PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhoenixDark said:
I'm surprised Reid said anything about it. The WH seems quite confident that they'll win a shutdown battle. I'd imagine there's a possibility that this blows up in their faces if the public outcry is large enough but I'd still take the risk. Funding the government shouldn't be played with, I think most people understand that. Especially once social security threats come into place.
Click to expand...

He did. He spoke to Obama and told him to punt Immigration until after they vote for the budget.
 
Coriolanus said:
Motherjones on how Franken won.



Comments are somewhat amusing, with a guy suggesting a Franken/Warren ticket. #believe.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Minnesota is pretty blue. But then again so is Maryland and Democrats bungled the gubernatorial race there.

Franken has been a great senator.

I have a fantasy about Klobuchar being picked as the VP nom, elected and having Keith Ellison appointed in her place. Republicans would lose their shit at having a Muslim and a Jewish senator while Democrats control the White House yet again.
 
Oblivion said:
Anyone notice that despite the midterm catastrophe, Obama's actually been doing pretty good this week? He seems a lot more energetic and spirited now than before. Maybe he's realized since he doesn't have control of either house of congress that now's the perfect time to say "fuck it"?

edit: Observe:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/president-bounces-the-ropes
Click to expand...

Took him 6 years to finally take the "I welcome their hatred" approach, unfortunately. This should have been the approach after the stimulus exposed the GOP gameplan.
 
Aaron Strife said:
To be fair, Minnesota is pretty blue. But then again so is Maryland and Democrats bungled the gubernatorial race there.

Franken has been a great senator.

I have a fantasy about Klobuchar being picked as the VP nom, elected and having Keith Ellison appointed in her place. Republicans would lose their shit at having a Muslim and a Jewish senator while Democrats control the White House yet again.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why blame the senators is going on. DSCC holds the purse. Every senator would have to abide by what DSCC rules.
 
I'm glad Obama is being more assertive in these recent days. It was a sixth year midterm, the president's party almost always takes a beating. The media wants grand bargains everywhere, Obama should just focus on implementing as much of his agenda as he can without Congress while Democrats focus on 2016.

Hopefully his approval ratings will rebound a bit too. If he crawls back up to 50 that would be a success.
 
pigeon said:
Yes, and?

edit: To clarify: are you trying to ask a question here? What question? Are you trying to draw some conclusion here? What conclusion? Do you have any specific thoughts about why California might lead "some poverty measures"? For example, California is first in the nation for number of people below the poverty line, not per capita (that is, not the rate of poverty for people in the state, but the actual number of people who are impoverished). Can you think of any reason why California might lead that particular metric?
Click to expand...

ivysaur12 said:
TN gay marriage cert petition filed.

pennygif
Click to expand...

I was looking at the "Supplemental Poverty" measure. Is that widely seen as a better way to measure poverty? I wonder why California ranks so high then? Possible housing costs.
 
Grexeno said:
I don't know, I still have this feeling that overall, Democrats embracing Obama would have just made them lose even harder.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. But even if they lost that way it would have been honorable instead denying voting for Obama, running from Obamacare, and demanding a vote for a pipeline to import Canadian oil.
 
joewalshvsmarkkirk_zps0f0891c7.png


Winnie-the-Pooh_zpssokhckle.gif


Hey, maybe he can lose to Tammy Duckworth again!
 
APKmetsfan said:
I liked new rules tonight on non-voters.
Click to expand...
Every time someone takes pride in not voting I'm reminded of that episode of Simpsons where Homer stops going to church out of laziness and tries justifying it to Marge by saying he's achieved enlightenment without church.

(Not that I'm against not going to church)
 
Aaron Strife said:
Every time someone takes pride in not voting I'm reminded of that episode of Simpsons where Homer stops going to church out of laziness and tries justifying it to Marge by saying he's achieved enlightenment without church.

(Not that I'm against not going to church)
Click to expand...

I do still think a non-vote can still be seen as a type of vote. Maybe not if true busyness or laziness is the reason, but when you're looking at the lowest turnout since people were too busy fighting hitler to vote and approval ratings across the board are as terrible as they are, it probably has more than simple laziness to do with it.

It's not the right way to use your vote in my opinion, but voting republican isn't the right way to vote either, and we seem plenty concerned with the opinion of swing voters who voted republican. I still don't know why we think the people that don't vote aren't worth listening to, when stats seem to suggest there's probably plenty of people out there that would vote except don't because they hate everything about both parties right now, unless you can come up with a good reason why chronic laziness happens to be hitting us right at this very moment.
 
APKmetsfan said:
I liked new rules tonight on non-voters.
Click to expand...

Agreed - one for Apathy-GAF.

thepotatoman said:
I do still think a non-vote can still be seen as a type of vote. Maybe not if true busyness or laziness is the reason, but when you're looking at the lowest turnout since people were too busy fighting hitler to vote and approval ratings across the board are as terrible as they are, it probably has more than simple laziness to do with it.

It's not the right way to use your vote in my opinion, but voting republican isn't the right way to vote either, and we seem plenty concerned with the opinion of swing voters who voted republican. I still don't know why we think the people that don't vote aren't worth listening to, when stats seem to suggest there's probably plenty of people out there that would vote except don't because they hate everything about both parties right now, unless you can come up with a good reason why chronic laziness happens to be hitting us right at this very moment.
Click to expand...

When has not voting produced change though? Generally, the ruling party governs for those that show up (including their backers / business interests).

I think Bill's point is that there's a difference between:
- not voting because neither candidate represents you; vs.
- not voting because 'both parties are the same' / 'i don't want to get my hands dirty'

The latter especially is loathsome, because even though there are some issues where is little difference between the two parties, there's also enough difference where real change can be made. See his point about the medicaid expansion in FL. Moreover, not voting doesn't appear to be an effective strategy because it's never going to produce the change that you seek. Voting isn't going to be made easier by not showing up. Finally, not voting just creates a vacuum for other interests to show up.
 
Jooney said:
I think Bill's point is that there's a difference between:
- not voting because neither candidate represents you; vs.
- not voting because 'both parties are the same' / 'i don't want to get my hands dirty'

The latter especially is loathsome, because even though there are some issues where is little difference between the two parties, there's also enough difference where real change can be made. See his point about the medicaid expansion in FL. Moreover, not voting doesn't appear to be an effective strategy because it's never going to produce the change that you seek. Voting isn't going to be made easier by not showing up. Finally, not voting just creates a vacuum for other interests to show up.
Click to expand...

Yep, especially that last one. The fewer people vote the more affect groups that spend huge amounts of money will have.
 
thepotatoman said:
I do still think a non-vote can still be seen as a type of vote. Maybe not if true busyness or laziness is the reason, but when you're looking at the lowest turnout since people were too busy fighting hitler to vote and approval ratings across the board are as terrible as they are, it probably has more than simple laziness to do with it.

It's not the right way to use your vote in my opinion, but voting republican isn't the right way to vote either, and we seem plenty concerned with the opinion of swing voters who voted republican. I still don't know why we think the people that don't vote aren't worth listening to, when stats seem to suggest there's probably plenty of people out there that would vote except don't because they hate everything about both parties right now, unless you can come up with a good reason why chronic laziness happens to be hitting us right at this very moment.
Click to expand...

But the problem is...what are the actual consequences of that? Its not like there's a committee waiting for voter turnout rates to drop below a certain level before they go "whelp looks like its time to dramatically overhaul Washington". Not voting might be a statement, but it doesn't actually advance the interests professed by those who adamantly don't vote in any meaningful way
 
Jooney said:
When has not voting produced change though? Generally, the ruling party governs for those that show up (including their backers / business interests).

I think Bill's point is that there's a difference between:
- not voting because neither candidate represents you; vs.
- not voting because 'both parties are the same' / 'i don't want to get my hands dirty'

The latter especially is loathsome, because even though there are some issues where is little difference between the two parties, there's also enough difference where real change can be made. See his point about the medicaid expansion in FL. Moreover, not voting doesn't appear to be an effective strategy because it's never going to produce the change that you seek. Voting isn't going to be made easier by not showing up. Finally, not voting just creates a vacuum for other interests to show up.
Click to expand...

Is it really any more loathsome than voting for republicans because you're upset with the government right now and you want to stick it to the democrats as the ruling party right now?

You all can give many reasons why they're mistaken by not voting, just like I can give a million reasons why they'd be mistaken by voting republican, but you're not explaining why the subjective mistake of not voting is treated so differently from the subjective mistake of voting for the wrong guy.

EDIT:
The Technomancer said:
But the problem is...what are the actual consequences of that? Its not like there's a committee waiting for voter turnout rates to drop below a certain level before they go "whelp looks like its time to dramatically overhaul Washington". Not voting might be a statement, but it doesn't actually advance the interests professed by those who adamantly don't vote in any meaningful way
Click to expand...

Ideally this is correct. Everyone should vote, and the differences between the two parties do become far more pronounced when a party gains a very large majority. But that's not what is happening and people just aren't voting like that. You can't ignore reality just because people aren't following the ideal.

Those people are not beyond becoming persuaded to vote. People have had better turn outs in midterms before, and they will have better turnouts again. But if they're not voting because they're dissatisfied with both parties, that's not going to change by simply nagging them into voting. One of the two parties needs to better prove they're worth the vote.
 
thepotatoman said:
Is it really any more loathsome than voting for republicans because you're upset with the government right now and you want to stick it to the democrats as the ruling party right now?

You all can give many reasons why they're mistaken by not voting, just like I can give a million reasons why they'd be mistaken by voting republican, but you're not explaining why the subjective mistake of not voting is treated so differently from the subjective mistake of voting for the wrong guy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're confusing my viewpoint with the viewpoints of others here, but my point is not to equivocate between 'voting republican' and 'not voting at all because both parties are the same etc.'. The former, while something I probably wouldn't do in most scenarios, is at least an expression of participation in a democracy. The latter however, is a notion that by somehow not participating, that it will spark some future action at an undefined time that the government will somehow start acting in your interests. I don't know at any point in American history if that has ever been true.
 
Jooney said:
Perhaps you're confusing my viewpoint with the viewpoints of others here, but my point is not to equivocate between 'voting republican' and 'not voting at all because both parties are the same etc.'. The former, while something I probably wouldn't do in most scenarios, is at least an expression of participation in a democracy. The latter however, is a notion that by somehow not participating, that it will spark some future action at an undefined time that the government will somehow start acting in your interests. I don't know at any point in American history if that has ever been true.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much people trying to make a statement as it is people finding it pointless.

But I still think the fact that people are finding it pointless is a statement in itself.
 
Does anyone have an idea on what it will take for kansas to elect a non-republican to the senate?

I have been so curious and amazed at the Kansas Republican Party's strong grip on the state for decades & arguably a century considering its not the deep south and every other region has swung one way or the other since reconstruction.

ex: NE strongly republican, Deep south strongly Democratic etc.
 
NeoXChaos said:
Does anyone have an idea on what it will take for kansas to elect a non-republican to the senate?

I have been so curious and amazed at the Kansas Republican Party's strong grip on the state for decades & arguably a century considering its not the deep south and every other region has swung one way or the other since reconstruction.

ex: NE strongly republican, Deep south strongly Democratic etc.
Click to expand...

"What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank is a great book on the subject and general Culture Wars in America.

wNWqOXp.jpg
 
teruterubozu said:
"What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank is a great book on the subject and general Culture Wars in America.

wNWqOXp.jpg
Click to expand...

Cool thx. It also something I notice with states like Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana etc.

The first 3 stopped voting democratic governors into office into the 1970s as well as the U.S senate but the latter states kept sending Democrats to the senate and governor's mansion well into the 2000's aide from south dakota which hasnt elected a Democrat to the governor's mansion since the 1970's but sent Johnson and Daschle to the senate well into this year.

These states are also the voted for Johnson 1964 landslide but havent looked back since.

These states I researched have always had a republican tilt with rare democratic victories possible like Dave Fruenthal a democrat from Wyoming elected in 2002. Most of the above state legislatures have been R since the 1950's as well as many of their state officials since the 1940s.(Treasurer, auditor etc)

Its amazing and I wonder how long it can last considering nothing last for long. What will break the camels back in these states for the D's?
 
I REALLY hate "support for net neutrality" defined as a "leftist" issue.

It isn't left or right, it's common sense, and Ted Cruz is fucking ruining that for no good reason.
 
How can one be both sane and libertarian?

On some issues, like pot, or the NSA... okay.

On others... I don't understand you people.
 
APKmetsfan said:
He's just trolling the koch bros now. Also I love him also trolling Abbott in his own country.
Click to expand...

Abbott does a non-stop, very vigorous job of humiliating himself. Preposterous and genuinely nasty figure. Not just clumsy, although he is really, really fucking clumsy.
 
Grexeno said:
I don't know, I still have this feeling that overall, Democrats embracing Obama would have just made them lose even harder.
Click to expand...

Given the record low turnout and bams being the last guy that managed to motivate young voters, i somewhat doubt it.

Plus, y'know, florida and kentucky. those were fucking embarrassments.
 
No way, if they stood in confidence with the Pres (not to the extent of kissing his ass) and stayed POSITIVE on health care and the economy (unlike the timid display we saw) it would have paid off for them.

When it's a bad year for you anyway you work hard shield yourself from the worst extent of the damage. Democrats didn't do that this year. You don't walk a fine line on every issue pretending voters don't see your complete lack of authenticity.

Had they just stuck to what worked before, they would have if nothing else prevented their likely 2016 majority from once again being a minority in 2018. As I said in another thread, securing a Senate majority for the long-term is a numbers game and they totally forgot about that!
 
Diablos said:
No way, if they stood in confidence with the Pres (not to the extent of kissing his ass) and stayed POSITIVE on health care and the economy (unlike the timid display we saw) it would have paid off for them.

When it's a bad year for you anyway you work hard shield yourself from the worst extent of the damage. Democrats didn't do that this year. You don't walk a fine line on every issue pretending voters don't see your complete lack of authenticity.

Had they just stuck to what worked before, they would have if nothing else prevented their likely 2016 majority from once again being a minority in 2018. As I said in another thread, securing a Senate majority for the long-term is a numbers game and they totally forgot about that!
Click to expand...

DO we really think 2018 will be another 2010 & 2014?

We are getting ahead of ourselves although the 5 romney state D's no doubt have a tough fight ahead of them barring a retirement.
 
B-Dubs said:
Yep, especially that last one. The fewer people vote the more affect groups that spend huge amounts of money will have.
Click to expand...

What if your vote is truly worthless?

I voted and there were eight people I the ballot.

Like five of them ran unopposed. Not even a wacky third party to give an opposition vote to.

Two positions I'd next heard of. Like county director of insurance or some crap.

Corey Booker was essentially unopposed.

There were two state propositions, that were fun...

And two county propositions I had no fucking clue were going to be there, and post vote, I never heard the results for them.

I sort of felt like I wasted my time.
 
It's that time of year again. When the media goes trolling for any errors on healthcare.gov and breathlessly interviewing any "victims" who had to pay a bit more or switch plans. All this while shrugging as GOP govs refuse Medicaid expansion and the Roberts court prepares to take subsidies away from millions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Are all American supermarkets like Costco?
13
2K
Afro Republican replied
May Wrestling |OT2| We watch it so you don't have to
125 126 127 128 129
6K
346K
H1PSTER replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
Resetera reflects: This place sucks. We want GAF back.
39 40 41 42 43
2K
279K
Palliasso replied
Top Bottom