visionary Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/marco-rubio-bobbie-kilberg-fundraising-219622#ixzz40vAZjXHv Rubio wins backing from key Bush, Christie fundraiser Bobbie Kilberg, a top Republican fundraiser who previously supported Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, is now backing Marco Rubio. “He is, I think, the one candidate around whom mainstream Republicans can coalesce,” Kilberg said in a phone interview. “He can win the general election. I feel very strongly about that. We told him on Sunday that we would be with him." She also said Rubio is the last "mainstream" option remaining who can take on Donald Trump. Kilberg joined Jeb Bush’s team after Christie exited the race on Feb. 10, but the partnership ended after Bush dropped out of the contest Saturday night following a disappointing performance in South Carolina. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/22/marco-rubio-declares-im-anti-prostitution-but-wont-push-nevada-to-ban-it/ Marco Rubio Declares ‘I’m Anti-Prostitution,’ But Won’t Push Nevada to Ban It Marco Rubio is against prostitution, but he wouldn’t stop Nevada from keeping it legal. “I’m anti-prostitution,” the Florida senator told reporters at the Las Vegas airport before leaving for a three-stop jaunt across northern Nevada, where the practice is legal. His first stop is in Elko, home to several legal brothels. But Mr. Rubio said that as president he wouldn’t seek to force Nevada to abandon its legal prostitution industry. “I’m not talking about federalizing that issue. I want to shrink the government, not grow it,” Mr. Rubio said. “Suffice it to say, I wish Nevada would make it illegal, but that’s their decision to make. I don’t agree with it.” Mr. Rubio, who has emphasized his faith while campaigning in the early presidential nominating states, said he believes the prostitution industry victimizes sex workers http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/kasich-women-left-their-kitchens-me-when-i-first-ran-n523636 Kasich: Women 'Left Their Kitchens' For Me When I First Ran While reflecting back on the first time he ran for public office, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said that he received the support of "many women, who left their kitchens" to help him campaign. "How did I get elected?" Kasich asked the crowd, recalling his first run for state senate in Ohio in 1978. "Nobody was--I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, who, and many women, who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me. All the way back, when--you know things were different. Now you call homes and everybody's out working. But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me get elected to the state senate." Kasich made the comment while speaking to a large crowd at George Mason University during a day-long swing through the crucial March 1st state of Virginia. Minutes later, a woman who identified herself as a nursing student at the university stood up and asked Kasich a question about his decision to sign a bill in Ohio Sunday that diverts funding from Planned Parenthood in the state. "Your comment earlier about the women coming out of the kitchen to support you - I'll come support you but I wont be coming out of the kitchen," she told him to some cheers and laughs from the audience. "I gotcha, I gotcha," he responded. The governor's spokesperson, Chris Schrimpf, responded to the reactions stirred up by the comments. "John Kasich's campaigns have always been homegrown affairs. They've literally been run out of his friends' kitchens and many of his early campaign teams were made up of stay-at-home moms who believed deeply in the changes he wanted to bring to them and their families," he said. "That's real grassroots campaigning and he's proud of that authentic support. To try and twist his comments into anything else is just desperate politics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/kathleen-sebelius-hillary-clinton-219623 Former HHS Secretary Sebelius endorses Clinton Hillary Clinton picked up the support of former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Monday. "I just feel that she's the only person, frankly, in the field of candidates who has the experience and background that prepares her nationally and internationally to be the leader of the country," the former governor of Kansas told the Topeka Capital-Journal. "As a mother, a grandmother and a former public servant, who had the privilege of serving with Hillary in the president's Cabinet, I can think of nothing more important than ensuring our next president is someone who will protect and build upon the progress made by President Obama over the past eight years." In particular, Sebelius pointed to how she felt Clinton would treat issues important to women, children and families. The endorsement from her fellow Cabinet member comes a week and a half before the Kansas Democratic primary. In 2008, Sebelius opted to endorse then-Sen. Barack Obama, a fellow Midwesterner, rather than the New York senator. https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/701835687952306176 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 The governor's spokesperson, Chris Schrimpf, responded to the reactions stirred up by the comments. "John Kasich's campaigns have always been homegrown affairs. They've literally been run out of his friends' kitchens and many of his early campaign teams were made up of stay-at-home moms who believed deeply in the changes he wanted to bring to them and their families," he said. "That's real grassroots campaigning and he's proud of that authentic support. To try and twist his comments into anything else is just desperate politics." I'm sorry, but that needs to be quoted again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 I think a much better analogy would be Berlusconi. I think that is dead on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 When will they ever attack Trump http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/22/oh-by-the-way-just-four-percent-of-all-gop-super-pac-spending-has-targeted-trump/ Just four percent of all Super PAC spending has targeted Trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 I'm sorry, but that needs to be quoted again. Riiiigghhhhttttt. He was talking about running campaigns out of their kitchens. Too bad the context of the actual comment suggested nothing of the sort. Jeez, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 " "Your comment earlier about the women coming out of the kitchen to support you - I'll come support you but I wont be coming out of the kitchen," she told him to some cheers and laughs from the audience. "I gotcha, I gotcha," he responded." Sorry John, its actually "they" who "gotcha." "They" gotcha to say something "they" can now use to drive female voters away from you for the rest of the primary cycle. Not that you ever really stood a chance anyway. Now take your good ole, down-home, honest charm, your experience, and your moderate conservative positions and plans and get the hell out of the Republican primary. BTW-- I'm assuming that most liberals actually do not want Kasich to be the Republican nominee, because they are holding onto the belief that the citizens of this country could not actually be stupid enough to elect Donald Trump to the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 39% of republicans will sit out the vote... but their are other polls which show Trump would take 25% of likely democratic voters with him in the event Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. Here is the deal. Trump can convince people to vote for him.. Hillary can't. In no election she's ever participated in did she grow her supporters. The has name recognition and money, she has no message or charisma to sell that message. So yeah.. I think Trump would beat her. Here is the problem with that theory: People dislike Hillary, but they really, really, dislike Trump. This is a month old link but honestly I don't believe Trump has done anything to redeem himself with people like me recently. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 One of the big lessons that is going to be learned from this campaign is how effective long-term negative branding can be. Hillary Clinton is not a charismatic person. She is personally arrogant and she plays the political game the old fashioned way, by grabbing all the money she can get from any source and making speeches telling people what they want to hear. But she is not the Antichrist of Corruption that people have decided she is. For decades now, the conservative attack machine has gone after her, and 95 percent of the mud they have slung has been bullcrap. On this board over the year, we have examined a huge amount of attacks on her that turned out to be smoke and mirrors. We know that those attacks were garbage, but the lingering effect they have on people's underlying views is undeniable. The stories may not have been true, but half the electorate thinks that they were true, and the other half subconsciously feels that something must be seriously wrong. We have people on this very thread who now are professing that they would never vote for Hillary in a million years, even though they themselves participated in exploding the false attacks against her in threads from years past. Voting is an emotional process as well as an intellectual process, and from an emotional point of view, Hillary is permanently damaged goods. If I'm a well-funded conservative strategist taking the long view, I will start targeting rising Democratic politicians, and getting shots in. I'd be interviewing the college classmates of Kristen Gillibrand to see what I could uncover. Find out if any developers donated to Cory Booker. Find some neighbor of Julian Castro to complain about him dumping his lawn clippings over their fence. Whatever. But get the mud going now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 If I'm a well-funded conservative strategist taking the long view, I will start targeting rising Democratic politicians, and getting shots in. I'd be interviewing the college classmates of Kristen Gillibrand to see what I could uncover. Find out if any developers donated to Cory Booker. Find some neighbor of Julian Castro to complain about him dumping his lawn clippings over their fence. Whatever. But get the mud going now. I'll point out, that I don't think it has much to do with the mud that's been thrown at her over the years. I think, for various, reasons she just isn't likable and wasn't from the start. She wasn't likable in 1992 and she isn't any more likable today (for the most part, once somebody decides they don't like somebody, it is a very hard impression to change so if somebody in 1992 decided they didn't like Hillary, they'd likely still have that opinion). http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/18/opinion/beware-the-cookie-monster.html I think partly the issue is that she was thrown onto a national stage right away without getting much practice on having a "public" likable personality. Most politicians get a lot of practice and time to develop their public personality before having to worry about the national stage. I also don't think it helped that the comparison to her and Bill was automatic as they were a pair. Compared to Bill the vast majority of politicians come across as unlikable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 One of the big lessons that is going to be learned from this campaign is how effective long-term negative branding can be. Although I think your general point about negative branding has merit, I also have a couple of quibbles about the particulars of your post: We have people on this very thread who now are professing that they would never vote for Hillary in a million years . . . As one of those who has professed that I would not vote for her, I'm compelled to point out that my reason for not liking her has a lot less to do with a "vast right wing conspiracy" and a lot more to do with her financiers and voting record. But get the mud going now. Of course there is an irony here. You paint Hillary as a victim of mudslinging, but the truth is she can sling mud with the best of them. Consider the mudslinging campaign she is running against Bernie for example (or the one she ran against Obama for that matter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 But are there any likeable female politicans? Or have we (the american electorate) labeled them all ****es subconciously? And is what makes the unlikeable the same thing we gloss over with most male polticians? To me, those are uncomfortable questions that no one seems to be asking. Is Hillary different from Bill? Why was/is Bill so loved by almost the entire D Party but Hillary isn't (assuming there isn't much difference between the two)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 One of the big lessons that is going to be learned from this campaign is how effective long-term negative branding can be. Hillary Clinton is not a charismatic person. She is personally arrogant and she plays the political game the old fashioned way, by grabbing all the money she can get from any source and making speeches telling people what they want to hear. But she is not the Antichrist of Corruption that people have decided she is. For decades now, the conservative attack machine has gone after her, and 95 percent of the mud they have slung has been bullcrap. On this board over the year, we have examined a huge amount of attacks on her that turned out to be smoke and mirrors. We know that those attacks were garbage, but the lingering effect they have on people's underlying views is undeniable. The stories may not have been true, but half the electorate thinks that they were true, and the other half subconsciously feels that something must be seriously wrong. We have people on this very thread who now are professing that they would never vote for Hillary in a million years, even though they themselves participated in exploding the false attacks against her in threads from years past. Voting is an emotional process as well as an intellectual process, and from an emotional point of view, Hillary is permanently damaged goods. If I'm a well-funded conservative strategist taking the long view, I will start targeting rising Democratic politicians, and getting shots in. I'd be interviewing the college classmates of Kristen Gillibrand to see what I could uncover. Find out if any developers donated to Cory Booker. Find some neighbor of Julian Castro to complain about him dumping his lawn clippings over their fence. Whatever. But get the mud going now. Well, she's still going to be the Democratic nominee for 2016, so the branding wasn't so harmful to prevent that. I'd venture to say that there's a significant portion of registered Republican voters that wouldn't vote for Hillary just based upon the fact that she's a democrat (i.e. the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat). Also, in a "normal" primary cycle, there would be a significant segment of Republicans that wouldn't vote for her because there's a strong Republican candidate who they prefer, who they can identify with, etc. These republicans may stray across party lines under certain circumstances, particularly when the Republican nominee is essentially riding a chariot from State to State armed with a mounted 50 caliber machine guns with duel flame throwers attached to the frame on each side spouting off about how he'll fix any perceived problems with this country not because he actually has legitimate plans to do so, but because "he is Donald Trump." And they will all love him, women, minorities, Mexicans (still in Mexico), Putin, China, they will all love him. Not because he has actually let them in on how he's going to improve their lives or bring world peace, but because he says so. And he tells them that he will have the power to do it (guess he missed that day in high school civics where they covered checks and balances, the three branches of government, why he can't just do **** because he wants to do it). Trump is going to have a big problem, but these voters will not break for Hillary if she continues to act like she's some sort of hybrid of Elton John/Vladimir Lenin just so she can beat Bernie Sanders. I don't believe that negative branding of Hillary will really have anything to do with this election. She's got the Democratic nomination locked up (unless she keeps coughing). She'd be wise to get herself through the next couple months, then start focusing on the large segment of the Republican base that actually does not want to see this Country laid to waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Well, so much for liking Kasich. Yeah I can write off individual instances but when they start to pile up... Guess I'll be voting in the Democrats primary... There will be a narrative that he's anti-women. Signing the legislation to defund PP will be the source of it, and dropping these really bad sound-byte quotes that finish painting the picture and boil the essence of the narrative down into memorable slogans/punch lines. 47% style. This will be an issue that dogs his campaign if/when he starts running against a Democrat. Especially if it's Hillary. It wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me personally, it's more of a likability issue. But he already lost me with his pledge to commit massive ground armies to wars in Iraq and Syria. Did it on NPR of all places. He must be crazy and/or completely clueless about who his audience was! I'm not at all interested in a president that's Hell-bent on starting Vietnam 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Zeke Miller @ZekeJMiller BREAKING: Cruz: this morning I asked for Rick Tyler's resignation CNN Breaking News @cnnbrk Ted Cruz asks communications director to resign over inaccurate Marco Rubio video. cnn.it/1mTvyH1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 https://twitter.com/EliStokols/status/701868143015235586 Rubio just this morning: "Who in Cruz campaign is going to be held accountable?"3:36 PM https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701870081827966976 TRUMP Wow, Ted Cruz falsely suggested Marco Rubio mocked the Bible and was just forced to fire his Communications Director. More dirty tricks!3:44 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 I agree. He has to win to win. Obviously. Not necessarily. He has to win 2,380 delegates. He can do that without winning a majority of Super Tuesday states. I agree he needs a good showing on Super Tuesday though. He should win Massachusetts (+7 in the latest poll) and Vermont (+76) easily. Oklahoma is a toss up (-2). I think the more Bernie wins the easier it gets for him. Hillary's biggest weapon is here perceived eventuality to be the candidate. She doesn't have a winning charisma, a winning message, or a winning agenda. All she has is a lot of money and this perception nobody can beat her. Every primary which comes and goes and Bernie is still close hurts the perception that nobody can beat Hillary. When that perception goes, and all that's left is Bernie vs Hillary on even ground, Bernie takes her hands down. Problem is that perception is quite strong. Hillary can't win the general without Bernie supporters though, and I just don't see too many bernie supports holding their nose and turning out for hillary... Not with the enthusiasm Hillary needs. Maybe if Bernie is on the ticket, but Bernie would never do that I don't think... Maybe if Elizabeth Warren were on the ticket, but I don't think Hillary would do that. Wow, Ted Cruz falsely suggested Marco Rubio mocked the Bible and was just forced to fire his Communications Director. More dirty tricks! 3:44 PM In South Caroline Cruz was spreading it around that Rubio had desecrated the confederate flag.. although I think that helped Rubio with minority voters more than it hurt him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Trump goes on an anti-Cruz rant via twitter: (including the already posted one) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump Ted Cruz has been playing an ad about me that is so ridiculously false - no basis in fact. Take ad down Ted. Biggest liar in politics!3:50 PM Ted Cruz has now apologized to Marco Rubio and Ben Carson for fraud and dirty tricks. No wonder he has lost Evangelical support!3:55 PM Just saw the phony ad by Cruz - totally false, more dirty tricks. He got caught in so many lies - is this man crazy?4:06 PM Ted Cruz should be disqualified from his fraudulent win in Iowa. Weak RNC and Republican leadership probably won't let this happen! Sad.4:11 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 If faced with the choice of Hillary vs Cruz,Trump, Rubio, Kasich - Bernie voters either will vote for Clinton or not vote at all. At which point, I question whether they were democrats to begin with. It's not like any of the GOP candidates have any crossover appeal to pull their vote away from what their party represents. If given the choice of oatmeal or (perceived) dog****, do you choose to starve? Or do you eat you damn oatmeal and live another day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Here is the problem with that theory: People dislike Hillary, but they really, really, dislike Trump. This is a month old link but honestly I don't believe Trump has done anything to redeem himself with people like me recently. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/ Believe me, People really really don't like Hillary.. Don't like her on the right, don't like here on the left. It's odd that of the five biggest candidates on the GOP or Dem side, the only one without huge negatives is Rubio.. Anyway, I think Hillary has earned her distrust on policy issues. Trump earned it on not having good manors; I'll leave it to you to decide which you think is the most damning demonstration. For me it's going to war unjustly. For me it's advocating for more wars without any exit plan. That and not really having any political agenda she would like to accomplish which wasn't first mentioned by her rival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Larry was giving me a hard time earlier for saying I distrust Hillary, but at least I'm in good company. It seems 67% of Americans agree with me. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bernie-sanders-will-becom_b_9289066.html? Bernie Sanders Will Become President. The FBI and 67 Percent of Americans Distrust Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders has positive favorability ratings. He's the only leading candidate in 2016 with positive favorability ratings. If you care about losing to a Republican this year, then you should care about this fact. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not have positive favorability ratings. 59% of Americans distrust Donald Trump. 67% of Americans find Hillary Clinton "not honest and trustworthy." Yes, more Americans trust Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton. . . . Maybe Predicto is right that this distrust of Hillary is all the result of a "vast right wing conspiracy," or maybe it's just that she actually is dishonest, but either way I think the DNC has really screwed the pooch by anointing her. She won't win the general. Like I've been trying to tell you guys, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the GOP. If you don't want Trump, Cruz, or Rubio in the Oval Office, then Bernie is your best bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 If faced with the choice of Hillary vs Cruz,Trump, Rubio, Kasich - Bernie voters either will vote for Clinton or not vote at all. I think that's true.. I think a lot more however will go for Trump than you think. Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders? Some voters can't decide http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/politics/new-hampshire-primary-independent-voters/ Why Bernie Sanders Holds Potential Appeal for Trump Voters http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-bernie-sanders-holds-potential-appeal-trump-voters-n488051 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 This line here jumped out at me because its exactly what I was thinking as well when I started reading your post. Denmark is the equivalent to one of our States, not the Nation. It also is somewhat of an argument (maybe not IDK), for more power in the States and less for the Federal gov't. In theory yes, but states tend to generated fractured markets and duplicate activities which generates inefficiency. (Look at one of the "state's rights" Republicans solutions to health care. Essentially eliminate the ability of states to regulate health insurance in their state. They are right that the state's regulating their own health insurance industry is creating a fragmented market that is increasing over head and limiting competition and so driving up our costs. Though, I'm not sure that's worth the alternative in their plan.) On another, go vote. Even if you leave the Presidential ballot empty. I'm convinced the key to getting other parties going in this country is there to be a sense out there that there are actually people that are would vote for other candidates that aren't voting. And the best way to make that clear is to actually be voting. If there were a relatively large number of US Presidential ballots that were either right ins or left blank, people would start to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 At which point, I question whether they were democrats to begin with. It's not like any of the GOP candidates have any crossover appeal to pull their vote away from what their party represents. That is certainly one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is nearly half the Democratic party doesn't think Hillary is any different than electing a competent Republican. Half the Democratic party wants a different path than a moderate conservative path the party has been on for nearly ever. The country has real problems with special interests running amuck and burdening the country. Demi see it, Republicans see it; Hillary doesn't see it. It's not enough to sell your soul and grant pieces of our economies for special interests anymore. With literally Trillions of dollars evaporating from the treasury Half the Democrats are really looking for a game changer, as are half the Republicans. Hillary just isn't that. Hillary is literally the person who has figured out how to play the corrupt game the best. We need someone willing to blow up that same old corrupt game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 To me, those are uncomfortable questions that no one seems to be asking. Is Hillary different from Bill? Why was/is Bill so loved by almost the entire D Party but Hillary isn't (assuming there isn't much difference between the two)? While I can see that argument, I don't think I'd be THAT eager to jump to the "they hate her cause she's a woman" conclusion. I will point at the number of people in this thread who have pointed out that they just plain don't LIKE Cruz. So the "I get a creepy feeling from this one" label isn't EXCLUSIVELY applied to women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.