• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/the-facebook-election?s=mobile

Pretty interesting article on sentiment on Facebook and what it means in 2016.

Generally, this seems right. Warren has distinguished herself as a populist and viral media has allowed her popularity to take hold well outside of MA. We started to see this with Obama in 08. It's a trend that's just going to continue.
I hope Warren changes her mind about not running and goes for it.

Like I've said before, I have no problem voting for Clinton. But I think the Democrats would benefit from running another inspiring candidate like Obama, someone with a positive message that speaks to the progressive base but can resonate with everyone even if they don't vote for him/her (remember that Obama's approval ratings were at 70% when he took office, far eclipsing his 53% vote share).

Clinton is a popular politician but very much a part of the establishment.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I hope Warren changes her mind about not running and goes for it.

Like I've said before, I have no problem voting for Clinton. But I think the Democrats would benefit from running another inspiring candidate like Obama, someone with a positive message that speaks to the progressive base but can resonate with everyone even if they don't vote for him/her (remember that Obama's approval ratings were at 70% when he took office, far eclipsing his 53% vote share).

Clinton is a popular politician but very much a part of the establishment.

Hell, Clinton needs some strong opposition just to test to see if she's smartened up her campaign and has learned how to stop saying stupid stuff.

I'm still shocked that she recently bungled a book tour thanks to the "left the white house dead broke" comment. How do you mess up a freaking book tour?
 

Averon

Member
Hell, Clinton needs some strong opposition just to test to see if she's smartened up her campaign and has learned how to stop saying stupid stuff.

I'm still shocked that she recently bungled a book tour thanks to the "left the white house dead broke" comment. How do you mess up a freaking book tour?

THIS.

My fear in a Hilary nomination is that she learned nothing from her defeat in the 2008 primaries and fall into the same habits. That bungled book tour is a bad sign, imo.
 
I think it's good for all politicians to be kept on their toes with primary challenges, or genuine general election challenges.

Look at Bruce Braley, he was considered a solid recruit for the Iowa Senate race due to his position in the House yet ended up being a shit candidate because he'd never run a serious race before.

Pat Roberts became lazy and was only saved at the last minute by a GOP wave.
 

Wall

Member
I'm surprised at Biden getting 67% positive sentiment.

The article doesn't explain it well, but I think the chart measures the amount of time a political figure is mentioned going left to right, as well as the favorability/unfavorability of sentiment towards the candidate. That might be biasing the results somewhat.

Also, I would assume something such as "liking" a "Biden Biker" meme would count as favorable. I'm not sure how that translates to feelings about a presidential candidate.

I think that what they are trying to do is interesting, but that I don't think it is without flaw.

Hell, Clinton needs some strong opposition just to test to see if she's smartened up her campaign and has learned how to stop saying stupid stuff.

I'm still shocked that she recently bungled a book tour thanks to the "left the white house dead broke" comment. How do you mess up a freaking book tour?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/politics/midterms-for-clinton-aides-arent-all-gloom-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region%C2%AEion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This article doesn't fill me with much hope because it looks like she is already surrounding herself with the same gaggle of flacks that cost her in 2008. Apparently she hopes to appeal to working class white woman while drawing the minority and youth voters Obama drew. Good luck with that after already shitting on Obama over Syria.

At the very least a Sanders or Warren run would force Hillary to the left on issues like Social Security and college affordability. That alone would help her and the Democratic party. Plus, even if they lost, hopefully they could install a halfway competent DNC chair.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
I wouldn’t say they invalidated what EPA was doing, merely limited the applicable scope.

Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, probably would:

UARG v. EPA said:
To sum up: We hold that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it interpreted the Clean Air Act to require PSD and Title V permitting for stationary sources based on their greenhouse-gas emissions. Specifically, the Agency may not treat greenhouse gases as a pollutant for purposes of defining a "major emitting facility" (or a "modification" thereof) in the PSD context or a "major source" in the Title V context. To the extent its regulations purport to do so, they are invalid.

I don't really see much point in arguing over the word "invalidated," though.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I wouldn't mind a Warren run at all. She's closer to me on opinions than Hillary, so she'd serve as a great gravitational pull in my direction.

But if she loses (which is not a foregone conclusion), I'd prefer her to be extremely forceful in her endorsement of Hillary at the end of the primary campaign and throughout the general. If Hillary wins, I can see whiny/naive/unrealistic lefties making the Naderesque willfully ignorant claim that "there's no difference," damaging her for the general campaign.

That, and a civil primary between Warren & Clinton discussing populist-appealing issues would contrast quite nicely against the shitty extremist freak show that the Republicans will put on display.
 

Averon

Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/politics/midterms-for-clinton-aides-arent-all-gloom-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region%C2%AEion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This article doesn't fill me with much hope because it looks like she is already surrounding herself with the same gaggle of flacks that cost her in 2008. Apparently she hopes to appeal to working class white woman while drawing the minority and youth voters Obama drew. Good luck with that after already shitting on Obama over Syria.

At the very least a Sanders or Warren run would force Hillary to the left on issues like Social Security and college affordability. That alone would help her and the Democratic party. Plus, even if they lost, hopefully they could install a halfway competent DNC chair.

Sounds like she will try to ride the coat-tails Obama created with minority and young voters while also retaining that Clinton centrism by appealing to white working class voters.

I can see her campaign being some ugly amalgamation of Obama 2012 and her primary run in 2008.

Does she has the political skills to thread that needle?
 

Wall

Member
Sounds like she will try to ride the coat-tails Obama created with minority and young voters while also retaining that Clinton centrism by appealing to white working class voters.

I can see her campaign being some ugly amalgamation of Obama 2012 and her primary run in 2008.

Does she has the political skills to thread that needle?

From what I remember, her campaign in 2008 consisted of subtle race baiting, attempts to portray Obama as an elitist, and attempts to show that Obama was too inexperienced for the Presidency once her initial plan of overwhelming the field with name recognition and her husband's connections proved insufficient. Other than those strategies and attempts to claim solidarity with woman, I don't remember her having much of a message in 2008. Her entire pitch was a) I'm a democrat, b) I'm a woman, and c) I'm a Clinton; at least, that is what it seemed like to me. How that rallies the minority and youth vote, I have no idea.

As for her ability to appeal to white working class voters, it would be great if she could, but I'm skeptical. Most of that mythic appeal rests on election results from nearly 20 years ago and contrasts with Obama's historically high unpopularity in Appalachia and the South. She might do better than Obama, but would it be enough to make a difference? Clinton type candidates certainly were not successful in Appalachia and the South this time around, no matter how much Clinton allies in the media (such as the article I linked to) try to spin the 2014 midterms as a vindication of the Clintons.
 
I really don't see how anyone who watched the last 6 years would want another junior senator with no executive experience and little record of accomplishing much in congress to be president. I like Warren, I think she frames issues perfectly and wish other democrats were as skilled as she is. But she would not make for a good president, anymore than Obama. Worse yet she would be stuck with a House GOP that would make sure nearly all of her liberal agenda was obstructed. Maybe she could get some type of corporate welfare deal done, since the GOP is apparently pretending to be interested in it now, but outside of that?

Hillary would be able to rehash her 2008 arguments against Warren, and they'd be quite effective considering that the last 6 years have proven her right.
 

Wall

Member
I really don't see how anyone who watched the last 6 years would want another junior senator with no executive experience and little record of accomplishing much in congress to be president. I like Warren, I think she frames issues perfectly and wish other democrats were as skilled as she is. But she would not make for a good president, anymore than Obama. Worse yet she would be stuck with a House GOP that would make sure nearly all of her liberal agenda was obstructed. Maybe she could get some type of corporate welfare deal done, since the GOP is apparently pretending to be interested in it now, but outside of that?

Hillary would be able to rehash her 2008 arguments against Warren, and they'd be quite effective considering that the last 6 years have proven her right.

I don't think that the last 6 years have "proven Hillary right". Also, Hillary had exactly the same amount of executive experience in 2008 as Obama did.
 
I don't think that the last 6 years have "proven Hillary right". Also, Hillary had exactly the same amount of executive experience in 2008 as Obama did.
I disagree with PD but it should be noted that Hillary had four years of Senate seniority on Obama.
 

Wall

Member
I disagree with PD but it should be noted that Hillary had four years of Senate seniority on Obama.

During which time she voted for the Iraq war and did little else. 4 years is meaningless. Hell, the whole argument is meaningless. Bush II came in with 8 years of "executive experience" and look where that got him.
 
I really don't see how anyone who watched the last 6 years would want another junior senator with no executive experience and little record of accomplishing much in congress to be president. I like Warren, I think she frames issues perfectly and wish other democrats were as skilled as she is. But she would not make for a good president, anymore than Obama. Worse yet she would be stuck with a House GOP that would make sure nearly all of her liberal agenda was obstructed. Maybe she could get some type of corporate welfare deal done, since the GOP is apparently pretending to be interested in it now, but outside of that?

Hillary would be able to rehash her 2008 arguments against Warren, and they'd be quite effective considering that the last 6 years have proven her right.

She served as acting director of the CFPB so yes she does have some executive experience.
 
In retrospect I do think it would have served our country better if Hillary won in 2008, and Obama carried the baton in 2016. I supported Obama over Hillary during the primaries (well, started as a Paulite) and thought of Hillary as part of the problem.

Besides, Obama's game was 10/10. It was hard not to think that DC was going to be rebooted with a brand new operating system as oppossed to the DOS that was currently in place for decades.
 

Jooney

Member
I really don't see how anyone who watched the last 6 years would want another junior senator with no executive experience and little record of accomplishing much in congress to be president.

Bad news for Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Funny how you don't bring up this line of argument against GOP candidates.
 

HylianTom

Banned
For me, Obama's presidency reinforced my tendency to vote for the candidate with the highest electoral college chances, versus voting for the most allegedly progressive. Given that he was considered "the liberal" in the 2008 Democratic primary (as opposed to "the corporatist"), his time in office seems rather moderate, especially on financial/populist issues.
 
I tend to believe everything works out for the best in the end. It's easy to assume Clinton would have had an easier time as president, but maybe we would have gotten a worse healthcare plan, or none at all. We might have gotten a "grand bargain" when the GOP won the House. She'd be better at playing politics maybe but as far as policy I'm not sure.
 

Averon

Member
Yet it's fine for the GOP to run some of the most aggressive ads in political history...

Remember when Obama got aggressive against Romney? The GOP and the media were all taken aback that a Democrat would dare to hit hard or preemptively. Obama was dishonorable. Obama was slimy. All sort of BS like that and the media happily played along with it.

Apparently the Democrat is suppose shutup and take the hits from the GOP. That seems to be the default position in American politics and culture, and any deviation from that is met with outrage and hand wringing from the media and GOP.

That Obama didn't followed the 'script' was one reason why I loved his campaign.
 
It looks like Obama will finally become the campaign Obama we were all waiting for the past 6 years
"I think that one thing that I do need to constantly remind myself and my team of is it's not enough just to build a better mousetrap. People don't automatically come beating to your door. We've got to sell it," Obama said. "We've got to reach out to the other side and, where possible, persuade."

"I think that what you'll see is a constant effort to improve the way we deliver service to customers...experimenting with ways that I can reach out to Republicans more effectively. Making sure that we're reaching out and using the private sector more effectively."
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
It looks like Obama will finally become the campaign Obama we were all waiting for the past 6 years

They can't even get guys on their same side to trust them enough to go out and vote. How are they ever going to get people on the other side to trust them enough to actually change their minds?
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120170/valerie-jarrett-obama-whisperer
Even at this late date in the Obama presidency, there is no surer way to elicit paranoid whispers or armchair psychoanalysis from Democrats than to mention the name Valerie Jarrett. Party operatives, administration officials—they are shocked by her sheer longevity and marvel at her influence. When I asked a longtime source who left the Obama White House years ago for his impressions of Jarrett, he confessed that he was too fearful to speak with me, even off the record.

This is not as irrational as it sounds. Obama has said he consults Jarrett on every major decision, something current and former aides corroborate. “Her role since she has been at the White House is one of the broadest and most expansive roles that I think has ever existed in the West Wing,” says Anita Dunn, Obama’s former communications director. Broader, even, than the role of running the West Wing. This summer, the call to send Attorney General Eric Holder on a risky visit to Ferguson, Missouri, was made by exactly three people: Holder himself, the president, and Jarrett, who were vacationing together on Martha’s Vineyard. When I asked Holder if Denis McDonough, the chief of staff, was part of the conversation, he thought for a moment and said, “He was not there.” (Holder hastened to add that “someone had spoken to him.”)

Jarrett holds a key vote on Cabinet picks (she opposed Larry Summers at Treasury and was among the first Obama aides to come around on Hillary Clinton at State) and has an outsize say on ambassadorships and judgeships. She helps determine who gets invited to the First Lady’s Box for the State of the Union, who attends state dinners and bill-signing ceremonies, and who sits where at any of the above. She has placed friends and former employees in important positions across the administration—“you can be my person over there,” is a common refrain.

And Jarrett has been known to enjoy the perks of high office herself. When administration aides plan “bilats,” the term of art for meetings of two countries’ top officials, they realize that whatever size meeting they negotiate—nine by nine, eight by eight, etc.—our side will typically include one less foreign policy hand, because Jarrett has a standing seat at any table that includes the president.

Not surprisingly, all this influence has won Jarrett legions of detractors. They complain that she has too much control over who sees the president. That she skews his decision-making with her after-hours visits. That she is an incorrigible yes-woman. That she has, in effect, become the chief architect of his very prominent and occasionally suffocating bubble.

There is an element of truth to this critique. While aboard Air Force One at the end of the 2012 campaign, Jarrett turned to Obama and told him, “Mr. President, I don’t understand how you’re not getting eighty-five percent of the vote.” The other Obama aides in the cabin looked around in disbelief before concluding that she’d been earnest.
Noam Scheiber is going to be found in Fort Marcy Park isn't he?
 

Averon

Member
Democrats will never learn.

"Well, if we just capitulate to the GOP just a little bit more, then we'll be on the winning team!!!"

How is this any different from the GOP's repeated votes to repeal Obamacare?
 
She was born in Iran.

which he makes sure to point out

The ultimate goal is to get Joe Biden into Obama's chair in the Oval Office for the last two years of this administration, and the former senator of 36 years , elected at 29 of age can stop the gafffing he started as a protective shield when he fond himself surrounded by Muslims

I'm sure, with "Kill the Bills" Harry Reid out of Senate leadership, Biden will work with a new Senate leader to get America back on top and prosperous, without an Islamic administration.

Here are just a few of the Muslim staff: CIA head John Brennan, "converted" to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia; Valerie Jarret, a Muslim, was born in Iran where her parents still live; Asst. Sec. for Police Development for Homeland Security Arif Aikhan; Homeland Security Adviser Mohammed Elibiary; and Obama advise, who is founder of Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati.

These and several others were submitted to me by good friend and Christian author Rober Morley, who is the retired founder and CEO of an insurance company with offices in 36 states. His research for his books and current affairs has always been flawless.

I firmly believe that when the vice president finally woke up and found himself surrounded by muslims, it was either gaff or be gunned.

I'll take two years of Biden over two more of the Obamanation anytime. Especially, when a Muslim ra for president as a Christian!

"Jesus said, 'For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.'" Matthew 24:24
 
Democrats will never learn.

"Well, if we just capitulate to the GOP just a little bit more, then we'll be on the winning team!!!"

How is this any different from the GOP's repeated votes to repeal Obamacare?
At least GOP never tries to bend over for the other guys and try to woo them. GOP is always winning.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
He learned nothing from the election.

Well, it's possible we're looking a bit too much into it. He could just be doing the same thing Boehner and McConnell are doing, portraying himself as the ultimate centrist ready to pass a billion bills next year so when the inevitable gridlock happens, he can more easily blame the other side.

But still, if he really believes that he needs to look beyond the presidential approval ratings, and look at the approval rating of the republican party and the democrat party. Both are in the dirt. The people already hate republicans, and they don't want to hear you're going to act more republican. They also don't need proof that republicans are bad because they already know that. They need proof democrats are good.
 
But still, if he really believes that he needs to look beyond the presidential approval ratings, and look at the approval rating of the republican party and the democrat party. Both are in the dirt. The people already hate republicans, and they don't want to hear you're going to act more republican. They also don't need proof that republicans are bad because they already know that. They need proof democrats are good.

He's a conservative Democrat, what do you expect?
 
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120170/valerie-jarrett-obama-whisperer

Noam Scheiber is going to be found in Fort Marcy Park isn't he?

Obama's refusal to expand his circle (all while publicly complaining about "the bubble") baffles me. Everything I've read about Jarrett suggests she's a yes-woman, which doesn't strike me as Obama's style...but then again, allegedly a lot of his staff really really believe in him.

Losses always bring forth a variety of insipid village people solutions though, and I don't agree Jarrett is "the" problem or needs to go. She just seems more like a symptom.
 
Warren won't win.

She's a true progressive. That's the problem. Americans are disinclined to trust reality. They instead want to hold to the myth of, "Work hard. Be responsible. Things will work out for you."

She's also got the Native American thing. She's got questionable credentials on where she went to college.

She won't stand up in a campaign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom