Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

Mitt isn't running. I don't even think Jeb is running. But please, go ahead and nominate Christie.

Walker is the right choice, but I'm doubtful he'll win a primary. The schedule doesn't favor him and he would need to dominate Iowa, which will probably go to a more extreme candidate.

I am SO EXCITED for the primaries.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Trump/Palin 2016.

BELIEVE.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Too be fair Santorum won the Iowa caucus last time, with Ron Paul in a close third place behind Romney. The state's significance is overstated when it comes to republican contests.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm struggling to figure out the states that could catapult Walker into a momentous lead. New Hampshire seems to love the establishment folks. South Carolina is a bit more similar to Iowa, loving its social conservatives.

Here's the schedule through Super Tuesday:
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

Monday, January 18
Iowa caucuses

Tuesday, January 26
New Hampshire

Tuesday, February 2
Colorado caucuses
Minnesota caucuses
Missouri
Utah

Saturday, February 6
Nevada caucuses

Saturday, February 13
South Carolina

Tuesday, February 16
North Carolina

Tuesday, February 23
Arizona
Michigan

Tuesday, March 1
Colorado caucuses
Florida
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

The map is all over the place. They could beat the shit out of each other. It's highly-accelerated as well, favoring the big-money guys.

Another thing I don't get: They're holding their convention really really early in '16 - June or July in Cleveland. They didn't get a bounce last time, but still.. I question having the convention so early. If they were to get a bounce, they'd want that positive media coverage while the country is actually paying attention.

 

[WayneMorse]

Walker/Ernst 2016 calling it.

 

[Wilsongt]

GrueberGate is the new Benghazi.

 

[Lucky Forward]

G.O.P. Donors Seek to Narrow Field of Presidential Candidates to One

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/u...d-of-presidential-candidates-to-one.html?_r=0

I would be extremely disappointed if 2016 didn't included Cruz and Carson in full-bore crazy mode.

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/08/1350316/-Ron-Fournier-may-be-a-terrible-person

...

 

[Poodlestrike]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/08/1350316/-Ron-Fournier-may-be-a-terrible-person

...

Context, pls.

 

[ivysaur12]

Too be fair Santorum won the Iowa caucus last time, with Ron Paul in a close third place behind Romney. The state's significance is overstated when it comes to republican contests.

Right, but as HylianTom posted, I don't see any states that come later that would help Walker. New Hampshire seems much more likely to go to a Christie than Walker. And if he hasn't performed in Iowa and then can't win New Hampshire, does his candidacy still exist?

 

[RustyNails]

When will Hillary actually announce that she's running?

 

[benjipwns]

Too be fair Santorum won the Iowa caucus last time, with Ron Paul in a close third place behind Romney. The state's significance is overstated when it comes to republican contests.

Ron Paul actually won Iowa. Santorum edged Romney in the straw poll, but Paul actually almost swept the delegates 22-6 over Romney. /LibertarianMoment

Also, Iowa/NH are always in front but the RNC has wanted to move to a different system for years now. (Democrats effectively created the modern primary system and the GOP just copied it so the states paid for it.) Thus the June convention this time.

The rules changes, first reported by CNN in December, protect the traditional role of four early voting states while enacting harsh penalties against states that choose to hold early primaries or caucuses in violation of RNC rules. Those first four states – Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada – will hold their primary and caucus contests in February of 2016.

To prevent other states from jumping the order and compelling the first four to move their dates even earlier in January, as they did in 2012, any state that attempts to hold its nominating contest in February would have their number of delegates to the convention slashed to just nine people or, in the case of smaller states, one-third of their delegation - whichever number is smaller.

"It's the death penalty," said one RNC member. To wit: If Florida, which has flouted calendar rules in the past, violates RNC rules and holds its 2016 primary in February, its 99-member convention delegation would all but vanish. The state legislature in Florida has already moved to avoid an early primary in 2016.

After the first four states vote and the campaigns move into March, candidates would be awarded delegates on a proportional, rather than winner-take-all, basis. The scenario is designed to allow insurgent candidates the chance to stay competitive and prove their campaign mettle in larger states that might otherwise favor better-funded candidates.

The early March window would, in theory, prevent a candidate from catching fire in the early states and then riding a wave of momentum to delegate-rich victories in expensive states such as Florida or Texas.

States holding a contest after March 15 can decide to award their delegates however they see fit.

 

[benjipwns]

When will Hillary actually announce that she's running?

Uh, what do you think this was? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/u...d-of-presidential-candidates-to-one.html?_r=0

*giggle*

Very interesting.

Can't let those pesky primary voters pick a candidate.

 

[Jooney]

Can't let those pesky primary voters pick a candidate.

Can you blame the GOP donor class though? The 2012 GOP primaries were a disgrace. Literally everyone was leading the pack at one point or another (bar Jon Huntsman), saying the most outlandish things to curry favour with the rabid base. Mitt had to swing so far to the right that it ultimately buried him in the general.

It looks like the GOP are actually applying a few of the harsh lessons learned from the 2012 campaign in 2016. See also: the decision to shorten the primary season and the number of debates.

Now contrast that to the DNC and the way Democrats campaigned in 2014, where they learned nothing from the 2010 midterms...

 

[Mike M]

It's not at all surprising that the GOP won't allow a repeat of the 2012 shitshow.

 

[speculawyer]

Can you blame the GOP donor class though? The 2012 GOP primaries were a disgrace. Literally everyone was leading the pack at one point or another (bar Jon Huntsman), saying the most outlandish things to curry favour with the rabid base. Mitt had to swing so far to the right that it ultimately buried him in the general.

I can blame them. If the people want to nominate someone crazy then let them. I don't like this party of elites that nominate people to pass legislation for the rich while providing lip-service to guns, gays, and god crowd. Let those people at RedState nominate who they want and let that person run for office.

This primary of donors is annoying . . . and that goes for both parties.

 

[Jooney]

I can blame them. If the people want to nominate someone crazy then let them. I don't like this party of elites that nominate people to pass legislation for the rich while providing lip-service to guns, gays, and god crowd. Let those people at RedState nominate who they want and let that person run for office.

This primary of donors is annoying . . . and that goes for both parties.

Well, the money in politics is a separate issue that I am sure you and I agree with. But if there is going to be money in politics, then it is hardly surprising that the people stumping up the vast majority of cash that runs these campaigns want a 'clean primary' process.

 

[ivysaur12]

Well, the money in politics is a separate issue that I am sure you and I agree with. But if there is going to be money in politics, then it is hardly surprising that the people stumping up the vast majority of cash that runs these campaigns want a 'clean primary' process.

I see a Cruz as a better fundraiser than Santorum, though. But it's a good lesson from 2012, which was absurd and ruined the candidate in the general election.

 

[RustyNails]

Uh, what do you think this was? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30

Standing in line with Hillary.

 

[Diablos]

Walker/Ernst 2016 calling it.

That would be a formidable ticket.

I'm banking on Walker, Kasich and Haley.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Romney on paper should've cruised to the 2012 GOP nomination.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Romney on paper should've cruised to the 2012 GOP nomination.

How do you figure? With the Republican base being what it is these days, any remotely moderate candidate is going to have a hell of a time.

 

[zero shift]

There's so much wrong with this cover, but I think it comes down to an editorial board of white Clinton liberals saying we should destroy welfare because it's the most humane way to deal with black poverty.

Jesus Christ fuck TNR.

Yeah that's why I dislike TNR. Like most "left wing" editorials, they play the role but every once in a while a topic brings to light some of the true beliefs of the editorial.

This seems hilarious in retrospect seeing how much of a failure the welfare reform was. It actually made people even MORE dependent on welfare.

 

[Oblivion]

Context, pls.

He (Ron Fournier) was trying to make a shitty joke based on the #icantbreath protests that have been going on regarding Eric Garner's death.

 

[Third Strike]

Would NC's Pat McCrory be a good name for the Republican's in 2016? He does a decent job of pretending to be a moderate, and could blame everything that has happened in NC on the General Assembly, since they have a veto-proof majority.

 

[benjipwns]

Walker/Ernst 2016 calling it.

Walker/Martinez

Romney on paper should've cruised to the 2012 GOP nomination.

Perry.

Yeah that's why I dislike TNR. Like most "left wing" editorials, they play the role but every once in a while a topic brings to light some of the true beliefs of the editorial.

This seems hilarious in retrospect seeing how much of a failure the welfare reform was. It actually made people even MORE dependent on welfare.

TNR has always represented the upper class Washingtonian progressive "just a little dab of the Left please, on the side" wing. It jumped feet first into World War I, was always leery of blacks and other agitators getting too uppity, fretted over the New Deal, Civil Rights and Great Society being "too much, too soon", practically wanked itself almost to death over the image (not substance) of JFK, Clinton AND Obama.

Half the neoconservatives of the 2000s wrote for TNR in the 1980's. Hell, the Weekly Standard is practically a reunion of 1980's TNR writers/fandom.

Stuff like Stephen Glass and Scott Beauchamp were the only reason we still knew it was publishing.

 

[Yoda]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/u...d-of-presidential-candidates-to-one.html?_r=0

*giggle*

Very interesting.

And the FreeRepublic reaction is entertainingly predictable..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3235056/posts



I'm so ready for this to kick-off.

Mitt Romney had insane spending ratios to any other primary contestant and a weak ass field of opponents; the process was still elongated. Its insane people are even considering him. Chris Christie would have it slightly easier as there will be primary voters who will have not already voted against him in the early states, but he still falls into the too-establishment branch of the party. Base voters aren't going to flock towards him. Ditto with Jeb.

Scott Walker is really the only thing that would work. But even he would struggle against the firebrands in Iowa, SC, Flordia, or any other deep south state that goes early.

 

[Poodlestrike]

He (Ron Fournier) was trying to make a shitty joke based on the #icantbreath protests that have been going on regarding Eric Garner's death.

Ahh, yeah. That's pretty scummy.

 

[benjipwns]

Mitt Romney had insane spending ratios to any other primary contestant and a weak ass field of opponents; the process was still elongated.

The process was calender-wise elongated. McCain had eliminated his opponents by early February because he had amassed 60% of the delegates needed due to the stampede effect. If Romney had swept every state with 100% of the vote through the end of February in 2012 he would have had only like 10% of the needed delegates.

Super Tuesday itself was not only later (first week of March) but it only allocated less than 20% of delegates, in 2008 it was the first week of February and allocated over 40%.

The GOP is deliberately attempting to eliminate the Iowa and early states strategy that Jimmy Carter and Pat Caddell originally devised by elongating the calender of allocation (rather than the calender of "presumptive nominee") and now in 2016 moving to proportional allocation.

 

[zero shift]

TNR has always represented the upper class Washingtonian progressive "just a little dab of the Left please, on the side" wing. It jumped feet first into World War I, was always leery of blacks and other agitators getting too uppity, fretted over the New Deal, Civil Rights and Great Society being "too much, too soon", practically wanked itself almost to death over the image (not substance) of JFK, Clinton AND Obama.

Half the neoconservatives of the 2000s wrote for TNR in the 1980's. Hell, the Weekly Standard is practically a reunion of 1980's TNR writers/fandom.

Stuff like Stephen Glass and Scott Beauchamp were the only reason we still knew it was publishing.

That is true. I just wonder what (online) magazine will replace TNR. I guess people can flock to Jacobin but that is socialist rather than progressive.

 

[benjipwns]

The same ones that have "replaced" Newsweek, etc. and get linked here all the time.

Vox, TPM, 538, Upshot, Politico, etc.

National Review in part has survived because it was one of the early "industry magazines" to jump on having a web presence with extensive web-only content. Jonah Goldberg, for example, has built a large part of his continued (and expanded) career off his NRO work rather than simply writing for the print edition.

Jacobin is a far far more niche magazine than TNR was. It only started in 2010 or 2011 and like its closer older counterpart Dissent only publishes quarterly.

Most political magazines actually stay afloat only due to the trusts or foundations that back them out of ideological or institutional reasons. An inverse of the say, ESPN* or Game Informer, model where they'll almost pay you to take the magazine so they can beef up the subscriber count and thus ad pricing. (And where they dominate the industry to have exclusive access that competitors struggle to match.)

*I've gotten this just for Insider access for like five years, and paid a total of $8. I imagine I read like 20% or less of the content in the magazine.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

ESPN magazine still publishes?

 

[Avon Barksdale]

ESPN magazine still publishes?

Yeah.

 

[benjipwns]

ESPN magazine still publishes?

Rank	Name	Circulation
1	AARP The Magazine	22,274,096
2	AARP Bulletin	22,244,820
3	Costco Connection	8,654,464
[b]4	Game Informer	7,629,995[/b]
5	Better Homes And Gardens	7,615,581
6	Reader's Digest	4,536,912
7	Good Housekeeping	4,348,641
8	Family Circle	4,092,525
9	National Geographic	4,029,881
10	People	3,527,541
11	Woman's Day	3,311,803
12	Time	3,289,377
13	Taste of Home	3,249,148
14	Ladies' Home Journal	3,225,863
15	Sports Illustrated	3,023,197
16	Cosmopolitan	3,015,858
17	Prevention	2,872,944
18	Southern Living	2,815,523
19	AAA Going Places	2,594,402
20	AAA Living	2,414,108
21	O, The Oprah Magazine	2,386,601
22	Glamour	2,327,793
23	American Rifleman	2,238,735
24	Parents	2,217,788
25	Redbook	2,206,676
26	The American Legion Magazine	2,191,967
[b]27	ESPN The Magazine	2,160,552[/b]
28	FamilyFun	2,122,153
29	Martha Stewart Living	2,107,677
30	Smithsonian	2,103,798
31	TV Guide	2,032,581
32	Maxim	2,028,076

Just for comparison, The New Republic's circulation last year was around 50,000, Jacobin's was 11,000. National Review's was around 160,000.

EDIT: Some more?
The Atlantic: 477,000
Mother Jones: 203,000
Foreign Affairs: 163,000
The Nation: 125,000
The Weekly Standard: 105,000
reason: 70,000
The American Prospect: 27,000
National Journal: 15,000

TNR had a lower circulation than reason lol

 

[Diablos]

holy shit, Game Informer sells more than Better Homes & Gardens. Hahaha

 

[zero shift]

^^^Does that include digital versions or just print?

 

[benjipwns]

Print. Every year a print magazine that uses the mail has to report its circulation or something like that. Usually if you look wherever the list of editors is there's a statement in there about it, and once a year there's an extended statement regarding their circulation.

The first three aren't technically magazines in the normal sense as they're sent to all members until they request cancellation.

The Watchtower claims a circulation of 53,000,000.

EDIT: This is usually who the statement is made to/by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Audited_Media

 

[thepotatoman]

So, any opinions about this "cromnibus" thing for this Thursday's budget deadline?

I don't really get the reasoning behind GOP setting up a DHS funding battle in march. Why would liberals/democrats care to fight for DHS funding and conservatives to fight against it?

It's a bush creation that has never seemed to accomplish anything but wasting a bunch of money. We're probably better off without it.

 

[Yoda]

The process was calender-wise elongated. McCain had eliminated his opponents by early February because he had amassed 60% of the delegates needed due to the stampede effect. If Romney had swept every state with 100% of the vote through the end of February in 2012 he would have had only like 10% of the needed delegates.

Super Tuesday itself was not only later (first week of March) but it only allocated less than 20% of delegates, in 2008 it was the first week of February and allocated over 40%.

The GOP is deliberately attempting to eliminate the Iowa and early states strategy that Jimmy Carter and Pat Caddell originally devised by elongating the calender of allocation (rather than the calender of "presumptive nominee") and now in 2016 moving to proportional allocation.

I don't disagree that it will be shorter, the rule changes guarantee that. I still don't buy that they will managed to settle it without irreversible damage on the "swing back to the middle" front.

 

[benjipwns]

I think the "rush to the middle" concept is overrated. Independents aren't necessarily between the two parties and historically third party performance outside of John Anderson's bid hasn't supported that idea.

Obama "rushed to the middle" much more after he was elected than he did during his campaigns. Bush in 2004 too.

I don't really get the reasoning behind GOP setting up a DHS funding battle in march. Why would liberals/democrats care to fight for DHS funding and conservatives to fight against it?

It's a bush creation that has never seemed to accomplish anything but wasting a bunch of money. We're probably better off without it.

240,000 employees, and hey, that was a grand bipartisan success story!

 

[Poodlestrike]

So, any opinions about this "cromnibus" thing for this Thursday's budget deadline?

I don't really get the reasoning behind GOP setting up a DHS funding battle in march. Why would liberals/democrats care to fight for DHS funding and conservatives to fight against it?

It's a bush creation that has never seemed to accomplish anything but wasting a bunch of money. We're probably better off without it.

I hate to be the guy making a War on Terror argument, but folding together all of the various agencies under one roof has done an enormous amount of good for their ability to cooperate.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Would NC's Pat McCrory be a good name for the Republican's in 2016? He does a decent job of pretending to be a moderate, and could blame everything that has happened in NC on the General Assembly, since they have a veto-proof majority.

He's already said he's running for reelection.

And he'll be running against Dem AG Roy Cooper, so good luck with that. Unless it's a good year for Republicans he's probably hosed. He's unpopular and I don't think he'd blame the General Assembly who are also Republicans.

"Yeah guys, those other Republicans are totally dicks. Not me though!"

 

[zero shift]

Jacobin has a good write up on abolishing the senate.

 

[benjipwns]

They make a better case for maintaining it and restoring its original position. In part because their only argument is that it's not "democratic" while never defining what this means.

I like this ahistorical gibberish:

The Declaration of Independence said nothing about a nation-state, referring instead only to “the good people of these colonies,” which “of right ought to be free and independent states.” The Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781, were equally chary, specifying that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence” and characterizing the new union as no more than “a firm league of friendship.”

“We the people,” the 1787 Constitution’s famous opening phrase, was the first official reference to Americans as anything approaching a single entity.

Americans view this as perfectly natural. After all, the Constitution created the federal government, which then laid the basis for the first stirrings of a unified society. But elsewhere the process was different. Beginning in the spring of 1789, the French convened the first national assembly, issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and stormed the Bastille, all without drafting a constitution until more than two years later.

The Constitution gave rise to the nation in America, the nation gave rise to the constitution in France.

The DoI came out of the SECOND Continental Congress. Which the Troubles in the Colonies was fought under. 12 years later they drafted a Constitution.

The "French" nation already existed under the House of Bourbon, the French Revolution was a change in the form of government (that quickly changed for the worse and then worse still and then back to the Bourbons), the "United States" as a nation didn't. And wouldn't really exist fully as a unified concept in the minds of many until the 1820s or 1860s.

Also, they skip over the last Amendment of the first set in their narrative about single entities:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Oblivion]

Did you guys see Obama on Colbert? Some of it was a little clumsy, but Obama killed it.

Also loved Colbert's question about the nuclear codes. :lol

 

[Jooney]

GOP Extracts Price for Averting Shutdown

WASHINGTON — Congress prepared on Monday to scale back Michelle Obama's school-lunch nutrition mandates and curtail some clean water regulations in a $1 trillion spending bill that would avert a government shutdown this week but extract a policy price from Democrats.

Continued fighting over such policy changes threatened to delay a huge spending agreement that lawmakers hope to pass to keep the government funded past Thursday. The measure would keep domestic spending at current levels while increasing funding to fight crises abroad, from the war against the Islamic State in the Middle East to the threat of Ebola in West Africa.

But in keeping with the broader theme of this 113th Congress, even reaching the finish line was proving harder than expected. Since Republicans took control of the House after the elections in 2010, the government has largely been funded by a series of short-term spending laws that held down overall government spending without shifting money to reflect Republican priorities.

With the spending bill now in the works, Republican leaders hope to leave their imprint more firmly -- and signal the direction they will try to take the federal government starting next month, when Congress is in their complete control.

Under the plan drafted by House and Senate Appropriations Committees, President Obama would get $5.4 billion in emergency funds to battle Ebola, Democratic and Republican aides say.

More than half of the overall package -- about $554 billion -- would go to military spending. The deal would also allocate roughly $948 million to handle the surge of unaccompanied minor children who began pouring across the southern border this summer.

The $1 trillion spending bill would fund almost all the government through September 2015 but keep the Department of Homeland Security open only through February to keep pressure on the president over his executive action to defer deportation of as many as five million illegal immigrants.

More at the link.

Basically:
- $1T funding through till Sep 15
- Half to support military and foreign crises
- Cuts to water and food regs because they're bad
- Funding for DHS only to Feb because of Obama's executive action

 

[Jooney]

They make a better case for maintaining it and restoring its original position. In part because their only argument is that it's not "democratic" while never defining what this means.

Their definition was implied - representation should be reasonably proportional to population. No explicit definition necessary.

I can't say I disagree too much. America is becoming a country of urbanisation and city dwellers, but a disproportional amount of political power remains in sparsely populated rural areas.

Filibuster as standard practice coupled with anonymous holds are the worst though.

 

[benjipwns]

Their definition was implied - representation should be reasonably proportional to population. No explicit definition necessary.

Except abolishing the Senate doesn't do this. It just finally eliminates the States Ambassadors fully from Washington.

Even if we then adjusted the House so everyone in it represents the same number of people, that's not automatically democratic. Especially when we aren't defining democracy yet still considering it an inherent good.

 

[Jooney]

Except abolishing the Senate doesn't do this. It just finally eliminates the States Ambassadors fully from Washington.

Even if we then adjusted the House so everyone in it represents the same number of people, that's not automatically democratic. Especially when we aren't defining democracy yet still considering it an inherent good.

Oh, I don't agree that the senate should be abolished, but there is room for reform. Filibusters and anonymous holds would be a good starting point.