Fried Chicken posted:

From one of the leaks from a "Clinton Insider", Tim Kaine is at the top of the list.

Really without knowing for 100% certainty who the GOP candidate will be you can't really guess who will be brought in to shore up support for the ticket.

Radish posted:

If Ryan had grabbed Biden by the hair and slammed his face on the table repeatedly those same people would have been pumping their fists in happiness. They don't care about "meanness" it's just they know in their hearts their lameass candidate got beaten clearly and fairly and they had to rationalize it somehow that Biden somehow cheated or was rude just like how Obama clearly got elected through underhanded tricks they can't quite explain.

ewe2 posted:

What...when did Fiorina turn up in this, I missed this. Things are that bad huh?

Joementum posted:

There's some evidence that Palin ended up helping McCain by turning out more of the base, but it's very difficult to discern any impact in these things.

Cigar Aficionado posted:

The Clinton's aren't a dynasty. The Bush's are. Hopefully the left will be able to push back on that false equivalency.

site posted:

Poor Rand only has 205 YouTube subscribers

Necc0 posted:

So how about Hillary endorsing Warren, huh? That sure is a thing. She seems to be angling early to define this election's theme and I'm actually kind of liking the direction she's taking it.

Sgt. Anime Pederast posted:

How did Rubio get so popular among republicans? I thought he said a pro immigration thing once and they decided they hated him.

ElrondHubbard posted:

Like Ron Paul, Bernie has attracted the fanatical and often obnoxious loyalty of many first time voters / internet schmucks who have proceeded to annoy the hell out of everyone with their bizarre overconfidence, contemptuous / venomous attitude toward other candidates + their supporters, and general lack of understanding of how politics works in the US. There is of course a plethora of non-obnoxious, reasonable, and informed individuals who support Bernie, but they end up as collateral damage when the backlash hits against the former group, in this case being likened to Ron Paul fanatics.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Judging by this thread and the US Pol thread, yes. Also, Fox News says bad things = Clinton's awesome/smart/cool/etc.

Accepting donations from that Qatar Committee and the state itself is scummy as gently caress considering the horrible poo poo their people are experiencing in preparation for the future hosting.

Mitt Romney was villified for his corporate background and how that played into his political ambitions but it apparently the Clintons are savvy for the amount of money they take in, who they take money from, and for what, the 2nd case of millions of unreported moneys coming into the foundation? FOX NEWS LOL though so whatever

Talking Points Memo posted:

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina's attempt to attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) didn't quite go as planned on Wednesday.

Fiorina scheduled her own press conference outside of the Marriot Hotel in Columbia, South Carolina where Clinton was scheduled to speak. But instead of holding a press conference where she relentlessly attacked the former secretary of state, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO was peppered with questions about her own candidacy, according to The New York Times.

She was asked, for instance, about her decision to attend the Clinton Global Initiative last year given reports about foreign donations that went to the Clinton Foundation.

"Last year we didn't know all the things we now know about the Clinton Foundation," Fiorina said.

When Fiorina was asked if she would go again, she said she didn't expect to get another invite.

Fiorina, according to the Times, appeared to get more frustrated as questions veered toward whether she was really a serious candidate. Fiorina was pressed on whether her trip to South Carolina was only for attacking Clinton. Another reporter pressed Fiorina if she was outside the hotel just because of Clinton.

"I planned to be here weeks and weeks ago!" Fiorina said. "I have a luncheon to go to, with the GOP here. This trip has been on my itinerary for a very long time."

Fiorina tried to direct the questions back at Clinton.

"I hope you will continue to be as aggressive with Mrs. Clinton, wherever she is," Fiorina said, before cutting off the questions after roughly 11 minutes.

Quinnipiac posted:

There are five leaders - or no leaders - as Republican voters look at likely GOP candidates in the 2016 White House race, with no candidate above 10 percent and 20 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today.

Leading the pack with 10 percent each are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

Rounding out the top 10 for televised debates are U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 7 percent, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at 6 percent, Donald Trump at 5 percent, New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie at 4 percent and Carly Fiorina and Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 2 percent each.

quote:

In a general election matchup, Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio. She leads other top Republicans:

46 - 37 percent over Christie;
47 - 40 percent over Huckabee;
47 - 37 percent over Bush;
46 - 38 percent over Walker;
48 - 37 percent over Cruz;
50 - 32 percent over Trump.

GoutPatrol posted:

Polygamy: Its catching on!

Joementum posted:

Don't worry. June 16th is gonna be YOOGE.

Alter Ego posted:

Her campaign rhetoric would suggest differently--she's gone about as "eat the rich" as I've ever heard Hillary go. The cynic in me says that she's doing it to crowd Bernie and O'Malley out early by co-opting their economic positions, but it's nice to hear.

tsa posted:

His first election was fairly lefty / populist economically, it wasn't till he got into office that he started swinging to the right. He ran on raising taxes and expanding government spending. Then he got in, Greenspan said "" and his tune changed pretty quickly.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Shifting the overton window and the topics under debate. Occupy was a success in that it got income inequality to essentially replace DEFICIT BAD in the media, and Bernie's candidacy has similar potential to reshape the debate.

Mechanically, Republicans will attack Hillary over those new left wing positions, forcing her to defend them, shifting policy priorities, etc.

Or hell, maybe he wins. Already more popular than any Republican.

computer parts posted:

What are the notable realignments prior to the 1960s?

Jackson Taus posted:

Normally in these circumstances, losing the White House 4 times in a row would lead a party to reform, break up, or re-align. We saw the Republicans do basically that under Nixon (Southern Strategy) and the Democrats do that under Bill Clinton (Third Way).

Jackson Taus posted:

The way I see it, they kind of have. The difference is that whereas you and I think that they either need their own Bill Clinton (to move them to a more palatable center) or another Nixon (to find a wedge-issue to realign them demographically), they've come to the conclusion that they need a new Reagan - someone who is a fierce advocate of their existing values in their most extreme form and who triumphs by selling their existing values to the public. The true believers on both sides routinely overestimate the public's level of support for their values - just as many of us here are convinced that America either supports our issues or would support them if packaged decently, hardcore Republicans believe that the only thing stopping Americans from embracing conservatism for all time is a failure to message it properly (or a conspiracy theory). In a sense, both sides are correct - when you distill either platform down to just basic core value stuff it's all Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie and relatively unobjectionable. Like nobody is going to say that "economic freedom" or "a moral society" are bad, but they object to policies like "abolish the FDA" and "give Christians the right to discriminate" that grow out of those core values.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

The thing that gets me is how much since 2008 the GOP has focused in on its messaging, rather than the message itself. Time and again we hear GOP figures going on about how they need to retool how they communicate their vision to the parts of the electorate that don't vote for them, rather than spending much, if any, time examining if that vision actually holds any real appeal for those outside their eroding base.

comes along bort posted:

Nah he did it the old fashioned way taking advantage of an intraparty rift to build a support infrastructure.

Jackson Taus posted:

To be fair to Republicans, it's possible that they simply can't pivot while the demographic transition is ongoing. Like until white votes hit some threshold where they're an even smaller portion of the electorate than they are now, it could be the case that ditching an advantage in the white vote to compete for minority votes is a bad call. Like a decision that makes sense when non-whites are 35-40% of the electorate (in the 2020s or 2030s) doesn't make sense when they're only 25% of the electorate.

Suppose Republicans faced a policy choice which would cost them 5% of the white vote but gain them 10% of the non-white vote. Numerically, this is currently a bad deal, losing them 1.25% of the vote, but 10-20 years down the line (when it's 60/40), that would be a good deal, earning them 0.25% of the vote.

Joementum posted:

Jeb is the "undisputed jobs champ", according to Jeb

Luigi Thirty posted:

I mean, the man bankrupted a casino.

Zikan posted:

I don't think any number of image consultants can save a guy who thinks



is a great selfie.

Intel&Sebastian posted:

The fact that Hillary recognizes what a giant win this issue is makes me feel a lot better about her campaign. It completely baffles me that Dems didnt run with this. "voter fraud" is such a flimsy defense against something soooo easy to sell and, more importantly, the right thing to do.

Joementum posted:

Zwabu posted:

If I recall the Romney doc was made by a friend/supporter and was specifically an effort to promote and rehabilitate his image so of course there was plenty of access. I'm sure it was intended to build up his cult of personality if he won with the backup purpose of humanizing him and promoting his image if he lost.

Gyges posted:

Because they know Bernie isn't going to win. They didn't really support Obama over Hillary until he showed he could actually win. At least that's what the last black guy I asked said, so I'm sure that's where the hivemind is at.

EugeneJ posted:

The blacks need people they can trust

Gyges posted:

Clearly it's those sexy pants suits.

Zelder posted:

Man I can't wait to tell my mom and family and friends that us poor black people are just sheep getting hustled by the church

Cythereal posted:

I thought he established that Jeb was the dumb one when he was caught flat-footed by a reporter asking him about Iraq and whether he would have done what his brother did.

Your Gay Uncle posted:

I remember the old Bloom County books my uncle gave me mercilessly trashing Trump and that was 20 years ago. Are there really people in 2015 who not only take him seriously but think he should be President?