• 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.
D

damisa

Member
speculawyer said:
Because genocide, decapitations, and ethnic cleansing are not cool.
Click to expand...

Which is why the uS is also bombing Terrorist groups in Africa like Boko Haram, oh wait we're not because we are hypocrites, almost forgot. I am sure ISIS is waiting with glee at all the new weapons we will be providing them through their allies, the "moderates"
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
And the people who are now supporting intervention are 'liberal' (using you're no true scottsman definition)?
Click to expand...

I don't see how calling moderate democrats what they are=no true scottsman argument. Was Hillary Clinton a liberal in 2003, yes or no? Hell, is she a liberal now? I'm not sure. She's to the right of Obama.

Your posts about liberal/conservative historical views strike me as irrelevant to the current conversation. "Liberals" have been less interventionist than conservatives for more than two decades. Neoconservatism isn't new. Democrats began moving from interventionist policies with the formation of the New Left in the 70s; interventionist democrats (including Paul Wolfowitz) split from the party and moved to the right. Neoconservatives filled Reagan's administration and supported his aggressive anti-Soviet views. I wouldn't call George HW Bush a neoconservative, and although his administration also housed them he tended to side with James Baker over Dick Cheney; HW Bush refused to invade Baghdad for instance.

Today there's a clear contrast between more realist views on the left and neoconservative interventionists on the right. I don't know where I'd put Obama, given how inconsistent his foreign policy is. You could argue he's been a realist, but he has supported interventions on multiple occasions.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
damisa said:
Which is why the uS is also bombing Terrorist groups in Africa like Boko Haram, oh wait we're not because we are hypocrites, almost forgot. I am sure ISIS is waiting with glee at all the new weapons we will be providing them through their allies, the "moderates"
Click to expand...

We've bombed them in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. If we had good intel, I'm sure they would bomb them in Nigeria too. In fact I would not be surprised if that happens in the next few months. But the fact that they have lots of hostages/prisoners may hamper that.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Dave Inc. said:
Oh that has nothing to do with it. They're taking over land and destabilizing the region, which isn't good for anybody in the long term. If they were a roving band of rapers and pillagers nobody would give a shit.
Click to expand...

This is why we're involved to the degree we are and why they are a "threat". There's no point in hiding that. That's a moral reason as well. Their destablizing presence and magnet for Islamism in practice will hurt a lot of people.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
To be a little more precise, I think if you looked at this election through only "fundamentals" and ignored polling you'd have the GOP with a 100% chance to take the Senate. All they have to do is take the six seats in states Mitt Romney won in a midterm year with a second-term president and a mediocre (but improving) economy.

So the fact that the GOP has a 40-70% chance to win the Senate is still actually a bad performance for them, and we can talk about how it's a promising result for Democrats without it meaning that Democrats will actually keep the Senate.

The other important issue, of course, is that since no actual legislation was going to happen anyway, it doesn't matter that much who controls the Senate in 2014.
 
D

David Incorporated Esq.

Member
speculawyer said:
We've bombed them in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. If we had good intel, I'm sure they would bomb them in Nigeria too. In fact I would not be surprised if that happens in the next few months. But the fact that they have lots of hostages/prisoners may hamper that.
Click to expand...

Look. Nations are amoral (not immoral) so won't do shit to save innocents unless they are a) citizens of the nation or b) it's otherwise in our interest to do so. Doing it for the sake of being international good guys will never happen.

APKmetsfan said:
This is why we're involved to the degree we are and why they are a "threat". There's no point in hiding that. That's a moral reason as well. Their destablizing presence and magnet for Islamism in practice will hurt a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I don't see that as a moral reason. If they were taking land from Syria and Iraq while being grand benefactors to those they conquered it would still be a destabilizing force and we would crush them. We'd just downplay the whole thing where they were actually nice guys.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I don't see how calling moderate democrats what they are=no true scottsman argument. Was Hillary Clinton a liberal in 2003, yes or no? Hell, is she a liberal now? I'm not sure. She's to the right of Obama.

Your posts about liberal/conservative historical views strike me as irrelevant to the current conversation. "Liberals" have been less interventionist than conservatives for more than two decades. Neoconservatism isn't new. Democrats began moving from interventionist policies with the formation of the New Left in the 70s; interventionist democrats (including Paul Wolfowitz) split from the party and moved to the right. Neoconservatives filled Reagan's administration and supported his aggressive anti-Soviet views. I wouldn't call George HW Bush a neoconservative, and although his administration also housed them he tended to side with James Baker over Dick Cheney; HW Bush refused to invade Baghdad for instance.

Today there's a clear contrast between more realist views on the left and neoconservative interventionists on the right. I don't know where I'd put Obama, given how inconsistent his foreign policy is. You could argue he's been a realist, but he has supported interventions on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...

Because you seem to dismiss their other views based on their support for iraq. And are using that as a Litmus test. Its as if they loose their liberalness because they voted for the war. And a few of the liberal votes weren't principled opposition to the war but political votes, and because the president didn't sell the war enough but october.

my problem is your shock that liberals have supported intervention, I just don't know how anyone's shocked.

pigeon said:
To be a little more precise, I think if you looked at this election through only "fundamentals" and ignored polling you'd have the GOP with a 100% chance to take the Senate. All they have to do is take the six seats in states Mitt Romney won in a midterm year with a second-term president and a mediocre (but improving) economy.

So the fact that the GOP has a 40-70% chance to win the Senate is still actually a bad performance for them, and we can talk about how it's a promising result for Democrats without it meaning that Democrats will actually keep the Senate.

The other important issue, of course, is that since no actual legislation was going to happen anyway, it doesn't matter that much who controls the Senate in 2014.
Click to expand...

Your missing an incumbency factor and continual demographic changes in your analogy, its hard to unseat incumbents and every open seat Romney won they're killing. But you're right if they were actually popular that they should be mopping the floor.

And my biggest fear with a GOP senate is Obama isn't going to be able to stop riders which might not stop Obamacare but will hamper his executive prerogative in things like climate change, risk corridors, immigration, etc.
 
D

Drakeon

Member
pigeon said:
To be a little more precise, I think if you looked at this election through only "fundamentals" and ignored polling you'd have the GOP with a 100% chance to take the Senate. All they have to do is take the six seats in states Mitt Romney won in a midterm year with a second-term president and a mediocre (but improving) economy.

So the fact that the GOP has a 40-70% chance to win the Senate is still actually a bad performance for them, and we can talk about how it's a promising result for Democrats without it meaning that Democrats will actually keep the Senate.

The other important issue, of course, is that since no actual legislation was going to happen anyway, it doesn't matter that much who controls the Senate in 2014.
Click to expand...
The main reason I'm concerned about the Senate is because of appointments, specifically Supreme Court appointments. I don't think any justice plans to retire, but there's a few that could have unexpected health issues with their age.
 
A

alstein

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Hagan leads by 6 in North Carolina

But why god does it have to be a Rasmussen poll
Click to expand...

Hagan's last internal had her up 3, Tillis's had it even.

Aggregate polling has Hagan up within margin, which isn't comfortable.

Also, Tillis does have some serious baggage himself- being the leader of a loathed State Legislature.

Drakeon said:
The main reason I'm concerned about the Senate is because of appointments, specifically Supreme Court appointments. I don't think any justice plans to retire, but there's a few that could have unexpected health issues with their age.
Click to expand...

Worst case, you get an 8-person court, that doesn't hurt the Dems unless Republicans get the White house in 2016, and can make the Senate look ridiculous in the process.
 
P

percephone

Neo Member
Oblivion said:
I don't get it. Why was he booed off stage at Christian Uni? Is it one of those girly liberal Christian Universities that talk about helping the poor and such?
Click to expand...

Christian from the Middle East especially, palestinian christians are not great fan of israel policies.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I wouldn't have guessed that Hagan would be in better position than Pryor right now, especially due to Cotton being such a disappointing candidate.
Click to expand...
I can believe it. Tillis is also terrible and North Carolina is trending Democratic. The state Democrats can still compete in Arkansas but they're losing their grip - they gerrymandered the state legislature after 2010 in their favor and still lost both houses in 2012.

Suffolk poll of Michigan has Peters up 9 and people should stop fooling themselves into thinking this is a tossup (to be fair to PD he's exempt from this). They also have Schauer up 2 over Snyder. Of the last five polls, Snyder's had two 1 point leads and one 2 point lead, and Schauer has had two 2 point leads. You know what that means

WolfBlitzer_LE_20070708_04.jpg
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Tillis screwed himself by giving a pittance to teachers in NC and acting like it was a great gesture. Both sides are constantly throwing attack ads, but the ones about Hagan are trying to tie her to the VA for some reason, whereas the ones about Tillis are crushing him about teachers. Only issue I see with them is a little too much focus on "tax breaks for millionaire and their yachts". I don't think that plays well personally, but maybe they see something.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Another NC poll from Civitas (Republican pollster), Hagan up 3 (46-43, libertarian taking 5).

It would be great if Democrats could move into a solid lead here and in Iowa. Colorado, Michigan, and New Hampshire all look okay, and the only real competition would then be in the red states.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
alstein said:
Hagan's last internal had her up 3, Tillis's had it even.

Aggregate polling has Hagan up within margin, which isn't comfortable.

Also, Tillis does have some serious baggage himself- being the leader of a loathed State Legislature.
Click to expand...

Two quick notes to remind everyone about like I did in 2012.

The MoE of a single poll and multiple polls are not the same.

"within the margin of error" doesn't mean "tied." Hagan in a single poll with a 2 point lead and MoE of 4 has 3:1 to win (75%).

Across multiple polls having this lead makes her much more likely to win.

Assuming the polling is independent and not a mess, of course.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Two quick notes to remind everyone about like I did in 2012.

The MoE of a single poll and multiple polls are not the same.

"within the margin of error" doesn't mean "tied." Hagan in a single poll with a 2 point lead and MoE of 4 has 3:1 to win (75%).

Across multiple polls having this lead makes her much more likely to win.

Assuming the polling is independent and not a mess, of course.
Click to expand...
Ah, I remember this in 2012. Obama up by an average of 3 across five polls, well that's within the margin of error for all of them, shit's a tossup!
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Another NC poll from Civitas (Republican pollster), Hagan up 3 (46-43, libertarian taking 5).

It would be great if Democrats could move into a solid lead here and in Iowa. Colorado, Michigan, and New Hampshire all look okay, and the only real competition would then be in the red states.
Click to expand...

Ugh. Terrible news :-(
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
theprodigy said:
let me guess, 538 somehow still has Michigan near a tossup

edit: oh they moved it to 78% at least!
Click to expand...
Hey, he has Braley and Hagan as (slight) favorites in IA and NC.

And the GOP at just a 58% chance of winning... I feel like this is lower than it's been. On 9/3 it was 64%.

If the polls keep showing decent news for Democrats then they might have a lead in Nate's projections by the end of the month.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
I mean, I'm sorry, but has it always been this transparent?

"I think we do have a lot to debate. Realize this is not just bombing a mountainside or securing a dam. This is a war that we want for another 10, 15 years," said King, of the House Intelligence Committee.

When asked whether Congress might rethink defense spending cuts in light of the conflict, King replied, "To do that, I think we have to recalibrate our defense and realize we have to be on a war-time footing when it comes to spending."
Click to expand...

He couldn't be more obvious if he were on his knees begging "Please, the defense companies who help finance my political career need another war!".
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Crisco said:
I mean, I'm sorry, but has it always been this transparent?

He couldn't be more obvious if he were on his knees begging "Please, the defense companies who help finance my political career need another war!".
Click to expand...

What gets my goat is that they just spend the last 4 years whining about spending & deficit. But as soon as war comes along SPEND WITH ABANDON!
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Hey, he has Braley and Hagan as (slight) favorites in IA and NC.

And the GOP at just a 58% chance of winning... I feel like this is lower than it's been. On 9/3 it was 64%.

If the polls keep showing decent news for Democrats then they might have a lead in Nate's projections by the end of the month.
Click to expand...

It just dropped today.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
So much for another GOP talking point on Obamacare. b-b-b-but where is the health care spending pickup!?!?

It came in quarter 2.

The sprawling U.S. health-care industry saw revenue rebound last quarter, a sign that stronger spending at hospitals and medical offices could help boost U.S. economic growth to its highest level in eight years.

Total revenue at health-care and social-assistance firms rose 3% in the second quarter from the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department said Thursday in its Quarterly Services Survey. Hospital revenue rose 2.8% from the first quarter and revenue at physician offices jumped 4.1%.

Thursday's report showed "modest acceleration in health spending" in the second quarter, driven likely by both "more people insured under the Affordable Care Act and the recovering economy putting some upward pressure on health-care costs," said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Economists have predicted the rollout of the Affordable Care Act this year will lead to higher health-care spending as millions of Americans obtain insurance coverage and begin using it. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last week projected health-care spending would grow 5.6% this year, up from an estimated 3.6% in 2013.

But that spending surge didn't materialize in the first quarter, when revenue at health-care and social-assistance firms fell 2% from the fourth quarter. U.S. spending on health-care services, adjusted for inflation, fell at a 1.4% pace and dragged down overall economic growth, the Commerce Department estimated.

Mr. Levitt said many newly insured Americans signed up for coverage in late March, and "those people didn't actually get their insurance cards until May. The real increase in health insurance came in the second quarter, and this is when you'd expect to see the effects."

From a year earlier, health-care and social-assistance revenue rose 3.7% last quarter, up from 2.9% annual growth in the first quarter. The figures weren't adjusted for seasonal variation or price changes.

Consumer spending generates more than two-thirds of U.S. economic output, and stronger spending on health care and other services should bolster overall growth. The Commerce Department last month said gross domestic product expanded at a 4.2% seasonally adjusted annual rate in the second quarter, rebounding from an unexpected first-quarter contraction.

That estimate assumed inflation-adjusted health-care spending rose last quarter at a modest 0.5% pace. But Wall Street economists believe the government will revise spending higher based on the QSS report, in turn boosting GDP growth.

Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase on Thursday raised their estimates for second-quarter GDP to 4.7%, which would exceed the 4.6% growth recorded in the fourth quarter of 2011 and be the strongest quarter since the first quarter of 2006. Macroeconomic Advisers, Barclays Capital and Pierpont Securities all bumped up their estimates to 4.6%.

The government is set to release its third estimate of second-quarter GDP on Sept. 26.
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.com/articles/health-care-spending-picks-up-1410463798

What's even left for them?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
A

Averon

Member
thepotatoman said:
I'm kind of surprised they aren't pumping up the FUD around the upcoming employer mandate and job loss, but I guess there's only so many times you can be wrong before it's time to change subjects.
Click to expand...

It's strange that the GOP seemingly dropped Benghazi, IRS, and Obamacare going into the elections. Those three "issues" were their bread and butter for the past 2 years.
 
E

Elrond Hubbard

Neo Member
Black Mamba said:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/health-care-spending-picks-up-1410463798

What's even left for them?
Click to expand...

Halbig/King en banc/Supreme Court, and "what the plain text of the law should mean to anyone who isn't a libtard/partisan hack", the employer mandate canceling 80 million health policies when it goes into effect, the ACA will lead to 2% lower GDP (Casey Mulligan's prediction) in the long run, etc etc.

Now David Cutler has posted some good analysis showing how the ACA could end up having a positive GDP effect: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/the-economics-of-the-affordable-care-act/

We'll see where it all goes. I'm hoping for a righteous smackdown of Metaphoreus Cannon and Adler in the Halbig en banc ruling and some long-awaited finality for the ACA, combined with continued good news about premiums, effects on mortality rates (recent study published in NEJM showed that Massachusetts healthcare reform resulted in significant improvements in the state's mortality rates), coverage increases, etc.

I'd really just like the debate to be over. It should be. Hopefully we get there by 2020.
 
R

Retro

Member
Averon said:
It's strange that the GOP seemingly dropped Benghazi, IRS, and Obamacare going into the elections. Those three "issues" were their bread and butter for the past 2 years.
Click to expand...

Good for keeping the tea party nice and rabid, terrible in actual elections?
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Averon said:
It's strange that the GOP seemingly dropped Benghazi, IRS, and Obamacare going into the elections. Those three "issues" were their bread and butter for the past 2 years.
Click to expand...

They're waiting until they take back the Senate, then they'll ratcher up the conspiracy theories an general stupiditiy.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Elrond Hubbard said:
Halbig/King en banc/Supreme Court, and "what the plain text of the law should mean to anyone who isn't a libtard/partisan hack", the employer mandate canceling 80 million health policies when it goes into effect, the ACA will lead to 2% lower GDP (Casey Mulligan's prediction) in the long run, etc etc.

Now David Cutler has posted some good analysis showing how the ACA could end up having a positive GDP effect: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/the-economics-of-the-affordable-care-act/

We'll see where it all goes. I'm hoping for a righteous smackdown of Metaphoreus Cannon and Adler in the Halbig en banc ruling and some long-awaited finality for the ACA, combined with continued good news about premiums, effects on mortality rates (recent study published in NEJM showed that Massachusetts healthcare reform resulted in significant improvements in the state's mortality rates), coverage increases, etc.

I'd really just like the debate to be over. It should be. Hopefully we get there by 2020.
Click to expand...

I look forward to the 2028 campaign promises of Republican candidates to "protect the Affordable Care Act."
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
heh
Life Imitates the Onion

"Obama to Assure Nation That ISIS Campaign Will Be Drawn-Out Ordeal They're Used To"--headline, Onion, Sept. 10

"Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved--especially to the servicemen and -women who carry out these missions. . . . This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years."--President Obama, Sept. 10
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom