Support NeoGAF

[thepotatoman]

Speaking of universal swings, Democrats would need a +9.3% in the overall popular vote to get enough seats to flip the house assuming a universal swing. This is up from the +7.3% using 2012's results.

Democrats need 30 seats to flip, and the 30th closest republican win was +15%, subtracting the nationwide +5.7% republicans got in the popular vote gets you the +9.3% needed in the nationwide vote, assuming every district swung evenly.

That would line up with my assumption that the swing districts swing harder than most when faced with a nationwide trend.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Speaking of universal swings, Democrats would need a +9.3% in the overall popular vote to get enough seats to flip the house assuming a universal swing. This is up from the +7.3% using 2012's results.

Democrats need 30 seats to flip, and the 30th closest republican win was +15%, subtracting the nationwide +5.7% republicans got in the popular vote gets you the +9.3% needed in the nationwide vote, assuming every district swung evenly.

That would line up with my assumption that the swing districts swing harder than most when faced with a nationwide trend.

Well one thing that helps is districts like UT-4 and GA-12 are no longer competitive so we can focus our efforts elsewhere.

Also as an example of not every district swinging evenly - NY-24 is a D+5 district but the Democrat (an incumbent) lost by like 20 points.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://securitythroughstrength.com/

If he gets married in the next 3-9 months I'll believe it.

 

[Coriolanus]

http://securitythroughstrength.com/

 

[Poodlestrike]

Lol, where's that from?

 

[benjipwns]

Lol, where's that from?

Preacher by Garth Ennis.

 

[Chichikov]

Preacher by Garth Ennis.

That is lifted, pretty much verbatim from a George Carlin bit (at least I think it was George Carlin, can't find it online at the moment).

 

[Coriolanus]

That is lifted, pretty much verbatim from a George Carlin bit (at least I think it was George Carlin, can't find it online at the moment).

Closest i got.

Could always be.

Carlin was prolly just straight lifting it from tolkien tho.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Never again will I read a news article from dailymail.

"Joe Biden tells Democratic lawmakers the Obama years 'have been really, really hard for this country' – and the White House blames it on George W. Bush!"

"Biden's hopes for the top job are slim as he trails Hillary Clinton by a dramatic margin among Democratic voters"

"He acknowledged that many of the Democrats' priorities are deeply unpopular and said their numbers in Congress have shrunk as a result"

 

[Oblivion]

If he gets married in the next 3-9 months I'll believe it.

Well, that's gonna depend on the SC's ruling, now isn't it?

 

[B-Dubs]

Never again will I read a news article from dailymail.

"Joe Biden tells Democratic lawmakers the Obama years 'have been really, really hard for this country' – and the White House blames it on George W. Bush!"

"Biden's hopes for the top job are slim as he trails Hillary Clinton by a dramatic margin among Democratic voters"

"He acknowledged that many of the Democrats' priorities are deeply unpopular and said their numbers in Congress have shrunk as a result"

Diamond Joe would never say any of that!

But yea the Daily Mail is very well known for making random shit up.

 

[benjipwns]

Never again will I read a news article from dailymail.

Do you know what the Daily Mail is?

 

[Oblivion]

Its a shame. Palin could have been elected to the senate in 2010 if she only served out her term and ran against murkoswski.

dk why she didnt try that instead of the joke she has become.

Uh...I don't think you understand how Sarah Palin works: She doesn't.

I mean, she would appear on Fox News, a channel that exists solely to make idiots like her look good, and yet even when being interviewed by a slobbering half-wit like Sean Hannity, she still comes off as a fucking idiot. I'm not even referring to her opinions, per se. Just the mere fact that her dumb ass still can't string together two sentences on such friendly terrain. Seriously, don't they have rehearsals, or cue cards or anything?

And speaking of the thrilla from Wasilla, you know what the real irony is regarding many of her ardent fans FINALLy bailing on her after that Iowa speech? It's that, out of every instance we've heard Palin opening her word hole, this one was the one and only time that actually had the benefit of providing the most legitimate excuse for her coming off as a dingus. Her teleprompter broke, and thus for once, it's not her own fault. As opposed to all the other times she opened her corn trap, which were far more grievous offenses.

