|
I came running as soon as I heard the news. Ted Cruz is running for President? Finally, I'd been missing the never-ending sideshow of an American Presidential Election. Still can't wait for all the Tea Party types who howled about Obama being born in Kenya suddenly supporting someone who was actually born abroad. That's got to create some insane whiplash.
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Well, at least there's no one in the Republican field (with even a snowball's chance in Hell shot at winning) who's destroy-the-world crazy like say Palin. Any Republican would be their own brand of disaster that'd make us nostalgic for the Obama years in short order, but we're probably not looking at any true believers. Just something nice and mild like overturning Obamacare and re-invading Iraq. Aside from who's got the best chance at winning, who of the candidates who have a real shot would be the worst Presidents?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Honestly, it isn't hard at all to campaign against Ted Cruz. Just reshoot "Daisy" and you're done. These days, 'Daisy' would've been a pro-Goldwater ad. Republicans can't really run on "my opponent is just TOO right-wing and conservative!" during their circus of a primary, at least not directly, that'd actually be the legitimizing thing. At best I can see them sidling up to the idea by talking about how a vote for Cruz is a vote for Hillary since he can't win a general election *Cough BecauseHe'sTooWingnut Cough*. Basically I expect Cruz'll handle any such accusations like so:  It's like when you see the Democrats put out stuff that says "Oh no, not Cruz! We're terrified of the Republicans nominating such a powerful, ideologically pure Conservative! Anything but that!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
I am ready for Hillary Clinton Bringing Back the 90's. Honestly though, it's a testament to the endurance of America's political dynasties that the Clintons and the Bushes just held in there for the eight years of Obama's presidency and are just ready to get right back to it as soon as he's out the door. Obama will be understandably tired once his term is up, but I wonder if he's done with Presidential politics entirely? Does he have some kind of young gun heir to be groomed, a political machine to be passed on? He's fairly young so far as Presidents go, he's got a few more decades to influence politics and work on his legacy. My favorite idea is I remember Bill floating the possibility that the two-term prohibition on Presidencies just meant two consecutive terms.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Jeb Bush pens op-ed accusing Iran of "campaign of terror" and "treachery", calls for "firm alliance" with Israel You thought a Bush was going to be a moderate foreign policy voice? Every potential Republican is going to have the creaking, old Neocon machine trying to get in the door and set up their long-awaited invasion of Iran, but the Bush family is that machine. A Jeb Bush presidency would treat Obama's two terms as America's recovery period before launching a fresh round of Middle East ground invasions, we're talking re-occupying Iraq and Afghanistan at the minimum with high odds on invading Syria and Iran, with American soldiers holding contiguous territory from the Mediterranean to China's western border.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
I'd forgotten the fun of watching candidates slip knives through each others' ribs like that, with leaks and rumors meant to discredit and put someone on the defensive. I wonder if one of his opponents was responsible for getting that information to Epstein, and which one?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I think you're wrong about "second Clinton". Part of the reason that she is the second Clinton is her ambition. Not saying she doesn't love Bill, but she's a political animal through and through. Even without the First Lady thing, 1.33-term NY senator and SecState with no major fuckups (sorry vilerat) is not a bad resume. Not great, but certainly not bad. The other names bandied about aren't definitely on a level above that, at least. A two-term Vice President could be, if that Vice President wasn't Joe Biden. The VP choices will be pretty interesting since people tend to describe it as a slot for grooming a future Presidential contender but that hasn't always worked out. Who's Hillary's likely choice, again? One of the Castros, or is it too early to give them prime time? And also it's true that Hillary's profile was boosted by being married to Bill, but if they hadn't married she probably would've had her own political career independent of him. It's more akin to a political alliance rather than being the son of a famous line and inheriting your parents' circle and money, otherwise we might as well say Vice Presidents are cronies since their own bid for President is buoyed by the networking and exposure they get playing second fiddle to America's top politician. I can imagine a situation where someone effectively uses their wife or husband as a hand puppet and gets them elected so they can be President through them, but this won't be one of those times. I'm actually kind of curious how Bill will/may take to the job of First... Gentleman? Since traditionally the role's called for being fairly neutral, passive and inoffensive. Not that Hillary didn't have a lot of swing in Bill's White House and Bill wouldn't have a lot in Hillary's, just that there'd be definite role reversal. Dolash fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
I look forward to Barack Obama being remembered as the high water mark for 'Leftist' Presidents for the rest of my days. Even a Hillary Presidency will probably lean further to the right on foreign policy and economics with less interest in advancing social issues, and much as I hate to say it if she gets two terms then we're downright due another Republican President. Not to mention the Republicans will probably retain the House throughout or only lose it to a pack of complete "centrist" Blue Dog types.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
So correct me if I'm wrong on my gut impression here, but the Democrats don't really have Barack Obama riding into the national consciousness on a magical unicorn this time so I have to assume everyone on the Democratic side has to know Hillary's getting the nomination. Like, I'm sure some of them will be poking around, keeping a campaign machine together on the down-low in case something unexpected happens, a few might be stubborn enough for a Quixotic run or try that "challenge from the left" thing, and of course Biden will be gnashing his teeth that he'd have a perfectly legitimate shot at the nomination if not for Hillary, but I can't imagine there's really any serious competition forming. If Biden decides spending a whole lot of money just to get humiliated one last time before retirement isn't for him then there'll probably hardly even be a Democratic primary. One crushing Iowa from Hillary to confirm that nobody's spoiling her last shot and she's not about to trip over her own two feet and that'll be it, all eyes on the Republican clown car. It's actually a pretty interesting contrast that the Democrats don't have the same field of weirdo grifters in their Presidential stable. I do have to wonder what Biden's thinking right now. If he doesn't run the Primary he can pretty much retire on a solid legacy, albeit with the "America's weird old uncle" overtones from the Vice Presidency. If he tries to mount a serious contest in the Primary though I could see Hillary doing a number on him, he's got more than a few weak spots and it'd be a rough way to go out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
site posted:Can crazy stuff like the guy who announced at the primary convention in West Wing actually happen? Probably in the sense that Air Bud is right and it doesn't say anywhere in the rules that a dog can't play Basketball. So far as I can tell crazy convention showdowns seem to be an artifact of the past, and the conventions are now just blockbuster rallies meant to boost the already-decided candidate on in the final stretch. I suppose if something really unexpected ever happened, like a presumptive nominee dropping/dying and leaving no time for a do-over, the convention might become a live possibility. Alternatively I guess if there was a really weak field and no candidate managed an especially strong showing. I'm pretty sure the Republicans have taken steps in the last few elections to tighten the rules to limit the possibility of that kind of delegate chaos.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
If anything, I'd assume an election between two candidates very closely tied to previous Presidents and likely to import a lot of their policies and staff would give the average voter an easier time deciding who to vote for - do you want More Clinton or More Bush? New candidates mean trying to figure out what they're all about and what you think of their agenda, while even the most uninformed and apathetic voter can probably cobble together an opinion on the 90s vs. the 00s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Oh Ted Ted Ted I am often relieved that a lot of regressive social conservatives think the "power of prayer" is a thing and will mobilize their supporters to do that in response to something they don't like, rather than anything effective. That's not even meant as a  comment on religion, just that in terms of political activism even the most half-baked protest or "awareness raising" would be better.Of course in practice what it means is guys like Ted can appear to be advocating action on something, so far as their supporters think, without actually advocating anything any other voters will see as action.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Haven't read the article, I'm assuming if it's the Swift Boat guy then Bush'd be behind this attack? Does Jeb already see Rand as a threat? Who would be people's guess for the nomination if for some reason Bush was taken out of the race, anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
All I can think is if Jeb hits one good scandal or it turns out the Bush brand is still a lot more burned out than people expect, it'll become a feeding frenzy to be the next "serious" candidate. He's definitely settling into the role of Mitt Romney in 2012 as the man to beat. I'm really hoping the actual primary throws us a curve ball and the "joke" candidates outperform expectations. If the Republican primary coughs up a proper loon to the general election it'll impact the entire GOP brand. Imagine for a moment what'd happen in an actual Hillary vs. Cruz or Paul race.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
I don't know enough about how Obama rose to defeat Hillary in 2008, particularly how he got his early start. I suppose I'm curious if anyone on the Republican side could have that kind of meteoric ascent that we'd be somehow deaf to due to ideological differences. I sometimes get the impression with the Tea Party/Libertarian candidates that they're hoping to catch that kind of Hope and Change style fire and ride it up and over the establishment. What would an effective insurgent campaign against Bush look like? At a guess I'd say a narrower field would make a big difference, since then the anti-establishment money and votes could rally around a single candidate faster. Bush might have to deal with Walker, but I'd assume being the establishment choice probably leads a lot more solidifying of support especially since he's importing the entire Bush family network and machine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
I like how Rand has separate signs for Catholic and Christian supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I wonder if mega pro-Israel hawk sugar daddies like Sheldon Adelson have a special interest in making sure the Rand candidacy is smothered in the crib (although he seems to be doing a drat good job all by himself). As if any Republican nominee wouldn't take on all the same bullshit Republican positions, regardless of how they present themselves in the campaign. Rand Paul can say what he likes, if he actually got the nomination he'd enact the same Neocon foreign policy agenda as any of the rest of them and probably hire the same people to do it. Besides, Hillary isn't really looking for an opening to take Israel to task the way Obama has been. If the Republican nominee appeared "weak" on that issue she'd swoop in and try to capture the hawks for the Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
In the not-unlikely scenario where Hillary wins, it's always going to be a little funny that Obama was just an eight-year delay. Like, there's some not-too-alternate universe where Hillary squeaked the nomination in '08 and they just did their presidencies in reverse order. I guess we haven't seen what a Hillary presidency will really mean yet but I'm not sure how much would even be different. I guess as a question about Presidential politics in general, what sort of post-presidential career might we see out of Obama? He's still pretty young in politician terms, even if his eight years have aged him for twice that number. Is there precedent for ex-presidents returning to the Senate or taking on some other career? He has a law background, it'd be funny if he went the Taft route and got appointed to the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
There'll definitely be some combo granny-slams, although Hillary seems to put a lot of effort into not projecting a "little old lady" vibe (impressive at 67). The GOP put up with a bit of ageist rhetoric what with McCain's run but sexism will be the fresh new thing to spice up right wing hysteria after eight years of racism. I wonder if sexism will be even more damaging, since it directly offends an even larger pool of voters - not that racism doesn't offend everyone, just that there are plenty of apolitical or right-wing women who will sit up and take notice if a campaign is directly dismissive of them. Just in general terms it'll be interesting to see what the potential for being the first female President will do to the demographic makeup of Hillary's supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Of course, that would pale in comparison to having someone like Ginsburg retire...and Hillary appointing Obama to replace her. Confirmation hearing to end all confirmation hearings. They should propose Obama just as a goof so we can see it go down. I'm reminded in the early 00's that Bill Clinton suggested maybe the two term limit for Presidents meant just two consecutive terms. That's not how it works, but it'd be pretty hilarious if in 2024 Hillary handed the Presidency back to Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
I think the Hobby Lobby case where it was decided whether or not Plan B was actually "inducing an abortion" or not was irrelevant compared to whether that's what they believed was happening has established that people don't need to prove the validity or coherency of their beliefs to bludgeon others with them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:
She really doesn't. First term stuff, maybe, and I'm sure she'll get a few half-hearted barbs about the relations reset with Russia, but if Obama's recent less-than-complete-subservience toward Israel garners criticism it'll cost her nothing to say she's not Obama and doesn't always agree with his positions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 10:14
|
|
She was Secretary of State for four years, she can distance herself from Obama on many issues if she wants to but she's going to have to own the current foreign policy direction.
|
There was a little misogynistic rhetoric against Palin, here and there, sure. I think the difference here is the whole Republican base and ideology as well as the candidates themselves are actually predisposed toward misogyny - at times it's a plank of the party platform - and that level of casual offense is going to be much harder for them to keep a lid on. "Bitch" is going to be smeared all over the campaign, at least one Republican candidate is going to talk about menopause or PMS (and probably reveal baffling ignorance), and a lot of mid-level Republican mouthpieces are going to dig themselves into holes they can't climb out of when someone prods them on a misogynistic insinuation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
He does have a point that Palin did garner a lot of low-grade mockery for being a bimbo and so on, and people definitely called her a dumb bitch and stuff like that. A certain amount of misogyny is endemic to society as a whole and is an ongoing problem that transcends political affiliation, but in the two sides of American political culture it's the Republicans who have been the official opposition to women's rights and the home of America's unrepentant misogynists. The Republicans were loving up with the "legitimate rape" talk and getting the "War on Women" narrative rolling before they were running against a woman. It's bound to get even worse. Also I just assume the Hillary thing is because it's just easier to differentiate her from Bill Clinton that way. I figured she'd even prefer it that way since it helps create a separate political brand and identity rather than being perceived as riding Bill's coattails.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Even if Hillary is a strong favorite for this Presidential election, a Republican will win another Presidency again sooner or later. I'm curious whether during the Bush I vs. Clinton race if the fact that the Republicans had held the Presidency for 3 terms in a row was a factor and people were just in the mood for a change already. It probably won't be a factor yet, but it might be if Clinton faces reelection even if the economy holds together.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Welp, RIP Biden's Presidential ambitions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
On the third party talk, weighing in from Canada, we've got a FPTP-style voting system and effectively just the Parliament, with the Prime Minister being whoever holds majority there, meaning our system is designed to favor whoever can snag a plurality even moreso, and third (and fourth) parties have resulted in a long-lasting and extremely powerful Conservative government that's done irreparable harm. Ironically, we got ourselves into this situation when the progressive third party had a strong showing and the centrist liberals who usually got all the leftist strategic voters was crashing hard, so now we're in a situation where the center and left votes can't figure out who to rally behind as the "anybody but the Tories" party. And even then, we only got to this point over long decades of building up a left-wing alternative to the Liberals at the Provincial level and then serving as a minority opposition voice in Parliament (and getting good exposure by supporting minority Liberal governments to pass left-wing legislation). It's not exactly an enviable situation, so there's something to those "A vote for [underdog] is a vote for [bad guy]" arguments. A third party isn't impossible, but it's definitely something that takes a lot of time and effort and has to build from the ground up. Getting representatives or even Senators elected first, not as Independents but as actual party-members, would probably have to happen to lay the groundwork before any Presidential bid. An Independent could always hypothetically swoop in and seize the top spot - even card-carrying nutcase Ross Perot managed 20% of the presidential vote - but if they're actually Presidential caliber then working within a party structure is just a natural strategic choice. The best-situated group in America to do something like that recently is probably the Tea Party, who probably could've sent a few Reps under their own banner to Congress, although they've probably been more effective within the Republican party by forcing it to lurch to the right so that Presidential candidates have to pay them lip service in the Primary. The most effective way for leftists to affect the Democrats would probably be to organize within the Democratic primary machinery.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
I think there was a certain ranch name scandal, too, that hardly even got the chance to get underway before it was obvious that Perry was out of the race. Regardless, if he actually looked like he was taking the lead he'd have to defuse that one and I don't know if he can.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I feel a better economy will steer voters right, figuring it will accelerate the recovery after a decade of taxation and government over reach. Oh, that 21st century, with its storied history of Presidents, what a data set. In a potential Hillary White House, what role would Bill fill? There's a sort of inherent sexism attached to the First Lady role, in her time at Bill's White House people gave Hillary poo poo constantly for trying to get political and she didn't even hold any real power, but Bill has the advantage of having been President once already and there's no precedent for a First Gentleman. Could he hold an actual position in government? I'm also curious what the policy and political differences between Hillary and Bill are. Nobody I know of thinks Hillary's a lightweight or that Bill would just be President through her, but that suggests she has her own distinct agenda. I recall she had quite a push on healthcare, could she try and build on Obamacare?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
As lovely as it was for Hillary to vote for the Iraq War (and it was really lovely) she's still probably significantly less likely to start a new war than anyone the Republicans could spit out, so as a Canadian whose country would almost certainly be dragged into any war you guys start while Harper's in power you better hold your goddamn noses and vote for Hillary in the general. If you need an object lesson on what difference it makes, remember Bush II (as you should for the rest of your lives) and how people at the time dismissed the idea that there was any difference between him and Gore. Unless we elect Trudeau or Mulcair this year, then you're free to do whatever I guess, but the odds on that are worse than they should be because of 3rd-party vote-splitting. Hmm, I wonder if there's a lesson there?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I liked Rand originally because he didn't seem like a hawk but he has been starting to come back on that. Sanders makes much more sense, IMO, foreign policy wise. I'm sure there are plenty of principled voters in Flordia who still pat themselves on the back for staying home in 2000 to avoid endorsing Clinton's foreign policy by voting for Gore, and don't even feel bad when they see the boiling cauldron of war the Middle East has become so they didn't sully their perfect little vote with a Lesser Evil candidacy. I mean, sure, vote for who you like in the Primary, but I don't know how you could think the greatest good you can achieve with your vote is to not use it. Or I guess maybe you live in the majority of America that isn't in play so I guess it's safe to stand on principle.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
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? Then again we've gone through two terms of Obama with no one getting close to killing him (the odd White House fence-jumper excepted), despite all the fears associated with America's first black President, so maybe the danger of assassination-by-random-yokel is lower than it looks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I take it all back, Rand Paul 2016. Avatarize that poo poo immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Getting the Republicans to do that would be amazing. It's going to happen at some point for sure, Republicans don't seem to have the same kind of caution for that as they do the N-word. At the very least one of them will be confronted with a recording of them calling Hillary a bitch in the past and lurch into either a desperate retraction or an off-the-cuff attempt to argue that it's actually okay to call women bitches if they are one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Give-no-fucks-I'm-livin'-in-the-Magnum-House Obama Unfortunately, Obama gives the impression of being one of those suckers who may have gone into public life to try and make a positive difference, so even if he does take a vacation and is effectively free and clear with a pile of money and no need to endure politics ever again, I suspect he'll still return to the game. What are the rules regarding a sitting President campaigning on behalf of a candidate to replace them? Can Obama do some campaigning for Hillary? Maybe give a speech at the convention? I remember Bush was pretty scarce during McCain's campaign but he was also radioactive at the time, especially once the economic crisis was in full swing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
The primary will only really light up if JEB ends up in the same "can't quite seal the deal" situation that Mitt Romney had in 2012 and we cycle through a series of short-lived front-runners until he wins through sheer tenacity, or if things get really fun and he's forced to drop out or actually loses early and the clown car field will actually be within striking distance of the nomination. Unfortunately, there's not really any hope of the general election being as exciting as it was in 2008, with the excitement over Obama, finally ending the Bush years and the apocalyptic addition of Palin. At least it's another chance for America to make the right decision and banish the Bush family from power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Another freeloader betraying True Conservatism because government handouts make it so he doesn't have to work to earn a
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
It seems gay marriage managed to spread across America mostly as a state-by-state thing, in no small part assisted by the Obama Administration being quietly supportive, to the point that even if a Republican President were to win in 2016 and immediately try to crack down on states where gay marriage has now been legal for years it'd be wildly unpopular and be met with stiff resistance. I imagine if Hillary proves similarly compliant and unwilling to crack down on Washington and Colorado, allowing more states to effectively legalize marijuana, legalization could reach a similar place in eight years where a Republican would find rolling all that state-level change back would be too daunting. Maybe my grasp on the history here isn't as strong as it could be, but it seems these days a lot of controversial issues don't get decided nationwide with sweeping federal decisions, like Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights Act. They just sort of creep up into being, one state at a time, until there's two parallel Americas each of whom are allowed to get away with whatever they want so long as they don't try to force the other states to comply.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Hillary's definitely the "well, at least she's not a Republican" option, and if we really need to reiterate why that's good enough (especially if the Republican's a Bush) please review the entire 21st century. In a way I'm almost envious of the whole Republican primary debacle, at least they've got options, at least some of whom probably have real (awful) principles. Jeb is their Hillary in most respects and he's only got the best chance of winning in a large crowd rather than being as certain as the tides. There was that feeling around Obama's primary that people actually believed in him and voted for him rather than out of resignation or "lesser of two evils", which is a much stronger incentive to go vote. Hell even by 2012 Obama still had (and has) swaths of actual supporters. Actually, that's a curious little effect. People believed in Obama and there was a very real crash of expectations when he took office and proved less than perfect. Most people seem to be approaching Hillary with even more honed cynicism than they did in 2008, but does that work in her favor since her center and left supporters expect so little of her? Hard to disappoint when the bar is set as "Just don't be as terrible as that raving lunatic over there". I'd be interested if Obama will regain some of his shine over the years after he leaves office since it'll be easier to appeal to an idealized Candidate Obama, especially when criticizing Hillary from the left.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Okay, you're going to have to tell me who that is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 22:16
|
|