If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Not really, I wasn't using it that way. How does Hillary stop the rise of Dem governors?
Originally Posted by subego
There is a limited amount of national attention available. Hillary commanded more of this purely by virtue of being a 20-ton juggernaut.
I think you're honing in on the real machine here.
Originally Posted by subego
My question was where are Booker and Warren positioned if they didn’t have to compete with Hillary for attention. Their standing is muted by virtue of sharing the arena with such strong competition.
Considering they're not Obama, not much different.
Originally Posted by subego
Likewise, Hillary was firmly positioned to become the most powerful reptile on the planet, and holds a grudge. If, like Booker or Warren, their job is going to be to work with her for the next 4-8 years, would this not put a damper on how aggressively they position themselves as competitors?
She'll need them more than they need her. Every vote in congress counts, nowadays.
---
Let me circle back to the chess and dampening (clearer than muted) aspects.
Chess: You talked about 2008 having Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Biden. How were they positioned there by the Dems? Obama's is straightforward – he caught fire from his 2004 DNC speech. But the DNC has a lot of people giving a lot of speeches. Where are all the others?
Clinton: Not chess. Trading on name and media attention.
Edwards: Not chess. Former VP candidate.
Biden: Not chess. Perennial candidate, IIRC.
Now, let's flip the angle. Who do you see as the chess pieces for 2016 from the GOP? 2008? 2000?
(The answers I have are Jindal and Rubio because the GOP chose them to give SOTU responses. I'd also argue that 'honor' no longer is a positive in the twitter age).
Now to the dampening effect. Did Hillary's presumptive status cause dampening? Sure. But not the way you think. I see two reasons. Hint: The DNC aren't the kingmakers here. Other Hint: Married people letting themselves go
ORIGINAL RNC FINANCE TEAM:
1—Steve Wynn, chair: stepped down from co. amid sexual misconduct allegations
2—@Elliott_Broidy, deputy: under scrutiny for using Trump connections to boost business
3—@MichaelCohen212, deputy: being investigated for possible bank fraud, FEC violations
Massler reached out to CNN about the Facebook page following CNN's reporting on fake Black Lives Matter pages run by a Russian government-linked troll group. Massler pointed CNN to the internet records for websites linked to by the page.
OMG all the congress asking Zuck how to use Facebook... next thing they'll be asking him to setup their wireless printer and figure out their WIFI hotspot.
Not really, I wasn't using it that way. How does Hillary stop the rise of Dem governors?
The same way she’s dampens everyone else. By being the 20-ton juggernaut who can command national attention at will. Governors only rise if people outside their state notice them.
OMG all the congress asking Zuck how to use Facebook... next thing they'll be asking him to setup their wireless printer and figure out their WIFI hotspot.
The hearings on Facebook illustrate one of the problems with representative democracy. How can government be expected to properly oversee common technology they don't use or understand?
The worst I heard was a lady who first introduced herself by saying she used Facebook every day... implying that she is "savvy"... but then she went on to ask zuck how many websites out there were using "tracking pixels" for facebook. I wished Zuck had replied, "I don't know, how many sites on the internet are there?"
The same way she’s dampens everyone else. By being the 20-ton juggernaut who can command national attention at will. Governors only rise if people outside their state notice them.
No you're misunderstanding me. The country has barely any democratic governors. I don't think Hillary caused that.
Originally Posted by subego
I’d wager most politicians don’t feel this casual about poking Godzilla with a stick.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to retract that comment. I reevaluated and looking at how Heller has acted, you're right, the President can wield some serious power over your re-election. Look at how the GOP has folded and Dems aren't the ones known for spines.
That said, looking at the Ds track record with Obama, they were running away from him in 2010 when he had 'bad' approval ratings. Do you think that Hillary would have better approval ratings than that right now?
Here's a wild thought: I think Dems care more about overall approval ratings, while the GOP only cares about their approval ratings. Meaning its a lot easier to get Dems politicians to flip on their president. If Hillary was hated like Trump is now (not out of the question) is it really that hard to imagine they'd be running away from her?
Originally Posted by subego
Because they are Dems.
Am I misunderstanding you, or isn't that tautological?
No you're misunderstanding me. The country has barely any democratic governors. I don't think Hillary caused that.
Am I misunderstanding you, or isn't that tautological?
Let me try and rephrase my point.
People who want to be president make strategic maneuvers to get themselves into position. Duh.
For example, I can say with fair certainty Hillary was making these types of maneuvers at least 8 years before she ran in 2008.
Obama wins in 2008. That means 2012 is out. 2016 means facing Hillary, or Biden, or both. Very tough to beat in a primary.
After Obama wins in 2012, this looks even grimmer. Hillary and Biden would be well nigh impossible to beat in a primary, and since Obama’s a god at this point, one of them will probably win, which means lockout until ****ing 2024.
So, 2012 was when people needed to be starting strategic maneuvers for 2020, but there was no point. The earliest anyone was going to stick out their willie was late 2016, and that’s for 2024, so not necessarily the most aggressive moves yet.
This is the main part of “muting” or “dampening” effect I’m talking about.
So, 2012 was when people needed to be starting strategic maneuvers for 2020, but there was no point. The earliest anyone was going to stick out their willie was late 2016, and that’s for 2024, so not necessarily the most aggressive moves yet.
This is the main part of “muting” or “dampening” effect I’m talking about.
None of that is specific to Hillary Clinton and applies equally to other party positions such as Speaker of the House or Minority Leader in the Senate that are occupied by a party big wig: the incumbent or presumed incumbent is usually not challenged openly, unless they are losing power. The fact that other party members don't want to make a futile attempt to challenge a party heavy weight is just strategic common sense. You seem to argue that this is “muting” or “dampening” others, but this is just the usual power dynamics of human beings. Open fights typically only occur when there is a power vacuum such as the one that Paul Ryan has left now.
None of these dynamics seem particular to Hillary Clinton or the Democrats.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I notice KY leaders are criticizing stupid Bevin statements regardless of party. Contrast that to Washington D.C., where (R)s cannot find their voices. No matter how overboard Trump goes.
The left my have identity politics, but Jesus has the right really gone in on hysterical over-the-top fear-mongering. (It's also a sign that you don't have a ****ing leg to stand on)
A few people pointed out that if he really believes this, he should be trying to institute school or some kind of escape for children year-round.
People who want to be president make strategic maneuvers to get themselves into position. Duh.
For example, I can say with fair certainty Hillary was making these types of maneuvers at least 8 years before she ran in 2008.
Obama wins in 2008. That means 2012 is out. 2016 means facing Hillary, or Biden, or both. Very tough to beat in a primary.
After Obama wins in 2012, this looks even grimmer. Hillary and Biden would be well nigh impossible to beat in a primary, and since Obama’s a god at this point, one of them will probably win, which means lockout until ****ing 2024.
So, 2012 was when people needed to be starting strategic maneuvers for 2020, but there was no point. The earliest anyone was going to stick out their willie was late 2016, and that’s for 2024, so not necessarily the most aggressive moves yet.
This is the main part of “muting” or “dampening” effect I’m talking about.
There's some logic to what you say, but I'm really surprised the only Democrat who was too power-hungry and narcissistic to not give a shit was Martin O' Malley.
There's a VP slot to be had, though. John Edwards but him in position for that, as did Biden. I guess no one wanted to be the number 2 to Hillary?
frankly, a hillary obama ticket would have been aces. Obama would have gotten experience, credibility, etc. Why they don't pick VPs from the other candidates, but instead pick nobodies from the flyover states-oh.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Apr 17, 2018, 02:36 PM
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
Why were Kaine and Pence never considered candidates in their own right?
Did anyone caucus for Kaine? I only remember Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley. Kaine's Wikipedia says he actively campaigned for Clinton before being selected and was on Obama's top five VP shortlist.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Apr 17, 2018, 04:16 PM
VP fills out whatever demographics the P candidate is missing, so rather than taking the top two finishers in the caucus who may be very similar, pick someone from an opposite area of the country, opposite gender, opposite race, or someone that has historically been strong in areas where the P hasn't been to capture the maximum demographics.
Missouri Governor Eric Greitens has filed a temporary restraining order against Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley after Hawley announced his office found possible wrongdoing regarding charity donors and campaign funding.
In a Tuesday news conference, Josh Hawley said his team found evidence suggesting that Greitens used a list of donors from his veterans charity, The Mission Continues, for political fundraising.
A restraining order?
Tuesday evening, Missouri House Leadership called for Greitens to resign. Greitens again issued a statement saying he would not.
I will not be resigning the Governor's office. In three weeks, this matter will go to a court of law—where it belongs and where the facts will prove my innocence. Until then, I will do what the people of Missouri sent me here to do: to serve them and work hard on their behalf.
Nice job on electing a psycho, Missouri. I'd be surprised he didn't show a hint of this during his campaign.
Nice job on electing a psycho, Missouri. I'd be surprised he didn't show a hint of this during his campaign.
Greitens burst onto the Missouri political scene out of nowhere. He had never held any political office before. Just like Trump. Former Navy Seal. Rhodes Scholar. White House Fellow. Rugged good looks. Dude was a poster child for the "conservative outsider". I certainly don't recall any indications that he was a BDSM freak during the campaign. Most people keep that sort of thing on the down low anyway. All this drama came out because the woman involved was married at the time and her former husband found out about their affair and leaked the story to the press. But let's keep it real here. This guy got elected because the "Missourah" electorate was most enamored with this political ad featuring him shooting an assault rifle and blowing shit up. That's just the mentality among the GOP base around here.