Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

The answer is yes. A corporation is a state agency, and as you have conceded, state agencies do not have rights. The FBI does not have a right of free speech. Neither does Exxon-Mobile. A corporation is not people acting in unison. A person who is acting within the scope of employment for a corporation is acting as an agent of the corporation, not as an individual citizen. This is just as a person who is acting within the scope of employment for the FBI is acting as an agent of the state, not as an individual citizen. We don't concern ourselves with the rights of corporate agents or state agents. They don't have any.

People acting in unison, on the other hand, are agents of themselves. They have all the rights as though they were acting individually, which, after all, they effectively are.
.

Why do you keep referring it to a state agency? Its not a part of the state. The government recognizing a corporation and bestowing it rights doesn't make it part of the government and state.

 

[empty vessel]

Why do you keep referring it to a state agency? Its not a part of the state. The government recognizing a corporation and bestowing it rights doesn't make it part of the government and state.

The government does not "recognize" a corporation. It creates it. Its terms of existence are defined by the State (at its pleasure). Just like the FDA or any other agency. The failure to recognize a corporation as a state agency is an immense social problem and frankly is counterrevolutionary. My view is consistent with the historical understanding of corporations. Yours is a perverted modern view that allows unchecked and undemocratic rule over the people.

For a better understanding of this, see Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance (PDF). I would highly recommend that everybody read it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The government does not "recognize" a corporation. It creates it. Its terms of existence are defined by the State (at its pleasure). Just like the FDA or any other agency. The failure to recognize a corporation as a state agency is an immense social problem and frankly is counterrevolutionary. My view is consistent with the historical understanding of corporations. Yours is a perverted modern view that allows unchecked and undemocratic rule over the people.
.

Yeah, you keep saying things as if they are unquestioned facts. And use certain definition of words to make it so yours is the only proper understanding.

The corporation as a legal entity is 'created by the state' but the reality and association isn't. They are not "state agents" beyond your philosophical view that everything comes from the state which as you know is rather heavily debated.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The answer is yes. A corporation is a state agency,

A corporation is a private association. Point to a single state agency (that people generally understand to be a state agency) that was formed by the will of private individuals filing a single piece of paper with the state government.

A person who is acting within the scope of employment for a corporation is acting as an agent of the corporation, not as an individual citizen.

A person acting within the scope of employment of a corporation is acting in a private capacity as the agent of the corporation, just as a person acting within the scope of employment of an individual is acting in a private capacity as the agent of the individual.

We don't concern ourselves with the rights of corporate agents or state agents.

"We," meaning "everybody but you," actually do concern ourselves with the rights of corporate agents. "We," meaning "you," may not, but your rationale for doing so is unsound.

People acting in unison, on the other hand, are agents of themselves. They have all the rights as though they were acting individually, which, after all, they effectively are.

Of course it's not that simple. If the "people acting in unison" constitute a joint venture or general partnership, then they act as agents of the joint venture or partnership, notwithstanding that such organizations are formed without any kind of government involvement.

I'll check out the document you suggested to APKmetsfan.

 

[AntoneM]

Yeah, you keep saying things as if they are unquestioned facts. And use certain definition of words to make it so yours is the only proper understanding.

The corporation as a legal entity is 'created by the state' but the reality and association isn't. They are not "state agents" beyond your philosophical view that everything comes from the state which as you know is rather heavily debated.

Oh? And you think that the foreign interests of say, Coca Cola, would not be protected by the US government?

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/24rpqs/i_am_martin_omalley_governor_of_maryland_ask_me/

Martin O'Malley did an AMA on Reddit and it was invaded by gun nuts and conservatives. Regardless it was a disaster.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Oh? And you think that the foreign interests of say, Coca Cola, would not be protected by the US government?

I don't know how this makes them state agents. EV's presentation is that every body must get rights from the state, the state is supreme and only through their granting of rights do they become real. I don't share that view.

 

[Manarola]

I don't know how this makes them state agents. EV's presentation is that every body must get rights from the state, the state is supreme and only through their granting of rights do they become real. I don't share that view.

Yeah you could say the sane thing about property. Property doesn't really exist outside of the rights we get to it from the law. Unless you are an ultra libertarian or you think it comes from God or something. I don't see how any of this really matters, though.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah you could say the sane thing about property. Property doesn't really exist outside of the rights we get to it from the law. Unless you are an ultra libertarian or you think it comes from God or something. I don't see how any of this really matters, though.

That's pretty central debate in political philosophy and its something again I don't share in believing. The fact that the enforcement of property rights doesn't exist outside of government is different than saying property doesn't.

 

[empty vessel]

Yeah, you keep saying things as if they are unquestioned facts. And use certain definition of words to make it so yours is the only proper understanding.

The corporation as a legal entity is 'created by the state' but the reality and association isn't. They are not "state agents" beyond your philosophical view that everything comes from the state which as you know is rather heavily debated.

Under your theory of the corporate form, corporations have constitutional rights, and there is no basis for limiting them in any way. In short, Metaphoreus wins the argument between you and him.

A corporation is a private association. Point to a single state agency (that people generally understand to be a state agency) that was formed by the will of private individuals filing a single piece of paper with the state government.

That is not how corporations historically were formed. What happened was that their creation became liberalized. But liberal creation of state agencies--essentially for the asking--does not render them non-state agencies. It renders them state agencies that are recklessly created. As the paper I linked to put it:

Because legislatures controlled the granting of corporate charters, most of the charters went to politically well-connected and wealthy individuals who became richer and more influential though their corporations. Many of these early corporations received monopoly rights as part of their charter and they pushed hard for other advantages that were not always in the public's interest, testing the government's control over corporate action. ... The situation was complicated by proposals to open up the chartering process so that anyone could obtain a corporate charter, and thus to eliminate the air of political privilege surrounding the process of incorporation. Andrew Jackson promoted this solution, and "sprinkled holy water on corporations, cleansing them of the legal status of monopoly and sending them forth as the benevolent agencies of free competition." The hope was, in other words, to mitigate the problems created by the corporate form through further incorporation.​

Of course, I, too, see the privileged granting of corporate charters as potentially problematic. However, the cure (liberalization of creation) was in my opinion far worse than the disease. At least in the absence of rigorous regulation and oversight.

It is interesting to me the different ways in which corporations are viewed. Consider Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are corporations chartered by the federal government, and many view those as federal entities (they are). But they are no different from any corporation created by a state government. Yet the liberal creation of corporations--essentially for the asking--has caused us to wrongly view the corporate formation as something that individuals do, instead of something that the state does. That view is erroneous, and leads to all sorts of mischief, including the bestowal of rights on the corporate form and the undermining of popular sovereignty. If corporations are state entities (and they are), then granting rights to corporations is effectively giving the government rights to hold as against the people, which destroys the concept of popular sovereignty (people rule). It is a theory of inherent state power.

I don't know how this makes them state agents. EV's presentation is that every body must get rights from the state, the state is supreme and only through their granting of rights do they become real. I don't share that view.

That's the opposite of what I believe. I believe in popular sovereignty, which is why I view corporations as a state entity. People-->government-->corporation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Under your theory of the corporate form, corporations have constitutional rights, and there is no basis for limiting them in any way. In short, Metaphoreus wins the argument between you and him.

I believe the association that is at the backbone has some constitutional rights, yes. Not all of them. I think there is a lot of distinction there. And a balancing test which as the corporation gets bigger gives more and more leeway to the government.

That's the opposite of what I believe. I believe in popular sovereignty, which is why I view corporations as a state entity. People-->government-->corporation.

This is restating the same thing. You think that people get their rights from others. I don't. Rights are inherent and not subject to popular whims.

 

[Manarola]

That's pretty central debate in political philosophy and its something again I don't share in believing. The fact that the enforcement of property rights doesn't exist outside of government is different than saying property doesn't.

Do you think property exists outside of the rights assigned to it?

 

[empty vessel]

This is restating the same thing. You think that people get their rights from others. I don't. Rights are inherent and not subject to popular whims.

Rights are certainly not inherent. If I am alone on a deserted island, I certainly have no rights, because rights by definition are what other people acting in collective form are not allowed to do to me. And if there are no other people, it is incoherent to speak of rights. So in some sense, yes, one "gets" rights from others. A people have to agree about what rights will be respected. But one does not get them from the state nor from a corporation. The state simply gets deprived of the power to act in the spheres designated by the people as rights. As should corporations as agents of the state.

In a discussion about rights, it is important to distinguish between descriptive (or empirical) rights (which rights are observed in practice) and prescriptive (or normative) rights (rights which one believes ought to be observed in practice).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Do you think property exists outside of the rights assigned to it?

Yes. But these rights can easily be violated without government. Its one of the reasons for a government. I don't think its inviolate though. Property exists though, but the vast land holdings are only possible because of government. Otherwise property would be limited to what you could defend, which isn't much.

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all."

Rights are certainly not inherent. If I am alone on a deserted island, I certainly have no rights, because rights by definition are what other people acting in collective form are not allowed to do to me. And if there are no other people, it is incoherent to speak of rights. So in some sense, yes, one "gets" rights from others. A people have to agree about what rights will be respected. But one does not get them from the state nor from a corporation. The state simply gets deprived of the power to act in the spheres designated by the people as rights. As should corporations as agents of the state.

In a discussion about rights, it is important to distinguish between descriptive (or empirical) rights (which rights are observed in practice) and prescriptive (or normative) rights (rights which one believes ought to be observed in practice).

You can't present this as fact. Its not, its inherently an opinion. And there is a difference between rights and your "rights that will be respected".

 

[empty vessel]

You can't present this as fact. Its not, its inherently an opinion. And there is a difference between rights and your "rights that will be respected".

What is a right that is not observed? It's a prescriptive right, i.e., a right you believe ought to be observed. In other words, it's just an opinion that you possess about which rights should be observed. But it is not itself a right.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What is a right that is not observed?

A right not observed

 

[Jack Remington]

WSJ Opinion Writer doesn't know how implementation works, pens more outraged drivel.

Standing to Sue Obama

The legal left and media are always last to know, but there are the makings of a correction in how the courts police conflicts between the political branches. President Obama's serial executive power abuses—on health care, immigration, marijuana and much else—may be inspiring a heathy rejoinder.

Under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to create and amend laws and the President to faithfully execute them, but Mr. Obama has grabbed inherent Article I powers by suspending or rewriting statutes he opposes. The President has usurped Congress with impunity because he assumes no one has the legal standing to challenge him.

...

The Washington lawyer David Rivkin and Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Foley suggest a broader approach that doesn't require legislators to act as individuals. They're trying to persuade House leaders to mount an institutional challenge to the White House rewrite of ObamaCare's employer mandate. Here the President is defying the plain language of laws and undermining legislative power. The courts ought to extend standing to the House as an institution to vindicate this injury. Short of impeachment, there is no other way for Congress to defend its constitutional prerogatives and the rule of law.

 

[empty vessel]

A right not observed

I was going to write a long response to this, but I fear it's way too tangential to the discussion. I do love to discuss rights theory, however. Somebody should make a thread or something.

 

[AntoneM]

I don't know how this makes them state agents. EV's presentation is that every body must get rights from the state, the state is supreme and only through their granting of rights do they become real. I don't share that view.

They aren't citizens/residents. You seem to agree they aren't independent entities. I'd say "agent of the state" is a pretty good description of a corporation.

 

[Jooney]

Supreme Court just endorsed religion. 5-4. Guess who!

Kennedy is willfully stupid here

SCOTUS on that terrible losing streak.

Justice Kennedy did suggest that some prayers may be unacceptable if offered consistently over time, including ones that “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation or preach conversion.”

Why is government restricting the free exercise of religion? Who's going to arbitrate if a prayer is repeated an unacceptable number of times, or crosses over the line into denigration of religious minorities?

Prayer may be "a recognition that ...many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond that authority of government to alter or define", but I am not sure what that has to do with the conduct of government business.

EDIT:, Oh, I didn't realise there was a thread in OT

 

[empty vessel]

People interested in the topic of the corporate form should also read this transcript of a 1997 speech by Richard Grossman on corporate charters. It's fairly short.

 

[thepotatoman]

So the generic ballot seemed to really take a huge turn for the worse for democrats over the last 3 weeks or so across USA Today/Pew Research, Rassumussen, and Fox News polls giving republicans a 2-4 point lead. This is the first time republicans got a streak of really good polls there since the website debacle died down.

I really can't figure out what's going on with that. Did Bundy actually strike a chord with voters? Is the democratic midterm defeat becoming a self fulfilling prophecy? PAC advertising already underway and making strides? Just bad luck with multiple outlier polls lining up in a row?

 

[Jack Remington]

Repubs lead 47-43 on the generic ballot.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/2014-midterm-elections-gop-poll-106337.html?hp=l3

Republicans are beating Democrats in a generic ballot for the 2014 midterm elections — a reversal from just two months ago, a new poll says.
According to a Pew Research poll released Monday, 47 percent said they would vote for the GOP candidate in their district while 43 percent said they would vote for the Democrat.

The 4-percentage-point edge is an improvement for the GOP. Just two months ago, Democrats had a 46 percent-44 percent edge in the Pew generic ballot.

Bad news for everyone.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Of course people don't lose their constitutional rights when joining a corporation, I don't think anyone argues that, the question here is whether or not the constitution limits what rules and regulations you can put on them.
And this is not some random sophistry, there is a clear legal and financial distinction whether someone is acting on their own personal behalf or in the corporation's name.

p.s.
By the way, the problem with citizen united is much more the stupid assertion than money equals speech than corporate personhood.

I'd say almost as big a problem is that the Supreme Court went off on a complete tangent with their citizen united ruling - the constitutionality of section 203 of the BCRA was never raised to the courts. The issue reaised before the courts was whether or not Citizens United violated the BCRA. Typically a constitutional challenge to the BCRA would need to be brought before the courts for them to rule upon it.

 

[Jooney]

As an electoral strategy for the midterms, what do people think of the democrats pivoting to:
1) being more aggressive on pushing the benefits of the ACA; and
2) bringing up the republican shutdown of 2013?

 

[Aaron Strife]

1 is necessary. The law's been a huge success and will define Obama's legacy, running away from it would be stupid. The last Democratic president (hell, president even - though HW gets props for Americans with Disabilities Act) to pass a law with this kind of magnitude was LBJ.

2... Eh, maybe. But it's kind of old news at this point so I don't know.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Man. Politics has become sooooo boring lately.

Dammit.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/u...ders-telling-town-live-free-or-else.html?_r=1

Libertarians are nuts

Also, some Gaffer is at the press briefing

 

[KingK]

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/24rpqs/i_am_martin_omalley_governor_of_maryland_ask_me/

Martin O'Malley did an AMA on Reddit and it was invaded by gun nuts and conservatives. Regardless it was a disaster.

I hate Reddit's format. I can't follow what the fuck is going on ever on that site.

So the generic ballot seemed to really take a huge turn for the worse for democrats over the last 3 weeks or so across USA Today/Pew Research, Rassumussen, and Fox News polls giving republicans a 2-4 point lead. This is the first time republicans got a streak of really good polls there since the website debacle died down.

I really can't figure out what's going on with that. Did Bundy actually strike a chord with voters? Is the democratic midterm defeat becoming a self fulfilling prophecy? PAC advertising already underway and making strides? Just bad luck with multiple outlier polls lining up in a row?

Yeah, this is pretty unexpected, imo. I can't really think of any recent events that would have caused a shift like that. If anything I was thinking the continued success of the ACA would keep Dem's numbers inching upwards. This is really bad news.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Shocking, the Check your privilege guy was bankrolled by conservatives

What does all that bakshish buy? Quite a lot. Since Buckley's time, the ISI and its Collegiate Network have been responsible for molding much of the right-wing blogosphere. Ann Coulter got her start at the Cornell Review, a CN publication. Dinesh D'Souza cut his teeth writing for the CN-funded Dartmouth Review as an undergrad. "I learned the ins and outs of taking on the far Left as the editor of the Virginia Advocate," current National Review editor Rich Lowry says of his time running a CN-sponsored publication in college.

One of Collegiate Network's founders is John Podhoretz, the conservative scion and editor of Commentary, who spent some time on Twitter praising and promoting Fortgang's piece without ever acknowledging that his group had helped make its publication possible.

Another ISI/CN beneficiary, Matt Continetti, once invited a younger, more libertarian me to contribute to conservative causes with him on our campus at Columbia University. (I declined.) Continetti later married the daughter of Bill Kristol, the leading neocon who founded the Weekly Standard and first pushed Sarah Palin as vice presidential material. Continetti went on to become a Weekly Standard editor and pen a fawning biography of Palin. He recently founded the Washington Free Beacon, a tabloidy blog site for millennial Beltway righties who hate liberals but love craft beer.

Continetti's favorable career arc all began, however, with an internship at National Review, arranged by the Collegiate Network. His job was to assist Rich Lowry, the Virginia CN alumnus. The group's alumni network clearly takes care of its own.

http://gawker.com/conservative-mone...m_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Oh and he's said horrible things

By the way, 'liberators of "palestine"', confident in your god of war: you are living at Israel's mercy. Shut up before they've had enough.
— Tal Fortgang (@PastramiOnWry) November 21, 2012

tweeting about how justice hasn't been served and 'how did we not convict Zimmerman?' makes me want to punch you all in your fat idiot faces
— Tal Fortgang (@PastramiOnWry) July 14, 2013

 

[zero shift]

By the way, 'liberators of "palestine"', confident in your god of war: you are living at Israel's mercy. Shut up before they've had enough.
— Tal Fortgang (@PastramiOnWry) November 21, 2012

He'd fit right in with GAF.

 

[thepotatoman]

As an electoral strategy for the midterms, what do people think of the democrats pivoting to:
1) being more aggressive on pushing the benefits of the ACA; and
2) bringing up the republican shutdown of 2013?

1. I'd say no. The individual mandate will always be a touchy subject towards the democratic base that is still pissed there's no single payer or public option in the plan. It's theoretically possible that it could be spun into a positive, but I think most likely it's going to go no further than being simple damage control in a time when they need more than that.

Remember that a large part of the story as told by democrats is that this is a republican plan, and I would say a large part of the turnout problem is the perception from lefties that both republicans and democrats are the same thing. A constant defense on things that are basically seen as centrist and status quo isn't going to do a whole lot to increase motivation from people to make the effort to vote.

2. Ideally it should work, but it probably wouldn't. The biggest problem is people don't really see the long term consequences to make it seem like a big enough deal to care about. Sold in the right way it maybe has that base rallying power I think dems should be looking for, but I feel I would need tests and polls before

Minimum wage, pay equality, non-discrimination, social security, abortion, citizens united. I think that's the best chance they have at winning the turnout battle without alienating the moderates, and it does seem to be the one they're using and were succeeding with until the last batch of polls. For that my best guess is the Ukraine crisis is beginning to really hurt the democrats. That's where the conversation is failing the democrats right now. Right now its basically:

Democrats: "We want sanctions on Russia and maybe possibly to talk about arming Ukrainians with American weapons, but there's only so much the US can do"

Republicans: "We want sanctions on Russia and maybe possibly to talk about arming Ukrainians with American weapons, but the Democrats are letting Putin walk all over us"

Honestly the Republican message is resonating better right now, particularly after they matured their statements to no longer use childish insults like "mom jeans" and the crisis evolved past Crimea. I worry if Ukraine continues to be an issue all the way to the elections it could be an extremely harsh election for democrats in more ways than just the makeup of the class of senators up for election. And that seems like a very realistic possibility with no real good counter to change things given just the historical views of the two parties' foreign policies.

 

[The Librarian]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/463406366514618368

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The problem for democrats is the country doesn't believe the Republicans believe what they say they believe.

There was focus testing done on this in 2012. The majority of people believe the republicans don't believe their own party platform.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/463406366514618368

lol 61

 

[PhoenixDark]

1 is necessary. The law's been a huge success and will define Obama's legacy, running away from it would be stupid. The last Democratic president (hell, president even - though HW gets props for Americans with Disabilities Act) to pass a law with this kind of magnitude was LBJ.

2... Eh, maybe. But it's kind of old news at this point so I don't know.

I think democrat's lack of enthusiasm is largely due to the economy being poor and this being 6 years of campaigning about shit that isn't going to happen. People pretty much know immigration reform, minimum wage, "tax cuts for companies that ship jobs back to the US" etc aren't going to happen. It becomes an issue of self defeat as democrats say "nothing will get done so why vote" which only ensures...nothing gets done because republicans win House seats.

Running on Obamacare makes sense to me. It's something concrete that has been achieved, and now needs to be protected. That strikes me as a better way to fire up voters than "republicans won't pass immigration reform" or Koch brother shit.

I wish democrats would act like republicans in terms of adopting universal talking points. Why not spend a few weeks focusing on republicans wanting to take healthcare from 22-25yo young people on their parents' plans. Weeks on republicans wanting to take coverage from people with pre-existing conditions. And when republicans try to argue they support that stuff, hammer them on not having a plan to replace Obamacare.

 

[thepotatoman]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/463406366514618368

I'd be curious about what the democrat primary looks like. It's possible retired white people are the only ones to vote in primary elections for either party.

 

[thepotatoman]

Yeah, this is pretty unexpected, imo. I can't really think of any recent events that would have caused a shift like that. If anything I was thinking the continued success of the ACA would keep Dem's numbers inching upwards. This is really bad news.

After thinking about it more, I really think it has to be the Ukraine situation becoming bigger than just Crimea.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Better news for Dems.

CNN poll says 45-46 for Rs in House but want Dems to control senate

Also #BENGHAZI

 

[GaimeGuy]

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

 

[thepotatoman]

Better news for Dems.

CNN poll says 45-46 for Rs in House but want Dems to control senate

That seems to support my worries more than ease them. It's just further proof that the shift to republicans being popularly favored isn't a result of an outlier poll but an actual shift in public opinion.

As for the senate poll the wording is:

According to the poll, if Republicans retain the House, 42% say they want the GOP to also win back the Senate. But 45% say they want the Democrats to keep control of the upper chamber.

I think that "if" muddies that stat too much to make any good analysis of it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That seems to support my worries more than ease them. It's just further proof that the shift to republicans being popularly favored isn't a result of an outlier poll but an actual shift in public opinion.

As for the senate poll the wording is:



I think that "if" muddies that stat too much to make any good analysis of it.

I think what your seeing is independents come home. Look at the RCP link. Dems numbers aren't going down the GOPs are going up (Dems number have gone up in the month which I think is dem affiliated indys happy with ACA). Its primary season, people are seeing a lot of GOP ads in many states as well. Dems haven't really countered.

I don't want to get your hopes up but this isn't anything more than something happening that was inevitable

 

[Gotchaye]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/463406366514618368

They are the 97%!

 

[Mario]

Better news for Dems.

CNN poll says 45-46 for Rs in House but want Dems to control senate

Also #BENGHAZI

Satisfying to see them getting quieter and quieter about Obamacare. They know that battle is lost.

 

[thepotatoman]

I think what your seeing is independents come home. Look at the RCP link. Dems numbers aren't going down the GOPs are going up (Dems number have gone up in the month which I think is dem affiliated indys happy with ACA). Its primary season, people are seeing a lot of GOP ads in many states as well. Dems haven't really countered.

I don't want to get your hopes up but this isn't anything more than something happening that was inevitable

That's very possible too, but that still doesn't really explain the midterm gap, unless you're saying this is the default position of the country and Obama is the true outlier. If that's the case, that's the truly hopeless explanation, where the best we can hope for is gridlock until whites finally become a minority..

 

[PhoenixDark]

Better news for Dems.

CNN poll says 45-46 for Rs in House but want Dems to control senate

Also #BENGHAZI

Goes back to my point about messaging. Obamacare wasn't destroyed, and trutherism over enrollment numbers is a farce considering no matter how they skew it, at least 5-6mil people have coverage now. So until Obamacare is vulnerable again (ie business mandates, premium increases regardless of how low, etc) they have moved on to the next high blood pressure issue: Benghazi.

The special investigation won't dig up anything new but will drag Hillary's name in the mud for a bit and ultimately release a report that claims "more could have been done." And then they'll be back to Harry Reid before returning to Obamacare.

In short I think Kos is wrong. He argues they have pivoted to Benghazi because Obamacare isn't working out for them...but it is. The law is still unpopular, and for every poll that shows it recovering another poll comes out that shows it struggling. So the GOP isn't "retreating" they're simply cycling through their talking points.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's very possible too, but that still doesn't really explain the midterm gap, unless you're saying this is the default position of the country and Obama is the true outlier. If that's the case, that's the truly hopeless explanation, where the best we can hope for is gridlock until whites finally become a minority..

Have to adjust their LV models. Its not the same polling group as 2012, 2008 because they're not going to be the same voters.

Goes back to my point about messaging. Obamacare wasn't destroyed, and trutherism over enrollment numbers is a farce considering no matter how they skew it, at least 5-6mil people have coverage now. So until Obamacare is vulnerable again (ie business mandates, premium increases regardless of how low, etc) they have moved on to the next high blood pressure issue: Benghazi.

The special investigation won't dig up anything new but will drag Hillary's name in the mud for a bit and ultimately release a report that claims "more could have been done." And then they'll be back to Harry Reid before returning to Obamacare.

In short I think Kos is wrong. He argues they have pivoted to Benghazi because Obamacare isn't working out for them...but it is. The law is still unpopular, and for every poll that shows it recovering another poll comes out that shows it struggling. So the GOP isn't "retreating" they're simply cycling through their talking points.

I agree completely

 

[Aaron Strife]

The most shocking part of the article:

All this sturm und drang over a less than $0.50/hr parking fee. Jesus H. W. Christ.

Libertarian warriors are the fucking worst people on the planet

 

[StopMakingSense]

Best graph i've seen in months.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

a less than $0.50/hr parking fee.

AKA fascism

 

[Aaron Strife]

Best graph i've seen in months.

I'm gonna disagree with PD on his "cycling through talking points" theory. The GOP is pivoting to Benghazi because the thing with Bundy blew up in their faces. As for Obamacare, I'm sure they'll still run on it but you can't deny they've moderated their language considerably. It's not "repeal" anymore, it's "reform."

It's not that the law is popular (it's not) but I think many voters see it as a first step, as something we needed even if it has problems of its own. The fact that the GOP has wasted so much time on it has to be grating.

And for how far-out something like immigration reform is, who the fuck actually thinks Obamacare is going to repealed anytime soon? Even if the GOP won the majority in the Senate, Obama would still be president for 2 more years. And even if his successor was a Republican (which chances are low of if Hillary gets in), that Senate majority would be extremely vulnerable in 2016. That fantasy died when Obama was reelected and Democrats expanded their Senate majority in 2012.

Really hoping North Carolina's GOP primary goes into a runoff tonight. Thom Tillis isn't a great candidate but he's much better than Greg Brannon.