Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/08/sneaky-move-scott-walker-wisconsin-gop-workers-weekends.html

Sounds like a person who i want as president(Hint, he is likely to get the nomination)

He won't win. So I welcome his run America might not be fond of Unions, but being radically anti-Labor generally doesn't win the moderate vote necessary to win a national campaign. So go ahead. hand the Dems another four years and gamble the Hill in an election seasons where the other side will actually show up

Demographics do not favor the GOP over the coming decades anyway.

He is just the most recent face of white nostalgia trying to cling to a mythical past.

MB

Folks in Wisconsin were guaranteed a day off every seven? That was really a law?

 LordofHats wrote:
He won't win. So I welcome his run America might not be fond of Unions, but being radically anti-Labor generally doesn't win the moderate vote necessary to win a national campaign. So go ahead. hand the Dems another four years and gamble the Hill in an election seasons where the other side will actually show up

It will be one of these three combos:
Walker/Rubio
Walker/Haley
Rubio/Haley

Hillary will lose. No one really wants another Clinton/Bush.

BeAfraid wrote:
Demographics do not favor the GOP over the coming decades anyway.

He is just the most recent face of white nostalgia trying to cling to a mythical past.

MB

You must of missed the '10 and '14 elections.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
He won't win. So I welcome his run America might not be fond of Unions, but being radically anti-Labor generally doesn't win the moderate vote necessary to win a national campaign. So go ahead. hand the Dems another four years and gamble the Hill in an election seasons where the other side will actually show up

It will be one of these three combos:
Walker/Rubio
Walker/Haley
Rubio/Haley

^I really like these combos.

Hillary will lose. No one really wants another Clinton/Bush.

I doubt that... people talk about this now... but, once the nominees are selected, the anti-Clinton/Bush sentiment would fade away imo.

Clinton is running behind major Republican candidates now per CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/politics/hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-jeb-bush-polls/index.html

 Frazzled wrote:
Walker/Rubio

Rubio would have been in a presidential race by now if he were electable at the national level (which he isn't).

Walker/Haley

Walker is a best case scenario for the Dems. He will be demolished in a Presidential race. He's too easy to attack and criticize, andmany of his ideas on top of being just plain bad ideas, are going to drive moderates to the left. The GOP can go ahead and run Walker at their own peril but honestly I don't see him getting the nomination. Hayden is okay in my book, but he'll never win a primary race. If he could have he would have in 2012.

Honestly the only two guys on the field at this time worth considering (in a realist sense) are Jeb Bush and Rand Paul. And like walker, Paul might win the primary but he'll never win a national election. The damn shame is that I really like Jeb Bush. I think he's the kind of candidate the GOP really needs to resell itself to the less crazy side of America, and to get it's own collective head out of it's collective bum. Except he'll never get the nomination, and even if he did, I see him going to way of Romney back in 2012.

Hillary will lose. No one really wants another Clinton/Bush.

Might want to recheck poles. There's a reason everyone talks about Hillary like she's a juggernaut, even if the case is overstated. Clinton was and still is popular president (a total douche, but a popular president), and Hillary has managed to carve a name for herself as a capable politico. I don't think she's unbeatable. I think that there's a profound lack of sellable Republicans on the field, which makes Hillary, even as the less than stellar candidate, look really strong right now.

'10 and '14 elections

It's been pointed out over and over that lame duck Congressional election's don't mean much, especially not when a Dem is sitting in the white house making it easy for the GOP to drum up the base (even in the following two years are politically meaningless).

Lots of legitimate critiques have been made about GOP strategy, and the weakening of the Grand ol Party in national politics. Younger Americans are increasingly swinging to the left on social policy which is in itself enough to sabotage a lot of Republican candidates who stick to anti-Abortion, anti-Gay, anti-Immigrant rhetoric, which is most Republicans. Most also have to constantly contend with how easy it is to paint their party as Religiously crazy and racist, which these days is too easy. Even those who go into a national election without much word on the subjects inevitable get dragged in by their opponents (and not just Dems but other Republicans too, see 2008 and 2012 GOP primaries for examples) and beaten over the head with it. The GOP can dodge the repercussions for years to come in Congressional and State elections because they just redrew the lines across the country, but in a Presidential race those issues alone are rapidly becoming auto-loses for Republican candidates.

