-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
SecretMoblin said:
Actually it was discussed before the new census numbers were revealed, because it was pretty obvious that the south would pick up electors and the north would lose some. It's made it a slightly more welcoming environment for Republicans, and increased the importance of winning Texas. The problem is in assuming that what were red states last time will stay red states. Texas voted 44% for Obama last go around. Since then the number of Hispanics who are more likely to vote Democratic have only increased in the state. In addition, the rest of the new Texas population came from outside the state, many from what are traditionally considered blue states. Honestly, it's probably going to take a few elections before anyone knows what's up.
As for redistricting, that's going to depend on various redistricting plans which haven't finalized yet. In Texas, in particular, that's hard to guess, because the Republicans will almost certainly overreach and then have a court battle. If history is a guide, they'll have to refactor once the court slaps them down. The only thing that seems certain down here is that they'll finally force Lloyd Dogget out, and that they're doing away with Ron Paul's district. The map that's been released down here is a negotiating map, and will certainly change before they finalize it. I think more than 30 states haven't even produced a map yet.
Overall, I suspect that people who think they know what the swing states will be in this election will turn out to be wrong. Because you're right, very few people have incorporated the electoral changes into their thinking. Ohio, for example, lost two electoral votes, reducing its importance. Florida picked up two, Texas picked up four. Most of the gains were in the south, which under traditional paradigms greases the wheel for Republicans, but many of those same states are in the middle of big demographic shifts.
It's a lot of text to say no one really knows how it's going to play out. First elections under new electoral schemes are always a little surprising.
My pokery on the subject was actually aimed elsewhere this time. I like to beat a dead horse as much as the next guy, but I've already razzed you enough about Huntsman.Invisible_Insane said:
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, those Republican governors in OH and FL are so loved right now that their voters will certainly vote for another Republican Governor to be president.Diablos said:
/sarcasm.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...used_of_offering_young_male_money_for_sex.php
Anti-Gay Marriage State Rep. Accused Of Offering Young Male Money 'For A Really Good Time'
Anti-Gay Marriage State Rep. Accused Of Offering Young Male Money 'For A Really Good Time'
Invisible_Insane
Member
No worries. I'm still watching the footage of the debate from last night, and he is just... bleh.besada said:
Also, did Santorum really accuse Iran of "trampling the rights of gays?" Really, Rick?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Zero Hero said:
ELECTION ALERT!
holy shit, and people still defend their propaganda?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Ulairi said:
Please do so. In fact, the post you were responding to (i.e. quoted), had nothing about the EPA.
I find it hilarious that you are trying to belittle me with your posts... yet you are the one that seems a bit confused.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30028605&postcount=14131
I remember reading an study around the '08 election (which I can't find right now) which claimed that if the GOP can't reverse Hispanic voting trends they lose Texas in 2016 or 2020 at the latest.besada said:
I fully expect them to do a 180 on immigration in the next decade.
speculawyer
Member
For party that berated Kerry as a flip-flopper, the GOP has done amazing amounts of 180s in recent years.Chichikov said:
-Deficit spending now bad despite proudly doing under Bush
-Liberating people living under dictator is bad in Libya despite touting that for Iraq
-Health Insurance mandates was GOP idea
-Cap & Trade for carbon
-Deficit commission
etc.
So why not do another 180 with immigration?
speculawyer said:
Speaking of 180s...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/important_piece_1.php?ref=fpblg
Pretty brazen of the GOP to claim this. But when you never get called out on your BS, you can pretty much say anything.
Chichikov said:
It's getting close down here. Katrina added nearly a million Democratic African-Americans to the state, and the great Hispanic demographic shift continues unchecked. If you'd told me in 1970, hell, even 1990, that Texas would vote 44% for a black Democratic President, I would have laughed in your face.
The Republicans will do their best to make sure those changes don't effect the makeup of the House, but they can only do so much. In the short term, I suspect you'll see the old guard clawing to maintain their power, particularly since it's increased at the national level, but I think that either this election cycle or next we'll reach a tipping point and state-level gridlock will neutralize some of that gain in power.
Texas Republicans are the very definition of short-sighted. Even though it's been obvious for a decade that we'll be a Hispanic state soon, they haven't managed to do much in the way of catering to the new powers. The only solution they seem able to come up with is to build a giant shark-filled moat with lasers around the border, which totally ignores that the Hispanics in the state are simply having more babies than anyone else. At best, even if they somehow manage to seal the borders, it just slows things down a little bit.
RustyNails
Member
And now, you have Rick Perry trailing Obama by two points in Texas. I doubt the numbers were this close during Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections at this time of year.besada said:
I find Perry all razzle dazzle. No denying the fact that Mitt Romney is the most electable of the bunch and GOP would be foolish to fall for Perry's charm. But then, it's the GOP and the evangelical base always has the biggest weight in GOP politics.
The thing is, being "tough on immigration" is not a core conservative belief.speculawyer said:
It's yet another tool to make poor people vote against their economic interests.
And now that this tool this outgrowing its usefulness, I fully expect the GOP to do an about face on immigration.
But they might've been a little bit too effective with their scare tactics, as McCain found out.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Incognito said:
Yup. Romney certainly can't attack Romney on social issues, like the 10th Amendment/gay marriage fiasco. Bachman might, but she has made the same "mistake" regarding that amendment in the past. And while Pawlenty is running on his record, Perry will negate that also given the job creation numbers in Texas (regardless of what type of jobs they were).
Perry would have to completely bomb out to not win the south. This is going to be a very interesting race. Although I wonder, Bachman seems like the type who will stay in the race regardless of her chance at winning the nomination. Her presence would hurt Perry more than Romney, as her supporters fall more in line with the Texas governor. So if this becomes an Obama v Hillary slug fest, she could wind up tipping things by siphoning votes from Perry.
PhoenixDark
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
That would indeed be a riot.
Given Romney's past, STRONG pro-choice positions I can't see how he'd attack Perry on social issues without opening the door to being smashed with a cocky smirk and one liner.
Lord_Byron28
Member
The entire GOP is a mishmash of contradictory statements and agendas due to lobbyists, the church, corporations and other political agendas. They want a small federal gov't that doesn't intervene and control as much but want the gov't to impose laws and align with their religious/moral values such as anti-abortion and banning gay marriage(gotta get your christian people on board). The constitution is their holy grail when it comes to being pro-gun(because of NRA and the redneck demograph) but in other issues they claim the constitution is irrevelant and that it is wrong. They want to reduce federal gov't spending and leave it to the State and Local gov't to figure out but seem to ignore the fact that a lot of states are completely unbalanced in terms of budget as it is which would just mean states either raising taxes significantly or the state will reduce spending on things people care about. A lot of conservatives scream about reducing the budget, out of control spending, and giant gov't but complain even more if a penny is reduced from Defense spending. They also seem to forget the Bush is the one that created the Department of Homeland Security or started two wars which is where a significant chunk of spending and our debt came from. Then we get into other fundamental issues where they are completely illogical such as claiming that reducing gov't spending and reducing big gov't(which will cause lots of gov't jobs to be cut) will somehow improve the employment rate and America's economy.speculawyer said:
There are some Republican/conservative issues I do actually agree with or partially agree with but most Republicans have quite a few good ideas that I agree with tethered with terrible and illogical ideas. There are some good Republicans I can support but the vast majority of them are crazy, corrupt or stupid. In the past, I'd say Republicans provide a nice balance to the Democrats because both sides balance each other so that we don't get plagued with flaws in either parties logic but most Republican policies right now aren't in the best interest for the majority of the nation and they are too stubborn and deluded to realize.
Romney looses to Perry just for the mere fact that he has that presidential look. His Texas charm will end up swaying the bible belt.RustyNails said:
I didn't catch the debate last night but have they starting attacking each other or are they still just going after Obama?
Dr. Pangloss
Member
The person that really gets screw by Perry is Pawlenty. Why vote for a guy that pulls his punches when you can get a real fire breather? There are really three categories of candidates right now:
Moderate Republicans (more socially liberal, but support the fiscal side):
Romney - leader
Huntsman - trying to go further left to pick up votes and failing at it
These guys will have it tough to get the real die hard conservatives
Hard Right (makes Republicans feel good about themselves, just like Obama did for liberals):
Bachmann
Perry - only one of these that has a shot in the general
Wild Cards:
Pawlenty - needs Iowa
Cain
Ron Paul - has dedicated support
Finished:
Santorum
Newt
I expect the knives to come out for Perry at the next debate. He hurts both Bachmann and Pawlenty. They both need Iowa. Perry has a big political target on his back.
Moderate Republicans (more socially liberal, but support the fiscal side):
Romney - leader
Huntsman - trying to go further left to pick up votes and failing at it
These guys will have it tough to get the real die hard conservatives
Hard Right (makes Republicans feel good about themselves, just like Obama did for liberals):
Bachmann
Perry - only one of these that has a shot in the general
Wild Cards:
Pawlenty - needs Iowa
Cain
Ron Paul - has dedicated support
Finished:
Santorum
Newt
I expect the knives to come out for Perry at the next debate. He hurts both Bachmann and Pawlenty. They both need Iowa. Perry has a big political target on his back.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
hmmm...getting interesting
planar1280
Banned
eznark said:
Supreme Court next? this is going to be a looong fight.
