Post Midterm elections and the general political consequences

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Romney is running again??!?!?

Romney will never run again. He took his last best shot and lost.

We can only hope

**Ouze**

Yeah, really. I can't imagine Republicans would want Romney running, and enduring another long season of "Anyone-But-Romney" polling arcs and plummets.

**Frazzled**

If they run him (not in the primaries anyone should be able to compete in that who's in that party) they deserve what they get.

**whembly**

If you wanna know a potential candidate that the "other side" is afraid of... look no further than this:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118145/scott-walkers-toxic-racial-politics?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=TNR%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=TNR%20Daily%20Zephyr%20with%20LiveIntent%20-%20June%2016%2C%202014

Dang... this article is meant to nip any Walker candidacy in the bud, and to assure that he won't even try to enter the race. Nevermind that despite the combined opposition of the AFL-CIO, the Occupy movement, and the entire media there...

Things are heating up ya'll...

Here's the Post's "anti-Christie of Walker:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-the-anti-christie/2013/11/25/2a5b35b6-55d6-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

**Easy E**

After he broke the unions in Wis, I thought the next step would be the Presidency for Walker.

Is this going to be 2010 all over again for the Dems or what? It looks that way. You would think they would be going like crazy to motivate their base, but so far i see nothing. Are they crazy, lazy, out of money, or just waiting until the challengers are set?

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
After he broke the unions in Wis, I thought the next step would be the Presidency for Walker.

Is this going to be 2010 all over again for the Dems or what? It looks that way. You would think they would be going like crazy to motivate their base, but so far i see nothing. Are they crazy, lazy, out of money, or just waiting until the challengers are set?

Probably waiting to see if HRC explodes... *shrug*

I still think she'd win handily over any Republican candidate.

All I'd want is the next President to have been Governor.

What do ya'll think of Bill Richardson? Obviously, he's left of me policy wise... but, objectively I think he'd be a good Prez.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Easy E wrote:
After he broke the unions in Wis, I thought the next step would be the Presidency for Walker.

Is this going to be 2010 all over again for the Dems or what? It looks that way. You would think they would be going like crazy to motivate their base, but so far i see nothing. Are they crazy, lazy, out of money, or just waiting until the challengers are set?

Probably waiting to see if HRC explodes... *shrug*

I still think she'd win handily over any Republican candidate.

All I'd want is the next President to have been Governor.

What do ya'll think of Bill Richardson? Obviously, he's left of me policy wise... but, objectively I think he'd be a good Prez.

Well, to be fair whembly, Regan is left of you policy wise

.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Easy E wrote:
After he broke the unions in Wis, I thought the next step would be the Presidency for Walker.

Is this going to be 2010 all over again for the Dems or what? It looks that way. You would think they would be going like crazy to motivate their base, but so far i see nothing. Are they crazy, lazy, out of money, or just waiting until the challengers are set?

Probably waiting to see if HRC explodes... *shrug*

I still think she'd win handily over any Republican candidate.

All I'd want is the next President to have been Governor.

What do ya'll think of Bill Richardson? Obviously, he's left of me policy wise... but, objectively I think he'd be a good Prez.

Well, to be fair whembly, Regan is left of you policy wise .

Ooooooooooo... I walked right into that one... eh?

**sebster**

Easy E wrote:
I used to believe this too. Then Obama v Romney happened.

The interesting thing about the effect of the economy on politics is that all that matters is what the economy is doing right now, not what it did over the course of your time in office. So it actually works okay to have a poo economy early in your term, as the rebound by the time re-election comes around works for you (or at least in 2012 the modest recovery didn't work as too much of a headwind).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Yeah, really. I can't imagine Republicans would want Romney running, and enduring another long season of "Anyone-But-Romney" polling arcs and plummets.

The anyone but Romney thing relies on there being no-one other than Romney who is actually any good. So if the field is full of Texas governors stoned on painkillers, old battle-axes who were well past their use by date in the mid-90s, and whatever the hell Herman Cain was, then people end up having to pick Romney as the only sensible choice, even if no-one actually likes him.

But if there's actually anyone that people like, then Romney won't get a look in, and nor will any of the other oddballs.

**whembly**

What about Bill Richardson? Scott Walker?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
What about Bill Richardson? Scott Walker?

Why not Zoidberg?

But seriously: Walker will run into serious problems due to his support for Badgercare, and Richardson couldn't even manage to secure a cabinet position under the Obama Administration*.

In terms of getting through the Primaries, my money would be on Paul Ryan; should he choose to run. But in the Generals his positions on social issues will dog him. I think Jindal has a better chance at winning the Presidency, but a significantly worse chance of being able to stand for that election.

*I also suspect that he won't run simply because he doesn't want the pay-to-play scandal to crop up again.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
What about Bill Richardson? Scott Walker?

It's 2014. These guys are just setting up their infrastructure, testing the waters of what money they can attract, which is often not very predictable. Then we've got the primary, which is another whole thing entirely. Some people look great in a legislative setting, some people look great in the limits of their own state politics, and then go debte on a national level and it all just turns to gak. I called Perry as the candidate in 2012 before the primary, and then Perry happened.

I'm not going to guess this far out.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:
What about Bill Richardson? Scott Walker?

Why not Zoidberg?

He does have a certain "Politician Look™".

Spoiler:

But seriously: Walker will run into serious problems due to his support for Badgercare, and Richardson couldn't even manage to secure a cabinet position under the Obama Administration*.

In terms of getting through the Primaries, my money would be on Paul Ryan; should he choose to run. But in the Generals his positions on social issues will dog him. I think Jindal has a better chance at winning the Presidency, but a significantly worse chance of being able to stand for that election.

*I also suspect that he won't run simply because he doesn't want the pay-to-play scandal to crop up again.

Ugh... I think Paul Ryan is too palinized at this point.

I'm intrigued about Jindal... but, I'm not convinced that he has the gravitas to pull in the northern votes.

See? It's HRC all the way.

**Co'tor Shas**

I would support Zoidberg for president

.

I actually just started looking at the house race in my district. It is currently held by Chris Gibson, non-reactionary republican, and the race is going to be close. He didn't win by all that much last time, and was running against a weak candidate. I'm actually hoping we can get a third party candidate to run and win, I have had enough of both the Rs and the Ds, they focus too much on attacking each-other instead of helping us (their constituents).

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Ugh... I think Paul Ryan is too palinized at this point.

The difference is that Palin was, and is, an idiot while Ryan is not.

**Ouze**

I have a co-worker, whom, after the Republican National Convention and Mrs. Palin's speech, loudly proclaimed that picking her was a brilliant choice and McCain was a lock for the presidency.

He later claimed to have never said any such thing despite there being several witnesses to the original statement.

**sebster**

dogma wrote:
The difference is that Palin was, and is, an idiot while Ryan is not.

Palin may be an idiot, but more than that she's a scammer. There's no money in actually running, just like there was no money is finishing her term as governor, and so she went for the easy dollars.

Ryan is also a scammer, putting out junk budgets and papers to give a thin veneer to the credibility of his politics, but only doing so by straight up lying about the sources for his work. Whether he thinks his scam is good enough to survive a presidential bid... well I'm not convinced, and I wonder if Ryan is smart enough to avoid the gamble.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
dogma wrote:
The difference is that Palin was, and is, an idiot while Ryan is not.

Palin may be an idiot, but more than that she's a scammer. There's no money in actually running, just like there was no money is finishing her term as governor, and so she went for the easy dollars.

Ryan is also a scammer, putting out junk budgets and papers to give a thin veneer to the credibility of his politics, but only doing so by straight up lying about the sources for his work. Whether he thinks his scam is good enough to survive a presidential bid... well I'm not convinced, and I wonder if Ryan is smart enough to avoid the gamble.

Ryan ain't running... no way José.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:

Whether he thinks his scam is good enough to survive a presidential bid... well I'm not convinced, and I wonder if Ryan is smart enough to avoid the gamble.

Oh, he probably wouldn't survive the General, even if he did win the Primary. He's too polarizing, and you're right, he is a scammer.

But he is a much better (smarter) scammer than Palin, and even a Presidential loss would increase his credibility in the American Right; and therefore galvanize his supporters within his native Wisconsin district.

**whembly**

If not HRC... then who's the Democrat nominee?
5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run

Hillary Clinton's minions are hard at work assembling a political machine and fine tuning it for another go at the White House. Mrs. Clinton is doing her part preparing for a run as well, churning out a bland memoir about the "hard choices" she faced as secretary of state and coyly positioning herself (again) as the inevitable nominee of the party. But after the troubled beginning to her book tour, we're beginning to see the reasons why Hillary may eventually decide to pull the plug on a 2016 presidential run. Here are five:

1) She's just not that good at campaigning. If the last two gaffe-prone weeks have reminded us of anything about Hillary, it’s that she’s a mediocre politician at best. Her shortcomings are significant: she can be stiff and wooden in public; she lacks the aura of a natural politician; she’s not a great public speaker, and she can come across as politically flat-footed and tone deaf -- as she did with her “dead broke” response to a rather benign question about relating to the financial challenges of the average voter. People still seem to believe that the Clinton name is synonymous with political skill, but that assumption is only half-true: If Hillary possessed even half of Bill’s political talent and acumen, she wouldn’t have lost to Barack Obama in 2008.

2) The “fire in the belly”question. Certainly, Mrs. Clinton shares her husband’s seemingly limitless ambition. It’s been the driving force behind their existence as individuals and as a couple for more than four decades. But I’m with Mike McCurry on this one: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be 67 years old on October 26. Does she really want to spend her golden years working 16 hours a day shaking hands at high school gyms in Dubuque, Iowa, and rubbing elbows at diners in Manchester, New Hampshire? Especially when she can burnish her legacy with meaningful work through the Clinton Global Foundation -- while making millions a year at $200,000 a pop for 45-minute speeches -- and spend time with her soon-to-be born grandchild.

3) It ain’t gonna be a coronation. HRC must have been taken aback last week when two members of the traveling sisterhood – Diane Sawyer of ABC News and Terry Gross of NPR – actually pressed her with uncomfortable questions about Benghazi and gay marriage, respectively. Hillary didn’t respond well in either situation, and the ensuing coverage was instructive. If she can’t count on favorable press coverage during the choreographed rollout of a self-reverential memoir, what does that tell us about how she’d do in debates against a determined opponent? And does Clinton really want to face the scrutiny, not to mention the slings and arrows, that come with any campaign?

4) Obama is leaving a mess. President Obama’s second term is complicating matters significantly for Hillary. His foreign policy, which Clinton helped direct for four years – is adrift. The situation has unraveled dangerously in Syria and now Iraq. The infamous “reset” with Russia is a joke. Obama’s job approval rating is on the slide, and not only on foreign policy. He’s struggling to stay relevant in Washington or to move any sort of domestic agenda forward, which will be made even more difficult if Republicans take the Senate in November. It’s hard to see how any of these dynamics change for the better in the next two years -- and they may get worse. Hillary will not want to be seen as running for Obama’s third term, yet she won’t be able to distance herself too far from his record. That will be a tough needle to thread politically (see point #1).

5) The country wants real change. America was mesmerized by Obama’s call for change in 2008. It was one of the narratives that propelled him over Hillary in the first place. Eight years later, Obama has failed to deliver much of what he promised on uniting the country and changing business as usual in Washington. As a result an even stronger populist, anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fervor is coursing through the electorate. That does not bode well for Hillary Clinton, who embodies the elite establishment -- and the past. If the famed Clinton political acumen still exists in that family, Hillary will figure this out and take a pass on 2016.

**Easy E**

How did we start talking about the President during the Mid-terms?

How is the R and D brands holding up this election season? That's the real question.

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
How did we start talking about the President during the Mid-terms?

Why not?

How is the R and D brands holding up this election season? That's the real question.

Not well for both sides.

EDIT: saw this on my twittah feed...

New @TexasGOP platform includes a striking shift on the Patriot Act from 2012. New language on top. pic.twitter.com/deqdSM5fid
— Aman Batheja (@amanbatheja) June 18, 2014

Evidently, the Texas GOP wants to repeal the Patriot Act. (or more likely, let it expire next year).

**Co'tor Shas**

The PATRIOT act should not have been passed in the first place, and I still am irritated at Obama for renewing it. It is complete and whole-sale violation of our right to privacy. I don't think it has stopped a single attempted terrorist attack. It also may give the NSA a 'reason' for it's spying.

**Ouze**

You know, that mini article Whembly posted has a lot of good points.Being President in 2014 is actually sort of a lousy job, cachet wise, and it's an uncertain upgrade if you're already Hillary Clinton.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
You know, that mini article Whembly posted has a lot of good points.Being President in 2014 is actually sort of a lousy job, cachet wise, and it's an uncertain upgrade if you're already Hillary Clinton.

I dunno... I'm still convinced she wants to run.

She freaking when onto Fox News last night (I haven't seen it). But, by all accounts, she did "okay".***

***By okay, she didn't "Akinized" herself.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
If not HRC... then who's the Democrat nominee?

Amy Klobuchar or Andrew Cuomo, maybe Deval Patrick. People have also mentioned Martin O'Malley who has openly stated he's going to run.

As an aside, because I was curious as to whether or not Hillary's age would be a factor (it will be), it turns out the longest lived President is Gerald Ford and his birth name was "Leslie Lynch King".

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:
If not HRC... then who's the Democrat nominee?

Amy Klobuchar or Andrew Cuomo, maybe Deval Patrick. People have also mentioned Martin O'Malley who has openly stated he's going to run.

Martin O'Malley or Cuomo would be interesting.

I don't know enough of Amy Klobuchar... I need to do some some research.

Deval Patrick will probably be too polarizing as he's from Chicago.

<---oops, wrong Patrick. Deval is current Gov .Massachusetts.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Deval Patrick will probably be too polarizing as he's from Chicago. <---oops, wrong Patrick. Deval is current Gov .Massachusetts.

But he was born, and partially grew up on, the South Side of Chicago.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Deval Patrick will probably be too polarizing as he's from Chicago. <---oops, wrong Patrick. Deval is current Gov .Massachusetts.

But he was born, and partially grew up on, the South Side of Chicago.

I was right for the wrong reason...

I'd have to read up deval too...

**Easy E**

Amy Klobuchar is the Senator from Minnesota. She specializes in not being a bomb thrower and staying just on the radar.

Full Disclosure: Senator Klobuchar has purchased stuff from my bakery and had it sent to Washington DC. She sent us a nice picture with our stuff, news blurb, and helped us get it put into our local paper. When her office called, we thought it was a prank.