 LordofHats wrote:
The GOP can dodge the repercussions for years to come in Congressional and State elections because they just redrew the lines across the country, but in a Presidential race those issues alone are rapidly becoming auto-loses for Republican candidates.

Pretty much. Which is why so many socially liberal/socially ambivalent conservatives feel like there is, literally, no good candidate for them to back.

Well, the party is torn (something that I think became very apparent in 2012). There's the moderate Republicans, who would back people like Romney and Jeb Bush, but they have the problem that the candidates they'd like to vote for don't win the Republican primaries most of the time. Even when they do, they walk out of the primary savaged by the other side, the more extreme end of the part of people like Rand Paul and Walker. Then as a real kick to the nuts, the unhappy side of the party doesn't show up in November.

Look at the field right now, and it's honestly looking like 2012 is about to happen all over again. The candidates are rushing to announce their candidacy and start vying for position. We're over a year out and there's already what? A dozen of them! And we'll probably see a few more come up in coming months. 2016 is going to be another brutal Republican primary season and the two sides of the GOP have shown no restraint in tearing one another apart in primary season the last two elections.


The reason Clinton gets so much attention is that the Clintons have this knack for pulling in the moderates. They've always been contentious figures within their own party, who view them as not being liberal enough (contrary to Republican views of them) but I think the Clintons have realized that being unpopular with Democrats is never going to matter in a full election. Dems will never vote for the kind of candidates walking out of the Republican primaries most elections, and the Clintons soak up moderates like Bounty (the Quicker picker upper!).

Appealing to moderates at the scale Bill did is not happening with Hilary. And frankly even if she could, if she cannot get her base to surge out and vote she has no chance if the Rs run anyone competent. She may pull in similar percentages of minority voters who vote that Obama did, but it will be percentages of a much lower turn out.

Calling her a juggernaut and inevitable is silly. She was perceived that way in 2008 as well. And that was before all the baggage being Secretary of State heaped on her.

 CptJake wrote:
And frankly even if she could, if she cannot get her base to surge out and vote she has no chance if the Rs run anyone competent.

That's my point though. Looking over the current spectrum, there is no one competent. No one who will actually make it to November anyway. The Republicans are looking like they're going to run a resident nut job in 2016 to me, and that in itself will get the Democratic base to surge out and vote. The Dems don't even need a candidate who can do it in a Walker or Paul scenario. Those two will draw everyone out in themselves because their so vehemently unlikable to the left side of the field.

Also consider; Right now all the attention is on the Republican primary because its where all the current action is, but that in itself also benefits whatever Dem ends up on the ballot. Come summer 2016, the Republicans will have been at this for a full year, while the Dems will be rolling in at a later start. That saves money. It avoids the scrutiny of the press and voting public by putting it off till later, and it leaves the media with nothing to harp on about but the Republican candidates.

Calling her a juggernaut and inevitable is silly.

I think she's looked on that way for very good reasons (but I already stated my thoughts that this is an overstatement). And while I agree that it's overstated, at the same time, I'm reminded that people just seem to keep forgetting over and over again that the Clinton's have a marvelous track record as campaigners. They're really good at it. Unless a dark horse (No pun intended) shows up again this year, Hillary is at this time safe to call the presmumptive nominee and if she walks out of the primary without the savage beating that it looks like the Republicans are prepared to lay down on each other... I just think people are letting the hyperbole of how she is perceived deceive. Hillary will not be a weak candidate to beat. She will be very strong, and if the Republicans throw up Walker of all people, they're really handing her a campaign that is hers to lose.

