Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 04:00:08 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 106
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Schweitzer:"In England, a baby’s born and they know he’ll grow up to be king..." on: May 22, 2014, 09:40:59 am
I have to laugh at politicians who weren't Senators at the time of the Iraq vote criticizing Hillary. Everyone knows Schweitzer would have voted for it had he been one in 2002, same with Obama.

Well, Democrats didn't unanimously vote to authorize the Iraq war. And I don't think it's too much to say a candidate who was in the senate can be criticized for their votes by candidates who weren't. But you can laugh at the other Schweitzer's attacks when you remember he campaigned for McAuliffe in the 2009 Virginia gubernatorial primary, transparently cozying up to Clinton donors for 2016. In any case, his own record on guns would probably keep him from getting too much traction in a Democratic primary. But the guy certainly has a flare for words.
152  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: How are Nunn's chances now? on: May 21, 2014, 12:16:02 pm
Unlike many of the posters here, I think Nunn's opening is getting narrower and narrower. I can conceivably see her getting up to 48%, but crossing 50% + 1 is another story. She simply will not win in a run-off.

That's not how Georgia does it, is it?
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton-Julian Castro ticket on: May 21, 2014, 12:11:00 pm
As I assume we all know, the odds of the Democrats winning 6 elections in a row is low but the odds of Democrats winning 4 elections in a row after having just won 2 are roughly 4 times better (and the odds of winning 2 elections in a row after having just won 4 in a row are much higher than winning 6 in a row, roughly 16 X as likely. That's imprecise because once you've won, you're incumbent and can get punished in bad times. But the point stands that we're not talking about the probability of Democrats winning 6 in a row but rather 4 in a row to total 6. The idea that scenario is 99% unlikely without VP Julian is hyperbole, nor do we even know how much more likely he makes it, if at all. More generally, picking a VP with an eye on an election 8 years forward is ridiculous which is why no one has ever done it. Assuming Hillary is the nominee, she's likely to follow the usual Do No Harm rule. Even in the event she's on course for an easy win and can be a little more adventurous, she'll make a January pick, not a November 2024 pick.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be a smarter (electorally strategic) VP pick for Clinton? on: May 21, 2014, 10:55:57 am
Only a True Leftists think Hillary Clinton needs a running mate to win the election Roll Eyes  Her 535% approval rating means that even she were to die before the election, she'd still win with at least 100% of the vote.

#ReadyforHillary

Jokes aside, the specific choice of running mate helps the nominee win approximately 0% of the time. Several realistic running mates for Hillary are from battleground states- Warner, Kaine, Hickenlooper, Brown are debatably smart electoral picks. But much would the most popular of those, Warner, help in his home state? I'd argue very little if at all.
155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How about a Warren/Brown ticket? on: May 20, 2014, 01:32:42 pm
Far too liberal to play nationwide. Furthermore, Warren at the top of the ticket will be an invitation to Wall Street and other special interests to just open the floodgates against Warren. You will see Democrats get out raised like you've never seen in presidential history. You don't want to piss the big money off.

we'll never know until we try.

seriously, when was the last time the democrats nominated a leftist?

That sounds like Republican logic for nominating Ted Cruz. "When's the last time Republicans nominated a far right nutjob? We won't know unless we try!"

The thing is, "trying" in this case means potentially handing the presidency to the Republicans for at least 4 years and possibly more. I'm not willing to take that risk, not at this point at least.

The last time the GOP nominated a far-right nut job they lost in a landslide. To someone as or more liberal than Warren. Even if she were against a moderate Republican nominee, the GOP would need all that Wall Street money to distort Warren's view lest swing voters realize they mostly agree with her.

Anyway, I assum both Brown and Warren stay in the senate but campaign for Hillary.
156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How about a Warren/Brown ticket? on: May 20, 2014, 11:12:02 am
Far too liberal to play nationwide.

Labels aside, her views are fairly mainstream though. America is pretty liberal on most issues.

