• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

markatisu

Member
I had assumed that the two delegates awarded to the "winner of the state" would be decided by popular vote, not districts won.

I thought our electoral college was a fucked up system, but our primary system is a couple orders of magnitude moreso.

Nope Michigan was always based on the districts, that is why people were saying Santorum could win without "winning"
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
I had assumed that the two delegates awarded to the "winner of the state" would be decided by popular vote, not districts won.

I thought our electoral college was a fucked up system, but our primary system is a couple orders of magnitude moreso.

This is the undeniable truth. There are some serious shenanigans with gerrymandering of districts, but the primary rules are embarrassingly bad. Like, kid treehouse club bad.
 

Chichikov

Member
Interesting viewpoint from Andrew Sullivan today:

Obama's Most Dangerous GOP Opponent: Netanyahu



Full article here

Any thoughts PoliGaf?
I think an Israeli attack on Iran will harm US standing, interests and people around the world so badly, that you would finally start seeing a backlash against it.
But I don't think you'll see an Israeli attack, Netanyahu knows that the Israeli public can't really handle the attacks the inevitable missiles barrage that will hit Israel, and he knows how badly the public would react to anything that isn't perceived as a decisive victory, and he understands that a failed attack is the only way he lose an election.
And staying in power is the only thing he cares about.
 

Chichikov

Member
Israel doesn't have air fulling capacity for continuous strikes
The IDF has the air fulling capacity to strike at Iran.
Now obviously, in a long engagement over Iranian airspace, the IAF is going to be at a huge disadvantage, but it makes no sense for Israel to do that anyway.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
So you're advocating for a government takeover of elections?!11!

Always have been, always will be.

Elections should be either:

1) Funded publicly with a set amount given to each campaign, the amount eligible to spend would be equal by each candidate. Election seasons would begin only two months before an election.

or

2) Funded in a completely transparent way. No SuperPAC stuff, single person donations limited to $200. This wouldn't guarantee equal financing, but would at least take corporations and most shenanigans out of the equation.
 
So Olympia Snowe retired... I'm surprised, but not shocked (unlike many people), honestly. I was born and live in Maine, and while she had been moving right these last few years, to keep herself conservative enough to win the Republican primary again I assume, it did seem like she was losing interest, or getting frustrated at the partisanship. I'd heard some rumors before (several years back) that she might retire this time, too... never had believed them, but whether or not it was true then (that she was considering it), it has ended up happening, surprisingly. Her stated reason -- disliking the partisanship -- does make sense; Washington certainly is more partisan now. Given her mostly conservative voting record though, it's been frustrating years for me, as a liberal, that so many Mainers give both Snowe and Collins free passes as "moderates" while often they voted to the right of that...

Oh, and she's surely have won anyway, but Snowe barely ever came back here to Maine much anymore, either. The House members, and Collins, regularly are here, but not so much for Snowe. She stays in Washington most of the time.


But anyway, so yeah, now all we have to do is get a Democrat elected, and hope that someone like Elliot Cutler doesn't run and ruin it for us again like in the 2010 governor's race. :( It's a big opportunity, I just hope it works out.

And on that note, now basically the whole Maine political system is up on end. Both of the Democratic house members (Michaud and Pingree) and our ex-Governor (Baldacci) are all looking into running on the Democratic side, several Republicans are getting in, Cutler may or may not make a move, one of the people who had been running to oppose Snowe shifted down to run for House instead, assuming Pingree's going to run for Senate instead I think, various other people are running for both House seats now, the Republicans are looking at a decent chance of winning the district 2 seat if Michaud doesn't run... and all this with only two weeks to collect the 1000 to 2000 signatures needed to get on the ballot. Kind of crazy.

Snowe should have just switched parties. She's basically a Democrat at this point.
In fact, she voted with the Republicans 75% of the time in the past two years. No Democrat in the Senate, not even Ben Nelson, has done that.

I had assumed that the two delegates awarded to the "winner of the state" would be decided by popular vote, not districts won.

I thought our electoral college was a fucked up system, but our primary system is a couple orders of magnitude moreso.

The two are not given to the winner of the state, but are divided based on percent. Romney and Santorum both did well enough to each get one of the two, and they split the districts, so it does indeed look like it'll be an even split in Michigan delegates-wise.

This is the undeniable truth. There are some serious shenanigans with gerrymandering of districts, but the primary rules are embarrassingly bad. Like, kid treehouse club bad.
Winner-takes-all like Arizona or Florida isn't really better, though... something in between would probably be best.
 
I don't know what the electorate of Maine is like, really, but if they elect a Democrat it's likely to be a blue dog anyway.
Northern Maine (district 2) is much more like that, while Southern Maine is quite a bit more liberal. Statewide of course it's somewhere in between.

Whoever they nominate will be more liberal than Snowe. And even if it was a conservative Democrat, it would still keep the GOP from taking control of the Senate.
Indeed. And on that note, Pingree's a liberal, Michaud a centrist Blue Dog, and Baldacci... I doubt he'd win the primary anyway, he's not loved. But he's a moderate too, he represented the 2nd district before being governor. Pingree did lose to Collins in '02, but that was running against an incumbent, not an open-seat race... and she is now married to a very wealthy man too, so they have the money. I'd rather see her run, because she's more liberal, but winning statewide would probably be harder than if it was Michaud. We'll see though. (Oh, and while he is a Blue Dog and anti-choice, Michaud's not one of the worst democrats in the house, he's supported some good legislation. He's a good fit for district 2.)

I don't know enough to be sure of that, and if it's another Ben Nelson situation, Republicans may as well have control of the Senate.
What? How does that work? Democrats have a big pickup chance here, and the nominee won't necessarily be a centrist. And even Michaud or Baldacci would be no Ben Nelson, let's put it that way.

Who is not long for this (political) world, last I checked.
She's still got a chance at winning, we'll see... she's in a tough race, yes, but certainly can win. And the Democrats can hold the Senate, and actually have a decent chance at doing it now.

Maine is much more liberal than Nebraska. It hasn't voted for a Republican President since '88.
True, but I'd rather pretend that 2010 didn't happen...

Can't be any worse than the jaw-dropping antics of the NH state legislature.
You haven't read up on Paul LePage, have you?

"Disaster" and "Embarrassment" barely begin to describe it...

One "exceedingly liberal district" that represents half of the state's population...? Seems like, based on Maine's other district, it could go either way depending on who runs.
Exactly.
 
Thanks for the input on Maine, A Black Falcon. I said earlier that if Michaud, Baldacci, and Pingree all get in, it looks like it could be quite the exciting (at least interesting) primary based on the candidate's voting records I've looked up, and the geography of Maine from what you've said.
 
Thanks for the input on Maine, A Black Falcon. I said earlier that if Michaud, Baldacci, and Pingree all get in, it looks like it could be quite the exciting (at least interesting) primary based on the candidate's voting records I've looked up, and the geography of Maine from what you've said.
What I'm waiting on is to see if Angus King will run. It's hard to say who'd benefit from that, and he'd have a great chance at winning. Judging from his policy views and his kind words for the President, he'd probably caucus with the Democrats.
 
What I'm waiting on is to see if Angus King will run. It's hard to say who'd benefit from that, and he'd have a great chance at winning. Judging from his policy views and his kind words for the President, he'd probably caucus with the Democrats.

That would definitely make things interesting, yeah... I wonder who'd win that race. He'd definitely have a shot. Is he talking about getting in, though? He hasn't yet anyway.
 

Crisco

Banned
The IDF has the air fulling capacity to strike at Iran.
Now obviously, in a long engagement over Iranian airspace, the IAF is going to be at a huge disadvantage, but it makes no sense for Israel to do that anyway.

Israel ain't going to attack Iran on it's own. When Israel bombs Syria, Lebanon, or the West Bank, they know there isn't dick anyone can do about it. They are shooting fish in a barrel.

Not the case with Iran. Not only do they risk significant aerial losses, there is no guarantee they can even complete their mission. There isn't just one reactor out in the open like in Iraq or Syria. Iran has several nuke sites (that we know about) that are all heavily fortified. It would take an aerial invasion on the scale of Desert Storm to completely guarantee that Iran's nuke program is wiped out. Hundreds of aircraft and days/possibly weeks of bombing. There is only one military on the planet capable of pulling that off "cleanly" with any degree of confidence.

And even if we did get involved, that doesn't stop Iran from lobbing missiles at Israel like Saddam did in '91. Israel is a bully, and bullies don't go after anyone that can fight back. In those case, not only can Iran fight back, they could actually give Israel a bloody nose. As long as Obama continues to tell Netanyahu that he's on his own if he decides to attack Iran, Israel won't do a damn thing.
 

Miletius

Member
That would definitely make things interesting, yeah... I wonder who'd win that race. He'd definitely have a shot. Is he talking about getting in, though? He hasn't yet anyway.

Thanks for the Maine background. It's really interesting to read about state politics. While I often look at things from a national stage it's really cool to hear about guys like King who have managed to fight against the 2 party system.
 
That would definitely make things interesting, yeah... I wonder who'd win that race. He'd definitely have a shot. Is he talking about getting in, though? He hasn't yet anyway.
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/city...riously-considering-run-snowes-senate/1162388

those guys said:
BRUNSWICK — Former Gov. Angus King said Wednesday he's considering running for the U.S. Senate, filling a void left by Republican U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, who announced Tuesday she's not running for re-election in November.
Seems interested.
 
Huh, yeah, he does. Everyone else is getting in, so why not him too, I guess? He'll have to decide soon though, given the deadline.

I will say, while I doubt I'd have voted for King had I been old enough when he was running (because I vote Democratic), he probably was a better governor than Baldacci... King was pro-business, but so was Baldacci most of the time too, and Baldacci frustrated me more than King did. Maybe that's in part because he's a Democrat and not an independent, but he did.

This current governor sure makes him look great in comparison, though!

Thanks for the Maine background. It's really interesting to read about state politics. While I often look at things from a national stage it's really cool to hear about guys like King who have managed to fight against the 2 party system.
As a Democrat, I find it more frustrating when we lose winnable races like the 2010 governor race because there were three candidates, so Mr. 41% Paul LePage got the victory... Angus King obviously is different because he did actually win, but whenever you have more than two candidates, you do have that danger.
 
Interesting viewpoint from Andrew Sullivan today:

Obama's Most Dangerous GOP Opponent: Netanyahu


Full article here

Any thoughts PoliGaf?

Reminds me of this, and it's fucking despicable. Netanyahu gets away with so, so much. This 'scared alliance' is a one way street.

On Sunday, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told interviewer Fareed Zakaria that he does not think the US should rush to war. He was speaking after a visit to Israel and long consultations with its leaders.

Dempsey said that it was not "prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran" and that "a strike at this time would be destabilising and wouldn't achieve [Israel's] long-term objectives". He also said that he did not believe that the Iranian regime was insane but was rather a "rational actor" not likely to commit national suicide.

Dempsey's remarks outraged Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose office put out a statement saying that Dempsey, and other US officials who questioned the rationale for war, were "serving Iran's interests."

Had another foreign leader implied that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a four-star general, was some kind of Iranian agent, he would have been smacked down. But that is not how it works with Netanyahu.

It turns out that senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Graham were in Israel at the time Netanyahu attacked Dempsey. Rather than defend the American general as these uber-nationalists would do in any other similar situation, they joined the Israeli government in bashing the general - and decorated war hero. (The long-held custom of government officials not criticising US policies when in a foreign country has not applied to Israel for years.)

The Prime minister of our 'closest ally' suggests that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is working for Iran because he said something he didn't like, and... crickets. Our politicians? They fall in line to echo Netanyahu and act like slimy traitors. How fucking patriotic. 'Support our troops', right?

The most appalling aspect of the senators' remarks is that their zeal to please Netanyahu and his backers in the US has overridden their constitutional responsibility to put the security of the United States above all other considerations. An Israeli decision to attack Iran affects Americans, including their constituents in uniform and even ordinary Americans walking down the streets of New York, Washington, or Arizona and South Carolina.

As noble as their professed concern for Israel may be, the United States is supposed to come first for United States senators. McCain and Graham ought to be ashamed for standing in a foreign country and blatantly placing its government's interests before ours.

So yes Netanyahu is a snake, and US politicians falling over themselves to kiss his ass at the expense of this country are even worse snakes.
 

teiresias

Member
Yeah, I know, I know, Huffington Post and all that, but it's still hilarious:

Mitt Romney Surrogate Says Rick Santorum Should Give Back Delegates

A Mitt Romney campaign surrogate said on Wednesday that Rick Santorum should "give back" some of the delegates that he won in the Michigan primary on Tuesday, insisting that some were obtained by nefarious purposes.

"[Santorum] cheated by asking people who would never vote for him for president to vote for him in the Republican primary," Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said on a call with reporters. "I believe that he should agree to give back a percentage of the delegates that he won in the Republican primary with Democrat votes that would never support him for president."

Oh . . . the lulz . . . they're not stopping!
 

ezekial45

Banned
Wait. What.



Um. Romney. The Blunt amendment is a federal law that would prevent people from getting contraception (well...make it harder)!

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-of-course-i-support-blunt-amendment

The Obama Campaign already hit back.

“In one hour, Mitt Romney showed why women don’t trust him for one minute. It took little more than an hour for him to commit his latest flip-flop. Even worse, he ended up on the wrong side of an issue of critical importance to women.”

“The Blunt Amendment would allow any employer to deny their female employees coverage because of that employer’s own beliefs. With his support of this amendment, Mitt Romney is taking important health care decisions about contraception, mammograms, and cervical cancer screenings among other issues out of women’s hands and into the hands of their bosses.”

“While Mitt Romney may be in a race to the bottom with Rick Santorum to see who can pander most to the far right-wing, his embrace of extreme policies like the Blunt Amendment would have real life consequences for millions of women.”
 
Yeah, I know, I know, Huffington Post and all that, but it's still hilarious:

Mitt Romney Surrogate Says Rick Santorum Should Give Back Delegates



Oh . . . the lulz . . . they're not stopping!

It is true that as many as 8 of Santorum's 15 delegates may have come from crossover Democrats voting for Santorum because they think he's the weaker candidate, but no, he certainly doesn't need to give them back. And anyway, as the record shows, Romney himself did exactly what that guy's complaining about back in 1988... :)

Reminds me of this, and it's fucking despicable. Netanyahu gets away with so, so much. This 'scared alliance' is a one way street.



The Prime minister of our 'closest ally' suggests that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is working for Iran because he said something he didn't like, and... crickets. Our politicians? They fall in line to echo Netanyahu and act like slimy traitors. How fucking patriotic. 'Support our troops', right?



So yes Netanyahu is a snake, and US politicians falling over themselves to kiss his ass at the expense of this country are even worse snakes.

While I don't like Netanyahu, the basic concept you're missing is that many/most American politicians would say that Israeli security is American security, so anything that challenges Israel on a fundamental level as an Iranian nuke would is something we need to deal with too. I do think that stopping Iran from getting nukes is probably a good idea, the only question is if it's actually possible to stop them, and when the point of no return is reached... those questions don't have certain answers. Long term it might be impossible, which would set off an arms race in the region for sure (the Saudis would start working one one of their own for sure pretty much as soon as Iran has one, for starters), inflame tensions even higher, seriously threaten Israel's existence if Iran decided on a suicidal war... much of this has been predicted for years now, and it's now closer than ever to happening.

As for Obama though, the goal seems to mostly just make it so that Netanyahu doesn't start the war before the election this November. After that though who knows.
 

Zzoram

Member
Romney wins Michigan but it's really a tie in terms of delegates? So doesn't that mean Romney tied? Why even call it a win if he splits delegates evenly?
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Romney wins Michigan but it's really a tie in terms of delegates? So doesn't that mean Romney tied? Why even call it a win if he splits delegates evenly?

its like Iowa. Split delegates, but Santorum still will say he won it.

He got more votes, it is a win either way. Plus, not all delegates are done through the primaries/caucuses. Many are given through the RNC and through other means. If it came down between Santorum and Romney and both were otherwise tied, I am 99% sure the RNC will give the other delegates to the popular vote winner.
 

Allard

Member
Romney wins Michigan but it's really a tie in terms of delegates? So doesn't that mean Romney tied? Why even call it a win if he splits delegates evenly?

Because the establishment and the media have been pushing the populist narrative as the defining point on who wins the primary. For a long time most of the competitive states were winner take all so populism and trends were the big stories, but with the rules changing this year in regards to delegate math (Thanks to the RNC) it made a lot of states that normally were win or lose it, into just a game of percentages and strategic delegate plays. The fact of the matter is no one in the Republican party wants to see this delegate math game be decided at the convention. Can you imagine the splintering that would happen if someone won the Primary populist vote (no matter how small the lead was) but didn't win due to the delegates switching at convention? If you think the system is screwed up now, just wait till a small group of voters ends up deciding a race that was voted on by millions. No matter who ends up taking the nomination, no one would see that person as the legitimate winner.
 
Yeah, I know, I know, Huffington Post and all that, but it's still hilarious:

Mitt Romney Surrogate Says Rick Santorum Should Give Back Delegates

Oh . . . the lulz . . . they're not stopping!
Primaries are such a goddamned mess.

Reminds me of this, and it's fucking despicable. Netanyahu gets away with so, so much. This 'scared alliance' is a one way street.

The Prime minister of our 'closest ally' suggests that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is working for Iran because he said something he didn't like, and... crickets. Our politicians? They fall in line to echo Netanyahu and act like slimy traitors. How fucking patriotic. 'Support our troops', right?

So yes Netanyahu is a snake, and US politicians falling over themselves to kiss his ass at the expense of this country are even worse snakes.
The funniest thing was that in that same episode of GPS, some conservative economist (I forget his name) blamed high gas prices on Obama's refusal to unambiguously state that we are not going to war with Iran.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Good grief, Romney. It was pretty clear he didn't understand the question, but the explanation contradicts itself.

Romney has burned his bridge with Hispanics, and now women to boot.

Yeah, it's like a new max level of flip-flopping released via DLC for RomneyBot.
 
Had to put this here.

Q8190.jpg
 
As for Obama though, the goal seems to mostly just make it so that Netanyahu doesn't start the war before the election this November. After that though who knows.
In your opinion how likely is this just political theater to put some extra oomph behind sanctions? Or do you believe that direct attacks on Iran are inevitable and its just a matter of picking the best timing for political/military purposes?

I'd love to think that Sullivan was just off his meds when he wrote that post, but I'm having a hard time not believing him. In case anybody's interested he put up a followup post here.
 

cousins

Member
I generally don't pay much attention to professional trolls like Ann Coulter and Limbaugh, but Limbaugh, but conservatives are going way too far attacking the college student who was denied a spot at the contraception hearing:

Limbaugh: Student Denied Spot At Contraception Hearing Says "She Must Be Paid To Have Sex," So She's A "Slut" And "Prostitute"
[/URL]

Slut-shaming from conservative pundits? You don't say.

In all seriousness, it's repulsive that this can go on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom