Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 01, 2014

OT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

“On his economic record, Chris Christie strikes out,” the video’s narrator says.

Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:10 AM | 6359 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: new jersey, politics, video

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 64 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4762637)
Yes, as opposed to how the French were petitioned by the Algerians to come in and take over their country,

It wasn't "their country," anymore than the United States was the Native Americans' "country."


Remind me again of the principle that enables a foreign government to seize "legitimate" control of another country and rule the pre-existing population solely for its own benefit. And since we're getting thirsty, please slip at least a couple of "modern liberal" references in there.

So by that impeccable reasoning, I'm assuming you'd want to follow the advice of today's United Nations when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Arab disputes over the past 47 years, beginning by having Israel withdraw to within its pre-Six Day War borders.

I wouldn't have any problem with that.


Yeah, I'm sure you wouldn't, given everything else you've said about the current Israeli-Hamas conflict.



   102. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4762640)
Remind me again of the principle that enables a foreign government to seize "legitimate" control of another country and rule the pre-existing population solely for its own benefit.

The one that allowed European rule over the Americas. The United States was the Native Americans' country under your principle. I said that already. And then there's the principle that allowed England, France, Germany, and a host of other current nations to be formed.

Nor of course was the Algeria of 1830 a "country" in any real sense of the word, but that's a sideshow and I'm not going to argue about it.

Yeah, I'm sure you wouldn't, given everything else you've said about the current Israeli-Hamas conflict.

I haven't said a word about the current Israeli-Hamas conflict.
   103. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4762643)
And then you've gone on and on for pages about that thing you don't know anything about.

And that, ladies and gentlement, is how lefties are spawned.


Today I learned how SBB's parents explained how he was conceived.
   104. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4762650)
I mean, yeah, the FLN cowardly murdered a bunch of women and children, but they certainly didn't beat the French military.
Have you ever heard the phrase "won the battle but lost the war?" The goal, of course, is to win the war; regardless of their performance on the battlefield, they did indeed defeat the French. (He didn't say "the French military"; he said "France.")
   105. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4762652)
In other words, you've heard a bunch of lefties kind of talk about something, and you've adopted it even though you don't really know anything about it. And then you've gone on and on for pages about that thing you don't know anything about.

That's a fairly good description of Bitter Mouse on just about any topic. He went on and on for pages re: education spending, but I still can't get him to tell us if he believes we should be spending more money, less money, or the same amount of money on kids who are so mentally challenged that they show little or no capacity for learning.

***
I don't agree with their politics, but they are a more interesting crop than Mitt Romney, and honestly, more interesting than anything on the Dem side outside of Hillary and maybe Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. Any Dem that thinks 2016 is going to be a cakewalk I think is fooling themselves.

Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and her political positions are mostly stupid, but she at least has an agenda, but what's interesting about Hillary? Does she have any new ideas about anything? And Cory Booker? That guy might be a bigger fraud than Warren. If he was white, you wouldn't even have listed him. You probably wouldn't even know his name.
   106. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4762653)
That's a fairly good description of Bitter Mouse on just about any topic. He went on and on for pages re: education spending, but I still can't get him to answer if he believes we should be spending more money, less money, or the same amount of money on kids who are so mentally challenged that they show little or no capacity for learning.


The answer, of course, is that you are a monster.
   107. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4762654)
but I still can't get him to answer if he believes we should be spending more money, less money, or the same amount of money on kids who are so mentally challenged that they show little or no capacity for learning.
But enough about the steroids opponents.
   108. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4762655)
I don't think there are many, if any, points in American history where it was more obvious two years out who the next president is going to be.

I'll go with old Wooden Teeth in 1786.

Thomas Dewey in 1946?

Maybe, but Dewey was only part of a three-headed bloc of co-favorites in 1946, along with Robert Taft and Harold Stassen. Dewey had become the top dog by 1948, yet still required three convention ballots to win the nomination.

Who in 2006 had Obama over Hillary?

A slew of political professionals and financial backers. While Hillary Clinton was certainly the favorite, Obama's win was the kind of upset it would have been if Alydar had beaten Affirmed.

I don't see any current GOP candidate with that kind of organization, that kind of network

Emphasis on "don't see." That's because the media spends its time looking for gaffes and sound bytes and nip slips. Those "out of nowhere" wins by "dwarfs" like Clinton, Dukakis and Carter were completely predictable, but only in retrospect when reporters looked up afterwards to wonder how they had done it, instead of covering how they were doing it. Today the media is, again, uninterested in reporting on this process because it's hard and boring. But it would be crazy to think that nobody at all in the GOP is assembling their version.

LOL @ Jeb Bush. The Republicans nominating Jeb Bush is every Democrat's wet dream.
The Republicans nominating Ted Cruz, not Jeb Bush, is every Democrat's wet dream.


Emphasis on "dream." Hillary Clinton is likely to beat a normal like Bush, or a bombthrower like Cruz, or the ebola virus, by around the same margin: roughly 52-47. It's a long shot that any Republican will narrow that gap very much in the current electoral circumstance. Despite Democratic giggling, it's a far, far, FAR longer shot that Prospective Candidate X will trigger another Goldwater/McGovern blowout loss, no matter who the GOP picks.

Sorry for not mentioning Algeria.
   109. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4762656)
but I still can't get him to answer


Answer some of my questions and I will gladly answer yours. But instead you want to only ask questions, attack others positions and so on. Sorry but that bores me. At least SBB is honest and courageous enough to stand up for what he thinks, even when tragically wrong.
   110. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4762658)
Despite Democratic giggling, it's a far, far, FAR longer shot that Prospective Candidate X will trigger another Goldwater/McGovern blowout loss, no matter who the GOP picks.


Disagree. If the Rs were to nominate a black guy and Ds were to nominate a white guy, I think that would significantly shift matters.
   111. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4762659)
Emphasis on "dream." Hillary Clinton is likely to beat a normal like Bush, or a bombthrower like Cruz, or the ebola virus, by around the same margin: roughly 52-47. It's a long shot that any Republican will narrow that gap very much in the current electoral circumstance. Despite Democratic giggling, it's a far, far, FAR longer shot that Prospective Candidate X will trigger another Goldwater/McGovern blowout loss, no matter who the GOP picks.

I'm not sure which is funnier: Your confidence in Hillary Clinton or your confidence that blacks will turn out at the same record levels without Obama at the top of the ticket.

***
Answer some of my questions and I will gladly answer yours. But instead you want to only ask questions, attack others positions and so on. Sorry but that bores me. At least SBB is honest and courageous enough to stand up for what he thinks, even when tragically wrong.

I asked my questions first. Regardless, anyone with grade-school-level reading comprehension skills knows where I stand re: education spending generally and the prioritization of same based on ROI. You're just trying to dodge answering a question that you don't want to answer. Clearly, there are no limits to the amounts of other people's money you want to spend, but you'd rather not have to say so explicitly.
   112. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4762660)
Nor of course was the Algeria of 1830 a "country" in any real sense of the word, but that's a sideshow and I'm not going to argue about it.


I know very little about Algeria in 1830, so I would be grateful if you could grant us your expertise. What was its political organization.
   113. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4762661)
I'm not sure which is funnier: Your confidence in Hillary Clinton or your confidence that blacks will turn out at the same record levels without Obama at the top of the ticket.


When you're done laughing it up, count the black votes in the American electorate versus the number of woman votes. You might also take a look at the last 20+ years of numbers that show how the women's vote has essentially decided every election. Maybe even check out which way the women's vote has been shifting, even with nothing but dudes to vote for.
   114. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4762663)
When you're done laughing it up, count up the black votes in the American electorate versus the number of woman votes.

Yeah, Hillary banked on this in the 2008 primary. We saw how that worked out.

Women already vote in high numbers. The issue is whether blacks and especially black males will turn out in 2016 like they did in 2008 and 2012.

Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly have higher name recognition, yet she's in the mid-40s in most of the 2016 presidential polls I've seen. If 52-47 Dem is the assumed baseline, it doesn't appear that women are going nuts for Sister Hillary at this point.
   115. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4762664)
I know very little about Algeria in 1830, so I would be grateful if you could grant us your expertise. What was its political organization.

Andy can tell you.
   116. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4762668)
I don't think there are many, if any, points in American history where it was more obvious two years out who the next president is going to be. Hillary Clinton will certainly be the Democratic nominee, and the Republicans don't have a credible candidate to run. Their hopes rely on Clinton self-destructing or the Democratic party getting caught up in a major scandal, and that's about it.

There seems to be an almost desperate effort by some Democratic partisans here to declare the 2016 campaign over before it has even begun. You don't win presidential elections before the votes have been cast in the preceding mid-term election. While Hillary Clinton polls pretty well at the moment, some of that is name-recognition and benefiting from being above the day-to-day political fray as Secretary of State and since leaving office. Even as she recently dipped her toes in the political waters, her numbers have declined a bit. Did she look like a master politician on her book tour? Not in my opinion, and those were pretty softball questions. And what is she going to run on as she seeks Obama's third term? Hard to come up with an issue that she owns.

There aren't a lot of non-Hillary polls on 2016 general election match-ups, but other Democratic candidates don't do that well. As the campaign goes on, there is reason to believe Hillary's support will regress towards that of other Democratic candidates. It's far from sure that will be enough.

As for the GOP candidates, most are still introducing themselves to the American people. There is no telling how that will play out, but the folks here assuming none of the GOP candidates can successfully run that gauntlet are just showing their partisan bias.


   117. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4762673)
There seems to be an almost desperate effort by some Democratic partisans here to declare the 2016 campaign over before it has even begun. You don't win presidential elections before the votes have been cast in the preceding mid-term election. While Hillary Clinton polls pretty well at the moment, some of that is name-recognition and benefiting from being above the day-to-day political fray as Secretary of State and since leaving office. Even as she recently dipped her toes in the political waters, her numbers have declined a bit. Did she look like a master politician on her book tour? Not in my opinion, and those were pretty softball questions. And what is she going to run on as she seeks Obama's third term? Hard to come up with an issue that she owns.


None of this rings false to me, but Hillary is the winner by default, so long as she doesn't trip herself up. Who's going to beat her in the Democratic primary? What Republican candidate is going to overcome the current Democratic-leaning demographics? The Republican party has serious issues, not least of which is its own fragmentation.

As for the GOP candidates, most are still introducing themselves to the American people.


I am not a partisan for either side, but this does ring false to me. Rather, perhaps, it sounds like a nice way of saying "No Republican presidential candidate is interesting."

The infighting in the Republican party is a serious problem for them--no matter who they nominate, the candidate will turn off a big chunk of the party, because the social moderate segment and the Religious Right can no longer get along. You're going to see a lot more of Rick Santorum in early 2016.
   118. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4762674)
None of this rings false to me, but Hillary is the winner by default, so long as she doesn't trip herself up. Who's going to beat her in the Democratic primary? What Republican candidate is going to overcome the current Democratic-leaning demographics? The Republican party has serious issues, not least of which is its own fragmentation.

"Winner by default." There's a new one.

I am not a partisan for either side, but this does ring false to me. Rather, perhaps, it sounds like a nice way of saying "No Republican presidential candidate is interesting."

LOL. On the last page, you claimed the GOP doesn't have a single "credible candidate to run." If that's your idea of non-partisan analysis, you're doing it wrong.

I guess in Zeth's world, Bill Clinton was at 60 percent in January 1991 instead of at ... 6 percent.
   119. spike Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4762676)
Disagree. If the Rs were to nominate a black guy and Ds were to nominate a white guy, I think that would significantly shift matters.

Agree in the abstract but not in the specific possibilities - Cain or Carson would be crushed.
   120. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4762677)
I want to make sure I'm following your logic, Joe--because I said something unflattering about the Republican Party, therefore I am a Democratic partisan? Is that right or did I miss something?

Edit in response to your edit: Yes, and if something dramatically bad happens to the economy and abruptly plunges Obama's approval ratings down near the single digits, we'll talk. I understand your argument there. Actually it's an instructive point: the Democratic party looks absolutely dominant right now... and the Republican party looked absolutely dominant in 1990-1991. Right up until it abruptly wasn't.

