Jump to content

US Politics Episode 6 - Return of the Prez


Stubby

Recommended Posts

No, the VP would take over. Say, hypothetically, Hillary runs in 2016 and chooses Bill as her VP. If Hillary were elected, and resigned/died/impeached, Bill would become President again, without being elected, and notwithstanding his two previous terms. He just couldn't run in 2020.

A part of me believes that a New Zealander explaining this is a bad dream. Another part of me that knows better is facepalming a hand-shaped bruise onto my face.

Edit:

From TruckerNeil:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see that picture now without thinking of Garfunkel and Oates (NSFW)

I know, right?

It's like, I'm trying to imagine this photo shoot.

"Ok, lighting is ready Paul. Now .... look like a douchebag!

No, douchier.

Come on, douchier!

This isn't working. Alright, you, whatever your name is, go grab that nerdy kid in accounting and a bucket of sand for Mr. Ryan to kick in his face. He needs to get in the mindset."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the VP would take over. Say, hypothetically, Hillary runs in 2016 and chooses Bill as her VP. If Hillary were elected, and resigned/died/impeached, Bill would become President again, without being elected, and notwithstanding his two previous terms. He just couldn't run in 2020.

I thought so. I've always wondered why ex Presidents don't run as VP. Especially if they were popular. Gore would've landslided Bush if he had Bill as his VP. Ditto for Kerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait one. Is writing in a candidate's name considered a valid vote over there?

Down here, if you write anything other than the numbers required - in the allocated boxes no less - the vote becomes 'informal' and it is not counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought so. I've always wondered why ex Presidents don't run as VP. Especially if they were popular. Gore would've landslided Bush if he had Bill as his VP. Ditto for Kerry.

That sort of thing used to happen in the first hundred years.

Not sure what ego nonsense is fucking this up in the last hundred years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's an accident that SuperPAC spending was so wasteful. Money should properly be funneled to battleground states according to election doctrine, but a lot of money was dumped in non-contested areas. This SuperPAC spending is yet another scene where cronies sling money around to each other -- campaign staff have friends who make stupid ads in uncompetitive districts, or manage ad buys, etc. The right wingers with SuperPACs basically ran their advertising the way their guys run government -- consuming money from the public and shoveling it around to their buddies.

I think there were a lot of things going on.

From the start SuperPACs have been about influence-buying and so showing your outfit's spending outlay holds the upper hand over demonstrating what that bought was effective. As well, campaigns probably made it clear that they'd rather not have their own targeted swing state advertising diluted by generic SuperPAC ads. I'm sure there was no shortage of consultants willing to tell donors with more money than sense that their special super modelling showed Oakland was ripe for a Romney insurgency, so what better way to stand out in a crowded field?, etc, but I think graft here played third or fourth fiddle to good old fashioned self-delusion and vanity, not exactly strangers to the billionaire crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I butcher his name or miss an inside joke?

TrackerNeil, not TruckerNeil.

Truckers wear plaid shirts and dirty jeans. I'm going to take a guess that TrackerNeil doesn't. Unless.. by special request?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at this New York Times graphic, its interesting that the one area of the country that President Obama consistently did better in 2012 than in 2008 was actually in the deep south. He still lost most of those counties overwhelming of course (except the majority African American ones obviously), but its interesting that he did better. Romney did not "run up the score" in most of the ruby red states. Instead he made most of the swing states more competitive and shrank the margins a little bit in indigo blue states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

David Frum, being very astute in March 2010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at this New York Times graphic, its interesting that the one area of the country that President Obama consistently did better in 2012 than in 2008 was actually in the deep south. He still lost most of those counties overwhelming of course (except the majority African American ones obviously), but its interesting that he did better. Romney did not "run up the score" in most of the ruby red states. Instead he made most of the swing states more competitive and shrank the margins a little bit in indigo blue states.

Huh, that's interesting; that's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at this New York Times graphic, its interesting that the one area of the country that President Obama consistently did better in 2012 than in 2008 was actually in the deep south. He still lost most of those counties overwhelming of course (except the majority African American ones obviously), but its interesting that he did better. Romney did not "run up the score" in most of the ruby red states. Instead he made most of the swing states more competitive and shrank the margins a little bit in indigo blue states.

Looking at the graphic, Obama's Appalachian problems just keep getting worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...