|
|
On October 17 2012 01:26 farvacola wrote:
Woke up primed for tonight's debates, log on to see parallelluniverse laying down some good old fashioned facts, all is well with the world. In other news, not sure how I feel about the Hillary martyrdom bit, although her willingness to do upfront damage control for something that was not brought to her attention is admirable in any case.
The interesting thing about Hillary's admission is that, while she took responsibility for the inadequate security, she said that she did not know who briefed Ambassador Rice to go out and give those infamous Sunday talk-show interviews. You can bet that this Benghazi business will be coming up one way or another tonight.
|
On October 17 2012 01:32 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:26 farvacola wrote:
Woke up primed for tonight's debates, log on to see parallelluniverse laying down some good old fashioned facts, all is well with the world. In other news, not sure how I feel about the Hillary martyrdom bit, although her willingness to do upfront damage control for something that was not brought to her attention is admirable in any case. The only important thing I read into the Hillary situation is that Hillary has no intentions for running in 2016. She's "taking one for the team." She will not be on the 2016 ticket.
I wasn't expecting her to run anyway. I don't think she wants it anymore.
|
On October 17 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:26 farvacola wrote:
Woke up primed for tonight's debates, log on to see parallelluniverse laying down some good old fashioned facts, all is well with the world. In other news, not sure how I feel about the Hillary martyrdom bit, although her willingness to do upfront damage control for something that was not brought to her attention is admirable in any case. The only important thing I read into the Hillary situation is that Hillary has no intentions for running in 2016. She's "taking one for the team." She will not be on the 2016 ticket. I wasn't expecting her to run anyway. I don't think she wants it anymore.
Who do you expect to run for the Democrats in 2016 if not her?
|
On October 17 2012 01:34 Razakel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 01:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:26 farvacola wrote:
Woke up primed for tonight's debates, log on to see parallelluniverse laying down some good old fashioned facts, all is well with the world. In other news, not sure how I feel about the Hillary martyrdom bit, although her willingness to do upfront damage control for something that was not brought to her attention is admirable in any case. The only important thing I read into the Hillary situation is that Hillary has no intentions for running in 2016. She's "taking one for the team." She will not be on the 2016 ticket. I wasn't expecting her to run anyway. I don't think she wants it anymore. Who do you expect to run for the Democrats in 2016 if not her?
Actually, that's a good question. No one really comes to mind right now. Not that this necessarily is the case, but the democrat bench doesn't seem to be as deep as the republican bench. In fact, I'm interested in seeing in what direction the democrat party goes after this election when Obama loses.
|
On October 17 2012 01:34 Razakel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 01:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:26 farvacola wrote:
Woke up primed for tonight's debates, log on to see parallelluniverse laying down some good old fashioned facts, all is well with the world. In other news, not sure how I feel about the Hillary martyrdom bit, although her willingness to do upfront damage control for something that was not brought to her attention is admirable in any case. The only important thing I read into the Hillary situation is that Hillary has no intentions for running in 2016. She's "taking one for the team." She will not be on the 2016 ticket. I wasn't expecting her to run anyway. I don't think she wants it anymore. Who do you expect to run for the Democrats in 2016 if not her?
The Republicans have a strong field lined up for '16. If they lose this election, I have no doubt they'll take it down with someone like Christie in '16 (if he decides to run, he's popular). You don't see Dems lining up for this year because I think they realize they'll have a tough run of it.
|
On October 17 2012 01:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:34 Razakel wrote:On October 17 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 01:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:26 farvacola wrote:
Woke up primed for tonight's debates, log on to see parallelluniverse laying down some good old fashioned facts, all is well with the world. In other news, not sure how I feel about the Hillary martyrdom bit, although her willingness to do upfront damage control for something that was not brought to her attention is admirable in any case. The only important thing I read into the Hillary situation is that Hillary has no intentions for running in 2016. She's "taking one for the team." She will not be on the 2016 ticket. I wasn't expecting her to run anyway. I don't think she wants it anymore. Who do you expect to run for the Democrats in 2016 if not her? Actually, that's a good question. No one really comes to mind right now. Not that this necessarily is the case, but the democrat bench doesn't seem to be as deep as the republican bench. In fact, I'm interested in seeing in what direction the democrat party goes after this election when Obama loses.
