NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is when I knew he imploded
To NYC:
Black and Hispanic People are Scary
-signed Lhota
I really want de Blasio to do good things and maybe even run for bigger office. They guy is great for progressivism.
-
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 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
This is when I knew he imploded
To NYC:
Black and Hispanic People are Scary
-signed Lhota
I really want de Blasio to do good things and maybe even run for bigger office. They guy is great for progressivism.
bodyofanamerican
Member
I agree. I've been reading a lot about how (granted, NYC is no barometer for the rest of the country politically) deBlasio is the first of many "new" Democrats who are owning their progressiveness rather than running from it and trying to burnish their "moderate cred" or whatever. Trying to be a moderate/conservative leaning Dem always drives me nuts because GOP voters will NEVER VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT ANYWAY.
What's great about this now, is due to the national coalition Obama's cobbled together, and then need to get those voters to turn out, it's become a necessity for Dem candidates to highlight their left leaning populism.
Aaron Strife
Banned
How many teabaggers have said they're raring to go for round 2? Boehner is a fucking idiot who'd rather shore up his credentials with the tea party than legislate, it was the debt limit that forced his hand, not the shutdown. The GOP thinks the shutdown worked in their favor.
There's a strong contingency in the House that doesn't give two shits about what can pass in the Senate. You're giving Boehner way too much credit, he's shown repeatedly that he has no idea what he's doing. He could have fleeced Obama on entitlements and tax reform a long time ago if he was good at his job.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I see de Blasio as a post-Obama democrat. Obama is a bridge between clinton era democrats and the full embrace of the multi-ethnic progressive coalition the democratic base is becoming. Its a 2nd new deal coalition a really diverse base that for some odd reason isn't fighting among itself. Its really odd to see the base start to reclaim the government can be used for good. Its not going to renationalize industry, its not going to create another WPA but I see it instead using the government as a force that dips into certain parts of the economy to fix imbalances, settle disputes. Things like the Auto Bailout and stimulus will be models rather than trust busting or jobs programs.
I'm really interested to see how it hold up in the coming years. Right now its driving force is opposition to the destruction of the great society programs and a desire for a more inclusive society (gay marriage, immigration, women's rights, religious freedom). I think there are a lot of differences in things like foreign policy, taxes, government intervention that a newly re-branded republican party could split the base. Kind of how the conservative movement split the non-union working class from the unions and minorities in the 1980s.
Weigel has got an article about some senate primary challengers pushing back against incumbent senators for going against cruz. I don't think the senate is ripe for them but I think your gonna see pressure in the districts to fight again. We might not see a shutdown but its gonna be brinkmanship that gets close. The house republicans are a scared bunch.
Even if I were to concede this point (and I'm not sure I do), Occupy Wall Street was vague even by these relative standards. The focus on equality as a central concept, even vaguely, was not consistent.
If it focused on anything, it was that Wall Street is crooked. I agree, but it's not really a message that rallies people the way liberty does for Tea Party advocates. If OWS had instead focused on economic inequality, that may have produced better results. The issue certainly came up, but it wasn't the primary theme.
Fenderputty
Banned
Agreed. IMO, the lack of a central figure to clairify the movements position really hurt. It allowed the media to run with whatever some random on the front lines was spewing.
The whole 1% and 99% thing was too inclusive as well. When tea party members are a part of that percentage and they show up because they were also mad at the bank bailouts, you know there's a messaging issue since they would also vehemently disagree with the liberal movements solution to the problems being proposed.
It's a shame it was such a cluster fuck too. IIRC, they were opposed to various dems trying to co-op the movement at the time because they thought it was just being politically advantageous without any sincerity. While this might be the case, I think it would have helped legitimize the movement in the public eye as well as providing a central mouth piece.
Bel Marduk
Banned
Well.. that's pretty unfortunate for Cuccinelli. He's down 17 points now, and that's a Rasmussen poll.
speculawyer
Member
The first comment . . .
These people are insane. They are literally not in touch with reality. It is hard to reason with crazy.
Shadow Hog
Member
As a matter of fact, you can make text red. It's the only color you can make it, in fact. Just need to use the "highlight" tag like this.
Have they ever? All they need is a right-leaning judge ruling in favor of their tactics.
What are the chances of this getting to the SCOTUS?
Aaron Strife
Banned
If we believe actual pollsters, McAuliffe only has a 9 point lead. But it's fun to flaunt Rasmussen when they show bonkers polling numbers that have the Dem leading huge. I liked when they had Tammy Baldwin leading by 7 a couple months before the election when everyone was showing her down, and then she won by that many (of course, their polls right before the election had her losing).
theprodigy
Member
Rasmussen 2-month preview polls are accurate confirmed
Didn't PPP show roughly the same margin when they polled early voters?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Little tidbit from the last WaPo poll that had Dems up 8 on the generic ballot
The average Republican-held district went for Romney 59 to 41, an 18 point lead. By contrast, the average Democrat-held district went for Obama 66-34, a 32 point lead. The generic ballot shift is happening entirely within GOP-held districts. Any incumbent who won by less than 10 points should be feeling the heat right now.
Yeah but early voters have favored Democrats recently. One thing that stood out was how Sarvis (the libertarian candidate), who's been polling in the high single digits, only got 3% of the early vote. I wouldn't be surprised if his support evaporated by election day.bonercop said:
Welp, at least less states are on board with the latest attempt at gutting the ACA!
Hopefully this goes nowhere.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It has never worked like this. People weren't flocking to MA or Vermont for healthcare, nor are they flocking to states with the best public schools. Purposely screwing your state out of subsidies is meant to do one thing: ensure people in the state never support a national overhaul of healthcare again. Some will blame their state for being shitty, but a whole lot will automatically blame Obama and the ACA.
It's clear that the Medicaid expansion is a great idea, and I'm sure there are plenty of poor people who would vote for state candidates who support it. So if you're a republican, your best course of action is to ruin the law as much as possible and hope that kills any chance that people will support the law.
Which...is why I simply would not have opened exchanges in most states that refused to set up exchanges.
That's when he lost the race for sure. Everything after that is comedy.
This is what it boils down to:
So it is kind of confusing. Are they saying they, being [red state], have the right to create their own marketplace without subsidies since the federal government is intruding on their rights?
the guy is down by like 50... its just a stage show at this point
It's been a stage show since day 1 of the general. Apparently de Blasio has been accused of playing the race card by appearing with his family. No that is not a joke.
AnotherNils
Member
They're saying no state exchange, no subsidies.
That doesn't make any sense -- isn't the law written to accommodate both?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Did you know Grover Norquist is a secret islamist?
They really want to purge the party. This is insane. He talks to Muslims and even MARRIED to one!!!
They really want to purge the party. This is insane. He talks to Muslims and even MARRIED to one!!!
It's nothing new. I remember hearing the same rumblings last year.
AnotherNils
Member
From what you posted the implication is no. They assumed all states would make exchanges, so there isn't language for this situation.
speculawyer
Member
Seriously now . . . the paranoid conspiracy segment on the right continues to grow.
I mean I can see reasonable arguments . . . the ACA won't control costs, not enough young people will sign up, it is too complex, etc. But this "It's a Marxist-plot!" stuff is just off the chart crazy.
And the really annoying thing is that they never learn. The exact same arguments were made about Medicare
speculawyer
Member
But it is certainly delicious to have Glenn Beck bringing it back up and using it to attack Grover Norquist.
I listened to Glenn Beck last week for a hoot (man, it is crazy sad stuff) but one of things he was yammering about was 'defund the GOP'. They were pushing that the GOP sucks and only guys like Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert were still good.
Bel Marduk
Banned
The Libertarian candidate receiving ten percent of the vote is pretty improbable.. and the government shutdown hurt Virginia much more than other states because of the huge amount of military bases. In the Hampton Roads area, the shutdown could have long-term repercussions on the local economy. This absolutely hurts Cuccinelli, who spent a great deal of time as Attorney General in a fruitless effort to thwart the ACA.
Quinnipiac is much more reliable than Rasmussen, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the polling trends even more toward McAullife's direction between now and the election. The Republicans, between nominating an ultra-conservative and the government shutdown, have conceded this race and it will be very interesting to see how they fare next year.
Armoured Priest
Member
Unless I can't read it looks like the federal government does indeed have the authority to establish an exchange if the state fails to do so. There is NOTHING preventing states from establishing their own exchanges, they just cannot be forced to.
I think the issue are not the exchanges, but rather the subsidies for plans offered by the federal exchanges.
AnotherNils
Member
Right. Someone posted a separate article on what Kansas was doing the other week. They basically think that by not setting up the exchange that their citizens can't opt into ACA.
They can think what they want but that doesn't make any sense. By not setting up the exchange the federal government is permitted to, what I highlighted establishes that, so equating that to invalidating subsidies or barring access to exchanges altogether seems like a non-starter.
It's like they don't learn anything.
U.S. House Republicans commit to delay of Obamacare tax provision
Keep fucking that chicken and beating that horse dead.
U.S. House Republicans commit to delay of Obamacare tax provision
Keep fucking that chicken and beating that horse dead.
They are, and they aren't the only ones. They won't give up until they can make the law worthless. I hope all of their efforts fail, be it from the legislative side in Congress or states lawyering up and taking specific provisions of the law to court in hopes of them getting struck down.
They won't let up.
They won't let up.
Armoured Priest
Member
I think the thought (GOP hope) is that the exchanges and the subsidies to help pay for them are different/legally separate, and that the authority for the exchanges and creating them doesn't automatically follow that the subsidies are available for them (unless there's language elsewhere that does indeed "clarify" that part).
Keep in mind, i agree, its ridiculous and under normal circumstances should be a non-starter. however, we are dealing with crazy.
makingmusic476
Member
Any chance of Beck, Hannity, Rush, Levin, or Savage ever endorsing Libertarian candidates? They seem fed up enough to do it, and they could get a nice chunk of the base to go along.
It'd be glorious.
It'd be glorious.
TacticalFox88
Banned
ANYTHING that speeds up the death of the GOP is fine by me.
The faster we get rid of these walking sacks of diarrhea the better.
Beck would back a Constitution party candidate before a Libertarian
theprodigy
Member
functionally the same thing, I don't really care which insignificant group he chooses
What's funny is how much most of those guys LOATHE the most libertarian of the GOP, Ron Paul.
makingmusic476
Member
I see the GOP surviving if it happened.
Tea Partiers go Libertarian > Democrats dominate elections > Democrats move left > moderate Democrats switch to GOP > balance between Democrats and Republicans returns
Unless the imbalance somehow unexpectedly leads to electoral reform, which allows third parties to survive. Then the Greens will rise alongside the Libertarians! (I wish.)
theprodigy
Member
that's still an ultimately better outcome, especially because this would also require the GOP to move left
makingmusic476
Member
Oh, no doubt. Political discourse would be changed for the better for some time to come.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Nope. At the end of the day they cherish the "power" of threatening to leave the party. All of them get some pretty big interviews with republicans...would that continue if they fucked over the party by joining some fringe party? I'm not sure.
It's also worth noting that most of them truly don't care whether the GOP wins elections or not. Does anyone think Rush Limbaugh gives a shit about gay marriage, or that if Glenn Beck could have controlled who won the 2012 election he would not have selected Obama? Being in the minority breeds the fear that translates into money for them.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I do wonder how the politicians not know they're getting played.
I could understand the constiuents, their dumb as fucking rocks, well the GOP is too, but still.
speculawyer
Member
This person isn't even trying hard anymore. He's just throwing up whatever crap he can think of. How Christian...
This kind of thing is so revealing. It reveals how much paranoia and mistrust they have. A mistrust fostered by the GOP and Fox News. Clearly this is drawing on the fake IRS scandal wherein there turned out to be nothing. They went after both Tea Party groups and liberal groups. There was nothing substantial to it at all. But just like the nonexistent WMDs, they believe that scandal was a big deal even though reality says otherwise.
And although there are reasons to be skeptical of government, this is not really one. If there was such bias, it would be investigated and gotten rid of. You could file a lawsuit, do a FOIA request, alert the media, etc. The people that are lying to them turns out to be Hannity and Fox.
RoninChaos
Member
Holy shit. I'm actually really fuckin' offended by that.
I was actually listening to Hannity last night and there was someone on there stating that, despite the website problems, the ACA website was getting better day by day, but both Hannity and the person against the ACA did their best to talk over that particular person.
It's an effective tactic, sure. Don't want an opposing viewpoint being heard? Do your best to drown it out with talking points and negativity. It's the adult equivalent to "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA"
The hypocrisy is stunning.
Hm.......
- Status