So no experience at politics and a dreadful experience at business is now all you need to be a contender?
So no experience at politics and a dreadful experience at business is now all you need to be a contender?
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
She's a multi-millionaire, and Trump is a billionaire. They've both used leverage to get where they are. Don't ask me why Republicans place so much emphasis on their net worth as examples of how they'd be good governors. If anything, I'd say it's more proof that the Republican Party is having an identity crisis.
She hit what... 5% after her pre-debate compared to 2% before? She is still a nobody in the race, and her bump is solely based on that one performance and the fact that so few people know who she is or what her history is. People are either for or against Trump at this point, and the camp against him is spread thin across everyone/anyone else. Thats a problem for the GOP as the candidates do and say dumber and dumber things trying to eat away at Trumps numbers. Like Jeb pulling a pants on fire comment that Planned Parenthood isn't involved in women's health.
A look at why she won't make the next debate http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...orina-problem/
GOP seems to be pulling out all the stops to get rid of Trump. The state primarys are now requiring candidates to sign and swear that they won't run as a 3rd party if they don't win the nomination.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I saw a PPP poll that put her third at 10% - maybe not everyone but in a crowded field where Bush and Walker were on 7% each in that poll, her hitting 10% was surprising.
maybe hitting the top 10, I'm not aware of a PPP poll that has put her anywhere near 10%, the last one had her at 4% (3 way tie for 6th in the rankings)
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/national/
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No direct source, I read it on a UK Politics Blog
EDIT: Found it on your PPP site: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...tered-the.htmlhttp://www2.politicalbetting.com/ind...op-nomination/
... The Public Policy Polling numbers are Trump 35, Kasich 11, Bush 7, Walker 7, Carson 6, Christie 4, Fiorina 10, Cruz 4, Paul 3, Rubio 4, Huckabee 0, Perry 2, Jindal 0, Graham 1, Santorum 1 ...
... The full South Carolina numbers are Trump 30, Carson 15, Bush 9, Walker 4, Huckabee 3, Graham 4, Rubio 6, Cruz 5, Fiorina 6, Kasich 3, Christie 2, Paul 3, Perry 0, Jindal 0 ...
Its a New Hampshire poll not a nationwide one. Though at this stage New Hampshire is pretty significant at winnowing down the field.
Its a good move. They don't that asshole Trump throwing it to the Democrats when he fails to win the nomination with the Republicans.
For the next election cycle it this one already? I mean, they would be changing the rules after the game started.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It hasn't started though. The nomination process is an informal affair. The only actual "game" is technically the general election. And even if we treated the nomination process as something more formal than it is, we're still six months away from the first state primary. The deadline to file to appear on the ballot is ~60 days for most states The game still wouldn't be started by any stretch of the imagination.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I meant that candidates entered and have expectations built on the rules as they were, and started spending big money based on what they expected.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
So? This is politics. Also the Republican Party is not a public institution.
If they want to enter early to try and build greater support, then they'll just have to accept some risks to go along with that potential reward.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
When I said I think the primaries are pretty weird to me altogether I was told that the process is in practice pretty much a public thing though.
Fair enough
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
The primaries are weird, Flixy.
It's also weird that the RNC has let Fox News and CNN write the rules for their debates based on polls (and some of those polls were conducted by Fox and CNN). It's understandable Fiorina would be upset after CNN decided to average past polls instead of her current 'popularity', which knocks her out of the top ten.
There's only so much interference that a major news network would allow with its programming...
Hope is the denial of reality
Sure. Which begs the question of primaries.....as designed by political parties....and if they use the media, or the media uses them.
Or both...
Hope is the denial of reality
Exactly
You are familiar with the term "the fourth estate"? You actually understand its origin and meaning?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
To be fair, the media is organising (and broadcasting) the debates right? The parties are completely free to organise their own debates right?The primaries are weird, Flixy.
It's also weird that the RNC has let Fox News and CNN write the rules for their debates based on polls (and some of those polls were conducted by Fox and CNN). It's understandable Fiorina would be upset after CNN decided to average past polls instead of her current 'popularity', which knocks her out of the top ten.
Plus with so many candidates you're going to have to cut a few to have a meaningful debate, and no matter what criteria you use, someone will be pissed off. And the rules are made public in advance I think? Not changed to keep someone specific out?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You can't change the rules during the game. Fiorina and all other contenders knew what the rules were before she entered the race.
Strangely the parties don't really organize the debate. They need the networks to broadcast them, so they are technically hosted by the networks and negotiated with various parties having different pieces of leverage.
False equivalency. This is an election not a game. As long as there are no laws being broken any candidate can do whatever they want. Any party can do whatever they want. Hell in some instances it doesn't even need to be a Democratic process to select a candidate. Why? Because the Democratic Party and the GOP aren't public institutions. You can argue that things are 'unfair' (and certainly people do) but you are being silly if you say they "can't change the rules during the game." Yes they can.
It's a saying, of course this isn't a game but it still applies in this instance about how the debates are organised. If the rules were changed after they've been agreed so close to the debate then there'd inevitably be a winner and a loser from that change - and the loser could have standing to sue. Whereas the loser from not changing the rules knew what they were when they entered so has no grounds to sue.
Besides we're not talking about the parties or the candidates here but the networks debate. I think the networks changing the rules in or to change the candidates and thus change the parties nomination from what was agreed with the parties beforehand would be more than slightly controversial.
I get the impression people are talking about cross-purposes. GGT is engaged in her usual mealy-minded holistic conflation and somehow taking dislike to the fact that news organizations are deciding how many people they're going to invite to an event the news organization is creating and organizing. Lewk was talking about Trump and I think still is? And Rand and Flixy are talking about Fiorina's declaration that she suddenly doesn't like the ranking criteria which the news organizations announced back in May (now that those criteria are knocking Fiorina out of the main event)
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Yes that's what I'm talking about, in my most recent posts. It is too late to complain about a criteria agreed in May, if the media change it now then they may as well invite everyone on stage.
There may be mistakes in the criteria, but that's a lesson for next time now. I don't like these criteria as they don't help me/my candidate is not a valid argument now.
CNN has decided to change "criteria" for their debate...to make it more reflective of polls done after the first debate, where Fiorina makes the top ten. The RNC chairman is "pleased" with the changes (probably after putting some pressure on CNN).
As for my mealy-minded holistic conflation, the debates don't HAVE to be coordinated or organized by a TV station, or a news agency. The parties could just as easily make their own rules/criteria, pick a few moderators (from a long list), choose a venue (with or without an audience), hire a small camera crew to film it -- and allow any network (or website) to broad cast it live or recorded.
It's an outdated notion to think political debates can only draw large audiences if a "big news outlet" hosts them. (So is spending tons of money on slick TV ads.) Trump knows that, and has mastered the use of "social media" that creates a fear and loathing within the party elite machinery, because they still want to win elections the old way.
If you think that kind of a debate would get the same viewership as something aired on CNN, Fox News, or NBC, I have a bridge to sell you.
Hope is the denial of reality
Just because you think people prefer the speculative demeanor of Big Media controlled debates doesn't mean it's so. I'd love to see something put on by the RNC.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Don't let facts get in the way of your delusions. Obviously the major parties are ceding power to the networks just for shits and giggles.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote