elrechazado
Banned
Reading your post one might think that republicans haven't been in the whitehouse for decades or something.
-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Reading your post one might think that republicans haven't been in the whitehouse for decades or something.
SpeedySwaf
Member
I think he's asking how many it would take for them to get a message, not implying they have lost election after election.
All of them.
Fixed for the sad truth.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I suspect Democrats would have to hold the WH through at least 2020 before Republicans simmer down. As much as the media loves fawning over Christie and Rubio for 2016, losing to Obama will only make teabaggers buckle down on their conservative candidates and ideas, just like it always has. I see no reason to believe that the GOP rank and file will nominate a centrist of any sort without compromising everything that would make them appealing to actual moderate voters (see Romney).
Some kind of Civil War or the most intense fighting (even worse than now) in Washington seen ever since is the only thing that will change their ways.
Either that, or, Democrats would have to keep winning the WH for the next two decades. Don't count on that.
The best case scenario is that profound demographic shifts in the South and Midwest silence the GOP once and for all by not giving a fuck about them during any election. But even that is probably 20 years off. The best we can hope for is Texas being a swing state in 10 years, and that's being optimistic...
Either that, or, Democrats would have to keep winning the WH for the next two decades. Don't count on that.
The best case scenario is that profound demographic shifts in the South and Midwest silence the GOP once and for all by not giving a fuck about them during any election. But even that is probably 20 years off. The best we can hope for is Texas being a swing state in 10 years, and that's being optimistic...
PhoenixDark
Banned
Eh...they're about to nominate a moderate right now. As they did four years ago. If anything this primary season has proven the "base" is not nearly as powerful as advertised, and the establishment still wins out. That establishment will be signifigantly more powerful in 2016 when a host of solid governors enter the race.
The Tea Party doesn't have any potential candidates to win - I'd argue the sheer nature of the Tea Party ensures they can never nominate a candidate, because they hate government to a point anyone who participates in government cannot be pure enough for them.
A party typically nominates a more moderate candidate the longer they have been outside the White House. Granted, the relationship is not absolutely linear. And like many others, I have difficulty envisioning the GOP tempering its message. Of course, Romney was considered a consummate conservative in 2008, and he's now a supposed moderate RINO. So the parameters for ideological palatability can change considerably in a single cycle. If I had to project the outcome for 2016, I think they'll encounter a scenario similar to 2000 where they mistakenly rejected a superior moderate candidate for a more mainstream conservative. Coincidentally, Jeb Bush would satisfy the latter.
Speaking of summer programs, does your department provide support for attending ICPSR? If they do, you should seize the opportunity. It truly enhances your methodological capabilities.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I'd modify that to "anyone who has participated extensively in government," but the result is effectively the same. I think post-Palin conservatism is going to be deeply skeptical about elevating the charismatic but untested, and so the power of the tea party will be to elect the next generation of backbench conservative cranks.
Wow, that sounds awesome. Maxwell does a 1-year summer-to-summer program, though, so it starts in early July and goes through late June of the following year. But I'll definitely keep that in mind as an option post-graduation. Are you at Ford?
Except he's not a moderate anymore. Like, at all. Romney hasn't been a moderate since late 2007 when he started running for president, and he's jumped further and further right each year since, culminating with him going full retard this year.
speculawyer
Member
He's a "severe conservative". At least that is what he calls himself. I don't buy it, but whatever he is, I don't like the policy proposals that he has suggested.
ElectricThunder
Member
I'm just hoping, largely in vain, that the "uncontrollable" funding elements don't elect to double down on the violence-begging language upon say Romney or Santorum getting the GOP nod yet not being able to gain any traction come the run up to the general proper.
That the ads are already starting to sway in that direction is troubling to say the least---I can definitely feel plenty vibe of "we must win" paired with a scorched earth mindset.
It is going to be surreal, at least in the fallout, when the time comes for the first televised debate of Obama v whoever----can't even begin to picture it.
That the ads are already starting to sway in that direction is troubling to say the least---I can definitely feel plenty vibe of "we must win" paired with a scorched earth mindset.
It is going to be surreal, at least in the fallout, when the time comes for the first televised debate of Obama v whoever----can't even begin to picture it.
People mistakenly think Romney has this true, core ideology. He doesn't. He is whatever he needs to be at any moment to get more power. He was never truly a moderate. He only said and did those things because of where he was running. He's never been a true conservative. It's just easier to become president as one in our conservative country.
bengraven
Member
Conservative "friend" posted this video on Facebook.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M
Said: A friend posted this and said it was preying on delusions and paranoia. I said it was dramatic, even melodramatic, but wondered how it was preying on delusions or paranoia. What do you think?
So naturally I say "yes, they're pandering to the delusional and paranoid with the atmosphere and direction."
His reply: "can you get past the moving picture show and understand that I'm talking about the message?"
...
I'm sorry if I'm pointing out the point of the video, but it's almost like "please don't tell me the point of the video, I'm trying to mock people who dislike it".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApjHZq9o7M
Said: A friend posted this and said it was preying on delusions and paranoia. I said it was dramatic, even melodramatic, but wondered how it was preying on delusions or paranoia. What do you think?
So naturally I say "yes, they're pandering to the delusional and paranoid with the atmosphere and direction."
His reply: "can you get past the moving picture show and understand that I'm talking about the message?"
...
I'm sorry if I'm pointing out the point of the video, but it's almost like "please don't tell me the point of the video, I'm trying to mock people who dislike it".
PhoenixDark
Banned
Most of his political life was spent as a moderate, why is why so much of the conservative base has either rejected him or feels indifferent about him. The point worth making here is that despite the party moving far right over the last three years, they're about to nominate the guy who passed a health care bill with a mandate, once told pro-choice groups he would work to move the party to the middle on abortion, ran against the Contract For America, and supported TARP.
So I simply can't accept the argument that somehow the GOP will continue moving far right no matter the cost, or that the party is completely dominated by the Tea Party. The party will continue rejecting everything Obama does, but 2016 will largely be a reset like 2008 was. If republicans lose big this year, we won't be hearing much about contraception anytime soon. There will also be some type of movement on illegal immigration as potential candidates start positioning themselves to run in a post-Obama election.
There's a reason republicans win so many elections: they nominate the most electable candidate every time, except for 1964
Romney is not a moderate.
And is vowing to repeal another.
"once", now he is vowing to "end" Planned Parenthood
And now says it was a huge mistake.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I think the words you're looking for are "categorically unprincipled."
worldrunover
Member
If Romney wins the general that means most likely the GOP had a big day, which means they may control the House and Senate. You think Romney has the fortitude to stand up to the ridiculous legislation they would try to ram through? Of course not. He's going to let them take him further and further right because they'll turn on him like a pack of hyenas if he tries and become some kind of moderate after winning.
Invisible_Insane
Member
The only objectionable thing about this post is the implication that this would somehow be happening against his will.
cartoon_soldier
Member
They win because Americans apparently have very bad memory.
He wants to be president so bad, we can taste it. He doesn't give a fuck what happens after that as anyone who watches his 'principles' can attest. He just wants this prize.
If Romney had actually run as a Moderate he would not have won the nomination. You are excluding how far right Romney had to go when the loons became a legitimate challenge
Not that I disagree with what you said for the most part, the Tea Party can never and will never field a national candidate
Except that lately that most electable candidate just stinks overall in comparison (McCain running more right then in 2000 and picking Palin, Bob Dole being about as exciting as a wet towel compared to Clinton, and now Romney being a whatever you want to hear pandering fool with no personality).
Aaron Strife
Banned
Romney being a moderate is such a bullshit myth. I don't care about his record as governor of Massachusetts because I highly doubt he'd govern like that as president.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Romney being a moderate is such a bullshit myth. I don't care about his record as governor of Massachusetts because I highly doubt he'd govern like that as president.
With a democrat senate he'd be a bit more center-right than Obama
If Romney won the Presidency, it wouldn't be a Democratic Senate or House.
If Romney wins in November, it's very likely the GOP will retain the House and win majority control of the Senate. Does anyone honestly think Romney will seriously veto any GOP led bill from congress, no matter how batshit crazy it is? Romney has proven time and again he does no have a principled bone in his body. He'll say and do whatever it take to win and retain power. There's no way he will develop the courage to stand against the tea partiers.
What? No, they'd go full retard obstruction because now they think it works.
bullshot. Corporations are people my friend!
Obama is the best moderate conservative president we have had since Bill Clinton and GHWB.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Remind me to never make a thread on Something Awful's political subforum again. Jesus fuck.
wait, what was your thread?
cartoon_soldier
Member
They have a political subforum?
Why does the Department of Education charge 6.8% interest on Direct Federal Loans and 7.9% on Direct Graduate PLUS Loans?
You should pay the rate of inflation, but they shouldn't be profiting on those.
Also, having interest accrue from disbursement instead of graduation is a pretty bad idea.
You should pay the rate of inflation, but they shouldn't be profiting on those.
Also, having interest accrue from disbursement instead of graduation is a pretty bad idea.
Exactly. Im sick of this ROMNEY WILL TURN AROUND! Bullshit. Hes proven himself time and time again to have no "true values" whatever is put on his desk by republicans would be signed by him.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Something something deficit neutrality
The Obama administration has been absolutely terrible for graduate students.
cartoon_soldier
Member
It should clearly be obvious by now that the best thing Romney is good at is pandering to his current audience.
Also, GOP House and Senate behave vastly differently with a GOP President.
So grad students got better terms before Obama took over?
SMH. It seems so simple. Low-interest loans that accrue at graduation. How is that not in society's best interest?
cartoon_soldier
Member
http://www.good.is/post/what-do-obama-s-student-loan-reforms-mean-for-you/
The interest accrual change also only affects Perkins loan program (as far as I know)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/your-money/student-loans/loanprimer.html
It is definitely not the best result.
But, remember, one thing the Obama Admin wants to do is move students away from going to private lenders which have much stricter rules and charger higher rates. As said above, the interest accrual only affects Perkins loan program, at the same time increasing loan amount available from 1 billion to 6 billion per year and increase in amount of money students can get as a loan.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I'm not going to say on here because a lot of goons post on Gaf. However if you want I can PM you the thread.
Yeah.
Basically imagine Poligaf if empty vessel was considered a moderate leftist. Its why I don't like to post there often.
manipulate
Member
Sounds like my kind of place
Okay, but 7.9% interest for a federal loan?
It literally makes no sense that you can finance a house for literally half that interest rate.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Depends on your perspective--I'd say the clearest difference between borrowing for a house and borrowing for an education is that there's significant collateral at stake in the first instance. You can't exactly repossess an education.
It's not even a left/right problem really. People there just went nuts with trolling, fakeposting, and pretending to be "revolutionaries" to the point that they can't tell what they actually believe in anymore.
It's pretty much unreadable now.
No. Although there's significant overlap in the material and they share many methodologies, my interest was captured by political science. And I graduated from MSU, so I never considered Michigan. Yeah, I'd consider it for post-grad training. It bolsters your CV, and the instruction is exceptional. They even hold workshops on how to maximize your appeal for prospective grants and use LaTeX.
That's why you secure a fellowship.
cartoon_soldier
Member
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/studentloans.jsp#05
Current Undergraduate Interest Rate is 3.4%. If Congress doesn't extend a 2007 law they will double to 6.8 (hopefully they do)
Graduate interest rate is 6.8%
Perkins interest rate is 5%
Direct PLUS loans are the only ones with the 7.9% interest rate
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/PlusLoansGradProfstudents.jsp
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Slightly back on-topic:
These are the primaries scheduled for April. As has been stated before, April is a month that is heavily tailored to Romney's campaign and platform.
Out of the 9 contests (one of which a rehash of Louisiana's primary in Caucus form, thanks RNC!), I tnink Romney wins 7 of them, with Santorum winning two. Gingrich and Paul continue to underperform across the board and hopefully drop out (including Santorum, once it becomes evident that Romney is rolling)
MD - Romney
DC - Romney
WI - Romney
CT - Romney
DE - Romney
NY - Romney
PA - Santorum (because, well, if he doesn't win here, that is pretty damn sad)
RI - Romney
LA - Santorum retains this one, unless Romney actually decides to contend it if it becomes clear that his other states on the same day are already a lock)
Most states are winner-take-all, and the rest are still WTA if any candidate gets over 50% of the vote, which I presume will probably happen in a few of the states.
These are the primaries scheduled for April. As has been stated before, April is a month that is heavily tailored to Romney's campaign and platform.
Out of the 9 contests (one of which a rehash of Louisiana's primary in Caucus form, thanks RNC!), I tnink Romney wins 7 of them, with Santorum winning two. Gingrich and Paul continue to underperform across the board and hopefully drop out (including Santorum, once it becomes evident that Romney is rolling)
MD - Romney
DC - Romney
WI - Romney
CT - Romney
DE - Romney
NY - Romney
PA - Santorum (because, well, if he doesn't win here, that is pretty damn sad)
RI - Romney
LA - Santorum retains this one, unless Romney actually decides to contend it if it becomes clear that his other states on the same day are already a lock)
Most states are winner-take-all, and the rest are still WTA if any candidate gets over 50% of the vote, which I presume will probably happen in a few of the states.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Not even worth discussing as a hypothetical. There's no plausible scenario where Romney wins, but Democrats still hold the Senate. If Romney wins, he will have a Republican House and Senate. Plus Obama also has a Republican House, which is severely restricting his governing capabilities.
Comparing a Democratic president with a split Congress to a Republican president with a split Congress is pointless. Of course it would yield a similar result. For as short as Reid came up in 2009-2010, Obama's record was adequately progressive. Whether he didn't take enough initiative, or his policies weren't bold enough, whatever.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked