• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

benjipwns

Banned
ZW1GtRB.jpg


http://www.gallup.com/poll/167006/obama-fifth-year-job-approval-ratings-among-polarized.aspx

Note that it took 4 years before the huge partisan divide happened for Bush, while Obama's approval was divided from the absolute start. The divide for Bush lessened over the 6th, 7th, and 8th years because republicans started deciding to disapprove as well. I wonder if Democrats will do that for Obama.
This is just out of curiosity but I'd like to see Bush's first year up until 9/10. Those 90% approvals after are going to skew the whole year. (EDIT: Oh, they have a tool thing: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx Bush's first year gap is about 50-70 points up until 9/11. Right before it's exactly 60 points. Obama's gap has never been lower than 60 points.)

Found the fifth year one interesting:
c5allazdsue473mmtc8qva.png

You can see the Nixon bailout starting with that own party approval matching Bush in 2008-09.

But they back the GOP to the hilt even though the GOP does not support those positions at all.
They tried the third party route, like most people they gave up.
 

Plumbob

Member
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
So while politically the GOP is against the idea of global climate change because they are guzzling big oil's cock, their framing of the issue makes their constituents who are not nearly as savvy when it comes to understanding reasons, just go off the anti science deep end.

It's not just big oil though. Your average religious person doesn't really want to think that man can doom himself when you believe only God has that power, and your average free market libertarian doesn't really want to accept the possibility that there maybe a economic problem out there that the free market really can't solve without government intervention.

And it's not just that, but every single last one of us, liberal and conservative, contribute to climate change in our every day lives. Maybe liberals don't deny it when asked if they believe what the scientists are saying, but there is surely a few times every day where a decision gets made without concern for the climate even if the action contributes to climate change. It's just such an abstract daunting issue that it's easy to treat it like it's just not real, even if you admit it is real. It's certainly that way for me at least.

I'm not trying to make an equivalence here at all, just pointing out that there are other reasons you might want to deny it even without big oil's influence. Big oil just has to take those concerns and use a little money to legitimize it as a possible political position to take.
 
But they back the GOP to the hilt even though the GOP does not support those positions at all.

They are basically just greedy pricks. Don't talk to me about your alleged Libertarian beliefs, you just support anti-tax and anti-regulation stuff out of pure self-financial interest while actively working against positions you allegedly believe in.
Yep, this is exactly why I bear no love for libertarians. Liberal on all the social issues doesn't mean jack if it's all second class to chasing every cent you can get.
 
Can Conservatives Be Funny?
But it’s telling that while conservative comics pick on undocumented immigrant Hispanics and other minorities who don’t have the standing to fight back, they rarely have the guts to make a direct, as opposed to an encoded, joke about those Jews held guilty of ruining Christmas. When ­African-Americans turn up—mainly the president—the gags are usually tamer than, say, Limbaugh’s tirades about women. What the jokes more often express is bewilderment about—and resistance to—the speed of America’s demographic turnover. In Not Cool, Gutfeld writes that “the haters of the old white male forget that it was a hardy group of old white men who created this country.” What bugs Gutfeld now, as it does Dunham’s grumpy old Walter and many present-day American conservatives, is that this country insists on perpetually re-­creating itself, progressively whittling down old white men’s monopoly on power.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I don't know how much it'd be considered "conservative" but B.S. of A is/was pretty funny for being on Glenn Beck's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbbI04_TE6I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7uJXBUx8n4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dLh2j6OxyE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MeEHZHISpU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvziONmDjrs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhtuVTyQRNI

EDIT: One that's a little more straightforward MSNBC mocking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQs6tROdVsA

And Red Eye/Gutfeld was a completely different type of humor before The Five.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
I don't know how much it'd be considered "conservative" but B.S. of A is/was pretty funny for being on Glenn Beck's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbbI04_TE6I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7uJXBUx8n4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dLh2j6OxyE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MeEHZHISpU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvziONmDjrs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhtuVTyQRNI

EDIT: One that's a little more straightforward MSNBC mocking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQs6tROdVsA

And Red Eye/Gutfeld was a completely different type of humor before The Five.

Generally speaking, they're pretty funny. Some cringe-worthy stuff, but I enjoyed most parts of most videos.
 
Change you can believe in.

I understand a force was going to be left there as we did in Iraq, but 10k...that's not a counter terrorism force, it's a fucking army. I guess one could say it's good that Obama isn't letting ideology cloud his assessment of things on the ground but let's face it: things on the ground will always be shit in Afghanistan, does that mean we should stay forever?

Great way to fire up the base for midterms btw.
What happens when the US embassy is being attacked in Kabul?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Change you can believe in.

I understand a force was going to be left there as we did in Iraq, but 10k...that's not a counter terrorism force, it's a fucking army. I guess one could say it's good that Obama isn't letting ideology cloud his assessment of things on the ground but let's face it: things on the ground will always be shit in Afghanistan, does that mean we should stay forever?

Great way to fire up the base for midterms btw.

At least he also announced the date when those troops will be out: the end of his term. Hopefully no leftovers for the next POTUS to deal with. Obama wants getting us out of Afghanistan to be part of his legacy.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Hopefully we're actually out then. I was looking forward to sooner.

But to be honest, have we ever actually left countries entirely we've been active military wise in, of our own accord ? I mean fuck, we still have a base in Germany and Japan, over 50 years later after WW2.
 

Wilsongt

Member
TPM backpat incoming.

The Problem With Blaming Both Sides In Politics

National security blogger John Schindler thinks it’s time for partisans on both ends of the political spectrum to do some soul-searching and realize how they’re hurting the country. Writing at his XX Committee blog, the scholar of military history and strategy who teaches at the U.S. Naval War College accuses true believers on the left and right of being disdainful toward any other perspectives and neglectful toward the facts — making our politics dysfunctional and our country ungovernable in the process. The sensible majority of Americans, according to Schindler, get caught in the middle of this political holy war and either get taken for granted or viewed as dupes whenever they tilt toward the other side.

It’s been just over two years since a pair of the country’s leading students of Congress, Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann, announced their conclusion that both sides are not equally to blame; Republicans are the problem. But because the “plague on both houses” complaint has stayed such a popular flavor of critique, we have to keep reminding ourselves of the facts of what Ornstein and Mann call asymmetric polarization.

Schindler’s piece doesn’t work very well as a diagnosis of our current political discourse. He does highlight some views held by some people on the left and right that are misperceptions or mischaracterizations. Yes, some left- and right-wingers get each other wrong, or distort things to puff themselves up, or make presumptuous claims to speak for the American people. If you want to claim partisan rancor is blocking us from reaching solutions to our problems, though, you have give us ideological views that are actually getting in the way of reaching, you know …

Take Schindler’s analysis of the debate on guns, the stakes of which have been tragically highlighted yet again by this weekend’s violence in Isla Vista, California. On the political right, he duly points out the denial of the very real havoc that results from a country awash in firearms. On the other side, “the Left will not acknowledge that lots of law-abiding Americans have perfectly legitimately [sic] reasons to have guns.” I don’t know about “the Left,” but certainly there are Blue State city dwellers who view gun ownership as a weird fetish. Having spent the bulk of my years in the Acela-serviced Corridor and the past decade in Wisconsin, where deer season is like the high holy days, I recognize the cultural divide Schindler is talking about.

But it’s quite a stretch, to lump together myopic segments of the right and left and blame both sides for gun control gridlock. Trying to paint the gun debate as a standoff between two absolutist positions obscures the fact that only one side in this fight is absolutist. This isn’t an all-or-nothing debate, with Democrats insisting that personal firearms be banned or confiscated. The questions on the table have been about universal background checks, the gun show loophole, and high-capacity magazines. Please tell me how Democrats share blame for blocking these sorts of practical measures.

More at the link.
 
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of people who are basically hardcore Republicans and will always vote straight ticket GOP come November always try to identify themselves as "independents" who dislike both parties?
 

Wilsongt

Member
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of people who are basically hardcore Republicans and will always vote straight ticket GOP come November always try to identify themselves as "independents" who dislike both parties?

Republican has become a nasty, toxic word as of late. Even Cliven Bundy has denounced his Republican party and is an independent.

So, why claim to be with the GOP, when you can just claim independent yet vote for the same yahoos.
 

FLEABttn

Banned
Republican has become a nasty, toxic word as of late. Even Cliven Bundy has denounced his Republican party and is an independent.

So, why claim to be with the GOP, when you can just claim independent yet vote for the same yahoos.

It's mostly branding, but there's a group of people who think that they're above the fray or taking an "enlightened" position by saying they don't associate or belong to either party - but then vote straight ticket.
 
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before in this thread. The reason conservative humor is bad is because it bills itself as the antithesis of "liberal humor." But liberal humor isn't liberal humor - it's "humor." It just so happens that it's easier to mock Republicans than it is to mock Democrats.

I think part of the reason is that humor works best when you mock the comforted. So humor often mocks politicians, sports stars, CEOs, world leaders, etc. Conservative humor often tries to mock the poor & minorities and thus just comes off as mean-spirited.

But conservative humorists often can't seem to figure this out or do it right. And the job ends up being done by more liberal humorists. For example, the great piece by the daily show where they mocked the liberal rich people of Cape Cod fighting against Cape Wind.

Sometimes the conservative humorists figure out that attacking comforted is the right idea by attacking hollywood elites . . . but then they screw it up by attacking them for doing something like helping charity or the environment and thus it again comes off as mean-spirited.
 
It's mostly branding, but there's a group of people who think that they're above the fray or taking an "enlightened" position by saying they don't associate or belong to either party - but then vote straight ticket.

This was essentially me with the Democrats, for a long time. I eventually owned up to it (and the Dems slide to center also helped).
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
This was essentially me with the Democrats, for a long time. I eventually owned up to it (and the Dems slide to center also helped).

Well that's probably better than the people who try to use any excuse to vote for at least one guy on the other side just to feel more independent. Even in 2012 I was like that. Now that I'm paying closer attention, I've learned that it turns out a republican Secretary of State can do plenty to disenfranchise voters, and I've learned that a republican Attorney General can do plenty to fight things like same sex marriage, even if they're both working in a democrat controlled state. So I'll probably be a more boring straight ticket person in the future, with maybe an occasional bone for third parties in races that are already decided.

I think in a political environment as polarized as the one we're in, It's kindof hard to imagine many people honestly feeling ok with voting across parties.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Oh boy, can't wait to hear McCain's thoughts on President Obama's speech at West Point on Blitzer's show. I'm sure he's completely on board.

Spoilers: He doesn't agree with what he pretends it is.
 
Republican has become a nasty, toxic word as of late. Even Cliven Bundy has denounced his Republican party and is an independent.

So, why claim to be with the GOP, when you can just claim independent yet vote for the same yahoos.

Isn't this what happened to the words "liberal" and "democrat" during the late '70s and early '80s? Hopefully it's a sign of things to come.
 
For federal office holders, i vote straight ticket D. At the local level, however, i'll sometimes split ticket. And come march 2015, after the beatdown abbott/patrick put on davis and van de putte, democrats here in texas are gonna be clamoring for the days of perry/dewhurst.
 
Michael Smerconish made a good observation on Overtime of Bill Maher's show.

On Benghazi, he pointed out "Why aren't the Republicans all interested in investigating why we haven't captured the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack yet?" The implication is clear . . . they view Obama as the real enemy, not Al-Qeada. And as PD often points out, that is real evil thing about the Benghazi fetish . . . there is the unstated implication that Obama is the dirty Kenyan Muslim that wants to kill Americans.
 

Retro

Member
This came across my twitter today, thought PoliGAF would enjoy;

bolmmutcmamfw4gr1srx.png


#BENGHAZI is going to be the free space on every political bingo card for the next two years though.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
In a FPTP system, it's basically waste of a vote to pick a 3rd party unless there's practically a 3 way split in support.

It's much harder to neatly split up a population into thirds than it is to split them into halves, though, politically. You essentially need to have all 3 parties hover between 30 and 37-ish percent support. Anything higher or lower and you end up with a runaway plurality victory.
 
We had a runoff vote for who gets to lose to Cornyn yesterday: an ex-Republican and a LaRouche disciple.

The LaRouchie lost but got 24% of the vote, ~54K votes.

XdLcLLr.jpg
 
Watching Maddow getting rabbid over the VA stuff.

Greatest Healthcare System in the world, right?

Don't worry the GOP has already proposed privatizing the VA hospital system and turning it into a voucher program because the private sector is way more efficient than the public sector. Government can't do anything right amirite?
 

kehs

Banned
Don't worry the GOP has already proposed privatizing the VA hospital system and turning it into a voucher program because the private sector is way more efficient than the public sector. Government can't do anything right amirite?

Phew.


Sanders mentioned the influx of people needing VA services in certain areas. Which, no surprise, is areas where people are forced to join military to make ends meet.

It's like a really shitty never ending loop.

Sanders is so awesome....2016?
 

Piecake

Member
I know this will come as a shocker, but minorities do better when democrats are in power

What’s more, this was true in relative terms as well. As they write, “[W]hether we look at the gap between blacks and whites or at the ratio of black to white outcomes, the patterns are essentially identical: Republican administrations were, on average, bad for African Americans and Democratic administrations were, on average, good for them, both in absolute and relative terms.”

Of course, this could all be a fluke—the statistical artifact of broad trends that go beyond presidential politics. It’s possible that Democrats had the good fortune of good economic times while Republicans governed during downturns and recessions. Or, alternatively, the findings could be affected by the influence of divided government and congressional action. As such, Hajnal and Horowitz ran another test that controlled for median income, inflation, changes in the economy, and control of Congress. In each case, the results were the same: “All else equal, black family incomes grew over $1,000 faster annually under Democratic leadership than they did under Republican presidents. Likewise, the black poverty rate declined 2.6 points faster under Democrats and the black unemployment rate fell almost one point faster.”

The variables seem daunting in this sort of study though...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom