So whether or not you think she did something wrong, has this scandal more or less cost Hilary any chance of becoming president? I would think if the story went away this very second that there is still a long enough time until the actual presidential election, but obviously it's not going away anytime soon.
Originally posted by Surtur
So whether or not you think she did something wrong, has this scandal more or less cost Hilary any chance of becoming president? I would think if the story went away this very second that there is still a long enough time until the actual presidential election, but obviously it's not going away anytime soon.
I don't think so, yet. It may still.
Talking about other potential candidates, here's a really interesting interview with Larry Lessig (pretty famous free and open source software advocate) who has started a crowd-funding campaign to become what he calls a "Referendum President" (or single-issue president). In essence he argues that if he gets the vote campaigning with just one single issue, he would have such an overwhelming mandate, that it would have to be passed (the issue he chose is campaign finance reform). He would then step aside and have his vice-president take his place. He would attempt to run as a Democrat. It's definitely a fascinating concept, and a unique idea how to fight the influence of money in politics (another is the idea of going through an amendment convention of the states, like The Young Turks "Wolf PAC" and other organisations plan, he also briefly talks about that). At any rate, it's very interesting (even if Jason Calacanis can be insufferable).
Rick Perry's campaign is undead. That is to say, the campaign itself is out of money, it is reliant entirely on superPAC money at this point.
And Trump poaches a key campaign member off of him
So with that, I think we can likely call Perry out, at Trump's hand. He's not technically lowest in the polls, but combined with no money it's not like there's much chance of a rebound.
---
Bardock- it's an interesting concept, but I don't see it working, it's reliant on a single issue so overwhelming it'll overcome the appeal of a wider slate. Almost everyone has multiple things they care about, and if some rival agrees with him on his one issue, he's pretty badly outflanked.
Originally posted by Surtur
So whether or not you think she did something wrong, has this scandal more or less cost Hilary any chance of becoming president? I would think if the story went away this very second that there is still a long enough time until the actual presidential election, but obviously it's not going away anytime soon.
Almost certainly not. One thing I want to note, the betting odds posted earlier? The betting places literally didn't adjust them in response to the scandal.
Basically they'd already figured in that she'd have a scandal that'd hit her during the campaign, and that she'd likely weather it.
Also her numbers are still through the roof in polling against Sanders, and still have a lead against the Republican rivals even after the scandal struck hard.
This is Hillary Clinton, "Attached to a scandal that the Republicans think will kill her but gets overplayed to the point of losing effectiveness as an attack," is, like, half her career.
This isn't a major criminal matter, there's not even much appearance of intent to break the rules rather than a mistake in procedure.
The only way this'll sink her is if it inspires a major Democrat rival like Biden to step in, no guarantee of a loss even if that happens, and that still seems unlikely.
Oh, Gallup did polling of candidates popularity among hispanics:
Jeb even beats Rubio, impressive!
And for the distinguished opposition:
Also, in a truly bizarre move, when Jeb wanted to defend his 'anchor baby' comment to the hispanic community... He said he was talking about Asians, not Hispanics.
Which... just annoyed a different group. So, Jeb's the focus of this post I guess. Relative popularity on one, but only by pointing xenophobia at another.
Here's an interesting article- Kasich may be a big threat to Bush
While Trump's obviously the big name foe, Kasich is positioning himself to swoop in and take the moderate-Republican voters from Jeb, and trying to re-take those could threaten Bush's cred with the farther right side of the part.
Or to put it in other words, Bush may be in a tough spot because, as the establishment candidate at the middle, there's people poised to steal support from almost any side.
Originally posted by red g jacks
yea cuz if there's anything the republican candidate needs to secure its the Hispanic vote...
Yes? I mean, they're big enough to swing stuff towards or away from someone, you don't need all of 'em but it definitely helps to have a good proportion, and they are a swing demographic who unlike some are actually in play.
Hispanic Americans are a notable demographic in Florida and Colorado, two of the major swing states. They also put Obama over the top in North Carolina and Indiana in '08.
GWB got a reasonable chunk of their support, and won, and if he'd been less popular with them- like, even a little less popular- he'd have lost Florida and never been elected.
Can one win without them? Sure (and some analysts noted Romney would've lost even if he had their support), but it's a notable help.
Here's an analytical breakdown from back in '08, based on those results and looking at the increased difficulty of winning without the hispanic vote.
i mean that's a fair point but i dunno.. i'm sort of skeptical of the left's assertion that the republicans need to start appealing to latinos more by changing their immigration policies to come closer to reflecting the democrat's.. because first of all a lot of the populist support for right wing guys like cruz and trump comes directly from the fact that they are willing to go hard on immigration. thats a sentiment that is very popular among conservative americans.
on top of that... there is the narrative that the democrats changed immigration laws in the 60's to rapidly change the demographics of the country and bring in more poor nonwhite voters who will invariably vote democrat. so the republican party is at a point where if they are going to act to reverse that demographic trend, they're better off doing it now and they better damn well do it in an efficient manner, because the political will for that sort of thing is going to continue to dwindle the longer we maintain the current rate of immigration from latin america.
you might say they can just as easily win these demographics... but i'm not sure that's true, given their current political base and the the need to continue to appeal to their nationalist sentiments.
i understand its a touchy issue and all that... not trying to sound xenophobic, in fact i have inlaws that could be affected by this sort of thing. but that's just the pragmatic reality so far as i see it,
Originally posted by red g jacks
i mean that's a fair point but i dunno.. i'm sort of skeptical of the left's assertion that the republicans need to start appealing to latinos more by changing their immigration policies to come closer to reflecting the democrat's.. because first of all a lot of the populist support for right wing guys like cruz and trump comes directly from the fact that they are willing to go hard on immigration. thats a sentiment that is very popular among conservative americans.
It's popular among conservative Americans, but less so the general electorate, and it's even fairly mixed among Republicans. That is to say, I think a Republican candidate going for path to citizenship, while unpopular with some parts of the party, would go over well with enough others to counteract it.
Furthermore, due to the fact that a lot of hispanics are religious, there's been a strong argument that they'd be a natural growth demographic with the GOP, to counter the Democrat's gains in black voters and lgbt voters. As they're a young demographic, they'd also help balance the youth vote.
on top of that... there is the narrative that the democrats changed immigration laws in the 60's to rapidly change the demographics of the country and bring in more poor nonwhite voters who will invariably vote democrat.
Yeeea, I don't really buy into that, immigration was fueled by other factors, and wouldn't an act to steal the vote out from under them to the Democratic side undermine that anyway?
Even if one believes that, wouldn't it be better to turn the tide?
I mean, as a Dem, I'm fine with them being on the Democrat side, but as someone with an interest in the tactics of politics it seems like a wasted opportunity.
Basically, the Republican party buying into that narrative makes the results true whatever the original intent. If they decide not to try for the hispanics or others, they make themselves the white party by their own choice.
so the republican party is at a point where if they are going to act to reverse that demographic trend, they're better off doing it now and they better damn well do it in an efficient manner, because the political will for that sort of thing is going to continue to dwindle the longer we maintain the current rate of immigration from latin america.
I'll note rate of immigration from Mexico has been declining.
It should be mentioned that the US has always had immigration, and where that comes from is something that changes occasionally. 20-30 years from now, it may be mostly from Africa or the Mid-East or so on.
Latin America isn't doing too badly, so the rates decline with time.
you might say they can just as easily win these demographics... but i'm not sure that's true, given their current political base and the the need to continue to appeal to their nationalist sentiments.
It'd be hard now, but two presidents ago we had a Republican getting 40% support. 40% support does not say hopeless to me!
This is something that'd take effort over a few elections I think, first to get back to that point and then to push on from there, but as a long term plan is a potential avenue of attack.
i understand its a touchy issue and all that... not trying to sound xenophobic, in fact i have inlaws that could be affected by this sort of thing. but that's just the pragmatic reality so far as i see it,
From a political/election standpoint, I view it as a short term vs long term thing.
Short term it can be used to rally certain parts of the populace to turn out really hard and support, but long term it loses the support of a larger demographic that really is within reach.
(From a personal standpoint, I disagree with the anti-immigrant stance, but that's a different matter than how effective it is)
One thing I find interesting about the current polls, is Carson and Bush bounce back and forth between who's in second pretty much every poll- the results seemingly dependent on which firm does it.
Still, Bush retains a pretty good position at the head of the non-Trump pack.
And Five Thirty Eight does a discussion on Biden, and how a lot of the reasons people are saying he may run are bolloks, though a Biden run isn't out of the question and basically relies on his call based on insider party information we lack. If the insider party is really worried about the e-mail thing, then he may step in, but if they're not, he's got little reason to and he's not the type to step in just on personal ambition. And right now, we just don't know the insider perspective.
But a Biden run, despite what some people are foolishly speculating, certainly wouldn't help Hillary.
Do you just care about the one candidate per side and not everything else?
If so, feel free to just ignore 'em, not everyone will feel the same and I can discuss the wider situation with them 🙂 Red g Jacks is pretty fun to talk with.
Personally I feel this primary is much more entertaining than just the top candidates, as entertaining as the top candidates are.
An article on Jeb Bush's problem with speeches, and how he keeps saying stuff and taking it back. Comparing it to his brother, who made speech flubs that were funny but didn't involve him having to do the backpeddle chorus of Jeb- and often Jeb's don't really seem to be speech flubs so much as saying things then retracting them because he realizes they're tactical errors.
Also, a poll of Iowa caucus goers and how much they are or aren't satisfied with various things, broken down by party:
Interesting how while the dems are ok with the dems in congress, the Republicans are highly unsatisfied with their own congressional people.
And unsurprisingly, the Dems like Hillary more than the Republicans like Trump, though the Republicans are still fairly strongly in favor of Trump.
Oh, and this is bizarre.
You know how some talk a wall between the US and Mexico?
Scott Walker wants one between us and Canada
I... use to think he was a bit more reasonable than that.
Also I wonder what Canadian-born Cruz thinks of that.