Support NeoGAF

[Gotchaye]

I'd watch the oral arguments if they were broadcast, but I don't think they ought to be. This isn't about transparency - we have audio and transcripts already, and audio might be going too far. I think we really want to avoid the evening news playing lots of clips from a Supreme Court case and bringing on body language experts and the like to talk about the justices. The Justices should not be personalities; it promotes the politicization of the Court.

I stopped watching Hayes when he moved to the evening. Show's too similar to what Maddow does, and Maddow's better at it. Right now my only TV is Maddow and Jon Oliver.

 

[jamesinclair]

"The question is: are Democrats in the House willing to govern, and today's demonstration proves that that might not be the case," Rory Cooper, the communications director for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told reporters.

So Im done.

 

[Wilsongt]

So Im done.

It's amazing how strong and durable that bubble is.

 

[Chichikov]

I'd watch the oral arguments if they were broadcast, but I don't think they ought to be. This isn't about transparency - we have audio and transcripts already, and audio might be going too far.

I think more people are going to watch live video of the hearing than listening to tapes after the fact, I know I would.
This will increase the practical transparency and public engagement, as opposed to the theoretical transparency.
You need the information not only available, but accessible.

I think we really want to avoid the evening news playing lots of clips from a Supreme Court case and bringing on body language experts and the like to talk about the justices. The Justices should not be personalities; it promotes the politicization of the Court.

Why would you want to avoid that?
I mean sure, I hope we get professional coverage of the hearing, and in some outlets we will, but I refuse to accept the line of thought that because some of the coverage will suck (and I'm sure it will) we can't have any coverage. Also, they're just a branch of the government, are you also opposed to having cameras in congress?
And the supreme justices are already personalities, and if the only thing broadcasting the hearings live will achieve is dispelling the notion that they're impartial legal experts who do nothing but interpret the constitution based on strict academic standards, then it's already worth it in my book.

 

[cooljeanius]

Eh, doesn't Scalia do that shit already?

It'd get worse.

 

[Wilsongt]

Anyway, this is already known, but still.

House rejects farm bill, 62 Republicans vote no

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House rejected a five-year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill Thursday that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.

Those cuts weren't deep enough for many Republicans who objected to the cost of the nearly $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, which has doubled in the past five years. The vote was 234-195 against the bill, with 62 Republicans voting against it.

The bill also suffered from lack of Democratic support necessary for the traditionally bipartisan farm bill to pass. Only 24 Democrats voted in favor of the legislation after many said the food stamp cuts could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls. The addition of the optional state work requirements by Republican amendment just before final passage turned away many remaining Democratic votes.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and No. 2 Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland, both of whom voted for the bill, immediately took to the House floor and blamed the other's party for the defeat.

Cantor said it was a "disappointing day" and that Democrats had been a "disappointing player."

Hoyer suggested that Republicans voted for the food stamp work requirements to tank the bill.

"What happened today is you turned a bipartisan bill, necessary for our farmers, necessary for our consumers, necessary for the people of America, that many of us would have supported, and you turned it into a partisan bill," he said.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed its version of the farm bill last week, with about $2.4 billion a year in overall cuts and a $400 million annual decrease in food stamps — one-fifth of the House bill's food stamp cuts. The White House was supportive of the Senate version but had issued a veto threat of the House bill.

If the two chambers cannot come together on a bill, farm-state lawmakers could push for an extension of the 2008 farm bill that expires in September or negotiate a new bill with the Senate and try again.

Some conservatives have suggested separating the farm programs and the food stamps into separate bills. Farm-state lawmakers have for decades added food stamps to farm bills to garner urban votes for the rural bill. But that marriage has made passage harder this year.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said Thursday that the committee is assessing all its options and will continue its work in the "near future."

Just before the vote, Lucas pleaded with his colleagues' support, saying that if the measure didn't pass people would use it as an example of a dysfunctional Congress.

