• 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 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eznark

Banned
DasRaven said:
Just to close this, no, that wasn't my point, and I'll disengage here.

My point was why are they disenfranchising anyone if they believe in the power of their ideas?
Is their opposition to dumb/poor/whatever to understand the benefits or are the benefits illusory?
Click to expand...

CharlieDigital said:
His point is that the Republican worldview is increasingly unpalatable to the general public (not the voting public) outside of a few issues and that to stay in power, Republicans have to come up with ways to disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters. So you addressed the disenfranchisement, but did not address that the policies they are pushing for have no future based on current population trends (gay marriage, immigration, etc)
Click to expand...

What difference does the acceptance of your policies make if you can still win elections? The supposed shift to the right that led to the Red Tsunami (optics!) in 2010 gave them the power they need to (according to them) say fuck you to the opposition and do what they want.

We'll see how it works. By all accounts these past few months, Romney has run one of the worst campaigns in history yet PPP is going to put him ahead in a number of key elections? Maybe the GOP doesn't need voter ID, but if you can get it why not?
 
C

Chumly

Member
eznark said:
So I just skimmed some of the politico ebook on the Obama campaign and a lot of it seems completely within the realm of believable, certainly as credible as Game Change. Out of curiosity, do you guys ever feel ashamed that you only accept the credibility of anonymous sources when they conform to your world view?

i.e. what makes Mark Halperin more credible than Politico, especially given Halperin's history?
Click to expand...
Do you ever get tired of making bullshit straw man arguments?
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
eznark said:
What difference does the acceptance of your policies make if you can still win elections?
Click to expand...

Is this the type of government that you want? A government that doesn't cater to the electorate, but to a few, powerful entities in the background? Corporations that stand to benefit from policy actions at the expense of the public? A government where acceptance of policies is secondary to the monetary drivers behind the scenes?

But alas, you've again side-stepped his point -- not necessarily one that I agree with, but one that I can understand -- that the Republicans know that their ideas have no traction with the larger electorate and thus need to resort to games to try to reduce that electorate to win at all costs.

It's what they do.
 
E

eznark

Banned
CharlieDigital said:
Is this the type of government that you want? A government that doesn't cater to the electorate, but to a few, powerful entities in the background? Corporations that stand to benefit from policy actions at the expense of the public? A government where acceptance of policies is secondary to the monetary drivers behind the scenes?

But alas, you've again side-stepped his point -- not necessarily one that I agree with, but one that I can understand -- that the Republicans know that their ideas have no traction with the larger electorate and thus need to resort to games to try to reduce that electorate to win at all costs.

It's what they do.
Click to expand...


The original point was about the 2010 elections being bad for Republicans. My point is that's preposterous.

And no, I'm not defending the GOP here, just stating why it's goofy to think winning a bunch of state houses in 2010 was bad for the GOP.

Next you'll tell me Romney being up in Wisconsin in a democrat poll is bad for them as well.
 
E

eznark

Banned
DasRaven said:
To borrow from Sen. Trent Lott. If they had gone into the wilderness then, perhaps they "wouldn't have all the problems they have now."
Is it your opinion that they shift they made in 2010 was good for the GOP brand and future? If so, why is the GOP desperately trying to stop eligible voters from voting?
Click to expand...

CharlieDigital said:
No one has stated what you claim here.
Click to expand...

Really?

Seems to be exactly the argument DasRaven is making.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
I was at the gym, walking by the bank of screens and one had MSNBC on (Maddow). They had a segment graphic that said 'Men that stare at Zygotes'. Not sure what the context was, but I thought it was very clever.
 
D

DasRaven

Member
ToxicAdam said:
I was at the gym, walking by the bank of screens and one had MSNBC on (Maddow). They had a segment graphic that said 'Men that stare at Zygotes'. Not sure what the context was, but I thought it was very clever.
Click to expand...

Rachel's show, and career for that matter, have been tremendously helped by the fact that she's always had comedy writers in the production circle.
Makes all the wonkery more palatable. Kent Jones always brought the funny on her old AA radio show and he's still there.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
ToxicAdam said:
I was at the gym, walking by the bank of screens and one had MSNBC on (Maddow). They had a segment graphic that said 'Men that stare at Zygotes'. Not sure what the context was, but I thought it was very clever.
Click to expand...
Nice. When I hear her it is by podcast so I miss those visual jokes.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Cyan said:
*pulls race card, hides it up his sleeve*

Well, what do you think it could be?
Click to expand...

That is definitely a big factor. Then the fact that a few "journalists" from Fox News have pinned him as a foreigner, a socialist, a marxist, a champion of unwashed masses, etc.
 
D

DynamicG

Member
eznark said:
Really?

Seems to be exactly the argument DasRaven is making.
Click to expand...


You are arguing different points, so you are actually ignoring his point. He didn't mention the specific state electoral issues you are talking about, he is speaking about the shift to overtly hostile and aggressive policies and rhetoric that are the result of the tea party push. You know the ones involving immigrants and women?

You are correct in that there was a gain in state legislatures that will lead to redistricting and voter disenfranchisement. However his point is that the shift to aggressive and hateful rhetoric is toxic in the long term and likely regardless of those short terms gains that can ALSO be undone by mid term elections. Given rates of non-white fertility and the eventual mortality of the baby boomers it' distinctly possible that you will see a highly different electorate in a number of years.

Is it possible none of this will happen, yes. Is it likely this will happen in 2012, I don't think so. We don't actually know yet, so we'll have to wait but you can keep spraying everyone with the strawman hose if you want.
 
E

eznark

Banned
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/08/romney-slightly-ahead-in-wisconsin.html

A big reason Wisconsin remains so competitive for the GOP is that the electorate looks like it will be considerably more Republican leaning than it was in 2008, reflecting the continued high energy level of the party's voters after its victory in June's recall election. We find an electorate that's 34% Republican and 32% Democratic. Exit polls in 2008 showed Democrats with a 6 point turnout advantage, 39% to 33%. Although the enthusiasm gap that plagued Democrats nationally in 2010 has dissipated some places, it appears to still be a real issue for them in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

How the state party didn't shit can it's leadership after that debacle is beyond me.
 
E

eznark

Banned
DynamicG said:
You are arguing different points, so you are actually ignoring his point. He didn't mention the specific state electoral issues you are talking about, he is speaking about the shift to overtly hostile and aggressive policies and rhetoric that are the result of the tea party push. You know the ones involving immigrants and women?

You are correct in that there was a gain in state legislatures that will lead to redistricting and voter disenfranchisement. However his point is that the shift to aggressive and hateful rhetoric is toxic in the long term and likely regardless of those short terms gains that can ALSO be undone by mid term elections. Given rates of non-white fertility and the eventual mortality of the baby boomers it' distinctly possible that you will see a highly different electorate in a number of years.

Is it possible none of this will happen, yes. Is it likely this will happen in 2012, I don't think so. We don't actually know yet, so we'll have to wait but you can keep spraying everyone with the strawman hose if you want.
Click to expand...

The political "long term" is pointless. The electorate has the memory of a gnat. Romney has shifted his "core principle" half a dozen times in the last few years. Once the GOP gets wiped in an election they'll swing back.

That's why the idea of a party being put out to pasture (the original impetus of this discussion) is so laughable.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
eznark said:
The political "long term" is pointless.
Click to expand...
Oh, there is a political long term, it's just tend to be a bit more personal these days -

1. get elected
2. make mad money
3. make more mad money in the private sector

This is all that it is, getting elected at all costs. They even rationalize it by saying it's for the good of country, the sad/dangerous thing is that the electorate is starting to believe them.

We got to get the money out of politics so that greedy fucks stop running for congress.
 
E

eznark

Banned
Chichikov said:
Oh, there is a political long term, it's just tend to be a bit more personal these days -

1. get elected
2. make mad money
3. make more mad money in the private sector

This is all that it is, getting elected at all costs. They even rationalize it by saying it's for the good of country, the sad/dangerous thing is that the electorate is starting to believe them.

We got to get the money out of politics so that greedy fucks stop running for congress.
Click to expand...

In terms of party platform, I mean.
 
D

DynamicG

Member
eznark said:
The political "long term" is pointless. The electorate has the memory of a gnat. Romney has shifted his "core principle" half a dozen times in the last few years. Once the GOP gets wiped in an election they'll swing back.

That's why the idea of a party being put out to pasture (the original impetus of this discussion) is so laughable.
Click to expand...

The electorate is not as dumb as you imply. But then again, I guess black voters and white confederate flag thumpers forgot all about the civil rights act and that whole era. It all just reset by 78 and there are tons and tons of black republicans now.

Perhaps Hispanics and gays will forget too and jump over like blacks did.

Also, of course the idea of a party disappearing is ridiculous, it doesn't even merit a response.
 
B

Blergmeister

Member
eznark said:
The political "long term" is pointless. The electorate has the memory of a gnat. Romney has shifted his "core principle" half a dozen times in the last few years. Once the GOP gets wiped in an election they'll swing back.

That's why the idea of a party being put out to pasture (the original impetus of this discussion) is so laughable.
Click to expand...

I think the argument is that the traditional Republican coalition (the Religious Right, Libertarians, certain business segments, etc) will soon not be enough to win national races due to the sheer numbers of the coalition the the Democratic party consist of (mostly the growth of the Hispanic minority, but the coalition traditionaly includes African Americans, environmentalists, etc.) Basically, the growth in the hispanic minority, and Republicans trying their best to keep them out, are leading to, if nothing else changes, an unbeatable Democratic majority in the near future. They are making the argument that the recent Republican enthusiasm (2010 on) is the last gasp of the old Republican coalition before somthing snaps, and that the lucky timing of a big win in time for census just bought some time before this happens.

Now, I don't think this will lead to an unbeatable Democratic majority, rather than somthing gives in the Republican coalition. What do you make of this?
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
^^ More or less as I understood it some 20-30 posts back.

Blergmeister said:
Now, I don't think this will lead to an unbeatable Democratic majority, rather than somthing gives in the Republican coalition. What do you make of this?
Click to expand...

They need more guys like Huntsman in their spectrum of Conservatism; he gets it and would have been a dangerous candidate, IMO. I mean, heck, I would have seriously considered voting for him
in 2016
if he somehow pulled off the noms. That would have been an epic shift towards a long term, sustainable, new brand of more inclusive Conservatism that could compete for votes based on policies and ideas without having to resort to outright lying and disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters and rehashing old, tired, culture wars.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
eznark said:
It's cheaper to win elections if you disenfranchise the opposition. And if that's been your plan for decades, why abandon it when voters have given you the opportunity to enact it?
Click to expand...
The thing is such a plan will ultimately backfire. If you disenfranchise voters and pass things that the voters don't like they'll eventually get pissed enough, jump all the hurdles, take power, and enact policies that go too far in the other direction. They are playing with fire.

The only way to play that game is to be a repressive dictator . . . and even that ultimately fails as we have seen in recent years.
 
E

eznark

Banned
Blergmeister said:
I think the argument is that the traditional Republican coalition (the Religious Right, Libertarians, certain business segments, etc) will soon not be enough to win national races due to the sheer numbers of the coalition the the Democratic party consist of (mostly the growth of the Hispanic minority, but the coalition traditionaly includes African Americans, environmentalists, etc.) Basically, the growth in the hispanic minority, and Republicans trying their best to keep them out, are leading to, if nothing else changes, an unbeatable Democratic majority in the near future. They are making the argument that the recent Republican enthusiasm (2010 on) is the last gasp of the old Republican coalition before somthing snaps, and that the lucky timing of a big win in time for census just bought some time before this happens.

Now, I don't think this will lead to an unbeatable Democratic majority, rather than somthing gives in the Republican coalition. What do you make of this?
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. 2010 was not only a stop-gap for the GOP, it gave them another decade at least before they had to start really shifting policies. Had they lost in 2010 they'd have no prayer in 2012.

That said, two different proposals were on the table regarding recognizing civil unions on the official GOP platform. Sections of the GOP recognize that some of these social issues are clear losers and by 2016 I guaranty you gay rights will no longer be a serious discussion.

2010 didn't doom the party, it just put off its entrance into the 21st century by a couple of elections.
 
B

Blergmeister

Member
About the disenfranchisement, wouldn't these laws only hold until the Democratic party takes power, reverses these laws, and then its that much harder for the Republican party to win? I mean, it helps out in the near term but creates a bigger bump in the mid to long term?

I guess unless you effectively permanently disenfranchised people? Man, it's disapointing even having a conversation about this. Just the fact that it's even a thing. You would think the US would be better than this...
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
Blergmeister said:
You would think the US would be better than this...
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that if you propose that folks have to show proper photo ID to buy a gun and the seller has to record that information and verify it, certain portions of the population would call you a Socialist Commie Facist for encroaching on their Constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

But voting? Best believe you need to show your papers!

I'm actually kind of convinced some Republican Tea Party voters will end up being turned away at the polls for not having proper ID and turn right around and claim that this is proof of Obama's Socialist vision for America.
 
B

Blergmeister

Member
eznark said:
I agree 100%. 2010 was not only a stop-gap for the GOP, it gave them another decade at least before they had to start really shifting policies. Had they lost in 2010 they'd have no prayer in 2012.

That said, two different proposals were on the table regarding recognizing civil unions on the official GOP platform. Sections of the GOP recognize that some of these social issues are clear losers and by 2016 I guaranty you gay rights will no longer be a serious discussion.

2010 didn't doom the party, it just put off its entrance into the 21st century by a couple of elections.
Click to expand...

Ah, I think you are saying that 2010 saved them until 2020 whereas I think the people you were arguing with were making the case that it will come home to roost sooner (mid decade maybe, I dunno.)

I agree with you on gay rights. I think the battle has already been won. There is still a lot of hard work left to do before it sees its way out but the writing is on the wall. I'd also like to go a little Empty Vessel here and say that it wasn't Democratic party that won it but the pro gay rights movement, which forced the Democratic party to act. Good job guys!
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I think people are missing the point here. This election is basically a hail Mary pass for the GOP. Ryan on the ticket, abortion fights, complete rejection of gay rights, supply side economics etc...the party is going fully to the right. The general idea is that the economy will get Romney in the door, and after that the game is over - he rides the alleged upcoming recovery while the party passes its agenda in the face of massive demographic shifts

This economy will likely create a close election which can be shifted by voter suppression laws. I think it's safe to say Obama won't be winning Ohio or Florida by more than 3 points, it'll be close no matter who wins it.

We can laugh at the extreme shit all we want but at the end of the day anything can happen in this economy
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Rep. Steve King: I’ve Never Heard Of A Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape Or Incest

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/steve-king-statutory-rape.php?ref=fpnewsfeed


Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.

King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.

“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”
Click to expand...

Could they be doubling-down against women?!
(aww.. beaten..)
 
D

DynamicG

Member
RDreamer said:
Are you fucking kidding me? Representative Steve King defended Akin and said "I’ve Never Heard Of A Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape Or Incest"

What world are these people living in? Seriously what in hell is going on? Who's electing these people?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they really are circling the wagons around the social stuff.

I don't even know how to respond to his comments. I imagine the entire history of European monarchs should indicate that incest can produce children, but I don't even know what his point is.

What kind of logic could explain this? How does the body know if it's statutory or incest? Furthermore, does the body only differentiate certain types of incest?
 
V

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
That's all fantastic for Obama, you basically have the Republicans trying their best to highlight their ongoing war on women. Obama can take this week off, save the cash for next week after the Republican convention. The news for the rest of the week is set.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
VanMardigan said:
That's all fantastic for Obama, you basically have the Republicans trying their best to highlight their ongoing war on women. Obama can take this week off, save the cash for next week after the Republican convention. The news for the rest of the week is set.
Click to expand...

Obama really has been given a gift that his opposition is completely batshit crazy. He needs to hammer it in and not sugarcoat it at all that a GOP controlled government could set the country back decades at the least.
 
C

codhand

Member
The sad thing is I would not be surprised to see these douches hold their Senate and House seats, but Romney is probably none too pleased, I heard Trump on CNBC this morning having to extoll Romney's many virtues with regards to women.

Also, as I've seen it mentioned before; the problem is not the specific individuals saying this outlandish, offensive, bs, but that the idea exists out there in the Republican strata in the first place.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Obama really has been given a gift that his opposition is completely batshit crazy. He needs to hammer it in and not sugarcoat it at all that a GOP controlled government could set the country back decades at the least.
Click to expand...

Seriously, the Obama campaign needs to take these two examples and just run with them. Run as fast as they can as far as they can with them. Use this as a noose to tie the entire GOP that has voted for the kind of crap they have based on fantasy theories regarding women's reproduction. If the Democrats don't do this as a whole, then I've lost any faith in them, too. This is inexcusable.
 
A

Allard

Member
markatisu said:
Steve King is a supreme asshole, everyone in Iowa knows it and yet he goes out of his way to continue to put it on display
Click to expand...

Yeah this doesn't seem like too out of line for what King has said in the past. Just really, really odd anyone would want to double down on this particular sentiment given the media scrutiny over the subject right now. But I suppose if it would be anyone it would be King to do it.
 
D

DynamicG

Member
Allard said:
Yeah this doesn't seem like too out of line for what King has said in the past. Just really, really odd anyone would want to double down on this particular sentiment given the media scrutiny over the subject right now. But I suppose if it would be anyone it would be King to do it.
Click to expand...

This! I'm not surprised that people believe this stuff, I'm more surprised that he's going on TV and saying this NOW.

Maybe the 2010 "Red Tsunami" has them thinking that they need to push harder to get more votes. Who knows.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
They have an update on his comments and maybe I'm just misunderstanding what he's saying, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim he said he's never heard of ''a Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape Or Incest''.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Frostpunk 2 | Review Thread
Review
12
1K
geary replied
Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Exposing German Hops
2 3
115
8K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Star Wars Outlaws | Review Thread
Analysis Review 8 9 10 11 12
571
40K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Reynatis (PS4, PS5, Switch, and PC) | Review Thread + Discussion thread
News Review 2
81
9K
drganon replied
Top Bottom