a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

honestly I can't see someone with this weak a chin getting into the White House (important commentary, I know):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/scott-walker-promising-bold-leadership-faces-gop-discord-in-wisconsin.html?_r=0

i am physically repulsed by his limp jaw, it's true

he's a less cute version of Vincent Kartheiser/Pete Campbell

plus slightly crosseyed

it's amazing what a hot show can do; Kartheiser is reptilian.

I was about to say that Ted Cruz has even less of a chin than Walker, but then I GISed and huh, I guess his isn't bad. Why do I always think of him as chinless?

His droopy eyes make him look like a cartoon nebbish, and a weak chin goes along with that type.

"he ran for student council on an anti-abortion platform in college (he also promised to bring INXS and REM to campus)"

did he succeed? if not then how can we possibly trust him to run our country?

otm

Black metal-style logos for 2016 Presidential candidates (both teams)

https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/status/613745877639802881

first response hall of fame

^ what was the first response? can't comprehend order of tweets due to awful new embedding/nesting system

"who isn't?"

so glad he's in, it's been a slow couple of days on the GOP-prez-candidate-announcement trail

welcome bobby!

I’m running for President of the United States of America. Join me: http://www.bobbyjindal.com/announcement/

join you bobby ok i will run for president too

gt it was this:

https://twitter.com/Treeee15/status/613746259812294656

you're right, twitter's new threading interface is just loathesome

idk if I can vote for you Marcos, how do you look in an oversized suit

welcome bobby digital

Tre` Lain ‏@Treeee15 1h1 hour ago
@BobbyJindal Are u fucking serious? I'm starting to think u might be on drugs . U just can't be this stupid

Jeb has seemed like a total moron so far, but Walker and Cruz are very weird looking. Real horse race I think.

I tuned into NPR the other afternoon for the first time in months and they were running not one but two completely content-free puff pieces on Rubio.

Like if I was running against him I'd just do a voiceover of whatever my message is over a repeating loop of him sipping off that water bottle for every ad.

jeb at one point seemed to have the invisible primary locked up but now ppl seem to be hedging, rubio seems like the only other conceivable establishment candidate, walkers too much of a true believer

Cruz surrogate Chumley (!) weighs in:

Another of Cruz's campaign co-chairs in the Palmetto State, state Rep. Bill Chumley (R), voted against opening debate on the flag. Chumley also told CNN on Tuesday night that he believed it more urgent to debate the fact that no one present at the massacre of nine black Charleston churchgoers was armed.

"We need to be focusing on the nine families that are left and see that this doesn’t happen again," Chumley said in the CNN interview. "These people sat in there, and waited their turn to be shot. That’s sad. But somebody in there with the means of self defense could have stopped this. And we’d have had less funerals than we’re having."

strikes the right tone

"people seem to be hedging in re. inevitable candidate" -- 2012 all over again.

these people sat in there, and waited their turn to be shot

GOP state representatives are a really deep bench of total fucking assholes, aren't they?

"people seem to be hedging in re. inevitable candidate" -- 2012 all over again.

― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, June 24, 2015 2:28 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the establishment was fully behind romney the whole time

^^ this

the diff is that in 2016 the establishment and the "Tea Party" and whatever you want to call Tenth Amendment dead enders and secessionists are all the same.

Yeah, all that claim means is that what "the establishment" wants is not by itself that important.

the establishment was fully behind romney the whole time

right, but the narrative was that voters were hedging.

xps don't think that's true. multiple & significant divisions, tensions, internal conflicts on the right

Yeah, all that claim means is that what "the establishment" wants is not by itself that important.

― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:05 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if the establishment doesnt get its candidate through the gop primaries itll be the first time

hard to imagine where that narrative came from:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hnhI6-fxOGU/TwtKuSKLYUI/AAAAAAAAAa4/wlNLDCi8AnA/s1600/poll+collapse.png

The final graph from RCP is more impressive, even - he went under to Gingrich for a second time, and finally to Rick Santorum.

isnt this kind of what the media wants? build em up, tear em down, rinse repeat?

I also subscribe to the conspiracy theory of polling that the media wants to show the race as close as possible at all times. It happed in 2012 here and also happened in the UK a couple months ago.. Media teased closest election evar then turns out they were totally rong.

polling in the usa is much more reliable than in the uk, poll averages/algorithms regularly call 95+% of congressional races correctly, the presidency w/in a point or two etc

the media def tends to over hype each individual poll in order to make races seem more exciting and volatile than they are but if you look at the averages/models it paints a much more realistic picture

The graph posted by Andrew F. is one of my favorite things ever. Mitt had steady, consistent support the whole time; the fluctuations were all from a restless and fickle group of people searching for the right NonRomney to coalesce behind.

Compare that with the current spaghetti:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

...it is no comparison at all. With so many people running, it is inevitable that they'll dilute each other's support, and tiny differences may become magnified in impact. Which may make for some entertaining hijinks, but could also just mean a mass of confusion and boredom.

I am pretty sure that the demographics make a Republican president unlikely. Perhaps the number of candidates indicates the amount of energy and hope on the Republican side. The way they see it, the president is unpopular, and Hillary has Titanic-level baggage. So PERHAPS their energy and hope are justified. But I doubt it.

Like a lot of people, I wish we had better choices on the Democratic side, but that's another story.

In the meantime I am hoping for good popcorn-munching fun. Bring it, GOP!

JE wanted the Romney path (which is p funny in and of itself) but it doesn't look like he's gonna get it

the media def tends to over hype each individual poll

Good grief yes, this morning CBS was telling me Trump's ahead in some poll. Maybe it's worst hair. A head in the hair poll.

I think 2016 looks like it does because of 2012, which looked like it did because of 2008, when the outgoing president's team were rat poison and the incoming "been waiting his time" candidate got beaten like a drum.

The future of the party was all up for grabs in 2012 - and against such a clearly incompetent incumbent, the presidency was within their grasp! But they were all terrible and it went to the Burnsbot, so now, against a candidate that serves as a personal affront to the longer-memoried of them, surely their time has come!

Mr. Jindal’s announcement address, here in the New Orleans suburb of Kenner, comes two days after the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found him sharing the bottom of a list of 16 candidates. In the telephone survey, zero percent of Republican primary voters said Mr. Jindal was their top pick to be the nominee

saw something that one of those polls found one (1) likely voter for bobby

Was it him?

its also possible these graphs illustrate the fact that voters dont know shit about candidates. in 2012 people would get all pumped about 'not-romney' but once they learned who the actual candidates were they tuned out asap.

idk, is he still in the phonebook as piyush?

The RCP 2016 graphs of course (and I'm assuming they're reflecting the underlying polls) start from way out with "has anyone heard of any of these" - the 2012 graphs only start when the candidates actually announced their candidacy.

Which doesn't mean a hell of a lot, it's not like there's some great hope which if they'd only looked 10% more likely to announce the others would have stepped aside - though it's interesting that the early leader, Christie, is only due to announce next week.