Motown Bombers Posted Monday at 05:28 PM Posted Monday at 05:28 PM I think the odds are much higher. She is the front runner right now. Quote
chasfh Posted Monday at 06:49 PM Posted Monday at 06:49 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: I'd put the odds of Harris getting the nomination at about 15%. That is, within the realm of possibility but not particularly likely. Good thing the democratic convention is not in progress at the moment. Edited Monday at 06:50 PM by chasfh Quote
chasfh Posted Monday at 06:50 PM Posted Monday at 06:50 PM 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: I think the odds are much higher. She is the front runner right now. July 2028 will be a very different environment from February 2026. 1 Quote
gehringer_2 Posted Monday at 07:13 PM Posted Monday at 07:13 PM 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: I think the odds are much higher. She is the front runner right now. only because no-one else has a candidate in mind. Question for the history buffs. Has a candidate ever won the Presidency after losing in the general election as a challenger 4 yrs earlier? (IOW excluding Trump who was running for re-election and lost. Nixon did it 8 years 8 yrs later.) Quote
Motown Bombers Posted Monday at 07:41 PM Posted Monday at 07:41 PM Grover Cleveland. Ironically Harrison won because of tariffs and lost because of them. 1 Quote
ewsieg Posted Monday at 08:53 PM Posted Monday at 08:53 PM 4 hours ago, romad1 said: Is this a Magazine-isn't-a-Clip level of self-cancellation? Depends on how you want to view it. The real point she was trying to make was spot on, but she did ruin it with the equator comment. I'm fine with people that flub up occasionally especially when the flub isn't on the important substance of the comments. If she was in charge of a cartography division of Google Maps, I would tell her she needs to quit and based on her entire response, maybe she could go into politics instead. (Note: If I continued to sit with her and discuss economics, i'd probably end up saying maybe politics isn't the right choice either....but that's just me) Quote
romad1 Posted Monday at 09:23 PM Author Posted Monday at 09:23 PM 30 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Depends on how you want to view it. The real point she was trying to make was spot on, but she did ruin it with the equator comment. I'm fine with people that flub up occasionally especially when the flub isn't on the important substance of the comments. If she was in charge of a cartography division of Google Maps, I would tell her she needs to quit and based on her entire response, maybe she could go into politics instead. (Note: If I continued to sit with her and discuss economics, i'd probably end up saying maybe politics isn't the right choice either....but that's just me) She does pretty well for someone who lives in the good looking people bubble. 1 Quote
oblong Posted Monday at 11:09 PM Posted Monday at 11:09 PM It’s really the height of ignorance and stupidity for Trump supporters to try to go after others for saying something dumb. I bet they are the folks who say “I seen”. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted yesterday at 12:55 AM Posted yesterday at 12:55 AM Duggan is up to his slime ball tactics. Quote
oblong Posted yesterday at 01:03 AM Posted yesterday at 01:03 AM I was once in a suite at the palace where Duggans kid was the “host”. Fetched our drinks. His dad’s fetched a lot of drinks too. That’s why he got to his position. Wayne County politics is dirty and slimy. Quote
chasfh Posted yesterday at 01:42 PM Posted yesterday at 01:42 PM Are there politics for any decent-sized jurisdiction anywhere that’ not dirty and slimy? One of the major underreported (for obvious reasons) problems is that practically all local media everywhere have essentially punted their traditional responsibility for reporting on the goings on of local politics, which serves to keep them accountable to the people. Someone/something who can successfully gain access has simply got to step in and fill that void. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted yesterday at 02:09 PM Posted yesterday at 02:09 PM Meanwhile, we could have had Connor Lamb. Not falling for these leftist populists again. Looking at you Graham Platner. Quote
oblong Posted yesterday at 02:57 PM Posted yesterday at 02:57 PM 1 hour ago, chasfh said: Are there politics for any decent-sized jurisdiction anywhere that’ not dirty and slimy? One of the major underreported (for obvious reasons) problems is that practically all local media everywhere have essentially punted their traditional responsibility for reporting on the goings on of local politics, which serves to keep them accountable to the people. Someone/something who can successfully gain access has simply got to step in and fill that void. Wayne County is probably on par with Chicago in terms of corruption, perceived and real. Layers and layers of people. Wayne County probably has the airport as a big source of that corruption. There's been so many scandals over the years. I know someone who was involved but got out because he basically had two jobs and got paid for one. The first was his job itself. The second was having to support the right people at fundraisers and all of that. Going to events and rallies. You had to be seen. If not your job was in trouble or you'd not get any kind of advancement unless you helped the others get their jobs. Quote
chasfh Posted yesterday at 03:20 PM Posted yesterday at 03:20 PM 21 minutes ago, oblong said: Wayne County is probably on par with Chicago in terms of corruption, perceived and real. Layers and layers of people. Wayne County probably has the airport as a big source of that corruption. There's been so many scandals over the years. I know someone who was involved but got out because he basically had two jobs and got paid for one. The first was his job itself. The second was having to support the right people at fundraisers and all of that. Going to events and rallies. You had to be seen. If not your job was in trouble or you'd not get any kind of advancement unless you helped the others get their jobs. If Metro is a big source of corruption for Wayne County, then it was a genius move to make it a kickass airport, considered one of the best in the country, in order to divert attention from the corruption. Quote
chasfh Posted yesterday at 03:21 PM Posted yesterday at 03:21 PM 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: Meanwhile, we could have had Connor Lamb. Not falling for these leftist populists again. Looking at you Graham Platner. Fetterman is over states' rights when it comes to voting administration. Quote
Edman85 Posted yesterday at 03:33 PM Posted yesterday at 03:33 PM 20 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: only because no-one else has a candidate in mind. Question for the history buffs. Has a candidate ever won the Presidency after losing in the general election as a challenger 4 yrs earlier? (IOW excluding Trump who was running for re-election and lost. Nixon did it 8 years 8 yrs later.) Jefferson, Jackson, and William Henry Harrison. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted yesterday at 04:40 PM Posted yesterday at 04:40 PM 1 hour ago, Edman85 said: Jefferson, Jackson, and William Henry Harrison. that fact that it hasn't happened in the post media campaign age is probably significant. The parties don't like sending retreads into the media mill. Trump is the exception because there was nothing left of his party but him. Quote
oblong Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago Whenever I refer Presidential precedent I don't like to do so before FDR. It really was a different office before him, then again before Lincoln. More administrative in nature. And like you say the media angle. Also the nature of how they were elected matters. I like to imagine a scenario in 1991 where you tell the dems at the time "Bush can be beat". Would that have changed anything? Clinton muscled through but some others may have not bothered thinking Bush's 90% approval rating wasn't worth the hassle at that point in time. Mondale was really the best example of a retread candidate in recent history. VP on a ticket that lost re-election? Really? You can't do better? 1 Quote
gehringer_2 Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago 47 minutes ago, oblong said: Whenever I refer Presidential precedent I don't like to do so before FDR. It really was a different office before him, then again before Lincoln. More administrative in nature. And like you say the media angle. Also the nature of how they were elected matters. I like to imagine a scenario in 1991 where you tell the dems at the time "Bush can be beat". Would that have changed anything? Clinton muscled through but some others may have not bothered thinking Bush's 90% approval rating wasn't worth the hassle at that point in time. Mondale was really the best example of a retread candidate in recent history. VP on a ticket that lost re-election? Really? You can't do better? the Presidential nominating system has been like the NBA draft, every reform they have made has produced worse outcomes. Of course, the NBA still has a chance to make changes in a positive direction if they figure them out because they don't also have to cope with Citizen's United. 1 Quote
Motown Bombers Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago Nixon is a pretty strong comp. Senator from California > Vice President> loses as incumbent Vice President> comes back 8 years later and wins. Nixon would probably have run in 64 if Johnson was an unpopular as Trump is. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago 9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Nixon is a pretty strong comp. Senator from California > Vice President> loses as incumbent Vice President> comes back 8 years later and wins. Nixon would probably have run in 64 if Johnson was an unpopular as Trump is. And Nixon just barely edged Humphrey in the popular vote. I think the conventional wisdom is Wallace drained more votes from Nixon than Humphrey, but who really knows? The South was still pretty nominally Democratic at that time so without a favorite son how many of those votes might have gone to Humphrey by habit? Quote
CMRivdogs Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago Nixon also lost his race for Governor in California. prompting the following quote saying, "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference."[8] During the 1960 race when Eisenhower was asked about Nixon's qualifications he reportedly said something like give me a few minutes I'll think of something. 1 Quote
oblong Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago I wonder what Al Gore would have done in '08 if Obama didn't burst out on the scene in '04. He's a good comp to Nixon given he lost/won such a close race and had a strained relationship with his President. Gore had the sword of Damocles having over his head in the form of Clinton's personal troubles. Nixon had Ike's "Give me some time and I will think of something" in response to a question on Nixon's contributions. It's hard to thread "Things are great but here's how I'm different" Quote
Motown Bombers Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago Just now, oblong said: I wonder what Al Gore would have done in '08 if Obama didn't burst out on the scene in '04. He's a good comp to Nixon given he lost/won such a close race and had a strained relationship with his President. Gore had the sword of Damocles having over his head in the form of Clinton's personal troubles. Nixon had Ike's "Give me some time and I will think of something" in response to a question on Nixon's contributions. It's hard to thread "Things are great but here's how I'm different" Clinton was popular when he left office. One of the most popular outgoing presidents. Gore running from Clinton probably hurt him more than it helped. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.