-
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 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I guess he is still salty about 08.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It's too bad it would be in Wyoming, the seat would probably be a good opportunity for Democrats if she ran
rocketknight
Member
Yeah
Avon Barksdale
Member
Democrats don't care about name recognition.
How many people knew who Bill Clinton was in 1989?
Black Mamba
Member
pre-internet and cable in most home days were very different.
PhoenixDark
Banned
A good amount of democrats did, thanks to his ponderous 1988 convention speech and the general assumption that he was "next in line." But he was a once in a generation political talent, and neither party has one of those right now.
Andrew Cuomo doesn't inspire loyalty or grassroots enthusiasm from anyone on the left; Kos and others have been against him for some time, despite his socially liberal successes on gay rights and guns. Meanwhile Martin O'Malley has a near perfect liberal record, but he dropped the ball at his 2012 convention speech, and isn't exciting; enthusiasm wise he's like the male Kathleen Sebelius.
Who else is there. Philandering Antonio Villaraigosa, Wall Street/Israel benefactor Kirsten Gillibrand, boring Third Way Mark Warner...and Deval Patrick. I suppose Corey Booker could run and attempt to replicate the success of black junior senators with few non-educational accomplishments.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Bill Clinton wasn't the "next in line" in '92, Mario Cuomo was.
PhoenixDark
Banned
In 1988 definitely. There was less excitement in 1992 although he was clearly considered a front runner; I don't think it would take a genius to realize that a liberal New York governor wasn't going to get elected president back then.
Clinton ran the DLC in the early 90s and spawned the general idea that plagued us...pretty much until Obama got elected: the centrist democrat nonsense. As such he had a lot of promise, and could win states that Cuomo couldn't compete in (the south).
(I agree that the DLC was necessary in the early 90s, but by the 2000s it became an utter joke. It's interesting comparing that old centrist group to the current centrists on the right, and how they're perceived by the far right. To me the biggest difference is that liberal policies were rather popular even in the early 2000s, whereas today far right policies are not popular. So whereas 2008 featured three democrats successfully campaigning for a variety of quite liberal policies, I can't possibly imagine Rand Paul having success in 2016 running on any far right idea. Republicans need their own Clinton. Maybe Christie is that guy.)
Most Democrats didn't think Bush senior was beatable when the primary season started (kinda like the GOP thought that Gore is a lock in 2000) so many of the big names stayed out of that race.
The Librarian
Banned
*clears her throat*
But hey. Kay Hagan is doomed. Because reasons. Panic, freak out, and so on.
All of this could come back to bite Republicans in next year's election. The GOP has an overall 35% approval rating for how it's running state government with 55% of voters disapproving. Democrats now lead the generic legislative ballot 51/42, the largest lead we've ever found for them since we started tracking this statistic.
...
Those numbers may be a reflection of the sentiment North Carolinians hold by a 46/36 margin that the General Assembly is causing North Carolina 'national embarrassment.'
...
Those numbers may be a reflection of the sentiment North Carolinians hold by a 46/36 margin that the General Assembly is causing North Carolina 'national embarrassment.'
But hey. Kay Hagan is doomed. Because reasons. Panic, freak out, and so on.
Aaron Strife
Banned
North Carolina voters will blame Kay Hagan for the Republican legislature.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Virginia PPP:
Could be a clean sweep. A Northam win would also effectively flip the Senate, which is tied 20-20, though the House has been gerrymandered into oblivion.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The McDonnell scandal came at the perfect time. And I'm sure Jackson has at least two more stupid things to say between now and Election Day.
Please o please o please o please.. I hate cucci so much.!!.. still a bit away though will this stand...
Also on a side note on VA shenanigans, I am so surprised at the silence of all these hard-nosed no tax conservatives here about the recent tax hikes (in favor of lower gas tax-which does not seem to make much difference)
A lot of purchase costs went up instead. And even better, if you drive/purchase a less gas consuming electric or hybrid car you get fined extra for it .. if favor of people driving gas guzzling trucks I guess?
But either way it has been so silent from them .. now tax increase is OK all of a sudden? Typical.
they are handling gas tax poorly everywhere. If they are that worried about wear and tear on the roads, what needs to happen in states is to basically remove the gas tax and shift the tax to a once a year inspection with a $$ per mile driven. Or tolls everywhere (with no gas tax)
Not arguing it is not needed to collect money to improve roads. It just seems that VA's latest solution is to put the burden on everyone BUT the actually biggest polluters/users.
If you do not even own a car, you still pay for others.Seems weird.
Personally I hate toll roads and miles driven can be an issue if you drove those miles out of state I guess. To me gas tax plus road tax based on type of vehicle makes more sense.
edit: Yes I know with lowering gas consumption it might make less sense, that is why a combo with car type is useful.
But again the real issue here is that all of a sudden they are so silent on it.. This should have them raging tbh.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Would be pretty easy to do it at inspection time.
Measure how many miles you drove between two inspections and then pay a fee per mile and spread out the payments over the period to the next inspection.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Reid agrees to another compromise, cites McCain as instrumental in negotiations. As expected.
:rollin
Just saw this on twitter. Pd called it
"@frankthorpNBC: RT @CHueyBurnsRCP: News--Sen. Cornyn tells us that the filibuster deal is to approve Cordray and swap two NLRB nominees."
Hahhahahha
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
so he gets one of the three nominee's through and the next two he nominates will be filibustered again. Well, say the Dem's lose the majority next year, and then regain it in 2016, would they pick a new majority leader? Because Reid is a worthless pile of shit
edit... so thinking about the recess appt court battle. If the courts rule that recess appointments are unconstitutional, wouldn't that mean that anything recess appointed cabinet members did would be null and void? Or does it not work like that, so it has no affect on the thousands of recess appts prior
edit... so thinking about the recess appt court battle. If the courts rule that recess appointments are unconstitutional, wouldn't that mean that anything recess appointed cabinet members did would be null and void? Or does it not work like that, so it has no affect on the thousands of recess appts prior
Aaron Strife
Banned
Fitting that Ed Markey's first vote in the Senate will be approving Richard Cordray, seeing as Senator Elizabeth Warren is the reason Cordray is being considered.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm glad Cordray wasn't sacrificed but still...this "deal" is laughably short term. What's to stop republicans from filibustering the FBI nominee, for instance. Just another dumb, but expected, compromise that proves that McConnell has nothing to fear. Reid will always back down instead of changing precedent.
And for all the media members claiming any filibuster changes will "backfire" if republicans take the senate next year...they do realize Obama has veto power through 2016 correct?
People should get the government they vote for. If we get a republican president, republican house, and republican senate then the people deserve whatever they pass. Nation wide 20 week abortion ban? Do it.
And for all the media members claiming any filibuster changes will "backfire" if republicans take the senate next year...they do realize Obama has veto power through 2016 correct?
People should get the government they vote for. If we get a republican president, republican house, and republican senate then the people deserve whatever they pass. Nation wide 20 week abortion ban? Do it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Reid's still keeping the nuclear option on the table and Obama still gets to pick the NLRB nominees. Seems like the GOP is giving up more here than the Democrats, which isn't a bad deal to me.
IMO there's no point in a Democratic Senate making a move on the filibuster until they also have the House.
rocketknight
Member
Fucking ugh. What's the point? Reid isn't faced with even one-tenth of the problems Boehner is and he still does everything wrong.
The Librarian
Banned
Reid got everything he wanted, so from that standpoint he's clearly the victor here, and he can still use the majority reform in the future. Senate GOP lost big time.
rocketknight
Member
No, this is another negotiation where the GOP gives up nothing, but people think they are because of how dysfunctional the new normal is. I mean, this isn't even a neutral status quo - it's worse than the way things are supposed to go, because the GOP is reaching in and stirring the pot with regards to administrative positions that have enough votes to be confirmed. Dems lose by having to pick overly GOP friendly candidates, GOP doesn't lose anything at all. No joy in Mudville today.
What Reid wants isn't enough, so him getting it doesn't mean anything to anyone else. Having the filibuster reform option in the future simply means that he can use it to make more bad bargains like this later, so that the GOP wins a little bit every time and we get more conservative people filling these positions than we have to.
The only way to see this as a "win" is if you see "oh wow we can actually have a functioning CFPB and stuff" as a happy surprise, instead of how things are supposed to already be working.
The Librarian
Banned
I don't understand how this is a bad bargain. All seven nominees will get confirmed and the Democrats have up nothing. GOP folded. They have no control over whom Obama picks. I don't like the filibuster as much as anyone, but this isn't a bad deal if your goal is to get these seven nominees confirmed.
This was never about the filibuster in the first place. It was about getting these nominees confirmed.
rocketknight
Member
Oh and if we're going to talk about gas taxes everybody should read this Wonkblog post.
PhoenixDark
Banned
That's some Greg Sargent-esque spin *checks Plum Line* ah, it is Greg Sargent spin. This is like Charlie Brown signing a contract with Lucy that allows him to kick the next seven footballs. What about the eighth?
It's a temporary half measure. In 6 months or a year we'll have this same debate again, just as we did after January's filibuster "deal." Why should anyone, be it us or Mitch McConnell, ever buy a Harry Reid threat after years of compromise?
Black Mamba
Member
Accordig to Sargent's reporting:
So Obama is getting all but 2 nominees confirmed, which will be replaced and picked by labor. And the Democrats still hold the option to change the rules in the future so if the GOP does filibuster, we'll be right back here again.
Exactly what is your problem with this deal? They get 95% of what they want with the threat of going nuclear still alive...
that actually sounds pretty good. I'd expect PD to say that's what he said from the beginning, similar to Nate Silver's NC article.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Again, it's a short term solution focusing on one batch of nominees. I'd rather actually pull the trigger than threaten to do it, but that's just me apparently. I see even Erick Erickson thinks republicans got fucked by this deal, wow.
Black Mamba
Member
Because the threat to change the rules remain. They caved once, now they're forced to always cave. There's no other option here.
if the GOP was going to hold firm and force a rules change, it would have happened today. This shows the GOP lost and will continue to lose this battle.
Had the Dems agreed to not keep the nuclear option I'd agree with you. But this keeps 100% of the leverage on the Dems' side. They won, clearly.
Erickson and his ilk would have thought Republicans would have been fucked even if Obama ordered Elizabeth Warren to personally burn down the CPFB. Doesn't matter what those fucks think.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Why fire the gun when you can keep the bullet in the chamber?
Black Mamba
Member
PD doesn't understand bargaining power, we've know this much.
BTW, are the replaced nominees the ones that Obama recess appointed or 2 other people? Because if it's the recess appointments, then the SCOTUS is going to rule lack of standing in the recess appointment case and ignore the issue.
The PA voter ID law is in court this week... some details on ID's from 2012 election...
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...pert__Half_a_million_don_t_have_voter_ID.html
Some excerpts...
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...pert__Half_a_million_don_t_have_voter_ID.html
Some excerpts...
Why bother having a gun if you can't use it at any and every opportunity? /waynelapierre
But yeah, I'm really thrilled Cordray got approved. Absent any further legislation regulating Wall Street, he's the best defense Obama has against the economy crashing once again by the time he's done.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's the recess appointments. I think there may be others whose validity is being challenged in the court, so SCOTUS might still take it up.
el retorno
Member
Good. I was really worried that the SCOTUS would create a horrible precedent on recess appointments. I thought the GOP had a good point, why does the white house get to decide when the legislature is in session? I think it was obvious they were in recess but I do think it was a call that upset balance of power, practically I agree with the white house but I think it could be abused.
platypotamus
Member
So depressing
My friend just sent me this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rwmD4c_NxI
How do I counter this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rwmD4c_NxI
How do I counter this?
Eh..yes, and no, imo.
Yes, it's depressing that fucking agency appointments have to deal with this level of fuckery, but Lisa Jackson heading the EPA in particular, will have far, far reaching consequences. Some libs say it could be even better than getting a cap and trade bill passed, even!
So yeah, don't be too downtrodden.
rocketknight
Member
This is the reasoning that gets all Bond villains killed.
This is the fucking problem with the Democratic party - they think that getting the shit they're supposed to get is some kind of win. There is no "bargaining power" with this, because all the Democrats get if they win is shit they're supposed to already have. It's the same as the debt ceiling nonsense where Democrats are forced to adopt shitty positions worse than the status quo of 50+ years as their starting points for negotiations. It just allows the GOP to pull everything to the right and it's dumb.
- Status