Except of course, she is now polling lower than the primary Republican candidates, and Bernie Sanders - the freaking avowed socialist- is pulling more small contributions then she is-indicating real support.

She's having trouble beating a socialist in her own primary.

 cincydooley wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The GOP can dodge the repercussions for years to come in Congressional and State elections because they just redrew the lines across the country, but in a Presidential race those issues alone are rapidly becoming auto-loses for Republican candidates.

Pretty much. Which is why so many socially liberal/socially ambivalent conservatives feel like there is, literally, no good candidate for them to back.

Huntsman, wife and I agreed at the time that Huntsman would have made the best middle ground man, smart bloke, we agreed that we wouldn't flee in terror to Canada if he was elected. Obama was so low on the ratings that you could have put anyone reasonable up there and seen him taken down.

Then we watched the primaries and Huntsman was knocked out so fast he span out the door, leaving the freak show and the beige rich guy who won by avoiding being much of a target for all the freaks who were too busy telling each other they were God's choice to lead the nation.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
[... all the freaks who were too busy telling each other they were God's choice to lead the nation.

Hey now. God only told Bachman, Santorum, Perry, et al to run; He never said anything about them winning.

Pretty mean of God, if you think about it. But, lulzy, as He often is.

Ouze wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
[... all the freaks who were too busy telling each other they were God's choice to lead the nation.

Hey now. God only told Bachman, Santorum, Perry, et al to run; He never said anything about them winning.

Pretty mean of God, if you think about it. But, lulzy, as He often is.

Wait how do you read the Bible and not get that the Big G loves practical jokes? This one is right up there with making a killing machine in the TRex and then giving him my daughter's arms. Come on man now THATS funny.

I actually very much liked Romney as a candidate for a lot of reasons, and I think had he been THE candidate in 2016 vs. Hillary, he'd have had a much better chance to win. I like the notion of a proven businessman running and winning the office, which is part of what I find intriguing about Carly Fiorina (though some of her stances on social issues are far too extreme to be a realistic candidate).

I agree with many of Paul's libertarian views, but I'm just uncomfortable with his stances on the two hot button social issues, abortion and gay-marriage.

I think, and this is pure speculation, that he actually agrees with Romney and follows a traditional libertarian platform that you shouldn't legislate against any of it, but that's not a line you can sell to non-moderate conservatives. Which is really the problem.

I think that on either extreme you're not going to move the needle too much on how they're going to vote.

The presidency really shouldn't go to an 'accomplished' businessman. There is a real difference between government and business. For a good businesman, employees are expendable. For a good president, citizens are not expendable.

 cincydooley wrote:
I like the notion of a proven businessman running and winning the office, which is part of what I find intriguing about Carly Fiorina (though some of her stances on social issues are far too extreme to be a realistic candidate).

That feeling when someone uses "accomplished businessman' and "Carly Fiorina" in the same sentence.

I mean, you're literally giving her credence as a candidate based upon a record of being one of the worst CEOs of all time.

Politically, she was John McCain's economic advisor, and stated - on the air - that John McCain wasn't qualified to run a major corporation.

Truly, the elite in this country thrive in a world free of consequence.

I will say this, Walker knows how to rev up his base and in modern politics that is ALL that matters. Don't bother appealing to moderates too much, because they are 5% of the population or less who are truly undecided. The others all lean one clear way or the other.

Therefore, the key to winning modern elections is to get more of your base to polls than the other guy. You do that by giving them red meat and lots of it! Walker does this very well.

Do not count him out. He has won two close elections and a recall attempt. He knows the political business.

Edit: just to be clear, I am not a fan. However, there is no denying his political skills.

Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I like the notion of a proven businessman running and winning the office, which is part of what I find intriguing about Carly Fiorina (though some of her stances on social issues are far too extreme to be a realistic candidate).

That feeling when someone uses "accomplished businessman' and "Carly Fiorina" in the same sentence.

I mean, you're literally giving her credence as a candidate based upon a record of being one of the worst CEOs of all time.

Politically, she was John McCain's economic advisor, and stated - on the air - that John McCain wasn't qualified to run a major corporation.

Truly, the elite in this country thrive in a world free of consequence.

She was quite well regarded until the Compaq merger, which was of course disastrous at the time, but has actually been lauded by quite a few people for the long-term benefits it granted to HP.

Her execution was lacking in that instance. Not her vision.

I have to wonder what does being a successful business person have to do with running the country? The government is not a business, and should not be run as one.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have to wonder what does being a successful business person have to do with running the country? The government is not a business, and should not be run as one.

They are successful at running something? They are successful at managing large groups of people.
The President is the Chief Executive. Although they seem to have forgotten for generations, but their job is to efficiently run the government and implement congressional action.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have to wonder what does being a successful business person have to do with running the country? The government is not a business, and should not be run as one.

There are more similarities than differences.

1) You gotta balance the budget.

2) You have to be able to manage a large and diverse group of people, all of whom have their own opinions and needs. Often conflicting needs.

3) You have to maintain relationships with other entities, many of whom are likely enemies.

4) Problem solving.


The difference is in government you usually have less authority to make these changes. In business you can be a draconic overlord and micromanage. In government, you have very limited power outside your station.

Hillary isn't the one who's going to go on to the national election.

It's Sanders. We haven't seen a populist candidate like this since Obama's first run, and Sanders is pulling numbers that should make anyone running against him anywhere nervous.

Even in Red states he's getting 10, 20 thousand people to show up at rallies. That's a very big deal.

ETA: Grey Templar nicely outlines how and why business and government mesh so nicely because, yeah, they are very, very similar in a lot of ways. Not in quite the same ways that Trump seems to think, but similar enough.

I worked in WI. Actually I lived there for a bit at Ft McCoy
My mother worked there at Saputo Cheese Factory
Sister works in WI

That rule was never followed. A day of rest in seven eh. To give a written request allowing them to work seven days straight. Riigghhhtttttt

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have to wonder what does being a successful business person have to do with running the country? The government is not a business, and should not be run as one.

There are more similarities than differences.

1) You gotta balance the budget.

Not actually a requirement of the president.

And ignoring the big diffeelrence...Businesses are supposed to make the most short-term profit at the expense of doing a good job. This means screwing over their workers. Government should not work that way. Businesses turn people into expendable numbers.

Plus there is a general concensus of what a business should be doing. This is not really true of governments.

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have to wonder what does being a successful business person have to do with running the country? The government is not a business, and should not be run as one.

There are more similarities than differences.

1) You gotta balance the budget.

Not actually a requirement of the president.

And ignoring the big diffeelrence...Businesses are supposed to make the most short-term profit at the expense of doing a good job. This means screwing over their workers. Government should not work that way. Businesses turn people into expendable numbers.

Plus there is a general concensus of what a business should be doing. This is not really true of governments.

Sure, thats what bad businesses do. A good business never just looks at short term profits. Those that do tend to not stick around very long.

Also, screwing your workers is never profitable.

 skyth wrote:

And ignoring the big diffeelrence...Businesses are supposed to make the most short-term profit at the expense of doing a good job. This means screwing over their workers. Government should not work that way. Businesses turn people into expendable numbers.

Plus there is a general concensus of what a business should be doing. This is not really true of governments.

What a load of gak. GOOD businesses and CEOs set up their companies for long term success and competitiveness, as should a GOOD president do for the country. Bad one (CEOs and presidents) may be looking short term (for the Pres the next election cycle). A successful business making money =/= 'screwing over their workers' in most cases. And there are plenty of big companies (and small) with divided boards of directors without a clear consensus of what path the company should take (in regards to risk, investment, personnel policies and so on, VERY similar to the types of things the Pres ought to be looking at).

I think we're more incline/familiar/experienced/lived by/die by/ingrained to Short Term to Long Term Goals there Jake. Quite a few do not think of that off the bat