know which CD you're in, and it's ten-plus points more Republican than the nation. Toss in an incumbent getting a few-point edge, and in a 50-50 year nationwide, that seat is 57R-43D. If Democrats run a lovely candidate, the seat is 62R-38D or something. If they bred some sort of super-candidate from the best qualities of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and poured in the money, they could maybe make the race 52R-48D. And even if they pull off a win (presumably because the incumbent fucks his staffer during a blue-wave cycle), they'd just get creamed an election or two later. By contrast, in a non-Republican-wave year, Virginia statewide races are fairly winnable, so recruiting is easier because there's a realistic chance of victory. Also running in a statewide race gets you more contacts and publicity. Now don't get me wrong, it's important to run 435 House candidates, but that's for reasons of "changing minds" or "building the Party" or "hoping the other guy gets indicted", not because someone's got a chance of winning many of those races.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Extremely important if discussing what the rhetoric will be in 2016 primaries. And of course they'll move rightwards from there in the general, but the fact that we're seeing this large leftward shift now means there's the solid potential for moving stuff at least a little leftward relative to now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Let's them spend general election sooner. This sort of stuff always feels strange to me, because sometimes it's the reverse - sometimes they want to push the nominating event to later in the cycle so that they can continue to raise primary money. Is the assumption that the candidates will have tapped out their entire market of folks willing to donate in excess of $2600/person by early summer? Or is this a reaction to Obama's successful "bury Mitt in the summer" strategy of 2012?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Titus Sardonicus posted:He'll be 57 in 2020, that's not too old. The second part though, yeah. Yeah, but in 2020, he'll be challenging an incumbent President - either a member of his own party (which straight-up isn't gonna happen) or he'll be running against an incumbent Hillary (which sounds like one of the most up-hill things you can do). Yeah, I suppose the incumbent President could really be on the hook if a lot of bad poo poo goes down 2016-2020, but realistically Presidents have been really good at getting reelected in modern times.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Joementum posted:State laws don't matter. The Supreme Court already decided that political parties can use whatever method they want to choose nominees on free association grounds. But that's only a factor if the KY GOP want to run the primary themselves, right? They can do that, but it's a logistical pain in the butt and it's expensive. Given that they don't like Rand Paul, I'm hard-pressed to see them switching from a state-run primary to some sort of firehouse primary system to help out a guy who isn't a part of their machine (if they go convention couldn't Rand get beat by an ultra-TeaPartier, especially if he moves libertarian for the Presidential Primary?).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Lieberman was pretty popular - heck, in late 2002-early 2003 he was led the polls for 2004 Dem nomination. It's not clear to me that this means anything - at that stage, Presidential primary polling is dominated by name recognition. Folks hadn't really heard of Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Clark in any real way at that stage, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Late stage hail mary wish: Romney sells his database/donor rolodex to Christie, and his Christie oppo folder from the VP vetting process to Bush. Nightmare scenario: Romney is backing Bush, he's only meeting with Christie to show him the oppo and drive him out of the race.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Ike was the best Republican president since Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt was technically a Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:Except that Walker has had a Republican majority for his full term as Governor See, you're assuming that reality matters here - it doesn't. Maybe some Fact Checker somewhere will give it a "Mostly False", but there will be an addendum that technically the Democrats in the Legislature could have...something which would have blocked things or his majority was too small and he had to over-negotiate with his moderates because Dems wouldn't cave or whatever the heck. On the first level, nobody gives a poo poo about the truth values of the candidates' statements, only that they have a response. On the second level, it'll turn into a "he said, she said", "the truth is in the middle" type of thing. Journalists don't often call out politicians for being blatantly full of poo poo. shadow puppet of a posted:The Kochs should really start smaller and spend to ring the US with ultra-conservative satellite nations first. The same way ideologies get flipped in Civ 5. Isn't that what they're doing with WI, KS, and FL?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Tobermory posted:What's really, truly beautiful about that is that the latest FOX poll has this: More Democrats than Republicans approve of the job the Republican-controlled Congress is doing....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:...Littlefinger? Yup, same actor played a politician on The Wire.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:What's the point of announcing when you're going to announce your candidacy? Isn't that effectively the same as just announcing your candidacy? When you announce officially a whole lot of rules suddenly kick in. Plus you get a lot more coverage for "official campaign announcement" than for most other random-rear end speeches. PupsOfWar posted:I wonder if Cruz jumping in will prompt any of the other major players to advance their timetables so as to prevent him from having the airwaves all to himself for (possibly) a matter of weeks or months. I don't know that that'll be a thing. Like is the media suddenly going to ignore Jeb Bush or Rand Paul or whoever because they haven't formally announced yet and Cruz has? I mean maybe Cruz gets slightly more press coverage than otherwise after today, but I can't imagine they'll ignore the other (soon-to-be) candidates. SpiderHyphenMan posted:Well the thing is, barring an economic collapse, a terrorist attack, or Hillary Clinton completely imploding, I don't think there's any GOP candidate that could win the general election. Honest question because I was in middle school at the time - were folks talking like this in 2000? Like "oh well obviously Al Gore's gonna be our guy and that Bush man is laughable with his accent and lovely policies in Texas and I can't imagine Gore losing"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, it's kind of amazing how little he managed to remain ignorant about that revolution in military affairs that happened seventy years ago. For all their wankery about WWII, Republicans sure are good at missing the lessons of that war. To be fair, it might have been a calculated risk that Obama couldn't prepare a snappy comeback - "smaller navy than a century ago" vs some sort of "it's more complicated than that" answer might work. Up until that week, Obama hadn't really been hitting with zingers. He dropped "Romnesia", "Please, proceed Governor", and that bayonets thing in like the same week. Sir Tonk posted:Holy poo poo I would love to see Freep if Bush did this at the convention. Talk about a collective revolt. He'd be better off saying that they're going to decriminalize weed, then all the young white men could justify voting the way they wanted to anyway. Yeah, but does Freep actually matter? If Freep pushes one way and and all the pastors go "he's still worse than that baby-killer Hillary" do you think it's going to seriously depress Republican turnout?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Ginger Beer Belly posted:I think you are partly making my point for me. I am postulating that if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton and otherwise politically connected, she is less likely to be a possible Democratic nominee. I don't deny that ambition is necessary for Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton to be in the running for Presidential Candidates right now, what I'm saying is that if the selection process for each candidate was truly independent and meritocratic, it's really unlikely that it would pick two people that closely related to prior selections. In other words, the selection process is not meritocratic, and is instead cronyism. I don't think this is fair to Hillary Clinton. She is independently smart and ambitious and it's not hard to imagine a world where instead of marrying Bill she stays in Washington and continues rising in politics. Yeah, she ran for Senate as First Lady with no elected experience, but if she had spent the preceding 25 years building her career in Washington instead of being First Lady of Arkansas and then First Lady, it's not hard to imagine she'd have ended up in the Senate in 2001 anyhow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:Can you elaborate? I'm not seeing it. Mooyashi partially answered this, but I think the answer's more high-level than his analysis. Florida can't be before Super Tuesday or they risk losing delegates. If they're on Super Tuesday, they're competing with a bunch of other states for attention. Two weeks after Super Tuesday, however, there will be a winnowed field with eyes on Florida....
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Drastic Actions posted:Can you change your username on reddit? If not, then he probably has a ton "invested" in that user account (karma, or whatever they do there) and he does not want to lose it. And besides, he got made fun of on SA. How many people are going to search his name and find that thread? I mean, they should, because it's amazing, but it's a low probability. I sort of agree that the whole Boyko-SA thing is a tempest in a teapot - it hardly makes him unemployable. Plus it's entirely possible he screwed up the SA part of his social-media job but did well on other components. railroad terror posted:I'm a little surprised. Not that he's running, but that if he drops out of the Senate race, he's really going all-in for Prez. Thought he might have a better shot in 2020, which is to say, ANY chance, as opposed to the 0% chance he has right now to win. I'm not disagreeing, but I don't think anyone's ever lost money underestimating a politician's ability to crawl inside their own personal bubble and group-think. I mean, the act of running for President means that you believe either (a) you are the best qualified person to lead America or (b) your own personal ambitions are more important than picking the best President, so you're almost definitionally an egomaniac if you run for President. Look at the way these guys (Rand Paul, Marco Rubio) are rolling out pre-announcement announcements - it sort of feels like they think their announcement is some major EVENT.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Joe, I accepted that you knew off the top of your head which Presidents did not have dogs, but this is a bridge too far. Are you Skynet? Hillary's order is in basically all the news stories on this. That should give you an idea of how horny and desperate the 24-hour news folks are for this campaign to begin in earnest. In my mind I'm imagining her Scooby-Do van being trailed by like 3 newsvans and a couple of reporters in Priuses.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
PotatoManJack posted:A question for the thread about Hillary's campaign. Assuming she gets the democractic ticket, does she have Obama publicly support her or does he do more damage than good with his current level of popularity? Running away from an incumbent President works approximately never at the federal level. Most voters are going to by default gonna make a Hillary => Democrat => Obama, and if they perceive her running away from that, the Republicans will emphasize it. There's basically no way Clinton can avoid being tied to Obama - she can say she disagrees about X, Y, and Z, but she can't pretend the sitting President isn't of her Party. Joementum posted:He's at about 80% approval with Democrats. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval-democrats And much of that disapproval is likely of the "Obama's too moderate/conservative" variety - people pissed that he didn't get Single Payer or move America to Full Socialism by Executive Order.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
I just applied for a job on Hillary's website and got the "Thanks for signing up to volunteer" page after I submitted my application  .
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
site posted:Has anyone else on the Democratic side even said (or hinted) that they'd be running? They would be cancelled. There's roughly 0 chance of this happening on any scale - somebody's gonna just go ahead and run just in case Hillary somehow gets forced out or something. Chamale posted:They choose another of the 33 Democratic Candidates for President and throw them in the debate ring with Hillary. The debate between Hillary Clinton and President Emperor Caesar will be the Lincoln-Douglas of our times. Filing with the FEC doesn't mean that somebody's gonna be on primary ballots. It's a lot easier to file FEC paperwork than to get on the ballot in some states. site posted:Oh wow okay. Talk about zero coverage. Poor guys. I don't think they've formally announced yet, they've just made it very obvious that they intend to run. But yeah, the media determines who qualifies as a "serious candidate" somewhat arbitrarily. Some of it is based on fundraising or expected endorsements or whatever, but some of it is arbitrary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I know, I was joking. Unfortunately, I've had (self-proclaimed) Congressional candidates not understand this concept or at least not comprehend it all that well. The last two years of dealing with party politics has taught me to assume ignorance/idiocy until proven otherwise. Sorry. Chamale posted:It would still be funny if all of the worse-than-Hillary candidates being talked about now just decided not to run and the media had to figure out if they had a narrative other than "Hillary runs unopposed". The Insane Clown Pageant the Republicans are calling a Primary process will give the media plenty to write about. EDIT: Plus there will be about two dozen Hillary "scandals" over the next year for them to cover, most of which are dumb nothingburgers and none of which impact her chances.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, he couldn't. Politics isn't about what's true, it's about what you can convince donors and/or voters is true. messagemode1 posted:I can't understand why Jindal would run for president. Even to seed a 2020 run he'll never make it through... anything. Bizarro Watt posted:I can't see how Jindal would find a 2020 run conceivable. From what I understand, he's better off giving it what he has now because by the time 2020 he'll have left his state an even bigger hellhole than it currently is, and it'll be obvious to basically everyone. Politics isn't about realism, it's about what egomaniacs can delude themselves into believing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Yes I think that's exactly his message, but where does the "anti genetics" thing make any sense? Could he maybe be misspelling "epigenetic"? Like I'm not sure how that would help his case but they sound kinda similar, maybe it was just a word he heard...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Yeah, okay, THIS I get. But the choice of words implied that there is actual hard data, conclusive scientific proof of this position when I'm pretty sure what data there is supports the opposite conclusion (such as twin studies showing highly increased probability of twins both being gay even when raised in different environments etc.), rather than the "folk science" idea that it's self evident just because. That's how they handle 99% of science - they dramatically misinterpret it and offer a simple bumper-sticker rebuttal based on their oversimplified version. They do the same thing for evolution and climate change. The sad thing is that it works because most people won't spend more than 30 seconds considering the problem and/or have at best a middle-school understanding of the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
FIRST TIME posted:See, this is how you know nobody gives a poo poo about Rand Paul running for president. Well I think it's a narrative thing. Rand Paul isn't perceived as a rich elitist douchebag so he can get away with doing things that someone the media has pegged as a rich elitist douchebag couldn't. It's the same reason Obama basically can't raise his voice - the second he loses his temper he gets called an "angry black man". Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Rubio: we need to stop giving degrees for jobs that do not make money. We need college to sit down each student and tell them how much they will make so they do not spend thousands of dollars to major in basket weaving I don't understand what's wrong with this. Like obviously it's not going to solve everything wrong with education, but as someone who graduated in the "major in whatever, just follow your heart's desire" era of high school guidance I think many of my peers would have appreciated a harsh conversation about where you'll be in 10 years if you major in fashion design. Obama's pushed for this as well - for colleges to be honest about career/job metrics for recent graduates. It's helping a lot of folks realize that a third-tier law school may not be the best use of their time/money, for instance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
The way Hillary effectively cleared the field by dominating the pre-pre-primary reminds me of what Terry McAuliffe did in Virginia in 2013. There's a lot of the same team too, as I understand it. There was a situation where there were potential candidates in the form of State Senators or former Congresspeople but T-Mac effectively shut them down by rounding up the big money and big endorsements early on, giving no other campaign the breathing room to catch fire.Atoramos posted:She is the overwhelming favorite because there's no other choice, and she has strong experience through her time not only as the first lady but from her time on Obama's staff. I really don't know anyone who sees her as a sympathetic figure, and this is less than an hour away from New York City. Outside of SA I've never seen her even portrayed as such. You have it backwards - there are no other choices because she is the overwhelming favorite. Her gigantic advantage in name recognition and fundraising and her wide network are keeping potential Democratic candidates from even hinting that they might be interested in running in 2016. If you're a viable Presidential contender it doesn't really help you much to run head-long into the Clinton Machine, so folks are saving their ammo for a 2020/2024 run if they can. It's kinda like how a lot of the candidates we're seeing now on the Republican side in 2016 took one look at 2012 and decided they didn't want to square off against Romney's treasure hoard in the primary and/or an incumbent Obama in the general. TheDisreputableDog posted:It's not like *ten* times the amount, only three. The question here isn't whether the Russians (or whoever) might have thought that large speaking fees came with additional considerations, it's whether they received additional considerations. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:People seem to not notice that many European nations have literally fascist parties that are actual political parties that win actual seats in government. This isn't really relevant. Yeah, Europe's right-wing is considerably more fascistic than ours at the tolerated extremes[1], but that doesn't have anything to do with the claim that Hillary is similar politically to the Tories or something. I mean, I disagree with that claim, but talking about Golden Dawn doesn't disprove it, because they're not "center-right" by any stretch of the imagination. [1] - This could also well be due to government structure in some sense. I'd bet that if the Senate went to nationwide proportional representation the KKK party would have seats. We'd probably also have a literal neo-reactionary Senator, like literal "go back to Kings and send women back to the kitchens" people campaigning and winning. (This is an example, I'm aware Britain doesn't use party list proportional voting)
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:So here's the thing. Approximately everybody defends the practice of accepting charitable donations to help poor people in Africa and Asia. Approximately everybody opposes the practice of taking money in exchange for official favors. There is, right now, no serious and credible claim being put forward that the Clintons did any sort of quid pro quo. The ones espoused in this thread are extremely weak (and largely conjectural), and some are laughable (bribing Bill Clinton to undersell the US 2022 case TheDisreputableDog posted:"These people of privilege who live by their own rules never did nothing demonstrably illegal, therefore any criticism must be politically motivated." In light of the other 99 "scandals" that turned out to be overblown, it's not unreasonable to want to see some kind of evidence or at least a credible "theory of the crime". Nintendo Kid posted:And that's the thing, like, he couldn't even be bothered to come up with a Bad Deed, just "look there was money!!". That to me has always been the tell-tale mark of Clintonmania - the inability or unwillingness to articulate exactly what the allegations are, either because they don't exist or because they're super-nutty.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 00:02
|
|