|
I mentioned this in the midterm aftermath, but the only serious candidates on the R side will be Christie, Walker, Jeb and maybe Jindal or Romney (who I don't think will run.) Cruz is good at making noise and raising money but not much else, Rubio needs another term in the Senate and possibly a term or two as FLGOV before running (could be an interesting VP pick, though) and Paul won't risk his seat if he has to choose between the two. Ben Carson ran a long infomercial today in a bunch of swing state markets and is an interesting outsider candidate but he has no real political experience and seems to be gearing up for a run in order to get the Surgeon General position in a Republican administration. Paul Ryan will only run if for whatever reason Scott Walker chooses not to. Anyone not on that list either isn't running or will run, poll in the single digits in IA/NH/etc and drop out shortly after. I see the '16 strategy as a retooling of what worked in 2014 - run against Obama/the D candidate(ok, Hillary) as another 4 years of Obama and run candidates both at the top of the ticket and downballot nationwide that have a lower risk of gaffes and Akinesque statements that can be painted onto the whole party. Overall I think the GOP has a solid shot at winning in 2016. Hillary is the household name and will be difficult to defeat but she has a lot of trends tilting against her: - Since the introduction of Presidential term limits we've only had one occurrence of a party holding the White House for 3 consecutive terms when GHWB rode the coattails of Reagan's 489/525EV landslides. The voting public generally favors the party that's been out of power after a President's second term. - Experience. Junior Senator for 8 years, 4 years as an unremarkable Secretary of State where she will be hit on Benghazi. Does being married to the President count? I'm sure it does to some people. - Age. Hillary will be 69 on election day, and every "One heartbeat away" criticism of McCain will be turned around on her. - Old wounds. Some people don't like Hillary from her days in the WH with Bill in the 90s. Some don't like her from the Obama/Clinton primaries of '08. Some of those divisions will have healed, some won't. Either way she's generally a known quantity and she's not likely to change anyone's mind at this point. - Navigating two very different, difficult to predict electorates. Both previous Presidential elections and the current midterms make pretty clear that the Democratic Party has two electorates: the general, generic Democrat and the Barack Obama voter. The Obama voter will crawl through broken glass to vote when Obama is on the ticket, and stay home and not care about politics if he isn't (though they may be inclined to vote if the candidate and Obama both strongly support each other.) Assuming the President's approval rating trends similarly to others in years 7-8, he could be in the low-mid 30s or below as November 2016 approaches. As the Democratic candidate, do you ignore or throw Obama under the bus, ensuring those Obama-only voters will stay home but potentially saving the votes of independents/left-moderate Rs who may not like the R candidate - or do you run on continuing Obama's policies and hope that both the Obama voters show up for a non-Obama candidate while not driving away those who would be pro-Dem but are anti-Obama? Either way it'll be a fun two years.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Torka posted:I have to imagine the question "just how big a thing will people voting Clinton because 'first woman president!' be?" is looming large in the minds of both parties approaching this race It would be a lot bigger if it were Warren instead of Clinton. Hillary will have been a national public figure for about 25 years come election time - I don't think there are too many voters that have no opinion of her either way but would also go to the polls and vote Clinton simply for the sake of history. Nor are there many voters who would overlook what they don't like about her just because she's a woman. The vast majority of people who would cite her gender as the main factor for their vote were probably going to vote the Democratic candidate anyway. CubsWoo fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Yeah, that's what I mean. People who might vote for her because she's a woman were likely to be Democrat supporters already but that doesn't mean they'd have bothered to vote. There may be some, but not nearly as many as you'd think. Obama had the combination of being a political first on top of being the most charismatic and personally likable candidate in a generation and running in one of the most D-friendly environments in a decade, and that drew out millions of voters who would have never gone to the polls otherwise. Even if you believe that Hillary can draw enough women voters to swing a state (much less an entire race) solely on the basis of her gender and personality, it won't be anywhere near the raw total of voters that are most likely going to sit out 2016. I think a regression to 50-55% turnout (every election from 1972 to 2004 besides 1996 levels) is very possible without Obama on the ballot. And if that were to be a factor, there's nothing stopping the GOP from putting up Haley or Rice for VP to blunt the impact.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hillary's been a "national figure" for 25 years but outside of her SoS stint she hasn't been on anyone's mind in the past 15 years unless you're from New York. That's long enough for anyone under the age of 30 to not know who she is until now. If you were born after 1991 or so, sure. If you were 18+ in 2008, you may remember (and both her primary opponents and her general election opponent won't let you forget) that she was Obama's main primary challenger and they both landed some stiff punches to each other in primary ads during a very bitter challenge. She has the unenviable position of being vulnerable on both sides re: Obama - you can run ads targeting Obama voters showing how she felt about him during the primary, and you can run ads targeting anti-Obama voters showing her solidarity with Obama as SoS and afterward. And if you're a voter in the 18-25 range that has no living memory of Hillary Clinton you're by definition a fickle voter who probably isn't turning out anyway. If the 2016 election hinges on the 18-25 demographic (or any demographic, honestly) turning out on the sole basis of gender solidarity, something went very, very wrong during that election season. CubsWoo fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, Hillary's campaign does depend upon white, female turnout for her resembling 2008. Why can't Vermin Supreme go for this group with ~ponies~ ? I suppose Hillary could win in a walk if one of her campaign planks was a day one executive action directing the Department of Education to zero out all outstanding federal student loans. But as long as we're dreaming, I'll take one of those ponies Vermin's offering.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:So you don't think there would be any backlash from the financial community for such an action? Wasn't the dream to have a President who wasn't beholden to the big banks and removing the debt shackles from what is becoming a lost generation of Gen Y/Millennials? (this is why I said it was a dream and not some kind of sound policy or platform to run on)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:These two points contradict each other. If you were 18 in 2008 you were a fickle voter and probably weren't turning out anyway. There's no reason to assume people would remember stuff from 8 years ago now. They may not actively remember it, but as I mentioned there are plenty of ways for a Clinton opponent to jog their memory using her own words in debates/speeches/primary ads.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I think counting Cruz out is a bit harsh. The RNC wants 2016 to be 2014 redux in terms of strategy and everything I've heard says that Cruz and Paul will play ball. If either of them don't, or if Huckabee decides to make a go of it, they won't win nationally and will generally be ignored by the major Governors running. The general feeling is that the 2016 primary field is going to be much more moderate than 2008/2012.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Since when does Cruz do anything that is not in Ted Cruz's personal interest? He's been positioning himself for the run by throwing various other Republicans under the bus so he can run against them, why is he going to stop now? Cruz's support is a mile deep and an inch wide outside of Texas. Even this early in the cycle when only those who are deep into partisan politics are paying attention, Cruz is barely over 5%. He'll spend the next year+ being Cruz, build his war chest, lose both IA and NH (if he declares at all) and go back to his safe Senate seat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So what would stop him from throwing bombs? What would actually foil his plans? The threat of a funded primary opponent in 2018/2024/etc and a pledge that he'll be denied chairmanships and plum committee appointments regardless of seniority whenever the GOP holds the majority in the Senate if he goes too far and puts the eventual candidate at risk.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't buy it. All of these plans rely on managing to convince Cruz he can't win, and I don't see him accepting that. I'm sure they'll give it a shot but he didn't spend the last few years undermining GOP leadership to advance himself in the primaries to give up now. Compare the 2010/2012 crop of candidates to 2014. The RNC/etc learned from their mistakes and in nearly every winnable race they had someone who wasn't going to sink their own candidacy/the party in general by making a ridiculous gaffe or controversial statement (and as a result, I can't think of a statewide race where the Republican was favored going into election day and lost.) Cruz fell in line and went to Kansas to help Roberts after backing Milton Wolf in the primary. He's obviously in it for his own brand but he's also smart enough to understand that his realistic ceiling (especially in his mid-40s) is TX-GOV, VP candidate in either a very weak or very strong GOP year, or eight to nine term Senator if he lives that long. ToxicSlurpee posted:Really I think that sums up the biggest problem the GOP is running into right now. Their entire platform is "nobody is ever conservative enough and the only correct action is to shove America further to the right, all the time." Turns out that the crazies came out of the woodwork and said "hey that's a great idea, let's do that!" Again, look at 2014. The right wing wanted Broun or Handel in GA, McDaniel in MS, Wolf in KS, Brannon in NC, Bevin in KY, Carr in TN. They all lost to safer incumbents/establishment moderate Republicans. Even close race losers like Scott Brown and Gillespie were more moderate than the bigger losers in 2010/2012. If you're looking at that trend and thinking the GOP is going to go more right wing in 2016 I'm not sure what else could convince you. Huckabee and Cruz may run but I think the frontrunners have the discipline not to follow them into untenable positions that would jeopardize the general.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
I don't think age will be an issue unless the Republican is one of the many options that are 15+ years younger than her. Optics are a part of the campaign and when put into side by side situations (debates, etc) the contrast could be stark just like it was seeing Obama and McCain side by side. I put together a list of the R candidates listed on Sabato's Crystal Ball and their age on Election Day 2016: Clinton: 69 Rubio: 43 Cruz: 45 Jindal: 45 Ryan: 46 Walker: 49 Paul: 53 Christie: 54 Pence: 57 Santorum: 58 Portman: 60 Huckabee: 61 Bush: 63 Kasich: 64 Carson: 65 Perry: 66 Romney: 69 It won't matter much/at all if the R candidate is in their 60s, but at Christie and younger the difference will be big. Since Truman the Democrat has been older than the Republican only three times and never by more than two years. You already have Walker saying that Hillary has an "Old, tired... approach to government" in Fox News interviews and the younger the R candidate is the more that line of attack will be put in play. And it isn't like the age factor is out of play - nearly a third of voters were concerned about McCain's age and its effect on his possible Presidential responsibilities, and her husband's team used age as an attack against Dole in 1996. CubsWoo fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yeah, optics is important. Which is why its pretty good Hilary doesn't look 69, she looks like this. That's a picture from 2009 at age 61. I would hope she didn't look 69 back then! Here's how she looked stumping for Landrieu:  A more recent glamour shot from one of the super PACs supporting her (taken either 2012 or 2013, I don't have an exact date):  And a completely unfair 'old and tired' shot:  Going from the 2009 picture to the best composed 2014 shot there's already a clear change. Now add two more years. Hell, since you mention McCain, look at his 2000 primary pictures and how he changed in eight years. From aging but spry military veteran to death warmed over.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
I don't see any reason why Joe doesn't run. He clearly loves campaigning and mingling in diners and other primary state-appropriate public venues, he doesn't really have much else to do the next two years and should something happen health-wise with Hillary where she can't run/chooses not to, he's almost by default the frontrunner. The best chance Joe has of being President is if Obama decides to resign a day before his term is up for funsies so Joe can have President etched on his memorial Acela car. CubsWoo fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Huntsman is the perfect Republican to run if all you think the Republicans need to do to win is just run more Democrats. When you run as King Moderate and can't get above third in New Hampshire with your registered Republican support in the low teens you never had a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Lote posted:Wasn't Huntsman's kiss of death a recommendation by Obama during the Primary? Oh sweet irony. From this side it was probably the Piers Morgan interview back in 2011.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Cruz will stay in until the bitter end because he has no real leverage to drop and endorse anymore and I'd bet he really, really doesn't want to have to go back to being the loneliest, most hated man in Congress until absolutely necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:If Trump can successfully peel of Cruz support it's over.  Trump gets 43% of Cruz's voters compared to 36% Rubio if Cruz drops, so basically yes. The better column is Bush's voters almost equally going to Rubio and Trump
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Barring the extreme outside chance of Cruz being named to the Supreme Court (and being confirmed, which is tough when you have no friends in the chamber) I see his career going down one of three paths - Perennial candidate like Huckabee and Dole, over multiple cycles either ending up as a bottom tier 1-2 percenter or getting a pity nomination in a no-hope year against a strong Democrat up for re-election. - Goes back to the Senate humbled, starts to reach out and make friends and deals, takes a few cycles off to gain seniority and broaden his resume (maybe runs for TX-GOV if Abbott no longer wants it) and try again in four or five cycles. He'd be younger than Trump if he were elected in 2040. - Goes back to the Senate, continues being TED CRUZ, DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION. Ends up losing re-election once Texas gets fed up with his poo poo and spends the next 30 years in syndicated radio talking about that one time he won a state against Donald Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I've actually been saying the opposite of that all along: that Trump won't win the nomination, but if he were to, all bets are off. Outside of a contested convention or a "Everybody drops out but X and Trump" situation (and I'm not sure this one goes against Trump,) what keeps him from the nomination at this point?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
I like to imagine a world where Jeb figured out a quick response to the low energy attack and completely shut down and marginalized Trump Would we all be posting funny memes about turtles and refreshing youtube for episode 15 of Can't Shock The Guac
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
We're starting the deportations early, folks
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Rocks posted:What is Rubios strategy moving forward? Is he actually going to start attacking trump? Like during the debate, is Marco just going to leave trump alone? Seems like a really pussy strategy. Attacking Trump has done wonders so far for all the people who aren't running for President anymore
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Rocks posted:At some point the Trump laser cannons will be focused on Rubio though right? Maybe once Marco wins a state or finishes ahead of Trump anywhere and that happening is kind of an open question right now
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Peachstapler posted:8 years ago: Senator John McCain, presidential candidate, sings a line from a whimsical Beach Boys parody song "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb, well anyway..." to a South Carolina town hall. He blushes sheepishly as the audience laughs. The media firestorm lasts for days and the clip is used against him throughout the election season to ensure his eventual defeat. I don't think this can be blamed on Obama but I'm going to give it the old college try
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Mr. BT posted:I think I'm going to caucus tonight here in Las Vegas for Trump. Might even go to the viewing party too. NV GOP Caucus allows you to vote-and-go, not like the Dem ones where you have to sit around and get herded into corners and interact with other Democrats
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
But Rocks Hurt Head posted:I'm really interested in who Trump picks to be VP, especially because they're going to end up president after he gets bored halfway through his first term and just up and quit Brady is getting close to retirement
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:So basically a primary but the polls open really late and there might be a speech? Yeah, doors open late, every candidate can have a rep that gives a speech and you vote on a paper ballot. Also you need to be a Republican (you can change on-site, I think) and you need one of those vote-suppressing "Photo ID" things I've heard so much about
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
But Rocks Hurt Head posted:Cruz vs. Trump has basically caused a holy war on Freep, I wonder how Cruz voters will break if he withdraws A recent poll showed that of those that would still vote, Cruz voters break Trump 43 Rubio 36 Carson 17 Kasich 3
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:Source? http://www.elon.edu/images/e-web/elonpoll/022216_ElonPoll_ExecSummary.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Just three Cubans away from summoning Caribbean Voltron
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Lemming posted:This is kind of nonsense. Trump doesn't have a single policy beyond yelling "jobs!" and anybody who only pays attention at that level doesn't know what the gently caress TPP or NAFTA is so it doesn't matter. A Republican can't win without minority votes and Trump has explicitly been attacking minorities. They know "Ford and Carrier and Nabisco moved to Mexico, I'll bring them and their jobs back" though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Lemming posted:"I'm going to cut taxes and beat China, it's so simple" is not coherent policy We're going to get a lot more ICE agents and construction jobs, I'll tell you what
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
But Rocks Hurt Head posted:https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/702297474195701762 Trump Steaks were actually made of pink slime and cooked well done before shipment, I don't know what to believe anymore
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Brannock posted:In other news I've been checking Trump's twitter waiting for him to retweet the Rubio Benghazi photo, but I realized he's probably not going to waste it tonight in the middle of the Nevada election results. He'll probably pop it off tomorrow afternoon or something. He'll wait until during/after the debate once Rubio throws out anything Trump can classify as an 'attack' so Trump can claim he's just counter-punching
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:if you're expecting mainstream democrats to unleash that can of worms you better bet you'll be eating it all when Trump starts bringing bills victims on social media Every girl who rode on the Lolita Express is going to get mic time at Trump rallies
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:I want to see Trump and the Republicans attack Bill Clinton again. I literally want this to happen. Hillary stopped the War on Women attacks immediately after Trump called her a rape enabler for standing by Bill and marginalizing the women he assaulted
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Ted Cruz reaches out to fellow Canadians for support in Stumping the Trump
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Despera posted:Thought he called rubio a baby all are babies in the eyes of Trump
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:58
|
|