|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The Democrats would need to gently caress up hard to give Romney a win. Obama beat Romney because he was willing to run a campaign with a populist tinge to it. But he was careful to avoid making a broader criticism of the sort of predatory neoliberal vulture capitalism that Romney represented, because he supported it. There are plenty of PE bigwigs who are major Democratic donors. And it's been clear for some time that Obama just identifies personally with the CEOs and fund managers in a way he doesn't with the community activists and labor leaders. He's a politician who finds economic populism personally distasteful. The danger is that Democrats wind up with a Hillary campaign that refuses to engage in what it sees as pandering to the rabble and we see a repeat of 2014 where Democrats don't have any coherent economic agenda.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:I'm worried that the tech bubble will pop before the 2016 elections, sending us back into recession, which will promptly be laid at the Democrats' feet. Even if the crash doesn't come until after the election, and Clinton is elected, what's stopping it from fouling up her reelection campaign in 2020? The real danger isn't the tech bubble bursting, it's the Republicans pulling the trigger on something like the debt ceiling or other "must pass" legislation. There's every reason to believe that no matter how brazenly sociopathic they are a bad economy will be a zero-sum loss for Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Jeb is going to get destroyed in the primaries trying to move to the right on things like immigration and education. The Beltway Village has a hard-on for Jeb for the same reason they did for Huntsman: they love the idea of a "tough-talking" neoliberal shill who will lecture the party's grassroots on social issues. But it really is stupendously hard to get nominated when your position on major issues is so far outside your party base's mainstream. Jeb's going to almost certain have more money and momentum behind him than Huntsman did, since the loyal bushies from his brother's administration are lining up in support of him, but unless his wing of the establishment has the strength to beat down the tea partiers and prevent the sort of rollicking primary where he'll get torn apart by purity tests, I don't see how he avoids flaming out just like Huntsman(and Giuliani, for somewhat similar reasons) did.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
ErIog posted:That's the thing, right. All the stuff about how moderate positions are death doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of the 2012 race. Romney was responsible for Romneycare, but he was the nominee despite the Massachusetts baggage. I think Jeb Bush could pull that same thing. The important thing about the 2012 primaries is that they went on forever, made the GOP look like a bunch of reactionary racist lunatics, gave Obama a huge lead time to define Romney as a vulture capitalist, and forced Romney into endorsing unpopular hard right positions like "self-deportation." The smart money going into 2012 was on Romney taking the nomination, the GOP still tends to hand the nomination to the next guy in line. The issue is what he had to do to secure it, and how long it took. And there's every reason to believe that Bush will face the same problems. In fact, he'll probably face greater problems. Railing against illegal immigrants hurt Romney in the general election, but he could speak in terms of potential legislation. Bush is going to have to answer what he'd do to Obama's executive orders and the millions of people they already cover. Same thing with Obamacare. McConnell got away with lying through his teeth about how he'd destroy Obamacare but nobody would lose their healthcare, national Democrats are unlikely to be as incompetent as to let that slide. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Dolash posted:He does have a point that Palin did garner a lot of low-grade mockery for being a bimbo and so on, and people definitely called her a dumb bitch and stuff like that. A certain amount of misogyny is endemic to society as a whole and is an ongoing problem that transcends political affiliation, but in the two sides of American political culture it's the Republicans who have been the official opposition to women's rights and the home of America's unrepentant misogynists. The lovely insulting photoshops of Hillary are starting to make the rounds on the usual teabagger hangouts, just like the obama-as-a-witch-doctor-pimp.jpg stuff did. And I think it's just wonderful, because the  types literally cannot stop themselves from engaging in this kind of behavior. And while there is no significant black Republican constituency, there are plenty of Republican women who are going to be repulsed by the raw misogyny the GOP base is going to vomit forth in an unending turgid flow in the coming months.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:That article is from before the 2012 elections. I quickly found two investigations just off of that: Getting caught for illegal coordinating falls into the Duke Cunningham/Bob McDonnell variety of corruption. You've got to be a total moron for it to happen, given the near total impossibility of proving that a super PAC acted at the request of a candidate or his campaign. There's no meaningful segregation between a campaign and its super PACs if the people running the them don't want there to be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
The_Raven posted:I can't help but think that all those who are banking on Sanders making Hillary "move to the left" having some long-term effect on her governance are deluding themselves. Obama ran to the left of Hillary in '08, and became a corporatist horrorshow once elected, putting the lie to all that high-minded bullshit - why on earth would a clear-thinking person believe that Hillary will honor whatever lip service she pays to Sanders' flanking maneuvers? Her commitments and principles are pretty clear by now, aren't they? This is dumb. Obama didn't run appreciably to the left of Hillary in '08.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Conservatism is extremely liberal despite the revisionist history the right wing has employed the last thirty years. The GOP base favors an expansive and generous welfare state, just one that's restricted to old white people.