He keeps hinting it.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
He keeps hinting it.
where? I see no news article.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/23/renee-ellmers-worthy-life/
Anti abortion activists asking whether a female GOP representative is "worthy of life" because she stopped their insane bill (not like terrorists on your side have ever killed anyone before)
Keep on keeping on.
Anti abortion activists asking whether a female GOP representative is "worthy of life" because she stopped their insane bill (not like terrorists on your side have ever killed anyone before)
Keep on keeping on.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Audio from oral argument in the Fair Housing Act disparate-impact case is now available.
speculawyer
Member
From 2012:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/coats-preparing-for-re-election-in-2016
He's dropped a few more hints recently:
http://www.wthr.com/story/26522646/2014/09/12/bayh-passes-on-governor-may-help-hillary-in-2016
He wants to be involved in Hillary's campaign, but he's not sure not sure under what capacity. He also specifically says he's not running for governor, while being completely mum on a Senate run, even after being asked.
He's not running for governor, which has the same issues with why McCaskill wouldn't want be be governor: her veto would just be overridden on every vote. So while governor might have been the highlight of his life, I couldn't imagine it would appeal to any Democrat in Indiana.
So, if he wants to run for office (which, again, he's hinted at), he either can be in the Senate or be Hillary Clinton's VP running mate.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It's funny actually.
Republican's can't be pro-life because they're anti-healthcare.
They can't be anti-abortion, because they're anti-contraceptive.
They can't be pro-birth, because they're against child care and maternity leave, and also anti-healthcare.
They can't be anti-sex, because they're anti-expanding rape laws.
All that's left is being anti-women. I can't think of any policy exceptions there.
Sorry but he cant beat coats. Why you think he retired in 2010? He knew exactly what was coming for the Democrats & I suspect Coats retiring in the next mid-term so the Democrats can never get that seat back. Thats why I hope Bill Nelson of Florida stays put. The Florida Democrats have enough problems as it is trying to win the Governorship let alone an open senate seat in 2018.
Who knows. Rubio may retire, fail next year as a Presidential candidate and run for either Nelson's seat or Governor's seat. He would be formidable in either in that environment.
Sorry, but the few polls that have been done have him beating Coats by a decent margin.
Polls are a snapshot in time. Indiana is a red state. Hillary is going to lose Indiana by 8-10. What is Evan Bayh's argument to kicking Coats out? The guy retired in 2010 knowing he was going to lose to Coats that Fall. He saw the writing on the wall and got out.
Okay. So, here's the deal: We can have a conversation about hypotheticals. That's fine. We do that all the time. We did that this entire past election season. But, arguing that "polls are a snapshot in time" when you postulate that "Sorry but he cant beat coats" is silly. Polls show the race, at worst, competitive. Don't move goal posts like that, or brush off information that doesn't fit your narrative, okay?
I get that you're deal is doom and gloom, but this is tiresome.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Now, now. Bayh would be a pretty formidable candidate. I don't think it'd be a slam dunk by any means, but he could at least make it a tossup. He has a lot of money and a rich family legacy. On top of which he'd be running in a presidential year, and the presidential candidate will be Hillary Clinton, who has the exact type of profile for a state like Indiana which is swingy with the right candidate and environment, which is why Obama was able to win there in 2008. At this current moment in time Hillary's poll numbers look strong enough that states like MO and IN could be put on the map again, though they shouldn't be a focus unless she really starts running away with it.
With Rubio apparently moving towards a presidential run that should help us out a lot in Florida. I think Rubio is overrated as a candidate but winning an open seat will always be easier than winning against an incumbent. Still hoping for Pat Murphy.
With Rubio apparently moving towards a presidential run that should help us out a lot in Florida. I think Rubio is overrated as a candidate but winning an open seat will always be easier than winning against an incumbent. Still hoping for Pat Murphy.
Skiptastic
Member
Indiana is a red state who last elected a Democrat Senator. We also voted for Obama while overwhelmingly voting for Mitch Daniels in 2008.
He can beat Coats.
Other thing to keep in mind is Bayh is sitting on a $10 million+ campaign warchest that he never shut down. It's probably significantly more than that if it was invested properly.
The political environment in 2016 will be much more favorable to Bayh in Indiana than in 2010 which was a nasty wave election year.
Even if he doesn't win he'll suck up a lot of Republican money defending the seat and drive turnout in the down-ballot races on the Dem side in Indiana.
Mike Pence couldn't clear 50% on the ballot in Indiana in 2012 in the governor's race.
I think the whole "red state" flip in 2010 was way overblown. The state leans red but Dems can win statewide. State Legislature & Congressional delegations are the way they are due to gerrymandering.
The political environment in 2016 will be much more favorable to Bayh in Indiana than in 2010 which was a nasty wave election year.
Even if he doesn't win he'll suck up a lot of Republican money defending the seat and drive turnout in the down-ballot races on the Dem side in Indiana.
Mike Pence couldn't clear 50% on the ballot in Indiana in 2012 in the governor's race.
I think the whole "red state" flip in 2010 was way overblown. The state leans red but Dems can win statewide. State Legislature & Congressional delegations are the way they are due to gerrymandering.
Murdoch was a flawed nominee. Donnelly would have been toast under Lugar. Democrats got lucky breaks in 2010 & 2012.
I'm not trying to be gloom and doom. I am looking at each situation at the fundamentals of how their states vote at the federal and state level.
Yeah, January 2015 environment in no predicts what a October 2016 will look like. I understand candidates having no chance now could conceivably be competitive come October 2016 like Murdoch and Akin was in 2012.
Hillary could win Indiana? yes. Could she win Montana? yes. Fundamentals arent set in stone forever. Kansas in 50 year could become purple. You never know. x)
WayneMorse
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
Keep in mind there's also the nonzero chance that Coats may retire.
Dominican Power
Member
Am I the only one that thinks that Rubio would of be a much stronger candidate if he was a Democrat?
speculawyer
Member
You're the only one that bothers to think about Rubio as a candidate. ;-)
RustyNails
Member
The protesters yesterday were chanting "Hey, Obama, yo mama chose life"
speculawyer
Member
Oh please let this happen. Please.
http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-2016-course-shes-interested-191115678.html
She's just teasing.
Also, even before Mourdock's rape comment, Donnelly was fairly even/up in most polls. And then he outperformed all of his polls (like Heitkamp), promoting him to a larger win than anticipated.
I don't think Donnelly could've beaten Lugar, but I think without Mourdock even mentioning rape, Donnelly still would've won.
I don't think Donnelly could've beaten Lugar, but I think without Mourdock even mentioning rape, Donnelly still would've won.
WayneMorse
Banned
"Please send me money to help me think."
Apparently she barely updates the web TV channel she started a while ago. She just took the money and ran.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6534922?1422050313
Lol this is sad
Shows priorities and how they feel about human rights and minorities
Lol this is sad
Shows priorities and how they feel about human rights and minorities
Scotus to take on case on execution drugs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/u...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/u...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Dominican Power
Member
I can care less about him.
No way man, they will have a laser like focus on protecting against unconstitutional attacks on your liberty and freedoms by Big
Minority
gutter_trash
Banned
thanks man for the round up. Remember that Laura was an LBJ Democrat before marrying W. So there is still some Democrat blood flowing in her.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Yeah, but:
That's kind of screwed up. How'd you like to be the guy scheduled to die next Thursday? First he hears that the Supreme Court will take the case, then he hears that he'll be dead before they even consider it. (Actually, it seems like that would be true of all three inmates--the latest of their executions is scheduled for March 5.)
I saw that. Completely fucked up.
That's not right, that's not right at all.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The inmates' lawyers could still ask the Court to stay the executions again. Surely at least one of the justices who voted against staying them last week will recognize the pending case as a sufficient reason to stay the executions now. I hope.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Every presidential candidate would be a much stronger candidate if they were a Democrat. Being a Republican means the primary voters are going to corner you into saying something idiotic.
Of course, the pendulum will eventually swing back to the Republicans in presidential politics and it'll be advantageous to be one. If not for Carter, Republicans would have had an uninterrupted string of victories between 1968 and 1988. I think we're going to see that with the Democrats for a bit which will force the GOP to find a candidate to reshape the party like what Bill Clinton was for the Democrats.
That makes sense. The Dems lost repeatedly, lost the court, lost the public's faith, and finally had to do a pretty big adjustment.
The GOP's going to have to go through a similar process, but I see their base as being much much more resistant to change/compromise than the Democratic base. I wonder how long it'll take.
They haven't won without a Bush or Nixon since 1928 so they in the last 88 years haven't changed much. The democrats have a chance to rule the WH for the next 16 years if things go their way. Hillary in 2016, 2020, Castro in 2024 & 2028.
To think, the party of slavery and jim crow will give us the first black, possible first woman & possible first Latino president.
Yup.
After watching lop-sided victories for the GOP in my younger years, seeing the pendulum swing back has been incredible to watch.
---
And Alabama has fallen to the gays.. this just in:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/253551999/1-14-cv-00208-53-Alabama-Opinion-and-Order
No stay. Wow!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Has anybody been watching the nightly show? I've liked it so far.
speculawyer
Member
I think most of the non crazy GOPers realize that this issue is a loser and they are hoping that it just goes away ASAP. They never talk about it.
Wrong side of history.
speculawyer
Member
I guess Maher nailed the original name of her book.
Similarly, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palins (R) latest book, America By Heart, Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag she left out Fetuses, Maher quipped was originally titled, Hey Sucker: Yeah, You. Give Me $29.95.
I like his monologues a lot. The panel section could use better moderating (and occasionally guests). I've quickly started skipping the "Keep it 100" section though. I feel like they should either scrap that entirely or mix it up with other bits.
jamesinclair
Banned
Yeah the democrats can't lose.
Just like the governor's mansion in solid blue states like Massachusetts and Maryland after years of economic growth.
Republicans never stood a chance
Your right & Wyoming or Tennesse will never elect a democratic Governor again because their too red.
Democrats never stood a chance.......lol
Realistically, nothing stays forever but I see your point however, situations like those are I argue exceptions not the norm. See Wyoming Governors race in 2002.
My above scenario you quoted would be a exception not the rule. Hillary winning in 2016 would be a break from the norm. Elections are never set in stone. Will we see a Democratic house in 10 years? Sure. A Democratic Senator from Kansas in 25 years? Sure.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Huh...
GOP may abolish Supreme Court filibusters:
I think the bolded is the only reason making such a change now makes sense. If the Republicans are committed to changing the rule only with the consent of a 2/3 majority, then the best time to pick up Democrats' votes is now, when both parties are behind a veil of ignorance regarding who will control the presidency and the Senate after 2016.
But, I don't believe for a moment that the Republicans wouldn't change the rules with a simple majority if they still hold the Senate and pick up the presidency in 2016.
EDIT: Oh, and the government has filed its brief in King. (The petitioners' brief is here.)
GOP may abolish Supreme Court filibusters:
Politico said:
I think the bolded is the only reason making such a change now makes sense. If the Republicans are committed to changing the rule only with the consent of a 2/3 majority, then the best time to pick up Democrats' votes is now, when both parties are behind a veil of ignorance regarding who will control the presidency and the Senate after 2016.
But, I don't believe for a moment that the Republicans wouldn't change the rules with a simple majority if they still hold the Senate and pick up the presidency in 2016.
EDIT: Oh, and the government has filed its brief in King. (The petitioners' brief is here.)
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Well, they probably get the senate in 2018 either way, and are pretty even for control in the long term, just going by how the map works out for them. They could really have an advantage in the long term if midterms continue to be a thorn in democrat's side.
I wonder if they think they could get Hillary to budge on appointing a justice with very little or no support from democrats.
Yeah I've been enjoying it. It has potential but Larry still seems a little awkward hosting. After some time spent building experience i could see it becoming great. I'm liking the panel discussions a lot more than i thought i would.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Since the thread is slow tonight, I'll comment on the government's brief in King: the first argument made by the government is this:
I'm surprised that the government started off with this argument. Not only is it a bad argument, but it's the sort of argument that injures one's credibility. It should have been stuck in the middle, as an aside that could be glossed over--or, better yet, omitted entirely.
This is because the "subclauses setting forth the technical formula for calculating how much the subsidy should be" are the very place where Congress chose to limit subsidies to taxpayers who purchase insurance from an Exchange, even assuming that who established the Exchange is irrelevant. So, the argument is just as effective at showing that that limit couldn't have been intended, either. Consider the following alternate-dimension version of the argument, wherein the Solicitor General is called upon to defend the decision of the IRS to provide credits under section 36B to any "applicable taxpayer" who is covered by health insurance (regardless of where such insurance was obtained):
But, of course, nobody denies that subsidies are limited to those who purchase on an Exchange. What's worse, the number of "applicable taxpayers" who are ineligible for credits because of the Exchange requirement surely dwarfs the number of "applicable taxpayers" who are ineligible for credits because of the established-by-the-State requirement. So the SG's argument is, in essence, "It's astonishing that Congress, having buried its disqualification of tens of millions of 'applicable taxpayers' in these two subclauses, would have then gone on to further bury a disqualification of far fewer millions in these two subclauses." That's not an argument to be taken seriously.
And this isn't a novel retort to the government's argument, so they must have known it was a bad one.
King v. Burwell said:
I'm surprised that the government started off with this argument. Not only is it a bad argument, but it's the sort of argument that injures one's credibility. It should have been stuck in the middle, as an aside that could be glossed over--or, better yet, omitted entirely.
This is because the "subclauses setting forth the technical formula for calculating how much the subsidy should be" are the very place where Congress chose to limit subsidies to taxpayers who purchase insurance from an Exchange, even assuming that who established the Exchange is irrelevant. So, the argument is just as effective at showing that that limit couldn't have been intended, either. Consider the following alternate-dimension version of the argument, wherein the Solicitor General is called upon to defend the decision of the IRS to provide credits under section 36B to any "applicable taxpayer" who is covered by health insurance (regardless of where such insurance was obtained):
Bing v. Kurwell said:
But, of course, nobody denies that subsidies are limited to those who purchase on an Exchange. What's worse, the number of "applicable taxpayers" who are ineligible for credits because of the Exchange requirement surely dwarfs the number of "applicable taxpayers" who are ineligible for credits because of the established-by-the-State requirement. So the SG's argument is, in essence, "It's astonishing that Congress, having buried its disqualification of tens of millions of 'applicable taxpayers' in these two subclauses, would have then gone on to further bury a disqualification of far fewer millions in these two subclauses." That's not an argument to be taken seriously.
And this isn't a novel retort to the government's argument, so they must have known it was a bad one.
Avon Barksdale
Member
The right-wing guy on the Real Time panel was flat-out comical when it came to climate change. He referenced Galileo as to why climate change doesn't exist.
Avon Barksdale
Member
PLZ
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yeah I se him getting better though, Everybody starts out that way and I'll agree they need to mix up the keeping it 100. And I'd love to see them do field reports from underreported stories about communities that aren't covered very well.
For example off the top of my head something like the shenanagans in South Dakota with the rediculous restrictions on voting for Native Americans. Stories like that I think they could have some fun with.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked