Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Republican primary changesFollow

#1 Dec 11 2013 at 10:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Linky

Quote:
A handful of Republican Party officials is quietly advancing a new batch of rules aimed at streamlining a chaotic presidential nominating process that many party insiders viewed as damaging to the their campaign for the White House in 2012


Big changes are fewer debates and an earlier convention, plus penalties for states holding earlier primaries. Agreeing on a message and candidate earlier on and hopefully keeping the nutjobs from saying as much stupid stuff (or worse, forcing the viable candidate to say stupid stuff) so close to the main election. I'm not convinced it's a saving grace or anything, but at this point they don't have much to lose. All sounds good on paper at least.



Edited, Dec 11th 2013 8:57am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2 Dec 11 2013 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
So they want more time for whoever becomes the final candidate to save his face from the embarrassing **** he'll have to say to become the GOP nominee?
#3 Dec 11 2013 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Pretty much; and more control over the debate process, and more time to spend that campaign money in the general election.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Dec 11 2013 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
It's cute that they think their candidate selection process and not the actual candidates they nominate is the problem.

#5 Dec 11 2013 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
The rampant homophobia and borderline racism can't possibly be the problem when they're just trying to keep America free!
#6 Dec 11 2013 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Catwho wrote:
It's cute that they think their candidate selection process and not the actual candidates they nominate is the problem.

Seems like every election lately leads to a bunch of hand-wringing and desire to rework the process. After 2008, Democrats were worried about the long Obama/Clinton face off and wanted to reduce the primary season (though there was no rush for 2012). Republicans were upset that McCain took an unbeatable lead so early and felt a longer primary would have led to a better candidate against Obama (granted, they thought that would have been Romney). The 2012 primary calendar and proportional delegate awards were a direct result of that 2008 angst.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Dec 11 2013 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Catwho wrote:
It's cute that they think their candidate selection process and not the actual candidates they nominate is the problem.


I read it as the nomination process not working properly thereby providing them with a candidate that's not really of their choosing. Of course the real candidate of their choosing, which for some curious reason they don't choose, has no chance of ever winning a general election.

I wonder it the GOP is starting to regret this whole 'tea party' business.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#8 Dec 11 2013 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I wonder it the GOP is starting to regret this whole 'tea party' business.

Holy shit, regret it? It was a MASSIVE, overwhelming victory. Still is. Do you remember the state of the GOP in 2008??? Jesus, just because we enjoy the humor value doesn't change the control of the House or Representatives, or the many many many many state legislatures and executives that were taken over allowing for multiple structural advantages to be pressed. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, union destruction. Are you fucking joking? Regret it? Because they lost to a once in a generation candidate who brings an almost automatic 25% increase in black turnout and puts states like Virginia and North Carolina in play? Are you high right now?

Democrats are OVERWHELMINGLY the underdog for the 2016 election BECAUSE of the tea party. Because old racists vote, and blacks and kids don't unless they can identify with a candidate. Who is that going to be next time? Hillary? Give me a fucking break. Biden? There are no compelling candidates who can get through the primary process and the reason, children, that the GOP has been fielding bad candidates and making terrible VP choices is because contrary to the narrative we'd like to take comfort it, they aren't morons. They can read the data, too. They know when they need a Hail Mary to win and when they can sell a personality. If a moderate seeming choice comes out of their primary good luck winning Ohio, Virginia or Florida. Relying on a demographic that generally only votes for people they feel a personal identifier with is going to be a huge struggle when we nominate a 60 year old white person.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Dec 11 2013 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Because old racists vote...
They gotta be dying off soon.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#10 Dec 11 2013 at 1:52 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
They gotta be dying off soon.

Probably get carjacked and murdered by a darkie. That's the leading cause of death of 65 year old white men.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#11 Dec 11 2013 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Biden?

That guy's gonna cost Obama the race!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Dec 11 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Biden?

That guy's gonna cost Obama the race!
That's the advantage of being biracial. If you lose one, you always have the other!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#13 Dec 11 2013 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Is Christie still insisting he's not running?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Dec 12 2013 at 12:20 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
That guy's gonna cost Obama the race!

Still a bad choice, hard to argue otherwise. Probably helped in the 2012 race with that debate performance, though.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Dec 12 2013 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
The dems don't have much in the line up for next pres do they.

I like Hilary. I think she's as well equipped as any one to run the country. I just don't think the country is yet ready to climb back out on the limb of the white-man tree. Also there's the Bill factor.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#16 Dec 12 2013 at 12:31 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I like Hilary.

Me too. She just has zero chance of winning a national election.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Dec 12 2013 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Is Christie still insisting he's not running?


Last I heard. But it's so obviously a lie that I stopped paying attention a while back.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#18 Dec 12 2013 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
The Dems are quietly hoping for a white knight to ride in and rescue them from Hillary as well, or barring that, praying for a Ted Cruz nomination.

Hillary vs Christie would be a close match and a bruiser at that, with Christie likely the winner. The odds of Christie getting past the Republican primary are slim to none, though, even with the adjustments they've made, which might be why Christie is insisting he won't run.
#19 Dec 12 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Christie hasn't been insisting that he won't run (that I know of). He's pretty much done the opposite and played the whole "not-saying-I-will-but..." game especially when he refused to commit to serving his full term as governor.

But no one says this early on that they WILL run because there's no value in doing so. You want the free press from media speculation and the ability to back out gracefully if, for some reason, your approval is at 15% in late 2015.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Dec 13 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
I like Hilary. I think she's as well equipped as any one to run the country. I just don't think the country is yet ready to climb back out on the limb of the white-man tree. Also there's the Bill factor.


I think it's far less some kind of aversion to putting another non-whitemale in the office as the damage that 24 hours a day looping Hillary declaring to congress that it doesn't really matter why we were attacked in Benghazi will cause. Seriously. If she wins the nomination and I were in charge of running opposition media, I'd do nothing but spend money running that clip during every commercial break on every channel for the next 6 months, with the caption "Hillary: Vote for anyone else, or she wont care why you died".

Ok. Maybe different wording, but that bit alone puts her odds at winning somewhere very close to zero and she knows it. Bad outburst at the wrong time on the wrong subject more or less ended her career as an elected official.


Catwho wrote:
Hillary vs Christie would be a close match and a bruiser at that, with Christie likely the winner. The odds of Christie getting past the Republican primary are slim to none, though, even with the adjustments they've made, which might be why Christie is insisting he won't run.


Yeah. Running an obese man from New Jersey, colorful as he is, probably doesn't do much for the GOP in terms of electoral math. Christie probably would still win though, but you're right that his odds of getting through the primary process is very slim (unlike him! Haha. There's just no end to those jokes, or him for that matter... zing!). And honestly? For him, it's less about his waistline as it is that he's viewed as more moderate than most primary voters will want and from a state that doesn't really buy the GOP much.

While folks joke about Cruz, he actually brings a hell of a lot more to the table in terms of electoral math. Rubio even moreso, but he's also young and unpolished (and the Left has already shown a great willingness to make hay out of that). Obviously, we could look at the usual suspect list and toss in Jindal. He's aged a bit more and has more experience this time around, but he actually doesn't seem to want to run (and may have good reasons). Hell, toss Nikki Haley in the mix if you want to really go with the double threat of minority and female, but I don't know if she's really ready for that either.

Dunno. I think there's a pretty decent list of up and coming Republican candidates, but not so much on the Left. I suspect a good portion of that is just perception though. Hillary was such a presumptive frontrunner in 2008, that no one really looked elsewhere. Obama came out of nowhere and took that spot from her, but she remained the "next candidate" in the minds of most liberals since then. This doesn't preclude another "come from nowhere" candidate, but I'm not sure that sort of lightning is likely to strike twice in such a short period of time.

Dems still have some time, but it is growing short.

Edited, Dec 13th 2013 2:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Dec 13 2013 at 4:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'd do nothing but spend money running that clip during every commercial break on every channel for the next 6 months, with the caption "Hillary: Vote for anyone else, or she wont care why you died".
All that'd do is make people homicidal.

So glad this isn't one of those swing states where people run campaign adds. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#22 Dec 13 2013 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Remember when "You didn't build that" totally sunk Obama's campaign?

You conservatives maybe put too much stock into out of context soundbites.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Dec 13 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Remember when "You didn't build that" totally sunk Obama's campaign?

You conservatives maybe put too much stock into out of context soundbites.


A. It's not out of context. It's very much in context.

B. She was at a hearing specifically formed to determine what happened and why in an attack which resulted in the deaths of four US citizens, presumably with at least part of the purpose to be to learn from our mistakes and avoid making them in the future, and she basically told the panel that in her official opinion as Secretary of State (you know, the department that's responsible for establishing and managing our relations with foreign nations) she didn't think it mattered why those four Americans were killed.

There's no context you can spin this into which removes the fact that she was basically saying that she doesn't care why US citizens died that day. Actually, worse than that, she was saying that "it doesn't matter" (more correctly, she repeatedly asked "What does it matter?" when asked what happened). Somehow, that's not really a quality you want in a commander in chief. Put another way, she just answered her own "get a call at 1 AM" question with "It doesn't really matter what I do".

There are just so many things wrong with what she said that it's hard to stick to just one or even three reasons why it was bad and will be harmful to her in any future national level campaign.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Dec 13 2013 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, you'd certainly be the one to tell everyone what'll be really important in presidential elections and to teach us all about electoral math.

Later we hope you'll share your sterling wisdom about election year polling.

Edited, Dec 13th 2013 6:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Dec 13 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
A. It's not out of context. It's very much in context.

It's in context of an issue that doesn't matter. Any voter who thinks Benghazi is important in 2016 is voting for whoever the GOP trots out regardless. Voters who thought invading Iraq was a bad idea cared that there were no WMDs, people who thought it was a good idea didn't. Lying about it mattered only to one group and not one that was persuadable.

Hilliary's problem is lack of turnout. Women voters, and this isn't a comment on gender psychology, but women voters don't seem to care at all if a candidate is a woman. As opposed to black voters who care a great deal if a candidate is black. Hillary has a small possibly negative delta above how Obama did with women. She'll win them obviously, but so would Random Democrat White Guy.

Also she has a potential problem with the reverse, turning out the GOP base, but that's probably overstated. The DEM fatigue part likely isn't.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 374 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (374)