BertramCooper
Banned
Muahahaha.
I say it doesn't matter because he's a has-been Governor who is VP material at best.Politico says the Bmore riots may have hurt OMalley
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...leys-already-slim-chances-117545.html?hp=r3_3
what do you say?
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/gop...blem_how_does_it_trim_down_the_debate_roster/GOPs nagging clown show problem: How does it trim down the debate roster?
RNC chair Reince Priebus thought he had it all figured out when he devised a plan to cut the number of GOP presidential debates roughly in half, from about 20 to 10. Credit him for recognizing that the less exposure voters have to the Republican partys presidential candidates, the better it is for the GOPs general election chances.
The only problem with this plan is that it doesnt solve the core problem with what transpired during the 2012 cycles clownish debate season: the content of those debates. Mitt Romney easily could have found an opportunity to fit in flubs about self-deportation and so forth within a 10-debate schedule, if thats what the right-wing ideological leapfrogging competition demanded of him. It doesnt matter whether the debate is moderated by Chris Matthews or Hugh Hewitt, either. The specific questions that get asked merely serve as jumping-off points for candidates to jabber on about whatever they want. (In a sense, its easier with Chris Matthews, because you can just scream at him about liberal bias if youre in a jam.)
The competition between candidates will be even more intense this year, amplifying the opportunity for hilarious right-wing soundbites to emerge. Most living humans are considering bids for the Republican presidential nomination this cycle. Or at least 22 humans are, per The Hills count. If, say, 15 of them end up running, what are the chances of such a battle royale debate producing anything instructive for prospective GOP primary voters? You will have to shout to get any attention whatsoever, and shouting something about, say, a boring tax credit proposal wouldnt exactly boost your chances of getting written up in the morning papers.
The Hill reports that the RNC is trying to develop guidelines for inclusion in GOP debates, set to begin in a few months. If you try to bump out various clowns who may have grassroots energy but stand little chance of winning the nomination, youll invite criticism about establishment elitism. Then again, you dont want to have Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Scott Walker up there getting in no-win spats with Ben Carson about Obamacares historical placement alongside Nazi Germany. But you dont want to exclude Ben Carson because GOP excludes sole African-American presidential candidate from debate is not a great headline for the Republican Party. Same deal for Carly Fiorina: its within the realm of possibility that no one will care about her candidacy, but the Democratic Party will never let them hear the end of it if Carly Fiorina, the one GOP woman running, is omitted from a single debate roster. ...
Who is the biggest challenger to Hillary realistically? Biden if he runs? I'd take him over her personally but not sure how popular that opinion is.
I want to start seeing Hilary vs Bernie maps.
Bernie has new England and California wrapped up, and Hillary has new York and the south for sure
Hard to see an architect of mass incarceration policies getting far, or even getting a VP nod. Which makes things even more dangerous for democrats. If Hillary becomes too toxic or is forced out the race, democrats might not have anyone else. Someone might be forced to enter the race late, like a Kerry or Gore.Politico says the Bmore riots may have hurt OMalley
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...leys-already-slim-chances-117545.html?hp=r3_3
what do you say?
Hard to see an architect of mass incarceration policies getting far, or even getting a VP nod. Which makes things even more dangerous for democrats. If Hillary becomes too toxic or is forced out the race, democrats might not have anyone else. Someone might be forced to enter the race late, like a Kerry or Gore.
I like O'Malley's positions on multiple issues but he sold his soul for lower crime numbers.
O'Malley seems like the "I'm-here-if-Hillary-implodes-for-some-freak-reason" candidate.
Biden is the obvious Democratic fall-back candidate.If Hillary becomes too toxic or is forced out the race, democrats might not have anyone else. Someone might be forced to enter the race late, like a Kerry or Gore.
Honestly, I think their best back up is Elizabeth Warren. Not because I like her, but because she honestly gives Democrats the best chance to win outside of Hillary. She's the closest they have to a household name without digging into losers of the past, a good speaker/debater, a women, and doesn't really have much dirt on her. The establishment should start begging her to enter the race if something happens to Hillary, promising her all the resources and advisors Hillary had.
You might as well go with Biden if you're going with Kerry or Gore as the backup, and Biden does terrible in head to head polling.
I love Bernie Sanders, think it's great that he's running. Of course, should he somehow actually get the nomination... that would be terrible.
Keep in mind Obama also enjoyed a bounce after the death of Osama bin Laden, inflating his numbers a bit here (I think that's when the Obama+7 PPP poll was conducted). Reuters/Ipsos is kind of garbage from what I can tell.Wikipedia has a good database of polls for questions like that. Here are links for 2012 and 2016.
March-May 31st, 2011 Obama v Romney:
Rasmussen Reports - Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos - Obama +13
Suffolk University - Obama + 3
The Economist/YouGov - Obama +3
PPP - Obama +7
Washington Post-ABC - Tied
March-May 2nd, 2015 Hillary v Jeb:
Fox News - Hillary +4
Quinnipiac University - Hillary +7
CNN/ORC - Hillary +17
Public Policy Polling - Hillary +6
ABC News/Washington Post - Hillary +12
I think Booker and Gillibrand would both fare decently as general election candidates.I can't see Warren winning. She's not a great or even good politician, represents a state that breeds presidential election losers, and would be horribly outspent by whoever the GOP nom is. Just as I doubt a black person not named Barack Obama could win the presidency right now, I'm not convinced a woman not named Hillary Clinton could; Obama because of his supreme talent/story, and Hillary because of her last name.
Her Senate race proved she was a poor campaigner? She won by quite a solid margin. Yes Massachusetts is a strong Democratic state but remember that Scott Brown was seen as invincible and no one wanted to get into the race.Yellowtail said:I think Warren would be hopeless in a general election. She's a poor campaigner as her senate race proved, she'd be out-funded by her GOP challenger by colossal margins, the media would turn on her instantly and destroy her character like they did with Kerry and Gore, and unfortunately a woman is not going to be elected commander-in-chief without any foreign policy experience.
She'd get the Kerry states + New Mexico, but I can't see her reaching 270.
NeoXChaos there is no scenario where Republicans lose Ohio but win WI/MI/PA. Absolutely none. Every fundamental element about Ohio (strong labor force, auto industry, large urban communities etc) is even more strongly in the Democrats' favor in those three states.
Keep in mind Obama also enjoyed a bounce after the death of Osama bin Laden, inflating his numbers a bit here (I think that's when the Obama+7 PPP poll was conducted). Reuters/Ipsos is kind of garbage from what I can tell.
I think Booker and Gillibrand would both fare decently as general election candidates.
Her Senate race proved she was a poor campaigner? She won by quite a solid margin. Yes Massachusetts is a strong Democratic state but remember that Scott Brown was seen as invincible and no one wanted to get into the race.
That being said I don't think Warren would do that well, either.
Her Senate race proved she was a poor campaigner? She won by quite a solid margin. Yes Massachusetts is a strong Democratic state but remember that Scott Brown was seen as invincible and no one wanted to get into the race.
That being said I don't think Warren would do that well, either.
Warren ran 16 points behind Obama in Massachusetts. I know Scott Brown was a popular incumbent, but nothing in the race points to her being a particularly good politician that would play well nationally.
I know that it's irrational, but I'd rather not have Hillary Clinton in office. I'd prefer it if Bernie Sanders get the nomination, even if it means he's more likely to lose to a Republican because I don't want another dishonest liberal in office. And I don't want to continue to maker our democracy even more of a joke by continuing a political dynasty.
Again, the Supreme Court.
It's too important to ever want an unelectable Democrat to win the nomination, or to want any Republican to win the presidency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/jeb-bush-supreme-court_n_7184774.htmlJeb Bush Admires Clarence Thomas, Thinks Antonin Scalia Is The 'Most Interesting Opinion Writer'
Two current Supreme Court justices stand out to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who is almost certain to launch his campaign for president in the next several months.
Speaking at the conservative National Review Institute's ideas summit in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Bush called Antonin Scalia far and away the most interesting opinion writer" on the court and praised the conservative justice for his textualist approach to the U.S. Constitution.
Yet the justice he is ideologically closest to, Bush said, was Clarence Thomas.
Theres a quiet and consistency there I like and I generally agree with his views," Bush said, referring to Thomas' famous habit of not asking any questions during oral arguments.
"Moderate" Jeb was recently asked about the Supreme Court.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/jeb-bush-supreme-court_n_7184774.html
Nope nope nope. FUCK NO.
I think Warren would be hopeless in a general election. She's a poor campaigner as her senate race proved, she'd be out-funded by her GOP challenger by colossal margins, the media would turn on her instantly and destroy her character like they did with Kerry and Gore, and unfortunately a woman is not going to be elected commander-in-chief without any foreign policy experience.
She'd get the Kerry states + New Mexico, but I can't see her reaching 270.
I can't see Warren winning. She's not a great or even good politician, represents a state that breeds presidential election losers, and would be horribly outspent by whoever the GOP nom is. Just as I doubt a black person not named Barack Obama could win the presidency right now, I'm not convinced a woman not named Hillary Clinton could; Obama because of his supreme talent/story, and Hillary because of her last name.
I think Booker and Gillibrand would both fare decently as general election candidates.
Biden is the obvious Democratic fall-back candidate.
The blue wall isn't some insurmountable solid D block that will never vote Republican. They are made up of solid D states + lean D states. All the blue wall shows is that there are many states that lean slight D+ PVI and so Democrats have a small electoral college advantage. Obama won the popular vote by 4% in 2012 but the tipping point state Colorado by 5.4% so with a uniform swing Romney could have won the PV by 1% and still lost. But all it would take is for the GOP to get over 51% in the PV and the blue wall would crumble. Which would certainly be possible if they ran against a terrible candidate like Sanders.Since the Democrats have a Electoral College advantage, shouldn't the "blue wall" protect them to an extent? Its not like Sanders would make PA go red would he?
Ted Cruz would be a horrible Republican General Election candidate but would he put GA & AZ in play realistically?
If the blue wall exist candidate quality aside, Warren and Sanders start out with 242-263. Give or take NH, IA, NV, NM, IA
It's not even about the particular individual who gets the presidency, it's that they get to fill out the entire executive branch with members of their party. GWB appeared moderate but look at the scum who were appointed in his administration. Any Republican would be worse than the worst Democrat.Again, the Supreme Court.
It's too important to ever want an unelectable Democrat to win the nomination, or to want any Republican to win the presidency.
The blue wall isn't some insurmountable solid D block that will never vote Republican. They are made up of solid D states + lean D states. All the blue wall shows is that there are many states that lean slight D+ PVI and so Democrats have a small electoral college advantage. Obama won the popular vote by 4% in 2012 but the tipping point state Colorado by 5.4% so with a uniform swing Romney could have won the PV by 1% and still lost. But all it would take is for the GOP to get over 51% in the PV and the blue wall would crumble. Which would certainly be possible if they ran against a terrible candidate like Sanders.
For the Democrats, a victory in 2016 entails zero expansion of the blue map, merely the limiting of blue-to-red transformations. Assuming the lean, likely, and safe Democratic states remain loyal to the party, the nominee need only win 23 of the 85 toss-up electoral votes. And if a lean Democratic state such as Wisconsin turns red, it is relatively easy to replace those votes with one or two toss-ups.
It is possible, maybe quite plausible, that any new Republican path to Electoral College victory will wend through the whiter-than-average industrial Midwest, but as of now it’s more likely to expect the GOP’s electoral map to look much like George W. Bush’s narrow route to the White House—a solid South, rural Midwest and Rocky Mountain majority.
On the other hand, Republicans must hold all their usual states plus find a way to stitch together an additional 64 electoral votes, or 79 if they can’t hold North Carolina. To do this, the GOP candidate will have to come close to sweeping the toss-ups under most scenarios—a difficult task unless the election year’s fundamentals (President Obama’s job approval, economic conditions, war and peace, and so on) are moving powerfully against the Democrats.
First, if Republicans lose either Florida or Ohio, the nominee has no realistic path to victory. Both states are typically at least slightly more Republican than the nation as a whole. If GOP voters are thinking strategically during the nominating process, they will pick a candidate with a profile appealing to Sunshine and Buckeye state residents.
Second, while there are credible Democratic paths to the White House without Virginia, anything other than a win or a loss by just a percent or two in the Old Dominion will signal the Democrat’s downfall. Virginia was (slightly) more Democratic than the nation in 2012 for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt’s era, and population trends that are increasingly favorable to Democrats are continuing.
*raises hand*Did anyone watch every single republican primary debate back in 2011/12?
*raises hand*
So-so. I'm much more likely to watch if there's a live audience who's able to cheer, boo, and egg-on the candidates as appropriate. This year, I'll probably watch most of them, just to see how they handle the logistics of soooo many candidates.Was it worth it? I may do it this year.
Who is the biggest challenger to Hillary realistically? Biden if he runs? I'd take him over her personally but not sure how popular that opinion is.
Fiorina announces her candidacy tomorrow. Yay!
Was it worth it? I may do it this year.
Ben Carson officially in.
Fiorina announces her candidacy tomorrow. Yay!
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429#ixzz3Z8JLRiqTThe Washington/national press has trained all of us to worry about these questions of financing on behalf of candidates even at such an early stage of a race as this.
In this manner we're conditioned to believe that the candidate who has the early assent of a handful of executives on Wall Street and in Hollywood and Silicon Valley is the "serious" politician, while the one who is merely the favorite of large numbers of human beings is an irritating novelty act whose only possible goal could be to cut into the numbers of the real players.
Sanders offers an implicit challenge to the current system of national electoral politics. With rare exceptions, campaign season is a time when the backroom favorites of financial interests are marketed to the population. Weighed down by highly regressive policy intentions, these candidates need huge laboratories of focus groups and image consultants to guide them as they grope around for a few lines they can use to sell themselves to regular working people.
Sanders on the other hand has no constituency among the monied crowd. "Billionaires do not flock to my campaign," he quipped. So what his race is about is the reverse of the usual process: he'll be marketing the interests of regular people to the gatekeeping Washington press, in the hope that they will give his ideas a fair shot.
It's a little-known fact, but we reporters could successfully sell Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any other populist candidate as a serious contender for the White House if we wanted to. Hell, we told Americans it was okay to vote for George Bush, a man who moves his lips when he reads.
But the lapdog mentality is deeply ingrained and most Beltway scribes prefer to wait for a signal from above before they agree to take anyone not sitting atop a mountain of cash seriously.
Thus this whole question of "seriousness" which will dominate coverage of the Sanders campaign should really be read as a profound indictment of our political system, which is now so openly an oligarchy that any politician who doesn't have the blessing of the bosses is marginalized before he or she steps into the ring.
Dunno. He has embarrassed himself so much over the last few years I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously.
"As a 30 year old senator, I was educated by Clarence Mitchell and Clarence Thomas -- excuse me, Thurgood Marshall."
"I tried to get rid of Clarence Thomas," says @VP Biden "It didn't work."
Was this posted for the haters?
It speaks directly to some posters here
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429#ixzz3Z8JLRiqT
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Yeah this never happened.Yeah the rookie black senator has no chance of being president.
Get in line behind people with actual experience lol.
Was this posted for the haters?
It speaks directly to some posters here
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429#ixzz3Z8JLRiqT
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook