Support NeoGAF

[neurosisxeno]

The Hill: Five figures on the left who could challenge Hillary Clinton

You are going to be shocked by the list they come up with:

Spoiler

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
Vice President Biden
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)

:dead

As someone who has voted for Sanders twice at the state level, I want him nowhere near a presidential ticket. I could see him maybe getting a VP nod, but for the love of god keep him out of the oval office.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Dan McLaughlin ‏@baseballcrank 7m
If you're a fan of public employee collective bargaining, don't act surprised that it's hard to discipline bad cops.

this is so stupid. that's not why its hard to discipline bad cops, the prestige is why. The public hasn't demanded it.

Union employees have strict regulations in a lot of professions

 

[benjipwns]

this is so stupid. that's not why its hard to discipline bad cops, the prestige is why. The public hasn't demanded it.

Does the public know that police union contracts tightly define "due process" so as to prevent discipline?

 

[jamesinclair]

Why do people keep bringing up Cuomo?

He's a corrupt fuck.

News Analysis: These Bedfellows Are No Strangers
Cuomo-Christie Alliance Serves The Governors, Not The Governed
Friday, August 15, 2014

The two share national political ambitions. They share top donors like Ken Langone, the Home Depot founder, and big union support like the Port Authority PBA and the New Jersey Laborers. They share political allies like Rudy Giuliani. Advisors to Christie and Cuomo work at the same consulting firm. The two governors even use the same line in their speeches about not being seen as the “butt of late night jokes!” (Christie) or “literally a joke on late night TV!” (That’s Cuomo.)

...

It’s hard to argue, given what’s going on in Washington right now, that an all-out partisan war between Cuomo and Christie would be a good thing. But the cooperation between the two so overpowers their differences that voters can rightly ask whether honest public debate — and honest government — has been stifled

http://www.wnyc.org/story/christie-and-cuomo/


In related corrupt fuck news

Since taking office, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has diverted more than $1 billion in environmental funds to the state's general fund.

Most of that comes from the state's Clean Energy Fund which gets its money from the Societal Benefits Charge on residents' gas and electric bills. The fund is supposed to support energy efficiency projects, but more than $900 million has been used to pay for things like keeping the lights on at state buildings and paying utility bills at NJ Transit, or the money has simply flowed into the general fund.

"The governor’s philosophy on environmental funding is take as much as you can as quickly as you can and hope no one’s asked questions," he said.

...

Meanwhile, Brigid Callahan Harrison, a professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University, says that what's happening in New Jersey is part of a broader trend. Across the river in New York, Governor Cuomo plans to borrow more than $250 million dollars from the state’s clean water fund to help pay for the new Tappan Zee Bridge.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/nj-budget...&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wnyc-twitter

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Does the public know that police union contracts tightly define "due process" so as to prevent discipline?

I think you have it backwards, the public has had their due process rights horribly minimized, unionized employees have a proper sense of the term.

And that doesn't prevent discipline, they can be charged with crimes all the same. If they wanted to investigate them, they could. Unionism doesn't change that.

 

[benjipwns]

I think you might want to look into police union contracts. They very specifically outline the discipline and investigation procedures as well as grant protections no "civilian" would get.

A couple examples:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...work-half-drunk-chicago-investigation-reveals

Many suburban Chicago departments actually have clauses in their union contracts which prevent any kind of discipline for officers with substantial amounts of alcohol in their systems -- even those nearing the state definition of legally drunk

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...rison-after-photographing-cops-making-arrest/

Buehler said this is a policy stemming from the police union’s contract that states the investigation will only be made public if the accusations against the officer were substantiated.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/2304...rs-body-worn-cameras-a-win-for-accountability

Departments in Denver, Colorado; Spokane, Washington; and Oregon have implemented policies including 72-hour review policies for officers involved in shootings. Some of these policies have since been eliminated, according to Walker, but it could still be a sign of a worrying trend for police accountability on the horizon.
"If it was a civilian who shot someone, [police officers] wouldn't give them 72 hours," said Ron Hampton, former executive director of the National Black Police Association and a former police officer. "So why would we give a police officer 72 hours to get his or her story together so that they can sit and talk to someone and have all of their 'I's' dotted and their 'T's' crossed? That does a disservice to transparency."
...
"The officers are going to lawyer-up, there's no question in my mind, they're going to lawyer-up in that process, in that time. If they think they made some mistake then how do we know that what they are going to say to you 72 hours later is accurate?"
...
According to Walker and Hampton, most of these review period provisions are typically included in police union contracts.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think you might want to look into police union contracts. They very specifically outline the discipline and investigation procedures as well as grant protections no "civilian" would get.

A couple examples:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...work-half-drunk-chicago-investigation-reveals

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...rison-after-photographing-cops-making-arrest/

http://truth-out.org/news/item/2304...rs-body-worn-cameras-a-win-for-accountability

I stand by my statement.

Your first: cops are held the the same standard as citizens. Personally I disagree, but that doesn't mean cops are treated better.

Second: Unions aren't preventing the substantiation, cops protecting their own is. unionism facilitates this but its not that cause and its not the solution to get rid of it, the solution is having an independent investigative unit that's really independent

third: Cops are ensured their right to consul and against self-incrimination protected in the constitution. Again the problem isn't the cop doesn't talk (5th amendment anyone?) the problem is that's treated as the be all end all of investigation and cops aren't held to account by any independent agency that's actually truly independent investigating this crime. Most likely because the public (mostly white) is comfortable with the current structure.

Its shifting the conversation away from the real problems to attack a target the right wants to attack anyways and cynically using peoples disgust at the police to attack their rights.

 

[speculawyer]

I think you might want to look into police union contracts. They very specifically outline the discipline and investigation procedures as well as grant protections no "civilian" would get.

A couple examples:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...work-half-drunk-chicago-investigation-reveals

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...rison-after-photographing-cops-making-arrest/

http://truth-out.org/news/item/2304...rs-body-worn-cameras-a-win-for-accountability

You seem to be confused between union discipline and legal discipline. A union is not a criminal justice system. We have a criminal justice system, that is what is used to discipline police. That and the regulations of the police department (which are not the same as the union). The union rules are always subservient to the criminal laws. I'm not sure why you think it is the union's job to discipline police. Do you expect husbands to beat their wives if the wife commits a crime? No, the criminal justice handles it.

 

[benjipwns]

Its shifting the conversation away from the real problems to attack a target the right wants to attack anyways and cynically using peoples disgust at the police to attack their rights.

It's not shifting anything away from "the real problems" because one of the real problems is that police unions do directly contribute to this lack of accountability and it's in the interests of not only the police and their union but politicians and prosecutors to do nothing to punish police.

Politicians are "negotiating" on behalf of the public, with the public's money to create contracts with an organization that can make life quite miserable for the politicians through multiple means including using some of that money against them.

And this latter organization is "tasked" with public safety and enforcement of the laws.

Public servants have no reason to collectively bargain with another interested party against the taxpayers. They can't be "exploited" by the employer.

You seem to be confused between union discipline and legal discipline. A union is not a criminal justice system. We have a criminal justice system, that is what is used to discipline police. That and the regulations of the police department (which are not the same as the union). I'm not sure why you think it is the union's job to discipline police. Do you expect husbands to beat their wives if the wife commits a crime? No, the criminal justice handles it.

I'm not confused. The terms of the contract are what specify the due process, police are awarded contractually negotiated investigations and discipline prior to their due process rights as citizens. Rarely if ever do the police face the due process you or I would, instead they go through that which is defined by their union contract because it's obstinately "job related" as if their job is the same as any other.

The police would have to arrest their own to elevate them to the public standard, but that's not in their interest when they have the protections of the contracted standard.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Public servants have no reason to collectively bargain with another interested party against the taxpayers.

this is exactly what it all boils down to for you and libertarians, certain people lose their rights because they have a certain job.

It has nothing to do with Ferguson or why police aren't prosecuted for their crimes which is why it is shifting the conversation away from the real problem. There is nothing stopping the formation of a separate IA type organization whose sole job it is to investigate the police. Unionism doesn't stop that, the public not wanting it does.

 

[benjipwns]

this is exactly what it all boils down to for you and libertarians, certain people lose their rights because they have a certain job.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

 

[speculawyer]

In an interview with former Navy chaplain turned conservative activist Gordon “Dr. Chaps” Klingenschmitt, Colorado state senator Randy Baumgardner (R) dismissed concerns over methane from fracking operations posing a risk to water supplies by saying it’s a natural occurrence.

“I’ve been to a lot of the fracking seminars,” Baumgardner said.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that also happens to be highly flammable. But, according to the state senator, methane in water supplies actually served to benefit Native American tribes. “They talk about methane in the water and this, that, and the other,” Baumgardner told Klingenschmitt, “but if you go back in history and look at how the Indians traveled, they traveled to the burning waters. And that was methane in the waters and that was for warmth in the wintertime. So a lot of people, if they just trace back the history, they’ll know how a lot of this is propaganda.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/13/3470637/colorado-legislator-fracking-water/

If you read your history, you'll learn that the Romans also used a lot of lead . . . but that doesn't mean it was good for them. Conservatives . . . hitting new heights of stupid.

 

[FLEABttn]

FDR quote? FDR quote.

 

[benjipwns]

FDR quote? FDR quote.

When he's right, he's right:
The moment a mere numerical superiority by either States or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and, for their own selfish purposes or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights - that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system.

For this reason a proper understanding of the fundamental powers of the States is very necessary and important. There are, I am sorry to say, danger signals flying. A lack of study and knowledge of the matter of sovereign power of the people through State government has led us to drift insensibly toward that dangerous disregard of minority needs which marks the beginning of autocracy. Let us not forget that there can be an autocracy of special classes or commercial interests which is utterly incompatible with a real democracy whose boasted motto is, "of the people, by the people and for the people." Already the more thinly populated agricultural districts of the West are bitterly complaining that rich and powerful industrial interests of the East have shaped the course of government to selfish advantage.

The doctrine of regulation and legislation by "master minds," in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last ten years. Were it possible to find "master minds" so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.

Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm not confused. The terms of the contract are what specify the due process, police are awarded contractually negotiated investigations and discipline prior to their due process rights as citizens. Rarely if ever do the police face the due process you or I would, instead they go through that which is defined by their union contract because it's obstinately "job related" as if their job is the same as any other.

The police would have to arrest their own to elevate them to the public standard, but that's not in their interest when they have the protections of the contracted standard.

The judicial system determines what is due process. The contract can say anything it wants but it is not enforceable over the judicial system. The judicial system is not a party in such a contract, it is in no way beholden to whatever is in the contract. Just because they use the same words 'due process' that doesn't make them authoritative. If the police don't like it then tough.

I understand that the police will 'protect their own' but it is up to the state to use a different set of law enforcement (sheriffs, federal prosecutors, etc.) if the police are out of line and not cooperation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

FDR quote? FDR quote.

It comes up every time as if someone can't disagree.

 

[benjipwns]

I understand that the police will 'protect their own' but it is up to the state to use a different set of law enforcement (sheriffs, federal prosecutors, etc.) if the police are out of line and not cooperation.

Why would the elite class want to prosecute other, but lower, members of the elite class if they don't gain anything from it and can possibly lose something like an endorsement or campaign donations/workers from it?

It comes up every time as if someone can't disagree.

You were talking like only libertarians see the disastrous consequences of such a thing. But you don't need to argue against it. I guess it's the lone exception where personal gain is allowed to trump public safety, interest and will.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You were talking like only libertarians see the disastrous consequences of such a thing. But you don't need to argue against it. I guess it's the lone exception where personal gain is allowed to trump public safety, interest and will.

I don't understand how FDR is supposed to carry some great wait. I'm in favor of unionism, its a clearly protected right. It doesn't go away in certain jobs.

The fact that their both voters and a force that interacts with the government doesn't change much, that logic would limit the rights of business owners, interest groups, any many others who have dual roles. But its never extended that way (of course some wall will be drawn to make government workers different)

 

[benjipwns]

I don't understand how FDR is supposed to carry some great wait

He explained the problem well?

The fact that their both voters and a force that interacts with the government doesn't change much, that logic would limit the rights of business owners, interest groups, any many others who have dual roles. But its never extended that way (of course some wall will be drawn to make government workers different)

Just read Franklin again, it's not that they're both voters "and a force that interacts with the government" it's that they're public servants. For police to not do their jobs for better pay, hours, hookers, whatever, is to damage the general interest of the people and eliminate continuity of government, thus they have no right to strike.

This is exacerbated by the fact that the employer does not negotiate with the employee, but two employees negotiate with each other.

 

[speculawyer]

Why would the elite class want to prosecute other, but lower, members of the elite class if they don't gain anything from it and can possibly lose something like an endorsement or campaign donations/workers from it?

Because it is there fucking job.

If you don't like such risks then you really should not vote for right-wing authoritarians like Nixon who decided he could just fire anyone that wanted to investigate him and his stooge Robert Bork who went along with it.
Rick Perry comes to mind these days.

 

[benjipwns]

If you don't like such risks then you really should not vote for ... authoritarians like Nixon ... Rick Perry

Okay, done.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Because it is there fucking job.

If you don't like such risks then you really should not vote for right-wing authoritarians like Nixon who decided he could just fire anyone that wanted to investigate him and his stooge Robert Bork who went along with it.
Rick Perry comes to mind these days.

benji, you voted for Nixon?

 

[Black Republican]

sending the national guard? lol fuck J. Nixon

 

[jamesinclair]

sending the national guard? lol fuck J. Nixon

The fact that in this day and age people are still voting for Nixon blows my mind

 

[kehs]

Obama putting heads to sleep again speaking at 4pm on iraq/ferguson.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I continue to be amazed at the tone deaf nature of this thing. The images of Obama partying it up while Ferguson explodes...I just don't get it. Just doesn't make sense.

And apparently he's going to address Iraq first again. Why?

 

[benjipwns]

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurt...our-enemies-foreign-policy-n1879026/page/full

The GOP is in the midst of a public foreign policy debate. Debate is fine, but as Republican we must agree on some basic premises. The most important premise is that instead of laughing at us, our enemies should be terrified of us.

Yes, terrified. The world isn’t some sort of fantasy milieu of earnest, huggy people who want to work together to forge a brighter tomorrow for all the world’s citizens. It’s full of bad people, many of whom want us enslaved if not dead. They aren’t bad because we’re rich, or insufficiently carbon neutral, or any of that other nonsense. They are bad because they are bad, and our foreign policy needs to recognize the necessity of confronting and destroying them wherever they are.

Anything less is childish naïveté that will kill Americans down the road.

Foreign policy isn't a theoretical discussion in some college seminar led by a pony-tailed grad student who frets about “imperialism” and has never held a M16. I understand the idea and appeal of non-interventionism, and in some cases I'm even sympathetic – after all, I was twice one of those guys intervening.

But prior poorly executed and thought-out engagements overseas do not somehow give us a pass on our responsibilities in the future. We are the United States of America. There is no nation comparable – at least none on the good guys’ side – and if we decide to pull up stakes from the world, we are making a conscious choice to cede it to our enemies.

Yes, enemies. Those who oppose those are not simply unhappy because we support the democracies they hate or because they are aggrieved over some imagined slight. They are evil. A lot of people, including some Republicans, don’t want to face the concrete fact that evil exists. Denial doesn’t alter reality; it makes skyscrapers collapse.

 

[speculawyer]

I continue to be amazed at the tone deaf nature of this thing. The images of Obama partying it up while Ferguson explodes...I just don't get it. Just doesn't make sense.

And apparently he's going to address Iraq first again. Why?

He is president, not the local sheriff or Governor. I don't know why he a! addresses it at all. He just get called 'playing the race card.'

 

[benjipwns]

He is president, not the local sheriff or Governor. I don't know why he a! addresses it at all.

Can you believe the President isn't even addressing this issue? Ignoring the chaos as our cities fall into the hands of uncontrolled mobs with a certain continental origin!

 

[PhoenixDark]

He is president, not the local sheriff or Governor. I don't know why he a! addresses it at all. He just get called 'playing the race card.'

Speaking of which, have you guys seen the various responses about his last statement? On the far right was hailed as "divisive" and race baiting, and amongst Brown supporters/young people/black people/etc it was said to be "tepid" and weak. IMO it was one of the best examples of how Obama can't win with large groups of the country: no matter what he says or does there's a large group of people waiting to criticize it as "too much" or "not enough."

 

[B-Dubs]

Speaking of which, have you guys seen the various responses about his last statement? On the far right was hailed as "divisive" and race baiting, and amongst Brown supporters/young people/black people/etc it was said to be "tepid" and weak. IMO it was one of the best examples of how Obama can't win with large groups of the country: no matter what he says or does there's a large group of people waiting to criticize it as "too much" or "not enough."

Yep, no matter what he says there's going to be a group on either side that doesn't like it.

 

[Armoured Priest]

Yep, no matter what he says there's going to be groups on both sides that don't like it.

ftfy

 

[Aaron Strife]

A Cuban-born grocery store owner starring in a Rick Scott Spanish language television campaign ad touting the governor’s job creation record was convicted on human smuggling charges in St. Maarten four years ago.

Maikel Duarte-Torres, who gives Gov. Scott a hug and a plug in the 30-second spot, is featured as a Florida success story.

lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

Interesting tight rope performance by Obama there, blatantly insinuating the criminal justice system isn't fair without outright saying it. If you're expecting him or any president to definitively state that the system is inherently racist you're going to be disappointing, but this is the second time I've seen Obama come close to saying it.

 

[speculawyer]

Can you believe the President isn't even addressing this issue? Ignoring the chaos as our cities fall into the hands of uncontrolled mobs with a certain continental origin!

Sure. ...he'll get blamed no matter what. But there's nothing for him to do.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Speaking of which, have you guys seen the various responses about his last statement? On the far right was hailed as "divisive" and race baiting, and amongst Brown supporters/young people/black people/etc it was said to be "tepid" and weak. IMO it was one of the best examples of how Obama can't win with large groups of the country: no matter what he says or does there's a large group of people waiting to criticize it as "too much" or "not enough."

Well, let's be blunt here. The far right is thinking 'nigger' but can't say it, while elements of the African-American community are possibly thinking 'Uncle Tom' but can't say it. While most people still don't understand the Presidency doesn't involve the limitless power of a Emperor.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Watching Hannity.

I have no faith in conservatives to not be racists. Its depressing, its the same thing again and again. Stoking white peoples fears of blacks. Its disgusting, vile and partisan.

Its exactly why Obama can't say anything, it fits people back into their familiar frameworks

 

[Jooney]

Watching Hannity.

I have no faith in conservatives to not be racists. Its depressing, its the same thing again and again. Stoking white peoples fears of blacks. Its disgusting, vile and partisan.

Its exactly why Obama can't say anything, it fits people back into their familiar frameworks

Why bother watching cable news at all though? Hannity and his ilk are selling a product, which is a narrative that fits the bias of a certain group of people. He's not going to deviate from that, lest he wants his viewership to flock to his competition.

 

[Jooney]

Everything that has happened in Ferguson really resonates with that Ta Nehsi Coates quote about the nature of racism:

“Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others...”

Don't think you can sum up the events of the past week better than that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why bother watching cable news at all though? Hannity and his ilk are selling a product, which is a narrative that fits the bias of a certain group of people. He's not going to deviate from that, lest he wants his viewership to flock to his competition.

I just flip around.

But that's depressing. I don't know how it changes though. Its depressing how much power good old fashion racists hold

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Speaking of which, have you guys seen the various responses about his last statement? On the far right was hailed as "divisive" and race baiting, and amongst Brown supporters/young people/black people/etc it was said to be "tepid" and weak. IMO it was one of the best examples of how Obama can't win with large groups of the country: no matter what he says or does there's a large group of people waiting to criticize it as "too much" or "not enough."

Obama has made many critical decisions and statements regardless of a too much/too little dynamic...so what's the problem in this case? Outside of a self-fulfilling prophecy attitude.

 

[B-Dubs]

Obama has made many critical decisions and statements regardless of a too much/too little dynamic...so what's the problem in this case? Outside of a self-fulfilling prophecy attitude.

In this case the only thing he will do by taking a harder stance here is make things worse. Any conservatives that support the protesters will immediately switch sides just to be against Obama. There was a good Vox article posted somewhere that explained it as well as could be done.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So Kansas

Roberts is favored for re-election, but is not out of the woods. PPP finds him leading Democrat Chad Taylor 32-25, with independent Greg Orman taking a massive 23 percent. Orman isn't your typical random independent. He's raised far more money than Taylor and has been able to run ads. Orman is actually better liked than Taylor, sporting a 24-12 favorable to the Democrat's 15-14. Roberts for his part posts a poor 27-44 job approval.

This strange three-way race may be what saves Roberts in the end. If Taylor were Roberts' only foe, the senator would lead by a small 43-39 margin. And if it were just an Orman-Roberts match-up, Orman would lead Roberts by a stunning 43-33.

If I were running the DSCC I might be tempted to withdraw Taylor as a candidate and prop up Orman instead, in exchange for caucusing with the Democrats. Orman was a Democrat before (he ran for this seat in 2008 as one) and his positions haven't changed much.

They also find Brownback losing, again - he's only down 2 against Paul Davis, and with the third party candidate out of the race (who takes 9% of the vote), he's down 5.

They also have Hagan up by 4 in North Carolina bad news etc

The bad news for today is a SurveyUSA poll from Georgia that has Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter trailing by fairly big margins, which is a bummer but things can change I guess.

 

[Cat]

Does anyone here know much about the upcoming governor election in Texas? From a quick Google search, it's Greg Abbott (R) vs Wendy Davis (D) and based on the polling I looked at in Wiki, it's like 55/45 mostly in favor of (R). I assume then that means that it's almost guaranteed Abbott will win but PoliGAF knows more about polling than I do. Does it change any leading up to the election?

Is Abbott any worse or better than Perry?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Does anyone here know much about the upcoming governor election in Texas? From a quick Google search, it's Greg Abbott (R) vs Wendy Davis (D) and based on the polling I looked at in Wiki, it's like 55/45 mostly in favor of (R). I assume then that means that it's almost guaranteed Abbott will win but PoliGAF knows more about polling than I do. Does it change any leading up to the election?

Is Abbott any worse or better than Perry?

Not sure how Abbott compares, but Davis is considered a very long shot.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Does anyone here know much about the upcoming governor election in Texas? From a quick Google search, it's Greg Abbott (R) vs Wendy Davis (D) and based on the polling I looked at in Wiki, it's like 55/45 mostly in favor of (R). I assume then that means that it's almost guaranteed Abbott will win but PoliGAF knows more about polling than I do. Does it change any leading up to the election?

Is Abbott any worse or better than Perry?

It depends on the election, really. Obviously some late-breaking scandal could change the game for Davis, although it's possible Abbott could gain even more support. RIght now though Texas is looking pretty set. The best thing that will come out of Davis' campaign is registering a whole bunch of new voters, who can turn out in 2016 and 2018 and beyond and hopefully deliver some statewide wins, while helping Democrats downballot in the meantime. There is genuine excitement for Davis but 2014 isn't her year.

I don't know much about Abbott vs. Perry but I imagine you can't get much worse than Perry.

 

[B-Dubs]

It depends on the election, really. Obviously some late-breaking scandal could change the game for Davis, although it's possible Abbott could gain even more support. RIght now though Texas is looking pretty set. The best thing that will come out of Davis' campaign is registering a whole bunch of new voters, who can turn out in 2016 and 2018 and beyond and hopefully deliver some statewide wins, while helping Democrats downballot in the meantime. There is genuine excitement for Davis but 2014 isn't her year.

I don't know much about Abbott vs. Perry but I imagine you can't get much worse than Perry.

I imagine even with a huge scandal Abbott would win.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I imagine even with a huge scandal Abbott would win.

Yeah, unfortunately. Republican voters don't care what you do in your personal life (whether it's sleeping around with prostitutes or young boys, or embezzling money or whatever) as long as you promote Wholesome Family Values(TM)

 

[Cat]

It depends on the election, really. Obviously some late-breaking scandal could change the game for Davis, although it's possible Abbott could gain even more support. RIght now though Texas is looking pretty set. The best thing that will come out of Davis' campaign is registering a whole bunch of new voters, who can turn out in 2016 and 2018 and beyond and hopefully deliver some statewide wins, while helping Democrats downballot in the meantime. There is genuine excitement for Davis but 2014 isn't her year.

I don't know much about Abbott vs. Perry but I imagine you can't get much worse than Perry.

Well, the bolded is hopeful. I'll keep researching to find out how he compares.

 

[speculawyer]

I imagine even with a huge scandal Abbott would win.

Yeah, probably.

Texas Dems need to figure out how to get more Latinos to the polls. They'll be the ones to tip the scale eventually. Perhaps they need to groom more latino candidates.