|
comes along bort posted:No Vermin Supreme, thread invalidated. Well, it remains to be seen what party he'll register in the primary for. He ran as a Republican in 2008, but a Democrat in 2004 and 2012. One thing is clear, though: he is running, and has been since early this year. EDIT: Unfortunately, it is unclear whether he will be able to win the coveted goon vote this time around, as he has somehow managed to appeal to the Brony demographic, according to the Boston Globe. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Nov 10, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
FMguru posted:Yeah, once you LOSE a presidential election you are supposed to go away because you are a LOSER. Nixon's 1960/1968 doubleshot went down as one of the greatest comebacks in history because things like that are so rare. Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan, Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson all came back for another shot. Cleveland even won (though unlike Nixon, he'd won the presidency before) And if you want to stretch the comparison before the Civil War, there's William Henry Harrison, Martin Van Buren (if you count his ill-fated Free Soil campaign of 1848), John Quincy Adams, and of course the original bad boy: Andrew Jackson. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Remember that "Cruz to the Future" coloring book from last year? According to Vox, the creators are back with a new supplement entitled "Ted Cruz Saves America", apparently from snakes representing "high taxes", "illegal immigration" and "lawlessness" among others. There are also tantalizing hints in the PR release that elsewhere in the book Cruz rides on an eagle representing American exceptionalism, so take that as you will.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Someone you like in the Democratic primary. You can worry about the general after that. NOTE: This only works for the presidency if your primary is before April. If your primary is April or later, too bad, the nation doesn't care what you think anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:It appears that Elizabeth Warren recently visited Israel and met with Netanyahu. So I definitely would never vote for her in a Democratic primary if she were to run for president. The following is the list of electable presidential candidates meeting Math Debator's minimal criteria:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I genuinely don't understand why leftists are always against trade policies that end up exporting jobs. Do people really want to work a poo poo job that someone in another country will do for a buck fifty an hour? Wouldn't it be better to leave the trade agreements intact and create good jobs instead, that people don't hate as much and that can have a salary that can be spent on the nice cheap goods from free trade? I don't think they would oppose that per se, except that these sorts of factory closures tend to leave older people badly positioned to seek new jobs as (generally speaking) these factory jobs are often the centerpiece of a community and, while there may be opportunities elsewhere, they require training and relocation that may be out of the question for a 50-year-old blue collar worker who would have to start earning seniority all over again. Never mind gutting the communities that depend on them. EDIT: In short, it's easy and fast to put 1,000 factory workers out of a job by shuttering down a single factory. It's often expensive and time-consuming to build 1,000 new jobs in new industries, because growth always takes time. It's harder to build than destroy. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't think healthcare is going to be another topic until all the employer plans get disbanded due to the Cadillac Tax (so probably another decade or so). But they can't get disbanded because of the employer mandate. No, you'll just have to live with your barely affordable bronze plan.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:A republican candidate's biggest challenge (other than painting their policies as not retarded) is being drug around in the primaries. If Jeb clears the field in three to four primaries then he's in a pretty good position. Add in that no one gives a poo poo about secstate outside of polisci nerds and that she's going to be tied to everything related to Obama, gives Jeb a good shot. Also, a lot rides on the economy. If late 2016 starts looking like 2001 (or god forbid 2008), Jeb could easily take the presidency. Given that we're already past the mean time between recessions in the post-war era, there's a fairly good chance that if Obama doesn't get a recession in his last two years in office, Hillary will almost certainly have one in her first term. If you want a Democratic president with coattails in 2020, there's slim chance of that right now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hillary would probably go hard Gutierrez, if she thought she had an actual chance at losing the primary. By the time you get to the convention where that becomes a serious consideration, you've got more problems than just choosing a Veep: You've got rules fuckery to skullfuck you over and you end up with everyone hosed over. I know you'd like to be Hillary's veep, Rahm, but while you were buddy buddy with Hillary up until Obama ran, I question whether she'd not count your ostrich behavior in 2008 as a betrayal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Chris Christie re-enters the hotseat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
I think it's interesting that 4 of the 9 potential Republican candidates will have not held an office for at least 10 years prior to their 2016 run (Romney, Bush, Santorum, Carson) and one of those (Carson) has never held elected office at all. (The other 5 by my count: Paul, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Christie) Hillary hasn't held an elected office for 8 years either, but at least she had several years in State in the meantime. EDIT: Even Nixon only spent 8 years in the wilderness, and people had discounted him until 1966 (none of those 4 helped win 2014 the way Nixon helped in '66) and even then the establishment wanted someone better but couldn't find it. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I think the trick here is a family brings you down, pretty ones less than ugly ones. On the other hand, James Buchanan.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:No you have to be eligible to be elected as president to run for vice-president. This one weird trick Democrats have found to elect Bill Clinton has Republicans howling.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The SOTU response is pretty much a bullet through the head for presidential ambitions when it comes to the person giving it. Sure, you get the occasional survivor but it's generally considered fatal unless you're strong as gently caress. It worked for Andy Guzman... 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
joeburz posted:How is walker expecting to win when his state is garbage in terms of metrics other than "how horrible has their governor been the past X years" Jamelle Bouie over at Slate believes his plan will be to double down on political polarization and try to get out the white vote.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Syjefroi posted:I don't get his overall plan though. For example, why release that brutal Huckabee ad from 2008? Why go on a greatest hits tour for one week? It's not like he's selling a book (or needs the money from a book tour). I mean, I guess it's just that his ego is that cosmically large? I don't get it. The first case can be explained pretty easily: whether or not Romney runs, he doesn't want Huckabee or his ilk to win the nomination. As for the rest: While you're running in the Invisible Primary, you need to look like you're serious about running in the real one so that you can pump up some poll numbers to hand your potential donors as proof you can win it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Is Warren leaving the door open, or does everyone keep trying to pry it open?  Warren says eggs she ate this morning were a little runny!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
WaPo is running a story focusing on the oft-discussed-but-not-in-the-media Rand Paul's pet ophthalmology certification board.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Meet the Oregonian couple who own jebbushforpresident.com.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Jeb is winning the invisible primary. Bush v. Clinton, here we come.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:If that was all he gave him in return for the shine, it would be wonderful Koch fanfic. Nah. Make it "a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged" and then we'll talk.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
The right (read: Drudge) is getting up in arms about Jeb's stance on immigration. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Jill Stein is going to run again, so that's happening. I'll vote for her again. It's not like Hillary needs another Democratic vote in California.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:The house is in an even worse position than everything else. It will be a decade of GOP control before it's even remotely possible (2020). Statistically there will be a recession sometime in the next 8 years and if it occurs during a Democratic presidency you might see a GOP house until 2028 or longer. 2 decades of GOP control of the house would be insane. This is why I hold the belief that the only way to win in the long run is by electing a Republican In 2016. Better to have those coattails on a non-Census year and at least have a chance of blaming the next economic crisis on the Republicans than take the one-two punch of an economic crisis leading to a one-term Hillary and Republican wave in 2020. Plus, a loss forces Dems to play for Congress and state houses in 2018, which are both far more necessary than trying to get 51 in 2016 only to be guaranteed to lose it again in 2018 in Hillary's midterm. Granted, this means Republicans have incumbency going into 2020, but incumbent coattails aren't going to help Ernst and her class as much as they would gain from an economic crisis in 2017. Now it's true that you lose Ginsberg's seat on SCOTUS but you aren't getting a new Warren Court until Scalia kicks the bucket anyway. And he's not going to until there's a Republican in the White House anyway, so it's a moot point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I too think handing Republicans control of both houses and the presidency at the same time is a choice that won't lead to immediate long-lasting disaster. I didn't mean to come off as accelerationist so much as a political pragmatist. As everyone has already noted, the Republicans very probably won't lose Congress before 2018 (at the very earliest) and midterm blowback for the party in the White House is real, putting even that date into question if we have President Hillary. Meanwhile, Democrats can't hold the White House forever. Republicans can still get 47% of the vote, and Quinnipiac just came out with a set of polls saying that Hillary barely does better than any named Republican in Virginia and Colorado, so she's probably not going to do much better. So when do you propose we let them in, if you really want Castro/Castro 2024? Of course the real answer is that Republicans will win in 2020 no matter who wins 2016. Hillary loses if the economy crashes, so a Republican president in 2016 gets to be portrayed as saving the economy and safely avoids having to deal with it happening on his watch so he has a safer time with incumbency in 2020. Conversely, a Hillary win means the economy hasn't crashed, and then that means she gets the blame and loses 2020 when it does. The only possible way Republicans lose 2020 is if the economy miraculously fails to enter a recession for 11 years straight after 2009 [very unlikely; the longest period was during the 1990s and that was only 10 years], Hillary somehow avoids the blame for it [very unlikely with Republicans blocking any meaningful financial assistance for a recovery], or Republicans win in 2016 without the economy going bust [somewhat unlikely; basically means some other poo poo sandwich has to happen, like a terrorist attack] ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Incumbents don't generally lose either. The last one to lose was because his party got mad at him, not because of the electorate itself ( a large spoiler candidate didn't help either). Can you be absolutely certain of that? Both presidents in question also happen to have presided over recessions that ended during their term in office. Now, I'll give you that H.W. was riding high after that recession ended, and may have pulled off a win, but then again, "It's the economy, stupid". Carter's recession literally lasted almost his entire presidency and did not end until the January of the year he was voted out, so the economic case there is only stronger. EDIT: TheBalor posted:Even taking that analysis as true, I'd sacrifice a lot to see the balance changed on the supreme court. I'm expecting a lot of justices to die in the next ten years. I'd rather see the balance swing left, rather than have conservative dominance cemented for the next twenty years. Wishful thinking I'm afraid. Hillary 2016 would save Ginsberg's seat, sure, but it's not at all clear she'd get a chance to actually do anything more than be that backstop. It's not like Scalia wouldn't hang on in spite until 2020 just to keep the 5-4 in Republican hands. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Throw back Thursday Jeb Edition Sounds like we have our 2016 Republican candidate then. How can anyone top that? Maybe Walker could get close, but drat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
So in somewhat relevant news, Wisconsin's government is doing so badly they're going to skip a debt payment. But unlike how doing so would destroy Greece, I'm sure this will have no negative effects on Scott Walker at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Wedding photographer was probably more pissed than they were that he ruined his sweet stills from the Zappa concert. Joementum forgot to add the punchline: The wedding photographer was Jeb's brother Marvin. quote:Every single photo of the Bush and Garnica families had either a photo of Frank Zappa and/or members of his band, the Mothers of Invention, superimposed onto their own images. I remember thinking to myself that a Frank Sinatra photo may have been acceptable, but not Frank Zappa! Marvin later won third place in a photography contest with one of the photos which he entitled "Zappa's Bride".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
baw posted:How likely is it that WI will default in the near future? Using a loose definition, 100% certain. (But said restructuring is within the terms of said loan).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Scott Walker: The most significant foreign policy decision that occurred during my lifetime was... Well given that a qualification for fighting ISIS is breaking up public sector unions, of course it would logically go the other way too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Finally, a contest the Pauls can win. Only if it isn't being surreptitiously run by Wall Street interests trying to draft their guy as president.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Isn't this what Mark Udall tried in Colorodo, and subsequently got creamed? No, my understanding is that Mark Udall did the opposite: he made women's issues that are bogged down by religious bullshit (abortion) into a political issue. Of course he was right given that one of the bills that was up for discussion in the very first month of the 114th was an abortion bill, but losing office as Senator has got to make any "I told you so" feeling pretty hollow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Obama uncharacteristically drops the ball in the first presidential debate and the Romney campaign finally gets a little bit of momentum. Everybody in the media or following the media loudly proclaims that this momentum will be furthered when sexy shark-man Paul Ryan eats uncle joe on national television. The opposite happens, and much of that fleeting momentum is lost. Not quite. As much as D&D reflects fondly on that debate as some slam on Ryan, I seem to recall that snap polls right after the veep debate were evenly split on the winner, if not giving Ryan a slight edge. FAKE EDIT: Yup.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Nessus posted:My god, two wealthy white women kinda look like each other, especially when posed for book covers?! Well that does it. Hillary's done. Hillary's book has almost the same title as a wannabe who will never get the Republican nomination. Welp. Time to wrap it up and accept Democratic nominee
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. Whereafter shouldst thou send to him one cloke more upon the close of each fortnight, for the low price of 11.95 denarii with shipping and handling charged moreover. This charge may'st thou autobill convenientwise to his account of credit until such time as he appeals to thee in writing of his desire to annul the aforementioned subscription to thy cloke service." And on the third day he billed again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Is he wearing running shoes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:If she manages to stay out of any major scandals for the next year and Hilary becomes the democratic nominee I'd give her better than even odds of being the vp choice. I don't see another vagina-haver in as good of a position on the R side so yep. Martinez got reelected as a Hispanic Republican in a blue state. She'll be on the short-list even if her odds are long.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Direct Democracy But god forbid we use that to change election laws. That would be unconstitutional and un-American! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
The New York Times asks: "Are you ready for Kasichmentum?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 02:27
|
|