|
Mitt Romney posted:I don't see Christie going for AG when he clearly has a good shot at the GOP nomination in 2016. Being Obama's AG would kill his chances at being the GOP nominee forever. I wouldn't argue this at the moment. We'd need to know who the GOP is bowing to in the coming years. If you have a good argument for who they will be, then I'll be glad to accept this though!
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I don't see Christie going for AG when he clearly has a good shot at the GOP nomination in 2016. Being Obama's AG would kill his chances at being the GOP nominee forever. At the end of the day, Chris Christie is going to have to sit down with his family sometime soon - a lot sooner than other potential candidates, because he's not going to see another savior draft attempt this cycle - and decide if he wants to be president or not. If the answer is yes, he has to lose a ton of weight and start building a national operation within his 2013 reelection campaign. If the answer is no, he's liable to do anything, including not even running for reelection. We'll find out pretty soon which way that wind is blowing, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Waterbed posted:This is kind of out there. But that job would do wonders for Christie in 2016... sooooo. Gamble? Uh that job would be a kiss of death for Christie in the GOP. Not a gamble at all. How well do Christie and Bloomberg get along?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:How well do Christie and Bloomberg get along? Not very. Christie's top non-Republican allies that anyone's heard of (i.e. not state powerbrokers) are Cuomo and Booker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Not very. Christie's top non-Republican allies that anyone's heard of (i.e. not state powerbrokers) are Cuomo and Booker. Serious question: Does Bloomberg get along with anyone? Is this just a case of gazillionaire-is-kind-of-full-of-himself syndrome or is everyone a jerk to him because he's an Independent or what? Because every time I read about him in the political rumor mills and whatnot, it seems like every non-NYC relationship he has is a bit icy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
He likes micromanaging everything and thinks he's smarter than every other politician in the tri-state area, which is probably true but doesn't make people like him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Could Christie carry New Jersey for the R's in 2016? That along with Rubio or Jeb on the ticket assuring Florida would be the start of a nice map.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
The ARC Tunnel was one of Bloomberg's legacy projects and Christie killed that, and Christie hasn't been playing along with a 7 extension into New Jersey either. Bloomberg's big three things for a politician are gun control, climate change, and public transportation. Christie's an enemy on two and neutral on the third. Michael Corleone posted:Could Christie carry New Jersey for the R's in 2016? That along with Rubio or Jeb on the ticket assuring Florida would be the start of a nice map. Impossible to say at this point. In theory if I asked you in 2004 if Romney would put MA in play, you would say "maybe," and look how that turned out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:If the answer is yes, he has to lose a ton of weight Funny you mention that, I was talking with my boss (who is a Republican) after the election speculating on 2016 nominees and his take on Christie was that he couldn't support a candidate that was that fat. While I doubt many would be as honest about it, I think that's probably a not-so-uncommon feeling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Funny you mention that, I was talking with my boss (who is a Republican) after the election speculating on 2016 nominees and his take on Christie was that he couldn't support a candidate that was that fat. While I doubt many would be as honest about it, I think that's probably a not-so-uncommon feeling. I think the point that most are missing about his weight, which I do believe is an issue, is that he's well past the point of it being a superficial thing. The man is dangerously obese. It's a legitimate health risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Michael Corleone posted:Could Christie carry New Jersey for the R's in 2016? That along with Rubio or Jeb on the ticket assuring Florida would be the start of a nice map. I don't think so. I would have definitely said no before Sandy. He only won because New Jersey has the most corrupt Governers in the universe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:I think the point that most are missing about his weight, which I do believe is an issue, is that he's well past the point of it being a superficial thing. The man is dangerously obese. It's a legitimate health risk. At the stress level that comes with being Governor of a State, yes, its very dangerous. By itself at his age, dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I agree. I can't see why the thought of Michelle Obama running for President is a reasonable option. I'd say the same for all the Bushes remaining too (Jeb, Prescott, etc). Hillary's campaign wasn't a mess at all. It was run expertly. The initial strategy was messed up by Obama winning Iowa because the campaign was relying on Iowa and New Hamshire to just momentum her to the nomination, but after South Carolina they course corrected and ran at parity with the Obama campaign. It was just too late due to how the primary worked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Not to mention Clinton ran two successful campaigns for New York's US Senate seat, and hell, she didn't do too bad in '92 when helping out with Bill's run. And yeah, they knew Iowa was Hillary's weak spot and New Hampshire was more favorable. But they, like Mitt Romney thought in 2008, that if they spent an assload of money and worked hard on Iowa, they could come out 2/2 in Iowa and New Hampshire and wrap it up. But they blew so much money and effort in Iowa that, while they had a good run, they were basically playing catch up the rest of the time. notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
greatn posted:Hillary's campaign wasn't a mess at all. It was run expertly. The initial strategy was messed up by Obama winning Iowa because the campaign was relying on Iowa and New Hamshire to just momentum her to the nomination, but after South Carolina they course corrected and ran at parity with the Obama campaign. It was just too late due to how the primary worked. I don't think they were quite at parity - I think Obama outperformed Clinton strategically in a few ways, which was necessary to overcome her structural advantages going in - but I'd also agree that the Clinton campaign was hardly a "mess."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
Hillary's campaign was structurally a mess until Maggie Williams came in for the late stages, but that's probably more on Penn and Solis Doyle than Clinton herself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Bloomberg's big three things for a politician are gun control, climate change, and public transportation. Christie's an enemy on two and neutral on the third. Dang I could easily get behind those 3 things. I wonder how closely Bloomberg is watching the debate in the Republican party. If the Tea Party/Old White Establishment wins the civil war, there would definitely be room in the middle for an independent like him, especially if his buddy Cuomo isn't running.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
greatn posted:Hillary's campaign wasn't a mess at all. It was run expertly. The initial strategy was messed up by Obama winning Iowa because the campaign was relying on Iowa and New Hamshire to just momentum her to the nomination, but after South Carolina they course corrected and ran at parity with the Obama campaign. It was just too late due to how the primary worked. Clinton's campaign apparently operated for many months on the assumption that delegates were awarded winner-take-all by state rather than proportionally. Could you really call that "run expertly"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
On the Republican side, I'm pretty sure Rubio, Christie, and Santorum run. Probably Rand Paul with a less extreme version of his daddy's ideas, trying to capture the tea party. I predict people talk up Condi running, but she doesn't want it and nothing happens there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Uh that job would be a kiss of death for Christie in the GOP. Not a gamble at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 08:36
|
|
|
Is there some reason why Secretaries of Defense don't make good presidential candidates? I always thought Robert Gates might make a halfway decent GOP candidate, but his name is never even mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:Clinton's campaign apparently operated for many months on the assumption that delegates were awarded winner-take-all by state rather than proportionally. Could you really call that "run expertly"? I still haven't gotten a clear indication of whether this was actually true, a complete fabrication, or somewhere in between.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
greatn posted:Hillary's campaign wasn't a mess at all. It was run expertly. The initial strategy was messed up by Obama winning Iowa because the campaign was relying on Iowa and New Hamshire to just momentum her to the nomination, but after South Carolina they course corrected and ran at parity with the Obama campaign. It was just too late due to how the primary worked. Her campaign was awful. They didn't even know there were states with proportional allocation and states that were winner take all. The campaign was a mess of entitlement-complexes, arrogance and outright incompetence. That campaign is a huge black mark against her, but I believe that a woman as capable and intelligent as she is wouldn't make that mistake of complacency twice. Despite my comments about dynasties earlier, I do hope Clinton runs in 2016. Not because i want another centre-right candidate running, but because I believe she'd slaughter whoever the GOP puts up, and while Scalia and Thomas might last another four years on the bench, I'm not convinced they can last another 8 or 12. Despite the many things I dislike about Obama, Sotomayor was a superb nomination, and I think another 3 people like her on the supreme court would change the direction of the country for a long time to come. edit: OrangeKing posted:I still haven't gotten a clear indication of whether this was actually true, a complete fabrication, or somewhere in between. It was true, it was well documented at the time. Mark Penn was an overpaid hack. "The Turbine", indeed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
Castomira posted:Is there some reason why Secretaries of Defense don't make good presidential candidates? I always thought Robert Gates might make a halfway decent GOP candidate, but his name is never even mentioned. Secretary of defense is notoriously bad job security, and being there has almost always led to getting shitcanned. It lacks prestige.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 10:02
|
|
|
Majestic posted:It was true, it was well documented at the time. Mark Penn was an overpaid hack. "The Turbine", indeed. As far as I know, that assertion came from one story (originally, I mean - it was repeated a lot afterwards), and it was denied by the campaign. Of course, they'd do that either way...but even the original story said that the conversation this story came from occurred months before the primaries. If additional sources came out later on, then I wasn't aware, but it's not like I'm diligent about keeping up with Mark Penn news, either. Edit: The original story from Time was: quote:Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. So yes, Penn is a hack and they weren't smart to rely on winning big states while totally ignoring smaller primaries and virtually all of the caucuses once it became clear the delegate count was going to matter (if winning those big states would allow you to get a narrative that you had put away the race, that's another story), but even if you believe the winner-take-all story, he was immediately corrected. OrangeKing fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 10:03
|
|
|
Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I remember it being discussed extensively for quite a long period during the 08 primary. I thought there was evidence in terms of discussions he had had about strategy in TV interviews and such, but I can't offer more than vague memories on that, and you've obviously done more work looking it up, so I apologize for stating it with such certainty when you're clearly better informed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
Majestic posted:Her campaign was awful. They didn't even know there were states with proportional allocation and states that were winner take all. It was fairly obvious that the Clinton campaign was put together mostly as a formality without a whole lot of effort on details. No one in that primary group was supposed to supplant her, Obama was just a bright star and they most likely convinced themselves that he was out for facetime on a later run. Of course, in hindsight, that was a hell of a miscalculation and it turns out that Obama came out to be one of the smartest campaigners the Democratic party has ever seen, so yeah, they really weren't equipped for that fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 10:19
|
|
|
quote:I agree. I can't see why the thought of Michelle Obama running for President is a reasonable option. I'd say the same for all the Bushes remaining too (Jeb, Prescott, etc). Michelle Obama legitimately shares more of my core personal beliefs than her husband does; she's a secularist, she hasn't 'wrestled with' the idea of gay marriage and she was the voice in the background that gave some initial hope to the idea of a public single payer option for the health care bill. I don't like the idea of dynasties (partly why I would only accept a Clinton ticket if she were VP. I'm not interested in seeing another Clinton administration in my lifetime) - but the idea of Michelle Obama as POTUS tickles my fancy for an actual left-leaning, secular candidate in the U.S., which is something that's otherwise unthinkable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
Castomira posted:Is there some reason why Secretaries of Defense don't make good presidential candidates? I always thought Robert Gates might make a halfway decent GOP candidate, but his name is never even mentioned. I think being SecDef would be a plus on a Presidential run, but probably moreso for a Democrat than a Republican (where foriegn policy bona fides are measured purely in machismo), but the real reason to dismiss Gates is because he's not a politician and as far as I know has never been elected dog-catcher. At least with Petraeus he'd mastered the jockeying for position that's required in the Joint Chiefs, Gates had to be cajoled into taking SecDef by two administrations. The first thing any candidate needs is sociopathic levels of ambition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
There was a former Secretary of Defense on the ticket as Vice President recently and he was put there exactly because he added foreign policy experience that the top of the ticket lacked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:It was fairly obvious that the Clinton campaign was put together mostly as a formality without a whole lot of effort on details. No one in that primary group was supposed to supplant her, Obama was just a bright star and they most likely convinced themselves that he was out for facetime on a later run. Of course, in hindsight, that was a hell of a miscalculation and it turns out that Obama came out to be one of the smartest campaigners the Democratic party has ever seen, so yeah, they really weren't equipped for that fight. This is my feeling as well. Clinton had a lot of smart people working for her in 2008 and more money than God, but didn't expect Obama to be a serious challenge and more critically didn't learn from her mistakes as fast as Obama did. If she chose to run again I think it'd be an easy nomination this time, as she's the only non-Obama member of the Democratic Party who can raise as much money, the Clinton memory is stronger than ever, and her vote on the Iraq War is a non-factor now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
Joementum posted:There was a former Secretary of Defense on the ticket as Vice President recently and he was put there exactly because he added foreign policy experience that the top of the ticket lacked. Well that and he basically gave himself the job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:One of the more interesting rumors I've heard, and I don't expect it has any validity but I'm throwing it out there just for fun, is that Obama could appoint Chris Christie as attorney general, for many reasons, including to reestablish the independence of DOJ, to kick Christie upstairs and set Booker up to be governor, and to get Christie out of the 2016 race. Booker would probably wipe the floor with Kim Guadagno in 2013 in that case, and that would make him a plausible 2016 presidential nominee non-Hillary division or a leading contender to be running mate for anyone. That's bullshit, floated as wishful thinking like NJ Democrats too depressed over the fact that he bought all of their bosses. I do think Booker gets Lautenberg's seat in two years. Not that NJ would be wild about a South Jersey candidate to begin with, but Andrews blew any shot he had, and they'd never go for Sweeney or any other of these clowns. No way Guadagno runs. If somehow Christie isn't in the 2013 race, Kean Jr. still has a statewide race in him, or you could throw someone out there like Baroni who is electable. Not a deep bench at all though. jeffersonlives posted:Bloomberg's big three things for a politician are gun control, climate change, and public transportation. Christie's an enemy on two and neutral on the third. Heh, he's a big enemy there too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Maggie Haberman on Twitter posted:R donors still blaming Christie and the hurricane privately. Not the candidate or his campaign/polling. This could make it hard for Christie to get funding in 2016. Even though this is completely wrong, if the main donors think it, it shuts off a lot of revenue possibilities for a Christie campaign and ensures that the leadning non-Christie candidate (Ryan?) may have a large monetary lead over him in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:This could make it hard for Christie to get funding in 2016. Even though this is completely wrong, if the main donors think it, it shuts off a lot of revenue possibilities for a Christie campaign and ensures that the leadning non-Christie candidate (Ryan?) may have a large monetary lead over him in the primaries. Paul Ryan is never going to be a presidential nominee. He has zero charisma and reminds everyone of Gabe from the office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK8d5-_gyeg . I'd put money on Jeb Bush or Rubio being the alternative to Christie. Although I don't think there's a way for Jeb to shake the "Bush 2000-2008" memories as early as 2015.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
The best thing you can say about Paul Ryan is that he wasn't as big of a disaster as Sarah Palin. His visibility outside of conservative fundraisers and getting schooled by Joe Biden was so low that Romney may as well have run alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Paul Ryan is never going to be a presidential nominee. He has zero charisma and reminds everyone of Gabe from the office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK8d5-_gyeg . He doesn't have wide appeal, but his base sure does love him right? I think he would put up a horrible race, but he could breeze through the primary on right-wing cred. It wouldn't be the first time they put up a candidate with zero charisma.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Paul Ryan is pretty much an on-paper perfect VP candidate. He isn't a bumbling fool, the base loved him, and he mostly followed orders. As a Presidential candidate, well, we can see how well previous House candidates (Newtmentum) and former VP picks (Edwards) have done in their Presidential bids. Newt imploded before Iowa, and Edwards' hopes fell apart shortly after Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Why does anyone want Condi Rice to run around here? She is a terrible person right up there with Colin Powell with respect to their involvement and inability to stop the bullshit that was the Bush administration. I wouldn't vote/touch anyone involved in those 8 years with a 8 foot pole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
For those that mentioned Gillibrand, she was one of the major proponents of PIPA/SOPA. Out of all the politician offices I emailed / called, she was one the only one who actually replied AND tried to sell it as a good idea. I guess I'm a single issue voter? Either way, I irrationally hate her now because of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 17:35
|
|