Support NeoGAF

[The Librarian]

What is the GOP going to campaign on? Not doing anything?

What did the Democrats in the House run on in 1984? What did the Republicans in the House run on in 1996?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

What did the Democrats in the House run on in 1984? What did the Republicans in the House run on in 1996?

I wasn't born yet and I was 6, so I don't remember.

If people are not happy with the current situation (which they are), they'd be fools to elect... exactly the same political situation they hate.

 

[eBay Huckster]

What did the Democrats in the House run on in 1984? What did the Republicans in the House run on in 1996?

What did the Democrats in the House run on in 1948?

 

[GhaleonEB]

What did the Democrats in the House run on in 1984? What did the Republicans in the House run on in 1996?

My understanding is we're seeing a trend of less vote splitting in recent elections than in past; fewer people voting for one party at the presidential level and other parties down ballot. I would not be surprised to start seeing the House flip regularly with the White House more consistently.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Remember when people thought "With the economy this bad, Obama is going to have a lot of trouble this election. He might not make it"? That seems like such a long ago.

Slow growth, high gas prices, and a president unable to get above 50% approval. And high unemployment. so yes he is in trouble and will likely lose. There's no doubt in my mind that youth and black turnout will be down significantly

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Slow growth, high gas prices, and a president unable to get above 50% approval. And high unemployment. so yes he is in trouble and will likely lose. There's no doubt in my mind that youth and black turnout will be down significantly

Don't you get tired of your trolling? Do you ever actually say what you mean and believe what you say or is every single one of your posts a facade? How tiresome.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Slow growth, high gas prices, and a president unable to get above 50% approval. And high unemployment. so yes he is in trouble and will likely lose. There's no doubt in my mind that youth and black turnout will be down significantly

I could easily counter you on all of those (like saying for example that blacks are the most excited group of all to vote) but I'd rather post this picture of Obama getting donuts

 

[Chichikov]

What did the Democrats in the House run on in 1948?

You mean Republicans.

 

[PhoenixDark]

What did the Democrats in the House run on in 1984? What did the Republicans in the House run on in 1996?

Neither are good examples, although I agree republicans will retain the house. Many democrats voted for Reagan in 1984 while voting democrat in their state elections; that type of Reagan Democrat vote splitting hasn't happened on a national scale since then. And in 96 republicans had such a large lead in the house, plus the gerrymandering that democrats had little chance of winning. Actually in that sense, 96 is more comparable to 2012

The major difference is that we have the least popular congress of all time, thus giving democrats a slim shot

 

[Clevinger]

I could easily counter you on all of those but I'd rather post this picture of Obama getting donuts

Oh man, that picture must piss off Kosmo so bad.

 

[irishcow]

Slow growth, high gas prices, and a president unable to get above 50% approval. And high unemployment. so yes he is in trouble and will likely lose. There's no doubt in my mind that youth and black turnout will be down significantly

This is ridiculous. All women of child bearing age are going to be voting democrat. The majority of men who like to have sex with women using birth control are going to vote democrat.

Anyone who thinks black people aren't going out to support their man again is insane. You must be outright in denial if you think the black population isn't going to vote for Obama again. LOL

 

[elrechazado]

This is ridiculous. All women of child bearing age are going to be voting democrat. The majority of men who like to have sex with women using birth control are going to vote democrat.

Living in echo chambers can be dangerous my man.

 

[gkryhewy]

Political info from a car article . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/b...uctant-young-buyers-gm-turns-to-mtv.html?_r=1

This is a big reason for all the voter ID laws. The young don't get cars as much these days (because they can't afford them) so they are less likely to have driver's licenses. And thus they may not have IDs they can use for voting.

More accurately, younger people are increasingly choosing to live in cities that do not require cars. Urban minorities are already much less likely to drive (not by choice, however), and this is the group that ID laws are targeting (potentially excluding hipsters is just a side benefit).

 

[irishcow]

Living in echo chambers can be dangerous my man.