RustyNails
Member
Nah it wont. Not because he's GOP rep, but because he's a state level rep.Clevinger said:
SecretMoblin
Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
You don't think Cain or Huntsman qualifies for "finished"? I don't think Huntsman's campaign is where they wanted him to be at this point; he was supposed to get a ton of fawning media coverage and dedicated support from establishment Republicans, which would cause the grassroots to take a look at him. Neither of the first two scenarios happened. I think he's staying in this for a VP nod at best.
And Cain flamed out spectacularly after his first debate performance once people started actually listening to him. He used up all of his one-liners and now none of the conservative bloggers who were waving his flag care anymore. Everything I'm reading about last night from the right is about Bachmann and Perry.
Yep. How many of his constituents even know who he is? This isn't a sitting U.S. senator or even a congressman.RustyNails said:
Dr. Pangloss
Member
I think Huntsman is done. I just didn't want to leave Romney all alone. I think Huntsman ran a good campaign. He saw that everyone was competing for the same far right pool of voters and decided to go left to get the uncontested. Just too bad that they have no real sway over the party. The GOP really want a contrasting candidate this round, not Obama lite.SecretMoblin said:
Cain might be written off by the establishment, but he's still going. I wouldn't count him out till after Iowa. But he's probably a real long shot. I think if he put in the time like John McCain did in New Hampshire, then he might turn some heads. McCain was dedicated. He did townhall after townhall. If the voters really get to know you, then it doesn't matter how much the other campaigns spend. Won't be easy though.
speculawyer
Member
eznark said:
The funny thing would be if the mandate gets ruled as unconstitutional and then a later government a few years from now instead just creates a nationalized healthcare system.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
speculawyer said:
That is the only way it is going to work I think, once it does get ruled unconstitutional.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, Cain flamed out. Some nice one-liners but some of his arguments were just plain stupid and he spent a lot of time distancing himself from previous silly statements. He's toast.SecretMoblin said:
Newt certainly was the winner last night. No, he doesn't stand a chance of winning . . . but he did prove that he was a better debater than everyone else on stage and was able to think on his feed instead of just spew talking points.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
DasRaven said:
Yeah wake me up when we finally get to the Supreme Court as we all know that's the real end game here. The rest is just an appetizer.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I think Cain has zero chance, simply because of his skin color. Sad but true. How many Republicans are going to support Cain zealously like they did McCain back in '08?
From TPM:
This was the first thing I was interested in upon hearing of the ruling. It's true that the mandate is in many ways critical to the bill, but that's hole that can be filled so long as the rest of the bill is left standing.
The 11th Circuit didn't completely uphold the trial court's decision. It reversed the trial court ruling that, because there was no severability clause in the health care reform law, the unconstitutionality of the mandate rendered the entire law unconstitutional and unenforceable. In other words, the 11th Circuit ruled that the rest of the law still stands. Not a minor issue at all and one worth noting.
This was the first thing I was interested in upon hearing of the ruling. It's true that the mandate is in many ways critical to the bill, but that's hole that can be filled so long as the rest of the bill is left standing.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
TacticalFox88 said:
Republicans zealously supported McCain?
TacticalFox88
Banned
They sure as hell weren't going to vote for Obama.AlteredBeast said:
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Not till he locked up the nomination. Guy lost everything in the beginning: staff, fund raisers, and media coverage. He was totally written off. Even went on Jon Stewart hat in hand. Guy had to practically camp out in New Hampshire for months. Do you remember his acceptance speech that night? He basically went on and on because it was the first media coverage he had in weeks. When he reached South Carolina he made the shift rightward because New Hampshire was over with. Didn't need to appeal to moderates anymore.AlteredBeast said:
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I still dont see how they zealously supported him at any point in his candidacy. The whole Republican field only had zealots for Ron Paul.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The ruling was done by a panel of 3 judges, so the full court will probably take it up before the SC.
Fenderputty
Banned
eznark said:
If a mandate is found to be unconstitutional, would this have any affects on the car insurance mandate? How could you mandate one and not the other?
timetokill
Banned
Fenderputty said:
you don't have to have a car to live in the US
Fenderputty
Banned
Gallbaro said:
Got ya.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Fenderputty said:
And heeeeeeeere we go!
Invisible_Insane
Member
Car insurance mandate is imposed by the states, is the actual difference. A state could impose a mandate to buy health insurance.Fenderputty said:
- Status