EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1525
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 17 2014 10:28 xDaunt wrote: I don't see Hillary winning the democratic nomination. The liberal base won't support her. She's dead in the water if Elizabeth Warren runs. There is no liberal version of the tea party so the primaries are not going to be the GOP 'who is more conservative test before we hand it over to the guy we think might actually win but after we forced him to go so far right he is forever defending himself' especially if Hilary picks Warren as VP and runs on 'Remember how Awesome the 90s were? We'll do more of that!" | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
I liked his little comment about Jeb throwing his hat further in the game than him earlier "maybe he has some more catching up to do" or something to that effect. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2014 12:29 Sub40APM wrote: There is no liberal version of the tea party so the primaries are not going to be the GOP 'who is more conservative test before we hand it over to the guy we think might actually win but after we forced him to go so far right he is forever defending himself' especially if Hilary picks Warren as VP and runs on 'Remember how Awesome the 90s were? We'll do more of that!" I think you're not paying enough attention to the growing dissatisfaction of the progressive wing of the democrat party, which has been a big news story over the past couple weeks. They don't want Hillary. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14210 Posts
On December 17 2014 11:58 xDaunt wrote: Jeb won't appeal to the conservative base. That ship sailed during Bush's second term. People have short memories on what one president did or didn't do. The base remembers who won and who can win. Christie can't campaign in the south or contest in the midwest. Scott walker is a fighter but Wisconsin is literally the bush league of politics. And who's the next guy on the bench? No really who because I really hope it's not bush the third coming up. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On December 17 2014 12:56 xDaunt wrote: I think you're not paying enough attention to the growing dissatisfaction of the progressive wing of the democrat party, which has been a big news story over the past couple weeks. They don't want Hillary. If Warren doesn't run they have pretty much no where to go for a potential winner. Biggest concern for Hilary is a moderate Republican (Jeb) combined with an unmotivated liberal base. Lucky for her, all signs point to Republicans demanding they don't run a moderate, so the liberals will have a easy, although distasteful choice. With someone remotely approved by the tea party running against Hillary, Bill should have no problem wrapping up the vast majority of Obama voters who aren't big Hillary fans. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2014 13:17 Sermokala wrote: People have short memories on what one president did or didn't do. The base remembers who won and who can win. Christie can't campaign in the south or contest in the midwest. Scott walker is a fighter but Wisconsin is literally the bush league of politics. And who's the next guy on the bench? No really who because I really hope it's not bush the third coming up. The republicans have a very deep bench this year. Bush, Christie, Rand Paul, Perry, Romney, and Walker are all possible candidates. Compare it to the democrats. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2014 13:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Christie entire senior staff could be heading for prosecution, Romney third time loser get real, Bush is his older brother going to campaign for him or his that side of the family staying at home? Walker, yea right. Same goes for uh, um... Perry. And the democrats have who running exactly? Hillary has more baggage than a freight train at this point. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Webb has an exploratory committee already. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 17 2014 13:44 xDaunt wrote: The republicans have a very deep bench this year. Bush, Christie, Rand Paul, Perry, Romney, and Walker are all possible candidates. Compare it to the democrats. They dont need a deep bench because it will be Hillary. The GOP will once again tear itself up between the populists and the establishment guys. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2014 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Potential: Biden, Clinton, Sanders, Webb has an exploratory committee already. Biden is a joke, Sanders is a non-factor in the democratic party. We'll see about Webb and Gutierrez. There's no doubt who has the deeper bench. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
You only need one good candidate; while it's always complicated, there's some advantage to having fewer possibles, as it means you can spend less money on primary season, and take fewer primary positions, focusing more on the main race. Is there research on whether it's a net advantage overall? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2014 14:12 zlefin wrote: Why are you arguing about bench depth? You only need one good candidate; while it's always complicated, there's some advantage to having fewer possibles, as it means you can spend less money on primary season, and take fewer primary positions, focusing more on the main race. Is there research on whether it's a net advantage overall? Why wouldn't I argue about bench depth when the democrats only real option right now is Hillary, who is flawed in all sorts of ways? I'd argue that she's a weaker candidate now than she was in 2008. And the political climate in 2016 is probably not going to be democrat-friendly. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 17 2014 14:15 xDaunt wrote: Why wouldn't I argue about bench depth when the democrats only real option right now is Hillary, who is flawed in all sorts of ways? I'd argue that she's a weaker candidate now than she was in 2008. And the political climate in 2016 is probably not going to be democrat-friendly. Why wouldnt it be Democrat friendly? The economy is getting better, unemployment is decreasing, gas prices are down, and so forth. Shes a weaker candidate in the sense that shes older and obviously if Bill cant fully campaign thats a huge detriment but shes is stronger than any of the GOP guys in the demos she needs to be strong in. Winning white guys wasnt enough for Romney, so whats going to change in the next 2 years when there will be less of them, especially the old ones who are the most reliable voters and GOP supporters? You've read how people like Danglers describe Romney -- not radical enough. So another painful primary between Rand Paul vs the establishment. | ||
| ||