But what Republican out there might be able to replicate Bill Clinton's charisma? Please give me a name and I'll look him up.
   121. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4762680)
I want to make sure I'm following your logic, Joe--because I said something unflattering about the Republican Party, therefore I am a Democratic partisan? Is that right or did I miss something?

My logic is that a self-proclaimed non-partisan who looks at the 2014 GOP and doesn't see a single "credible candidate" for president in 2016 is either a fraud or delusional.

If Barack Obama, a back-bench senator with no public- or private-sector achievements of note was deemed a "credible candidate" in 2008, then the GOP has dozens of such candidates in 2014.

Edit in response to your edit: Yes, and if something dramatically bad happens to the economy and abruptly plunges Obama's approval ratings down near the single digits, we'll talk. I understand your argument there.

When were Bush 41's approval ratings near single digits? Bush 41's approval ratings, at their worst, were generally no more than a couple points worse than Obama's ratings right now. I don't see how that helps Obama's fellow Dem, Hillary, let alone makes her the "winner by default" just by showing up.
   122. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4762687)
Agree in the abstract but not in the specific possibilities - Cain or Carson would be crushed.


Huh? No, I think that Rs nominating a black guy would be a huge mistake. They'd lose the "southern white" vote, and not net out anything with black voters. Any black R would be crushed by a greater margin than 52-47.

Sorry, I think we're agreeing.

But what Republican out there might be able to replicate Bill Clinton's charisma? Please give me a name and I'll look him up.


This is a silly premise, but Huckabee.
   123. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4762691)
Huckabee? The guy who couldn't beat empty suit Rick Santorum for the religious right vote in 2012?

I guess he's a fair answer to a question that's about charisma, but... Huckabee seems to have worked himself into a position where neither of the major Republican factions trusts him. Of course that could work out perfectly for him if there's a nasty multi-way fight for the nomination and he positions himself as the compromise choice...

Is Ron Paul running again? I would assume not if Rand Paul is running.
   124. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4762698)
Actually it's an instructive point: the Democratic party looks absolutely dominant right now..

???????
no it doesn't

and the Republican party looked absolutely dominant in 1990-1991

no it didn't- GWHB was riding high, but the party? meh- it looked dominant in 94/95
   125. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4762700)
But what Republican out there might be able to replicate Bill Clinton's charisma?

That Bill Clinton is some sort of master politician is another myth that doesn't stand close analysis. He was able to get elected President twice, no small accomplishment, but he was aided by Perot's candidacy both times. Beyond that, he was a disaster for his party - losing both Houses of Congress at his first mid-term election and never reclaiming either House, even as he was re-elected. The Democrats hold on the House of Representatives had been unbroken for 40 years! Then Bill Clinton kicked it away. And how did Bill do in 2008 campaigning for Hillary? Seems like he stepped in it a couple of times, and was powerless to improve Hillary's sinking fortunes.
   126. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4762705)
There seems to be an almost desperate effort by some Democratic partisans here to declare the 2016 campaign over before it has even begun.

There seemed to have been an almost desperate effort by a certain BBTF poster/GOP operative to declare the 2014 campaign a GOP landslide over before it even really began either.
Bonus points if you can figure out who (Hint: his BBTF handle's initials are YC)
   127. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4762706)
There seemed to have been an almost desperate effort by a certain BBTF poster/GOP operative to declare the 2014 campaign a GOP landslide over before it even really began either.

Not true. He just keeps us posted on the current state of affairs.

By the above standard, Nate Silver is a partisan hack.
   128. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4762707)
That Bill Clinton is some sort of master politician is another myth that doesn't stand close analysis. He was able to get elected President twice, no small accomplishment, but he was aided by Perot's candidacy both times. Beyond that, he was a disaster for his party - losing both Houses of Congress at his first mid-term election and never reclaiming either House, even as he was re-elected. And how did Bill do in 2008 campaigning for Hillary? Seems like he stepped in it a couple of times, and was powerless to improve Hillary's sinking fortunes.


Yeah, co-sign this one. Bill Clinton's biggest accomplishments were getting elected twice and losing congress. For all the focus on policy, what were his policy accomplishments?

Clinton is sort of the mirror image of Nixon, in that most of his policy achievements (balanced budget, DOMA, DADT, welfare reform) were compromises on priorities of the other party.

Obama's policy achievements were priorities of his own party. Clinton benefits from a lot of factors that made him look better than he was, just like Obama is suffering from a lot of factors that make him look worse. In terms of environment, Obama for the last six years has been in 1968 Dodger Stadium, while Clinton spent most of his time in Fenway in the 2000's.
   129. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4762708)
. . . the Democratic party looks absolutely dominant right now...

Really? A dominant political party usually controls the House of Representatives. And isn't worried about losing control of the Senate. And has a majority of the governorships, too. But other than all those things, I guess the Democrats are "dominant" because they have one potential candidate currently doing well in the polls for an election more than 2 years away. Seriously?
   130. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4762709)
Yeah, co-sign this one. Bill Clinton's biggest accomplishments were getting elected twice and losing congress. For all the focus on policy, what were his policy accomplishments?

Clinton is sort of the mirror image of Nixon, in that most of his policy achievements (balanced budget, DOMA, DADT, welfare reform) were compromises on priorities of the other party.


more or less agree
   131. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4762715)
Of course Hillary Clinton's advantage in these speculative polls will shrink. She's "beating" every opponent in the field by double digits now, but will not do so against a specific opponent in two years. Of course one of these currently "nondescript" GOP candidates will be nominated and "become credible," but he's going to have to draw a straight flush to make it past Clinton.


Yeah, Hillary banked on this in the 2008 primary. We saw how that worked out.

It's great sport to see the party that had the third-place 2008 candidate invoking the second-place Hillary, as if that'll save them. Hillary Clinton would have won each of the last three elections.

Black voters made up 10% of the electorate in 2000, 11% in 2004, 13% in 2008 and 13% in 2012. Before voting overwhelmingly for Obama, blacks split their vote evenly at 88-11% for John Kerry and 90-9% for Gore.

Women voters (including more than half of the black vote) have been the majority demographic since 1984. Since then, they've voted for Reagan by 16%, Bush by 2%, Clinton by 7% (Perot 17%), Clinton by 17% (Perot 7%), Gore by 10%, Kerry by 3%, Obama by 13% and Obama by 11%.

Joe Kehoskie says it's all about black men. Black voters supported John Kerry by a margin of 77%. Women supported him by 3%. Which played a bigger role in the result?

Looking to the future, there's not a lot for Republicans to like in those numbers. Not even if 350,000 black male former voters do sit out the next election -- "the issue," according to Joe. But all the GOP needs to do to feel confident is to locate the next Ronald Reagan, or wait for a 25-EV swing state to be decided by 600 votes.

The women's vote has been the most dominant factor in every presidential election for the past 30 years. Will that support surge or ebb in the year that the first potential female president is on the ballot... hmm, how can anyone possibly offer a guess?
   132. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4762716)
There seems to be an almost desperate effort by some Democratic partisans here to declare the 2016 campaign over before it has even begun.

There seemed to have been an almost desperate effort by a certain BBTF poster/GOP operative to declare the 2014 campaign a GOP landslide over before it even really began either. Bonus points if you can figure out who (Hint: his BBTF handle's initials are YC)

Did I make any declarations about the 2014 election more than 2 years beforehand? No, I did not. I have noted that in the last year or so there have been numerous signs that the 2014 mid-term is pointing toward the GOP. We're now less than 100 days to the 2014 election, if Hillary has a wide lead in the polls that close to Election Day 2016, she'll be in a pretty good position, although typically presidential campaigns don't heat up until after Labor Day, and the presidential debates aren't scheduled until the fall, either.
   133. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4762717)
It's a myth that Ross Perot handed Bill Clinton the White House. A lot of Perot's support came from people who voted Bush in 1988 and, without Perot, would either have voted Clinton or not voted.
   134. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4762725)
It's great sport to see the party that had the third-place 2008 candidate invoking the second-place Hillary, as if that'll save them. Hillary Clinton would have won each of the last three elections.

Third-place candidate? This needs some unskewing. So does your claim about Hillary beating Bush in 2004.

As for the rest, a consistent ~65 percent of the country believes we're on the wrong track, but Gonfalon, Zeth, et al., believe Dems are presidential shoo-ins — "winners by default" — for the foreseeable future. We shouldn't even bother with the 2016 election.
   135. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4762730)
I think Bill Clinton can reasonably claim credit for the following:

1. Strong economic growth
2. START II Treaty
3. NAFTA
4. Strong civil rights performance
5. Nationwide reduction in crime
6. Intervention in Kosovo
7. Welfare reform legislation

Not everyone would agree with all of these; I certainly don't agree with Kosovo or the welfare "reform" legislation. But in general these were popular and considered successful. The only one I see as a compromise with Republicans is welfare "reform". So while I'm critical of Clinton, I think it's unfair to compare him to Nixon (whose only real domestic accomplishments were indeed things the Dem majority in Congress forced on him).
   136. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4762733)
Obama admits US "torture" post 9/11.
   137. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4762734)
The partisan mind seems honestly unable to comprehend the slightest thing about the world outside of partisanship.

That most of the country is unhappy with the status of their bank accounts--for that is the only thing anyone really cares about--is certainly true. But it doesn't automatically follow that they will all vote for the other party. Some of them are Democrats who will vote Democrat anyway. Some of them will decline to vote. Some of them will piss their vote away on a third party or a write-in.

Let's not lose sight--as I sometimes do--of the fact that presidential elections are invariably won by the candidate that looks better on TV. (It is one of the all-time great achievements that the Democratic Party managed to find not one but TWO candidates that couldn't look better than George W. Bush on TV.) I actually think this doesn't bode very well for Hillary Clinton--IF the Republicans can put someone with some charisma up there.
   138. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4762735)
4. Strong civil rights performance

DOMA.

Next.
   139. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4762736)
I think Bill Clinton can reasonably claim credit for the following:

1. Strong economic growth
2. START II Treaty
3. NAFTA
4. Strong civil rights performance
5. Nationwide reduction in crime
6. Intervention in Kosovo
7. Welfare reform legislation

Not everyone would agree with all of these; I certainly don't agree with Kosovo or the welfare "reform" legislation. But in general these were popular and considered successful. The only one I see as a compromise with Republicans is welfare "reform". So while I'm critical of Clinton, I think it's unfair to compare him to Nixon (whose only real domestic accomplishments were indeed things the Dem majority in Congress forced on him).


I don't see how you can credit Clinton for 1 or 5. Both had nothing to do with him, he was just there.

You can correctly credit Clinton for 2, 3 and 6, all of which worked pretty well and were not sure things. You cannot give him credit for 4 unless you don't count gay rights as civil rights.
   140. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4762738)
The partisan mind seems honestly unable to comprehend the slightest thing about the world outside of partisanship.

Physician, heal thyself.
   141. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4762739)
As for the rest, a consistent ~65 percent of the country believes we're on the wrong track, but Gonfalon, Zeth, et al., believe Dems are presidential shoo-ins — "winners by default" — for the foreseeable future. We shouldn't even bother with the 2016 election.

I could tell you who shouldn't bother wasting any money on a 2016 campaign, but since he's your boy I won't name any names. But brother, do I ever hope that he wows those primary voters and starts campaigning on his sterling record and ever-popular positions.
   142. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4762740)
I could tell you who shouldn't bother wasting any money on a 2016 campaign, but since he's your boy I won't name any names. But brother, do I ever hope that he wows those primary voters and starts campaigning on his sterling record and ever-popular positions.

Ever-popular, indeed. Liberty, prosperity, and security all poll very well.
   143. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4762741)
Just to beat out YC, Obama's aggregate job approval is -13.9, his worst since the first week of December 2013.

Sounds like bad news for Democrats, no?
   144. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4762743)
Sounds like bad news for Democrats, no?


And yet ...

GCB 8/1/2010: R+6
GCB 8/1/2014: D+2.5
   145. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4762744)
I could tell you who shouldn't bother wasting any money on a 2016 campaign, but since he's your boy I won't name any names. But brother, do I ever hope that he wows those primary voters and starts campaigning on his sterling record and ever-popular positions.

Ever-popular, indeed. Liberty, prosperity, and security all poll very well.


Yeah, those are exactly the sort of things that voters associate with your wacko boy. But please don't let him ever go off-message and sell out to Commies like John Boehner.
   146. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:02 PM (#4762745)
Third-place candidate? This needs some unskewing. So does your claim about Hillary beating Bush in 2004.

2008: Obama beat Clinton, who would've beaten McCain.

2004: A drab, unlikeable dullard who looked like a stale loaf of Frankenstein bread lost to the sitting wartime president by 2%. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Hillary Clinton would've improved on that.
   147. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4762746)
Yeah, those are exactly the sort of things that voters associate with your wacko boy.

Would you mind listing some examples of his "wacko" positions?

***
Obama beat Clinton, who would've beaten McCain.

A drab, unlikeable dullard who looked like a stale loaf of Frankenstein bread lost to the sitting wartime president by 2%. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Hillary Clinton would've improved on that.

When you said "drab, unlikeable dullard," I thought you were talking about Hillary.
   148. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4762747)
I think Bill Clinton can reasonably claim credit for the following: 1. Strong economic growth . . .

That's pretty much a myth, too. The economy didn't take off until after the 1994 GOP mid-term landslide, so why aren't Republicans equally entitled to credit for the the resulting economy? Putting aside partisanship, is there any doubt that the relatively good economy of the mid-1990s was due to the productivity ripples caused by the wide-spread introduction of personal computers? How did Clinton have anything to do with that?
   149. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4762749)
i think folks should keep in mind that however they view a candidate is not necessarily how a larger group of voters will view a candidate. politics is a fluid situation. these candidates all have a base set of skills and beliefs that they will attempt to convey and the public and media will work to then assess the candidate.

   150. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4762750)
Sounds like bad news for Democrats, no?


could be better, could be worse, for instance, Dubya was at -17.8 at this point in 2006 (and at that time that was an improvement for him)

RCP Congressional Generic is Dem +2.5, at this point in 2010 it was GOP +4.8
   151. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4762752)
How did Clinton have anything to do with that?

By golly you are right, it was Al Gore who took the lead in inventing the internet
   152. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4762757)
I don't see how you can credit Clinton for 1 or 5. Both had nothing to do with him, he was just there.


Because Presidents generally get credit from the public at large for such things.

You cannot give him credit for 4 unless you don't count gay rights as civil rights.


I wish Clinton had been better on gay rights, but given the political climate of the time, I don't see what he could have done. DADT and DOMA were defensive maneuvers against much worse policies (like the flag burning statute). They were bad laws, but they served a purpose. But even if I deduct points for gay rights -- and I wouldn't argue if you wanted to -- he was still a good President for women and minorities.

The economy didn't take off until after the 1994 GOP mid-term landslide, so why aren't Republicans equally entitled to credit for the the resulting economy?


That's factually incorrect, but regardless, it's for the same reason you don't credit the Dem Congress for economic growth during the '80s.

   153. villageidiom Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4762758)
A drab, unlikeable dullard who looked like a stale loaf of Frankenstein bread lost to the sitting wartime president by 2%. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Hillary Clinton would've improved on that.
She would have had to start campaigning in what, 2003? As a Senator for all of two years, an abysmal failure leading health care reform prior to that. Don't go too far out on that limb.
   154. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4762760)
Because Presidents generally get credit from the public at large for such things.


Well if we're just giving credit like stupid people, sure, Clinton looks great.

Edit: Todd Helton also looked great in Coors.
   155. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:24 PM (#4762765)
Let's not lose sight--as I sometimes do--of the fact that presidential elections are invariably won by the candidate that looks better on TV. (It is one of the all-time great achievements that the Democratic Party managed to find not one but TWO candidates that couldn't look better than George W. Bush on TV.) I actually think this doesn't bode very well for Hillary Clinton--

Yet earlier today you were stating that the 2016 election was Hillary's by default. Seems a bit contradictory. In any event, my view is that for Hillary to win in 2016, she'll have to campaign better than she did in 2008 and be better at Q & A than she demonstrated on her book tour. Could happen, but far from pre-ordained.
   156. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4762766)
i think folks should keep in mind that however they view a candidate is not necessarily how a larger group of voters will view a candidate.


I think one characteristic of the "partisan" is that they either can't comprehend that or simply can't view/ can't see how others view someone else differently...

Before there was Obama Derangement Syndrome, before there was Bush Derangement Syndrome, there was Nixon...

and there were hard core Nixon haters, and what really drove them absolutely nuts, was that before Watergate - no one else seemed capable of seeing what they found incapable of NOT seeing...

On a local scale this is obvious- take Charlie Rangel- obviously the voters in his district see him differently than, well everyone else outside his district... He's held on by his fingernails the last two elections, beating an empty suit- but I have no idea how he could beat an empty suit*, before that he beat Adam Clayton Powell IV, a relatively innocuous local pol with a famous name- I don't know how Rangel did that either.

Sarah Palin :-) Read stuff her admirers wrote in 2008, read stuff her detractors wrote then (and now), obviously neither side was seeing what the other was (In fact Palin's a great example of both sides projecting the attributes they wanted to see onto a candidate)

*Actually he beat the empty suit by relentless and shameless "racial" pandering- his opponent was of Dominican ancestry and wast therefore not really "black" (even though he's darker than Rangel)
   157. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4762769)
"Winner by default." There's a new one.

I could see it.

2012: Obama wins by being not-Romney.
2008: Obama wins by being not-McCain.
2004: Bush wins by being not-Kerry.
2000: Bush wins by being not-Gore (Gore ran an atrocious campaign, and it was time for CHANGE. So, also, being not-Clinton.)
   158. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4762771)
In any event, my view is that for Hillary to win in 2016, she'll have to campaign better than she did in 2008 and be better at Q & A than she demonstrated on her book tour.


At this point I think how Hillary campaigns is actually meaningless, nothing she says or does (within reason) is going to change anyone's mind about her. My guess is she's going to poll votes exactly the way the "hypothetical generic" Dem candidate would.

Does she win 2016? That depends upon:

1: The economy in 2016, how it changes since 2014 and how voters view it as GOP responsibility or Dem responsibility;
2: The GOP candidate and how he/she appears and campaigns
   159. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4762773)
A drab, unlikeable dullard who looked like a stale loaf of Frankenstein bread lost to the sitting wartime president by 2%. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Hillary Clinton would've improved on that.
She would have had to start campaigning in what, 2003? As a Senator for all of two years, an abysmal failure leading health care reform prior to that. Don't go too far out on that limb.


It must have been that extra four years of experience,and national amnesia about her abysmal failure, that defined Clinton's 2008 campaign. She skipped the 2004 race not because of inexperience or her catastrophic record, but because it was still 9/11 24-7, and Bush's approval ratings were high. Too bad for her that she didn't emulate another Clinton who'd entered an unwinnable presidential race when a Bush's popularity still seemed impregnable.

Was 2002-04 Hillary Clinton 1%, 2%, 3% more appealing and electable than John Kerry? This limb feels pretty comfortable.
   160. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4762774)
Well if we're just giving credit like stupid people, sure, Clinton looks great.


I'm fine with the idea that Presidents generally get no credit or blame for the economy. But that's not the way people usually evaluate Presidents, and my comment was judging Clinton by the usual standards.

Note that Clinton gets an average ranking of 20 on the various Presidential ranking systems, so it's unlikely he's the equivalent of Nixon (average of 32, and that's charitable).
   161. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4762777)
2000: Bush wins by being not-Gore (Gore ran an atrocious campaign, and it was time for CHANGE. So, also, being not-Clinton.)


This argument doesn't work very well when Gore actually won the popular vote.
   162. GregD Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4762778)
Harveys, which candidates do you think people are underrating?

I don't doubt that there are lots of candidates who can fight the campaign to a draw. Meaning, if trends hold and the economy doesn't collapse, a respectable R loss with say 180-220 EVs and 47 percent of the vote. I agree many people can do that. And also be in position to win if the economy collapses or a horrific new personal scandal hits the Dem nominee.

I don't think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz could pull those numbers, though obviously I could be wrong. But most of the others.


If that's all you mean then I agree. Cromulent is out there.

If you mean that some candidates seem to you to be game changers, people who could outperform the fundamentals, then I'm curious who they are.
   163. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4762779)
Note that Clinton gets an average ranking of 20 on the various Presidential ranking systems, so it's unlikely he's the equivalent of Nixon (average of 32, and that's charitable).


Mefisto, aren't you sort of leaving out something that people typically talk about w/r/t Nixon when you make that comparison?
   164. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4762781)
Some interesting gubernatorial polls today - the GOP candidate leads the incumbent Democrat by 5% in Obama's home state of Illinois & incumbent Republican Rick Scott narrowly leads the likely Democratic candidate in Florida. Scott had been thought to be in deep trouble earlier in the year, but it is a sign of Florida Democrats weakness that they apparently can't do better for a candidate than GOP turncoat Charlie Crist. The GOP seems likely to lose in Pennsylvania, but likely would come out ahead in the "big states" if they take Illinois & Florida.
   165. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:54 PM (#4762788)
I don't think Rand Paul or Ted Cruz could pull those numbers, though obviously I could be wrong. But most of the others.

I don't see Rand Paul as a serious presidential possibility for 2016, but I'm curious which states Romney won in 2012 that you (and/or others) believe Cruz wouldn't win.

Scott had been thought to be in deep trouble earlier in the year, but it is a sign of Florida Democrats weakness that they apparently can't do better for a candidate than GOP turncoat Charlie Crist.

Charlie Crist is the poster boy for all that's wrong with American politics. It's hard to believe Florida Dems couldn't find a better candidate than a sleazebag like Crist.
   166. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:54 PM (#4762789)
Mefisto, aren't you sort of leaving out something that people typically talk about w/r/t Nixon when you make that comparison?


Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here.
   167. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4762791)
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here.


Nixon's rating reflects Watergate [edit:] and Vietnam rather than only policy decisions.
   168. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4762792)
Yeah, those are exactly the sort of things that voters associate with your wacko boy.

Would you mind listing some examples of his "wacko" positions?


Joe, if you have to ask, you'll never know. I just hope your fellow Republicans are as clueless as you are about his ability to win a general election.
   169. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4762793)
Nixon's rating reflects Watergate [edit:] and Vietnam rather than only policy decisions.


Sure, but I don't doubt that Clinton's ratings include Lewinsky.

I'm not sure why Vietnam and Watergate both don't count as policy decisions. Certainly Vietnam should.
   170. Greg K Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4762794)
So what do you mean when you say "Legitimate"?

As it happens I'm working on a lecture for my Tudor and Stuart England class that pretty much revolves around this question.

Though SBB seems to be arguing for an abstract sense of legitimate that can be applied universally to all polities. In my mind, legitimacy is the ruler's (or ruling elite's) ability to convince enough of the ruled that they ought to be in power. In other words, the French had legitimacy in Algeria until they didn't. Which seems to be Bitter Mouse's position.
   171. Greg K Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4762796)
I know very little about Algeria in 1830, so I would be grateful if you could grant us your expertise. What was its political organization.

I believe by then it was back under the suzerainty of the Byzantine Empire. Or it's possible that was my last playthrough of Europa Universalis IV...I sometimes have trouble keeping that and reality straight.
   172. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4762797)
Corbett's goose is cooked in Pennsylvania and good riddance to him.
   173. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4762798)
I'm not sure why Vietnam and Watergate both don't count as policy decisions. Certainly Vietnam should.


Well, Nixon inherited Vietnam. Clinton didn't inherit any similar conflicts.

Maybe I made too much of the comparison, but Clinton and Nixon were similar in that their big policy proposals were compromises with the opposition. Also, I don't feel like Clinton is as impressive a president as people credit him.
   174. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:14 PM (#4762799)
Joe, if you have to ask, you'll never know. I just hope your fellow Republicans are as clueless as you are about his ability to win a general election.

Translation: Cruz doesn't actually hold any "wacko" positions, but that won't stop liberal hacks (like Andy) from trying their best to brand him a "wacko."

***
Maybe I made too much of the comparison, but Clinton and Nixon were similar in that their big policy proposals were compromises with the opposition. Also, I don't feel like Clinton is as impressive a president as people credit him.

Well, when 89 percent of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents admitted to voting for Clinton, one can't be surprised that a certain narrative formed.
   175. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4762801)
Well, Nixon inherited Vietnam. Clinton didn't inherit any similar conflicts.


Nixon did inherit Vietnam, but he had been an outspoken proponent of the war for years before becoming President and he was in charge of the war for 4.5 years. I think it's fair to consider his actions on that issue.

Clinton inherited a very favorable international situation, and he kept things pretty calm overall. He should get some credit for that. A lot of being President is just not ####### things up.

Edit to add that Clinton gets overpraised these days -- much like his hero JFK -- but he was still a much better President than Reagan or either Bush.
   176. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4762803)
Clinton inherited a very favorable international situation, and he kept things pretty calm overall. He should get some credit for that. A lot of being President is just not ####### things up.

Yeah, Clinton totally didn't #### up by not killing bin Laden.

"Pretty calm overall"? LOL.
   177. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 07:01 PM (#4762815)
Yeah, Clinton totally didn't #### up by not killing bin Laden.


You sure you want to blame or credit presidents for killing or not killing bin Laden?
   178. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 07:12 PM (#4762819)
The "great" Abraham Lincoln never did.
   179. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 07:16 PM (#4762821)
Gah, Nixon was in charge of Vietnam for 5.5 years, not 4.5.
   180. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 07:22 PM (#4762825)
Maybe Rose Mary Woods accidentally pressed her foot on your calendar.
   181. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 07:33 PM (#4762832)
You sure you want to blame or credit presidents for killing or not killing bin Laden?

As a "gotcha," this is weak sauce. There's a good chance 9/11 doesn't happen if Clinton had taken the bin Laden threat more seriously. But once 9/11 happened, the U.S. had no choice but to hunt him down.
   182. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 07:45 PM (#4762836)
As a "gotcha," this is weak sauce. There's a good chance 9/11 doesn't happen if Clinton had taken the bin Laden threat more seriously. But once 9/11 happened, the U.S. had no choice but to hunt him down.


No choice, huh? What if we decided to wait 10 years? Would that be a good choice?
   183. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:09 PM (#4762844)

Obama flatly said during his campaign that finding and killing bin Laden wouldn't be a top priority, so it's unclear why you're persisting with this.

Bill Clinton had an opportunity to be proactive, but he chose not to be. That forced his successors Bush and Obama to be reactive. By definition, Clinton exhibited a failure of leadership — one that continues to haunt the U.S.
   184. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4762848)
Obama flatly said during his campaign that finding and killing Obama wouldn't be a top priority, so it's unclear why you're persisting with this.


You appear to have confused Obama with John McCain.
From Politifact:
In the meantime, here's the full text of the question and answer from the Oct. 7, 2008, debate in Nashville, Tenn., which was moderated by Tom Brokaw:
MR. BROKAW: Senator McCain, thank you very much.

Next question for Senator Obama. It comes from the F Section, and it's from Katie Hamm. Katie?

Q Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al-Qaida terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies, like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Katie, it's a terrific question.

And we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al-Qaida.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course because that's the central front on terrorism. They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the Defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region, and that's where it will end.

So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars, and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. What I have said is we're going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out.

We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.


Care to surrender yet?
   185. Howie Menckel Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4762849)

"Clinton is sort of the mirror image of Nixon, in that most of his policy achievements (balanced budget, DOMA, DADT, welfare reform) were compromises on priorities of the other party."

That's part of the reason he remains so popular - a lot of people out there aren't as fond of either party's ideology as some might think.

"Clinton benefits from a lot of factors that made him look better than he was, just like Obama is suffering from a lot of factors that make him look worse."

That's reasonable.
   186. Mefisto Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4762850)
Maybe Rose Mary Woods accidentally pressed her foot on your calendar.


LOL.
   187. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4762852)

Re: #184 — LOL. Yeah, the guy who campaigned on his opposition to "Bush's wars" was hellbent on capturing or killing bin Laden rather than trying to sound tough in some interviews. That's funny.
   188. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:26 PM (#4762854)
Re: #184 — LOL. Yeah, the guy who campaigned on his opposition to "Bush's wars" was hellbent on capturing or killing bin Laden rather than trying to sound tough in some interviews. That's funny.


???

...

???????

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that Obama was not hellbent on capturing or killing bin Laden? Like, for real?

??????????????????
   189. GregD Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4762855)
Joe, on your question of Cruz vs Romney in 2012, it is a good one. In general I expect republicans will do better in 2016 than in 2012 because they won't run against an incumbent. And I think Cruz would be more likely to tamp down that bounce back than to lose Romney states. A solid candidate could for example put ohio, virginia, Colorado maybe Wisconsin maybe New Mexico or Nevada in play.

Relative to Romney I would guess that Cruz would run behind him in NC and Ind and possibly AZ. But the bigger issue I would agree is that Cruz seems less likely to make up ground in VA and the Midwest than some other potential R candidates.
   190. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4762856)

Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker

I don't agree with their politics, but they are a more interesting crop than Mitt Romney, and honestly, more interesting than anything on the Dem side outside of Hillary and maybe Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren.


Alrighty, my 2016 potential GOP nominee "Interesting-ish" ranking (not an probability or electability ranking!):

Rand Paul - Both more and less "libertarian" than his dad, has a number of views out of line with party establishment and rank-and-file. Will absolutely come under withering fire from the neo-con faction of the GOP for his foreign policy views. By far the best combination of unpredictability and totally predictable hand-waving seething over-reaction from both sides of the aisle.

Ted Cruz - The backpfeifengesicht's backpfeifengesicht. Will work both establishment Republicans and Democrats of all stripes into furious lathers. From a clinical 3rd-person point of view, utterly fascinating from a political perspective ...

Chris Christie - Thin skinned NE bully. He'll take beating from his (the) right and reporters pressing about events during his term as NJ governor. Guaranteed to go on tilt at sometime during the campaign. Only candidate with a meaningful chance to go "full Suarez".

Bobby Jindal - Believes in exorcisms. Dresses and speaks like Mr. Rogers. Heavily disliked even in his own state, but promises enough "train-wreck factor" to factor heavily ...

Mike Huckabee - Only candidate who might play himself on stage at campaign events. Might be actually enough of a Christian to fall afoul of the "plutocracy now, plutocracy forever" wing of the party.

Rick Perry - Would be ranked higher, but he's gone off the goofballs. Now wearing glasses, and you know what that means, "The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side."

Rick Santorum - Pathological obsession with sweater vests. Pathological obsession with other people's sexual behavior, making him the only potential candidate linked by Google search to unpleasant sexual discharge.

Mitt Romney - National media totally tumescent over the many gaffes and unforced errors waiting to be revived and revisited. Still mistrusted and scorned by the conservative wing of the party.

Jeb Bush - The bland Bush brother. Can form coherent sentences. Would have been a much better outcome for the country if he had been elected in 2000. As thrilling as big-box store vanilla ice cream ...

Scott Walker - Will piss unions off across the country? Has bigger ears than Tim Pawlenty? I got nothing.

Paul Ryan - A)*(RINO#$C nqfacfw io03tgnaw89 rtrn;aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Sorry, I fell asleep there.



   191. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4762861)
???

...

???????

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that Obama was not hellbent on capturing or killing bin Laden? Like, for real?

??????????????????

Obama reportedly learned of bin Laden's whereabouts in August 2010 but waited 8 months to take action. That's your idea of "hellbent"?

Regardless, in case you haven't noticed, killing bin Laden hasn't exactly ended terrorism in the region, so Obama's alleged "laser-like focus" on finding bin Laden was wrong as a matter of policy.
   192. GregD Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:43 PM (#4762866)
Walker's anti union stance is a net positive in the r primary and unlikely to have an impact on the general since people who vote on unions already are preslotted.

It is conceivable that walker will get weighed down by corruption allegations though I doubt it since it takes a lot to get voters to care about that.

If I had to guess, walker's potential liabilities would be a 2014 loss--game changer--or some gaffes on the campaign trail. But to me he looks talented though I would defer to people who see him more than I do
   193. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:47 PM (#4762869)
Obama reportedly learned of bin Laden's whereabouts in August 2010 but waited 8 months to take action. That's your idea of "hellbent"?


Of course, this is factually incorrect. Obama never "learned of bin Laden's wereabouts" except in hindsight. The administration had a lead that they pursued. At the time of the attack, they still weren't sure. It was tremendously risky. So yeah, that would be considered hellbent.

Regardless, in case you haven't noticed, killing bin Laden hasn't exactly ended terrorism in the region, so Obama's alleged "laser-like focus" on finding bin Laden was wrong as a matter of policy.


So you're admitting that you were incorrect earlier?
   194. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:56 PM (#4762872)
Of course, this is factually incorrect. Obama never "learned of bin Laden's wereabouts" except in hindsight. The administration had a lead that they pursued. At the time of the attack, they still weren't sure. It was tremendously risky. So yeah, that would be considered hellbent.

It's not factually incorrect. Waiting over 8 months to take action on a lead that might yield the world's most wanted terrorist is the exact opposite of "hellbent."

So you're admitting that you were incorrect earlier?

Huh? There was no such admission therein.

By the way, how many of Obama's quoted promises has he fulfilled? Has Obama stopped coddling Pah-kee-stahn? The U.S. supposedly has direct evidence that the then-head of Pah-kee-stahn's ISI, Ahmad Shuja Pasha, aided and abetted bin Laden for years. Is Shuja Pasha in U.S. custody? No?
   195. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4762874)
Walker's anti union stance is a net positive in the r primary and unlikely to have an impact on the general since people who vote on unions already are preslotted.


If you're responding to me, I think this falls under my clause of "not a probability or electability ranking!"

Walker's anti-unionism clearly will play up in the primary, but does it move the needle at all in the general (outside of unions)?

Maybe, but, I just don't think it moves the "interesting" marker much at all ...
   196. GregD Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:05 PM (#4762876)
Agree on both counts
   197. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4762878)
It's not factually incorrect. Waiting over 8 months to take action on a lead that might yield the world's most wanted terrorist is the exact opposite of "hellbent."


Uh, huh. So as soon as they got the intel, they should have sent the helicopters? When is your confirmation hearing? Have they told John Brennan that he's retiring?

Huh? There was no such admission therein.


Post 183:
Obama flatly said during his campaign that finding and killing Obama wouldn't be a top priority, so it's unclear why you're persisting with this.


So ... you were just mistaken, right?
   198. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4762879)
Thanks for the rundown, CoB. Does anyone want to refute any of that?

Not a one of those numerous men look electable to me. Jeb Bush would probably be the best candidate if his last name wasn't Bush. God, Christie might actually get nominated.
   199. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:18 PM (#4762881)
Well, I don't know about the "refute" part of that ... I was mostly just being snarky.

Take that for what it's worth ...
   200. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:19 PM (#4762882)
flip
Page 2 of 64 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5058 - 11:03pm, Nov 27)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(589 - 10:58pm, Nov 27)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogShould the Red Sox Be Afraid of Hanley Ramirez Being Hanley Ramirez? - Red Sox - Boston.com
(34 - 10:52pm, Nov 27)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(49 - 10:27pm, Nov 27)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8716 - 9:49pm, Nov 27)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(548 - 9:45pm, Nov 27)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1182 - 9:29pm, Nov 27)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(38 - 9:21pm, Nov 27)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(37 - 9:15pm, Nov 27)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(33 - 6:45pm, Nov 27)
Last: shoewizard

Newsblog[Cricketer NOT baseball player] Phil Hughes dies after “pitch” to the head
(11 - 5:56pm, Nov 27)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(22 - 4:49pm, Nov 27)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(85 - 4:43pm, Nov 27)
Last: Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge

NewsblogJon Lester has plenty of options in addition to Red Sox - Sports - The Boston Globe
(9 - 3:56pm, Nov 27)
Last: Digit

NewsblogNotable Players Available In The Rule 5 Draft - BaseballAmerica.com
(10 - 1:34pm, Nov 27)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

Page rendered in 0.9183 seconds
53 querie(s) executed