those are some pretty sharp shoes you got there, Ron
dammit xpost
hahaha
Name a nomination in the last 30 years or so that resembles the way this one has gone.
You mean, ignoring all the pretty lights and flea circuses you live for? Dole’s in ’96 is close enough. (“No one else? Are we sure? Shit, you’re it.”)
This would be a presumed front-runner reasserting himself after, what, five different people moved ahead of him?
AAAAAGH, THERE’S BEEN NO BLOODY VOTING
polls aren’t everything (esp w/ a caucus) but they aren’t nothing
Yes—having not yet reached your level of political sophistication, Morbius, I live for them (not just merely find them entertaining). There’s just nothing else going on.
FYI:
Going into the 1996 primary contest, Senate majority leader and former vice-presidential nominee Bob Dole was seen as the most likely winner. However, in the primaries and caucuses, social conservative Pat Buchanan received early victories in Alaska, Louisiana, a strong second place in the Iowa Caucus, and a surprising victory in the key New Hampshire primary, while Steve Forbes finished first in Delaware and Arizona.
this is like the vaporware version of the ’96 primary
nah the difference is that even though they might have been crazyish human beings they were ‘viable candidates’
whereas this has all been a big show
hated unacknowledged-corporatist “un-American” Democratic prez, etc.
Bob Dole was a viable candidate?
whereas this has all been a big show
dude....
for the republican nomination, yes
Forbes and Buchannan were most certainly NOT “viable candidates”
I mean steve forbes really wanted to be president vs trump and cain never ran presidential campaigns but were ‘running for president’
Cain wouldn’t have minded being President if it meant he could shift more books, at least up until his wife started beating his ass.
steve forbes was seen as a wide-eyed coot and buchannan nearly as fringe as ron paul
ron paul is not going to win any primaries, let alone multiple primaries
“viable candidate”
crazy rich people have won plenty of big elections in american history, steve forbes shoulda just been a governor first
like I don’t find the concept of steve forbes as president any weirder than b-movie film star ronald reagan as president
looking forward to President Ventura
you could cynically say that in earlier GOP (and uh dem too) contests, the out-there candidacies served the purpose of keeping the more extreme (and therefore more easily and inevitably disappointed) party constituencies interested in the process and committed to something after the outcome: ron paul, pat buchanan, steve forbes, etc are all partially-un-sanded-down versions of conservatism that are all crucial to the party but mutually exclusive to each other if held constant
i think this year the “airing out the extremes” dealio was both way dumber and much closer to slipping out of its appointed confines. we’ll see tho, there have been of course no votes cast yet.
Dole was the closest thing to a viable nominee then, and Mittens is now! QED.
ron paul is not going to win any primaries
It’s entirely possible he will win Iowa with something in the 20–25% range if enough support is distributed among the also-ran candidates. I still predict a Romney win in the 25–30% range. Either way, as long as Gingrich loses, Romney wins.
there’s been a major structural change w/r/t party ideology since then and we’re seeing that w/r/t ‘extreme’
also romney and dole are coming from very different places within the gop, romney might be inevitable but he’s not ‘safe’
I said in the ILE thread that this year only looks bizarre because the Internet has finally caught up with the avarice of journalists who insist on covering “primary season” earlier and earlier.
also would look different if rick perry had half-decent handlers
like I don’t find the concept of steve forbes as president any weirder than b-movie film star ronald reagan as president
I do. One nearly embodies the sort of relaxed jocularity Americans tend to like in their Presidents (assuming some minimal baseline of competence, as perceived by not necessarily well-educated), and one is spectacularly lacking in same.
and uh Reagan was a two-term governor and radio commentator.
right and forbes shoulda gone that route
Dole was the closest thing to a viable nominee then
Not necessarily. Unlike this year, there were several serious candidates in ’96, though none with especially good political skills. Dole was chosen because he was the highest-ranking figure in a party that then respected its internal authority.
In ’88 we had that sane, reasonable fellow Al Haig briefly enter the race. Also: Pat Robertson scared Poppy Bush for a few weeks.
there’s no consensus for what you mean by “serious candidate”
I can see similarities between this year and ’96—and Buchanan isn’t a bad parallel for Gingrich, as a strident ghost from the past returned to centre stage (and with many more differences than similarities)—but ’96 seemed much more the normal thing of occasional primaries being won by someone other than the eventual winner. This year has been crazy. Yes, in large part because of the internet and accelerated media cycle, but those are explanations why it’s crazy—they don’t negate that it’s been crazy.
and uh Reagan was a two-term governor and radio commentator
Yes, like George W. Bush, he was nominally experienced, but he mostly fought culture wars while caretaking a state benefiting greatly from the tail end of the postwar economic boom, Southwestern migration, and the massive expansion of defense contracting. I think many would regard Forbes as a brighter guy.
I think many would regard Forbes as a brighter guy.
Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate. And he wasn’t bright enough to lose that gruesome smile.
Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate.
Perhaps to the extent that it overrides likeability. Either way, it’s like I said in the parenthetical that subsumed Reagan’s governorship.
Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate. And he wasn’t bright enough to lose that gruesome smile.
again, ask rick perry
about his gruesome smile?
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2cd51d335b/bad-lip-reading-rick-perry-s-strong-ad
I know that’s a dumb site but this made me die
Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate
Somehow we haven’t been free of Harvard or Yale (plus Columbia and Georgetown) through the last four. Near-last in his class at Annapolis got beat pretty bad.
lol “Somehow”
Such an outrage that Brown U. gets no prezidtnal respect among the ivies.
Romney gains two percentage points in Kansas.
lol “Somehow”
last time, I didn’t see millions of Americans choose:
NC State/UNC Law (Edwards)
U Delaware/Syracuse Law (Biden)
Providence College/Louisville Law (Dodd)
Tufts BS/MA (Richardson)
CWRU BA/MA (Kucinich)
Manhattan College/NYU Law (noun, verb, 9/11)
Memphis State/Vandy Law (guy who was on Law & Order)
Ouachita Baptist University (guy who hung out with Walker Texas Ranger)
Kansas State/UK Law (dropped out fast)
UW-Madison BA/JD (“)
U Northern Colorado (”)
this time, Stanford/BYU/HBS/HLS is likely to be nominated over:
Gettysburg College/Duke Med
Emory/Tulane PhD
Winona State/Oral Roberts JD/W&M LLM
Texas A&M
Penn State/Pitt JD
Penn
Morehouse/Purdue MS
U Minnesota BA/JD
maybe us news was right all along
I would say the pattern is more significant w/ the supreme court and if you asked people where most candidates went to college during the nomination process a fair small % would know the answer
whereas w/ the supreme court it’s one dude trying to pick people who have ‘legitimacy’/‘the (ever narrowing definition of a) supreme court CV’ and the harvard/yale/stanford stamp plays a role
fairly small*
if you asked people where most candidates went to college during the nomination process a fair small % would know the answer
I certainly don’t think people are voting for school brand-names. But the evidence does suggest that intelligence/diligence are relevant criteria.
yeahhh that’s evidence that counts dubya as someone w/ the ‘intelligence/diligence’ stamp
I think many would regard Forbes as a brighter guy.
____________________________
Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate. And he wasn’t bright enough to lose that gruesome smile.
― Lord Sotosyn, Monday, December 19, 2011
otm. appearance is key. stop being creepy, steve forbes. don’t look so bumbling and faux-friendly, rick perry. don’t look so f—g crazy, michelle backmann.
I’m not one for posting fb convos, but the source & direction of this one is jarring. This is among the responses to me posting Chait’s “RP is crepey” NYmag bit.
Her: He’s not racist. This is a smear campaign that’s been brought up time & time again. It’s the ONLY thing they can ever find on the guy & it’s been refuted 100 million times. Evidently he hired bad ghost writers a long time ago or it’s just a blatant fabricated smear campaign. You gotta listen to what he’s saying. He’s never said anything remotely racist. & Yeah, he seems crazy because he wants to do away with every single government bureaucracy but really, aren’t they all just all totally corrupt and useless at this point anyway? Isn’t it better to start fresh? Wouldn’t it be nice to get rid of the wars, the drug laws, the endless spending (because we’re completely insolvent you know), the Patriot Act, the TSA up our asses at the airport?? & give power to the STATES to make their own decisions. Ron Paul is everything I want in a president.
Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN
www.youtube.com
reason editor Matt Welch discusses the controversy surrounding Ron Paul on CNN’s...
See More
about an hour ago · Like ·
Me: The newsletter bit is only a minor point, tho one must wonder about his powers of delegation & judgement to let the people he hired put out such hilariously racist shit in a thing that literally had his name on it for several years without actually saying, “yeah, you guys can stop doing that now.”
Also, this is the guy who wants to end FEMA, the EPA, and anything even approaching sane reproductive laws.
about an hour ago · Like
Me: But again, moot point. Dude has a partial shot at winning maybe one primary, and that’s it for the show. He’ll wind up in a cush talking head spot like the rest of ’em.
58 minutes ago · Like
Her: He was a doctor delivering babies, running for office & doing like 9 million things at once. You can’t catch everything. (Even SNL has horrible writers. Who let’s that crap slide by? & they aren’t even doing anything important except trying to make people laugh.) I’ve been hired to write letters and blogs for corporations before & these companies have no clue what I put out there either. Also, like I said- this could be a blatant smear. Someone could’ve made the whole thing up. You have to look at his overall character. He’s obviously not a racist.
FEMA, EPA- I’m sorry but we can do better than all this. These are totally corrupt bureaucracies. I’d be glad to see them go. It’s useless spending. It’s money we don’t have.
Abortion? Please, we have bigger fish to fry than caring that abortion would be a state’s decision. He doesn’t want to “end” abortion he just doesn’t want the federal gov involved. Big deal, that makes sense to me. You want abortion? Well, move to California. You don’t want abortion then move to Arkansas.
We’ve had wars that have killed thousands & thousands of innocent people for a decade here and our economy is totally screwed! Ron Paul might be the only person who can save us at this point. He wants to implement the Austrian school of economics vs. Keynesian which have completely failed us! Think about becoming a BLUE Republican!
38 minutes ago · Like
Me: Ah, well then.
22 minutes ago · Like
yeahhh that’s evidence that counts dubya as someone w/ the ‘intelligence/diligence’ stamp
Yes, he sufficiently met the minimum standard demanded by his (arguably less-demanding) party (as measured against last-in-his-class at Annapolis, among others) that allowed him to go forward and win on “likability.” I think it’s fair to say that despite his great stubbornness, incuriousness, and anti-intellectualism, he compares favorably in the intelligence/diligence department to Perry, Cain, and perhaps/probably Bachmann.
There’s no need for an intervention, kingfish. The cult will end soon enough.
should just lock the thread, since mitt romney is the INEVITABLE GOP NOMINEE and the next president of the united states of america.
right but your point was ‘wow look at what the ivy league does for you’ not ‘these are some human beings with the minimum standard of intelligence demanded by the GOP’
ron paul is probably a racist; there’s enough evidence to tell me that he is, even if the case is ‘arguable’. more importantly, ronpaulism, as a subset of old-line goldbug austrian political economics, does have its punitive anti-cosmopolitan and white nationalist attractions. it’s not a constituency that i’d want to have a beer with.
but, all that being true, if you were to shut down the american carceral state, you’d be a liberator of millions regardless (where is hoos to otm this post)
B*r*ck Ob*m* is certainly a killer, there’s enough evidence to tell me that he is, even if the case is ‘arguable’.
surprised you’d deign to quote the arguable part there!
right but your point was ‘wow look at what the ivy league does for you’ not ‘these are some human beings with the minimum standard of intelligence demanded by the GOP
My point was that a perceived problem-solving capacity, whether as a matter of raw intelligence (as perceived by a voting population a substantial portion of which is not college-educated) or hard work, has been for at least the last 20 years a relevant (not determinative) criterion in Presidential politics. George W. Bush was certainly dumb in many respects, but smarter than a great many of the people who voted for him and also smart enough on paper for people who may have recognized a problem in that department to overlook it. And many other people who went to the schools he did both go in and come out fairly smart.
B*r*ck Ob*m* is certainly a killer, there’s enough evidence to tell me that he is, even if the case is ‘arguable’
While he’s certainly the highest decision-maker in the land, his decisions are constrained by many other current and previous political actors as well as by the public he represents. In some sense, virtually everyone in America no matter the nature of their political participation, yourself included, is a “killer” of present and future people, many of them non-American, and Obama is merely the guy who appends his signature to the political decisions that are adjunct to our economic and other social activity.
My point was that a perceived problem-solving capacity, whether as a matter of raw intelligence (as perceived by a voting population a substantial portion of which is not college-educated) or hard work, has been for at least the last 20 years a relevant (not determinative) criterion in Presidential politics. George W. Bush was certainly dumb in many respects, but smarter than a great many of the people who voted for him and also smart enough on paper for people who may have recognized a problem in that department to overlook it. And many other people who went to the schools he did both go in and come out fairly smart.
like who
are we really having this conversation...again
“In some sense,” again, the President can be seen as the guy who tries to kill the fewest people. Obama’s performance in this regard has not necessarily been great, but has probably been better than any available alternative would have been.
What matters to voters is the mysterious way in which they end up liking a candidate, which inspires them to look for ways to defend their choice: he writes good books, is a terrific speaker, looks good on a parasail, etc.
unlikely to apologize after shooting friend in the face
wouldn’t execute man who raped/murdered wife
willing to buy children adorable puppy
unrepentant receiver of blowjobs
It was the “Keynes”/blue republican bits that kinda thru me off at the end. This again, this is the same chick who’s posted anti-vaxxer stuff on my wall before.
What matters to voters is the mysterious way in which they end up liking a candidate
There is no single relevant criterion. “Likability” may well be the closest, but I could argue that trustworthiness (to protect the individual/state and their interests) is closer. Intelligence is certainly relevant to the latter capacity, for better and for worse (Mitt Romney’s problem). Another important factor on both scores may be simple cultural appeal—which candidate is most like the individual voter (as a matter of regional/ethnic/historical cultural patterns). This too is a problem for Romney within the GOP, and one he will seek to overcome on the competence(/intelligence) factor.
Are we supposed to believe that 40–50(-70)% of the GOP favor Romney and Paul (and Gingrich) simply because of their personalities?
lol kingfish for some reason I’ve always assumed Paultards/libertarians are male
xp
Are we supposed to believe that 40–50(-70)% of the GOP favor Romney and Paul (and Gingrich) simply because of their personalities?
well, romney’s rough 25% support among GOP voters is probably committed to his policies (of the moment) and his appearing stable, coherent, and electable. beyond that, his strategy is to watch the conservative candidates stab each other with kitchen knives, and stay out of the way.
smart strategy, btw. a lot of the GOP base is going to wake up one morning and say, “damn, we failed to unite behind one conservative candidate and we’re stuck with romney?”
fwiw, romney’s next move will be to tap marco rubio as VP nominee, in an effort to appeal to the base (and to win florida).
tho i’ve heard kim jong-un is also on romney’s short-list.
unrepentant receiver of blowjobs
i don’t want this as a DN but if no-one else will take it on i will make sure it is not lost to time
What matters to voters is the mysterious way in which they end up liking a candidate, which inspires them to look for ways to defend their choice: he writes good books, is a terrific speaker, looks good on a parasail, etc.
I say this all the time (without the parasail part—I don’t what that is). I use the common parlance of living-room test. Same thing.
Funny...I had a feeling you meant Kerry but wasn’t sure; I think of it as windsurfing, but I guess it’s one and the same.
action sport that most resembles just being on a stairlift
protip for presidential candidates: do not look french, do not speak french, do not engage in french-y-ish non-violent sports (e.g., windsurfing).
Americans who flex about how anti-French they are etc are literally the worst people in the fucking world & know less than nothing about France & don’t deserve to live in the same world where France is
they’re assholes, is what I’m saying here
paris looks spectacular this time of year, BTW.
and i will kick myself forever for not getting to the south of france when i had the chance.
aero otm
We thumbed our nose at the British king from across an ocean. The French stormed the Bastille and executed their aristocracy. They also eat 1000X better than Norte Americanos.
I still think “French” in 2004 was code for not just boarding school/Forbes/Louisburg Square (and as with all things Rove it was based on a kernel of truth—he’d spent time on a family estate in Brittany as a kid and a cousin ran for President of France), but also Czech/Jewish on one side (and perhaps Catholic), like “muslim”/etc. is code for black.
ehhh that’s a stretch
if anyone on the right is talking about france w/r/t Jews these days it’s ‘gee that place is filled with Muslims and anti-semetic’
I’m not suggesting that “French” means Jewish, but rather that it means “Other” (in addition to “elite”). Kerry’s “other”-ness was a product of his Austro-Hungarian (Jewish) heritage, whether that was understood by voters or not, as well as, perhaps for some (evangelical?) voters, his Catholicism.
And yes, of course it means “weak” or whatever.
kerry was jewish, or just his ancestors?
if kerry was jewish, i somehow missed that piece of information.
eh if there was an ‘otherness’ about kerry it was the waspy new england shit, which in 2008 was more foreign to your average american than ‘has a relative from eastern europe’.
he just didn’t seem “rough ‘n tough,“ in an era where that’s what people wanted (maybe people always want that).