|
comes along bort posted:Depends on the level of cynicism at play on a range between Mister Rogers and Henry Kissinger. Blacks turn out at a far higher rate than Hispanics, and there's enough of them in a few close states that if it becomes a choice between who to pander to with a token pick, I'd put money on black. That's assuming blacks will turn out in 2015. Given the recent issues, and the probability of another police-induced death being caught on camera between now and the start of supertuesday's media cycle, black turnout isn't something which can be taken for granted. Chamale posted:You're right that black people will get left out of this election, but it's not an election for Democrats to court the racist vote. That strategy wouldn't work, because whites for whom that's a big issue won't be voting for Hillary in 2016 no matter who she picks. The racists on the right and the social justice people on the left aren't going to flip parties in 2016, they'll look at the candidates and decide whether or not to stay home. It's up to each party to turn out that segment of their base, not to capture the segment from the other party. Part of the narrative you build is to convince those sorts of folk to not vote for your oppo. Social Justice ain't gonna rock the vote in 15/16, so no need to appease them. Racists? Theys on the fence over turning out to vote. E: Huge gently caress'n complicating factor which is going unaddressed: raising contribution limits. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Dec 11, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Here are the issues I see campaigns building a narrative around for 2015/2016: Public sell Torture & global economy/security Domestic civil rights and police accountability Immigration reform: Too fast, or too slow? Donor sell Financial regulation & interest rates Airline regulation One-time reshoring tax exemption & reverse acquisition crackdown Social Security fund management & privitization Cuban normalization and re-integration Pick two of the above for your public pillars and three of the below for fundraising. Identify which potential Veep picks signal what policy positions towards where on the above.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:America is getting a second helping of Santorum. Who's he hired for his run?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The fact that he's writing a book about his daughter reminds me that the last month of his 2012 primary campaign got complicated when she was hospitalized, ultimately causing him to stop campaigning because he was flying back every other day. It's surprising that she's still alive and that he's thinking of running again anyway. He probably took it as a sign from god that 2012 wasn't his year to run because Obama was destined to win through idolatrous trickery no matter who the Republicans put up. With Hillary running in 2016, jesus has spoken to Santorum through his daughter's illness and shown him the light, that suffering exists to test humanity and further god's ~mysterious plan~
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Jeb Bush is going to form a Presidential Exploratory committee within the next month. Bush v. Romney v. Santorum v. Newt v. Rauner v. Perry, here we come!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:I saw Rauner and knew who had posted without having to look. (Nobody from Illinois is running for president any time soon, or getting on the ticket.) $10,000 bet on that? $10,000 bet? Someone from IL is getting on one of the two tickets.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I would take that $10,000 bet with no hesitation. Every pol from Illinois being on the short list is just a product of your fever dream MIGF. (Excluding the "rules don't say anything about a dog playing" weaseling because Hillary was born in IL.) Hillary is a native daughter from IL. I don't think Hillary being on the shortlist is a fever dream.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:
Re-using the double-R logo? I believe I'm justified in saying, "Called it a month ago."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Mitt Romney wouldn't be behind a group that's webpage was literally set up by a high school student for $300. Given everything we know of the Romney campaign, I wouldn't be so sure. Smells like something Ann would do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
withak posted:Imagine being the guy who lost to both the first black president and the first female president. What is, "Things McCain and Bush have in Common," for $2,000, Alex?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's some comparative data on how the GOP primary polls were looking around this time in previous cycles. Its good for showing just how fragile the GOP coalition is
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:It's all about narrative, and 'reluctant hero' plays a lot better than 'blatantly power-seeking'. ReidRansom posted:It's a way to say "I'm soliciting (assurances of) donations" while giving yourself an out should your early fundraising projections not meet expectations. Its a combination of the two, used to drive more hard commits.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The 2012 primary had Romney and Tpaw and Huntsman and the ghost of Christie. Romney wasn't the only moderate in that race, far from it. Romney was the only moderate with funding, recognition, and experience. He was the only viable moderate, no matter what Whitefish wants you to believe.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Carson told NewsMax TV that he will announce whether he is running by May 1st. Stay tuned, America! Dr. Carson may not be the crank America wants, he's certainly the crank with some pill issues America deserves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:all aboard the Huckabee train *Huckabee train is for heavy freight only, does not subsidize passengers
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Romney also dumped $15m of his personal fortune in Iowa in 2008, which none of the current batch of candidates are likely to do. I dunno, Bush is able to dump $15m into Iowa through some pretty discreet channels.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Oh really? Then why are so many frothing overt racists getting elected to positions of loving power? Because its good for cheaply increasing base turnout.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bernie Sanders hired progressive uber-blogger Matt Stoller and Professor Stephanie Kelton as his economic advisors for his new role as ranking member of the Budget Committee. They're both advocates of Modern Monetary Theory, which holds that deficits don't matter at the macro level if you can just keep printing cash. It's pretty clear we'll be seeing a Ryan-esque budget manifesto out of his office this spring as a possible campaign platform. Well, its true. Deficits don't matter so long as you have a stable political order and continue to make debt servicing obligations. Hell, the larger the deficit, the greater the economic growth, with inflation naturally balancing out your debt. This modern monetary theory, it sounds like poo poo up my alley.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:If more Democrats like the people you are posting as a caricature of actually paid attention to it then perhaps the Democrats could provide an alternate coherent economic vision to "like the way the Republicans manage it, but less bad". Unlimited deficit spending... ...on providing weapon systems to Israel. Change we can believe in. Unfortunately, not a position that Hillary or Christie would support. Jeb, though? I think we can trust Jeb to spend and spend without taxing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:My favourite Mitt annecdote from the last election was his opening conversational gambit with constituents on the trail being: Well, if you were a JVP at Panduit or Courtyard, you'd use that to start a discussion. If you're Joe on the street, like gently caress you care that 92% of Courtyards in America are planned to be LEED-compliant by 2020. You care about basic poo poo like hotcakes, good coffee, and cheap eggs. Or, minus the hotcakes, things which Mitt can't relate to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Mitt has residences in California, Utah, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. I'm not sure which of them he uses as residency for tax purposes, probably none of them (ha ha ha, terrific you guys), but it wouldn't be too hard to shuffle that around if needed. Where is Mitt registered to vote? He's either using that one for tax purposes, or giving his opponents a good talking point for launching a vote fraud investigation. (His vetting attorneys probably forced him to make sure his home is where he's registered) I could see Bolton for Republican veep pick, just as Bolton could see WMDs in the hands of ME terrorists Jerry Manderbilt posted:re:convention chat, what was the deal with Minnesota voting only like 54% for Obama in 2008 while states like Wisconsin and Michigan went 56-57% for him? Outside the cities, Minnesota is aging. Areas which used to be DFL strongholds are now teaparty bastions. It has to do with the transition of Congress from individual Members to a more parliamentary system. No longer are folks voting for their member, they're voting for parties regardless how they feel about their Member. I blame CNN. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Wait, that means absolutely nothing. The only elections in the last 40 years where a President wasn't up for re-election were 1988, 2000, and 2008, and in two of those cases, the VP was running. Obama is loving anathema to winning POTUS '16. Nobody except maybe Biden or Sanders would want his endorsement, especially now that his OFA db is in the wild.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
radical meme posted:This is the mistake that Gore made and it probably cost him the election. I can't see Hillary making the same stupid mistake. You sound like a DLC staffer. What you need to understand is, this is Bill's decision, final call. Now, how do you think Bill will call it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Yes, the Clintons are definitely the prototypical man calls the shots couple. Hillary will just timidly demure to whatever Bill thinks is best, lest she hurt her pretty little head with man thoughts. Bill Clinton: A man to be trusted not to stick his nose where it don't belong. If you think Bill is easily sidelined on campaign issues, you've learned nothing from '08.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I'm nat as politically astute as some in this thread but, I don't see why Bill would object to Obama's help. Is there some animosity there that isn't public knowledge? "He's luckier than a dog with two dicks" is such an endearing phrase. One could say that there's even a 'Blood Fued' between the two.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yeah, just wait until all these potential Hillary voters hear about this "Bill" guy she's married to. 'Married to Ayers' doesn't air until '16, Joe, no need to pull a d'Souza and jump the gun.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
swampcow posted:I'm not really worried about moderates thinking Obama is too divisive. In two years, the economy will look better, he will have plenty of opportunities to appease his base by vetoing Republican measures, and his party will have an easier time winning back seats as the underdog. The radicalization of the republican party is gonna hurt them badly in 2016, as twitter and god knows what social media becomes even more prevalent, which makes it easier to spread video clips about views on "legitimate rape" and what the rich really think about the poor. 'The economy will look better' is quite the optimistic prediction. Two years of a Republican House and Senate, I'm drat uncertain how the economy will look for anything except for growing wealth inequality, deflationary forces in non-personal spending (healthcare, education), and wage stagnation. Worsening economy means that Obama gets blamed for vetoing regressive proposals of Republicans and gets blamed by the base for not vetoing enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
baw posted:What happened to the RNC trying to minimize the number of debates? They understand that, in our social media environment, a debate a month keeps frontrunners in the headlines and increases voter turnout come the fall. Unfortunately, there isn't a contentious Democratic primary. E: My prediction? If Romney shows, first 3 or 4 debates will use him as a convenient punching bag until he drops out. Holding the debates so early likely knocks out good candidates with WH vision, such as Rauner. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Yes, if only the debates weren't so early your man Rauner totally would have won. Really sucks about the early debates, guess the people are really losing out. Next time, man, next time. He's running, only question is when. You don't lay down $30 mil of your own cash for improving the IL Governor's Mansion and lobbying the state lege for northing. Ask a statehouse reporter, Chicago journalist, or anyone who shares a board position with Diane--Bruce wants the White House, and he's willing to work with Democrats to win it. Christy without the bloat and mob ties, if you will.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
sullat posted:Just because someone "wants" the White House doesn't mean they're a credible candidate. See Huntsman, Pawlenty, Kaisch, etc. Counterpoint: Mitt happened. When you're a billionaire and you want in the White House, nobody's going to stop you from selling yourself as a credible candidate. Attack you on it, sure; stop you? Mitt's happening.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Gyges posted:You can't make a run when you'd have only been in your only elected office for 18 months come Convention. Whatever you say, Hillary '08.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Spoiler alert: it's guaranteed to be both simultaneously. Stock up on your booze now Republicans were against class warfare before they were for class warfare
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Like Romney has any idea how or which clothes from the tailor spontaneously appear in his closet later. Of course he does. It's Ann.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:An Illinois politician without mob ties? Surely you jest. Our mobsters hold elected office. Seriously, they do. There's a few no-poo poo mobsters in the legislature, and when you get to the local level, welll....don't run for office in a few towns. I assume its similar in Jersey.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Impromptu survey of Clinton v. Romney - Clinton Clinton v. Bush - Tie Clinton v. Cruz - Clinton Clinton v. Christie - Undecided Clinton v. Paul - Billary unanimously Clinton v. Rubio - Clinton I think 2016 is Clinton's to lose, except against Bush, where she'll struggle due to her inability to rapidly adapt to Bush's evolving policy positions. Key notes: -Clinton is a bitch, which is one of her greatest strengths and why white voters love her. If she presents herself as a soft, bipartisan leader rather than a woman warrior, she'll likely struggle in the polls and and end with a white vote comparable to Obama '12. -Who the gently caress are Rubio/Cruz/Paul ? -Romney is a loser, Clinton wins easily -Christie is viewed as a strong, no-shits man who don't take gruff, and would gobble Hillary if she sells herself as a caring woman -Clinton ran the country during the 90s as a bitch, which was viewed positively Survey disclaimers: Sample size under 60, gathered in random drinkkng discussions in Chicagoland over past week. Still, when individuals were asked, "Who do you expect to be the next President?," resounding response was Clinton. Responses which were varients of, "gently caress you/gently caress off/gently caress outta here," were discarded from analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
A3th3r posted:ahhh.. my nemesis MIGF appears once again. Clinton will have to try to overcome 'Liberal Fatigue' if she hopes to win the presidency. America has already had 8 years of a Democrat in the hot seat so it really depends on whether they want more of the same or if they 'Vote for Change.' Buddy, you must be from Canada, 'cause there ain't anywhere outside an ivy tower where 'middle class white' means 'liberal.' Nativity In Black posted:Biden has a lot of natural charisma too. He's already written one wildly successful SotU
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:In his house at Ch'cago dead Emmanuel waits dreaming Quoth the library, 111th and Amstermoor Biden can hit Hillary as weak on terror, a random bluedog can hit her on being too far left, Mitt Romney can hit her on being too far right, and all of America can hit her for being inevitable. Only one man has the namesake necessary to come save the democratic party from making an unforced gaffe. \/\/\/ Means someone doesn't consider themself goodlooking. Clearly, they're unelectable for '16. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
sullat posted:Partially because no other candidate was strong on it (to the evangelical Protestants). If Romney goes nuclear on Huckabee, I'd expect to see something in response denigrating Mormons as not understanding "true" Christian values or whatever. Which are, what? The centrists positions that Romney is staking out for himself rhetorically? Running for office from the left allows Romney to play up mormonism as more compasionate than Huckabee's religion, selling it as a more benign catholicism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Romneybot 3.0, now with Empathy Chip 1.0* If empathy chip can survive the Ann test, it can survive anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Lote posted:Its failing the Touring test Turring test passage not included in empathy chip RFP. Touring test passage was; empathy chip wildly successful at bareback European touring.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 21:42
|
|