Support NeoGAF

[Link]

Republicans of today do not believe in "efficient" government. They are wholly and completely "anti-government".

You can't even say that anymore, with all their bullshit regulations for abortion, same-sex marriage, voting rights, etc. At this point, I'm almost ready to classify them as "anti-freedom."

 

[Wilsongt]

You can't even say that anymore, with all their bullshit regulations for abortion, same-sex marriage, voting rights, etc. At this point, I'm almost ready to classify them as "anti-freedom."

Their mentality is, if they can't control it, then fuck it up. If they do control it, fuck it up more!

It's almost like a disease from within.

 

[Black Mamba]

No you cannot.

Republicans of the first half of the 20th century believed in "efficient" government to balance the "improving" government of Democrats.

Remember Eisenhower. He closed tax loopholes the rich were exploiting, built the federal highway system, and warned us about the military industrial complex.

Republicans of today do not believe in "efficient" government. They are wholly and completely "anti-government".

In my opinion that makes them traitors. I base that opinion on the writings of our founding fathers, who were adamant about protecting the integrity of government from sedition.

b-b-but they freed the slaves. Lincoln!

 

[Chichikov]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/k...-on-basis-for-mideast-peace-talks.php?ref=fpb



If John Kerry facilitates a successful peace negotiation between Israel and Palestine, he should run for president.

I mean, totally not gonna happen, but still.

The EU should get most of the credit for this.
Israel pretty much ignored his efforts before the new settlement directive.

Remember Eisenhower. He closed tax loopholes the rich were exploiting, built the federal highway system, and warned us about the military industrial complex.

Republicans of today do not believe in "efficient" government. They are wholly and completely "anti-government".

In my opinion that makes them traitors. I base that opinion on the writings of our founding fathers, who were adamant about protecting the integrity of government from sedition.

Many Republicans saw Eisenhower as a traitor to their cause because he didn't roll back the new deal (though probably more were happy that they had a popular and competent Republican presidents).

 

[Black Mamba]

PHOENIX — For Gov. Jan Brewer, the passage last month of a Medicaid expansion was a major coup. Despite a Republican majority in the Legislature, where she faced significant opposition from Tea Party members, she rallied the entire Democratic delegation to her side and made a progressive issue palatable to just enough conservatives, casting the expansion as the right decision for the state, morally and monetarily.

“It’s pro-life, it’s saving lives, it is creating jobs, it is saving hospitals,” Ms. Brewer said in an interview from her office in the Capitol’s executive tower, where she conducts what she often describes as “the people’s business.”

“I don’t know how you can get any more conservative than that,” she said.

A lot of conservatives disagree. Ms. Brewer’s maneuvering, including a threat to veto any bill brought before her until the expansion was voted on and a last-minute call for a legislative special session to force the vote, has sparked ire among the Republican rank and file. In interviews, many of its most loyal members conceded that the party’s once cohesive ideology has been tainted by the governor’s stance, and they are arming themselves for payback.

Name-calling, once reserved for closed-door encounters and precinct committee meetings, has seeped into the public debate, loudly. One conservative blog, Sonoran Alliance, has taken to describing the Republican legislators who voted for the expansion as “Brewercrats” and the expansion itself as “Obrewercare,” a play on the Republican moniker for President Obama’s health care overhaul.

A. J. LaFaro, the chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, compared the governor to Judas during a hearing in the State House of Representatives. In a blog post by FreedomWorks, a libertarian group, Tyler S. Boyer, a district chairman, characterized the tactics that Ms. Brewer used to push through the expansion as “an unfortunate display of moral ineptitude.”

“Reagan once said Republicans shouldn’t speak ill of one another,” said Shawnna L. M. Bolick, a conservative who began exploring a run for a legislative seat after her district’s Republican state representative and senator voted to expand Medicaid. “I’ve had a very hard time keeping my mouth shut.”

Volunteers have eight more weeks to finish the job of collecting signatures to put the Medicaid expansion on the ballot, with the hope that voters will undo what Ms. Brewer fought so hard to get approved. That is happening despite the fact that voters agreed, in 1996 and in 2000, to extend Medicaid coverage to childless adults, one of the main beneficiaries of expansion.

“She abandoned the planks of the Republican Party platform to do whatever she perceived to be popular, and she grossly miscalculated the power we had to fight back,” said Frank Antenori, a former Republican state senator from Tucson and one of the forces behind the initiative.

Volunteers must gather 86,400 valid signatures to put the question to voters. Mr. Antenori said they were collecting, on average, 1,300 signatures a day.

Meanwhile, inside and outside the Capitol, Ms. Brewer’s team has been building its defenses. This month, it hired circulators to get people to sign a petition in support of the Medicaid expansion, an effort that has been largely bankrolled by the same business and health care groups that financed the campaign to guarantee its passage through the Legislature. The groups have also committed to help the Republican lawmakers who stood by Ms. Brewer fend off primary challengers who plan to use Medicaid to draw disaffected voters to the polls.

“The thing to keep in mind is that the Republican primary voter is much more conservative than the Republican general-election voter,” said Barrett Marson, a public relations consultant who works on Republican campaigns. “There’s no doubt 2014 is going to mark the end of some careers in the Legislature for the people who lent their support to Medicaid expansion.”

The governor said she would use money raised by her political action committee to aid Republican incumbents who supported her, but also to fight against those who strongly opposed her.

She also signed a piece of legislation, pushed primarily by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, that significantly raised the limits for contributions to political campaigns.

Chuck Coughlin, a political consultant who managed Ms. Brewer’s transition team and remains a very close ally, said the “loosening of the spigot is going to do a tremendous service for that part of our party, pro-business and pro-job growth, to exercise their will in the elections.” (The law is being challenged on the basis that it undermines the state’s public campaign financing program, which voters enacted to limit the influence of money in politics.)

“Ideologues have their agendas,” said Mr. Coughlin, who orchestrated the push to get the Medicaid expansion through the Legislature, “and the part of the party that’s taking issue with the governor right now is all made up of ideologues.”

The strategy, he explained, is to expand the universe of voters that moderate Republican candidates can reach by expanding the means by which their message is delivered. Instead of knocking on doors, as Tea Party volunteers have successfully done to get like-minded voters to the polls, there will be more ads, more phone calls and more events targeting specific groups of people, like women and independents, “always a big swing vote in any election,” he said.

Bruce Merrill, a political behaviorist who is a senior research fellow at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University, said that in the end, the reaction over Medicaid was prime evidence of “how truly fractured the Republican Party in Arizona is.”

For people like Ms. Bolick, the potential legislative candidate, and Hugh Hallman, who is running for governor on the Republican ticket, the real battle is over principle: what is the right role for the federal government in people’s lives? Both are self-described fiscal conservatives, but they differ on Medicaid expansion.

Ms. Bolick, a public policy analyst who worked for Rick Santorum during his time in the Senate and Rick Perry when he was lieutenant governor in Texas, is against it. Mr. Hallman, a former mayor and city councilman in Tempe, supports it.

“The real brilliance of Barack Obama when he made Medicaid an all-or-nothing proposition,” giving states no option but to cover individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line if they were to qualify for federal reimbursement, “was that he pitted fiscally conservative Republicans against one another,” he said.

Ms. Brewer, in the interview, chalked it up to bruised egos, something that time and pep talks could easily resolve.

“Nobody likes to lose, and that’s what happened” the night the Medicaid expansion got past the Legislature, she said. “I believe we will heal.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/u...re-at-odds-on-medicaid.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

It should be noted that Brewer is kind of crazy so for her to take the fight on this side is saying something.

I'm sick and tired of the rejection of the medicaid expansion as "fiscally conservative." it's the exact opposite, it's been demonstrated to be more costly to the state to reject it than accept it.

In campaigns, this should be pointed out and furthermore the Democrat (or Republican who supported it) should also say the opposition to it has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility but rather a disdain for the less fortunate. Come out with knives. That's how I'd do it.

 

[Clevinger]

has taken to describing the Republican legislators who voted for the expansion as “Brewercrats” and the expansion itself as “Obrewercare,”

Catchy. They just roll off the tongue.

 

[Wilsongt]

South Carolina wants out of it because Nikki Haley says that having more government money means more Washington interference in the state.

These states just want out of it because Obama had a hand in it.

Hopefully Nikki Haley doesn't start condeming Obama as inciting race riots like other people have. If she does, that'll make her an extremely fucking huge hypocrite given that she is a minority just like Obama.

As I said earlier, the Republican party needs to be split in three. The actual true Republicans, the moderate Republicans, and then the Bat Shit Insane Republicans.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

As I said earlier, the Republican party needs to be split in three. The actual true Republicans, the moderate Republicans, and then the Bat Shit Insane Republicans.

The problem is that the "bat shit insane" Republicans see themselves as the "true" Republicans.

 

[zero shift]

How about this: Have the Republican Party die. The Democrats are the new right and the Green Party is the new left.

 

[Oblivion]

As I said earlier, the Republican party needs to be split in three. The actual true Republicans, the moderate Republicans, and then the Bat Shit Insane Republicans.

"Moderate Republicans" shouldn't even be existing in the Republican party and should migrate to the Dems. That's how you get the teatards to cut that shit out.

Speaking of which, wouldn't it be pretty hilarious if McCain became a democrat?

 

[Jooney]

The dilemma with the Republican platform is that it is inherently contradictory to the different factions within the party. Their can’t be the party of theo-conservatives and be the party of limited government. And their can’t be a small government party and meet the demands of a militaristic, intervention-seeking party of neo-conservatives.

That great quote of conservatives wanting a government so small that it fits inside a vagina comes to mind. Their can't advocate the demands of one faction without violating the principles of another.

 

[Black Mamba]

I actually think we're more likely to see the rise of Independents. McCain would be such a politician that would just become an Independent along with others.

The dilemma with the Republican platform is that it is inherently contradictory to the different factions within the party. Their can’t be the party of theo-conservatives and be the party of limited government. And their can’t be a small government party and meet the demands of a militaristic, intervention-seeking party of neo-conservatives.

That great quote of conservatives wanting a government so small that it fits inside a vagina comes to mind. Their can't advocate the demands of one faction without violating the principles of another.

Yup, it's split in 3. The moderates, the limited-gov't, and the crazy conservative/religious right (fueled by corporate $$$). And they're quite opposed to one another.

The limited-gov't types want just that, including in social issues like gay marriage. The conservative/religious faction wants to be all up in our business but wants everything pro-business regardless of gov't or not. And the moderates are just that. Generally want smaller federal gov't, less intervention in social policies in a negative way, but still want federal gov't aspects.

The Dems aren't uniform, but it's pretty linear as you go further left. It would be like the far left liberals wanting huge gov't intervention in business while being anti-gay marriage and abortion while the progressives want less gov't intervention in business but pro-same sex marriage.

 

[B-Dubs]

I actually think we're more likely to see the rise of Independents. McCain would be such a politician that would just become an Independent along with others.

The sad thing is they had that chance and blew it. The party ran away from McCain and went with Palin (to simplify it).

 

[Videoneon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/u...re-at-odds-on-medicaid.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

I'm sick and tired of the rejection of the medicaid expansion as "fiscally conservative." it's the exact opposite, it's been demonstrated to be more costly to the state to reject it than accept it.

I'm sure it's been pointed out already, but with the law already in place a state that chooses to reject medicaid expansion is just fucking its citizens over for no reason and for no discernible desirable outcome. If they elect not to set up their own exchange or reject the federal money, it's just senseless.

The dilemma with the Republican platform is that it is inherently contradictory to the different factions within the party. Their can’t be the party of theo-conservatives and be the party of limited government. And their can’t be a small government party and meet the demands of a militaristic, intervention-seeking party of neo-conservatives.

That great quote of conservatives wanting a government so small that it fits inside a vagina comes to mind. Their can't advocate the demands of one faction without violating the principles of another.

Ideologically it's Reagan's three-legged stool.

They try to make it work. There are libertarians out there (and Paul Ryan made these comments repeatedly) about one of the government's primary responsibilities being maintaining a strong military and he made a point to avoid allocating cuts to the defense budget in the 2012 campaign as I recall.

But then again, even Pat Buchanan wrote a column railing against "Godless Capitalism" even if he's complaining more about "globalism" or globalization. And I believe our current Pope is totally anti-capitalist. In due time the sun will set for capitalism anyway, so whatever.

As a totally unfounded guess, I think that what unites them is just nationalism and the fundamental "right-wing" belief in disagreeing with social equality. A shame that there's more to the practice of politics than just that =P

I actually think we're more likely to see the rise of Independents. McCain would be such a politician that would just become an Independent along with others.

Yup, it's split in 3. The moderates, the limited-gov't, and the crazy conservative/religious right (fueled by corporate $$$). And they're quite opposed to one another.

The limited-gov't types want just that, including in social issues like gay marriage. The conservative/religious faction wants to be all up in our business but wants everything pro-business regardless of gov't or not. And the moderates are just that. Generally want smaller federal gov't, less intervention in social policies in a negative way, but still want federal gov't aspects.

The Dems aren't uniform, but it's pretty linear as you go further left. It would be like the far left liberals wanting huge gov't intervention in business while being anti-gay marriage and abortion while the progressives want less gov't intervention in business but pro-same sex marriage.

My thoroughly original idea is that the Democrats are centrist and the Republicans are the right wing. Obama's primary interest is stability and VERY incremental change; his comments on the Trayvon Martin case proceedings (not the "it could've been me" part but the ruling) and on the Egypt coup reflect this. However, I would like for the rise of more smaller parties. It'd be great to get a social democrat party going, and for the Greens to keep on doing their thing (unless they suck, I don't follow the Greens' activity much.)

I'm down for Independents depending on how they affiliate. I think as fringe Left parties mobilize, it should at least shift the narrative within the Democrat party, if not any other sort of scenario such as a Social Democrat or Green Party usurping the Democrats. The Democrats aren't the worst party in the world but I can fault no one for losing patience with them.

I think a system with a bajillion parties as in European countries and Canada wouldn't be half bad. Duverger's Law and whatever, but I think popular support has waned too far for the reinvigorating of the voting public in the practice of politics to come elsewhere.

How about this: Have the Republican Party die. The Democrats are the new right and the Green Party is the new left.

A better situation than we have now =P

"Moderate Republicans" shouldn't even be existing in the Republican party and should migrate to the Dems. That's how you get the teatards to cut that shit out.

Speaking of which, wouldn't it be pretty hilarious if McCain became a democrat?

I actually think that would work, just evaluating how it'd play out. "Moderate Republicans" carry much more of the political and financial leverage. Movement conservatives and their politicians would wither out.

As for McCain, aren't neoconservatives ex-liberals anyway? I don't know if there are people in the Democratic party who are as...enthusiastic with world affairs as McCain is. I think he has zero interest in joining Democrats but I can't deny he's usually a symbol of Republican infighting (see: "wacko birds", Apple's tax evading "violating" the spirit of the tax code).

Would be funny I guess.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm sure it's been pointed out already, but with the law already in place a state that chooses to reject medicaid expansion is just fucking its citizens over for no reason and for no discernible desirable outcome. If they elect not to set up their own exchange or reject the federal money, it's just senseless.

Yes and politicians need to seize on this. The rhetoric needs to become aggressive.

My thoroughly original idea is that the Democrats are centrist and the Republicans are the right wing. Obama's primary interest is stability and VERY incremental change; his comments on the Trayvon Martin case proceedings (not the "it could've been me" part but the ruling) and on the Egypt coup reflect this. However, I would like for the rise of more smaller parties. It'd be great to get a social democrat party going, and for the Greens to keep on doing their thing (unless they suck, I don't follow the Greens' activity much.)

Ask someone who thinks Obama is a super liberal to name all the super liberal things he's enacted. When they mention Obamacare, you tell them it's Romneycare and an idea mostly came up with by Republicans under Gingrich in the 90s and they're completely stuck.

I literally once got in a discussion with someone who just stumbled over himself trying to think of all the insanely liberal policies of Obama after claiming Obama is a raving liberal driving us towards socialism. It's hilarious, really. Can't come up with anything that the GOP or most people didn't support before he came around other than gay rights (and that's more recent).

They just believe he's liberal because Fox news and Rush tell them so, but as you say, he's about as centrist (and in many respects a bit right of center) as President trying to not allow for much change at once.

I'm down for Independents depending on how they affiliate. I think as fringe Left parties mobilize, it should at least shift the narrative within the Democrat party, if not any other sort of scenario such as a Social Democrat or Green Party usurping the Democrats. The Democrats aren't the worst party in the world but I can fault no one for losing patience with them.

I think a system with a bajillion parties as in European countries and Canada wouldn't be half bad. Duverger's Law and whatever, but I think popular support has waned too far for the reinvigorating of the voting public in the practice of politics to come elsewhere.

Or on the other hand, the South should secede and Obama promises not to bring the second war of Northern Aggression.

I'm okay with this compromise. Any fellow gaffers are welcome to take refugee in our states. Amnesty in the 1st year is automatic. Hell, we'll let Jooney in too, free of charge.

 

[zero shift]

Speaking of Green Party, hasn't Richmond, California had a radical drop in crime since the Green Candidate has been elected into office?

 

[East Lake]

But then again, even Pat Buchanan wrote a column railing against "Godless Capitalism" even if he's complaining more about "globalism" or globalization.

This is a good read to show how you can stay conservative with contradictory views. For all the guys who thought it was a great idea to use death trap factories to pay uneducated people 1.50 an day for clothes my morbidly obese children wear, let me pitch this idea. I'll tax your shit on the way in to the USA. I don't think you dudes are patriotic enough. It's like instead of godless he should have used unamerican or something. So we have amoral americans exploiting developing nations but what we really need is to have them back here shitting on the USA.

 

[Jooney]

Ask someone who thinks Obama is a super liberal to name all the super liberal things he's enacted. When they mention Obamacare, you tell them it's Romneycare and an idea mostly came up with by Republicans under Gingrich in the 90s and they're completely stuck.

I literally once got in a discussion with someone who just stumbled over himself trying to think of all the insanely liberal policies of Obama after claiming Obama is a raving liberal driving us towards socialism. It's hilarious, really. Can't come up with anything that the GOP or most people didn't support before he came around other than gay rights (and that's more recent).

They just believe he's liberal because Fox news and Rush tell them so, but as you say, he's about as centrist (and in many respects a bit right of center) as President trying to not allow for much change at once.

Oh god, don't remind me - the conversations I had with some people on my US vacay ...
- One guy totally bought into the debt hysteria and didn't believe that the deficit had been decreasing
- Another guy was adamant that there should be no gun violence reform because he sincerely believed that the 2nd amendment protected citizens from Government tyranny
- This third dude was totally against Obamacare because of something to do with healthcare in his native South Africa after apartheid was abolished (I had no idea what his point was ... and he turned out to be a outright homophobe, so fuck that guy)
- This one well-meaning woman who I had a great conversation with, but said that she thought "Politico was left-wing" (what?)
- And finally the stock standard apathetic dude who thought that both parties were the same

Then of course there was all the gibberish that Cyan spouted when we caught up for a beer

Spoiler

<3 Cyan

Hell, we'll let Jooney in too, free of charge.

My bug out bag is ready.

 

[Jooney]

Have you guys read any of the "focus on the white vote" stuff coming from the right?
http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/17/fear-of-the-missing-white-voters/

Dax posted a Nate Cohen takedown on this general idea, and Cohen has continued to discuss it
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113940/missing-white-voters-they-exist-not-enough-gop

This is truly a hail mary attempt. And when it doesn't work in 2016, it's game over for them. That will only increase their irrationality, fear, and anger. When you listen to Fox's portrayal of Obama's race comments you get the impression Obama is about to call for the execution of white people any minute now; black people are just waiting for his marching orders. That fear is real.

The analysis is doctored but it is being believed by those who don't want to change. This idea of getting more of the white vote has been pushed from people like Eric Erikson and Ralph Reed. Besides ignoring the obvious trends in Hispanic and Asian demographics, the GOP won't ever do as well with white people as they did when Obama was President. The next democratic nominee will most likely be white, which will close the gap on the white vote between the two parties. The GOP don't want to face electoral reality.

I don't know if the party will fracture, but if they want to survive they'll need to completely revamp the way they select candidates. I've been saying for years that having South Carolina as the third primary election hurts the party. It always drives the party to the right, it's always ugly, and in the future it'll continue to make republicans look worse to "regular" people. From McCain's "black baby" in 2000 to Gingrich's "food stamp president" stuff last year, it's just not healthy for the party.

I know there's a lot of money and prestige involved, but someone has to stand up and move their primary schedule around. Missouri, Colorado, Ohio...those seem like far better choices. And if they want a southern state, take Virginia.

Are the order of primaries distributed by region? Iowa representing the Midwest, New Hampshire for the Eastern states, and South Carolina for the South. Putting South Carolina towards the back end may help with the cooling of the rhetoric but I think it will need to be replaced by another southern state such that the South has a voice early in the primaries. Which begs the question: which state should it be?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'd replace SC with Virginia or Georgia. Republicans need a presense in larger urban areas, as well as suburban areas, and both states have that alongside the more rural districts conservatives currently rely on.

On the missing white vote stuff, it almost reeks of the lazy "me too" approach the party is known for. As if they're saying hey, we have our own numbers guru now; just as they've propped up Hermain Cain, Sarah Palin, and Marco Rubio as their "x guy/girl" for appealing to minorities. Nevermind that the theory is seriously flawed, this allows someone on the right to emerge with numbers and graphs alongside a model that "predicts" doom for democrats. Therefore if the theory isn't given fawning coverage like the "liberal" Nate Silver receives, clearly the media is biased.

Personally I don't see how anyone can believe missing whites will magically appear in states that matter. There certainly are missing white votes but they're largely in the south and solid blue states. And many are young, meaning they aren't certain republicans.

 

[Link]

I'm sure it's been pointed out already, but with the law already in place a state that chooses to reject medicaid expansion is just fucking its citizens over for no reason and for no discernible desirable outcome. If they elect not to set up their own exchange or reject the federal money, it's just senseless.

Republicans no longer vote to govern; they vote to avoid getting primaried. If they agree or cooperate with Obama on anything, they're "traitors."

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I said this in the thread about the GOP 2012 post-mortem:

It's a lot more appealing to believe that you just didn't push your message hard enough, than to believe that your ideas are losing popularity and need to be examined and changed.

I hope they go all-in on the "more whites" vote strategy, as they seem to miss the fact that there are non-voting whites today that vote Deomocratic when they vote. There's not as much there for them to mine as they think there is.

 

[The Librarian]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...166f82-f136-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

Their budget explicitly bars funding for NASA to conduct such a mission. Since when do politicians specifically direct scientists what they can and can't do?

This has royally pissed me off. Were we this concerned about cost when we wanted to go to the moon? Seriously, what the fuck. This is probably making me more pissed of because of this:

Teacher assistants take a hit in the budget released Sunday, which reduces state spending on them by $120 million, or about 21 percent. The budget ends funding for the embattled Rural Economic Development Center, whose longtime president, Billy Ray Hall, resigned under pressure last week. The budget creates a division focused on rural economic development within the state Department of Commerce.

At UNC schools, out-of-state students would see tuition increases of as much as 12.3 percent next year. Tuition at community colleges will increase $2.50 per credit hour this year, bringing the cost to $71.50 per credit hour for in-state students.

...

The budget that House and Senate budget writers agreed to Sunday includes a $10 million program that would allow families that meet income guidelines to use taxpayer money for private school tuition for their children, starting with the 2014-2015 school year. This week, the legislature is set to give final approval to a voucher for children with disabilities that would pay as much as $6,000 for private school tuition or for therapy for home-schooled children with disabilities.​

 

[Frank the Great]

I said this in the thread about the GOP 2012 post-mortem:

It's a lot more appealing to believe that you just didn't push your message hard enough, than to believe that your ideas are losing popularity and need to be examined and changed.

I hope they go all-in on the "more whites" vote strategy, as they seem to miss the fact that there are non-voting whites today that vote Deomocratic when they vote. There's not as much there for them to mine as they think there is.

The funniest thing is that the GOP has actually been pursuing the "all white" strategy since the Nixon era. The only difference is that today, they are brazen enough to announce it.

I don't see what will change. It's not like they've been making failed pushes for minority votes, they've been using racial animosity as the driving force of their politics for 30 years. And now when it looks like their strategy is falling apart, their solution is to double down on the doubling down they've already done the past election cycle? They really do have their heads up their asses.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

This has royally pissed me off. Were we this concerned about cost when we wanted to go to the moon?

My memories don't stretch back to the Moon Race, but in the 70s I recall a lot of grousing about money spent on NASA, the shuttle, etc. I think once we reached the moon, some people thought we were done.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The funniest thing is that the GOP has actually been pursuing the "all white" strategy since the Nixon era. The only difference is that today, they are brazen enough to announce it.

I don't see what will change. It's not like they've been making failed pushes for minority votes, they've been using racial animosity as the driving force of their politics for 30 years. And now when it looks like their strategy is falling apart, their solution is to double down on the doubling down they've already done the past election cycle? They really do have their heads up their asses.

Funny that they're only now willing to announce it at a time when the white vote as a percentage of the electorate is rapidly shrinking. Their next candidate would have to do 4 points better with the white vote just to lose only by the same margin as Romney did.

They're also losing the white vote everywhere but the South, so if they want to keep trying to max out white turnout in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee etc. they can be my guest.

 

[Frank the Great]

Funny that they're only now willing to announce it at a time when the white vote as a percentage of the electorate is rapidly shrinking. Their next candidate would have to do 4 points better with the white vote just to lose only by the same margin as Romney did.

They're also losing the white vote everywhere but the South, so if they want to keep trying to max out white turnout in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee etc. they can be my guest.

I think they deluded themselves after fighting back accusations of racial politics all these years. They've never openly acknowledged that they have been pursuing a racially based strategy the whole time. So now that the Democrats have finally been so successful with minority votes, and it is very out in the open in the media, Republicans feel safe using demographic language, and openly focusing on the white vote seems like a brilliant and novel idea to many of them who haven't been paying close attention.

Like you said, we shouldn't be complaining. This has proven to be a losing strategy and will continue to do so, at least in the Senate and for Presidential elections. They can only survive on racial gerrymandering for so long.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Conservative Hero

 

[The Librarian]

My memories don't stretch back to the Moon Race, but in the 70s I recall a lot of grousing about money spent on NASA, the shuttle, etc. I think once we reached the moon, some people thought we were done.

They shouldn't have been grousing. :/

 

[Jooney]

Conservative Hero

Does that mean the fence was built along the Florida border?

I'm ok with this.

 

[The Librarian]

Christie will have to pull a Palin if he wants Wall Street cash to run for president.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think they deluded themselves after fighting back accusations of racial politics all these years. They've never openly acknowledged that they have been pursuing a racially based strategy the whole time. So now that the Democrats have finally been so successful with minority votes, and it is very out in the open in the media, Republicans feel safe using demographic language, and openly focusing on the white vote seems like a brilliant and novel idea to many of them who haven't been paying close attention.

Like you said, we shouldn't be complaining. This has proven to be a losing strategy and will continue to do so, at least in the Senate and for Presidential elections. They can only survive on racial gerrymandering for so long.

If the GOP continues on this path, their gerrymander goes away in 2020, as Democrats start picking up governorships/legislatures in Southern states. Of course, in the right climate they could lose the House before then anyway, but this will cement it.

 

[B-Dubs]

Christie will have to pull a Palin if he wants Wall Street cash to run for president.

That's great news, it made my day.

 

[Link]

Do you think Republicans realize that a white Democratic candidate is going to get more of the white vote than Obama got?

 

[empty vessel]

Auerback, Kelton, and Wray on Detroit:

Should the federal government bailout Detroit? That’s the question everyone is debating. We think the discussion should be expanded well beyond this narrow question. Detroit is the canary in the coal mine, but it’s symptomatic of a bigger problem, which is the lack of jobs and decent demand in the economy.

The problem is that the president believes we can cure our jobless problem by providing the proper incentives to the business community. So they’ll be all of this talk about “incentive zones”, we’re sure for Detroit. And here he is committing one of the few big policy blunders from Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Like Johnson, who focused on retraining the unemployed for jobs that did not exist, Obama has focused on incentivizing the businesses community to hire workers to produce for customers that do not exist. Time and again, Obama has shown that he will only tinker around the edges, relying on the same tired supply-side initiatives that will not work: more incentives to build business confidence, subsidies to reduce labor costs and to promote exports, and maybe even tax cuts to please Republicans. He told a Labor Day crowd in Detroit a few years ago that he wants to match the more than 1 million construction workers with an infrastructure-related rebuilding program to improve the nation’s roads and bridges. That is an improvement over his efforts to date, but it falls far short of the 20-plus million jobs we need.

So what should be done? Well, the three of us (and others) have long proposed a longer term solution to deal with all of the Detroits that are out there: The government could serve as the “employer of last resort” under a job guarantee program modeled on the WPA (the Works Progress Administration, in existence from 1935 to 1943 after being renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942). The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements. ...

Funding for the job guarantee program must come from the federal government—and the wage should be periodically adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living and to allow workers to share in rising national productivity so that real living standards would rise—but the administration and operation of the program should be decentralized to the state and local level. Registered not-for-profit organizations could propose projects for approval by responsible offices designated within each of the states and U.S. territories as well as the District of Columbia. Then the proposals should be submitted to the federal office for final approval and funding. To ensure transparency and accountability, the Labor Department should maintain a website providing details on all projects submitted, all projects approved and all projects started.​

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/07/a-plan-for-all-the-detroits-out-there.html

 

[Plinko]

Conservative Hero

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[zero shift]

Auerback, Kelton, and Wray on Detroit:

Should the federal government bailout Detroit? That’s the question everyone is debating. We think the discussion should be expanded well beyond this narrow question. Detroit is the canary in the coal mine, but it’s symptomatic of a bigger problem, which is the lack of jobs and decent demand in the economy.

The problem is that the president believes we can cure our jobless problem by providing the proper incentives to the business community. So they’ll be all of this talk about “incentive zones”, we’re sure for Detroit. And here he is committing one of the few big policy blunders from Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Like Johnson, who focused on retraining the unemployed for jobs that did not exist, Obama has focused on incentivizing the businesses community to hire workers to produce for customers that do not exist. Time and again, Obama has shown that he will only tinker around the edges, relying on the same tired supply-side initiatives that will not work: more incentives to build business confidence, subsidies to reduce labor costs and to promote exports, and maybe even tax cuts to please Republicans. He told a Labor Day crowd in Detroit a few years ago that he wants to match the more than 1 million construction workers with an infrastructure-related rebuilding program to improve the nation’s roads and bridges. That is an improvement over his efforts to date, but it falls far short of the 20-plus million jobs we need.

So what should be done? Well, the three of us (and others) have long proposed a longer term solution to deal with all of the Detroits that are out there: The government could serve as the “employer of last resort” under a job guarantee program modeled on the WPA (the Works Progress Administration, in existence from 1935 to 1943 after being renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942). The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements. ...

Funding for the job guarantee program must come from the federal government—and the wage should be periodically adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living and to allow workers to share in rising national productivity so that real living standards would rise—but the administration and operation of the program should be decentralized to the state and local level. Registered not-for-profit organizations could propose projects for approval by responsible offices designated within each of the states and U.S. territories as well as the District of Columbia. Then the proposals should be submitted to the federal office for final approval and funding. To ensure transparency and accountability, the Labor Department should maintain a website providing details on all projects submitted, all projects approved and all projects started.​

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/07/a-plan-for-all-the-detroits-out-there.html

Ridiculous. The government doesn't create jobs, the economy does!

On a serious note, I always thought that the war in poverty was relatively successful?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Here's something that has to be terrifying for the GOP: If in 2016, the Democratic nominee gets the same support that Kerry did in 2004, they win. That was a year in which Kerry lost the white vote by 17, won the black vote by 77, won the Latino vote by 9, and won the Asian vote by 12. In 2012, Obama lost the white vote by 20 (-3), but won the black vote by 87 (+10), won the Latino vote by 44 (+35), and the Asian vote by 47 (+35).

Do you think Republicans realize that a white Democratic candidate is going to get more of the white vote than Obama got?

And Obama's share of the white vote isn't significantly lower than in past elections featuring white Democrats. Observe:

Clinton (92) - 39% white, 43% total
Clinton (96) - 43% white, 49% total
Gore (00) - 42% white, 48% total
Kerry (04) - 41% white, 48% total
Obama (08) - 43% white, 53% total
Obama (12) - 39% white, 51% total

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Here's something that has to be terrifying for the GOP: If in 2016, the Democratic nominee gets the same support that Kerry did in 2004, they win. That was a year in which Kerry lost the white vote by 17, won the black vote by 77, won the Latino vote by 9, and won the Asian vote by 12. In 2012, Obama lost the white vote by 20, but won the black vote by 87, won the Hispanic vote by 44, and the Asian vote by 47.


And Obama's share of the white vote isn't significantly lower than in past elections featuring white Democrats. Observe:

Clinton (92) - 39% white, 43% total
Clinton (96) - 43% white, 49% total
Gore (00) - 42% white, 48% total
Kerry (04) - 41% white, 48% total
Obama (08) - 43% white, 53% total
Obama (12) - 39% white, 51% total

That actually suggests that a white candidate isn't going to get a lot more of the vote than Obama.

Which is fine.

 

[Link]

That actually suggests that a white candidate isn't going to get a lot more of the vote than Obama.

Which is fine.

I wouldn't expect it to be a large amount, but there are Democrats and Independents that have racist tendencies.

 

[thefro]

Here's something that has to be terrifying for the GOP: If in 2016, the Democratic nominee gets the same support that Kerry did in 2004, they win. That was a year in which Kerry lost the white vote by 17, won the black vote by 77, won the Latino vote by 9, and won the Asian vote by 12. In 2012, Obama lost the white vote by 20 (-3), but won the black vote by 87 (+10), won the Latino vote by 44 (+35), and the Asian vote by 47 (+35).


And Obama's share of the white vote isn't significantly lower than in past elections featuring white Democrats. Observe:

Clinton (92) - 39% white, 43% total
Clinton (96) - 43% white, 49% total
Gore (00) - 42% white, 48% total
Kerry (04) - 41% white, 48% total
Obama (08) - 43% white, 53% total
Obama (12) - 39% white, 51% total

Perot ran in 92/96... Clinton's % would have been a lot higher without that.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Perot ran in 92/96... Clinton's % would have been a lot higher without that.

True, but so would have his % with black voters and Hispanics. 43% of the white vote in 96 was enough to get him to 49% overall, very close to a majority.

Did you guys know Clinton actually lost the Asian vote that year? And Middle-Eastern Americans were a Republican constituency until 2004. There seems to be a trend of minority voters abandoning the Republican Party.

 

[zero shift]

True, but so would have his % with black voters and Hispanics. 43% of the white vote in 96 was enough to get him to 49% overall, very close to a majority.

What Hispanic, let alone Black, person would vote for Perot?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Hillary Clinton and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) are running neck-and-neck in a midwestern battleground, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University released on Monday.

The poll found Clinton and Christie each claiming the support of 41 percent of Iowa voters in a hypothetical matchup of the 2016 presidential race. In other hypothetical matchups tested in the poll, Christie topped Vice President Joe Biden by 17 points while Clinton bested Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) by seven. Walker edged Biden by three points, the poll found.

Democrats have carried Iowa in six of the last seven presidential election cycles, including victories by President Barack Obama in the Hawkeye State in both 2008 and 2012.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-clinton-christie-tied-in-iowa

Iowa voters disapprove 55 - 41 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing, plunging the president to one of his lowest scores ever in any of the nine states surveyed by Quinnipiac University, according to a poll released today.

Still too early. And yet republicans want to crucify Christie because he said nice things about Obama.

 

[Plinko]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-clinton-christie-tied-in-iowa



Still too early. And yet republicans want to crucify Christie because he said nice things about Obama.

If republicans want the White House back, they'll back Christie.

I just don't think he's crazy enough for them to support.

 

[Hitokage]

This makes absolutely no sense.

Won't somebody think of the murderers? Democrats claim to be compassionate but want to fence them out all the same!

 

[TacticalFox88]

Even five years later!

Will forever haunt them.

 

[Wilsongt]

Well, it is his fault. People just choose to not believe it (Faux News watchers) because Obama just happened to be in office while it was happening. They fail to realize that a massive amount of the downturn happened while Bush was still in office.

 

[Tamanon]

Also, it's hard for anything to really be Obama's fault when he's not allowed to pass legislation.

 

[Wilsongt]

Also, it's hard for anything to really be Obama's fault when he's not allowed to pass legislation.

That's Obama's fault for simply being Obama.