Roland_Gunner
Member
The NBC / WSJ poll has it 35% for, 33% oppose, 32% with no opinion. Q poll seems to be an outlier all over the place.
-
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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
The NBC / WSJ poll has it 35% for, 33% oppose, 32% with no opinion. Q poll seems to be an outlier all over the place.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
LOL we're back to this again
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Biden kinda has to run. If something was to happen to Hilary before she is elected, the Republicans would win the presidency. You can't put all of your eggs in the same basket.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Thanks.
Not drawing straws, trading horses.
Pelosi's work in the House should be educative here. Notice how many times she passed bills with the bare minimum majority necessary to get them through the House -- when the numbers cut that close, you can be confident that the Leader is giving each Democratic no explicit permission to take their principled vote, in exchange for getting their yes later on when somebody else has to dissent. Similarly, Boehner's flailing displays what happens when a party leader really doesn't think they know who's going to vote no -- rather than let the bill fail, they pull it before the vote.
Believe me, no Democrat is voting no on any Democratic bill without permission from the bosses, and they're doling out those nos carefully. Schumer may end up voting no (in fact, I kind of expect him to), but Reid's giving him the loose rein. As long as the bill passes, who cares?
At this point, I think the previous vote on the Iran deal should really come into focus, because the purpose of it was explicitly to buy breathing room by changing killing the deal from a negative action (that happens unless Congress acts) to a positive action (that requires both houses to override a Presidential veto). All the Democrats need to provide is 145 representatives in the House (they have 188) OR 34 Senators (they have 46). They don't even need to sustain the veto in both houses. The chance of the deal failing is basically zero.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Couldn't he just step in if something happened? What is the actual procedure in that case?
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm assuming super delegates would flood Biden with votes and the party would find a way to ensure he won whatever remaining states were left. Likewise Hillary's delegates would be pressed to switch to Biden.
That seems like a better solution than the backroom deals of 1960s/1970s conventions.
He's totally not running. He's been talking to people about running since like 2012. Seriously! Biden clearly wants to be President and, being Biden, he's never been secretive about it. (I guess probably the most obvious indication was when he ran twice for President, but there were other signs as well.) But it's not like Biden didn't have time to plan. If he were going to run, he would've been in motion years ago.
All signs point to Biden realizing (since he's, you know, not stupid) that Hillary had the lock on the nomination by around 2014 and giving up gracefully. This NYT story is just more effort to create an interesting story around the Democratic nomination. Personally, I'd rather they talk about Bernie more.
Agreed, I've been saying that all along. Fuck Schumer.
The problem is Bernie isn't going to last the entire primary season. He'll lose the first couple of states and the money will dry up. I'd love nothing more to see him go the full 10 rounds with Hillary, but that just ain't happening.
Biden is pretty much setting himself up as an insurance run. If Hillary takes too big a hit, and Obama and the party leaders think she can't survive it, Biden will jump in and save the day.
I agree, but that's fine with me. It's not like the media needs primary stories to run all the way to June. Now is a great time to write about Bernie. In February they can do postmortems when he folds shop, then they can just switch over to the GOP nomination where Trump will be hunting the other candidates down with an assault rifle from his luxury helicopter.
I think the issue is they don't want to be seen as propping him up, which they would be if they write too many stories about him for no reason other than he's running. The big stories right now are Trump and the implosions of the GOP primary candidates, even Hillary barely registers and she's the front runner.
With Bernie they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They should be writing about him since he's running, but they can't write too much about him since he's not doing too well and they can't be propping up weak candidates. The only reason he registers right now is because Hillary scared off all the mid-tier candidates.
Why do people continue to think over and over and over again that think Hillary is going to somehow implode? She is the only candidate I see this from. Did they write about W somehow imploding in 2000?
The Democrats have known for the longest time that they were ultimately going to put all their eggs in Hillary's basket. They have had plenty of time to cope with this reality since November 7th, 2012. The midterms only solidified their choice.
Do I think Hillary will implode? No I do not. That said, the Dems would be utter morons if they didn't plan for every eventuality. There's a lot of shit on the line for a lot of people and they can't risk leaving anything to chance, so Uncle Joe is gonna sit on the sidelines just in case someone needs to save the day.
Just Biden his time.
is there a precedence from either side that this has happened before on a presidential level? It has happened on a House and Senate level before. Ex: NJ 2002 Senate Race
PhoenixDark
Banned
Probably because her and her husband have spent the last 8 years participating in shady behavior that is either illegal or simply distasteful? Right now she's taking hit after hit, but no permanent damage has been done. What if something bigger is revealed - beyond emails and donations.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Frankly Biden is a fine back-up plan. He's very charismatic and energetic - not as much as Bill Clinton but enough that he can go toe-to-toe with the GOP frontrunners.
Roland_Gunner
Member
The closest would by Thomas Eagleton, McGovern's VP candidate, who had to withdraw after it was learned that he gone through shock treatment. One of the things that lead to Nixon being elected in '72.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/washington/05eagleton.html
On the national level? No idea, but I can't remember a primary where a candidate scared off every other possible contender. Usually there's a guy running who would take all her support if something happened, but there isn't in this case.
The New Yorker re-upped a profile they did on Biden back on 2014, where they pretty much predicted this would happen if Hillary were to run. That Biden would sit on the sidelines, not wanting to risk his legacy or place advising Obama, and would be the back-up plan.
Black Mamba
Member
/dead
Edit. Beaten whoops. Still funny
What is this "bigger" scandal? Scandal is thrown around but no specifics. What scandal could kill her? Why stop at a campaign scandal, what if she is elected and a big scandal happens in her White House?
Black Mamba
Member
That Iran poll by Quinnipiac is weird. I mean, 85% of people having any opinion on the Iran deal seems odd. I just can't believe that number is so high
StopMakingSense
Member
Seems like the type of issue that's going to vary widely depending on the methodology / wording of question and answers.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Yeah, stepin a few weeks before the election without having campaigned for the post, in a relatively tight race against Bush. I'm sure he'd get the presidency on a silver plate. Remember they need to win against the Republican candidate, not just Hilary.
If it was as simple as that, there would be no campaign. And anything could cause Hillary to step out, such as medical issues. Right now only she has a chance at winning the presidency, you need a backup plan.
There was a Washington Monthly post recently about the Iran polling. Basically, it's heavily dependent on wording.
In the abstract, if you ask if people are in favor of making a deal with Iran, they aren't. Iran is evil!
More specifically, when you ask if they're in favor of a deal to limit Iran getting a nuclear weapon in return for lifting sanctions, they are.
Fenderputty
Banned
lmao
How did someone not notice the back of his sign was a giant fake check? It's not small or obscure. lol
Keep in mind, this is Scott Walker not a rocket scientist.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Q polls continuing to show outlier results. What else is new.
Fenderputty
Banned
Granted, though one would think he's self aware enough to surround himself with other people who can catch a GIANT FAKE CHECK TO THE KOCK BROS. lol
I'm probably giving him too much credit.
BertramCooper
Banned
Scott Walker doesn't get enough flack for being a complete fucking moron.
Like, he's seriously stupid. I can't see him performing well in the debates.
Like, he's seriously stupid. I can't see him performing well in the debates.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I wish everyone would stop talking about it. No one cares outside of some people on the left.
The entire concept reminds me of someone cutting a couple cans of pop out of their diet and thinking that's enough to lose weight.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yup which is why all the two sides aren't even discussing the same thing. All the anti deal ads on my twitter are "Iran cheats! Say no to a deal!" and just generally say "Iran = bad, they say death to america!". The proponents of the deal are speaking about the limits and restrictions and on the specifics of the deal.
Typical. "It's not my problem." Well, it fucking is your problem because you're fucking it up for the next generation.
BertramCooper
Banned
I'm glad Obama is pursuing the Clean Power Plan, but at some point, nuclear power has to enter the conversation.
And I think what will ultimately bring nuclear into the conversation is China, who is looking to convert a lot of their generation over to nuclear. If they're successful and manage to slash emissions by a considerable degree, I think the U.S. will start seriously considering it.
I blame stupid, misguided environmental groups for demonizing nuclear power to an absurd degree. They're doing absolutely no favors to their cause.
And I think what will ultimately bring nuclear into the conversation is China, who is looking to convert a lot of their generation over to nuclear. If they're successful and manage to slash emissions by a considerable degree, I think the U.S. will start seriously considering it.
I blame stupid, misguided environmental groups for demonizing nuclear power to an absurd degree. They're doing absolutely no favors to their cause.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
First, I never said it would be easy.
Second, there's no such thing as a "backup plan" in that case. That's ridiculous. He'd have a better shot stepping in after something like that happened instead of running and losing.
At that point, it's like, "Hey, remember that guy who ran and couldn't even get the nomination? Look, he's now the guy." How does that draw votes? He'd be much better off as the guy who valiantly stepped in when the country needed him as opposed to the also-ran who already lost.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The damage is already done, some generation in the future is fucked regardless of what we do (within reason). I support solar energy, electric cars etc because of the potential of cost cuts. If they help the environment then that's cool, but ultimately the economic value far outweighs whatever environmental benefit given the long term reality at hand.
No one cares about this stuff outside of liberals, it's kind of odd to see Obama obsess over this. Not that it matters, the courts will shitcan this.
Roland_Gunner
Member
I completely disagree with this.. The difference between the earth warming by 3 and 4 degrees is massive. Literally tens of millions of additional people would be displaced by rising sea levels, not to mention increased starvation, etc. Just because people are too short-sighted to see that doesn't mean its something the President should ignore.
RustyNails
Member
I can't wait until the rest of the country finds out that Walker does not have a brain. PD am cry.
/dead
Edit. Beaten whoops. Still funny
PD: wrong about Game of Thrones, wrong about Walker
Brawndo Addict
Banned
We need to accept that we're not going to be able to make the necessary structural changes in time to 'naturally' avoid the most destructive changes coming from temperature increases. Even if some genie magically made no more CO2 get emitted, we would still have catastrophic temperature increases occur based on the latent amount already in the atmosphere. We need to focus on geoengineering solutions to help give us the extra time to change our infrastructure. It can be crude like just shooting sulfur into the atmosphere to mimic a large scale volcanic eruption, or perhaps microscopic reflective materials to increase the earth's albedo.
It's crucial that we do this before the temperature increases so much that it triggers cascading feedback loops. Arguably we've already set this in motion in Antarctica (but if we can draw it out over hundreds of years as opposed to decades that's huge), but we cannot let the permafrost melt for example. We just need to buy ourselves enough time for Carbon Recapture to become feasible, and then we can start reversing the process (coextensive with slow but steady reduction in fossil fuel reliance).
It's crucial that we do this before the temperature increases so much that it triggers cascading feedback loops. Arguably we've already set this in motion in Antarctica (but if we can draw it out over hundreds of years as opposed to decades that's huge), but we cannot let the permafrost melt for example. We just need to buy ourselves enough time for Carbon Recapture to become feasible, and then we can start reversing the process (coextensive with slow but steady reduction in fossil fuel reliance).
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Almost every claim in this post is factually wrong (I can't really say your support is false)
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
So someone who wouldn't have run at all would be suddenly be at the head and likely to win? And who says Clinton might not be doing so well before she gets the nomination?
You can't put all of your eggs in the same basket, it's suicidal, and this is what the dems are doing so far.
This is absolute bullshit, and you know it. There isn't a need to troll something as serious as this.
Aaron Strife
Banned
haha what
"we're all inevitably fucked so why even bother trying to fix the environment at this point" - The People who Fucked Up The Environment in The First Place and are Continuing to do so for Profit
no one lives forever
speculawyer
Member
I have been saying this. Just because he got elected a few times doesn't mean that much.
How many times did Rick Perry get elected by a much bigger state?
Rubio is also a moron.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked