|
CubsWoo posted: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. And what would be usable from that primary fight? That she questioned if Obama had the experience to lead?
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Old people tend to be well aware of the effects of age. They generally don't want someone their own age running the country. But old Republicans love Reagan? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
I think it will be telling if Cruz goes against a new AUMF in Iraq. He could potentially Nixon his way to victory by getting out early against supporting a failing Iraqi government.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted: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. Why do people think he's running seriously for President?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The DNC has narrowed the list of cities for the convention to Columbus, New York, and Philadelphia. They have also narrowed the dates for the convention to the weeks of July 18, July 25, and August 22, following the RNC's lead on having an earlier convention, which is a great idea. Does the convention city have a chance to help a party anymore or only hurt?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, calling Bernie a Socialist isn't really an attack so much as it is free publicity. And its a great general election move for Clinton. She's going to proudly run to the center of Sanders in the primary and use that to limit Republican attacks on her as too leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
nachos posted:I will be surprised if Republicans even bother to mention Sanders except as a joke candidate. She will still be framed as a left wing extremist if their narrative requires it. And that line of attack will be less effective because she'll have run to the center of a real honest socialist in the primary. Look at 2008, part of the reasons the socialism attack on Obama work so well is because he ran to the left of Clinton. Running as far to the center as you can while still winning the primary is a pretty successful strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That's actually not a crazy valuation - the Trump name has a lot of meaning attached to it, at least some of it positive (at least in the commercial sphere), and is incredibly well recognized. For comparison, the words Coca Cola are estimated to be worth between 55 and 80 billion. But yet, buildings named "Trump" get lower rent than those not named "Trump". The real question is, who did that brand valuation and who paid for it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That's odd, as It would be nice if we could find a source that wasn't being paid by Trump Holdings as an "intangibles consultant." I'm looking for an article I read about relative rent prices of Trump buildings to other buildings, but I haven't found it yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
I'm laughing at anyone who thought that emailghazi was going away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Hillary opposed same sex marriage in 2008. So did Obama? Even Biden did too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:more realistically they didnt care all that much and were possibly in favor of it, but just went with whatever polled well I don't even think most of the Republicans hate gay marriage as much as they say. Santorum, Huckabee, Romney, the real religious ones, probably yes. But I doubt Bush or Rubio really care.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:According to Wikipedia he would not, unless Texas had got rid of it's anti-miscegenation on it's own, which doesn't seem likely. I think Texas's law applied only to Blacks marrying non-Blacks. But I'm too lazy to look up the exact wording.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
bpower posted:Wow, southern whites had a nice little fascist police state going there. No wonder they're pissed since the 60s. Don't worry, the powerful southerners learned they already had all the tools they need without needing the overly racist ones. And the poor white remains on the caboose of the train but it ain’t him to blame computer parts posted:miscegenation laws typically applied to any non-white minority trying to marry a white person, which was the main reason why it was stuck down (it wasn't "separate but equal" since other races could marry each other). And in the case of the Texas law, it prevented marriage between blacks and non-blacks (aka whites) and allowed the marriage of Anglos and Mexicans. Edit: yeah Blacks and Filipinos couldn't marry whites in Texas: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/american_antimiscegenation.htm Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:There should be a zero tolerance policy towards anyone on anything Iraq War related for the Democratic Party. Anyone who is even remotely hawkish should definitely be on the chopping block. Witch hunts for ideological purity work great for minority parties and less great for those with aspirations of winning first past the post elections. Job Truniht posted:There are only two positions that you can assume: Either you supported the Iraq War in its entirety or you opposed it. There's nothing in between that. Bush lied, but you're still banned from the party! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:That doesn't mean anything since Adelson, the Kochs, etc. haven't dumped their truckloads of money yet. Oh they have. They're not going into to the campaigns directly. They're going into other organizations with less strict reporting requirements. Jeb's unofficial campaign may actually be larger than his official campaign when things are all said and done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:A cohesive, unified party wouldn't have eleventy-billion candidates running against one another. Hence what Joe said about being divided on tactics. Also, the Republicans are used to having an anointed successor, which they don't now. So its kinda a free for all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Is there any particular reason why Santorum wouldn't inherit the usual runner up into presumptive nominee spot, other than the fact that he's obviously an unpleasant weirdo with no chance of winning a general election? He wasn't the establishment first or second choice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:This is a lie and easily verifiable by the US Census historical income tables. Are those in same year dollars?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I think we should just let California burn. Every year there's a new forest fire and no effort really seems to have any long term effect. So, according to this analogy, we should pre-start smaller conflicts in the Middle East to sop up the ability to engage in a larger one! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Donating to the Democratic party in general is kind of a waste of money if they're floating candidates nobody really likes. Just look at what's up for the Senate elections in 2016. Hint: Parties promote candidates that appeal to the donors. If you refuse to donate until you get what you want you'll never get anything. Money is a kind of voice in America, don't stifle yourself and expect to be heard.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:No amount of money is going to save Bennett or Sestak in this upcoming election. Those are two poo poo candidates that promise little or no political return. If there's no enthusiasm, people won't vote. This has been a consistent problem for Democrats every midterm. If the ideas you support and the candidates you support aren't popular at a national level, then support regional candidates until you gain more momentum or a better ideology. Trying to take your ball home until everyone comes running isn't a successful strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I think everyone here at least admits to some degree that the Democratic Party had a bad strategy for going into midterms. Fixing up their pool of candidates a little would do wonders, especially since it's clear more than ever that the Republicans only run on opposition platforms and that compromising with them is near impossible. And that's why I suggested supporting regional candidates that would, in your eyes, "fix up" the pool of candidates. The way to get better candidates fielded and elected is to support them, not by withdrawing your voice. If you want there to be new national politicians that support your views, you have to go find regional ones that do and become part of their national network. If there aren't regional ones, keep looking smaller till you find the correct audience size for your ideology. De Nomolos posted:Nows a great time to invest in unknowns on the D bench since it's currently poo poo. Exactly. And you can also look and see which of the safe seats are up opening up and donate to your favorite primary candidate. Sir Tonk posted:Don't be silly, no one flies out of hobby. Says someone that doesn't want their flight attendants cracking jokes during the safety briefing. SWA4FLYGHT Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:Donating $100 or $500 is still pretty much still on the scale of pissing in a swimming pool and expecting the water level to change, though. Thus my comment about going to smaller pools if there doesn't exist a "my ideology for candidate" group at a larger level. $500 can get you face time with a lot of smaller candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Cephalocidal posted:It's absolutely comparable. A non-R president working with an R congress is going to have to find a way to compromise with congress, not the other way around. The record shows that Sanders is more willing to find common ground with republican lawmakers than Clinton. Just listing total bills doesn't do that at all. Besides, comparing Senate to House isn't an equal comparison either. It is insane that you're looking at bills passed and using that to claim Sanders would get better compromises out of a Republican congress. Which of his progressive ideas specifically, do you think he could get passed a Republican congress that Clinton could not?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
How did I post twice? I didn't mean to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:I have found a lot of Republicans that want to vote for Bernie as well, mainly due to his financial reform policies. How is opposing Citizens United exactly a position that means anything about supporting Sanders? Opposing Citizens United is a core "Democratic Establishment" position if there is one. It is even in the Democratic Party Platform.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I really doubt that Hillary would make any sort of attempt in that avenue. She's got more support from huge donors than almost anyone else, and it's definitely not part of her core platform. I doubt she'd make an attempt for the same reasons I doubt Sanders would, it wouldn't pass. Why would either of them waste their time fighting a battle they know they can't win? If ERA can't pass, why on earth would an anti-Citizens United Constitutional Amendment pass? Dolash posted:It's a little interesting to see Sanders gradually turn into an actual challenger, though - at least enough of a challenge that Hillary will probably have to actually campaign. I've no doubt Sanders is getting a bit of a free ride at the moment since there's a lot of media interest in ginning up a horse race on the Democratic side, so his gains might be fragile if campaigning begins in earnest or after the first debate. When's the first Democratic debate expected, anyway? August, like the Republicans? I think its great Sanders is running, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton campaign was relieved he was turning into a real rival. Their worst fear has got to be wasting away in the primary with no one to their left to contrast against for the general.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:Sanders scores 100s on NARAL, AFL-CIO, etc. scorecards so I do find it easy to believe that he's genuine in his stances. So did Clinton, wow! NARAL & AFL-CIO are also kinda the democratic establishment....
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:I guess more the point I'm trying to make indirectly is that he doesn't really have much reason to appeal to establishment folks, nor does there seem to be any reason to believe he would, should he get the nomination. He's only rising in the polls on the back of the platform he's always been a part of, and tapping into the youth vote's general indifference and jadedness to the political process seems like a winning strategy. Are you arguing that because the Democratic establishment gave him 100 scores that he won't need to work to appeal to them because he already does? Or are you trying to argue that the AFL-CIO and NARAL aren't part of the Democratic establishment? You're right that a "fight the man"/"hope and change" style campaign can be very effective at swaying youth voters, but their remains questions about if other machines can replicate OFA's turnout.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Somehow I don't think that Goldman Sachs will be throwing its support behind Sanders like it has for Hillary. Do we even have FEC numbers for 2016 candidates yet? Or are we just assuming everything will be the same as 2008?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Yes, Bernie raised 15,000,000$ I'm pretty sure you're wrong and the FEC numbers aren't out yet. That article actually is only quoting the Sanders campaign, not the FEC. I'm sure the campaign is correct, but I'm interested in the details. All of the comparison in that article is using lifetime metrics, which, while useful for some stuff, isn't as good an indicator of who's throwing their weight behind whom in this cycle. Gimme dat stats.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yes the AFL-CIO certainly does have a lot of sway in today's Democratic Party as seen by all their huge victories together! Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO is Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Cephalocidal posted:A long history that includes evidence of successfully working with republicans vs. a shorter history of less successfully working with republicans? As for progressive ideas getting pushed through congress, I don't see the relevance. Both candidates would be looking at an uphill battle; whoever has the most public support will carry it further (and also get the party nomination), so it's not worth handwringing over at this point. I'm saying the measure of "bills cosponsored by republicans that passed" is a poor measure of if someone is actually working with Republicans on meaningful topics. Also, you're comparing two different legislative houses and two different time spans which makes it even more meaningless. What was a major compromise Sanders brokered with Republicans? Or maybe a controversial issue he got passed with bipartisan support? I'm honestly curious because I'm drawing a blank. If both candidates would be hamstrung and limited entirely by popular support, what's the point of arguing he has mad Republican skills and could get progressive things passed because of those skills? If we can't even come up with some progressive policies he'd be more likely to get passed a Republican congress as president (with all that supposed experience working with Republicans), then the premise that he'd get more progressive things done or work with Republicans seems kinda hollow. I really don't get how people are arguing that Sanders is both an uncompromising socialist and also better able to compromise with Republicans than Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
site posted:Guessing this will end with him at a podium or something equally stupid Best way to start out: focus on the empty stage bit!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:They're going to do this gradual logo reveal and it's just going to say WALKER FOR AMERICA in that font, isn't it? I think a little piece of my soul just died. WALKER OR AMERICA
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Well it's a test of the democratic primary system - is it fair or is it rigged so the person with the most sponsors wins? Both could be true you know. The person with the most popular support (thus win "fairly") could be the person who gets the most sponsors. Monied interests tend to bandwagon hard.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Yes, let's save the Executive for the high-pressure crucible that is "community organizer". I mean, try and troll better at least? Only freepers think that was Obama's only job. Hint, Law professor was even mentioned earlier in this thread! Eonwe posted:if you care about the college thing then you are dumb Quitting any commitment to go be a politician is still kinda scummy. Palin or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for that list of policies Clinton has put forth on the campaign trail this year but secretly loathes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Chipotle But honestly guys, we promise we're not sexist! 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 19:56
|
|