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Jesus loving Christ there's a load of shittastic "embrace the inevitability of Our Lord and Saviour HRC" in this thread. I can't tell if McAlister is a gimmick poster or just autistic—it's like Deteriorata's schilling for Obama but somehow manages to be worse. How 'bout you guys actually push for a candidate that will defend your interests rather than a lifeless brand that's been honed by a million focus groups? I'd be more supportive of Sanders if he even pretended to run a real campaign. Obviously he's not going to win (barring some catastrophic Clinton revelation late in the primaries) but he's only going to get the sort of media attention for his platform that he seems to want if he makes something resembling a real effort, like actually hiring a campaign team for a presidential run. Besides, the difference between a Sanders who ends up pulling single digits and one who gets close to 30% is the difference between one who has no effect on the race and one who can force Clinton to the left on economic issues.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Feather posted:Without arguing the merits of your assertions otherwise, what you are doing is conflating rhetoric with promises. People hear what they want from candidates and in every case it is possible to cherry pick and charitably interpret rhetoric as promises kept. There's a difference between vague rhetoric and laying out actual programs and priorities. Candidates are far more hesitant to abandon specific policy commitments they've made during the campaign. It happens, obviously, but if you want to have the primary push Hillary in a more populist direction the best way to do so is to pressure her to adopt specific policy commitments, in as much specificity as possible. TheDisreputableDog posted:The young minority ideologue vs crusty old white Senator. Listening to conservatives try to play what they imagine to be the "race card" is always like listening to a deaf person try to explain how Beethoven sounds. They just don't get it. Rubio will be lucky to break 30% of the Latino vote, and the fact that Republicans find that impossible to understand is why they're still just the party of white supremacy. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:As the debates began, each of us was in our own way broken. Imperator Fioriosa Joementum posted:Jeb's logo also comes in Spanish! Are there any other recent presidential campaigns where the candidate used his first name on campaign materials instead of his last? Because I can't think of one, and "Jeb!" is a lot like "Don't think of a polar bear".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:You're kidding, right? Ok, there's the Clinton campaign, but Hillary's not trying to hide the Clinton name. She's been referred to by her first name by the media pretty often long before she started running, Bill's not going to be sitting out the campaign in a bunker in an undisclosed location somewhere, Dubya is almost certainly going to spend the rest of the campaign season clearing brush at home.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Both Bush and Clinton seem pretty shook by Rubio. Both had their campaign strategies premised on the ability to just ignore the immigration issue. That meant wrapping up the nomination early to avoid having to pander to teabagger lunatics who are happy to describe immigrants as vermin, and Hillary going all DLC and refusing to draw a distinction between herself and the Republican nominee on immigration. Neither is happening. Both are going to be hosed up the same way Romney was, they'll be forced to loudly pander to their party's bigot base as their general election chances sink.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:What are you talking about? Hillary is particularly and especially taking a reformist stance on immigration. Avoiding discussion of immigration has never been a Hillary campaign strategy this cycle. That's my point. Let me rephrase. To avoid the immigration trap that caught Romney in 2012, the GOP candidates need: a) A muffled or irrelevant Tea Party, which would almost certainly require an early anointed champion. b) A Hillary campaign too terrified of offending conservative-ish whites by talking about immigration. Neither of those things is happening for them. The GOP primary will be a bloodbath, and HRC seems to have figured out that playing for the votes of people who will never vote for you is a losing strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I'm going to repeat a quote from that article because it just boggles my mind: You heard the same sort of thing about Romney, and about Bush(first MBA president). It's the inevitable result of denigrating government service and worshipping at the free market altar. If you convince the base that the people most qualified to run the government are least fit to do so, then you end up with clowns like Cain or Trump in the race. The fact that Trump is the sort of unselfconscious rear end in a top hat who will just blurt out the hateful garbage(Mexican rapists flooding over the border! Build the dang wall!) that the other candidates can only dogwhistle about. im a ski bum posted:Are any of the 20 or so potential candidates military veterans? Not that I believe it is a qualifier, but It seems unthinkable to me that this isn't a bigger issue among republican voters and in the media. Eh. The whole veteran thing was mostly a kind of proxy battle over Vietnam. And even then it mostly just got brought up when the GOP wanted something to bash Democrats with. If the Republicans gave a drat about a military service record then they would not have knifed McCain back in 2000 to give Bush the lead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Rick Perry just called Charleston an "accident" before blaming it on prescription meds. The "accident" or Rick Perry calling it that? Wasn't his post-facto excuse last year that he was out of his gourd on powerful pain meds for a hosed-up back while he was on the campaign trail? Joementum posted:Y'all are gonna love Bernie's position on Israel. Just lost the LF vote.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:He should have remembered from his activisty days, to be honest. You say this as if there is literally anything that anyone can ever say that will prevent a tiny splinter circlejerk of self-important malcontents from whining on twitter. There is nothing or should be said that will prevent a handful of social media narcissists from insisting they speak with the Voice of Black America and that Sanders(or anyone else) has failed to satisfy them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:The establishment plan has to be keep everyone in to split the delegates until the convention, right?  Trade the party's full support for Trump in the general election for picking some establishment favorite as his VP, once he's sworn in find a reason to impeach him leaving an acceptable GOPer as President
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:"You see, by spelling it slightly differently than 'zionist,' no one will ever penetrate the truth behind our loathsome pro-Nazi sentiments!" David Duke, probably. lollin' at trumpites recapitulate the "I said zionist not jew so it's not antisemitic" line
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
passionate dongs posted:meanwhile on fox Make this the title of the next thread
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 04:57
|
|