I understand that it's not 100% won for Obama. To think that black people aren't going to vote for Obama is outrageous though. They will be voting for Barack.

The young people will be reinvigorated once campaign season starts. When campaign Obama gets out there and turns his charm on it's going to win over the youth once again. You think Romney can compete?

 

[PhoenixDark]

This is ridiculous. All women of child bearing age are going to be voting democrat. The majority of men who like to have sex with women using birth control are going to vote democrat.

Anyone who thinks black people aren't going out to support their man again is insane. You must be outright in denial if you think the black population isn't going to vote for Obama again. LOL

This is ridiculous. Do you think Rush Limbaugh and the men who agree with him are celibate?

With respect to black people, I never said they won't be voting for Obama, I said turnout will be depressed due to the shitty economy. Same with youth turnout.

 

[elrechazado]

I understand that it's not 100% won for Obama. To think that black people aren't going to vote for Obama is outrageous though. They will be voting for Barack.

The young people will be reinvigorated once campaign season starts. When campaign Obama gets out there and turns his charm on it's going to win over the youth once again. You think Romney can compete?

Vague platitudes and generalizations are not a good way to analyze potential victory in our electoral system. Depending on a mix of states, Romney could certainly win. Let's hear some analysis, not "lol women will never vote for this guy and neither will dudes who have sex@!!1". C'mon son. Obama won 49% of the male vote in 2008, so stop being silly and look into what will really decide this election: who will win in the 10 or so swing states.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Living in echo chambers can be dangerous my man.

Women voting Democratic is a fairly common phenomenon. In 2008, 56% of women went for Obama (and 70% of unmarried women), compared to just 49% of men.

"All" is an exaggeration but you get the idea. If Republicans want to keep making birth control an issue then Democrats will have the woman's vote wrapped up.

 

[Clevinger]

You think Romney can compete?

Yes, but in a different way. Conservatives won't be voting for Romney. They'll be acting on all that intense fear and hate of Obama that the right-wing propagandists have been brilliantly cooking into their minds these past 3-4 years.

 

[irishcow]

Vague platitudes and generalizations are not a good way to analyze potential victory in our electoral system. Depending on a mix of states, Romney could certainly win. Let's hear some analysis, not "lol women will never vote for this guy and neither will dudes who have sex@!!1". C'mon son. Obama won 49% of the male vote in 2008, so stop being silly and look into what will really decide this election: who will win in the 10 or so swing states.

I'm not even being vague. The war on women's rights this year is enough to drive most women to vote democrat. Is that clear enough?

Men who agree that the war on women's rights and birth control is ridiculous and outdated will be voting democrat.

People who think the republicans are waging a war on education and intellectualism will be voting democrat. People who don't want religion driving policy will be voting democrat.

Democrats aren't perfect but most people can and will be making the choice between the lesser of the two evils.

People who thought Sarah Palin was good choice for VP in 2008 won't vote for Obama.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

PD is just fucking with you guys. He believes Obama is gonna win.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Romney can't defeat Obama, events can defeat Obama.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Romney can't defeat Obama, events can defeat Obama.

We know. We have hard that at least a dozen times.

 

[elrechazado]

I'm not even being vague. The war on women's rights this year is enough to drive most women to vote democrat. Is that clear enough?

Men who agree that the war on women's rights and birth control is ridiculous and outdated will be voting democrat.

People who think the republicans are waging a war on education and intellectualism will be voting democrat. People who don't want religion driving policy will be voting democrat.

Democrats aren't perfect but most people can and will be making the choice between the lesser of the two evils.

People who thought Sarah Palin was good choice for VP in 2008 won't vote for Obama.

So you're saying that people who don't hold certain extremely conservative views will probably vote for obama, and people who do hold those views probably won't? This is the kind of analysis I come to this thread for. Amazing.

 

[AlteredBeast]

So you're saying that people who don't hold certain extremely conservative views will probably vote for obama, and people who do hold those views probably won't? This is the kind of analysis I come to this thread for. Amazing.

your comments have become increasingly snide over the past 6 months.

 

[Clevinger]

you foul beast, why

 

[elrechazado]

your comments have become increasingly snide over the past 6 months.

I haven't been able to afford my prescription for Snidex. Crossing fingers that the ACA is struck down so we can get some single payer going up in here.

I'm not sure what's more offensive though - those sharp knees, or that you sent your web browser to ebaumsworld.

 

[AlteredBeast]

lol. I actually looked for "I like it a lot" on google images and this came up

I am not saying your comments are bad or good, just snide. I actually do like them most of the time.


But, totally agree on public option/single payer.

 

[elrechazado]

lol. I actually looked for "I like it a lot" on google images and this came up

I am not saying your comments are bad or good, just snide. I actually do like them most of the time.


But, totally agree on public option/single payer.

Ok, te absolvo for the sin of ebaum. I'll try to be more constructive and less silly, but that guy's "analysis"....geez.

 

[AlteredBeast]

PPP just released a new poll:

Democrats are going to vote for Barack Obama in large numbers. When polled, most replied, "I like voting for candidates that share my values."

I think Romney is going to have a tough time winning over Democrats this fall. What do you guys think?

 

[The Librarian]

Neither are good examples, although I agree republicans will retain the house. Many democrats voted for Reagan in 1984 while voting democrat in their state elections; that type of Reagan Democrat vote splitting hasn't happened on a national scale since then. And in 96 republicans had such a large lead in the house, plus the gerrymandering that democrats had little chance of winning. Actually in that sense, 96 is more comparable to 2012

The major difference is that we have the least popular congress of all time, thus giving democrats a slim shot

What did the Democrats in the House run on in 1948?

They're both great examples of a larger historical trend: Success at the presidency does not translate to success at Congress, especially when it comes to flipping chambers between parties. You guys are forgetting the post I was responding to: My main point was that it is not "almost certain" that Democrats will retake the House. Not saying it can't happen, but it is most definitely not "almost certain."

Edit: DNC hits back over Romney campaign's request for Obama to release transcripts of his talks with world leaders:

Having been in many sensitive meetings with our allies around the world, the Romney campaign's comment shows a remarkable naiveté about foreign policy.

For example, does Governor Romney think we should release all the notes and transcripts of the President's conversations with our allies, such as the Israelis and Europeans, tipping our hand to Tehran about every last element of our strategy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

Our friends around the world need to trust that they can speak with the President of the United States in confidence, and that these conversations will not be politicized during an election. Such a dramatic and unprecedented step would undermine the ability of the United States to successfully conduct foreign policy at a time when our nation faces numerous challenges abroad, and suggesting it is just a reckless attempt to score cheap political points. It is yet another indication that Mitt Romney is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/team-romney-calls-for-all-transcripts-of-obamas

 

[makingmusic476]

lol. I actually looked for "I like it a lot" on google images and this came up

I am not saying your comments are bad or good, just snide. I actually do like them most of the time.


But, totally agree on public option/single payer.

Realistically, what's the likelihood of the Dems tackling single payer if the ACA is struck down?

And if the ACA is upheld, given its lengthy roll out, does that mean we won't see proper universal healthcare on the table for ten years at best?

 

[elrechazado]

Realistically, what's the likelihood of the Dems tackling single payer if the ACA is struck down?

And if the ACA is upheld, given its lengthy roll out, does that mean we won't see proper universal healthcare on the table for ten years at best?

I'd say ten is safe. 92 -93 is when the whole "hillarycare" stuff was going on. Ten years later, ACA. Maybe in ten years we'll see politicians back single payer.

 

[AlteredBeast]

No matter what, they arent doing anything with single payer for a LONG time. Too many politicians have funding by big pharma and insurance agencies for any large amount to make a push for single payer or public option.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Can someone update me on why conservative sites are so convinced HCR is going to be struck down?

 

[elrechazado]

Can someone update me on why conservative sites are so convinced HCR is going to be struck down?

The briefs and oral arguments basically. It's not just conservative sites. It's people who follow the supreme court on both sides of the ideology. Don't confuse thinking it will be struck down with wanting it to be struck down.

 

[The Librarian]

No matter what, they arent doing anything with single payer for a LONG time. Too many politicians have funding by big pharma and insurance agencies for any large amount to make a push for single payer or public option.

Single-payer will come through the states. We got one state to get the ball rolling (Vermont), but the more hop on sooner, the better. Fucking California State Senate and those four skittish moderate Democrats.

 

[elrechazado]

Single-payer will come through the states. We got one state to get the ball rolling (Vermont), but the more hop on sooner, the better. Fucking California State Senate and those four skittish moderate Democrats.

Kind of shocking we haven't had a single state do this yet. It'd be neat to see. That's what federalism is supposed to be after all - an experimental grounds for states to take their own solutions to issues that the people want addressed.

 

[makingmusic476]

I'd say ten is safe. 92 -93 is when the whole "hillarycare" stuff was going on. Ten years later, ACA. Maybe in ten years we'll see politicians back single payer.

You mean twenty years later?

 

[elrechazado]

You mean twenty years later?

I'm a doctor, not a mathemagician dammit. Also, I'm not a doctor.

 

[Chichikov]

Kind of shocking we haven't had a single state do this yet. It'd be neat to see. That's what federalism is supposed to be after all - an experimental grounds for states to take their own solutions to issues that the people want addressed.

It requires a significant increase in taxation.
Now it's true, done right, that taxation should be less than the cost you currently pay for healthcare, but it still doesn't make it any easier to get done politically.

This is yet another sad result of the Democratic party completely capitulating philosophically on taxation.

 

[PhoenixDark]

They're both great examples of a larger historical trend: Success at the presidency does not translate to success at Congress, especially when it comes to flipping chambers between parties. You guys are forgetting the post I was responding to: My main point was that it is not "almost certain" that Democrats will retake the House. Not saying it can't happen, but it is most definitely not "almost certain."

The trend you refer to is undeniable, I'd just argue the examples cited - especially 84 - aren't the best to make the case. Likewise if Obama were to win a huge, 2008 or similar blowout, I do feel the house could fall to dems despite the gerrymandering due to historical low congress approval ratings.

We agree it's far from certain that will happen though. If Obama were to win this year and the recovery continues, 2014 could be a potential year for democrats to retake the house. I think republicans will lose a lot of seats this year, lowering tea party influence and perhaps making Boehner's job easier.

 

[eBay Huckster]

You mean Republicans.

I actually meant the entire Democratic Party in general, if we're talking about '48.

But I digress, trying to forecast this year's Congressional elections is going to be a complete crapshoot until September or later (or simply once the Republicans start flooding airwaves with infinite ads, anyway)

 

[reilo]

Don't you get tired of your trolling? Do you ever actually say what you mean and believe what you say or is every single one of your posts a facade? How tiresome.

He's still bitter over Hillary losing, Avatar doing well, and Lebron being a playoff failure.

 

[empty vessel]

It requires a significant increase in taxation.
Now it's true, done right, that taxation should be less than the cost you currently pay for healthcare, but it still doesn't make it any easier to get done politically.

This is yet another sad result of the Democratic party completely capitulating philosophically on taxation.

States will have a much harder time enacting a single payer system than the federal government. Unlike the federal government, state governments are revenue constrained. Whereas the federal government could implement a single payer system overnight without so much as even raising taxes or otherwise changing the tax code, state governments will have to tax to fund their programs.

This is yet another thing that makes federalism stupid.

 

[The Librarian]

The trend you refer to is undeniable, I'd just argue the examples cited - especially 84 - aren't the best to make the case. Likewise if Obama were to win a huge, 2008 or similar blowout, I do feel the house could fall to dems despite the gerrymandering due to historical low congress approval ratings.

And yet you don't state your reasoning...

Edit: You're also ignoring that the poster I originally responded to used one metric to determine whether or not Democrats will re-take the House: margin of victory. Thus, I provided two examples of great margins of victory in which neither resulted in that party's control of the House.

 

[Chichikov]

States will have a much harder time enacting a single payer system than the federal government. Unlike the federal government, state governments are revenue constrained. Whereas the federal government could implement a single payer system overnight without so much as even raising taxes or otherwise changing the tax code, state governments will have to tax to fund their programs.

This is yet another thing that makes federalism stupid.

Politically, sure, they allow you to do the reverse starving of the beast thing (wherein you fund services by deficit spending, thus making tax increases more palatable to public, as those services had time to prove their worth) but practically?
That really shouldn't matter that much.
MMT or no MMT, you still want to reach a long term balance of revenue and spending to avoid the inflationary pressures that a chronic and systemic deficit brings.

The only real problem of relying exclusively on taxation are times of serious economic slowdowns (recessions, natural disasters), and that's what federal aid should be for.

 

[Jackson50]

Slow growth, high gas prices, and a president unable to get above 50% approval. And high unemployment. so yes he is in trouble and will likely lose. There's no doubt in my mind that youth and black turnout will be down significantly

This is a common proposition, yet it's not very likely. Youth and black turnout have been quite stable as a percentage of presidential turnout. Cycle-to-cycle variation has averaged perhaps a percent over the preceding decades. Thus, a significant reduction in turnout relative to other demographics is unlikely. Instead, the more material inquiry is vote share. I do not expect Obama to lose a significant share of the black vote relative to 2008. The youth vote may experience a slight correction after substantial gains in 2008, but the GOP's promotion of extreme social values may alienate swaths of the youth cohort. Regardless, if youth and black turnout are diminished, it's likely to be proportional to other demographics thus being inconsequential.

I wasn't born yet and I was 6, so I don't remember.

If people are not happy with the current situation (which they are), they'd be fools to elect... exactly the same political situation they hate.

It's imperative to dichotomize the institution from the legislator. Congress's approval as an institution is at historically low levels. Though, there are no mechanisms for institutional accountability. A voter can only sanction or reward a representative. They cannot sanction the collective body. Thus, a more pertinent unit regarding electoral consequences is the individual legislator. The latest poll I remember was from December which indicated approximately 55% of respondents would vote to reelect their representative. That's moderately low by historical standards. It approximates the polls in 1994 and especially 2006. Although the presidential election will effect the results, so those aren't directly analogous. Really, this is a maddeningly uncertain Congressional cycle to project. There are numerous cross currents that make a confident projection impossible. Altogether, no. It's not nearly certain Democrats will flip the House even if Obama wins.

 

[XMonkey]

Honest question... if individual states try a single-payer system, how do they keep costs in check while providing for an effective minimum standard of care if they're only one (or a small handful) of the states doing it in a country as large as ours?

It seems like a big problem to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[PhoenixDark]

And yet you don't state your reasoning...

Edit: You're also ignoring that the poster I originally responded to used one metric to determine whether or not Democrats will re-take the House: margin of victory. Thus, I provided two examples of great margins of victory in which neither resulted in that party's control of the House.

I listed specific reasoning in my earlier post, specifically on 1984.

I'm not ignoring the original poster, I specifically said that I disagreed with his argument. My point was that the examples you cited weren't necessarily the best indicators of this, given the special circumstances involved. Reagan was surprisingly popular with a lot of democrats who voted for him yet voted for democrat state congressmen and governors; Michigan is perhaps the best example of that.

 

[elrechazado]

Honest question... if individual states try a single-payer system, how do they keep costs in check while providing for an effective minimum standard of care if they're one (or a small handful) of the states doing it?

It seems like a big problem to me, but maybe I'm wrong.

I wonder if corporations would flock to such a state to free ride and be able to shed expensive employee health plans. Assuming no tax breaks for them, would the resulting increase in business/employment/etc (assume for the hypo that this happens) create something of a self fulfilling improvement in taxes and make this successful?