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 3 of 64 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:20 PM (#4762884)
flop
   202. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:20 PM (#4762885)
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?

I'm hellbent on eating at this new restaurant down the street. I'm going to see if they have any reservations available in May 2015.

I'm hellbent on seeing the new Philip Seymour Hoffman movie that's currently in theaters. Watching it on HBO in 2015 or '16 is going to be awesome.

So ... you were just mistaken, right?

Obama said many things during his campaign that he clearly didn't mean. As a (disappointed) liberal, you should know that better than most.
   203. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:34 PM (#4762888)
I'm hellbent on eating at this new restaurant down the street. I'm going to see if they have any reservations available in May 2015.

I'm hellbent on seeing the new Philip Seymour Hoffman movie that's currently in theaters. Watching it on HBO in 2015 or '16 is going to be awesome.


You're seriously tripling down? How long do you think is reasonable to follow up on an intelligence lead before we invade a country and conduct a covert mission? One month? two? I'll pass along your feedback to the Bush administration, who will be investigating those caves any day now.

Obama said many things during his campaign that he clearly didn't mean. As a (disappointed) liberal, you should know that better than most.


Tut, tut, Joe! You said he didn't say that, though. So are you mistaken now or then?

Edit: Let me be more clear: did he not mean it, or did he not say it? I'm trying to keep your bad arguments straight.
   204. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:37 PM (#4762889)
Clinton sucks because he didn't kill Bin Laden, Obama sucks because he did (and such small portions!). How difficult is this to understand?
   205. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:49 PM (#4762897)
You're seriously tripling down? How long do you think is reasonable to follow up on an intelligence lead before we invade a country and conduct a covert mission? One month? two? I'll pass along your feedback to the Bush administration, who will be investigating those caves any day now.

The SEALs pride themselves on being able to go to any corner of the Earth on a day's notice. Obama waited eight months.

At last count, Obama has launched ~400 drone strikes that have killed over 2,500 people. You think there was eight months of planning in advance of each of those?

Tut, tut, Joe! You said he didn't say that, though. So are you mistaken now or then?

Edit: Let me be more clear: did he not mean it, or did he not say it? I'm trying to keep your bad arguments straight.

Obama was on both sides of too many issues to name. That he used bin Laden to score points against Bush tells us nothing about Obama's actual position, just like his passionate speeches against raising the debt limit and against the Ex-Im Bank weren't worth the ink they were printed in. The fact Obama waited eight months to act on a bin Laden lead tells us just how "hellbent" Obama was.

***
Clinton sucks because he didn't kill Bin Laden, Obama sucks because he did (and such small portions!). How difficult is this to understand?

You're getting worse and worse at this unskewing business. The above isn't the calculus at all. The point is that Clinton's failure to act on bin Laden proactively was a bigger deal than Obama getting bin Laden reactively.
   206. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:52 PM (#4762898)
Whoa, whoa, let's not race too far ahead of ourselves here. Rushing to the conclusion that Obama has positions is uncalled for.

Zachary Taylor is kind of my political hero. Do you realize someone was once elected President of the United States after months of steadfastly refusing to tell anyone what his position was on anything?
   207. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4762901)
The above isn't the calculus at all.

Calculus = conclusion first, equation to follow.
   208. tshipman Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4762902)
The fact Obama waited eight months to act on a bin Laden lead tells us just how "hellbent" Obama was.


This is the lamest argument you've ever made on this board, and that's saying something.
   209. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:06 PM (#4762906)
This is the lamest argument you've ever made on this board, and that's saying something.

Sorry to have blown a hole in your fanboy fantasies.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan 26 days after 9/11. But it took eight months to plan a helicopter raid? Please.

Beyond bin Laden, has al Qaeda been "crushed," as Obama promised? No. Has Obama stopped "coddling" Pah-kee-stahn, as he was fond of accusing Bush? No.
   210. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:23 PM (#4762911)
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."


When one of your main selling points is that you've mau-mau'd John Boehner from the right, you don't need liberal hacks or even RINOs to point out that you're a Wacko. You do it every time you open your mouth.
   211. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:26 PM (#4762914)
When one of your main selling points is that you've mau-mau'd John Boehner from the right, you don't need liberal hacks or even RINOs to point out that you're a Wacko. You do it every time you open your mouth.

Still waiting for the list of "wacko" positions.
   212. GregD Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:27 PM (#4762915)
Actually Zachary Taylor was kind of awesome as a president. He shocked the southerners by opposing the spread of slavery despite being from a big slaveowning family and was about the only antebellum president to do so. Had he lived it is conceivable though not likely he could have steered the Whigs into an anti expansion party which could have had some intriguing consequences.
   213. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:32 PM (#4762917)
Sorry to have blown a hole in your fanboy fantasies.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan 26 days after 9/11. But it took eight months to plan a helicopter raid? Please.

it only took 2 weeks to plan the raid. they spent the rest of the time finding a body that could double for bin laden so noone would realize they didn't kill him. that's why the photos were never released to the public. and it's why every congressman who was allowed to see them is legally blind according to the DMV.


   214. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:10 PM (#4762938)
I'll freely admit to being a Scott Walker honk. I really mean this, he's one of the only pols. in my life that I've actually really admired. I really don't identify with any party, am certainly more conservative, loathe the parties. His work (which was an incredibly timely opportunity for him) post massive Milw. Co. pension scandal was a very big deal, and certainly with Act 10 (I have no problem openly admitting I loathe teacher unions) made me a big fan. (I don't live in WI anymore).

I've known him not personally, but have met him a handful of times since the early 90s when he was a nobody state Assemblyman in Wauwatosa. He ended up being a fairly regular guest on local TV talk shows and radio shows, and was always fairly media savvy, even though he kind of had that vanilla, central casting, unmemorable sort of personality. I don't really know what kind of aspirations he has, nor am I convinced he would have a good chance to win a '16 nomination (obviously winning re-election in WI this fall is a must).

I will say this, the guy is incredibly unflappable. Many of you are aware of the whole WI/Act 10/union/recall from '11 up until two days ago when the State Supreme Court upheld Act 10 in its entirety. Any ways, there was no shortage of opportunity for the left, many in the press (MSNBC was camped out in Madison during this) to play gotcha with Walker. The guy just does not get rattled. Doesn't mean he's gaffe-free, but he's got the proper temperament for this.

Barring, new news, the whole Jane Doe investigation is a total joke of an investigation. A federal judge shut it down recently and odds are it will be the prosecutors which find themselves in hot water, well before Walker in any of this.

interesting note on Walker, he attended Marquette University but did not graduate. If I remember right, he took a job with the Red Cross, and then ran and lost for State Assembly when he was 22 or so.
   215. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:24 PM (#4762943)
The U.S. invaded Afghanistan 26 days after 9/11.


Bush knew?
   216. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:26 PM (#4762945)
This might affect how people vote - ObamaCare More Unpopular Than Ever:
Kaiser Family Foundation, which has done arguably the best and most consistent polling on the health-care law in the past four-plus years, found that public opinion on the law sank to a record low in July. More people than ever (53 percent) last month said they viewed the law unfavorably, an increase of 8 percentage points since June — one of the biggest opinion swings ever.

Actually, ObamaCare is even more unpopular than that according to the Real Clear Politics Poll Average, 39.8% Approve - 55.8% Disapprove. Seems like those who insisted a couple of tweaks to the website was all that was needed have been proven wrong.
   217. Howie Menckel Posted: August 01, 2014 at 11:38 PM (#4762949)

"Actually, ObamaCare is even more unpopular than that according to the Real Clear Politics Poll Average, 39.8% Approve - 55.8% Disapprove. Seems like those who insisted a couple of tweaks to the website was all that was needed have been proven wrong."

I'd say we're at least a year out before anything is "proven" about Obamacare, in spite of the classic "rush to judgment" by both sides.

   218. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 03:08 AM (#4762984)
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.
I suppose "women" is a euphemism for abortion, and I guess the argument is that Clinton appointed Ginsburg and Breyer. But what's this 'minorities' thing?
   219. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:51 AM (#4762999)
When one of your main selling points is that you've mau-mau'd John Boehner from the right, you don't need liberal hacks or even RINOs to point out that you're a Wacko. You do it every time you open your mouth.

Still waiting for the list of "wacko" positions.


This is like Pat Nixon demanding to know what was "so bad" about her husband. Nothing anyone could have said would have convinced her.
   220. GregD Posted: August 02, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4763026)
Cruz's stances position by position mY not be that different from other R candidates but he has positioned himself as king of the tea party in ways that I don't think will fly even in an R primary. He owns the shutdown, which was both unpopular and unproductive for the party. He has a group of the house tea party caucus who will help him shut down efforts of the republicans there to pass things but that is a peculiar platform to run on.
   221. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 02, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4763033)
Cruz's stances position by position mY not be that different from other R candidates but he has positioned himself as king of the tea party in ways that I don't think will fly even in an R primary.

The difference with Cruz is that he's gone out of his way to make himself into a "national" figure at the same time his actions and positions distance himself more and more from what it would take to win a general election. Of course if you think, as Joe apparently does, that campaigning against refugee children is going to win you more votes than it will lose you, then I suppose you'll see him as a winner. Good luck with that.

Most Americans see migrant Central American children as refugees

Most Americans say the waves of children crossing into the United States from Central America are refugees fleeing danger at home. And they say the United States should support these children while reviewing their cases, not deport them immediately.

These largely sympathetic views come from all points along the political and religious spectrums, according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute this week.

Democrats (80 percent), independents (69 percent) and Republicans (57 percent) favor offering support to unaccompanied children while a process to review their cases gets underway.

Majorities of major religious groups say the same, including white evangelical Protestants (56 percent), white mainline Protestants (67 percent), minority Protestants (74 percent) and Catholics (75 percent), as well as the religiously unaffiliated (75 percent).


He owns the shutdown, which was both unpopular and unproductive for the party. He has a group of the house tea party caucus who will help him shut down efforts of the republicans there to pass things but that is a peculiar platform to run on.

There's very little about Ted Cruz that isn't peculiar, but more power to him in those GOP primaries.
   222. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4763052)

Actually, ObamaCare is even more unpopular than that according to the Real Clear Politics Poll Average, 39.8% Approve - 55.8% Disapprove. Seems like those who insisted a couple of tweaks to the website was all that was needed have been proven wrong.


From the CNN poll:

17%: want more liberal version of Obamacare
40%: support Obamacare as is
38%: Oppose Obamacare or anything stronger

That's a 57-38% majority

Also:

53%: Obamacare has helped people
44%: Obamacare hasn't helped anyone
   223. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 02, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4763054)
The CNN poll has the virtue of distinguishing between those who recognize the flaws in Obamacare and want to address them within the context of advancing universal affordable care; and those who simply don't want to pay for someone else's health insurance, period. That latter group is nicely summarized by that 38% figure, while the RCP average makes that latter group seem much larger than it really is. Little wonder that the ACA's right wing opponents keep touting those RCP-type results while ignoring the more revealing ones. It's the same way that they like to pretend that the Republicans' position on immigration is going to prove to be a net vote winner, by imagining that "send em all back where they came from" is broadly popular with the electorate.
   224. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4763056)
53%: Obamacare has helped people
44%: Obamacare hasn't helped anyone


Can people really not see what a preposterous way of phrasing the question this is?
   225. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4763062)
53%: Obamacare has helped people
44%: Obamacare hash't helped anyone
What a stupid question, especially as being cited to support Obamacare. I'd agree with the former position - there a bunch of welfare queens out there who've gotten Medicaid as a result of Obamacare - but that doesn't mean I support the law.

As phrased, it's even more ridiculous as a strawman, since the first option requires only that at least one person was helped, while the latter requires that not a single person was. If they ask if on net people benefitted! the answer would not be the same.
   226. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 02, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4763063)
That's a 57-38% majority

Not likely. The idea that ObamaCare's unpopularity from the day it was introduced until today is due to liberals indicating they "disapprove" of it because they prefer a single-payer system or some other variation with even more government involvement, is ludicrous. Are those same liberals also indicating that they "disapprove" of Obama in the Presidential Job Approval Polls, too? Voting for Republicans candidates to show their opposition to the insufficiently liberal ObamaCare? Why didn't the GOP take a shellacking in 2010, if nearly 60% of the people supposedly favor an expanded governmental role in healthcare? Why aren't Democrats poised for 2014 landslide if so many people allegedly disagree with the grounds for the GOP's opposition to ObamaCare? I'm willing to blame liberals for a lot, but the idea that they are insufficiently partisan backers of Obama or the Democratic Party is false and unfair.
   227. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 02, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4763069)
If they ask if on net people benefitted! the answer would not be the same.

That's probably the way people interpreted the question. Either that or 44% of poll respondents are so anti-Obama that they can't recognize the obvious.
   228. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 02, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4763075)
Why didn't the GOP take a shellacking in 2010, if nearly 60% of the people supposedly favor an expanded governmental role in healthcare?

Conversely, why didn't Obama take a shellacking in 2012, considering that Mitt "Day One" Romney made it a point to emphasize that a vote for him was a vote to end Obamacare on January 20, 2013?

The divide in public opinion on this topic... it's so mysterious... so unprecedented... so hard to chart or pinpoint...
   229. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4763079)
Either that or 44% of poll respondents are so anti-Obama that they can't recognize the obvious.


You say that like it's unlikely.
   230. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 02, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4763080)
53%: Obamacare has helped people
44%: Obamacare hash't helped anyone


What a stupid question, especially as being cited to support Obamacare. I'd agree with the former position - there a bunch of welfare queens out there who've gotten Medicaid as a result of Obamacare - but that doesn't mean I support the law.

Somehow I doubt that most hardcore opponents such as yourself would be likely to give a positive response to that sort of a question. But in any event, which of the three alternatives below would you likely to have checked off? There's little ambiguity in these choices:

17%: want more liberal version of Obamacare
40%: support Obamacare as is
38%: Oppose Obamacare or anything stronger
   231. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4763081)
That's probably the way people interpreted the question. Either that or 44% of poll respondents are so anti-Obama that they can't recognize the obvious.
It's not that obvious; Obamacare wasn't designed to, and doesn't, benefit the vast majority of people, so it's entirely possible that 44% of respondents meant that they didn't know anyone who benefitted.
   232. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4763095)
This is like Pat Nixon demanding to know what was "so bad" about her husband. Nothing anyone could have said would have convinced her.

Still waiting for the list of "wacko" positions.
   233. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 02, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4763096)
It's not that obvious; Obamacare wasn't designed to, and doesn't, benefit the vast majority of people, so it's entirely possible that 44% of respondents meant that they didn't know anyone who benefitted.

So how do you explain the 17% who want a "more liberal" version of Obamacare, added to the 40% who support it as is? That's 57%, which is quite a bit of a margin over the 38% who oppose Obamacare "or anything stronger".
   234. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 02, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4763097)
This is like Pat Nixon demanding to know what was "so bad" about her husband. Nothing anyone could have said would have convinced her.

Still waiting for the list of "wacko" positions.


What's the point in listing them, when your only response will be that only liberals would think that they're wacko? Just tell me what sort of odds you'd want, in order to get you to bet that Cruz will be our next president.

But if you really want an answer to your question, just ask that notorious "wacko liberal" John Boehner.
   235. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4763099)
What's the point in listing them, when your only response will be that only liberals would think that they're wacko? Just tell me what sort of odds you'd want, in order to get you to bet that Cruz will be our next president.

What's the point of having a politics thread at a relatively obscure baseball site?

I'm sure you have an exhaustive list in your head, but how about naming just three of Cruz's most "wacko" of "wacko" positions?
   236. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 02, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4763101)
Their headline, not mine - Barney Frank 'Appalled' By Obama Administration: 'They Just Lied To People':
President Barack Obama made a major political mistake by lying about the details of his health care plan, according to former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

"The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled -- I don't understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis," Frank told HuffPost during a July interview. "But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people."
. . .
"Any smart political adviser would have said, 'Don't lie to people, because you're gonna get caught up in it and it's gonna have this tsunami that you now have,'" Frank told HuffPost. "My political motto, very simple. I have always told the truth, and nothing but the truth. But I don't volunteer the whole truth in every situation."

Sounds like a political problem, no? You don't have to be a healthcare expert to know that Obama repeatedly lied to the American people.
   237. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 02, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4763102)
Reminds me of that poker scene on the train from "The Sting." In our version, Obama is Paul Newman and the GOP is Robert Shaw: "What was I supposed to do, call him for cheating better than me?"
   238. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4763103)

"This is the most transparent administration in history" — Barack Obama, 2013.
   239. What's the realistic upside, RMc? Posted: August 02, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4763114)
Do political boards have threads that suddenly break out into vicious, no-holds-barred baseball discussions?
   240. tshipman Posted: August 02, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4763115)
Still waiting for the list of "wacko" positions.


All quotes from here.
1. Believes that Obama intentionally manipulated unemployment to make more people dependent on government.
"That's the craziest thing I've ever heard in my life," Sadler responded. "You are really accusing the president of the United States of using a government program to manipulate people to not get a job, to be dependent on government for services. That's just crazy, Ted. It's crazy."
Cruz replied, "I'm impressed that we're a few minutes into it and you've already called me three times crazy on observing that the president has expanded government dependency."
Several times during the debate, a visibly angry Sadler accused Cruz of lying. At times he laughed derisively while Cruz responded to a question.


2. Supports privatization of Social security for younger voters.
Q: How would you protect Social Security for today's seniors and strengthen it for future generations?
A: On Social Security, I am campaigning on a series of very specific reforms. For seniors receiving Social Security or near Social Security, there should be no changes in benefits whatsoever. For younger workers, we need to do three fundamental reforms.
Gradually increase the retirement age.
Social Security benefits right now grow about 1% greater than inflation; we should have those benefits grow at the rate of inflation, not 1% more.
Third change that I think is absolutely critical is to allow taxpayers to have a portion of the Social Security funds go to a personal account that they own and control.


3. Supports raising the Medicare age and moving to vouchers.
Q: How would you put Medicare on stronger financial ground and protect today's seniors and future retirees from the burden of rising health costs?
A: We must save Medicare by gradually increasing the eligibility age and by moving to a premium support system that expands choices for seniors, opens up innovation, and utilizes market forces to rein in healthcare costs.


4. Opposed raising the debt ceiling and urged Republicans to Filibuster it.
"I intend to object to any effort to raise the debt ceiling on a 50-vote threshold. I will insist instead on a 60-vote threshold, and if Republicans stand together we can demand meaningful spending restraint to help pull our nation back from the fiscal and economic cliff."


5. Opposed the National Endowment for the Oceans.

6. Co-Sponsored the Audit the Fed act.

7. Supports a flat tax:
Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words--the length of the original Constitution.


8. Believes in pissing off leadership in the House and Senate as much as possible.
   241. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4763116)

If that's the best you've got, it appears the "wacko" accusations are just as specious as suspected.

Also, per the above, Obama is a "wacko," since he speechified against raising the debt limit (#4 on above list) as a senator.

"Oh, my god!! Ted Cruz opposes the National Endowment for the Oceans!!" — said no voter, ever.
   242. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 02, 2014 at 05:14 PM (#4763119)
Cruz doesn't actually oppose raising the debt ceiling. That's just obnoxious mugging for the cameras.

It's not that obvious; Obamacare wasn't designed to, and doesn't, benefit the vast majority of people, so it's entirely possible that 44% of respondents meant that they didn't know anyone who benefitted.

There may be some people who (a) only know wealthy people, (b) don't know any 21 to 25 year-old not on health insurance, and (c) don't know anybody who has been denied health coverage due to a pre-existing condition, and (d) are completely unaware such people exist outside their circle of acquaintances. But it's nowhere near 44% of the population. Actually I'd guess more of that 44% would make a distinction between "help" and "benefit" rather than project their own experience to the entire world.

   243. tshipman Posted: August 02, 2014 at 05:30 PM (#4763126)
If that's the best you've got, it appears the "wacko" accusations are just as specious as suspected.


How did privatizing social security work out for GWB? Privatization of SS is a pretty far out there position.

Scrapping the entire tax code and replacing it with a flat tax is also a "wacko bird" position.

Ted Cruz is unelectable. I mean, the most basic reason he's unelectable is that he's systematically pissed off all the party elites, so the moment he looks like he might see daylight in polls, he'll get buried on every cable news show, every newsletter, whatever. But if somehow that didn't happen, the second reason why he's unelectable is that he has a lot of positions that are extremely unpopular, and that would be used against him in an election.
   244. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 02, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4763147)
Ted Cruz is unelectable. I mean, the most basic reason he's unelectable is that he's systematically pissed off all the party elites, so the moment he looks like he might see daylight in polls, he'll get buried on every cable news show, every newsletter, whatever.

I'm not sure that matters as much in a post-Citizens United, "fair and balanced" news world. I don't know about out there in Shangri-La, but here in flyover country it's been pretty clear that the political elites don't mean #### to the GOP's base.
   245. spike Posted: August 02, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4763148)
There's so much film of Cruz talking nutso that the oppo researchers of his own party rivals will bury him before the Democrats have to lift a finger.
   246. tshipman Posted: August 02, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4763150)
I'm not sure that matters as much in a post-Citizens United, "fair and balanced" news world. I don't know about out there in Shangri-La, but here in flyover country it's been pretty clear that the political elites don't mean #### to the GOP's base.


Tell that to Herman Cain. Cain was a nice story when he was in fourth place in the polls. As soon as he started inching up, then came the increased attention and the dismissal.

Tell that to Newt Gingrich. Newt is a great example of the power of elites. Newt won South Carolina and was up in the Florida primary. What happened? Defcon-1 on Republican media. It was all about Newt's flaws and foibles for two weeks until he was buried.

Newt Gingrich is the danger story for Cruz.
   247. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4763160)

LOL. Herman Cain had never run for anything before, while Newt's problem is that he can't stay focused on any particular idea for more than 10 minutes.

As for Cruz, aside from the fact there's no evidence he plans to run for president on a platform of privatizing Social Security, did the clips of Obama railing against the individual mandate kill Obamacare?

It's hilarious the extent to which the lefties here hand-wave things on your side of the fence but then claim they're killer problems for similarly situated people on the right.
   248. tshipman Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4763167)
It's hilarious the extent to which the lefties here hand-wave things on your side of the fence but then claim they're killer problems for similarly situated people on the right.


If you have evidence that opposing an individual mandate is as harmful to your electoral chances as Social Security privatization and Medicare, please present it.

SS and Medicare are so powerful that Republicans ran a MediScare campaign against Obama.
   249. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:18 PM (#4763169)
I very much doubt anyone can get elected to anything right now with any position other than "I promise to continue growing Medicare and Social Security."
   250. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:24 PM (#4763171)

Barack Obama launched his political career in the living room of two unrepentant domestic terrorists, but that didn't stop him from being elected president just seven years after the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history.

The idea that merely discussing a policy proposal in GOP circles renders a candidate "unelectable" is delusional.
   251. GregD Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:24 PM (#4763172)
Ted Cruz faces a problem that no republican except rand Paul faces--the potential that the Wall Street money will go for democrats as they did over 2008 for Obama after hedge fund managers started telling friends that McCain was a threat to the economy based on his inability to distinguish between basi concepts like growth and inflation and his dismissal of people who tried to explain it to him.

Any other republican will start with a financial advantage even against Hillary but Paul and Cruz probably won't and that's a big deal.
   252. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:27 PM (#4763173)
The Coming Democratic Midterm Collapse:
Iraq and the economy were two huge reasons why Obama won the 2008 nomination and then the general election. But after six years, there’s no strength left to the “it-was-the-last guy’s fault” argument.
. . .
Obama’s job approval numbers are underwater. But his absence from the ticket will still hurt Democratic Senate candidates in states like Michigan, Colorado, and North Carolina, where aggressive efforts helped turn out large numbers of blacks and Hispanics in his two Presidential runs.
. . .
I don’t know how many election cycles have featured reports of an “anti-incumbent” mood that will sweep office-holders of both parties into exile. It may happen someday, just as it’s possible that we will one day see a brokered convention (roughly the same summer I reach the Wimbledon quarterfinals). What’s clear is that, in recent history, it hasn’t happened. When voters think things are going wrong, they figure out—rightly or wrongly—which party to blame. In every midterm with a dyspeptic electorate, their anger has been aimed in one direction.

Sounds about right. Time will tell.
   253. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:27 PM (#4763175)

Re: #251, Ted Cruz is one of the top GOP fundraisers in the country. As for Wall Street, his wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs, so I doubt they'll have much trouble navigating the (alleged) Wall Street problem.
   254. tshipman Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:31 PM (#4763178)
Barack Obama launched his political career in the living room of two unrepentant domestic terrorists, but that didn't stop him from being elected president just seven years after the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history.

The idea that merely discussing a policy proposal in GOP circles renders a candidate "unelectable" is delusional.


At least now you're admitting that Cruz holds wacko positions, so I suppose that's progress.
   255. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:36 PM (#4763180)
At least now you're admitting that Cruz holds wacko positions, so I suppose that's progress.

Is this some sort of shtick? As with yesterday's odd claim of an "admission" that wasn't an admission, there was no such admission in the comment quoted in #254.
   256. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:48 PM (#4763184)
Ted Cruz and most of the other potential 2016 GOP candidates are still introducing themselves to the national electorate. The idea that any of them have already disqualified themselves is more wishful thinking from those here who seem highly invested in the narrative that the next Presidential Election has already been decided in favor of Hillary Clinton. Doesn't work that way. We're about a year away from being able to make an educated guess as to who the most viable candidates would be.

Put another way, I doubt that Cruz, or any other potential Republican candidate, has taken positions on issues of consequence that are anymore "out of tune" politically than some of the positions Obama took while in the Illinois legislature. The question will be what the potential GOP candidates do going forward, not how their pasts have already disqualified them.
   257. tshipman Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:50 PM (#4763185)
Is this some sort of shtick? As with yesterday's odd claim of an "admission" that wasn't an admission, there was no such admission in the comment quoted in #254.



I feel like you are bad at reading your own comments.
1. You claimed at first that Cruz held no wacko positions.
2. Your argument has now shifted to the position that a given policy proposal cannot render a candidate unelectable (because ... Obama?).
3. Implicitly, you know are acknowledging that Cruz holds extreme positions.

Edit:
Put another way, I doubt that Cruz, or any other potential Republican candidate, has taken positions on issues of consequence that are anymore "out of tune" politically than some of the positions Obama took while in the Illinois legislature. The question will be what the potential GOP candidates do going forward, not how their pasts have already disqualified them.


I mean, this is demonstrably false. Privatization of SS and voucherization of Medicare are both very extreme positions. You can see this by how hard Romney avoided those ideas. Obama supported nothing so remarkably divisive.
   258. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 02, 2014 at 07:53 PM (#4763188)
I feel like you are bad at reading your own comments.
1. You claimed at first that Cruz held no wacko positions.
2. Your argument has now shifted to the position that a given policy proposal cannot render a candidate unelectable (because ... Obama?).
3. Implicitly, you know are acknowledging that Cruz holds extreme positions.

I feel like you are bad at logic.

There was no "implicit" "admission" in the comment quoted in #254. I merely pointed out that Obama wasn't impeded by things that could truly be described as skeletons, as opposed to the phony-baloney skeletons you've cooked up for Cruz.

"Ted Cruz was the millionth person to discuss Social Security reforms? Oh, the horror!" — said no voter, ever.

   259. GregD Posted: August 02, 2014 at 08:51 PM (#4763217)
The debt ceiling scare was a big one on Wall Street and Cruz will have to apologize for his key role to get anywhere w Wall Street no matter his wife's position. They very much want a republican who will cut taxes and they don't care about social issues so that means they are 95 percent republican. But they do fear that the tea party will break the economy. If Cruz pulls a jimmy swaggart in tears and names a bunch of very mainstream guys as his policy team he will be acceptable against a democrat but still not the pick of Wall Street in a primary. Barring that they will go Hillary or sit out and watch him die if he gets to a general.

As with Bernie sanders on the d side he has articulates flaws with party positions and exposes its limitations and hypocrisies. But unlike rand Paul or sanders, he has also defined himself as willing to play games with the country's credit rating
   260. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 02, 2014 at 09:00 PM (#4763222)
"Ted Cruz was the millionth person to discuss Social Security reforms? Oh, the horror!" — said no voter, ever.

LOL. I'm sure you can google up some Obama quotes backing substantive changes to Social Security from 2006.

***

The tea party arguably has a better infrastructure than the 'GOP elites' at this point. That seems to be driving Cruz's political maneuverings.
   261. GordonShumway Posted: August 02, 2014 at 09:26 PM (#4763233)
Republican primary voters tend to be very, well, conservative. Given the GOP's dynastic tendencies in nominating POTUS candidates post WW2, I have a hard time seeing any of the young whippersnappers being nominated. Since 1948, the GOP has nominated:

1.) Incumbent Presidents (Ike '56, Nixon '72, Ford '76, Reagan '84, Bush '92, Bush II '04)
2.) Incumbent VPs (Nixon '60, Bush I '88)
3.) 2nd Place in the previous election year's non-incumbent primary (Reagan '80, Dole '96, McCain '08, Romney '12)
4.) The heir to the throne (GWB '00)
5.) The VP to the previous GOP administration (Nixon '68)
6.) The winner of the previous primary (Dewey '48)
7.) A nationally beloved war-hero (Ike '52)

The one exception is Goldwater, who upset Rocky in '64. But 1.) Goldwater was the keynote speaker in the '60 convention, 2.) The '64 primary was very close, 3.) Rocky was widely disliked by all in the GOP except a shrinking portion of northeast liberal Republicans, and 4.) Rocky was weighed down by a salacious personal scandal at the time.

As such, I have a very difficult time considering with any seriousness, the possibilities of the GOP nominating Rubio, Walker, Jindal, Christie, Cruz, Rand Paul in 2016.

   262. GordonShumway Posted: August 02, 2014 at 09:39 PM (#4763237)
Also, my thoughts on Cruz:

1.) In regards to his nomination chances, I think the biggest problem is his age. He's about 20 years younger than the average GOP primary voter, and GOP primary voters are pretty conservative.

2.) I think he has the highest upside potential of any candidate of either party if he played his cards right, but man has he been making a lot of unforced errors. His academic and professional record indicates that he's probably much smarter than me, and maybe he's playing a higher level game, but it's hard to see what that game is.

3.) As a general rule, I think that any given political party tends to have moderate and extremist wings. The moderates, tend to be moderate not just in terms of political views but also in temperment, and tend to more easily forgive than the extremists. Extremists tend to have long memories and usually never forgive or forget the transgressions, whether perceived or imagined, of the moderates.

Reagan as much his name is widely praised by GOPers today, was considered an extremist reactionary in the late 1960s within large subsections of the GOP and was considered a traitor to the party for running against the incumbent Ford in '76. All was quickly forgetten and forgiven 4 years later. The moderates - Bush I, McCain, Romney - were never forgiven or accepted by the extremist wing of the party no much how all three men kowtowed in apology. Rocky was widely vilified for his contemptuous attacks on Goldwater in '64 and the conservative party and never forgave him and basically kicked him off the ticket in '76.

Cruz will, with time, be forgiven by the moderates as well.
   263. GordonShumway Posted: August 02, 2014 at 09:52 PM (#4763241)
btw, mea culpa to Andy on my promised write-up. The little bit I did was awfully time consuming, and the weather here's been overall quite lovely this summer.
   264. bobm Posted: August 02, 2014 at 09:56 PM (#4763245)
As such, I have a very difficult time considering with any seriousness, the possibilities of the GOP nominating Rubio, Walker, Jindal, Christie, Cruz, Rand Paul in 2016.

Leaving Jeb, Santorum, Gingrich ?
   265. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 02, 2014 at 10:03 PM (#4763248)
Leaving Jeb, Santorum, Gingrich ?

Romney is making noises.
   266. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 10:08 PM (#4763250)
I am not at all ruling out Romney being nominated again in 2016--especially if the Republican Establishment begins to sense a threat of Rick Santorum getting nominated, which is distinctly possible.

Santorum will enter the primaries with a broad support base already in place--he is the face of the Religious Right faction. And that faction is large enough to see him nominated unless the rest of the party consolidates under one banner--which, no mistake, means the rest of the party WILL consolidate under one banner, probably rather quickly if/when Santorum becomes perceived as a nonzero threat to steal the nomination. It is possible that Mitt Romney remains the man most likely to accomplish that consolidation.
   267. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 02, 2014 at 10:10 PM (#4763251)
Leaving Jeb, Santorum, Gingrich ?

Paul Ryan & John Kasich would seem to be the most prominent potential candidates not excluded in #261, but there are others. Again, way too early to be that definitive.
   268. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 02, 2014 at 10:15 PM (#4763255)
As such, I have a very difficult time considering with any seriousness, the possibilities of the GOP nominating Rubio, Walker, Jindal, Christie, Cruz, Rand Paul in 2016.


To whom then would the nomination fall? Here's Wikipedia's "potentials," the biggest, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink list I can find. They list anyone who has "expressed interest."

First, let's remove the winger fantasy-casts and charlatans selling books. So out of the pool go:

John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 2005–2006; Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs 2001–2005
Condoleezza Rice, United States Secretary of State 2005–2009; National Security Advisor 2001–2005
Herman Cain, President of the National Restaurant Association 1996–1999; chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza 1986–1996; presidential candidate in 2012
Ben Carson, Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital
Ted Nugent, musician and gun rights activist from Michigan
Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, from 2006 to 2009
Joe Scarborough, cable news and talk radio host, U.S. Representative from Florida 1995–2001
Donald Trump, business magnate and television personality from New York


Next up, let's eliminate the cranks from the back bench fringes who we all know don't have a chance in hell of the nomination. Out come:

Michele Bachmann, U.S. Representative from Minnesota since 2007; presidential candidate in 2012
Peter T. King, U.S. Representative from New York since 1993
Rick Santorum, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania 1995–2007; U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania 1991–1995; presidential candidate in 2012
Allen West, U.S. Representative from Florida 2011–2013


Now let's pull out the whippersnappers you've eliminated above: Rubio, Walker, Jindal, Christie, Cruz, Rand Paul

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey since 2010
Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas since 2013; Solicitor General of Texas 2003–2008
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana since 2008; U.S. Representative from Louisiana 2005–2008
Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky since 2011
Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida since 2011
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin since 2011


But your "too young to be nominated" logic also eliminates:

Scott Brown, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 2010–2013
Rob Portman, U.S. Senator from Ohio since 2011; Director of the Office of Management and Budget 2006–2007
Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire since 2011; Attorney General of New Hampshire 2004–2009
Susana Martínez, Governor of New Mexico since 2011
Brian Sandoval, Governor of Nevada since 2011; Judge of the District Court for the District of Nevada 2005–2009


And Mike Rogers hasn't even gone through a national election cycle, so he's not going to play.

Mike Rogers, U.S. Representative from Michigan since 2001

And that leaves us with... I'm guessing you go with Jeb here, assuming he runs?

Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida 1999–2007
Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas 1996–2007; presidential candidate in 2008
Jon Huntsman, Jr., United States Ambassador to China 2009–2011; Governor of Utah 2005–2009; presidential candidate in 2012
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana since 2013; U.S. Representative from Indiana 2001–2013
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas since 2000, Lieutenant Governor of Texas 1999–2000; presidential candidate in 2012
Mitch Daniels, President of Purdue University since 2013; Governor of Indiana, 2005–2013
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio since 2011; U.S. Representative from Ohio 1983–2001

EDIT: adding Romney to the list as a re-run, though the GOP doesn't tend to run losing candidates again in recent history.
Paul Ryan, 2012 vice-presidential nominee, U.S. Representative from Wisconsin since 1999
   269. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 02, 2014 at 10:19 PM (#4763257)
Someone suggested Huckabee to me on the last page and that's an interesting possibility if he can position himself as a second choice all factions can live with.

I can't take Rick Perry seriously. I think placed under the lights of a serious presidential campaign he would be a worse disaster than Sarah Palin. That's just my personal feeling.
   270. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 02, 2014 at 10:28 PM (#4763259)
Of the "remaining standing" list at 268:

Huntsman is too rational and vaguely centrist to get through the primaries. I don't think anyone in the GOP establishment is going to stand by and watch Rick Perry carry the party's standard. Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels and John Kasich all have the look and feel of also-rans in your bog standard Republican playbook field. That leaves Jeb and Mitt to fight it out as the establishmentarian's establishmentarian / Chamber of Commerce / Wall Street candidate, Paul Ryan to play as the voice of the people new guy with Big Ideas, and Huckabee (and Santorum I guess) to fight it out as Christianist Right's candidate of choice.
   271. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 02, 2014 at 10:39 PM (#4763263)
I can't take Rick Perry seriously. I think placed under the lights of a serious presidential campaign he would be a worse disaster than Sarah Palin. That's just my personal feeling.

Folks that have observed Perry over the long haul seem to believe he's a better politician than he showed in 2012, when he jumped in late with little preparation, and had that brain freeze moment in the debate. You only get one chance to make a first impression, so he'd have an uphill road to the nomination this time around. But, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he could actually put forth a much better effort. He does seem interested in giving it a go.
   272. tshipman Posted: August 02, 2014 at 11:20 PM (#4763267)
I really don't see the basis on which people are eliminating Scott Walker. He has conventional credentials, being the governor of a purple state, and he has a high national profile due to the union busting.

Would strongly argue that he should be included in the list and people like Huckabee (unable to fundraise), Rick Perry (Oops), Mitch Daniels (unwilling to run), and John Kasich (too many apostasies) should be taken out.
   273. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 02, 2014 at 11:25 PM (#4763268)
I can't take Rick Perry seriously. I think placed under the lights of a serious presidential campaign he would be a worse disaster than Sarah Palin. That's just my personal feeling.

I can't take any of these Republican candidates seriously as a general election possibility, with the one exception of Jeb Bush. The others are simply trapped in negativity and positions on immigration that will almost certainly alienate and increase the turnout of the growing Latino vote, while energizing a much smaller number of angry white voters who never vote for Democrats in presidential elections to begin with.

The fundamental dynamic is unchanged: To get the nomination, any Republican candidate is going to have to repeatedly kiss the ass of the Tea Party on issues that will drive away moderates and energize the Democratic base in the general election. There's simply no way around that, short of the resurrection of Ronald Reagan.

And anyway, if Hillary chooses to run, it doesn't matter who the GOP candidate is, because she'll wipe the floor with any of them.
   274. Howie Menckel Posted: August 02, 2014 at 11:57 PM (#4763277)
"I am not at all ruling out Romney being nominated again in 2016"

speaking as a boring, apparently irritating independent, I just can't imagine this, short of what I see as an extremely unlikely, near-universal national feeling that ObamaCare was a disaster and we need a recall election.

"if Hillary chooses to run, it doesn't matter who the GOP candidate is, because she'll wipe the floor with any of them."

hmm, this is someone who, for whatever rational or irrational reasons, seems to engender resistance. and that's even before a general debates/election where the opponents go even more nuclear for the first time.

She beat a terrible Senate candidate in NY and lost to a good one in the POTUS bid. not sure how less good or bad the "other guy" has to be for her to win. plus age and Bill skeletons, which already are popping up on the periphery. way too soon to call, and it's downright silly to assume that either party's prevailing sentiment will remain unchanged 18 months from now.
   275. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:05 AM (#4763283)
I really don't see the basis on which people are eliminating Scott Walker. He has conventional credentials, being the governor of a purple state, and he has a high national profile due to the union busting.

Would strongly argue that he should be included in the list and people like Huckabee (unable to fundraise), Rick Perry (Oops), Mitch Daniels (unwilling to run), and John Kasich (too many apostasies) should be taken out.


I agree that Scott Walker may get the nomination, but probably not this year. He's someone who could, like Reagan '76, Bush '80, Dole '88, McCain '00, Romney '08, make a strong showing in the primaries ends up finishing 2nd, and ends up getting the nomination in '20, '24, or '28. The GOP's royalist tendencies in nominating POTUS candidates would put the Hapsburgs to shame.

As for now, '16, he's way too young and not a familiar enough name. The last time that the GOP has nominated someone that young was 54 years ago in 1960 with Nixon, and he was the incumbent party's VP. Before that was Dewey in '48. Scott Walker may seem like a full-grown adult to you, but to the average GOP primary voter who's about 64/65 years old - he's a child.
   276. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:17 AM (#4763284)
I agree that Scott Walker may get the nomination, but probably not this year. He's someone who could, like Reagan '76, Bush '80, Dole '88, McCain '00, Romney '08, make a strong showing in the primaries ends up finishing 2nd, and ends up getting the nomination in '20, '24, or '28. The GOP's royalist tendencies in nominating POTUS candidates would put the Hapsburgs to shame.


But there is no one who's next in line! Unless you want to push Santorum.

Everyone you talk about will have to break the mold. I would agree that if someone like Rick Perry had finished a strong second, then he would be the presumptive nominee, but there is no one who really fits that role.
   277. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:41 AM (#4763288)
The fundamental dynamic is unchanged: To get the nomination, any Republican candidate is going to have to repeatedly kiss the ass of the Tea Party on issues that will drive away moderates and energize the Democratic base in the general election. There's simply no way around that, short of the resurrection of Ronald Reagan.
i forget if this has been linked before.
   278. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:33 AM (#4763291)
And anyway, if Hillary chooses to run, it doesn't matter who the GOP candidate is, because she'll wipe the floor with any of them.

Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who finished third in the 2008 Iowa Caucus, behind Obama and John Edwards? I recall a lot of people saying her nomination was inevitable back then, too.
   279. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2014 at 01:55 AM (#4763294)
i forget if this has been linked before.

Some odd analysis in that one. The very conservative evangelical faction is "is small compared to the others, comprising around one-fifth of all GOP voters," but "gains significant strength" in the South "where they can comprise a quarter or more of a state’s electorate"?

"Very conservative secular voters" are an "influential bloc" that "never sees its choice emerge"?

The Iowa caucus is "crucial" because it "has traditionally “winnowed” the field to at most three candidates and usually two"? (Candidates finishing out of the top two in Iowa include both Hillary Clinton and McCain ('08), Bill Clinton ('92), and both Dukakis and Bush ('88).)
   280. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:00 AM (#4763295)
Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who finished third in the 2008 Iowa Caucus, behind Obama and John Edwards? I recall a lot of people saying her nomination was inevitable back then, too.

There was a previous Clinton who finished fourth in Iowa, just 9% behind "Uncommitted."
   281. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:04 AM (#4763296)
There was a previous Clinton who finished fpurth in Iowa, just 9% behind "Uncommitted."


True, but that particular caucus was unique, as the local boy, Tom Harkin, was running for the nomination that year, and nobody thought the results of that caucus was indicative of the mood of either the party or the electorate. Moreover, neither of the previous two presidents, Reagan or Bush, won in Iowa as Reagan lost to Bush in '80 and Bush lost to Pat Robertson in '88, and the Iowa caucus in '92 just wasn't given as much weight as it would later get.
   282. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2014 at 02:25 AM (#4763299)
That's kind of the problem with the Iowa caucus-- it's an anomalous event whose result is hugely significant, except when it's not. Just ask Presidents Santorum and Huckabee. Or Jimmy Carter, who won Iowa when it meant almost nothing, but convinced the media that it had actually meant everything.
   283. bunyon Posted: August 03, 2014 at 03:58 AM (#4763306)
I think one problem the Republicans have is how bad, and big, their field was in 2012. A lot of guys being crossed off lists would, without their 2012 bid, be logical candidates. But they looked terrible 2 years ago and so we think they can't do it.

They really need to somehow winnow the field to three before the primaries really heat up and then not beat up on each other so much.
   284. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 06:43 AM (#4763313)
I really don't see the basis on which people are eliminating Scott Walker. He has conventional credentials, being the governor of a purple state, and he has a high national profile due to the union busting.


In other words, he has credentials for reasons that make it impossible to get elected.

They really need to somehow winnow the field to three before the primaries really heat up and then not beat up on each other so much.


This will happen naturally--again, Santorum already has the Religious Right under his banner and the rest of the party (Tea Party and the old conservatives) will have to unite to defeat him. And they will. It just remains to be seen which candidate they'll unite under.

2008 is not a good cite for the case that Hillary Clinton isn't as strong for 2016 as she looks. Barack Obama's meteoric rise to the presidency was a once-in-a-generation event that won't be happening again in 2016. Absent that event Hillary Clinton absolutely would have won the Democratic nomination and the presidency.
   285. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:17 AM (#4763314)
Addendum: It is possible that part of the confluence of circumstances that made Barack Obama president was that the Democratic voters as a group were lukewarm about Hillary Clinton and happy to jump to an alternative. I don't know that it's true, but I've heard it argued that way, and it's possible. 2016 will prove an interesting test of that theory.

I know a good many enthusiastic Clinton supporters; then again, nearly all of them are female and over 35.
   286. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:28 AM (#4763319)
"if Hillary chooses to run, it doesn't matter who the GOP candidate is, because she'll wipe the floor with any of them."

hmm, this is someone who, for whatever rational or irrational reasons, seems to engender resistance. and that's even before a general debates/election where the opponents go even more nuclear for the first time.


Yep, it's the same Hillary. And you're right, maybe another dozen rounds of Benghazi hearings will do her in, and the electorate will turn to Rand Paul, Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz as an alternative.

She beat a terrible Senate candidate in NY and lost to a good one in the POTUS bid. not sure how less good or bad the "other guy" has to be for her to win.

A lot better than what we've seen so far. I notice that you haven't mentioned any actual Republican candidate capable of beating her. That's where the #### gets dunked into the tea bag.

plus age and Bill skeletons, which already are popping up on the periphery. way too soon to call, and it's downright silly to assume that either party's prevailing sentiment will remain unchanged 18 months from now.

The one thing that could derail Hillary is her health, and yes, anything could happen on that front at her age, just like it could have happened to Eisenhower in 1956, who'd just survived a heart attack a year before his re-election campaign. But "Bill skeltons?" Please. That's on a desperation par with new Benghazi revelations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who finished third in the 2008 Iowa Caucus, behind Obama and John Edwards? I recall a lot of people saying her nomination was inevitable back then, too.

As if no candidate has ever won the second time around. By your assessment, the first time Ronald Reagan lost a 1980 state primary that would have made him a Three Time Loser.

What you simply don't want to face up to, for perfectly understandable reasons, is that your party's candidates, with the sole exception of Jeb Bush, are complete bantamweights, no matter how many Sheldon Adelsons or Koch Brothers they dig up to finance them. Howie hints at unknown new dirt that Hillary's prospective opponents have yet to dig up, but just how well do you suppose that Rand Paul's or Ted Cruz's or Paul Ryan's past views could survive a general election campaign after "the country got to know them"? If you really are curious about this, you might ask Mr. 47%.

   287. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 03, 2014 at 07:34 AM (#4763321)
I know a good many enthusiastic Clinton supporters; then again, nearly all of them are female and over 35.

Hmmm, and just which demographic is historically the most likely to get out and vote? And which demographic will for the first time have "one of their own" as the standard bearer if Hillary decides to run?

OTOH it's true that she'll never win over the Phyllis Schlaflys and Michelle Bachmans, or the mighty Coathanger Caucus, AKA the Right-to-Lifers. Now that's a powerful voting bloc if ever there was one.
   288. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 08:30 AM (#4763323)
Hmmm, and just which demographic is historically the most likely to get out and vote?


You say that like it's a big plus, but how much marginal benefit do you derive from energizing a demographic that already votes in very high numbers?

For the general election the pertinent question is how many non-Democrat women would vote for Clinton strictly because she's female.
   289. Howie Menckel Posted: August 03, 2014 at 09:01 AM (#4763326)

"non-Democrat women" - it's "non-Democratic," Rushbo.
   290. bobm Posted: August 03, 2014 at 09:47 AM (#4763329)
But "Bill skeltons?"

Better Bill skeltons than red skeltons?
   291. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 03, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4763340)
Hmmm, and just which demographic is historically the most likely to get out and vote?

You say that like it's a big plus, but how much marginal benefit do you derive from energizing a demographic that already votes in very high numbers?


Lots, when there's still a sizable percentage remaining of that demographic that historically have stayed at home.

Obama didn't win that much a greater percentage of the black vote than many of his Democratic predecessors, but having a black candidate certainly increased the total black vote by a big percentage.

For the general election the pertinent question is how many non-Democrat women would vote for Clinton strictly because she's female.

Again, lots. Especially if the Republicans nominate a candidate whose voting record and past statements will energize the Democratic base. I doubt if the Republicans will let us down in that regard. (smile)
   292. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 03, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4763343)
Michelle Bachmans

Spelling Nazi alert: One L, two N's. Remember, the woman is LooN-Ny.
   293. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4763349)
Re: 268.


First, fantastic post! You do a good job of whittling down candidates without my tiresome, verbose meanderings.

Of the whippersnappers, I think that the only ones I would give more than a second’s worth of thought are Paul and Cruz. Paul is smart, telegenic, thoughtful, and seems more sincere than most politicians – but his economic views will scare the money men and you don’t win the GOP POTUS primary by scaring the GOP country club set. As for Cruz – as I said above I think he could win not just the GOP primary but the general election if he played his cards right, but among other unforced errors he’s scaring off the GOP country clubbers with the games he’s playing with defaulting on the debt.

Here are my thoughts, from your list:

Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida 1999–2007

Given how the GOP nominates, he should be a favorite here, but I can’t agree with the CW that he’s a strong candidate. The main problems I see are:

1. His full-throated, enthusiastic support for illegal immigrants may get him some votes in the general election, but such views are too unpopular in the GOP primary. And Jeb doesn’t seem to be showing any inclination on doing the about-face and kowtowing that Mitt did in ’12 on health care.

2. How badly does he really want the nomination if he’s constantly going on in public supporting a deeply unpopular view within the GOP?

3. The scuttlebutt I’ve heard is that his family hates politics, with much greater sincerity than what most political families profess;

4. Politics is a blood sport, and the last time he’s been in the ring in a real fight was in 2002. Can he get into game shape for ‘16?

5. There’s a reason that GWB wasn’t present in the 2012 GOP convention. The Bush name still has toxicity; will that poison wash out by ’16?

6. The vaunted Bush Political Machine will probably be a lot weaker in ’16 than it was for GWB.
a.) A lot of the big money donors, whether they be longtime family friends like Robert Mosbacher or the Liedtkes, or more recent deep pockets like the Swift Boaters, are dead.
b.) The operatives (Baker, Rove, Card, Hughes, McKinnon, Mehlman, Teeter, Cheney, Rice, etc.) are either dead (Teeter), apostates (Mehlman), or are very old, wealthy, and have made their mark on the world. How willing are they to leave their comfortable lives and go back into the pig-mud-wrestling match that is politics for the Second Son?
c.) Also, most of the key lieutenants of the Bush Political Machines are primarily tied to the Machine either by affection or respect to the Old Man. I wish him a long life but he’s 90 years old and in bad health. God Forbid that he passes away in the next 1.5 years – how enthusiastic will the Old Guard be in fighting for the Second Son?
d.) How will they adapt in the new Twitter/Reddit/Facebook world? The old hands are Marquis of Queensbury rules fighters entering an MMA world.

He may end up winning, but I don’t think he’s anywhere near as much of a favorite as he’s made out to be.

Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas 1996–2007; presidential candidate in 2008

1. Charismatic, telegenic, and politically sharp. I think he could have won both the primary and the general in ’12, but ’16 seems too late. He’s a stale candidate – he was last in office 10 years before ’16-’17: I can’t remember last time a candidate that far removed from office won either the primary in either party. He could be a compromise candidate if the other favorites implode, but I find that unlikely. The ’16 field seems like it’ll be stronger than the B-team candidates back in ’12.

Second, has there been any indication that he seriously going for the nomination? Does he have any ground game or organization? Has he made any real efforts to court donors or the press? Not that I know of.

Jon Huntsman, Jr., United States Ambassador to China 2009–2011; Governor of Utah 2005–2009; presidential candidate in 2012

He served under Obama; when’s the last time that a candidate who served under the opposing party won the nomination? Ike answered to FDR during the war, but Ike is obviously sui generis.

Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana since 2013; U.S. Representative from Indiana 2001–2013

Who? You and I have heard his name, but know (at least with me) next to nothing about him and I’m guessing that most people have never heard of him. All the previous GOP primary winners since at least 1944 had widespread national name recognition before they entered the primary. GOP primary voters are not just conservative in politics but, at least with their voting are also conservative in not taking chances with unknowns.

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas since 2000, Lieutenant Governor of Texas 1999–2000; presidential candidate in 2012.

I know. My misgivings of him are just as strong as most of you here. Perry, to me, is my favorite for winning the nomination, for the following reasons.

For GOP primary voters:

1.) He’s old enough – he’ll be 66 in 2016.

2.) He’s telegenic enough.

3.) He’s a familiar enough name.

4.) He’s done a lot, as Gov. of Texas, to make the 3 most important factions of the GOP – a.) the country clubbers, b.) the religious wing, and c.) the Tea Partiers to make them happy and support him,

4.) He has a strong home field advantage, as Texas is the heart of GOP fundraising.

The one black mark that came up in the 2012 primary was his support for education for illegal immigrants. If he wants the GOP primary badly enough – he can use his powers as Governor in the last few months to drop the hammer on them before he leaves office. I think that he’s ambitious and remorseless enough to do so.

The main problem, to be blunt, is that he just seems too stupid to run for national office. He certainly didn’t acquit himself well in the ’12 debates. Nonetheless, I’ll give a man who rose from humble origins to become one of the most powerful elected officials in the country the benefit of the doubt here. He can win, so long as he holds court by saying as little as possible in the debates, and presses his advantages over the candidates in other areas by raising more money, putting out more ads, giving more scripted speeches, and building a bigger ground game. He just needs to start earlier than he did in ’12.

Mitch Daniels, President of Purdue University since 2013; Governor of Indiana, 2005–2013

Mediocre speaker for the big time, not telegenic, basically unknown by the general public, and most importantly – has he been creating a ground game, courting donors, or otherwise laying the ground for a run? Maybe he could make a strong run for 2nd or 3rd place, and win the nomination in ’20 or ’24.

John Kasich, Governor of Ohio since 2011; U.S. Representative from Ohio 1983–2001

See Mike Pence above. Plus he’s been in politics too long. People running from non-incumbent parties are running, at least partially, as outsiders who’ll change the system. Hard to run on that platform if you’ve been in politics as long as Gov. Kasich has.

I would add:

Paul Ryan, US Rep. 1999 – present.

I think he’s an underrated candidate. He’s been a loyal, well-liked advocate to the three major wings of the GOP – the country clubbers, the religious wing, and the Tea Partiers. He’s been pretty skillful the past several years in managing to get face time in some pretty high profile issues without being as disruptive as Ted Cruz. He seems pretty connected to the power brokers in the party. Despite his poor showing in the ’12 VP debate, I think he made a decent showing for someone who never ran for anything beyond a district level office when he was thrust into the spotlight. He showed more competence than Quayle, Palin, or Ferraro, and more loyalty than either Lieberman or Edwards.

Nonetheless, he’s still way too young for the GOP primary – he’ll be 46 in ’16. If he had amazing oratorical skills, tons of money, some unique accomplishments, or some other advantage perhaps he could get the nomination, but as far as I know he doesn’t.


Rick Santorum, US Senator 1995-2007, US Rep. 1991-1995

He won 11 states in ’12 with very little money or organization. He should be next in line under Republican customs of primogeniture. He won two state elections in a large, pretty-blue state. He has underrated campaigning skills.

Santorum’s problem is his sincerity.

The country clubbers want someone who’ll pander to the religious wing and will tolerate any statements regardless of how extreme or questionable, with the understanding that such pandering is primarily as a means of gaining allies who will advance the interests of the jet set. Santorum actually believes and cares about all the terrifying things he says.

The country clubbers will rather put their money behind a candidate who’ll tell the religious wing what they want to hear (Jeb, Perry, Ryan, Romney, etc.) as a means of giving out more tax cuts and bailout money to the country clubbers, rather than a candidate who genuinely believes he’s on a mission of God to re-engineer the country to fit Phyllis Schlafly’s worldview. Plus, the libertarian wing is embarrassed by him and he hasn’t been loyal enough to the Tea Party wing to get support there.

Nonetheless, he got 11 states in 2012 with very little organization or money, and came close in several others. If he plans ahead, raises more money, and the other candidates implode – it is possible he gets nominated.

Mitt Romney, Governor, 2003-2007

He basically has all the same positives and negatives he had before. He’s tried very hard to kowtow to both the religious and Tea Party wing. The problem is, as stated in my post about Ted Cruz above, moderates may forgive and forget but extremists don’t. Nelson Rockefeller spent 12 years from 1964-1976 trying to get the forgiveness of the extremist wing of the party after trashing Goldwater in ’64 but he never got it. Same with GHWB – the extremist wing of the party never forgave him for trashing Reagan in the 1980 primary, and even as late as 1992 a lot of them ended supporting Pat Buchannan over GWHB, who was an incumbent president in a tough election fight.

He got the nomination anyway in 2012, and he may do so in 2016. He’s got a big advantage over other candidates in that he has far more experience when it comes to national level campaigns. Nonetheless, 2016 looks to be a stronger field than 2012. He’ll have to hope that some other candidate who’s favorable to the country clubbers, the religious, and the Tea Partiers, makes a serious misstep first.


Off the top of my head, I would approximate the odds right now as:

Perry: 30-35%
Romney: 15-20%
Jeb: 15-20%
Huckabee: 10-15%
Ryan: 5-10%
Santorum: 5-10%
The Field: 5-15%


I would rank Perry higher if I had more faith in his intelligence, rank Jeb higher if he did an about-face on illegal immigration ASAP, and Huckabee higher if there was confirmation that he was seriously considering running. Obviously, this ranking is very, very fluid.
   294. spike Posted: August 03, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4763351)
The Romney boomlet is in full flower.

It's almost like a faction of the GOP literally cannot believe that Mitt isn't an eminently electable candidate. He's everything they think should be wildly popular.

//In fairness, I suppose a good chunk of Romney nostalgia is driven by the fact the current field would get smoked like a Thanksgiving ham by Hillary as well though.
   295. McCoy Posted: August 03, 2014 at 11:51 AM (#4763353)
Hell, he's probably got a few dozen fireworks leftover they can use to announce his candidacy.
   296. McCoy Posted: August 03, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4763354)
3. The scuttlebutt I’ve heard is that his family hates politics, with much greater sincerity than what most political families profess;

They have a funny way of showing it.
   297. JE (Jason) Posted: August 03, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4763355)
Off the top of my head, I would approximate the odds right now as:

Perry: 30-35%
Romney: 15-20%
Jeb: 15-20%
Huckabee: 10-15%
Ryan: 5-10%
Santorum: 5-10%
The Field: 5-15%

Never mind giving Perry 3:1 odds, any list that doesn't include Cruz and Walker while featuring Huckabee -- who is very comfortable in his Fox News gig -- and Santorum can't be taken seriously.

As for Romney, don't confuse image rehabilitation efforts with positioning for another run. There's little evidence of the latter and even less that he would want to endure another 12-24 months of non-stop campaigning.
   298. McCoy Posted: August 03, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4763357)
Nonetheless, I’ll give a man who rose from humble origins to become one of the most powerful elected officials in the country the benefit of the doubt here.

Isn't the governorship of Texas one of the weakest governorships in the country?
   299. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4763360)
Never mind giving Perry 3:1 odds, any list that doesn't include Cruz and Walker and features Huckabee -- who is very comfortable in his Fox News gig -- and Santorum can't be taken seriously.


Huckabee is a lot closer to 10% than he is to 15% in my mind, and perhaps he should be docked down further. The main question is whether he'll run. If we get more confirmation that he will - the odds go up, if we get confirmation otherwise than he can be taken off the list.

No one in the chattering classes gave Santorum a second's worth of thought leading into 2012, and he won 11 states and came close in several others. I think he's a dangerous lunatic, but the reality is that his world view matches that of a very large, very active portion of the party, and I think he could win a close contest (God forbid) if the other candidates implode. I also have Santorum's odds, in my mind, as closer to 5% than 10%.

I think Perry is a thick-headed bully, but he's been nationally known for a long time, a loyal advocate for the three most important factions of the GOP, and he's old enough, telegenic enough, and should have access to big-time money. That should get him pretty far as long as he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth. Perhaps 3:1 is a bit too high, but I have to think that he is one of the strongest contenders.

As for Cruz and Walker, they are 20 years younger than the average GOP voter. The GOP strongly prefers their candidates to be very old and longtime familiar brand names. Cruz and Walker don't meet either criteria.

Cruz and Walker, like Rubio, Christie, and Jindal, get a lot of play in the media as they are younger and more novel. But what the media likes and what GOP primary voters like are very different.
   300. GordonShumway Posted: August 03, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4763362)
Isn't the governorship of Texas one of the weakest governorships in the country?


Fair enough. Let's take out "powerful", and replace that with "high-profile".
Page 3 of 64 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 0.8561 seconds
48 querie(s) executed