Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > Off Topic
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

View Poll Results: Who will be elected President in 2016?
Hillary Clinton 18 45.00%
Chris Christie 2 5.00%
Marco Rubio 2 5.00%
Rand Paul 6 15.00%
Jeb Bush 1 2.50%
Elizabeth Warren 4 10.00%
Mitt Romney 0 0%
Paul Ryan 0 0%
Joe Biden 0 0%
Scott Walker 0 0%
Ted Cruz 1 2.50%
Andrew Cuomo 1 2.50%
Condoleezza Rice 0 0%
John Kerry 0 0%
Michael Bloomberg 0 0%
Bobby Jindal 0 0%
Kirsten Gillibrand 1 2.50%
Tim Kaine 0 0%
Deval Patrick 0 0%
Mike Huckabee 0 0%
Martin O'Malley 0 0%
Rick Santorum 0 0%
Jim Webb 1 2.50%
Susana Matinez 0 0%
Rob Portman 0 0%
Other (please specify) 3 7.50%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-04-2014, 03:51 PM   #51
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
Or, perhaps because the Senate races that have come up are being held in areas that are traditionally red?

If the 2012 election was only in the states voting for Senate today, Romney would have won - Vox

Not saying the Dems have governed very well since 2012, but let's get real here. And acknowledge that the Senate map in 2016 is as advantageous to Dems as this years is to Reps.

The advantage is more connected to the vulnerable Democratic-held seats being last elected in Obama's first presidential election, but anyone thinking a Republican gain today is part of some "wave" is going to be disappointed. Their combined net gain from this House election and 2012 is going to be right around zero.

Politics is very stuck right now. And that's reflected by the quality of the candidates above. Anyone who has integrity has long since concluded that the path toward major public office is paved with stuff they can't stomach.

Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2014, 04:06 PM   #52
JPhillips
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
If Hillary drops out either Jim Webb or Andrew Cuomo are the favorites, not Elizabeth Warren.

And they say the Dems are radical Marxists.

and fuck Cuomo.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2014, 09:11 PM   #53
kcchief19
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
Do you think Clinton would have been in the top 3, or top 5 of Dems if betting lines existed in 1990? I'm not talking total left-field. But it seems like Dems do best in presidential elections if they seem new to the masses.
Probably top 5, and probably everybody's sleeper pick. He was going to run in 1988 but backed out the day before the announcement. He was Obama 2004, delivering the keynote in 1988 and Dukakis' best surrogate on the stump.

In 1990 before the Gulf War broke out, Gore and Cuomo would have been the front runners. There were still Jesse Jackson fans. Bill Bradley, Doug Wilder and Lloyd Bentsen were also in the mix.

I just went searching for any polls that might be online from 1990. I didn't find one, but I did find this NY Times article from Dec. 1990 talking about how no Democrats were running yet. Cuomo was the headliner, then Gore, Bentsen, Sam Nunn and Dick Gephardt. Clinton was in the "other names" mix along with Jackson, Wilder, Bradley and Bob Kerrey.

The question to me is will anyone try to seriously challenge Hillary if she runs? If Obama didn't run, it was a Hillary coronation in 2008. Edwards didn't have a chance, and Biden and Chris Dodd didn't have what it takes. Would Elizabeth Warren run in Hillary runs? I doubt it.
kcchief19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2014, 11:03 AM   #54
BishopMVP
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Concord, MA/UMass
Alright, so on the R side a Christie/Walker are the clear favorites with Kasich as a darkhorse. Is there any precedent for one of the new R governors (Baker-MA, Rauner-IL, Hogan-MD) to enter the race, or is 2 years just too small a timeframe to accomplish anything?
BishopMVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2014, 12:06 PM   #55
flere-imsaho
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
I think the main thing stopping the 2-year guys from getting in will be the larger number of 4+ year guys (Walker's an example) who will be flooding the field.
flere-imsaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 01:41 PM   #56
DanGarion
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
We all know Obama is going to get a 3rd term.
__________________
Los Angeles Dodgers
Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit!
DON'T REPORT ME BRO!
DanGarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 01:58 PM   #57
Coffee Warlord
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Colorado Springs
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP View Post
Alright, so on the R side a Christie/Walker are the clear favorites with Kasich as a darkhorse. Is there any precedent for one of the new R governors (Baker-MA, Rauner-IL, Hogan-MD) to enter the race, or is 2 years just too small a timeframe to accomplish anything?

Consider Obama's meteoric rise to power. Nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

Though, to be brutally honest, if Obama was white, he would not be president right now. I don't think the Repubs have a comparable potlical newbie with both charisma and a unique set of circumstances.

Last edited by Coffee Warlord : 11-06-2014 at 02:02 PM.
Coffee Warlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 01:59 PM   #58
larrymcg421
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP View Post
Alright, so on the R side a Christie/Walker are the clear favorites with Kasich as a darkhorse. Is there any precedent for one of the new R governors (Baker-MA, Rauner-IL, Hogan-MD) to enter the race, or is 2 years just too small a timeframe to accomplish anything?

Well, no, because the governors wouldn't have two years. They'd be running almost immediately after taking office, which I don't think would go over very well.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added)

Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner
Fictional Character Draft Winner
Television Family Draft Winner
Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner
larrymcg421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 02:10 PM   #59
Kodos
Resident Alien
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Worked okay for Sarah Palin.
__________________
Author of The Bill Gates Challenge, as well as other groundbreaking dynasties.
Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 02:11 PM   #60
Coffee Warlord
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Colorado Springs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodos View Post
Worked okay for Sarah Palin.

Speak not of her, less she appear.
Coffee Warlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 02:46 PM   #61
JPhillips
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord View Post
Though, to be brutally honest, if Obama was white, he would not be president right now. I don't think the Repubs have a comparable potlical newbie with both charisma and a unique set of circumstances.

I wouldn't say that with any confidence. People forget how important the Iraq War vote was in the primary. Clinton never had a good answer for that and the Dems were leery of her support. In the general the Dem was always going to have a significant advantage after the Bush years and studies have shown that the increased minority vote was largely offset by a loss of white voters.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 02:51 PM   #62
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord View Post
Speak not of her, less she appear.

I still think McCain naming Palin as VP candidate was the most cynical, desperate move in the recent history of presidential campaigning.

It almost worked. But it unraveled so quickly and so thoroughly that it will remain an object lesson for politicians for a long time.

The Republicans have learned, though it took some time for the lesson to sink in. That's another story of 2014. In 2012, they had major candidate quality issues (the rape guy in Missouri, the crazy lady in Delaware) that cost them dearly. In 2014, they pretty much had a candidate "boot-camp" where they coached and vetted.

That's cynical in a very different way. These days, politicians are chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to legislate (or compromise).
Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 02:52 PM   #63
Coffee Warlord
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Colorado Springs
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
I wouldn't say that with any confidence. People forget how important the Iraq War vote was in the primary. Clinton never had a good answer for that and the Dems were leery of her support. In the general the Dem was always going to have a significant advantage after the Bush years and studies have shown that the increased minority vote was largely offset by a loss of white voters.

I actually would argue that Clinton would have taken the primary over him. The Dems were pretty much guaranteed to take it over the Reps, given the state of affairs. The push Obama got was out of the blue and in many ways, unprecedented. I just don't think it would have happened were he not a minority, and I don't think he would have taken down Clinton, no matter how much baggage she has/had.
Coffee Warlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 03:03 PM   #64
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
It was interesting, too, how Obama gained the nomination. Clinton was holding her own in the primaries, and even had a solid lead in overall popular vote.

But both parties have "superdelegates," a large group of current and former party members, who have votes at the convention. In reality, primaries are only illusions. The real control is in the massing of superdelegates.

Many of them had committed to Clinton early, but the party sensed that the media was very much behind Obama. They also sensed that Obama could reach young voters that Clinton couldn't. So party leaders put a lot of pressure on the superdelegates to pledge to Obama.

The result of those pledge switches was to change the math so that Clinton was out of it early enough not to create tension at the convention.

They offered Clinton a lot to go along with this, because if she had fought all the way through the convention, it would have damaged Obama's campaign considerably. What they offered was a career path designed to get her in the same position in 2016.

The question now, however, is whether she can regain the momentum she had eight years ago. If she can, it's her turn. And the Democrats have the advantage of her husband, who is absolutely the best campaigner they've had in recent memory. The downside is that she doesn't motivate young people the way a fresh candidate might.

Last edited by Solecismic : 11-06-2014 at 03:04 PM.
Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 03:26 PM   #65
digamma
Torchbearer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
Jim,
The superdelegate story you are telling about the 2008 race isn't quite right. Obama amassed a ton of regular pledged delegates throughout the primary and caucus process. He didn't pass Clinton in superdelegate commitments until May of 2008 when most primaries and caucuses were over and he had a substantial delegate lead.

The superdelegates began switching at that point realizing the optics of a pledged delegate winner being defeated overall by superdelegate votes wasn't a great narrative for the convention.

Obama was better at overall "delegate math." His team focused on caucus states and states where they could win big and amass big delegate totals.

The drop out scenario with Clinton getting whatever deal she could was more a fait accompli.
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 04:08 PM   #66
JPhillips
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord View Post
I actually would argue that Clinton would have taken the primary over him. The Dems were pretty much guaranteed to take it over the Reps, given the state of affairs. The push Obama got was out of the blue and in many ways, unprecedented. I just don't think it would have happened were he not a minority, and I don't think he would have taken down Clinton, no matter how much baggage she has/had.

Clinton could have won, but she ran a lousy campaign. All I'm saying is that the idea that Obama only won because he's African-American leaves a lot out.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 04:09 PM   #67
JPhillips
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma View Post
Jim,
The superdelegate story you are telling about the 2008 race isn't quite right. Obama amassed a ton of regular pledged delegates throughout the primary and caucus process. He didn't pass Clinton in superdelegate commitments until May of 2008 when most primaries and caucuses were over and he had a substantial delegate lead.

The superdelegates began switching at that point realizing the optics of a pledged delegate winner being defeated overall by superdelegate votes wasn't a great narrative for the convention.

Obama was better at overall "delegate math." His team focused on caucus states and states where they could win big and amass big delegate totals.

The drop out scenario with Clinton getting whatever deal she could was more a fait accompli.

This. Clinton and her campaign team played a lousy game and got beat.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 04:10 PM   #68
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
It was considerably more difficult. If Clinton had fought, she would have argued that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated (Obama withdrew from Michigan entirely, Clinton didn't). And it wasn't until near the end of May that the math on state delegates without Florida/Michigan was in Obama's favor.

Whatever happened, it was close enough that the superdelegates would or could have decided the race if Clinton hadn't dropped out. On June 2, the superdelegate total was about even. Obama received about 150 pledges in the next four days, including about 50 who had previously pledged to Clinton.

Until then, the convention would have been all about Florida and Michigan, both sides having arguments for inclusion or non-inclusion. The deal was made that first week of June, and Hillary dropped out on June 8.

Because the winner of the pledged total would have been different, based on Florida/Michigan, and because, especially in Michigan, that would have been difficult to resolve to everyone's satisfaction, there was huge incentive to work this out with Clinton.

It was definitely in the DNC's interest to resolve this before the convention. And in order to do that, one of the two had to drop out. It made no sense for Obama to make that sacrifice - he was the rising star, and to make the math work the DNC would have had to reverse its decision on Florida and Michigan and argue that Obama shouldn't have listened to their recommendation and gone to Michigan anyway.

So the Democrats did the right thing. But Clinton's sacrifice was not a small one. And she understandably wants every advantage possible in 2016.
Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 04:44 PM   #69
ISiddiqui
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
I think the Hillary had a lousy campaign is overselling it. Remember she has the record for most votes in a primary, and aside from Obama, its quite a gap to #2. Obama just beat her in the game. Any other candidate and 17mil+ primary voters easily takes it (Bill got a bit more than 10mil in 1992 for comparison).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 04:59 PM   #70
Buccaneer
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
The goal was/is to win the all-or-nothing states, which was more important than winning those states by a lot. Obama probably could've gotten an extra mllion votes in IL if that meant anything (same thing Bush said about the number of popular votes in TX).
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 05:05 PM   #71
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
The 2008 primaries had a huge turnout, particularly among young voters. I guess that was because people were excited to end the Bush era, the nomination was contested for a while, and Obama was drawing people to the polls that didn't usually vote (young people and minorities).

Election 2008: Primary Turnout Story: Presidential Races Miss Record High According to American University's Curtis Gans

Maybe people would have been just as excited about Clinton if it was just a coronation for her, being the first women nominee and president would have been a huge deal too. But I just don't buy her inspiring people and getting them to the polls the way Obama did.

Last edited by molson : 11-06-2014 at 05:06 PM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 05:17 PM   #72
JPhillips
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
I think the Hillary had a lousy campaign is overselling it. Remember she has the record for most votes in a primary, and aside from Obama, its quite a gap to #2. Obama just beat her in the game. Any other candidate and 17mil+ primary voters easily takes it (Bill got a bit more than 10mil in 1992 for comparison).

I'll admit I'm biased because I think Marc Penn is a human bad luck totem, but Hillary did really screw up by not paying enough attention to Iowa. Her third place finish there took the inevitability off her run. Then in NH and NV she won the vote, but came in second in delegates due to Obama's better planning.

She did better as the campaign went on, but they were flat-footed at the beginning and that ended up making all the difference in perception and momentum.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 05:42 PM   #73
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
Maybe people would have been just as excited about Clinton if it was just a coronation for her, being the first women nominee and president would have been a huge deal too. But I just don't buy her inspiring people and getting them to the polls the way Obama did.

I think that's the story for the DNC - they couldn't ignore the media, and, just as important, the excitement from a group that never showed any prior interest in the process in the past.

Hillary's strategy early on was to stake a lot on New Hampshire, which takes time to develop, just like Iowa. It's hard to do both properly. Most focus on New Hampshire the previous summer and fall and then Iowa hard going into the caucuses. But the dates keep moving back and candidates run out of time. They have to choose one these states or do both badly and hope for the best.

Her husband won the "Comeback Kid" nickname for finishing a distant third in Iowa, then following up with a close second in New Hampshire. I'm sure she felt New Hampshire was more important.

I thought she ran a decent campaign, but Obama was a phenomenon, and the DNC had to act rather than giving the impression that rules changes and a mass of superdelegates mattered more than the votes. A divided convention would have done a lot of damage.
Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 05:44 PM   #74
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
I'll admit I'm biased because I think Marc Penn is a human bad luck totem, but Hillary did really screw up by not paying enough attention to Iowa. Her third place finish there took the inevitability off her run. Then in NH and NV she won the vote, but came in second in delegates due to Obama's better planning.

She did better as the campaign went on, but they were flat-footed at the beginning and that ended up making all the difference in perception and momentum.

Tiny note - they both won 9 delegates in NH because of voting percentages (39-36), but John Edwards later pledged his 4 to Obama. NH is not about delegate totals - what was critical there was simply winning.
Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 06:00 PM   #75
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
I am in SUCH a stupid discussion/argument on Facebook.

Somebody tell me if I'm off here. Looking at the math state by state, results of Obama/McCain vs Obama/Romney, given how the vote totals broke & how the electoral math went, there is pretty much NO way that any "Christians stayed at home and wouldn't vote for Romney" effect could have come close to changing the outcome ... right?

Closest I could come was 8 states where Romney < McCain vote totals.
Of those 8, none would have changed hands if McCain's totals held up, only one (Ohio) would have changed if Romney managed to poll "McCain + 10%".
And Ohio's 18 electorals don't change the outcome of the whole.

Whatever I think of Romney as a candidate, I see no reason to believe that "Christians staying away" (which was the FB post contention) was a major factor in the outcome.

Somebody got a different take?

edit to add: Hopefully no one objects to a 2008/2012 question in the 2016 thread. In my mind, if I'm totally off-base in my figuring, then it could have relevance on a 2016 nominee so I allowed myself to pose this sidebar here.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

Last edited by JonInMiddleGA : 11-06-2014 at 06:02 PM.
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 06:36 PM   #76
cuervo72
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
Didn't keep the ones I know away.
__________________
null
cuervo72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2014, 08:08 PM   #77
SFL Cat
College Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
I am in SUCH a stupid discussion/argument on Facebook.

Whatever I think of Romney as a candidate, I see no reason to believe that "Christians staying away" (which was the FB post contention) was a major factor in the outcome.

Somebody got a different take?


Overstated, I believe. I know a lot who did vote for Romney. That said, I'm sure there were some conservative evangelicals who probably withheld their votes because of his Mormonism.
SFL Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2014, 07:05 PM   #78
NobodyHere
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Well Ben Carson is officially running. He may be good for a gaffe or two in the primary debates.
__________________
"I am God's prophet, and I need an attorney"
NobodyHere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 02:44 AM   #79
SackAttack
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
Whatever I think of Romney as a candidate, I see no reason to believe that "Christians staying away" (which was the FB post contention) was a major factor in the outcome.

You have to remember, Jon. The sort of Christians who apply faith to politics are the sort of Christians who simultaneously believe that this is such a Christian nation that the Christian God belongs in all spheres of public life (to the point that anything 'bad' that happens is the result of not toeing that line), and that Christians are the most persecuted, oppressed demographic group in American life.

That's a level of cognitive dissonance that's not worth arguing with.
SackAttack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 06:18 AM   #80
flere-imsaho
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic View Post
I still think McCain naming Palin as VP candidate was the most cynical, desperate move in the recent history of presidential campaigning.

It almost worked. But it unraveled so quickly and so thoroughly that it will remain an object lesson for politicians for a long time.

"I don't often agree with Jim, but when I do...."

Quote:
The Republicans have learned, though it took some time for the lesson to sink in. That's another story of 2014. In 2012, they had major candidate quality issues (the rape guy in Missouri, the crazy lady in Delaware) that cost them dearly. In 2014, they pretty much had a candidate "boot-camp" where they coached and vetted.

This, arguably, is now a lesson Democrats must learn. As I noted in one of these threads previously, we Democrats have a predilection for running wonks, activists, or "third way" acolytes who run very scared campaigns. Of course, the problem is that the party is so decentralized (compared to the GOP) that so such similar "vetting" is likely to go on.

Quote:
That's cynical in a very different way. These days, politicians are chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to legislate (or compromise).

I don't disagree, but would add that since the point in time where fundraising became really important (say mid-1990s), the best candidates have been the ones who most approximately resemble salesmen/women.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic View Post
So the Democrats did the right thing. But Clinton's sacrifice was not a small one. And she understandably wants every advantage possible in 2016.

I remember it the way digamma & JPhillips did. But I agree with your conclusion. Clinton could have fought it for longer, and the superdelegates could have added to the mess. The fact that she and they didn't, and an agreement was reached, displays a level of tactical nous we haven't seen since from the Democrats. I really hope it comes back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
Somebody got a different take?

Nope. Good luck!
flere-imsaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 09:49 AM   #81
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SackAttack View Post
You have to remember, Jon. The sort of Christians who apply faith to politics are the sort of Christians who simultaneously believe that this is such a Christian nation that the Christian God belongs in all spheres of public life (to the point that anything 'bad' that happens is the result of not toeing that line), and that Christians are the most persecuted, oppressed demographic group in American life.

That's a level of cognitive dissonance that's not worth arguing with.

Well that's -- sort of -- how I ended up digging into the numbers on this ... especially since I resemble at least some of the aspects you describe.

The statement came from one of the more, I dunno, "mainstream" Christians I know. The kind that will have a third glass of wine, crack an innuendo laden joke, more apt to quote BBC News than LunaticFringe.comnetinfo .

Instead, she's gung ho on this theory (aka utter fiction) & I'm the one looking at the math going "ummmm ... no".

It was just one part stupid & one part weird.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2014, 01:28 PM   #82
kcchief19
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic View Post
It was considerably more difficult. If Clinton had fought, she would have argued that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated (Obama withdrew from Michigan entirely, Clinton didn't). And it wasn't until near the end of May that the math on state delegates without Florida/Michigan was in Obama's favor.

Whatever happened, it was close enough that the superdelegates would or could have decided the race if Clinton hadn't dropped out. On June 2, the superdelegate total was about even. Obama received about 150 pledges in the next four days, including about 50 who had previously pledged to Clinton.

Until then, the convention would have been all about Florida and Michigan, both sides having arguments for inclusion or non-inclusion. The deal was made that first week of June, and Hillary dropped out on June 8.

Because the winner of the pledged total would have been different, based on Florida/Michigan, and because, especially in Michigan, that would have been difficult to resolve to everyone's satisfaction, there was huge incentive to work this out with Clinton.

It was definitely in the DNC's interest to resolve this before the convention. And in order to do that, one of the two had to drop out. It made no sense for Obama to make that sacrifice - he was the rising star, and to make the math work the DNC would have had to reverse its decision on Florida and Michigan and argue that Obama shouldn't have listened to their recommendation and gone to Michigan anyway.
The Democrats created super delegates to make sure they never had a contested convention again. In the event that no candidate has a majority of pledged delegates, the super delegates would then essentially decide the nomination.

Clinton's final critical mistake was assuming that super delegates pledged to her would support her even if she ha fewer pledged delegates than Obama. The pressure was tremendous on super delegates not to overturn the will of the pledged delegates. Even if the Michigan and Florida delegations had been fully restored, Clinton still would have trailed in pledged delegates.

Clinton had two choices: push the super delegates hard to give her the nomination and possibly weaken Obama and the party to the point that they lose in 2008, or be the "gracious loser" and keep the door open for the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic View Post
So the Democrats did the right thing. But Clinton's sacrifice was not a small one. And she understandably wants every advantage possible in 2016.
The Clintons have been piling up the IOUs over the last eight years. Bill was tremendously valuable to Obama's re-elect, campaigning in key states in 2012. Hillary has done the same thing, raising money for candidates and campaigning in key places during the midterms. The Clintons were smart, they knew a Democratic butt-kicking was coming during the midterms and didn't stake their reputations on the outcome.

I think the only challengers to Clinton will be people with no place to go (Biden) and people who want to be VP (could see a few governors throwing their hat in the ring).
kcchief19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 PM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.