Hmmm. Maybe Biden, but he'll be too old to keep up with Rubio or Christie by then.
Hilary should inherit de-facto leader of the party, but you're entirely right, for the past year it's been pretty clear she plans on retiring. I don't think she's up for the grind of another presidential campaign.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
LOL christie. oh god i hope not.
|
On October 17 2012 01:22 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 17 2012 01:08 kmillz wrote:On October 17 2012 00:54 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 17 2012 00:44 kmillz wrote:On October 16 2012 23:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 16 2012 23:43 kmillz wrote:On October 16 2012 22:35 paralleluniverse wrote:http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4XiQuestion A: Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence:
93% Agree
2% Uncertain
4% Disagree
Question B:
Taking into account all of the ARRA’s economic consequences — including the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending, its effects on future spending, and any other likely future effects — the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence:
60% Agree
26% Uncertain
14% Disagree There's a lot of results for many questions on that website which I found interesting. I think it is interesting to note that the economics profession has a 3:1 Democrat to Republican ratio. Bryan Caplan points to a piece by Justin Wolfers. Let’s start with Obama’s stimulus. The standard Republican talking point is that it failed, meaning it didn’t reduce unemployment. Yet in a survey of leading economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed. We here at the Cat are the 8 percent. Let’s look at Caplan’s critique first. Wolfers says that the panel is “ideologically diverse.” When I asked Kashyap, however, he said that there’s no public data on panel members’ political views. If you casually peruse the list, its members seem to lean heavily Democratic. Dan Klein’s systematic empirics say that the economics profession has Democrat to Republican ratio of 3:1. None of this would be a problem if becoming an economist caused people to join the Democratic party. In my experience, though, most economists picked their party long before they started studying economics. Okay – so most academic economists are part of the highly educated elite and have political views consistent with that status. Not surprising – both Hayek and Schumpeter have theories of why intellectuals are likely to have left-wing views. Caplan goes on to talk about the stimulus. My complaint: These results are basically what you’d expect from a non-expert panel with two Democrats for every Republican. What’s the value-added of the IGM’s economic expertise on this question? Hard to see. Partisan bias seems particularly troubling when the IGM deals with policies that have recently been in the news. When economists analyze events decades in the past, it’s relatively easy to put politics aside and coolly apply abstract economics to concrete cases. When they analyze events they recently lived through, however, objectivity is harder to achieve. This is especially true when they’re personally close to the administrations that adopted the policies they’re now asked to judge. I’m not convinced – the evidence is in. I’m happy to believe that people could be wrong ex ante, but ex post? Not so much. Here is an earlier version of a very famous graph. ![[image loading]](http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2012/07/US-unemployment-may-2011.jpg) A model was used to generate two series of estimates in that graph. First the unemployment figures without a stimulus and then the unemployment figures with the stimulus. The red dots reveal what actually happened. The red dots invalidate the model. If you believe – as do 92 percent of leading US economists in the sample believe – that “the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate” then you must also believe that the stock standard Keynesian model that generated both sets of forecasts in the graph is wrong too. Now some argue that the stimulus was too small, but why weren’t those 92 percent of economists saying so at the time? Of course, that simply raises the question; how did they know it was too small at the time? Where is their model and its predictions? Maybe the reason so many economists lean Democratic is because Democrats have better economic policies? Or maybe it's because Republicans have "cranks and charlatans" (Republican economist Greg Mankiw's words) that believe lower taxes will increase revenue, and crackpots who advocate for the return to a gold standard (which 100% of economist disagree with in this survey). Sort of like how scientist have a democrat ratio of like 9 to 1 (or something ridiculous like that), because Republican's denial of evolution and climate change makes them anti-science.
About the IGM Economic Experts Panel
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.
Are you seriously accusing the Chicago School of Economics of liberal bias? This is laughable. In case you weren't aware, the Chicago school is filled with rational expectation, free market, economic libertarian, anti-Keynesian, Republican views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economicsAlso, even if there was a 3:1 Democrat:Republican ratio as the article claims, it still doesn't explain why there is such strong support for stimulus to the tune of 93-4 (23:1) and 60-14 (4:1). And about the infamous graph. Those were projections made with the economic data available at the time. In case you forgot, virtually all official economic data like GDP, employment, etc, where overestimated, and were later revised downwards, that's why the graph was off -- the official public economic statistics which the model relied on were overestimated. Wouldn't it be in the interest of the public to know the party affiliation of the "experts"? The fact that they won't reveal it coupled with the absurdly high ratio of supporters vs non-supporters reeks of bias. lol So you are accusing the Chicago School of Economics of liberal bias. It is common knowledge that most schools have a liberal bias The Booth Survey is not a representative survey–it’s a survey of leading economists, most of whom are sympathetic to Keynesian arguments and government intervention. So 20% aren’t. So what? That’s not evidence about the effect of the stimulus–it’s evidence about the state of economics at leading universities. If you pushed Dionne some more, he’d cite Paul Krugman. But Paul Krugman is himself a biased source. Yes, he has a Nobel Prize. But he didn’t win it for his work in business cycle theory. And he’s biased. His blog is called “Conscience of a Liberal.” He’s not a reliable source for objective truth. He has no more evidence for stimulus than the CBO. Oh he has evidence of course. But it’s not incontrovertible. If it were, the 20% of the Booth Survey who are also fine scholars at first rate places would have to bow to that evidence. But they don’t. They have their own evidence.
Step back for a minute and consider the challenge of measuring the impact of the stimulus. It is one of many things that happened between February 2009 and the end of 2010. For starters, massive reforms of health care and the financial sector were passed. They were passed but the details of how they would actually be implemented remained uncertain through the end of 2010 (and remain so today.) There was an unprecedented set of monetary interventions. From the end of 2008 through the end of 2009, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet went from around $800 billion to about $2.2 trillion. And of course a million other things happened as well. The price of housing fell steadily during this period, the price of oil rose steadily, the recession officially ended and on and on and on.
No one has a model of the independent impact of these different factors or a way of measuring them accurately and reliably in a way that can be tested and confirmed or rejected. No one. That means everyone, on the left or the right, who claims to have evidence for the impact of one of them or who cherry-picks one of those out of the myriad to choose from and blames that one factor for the lousy pace of the recovery is either fooling himself or fooling you. Don’t be a fool. So when the E.J. Dionnes of the world tell you that government creates jobs, just ask them how they know. Their answer will be that someone with exemplary credentials says so. But there are those with exemplary credentials who say otherwise. Where does that leave us? It should leave us in ignorance and doubt. No certainty. No exclamation points. More humility. http://cafehayek.com/2012/06/in-a-complex-system-bias-reigns.html The Chicago School of Economics in the way they're using it isn't an actual school...it's a school of thought. It's a school of thought, that got it's name because people in the real and physical school (i.e. the actual Economics department at the University of Chicago today) ascribe to this school of thought.
Exactly:
with a strong focus around the faculty of the University of Chicago
I agree with you that it would seem strange for a school of thought that's
methodology has historically produced conclusions that favor free market policies and little government intervention (albeit within a strict, government-defined monetary regime)
could possibly have a liberal bias, but did you even read what I posted? My only point was that none of this is evidence that the stimulus worked, it is simply to say that there is not enough information to prove anything and one must consider factors of bias when reading anything, as I skeptically always do (whether its left or right). I personally would agree that we would probably have a slightly higher unemployment rate if we never used the stimulus, but I have yet to read a compelling argument that it was worth the cost.
|
On October 17 2012 01:44 oneofthem wrote:
LOL christie. oh god i hope not.
why not?
|
i hope it's not Christie either. he's too moderate, his views on global warming piss me off, and he's abrasive as sandpaper.
great Governor for a place like New Jersey, great speaker for conventions, terrible pick for President, IMO
|
On October 17 2012 01:47 BluePanther wrote:why not?
He's scared. Christie unlike most Republican candidates isn't an idiot and he can speak well. 
|
On October 17 2012 01:44 oneofthem wrote:
LOL christie. oh god i hope not.
I would rather have Christie than an Ayn Rand conservative like Ryan, to be honest.
|
I'm trying to imagine Ayn Rand's reaction if you called someone an Ayn Rand conservative. I'm sure it would be amusing.
|
On October 17 2012 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i hope it's not Christie either. he's too moderate, his views on global warming piss me off, and he's abrasive as sandpaper.
great Governor for a place like New Jersey, great speaker for conventions, terrible pick for President, IMO
And that's exactly why he'll win.
Independent voters such as myself love the guy, and his attitude actually appeals to a lot of voters who want someone in office who isn't a complete suck-up. That "attitude" helps him with far-right voters who wouldn't support him solely on the issues. If he's nominated against the democratic field available for next cycle, he'll win in a landslide.
|
On October 17 2012 01:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i hope it's not Christie either. he's too moderate, his views on global warming piss me off, and he's abrasive as sandpaper.
great Governor for a place like New Jersey, great speaker for conventions, terrible pick for President, IMO And that's exactly why he'll win. Independent voters such as myself love the guy, and his attitude actually appeals to a lot of voters who want someone in office who isn't a complete suck-up. If he's nominated against the democratic field available for next cycle, he'll win in a landslide.
oh I think he would win, and I think he would actually do a fine job, maybe even a great job.
but I wonder what it would mean for conservatism. Christie is a relatively conservative moderate, but would nominating/electing him be a sign of a movement toward the center in Republican politics? i can't argue too much with the idea of making a slight shift in that direction, but my natural inclination is to recoil a bit.
|
On October 17 2012 01:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i hope it's not Christie either. he's too moderate, his views on global warming piss me off, and he's abrasive as sandpaper.
great Governor for a place like New Jersey, great speaker for conventions, terrible pick for President, IMO And that's exactly why he'll win. Independent voters such as myself love the guy, and his attitude actually appeals to a lot of voters who want someone in office who isn't a complete suck-up. If he's nominated against the democratic field available for next cycle, he'll win in a landslide. oh I think he would win, and I think he would actually do a fine job, maybe even a great job. but I wonder what it would mean for conservatism. Christie is a relatively conservative moderate, but would nominating/electing him be a sign of a movement toward the center in Republican politics? i can't argue too much with the idea of making a slight shift in that direction, but my natural inclination is to recoil a bit.
Conservatism is dying. It's going to be a slow conversion, but it's definitely dying. The old farts in power won't let it happen quickly, but I can assure you (at least in Wisconsin), things are changing. I'm involved in Wisconsin Republican politics. The new wave of future leaders are NOT conservative. It has a much more moderate/libertarian feel to it. Sure, right now we all work on pandering to grandma, but it's not long until that generation dies off and the change can commence.
It's coming, mark my words.
Let's put it this way: I was at a Romney meeting recently (they got some of these future people together to ask for help on a project here). During happy hour, the discussion did not revolve around traditional marraige and abortion. It revolved around libertarian ideals and how to correctly incorporate them into a Republican structure. The man above scoffs at "Ayn Rand Republican" but I'm not so sure it's a ridiculous description. Is it Objectivism? Absolutely not. But it is an influential view that will shape the future political landscape as some of it's ideas are absorbed into the party ideology. I think the "family first" attitude of Republicans is going to change to a "freedom of the individual" attitude that is currently usually associated to the Democrats.
|
On October 17 2012 01:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i hope it's not Christie either. he's too moderate, his views on global warming piss me off, and he's abrasive as sandpaper.
great Governor for a place like New Jersey, great speaker for conventions, terrible pick for President, IMO And that's exactly why he'll win. Independent voters such as myself love the guy, and his attitude actually appeals to a lot of voters who want someone in office who isn't a complete suck-up. If he's nominated against the democratic field available for next cycle, he'll win in a landslide. oh I think he would win, and I think he would actually do a fine job, maybe even a great job. but I wonder what it would mean for conservatism. Christie is a relatively conservative moderate, but would nominating/electing him be a sign of a movement toward the center in Republican politics? i can't argue too much with the idea of making a slight shift in that direction, but my natural inclination is to recoil a bit.
Social issues and environmental issues are losing issues for Republicans in the long run. Everyone should know this by now. Economics should be the future of the party.
Also, what Panther said.
|
On October 17 2012 01:43 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:37 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 01:34 Razakel wrote:On October 17 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 01:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:26 farvacola wrote:
Woke up primed for tonight's debates, log on to see parallelluniverse laying down some good old fashioned facts, all is well with the world. In other news, not sure how I feel about the Hillary martyrdom bit, although her willingness to do upfront damage control for something that was not brought to her attention is admirable in any case. The only important thing I read into the Hillary situation is that Hillary has no intentions for running in 2016. She's "taking one for the team." She will not be on the 2016 ticket. I wasn't expecting her to run anyway. I don't think she wants it anymore. Who do you expect to run for the Democrats in 2016 if not her? Actually, that's a good question. No one really comes to mind right now. Not that this necessarily is the case, but the democrat bench doesn't seem to be as deep as the republican bench. In fact, I'm interested in seeing in what direction the democrat party goes after this election when Obama loses. Hmmm. Maybe Biden, but he'll be too old to keep up with Rubio or Christie by then. Hilary should inherit de-facto leader of the party, but you're entirely right, for the past year it's been pretty clear she plans on retiring. I don't think she's up for the grind of another presidential campaign.
It definitely won't be Biden. That guy will go down in flames if selected.
Here's the thing with presidential candidates. They tend to come from the ranks of governors and senators. Right now, the Democrats are a little thin in those positions, particularly after 2010. Tim Kaine struck me as a guy who could be a candidate, but he may be damaged goods after this election.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 14:45 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:41 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 07:39 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 07:38 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:On October 16 2012 07:26 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 07:23 kmillz wrote:On October 16 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Lol what? How many dictatorships did we support because they were anti-Communist? How many times did we nod our heads to bad men saying "Our country needs a strong ruler, the people aren't ready to make decisions for themselves, it isn't in our culture" because the strong ruler was against Moscow? How many times have George Bush and Barack Obama both bent over backwards to say "this isn't a war against Islam," "Islam mustn't be insulted," etc? Supporting dictatorships because of anti-communism is basically exactly what I'm talking about... As for the latter, I think it may be a question of the lady protesting too much. On October 16 2012 06:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
In fact this fanatical hatred of the US has existed since the US has existed, there's nothing Americans can do about it. It's a big part of the reason why we don't listen to "the rest of the world" Nothing just "exists" all by itself A lesson I've learned in life: when everybody thinks you're an asshole, sometimes it's because you're actually just acting like an asshole I agree to some extent..but our freedoms are a big reason why many hate us. Specifically much of the pre-dominantly muslim parts of the Middle East will mostly always hate us as long as we are free to do all of the things they consider sacrilegious. There is really nothing we can do to change that. 'They hate our freedomz!!1' is one of the most oversimplified explanations of anything I have ever heard of. It exemplifies the ignorance of the typical American on U.S.-Middle East relations. Did you know that Muslims once upon a time were actually incredibly tolerant and would not lift a finger when directly insulted? Yes, well the Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining power in many many countries, including Turkey of all places. They are well funded, well coordinated, and have a lot going for them. They are a lot less racist and divisive then a lot of organizations, because they welcome all Muslims. Look at what is happening in the UK right now: http://tehrantimes.com/world/102400-10000-protest-anti-muslim-video-at-googles-uk-hqThis trend is very troubling. Indeed, it is troubling, but to brush it off simply by saying "They hate our freedomz!!1" is ridiculous. The Muslim Brotherhood was not formed nor has it been gaining power simply because "They hate our freedomz!!1" Well in this case they actually do hate our freedoms... Yeah, they do hate that there is a viral video insulting their prophet; however, there are underlying factors that cause them to riot and participate in violent protests, just like there are underlying causes as to why the Muslim Brotherhood was formed and is gaining power, and just like there are underlying causes as to why people participate in terrorism. Wow I love how everyone is trying to paint my post as some ignorant average American citizen who doesn't know shit about Muslims or their culture just because I said one big reason they hate us is that our freedoms allow us to do things that they deem sacrilegious. I didn't say that was the only reason so get off of your high horses and stfu with the "They hate our freedomz!!1" bullshit, I took a year and a half of Arabic and Middle Eastern studies in the military. I learned how to speak, read and write Arabic fluently from actual Arabs and my job title was Arabic Cryptologic Linguist. My only point was that yes there are a lot of things that America does that pisses off Muslims, but I am only saying even if many of those things didn't happen they would already still hate us very much.
I'm telling you your hypothesis has no basis grounded in reality, unless we are gauging 'hate' very differently. Without all the underlying causes I highly doubt they'd 'hate' us enough to ram airplanes into our buildings, suicide bomb innocent civilians, and assassinate our diplomats. As time passes the younger Muslim generations are beginning to harbor more pro-Western sentiments than their predecessors (even in Iran!). This is because they didn't have to grow up alongside the reality of those 'underlying causes.' So to say that they'd 'hate us very much' regardless of what we did is ludicrous. As long as we don't continue spreading our tyranny throughout the Middle East, we can at least erase a lot of that ill will we rightfully deserve with the passage of time. Drone strikes aren't doing us any favors with Yemen and Pakistan but that's a whole different topic.
|
On October 17 2012 01:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:44 oneofthem wrote:
LOL christie. oh god i hope not. why not? He's scared. Christie unlike most Republican candidates isn't an idiot and he can speak well.
On October 17 2012 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i hope it's not Christie either. he's too moderate, his views on global warming piss me off, and he's abrasive as sandpaper.
great Governor for a place like New Jersey, great speaker for conventions, terrible pick for President, IMO
the same governor christie who said he wont even consider legalizing pot because the feds wont let him but then when he wants something he just says "oh fuck the feds". the same one who vetoes gay marriage bills and cuts education funding while sending his own kids to private schools?
what a real moderate.
On October 17 2012 02:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:43 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2012 01:37 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 01:34 Razakel wrote:On October 17 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 01:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 01:26 farvacola wrote:
Woke up primed for tonight's debates, log on to see parallelluniverse laying down some good old fashioned facts, all is well with the world. In other news, not sure how I feel about the Hillary martyrdom bit, although her willingness to do upfront damage control for something that was not brought to her attention is admirable in any case. The only important thing I read into the Hillary situation is that Hillary has no intentions for running in 2016. She's "taking one for the team." She will not be on the 2016 ticket. I wasn't expecting her to run anyway. I don't think she wants it anymore. Who do you expect to run for the Democrats in 2016 if not her? Actually, that's a good question. No one really comes to mind right now. Not that this necessarily is the case, but the democrat bench doesn't seem to be as deep as the republican bench. In fact, I'm interested in seeing in what direction the democrat party goes after this election when Obama loses. Hmmm. Maybe Biden, but he'll be too old to keep up with Rubio or Christie by then. Hilary should inherit de-facto leader of the party, but you're entirely right, for the past year it's been pretty clear she plans on retiring. I don't think she's up for the grind of another presidential campaign. It definitely won't be Biden. That guy will go down in flames if selected. Here's the thing with presidential candidates. They tend to come from the ranks of governors and senators. Right now, the Democrats are a little thin in those positions, particularly after 2010. Tim Kaine struck me as a guy who could be a candidate, but he may be damaged goods after this election.
the 2 most prolific conservative posters in this thread circlejerking about how weak the democratic possibilities are. real discussion time for sure. there are plenty of democratic candidates, and their best position is that even if they cant find anyone they can just send hilary, because she will tie up the women and minorities, just like obama does, while being able to boast more experience on both the home and world stage than any repub candidate. so although i agree the dems probably wont go for hilary, if they really run out of options as you 2 are so happily claiming, she will run and she will probably win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
