Coriolanus
Banned
I can't even get the argument for Walker being a credible threat. "hey, disappointed with the dem's recovery? Vote for this guy! He did an even worse job in his state!"
Rand is most likely relegated to his father's fate.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
I can't even get the argument for Walker being a credible threat. "hey, disappointed with the dem's recovery? Vote for this guy! He did an even worse job in his state!"
Rand is most likely relegated to his father's fate.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
There is a strange sentiment amongst conservatives that Walker actually did a pretty great job. It's predicated mostly on him being tough on unions (because of reasons) and winning his recall election.
The actual condition of the state isn't important, apparently.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's hard to see republicans agreeing on anything here. Continued antagonism benefits them, as well as the hardliners in Iran.
Agreed on Kerry. This could be the second major deal that fizzles with him but has nothing to do with his ability.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Coriolanus
Banned
The electorate that would vote on a Walker candidate because Fuck Unions would most likely never vote in a Democrat, thus, they are irrelevant. The undecideds, however, could most likely be swayed by showing his shit record.
Good thing Huntsman can't ever hope to get past the primaries.
The GOP is aiming to shorten their primary, which is wise. Less debates, less opportunities for the country to see these idiots for who they really are.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Cuomo can't beat whichever "moderate" will win the GOP nom. Live in girlfriend, has outright betrayed NY democrats, is a complete Wall Street shill, etc. Good luck getting the base excited about him.
I don't think Biden could beat decent GOP competition either. He'd have less of a base issue but will be 73 in 2016. I simply don't believe we'll elect anyone that old.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its so frustrating, we have a golden opportunity to reduce conflict with one of our greatest geopolitical foes and we're gonna squander it and increase the risk of a major conflict because war lovers can't get over the fact they can't choose every government in the world (I'm no expert on Iran but I feel with their unitary government the supreme leader can push something through while we have democracy and separation of powers so I would probably blame Congress more, not that Iran isn't without blame, more just the fact its my government's failing)
I hate the iranian government, I don't trust them, they support terrorists unequivocally, have some of the worst human rights records . But you don't choose your negotiating partners and your not going to change them by antagonizing them. And their nuke search is so very clearly driven by self-preservation, born out of the fear driven in part by people that so openly call for regime change.
any kind of deal could be a virtuous cycle to help wind down a lot of the crap going down in the middle east. The US policy in the middle east in congress at least is living in black and white (I know some people on the Foreign Affairs committee and off topic, you should hear some of the stuff they say about certain 'allies' governments). The bad blood raised by people seeking electoral success on the basis of ethnic, religious geopolitical hatred have done much damage.
RustyNails
Member
I am not as pessimistic. I think we have a good chanc of pulling this off. The problem we are having is we cant give the Iranians what we don't have. If we promise them a deal we cant follow up with Congress, the deal will explode and Kerry' reputation will be ruined. So its the Iranians who have to offer concessions and dial back the rhetoric. Zarif sounds like a smart man who understands the political reality on both sides, as well as Rouhani. We have never ever been this close to a deal, and we never will be if it falls through. Remember this is also Obama's legacy which Kerry is aware of. This is the big foreign policy push that usually happens in President's second term. Kerry is a very able negotiator and I trust his insticts. He did an unscheduled overnight in Kabul and rescued Afghanistan from the brink of abyss by delivering a deal to both Abdullah x2 and Ghani on his way to Vienna. Thats pretty crazy. Theres probably gonna be a movie about this if he pulls it off.
Sirpopopop
Member
I know some of what you are talking about APK.
It's why I'm not bullish on the U.S.'. There are many people formulating policy who operate from closed insular minds.
It's why I'm not bullish on the U.S.'. There are many people formulating policy who operate from closed insular minds.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The problem is what can obama and kerry guarantee them? Sanction relief has to come from congress (though I imagine obama can concede things internationally letting other countries). Its election season and you have a bunch of idiots in the senate looking to run for pres (rubio has been the past year going country to country introducing sanctions, I think he's done venezeula, iran, russia, argentina, etc).
Any delay just puts pressure on rouhani and zarif (who clearly is a smart man). If they can't get anything of value they lose political clout. I'm not sure we're gonna like who comes after them.
RustyNails
Member
Obama can force them to. He has some wiggle room in this regqrd. He can simply choose to not sign extending the sanctions on Iran, or veto any bill designed to torpedo the deal. The problem comes if 66 senators don't like it, and its possible they can get that number.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The sanctions expire?
Coriolanus
Banned
Good thing decent competition does not exist, then.
Age is such a meh issue. Americans elected Reagan when he was tripping balls on old age, and 46% of the country voted for McCain, who can barely walk.
If the candidates are close in age, it is a non-issue. If they aren't, then one side will argue that the other is a barely living husk, while the other will argue that the one is an inept baby wet behind his ears. Either way, i'd be hard pressed to believe that anyone ever stopped voting for someone because "nah, too old". A compounding factor? Sure, but until hard data is available, not one that should be given particular weight.
Either way, hilldawg is younger than Joe and she's already being attacked for her age. Warren is freaking 65 and we've people saying that she's inexperienced.
Yea, they put a time limit on stuff like that.
"Obama'a policies have stunted growth across America, including Wisconsin." or some thing to that affect. It's easily side stepped.
RustyNails
Member
Yes, I believe they have a fixed period. In past, they were renewed routinely like it's just business as usual. At the start of the current p5+1 talks, Bob Menendez was championing a new sanctions deal against Iran, which Obama threatened to veto thereby showing Iranians good faith by giving them a 6 month reprieve.
There are also a bunch of executive orders Obama can reverse against Iran that were enacted by Bill Clinton and W.
speculawyer
Member
I think the GOP has harmed their bench by electing so many far-right governors with shitty policy decisions. Walker, Rick Scott, Christie, Kasich, Brownback, Jindal, Bob McDonnell, Rick Perry, and others have all done some far-right stuff that is either unpopular or has blown up in their face as a failure. That makes it very difficult for any of them to have a successful bid. And thus all those clowns wasted Governor seats which could have been good grooming grounds for a potential president nominee.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That's either really forward thinking or really stupid. Probably the later.
Yeah Obama can do a bunch with executive orders
aren't a lot of sanctions just giving authority to treasury? I don't know how much is actually in the statutory text. But I know some of the bigger gives would have to come from congress.
Well the idea is that sanctions are never supposed to last forever, just until we get the country to stop doing whatever it is they've done wrong, and it's easier politically to allow them to run out of time than it is to have congress vote on repealing them.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I know you bring up the "live in girlfriend" thing a lot but I think that's such ridiculous amateur political analysis and it belongs in the 1950s (or even the 1990s).
Your prognosis is dependent on the idea that the GOP will have a decent candidate. They won't. And Romney was a terrible candidate, even if you wanted him to win.
Coriolanus
Banned
"Shittier growth rate than more than half of it's neighbouring states". It's easily brough to fore.
Additionally, a line like that admits his failure.
If you want a clean cut candidate without an ounce of charisma, but that could actually maaaybe pull it off, you'd be better served by Rick Snyder. Alas, primaries, etc.
So, I wonder.. if it looks like Hillary is going to walk to her nomination, what do Democratic voters do during the primaries?
I could envision all sort of naughty mischief-making in open GOP primary states.. do we vote for the most moderate? The kookiest Tea Partier?
I am wondering if we should vote in ways that would keep their primary season going for as long as possible, preventing any one candidate from running away with it too early, keeping their intra-party divide alive and bitter. If they're still fighting months after it should be over, that'd be a beautiful thing.
I could envision all sort of naughty mischief-making in open GOP primary states.. do we vote for the most moderate? The kookiest Tea Partier?
I am wondering if we should vote in ways that would keep their primary season going for as long as possible, preventing any one candidate from running away with it too early, keeping their intra-party divide alive and bitter. If they're still fighting months after it should be over, that'd be a beautiful thing.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I dunno, you could have said the same for 2012 (Obama being the only candidate) but there was little "operation hilarity" going on.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
the sewer called Dick Cheney's mouth seems to have sprung a leak again.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/dick-cheney?s=mobiledarth cheney said:
I would expect it to look like the 2012 primary when Obama walked to his nomination : P
Armoured Priest
Member
So...he wants us to be like the 1980s USSR after the military spending war?
Except even worse off because gutting services.
I thought I smelt shit today. Now I know where it was coming from.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
How Birth Year Influences Political Views
It's a neat tool showing how white people change their views overtime to see if people really do turn republican as they age. There seems to not be a move right at a certain age, but a simple across the board move right during the reagan '80s.
Also interesting is people born in the small window between '49 and '54 stayed democrat for whatever reason. They'd be age 9-14 for the JFK assassination, and age 18-23 for when watergate first started coming out. I guess being even 1 year younger or older than that age group makes those events miss those key formative years.
The tool does not include non-white because non-whites have been pretty consistently democrat no matter the era or age. And you can't forget that non-whites are taking up a larger share of the young demographics than the older ones.
It's a neat tool showing how white people change their views overtime to see if people really do turn republican as they age. There seems to not be a move right at a certain age, but a simple across the board move right during the reagan '80s.
Also interesting is people born in the small window between '49 and '54 stayed democrat for whatever reason. They'd be age 9-14 for the JFK assassination, and age 18-23 for when watergate first started coming out. I guess being even 1 year younger or older than that age group makes those events miss those key formative years.
The tool does not include non-white because non-whites have been pretty consistently democrat no matter the era or age. And you can't forget that non-whites are taking up a larger share of the young demographics than the older ones.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Chait posted about this and why its so silly for people to think republicans have a chance with younger voters due exactly to your bolded. Its false hope for republicans.
I'm not saying it's a good argument, it doesn't need to be when your opponent (Warren) can be characterized as wanting to raise taxes, increase "big government", and cause rampant inflation. The average person is pretty stupid.
That's all I'm saying I'm literally not trying to argue that Walker is a good candidate. However, when the people only want lower taxes and a stronger safety net, the candidate who says they will lower taxes while fixing SSA and medicare is going to beat the candidate who says we need to raise taxes and and spend more... even though raising taxes (or rather increase tax revenue) and spending more is what we need to do.
speculawyer
Member
Does he think some is trying to steal our Constitution?
We only need one man to save it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
PPP polled Georgia:
too bad the winner needs to clear 50%. if that caveat wasn't there i'd be confident in calling Nunn the favorite and Carter a slight underdog.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmPPP said:
too bad the winner needs to clear 50%. if that caveat wasn't there i'd be confident in calling Nunn the favorite and Carter a slight underdog.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Republicans have tried to characterize every last one of their opponents as "wanting to raise taxes, increase "big government", and cause rampant inflation", and that's including Obama and Hilary.
Warren wouldn't be any different there.
Warren wouldn't be any different there.
Coriolanus
Banned
I see.
What I'm saying is that that's not a particularly huge concern, given that the US pop has just elected for the job a guy that said he would raise taxes, and they've done so twice.
If you're willing to vote democrat, it is a given that raising taxes is something that will very well happen. Questions are, on whom and what will you get for it? And Warren seems to be someone that can argue that you'll get an awful lot for it.
Also something something that candidate that will lower taxes lost the last two elections something
TBH my position is more along the lines of "there won't be an opportunity this solid to elect a leftist populist again in a long time, so might as well take it." Why waste it on Hillary?
There are no guarantees when it comes to elections. However 'solid' the opportunity looks, it can be upended, especially during a year in which it's not re-election of the incumbent.
After the Obama years, I think many people think electing another idealistic candidate is not going to fly with Congress as it is. Which is why electing Hillary looks less like 'a waste' and more like a pragmatic decision.
Coriolanus
Banned
Wasn't "playing it safe" the strategy that caused Kerry's loss? And the exact opposite the strategy that got Obama's win?
Aaron Strife
Banned
At this point I think Warren should be VP to Clinton or Biden.
I would love it if Pelosi became Speaker again and the a State of the Union featured three women.
I would love it if Pelosi became Speaker again and the a State of the Union featured three women.
Great read. I'm very cautiously optimistic that we'll get a deal. It seems to me that if it was just up to Obama/Kerry and Rouhani/Zarif we would have had a deal a month ago. It's just a bunch of warmongering shit heads back home in both countries trying to ruin it. It will be extremely difficult, but with the leadership on both sides genuinely giving it their all here, I think we've got a chance for something to happen.
Also, if this nuclear deal is passed, and even better, if it begins a path towards normalizing relations with Iran, it will probably be Obama's greatest accomplishment in his entire Presidency, even above ACA imo. This is exactly why I voted and campaigned for him. I doubt most Democrats or any Republican would be putting this much effort into these negotiations, and if Obama and Kerry succeed, I'd go as far as saying he'll have retroactively earned that Nobel Peace Prize.
Agreed on all points here. It's extremely frustrating seeing people in Congress try to derail peace talks meant to avoid a war.
This is good to hear. Also underlines how important the makeup of the Senate after this election is. Every seat is vital because a lot of Democrats are pretty hawkish and will want to derail this deal (and have already tried).
What an absolutely loathsome, vile, evil sack of flesh. I can't stand it when he opens his damn mouth. I've said this before, but I usually think evil is a hyperbolic and unnecessary word to throw at politicians, even when you really, really don't like them and they're huge assholes. But I think Dick Cheney is literally evil. I've never thought that about any other US politician from my lifetime.
WayneMorse
Banned
I just love reading the stories from Israel and Gaza where a bunch of militants shoot a rocket with the power of a pipe bomb over into Israel that blows a pothole in the road and Israel retaliates by annihilating an entire city block in Gaza, and what's worse is that the US is completely okay with this.
Many will tell you that the militants should know better than to attack/take on a better equipped military. Or that Israel has no duty to limit itself to the same level of firepower as the enemy.
I think as long as they do their best to prevent non combatant casualties, a stronger force is warranted. That's not to imply nuclear weapons but I don't think it's reasonable for them to limit themselves to the same level of weapons.
WayneMorse
Banned
Egypt is brokering a Israel-Palestinian peace talk with a ceasefire tomorrow at 6pm GMT so literally nothing was accomplished in this skirmish except for a bunch of dead Palestinians.
I'm sure there's at least a handful of people in the government that would consider that a worthy accomplishment.
Two-Thirds Of Republicans Think Impeaching Obama Would Be Justified
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/obama-impeachment-poll_n_5584055.html
That's a lot of people, going to be a very ugly midterm but then again we all knew that already.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/obama-impeachment-poll_n_5584055.html
That's a lot of people, going to be a very ugly midterm but then again we all knew that already.
People don't get more conservative as they get older. It's just that their views do. What was considered "progressive" 50 years ago is considered normal nowadays. What changes is that progressive views keep getting more progressive with each generation.
50 years ago, most people who supported the Civil Rights movement didn't support Gay Marriage. 50 years from now, most people who who support Gay Marriage, probably wont support Robot Marriage, or whatever big issue of that time period is.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I feel like you could have asked that a day before Obama's presidency started and that number wouldn't be much lower.
speculawyer
Member
This is a real indictment on the right-wing media. They feed their base so many lies that that they create this torches & pitchforks mob mentality. But as much as they may dislike Obama and his policies . . . you gotta have some crime to bring impeachment. You can't just impeach someone because you don't like them. And no matter how much Fox News fluffs up scandals with exaggeration and insinuation . . . they just don't have a real case of anything. I mean really . . . the best thing they could come up with for their lawsuit against Obama was delaying the employer mandate?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This isn't true. Economic views changed. People supported big government. The same people now detest it.
Its not a common thing and there's nothing inherent making the changes liberal or conservative. But the idea that the world gets more progressive which makes older views look conservative is not supported by history or any evidence. It might be true of marriage but not of other social issues (marijuana was once accepted as were other drugs, secularism was bigger, science education more important)
Aaron Strife
Banned
Are you sure about these? I feel like there's some truth that pot-smoking/secularism have been demonized by previous generations (when older generations were cooler with pot - although I wouldn't think atheism/agnosticism was ever an acceptable position for many people) but they're back on the rise. Look at the polls showing majority support for legalizing marijuana. And American youth are less religious than ever.
- Status