Support NeoGAF

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Not sure I buy the Efficient Gingrich Market Hypothesis. It works against him with new voters, reinforces negatives with values voters, and even trivially new information is likely to be further damaging.

I should have qualified that with regard to the upcoming primary. He is most definitely toast as far as being a viable general election candidate and ultimately for the GOP nomination (I think). He is proving far more resilient than I would have thought, though, so I don't really have any prediction on when he is going to bail out of the race. If ever.

 

[Zzoram]

This country's immaturity continues to amaze me. Are you a racist homophobe? Then you have a great political career ahead of you! Stick your dick in another woman and you're done!

Except he did stick his dick in another woman, that's why he's on his 3rd wife.

 

[Measley]

I could feasibly see a person like Warren winning the nomination, but she would get creamed in the GE. A northeastern liberal is insta-death on the national stage.

That's why Sherrod Brown is the best candidate the Dems have right now. Midwestern, working class guy that has cache with the establishment left.

I disagree...

Kirsten Gillibrand all the way. It'd be like Hillary Clinton without the baggage.

 

[popeutlal]

nm

 

[ToxicAdam]

I've read some interviews of Gillibrand, she seems like an intellectual lightweight.

 

[Dude Abides]

I've read some interviews of Gillibrand, she seems like an intellectual lightweight.

When has that ever mattered, though?

 

[Wray]

I think you're really over-stating the effect of the demographic changes for 2016. I just can't see a liberal candidate like Warren getting enough Latino votes to counter balance her massive loss in moderates to someone like Christie if he is the Republican. As of right now, as far as I can tell, Christie is by far the most likely front-runner for 2016.

I hope that I'm wrong and you're right, but I just don't see it.

How do you see a realistic path to 270 for Republicans with them losing NV, CO, NM and AZ? Carrying the Latino Vote is essential. They would need multiple solid blue states or a large one like PA shifting demographics to turn into a red state, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Nevermind that a I think a democratic woman candidate would be a lock. The time is definitely ripe for one I think.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I disagree...

Kirsten Gillibrand all the way. It'd be like Hillary Clinton without the baggage.

Her support for PIPA makes her a no go for me. Speaking of PIPA

While we must combat the on-line theft of intellectual property, current proposals in Congress raise serious legal, policy and operational concerns. Rather than prematurely bringing the Protect IP Act to the Senate floor, we should first study and resolve the serious issues with this legislation. Considering this bill without first doing so could be counterproductive to achieving the shared goal of enacting appropriate and additional tools to combat the theft of intellectual property. I encourage the Senate Majority to reconsider its decision to proceed to this bill.

 

[Zzoram]

I disagree...

Kirsten Gillibrand all the way. It'd be like Hillary Clinton without the baggage.

You only picked her because she looks good. Dig a little deeper and she seems like a terrible candidate.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I disagree...

Kirsten Gillibrand all the way. It'd be like Hillary Clinton without the baggage.

Wall Street toadie/Israel apologist? No thanks

 

[Jackson50]

I know Bush wasn't at the depths of his unpopularity in 04, but it was one of the easiest incumbents to run against and Kerry failed.

Kerry's failure bespeaks the difficulty in defeating an incumbent. While Bush was one of the more vulnerable incumbents, he remained in a rather secure position because of moderately favorable fundamentals. Yet it was still a close election. Certainly, his performance was not indicative of a NE liberal being insta-death. Although, Warren is to the left of Kerry, so it may prove to be a more significant impediment to her candidacy. I suspect her primary problem would be opposition from business and financial interests typically amenable to Democrats.

 

[ToxicAdam]

When has that ever mattered, though?

Well, you're right. It sometimes seems more like a Hollywood casting decision than one based on merit or intelligence.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I disagree...


Kirsten Gillibrand all the way. It'd be like Hillary Clinton without the baggage.

It would be like supporting Chris Dodd.

 

[The Librarian]

Even though WS is not popular at the moment, I can't see a candidate like Warren succeeding. Her position with the banks will alienate her, not with voters, but with fundraising. Politicking with WS is essential for a successful presidency for both parties. Just because "the people" don't like WS doesn't mean the successful candidate isn't getting donations from wealthy WS employees.

Um...

Despite what gets repeated on GAF here too much, money matters less in elections than it appears. Yes, it is important, but the definitive deciding factor? Absolutely not. We have a very recent example of this staring us right in the face: Rick Perry. The guy dumped millions into Iowa and a crap-ton in SC. Did it do him any good? No, it didn't. So what if she doesn't get any fundraising from Wall Street? Why would that make a difference? She'll have the full power of the DNC behind her and will get more than enough enthusiastic donation from supporters. Why would a million dollars from Wall Street make any difference in an election?

I don't see how Warren could possibly win the GE in 2016 if the Republicans run someone like Christie, Daniels, or Huntsman. She would get destroyed by any somewhat moderate Republican. As much as I would love Warren to win presidency, America is just too far right for that to happen.

America being a nation far too the right isn't accurate, but that's a discussion for another time.

But let's say you're right. Let's say that America is far too the right for someone like Elizabeth Warren, yet what is it about her that makes her a left-wing extremist? I mean, anyone who pays close enough attention knows that Warren is a genuine liberal, but Americans don't often vote on policies: They vote their feelings. Look at the priorities page on her website. What on that page screams left-wing extremist? Elizabeth Warren's greatest asset is distilling the liberal philosophy into something everyone can understand. Everyone was saying that the speech made by Obama in Kansas last year was very much something Elizabeth Warren would've said.

Not to mention that'd she be running out of the wake of the Recovery President if Obama wins re-election.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Somehow I don't think Warren will be the Dems' candidate in 2016.

I'm more inclined towards Gillibrand/Schweitzer.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I would vote for Chris Christie over Gillibrand.

Reason?

I think he's more liberal.

 

[RDreamer]

Warren is definitely someone I need to research. I've seen a few of her speeches and videos on youtube talking about her book, The Two Income Trap. I really liked her opinions and thoughts from that, since I watched a few of them (and they were about an hour long each). Based on just that stuff I'd probably vote for her.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Um...

Despite what gets repeated on GAF here too much, money matters less in elections than it appears. Yes, it is important, but the definitive deciding factor? Absolutely not. We have a very recent example of this staring us right in the face: Rick Perry. The guy dumped millions into Iowa and a crap-ton in SC. Did it do him any good? No, it didn't. So what if she doesn't get any fundraising from Wall Street? Why would that make a difference? She'll have the full power of the DNC behind her and will get more than enough enthusiastic donation from supporters. Why would a million dollars from Wall Street make any difference in an election?

America being a nation far too the right isn't accurate, but that's a discussion for another time.

But let's say you're right. Let's say that America is far too the right for someone like Elizabeth Warren, yet what is it about her that makes her a left-wing extremist? I mean, anyone who pays close enough attention knows that Warren is a genuine liberal, but Americans don't often vote on policies: They vote their feelings. Look at the priorities page on her website. What on that page screams left-wing extremist? Elizabeth Warren's greatest asset is distilling the liberal philosophy into something everyone can understand. Everyone was saying that the speech made by Obama in Kansas last year was very much something Elizabeth Warren would've said.

Not to mention that'd she be running out of the wake of the Recovery President if Obama wins re-election.

That sure worked out for Al Gore

There are too many "good" republican governors ready for 2012, I can't see a female junior senator reviled by Wall Street winning. Let's not forget Obama won in part due to being the de facto Wall Street candidate in 2008

edit: I would probably vote Christie over Gillibrand

 

[ToxicAdam]

At least I have 2016 to look forward to. It should be incredible. This campaign season is already a dud and it's only a few weeks in.

 

[The Librarian]

That sure worked out for Al Gore

You're right! It did! He got more votes than George W. Bush. But thanks to the electoral college, he didn't win. However, due to the increasing minority vote, other states like Colorado and Nevada will be in play, off-setting the chance we'd get a repeat of 2000.

 

[KingK]

How do you see a realistic path to 270 for Republicans with them losing NV, CO, NM and AZ? Carrying the Latino Vote is essential. They would need multiple solid blue states or a large one like PA shifting demographics to turn into a red state, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Nevermind that a I think a democratic woman candidate would be a lock. The time is definitely ripe for one I think.

Here's one
I left AZ red because it's still a solid red state that I don't see changing by 2016. Plus, if it were Christie vs. Warren, I could see PA going red (though it would be close). And I don't think Christie would necessarily lose the Latino vote by a huge margin. No way he would win it, but I don't think he's been very outspoken on immigration, and he doesn't seem racist. A lot of the Latino population would agree with him more on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, so his loss on that front might not be as bad as Warren's loss with independents.

Although looking at the electoral map, it would be a lot closer than I had originally thought, which does give me some hope that you may be right.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I would like a Warren candidacy even if it bombs, because I think she could do a lot more good than someone like Gillibrand could ever do by winning the election, just through the type of fire breathing campaign of actually raising the right issues, and not shying away from the challenge of someone like Chris Christie.

Judging by Gillibrand's support of PIPA, her Wall Street croniness, and her unwavering support for Israel, I think any campaign between her and Christie will be a race to the Right.

That's the last thing this country needs - another Democrat who seems to agree that this country has gone too far to the left.

 

[HyperionX]

AZ would be a blue state if wasn't McCain. In 2008, nevermind 2016!

 

[Clevinger]

I know absolutely nothing about Sherrod Brown. Is he any good?

 

[PhoenixDark]

AZ would be a blue state if wasn't McCain. In 2008, nevermind 2016!

I doubt this. It's been tea party central for some time. We'll find out in November I guess

Remember McCain kept winning in part because of his appeal to moderates/democrats

 

[Aaron Strife]

I know absolutely nothing about Sherrod Brown. Is he any good?

I like him a lot. Reliably liberal, but not like Grayson or Kucinich who start shit and become purity trolls.

 

[The Librarian]

I know absolutely nothing about Sherrod Brown. Is he any good?

Sherrod Brown is a pretty progressive Democrat from Ohio.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-sherrod-brown/why-im-a-progressive_b_12536.html

 

[KingK]

Um...

Despite what gets repeated on GAF here too much, money matters less in elections than it appears. Yes, it is important, but the definitive deciding factor? Absolutely not. We have a very recent example of this staring us right in the face: Rick Perry. The guy dumped millions into Iowa and a crap-ton in SC. Did it do him any good? No, it didn't. So what if she doesn't get any fundraising from Wall Street? Why would that make a difference? She'll have the full power of the DNC behind her and will get more than enough enthusiastic donation from supporters. Why would a million dollars from Wall Street make any difference in an election?

Rick Perry was an exception because he is an idiot who is absolutely awful at speaking. Chris Christie is not an idiot and seems to be pretty good at speaking, and he would be getting all of the money. Warren would already be struggling with independents and all of the money she would lose to Christie would only assure that loss of independents.

America being a nation far too the right isn't accurate, but that's a discussion for another time.

But let's say you're right. Let's say that America is far too the right for someone like Elizabeth Warren, yet what is it about her that makes her a left-wing extremist? I mean, anyone who pays close enough attention knows that Warren is a genuine liberal, but Americans don't often vote on policies: They vote their feelings. Look at the priorities page on her website. What on that page screams left-wing extremist? Elizabeth Warren's greatest asset is distilling the liberal philosophy into something everyone can understand. Everyone was saying that the speech made by Obama in Kansas last year was very much something Elizabeth Warren would've said.

Not to mention that'd she be running out of the wake of the Recovery President if Obama wins re-election.

While it may be true that, when questioned on specific policy, America isn't far right, it is also true that America is right wing when it comes to self identification and voting patterns, which is what really matters.

As I said earlier, after looking at it more closely Warren would have more of a chance than I originally gave her credit for, but she would still be the underdog to someone like Christie, or even Daniels.

Nevertheless, I would still love for her to run. If only because she would be one of the only candidates who would be willing to push back against the conservative framing of discussions in this country.

 

[Wray]

Here's one
I left AZ red because it's still a solid red state that I don't see changing by 2016. Plus, if it were Christie vs. Warren, I could see PA going red (though it would be close). And I don't think Christie would necessarily lose the Latino vote by a huge margin. No way he would win it, but I don't think he's been very outspoken on immigration, and he doesn't seem racist. A lot of the Latino population would agree with him more on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, so his loss on that front might not be as bad as Warren's loss with independents.

Although looking at the electoral map, it would be a lot closer than I had originally thought, which does give me some hope that you may be right.

I can't see your map. Your link keeps bringing up my old map from my browser cookies. I think you have to use that special link on the page to link your personal map.

But with regards to AZ, I'm pretty confident that Obama will win AZ this year. At the very least it's going to be a purple battleground state. Latino's in AZ are going to come out in droves to vote against whoever the Republican candidate is with all the crap they tried to pull in that state the last few years. Plus AZ has been one of or the state that has seen the most population grow the last decade. AZ would have been alot closer in 08 if McCain wasnt the candidate.

That sure worked out for Al Gore

2000 was a long time ago. Demographics are vastly different now and by the time 2016 rolls around, we're talking 16 years out. Besides, 2000 was notorious for having one of the lowest turnouts ever, and we all know which party that favors. Yet, Gore still won the popular vote, despite running a shitty campaign and being a shitty candidate who generated no enthusiasm amongst the base.

 

[PantherLotus]

Gillibrand looks exactly like what a TV show thinks a woman president will look like. They're probably right.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

Democrats do very well when they provide candidates who aren't boring robots. Get a guy like Clinton or Obama who can speak well to voters and give a personal feel to their issues and they'll do very well. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE

Look at how Clinton makes Bush Senior look out of touch with every day Americans. He manages to produce a feeling of empathy with the person asking the question instead of simply talking down to her. Of course candidates like Gore and Kerry won't do as well when they're so impersonal. I'm not trying to simplify appeal too much but connecting with voters is a huge aspect of political success. It's likely going to be Mitt Romney's biggest issue as far as success goes heading into the 2012 election. Not sure which of the Democrats would be the best in this aspect but someone mentioned Sherrod Brown who would likely be a great pick for 2016.

 

[The Librarian]

Rick Perry was an exception because he is an idiot who is absolutely awful at speaking. Chris Christie is not an idiot and seems to be pretty good at speaking, and he would be getting all of the money. Warren would already be struggling with independents and all of the money she would lose to Christie would only assure that loss of independents.

Rick Perry was an exception to what? Not having enough money to change an election? Talk to Senator Blanche Lincoln from Alabama. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean he/she will win. As you can see, momentum matters just as much as money: look at Santorum in Iowa.

Either side will have more than enough money to deal with. It's not a question of which side can raise more money. It's hardly ever about that, even rarer the deciding factor.

Why would Warren struggle with independents? Look at the numerous polls that have come out. Independents/moderates believe: the rich should be taxed more, would rather raise taxes on the rich than cut SS or Medicare, would prefer a deficit plan of spending cuts and tax increases, increase in infrastructure, etc. And as I asked in my previous post: What about Warren in her campaign, her rhetoric, would drive away independents when what she's saying is precisely what they think? What about what she has said makes her so left-wing?

While it may be true that, when questioned on specific policy, America isn't far right, it is also true that America is right wing when it comes to self identification and voting patterns, which is what really matters.

Self identification doesn't really matter, I think.

 

[KingK]

I can't see your map. Your link keeps bringing up my old map from my browser cookies. I think you have to use that special link on the page to link your personal map.

But with regards to AZ, I'm pretty confident that Obama will win AZ this year. At the very least it's going to be a purple battleground state. Latino's in AZ are going to come out in droves to vote against whoever the Republican candidate is with all the crap they tried to pull in that state the last few years. Plus AZ has been one of or the state that has seen the most population grow the last decade. AZ would have been alot closer in 08 if McCain wasnt the candidate.

I think I fixed the map link. Try it now.

Regarding AZ, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out this year. If Obama is within a couple points either way, then I would definitely agree with you about it probably going purple/blue in 2016.

 

[The Librarian]

Single-payer bill passes Senate Appropriations Committee in CA.

http://www.pdacommunity.org/califor...health-care-bill-clears-senate-appropriations

 

[KingK]

Rick Perry was an exception to what? Not having enough money to change an election? Talk to Senator Blanche Lincoln from Alabama. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean he/she will win. As you can see, momentum matters just as much as money: look at Santorum in Iowa.

Either side will have more than enough money to deal with. It's not a question of which side can raise more money. It's hardly ever about that, even rarer the deciding factor.

Why would Warren struggle with independents? Look at the numerous polls that have come out. Independents/moderates believe: the rich should be taxed more, would rather raise taxes on the rich than cut SS or Medicare, would prefer a deficit plan of spending cuts and tax increases, increase in infrastructure, etc. And as I asked in my previous post: What about Warren in her campaign, her rhetoric, would drive away independents when what she's saying is precisely what they think? What about what she has said makes her so left-wing?


Self identification doesn't really matter, I think.

I think you're giving too much credit to independents with the assumption that they would vote for someone who represents their interests ;P
The impression I get from independents is that they tend to vote for whichever candidate is represented as the most "moderate." In a hypothetical Christie vs. Warren election, the media would portray Christie as the moderate and Warren as the extremist. All the money Christie would receive would also be put towards slamming this idea into the minds of every independent voter out there. Perception matters more than reality for these votes.

Although I do admit that my original assertion that Warren would get destroyed is probably inaccurate. The more I think about it, the more I see the possibility of it being a really close race, but Christie would still be the front runner I think.

 

[Frank the Great]

Democrats do very well when they provide candidates who aren't boring robots. Get a guy like Clinton or Obama who can speak well to voters and give a personal feel to their issues and they'll do very well. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE

good to see people were fucking idiots about the debt back then too

I disagree...

Kirsten Gillibrand all the way. It'd be like Hillary Clinton without the baggage.

i'd vote the shit out of her

 

[KingK]

Single-payer bill passes Senate Appropriations Committee in CA.

http://www.pdacommunity.org/califor...health-care-bill-clears-senate-appropriations

Were there any other states trying to pass similar laws? I know Vermont has already passed a bill, but I thought I remembered hearing something about Washington or Oregon considering a single-payer system.

Hopefully it passes, and after not causing the Apocalypse, manages to convince the rest of America that single-payer is the best option.

 

[Frank the Great]

why wouldn't employers vastly prefer a single-payer system? wouldn't not having to provide healthcare benefits to their employees basically be free money for them?

i never understood this.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Wow that debate a couple days ago really hurt Romney. I didn't watch it, but his lead went from 15 points down to 1 point in just a couple days

 

[Oblivion]

Wow, Romney's a dick:

A South Carolina protestor asked him this morning about his agenda for helping the 99%, and the former governor got more than a little testy in his response:

“Let me tell you something: America is a great nation because we’re a united nation. And those who try to divide the nation, as you’re trying to do here, and as our president’s doing, are hurting this country seriously. The right course for America is not to try to divide America, and try and divide us between one and another, it’s to come together as a nation.

“And if you’ve got a better model — if you think China’s better, or Russia’s better, or Cuba’s better, or North Korea’s better — I’m glad to hear all about it. But you know what? America’s right and you’re wrong.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/love_it_or_leave_it_1034866.php

 

[Dan]

Wow, Romney's a dick:



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/love_it_or_leave_it_1034866.php

Yes, because it's either the current American system, or going the route of China, Russia, North Korea and/or Cuba.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

Wow, Romney's a dick:



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/love_it_or_leave_it_1034866.php

Yup, Romney is the master of talking down at people.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Wow, Romney's a dick:



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/love_it_or_leave_it_1034866.php

The protester should have asked him about his thoughts on tea partiers next.

 

[Lambtron]

why wouldn't employers vastly prefer a single-payer system? wouldn't not having to provide healthcare benefits to their employees basically be free money for them?

i never understood this.

Providing health insurance provides employers leverage in keeping employees. It's pretty hard to quit your job if you'll be uninsured...

 

[Clevinger]

Let me tell you something: America is a great nation because we’re a united nation.

We're a united nation of telling the underclasses to go fuck themselves.

 

[Arde5643]

Wow, Romney's a dick:



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/love_it_or_leave_it_1034866.php

My god, I thought Romney was smart - turns out he might be Perry's long lost cousin in terms of political savviness.

 

[Centurion]

Single-payer bill passes Senate Appropriations Committee in CA.

http://www.pdacommunity.org/califor...health-care-bill-clears-senate-appropriations

would Jerry Brown veto this bill?

this isn't the first time such a bill has passed. It's happened twice before, but Schwarzenegger vetoed it both times :/.

would this likely pass in the state senate? and how long would it take to actually implement it?

 

[XMonkey]

Elizabeth Warren getting elected President would be amazing. She has a real shot, in my opinion (lol at people calling her 'far-left').

 

[mckmas8808]

Were they racial or taken the wrong way?

They were racial. I know this answer is a bit late, but I had to answer it for myself.

 

[watershed]

"America's right and you're wrong!" is gonna be my new catch phrase. If/when Romney gets the nomination I wonder how quickly he'll resort to the "joe the plumber", "don't criticize America", "Obama's a socialist" type arguments.