|
Piell posted:Yeah Palin is 100% not running, she might have to do actual work then and she's done with doing that, she just wants to get on TV saying dumb poo poo.
|
# ¿ Nov 10, 2014 02:36 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:17 |
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Watching Romney flail to stay relevant has been even more rewarding than his actual loss. Is there any precedent for a losing politician to hang around and snipe rather than actually do anything other than Palin? Did she create a new political cliche? What Romney is doing is really odd and kind of unprecedented. He wants to stake his claim as a Power and be a Mover and Shaker in the republican party establishment, despite the fact that his sole claims to relevance are that he ran a so-so presidential campaign that lost to a black guy named Hussein, and was the one-term governor of a solidly blue state that passed a bunch of very liberal legislation on his watch. Why would anyone bother to take his phone calls? I guess it's the way that he has a rolodex full of guys with checkbooks that he might put at their disposal.
|
# ¿ Nov 10, 2014 21:22 |
|
evilweasel posted:I think that he'll have a vague cloud of incompetence that will follow him as the result of 2012 no matter what he does. I have a lot of sympathy for the argument it may be entirely undeserved - I still maintain Kerry was a decent candidate and did well in a hard situation to no avail - but it's there. The last memory most of America has of him is post-2012 when everyone (friend and foe) tripped over themselves to discuss how incompetent his campaign was. Right or wrong, that's the image and I don't see how you make a serious run when that's everyone's gut feel about you. Kerry's campaign wasn't perfect (few are) but he did OK. He came within one rigged state - Ohio - from defeating a sitting president during wartime. That's pretty impressive.
|
# ¿ Nov 11, 2014 00:46 |
|
Alter Ego posted:pulled up stakes and went to New Hampshire--only to eat poo poo once again in another Senate election. All these non-starters making noises about running in 2016 makes me think we're entering a new age where has-beens circle around a Presidential run just to draw attention to themselves and boost their profile and maybe catch on with a deep-pocketed sugar daddy or get a Fox media gig or maybe bump their speaker's fees. 2012 saw a lot of base-enthusiast True Conservative "book tour candidates" looking to boost their Q-levels and propel themselves up the right wing media ladder by a rung or two, 2016 may see faded Establishment types doing the same thing.
|
# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 16:43 |
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean isn't the whole Texas Miracle basically based off the fact that oil was so expensive?
|
# ¿ Nov 29, 2014 16:49 |
|
VP gets to ascend to the Presidency if something happens to the President (dies, assassinated, resigns), which happened quite a bit in the mid-20th century (Truman, LBJ, Ford all did it in a 30-year period). Medical science and improved security (recent lapses notwithstanding) mean fewer spot promotions to the big chair - it's been 40 years since the last one - but it still gives the veep a non-zero chance of becoming President without much effort.
|
# ¿ Dec 7, 2014 23:57 |
|
Nessus posted:Speaking of which, what do you guys think about this campaign I've heard rumors of to have blue states with Republican legislatures go to an EV-split situation? This seems like it could upend the map significantly, although if it just COINCIDENTALLY happens to be in three large Democratic-leaning swing states, at some point I think they're going to have a hard time explaining that in a way other than "gently caress you, we rule now, the First Tea Party Division occupies Washington."
|
# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 00:48 |
|
A tech bubble burst would disrupt (heh) the Northern California economy, but nowhere near enough to put CA in play. This bubble isn't nearly as pervasive or out-of-control as the 1990s one. There's been nothing like TimeWarner buying AOL for $160bn (that's $220bn in today's money). One of the problems of the tech bubble is that it doesn't actually employ very many people for all the valuation it generates (when Facebook bought Whatsapp for $21bn, Whatsapp had something like 80 employees) but at least when the bubble bursts it won't throw huge numbers of people out of work.
|
# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 01:42 |
|
There are a lot of "app" companies with zillion-dollar valuations and no viable business model. It's an overheated sector and it'll fall down sooner or later, but it's a pale shadow of the size and insanity of the 1990s bubble. Uber is currently rated as more valuable than the entire taxi and livery sector of the economy and they're still able to raise piles of money. This can't go on indefinitely.
|
# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 01:57 |
|
Hodgepodge posted:I suppose it could actually be good for the economy if billionaires stop trying to play the startup lottery and actually invest money into the real economy.
|
# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 03:55 |
|
Joementum posted:There's some evidence that Palin actually helped McCain's final vote tally by turning out more of the base in 2008, but I did leave off a couple of qualifiers from that statement. The Vice Presidential pick doesn't matter if the pick is someone generally perceived as qualified for the office. Palin fails that test, obviously, and Eagleton might be another example, though McGovern was doomed anyway. The other qualifier that I left out is that the VP pick doesn't matter in the post-McGovern primary reform era. Prior to that, the pick was used to bargain at the convention for delegate support. Nixon allowed Thurmond to hand him a list of acceptable names, which is how we got Agnew.
|
# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 02:37 |
|
I'm more struck by the continuing belief that they lost in 08 and 12 because conservative voters stayed home. Remember, "demographics" is a made-up socialist fake science, like climatology.
|
# ¿ Dec 16, 2014 20:59 |
|
radical meme posted:This is what amazes me also. Plus, many of those imagined potential voters from eight years ago will be dead by 2016. Everything about Cruz indicates a commitment to doubling down on the conservative.
|
# ¿ Dec 16, 2014 21:20 |
|
Right now it's mostly name recognition muscle-twitch. At the same point in previous election cycles you had Joe Lieberman and Rudy Giuliani as leading their races.
|
# ¿ Dec 20, 2014 01:46 |
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Please tell me how this guy is going to get the nomination because Unless it will be because it's the best the GOP can do.
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2015 17:16 |
|
FMguru posted:I've always loved Charles Pierce's observation about the utility of the Iowa straw poll - that the ability to convince old people to board buses to take them to somewhere in rural Iowa qualifies you to be the marketing director for an Indian casino, not the leader of the free world. Charles Pierce posted:That doesn't mean that everybody won't show up for the corn dogs and the concerts and the spectacle of deciding which campaign is best at putting old white people on buses and moving them from one place to another. (Which, to me, is a qualification for managing an Indian casino, not for being handed the nuclear codes.) FMguru fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jan 9, 2015 |
# ¿ Jan 8, 2015 22:25 |
|
ufarn posted:Uhm, so does all this mean the SOTU responses will be more or less absolutely batshit insane?
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2015 16:02 |
|
baw posted:I really doubt they'll go through with this, but... Bill's philandering made Hillary into an incredibly sympathetic figure worldwide, especially among women. Her husband cheats on her, embarrasses her on the global stage, she's the wronged woman, and then she keeps a stiff upper lip about it and keeps her cool and sails through it head held high and forgives the big lug and keeps her family together. Please baby Jesus, please have the Republicans trot Monica Lewisnky out over and over again for the next two years. Americans will surely rally to the sight of the scatterbrained teenage would-be housewrecker over the woman whose marriage she tried to destroy.
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2015 22:06 |
|
peenworm
|
# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 00:47 |
|
Jackson Taus posted:That's gonna be like an all-time list, right?
|
# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 04:25 |
|
Sir Tonk posted:Goddammit I really hope Fiorina doesn't run. She's completely insufferable and would be even worse with Clinton running as well.
|
# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 04:41 |
|
Mitt Romney's people throw some shade at Jeb Bush.quote:His time as governor was quite a while ago. quote:A substantial number of Republicans have never heard him deliver a speech. Mitt is a proven commodity Nice to see the Romney messaging team has lost none of its demonstrated deftness. The GOP race is like all of three days old and I'm already loving it.
|
# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 20:02 |
|
Late-breaking statement from the man himself*:quote:Gosh, my friends, it sure seems like only yesterday when we were on our way to a crushing victory over the, ah, dark forces of Barack Obama, under whose leadership America’s once-bright future has, um, dimmed, leaving us staring into a bla–
|
# ¿ Jan 15, 2015 01:22 |
|
Something like 80% of a President's approval rating can be explained from the rise and fall of gasoline prices.
|
# ¿ Jan 16, 2015 16:30 |
|
evilweasel posted:He may disagree about how bad the skeletons are or not realize they're there, or just figure that anything that damaging would have leaked already. The Romney people haven't exactly established themselves as world-beaters when it comes to savvy political analysis.
|
# ¿ Jan 21, 2015 01:34 |
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Yeah. Edwards campaign was already over, but supposedly (according to Game Change and probably bullshit) his top staff knew about the affair and promised to sabotage the campaign if he actually came close to winning the nomination. I highly doubt that, though. Christ, what horrible people (if true). FMguru fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Jan 22, 2015 |
# ¿ Jan 22, 2015 06:23 |
|
Necc0 posted:I'm not giving him a pass but this always came across as a general cultural tone-deafness to anything outside of his own bubble, not just on race issues. He was just as aggressively awkward around farmers or dock workers or anyone that wasn't massively wealthy.
|
# ¿ Jan 23, 2015 16:49 |
|
BiggerBoat posted:I agree with all that but what would you say about the net effect of Lieberman on Gore's ticket or Cheney on Bush's? The former turned a lot of people off to Gore and I think, conversely, Cheney arguably added some right wing credibility to GWB.
|
# ¿ Jan 28, 2015 19:52 |
|
Duckbag posted:The thing is, announcing a VP --any VP -- almost always entails a significant boost in media coverage and a corresponding bump in poll numbers. What's more, Lieberman was announced in August to coincide with the Democratic Convention. Conventions inspire a lot of positive media coverage and are known for giving huge (but generally temporary) boosts to their nominee's poll numbers. Unless you have a way of factoring out these major confounding variables, there's really no way to know how much the Lieberman pick affected things. You could probably use a rough aggregate analysis of presidential campaigns to find a "generic" VP bump and a "generic" convention bump and compare those numbers with what we saw in 2000, but so many other factors change between election years that I'm not sure even those results would be meaningful. Someone get Nate Silver on this. Also also, just because a VP pick moves the needle in one direction when they are announced doesn't mean that the pick won't backfire (Palin was a good example - she gave McCain a big boost when she was announced, but by the end of the campaign she was a clear liability). And finally, if a VP pick provides a big boost to the candidate, it's probably a sign that what you have is a weak candidate and are in big trouble (Dukakis' pick of Lloyd Bentsen was very enthusiastically received, which in retrospect was a warning sign of how shallow the main candidate's support and appeal was).
|
# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 13:22 |
|
Palin's word salad is terrible (and getting worse) but until recently it was no different in content than most other Republican politicians opining about the issues of today. What she said wasn't any more ridiculous than listening to Mike Huckabee talk about the deficit or Rick Santorum discuss events in the Middle East. Her problem was that her flavor of nonsense didn't sound like the usual platitudes that come out of conservative pols - it had this rough, unpolished, homespun quality to it that it made it stand out (which has also served Palin well - she doesn't sound like the rest of the crowd, and her particular phraseology strikes a chord with a certain subset of the base in a way that smoother Beltway talkers like Gingrich and Rubio do not). She sounds more ridiculous that the rest of her colleagues, but if you parse their words, they're all equally nonsensical. Palin just never measured the particular cadences of Beltway nonsense. She speaks Backwoods nonsense - same garbage but with a different accent. Her last couple of appearances show a considerable degeneration in her speaking. I don't know if it's drugs, incipient mental illness, or her just not giving enough of a gently caress to bother even trying to string together related thoughts (I'm betting on the latter), but her recent total incoherence has been genuinely alarming. Nice pick, John McCain.
|
# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 13:33 |
|
shadow puppet of a posted:That raises the question, what did Biden do with Cheney's direct-report kill teams he had scattered around the globe?
|
# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 16:21 |
|
joeburz posted:Is that pic taken on an airplane banking hard left?
|
# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 17:23 |
|
Huh. Mark Haleprin over at Bloomberg stacked up a bunch of evidence that he's probably running ( http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-01-30/why-mitt-romney-thinks-he-can-win-and-jeb-bush-can-t- , with some commentary here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_01/mitt_edges_up_to_the_starting053943.php ). OTOH, one of Romney's key campaign figures (the guy who ran his Iowa operation) just signed on with Jeb ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_01/smalltime_businessman_snags_ke053944.php )
|
# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 16:56 |
|
California is a failed state in their minds because it does everything the exact opposite of what conservatives like to do: high taxes, raises taxes, big liberal cities, huge latino population, tolerance of gay people, some strong regulations (especially air pollution) and labor protections, not very Evangelical, freewheeling culture, and so on. By their ideology California should be this flaming bankrupt shithole that people are fleeing in droves, the American equivalent of the late-period Soviet Union. And yet, California is thriving right now. Huge budget surpluses, giant diverse economy, new billionaires and new Fortune 500 companies being created every day. Say, did you hear one of our homespun little hippie companies (run by a genuine out-n-proud homosexual gaylord) just booked the largest quarterly profit in the history of capitalism? I drive by the Tesla factory on the way to and from work every day. The wait list to buy one of their $80,000 electric sedans is almost a year long. They can't make them fast enough, and the plant now employs as many people as when it was making light trucks for Ford/Mazda, and they're looking to expand. Note that this isn't being done in Wisconsin or Mississippi or Kansas - it's happening in California, which is literally impossible according to wingnut theology.
|
# ¿ Feb 1, 2015 20:25 |
|
Bizarro Watt posted:Also guns. To many conservatives, California's gun laws (silly as some of them are, admittedly) are evidence that it is a state completely adverse to individual freedoms. Because to middle class white conservatives, that's the only freedom that matters. quote:They just bring up the pension stuff in that case.
|
# ¿ Feb 1, 2015 21:13 |
|
Pegged Lamb posted:I think he meant Canon in D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgh9XTkQTDI
|
# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 01:29 |
|
Rygar201 posted:I'm always surprised by how spry W was there Jazerus posted:He never actually bounced back, he is just campaigning as though he did and he is facing ever-spiraling federal investigations. Christie's actions over the last year or so (the bridge closure, the bridge closure denials and coverups, his big-spending personal ways, his handling of Atlantic City and other state projects, that ebola nurse quarantine, etc.) have shown him to be not at all ready for prime time, and I think the funders have come to understand that.
|
# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 18:42 |
|
GalacticAcid posted:Besides the big names (Bill, Barack) I'd anticipate a Warren speech, probably a smiling Southerner like Mark Warner, possibly Cory Booker, and someone like Ann Kirkpatrick who won a Red State election without running away from Obama.
|
# ¿ Feb 17, 2015 01:50 |
|
Republicans are always and forever the Hot New Thing, and their warmed-over Reaganism is always in the form of Bold Fresh New Ideas.
|
# ¿ Feb 25, 2015 20:26 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:17 |
|
Nessus posted:I remember that MTV personality whose whole thing was "I have a Republican elephant tattoo and find Dan Quayle hot." What happened to her? She currently hosts a show (with other hip young conservatives) on the Fox Business Channel, where it regularly gets a 0.0 rating. She was on the cover of the NYT Magazine just a couple of months ago, talking about the Hot New Political Movement that's All The Rage with the Youth Of Today- Libertarianism!
|
# ¿ Feb 25, 2015 23:10 |