-
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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Republicans after 8 years of Obama will be like we were after 8 years of Bush. I wouldn't underestimate them.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yeah the all those policy reversals. Bush tax cuts reversed. Medicare part D with negotiated prices. Immediate end of war. Nationalizations. Welfare increases. Etc.
The Librarian
Banned
Personally I don't understand why there's any "doom and gloom" going on with the ACA at all. The website hit its target despite a month or of technical problems.
Seriously: Why are people worrying about this? It's just concern trolling, really.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its a lack of self confidence. Dems are really prone to this. There's this idea that most people want to elect republicans so if things don't go perfectly dems will lose and people will forever hate liberalism.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't buy the doom and gloom, but republicans winning the presidency is a possibility if Hillary doesn't run. I don't see Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden, or Martin O'Malley inspiring much energy in the party.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Remember when Marco Rubio aka Republican Obama was still a thing?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Sounds like the GOP machine is gearing up to back Jeb Bush.
He did an interview on Fox where he gave a pretty great response on immigration. The right wing response to it?
Jeb Bush: Crossing the Border Illegally an 'Act of Love'
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...ossing-The-Border-Illegally-Is-An-Act-Of-Love
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e33b06-b5f2-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html
He did an interview on Fox where he gave a pretty great response on immigration. The right wing response to it?
Jeb Bush: Crossing the Border Illegally an 'Act of Love'
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...ossing-The-Border-Illegally-Is-An-Act-Of-Love
That would be political suicide, and I would hope they know that. Backing another Bush for the White House would be a complete disaster unless the Democratic party completely screws the pooch on their own nomination and campaign.
WayneMorse
Banned
Jeb also supports Obama's Marxist indoctrination program aka Common Core and said he would support tax increases as part of a balanced budget deal. There's no chance in hell the Tea Party will back him.
Did we already forget how the GOP base hated Mitt all the way up until he secured the nomination and then thought he wasn't so bad?
In another field like 2012, Jeb will do the same thing, complete with Christie playing the role of Perry as a popular GOP governor expected to be a strong challenger flaming out spectacularly.
In another field like 2012, Jeb will do the same thing, complete with Christie playing the role of Perry as a popular GOP governor expected to be a strong challenger flaming out spectacularly.
Avon Barksdale
Member
They still hated Mitt, they only voted for him because they had to.
speculawyer
Member
So what do you think about Dirty Harry going HAM on the Koch Brothers? As long as he backs his rants up with hard facts, I love it.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/26/reid-vast-majority-of-koch-ads-are-lies/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/harry-reid-koch-brothers_n_5069877.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
He is clearly getting under their skin . . . but if the best they can do is attack the messenger (Harry) then they are losing, IMHO.
Of course I'm not a big fan of the Koch Brothers as they have aggressively gone after Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and other green energy things. So far, they are like 0 for 19 in attempting to kill them. They even lose in places like Kansas!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/26/reid-vast-majority-of-koch-ads-are-lies/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/harry-reid-koch-brothers_n_5069877.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
He is clearly getting under their skin . . . but if the best they can do is attack the messenger (Harry) then they are losing, IMHO.
Of course I'm not a big fan of the Koch Brothers as they have aggressively gone after Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and other green energy things. So far, they are like 0 for 19 in attempting to kill them. They even lose in places like Kansas!
And they would again for Jeb. They're going to vote for the GOP nominee no matter who it is, because they'll hate whomever the Democrat nominee is even more.
speculawyer
Member
LOL. As if it were dedication, clever strategy, and hard work that put the Dems back on top.
No, it was a pointless expensive bloody war and a complete economic meltdown that put the Dems into office.
They sure would, and he would lose spectacularly.
I honestly don't think the GOP has a chance in 2016. Their primary process has become so extreme and toxic that by the time a candidate gets the nomination they are fundamentally damaged to the middle of the road undecided voters they need to win.
HAM Reid is best Reid. His absolute and unwavering behavior during the run up to the shutdown has endeared him to me forever.
Mostly, but let's not discount the efforts of the Obama campaign to secure their victory. Democratic victory in 2016 depends a great deal on inheriting his machinery and running it as well as he did.
Which makes me a bit worried about Hillary, because her 2008 campaign staff were fucking idiots who didn't even know that the way that delegates were allocated had changed for that election, and when it was brought to their attention, they went ahead with their winner-take-all based strategy anyway. Hopefully she's learned her lesson about being the presumed winner...
theprodigy
Member
Diablos isn't the only chicken little here
Where was this?
Avon Barksdale
Member
Who was the last Republican nominee to be liked by the base? Reagan?
speculawyer
Member
Though they will never admit now, it was George W. Bush. He had a good combination of establishment ties but dopey social conservative values that the base liked.
They loved him . . . but now they act like they don't. Or they blame him for changing.
zero shift
Banned
This is why liberals always lose.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Wonder if Bush or Obama are gonna see Captain America lol
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Costa reporting is really lazy. Its literally here are what
He was nice to have during the shut down and maybe its more reflective of the people he's reporting but he's pretty much the republican Greg Sargent with with leas editorializing
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://www.vox.com/ is up
Sparse on content but its better than 538. The Card's idea is brilliant. Gonna be awesome for linking to simple explainations
Sparse on content but its better than 538. The Card's idea is brilliant. Gonna be awesome for linking to simple explainations
The Librarian
Banned
Looking forward to Kliff's article on Vermont's single-payer. This is gonna be awesome.
I just bookmarked it. They have some great people there - I enjoyed Yglesias' Slate run a great deal - so I'm optimistic. Their approach to 'explanatory journalism' has a lot of potential if done right. It might help fill the void TPM left me with.
Giant Panda
Member
The how politics makes us stupid articles is really interesting and is worth a read I think. Seems to pretty much be about how confirmation bias and team cheerleading cause huge problems in attempts to educate the populace into supporting the "better" policy.
Let's see how that works out. He said that 2 years ago and apparently only went as far as saying he would do so under a 10-1 deal, which for all intents and purposes, is a meaningless statement.
Coriolanus
Banned
Having already been aware of the backfire effect, that article still managed to be amazingly depressive.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Very good read.
Zero-Crescent
Member
It reminds me of a study I read about before, where researchers asked a groups of people whether they agreed or disagreed with simple, non-controversial, statements (e.g. "The sky is blue."). When they presented the statements as-is, just about everyone agreed with them.
Then they altered the statements by adding attributions (e.g. "President Obama said at a speech that the sky is blue." "The Republican Party released a statement proclaiming that the sky is blue."). The "disagree" answers skyrocketed when the statements were attributed to political people or organizations, even, to a lesser extent, among people who were in the same party as the person or organization in the attribution.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Well look at it this way. When presented with something that seems right, you don't think very long about it and just accept it. When presented with something that seems wrong, you start your detective skills to sniff out what stinks.
Just because people are more likely to start their detective skills when presented with information they don't agree with doesn't necessarily mean they are more entrenched in their ways than people who never turn their detective side on. If those detective skills consistently come up flat, then their ideas about what the facts are might actually change.
It's just that in this case, those facts can easily be proven false with just a bit of thought, so you are going to see a large gap between people who accept it and move on and the people that say "wait a minute" and do another pass at it.
I have no problem with people not overly thinking about facts they generally agree with. If we went through the whole scientific process and logical fallacy checks about every single piece of information we get, we'd never be able to make it through the day. So I'm not overly worried if a guy calls out an anecdote he disagrees with as not representative of a trend one day, and accepts an anecdote he agrees with as proof of a trend another day. I'm way, way more worried about someone who takes something that actually is a fact, and then uses something like an anecdote to disprove it, because at that point you are actually taking the time to try to figure out what's truth and fiction, and thus all arguments deserve at least some amount of self checking.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Sargent is a walking talking point. I enjoy Costa simply because he has a clear understanding of the conservative movement and those who support it. Today he was talking with David Frum about the establishment's dilemma: Christie is too injured to them, so if Jeb doesn't run they're fucked; meanwhile the tea party has a strong bench, for primaries at least. But there's also the fringe of the fringe: what if Ben Carson runs?
All he does is report, he barely does any opinion pieces. Btw he seems pretty confident that Paul Ryan will stay in the house and aim for Ways and Means, unless Jeb Bush doesn't run and Christie is indeed finished.
Black Mamba
Member
The only thing to be worried about is the small states. The small states are at risk if the pools aren't diverse enough, but other than that they're good to go.
As I said last week, the GOP officially lost. It's over. The debate on the ACA is now done. Not because it simply hit 7 million but because the ACA exchanges were established, became functioning, and signed up a lot of people in addition to all the other people who benefited off-exchange, medicaid, etc. People keep talking about 7 million, but it's much more than that. When you factor in the new medicaid, under 26, and QHPs online and offline it's 20 million+ people directly affected, overwhelmingly beneficial to them. You are not going to win many elections going forward trying to undo what was done for these people. Come 2016, and mark my words, being against the ACA will hurt you in most of the country than help. And this will be much truer nationally. The GOP is fucked on a national scale if they don't win 2016 WH and they won't.
Among those 20 million continue to be the most under-reported success of the ACA, the underinsured - people who had junk insurance who now have much better insurance for about the same (or sometimes even less!) cost. These people are huge successes as well!
Regardless, the ACA is here to stay. The only real changes to the ACA to come are ones that either fix gaps/holes or push it further to the left. There will be no return to the status quo or something in between.
Any liberal worth their salt should be focused on convinced Scalia to retire because that's the biggest obstacle going forward for now...
PS: Welcome back Dax. You staying this time?
PSS: Anyone from the Bush family is unelectable nationally. Any conversation about it is ridiculous. It will never happen.
PhoenixDark
Banned
wow lol. perfect
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I agree with Sargent but I think its useful same as Costa. I don't what's so special about Costa though. He does his job well, definitely. But I see no special insight, he just has access to the RNC and the donor types as well as the tea party true believers and has earned their trust to relay their views to readers.
I think he's useful in that way but it reads to me like he's just a sounding board for rich donors to see how their ideas play just like Sargent is a way for Dems to repeat what they're thinking. My issue is that he's seen as a reporter while Sargent is just a 'blogger' or 'partisian'. What substantially different information do they report? He reports exactly what they want to report, and presents many of their statements as unquestioned facts. He's been horrible at reporting on Paul Ryan, constantly playing up the 'seriousness' and 'policy driven' nature of him and Bush. Which we all know is BS.
speculawyer
Member
wow lol. perfect
The fact that they are portrayed as little kids is so appropriate.
OK, the guy leaving the frame is Boehner and the guy in the back is Cruz . . . who is the woman?
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Bachmann would be my guess.
shadowsdarknes
Member
That's got to be Bachmann.
Yeah, I'm not going to allow myself to worry about ACA being repealed anymore. That ship has sailed. In fact, the more the GOP talks about, the better. As time goes in it will just make them look more petulant and out of touch than they already are. By the time Obama is no longer President, we could be looking at over 20 million previously uninsured on the books. At that point, the only ones who would still be pushing for repeal are troll representatives from gerrymandered districts.
I think this chart is more useful since those three are such huge outliers:
And if only because they misspelled Georgia.
Interestingly, all the states physically closest to D.C. are near the top of the list. I suggest we move the capitol to Guam.
I certainly beg to differ about sc corruption given how lately we've gone through shit like drugs being planted to harm police chiefs, Republican lawmakers spending their money on personal goods, and ethics lawsuits on Republican lawmakers that suddenly vanish into thin air.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/04/07/scott-brown-pick-a-party/
Welp Scott Brown's campaign is getting off to a good start.
Welp Scott Brown's campaign is getting off to a good start.
wow lol. perfect
That is amazing
Aaron Strife
Banned
bqw hatever
I gotta disagree with you here. Obama was a revolutionary candidate. He was like Reagan and Kennedy before him in being a transformitive force in American Politics.
The Republican Candidates the last two election cycles were boring and uninspiring. But then again so were Gore, and Kerry, and Mondale, and Kucinich. Dole, Ford, etc.
I think people either don't remember or they underestimate the value of his personality and charisma just as Dems underestimated Reagan. There's no way a cookie cutter bland candidate would beat him unless the atmosphere was double digit points in the other candidate's favor.
The moment he won the nomination he was going to win that election unless something absolutely catastrophic with his candidacy happened. He survived Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Birth Certificate claims, claims of being a Muslim, claims of being Sympathetic to Terrorism. guilt by association absurdities and accusations no other candidate has had to deal with, and won in a landslide.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked