• 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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did they even think about these before they make them? How about their candidate in uniform?

070116mitt_ann_romney_mormon_underw.jpg

Republicans didn't come out and support him and that's why he lost. That might be a reason. The republican vote was WAY down this last election.
 
Republicans didn't come out and support him and that's why he lost. That might be a reason. The republican vote was WAY down this last election.
Really? Because Romney got the highest amount of raw votes for any presidential loser in history. I don't think that's an excuse
 
The problem isn't turnout, it's base.

GOP voters are dying at a faster rate than Democrat voters are being vote-eligible.

Whether it's new immigrants or 18-25 year olds, these people largely go to vote Democratic and the elderly is the GOP base (largest bloc).


When you look at the vote totals, it's pretty obvious that Romney picked up some GOP voters who stayed home in '08 while Obama lost a few due to the economy not improving enough but didn't vote.

The country has taken a sharp turn left in social policy the last 8 years and the 2008 crash being blamed on Bush has made the GOP a slowly dying party at a national level.

He didn't get as many Republican votes because a lot of them changed to independent.

This too. A lot of GOP claimed themselves as independents this time around because they were Tea Party or libertarians, but would always vote GOP.
 

Gotchaye

Member
What "non-catholic religious institutions" oppose contraception on principle? Are there any? I have seen a hardcore Southern Baptist react to a description of catholic-approved Natural Family Planning like its some sort of occult Nazi ritual.

And this article cites a Univision poll finding that Latinos are more pro-life than the general population: http://nbclatino.com/2012/08/24/opinion-can-the-republicans-connect-with-latinos-on-abortion/

Well, NFP is fucking weird.

But seriously, lots of conservative religious institutions lined up against the contraception mandate in Obamacare. Since before that, they've been complicit in the spread of an awful lot of misinformation conflating contraception and abortion. It's easy to google quotes from SBC bigwigs condemning intentional childlessness and attacking a "contraceptive mentality".

Also, the poll you cite has 50% of US-born Latinos saying that abortion should be legal in most circumstances. 43% to 25% prefer Democrats to Republicans on abortion (this is 37% to 25% for all Latinos, but it's hard to tell if this is only citizens or if it includes all legal residents). But yes, many just don't care very much. Like I've been saying, it's only a high-priority issue for a lot of US conservatives because of a whole lot of marketing.

I've also seen other polls, like this one - http://latinainstitute.org/sites/de...al-reports/LatinoAbortionAttitudesPolling.pdf - that show much stronger support for pro-choice positions. This has 74% agreeing or strongly agreeing that "A woman has a right to make her own personal, private decisions about abortion without politicians interfering".
 
Ultimately the business cycle determines elections; if Kerry had been president in 2007/2008 we'd have a two term republican right now. It's still possible for republicans to win on the same platform of archaic social issues and small government, they just need the economy to get them over the line. Perhaps democrat fatigue and slow growth will lead to a surprising 2016 GOP victory, we just don't know right now. Every four years the winning side writes the obituary of the other - see: Zell Miller in 2004, James Carville in 2008.

Demographics benefit democrats right now, but we don't know whether minority voters will turn out in force for future democrat candidates. Does anyone think black people are going to stand in line for hours to vote for Andrew Cuomo? Will Hispanics go all out for Martin O'Malley? Could Rubio get 35-40% of the Hispanic vote against them? Probably. That's all it would take to win the presidency.

IMO that's why a Hillary presidency would be so essential to the democrat party. She wouldn't be able to completely hold Obama's coalition, but she'd hold enough while certaining winning more of the white vote. And in 4-8 more years that coalition would be even stronger, and more solidly democratic (ie more likely to vote). It would also give the party time to mold more solid governors for presidential runs.
 

thefro

Member
Hillary's really in the catbird's seat since she's been out of domestic politics for four years and can either run as the Clinton third term and/or the Obama third term depending on how things are going. She's going to have the ability to tack away somewhat from President Obama or completely embrace him depending on the situation.

The other factor is if the economy booms people are going to want to keep a Dem in the White House, if it stagnates or goes back into recession that's going to kill off any momentum that a Republican governor would get as far as having a "good record". The Senate is screwed up so much that nobody's going to get any big accomplishment through it except maybe Rubio taking credit for an Immigration deal (and he'd have a nightmare getting through a primary after that). The big names that were out of politics all ran in 2012.

Anything from 2008 or earlier is going to be dubbed really old news. Bashing her for Senate votes 8 years ago isn't going to work. Basically she just needs to not fuck up campaigning and she should be golden if she wants the job.
 
Hillary's really in the catbird's seat since she's been out of domestic politics for four years and can either run as the Clinton third term and/or the Obama third term depending on how things are going. She's going to have the ability to tack away somewhat from President Obama or completely embrace him depending on the situation.

The other factor is if the economy booms people are going to want to keep a Dem in the White House, if it stagnates or goes back into recession that's going to kill off any momentum that a Republican governor would get as far as having a "good record". The Senate is screwed up so much that nobody's going to get any big accomplishment through it except maybe Rubio taking credit for an Immigration deal (and he'd have a nightmare getting through a primary after that). The big names that were out of politics all ran in 2012.

Anything from 2008 or earlier is going to be dubbed really old news. Bashing her for Senate votes 8 years ago isn't going to work. Basically she just needs to not fuck up campaigning and she should be golden if she wants the job.

And with a successful Obama presidency these 4 years, he will be campaigning for her hard like Bill did for him.

I really believe with a successful 4 years (good economy, nothing bad foreign/terrorism) a Hillary run could be a slaughter.

But anything can change before then.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
And with a successful Obama presidency these 4 years, he will be campaigning for her hard like Bill did for him.

I really believe with a successful 4 years (good economy, nothing bad foreign/terrorism) a Hillary run could be a slaughter.

But anything can change before then.


Yeah, Bill really came through for Obama this last election. Having both Bill and Obama campaigning for you is an awesome combo that can't be matched by the Republicans.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Gotchaye, you argued that "Basically, the reason non-Catholic religious institutions oppose contraception to the degree that they now do is just that they have defined themselves in opposition to liberals and are happy to take any excuse to oppose liberal policy."

But they don't oppose contraception; some opposed the employer mandate in Obamacare. Those are two different things, yes?

I did google it as you suggested and found an article by a bigwig from 2004 that concludes that while the Papal encyclical outlining the church's teachings on birth control makes some good points regarding the societal effects of separating sex from procreation, evangelicals are free to use contraception and remain good Christians because Catholic teaching is wrong.

I disagree that non-Catholic religious institutions oppose contraception. The Catholic objection is based on natural law principles explained by the Pope in the late 60s after the Pill became popular and has nothing to do with American racism or contemporary politics.
 
Ultimately the business cycle determines elections; if Kerry had been president in 2007/2008 we'd have a two term republican right now. It's still possible for republicans to win on the same platform of archaic social issues and small government, they just need the economy to get them over the line. Perhaps democrat fatigue and slow growth will lead to a surprising 2016 GOP victory, we just don't know right now. Every four years the winning side writes the obituary of the other - see: Zell Miller in 2004, James Carville in 2008.

Demographics benefit democrats right now, but we don't know whether minority voters will turn out in force for future democrat candidates. Does anyone think black people are going to stand in line for hours to vote for Andrew Cuomo? Will Hispanics go all out for Martin O'Malley? Could Rubio get 35-40% of the Hispanic vote against them? Probably. That's all it would take to win the presidency.

IMO that's why a Hillary presidency would be so essential to the democrat party. She wouldn't be able to completely hold Obama's coalition, but she'd hold enough while certaining winning more of the white vote. And in 4-8 more years that coalition would be even stronger, and more solidly democratic (ie more likely to vote). It would also give the party time to mold more solid governors for presidential runs.
No matter who the Democratic nominee is in 2016, if Obama has a good second term he'll be campaigning hard for them and they'll reap the benefit of it. And Rubio's strength with Hispanic voters is vastly overstated, they won't become more susceptible to conservative ideology just because a candidate looks kind of like them. That's like saying Herman Cain would have won 1/3rd of the black vote.

There's really no use in forecasting the 2016 presidential election because a lot of things could happen between now and then, but I don't think Democrats need Hillary to run to have a shot. She is easily the best candidate being talked about, though.
 
I feel like the next four years could easily be a disaster. So much shit is going on in the middle east and north Africa, and at home both sides don't seem to give a shit about job growth legislation. I wouldn't be surprised if gun and immigration reform dies, the economy continues to stagger, and we get more big natural disasters.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
I feel like the next four years could easily be a disaster. So much shit is going on in the middle east and north Africa, and at home both sides don't seem to give a shit about job growth legislation. I wouldn't be surprised if gun and immigration reform dies, the economy continues to stagger, and we get more big natural disasters.
You need to stop now. I get that you want to keep topping yourself, but no.
 
You need to stop now. I get that you want to keep topping yourself, but no.

Has nothing to do about topping. This could be a very tumultuous year around the globe, made worse by a disinterest by congress and the White House in addressing the economy. The Jobs Act is apparently on no one's agenda while unemployment rises.

Iran, Egypt, North Korea, China/Japan conflict, etc
 
I feel like the next four years could easily be a disaster. So much shit is going on in the middle east and north Africa, and at home both sides don't seem to give a shit about job growth legislation. I wouldn't be surprised if gun and immigration reform dies, the economy continues to stagger, and we get more big natural disasters.
Yeah, and I bet millions of disaffected Democrats will be thinking "We should have went for Romney" as they cast their votes for Hillary.

And you'll still be making silly predictions.
 

Gotchaye

Member
But they don't oppose contraception; some opposed the employer mandate in Obamacare. Those are two different things, yes?
Not really. Conservative Protestants don't tend to be against contraception in all cases, true, but they're very against contraception for the unworthy. Similarly, abortion statistics make pretty clear that a very large number of social conservatives actually think that abortion is permissible when the woman getting one is close to them. But we wouldn't say that they're not actually anti-abortion. It's abortion for me but not for thee, just as they're fine with decent married Christians of a certain mindset using contraception. The only really interesting difference is that abortion is so rarely necessary that lots of them can fool themselves into thinking they're not hypocrites.

The most common argument against the employer mandate was that it violated a business owner's freedom of conscience. Non-Catholic support for this was not just an ACLU-defending-Nazis thing. Commentary on the whole Sandra Fluke affair made pretty clear that this was not about an in-principle right not to have to go against one's conscience in general, but was instead about the specific right to make sure that it is difficult for sluts to access contraception. It's no coincidence that these conscience arguments sounded a lot like conscience arguments in support of pharmacists being able to decide not to fill prescriptions and which are obviously targeted at abortion; the real concern here is to enable specific exercises of private power. But preventing access to contraception isn't an exercise of private power that we'd have expected Protestants to care much about; I'd argue that this is manufactured opposition much like Protestant opposition to abortion, albeit about 20 years younger.

I did google it as you suggested and found an article by a bigwig from 2004 that concludes that while the Papal encyclical outlining the church's teachings on birth control makes some good points regarding the societal effects of separating sex from procreation, evangelicals are free to use contraception and remain good Christians because Catholic teaching is wrong.
I assume you're talking about an Al Mohler piece (http://www.albertmohler.com/2006/05/08/can-christians-use-birth-control/) in which he's awfully wishy-washy on the issue, saying that there are legitimate questions to be asked, and strongly implies that even lots of married couples who use contraception are doing so illegitimately. He also throws the term "abortifacient" around in reference to basically everything other than barrier methods.

I want to stress that last bit again. Non-Catholic institutions have been at the forefront of pushing misinformation about contraception, claiming that some of the most popular and effective methods are the moral equivalent of abortion. Likewise there's been a lot of hostility to clinics that provide subsidized contraception but not abortion. Expanding on that, there's also clearly a certain amount of hostility to contraception for certain people apparent in how there's no evident pro- subsidies for contraception movement within the pro-life movement.

I disagree that non-Catholic religious institutions oppose contraception. The Catholic objection is based on natural law principles explained by the Pope in the late 60s after the Pill became popular and has nothing to do with American racism or contemporary politics.

I don't think I said that the Catholic objection to contraception is about racism (although certainly, in practice, Catholics who have no objection to personal use of contraception but who vote like everyone else on the religious right are basically the same as conservative Protestants, and plenty of Catholic institutions have been taken over by the religious right). But Protestant opposition to contraceptive methods such as the Pill and opposition to government policies such as the employer mandate and subsidies for contraception are a product of the self-perpetuating outrage machine called the religious right, an alliance of conservative Protestants and Catholics which has its roots in opposition to integration.
 
Has nothing to do about topping. This could be a very tumultuous year around the globe, made worse by a disinterest by congress and the White House in addressing the economy. The Jobs Act is apparently on no one's agenda while unemployment rises.

Iran, Egypt, North Korea, China/Japan conflict, etc
PD, for my sanity, please don't do this.
 
The story this comes from doesn't say this is even bad! Onan pulled out in order to avoid having a child in his late brother's name, as levirate marriage would have him do. It was about traditional marriage not semen, and traditional is nothing like the "one man and one woman courting themselves like free-love hippies" that some would have you believe these days.

Yeah. Onan's sin was disobeying his father's orders and thus God's orders.

But the story gets crazier. So Tamar's first husband Ur is dead (due to wickedness) and now Onan is dead (due to wickedness). Judah, the mens' father, asks his daughter-in-law to live in his house as a widow until the youngest son Shelah was old enough to marry her.

So Tamar leaves the house and waits on the road dressed as a harlot (King James Version, man). And who happens to be walking down the road but Judah. At this point Judah is a widower and is feeling lonely. So he sleeps with his disguised daughter-in-law. She gets pregnant, and is able to prove that Judah is the father, thus avoiding getting burned to death.

That family was cray.
 

Tim-E

Member
PD, for my sanity, please don't do this.

Don't feed into it and he won't!

If Kennedy and Scalia manage to hang on for four years, I think 2016 will be just as critical as 2012, if not more so.

Scalia probably has it written down somewhere that if he dies while a Democrat is President that they keep him on life support inside the Supreme Court building until a Republican is elected.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
"Conservative Protestants don't tend to be against contraception in all cases, true, but they're very against contraception for the unworthy."

What is that statement based on? No idea what "being very against contraception for the unworthy" means or how such a sentiment could even be expressed. Historically, people who consider poor people 'unworthy' would be in favor of contraception or even sterilization for them.

"The most common argument against the employer mandate was that it violated a business owner's freedom of conscience. Non-Catholic support for this was not just an ACLU-defending-Nazis thing."

The argument is that the employer mandate violates the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion.

"Commentary on the whole Sandra Fluke affair made pretty clear that this was not about an in-principle right not to have to go against one's conscience in general, but was instead about the specific right to make sure that it is difficult for sluts to access contraception."

The "commentary" you're referencing is the cartoon pantomime from Rush Limbaugh and "WAR ON WOMEN" fundraising emails. You may have already read and carefully considered the arguments of the Catholic bishops, but if you need a refresher, you can read it here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ment-on-religious-freedom-and-hhs-mandate.cfm

"But preventing access to contraception isn't an exercise of private power that we'd have expected Protestants to care much about; I'd argue that this is manufactured opposition much like Protestant opposition to abortion, albeit about 20 years younger."

Again, you are misstating the issue as "access to contraception." "Access to contraception" has been widespread and affordable since the lates 60s, and that will never change. Twenty years ago, the government was not requiring religious institutions to pay for contraception for its employees, so it's irrelevant how Protestants may have felt about it then.

"I assume you're talking about an Al Mohler piece (http://www.albertmohler.com/2006/05/08/can-christians-use-birth-control/) in which he's awfully wishy-washy on the issue, saying that there are legitimate questions to be asked, and strongly implies that even lots of married couples who use contraception are doing so illegitimately."

There is some "on one hand x, but on the other y" style argument. But in the end he says that Catholic teaching on contraception is wrong, and evangelical Christians can use it without violating Christian morals. Evangelical theology does not oppose contraception in the abstract. There's no way to argue around that.

"I want to stress that last bit again. Non-Catholic institutions have been at the forefront of pushing misinformation about contraception, claiming that some of the most popular and effective methods are the moral equivalent of abortion. Likewise there's been a lot of hostility to clinics that provide subsidized contraception but not abortion."

Where can I read about non-Catholic institutions being at the forefront of pushing misinformation about contraception? I'm not familiar with this subject.

"Expanding on that, there's also clearly a certain amount of hostility to contraception for certain people apparent in how there's no evident pro- subsidies for contraception movement within the pro-life movement."

I'm not sure what you mean here.

"But Protestant opposition to contraceptive methods such as the Pill and opposition to government policies such as the employer mandate and subsidies for contraception are a product of the self-perpetuating outrage machine called the religious right, an alliance of conservative Protestants and Catholics which has its roots in opposition to integration."

Protestants do not "oppose" contraception. No Protestant sect that I know of teaches that contraception itself is a sin. You've typed a lot and haven't proven differently yet. Protestant theologians express reservations about the effects of the sexual revolution, which were made possible by contraception. Those are separate concepts and your argument doesn't make sense when you keep repeating that Protestants oppose contraception.

The outrage over the employer mandate was not "self perpetuating." The federal government imposed a policy that it had never done before, and a host of religious leaders and judicial scholars objected. Obviously some political opportunists went along for the ride, on both sides. But you are missing the point of the disagreement.

Edited to add: Jewish and Orthodox Christian leaders also oppose the mandate. Neither are part of the Religious Right.
 
.I don't think I said that the Catholic objection to contraception is about racism (although certainly, in practice, Catholics who have no objection to personal use of contraception but who vote like everyone else on the religious right are basically the same as conservative Protestants, and plenty of Catholic institutions have been taken over by the religious right). But Protestant opposition to contraceptive methods such as the Pill and opposition to government policies such as the employer mandate and subsidies for contraception are a product of the self-perpetuating outrage machine called the religious right, an alliance of conservative Protestants and Catholics which has its roots in opposition to integration.

There are conservatives who are fine with contraception, as long as it's mandatory for welfare queens.
 

Amir0x

Banned
NRA said:
The National Rifle Association on Saturday said that its estimation of President Barack Obama hasn't improved after the White House's release of a photo showing him skeet shooting.

"One picture does not erase a lifetime of supporting every gun ban and every gun-control scheme imaginable," said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA

These guys are seriously self-parody levels at this point.

"Hey, that picture of Obama saving a child from drowning? You know what, saving a child from drowning is vastly overrated. And even if it wasn't, saving that child does not erase his time spent trying to protect children from gun violence!"
 
These guys are seriously self-parody levels at this point.

"Hey, that picture of Obama saving a child from drowning? You know what, saving a child from drowning is vastly overrated. And even if it wasn't, saving that child does not erase his time spent trying to protect children from gun violence!"
If that kid had a gun he wouldn't have drowned
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
you can never be fast enough for far right loons

Well tbh Ozer0 defacing/destroying/smoking it as a "jazz cigarette"/whatever the Constitution is their go-to "Shit, nothing specific with which I can try attack that darkie today so I'll just use the old fall back" cartoon template.
 
The attention the media is giving this Obama skeet shooting picture is embarrassing.
Obama lost for even releasing it. Why dignify that stupid nonsense from the right, and then demand no one photoshop the picture. It's like they forgot how the Internet works.

Meanwhile any momentum for gun laws has disappeared
 
Obama lost for even releasing it. Why dignify that stupid nonsense from the right, and then demand no one photoshop the picture. It's like they forgot how the Internet works.
Where are the 'shops? I expect/demand them to be posted here!
Meanwhile any momentum for gun laws has disappeared
There will be another massacre at some point, and if there isn't legislation done or being actively debated, the resulting laws are really going to be anathema to the NRA crowd. Gun manufacturers were supportive of the 1968 gun control bill because they feared even more draconian legislation. There are so many superficial cosmetic changes and regulations that should be bipartisan. Push for trigger locks and safes. Support background checks. Close gun show loopholes. Propose changes that will ultimately make money for manufacturers and sellers. Do something, otherwise they're going to get steamrolled after the next inevitable, legislation-wouldn't-have-stopped-it-anyway tragedy.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
These guys are seriously self-parody levels at this point.

"Hey, that picture of Obama saving a child from drowning? You know what, saving a child from drowning is vastly overrated. And even if it wasn't, saving that child does not erase his time spent trying to protect children from gun violence!"

This is an organization that deliberately provokes actual sedition through fearmongering with the primary purpose of selling guns for profit. To anyone. It is an organization far more harmful than the wares it promotes. It is literally evil.
 
Dunno breh, after that Biden conference and Obama's executive "orders" I thought something may be possible, although I wasn't confident. Now I have no confidence. The outrage over universal background checks is quite impressive.

The fact that the President couldn't get any bans through Congress de-fanged any sorta teeth it may have had.

All the other legislation was bleh in comparison.
 

Tim-E

Member
His pandering is even more embarrassing.

I agree that it does absolutely nothing for him. It's just ridiculous that it's a Flickr picture that gets a day's worth of attention in politics and not something that actually matters. Hell, this dumb thing will take up half of every talk show tomorrow morning.

I love politics, but god damn it if this petty shit isn't frustrating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom