What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Handyman said:
the state of Wisconsin if you are sober
Click to expand...

This is one of those hypotheticals that will never occur and thus can't really be tested.

Going over the Sour 17, only a handful will ever run again:

Walker -- win or become a joke
Fiorina -- vanity/veep candidacy
Aqua Buddha -- could return
Bush -- could return
Christie -- win or become a joke
Graham -- veep candidacy
Gilmore -- invisible candidacy
Santorum -- evergreen crazy
Huckabee -- already a joke
Cruz -- vanity campaign
Rubio -- could return
Jindal -- win or... OK, already a joke
Pataki -- veep campaign
Kasich -- veep campaign
Perry -- the Platonic ideal of a joke
Carson -- vanity campaign
Trump -- vanity human
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

IF the GOP loses again in 2016, the Bush family will be the fall guy. Much like Carter was blamed for the stiffs the Dems kept throwing up there after his defeat. In 2020 the GOP will be looking for somebody new, not a guy pushing 70 who everybody is sick of already. I think the drop-out-and-reinvent tactic should have been employed by obese slob Christie, who could have declined to run, improved his standing and his state's finances, leave office on a high note in Jan 2018, and then have a good 2 years to raise Wall St bucks and set up a national operation before the primaries while the other candidates (presumably Walker gives it another go, maybe Cruz as well) still have a job to do.

I think for the older guys (Bush, Kasich, Carson, Perry if anybody cares) this is their last go around.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rover said:
IF the GOP loses again in 2016, the Bush family will be the fall guy. Much like Carter was blamed for the stiffs the Dems kept throwing up there after his defeat. In 2020 the GOP will be looking for somebody new, not a guy pushing 70 who everybody is sick of already. I think the drop-out-and-reinvent tactic should have been employed by obese slob Christie, who could have declined to run, improved his standing and his state's finances, leave office on a high note in Jan 2018, and then have a good 2 years to raise Wall St bucks and set up a national operation before the primaries while the other candidates (presumably Walker gives it another go, maybe Cruz as well) still have a job to do.

I think for the older guys (Bush, Kasich, Carson, Perry if anybody cares) this is their last go around.
Click to expand...

Guys like Carson and Huckleberry are going to run for as long as there are lucrative gigs on FNC to parachute into.

Speaking of... I wonder if Sister Sarah wishes she'd run? She pretty obviously won't survive another 4 years of ever-deepening obscurity. This was her chance to level up her herpa-derp Q score and shake another few million from the rube tree. It's a genuine surprise she didn't bite. Too lazy, I guess.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

joecct said:
Rampart. Squad 51. We have an emergency!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/31/america-youre-watching-beginning-end-republican-party.html
Click to expand...

I sorta agree with the guy (:eek:) in that there's too many hucksters making too much money telling people what they want to hear. Luntz, Rove, that unskewed polls guy, etc. The GOP needs to get back to basic, unvanished, take no prisoners conservatism and stop pretending to be moderate. Trump as Prez nominee, Paul Ryan House Speaker, Ted Cruz Senate Leader.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rover said:
I sorta agree with the guy (:eek:) in that there's too many hucksters making too much money telling people what they want to hear. Luntz, Rove, that unskewed polls guy, etc. The GOP needs to get back to basic, unvanished, take no prisoners conservatism and stop pretending to be moderate. Trump as Prez nominee, Paul Ryan House Speaker, Ted Cruz Senate Leader.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem: those three guys have zero in common. Trump, insofar that he's got a functioning political philosophy at all, is an Archie Bunker 1965 Democrat (1985 Republican). Ryan is an early 20th century Coolidge. Ted Cruz is a theocratic gargoyle -- a Latter Day John Ashcroft / Pat Robertson loon.

There is no way to bring those 3 philosophies together -- they're all mutually exclusive -- you can only yoke them together with something stronger. The corporate con of Reagan-Bush Republicanism has so far been the one ring to rule them all, but Erickson and you are suggesting they throw off that shackle. But it's all that's keeping them from cannibalizing each other.

The suckiest thing about the elites is sometimes the elites are right, and the GOP Beltway elites are absolutely right that if you jettison the Wall Street rolling paper and the K Street handjobs, there will be nothing on the right but a hundred little subfactions all sniping at one another.

I mean, by all means, be my guest. It only helps the good guys. But I still can't believe that the couple hundred people who actually run things are ever going to let that happen.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

You know what the worst ****ing part of this is? If he actually ran, the stupid fkwits of this country would vote for him.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
This time for sure.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to tell them that they arent making things better for their side and ultimately will make people turn on them for spite. Then, sooner or later, the camera gets turned around and the hypocrisy destroys you.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Handyman said:
Someone needs to tell them that they arent making things better for their side and ultimately will make people turn on them for spite. Then, sooner or later, the camera gets turned around and the hypocrisy destroys you.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine they affect anybody. The 29%ers love them because hur they showed that beatch hur. The rest of us laugh at them. They have no capacity to change minds. But nor do they care: they're getting well paid to do their schtick. For that matter, the Hate Machine makes more money when the Dems are in office, so they actually have a perverse incentive to lose.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rubio Mad Libs on the evergreen Republican threat: if you vote Democratic WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIEEEEEEEEEE!
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Bad news for Rover... :p

Tempered though by this:

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that Sanders, the candidate most committed to reducing the wealth gap that has traditionally hurt blacks, also polls so badly among blacks. Bernie's message still seems to be fairly restricted to wealthier, more highly educated whites. This is the Liberal Paradox that goes all the way back to (at least) 1848: the people we want to help the most won't vote for us. It's been true across so many cultures and time periods that it indicates something really interesting that no sociological or political science theory has ever come to grips with, beyond relatively facile theories of ideological structures that are designed to pen in those with the least so they don't upset the system.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
Bad news for Rover... :p

Tempered though by this:



It's interesting that Sanders, the candidate most committed to reducing the wealth gap that has traditionally hurt blacks, also polls so badly among blacks. Bernie's message still seems to be fairly restricted to wealthier, more highly educated whites. This is the Liberal Paradox that goes all the way back to (at least) 1848: the people we want to help the most won't vote for us. It's been true across so many cultures and time periods that it indicates something really interesting that no sociological or political science theory has ever come to grips with, beyond relatively facile theories of ideological structures that are designed to pen in those with the least so they don't upset the system.
Click to expand...

Not surprising. Sanders has a potentially good platform. But Sanders has not been 'surging' because of his platform, but rather Clinton questions.

Blacks don't get the nuance of and don't connect with Sanders. They typically vote connection or as a back up, establishment. Frankly, I'm betting the same from the Hispanics. I'd be totally shocked if that changes. And as only 39% of whites voted for Obama in 2012... Sanders has reached the zenith of his fame (he brings nothing as VP).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
I can't imagine they affect anybody. The 29%ers love them because hur they showed that beatch hur. The rest of us laugh at them. They have no capacity to change minds. But nor do they care: they're getting well paid to do their schtick. For that matter, the Hate Machine makes more money when the Dems are in office, so they actually have a perverse incentive to lose.
Click to expand...

That is not true, it is groups like that that feed the idea the GOP has that they need to find scandals around every corner.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
This time for sure.
Click to expand...

Normally I'd say Congressional Hearings will begin tomorrow, but the last time the GOP set up an investigation of campaign financing (which Fred Thompson chaired) they ended up looking as bad as the people they were after, especially when Thompson called then RNC chair Haley Barbour on the carpet to testify (something that would NEVER happen today with current dimwits running Senate).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

5mn_Major said:
Not surprising. Sanders has a potentially good platform. But Sanders has not been 'surging' because of his platform, but rather Clinton questions.

Blacks don't get the nuance of and don't connect with Sanders. They typically vote connection or as a back up, establishment. Frankly, I'm betting the same from the Hispanics. I'd be totally shocked if that changes. And as only 39% of whites voted for Obama in 2012... Sanders has reached the zenith of his fame (he brings nothing as VP).
Click to expand...

Not even that. PPP still has her up +35% over Sanders nationally. The issue is in these states they're polling people who are really into the race 6 months out. That's going to overrepresent Sanders support on the left, and people like Ben Carson on the right. In the electorate that will end up showing most people have heard of Trump, Bush, Clinton, already. The rest really need to build up name recognition before people actually start voting. Living in a border state of Vermont, I can tell you Sanders was never in the news much previously, unlike an Elizabeth Warren for example or even a total idiot like LePage in Maine! The point being, I'm not sure he's gotten his name out enough previously amongst the general electorate, or even the wider primary electorate.

Correct about Sanders and minorities. Fairly or not he's getting tagged as a limosine liberal on these issues (I'm not sure where he's been in the past although I imagine he's typically with the Dems. Doesn't help that there's about 5 blacks in VT on any given day! ;))
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top