I mean really now, doddering, love struck nimrods like Matt Lewis stuck with her after she nearly had a heart attack when Katie Couric asks her what newspapers she reads, but the Iowa speech was a bridge

Spoiler

to nowhere

too far? Really? Really, now?

 

[speculawyer]

Ben will never be the Republican Nominee. Ever. Republicans aren't nominating a black person for President of the United States for at least 20 years, if not longer. He's there for the same reason Herman Cain was last year. So they could pat themselves on the back and convince themselves that they really aren't racist and that if every black person thought like Ben, and talked like Ben, and voted like Ben, and hated white liberals and 90% of black america like Ben - well gosh darnit, they'd like him or her too.

Just look at Stacey Dash.

Of course not. I just want him there for the primary debates so he can some some crazy shit.

 

[speculawyer]

If he gets married in the next 3-9 months I'll believe it.

You lose another avatar bet?

 

[Ecotic]

With Romney gone 2016 looks more like a retread of 2012. One credible Republican vs. the clown car.

I'm still not convinced the mid-tier candidates, Paul, Christie, and Walker are serious candidates. Paul will bow out once he's not the front runner and he's up against the filing deadline for his Senate seat. His pseudo libertarianism adds to conversation, but will never go the distance in the primaries. Christie's just too loud, obnoxious, and scandal tainted. Walker reminds me of those old SNL skits with Dana Carvey playing Bush Sr. and a little kid playing Dan Quayle. Walker's the little kid, he just lacks gravitas, like a boy dressing up in his Dad's suit. I'll say that he has the most potential to prove me wrong though.

 

[Diablos]

My money is on Walker and Jeb Bush. Young people like Paul but no one else is going to take him seriously. It also seems like Christie's star is fading.

Nikki Haley is totally possible too -- would be the perfect counter to Hillary, and would handicap the female vote a bit for Dems. Susanna Martinez would make for great VP material, as would Haley, but she is better suited for the top of the ticket. Everyone seems to be leaving these two women out of the race but I'm not sure why. Haley is the dark horse candidate but she would also have great potential.

Everyone else is a clown or will be given the cold shoulder because they're too "moderate" (i.e. Romney, despite the fact that he essentially sold his soul to get the nomination last time)

Also I think Romney might be playing mind games with his announcement that he's not running. I think he's going to quietly sit back and wait 7-8 months while PAC money gets shuffled around, then make a final decision (which will either be no activity or ohai guyz I'm back lolz)

 

[HylianTom]

My money is on Walker and Jeb Bush. Young people like Paul but no one else is going to take him seriously. It also seems like Christie's star is fading.

Nikki Haley is totally possible too -- would be the perfect counter to Hillary, and would handicap the female vote a bit for Dems. Susanna Martinez would make for great VP material, as would Haley, but she could be at the top of the ticket too.

Everyone else is a clown or will be given the cold shoulder because they're too "moderate" (i.e. Romney, despite the fact that he essentially sold his soul to get the nomination last time)

I'm betting it'll come down to Walker and Bush as well. The big questions in my mind are:
- how big is the "anyone but Bush" contingent in the party? And,
- can Bush's sure-to-be-gargantuan fundraising overwhelm that contingent?

 

[Diablos]

I'm betting it'll come down to Walker and Bush as well. The big questions in my mind are:
- how big is the "anyone but Bush" contingent in the party? And,
- can Bush's sure-to-be-gargantuan fundraising overwhelm that contingent?

Nothing to worry about either way. I think the "centrist" bloc of the electorate has amnesia and doesn't care about Dubya anymore in the context of 2016 anyway. The base won't have any problem supporting him, In US politics these days his Presidency was eons ago, and the public has been beat over the head with so much noise that it's easy to let old grudges against the Bush empire get watered down if not completely eroded by now. Not to mention the fact that he'll be going up against another Clinton negates the argument from the left that "we can't afford another Bush" to some degree, because the GOP can turn around and say the same thing, although Bill and Hillary have a vastly superior record politically and when it comes to policy as well. That said, in the way campaigns are run with rampant negativity and distortions it might not matter and the right-wing blowhards will be shouting mind numbing bullshit from the rooftops to win over mindless "swing" voters.

The Koch Brothers are aiming to raise, what, $889 millon for 2016 (and that will likely prove to be a conservative estimate, no pun intended). Bush will have money backing him from every corner and you better believe it's going to help him. No one here is worried about that? Democrats will not be able to keep up this time. There's no way. That's very, very concerning.

And again, concerning your first point, it's foolish to think the Bush name will scare away the party. Dubya's approval rating is at levels where it isn't embarrassing for powerful voices in the party to embrace the name again, and that's good enough for them, because the base WILL turn out.

 

[benjipwns]

The "another Bush" thing doesn't make sense to me as a counter to Hillary. In terms of if people want a "fresh face" or whatever. Hillary was arguably the most politically active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, a Senator for eight years, a Presidential candidate (with a long run of inevitability up last time and this time), near nominee and then Secretary of State for four years. Jeb Bush was a Governor and his term ended eight years ago and would be ten years by his inauguration. Just because he has the same last name is silly. And for Hillary too for that matter. But if anything we've seen Hillary active in national politics for almost 25 straight years now, if you didn't live in Florida you barely ever heard about or saw Jeb Bush.

Politics is stupid.

Nikki Haley is totally possible too -- would be the perfect counter to Hillary, and would handicap the female vote a bit for Dems. Susanna Martinez would make for great VP material, as would Haley, but she is better suited for the top of the ticket. Everyone seems to be leaving these two women out of the race but I'm not sure why. Haley is the dark horse candidate but she would also have great potential.

I can't see Nikki Haley running because of the affairs rumors would go wild and it's not clear what her major base of support would be. She's only 43 so she doesn't have to hop into a crowded race the year her second term begins. She can wait until 2024, for example, after replacing Lindsey Graham in the Senate when he's elected to the White House.

Me and PD have been telling people it's Walker/Martinez. Doubt us at your own risk.

 

[Diablos]

The "another Bush" thing doesn't make sense to me as a counter to Hillary. In terms of if people want a "fresh face" or whatever. Hillary was arguably the most politically active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, a Senator for eight years, a Presidential candidate (with a long run of inevitability up last time and this time), near nominee and then Secretary of State for four years. Jeb Bush was a Governor and his term ended eight years ago and would be ten years by his inauguration. Just because he has the same last name is silly. And for Hillary too for that matter. But if anything we've seen Hillary active in national politics for almost 25 straight years now, if you didn't live in Florida you barely ever heard about or saw Jeb Bush.

I agree to an extent, however I think you are going too easy on Jeb. The Bush Family along with the Clintons are the most popular LIVING family in American politics. Jeb has the Bush name, people know what and who to associate that with. Hillary no doubt has more face time than Jeb, yes... but Jeb's last name alone does a lot for (and against) him. People outside of Florida know enough to associate him with conservative politics and a political powerhouse that goes back to before even the Reagan years.

I can't see Nikki Haley running because of the affairs rumors would go wild and it's not clear what her major base of support would be. She's only 43 so she doesn't have to hop into a crowded race the year her second term begins. She can wait until 2024, for example, after replacing Lindsey Graham in the Senate when he's elected to the White House.

Me and PD have been telling people it's Walker/Martinez. Doubt us at your own risk.

Nikki will run -- I might be wrong about her making it to the top of the ticket, but I totally expect to see her in debates and, at worst, on a shortlist for VP candidates -- unless this affair stuff actually has some credibility.

I too have been saying for years that Martinez is a strong candidate for the GOP, especially for Vice President, and would do well on a ticket with anyone who would win the nomination, save Rand Paul but I don't see him getting far in the primaries anyway. She'd be a wise pick for the GOP, to help shore up the hispanic vote after two embarrassingly bad elections.

