Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Even though Perry would probably make a bad general election candidate, I honestly am not 100% certain about this. Objectively speaking, there are a couple of reasons why Perry could actually be the GOP candidate (aside from Hunstman, who has no chance of getting the nomination) with the highest likelihood of defeating Obama:

*Perry has the whole "I'm responsible for the good economy in Texas" narrative going for him. Now, of course, the Democrats are strongly questioning just how "good" the economy in Texas is (and just how much of Texas' economic fortune was Perry's doing); however, no matter how aggressively the Democrats attack Perry on this matter, it is unlikely that it will change the perception that Texas' economy is much better than the country's economy as a whole.

*The fact that Perry wears his religion on his sleeve is actually a positive (and not a negative) with many voters in the heartland. For whatever reason, voters in the South and much of the Midwest can really "relate" whenever a candidate for president does this. (Being open about faith really helped Carter, Clinton, and Bush in their presidential campaigns.)

*Obama cannot paint Perry as a phony, elitist flip-flopper (which is how he would run against Romney).

*While Perry's past stupid behavior (like wanting Texas to secede and praying that the economy gets better) may be quite damaging, I strongly doubt that swing voters will care about those things to the extent they care about the terrible economy. Really, the major flaw that Perry has in a general election is that he is governor of Texas; this will allow Obama and the Democrats to try and paint Perry as a clone of Bush (just like Bush and the Republicans painted John Kerry as a Massachusetts liberal in the mold of Michael Dukakis).

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=7XR3WG1B6WZ67PTZ&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

This is pretty funny, but sad in a way. It must be frustrating to be Ron Paul at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There has been a lot of looking into Texas' miracle. From everything I have read, private sector jobs are down but government jobs are way up. And while it is true Texas has fared better than most everywhere else, a lot of that stems from their unique oil economy. So while the rest of the world suffers with $100/barrel oil, for Texas this is manna from heaven and boosts their economy. That's fair I guess, but that is not something any Governor has control over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just saw one of the strangest interviews ever on television: the interview Piers Morgan conducted with Christine O'Donnell. When Morgan started to ask O'Donnell questions about her position on gay marriage, O'Donnell got very testy, refused to reply, and called Morgan rude. O'Donnell then ended the interview.

Regardless of one's political viewpoint, I think we can all agree that viewing a political train-wreck "live" feels totally different than (getting your first experience of that event by) watching clips of it on television. The only other train-wreck that I watched "live" was Howard Dean's infamous "I Have a Scream" speech, which he made after finishing a distant third place in the 2004 Iowa Democratic Caucus.

I honestly don't know why O'Donnell was so defensive about the questions regarding gay marriage. It's not like her views of the topic are unknown, or that her supporters would leave her if she stated her true feelings about the subject.

One more thing about O'Donnell is that Democrats should be ever grateful for her existence, because if she didn't run for the Senate in 2010, the GOP would have nominated liberal Republican Representative Mike Castle (a popular former governor) instead, who in turn would have easily won the general election. (The Democrats were so convinced that Castle was a shoo-in for the seat that even Beau Biden decided not to run for the Senate.)

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am surprised Christine didn't put a spell on Piers. I had meant to watch that interview, sorry I missed it. I agree with Carl though, why is she getting press now? Seems odd. Did she write a book or something?

Edited by Adam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The entrance of Perry into the race is really devastating to Bachmann. The major reason why her campaing first caught on like wildfire is that social conservatives and Tea Partiers despised Romney, and previously had nobody else to turn to. Since Perry is perfectly acceptable to the conservative wing of the GOP, many Bachmann supporters will now abandon ship because they know she would get crushed a general election. (If Perry never entered the race, many on the far-right still would have supported Bachmann--despite knowing she is unelectable--just because they hate Romney so much.)

Barring some sort of miracle that would make Huntsman's poll numbers rise above 1%, it can be assumed that the Republican nominee will be either Perry or Romney. (Personally, I predict Perry will be the nominee.) Despite the crappy economy and Obama's ever sinking approval rating (I believe one Gallup poll had his approval at less than 40%), the unfortunate truth is that both Perry and Romney make great foils for Obama to run against. Obama's 2012 re-election strategy will mirror that of Bush's in 2004: keep the focus off his own record, present himself as a "likeable" guy who is trying his best, and make his opponent out to be the greater of two evils. (Interesting to note that these re-election strategies are completely different from the initial "compassionate conservative"/"hope and change" messages these candidates ran on in order to win their first terms.)

As previously stated, Perry is a great foil for Obama, because all the president has to do is (1) tie him and Bush "together at the hip," (2) portray him as too far to the right, and (3) put some commercials together that show Perry making stupid comments. Romney is a great foil as well, because he can be portrayed as an elitist, flip-flopper who is a tool of the corporations.

Obama has always been extremely lucky throughout the course of his political career. (As an example, witness back in early September 2008, when he and McCain had been virtually tied in the polls for months; after the stock market collapse later that month, the outcome of the election was never in doubt.) And, he got extremely lucky that the two strongest GOP contenders (who could have actually won the nomination)--Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie--opted not to run in 2012 (either would have handily defeated him). (Similarly, Bush recieved a huge break when both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton chose not to enter the 2004 presidential race; either one would have handily defeated him in a general election.)

Barring any unforeseen circumstances (such as a big change in the unemployment rate or a major political scandal), I feel like I can predict right now that Obama will defeat either Perry or Romney. Of course, I would expect that Obama's margin of victory will be considerably less than it was in 2008: for starters, it's a pretty safe bet that either prospective GOP nominee will win IN and NC (red states Obama carried by 1.0% and 0.3%, respectively), along with the 22 states McCain won. Also, Perry or Romney could also end up snatching FL, OH, and/or VA from Obama. But even if Obama loses all three of those swing states, he will still be slightly over the 270 electoral votes needed to win. The bottom line here is that both Perry and Romney have too many liabilties when going up against Obama (who--despite being a terrible president--is a master politican whose campaign skills are equal to those of Reagan and Clinton).

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Unsurprisingly, Rick Perry has leap-frogged ahead of everyone else in the GOP field, including media darling Mitt Romney. Romney was only going to have a real chance if no one else palatable was in the field.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/perry-takes-the-lead-for-gop-nomination-in-two-national-polls.php?ref=fpa

I can't get into "This is bad for Republicans" because honestly I think Perry has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney does. Perry is channeling so much of the ugliness in this country right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

on aug 7th in this very topic I said

don't listen to a single word of bullshit in this thread about so-called "mainstream" republicans or how they want what is best for the country. Republicans want to destroy social security and all the money should be horded by the top. That is the way they have always been, and that is the way they always will be. If FDR could be brought back he would tell you the same thing. Any word to the contrary is subterfuge, deciept and an attempt to make you think modern republicanism is something other than a cult that worships money fueled by distrust of anyone who isn't some fundie hatemonger out to attack the gays and blacks. And soon I imagine someone will come along and tell me my comment is beyond the pale, and yet incapable of offering up a single name of any republican politician anywhere who does not subscribe to "trickle down" (read: piss on) economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy