|
Hahahaha between Mark Penn and Sean Wilentz, Hillary's really living down to expectations. At least Penn is still just a rumor.Chris Christie posted:On the Democrats' side, what about Jim Webb??? He used to be floated as sort of a successor to Clinton in that he could attract working-class, Southern, and Appalachian whites (specifically white men) but the love affair ended when it became apparent that he neither could not desired to appeal to anyone else. Given the post-Bush Democratic reliance on minority turnout, Webb is pretty much a nonstarter. He runs and Rubio just waves around his old oped about how "it's a disgrace that immigrants are getting college educations before hardworking white Americans" crying "why does Jim Webb hate the American Dream?" Like, come on. Come on. To support the idea that it's not ridiculous as gently caress to whine about there being no Protestants on the Supreme Court, he points to the historical domination of the Court by Protestants. This guy does not make it through the Democratic primaries, let alone the general. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Nov 10, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:On the other hand, it's probably better to have him talk about the working class and economic populism than a 70-something year old socialist who wants to run from Vermont. Neither is going to draw the female/minority vote, but only one can draw in (maybe) some of the lost white voters that they need in the rust belt. People need to realize invoking the Koch brothers does poo poo-all among these voters because the avg person doesn't read DailyKos. Those people that know who the Koch brothers are already vote reliably Dem in every election. I don't know of any significant # of activists in the base that actually do stay home, even if they hate the candidates. Bernie Sanders probably wouldn't generate a ton of enthusiasm among minorities or women. Jim Webb will actively depress enthusiasm because it's not that he doesn't have positions specific to women/minorities, it's that he has bad positions specific to women/minorities.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:Aside from Nixon, Reagan was a candidate multiple times. He never lost as the nominee, but I don't see what the big difference is in losing your 2nd run for the Presidency in the primary vs. in the general election. If anything, I would think Romney is more attractive. He made a lot of blunders on the campaign trail, and his G.O.V. operation imploded in hilarious fashion on election day. Despite that, he ran pretty well against THE political superstar of my generation at least. I wasn't around for Kennedy, so I can only go back a few decades, but Obama is without question the most charismatic Democratic candidate I've seen in my lifetime. Bill Clinton was good, but not on Obama's level in my opinion (although after the campaigns ended, he was infinitely more competent and a better POTUS). Jeb Bush hasn't had to campaign among Cubans or Latinos generally since 2002 - non-Cuban Hispanics are a much bigger chunk of Florida than they were 12 years ago, and Cubans are also much less Republican. I honestly think all predictions that rely on performance among Latino voters before the 2004 immigration reform debacle are fundamentally flawed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Anyone else have conservative friends going nuts on facebook about the Oatmeal comic about Ted Cruz saying Net Neutrality = Obamacare? Going nuts as in like "this comic is rad gently caress you Ted Cruz"? I've had one say "We need a meme that tells the whole story and actually knows what it is! The Oatmeal one doesn't understand Net Neutrality!" but conspicuously not elaborate beyond that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:I think he could easily come in and be the establishment candidate. I don't think he can come in and be the Not-X candidate because there's already a clown car of potential candidates salivating at being the next Herman Cain. I think he may come in an be the populist candidate a bunch of people in one of the USPol threads were wishing for. I think I read a short story about that, called the Murdoch's Paw.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Well, Sean Wilentz is back at any rate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Don't trust any presidential candidate over thirty (except Bernie Sanders) Bernie's NPR interview was ... not encouraging.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I only caught the snippets where he ducked questions about the White Working Class. How was the whole interview? "People shouldn't vote their color, they should vote on [class issues]," the same week as both the Ferguson grand jury is supposed to come in and Obama is acting on immigration reform (which ties into anti-Latino sentiment that's been boiling over since 2004) is just so incredibly out of touch. Lines like this make me think that Sanders is basically socialist Jim Webb: quote:Well, here's what you got. What you got is an African-American president, and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of natural. You've got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration, and you've got a Hispanic community which is looking to the Democrats for help.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Keep in mind that Sanders' constituency is 95.3% white. If you're going to run for President in a party that increasingly relies on minority votes for viability, even as an issue candidate to raise awareness, you should probably think beyond your immediate constituency.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Honestly that's lower than I would have guessed. It's 30% Franco-American!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
sullat posted:In those days the requirements for being a lawyer were a lot less strict. He read a couple of books, and was admitted to the bar before they had exams and stuff. Probably helped that he was a state rep at the time. He got a job with one of his wife's relatives, where he presumably learned how to do lawyering. You can still "read law" via an apprenticeship in a bunch of states today and it substitutes for a law degree when you sit the bar exam in that state.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
sullat posted:Heck, in California you don't need either, you can just take the bar exam. But I think in Lincoln's day, there was no actual exam, just an "evaluation" by the bar. I think if you don't sit with an ABA-accredited degree you also have to sit for the "baby bar." Also you're right re: Lincoln, I just love that you can still Lincoln it up kind of.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Lincolning it up Nah, Lincolning it up is the apprenticeship system, not California's ridiculous-rear end system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Autodidactic learning is pretty cool in theory, and smart important people have excelled in their fields without formal schooling. Besides Lincoln, there was John Frank Stevens, the most productive Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal. I'm sorry, less self-inflicted tragedy?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think Ted Cruz is the only potential Republican Presidential candidate who went to an Ivy, unless I'm missing someone. Ben Carson went to Yale. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Does Dartmoth count? Why wouldn't it? Also Rauner got his MBA from Harvard, so the barrier to him is that he's not running.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
That's basically right: compare how Bush's personality played versus how Kerry's played and then remember that they were both Bonesmen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:George Pataki spent the day touring New Hampshire. He's a Yale and Columbia grad, for what it's worth. George Pataki, Jesus, he's old enough to have been a proposed presidential candidate on NYPD Blue. Edit: Holy poo poo, he's only 69? Wow.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think the hat-in-the-ring moment was his speech in Springfield. Looking it up, that was 2/10/07. We've got about two months I guess. Springfield was the official announcement but it was really cemented in December. Hillary actually declared later than Obama as I remember it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah, he wouldn't win but he sure could throw a wrench into things. That's definitely something to keep an eye on. I'm not sure he would actually wrench things - he'd basically be a straw bogeyman with dumb opinions on race that Clinton could beat on to shore up her credentials with the actual Democratic base while not actually shifting any policy stances.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean as an independent. He's just get thrashed in the primary, but an independent candidate like Webb runs the risk of peeling off enough Democratic support in states like Virginia or Ohio to throw the general. Eh, I'm still not sure - Webb's demographic may be registered as Democrats but are they expected to vote Democratic at the national level? Assuming he even gets on the ballot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yup, Rand Paul's campaign is considering challenging a state law in court and arguing that it interferes with the power of the Federal government. You know that scene in 22 Jump Street where Channing Tatum realizes Jonah Hill banged Ice Cube's daughter? That's me right now. Also spoilers for 22 Jump Street you all should definitely see it. smg77 posted:Was Bill Clinton known outside of the south in 1991? I don't remember much about his first campaign but I remember people referring to him as a dark horse (apparently he didn't even officially announce he was running until October which seems insane). 1988 Democratic National Convention speech - he was known and not particularly well. Also the news cycle didn't work the same way back then.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Imagine if Hillary Clinton had announced in the fall of 2007 that she wasn't running. That's what Mario Cuomo did in 1991, which is why the field was a mess. Did you ever read Stephanopoulos's memoir? Because Clinton tried to put him on the Court and Andrew Cuomo hosed the dog so hard PETA was formed. God George Stephanopoulos used to do poo poo that mattered.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:I haven't seen The War Room. Is it worth watching? I really like it, but I maintain that the best documentary of the 92 Clinton primary campaign is still Primary Colors. Adrian Lester is tremendously underrated and Billy Bob Thorton owns it. Also, if you want to see the next great hope of the Democratic Party in action, watch Street Fight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:If you want amazing Booker hagiography Brick City is even better.  in case it wasn't clear (though I like Booker, certainly more than most around here).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:...and Bill Richardson is an 8. Fixed that for you.  Still my favorite campaign photo of all time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:A Jindal run is going to be great for uncovering all the progressives who think it's funny to make fun of an Indian guy's birth name. See also Ted Cruz.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:I don't think he's being mocked for having an Indian name per se, but rather for replacing it with a more "American" sounding one to get elected. He started going by "Bobby" when he was a kid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Those weren't fake posts. I was hacked by a genuine Cain supporter. They guessed my password. I should have adhered to the complexity guidelines. "999" was not a good password.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:According to Political Legend, LBJ had a rather large D. He was a star, he was a star, he was a big, bright, shining star.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:No, Jim Webb is running. Warner might be a good vp candidate though Jim Webb is less running and more collapsing at the starting line, between the PAC skimming/self-dealing and the whole Everything Jim Webb Has Said In The Last Twenty Years Or So thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The Tim Pawlenty of 2016 then? Pawlenty was more boring than anything. Webb is being touted as being able to recapture the Lost Coalition of White Working-Class Voters, but anyone who actually has studied up on Webb knows that his plan is to aggressively alienate the people who currently vote Democratic. Like, you guys think Obama neglected the base?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I should hope you get a little pissy at the dude destroying your wife's coronation march to the White House. If there remains some Blood Feud between them, they certainly keep it under wraps well enough that it sure as poo poo isn't going to affect the 2016 election. I'm not sure "a little pissy" does it justice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:With regards to the "you don't need white working class voters": while I suppose you could reproduce 2012 in 2016 easily, trying to ignore or even alienate them beyond that is tough, especially for House races in the near term without some momentous court case that bans gerrymandering (it won't happen). Oh, see, when I talk about Webb alienating the base, I don't mean self-described progressives or environmentalists, I mean the actual base - new Americans, women, Hispanics, African-Americans. It's absolutely possible to be pro-working class broadly - as we saw with Bernie Sanders, the risk you run is coming off a bit ignorant by trying to pivot away from very real issues on racial lines by studiously talking only about class lines. This is not Jim Webb. Jim Webb's biggest problems are his positions on women, minorities, and really just Democratic demographics generally. Webb is really making a play for the part of Hillary's 08 primary electorate that voted against Obama more than for her, and how she reacts to that has serious implications for the party (if his challenge actually materializes). The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is saying ignore the white working class, but I don't see where the give is at the presidential level, or how deemphasizing explicitly minority-friendly policies won't be read as an abandonment of those groups by those groups (which will depress turnout). Moreover, I don't see how that wouldn't actually be an abandonment. Like Hillary has already effectively bailed on the DREAM Act and is getting backlash for it, though from what I understand she's reacted by reiterating her support. It just doesn't seem like there's a lot of wiggle room here. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Doctor Candiru posted:Politico has a Clinton article up: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-114586.html Yeah, it's kind of clear that that was someone getting asked about VPs, saying something about diversity, and then clumsily listing national-level Hispanic Democrats. That the group consensus seems to be "swing state white dude" is unsurprising.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Mitt never had anything to offer as VP. He's going to be a better Lex Luthor than Jesse Eisenberg.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
ufarn posted:How bad was Ted's womanizing compared to JFK? Well, he had a body count.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:I can't think of any group of primary voters that might like him. Like may be a strong word, but maybe ...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
On the other hand, nobody cares about Tim Pawlenty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 22:01
|
|