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

What if the Democratic field in 2016 is reprising what the Republican field did in 2012? What's the saying - history does not repeat itself but often rhymes?

Plenty of Democrats reject every Republican but are not thrilled about Clinton (understandably). This bloc will search longingly for an unHillary, just as Republicans tried in vain to fall in love with a half-dozen nonRomneys.

Hence a Sanders Surge. possibly to be followed by O'MalleyMentum, and WebbMania. (Wake me if there's a ChaffeeFeenomenon.)

I suspect that those will likely peter out like the Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum surges did. Negative motivation ("dear god, anybody but her/him") can be a fickle and unreliable motivation.

Dem field in 2016 assuming Clinton loses in '12, is that yr scenario here?

I think we can probably call that one.

The answer is obvious: Chelsea is eligible to run in 2016.

Man, that never stops cracking me up as the VHS box cover for some horrible '80s movie that never was.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 July 2015 19:00 (1 hour ago) Permalink

"Dem field in 2016 assuming Clinton loses in '12, is that yr scenario here?"

There must be a joke I am missing.

there are no jokes in this thread, important work is being done here

haha sorry forgot what year it was for a second there

If your time machine has room for passengers, Οὖτις, there are a few things that need fixin'.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/2009_called.png

long enough to keep pulling HRC into progressive-populist territory

Could everyone plz explain what they mean when they resurrect this hoary phrase whenever they use it? Does anyone think this has anything to do with changing policies that will be implemented by her putative Administration? Why would it? If not, who cares? "good goin Hil, you fooled the rubes again!"

sorry for grammar, 3 hrs sleep, sick etc

i think the basic problem is that ppl are going to care more about "pushing HRC to the left" while she's running for president than when she actually becomes president. leaving aside the fact that HRC's politics are probably pretty set-in-stone at this point, we haven't really figured out an effective way to hold politicians accountable once they reach the presidency.

otoh, like doc casino says upthread, someone like sanders actually making any impact at all could well have unforeseeable effects on american politics, making certain issues more ok to bring up, making the electorate less automatically fearful of "socialist" ideas, pushing other candidates to the left. or maybe it won't do anything. but who knows? weirder things have happened.

we haven't really figured out an effective way to hold politicians accountable once they reach the presidency.

in their first term they want to be re-elected to a second term, so they are more susceptible to public pressure/opinion polls etc. in guiding their policies. By the end of a second term they are p much doing whatever the fuck they want/true colors are revealed.

long enough to keep pulling HRC into progressive-populist territory

Could everyone plz explain what they mean when they resurrect this hoary phrase whenever they use it? Does anyone think this has anything to do with changing policies that will be implemented by her putative Administration? Why would it? If not, who cares? "good goin Hil, you fooled the rubes again!"

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Thursday, July 2, 2015 1:51 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My assumption is not so much that a putative HRC Administration would accomplish or even attempt to accomplish any particular element of a socialist or simply Sandersesque agenda. But ideas in campaigns (to the extent any exist) are part of the like background noise that shapes what's possible nationally, on the state level, locally. It's all about gravity. If whoever the Dem front-runner is is being dragged into making policy speeches in favor of stuff like more progressive taxation, higher minimum wages, mass transit infrastructure, sustainable energy, whatever, it lends credence to the idea that the center is further to the left than 1992 or 2008 HRC would've said it is.

“For too long, we Republicans have been content to lose the black vote because we found we didn’t need it to win," he added. "But when we gave up trying to win the support of African-Americans, we lost our moral legitimacy as the party of Lincoln, as the party of equal opportunity for all. It’s time for us once again to reclaim our heritage as the only party in our country founded on the principle of freedom for African-Americans."

Perry's affirmation of the protections of the 14th Amendment did not lead him, however, to reverse his position on voter ID laws that critics say disenfranchise elderly and minority voters. In a Q&A after his speech, Perry said it was important that states "protect that precious right of voting and make sure it is not fraudulently used."

In case there's any public records requests about legislative actions in Wisconsin you wanted to make, you should probably get that done sooner rather than later

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-wisconsin-public-records-20150702-story.html

that is entirely consistent with everything they have done since they came to power in 2010.

Republican Sen. Leah Vukmir, another member of the budget committee, continued walking by reporters without speaking when asked what she thought of the open records changes.

how appropriate.

sorry it's hard for me to respond to stuff like this with anything except a mix of acidity and despair. it's been five years of nonstop assault on democracy and decency, and they've gotten away with everything. the most despicable human beings -- just completely craven, foolish hypocrites -- are in control of this state and there's nothing i can do about it.

Does now seem like legislature may be teeing this up for Walker to veto so as to establish anti-HRC talking point re State Dept. email

^ if so, then it demonstrates a good practical grasp of Machiavellian politics

i don't think the state legislator is that invested in walker's presidential prospects

knowing the GOP in this state i have no doubt that their interest in seeing this passed is entirely sincere

Yeah, on a legislature level, they don't give a shit about helping out any governor. As far as they're concerned, that's just a seat that one of them could fill in the near future.

i don't think the state legislator is that invested in walker's presidential prospects

I disagree -- see e.g. reporting that the governor was directly involved in crafting wording of 20 week no rape exception abortion ban passed by legislature, surely aimed at GOP primary voters. Not saying there aren't lots of legislators who sincerely support this, but they wouldn't be pushing it now if not for SW's campaign needs.

but someone was arguing that legislators were crafting this piece /specifically/ so that walker could /veto/ it (not support it). that seems like a level of chessboxing i'm not convinced the state legislature is capable of playing.

by "this piece" i mean the provision in the budget that basically does away with open-records laws and prevents people from having a look at what legislators are up to outside of the chamber.

walker has everything to gain btw from that passing

"The answer is obvious: Chelsea is eligible to run in 2016."

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Chelsea-Clinton.jpg

When Bill was her age, he had already lost his first re-election campaign for governor.

Sad to see this sf shooting be used as an excuse for trump to double-down on his racist bullshit

As soon as I saw who the cops picked up the first thing I thought was oh shit here we go again, while everyone pretends that the gun is the infinitely more trivial of the two issues.

My thoughts exactly

http://www.jsonline.com/news/scott-walker-calls-for-open-records-overhaul-to-be-completely-removed-or-changed-b99532073z1-311638151.html

yeah he does

Republican sources have said that at least some lawmakers were told by backers of the motion before the vote that Walker's office had given an assurance that the governor would not veto the public records provision

so basically they thought they could sneak this by without an uproar

Looking like that. But they've built in a decent number of layers of deniability.

have they done ANYTHING without trying to sneak it in one way or another

sneaking in a pro-sneaking initiative is just piling it on

The proposed changes come as Walker is being sued for refusing to release such records related to his proposal to alter the University of Wisconsin System's mission statement to eliminate the Wisconsin Idea. The Wisconsin Idea says the system is committed to improving people's lives in all corners of the state.

Walker backed off on rewriting the Wisconsin Idea after the issue came to light.

LOL

The conjunction of 'Scott Walker' and records mad me think of the wrong one. That's really starting to get annoying.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJPagnVUAAAgkwU.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJKWuAjWwAAGKPZ.jpg

thread delivers

hipsters in checkered shirt

pool of blood under the "I" is a nice touch

i know that town btw they have an outlet mall

hey, maybe he just really likes beghazi as a tourist destination

https://igcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/11137768_1423987927916577_901126524_n.jpg

hell yea badas

Liefeld still can't draw feet I see

https://berniesanders.com/news/live-portland-maine/

Bern just said we are living under an oligarchy; it's like he's been lurking!