Quote
Furthermore, Warren at the top of the ticket will be an invitation to Wall Street and other special interests to just open the floodgates against Warren.

It could backfire. Look at the anti-Obamacare ad spending dwarfing 10 times over pro-Obamacare ad spending. Yet repeal remains an unpopular enough position that Republicans are avoiding saying their position on it.

Anyway, Warren's denial of interest sounds sincere. She never pursued politics and only ran for senate after a campaign by others to draft her. Seems overwhelmingly likely Hillary will run and be the nominee, but I won't be surprised to see her borrow some of Warren's messaging, even in the general election (like Obama did en route to a 4 point win) and to consider Brown for VP.
157  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Once a cancer, always a cancer on: May 18, 2014, 04:08:53 pm
what does any of this have to do with cancer??

If these tactics succeed and Republicans get control of the government, they will further eviscerate cancer research. They would also repeal Obamacare (though the politics is such that they've become too scared to admit it) which would lead to more people dying of cancer.
158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton-Julian Castro ticket on: May 17, 2014, 04:32:11 pm
Obama isn't grooming Castro to be VP. Is there evidence 2016 guides his thinking at all? He's trying to trade letting the GOP save its ass with Latinos in exchange for immigration reform but they keep turning him down. Obama is making nice with Latinos and is smart enough to know doing this will get Castro more VP buzz, but that's probably all there is to it.

In any case, in the still unlikely event Hillary picks Castro as a running mate, yeah, someone will fill the job for the last few months. So what?
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton-Julian Castro ticket on: May 17, 2014, 11:15:44 am
His brother would still be more qualified, Julian would probably go to a low level position like Deputy Secretary or something. Hillary really should be a looking at a Governor or a Senator like every Presidential candidates does someone who's qualified and ready for the job not a token pick to appeal to a certain group. Remember her VP pick will be very important because there will be questions about her age/health just like with McCain a bad VP pick who seems unqualified could sink her campaign.

Presumably, if he takes the job it's to run a department as a secretary. But I agree she's not going to pick someone who, as Jonathan Bernstein would say, lacks conventional qualifications.
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton-Julian Castro ticket on: May 17, 2014, 10:26:12 am
Still pretty unlikely, but less so.  Do you think my persuasive post from 2 days ago that he didn't yet have the resume to be tapped for VP got to him? Probably did but I guess we'll never know.
161  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: OH-Rassy: Kasich up 7 on: May 16, 2014, 05:43:31 pm
Rassy has a terrible record especially in Ohio. In 2008, their last poll had Obama/McCain tied (really Obama +5) and in 2010, their net averages were off by 2 points in the Governor's race and off by 6 points in the Senate race; in both instances giving Kasich and Portman higher leads than what they won by. With that said, Kasich probably is leading by 4-5 in this poll then, but the other polls released recently from Quinnipiac and SurveyUSA still give Kasich that comfortable 7-8 point advantage for now with a FitzGerald comeback very likely. Don't count him out!

Quinnipac has a better record and has him up double this.

PPP has Kasich up 4
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How likely is a double digit win for Hillary? on: May 16, 2014, 06:59:04 am
If she chooses a latino running mate, her upside will be particularily high. And the answer is a resounding yes, very likely I think. Very likely as in 20-25% of the time. (Just a wild guess right now though.)
I sure hope she picks Julian Castro. That'd be a Palin-esque pick.

Remember when Sarah Palin went to Harvard Law School?  Because I sure don't.
Dubya has degrees from Harvard AND Yale. He is the genius president of our time. Tongue

Maybe that's a little hyperbolic, but he's certainly not as stupid as the media likes to insinuate.
Oh, I agree. I'm not insinuating that Castro is dumb or anything either. But, untested guys like him will get eviscerated under the pressure. Whether it's by overshadowing the lead on the ticket (Palin) or just completely cracking.

Sarah Palin's problem was that she was an idiot.  It wouldn't matter how experienced she was.  And, she didn't just overshadow McCain, she overshadowed him by making a fool of herself.  That's a key point to make.  

I've actually talked to Julian Castro briefly a couple of years ago.  He's quite impressive.  It's ridiculous to compare him to Sarah Palin.  The reason he has no chance of being VP is that he's not a Governor, Senator or high profile Federal official.  Maybe that shouldn't be a threshold qualification, but it is.

Honestly, I think this VP talk is stupid.  I don't want a VP selected for their race, gender or political appeal.  It ought to be the best person for the job.  If you pick that person, everything will take care of itself.

I wonder how Hispanics feel about all the condescending "a brown token with few qualifications will win the brown votes" talk among white liberals. I'd be pissed if I were seen only for the color of my skin, rather than my accomplishments.

Maybe they don't find it condescending, I dunno, but it could backfire.

In numerous polls, at least in a couple of polls conducted by the Pew Research Center/Pew's Hispanic Trends Center, latinos have expressed their laments that they don't have a national latino leader yet. A VP candidate endorsed wholeheartedly by Hillary could easily and rapidly become such a leader (just like the inexperienced Palin almost immediately became the Tea Party leader shortly after the 2008 election). A Hillary candidacy would probably raise the anemic latino turnout in 2012 at 48% by a few pecentage points, perhaps all the way up to 55-57%. However, I'm pretty sure that the only way to succeed with what right now seems like an almost impossible task, to raise the latino turnout to 60% or beyond, would be to put one of theirs on the ballot. And to suggest that there doesn't even exist one single qualified person among the US' 53 million latinos is quite pathetic, to say the least. What an offensive remark really to 17% of the US population.

Uh, I never said that. We were talking about Julian Castro.

"not even one single qualified person among the US's 53 million Latinos" sounds pathetic and insulting to the untrained ear. But left out was the part about how it's "qualified to be president of the United States right now". Less insulting. Especially considering, most of those 53 million are under 14 years old.

Both Castros who are… 40? Almost 40? lack the resume. Hillary won't trade trying to boost the Latino vote for opening herself up to charges of letting politics drive her to put someone unqualified a heartbeat away. More likely to be a boring, safe pick. I don't think that changes too much if she has the kind of leads she now has though the odds of a female running mate go up somewhat.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which GOP candidates run only if another doesn't? on: May 15, 2014, 11:54:30 pm
Why would Pence or Kasich defer to each other? Kasich-Portman seems more likely since they're both Ohians, thought they're moderation is in different places.
164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush: "Traditional marriage" can fight poverty better than government aid on: May 15, 2014, 11:51:59 pm
I am touched that Jeb would promote traditional marriage as many in the GOP are retreating on this very important issue.    It will be very important for Jeb to have backing in the conservative base  in this regard.

As a gay man, I acknowledge the reality that the best family is mom and dad.

Wait, what did you say?

No one else finds it interesting that the most extreme social conservative on the board says he's gay? That's not interesting? What am I missing?
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How likely is a double digit win for Hillary? on: May 15, 2014, 11:46:39 pm
De Blasio would be another dream of mine.

Why?
166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would do the absolute worst in the 2016 veep debate? on: May 15, 2014, 11:20:41 pm
I don't think she'll pick O'Malley but I don't see any reason to think he'd do bad in a debate.
167  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How likely is a double digit win for Hillary? on: May 15, 2014, 11:10:54 pm
Yeah the idea that Hillary will pick a running mate to boost her seems ridiculous and there doesn't even seem to be anyone who would do so. Why would a minority running mate boost her? She will on the other hand avoid picking someone who could hurt, and anyone who was transparently picked for a geographic or demographic political motive carries that risk. I have said Gary Locke will be on her short list but he's easy to justify on the merits- he's a 2-term governor with experience as a cabinet member and ambassador to the biggest country in the world.

Speaking of Washington state, I'd add Patti Murray to the list of VPs because I think a big lead affects the VP pick more than the other way around and if Hillary's lead is high single digits for example, she could safely pick Murray.

Some people have mentioned a Clinton-Warren ticket (Bill Maher is the latest.) That seems more unlikely but not impossible if Sanders runs in a primary and the base needs to be shored up. Seems doubtful though. DeBlasio seems more likely.

Speaking of NY, I assume she will also look at switching her voter registration to DC a la Cheney 2000 if DeBlasio, Cuomo or Gillibrand appealed to her as a running mate.

Kaine seems like a pretty safe pick too. (Not sure why someone lumped him in with McAuliffe) He'd probably rank higher if he hadn't been the first high-ranking official to endorse Obama in 2008. But if he's the smartest pick in a close race, Hillary is  smart enough to not care.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How likely is a double digit win for Hillary? on: May 15, 2014, 12:30:50 pm
Rand Paul would have to run third party for her to win by double digits.

Or just run second party.

In all seriousness, each of the prospective establishment choices has some risk of triggering a third party run that could do it, and the other options could trigger it one-on-one. That said, I think there's a fairly slim chance of it. But I'd call it a 50/50 chance right now of a >5 Hillary win (the <5 including her losing).
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush: "Traditional marriage" can fight poverty better than government aid on: May 15, 2014, 10:24:50 am
I am touched that Jeb would promote traditional marriage as many in the GOP are retreating on this very important issue.    It will be very important for Jeb to have backing in the conservative base  in this regard.

As a gay man, I acknowledge the reality that the best family is mom and dad.

Wait, what did you say?
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush: "Traditional marriage" can fight poverty better than government aid on: May 14, 2014, 12:01:53 pm
Nice shell game going on but Bush said "traditional marriage" a phrase used to pander to gay marriage opponents.  If and when Rob Portman makes the same point but says "any kind of loving marriage and family", what will the debate be? Families are a good thing? Democrats agree. We should cut food stamps and unemployment insurance because families are a good thing? Democrats disagree.
171  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What is Hillary Clinton's Floor? on: May 12, 2014, 02:23:30 pm
300?
172  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / 2016 GOP on Climate Change: Yikes. on: May 12, 2014, 01:16:41 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/12/where-the-2016-gop-contenders-stand-on-climate-change/
173  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Biden at SC fundraiser: middle class has been hit hard since Clinton years on: May 12, 2014, 10:48:11 am
Biden obviously won't beat Clinton in a primary but that's not because he's a bad campaigner. It'll be for the same reason he lost in 2008: he's a bad fit for the moment. In some respects, Hillary is a bad fit for the moment. But in other ways, she's a good fit to the point that she's inevitable.

It would be very strange and improbable for Biden to campaign as a raging populist. Yes, he's a stalwart pro-labor old-school Democrat (something I like a lot) but he also voted for NAFTA and the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill. He was really kind of hated on sites like D Kos before he hooked up with Obama. I think some people are responding to the Onion Joe Biden more than the real guy.

And just as a factual matter, he's almost 100% wrong. Most economists tend to date the decline of the middle class to the mid-Seventies, with the latter years of Clinton being something of a respite because the overall economy was so strong. Robert Reich, who's critical of a lot of Clinton policies despite being in his cabinet the first term, said as much on Chris Hayes' show recently.

All of this is correct.

Since Elizabeth Warren doesn't seem interested in running, there's no one ready to take the populist progressive mantle.

Bernie Sanders, though whether he'll actually run is unclear.
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul: I wouldn't try to ban abortion or overturn Roe v Wade on: May 11, 2014, 09:22:36 pm
If you think Rand Paul is a more likely nominee than Ted Cruz you are ridiculous.
175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Elected to Statewide Office in 2014. National Ticket in 2016. on: May 11, 2014, 04:40:47 pm
Another example is McCain attacking Obama as inexperienced then picking newly elected Palin.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 106


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines