Support NeoGAF

[Averon]

Yeah, the 50-state strategy ain't perfect, and it often gets too many conservative democratic elected for my liking. However, it's better to deal with a conservative Dem than a nutjob teabagger.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Ohio Gubernatorial Election

John Kasich (R-inc) 44
Ed FitzGerald (D) 44

Hmmmmm. FitzGerald won a lot of positive attention recently for his victory on challenging Ohio's voting laws. It'll be a tough race against Kasich, though "Not Sure" skews towards youth and minorities.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ohio Gubernatorial Election



Hmmmmm. FitzGerald won a lot of positive attention recently for his victory on challenging Ohio's voting laws. It'll be a tough race against Kasich, though "Not Sure" skews towards youth and minorities.

This is an important one. This and Florida are seats that would be awesome to win. Oh and PA

 

[Averon]

This is an important one. This and Florida are seats that would be awesome to win. Oh and PA

How's Scott doing in Florida? Last I heard he was treading downward.

 

[B-Dubs]

How's Scott doing in Florida? Last I heard he was treading downward.

No way he wins reelection, the only reason he's there in the first place is dumb luck.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Winning Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania would be a good symbolic victory for the Democrats since those three are the designated swing states every presidential election.

Wisconsin and Michigan as well since the media desperately wants to make them swing states even when they're clearly not on the presidential level.

And of course those five states alone add up to about a sixth of the country so having Democratic governors being able to promote PPACA will help its legitimacy as a program.

 

[WayneMorse]

The same sex marriage constitutional referendum is going to be on the ballot this November in Ohio, that should help turnout for Fitzgerald.

If the Democratic Party here can get Sherrod Brown re-elected, it can defeat Kasich.

 

[Oblivion]

lol:

5. While the rise of the weak, neurotic, man-child metrosexual-nerd dominates one forgettable movie after another, a new Golden Age in television has brought us an assembly line of flawed but masculine anti-heroes -- "real men" protagonists like Jack Bauer, Don Draper, Walter White, Raylan Givens, Tony Soprano, the cast of The Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, and even House of Cards.

Let's see: Jack Bauer, who has been off the air for five years, Don Draper is a self-deceiving womanizer (so okay, conservative), Walter White is a meth manufacturer murderer who had to turn to crime because he couldn't get health insurance to treat his cancer. Is being a meth kingpin now "conservative"? How about a mafia don? Kevin Spacey in House of Cards kills a dog with his bare hands in the opening scene, which I guess is conservative. But he's a Democrat. So maybe not. And I concede, Shane Walsh in the Walking Dead is very conservative, what with sleeping with his best friend's wife and then feeding another human being to the zombies in order to save his skin. And that's just Season 1!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...onservatives-are-winning-culture-war-Ha-ha-ha

Says a lot about conservative virtues, imo.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The same sex marriage constitutional referendum is going to be on the ballot this November in Ohio, that should help turnout for Fitzgerald.

If the Democratic Party here can get Sherrod Brown re-elected, it can defeat Kasich.

Obama won't be on the ballot, and Ohio's economy is improving. Unlikely the PA or FL governors, Kasich seems like he might get away with his recent facade of moderate politics. Same with Snyder in Michigan, I think he's going to be re-elected under similar circumstances.

 

[Aaron Strife]

lol:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...onservatives-are-winning-culture-war-Ha-ha-ha

Says a lot about conservative virtues, imo.

Using House of Cards as an example? All of the main characters on that show are Democrats. Furthermore they're also bastards. If he were using it to point out how liberals are being portrayed negatively on TV, that would be one thing but I guess it's okay to lead the Democratic Party as long as you murder your political enemies.

 

[Mike M]

Using House of Cards as an example? All of the main characters on that show are Democrats. Furthermore they're also bastards. If he were using it to point out how liberals are being portrayed negatively on TV, that would be one thing but I guess it's okay to lead the Democratic Party as long as you murder your political enemies.

Underwood's a pretty fucking awful liberal, fucking over the teacher's union and cutting entitlements.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Underwood's a pretty fucking awful liberal, fucking over the teacher's union and cutting entitlements.

Damn Howard Dean and his 50 State Strategy electing all these conservative Dems!

 

[Oblivion]

Seems Rand Paul's just as bad at history as he is at economics:

“When is the last time in our country we created millions of jobs? It was under Ronald Reagan … Did he say, ‘Oh let’s just cut taxes for low-income people?’ No, he said forthrightly, ‘Let’s cut everyone’s taxes’ … The top rate was 70% … he lowered it … to 28% … and 20 million jobs were created.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-doesnt-remember-the-1980s-very

And there's something I wasn't aware of. Obama's at net positive total jobs numbers now AND he's already surpassed Dubya's totals.

 

[speculawyer]

The 50 state strategy led to what I think is the biggest problem with Democrats today.

When a Republican wins a seat in the House he's crazy hard right no matter what, or how small their majority is, they will always vote party line and be true believer conservatives.

Democrats however try to match the views of their constituencies, and moderate their views.

Meh. You can bitch & moan at conservadems as much as you want and they bug me too . . . . but they are better than Tea Partiers or even 'moderate Republicans' (if they exist).

At least you have a chance to get them to vote with you on something if you bargain with them. The GOPers will just vote against you out of spite and party loyalty.

 

[speculawyer]

Seems Rand Paul's just as bad at history as he is at economics:



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-doesnt-remember-the-1980s-very

And there's something I wasn't aware of. Obama's at net positive total jobs numbers now AND he's already surpassed Dubya's totals.

And Clinton RAISED taxes.

This whole 'cut taxes = more jobs' is just such brain-dead bumper-sticker thinking. Sure . . . it works SOMETIMES. Certainly didn't work for Bush 2. The opposite worked for Clinton.

 

[B-Dubs]

And Clinton RAISED taxes.

This whole 'cut taxes = more jobs' is just such brain-dead bumper-sticker thinking. Sure . . . it works SOMETIMES. Certainly didn't work for Bush 2. The opposite worked for Clinton.

Because it's not about taxes, it's never been about taxes. There are a lot of other variables at work when it comes to job creation, taxes is a very very small part of it.

 

[benjipwns]

"Clinton" cut taxes too, specifically the capital gains tax by a third. And added in the personal residence sale exemption.

 

[B-Dubs]

"Clinton" cut taxes too, specifically the capital gains tax by a third. And added in the personal residence sale exemption.

Except we all know that's not what led to all that job growth.

 

[WayneMorse]

Obama won't be on the ballot, and Ohio's economy is improving. Unlikely the PA or FL governors, Kasich seems like he might get away with his recent facade of moderate politics. Same with Snyder in Michigan, I think he's going to be re-elected under similar circumstances.

No but a referedum on same sex marriage might bring people who normally wouldn't go to polls in a midterm (ie. Democratic voters) to vote for Fitzgerald.

Besides he's polling near even with Kasich even though many people have never even heard of him.

I think Snyder could win but the Schauer ain't over yet.

 

[Black Mamba]

Seems Rand Paul's just as bad at history as he is at economics:



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-doesnt-remember-the-1980s-very

And there's something I wasn't aware of. Obama's at net positive total jobs numbers now AND he's already surpassed Dubya's totals.

Look at the 64-year period from the start of Harry Truman’s presidency to the end of that of George W. Bush (1945-2009).

During the 28 years of Democratic administrations in that period, 57.5 million new jobs were created, an average of 2.05 million per year.

During the 36 years of Republican administrations in that period, 36.2 million new jobs were created, an average of 1.0 million per year.

The bottom line is that over the 64 years leading up to the inauguration of President Obama, jobs were created more than twice as fast under Democrats as they were under Republicans.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes....e-the-job-situation-worse/?src=me&ref=general

Of course, Obama inherited an economy that was literally hemorrhaging jobs every day on the day he took office which skew his numbers down.

Oh, and of course, Reagan created jobs by spending lots and lots of money on them:

By 1983, Reagan was increasing federal jobs at a large rate. And states were too, while local gov'ts held steady. Contrast that to today where federal is mostly flat and states/local have dropped drastically.

I Obama had a normal public job growth (not even stimulus!) or hell, even just held flat, our economy would be so much better right now.

"Clinton" cut taxes too, specifically the capital gains tax by a third. And added in the personal residence sale exemption.

And Reagan also raised taxes after his team realized they cut them too much (of course, he targeted social security for one because, why not?)

 

[Oblivion]

And Clinton RAISED taxes.

This whole 'cut taxes = more jobs' is just such brain-dead bumper-sticker thinking. Sure . . . it works SOMETIMES. Certainly didn't work for Bush 2. The opposite worked for Clinton.

Conservatives have tried to take credit for that period by pointing to the capital gains tax cut and spending cuts (edit: good job, benji!) . Of course, the problem with that is 1) the tax cut wasn't big enough to offset Clinton's tax hike, and 2) the economic boom started long before Newt waddled his way into power.

But the most amusing time period has to be during WWII. Pretty much everything FDR passed was a colossal violation of right-wing economic policy that you can imagine (massive tax hikes + massive spending increases), and instead of destroying the economy like conservatives would have you believe, it turned out to be quite prosperous times.

Which is why the right-wing criticism of FDR's policies prolonging the Great Depression made no sense. If higher taxation and spending would inhibit growth, then shouldn't we never have gotten out of the Depression since FDR only doubled down on those very same policies?

 

[PhoenixDark]

"While the Castros have projected a fresh Latino face for their party, some Democrats are concerned that the brothers suffer from both an overabundance of political caution and a lack of Spanish skills. Mr. Castro, for example, passed on a potential cabinet position in the Obama administration that might have made him a more appealing running mate. Neither brother, both of whom graduated from Stanford and then Harvard Law, speaks fluent Spanish. And neither is learning it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/u...ign-but-they-arent-sure-for-what.html?hp&_r=1

welp, sounds like they aren't going anywhere.

 

[benjipwns]

But the most amusing time period has to be during WWII. ... it turned out to be quite prospers times.

Nothing says prosperity like rations, production bans and price/wage controls.

Not to mention making a bunch of junk to dump in the ocean.

 

[Oblivion]

Nothing says prosperity like rations, production bans and price/wage controls.

Not to mention making a bunch of junk to dump in the ocean.

Don't conservatives support the idea of wage controls?

 

[benjipwns]

Don't conservatives support the idea of wage controls?

I don't know, they do like buying stuff to blow up or leave somewhere to rust* though.

*Since we can't dump them in the ocean anymore. Stupid environazis.

 

[WayneMorse]

There's a new piece on Susana Martinez (Republican governor of New Mexico) from Mother Jones that makes me wonder if she's very vulnerable. She was up by 5 in the last PPP poll. If I had to compare her to anyone else it'd probably be Walker, who's up by a decent enough margin for a blue state governor.

Just finished reading this and holy shit it's damning, I'm surprised she's that popular in New Mexico.

And wow I did not know New Mexico was the sixth poorest state in the country, always thought it was western state that all of the yuppies moved to in the 90s like Colorado.

 

[ViperVisor]

Watching Stossel spew nonsense was painful. His douchebag Mister Rogers style like he is acting out a play for children.

Maybe you can stand what he was vomiting in text form...
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/16/earth-daze-and-environmental-hysteria

A few years back, we were going to be killed by global cooling, overpopulation, pesticide residues, West Nile virus, bird flu, Y2K, cellphone radiation, mad cow disease, etc. Now it's global warming.

Also, the IPCC is not just a panel of scientists. It's an intergovernmental panel. It's a bureaucracy controlled by the sort of people who once ran for student council and are "exhilarated by the prospect of putting the thumb of the federal government on the scale."

That quote seems too good. It is.
It is from Joseph A. Califano talking about his life and viewpoint.
Mr. Califano held various United States government positions and served from 1977 to 1979 as U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, where he launched the nation's anti-smoking campaign.
He was inspired by Pope John XXIII's writings and saw helping the poor and protecting the Earth as the Lord's work.

Stossel uses the quote in the sense of 'we fudge the facts of climate science so we can get our way'. That seems unethical but I'm not a mustachioed piece of shit.

He admits it.

Actually, that wasn't a quote from a global warming alarmist.

But he can read minds and knows it is the truth anyway.

Scientists who disagree, who are reluctant to put their thumbs on the government scale, don't feel welcome in the IPCC.

Yada-Yada-Yada 'all alternative energy sucks, expensive, doesn't even work at reducing the bad stuff' A paragraph later, 'technology makes things better' But you just said green tech advances are totally lame?

This Earth Day, instead of attacking those who sell fossil fuels, I will applaud them for overcoming constant environmental hysteria—while providing affordable energy that will allow us to fight poverty, which is the real threat to the people of the world.

I will be applauding David Schultz as the greatest non-fictional wrestler of all time. AKI Man being #1.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Watching Stossel spew nonsense was painful. His douchebag Mister Rogers style like he is acting out a play for children.

Stossel cares a lot about charity and poverty. I mean he knows the truth its: "better for rich people to make more money than give to charity".

John Stossel's ideology actively hurts people. He literally dedicated a show to how rich businessmen are the heros of the world. Rand would be proud, the rest of us should be scared.

I watched one of his #realcharity shows last year

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=91036496&postcount=7150


Also #selfie

 

[Mario]

Also #selfie

#nofilter

 

[NYCmetsfan]

<3 Warren.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/04/21/140421crbo_books_lepore?currentPage=all

She's a brilliant women and as the review points out an echo of that Liberal progressive movement (as distinct from the normal progressive movement) of the turn of the century. I can imagine her doing much more and her message taking off if the elites hadn't so calculatingly hitched their ride to the white racial resentment of post civil rights act america.

 

[kehs]

#nofilter

Another diehard movie?

 

[speculawyer]

Watching Stossel spew nonsense was painful. His douchebag Mister Rogers style like he is acting out a play for children.

The scientists tend to be conservative in their predictions. It is embarrassing to be proven wrong. And it has been shown that most of the predictions have UNDERSTATED the speed of climate change. But of course, one can cherry pick a bad prediction here & there and thus make it appear bad.

People like Stossel have nothing to do with science. They just have that 'gut feeling' that climate can't be happening and they just dig up the facts they can find to support their thesis.

It is all very disheartening . . . I just today learned about the 'Green Dragon' conjured up by the Christian-right on how Environmentalism "deadly to the Gospel of Jesus". What the fuck? These people are nuts.

 

[Oblivion]

Yay, it's tax day! Or for seventy million households: Tuesday, because for them they pay no federal income tax so they're left wondering why everyone's at the post office sweating through their shirts. I don't blame them, I envy them! A tax form to them is like a coupon for Head and Shoulders if you're bald. This is how dependence works, big government is grand if you don't feel it's hand.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...-envies-Americans-too-poor-to-pay-income-tax?

Hey, asshole. You can solve this problem pretty easily. Quit your job at Fox and let someone else take over. Hell, for his salary, I'd take the position myself. Horrendous levels of additional taxes to pay and all.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Good discussion on race on Hannity IMO. All the guests bring their unique experiences. Middle aged white guy 1 lived a totally different life than Middle aged white guy 3.

 

[Sibylus]

<3 Warren.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/04/21/140421crbo_books_lepore?currentPage=all

She's a brilliant women and as the review points out an echo of that Liberal progressive movement (as distinct from the normal progressive movement) of the turn of the century. I can imagine her doing much more and her message taking off if the elites hadn't so calculatingly hitched their ride to the white racial resentment of post civil rights act america.

If ya'll aren't going to appoint her God-Empress-Queen, we'll take her.

 

[speculawyer]

Good discussion on race on Hannity IMO. All the guests bring their unique experiences. Middle aged white guy 1 lived a totally different life than Middle aged white guy 3.

Really? Is having the token black guy too much of a ratings hit? It is not like they can't find plenty of them.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Good discussion on race on Hannity IMO. All the guests bring their unique experiences. Middle aged white guy 1 lived a totally different life than Middle aged white guy 3.

Would it have been any better with a Carson type on the panel to claim there is no such thing as racism today, outside of liberal racism? The color of the panel isn't the issue.

As I've said before, racial resentment seems worse now than it has been in some time. The right has been very successful in arguing that the absence of racist laws, burning crosses, and segregated water fountains means racism isn't an issue today. Most white people believe it, and also believe whites face more discrimination than blacks today. Obama's presidency has made it worse. I'm not blaming him, although I dislike his refusal to discuss race beyond his typical "these people believe x however these people believe y" rhetoric. But his presence in the WH has crystallized the idea that government dependence=black people, and the idea that hard earned white money is being given to blacks; it's a major reason a lot of southern states haven't expanded Medicaid.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is gonna be the right's attack on Clinton: What did you accomplish?

 

[AnotherNils]

I'm not blaming him, although I dislike his refusal to discuss race beyond his typical "these people believe x however these people believe y" rhetoric.

I hope when he leaves office he feels freer to discuss controversial issues.

 

[ISOM]

Really? Is having the token black guy too much of a ratings hit? It is not like they can't find plenty of them.

I guess having even having the token black guy on while talking about race would be too much for their conservative white audience.

 

[speculawyer]

As I've said before, racial resentment seems worse now than it has been in some time. The right has been very successful in arguing that the absence of racist laws, burning crosses, and segregated water fountains means racism isn't an issue today. Most white people believe it, and also believe whites face more discrimination than blacks today. Obama's presidency has made it worse. I'm not blaming him, although I dislike his refusal to discuss race beyond his typical "these people believe x however these people believe y" rhetoric. But his presence in the WH has crystallized the idea that government dependence=black people, and the idea that hard earned white money is being given to blacks; it's a major reason a lot of southern states haven't expanded Medicaid.

I'll say it. The USA was NOT READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT. Yeah, he got elected. Twice even. But there is an ugly rump of racism that made it such that he could get nothing done. He was damn lucky to get the ACA passed. Yeah, they HATED Clinton. And they had crazy paranoid conspiracy theories about him. But at least they could pass SOMETHING with him in office. The only big thing passed by Obama was the ACA and that was done with zero GOP votes. And since then, they've blocked EVERY substantial thing he's tried to do.

I'm an old white guy so I can say it . . . fucking racism has really retarded Obama from doing much of anything.

It really hit me during the Syria conflict. Syria apparently launched chemical weapons but when Obama tried to launch JUST a missile strike, the right pushed back. And a caller into OnPoint with Tom Ashbrook pointed out that when Bush alleged Saddam MIGHT have chemical weapons, the right backed a land invasion of Iraq . . . and when Syria ACTUALLY launched a chemical attack, the right didn't want Obama to even launch a missile attack. Why? Made no sense.

18:45 here:
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/09/11/obama-speech-syria

 

[Chichikov]

I'll say it. The USA was NOT READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT. Yeah, he got elected. Twice even. But there is an ugly rump of racism that made it such that he could get nothing done. He was damn lucky to get the ACA passed. Yeah, they HATED Clinton. And they had crazy paranoid conspiracy theories about him. But at least they could pass SOMETHING with him in office. The only big thing passed by Obama was the ACA and that was done with zero GOP votes. And since then, they've blocked EVERY substantial thing he's tried to do.

I'm an old white guy so I can say it . . . fucking racism has really retarded Obama from doing much of anything.

It really hit me during the Syria conflict. Syria apparently launched chemical weapons but when Obama tried to launch JUST a missile strike, the right pushed back. And a caller into OnPoint with Tom Ashbrook pointed out that when Bush alleged Saddam MIGHT have chemical weapons, the right backed a land invasion of Iraq . . . and when Syria ACTUALLY launched a chemical attack, the right didn't want Obama to even launch a missile attack. Why? Made no sense.

18:45 here:
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/09/11/obama-speech-syria

I agree that there is a lot of racism in the US and that a big chunk of the population was not ready for a black president, but I think it's more a case of the GOP exploiting racism to undermine a Democratic president than racism motivating the party's agenda.
This has been the GOP's playbook for the last 20 years, for way to long their policy was built around repealing the new deal and (whatever left of) the great society, their problem is that it's just immensely unpopular, so their best hope is to try to undermine everything the Democrats are trying to do in the hope that the worsen situation will help them win the white house.

p.s.
I also don't think that Obama has it worse than Clinton, they cranked it up to 11 on both cases, it's just that in Obama's case is, they can employ racism which is uglier.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I agree that there is a lot of racism in the US and that a big chunk of the population was not ready for a black president, but I think it's more a case of the GOP exploiting racism to undermine a Democratic president than racism motivating the party's agenda.
This has been the GOP's playbook for the last 20 years, for way to long their policy was built around repealing the new deal and (whatever left of) the great society, their problem is that it's just immensely unpopular, so their best hope is to try to undermine everything the Democrats are trying to do in the hope that the worsen situation will help them win the white house.

p.s.
I also don't think that Obama has it worse than Clinton, they cranked it up to 11 on both cases, it's just that in Obama's case is, they can employ racism which is uglier.

Yup Brian Beutler made this point this morning. Its a rich persons agenda which hitched its wagon the post civil rights/secularization resentment http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...bate-all-about-willful-conservative-ignorance

In reality, many if not most liberals correctly believe that the GOP's organizing modus operandi is plutocratic in nature, but that a plutocratic agenda is politically unsustainable without being fused to a distinct populism of some sort. For both historical and natural reasons, the GOP's populism is often the populism of white racial resentment. This is a cardinal fact. It also makes it difficult to trace a boundary between the right's racial and non-racial public appeals.

 

[benjipwns]

Clinton, the first black president, was impeached. Obama hasn't had to face that.

Yet.

But once the Benghazi investigations are finally complete...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Clinton, the first black president, was impeached. Obama hasn't had to face that.

Yet.

But once the Benghazi investigations are finally complete...

The republicans haven't controlled the senate in Obama's term

2015 impeachment #believe

 

[benjipwns]

You don't need the Senate to impeach, just to convict.

Useless Boehner.

 

[zero shift]

Most white people believe it, and also believe whites face more discrimination than blacks today. Obama's presidency has made it worse. I'm not blaming him, although I dislike his refusal to discuss race beyond his typical "these people believe x however these people believe y" rhetoric. But his presence in the WH has crystallized the idea that government dependence=black people, and the idea that hard earned white money is being given to blacks; it's a major reason a lot of southern states haven't expanded Medicaid.

White people are so apathetic in this country because in their eyes there eyes the country is divided as such: The bottom of third which is mostly composed of lazy blacks, mexicans, and puerto ricans who live of the state and live large. Receiving $30,000 a year on welfare on top of the $15,000 they get working from their part time job at 15 hours a week at Walmart. They also aren't taxed. The top quinitile composed of yuppies who had the good life, with the top one percent controlling the entire country. Essentially half of America is composed of leeches and crooks. The other 50% of America is the hardworking and white "middle class" who is suffering from being over taxed, underpaid, and having the fruits of their labor taken by the lazy minorities, the super rich, and (to a lesser extent) the yuppies. If only their was a candidate from the real America in Washington to set things straight. The sad part about this is that this just isn't believed by white people, as that one thread demonstrated a fair share of hispanics and blacks believe this too. Until the people in the ghetto, appalachia, and declining suburbs realize they are on the same side, this mindset will keep persisting.

I'll say it. The USA was NOT READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT.

While true, when were we ever ready for changes in regards of race? We certainly weren't ready for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 or the end of slavery in 1863. Sometimes these things need to be pushed through in order to progress.

 

[speculawyer]

Clinton, the first black president, was impeached. Obama hasn't had to face that.

Yet.

But once the Benghazi investigations are finally complete...

They haven't impeached him because they haven't dug up anything that will stand up. Obama has not handed them a spooge-stained blue dress.


And this is one of the reasons why you know Benghazi, the IRS, and F&F are bullshit . . . they would have gone forward with impeachment if they had anything solid.

They can allege things and get their faithful to go along with them on all 3 . . . but if they tried to run with any of those scandals in an impeachment which would face world-wide press scrutiny . . . they know they'd lose.

 

[benjipwns]

Or they may just realize they can't possibly get a conviction even with legitimate scandals so it will backfire like the Clinton one did.

 

[Aylinato]

Obama won't be on the ballot, and Ohio's economy is improving. Unlikely the PA or FL governors, Kasich seems like he might get away with his recent facade of moderate politics. Same with Snyder in Michigan, I think he's going to be re-elected under similar circumstances.

Michigan's economy has not improved, we are also worse off in education than all but Mississippi and Alabama as a whole.


However Synder will probably be re-elected because of "social issues"


However he sure has fucked up our state for the next 20 years. way to fucking go republicans.