"If it fails today I can't guarantee you'll see in this Congress another attempt," he said.

Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said he believes the work requirements and a vote that scuttled a proposed dairy overhaul turned too many lawmakers against the measure.

"I had a bunch of people come up to me and say I was with you but this is it, I'm done," Peterson said after the vote.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, voted for the bill but lobbied for the dairy amendment that caused some dairy-state lawmakers to eventually turn on the legislation. Cantor vocally supported the amendment that imposed the work requirements, coming to the House floor just before that vote and the final vote to endorse it.

Though passage has been in the balance all week, the vote against the bill was larger than many expected. When the final vote count was read, House Democrats cheered loudly, led by members of the Congressional Black Caucus who had fought the food stamp cuts.

The defeat is also a major victory for conservative taxpayer groups and environmental groups who have unsuccessfully worked against the bill for years. Those groups have aggressively lobbied lawmakers in recent weeks, hoping to capitalize on the more than 200 new members of the House since the last farm bill passed five years ago. Many of those new members are conservative Republicans who replaced moderate rural Democrats who had championed farm policy.

Those groups were emboldened after the vote.

"We need to put farm subsidies on a path to elimination and we need to devolve food stamps to the state level where they belong," said Chris Chocola, president of the conservative advocacy group Club for Growth.

In the past, I can understand why the farm bills and food stamps were rolled into one. However, you can't do that shit nowadays. Not with how much of a clusterfuck congress is at the moment.

 

[Gotchaye]

Why would you want to avoid that?
...
And the supreme justices are already personalities, and if the only thing broadcasting the hearings live will achieve is dispelling the notion that they're impartial legal experts who do nothing but interpret the constitution based on strict academic standards, then it's already worth it in my book.

Then why have a Supreme Court?

If they're not reasonably impartial, then they're just another house of Congress with lifetime terms and a weird way of gaining office in the first place. And I think they are much more impartial than Congress - Roberts upheld Obamacare, for example. There's still a presumption that it's possible for a Justice's legal finding to differ from what his or her preferred policy is, and this often turns out to be the case. Arguably, the Court has become much more political recently. I think making hearings subject to intense public scrutiny is likely to make that worse.

 

[B-Dubs]

It'd get worse.

Yes you can go see it, and we have audio recordings and transcripts, but it's just a shadowy thing for a lot of people. I think that's the argument in favor of allowing cameras.

 

[cooljeanius]

And I think they are much more impartial than Congress - Roberts upheld Obamacare, for example.

Roberts upholding Obamacare wasn't about him being impartial, it was about him trying to preserve the legitimacy of the institution of the Supreme Court. Also his opinion he wrote for it was a blow to the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that liberals like to take.

 

[Chichikov]

Then why have a Supreme Court?

If they're not reasonably impartial, then they're just another house of Congress with lifetime terms and a weird way of gaining office in the first place. And I think they are much more impartial than Congress - Roberts upheld Obamacare, for example. There's still a presumption that it's possible for a Justice's legal finding to differ from what his or her preferred policy is, and this often turns out to be the case. Arguably, the Court has become much more political recently. I think making hearings subject to intense public scrutiny is likely to make that worse.

That's a different discussion, and as I said many times in this thread, I'm not a fan of judicial review.
But we do have a supreme court, the question in front of us is whether or not we should televised the hearing.
And I never meant to say that ALL supreme court decisions go down the party line.

p.s.
I think in a democracy, everything should have intense public scrutiny, I really don't understand why you think the supreme court is different than other branches of the government on that regard.

 

[Oblivion]

Looks like I was wrong. There were apparently TWO cases of Rovian strategery going on today:

"This increased GDP will be at the expense of poor and working-class Americans. The benefit will go to the business owners while the wages of U.S. workers -- which should be growing -- will instead decline."

Those goddamned Democrats, always siding with the job creators!

 

[The Technomancer]

Looks like I was wrong. There were apparently TWO cases of Rovian strategery going on today:



Those goddamned Democrats, always siding with the job creators!

I...I...I really shouldn't be surprised anymore.

 

[Jackson50]

Study: Latinos learn English at a faster rate than prior immigrant groups. ThinkProgress link.

That study focuses solely on monolingual German communities from Wisconsin. Although their data is novel, especially the use of church and school records as a cross-reference for bilingualism, I wonder if their outcomes are generalizable. Nevertheless, the pattern is consonant with other research indicating a greater proficiency with English among contemporary immigrants. So when conservatives claim that the current wave of immigration is unique, they are correct, albeit unwittingly. Immigrants are acculturating with greater expediency than previous generations.

As for the causes, I could only speculate. Perhaps there are more resources to facilitate integration as el retorno This is probably due to the fact there is a giant infrastructure of support. There are millions who speak spanish and english that can help someone speak english. Communities are also much less segregated that they were in the past.[/QUOTE]"]postulated. But that could only be part of the explanation. Latinos might constitute the majority of new immigrants, but there are many from Asia, too. And Latino immigrants acculturate linguistically at a slower pace than other immigrant groups. That's partially a result of Asian immigrants being better educated upon arrival. But I think the broader cause is a shift in immigration patterns because of employment incentives. Immigrants fill employment niches that disperse them around the country. Whereas previous generations of immigrants congregated in urban enclaves in gateway states, contemporary immigrants increasingly settle in the Midwest and Southeast. The insular urban communities of previous generations inhibited integration and English proficiency. But immigrants now enjoy employment opportunities in agriculture, construction, food service, and hospitality that disperse them throughout more diverse communities. However, I could be wildly wrong, so I'd be interested in any research on the topic.

On your point about stability I understand the post conflict question marks and I concede I don't have complete answers at this time. I suppose the goal of intervention is to force assad to the table for a negotiated deal, him leaving but without a purge of his entire administration. Like dayton. There will need to be outside forces maintaining stability and it will be a long drawn out conflict but without intervention you'll IMO have the same low level insurgency against the Assad regime as you would have against a weak central government. Its a lose lose situation but the US can and should work during the arming and helping of the rebels to prepare them for a post-assad syria.

Apropos to our discussion, Fareed Zakaria discussed the folly of intervening to compel a negotiated a settlement. And I think the mistake would be graver given the nature of the conflict.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So Im done.

I bet they just wish Democrats won the House in 2012. They clearly don't want to do the work.

 

[j_k_redtail]

Anyway, this is already known, but still.

House rejects farm bill, 62 Republicans vote no



In the past, I can understand why the farm bills and food stamps were rolled into one. However, you can't do that shit nowadays. Not with how much of a clusterfuck congress is at the moment.

Ignore Cantor's asinine finger-pointing. Just like his Helping Sick Americans Now Act, this should have passed without Democratic support.

I'll it say again: Boehner is an ineffective leader of his party. He can not keep his caucus in line. The Tea Party wing of the GOP is driving the party to irrelevance, and may very well take the House with it.

 

[speculawyer]

Ignore Cantor's asinine finger-pointing. Just like his Helping Sick Americans Now Act, this should have passed without Democratic support.

I'll it say again: Boehner is an ineffective leader of his party. He can not keep his caucus in line. The Tea Party wing of the GOP is driving the party to irrelevance, and may very well take the House with it.

Well Boehner is dealing with crazy people. So I have a bit of sympathy for his impossible task of herding crazy people.

But ultimately . . . this is what they want, right? Government is bad so why not bad governing?

 

[Gotchaye]

That's a different discussion, and as I said many times in this thread, I'm not a fan of judicial review.
But we do have a supreme court, the question in front of us is whether or not we should televised the hearing.
And I never meant to say that ALL supreme court decisions go down the party line.

p.s.
I think in a democracy, everything should have intense public scrutiny, I really don't understand why you think the supreme court is different than other branches of the government on that regard.

Well, because I think that certain kinds of public scrutiny promote politicization. There are plenty of governmental functions that I don't think should have to deal with direct public scrutiny. The obvious example is jury deliberation. Congress is supposed to be political. House Reps in particular are basically supposed to do what a majority of their constituents want them to do. Scrutiny that promotes politicization of Congress is basically a good thing, I think. That's not uncontroversial, though - many will argue that there are advantages to a Congress which is more insulated from public opinion. They think that we should work to rebuild a culture of electing people whose judgment we trust rather than just those whose positions we favor, and plausibly it is the case that modern political media make it very hard to prevent everyone from feeling qualified to have an opinion on every topic.

I guess my question to you is: what purpose does more public scrutiny of the Court serve? Is it likely to produce decisions that are more similar to the decisions the Court ought to produce? Is it going to have a beneficial effect on the attitudes Americans take towards the Court? The culture of these institutions matters, and I think the Court is still (perhaps barely) hanging on to a culture of impartiality. Cooljeanius says above that Roberts wasn't trying to be impartial - he was trying to preserve the Court's legitimacy - but I'm not sure what the difference is. I think open hearings will hurry the day when someone like Roberts won't be the least bit concerned with the Court's legitimacy, as we understand that today.

 

[Chichikov]

Well, because I think that certain kinds of public scrutiny promote politicization. There are plenty of governmental functions that I don't think should have to deal with direct public scrutiny. The obvious example is jury deliberation. Congress is supposed to be political. House Reps in particular are basically supposed to do what a majority of their constituents want them to do. Scrutiny that promotes politicization of Congress is basically a good thing, I think. That's not uncontroversial, though - many will argue that there are advantages to a Congress which is more insulated from public opinion. They think that we should work to rebuild a culture of electing people whose judgment we trust rather than just those whose positions we favor, and plausibly it is the case that modern political media make it very hard to prevent everyone from feeling qualified to have an opinion on every topic.

I guess my question to you is: what purpose does more public scrutiny of the Court serve? Is it likely to produce decisions that are more similar to the decisions the Court ought to produce? Is it going to have a beneficial effect on the attitudes Americans take towards the Court? The culture of these institutions matters, and I think the Court is still (perhaps barely) hanging on to a culture of impartiality. Cooljeanius says above that Roberts wasn't trying to be impartial - he was trying to preserve the Court's legitimacy - but I'm not sure what the difference is. I think open hearings will hurry the day when someone like Roberts won't be the least bit concerned with the Court's legitimacy, as we understand that today.

We don't broadcast jury deliberation to protect the privacy of private citizens and to protect the jurors, I don't that applies the supreme court.

And the argument that it can cause politicization can be applied to pretty much every function of the governments, and I think you look at history, on average, the more transparency, the better.


p.s.
Why do you think that video cameras are going to make them more or less impartial?
For fuck's sake, if someone is unable to make a decision if the public know he made it, that person is unfit to serve in the supreme court.

 

[Gotchaye]

We don't broadcast jury deliberation to protect the privacy of private citizens and to protect the jurors, I don't that applies the supreme court.

And the argument that it can cause politicization can be applied to pretty much every function of the governments, and I think you look at history, on average, the more transparency, the better.


p.s.
Why do you think that video cameras are going to make them more or less impartial?
For fuck's sake, if someone is unable to make a decision if the public know he made it, that person is unfit to serve in the supreme court.

There are other reasons why we don't broadcast jury deliberation. It's not just a concern about the intrinsic value of privacy. We think that it would lead to worse verdicts.

And obviously the concern with cameras isn't that people will know how individual Justices decide. First, we already know that and broadcasting the hearings isn't going to add much here. Second, are you now arguing for broadcasting the Court's deliberations?

I think broadcasting and pulling apart and over-analyzing Supreme Court hearings will lead to more mugging for the camera than we get now. I think presidents will have reason to nominate Justices that will use hearings to make political points. People will see this. They'll come to think of the Court as entirely political, at which point it quickly will become so. And then there's not much of a point to having the thing in the first place.

 

[Fuchsdh]

It is fun reading the comments from the goldbugs. So many conspiracy theories and rationalizations. It's just 'paper-gold'! (As if you can get a better price for your coin?) It's manipulation!

Gold will remain valuable . . . and largely because there are all these gold bugs that say it is valuable. It is a circular logic but it works as long as enough people believe it. And there will always be lots of them.

Well, gold will always be valuable, it's a commodity, and there's a surprisingly small amount of it out there (the stat I half-remember is all the gold in use and mined would fit in a 20' cube, but don't quote me on that.)

Of course, gold is also prone to speculation, and has historically mostly only been strong during financial downturns or upheavals. What did people expect?

 

[Aaron]

Well Boehner is dealing with crazy people. So I have a bit of sympathy for his impossible task of herding crazy people.

But ultimately . . . this is what they want, right? Government is bad so why not bad governing?

Herding cats might be hard, but I have no sympathy for a man who chooses that profession. Boehner knew things were crazy. He could have stepped down, but he's keen to keep herding those delusional and mildly racist cats.

 

[leroidys]

That study focuses solely on monolingual German communities from Wisconsin. Although their data is novel, especially the use of church and school records as a cross-reference for bilingualism, I wonder if their outcomes are generalizable. Nevertheless, the pattern is consonant with other research indicating a greater proficiency with English among contemporary immigrants. So when conservatives claim that the current wave of immigration is unique, they are correct, albeit unwittingly. Immigrants are acculturating with greater expediency than previous generations.

As for the causes, I could only speculate. Perhaps there are more resources to facilitate integration as el retorno postulated. But that could only be part of the explanation. Latinos might constitute the majority of new immigrants, but there are many from Asia, too. And Latino immigrants acculturate linguistically at a slower pace than other immigrant groups. That's partially a result of Asian immigrants being better educated upon arrival. But I think the broader cause is a shift in immigration patterns because of employment incentives. Immigrants fill employment niches that disperse them around the country. Whereas previous generations of immigrants congregated in urban enclaves in gateway states, contemporary immigrants increasingly settle in the Midwest and Southeast. The insular urban communities of previous generations inhibited integration and English proficiency. But immigrants now enjoy employment opportunities in agriculture, construction, food service, and hospitality that disperse them throughout more diverse communities. However, I could be wildly wrong, so I'd be interested in any research on the topic.Apropos to our discussion, Fareed Zakaria discussed the folly of intervening to compel a negotiated a settlement. And I think the mistake would be graver given the nature of the conflict.

Specifically in regard to latinos, second and third generation latino Americans are actually shockingly un-proficient at Spanish. Sociolinguistic (not a field I hold in high regard TBQH) studies show that, if anything, Spanish is the "endangered" language, not English.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Most second generations tend to lose their native tongue regardless.

 

[leroidys]

Most second generations tend to lose their native tongue regardless.

Yep. Growing up though, I had Japanese friends going to Japanese after school intensive language classes, Chinese friends going to after school intensive Chinese language classes, Jewish friends going to Hebrew school, Arab friends going to Arabic classes, etc., but none of my latino friends went to Spanish school. I don't even know if such a thing exists.

Those are just anecdotes though. I can't say if certain ethnicities better retain their fore-bearers' language or not, because I don't have any data. But either way, proponents of an English speaking America have nothing to fear.

 

[B-Dubs]

Yep. Growing up though, I had Japanese friends going to Japanese after school intensive language classes, Chinese friends going to after school intensive Chinese language classes, Jewish friends going to Hebrew school, Arab friends going to Arabic classes, etc., but none of my latino friends went to Spanish school. I don't even know if such a thing exists.

Those are just anecdotes though. I can't say if certain ethnicities better retain their fore-bearers' language or not, because I don't have any data. But either way, proponents of an English speaking America have nothing to fear.

It depends on how hard their parents push them to learn it. Your last point definitely stands since most people don't have the money to give their kids intensive language classes.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

It's not an ethic or nationality thing. You use your native language only at home and because a lot of the immigrant stigma the second language or even accent was looked down upon until recently. Look at how many people in Hollywood used to change their names to hide their ethnic background.

 

[gcubed]

Well, gold will always be valuable, it's a commodity, and there's a surprisingly small amount of it out there (the stat I half-remember is all the gold in use and mined would fit in a 20' cube, but don't quote me on that.)

Of course, gold is also prone to speculation, and has historically mostly only been strong during financial downturns or upheavals. What did people expect?

I would think the NY federal reserve and fort Knox can full plenty of those cubes.

 

[The Librarian]

That study focuses solely on monolingual German communities from Wisconsin. Although their data is novel, especially the use of church and school records as a cross-reference for bilingualism, I wonder if their outcomes are generalizable. Nevertheless, the pattern is consonant with other research indicating a greater proficiency with English among contemporary immigrants. So when conservatives claim that the current wave of immigration is unique, they are correct, albeit unwittingly. Immigrants are acculturating with greater expediency than previous generations.

As for the causes, I could only speculate. Perhaps there are more resources to facilitate integration as el retorno postulated. But that could only be part of the explanation. Latinos might constitute the majority of new immigrants, but there are many from Asia, too. And Latino immigrants acculturate linguistically at a slower pace than other immigrant groups. That's partially a result of Asian immigrants being better educated upon arrival. But I think the broader cause is a shift in immigration patterns because of employment incentives. Immigrants fill employment niches that disperse them around the country. Whereas previous generations of immigrants congregated in urban enclaves in gateway states, contemporary immigrants increasingly settle in the Midwest and Southeast. The insular urban communities of previous generations inhibited integration and English proficiency. But immigrants now enjoy employment opportunities in agriculture, construction, food service, and hospitality that disperse them throughout more diverse communities. However, I could be wildly wrong, so I'd be interested in any research on the topic.

That all sounds reasonable.

Specifically in regard to latinos, second and third generation latino Americans are actually shockingly un-proficient at Spanish. Sociolinguistic (not a field I hold in high regard TBQH) studies show that, if anything, Spanish is the "endangered" language, not English.

Huh. Got any reading material on that? Sounds interesting even if it isn't something to be taken seriously.

 

[Jackson50]

Specifically in regard to latinos, second and third generation latino Americans are actually shockingly un-proficient at Spanish. Sociolinguistic (not a field I hold in high regard TBQH) studies show that, if anything, Spanish is the "endangered" language, not English.

Interesting. Aside from social pressure, I wonder if the economic incentive for retaining Spanish is less relative to other immigrant groups.

I would think the NY federal reserve and fort Knox can full plenty of those cubes.

You actually think there's gold in Fort Knox?

 

[gcubed]

Interesting. Aside from social pressure, I wonder if the economic incentive for retaining Spanish is less relative to other immigrant groups.You actually think there's gold in Fort Knox?

im assuming thats where he got the 20 cubic feet thing... but ive seen enough movies that it maybe got switched to gold painted lead

 

[PhoenixDark]

Just wanted to chime in that I'm disappointed that Chris Hayes had to change his format for his evening show. He runs a good show, but the evening shpiel is a lot less thought provoking than his old morning show.

What works in the morning doesn't always work in the evening. His show is getting horrible ratings and contributing to msnbc's overall decline, so I'd imagine he'll be cancelled soon.

Interestingly I have stumbled across a liberal twitter movement to oust him in favor of Ed Schultz again. Lots of people can't stand him and want a return of Ed's bombastic style, which I find interesting. If I was an executive I'd take Ed over Hayes but IMO they need something different; Maddow can't be cloned and I'm tired of old slappy democrats dominating their evening shows.

I remember back in Bush's first term when I was an Air America advocate (Randy Rhodes fanboy) and Ed was seen as a center left DINO. I thought he was cool but didn't expect such a leftward lurch. Personally I think his msnbc show sucked.

 

[Jackson50]

im assuming thats where he got the 20 cubic feet thing... but ive seen enough movies that it maybe got switched to gold painted lead

It's one of the greatest scams in history. I couldn't believe it at first.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Ed Markey is so fucked.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2013-massachusetts-senate-gomez-vs-markey

 

[Oblivion]

I give up:

Under the Obama administration, however, it’s become harder than ever to build in this country. Red tape, an outdated tax code, and shortsighted policies are driving up the cost of everything, stifling innovation, and sending jobs and opportunities to competitors like China. Politicians and bureaucrats bet taxpayer money on pet projects like Solyndra while blocking private initiatives like the Keystone pipeline. Meanwhile, the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, or even our highway system would be almost impossible to build in today’s regulatory environment.

 

[gcubed]

It's one of the greatest scams in history. I couldn't believe it at first.

i'm flabbergasted... COPPER not lead!

Is the government stealing wires, melting them down then painting them orange?

 

[The Librarian]

Ed Markey is so fucked.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2013-massachusetts-senate-gomez-vs-markey

shitshitshitshit

 

[Aaron Strife]

shitshitshitshit

Obama will rue the day he picked John Kerry as Secretary of State.

Rue, I tell you!

 

[The Librarian]

Obama will rue the day he picked John Kerry as Secretary of State.

Rue, I tell you!

How's Markey doing in Ohio?????

 

[Diablos]

Ed Markey is so fucked.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2013-massachusetts-senate-gomez-vs-markey

All the e-mails from Democrats would suggest that. So annoying.

 

[Aaron Strife]

How's Markey doing in Ohio?????

You know, it was bad enough they get to anoint the President, now they get to pick our senators.

All the e-mails from Democrats would suggest that. So annoying.

They also suggest Pelosi will be Speaker again. You take some you give some.

 

[FLEABttn]

I give up:

Said with no sense of irony, I assume.

 

[The Librarian]

You know, it was bad enough they get to anoint the President, now they get to pick our senators.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-shows-markey-with-20-point-lead-in

 

[B-Dubs]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-shows-markey-with-20-point-lead-in

DOOOOOOMED

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-shows-markey-with-20-point-lead-in

Well hold onto your butts, because in 2014 Gomez will be back with a vengeance:

Unless Tuesday is a landslide for Markey and Gomez doesn’t pull off a huge surprise, Gomez will almost certainly come back to challenge Markey in 2014. By then Gomez will have surer footing, better name recognition and Markey’s record to shoot at. Forcing Dems to spend real money twice in Massachusetts in the space of less than two years will, Republicans hope, drain support from other candidates.

The bottom line: In deep blue Massachusetts a Gomez win would be an enormous upset, but his future prospects — and even more so the Republicans’ more generally — remain bright for 2014.

You see, losing is actually winning!

 

[B-Dubs]

Well hold onto your butts, because in 2014 Gomez will be back with a vengeance:


You see, losing is actually winning!

So not doomed now, but doomed in a year? Either way DOOOOOOOMED

 

[thefro]

I like how Republicans polled the race under the name "Americans for Progressive Change", lol.

 

[The Librarian]

You see, losing is actually winning!

http://t.co/iqgBHheKyv

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://t.co/iqgBHheKyv

It must be nice getting paid to be wrong.

 

[The Librarian]

It must be nice getting paid to be wrong.

It'd be a career for PD if there ever were one.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It'd be a career for PD if there ever were one.

If PD isn't a contributor for Fox News within the next five years I'm going to be supremely disappointed.