PDA

View Full Version : Nate Silver games out possible GOP candidates


miceelf
08-23-2011, 04:14 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/theres-room-for-more-g-o-p-candidates/

sugarkang
08-24-2011, 12:54 AM
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/theres-room-for-more-g-o-p-candidates/

Nate doing fine work as usual. This coupled with Will Wilkinson's post (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/ron-paul-0) gives a good complete picture. Ron Paul trails Obama 47 to 45.

Wonderment
08-24-2011, 01:26 AM
Ron Paul trails Obama 47 to 45.

The only problem being that Ron Paul has 0.0% probability of getting the Republican nomination. He should run as an independent. That would (deservedly) terrify both parties. Of course, he'd lose, but he'd force a healthy national debate on militarism, immigration and psychotropic substance legalization.

Wonderment
08-24-2011, 01:34 AM
Apropos of nothing (almost), here is a great clip of Rick Perry on the presidential campaign trail losing (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/19/Rick-Perry-Evolution-a-theory-out-there/UPI-52341313765431/) a debate on evolution with a 7-year-old.

sugarkang
08-24-2011, 02:15 AM
The only problem being that Ron Paul has 0.0% probability of getting the Republican nomination. He should run as an independent. That would (deservedly) terrify both parties. Of course, he'd lose, but he'd force a healthy national debate on militarism, immigration and psychotropic substance legalization.

He's got 0% chance, but he could use some more press. If it wasn't clear to most people already, Jon Stewart already showed the deliberate media blackout. Conor Friedersdorf (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-the-press-loves-jon-huntsman-but-ignores-ron-paul-20110823?page=1) already made a good case about why left and right medias continue to ignore him.

As far as running as an independent, you must be joking. He'd get less than his non-existent coverage now.

P.S. try leaving the names in the reply so it's easier to see who you're talking to.

stephanie
08-24-2011, 01:39 PM
The only problem being that Ron Paul has 0.0% probability of getting the Republican nomination. He should run as an independent. That would (deservedly) terrify both parties. Of course, he'd lose, but he'd force a healthy national debate on militarism, immigration and psychotropic substance legalization.

I'm in favor of this.

However, some people seem to think the time is right for something a little different.

A Bolton-Like Time (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275420/bolton-time-jay-nordlinger)

I was e-mailing with some friends about John Bolton — the prospect of a presidential run by him. I found myself saying, “It’s hard to see how he wins the nomination. But, you know? I could see him winning the general. I may be on crack, but I can see it. These are perilous times, at home and abroad. Americans may see the virtue of — indeed, the need for — electing someone like Bolton. He is strong medicine.”

miceelf
08-24-2011, 02:13 PM
I'm in favor of this.

However, some people seem to think the time is right for something a little different.

A Bolton-Like Time (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275420/bolton-time-jay-nordlinger)

I have to admit, the rumors that most puzzled me were the ones around George Pataki.

Really? The time is right for an acharismatic, mild-mannered, old school moderate republican?? Was Lincoln Chafee unavailable?

stephanie
08-24-2011, 03:42 PM
I have to admit, the rumors that most puzzled me were the ones around George Pataki.

Really? The time is right for an acharismatic, mild-mannered, old school moderate republican?? Was Lincoln Chafee unavailable?

Heh, I can feel the momentum.

stephanie
08-24-2011, 03:52 PM
Daniel Larison (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/08/24/no-ron-paul-is-not-a-neoliberal/) responds to the truly bizarre (he has harsher words) article about Ron Paul by Jeffrey Lord.

Jeffrey Lord makes an unusual claim:

Ron Paul is what might be called a “Neo-Liberal.”

This is a silly argument in many, many ways, and by the end Lord’s article has devolved into the most baseless and despicable smearing. That’s not surprising. This is what Lord does: he imputes vicious attitudes to those he criticizes, and he never has the evidence to support it. It is best just to stop reading after the first two pages.

He goes on in a way more relevant to my Democratic Party thread:

Let’s start with the term neoliberal itself. The word neoliberal means a few different things, and there is only one definition that could conceivably apply in any way to Ron Paul. In the domestic political context, American neoliberals have been those on the left or center-left concerned to criticize and change the existing agenda of the 1980s Democratic Party on crime, welfare, trade, and foreign policy. Neoliberalism was a main part of the American “third way” represented by the Clinton administration, which entailed a more activist foreign policy, support for expanded free trade, and the adoption of relatively pro-business and pro-finance positions compared to where the party had been in the past. Because there was some overlap between neoliberals and Democratic “centrist” hawks, progressive critics of the Iraq war began using neoliberal as something of a curse word to refer to liberal interventionists specifically and pro-war Democrats in general.

But I think this does show how, despite the hope by many that there could be some common ground on the intervention front that there's a strong resistence to that idea among many on the right. To them, there's just too strong a history of linking liberal or leftwing and dove, and it's been too effective a strategy since at least the '80s, despite the fact that it's pretty hard to make a case for it post Cold War with respect to the Dems.

On the other hand, this is why I think we probably need someone like Paul to really make the case in a way that gets away from the traditional left-right framing. The Lord argument doesn't strike me as an effective response.

kezboard
08-24-2011, 05:53 PM
But can he crack the moustache ceiling?

sugarkang
08-24-2011, 06:04 PM
But can he crack the moustache ceiling?

Perry's lead is substantial (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=plaintextlink&utm_term=Politics).

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7476/captureetz.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/191/captureetz.png/)

apple
08-24-2011, 08:56 PM
As far as running as an independent, you must be joking. [Paul would] get less than his non-existent coverage now.

Probably not. He's not getting any coverage because he's inconsequential: he's not going to win the primary, he's not going to endorse another candidate. Run as an independent, and he'll instantly be consequential (assuming that he can get a few percentage points worth of support), as he can be a spoiler for either Obama or the GOP candidate.

ledocs
08-25-2011, 11:08 AM
Wonderment, I looked at the clip. There is no debate. The kid just stands there nodding, as Perry says that Texas teaches both evolution and something else. I would like very much for there to be such a clip, but this is not it.

sugarkang
08-25-2011, 01:01 PM
Probably not. He's not getting any coverage because he's inconsequential: he's not going to win the primary, he's not going to endorse another candidate. Run as an independent, and he'll instantly be consequential (assuming that he can get a few percentage points worth of support), as he can be a spoiler for either Obama or the GOP candidate.

Except he's already tried running as a libertarian before. He's unlikely to do that again because he's on record saying that it was a failed strategy.

apple
08-25-2011, 04:26 PM
Except he's already tried running as a libertarian before. He's unlikely to do that again because he's on record saying that it was a failed strategy.

Which it is. But should he run on a third party ballot, I think he'll get a few percentage points, as he's much better known than in 1988, and especially considering the fact that both parties trample on civil liberties and are hawkish. Democratic advocates of civil rights, pacifists and Republican isolationists have nowhere to a go in an Obama v. Perry matchup - unless Paul runs.

Wonderment
08-25-2011, 06:59 PM
Wonderment, I looked at the clip. There is no debate. The kid just stands there nodding, as Perry says that Texas teaches both evolution and something else.

Sometimes all it takes to win a debate is nodding while your opponent makes a fool of himself.

The context was a question by the child "How old is the Earth?" to which Perry replied, "I don't have any idea. I know it's pretty old."

The child follows up with a question about evolution and, as you saw, Perry replies, "It's a theory that is out there and it's got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in the public schools."

Perry loses the "debate" on several counts:

1.) He's disingenuously evasive about the facts: the age of the Earth and the "theory out there" of evolution.

2.) He patronizes the child who probably DOES roughly know how old the Earth is and DOES know that creationism is discredited hooey that does not belong in a public school science curriculum.

3) He bullshits along with vacuous right-wing talking points demonstrating that he has not taken the child seriously, couldn't care less what he thinks, and is actually talking over him to the media.

4) He implicitly attacks science by dismissing hundred of years of accumulated knowledge with the crack about "gaps," suggesting that scientists are mystified about evolution and therefore basically on equal footing with creationist theologians.