|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Fox News, which is hosting the first debate next Thursday in Cleveland, says that they will include the top 10 candidates from an average of the five most recent national polls. But Fox News isn’t saying which polls they will use to calculate their average, leaving the rest of us to play a guessing game. [...] Who's In According to an ABC News analysis of five recent major national polls on July 27 ... Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson. Who's Out Another three candidates are almost certainly going to miss the mark. Carly Fiorina, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham [...] Chris Christie and Rick Perry currently hold the last two spots on the debate stage. John Kasich, who just announced his candidacy last week, misses the debate stage by just two-tenths of a percentage point. Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal are close behind, but still watching from home on Aug. 6. FULL STANDINGS (as of July 27): 1. Trump – 18 percent 2. Bush – 14 percent 3. Walker – 11 percent 4. Rubio – 6 percent T5. Paul – 6 percent T5. Cruz – 6 percent 7. Huckabee – 6 percent 8. Carson – 5 percent 9. Christie – 3.0 percent 10. Perry – 2.2 percent 11. Kasich – 2.0 percent 12. Santorum – 1.6 percent 13. Jindal – 1.4 percent 14. Fiorina – 0.8 percent 15. Pataki – 0.6 percent 16. Graham – 0.2 percent [...] |
Quote:
he makes Perry look like a statesman. It would require the Obama camp getting fully behind him to give him any traction. IMO, the only person Hillary is afraid of is Liz Warren.
I disagree. I really think the last 8 years have changed (or at least put enough space) the perception of Biden. I think he's much more salable to the public.
He's recently gotten a pass, and deserved IMHO, due to the death of his son. If he started making gaffes again, like telling someone in a wheelchair to stand up, it would go away quickly.
IMO, it's ridiculous beyond belief that people vote specifically based on gender (or race) but their is precedent, so might as well negate it.
to hit Sanders now would turn off liberal wing
which she needs during the election
to tack too far left would hurt her in the general election
meanwhile she is getting hit by 16 different Republican candidates who are sucking up all the media coverage .
she really can't do anything - but keep her head down -shake a lot of hands in iowa and NH and hope some random hit piece does not get legs and derails her nomination
I am not a big fan of Biden - would prefer Lizzy Warren or Al Gore
as far as Republicans .. it should be Jeb but damn he just doesn't have the charisma of GWB .. so the combination of being boring and the Bush name might hurt him enough to prevent his nomination
Walker has lead a charmed life - if the definition of charmed life is being the handed picked Manchurian Candidate for the Koch Brothers so yes I think he continues his 'Charmed life"
The thing that people are forgetting is the RNC tweaked the Primary system the past few cycles - they front loaded winner take all contests - the idea is that it is best to avoid a long drawn out primary , settle on nominee and start to attack democratic nominee as soon as possible.
But the irony of this system is a guy like Trump could take all the early primaries and get a huge delegate lead - this would ensure a battle till convention or the nightmare scenario Trump actually getting enough momentum to winning nomination.
She's not in a tough position at all, though - not until the Presidential race begins anyway.
Sanders is a firebrand populist that is throwing the equivalent of legislative bombs at "the establishment", all of which have as much chance of going anywhere as I do with Kate Upton.
He's attracting the same crowd that came out for Dean in 04 (and all the other progressive candidates before him) - super liberal, super white, super Northeast voters that will make a moderately interesting story line if something happens in New Hampshire - until he gets to South Carolina, attracts 5% of the minority vote and gets crushed from there on out. The crowd that is spamming websites like Reddit right now to make Sanders seem more viable than he is was either a) not going to end up voting anyway or b) end of voting for Clinton at the end of the day anyway.
She has no reason to engage Sanders, as it almost makes him seem viable and there's nothing gained from it. He'll engage the progressive arm of the party, stir up some rhetoric and fade to obscurity in time for Clinton to sleepwalk to the nomination. He would not be on the short or long list of VP options, does not engage a portion of the party she needs or add any other kind of value. He's there to bang pots and pans and make noise while the Democrats slumber.
I have no real gut feel on the Republicans, but only really see Hillary being challenged if the DNC sees legitimate cracks forming when this moves to a national stage and will have to draw on a candidate that's not in the race right now (and likely have to make that call very soon). Biden is the obvious choice, but I still think Clinton stepping aside in 08 got her certain concessions (not to play conspiracy theorist, but I do think she has a large chunk of Obama's team working with her now)
Quote:
In comment 12402929 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
he makes Perry look like a statesman. It would require the Obama camp getting fully behind him to give him any traction. IMO, the only person Hillary is afraid of is Liz Warren.
I disagree. I really think the last 8 years have changed (or at least put enough space) the perception of Biden. I think he's much more salable to the public.
He's recently gotten a pass, and deserved IMHO, due to the death of his son. If he started making gaffes again, like telling someone in a wheelchair to stand up, it would go away quickly.
That is the stuff Hillary gets away with all the time. This media never, ever takes her to task. She never has to sweat something out; never is accountable for what she does/says. She's one tough lady and doesn't need the help. Let's she how she does under pressure, not that Joe is any REAL pressure.
Perry was a darling and folded, that is why I'm not fan.
I agree that Obama made a deal with Hillary .. everyone seems to forget the the Explainer in Chief who gave a masterful speech at Dem convention
and help pivot the 2012 election to Obama.
The Big Dog didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart.
IMO, it's ridiculous beyond belief that people vote specifically based on gender (or race) but their is precedent, so might as well negate it.
Of course, a year and a half from now no one will say that they voted for her because she's a woman. They'll insist it's a lie formulated by the people who hate her.
More than most governors, he ran on "jobs, jobs, jobs". Wisconsin has ranked 33rd in job creation during his tenure, and Walker missed his 250k new jobs target by >50%. More importantly, his jobs program was run thru the new Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, a public-private hybrid that replace the state Dep't of Commerce. Walker installed himself as Chairman, so his fingerprints are all over it. The agency has had a lot of problems. Poor loan documentation, a terrible audit report that caused the CFO to abruptly quit, and 60% of disbursed funds have gone to Walker campaign donors. It has gotten bipartisan criticism. There may be a better side to that story, but it's not a good story no matter what.
My point is this: Walker is leading a charmed life as a GOP candidate (not WI governor). He gets a lot of credit for the red meat policies that conservatives like, with little evaluation of actual performance. His citizens appear to have soured on him (April WI poll: 41-58 approve/disapprove, 40-52 right/wrong direction, 39/59 favor/support Walker running for GOP nom). My belief is that compared to Bush, Perry, and Kasich, he has not been as successful in office.
When the PP videos came out she said she was appalled - and I believe she truly meant that.
Quote:
where did she say that stuff?
When the PP videos came out she said she was appalled - and I believe she truly meant that.
And then the handlers got to her.
Hillary Clinton recently sat down for a "Chair Chat" with the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic party, Jaime Harrison. During the interview, as in many of her speeches to people who live in the South, she put on a Southern accent that is absent from her speeches to Northerners.
We made a mashup of some of the most painfully pandering moments, and ranked the intensity of her accent with cowboy boots (1 = lowest, 5 = strongest).
Link - ( New Window )
Really? and has it removed her from the race? People with that much baggage don't normally survive, never mind remain the clear frontrunner to POTUS.
It's an odd comment. I dont really agree with the sentiment, but then again a lot of women I know have expressed the idea that they're pretty fed up with 70 year old men passing judgment on womens' health policy, when they have no idea what they're talking about.
Link - ( New Window )
That must be because they can't get contraception or abortions or mammograms or pap smears anywhere. The Dem men in Congress, regardless of age, do whatever the feminists tell them to do, so the argument is really silly.
Link - ( New Window )
So you're giving me the link I gave you? Thanks!
Comparatively speaking she gets little. Yes, there is criticism. But what would the press have done to a Republican who out and out refused to take a position on Keystone? Who flip-flops on Planned Parenthood. Who has all the other ethical, if not legal, issues involving the server etc.
If it were a Republican they would have to run across the airport tarmac because there WOULD be snipers.
BTW - You can be pro-choice and highly critical of Planned Parenthood at the same time. But rather than defunding it, the demand would be to clean house with respect to the officers involved.
BTW - You can be pro-choice and highly critical of Planned Parenthood at the same time. But rather than defunding it, the demand would be to clean house with respect to the officers involved.
Planned Parenthood, like politics, has a culture. You throw out the bunch at the top, they just get replaced with more of the same
Quote:
BTW - You can be pro-choice and highly critical of Planned Parenthood at the same time. But rather than defunding it, the demand would be to clean house with respect to the officers involved.