If I recall correctly, she got 40% of hispanic voters in NM. That's really good considering how poorly the GOP does with them nationally. Put Martinez on the ticket in a close enough race and that's 5EV taken from Democrats. I get the impression she's popular regionally as well, so that could help a lot in Colorado.

Edit: For some reason I thought she wasn't married, turns out she is! Could definitely run for the top of the ticket, but she doesn't have much recognition outside of the region right now.

 

[benjipwns]

I agree to an extent, however I think you are going too easy on Jeb. The Bush Family along with the Clintons are the most popular LIVING family in American politics. Jeb has the Bush name, people know what and who to associate that with. Hillary no doubt has more face time than Jeb, yes... but Jeb's last name alone does a lot for (and against) him. People outside of Florida know enough to associate him with conservative politics and a political powerhouse that goes back to before even the Reagan years.

I'm just saying that I personally see no reason to chain Jeb or Hillary with the sins of their father/brother/husband. They stand alone as individuals, and as individuals Hillary has been a major national player for 25 years and Jeb was a Governor for eight years nearly a decade ago. If all you care about is a "fresh face" or "outsider" then Jeb's obviously superior by a realistic assessment of them as individuals.

I know people want it otherwise because that's the better narrative and that's what politics is about, not reality.

 

[Diablos]

I'm just saying that I personally see no reason to chain Jeb or Hillary with the sins of their father/brother/husband. They stand alone as individuals, and as individuals Hillary has been a major national player for 25 years and Jeb was a Governor for eight years nearly a decade ago. If all you care about is a "fresh face" or "outsider" then Jeb's obviously superior by a realistic assessment of them as individuals.

I know people want it otherwise because that's the better narrative and that's what politics is about, not reality.

This is where we disagree. Your argument has some validity to it here, but don't you think it's going to be negated by the fact that should he win, we'd have three Bush Presidents over the past 25 years, having major influence in the White House for four Presidencies, going back as far as neary 35 years? If Hillary's name, career and political angle as a means to building up to the Presidency defines her, Jeb's is the fact that two generations of his own family -- not just his spouse -- have dominated not only American politics but the Governorship of two heavily populated and influential states and the White House in what would, again, be three times as President, once as Vice President. Hillary had an... okay Senate tenure and respectable role as SoS that is still marred by the noise and disinformation campaign over Benghazi. Before all of this she was known as the first lady who failed miserably at universal health care and stood by her man as he cheated on her.

It's not that I don't agree with you about how much of a presence Hillary has, it's just that in said regard, she and Jeb basically cancel each other out in their own ways. Each side knows it. But frankly I'd argue Hillary has more of an "outsider" status than Jeb, even if it's minimal and silly given how popular both names are in US politics.

 

[bananas]

Quick question, why are we still in a 2014 thread. Shouldn't we move to a new thread? Or at least rename this one?

 

[Diablos]

PoliGAF 2015 | Bad news for... FUCK

 

[WayneMorse]

I actually had a dream last night where I went on to gaf and there was a new Poligaf thread, no joke.

 

[Diablos]

I think PoliGAF is an Obama-centric thing and because his Presidency is winding down, we're going to see other threads (i.e. the one about the start of Hillary's campaign)

 

[Lucky Forward]

I hope Jeb makes Magic Carpet Ride his campaign theme song.

Jeb Bush shaped by troubled Phillips Academy years

But this Bush almost ran aground in those first, formative prep school days. He bore little resemblance to his father, a star on many fronts at Andover, and might have been an even worse student than brother George. Classmates said he smoked a notable amount of pot — as many did — and sometimes bullied smaller students.

“I drank alcohol and I smoked marijuana when I was at Andover,” Bush said, both of which could have led to expulsion. “It was pretty common.” He said he had no recollection of bullying and said he was surprised to be perceived that way by some.

“The first time I really got stoned was in Jeb’s room,” Tibbetts said. “He had a portable stereo with removable speakers. He put on Steppenwolf for me.” As the rock group’s signature song, Magic Carpet Ride, blared from the speakers, Tibbetts said he smoked hash with Bush. He said he once bought hashish from Bush but stressed, in a follow-up e-mail, “Please bear in mind that I was seeking the hash, it wasn’t as if he was a dealer; though he did suggest I take up cigarettes so that I could hold my hits better, after that 1st joint.”

Bush previously has acknowledged what he called his “stupid” and “wrong” use of marijuana. In the years since, he has opposed efforts to legalize marijuana for medicinal or recreational use.

 

[benjipwns]

Three Bush Presidencies doesn't bother me inherently, they're all individuals who will have come to it with different experiences and paths.

It's like John Adams and John Q. Adams, both established their own careers and achievements before their Presidencies.

The political scene has always been dominated by families, Rockefellers, Kennedys, Udalls, Tafts, Roosevelts, Harrisons, Daleys, Romneys, Doles, Browns, Bayard-du Ponts, Wadsworths.

Bradford-McCellen-Rehnquist-Stevenson-Sheldon Whitehouse.

Benjamin Wade, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Herbert Hoover, Elliot Richardson, David Souter and John Kerry are all descendants of Simon Bradstreet.

More local examples like the Chafees, Caseys, Gores, Longs, Crittendens, Keans, Cuomos.

Seymour-Conkling and the Sherman families battled over the Republican party with Blaine's backers in the late 1800s.

The original Clintons of George, DeWitt, and George.

That's not even counting families (other than the Rockefellers) who had their toes in everything including politics like the Cabots. Or the Carters (BILLY BEER).

I just prefer the individuals being considered first instead of their families. But as I said, I know that won't be the dominant narrative.

 

[benjipwns]

Quick question, why are we still in a 2014 thread. Shouldn't we move to a new thread? Or at least rename this one?

We could tack a -15 on this until the field starts shaping up.

The first GOP debate won't even be until August:

1. Fox News
August 2015
Ohio

2. CNN
September 2015
California

3. CNBC
October 2015
Colorado

4. Fox Business
November 2015
Wisconsin

5. CNN
December 2015
Nevada

6. Fox News
January 2016
Iowa

7. ABC News
February 2016
New Hampshire

8. CBS News
February 2016
South Carolina

9. NBC/Telemundo
February 2016
Florida

 

[Diablos]

Three Bush Presidencies doesn't bother me inherently, they're all individuals who will have come to it with different experiences and paths.

It's like John Adams and John Q. Adams, both established their own careers and achievements before their Presidencies.

The political scene has always been dominated by families, Rockefellers, Kennedys, Udalls, Tafts, Roosevelts, Harrisons, Daleys, Romneys, Doles, Browns, Bayard-du Ponts, Wadsworths.

Bradford-McCellen-Rehnquist-Stevenson-Sheldon Whitehouse.

Benjamin Wade, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Herbert Hoover, Elliot Richardson, David Souter and John Kerry are all descendants of Simon Bradstreet.

More local examples like the Chafees, Caseys, Gores, Longs, Crittendens, Keans, Cuomos.

Seymour-Conkling and the Sherman families battled over the Republican party with Blaine's backers in the late 1800s.

The original Clintons of George, DeWitt, and George.

That's not even counting families (other than the Rockefellers) who had their toes in everything including politics like the Cabots. Or the Carters (BILLY BEER).

I just prefer the individuals being considered first instead of their families. But as I said, I know that won't be the dominant narrative.

It's not a question of what bothers you or not, or the reality that there are many families in US politics who have deep roots -- I don't disagree with what you're pointing out at all. Rather, this is a question of which family is more of a powerhouse in terms of leadership and Presidential politics. To me, the obvious answer is the Bush family.

I'm not saying the Clintons are Obama circa-2004 here, but in contrast to the Bushes, they basically have each other and that's about it. The Bushes have deeper roots, and more history in US politics, and have held more positions, from the US House, to the CIA, to Governor to President (over four decades and counting). They're just stronger in that regard, there's no disputing it. Bill and Hillary maybe capture, like, a third of that.

 

[benjipwns]

The Clinton machine is heavily integrated into the Democratic Party, even the Obama team couldn't fill out the roster without filling the plate with them, I'm not sure the Bush one is all that much into the Republican one anymore. Jeb's not going to have access to the old ties that H.W. picked up when he begged for any scraps Nixon and Ford could give him. Most of them are way too old now, and/or have no influence in the party, and W.'s administration crashed and burned most of the "rising stars" except Rice probably. (Which is kinda fitting since H.W. did the same thing to his with Iran-Contra.)

I think people are really overestimating Jeb's power and the Bush network. H.W. was anointed by Saint Reagan, W. beat down a non-field. Especially with him on the wrong side of the immigration issue. There's a reason his numbers collapsed back to the field when Romney got included in the polls again and he's only cracked 15+% twice in the non-Romney polls. He's not tearing up any state polls except Florida where he's getting like a whopping 25%. And a lot of them are going to be proportional this cycle. So even if he sets up a campaign that towers over the rest (because they stink) like his brother did in 2000 he won't be able to just win by a war of attrition.

 

[B-Dubs]

We could tack a -15 on this until the field starts shaping up.

The first GOP debate won't even be until August:

That's so far far away, I need my comedy fix already man.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Nikki Haley is totally possible too -- would be the perfect counter to Hillary, and would handicap the female vote a bit for Dems.

I too have been saying for years that Martinez is a strong candidate for the GOP, especially for Vice President, and would do well on a ticket with anyone who would win the nomination, save Rand Paul but I don't see him getting far in the primaries anyway. She'd be a wise pick for the GOP, to help shore up the hispanic vote after two embarrassingly bad elections.

If I recall correctly, she got 40% of hispanic voters in NM. That's really good considering how poorly the GOP does with them nationally. Put Martinez on the ticket in a close enough race and that's 5EV taken from Democrats. I get the impression she's popular regionally as well, so that could help a lot in Colorado.

The fuck is wrong with you? Hispanics and women aren't just going to see a Hispanic or a woman (or both) on the ticket and say "you know what, they look like me, forget how I feel about the issues" and punch that hole on the ballot. No different than when Palin got put on the ballot, those demographics will see right through it.

 

[RustyNails]

A Tie means a republican victory in 2016.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/for-republicans-a-2016-tie-is-a-win/

I don't see any scenario in which Hillary loses IA.

 

[The Technomancer]

A Tie means a republican victory in 2016.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/for-republicans-a-2016-tie-is-a-win/

Wisconsin went blue in 2012 and that was with one of their representatives on the GOP ticket. I really can't see them going red in 2016

 

[Snake]

I don't see any scenario in which Hillary loses IA.

- Mark Penn, 2008.

Spoiler

I kill me.

 

[RustyNails]

- Mark Penn, 2008.

Spoiler

I kill me.

There is a definite morsel of truth to that sentiment though. Obama's ground game was unheard of and took everyone by surprise.

 

[HylianTom]

Nothing to worry about either way. I think the "centrist" bloc of the electorate has amnesia and doesn't care about Dubya anymore in the context of 2016 anyway. The base won't have any problem supporting him, In US politics these days his Presidency was eons ago, and the public has been beat over the head with so much noise that it's easy to let old grudges against the Bush empire get watered down if not completely eroded by now. Not to mention the fact that he'll be going up against another Clinton negates the argument from the left that "we can't afford another Bush" to some degree, because the GOP can turn around and say the same thing, although Bill and Hillary have a vastly superior record politically and when it comes to policy as well. That said, in the way campaigns are run with rampant negativity and distortions it might not matter and the right-wing blowhards will be shouting mind numbing bullshit from the rooftops to win over mindless "swing" voters.

The Koch Brothers are aiming to raise, what, $889 millon for 2016 (and that will likely prove to be a conservative estimate, no pun intended). Bush will have money backing him from every corner and you better believe it's going to help him. No one here is worried about that? Democrats will not be able to keep up this time. There's no way. That's very, very concerning.

And again, concerning your first point, it's foolish to think the Bush name will scare away the party. Dubya's approval rating is at levels where it isn't embarrassing for powerful voices in the party to embrace the name again, and that's good enough for them, because the base WILL turn out.

By himself, I'm not the least bit surprised that Dubya's numbers have improved. But if Clinton-v-Bush really does happen, the comparisons are going to be absolutely unavoidable.. in which case I think this will be pretty kind to Hillary. There are some GOP voters who'll be sensitive to this, but I don't know how big an influence on the process they'll have.

Hopefully not much. I'd love for Jeb to be the nominee, as he neutralizes some of the bigger arguments that they'd otherwise have against Hillary. That, and I think he's quite beatable.. they need a perfect run to eek-out an electoral win, and nominating him will chip-off a few percentage points of turnout from their extreme base (since some still hate him for his "act of love" comment and his Common Core stance).

PoliGAF 2015 | Bad news for... FUCK

PoliGAF 2015 | Revving-Up the Clown Car

 

[Wilsongt]

PoliGAF 2015: Clown shoes! Get your clown shoes here!

 

[WayneMorse]

- Mark Penn, 2008.

Spoiler

I kill me.

Speaking of which, is it certain now that Hillary wont bring on Mark Penn?

 

[Mike M]

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Enrollment open for GOP clown college

 

[FyreWulff]

PoliGAF 2015 | Made It Out Of Committee Now We Hearing

 

[Oblivion]

Joe Scarborough's always been a tool, but this is the most teatard-y he's acted in a good while:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...iliated-with-shower-of-facts-on-his-own-show/

"Sure, Obama signed a health care bill that was based on Republican ideas, but that doesn't mean he actually ever listens to Republican ideas!"

 

[Oblivion]

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| - The Worst Thing Since Slavery

 

[AntoneM]

C'mon, it's clearly:

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| - We Are Not Scientists

 

[PhoenixDark]

Walker Surging in Iowa Poll as Bush Struggles

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is surging, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is an also-ran and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is dominating in a new poll of Iowans likely to vote in the nation's first presidential nominating contest.

The Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, taken Monday through Thursday, shows Walker leading a wide-open Republican race with 15 percent, up from just 4 percent in the same poll in October. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was at 14 percent and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, stood at 10 percent.

Bush trailed with 8 percent and increasingly is viewed negatively by likely Republican caucus-goers. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is in even worse shape, with support from just 4 percent. More troubling for Christie: He's viewed unfavorably by 54 percent, among the highest negative ratings in the potential field. At 9 percent, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson pulls more support than either Bush or Christie.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...s-moines-register-iowa-poll-as-bush-struggles

Is anyone legitimately excited about Jeb Bush outside of donors and some people in Florida? This isn't 2012 where big money could drown out the clown circus. Multiple candidates will have enough money to compete, build campaign infrastructure, etc. I just don't see Bush as being able to win a tough primary, being able to "win" on the stump or campaign trail, etc. Especially when you consider the type of people who will be voting. This isn't like W Bush who could separate himself from his father while also benefiting from his family name. Jeb can't run away from his brother. Republican voters want to beat Hillary, and I just don't think they'll buy the idea that this Bush can do it.

Whereas Scott Walker's entire argument is that "I won three times in a blue state while being a conservative." That's a far better argument than "I'm a Bush and Wall Street supports me."

 

[Plinko]

I honestly see no chance where Scott Walker can win a general election. Hasn't he been completely awful?

 

[thepotatoman]

I honestly see no chance where Scott Walker can win a general election. Hasn't he been completely awful?

He's a damn good speaker and debater. Better than Romney was. That's the only thing that makes me worried.

But, yeah, his results as governor has not been great, unless you're a fan of union busting and cutting education spending to pay for capital gains tax cuts. Basically he built up a résumé that only the republican base could like.

 

[gcubed]

He's a damn good speaker and debater. Better than Romney was. That's the only thing that makes me worried.

But, yeah, his results as governor has not been great, unless you're a fan of union busting and cutting education spending to pay for capital gains tax cuts. Basically he built up a résumé that only the republican base could like.

Combined with poor jerbs

And PD using an Iowa poll is laughable