2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

Please educate me about this legendary corporate disaster.

I thought H-P's case was simply one of a declining company caught out by the commodifiction of PCs and peripherals.

The story of HP is the story of a company that lost its direction, invested a lot of money in failed acquisitions and ventures, and engendered extreme discontent among its employees to the point that corporate morale tumbled.  HP wasn't just along for the ride during unfavorable market conditions, it was maniacally seesawing at the wheel.  It didn't end with Fiorina, and from the sounds of it it never ended at all, but it started during her time.

Of course, corporate world is just like politics, sometimes it's very difficult to attribute success and failure fairly.  Sometimes other actors you can't control fuck up the situation for you, and sometimes your policies start paying off after you've been shoved aside and declared a failure.  But in any case, Carly has to start off by excusing her disastrous tenure.  Or give misleading numbers out of context, which is what she chooses to do instead.

[Berkut]

The more I think about it, the more I'm bewildered that Fiorina is even getting to this stage (though she'll fade, no doubt, after her period of being curiosity of the moment passes).  Her one and only claim to fame is being the face of the legendary corporate disaster, the kind of disaster that would make it to textbooks all on its own merits.  I guess most people just don't follow such news, and when they first hear the tales of such mismanagement, they'll just discount it as election season hyperbole.

She has a very specific and important purpose in the primary. It isn't to get elected President.

[alfred russel]

Yes most nuclear warheads are built from printers.

What does that have to do with her violating sanctions while at HP.

Your quoted text says there was a loophole that HP used.

Doesn't make it right.

From working in corporate America, I've seen lots of business done with countries the US has sanctions on--through owned subsidiaries, investees the company doesn't fully own, or other methods. I don't understand how this happens--I just assume the lawyers have it all figured out.

It is both common and something she probably would only be loosely connected to as CEO--a source of $100m in revenues over 6 years was probably not at the top of her concerns--revenue was more like $45b a year.

[Phillip V]

First post-debate poll by CNN today: Fiorina now in 2nd place behind Trump with Rubio a few points behind.  Walker drops to 0%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

[Admiral Yi]

You certainly can't fault this primary for entertainment value.

[Phillip V]

Romney needs to get back in the ring and clean up these folks.

[Berkut]

I assumed Fiorina was in the race as the token Republican female who can attack Clinton on issues that the men are not interested in touching.

However, that theory presumes that there is a level of coordination happening at the party level that includes getting people to run not because they want or think they are viable candidates, but because there is some strategy and coordination of that strategy that includes people "above" the candidates, so to speak, organizing such things, and then going out and recruiting and communicating those wishes to people (along with funding, of course).

Do people generally think that level of coordination is actually happening?

Obviously that can backfire, or in some cases you actually see a non-real candidate potentially become real.

And in other cases you have the Donald Trumps of the world come along and just shit all over everything.

[alfred russel]

I figured she ran because her business career is toast and raising her profile through a presidential run is a great way to end up with a cabinet or other juicy position.

I doubt the powers that be want all these candidates in the filed on the republican side. They run because, especially for republicans, there are lots of jobs you can get just for having a high profile (such as talk show host or fox news contributor).

[jimmy olsen]

First post-debate poll by CNN today: Fiorina now in 2nd place behind Trump with Rubio a few points behind.  Walker drops to 0%

Rubio looks like he could be the establishment candidate, but with Bush's war chest I don't see him pulling out any time soon.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

1. Donald Trump - 24% (-8%)
2. Carly Fiorina - 15% (+12%)
3. Ben Carson - 14% (-9%)
4. Marco Rubio - 11% (+8%)
5. Jeb! Bush - 9% (=)
6. Ted Cruz - 6% (-1%)
7. Mike Huckabee - 6% (+1%)
8. Rand Paul - 4% (+1%)
9. Chris Christie - 3% (+1%)
10. John Kasich - 2% (=)
11. Rick Santorum - 1% (=)
12. Scott Walker - 0% (-5%)
13. Bobby Jindal - 0% (-1%)
14. Lindsey Graham - 0% (-1%)
15. George Pataki - 0% (=)
16. Happy Gilmore - 0% (=)

DOWN GOES WALKER! DOWN GOES WALKER

[jimmy olsen]

I assumed Fiorina was in the race as the token Republican female who can attack Clinton on issues that the men are not interested in touching.

However, that theory presumes that there is a level of coordination happening at the party level that includes getting people to run not because they want or think they are viable candidates, but because there is some strategy and coordination of that strategy that includes people "above" the candidates, so to speak, organizing such things, and then going out and recruiting and communicating those wishes to people (along with funding, of course).

Do people generally think that level of coordination is actually happening?

Obviously that can backfire, or in some cases you actually see a non-real candidate potentially become real.

And in other cases you have the Donald Trumps of the world come along and just shit all over everything.

Before Citizen's United the party could control the money and thus could coordinate things like this. However, now that a candidates campaign can be supported by a billionaire or two without the help of the party, the establishment is fractured. They haven't coalesced around a single candidate and that is allowing the outsiders (who collectively always out polled Romney until the very end) to have a real chance to win. 

[jimmy olsen]

NBC online survey

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-online-survey-fiorina-won-debate-trump-still-leads-n430316

[11B4V]

29% for Trump...fucking lunatics

[DGuller]

First post-debate poll by CNN today: Fiorina now in 2nd place behind Trump with Rubio a few points behind.  Walker drops to 0%

Rubio looks like he could be the establishment candidate, but with Bush's war chest I don't see him pulling out any time soon.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

1. Donald Trump - 24% (-8%)
2. Carly Fiorina - 15% (+12%)
3. Ben Carson - 14% (-9%)
4. Marco Rubio - 11% (+8%)
5. Jeb! Bush - 9% (=)
6. Ted Cruz - 6% (-1%)
7. Mike Huckabee - 6% (+1%)
8. Rand Paul - 4% (+1%)
9. Chris Christie - 3% (+1%)
10. John Kasich - 2% (=)
11. Rick Santorum - 1% (=)
12. Scott Walker - 0% (-5%)
13. Bobby Jindal - 0% (-1%)
14. Lindsey Graham - 0% (-1%)
15. George Pataki - 0% (=)
16. Happy Gilmore - 0% (=)

DOWN GOES WALKER! DOWN GOES WALKER

I don't know anything specific about this poll, but my bullshit detector is flickering.  Too much noise, too many inexplicable movements.

[HisMajestyBOB]

It doesn't look too far off-base to me. Walker's been on a downward trend already, and his lackluster performance in the debates has sealed the deal regardless of how much SuperPac $$$ he has. Fiorina's support is going to draw from the outsider group - Carson and Trump - and that's what appears to happen. Rubio can be explained as being the only presidential-looking non-inept establishment candidate. The exact amount of support is debatable but the trend isn't suspicious.

[DGuller]

29% for Trump...fucking lunatics

if I were a Republican, I could certainly see an appeal in Trump.  The GOP is very, very well disciplined about the fact that the economic agenda of its plutocrat wing is not under any discussion.  Even discussions about discussing it are off-limits.  You want social conservatism and intolerance, you have to take crony capitalism with it (they'll package it in a way that will allow you to think it's in your interests, if that would make it easier for you to swallow). 

Trump is actually offering voters both the intolerance and by GOP standards pretty populist economic platform.  Turns out that a lot of people prefer that to what GOP has to offer.  And he's not just an outrage creating machine, he's a pretty energetic and captivating speaker, far more lucid than you would expect if you just form your opinion from outrageous things he says that make it to the news.