Planned Parenthood, like politics, has a culture. You throw out the bunch at the top, they just get replaced with more of the same
True.
I think that what this week has shown is that PP is more symbolic and money more than substance. They are not abortion but they are the metaphor for it. You could dissolve them and access and choices wouldn't be different but it serves as a focal point for debate.
Quote:
Honestly - how many upsets have we had in Primaries? Obama in 08'... I can't think of any others in recent memory.
Bill Clinton was not the favorite going into 2000, Jimmy Carter was not favored in '76, George McGovern moved ahead on an Ed Muskie screwup in '72, for starters.
Dishonor!
Quote:
In comment 12402838 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
Honestly - how many upsets have we had in Primaries? Obama in 08'... I can't think of any others in recent memory.
Bill Clinton was not the favorite going into 2000, Jimmy Carter was not favored in '76, George McGovern moved ahead on an Ed Muskie screwup in '72, for starters.
Exactly. Rare.
LOL. Eleven Pres elections from '72 thru '12. In 3 of them, '80, '96 and '12 sitting Dem President ran for second terms. Of the other 8, in 4 the frontrunner won and in 4 the frontrunner lost. So 50% is "rare" in your book?
Quote:
I didn't look at your link and I had the other one already copied to give it as you were posting. I thought your link was to the text quote. Mea culpa and I will now cast my eyes downward in shame.
Dishonor!
:-)
Then why announce them? Why specify the rules you use to pick them and then tweak it because you don't like the results your getting?
Just say your having a debate and picking who you want instead of lying to people.
And what if the Dems had 17 people running?
Really looking forward to tonight. Last episode of the daily show too. Almost too much going on
Really looking forward to tonight. Last episode of the daily show too. Almost too much going on
whereas, if the field was narrowed down to 4, Trump probably would not benefit at all from consolidation, while whomever remains from (santorum,cruz, etc etc etc) most certainly would and would end up 80/20 over Trump.
Also, why the process has been turning out dreck like {bush/Clinton] for so long, the early going marginalizes those whose policy concept crosses the traditional barriers and party lines, while, those same might do well in the general by taking swing voters and 'non voting types'
Fair point. And to be honest, the last debate where I think substantive issues were discussed, and not just sound bited, was the Cheyney - Lieberman debate back in 2000.
For example, he always gives both sides strongly, and starts from a premise of that this discussion will be rationality based.
As opposed to say, Lou Dobbs, who seems to wear his 'culture' on his sleeve, which is irrelevant and might be alienating for many who could use to think about policy simply in a rational way without all the identity markers.
ironically, the libertarians might have a greater chance at building the big tent, if they were not facing up against the republican mainstream as well as against the democrats, which is a darn shame, to have any group face such a circle jerk as a way to avoid looking at policy concept on its own merits or otherwise.
Then why is Ben Carson doing so well?
making into an american idol type competition is great for revving up interests
but it sucks for democracy
It would have been fairer if they divided equally into two debates
with either draw names from a hat or just use polls and do an even/odd division
It could include both parties and be selected for the ability of candidates to drill down on policy in a way that is understandable and in the absence of demagoguery, generalizations and pandering.
Perhaps the audience could be selected for same, a variety of independent voters with varied and rational backgrounds, in the absence of party hacks on both sides.
Audience votes and millions donated by said wealthy to campaigns of winners of said votes.
This way you still get the 'circus' or entertainment factor but within the context of worthwhile debate.
Any candidates still using the said barred qualifying adjectives would get the "buzzer" sound and loose points.
making into an american idol type competition is great for revving up interests
but it sucks for democracy
It would have been fairer if they divided equally into two debates
with either draw names from a hat or just use polls and do an even/odd division
This is done all the time. And it is divided between 2 debates.
Quote:
Of criticizing who someone aka democrats vote based off race/gender when how much of the rights core would never vote for someone who isn't their religion/race/gender?
Then why is Ben Carson doing so well?
First off- Carson is doing OK. He's in 5th place.
Second off- the level of support he has does nothing to disprove what I said. The vast majority of people still aren't voting him, so the small sample size of those who support him doesn't disprove what I said. Plus, he still fits into the religious right narrative.