|
I'm not too enthusiastic about a Hillary Clinton candidacy but like someone mentioned in a previous thread, if she ran a campaign on lowering the medicare age to 55 I think it would motivate the democratic base quite a bit, even if it would never get passed once she became president. Assuming Obama does a big executive order regarding immigration closer to the 2016 election, which base would it motivate more?
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Three Olives posted:I mean I hate to say never, ever, but given the state of the Republican Party right now short of some sort of disaster in the next two two years is there any way that Clinton doesn't just sail through the next election saying she will continue the Obama policies and is also a Clinton? Hillary Clinton couldn't stop saying something stupid at least once a week in 2014. I don't think she's going to be a very good candidate. You already have her campaign managers / advisors, who she picked, doing dumb poo poo like announcing possible VP picks already. There is a good chance it is going to be a horribly mismanaged campaign full of loyal but not the best people, just like 2008. Additionally, I highly doubt it's going to have the same quality of people who ran OFA and I think her GOTV will be less effective.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Anyone else think that if Clinton wins the primary that the most popular GOP ad for the entire general will be the "took fire while landing in Bosnia video... transitions to footage of her landing and being greeted by children"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
That's just another way of saying government shouldn't have a "side" and to teach both to kids.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:And why should they really want to? I honestly believe they profit far more from taking every state and local office and the entire federal legislature while leaving the presidency to the Democrats. Seriously, how can you maintain the victim narrative when you hold all the branches? Having Hillary as a president is perfect for them, because what they want is actual stagnation. They want their base to stay angry and unfulfilled, they NEED to have someone else to blame for why everything is terrible, and they do the most for their sponsors by nickel and diming pork legislation through Congress while stalling any real legislation. I don't know how people can't see this. I'm serious, D&D, how can you think that the rich don't benefit from this gridlock? I think you are correct, there are two important factors. One is it's typically like this for any presidency where the American public blames the current President's party for all of their problems. Reagan, Clinton, GWB (2002 was a weird year due to 9/11) and now Obama. The other factor is that the GOP outside money has a permanent presidential-like campaign ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...cc10_story.html ) that is having a huge influence on state, house and senate races. Millions of phone calls every week, tens of thousands of door to door visits, permanent physical presence in 36 states, permanent large number internet community presence. They are doing all that stuff even right now. I think #1 combined with #2 has created this nightmare where the GOP will control a significant amount of state positions, the house and maybe even the senate for a long time and can do some real damage to the country. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Who could've ever imagined handing the keys of your party over to octogenarian Revolutionary war cosplayers, AM radio fans and the grifters who fleece them would turn out like this!?! You mean like how they now have a 47% chance at controlling all 3 branches of government, removing the filibuster, and ramming through whatever they want for 2 years straight?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:Bush vs Gore 2: Gore Harder That would be a great comparison race to 2000.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
She's not that brilliant. Look at how poorly she ran her 2008 campaign. I think that's a good indicator of how she'd run any organization, including running the country. Did she or her campaign even know how a caucus worked in 2008? All signs point to her hiring the same loyal idiots for 2016 and not the best people. Odds on Mark Penn getting hired again by Clinton? She couldn't even open her mouth in 2014 without saying something stupid that got her unwanted attention. Even in 2008 she was saying stupid things like "took fire while landing in Bosnia" which will get played on tv ads 24/7 against her. The Democratic party needs a better candidate than Clinton. I think she is a risky candidate for the general election. Her campaign won't be nearly as well run as OFA and the GOP campaign will be better than 2012 and have more outside money and organization than 2012. Mitt Romney fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this is also incredibly stupid, clinton was blindsided by the best campaigner america has seen since kennedy at the least, and hadn't bothered to build up a solid machine before because victory was inevitable (or so they thought) I think it's incredibly stupid that she was "blindsided" by a candidate that had been running for 2 years prior. Her campaign manager thought certain states like CA awarded their delegates in full and not partial for example. Her entire campaign reeked of mismanagement and stupidity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I bet you don't have to look them up to know it's true, ha. Truthiness ftw! You left out that she (and Biden) was one of the biggest critics of Obama's statement that he was willing to go into Pakistan to get bin laden if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Also, backing the bankruptcy revisions from ten years back and the ties pertaining thereto. Also he [Biden] was one of the top backers of the RIAA and continues to be so from his VP position.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:No he wouldn't, if the field was full of all the Democrats who'd be running if Hillary wasn't he'd still be drowned out, probably more so. Anyone else think that in the alternate reality in which Hillary wasn't running that Kirsten Gillibrand would be running and supported by Clinton?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Speaking of inspirational: A garbage man was sentenced to 30 days in jail for taking out the trash too early in a private neighborhood, of which Herman Cain has residence. The garbage man's boss set his schedule: http://fox17online.com/2015/03/09/garbage-man-to-spend-30-days-in-jail-for-picking-up-trash-too-early/ quote:Kevin McGill started picking up trash around 5 a.m. and was cited for violating a city ordinance. The ordinance limits trash pick up to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. This was a privatized court. This is the town that has privatized almost every public service: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/a-georgia-town-takes-the-peoples-business-private.html?_r=1 quote:Even the city’s court, which is in session on this May afternoon, next to the revenue division, is handled by a private company, the Jacobs Engineering Group of Pasadena, Calif. The company’s staff is in charge of all administrative work, though the judge, Lawrence Young, is essentially a legal temp, paid a flat rate of $100 an hour.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:He just needs to strip away enough votes from the Democrat to get him to 270, since the Republican base definitely wouldn't vote for Hillary over him. That's the same thing people said about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin and we saw how that panned out. Hispanics, women, blacks and other groups tend to vote in their best interests and not based on the candidates matching their skin or gender. Cruz isn't going to be able to say or campaign on anything that the majority of Hispanics will like without destroying his base.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:"Had" being the operative word here. Here's an article that summarizes the budget situation: Not really sure how that will be seen as a negative by the GOP base. They thrive off of government dysfunction. Walker is doing everything he can to make it look like government can't function. If the state does run into legitimate financial issues you will see even more privatization of services, land and more. He made highly visible budget cuts and made tax cuts. Now he can point to it and say "see look government sucks we need more privatization, I made tough cuts and cut taxes - vote for me". It's sort of similar to what they do with public education budgets, USPS legislation and so on. Same thing they say about Obamacare after they cripple it in red states. Same reason government shutdowns actually benefit the GOP in the long term- it gets more people disappointed and angry at the government.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Here we go! It makes me extremely hopeful for 2016 that Jeb Bush and Walker are both coming out in support of that law. I figured they were going to do a better job muzzling the crazy this time around after learning from 2008 and 2012.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:Yeah, I mean she isn't a guarantee, but she is the safest bet you could make at the moment, and it's hard to believe that some big scandal is going to sink her as though she hasn't been under scrutiny for decades. I think it's way more likely that any non-Bush GOP candidate is going to get bit by a scandal than her. Stuff like "Landing under fire in Bosnia" while actually being greeted by a bunch of school children is going to come back big time to bite her.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
badatom posted:Isn't this really good timing on Hillary's part then? Any momentum Ted Cruz and Rand Paul (and Marco Rubio, almost forgot him) might have had as far as press coverage would be stopped the second the media jumped on the Hillary train. The only thing Cruz is going to accomplish is making Bush's ride to the nomination easier by splitting the tea party / religious vote. I think she'll only be concentrated on Bush.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Obama can easily hand the win to Hilliary simply by doing ~thing~ and having the Republican nominee/nominees have a melt down about it. Alternatively the economy can go into a recession as the election nears and make it really hard for Hillary to win.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:
Sort of reads like some of the main donators want to run the PAC themselves but use the same infrastructure as the main pac. So they just made more PACs and all use the same infrastructure and logistics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 16:59
|
|
“Every PAC in the Keep the Promise network will fully comply with all disclosure and recordkeeping obligations set forth in federal law. The use of multiple PACS, however, will allow Keep the Promise to uniquely and flexibly tailor its activities in support of Senator Cruz and afford donors greater control over PAC operations.”
|
Dolash posted:I have to assume Hillary has some kind of security escort for this cross-country drive, really more of a convoy than a road trip. Isn't there a real risk of someone taking a shot at her? If I recall correctly, I think the Clintons were the last first family to be given secret service protection for life, whereas all after are given 10 years (plus more if the service decides it is necessary).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I do sort of wonder how much longer the Clinton campaign is going to keep up the populist travel options. She can certainly do it all through the "primary" if she wants to, as she'll be able to set her own schedule and stick to a single state a week, if she wants. But the campaign bus and the charter jet have to come out at some point, just as it did with Mitt Romney, another person famous for always flying coach. Obama got secret service protection in May 2007 if I recall correctly. Did his campaign have to pay the secret service bills then?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why Clinton going to a Chipotle is scandalous and breaking news? I feel like I'm out of the loop or missing something. I've read a couple news articles and all they say is what she ordered.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Feather posted:Jeb is the only clown in that poo poo show who is remotely close to being qualified to hold the office, and he's as stupid and incompetent as his brother. That said, save her stint as SoS I actually don't think Hillary is "infinitely" better than he is. She's smarter and more generally competent, but on the issues that matter she either is not likely to lead (social issues) or to lead poorly, or else she has similar goals in mind (economics). Laws passed from 2017-2021 would be very different Hillary vs Bush. Especially if a Bush president means a 3 GOP branch government and combined with how effective the GOP outside money is with influencing legislation now. Additionally the supreme court is a huge difference, especially if it means getting 5-4 Democratic court for 10-20 years. All of that combined would make a huge difference on "issues that matter".
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:From the first day of announcing his candidacy, I've always been of the opinion that Trump was to be taken seriously and was going to win the GOP nom unless: I'm not entirely sure what it's going to take for Trump's campaign to fail. He's said some pretty dumb things and gotten lambasted by the media (unfairly and fairly) and he's still not really losing support. The 2008 and 2012 flame outs just said one dumb thing or did one dumb action and then were forgotten about (aside from running on PAC life support). What kind of bad thing is Trump going to have to do to ruin his campaign given that all the bad poo poo he's done until now hasn't really negatively affected him? People say 'Time' but he's 2nd choice in most polls I've seen. Also for some useless anecdotal evidence, I live in one of the most right-wing areas of the country and people absolutely love Trump and his 'tell it like it is no apologies' attitude. I don't think they're gonna stop liking him for lack of political correctness. They are genuinely excited about him. Also the people who were praying in 1000+ people prayer circles for Huckabee in 2008 are going for Carson this time around.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Nothing of serious traction. We're still 6 months from primary votes, so that's a lot of time to ramp up. Now, if she's polling this bad in late december/january, she should start to sweat a bit. Who comes out of the woodwork to replace Clinton if that happens? Biden? Biden would probably do pretty good at the debates at least and he hasn't said too many dumb things. Plus he'd have more of Obama's excitement behind him in terms of how people perceive him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:If Trump runs third party, what pull from the D column will he get? To act like it would be zero is ridiculous. It definitely wouldn't be like Perot where it was pretty much 50/50. It would be a landslide for the Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Tricky D posted:Probably. The rumor before he announced his candidacy was that he wasn't going to run because his wife wanted nothing to do with the national attention that would come with being first lady. That's stuff that every candidate's wife says to make them seem like normal people. Even Romney's wife said that and everyone knows she lusted after the presidency even more than Mitt did.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:tbf didnt rasmussen end up way off in 2012? Gallup had Romney +5 for a lot of the last month of the election. It's quite clear their polling methodology was being influenced by the GOP- Romney's campaign had the same polling errors.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:“That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.” That's impressively stupid of him to say. I may have misunderestimated Jeb.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If your chosen leaders obtain a solid supermajority where they may pass laws unopposed, then immediately drop all snarky responses, liberal rhetoric, and leftist policy promises in the name of "bipartisanship" after a decade of fingerwagging, and you still vote for that parties' establushment candidates and defend them on the internet, then you are not a liberal or a leftist. You are a Rube. The super majority the democrats had in the Senate was probably one of the weakest ever. It lasted only ~9 months and Leiberman essentially became dictator of democratic policy. He alone held up Obamacare long enough to almost kill it. Trying to blame Obama for not using that 9 months more wisely is a bit stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I absolutely disagree, Sanders would be in a much more powerful position to build a left wing movement as President than as the loser. He has decried Obama for abandoning the movement built around him after winning, Sanders would expand and empower his. The GOP will have the house until at least 2020 at a minimum and likely the senate until 2020 (probably longer on both with a democratic president). The first four years of a 2016 democratic president is going to be like the last 4 years of Obama's presidency. Nothing will get done. And odds are that the economy will start declining in those years after it's been growing for so many years straight. And it's laughable to assume that Sanders could win in 2016. He's not Obama for multiple reasons, his campaign isn't like Obama's was and he's not presidential. He has a fraction of the excitement and support that Obama had. He'd look like an unstable old man up on the debate stage. The results would be similar to the 72 or 84 elections. That kind of wave election would set leftism further back. Assuming that the lottery hit for Sanders and he won; the upcoming 2018 elections would be a bloodbath for democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Xenophon posted:I can't even tell what Bush believes in. He's opposed to "anchor babies" and supports birthright citizenship. What? It's a roundabout way of saying that he supports birth citizenship, except for undesirable people. Wants it to be set up where the government can decide on case by case basis who actually deserves their birth right citizenship.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I love how everyone overlooks how well run the Obama campaign was in 2008, and acts like him being nominated was purely due to Hillary loving up. Like I said, it's a meme at this point. Hillary's campaign has made very smart moves in refusing to engage Donald Trump or any other of the retarded clowns that currently comprise the GOP 2016 line up, as well as staying positive when dealing with Bernie. Of course those smart moves will be overlooked because if we don't preform the daily ritual criticism of Clinton the sun god will forsake us and plunge the world into darkness. Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 were probably the most effective we will see in a long time (maybe our lifetimes) but you're wrong about Clinton's campaign in 2008. She's a poor leader and makes poor judgement calls. Clinton ran a horrible campaign in 2008 and hired idiots to run her campaign (and so far for 2016, it seems some positions are filled with idiots). She values loyalty over competence. She has a history of saying stupid things and then reacting poorly to the blow-back from her actions/comments. "Wiping with a cloth" and shrugging and her response to Bosnia combat for examples. In 2008 her campaign didn't really even know how important aspects of the democratic primary worked, like delegate allocation and caucuses. She hires these people and then keeps them on staff even when they've proven themselves ineffective. It's poor management and leadership skills.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:Trump isn't going down on a gun control issue. He always talks about how he's a huge supporter of the Second Amendment, nobody's a bigger supporter, etc. Has anyone calculated what would happen if every candidate dropped out except Bush and Trump, and based on 2nd choice % how the race would look then?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Montasque posted:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ Also Jeb has this:  And the entire backing of the GOP establishment, plus backing of the entire Koch organization (which has field operations right now that are as strong as a presidential campaign) once the race thins out. There's no way Trump can keep up this in all the states which his comparative less resources and organization. Three speeches a week isn't going to cut it. The real danger for the GOP though is if he lasts long enough into 2016 to where he runs 3rd party; although I suspect that all of his supporters will quickly disappear if it appears that he's a loser to Jeb.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Biden V Trump in a Presidential debate would be the greatest Presidential debate of my lifetime. It sounds so amazing. Very unlikely and all that, but you can't say you wouldn't want to see Biden and Trump going at each other. Biden did extremely good in the VP debate in 2012 (and 2008 he held back like he should have). Although in the 2008 primaries in a 2007 debate I believe he was the most vocal critic of Obama saying he'd go into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, and we know how that turned out now. Anyway I doubt Biden will run unless Clinton were to drop out for some reason. He has none of the framework built.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:It has to be. Otherwise you can't call SS and Medicare anything other than welfare with a straight face. What would the tax rate be for capital gains and dividends under the Carson/Huckabee/GOP flat tax plans?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Have any polls come out yet on Hispanic support for Jeb Bush vs Hillary?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
JHomer722 posted:Jeb!'s conviction that treating hispanics like people will win him support among Republicans would be funny if it weren't so sad. I think he's assuming he will win the nomination (a likely outcome) and that he's already working on the general election. Having +10 net favorable among Hispanics will benefit him greatly in the general. If I recall correctly, at this time in 2007 no one even thought Obama had a chance at winning the nomination. A lot's going to change until 2016 and Trump isn't going to be on top by then.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 01:22
|
|