Reply With QuoteVoteView updates their ideology estimates.
Given that it would be a bit baffling to see him run and win. I think so far the right just likes him for all of those videos yelling at people.
Christie made it clear tonight that he's not going to run.
Interesting speech. He attacked Obama, of course, for a lack of leadership. etc. But he also said about Congress, in a shot at the Tea Party. "We watch a Congress at war with itself because they are unwilling to leave campaign-style politics at the Capitol's door. The result is a debt-ceiling limitation debate that made our democracy appear as if we could no longer effectively govern ourselves"
But he made it very clear - he said he's not running, he's flattered, but he's not running.
VoteView updates their ideology estimates.
Given that it would be a bit baffling to see him run and win. I think so far the right just likes him for all of those videos yelling at people.
I like how Johnson isn't even on the graph. :)
I'm surprised at how close Romney is to Perry.Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
I suppose it partly depends on if you take Romney at his word or look at his past track record.
From the article, for governors or people without any actual legislative records they simply assume the records of the legislators that have officially endorsed them. So for Perry and Romney, their positions an the chart are pretty suspect to start with.
I'd be more interested to see how it would shape up if they could work out an index based on the bills that governors signed or vetoed while in office, though I understand the difficulty in using that to chart actual ideological positions.
I find it difficult to see Romney to the right of Paul on... well anything really.
Did someone vote to reinstate the monarchy or something?
Any chance Paul will run as an Independent? That would split the right vote nicely, considering he's a Tea Party favorite.
H.
Well, it's not technically ideology; what they do is work out a clustermap of who votes with who (almost always GOP/GOP and Democrat/Democrat), and then create a 0.0 to 1.0 estimate of how "reliable" a vote is, and call that an ideology index. The results are sensible and the process makes sense so I like it.
Romney may be showing up as "not that liberal" because he's the frontrunner and will get lots of ideology-independent endorsements for that reason.
Last edited by Jason McCullough; 09-28-2011 at 10:18 AM.
Not a chance.
Hmm, we need a generic 2012 Election thread:
Okay, that one's just hilarious Houngan. I'm definitely going to spread that one around!
*GASP* A politician is on both sides of a number of issues over a number of years in politics. Next thing you will tell me Houngan, is that water is wet and the sky is blue.
Here's the apocalypse scenario:
The GOP has not yet officially chosen it's candidate. Romney and his handlers come to the realization that he has no chance since he's richer than a demigod and looks like an Aryan youth grown smug. They do the dance at the RNC, BOOM! Jeb Bush is the candidate. Only nine weeks of mud to sling, revitalized GOP base, people with short memories suddenly get excited.
Me scared.
Except, there's no way in hell that would happen. The only thing that dumps out Romney as the nominee at this point is some major scandal, not merely being a shitty candidate.
Yeah, ditching a candidate that close to election day without a major scandal is electoral suicide.
In other news, it's kinda hilarious how the Condi for VP rumors that have been floated are being attacked... by conservatives.
1. 9/11 happened on her watch as National Security Adviser, and her being on the ticket opens up a whole ton of questions about what she knew, when she knew it, and what she did about it.
2. She was one of the biggest cheerleaders for invading Iraq....
3. ...only to discover that she was completely powerless as soon as Baghdad fell. Rumsfeld bulldozed any attempt by State to have any influence in the country. Hell, Rummy was shooting down State before the war, shitcanning the Iraq Reconstruction Project that State was trying to set up. Again, this resurrects W's entire term, which the GOP would rather forget. And it showcases how terrible a SecState she was.
4. For a Russia expert, she didn't do so well. Relations tanked to their lowest level since the end of the Cold War, and then there was that little Invasion of Georgia thing.
5. She's Pro-Choice. (that alone will get her crucified)
6. The racist elements of the GOP are going to just love her.
Palin in 2008 to Condi in 2012. There is a party that knows what it wants.
On conservative talk radio callers do keep calling Condi the logical choice. Do you think race has anything to do with that?
Well, she's a demographic twofer to offset Romney's overwhelming White Guy-ness. And, mistakes she may have made aside, unlike Palin you can't easily call her an unqualified moron.
On the other hand, she in no way counterbalances Romney's stiffness/lack of warmth. I saw a video clip of her smiling once and was genuinely startled.
Neither one seems to light up a room when they enter it, that's for sure.
Obviously I've never met Rice, but she seemed fairly personable in the interviews she gave to Colbert and Stewart. Sure, she's a bit severe now and then, but I wouldn't expect her to be giggly.
I have seen her after leaving office in situations where she did seem much more personable. She has played in golf fund raisers and in the AT&T I think. That makes her more of a person in my book. But in office she sure seemed stiff and "grouchy" all the time.
If I had to deal with Rumsfeld and Cheney at work every day, I'd be pretty grumpy, too.
Every interview I have seen her post Bush, she has been very personable and very charming. I think she just hated working with the likes of Rumsfield, Cheney and their cronies.
I would have hated working with Rumsfield and Cheney. Everything I have heard about Bush is that he is a very personable guy that you would like without the politics involved.
Condi wouldn't be a terrible choice, but they wont pick her.
Unlike Palin shes not a complete fuckwit, though a lot of people would disagree with her past policies and its unlikely she could be saved from the shadow of GW Bush that will always hang over her.
A close relation of mine played a gig with Condi, accompanying her on some piano concerto she was presenting, and described her as a surprisingly warm, friendly person, politics aside.
I know lots of very personable guys that I like without politics, but that doesn't mean I want them running the fucking country. That "fucking" isn't pointed at you Scuzz, just at Bush and the whole stupid "Would I have a beer with him?" ideal.
My moral litmus test has always been whether I would let someone watch my kids (I don't have kids, for the record) for a night. Bush, absolutely. Clinton? Yeah, though he's probably going to let the teenagers have a drink of beer. Reagan? Depends on whether I can trust him with matches, if you know what I mean.
But Cheney? Fuck no. Romney? Also fuck no, because those people are too divorced from reality to be trustworthy. Bush was stupid in his own special way, I do think at this point he was just a sockpuppet for his handlers and didn't know better. I honestly believe that the prime examples of the plutocracy are unfit to care for anyone outside of their immediate circle. Everyone else in the world is an inconvenience to them.
I wouldn't let any of the those listed by Houngan watch my children.
Honestly. I think I would have zero issues with any of them watching my kids. If you look at their own children, all of them seem to be pretty well adjusted. Chelsea, the Bush daughters, Cheney's daughter, and even Mitt's kids seem pretty decent and well adjusted citizens.
Returning to topic, I had mentioned a few weeks back that Bain Capital is going to be Mitts swift boat to John Kerry's Vietnam service. Obama is going to attack Mitt at his strength and so far it seems to be working.
What I don't get is that we are back at the tax return issue with Mitt. Didn't he learn during the primaries that this issue needs him to fully disclose his returns and the longer he holds out, the worse it is for him?
I'm guessing he's got some nasty tax avoidance stuff in there that he realizes will not be received well by middle America, so he's going to do his utmost to ignore calls to release any additional tax returns.
They seem like decent human beings, is what I'm saying. Cheney is just batfuck evil, and Romney is like some sort of benign alien ambassador. You couldn't trust him not to feed your kids bleach, since he's never actually cleaned anything personally in his life. "Well young poorling, let's see what your mother unit keeps under the sink for her entertainment!"
Posting Permissions
