• 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.

Chichikov

Member
Facebook cut ties with ALEC after Google did it earlier this week and Microsoft dropped them about a month ago.

This is good news and I generally think we should applaud positive actions, but those companies need to be brought to task for supporting such horrible organization in the first place.
Also, all these companies frame it in regards to climate change, and it's important to remind people just how inherently terrible ALEC is, and all these companies should've known better.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Is this even a real argument. I can't tell anymore. This sounds like the bizzaro version of Reagan's 11th commandment (Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican)

Actually, that was one of Reagan's smarter ideas. Democrats shouldn't attack other Democrats unless said Democrats are doing things that Republicans would be doing. Beyond that, they should always be united and we should be looking the other way when they do something unfortunate (like when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt one time).
 

Vahagn

Member
This is a terrible idea made worse by the example you used.

In principle, not in governance. Republicans have managed to make Obama look weak in defense by literally saying it over and over and over and over again with Joe Scarborough occasionally being the only outlier...as a result the American Public believes that to be the case despite the fact that terrorist groups have objectively been more decimated than before and no attack has happened.

Meanwhile Republicans consistently say "President Bush kept us safe" and people begin to believe it despite the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch.


That's just one example. Raising deficits vs. lowering them is another where the reality doesn't jibe with people's perception because Republicans are on message.


Heck, they managed to make a large swath of this country believe he's a kenyan born muslim for a solid 2+ years.


Being unified and on message 100% of the time is the only way to get ahead in a world of soundbites.

We've had to endure several days of "military doesn't trust Obama" talk because Dempsey said something to the effect of "I think the plan would work, but in the hypothetical you suggested, I would advise the president the best strategy"
 
no one realistically thinks they have a shot at taking hillary out, nor would they really want to.

Running puts you in the public eye and in good position for VP with a strong showing, but that's about it.
Yeah. Anyone running in the Dem primary is just going to be auditioning for VP. The only possible exceptions are Sanders and Schweitzer, the former because of his label (would take a miracle for a declared socialist to get elected in America) and the latter because he's a douche.
 

Jooney

Member
You know guys, winning Nevada and Arizona in 2012 would have been really cool. There'd be no worry about losing the Senate this year. Nevada was won by 11,000 votes for christ's sake

Which is why when people say that losing the senate is not a big deal because there's a strong chance that the dems will retake in 2016 I kinda smh. A senate seat lost now is a senate seat that won't be retaken for at least six years
pending the inevitable republican gay scandal
. Every seat matters.
 

Jooney

Member
Actually, that was one of Reagan's smarter ideas. Democrats shouldn't attack other Democrats unless said Democrats are doing things that Republicans would be doing. Beyond that, they should always be united and we should be looking the other way when they do something unfortunate (like when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt one time).

so how does any of this comport with not providing criticism of Rachel Maddow, which was APKmetsfan's supposed original sin of this discussion?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So? Turning a blind eye to offensive comments in the name of party unity is a stupid idea.

I understand that it might not be the most courteous and respectful idea, but how is it stupid? I don't see it hurting the party when it comes to votes.
 

Chichikov

Member
Actually, that was one of Reagan's smarter ideas. Democrats shouldn't attack other Democrats unless said Democrats are doing things that Republicans would be doing. Beyond that, they should always be united and we should be looking the other way when they do something unfortunate (like when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt one time).
Party over country!

you guys legit scare me, no joke.
 

pigeon

Banned
But, if we're true to our principles, it's OK that the GOP wins because they're better at politics. We can all say to ourselves, "at least we were right," as Social Security is privatized.

The GOP is losing pretty terribly right now.

Is it because we're getting better at politics? Because it seems like we're all complaining about the stuff we're still doing and we still think the Democrats are terrible at politics.

Or is it maybe just possible that soundbites don't really matter that much and actual policies and outcomes are relevant to people? So that a strategy that revolves around winning a media war while being incapable of passing any actual laws is actually not a very effective one?
 
The GOP is losing pretty terribly right now.

Is it because we're getting better at politics? Because it seems like we're all complaining about the stuff we're still doing and we still think the Democrats are terrible at politics.

Or is it maybe just possible that soundbites don't really matter that much and actual policies and outcomes are relevant to people? So that a strategy that revolves around winning a media war while being incapable of passing any actual laws is actually not a very effective one?

The GOP is losing so terribly they have a 50/50 shot at winning the Senate and will likely hold the House 'til 2020 despite being a right-wing death cult.

The DNC is winning is because the GOP made a horrible decision to go to Iraq, demographics are slowly moving in our favor, and the bubble popped on their watched. I'll be blunt. If the bubble hadn't popped until the summer of '09, we're likely all talking about Hillary running against President Romney in 2016.

Yes, the Democratic Party is slightly better at politics than it was during the mid-2000's, but that's partly because the mid-2000's Democratic Party were one of the worst political organizations in the modern history of politics.
 
Which is why when people say that losing the senate is not a big deal because there's a strong chance that the dems will retake in 2016 I kinda smh. A senate seat lost now is a senate seat that won't be retaken for at least six years
pending the inevitable republican gay scandal
. Every seat matters.
Exactly. Every seat counts.

Except in the House since that only lasts two years or whatever.

Btw I would not call a party that wins 25 Senate seats to the GOP's 9 bad at politics.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Well . . . we know that the ambassador passed out some bread to the protesters.

But what do you mean 'involved'. There was no military involvement. The leader wasn't assassinated . . . so what exactly did the USA allegedly do? Give encouragement?
Instigating or undercover assistance. America has a history of covert regime changes and in the case of Syria, supporting rebels.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Instigating or undercover assistance. America has a history of covert regime changes and in the case of Syria, supporting rebels.

Given the whole thing started because Russia interfered with Ukraine's affairs I don't see how the US could have instigated anything.

Not everything that happens in the world is the result of the shadowy hand of the CIA.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
CHEEZMO™;131412491 said:
Given the whole thing started because Russia interfered with Ukraine's affairs I don't see how the US could have instigated anything.

Not everything that happens in the world is the result of the shadowy hand of the CIA.
Interfering how? Influencing the current UK president to keep close ties with the former Soviet State coalition instead of the European Union? I don't view political pressure and having US officials there to stir people up being equal, especially with geographical positions taken into consideration.

There's a difference between the CIA assisting and causing. The president could have been run out with or without them there. It just follows their MO for "US interests", which I think includes the EU and the continued poor relationship with post-Soviet Russia.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
so how does any of this comport with not providing criticism of Rachel Maddow, which was APKmetsfan's supposed original sin of this discussion?

It was the kind of criticism I was taking issue with. Comparing MSNBC to Fox News is never, ever kosher.
 

Chichikov

Member
But, if we're true to our principles, it's OK that the GOP wins because they're better at politics. We can all say to ourselves, "at least we were right," as Social Security is privatized.
The GOP couldn't privatized Social Security when they controlled all three branches of the government and the president had 70% approval rating.
The only party who could do it is the Democrats, and they might just do it, I mean sheeeeit, they were pretty fucking close to raising the retirement age not so long ago.
Something something, tough decisions, something something, grand bargain.
 
But, if we're true to our principles, it's OK that the GOP wins because they're better at politics. We can all say to ourselves, "at least we were right," as Social Security is privatized.

There a large difference between being stupid, calling out the "GOP wants to end medicare" talking point and the pay increase difference proposals not being particularly effective and mostly electoral pandering. And general criticism of the left. Part of the GOPs problem is its inability to look at itself from beyond their bubble. I hope the Dems don't fall into that (like they did in the 70s and 80s).
 
The GOP is losing so terribly they have a 50/50 shot at winning the Senate and will likely hold the House 'til 2020 despite being a right-wing death cult.

The DNC is winning is because the GOP made a horrible decision to go to Iraq, demographics are slowly moving in our favor, and the bubble popped on their watched. I'll be blunt. If the bubble hadn't popped until the summer of '09, we're likely all talking about Hillary running against President Romney in 2016.

Yes, the Democratic Party is slightly better at politics than it was during the mid-2000's, but that's partly because the mid-2000's Democratic Party were one of the worst political organizations in the modern history of politics.

And they've been unable to do anything but retard the growth of liberalism biggest successes. Social security is still here, Food stamps are here, the EPA is still here (its a liberal project) Medicare is still here, we just moved towards greater access to health care. What have they gotten? At least on a national level? Tax cuts and discretionary cuts which though hurting a lot of people don't destroy them and preserve them to be expanded another day. A pittance.

The GOP is reactionary and has no vision for the future, just opposition to what ever liberalism wants. Liberalism wins in the long term, it always has. When you move beyond the last 20 years and look at the history of the country we liberals should own up to the fact that we're winning, we're launching the culture wars (pro-women, pro-secularism, pro-inclusion, pro- civil rights, pro-LGBT rights), we're seeking a fundamental transformation of the country from its sometimes deplorable history. And we're winning.
 
It was the kind of criticism I was taking issue with. Comparing MSNBC to Fox News is never, ever kosher.

But it gets close and promotes this feedback loop of information that can lead to liberals not working with all the information that can help them.

You need to understand how others view the world to be able to win them over, work with them or even undermine them.
 
The GOP is losing pretty terribly right now.

Is it because we're getting better at politics? Because it seems like we're all complaining about the stuff we're still doing and we still think the Democrats are terrible at politics.

Or is it maybe just possible that soundbites don't really matter that much and actual policies and outcomes are relevant to people? So that a strategy that revolves around winning a media war while being incapable of passing any actual laws is actually not a very effective one?

People overestimate the amount of people who listen to politics in the media. People also overestimate how many people that do fill in this category don't already have a side chosen.


Unless somebody says something absolutely ridiculous, ala Todd Akin, people are going to vote based on their personal feelings of their lives at that moment and prospects for the future, the likability of someone if it is in play, and their biases along with their general understanding of what is going on but not the minutia of politics.

The GOP is losing so terribly they have a 50/50 shot at winning the Senate and will likely hold the House 'til 2020 despite being a right-wing death cult.

The DNC is winning is because the GOP made a horrible decision to go to Iraq, demographics are slowly moving in our favor, and the bubble popped on their watched. I'll be blunt. If the bubble hadn't popped until the summer of '09, we're likely all talking about Hillary running against President Romney in 2016.

Yes, the Democratic Party is slightly better at politics than it was during the mid-2000's, but that's partly because the mid-2000's Democratic Party were one of the worst political organizations in the modern history of politics.

The GOP lost in 2012 because they're the GOP. Any reasonable party should have won that election.

When Obama won in 2008, I thought he would be a one term President. I figured he would take too much blame for the economy not recovering by 2012 (that was before I thought the GOP would intentionally harm the recovery, mind you) and that was that. But I never foresaw the GOP becoming the party of no substance. To date they have still not offered any real plans other than rehashed ideas nobody believes in any more.

Everything is tax cuts for the rich, tort reform, freer markets. Nobody outside of staunch conservatives believe in this anymore. They lost 2012 because they offered nothing new at all in any sphere of politics. Nada. Zip. Zero. You cannot run a campaign as being "not Obama" or "not Democrat." Even if the ACA was to be a failure, at least it was a concept. Something to possibly say "hey, maybe it will work." The GOP gave nothing like that.

People pick up on this subconsciously. In the back of their minds they think "you know, I don't think the ACA will be any good but the status quo was shit for me and well no one is offering anything else so...okay let's see." And with other ideas, as well.

Notice how most of the GOP ads are "vote for me to stop liberals in Congress." It's never "vote for me because I'll raise the minimum wage and I'll expand medicaid." People need something to hold on to and the GOP gives them zilch right now.

The only thing they can ever say is "I've cut taxes" or "I've voted to cut taxes" and most people already respond with "and it did shit all for me."



So yes, the Dems are generally better at politics than they were. But the key is the GOP is worse. The only reason they've managed to survive this long is because their ability to stifle the economic recovery has succeeded enough to convince a huge chunk of the ignorant electorate that it's Obama's fault because they think the President is like a king. They've exploited ignorance, something that no one can really fight because The President will always take the blame.

The sheer fact that the GOP was not taken control of the Senate yet can only be made possible by sheer incompetence on their part. They should already be in control, not fighting for it right now.


And to go further, it is very important they don't achieve control now. Failing to take the Senate would be another defeat in a long line of defeats since 2010. Add that to losing governorships and maybe statehouses too. If they can't win the Senate this year, they will likely have no shot at it again until 2020 and by then the Party will be completely different.

A loss now will hurt them. It will mean less money given to the party. It will cause more strife from the party bosses and tea partiers. It will continue to fracture the party. This shit matters.

Every defeat to the GOP brings it closer to its inevitable conclusion of reform or complete seppuku.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
The GOP is losing so terribly they have a 50/50 shot at winning the Senate and will likely hold the House 'til 2020 despite being a right-wing death cult.

The DNC is winning is because the GOP made a horrible decision to go to Iraq, demographics are slowly moving in our favor, and the bubble popped on their watched. I'll be blunt. If the bubble hadn't popped until the summer of '09, we're likely all talking about Hillary running against President Romney in 2016.

Yes, the Democratic Party is slightly better at politics than it was during the mid-2000's, but that's partly because the mid-2000's Democratic Party were one of the worst political organizations in the modern history of politics.
It is the famed second midterm of a presidency which always goes for the opposing party to the presidency. There's even articles all the way back in the Reagan era showing people saw this as a foregone conclusion for him, with them saying a relatively minor loss proved the Reagan shift as reality, and history proved them right.

Add that to Obama's approval rating, a not great economy, and scary foreign events popping off left and right and it should be a foregone conclusion that Republicans win every red and swing state in this election. But Colorado and Iowa aren't being easy for them, and even red states like Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana are being a challenge for them. To be honest, they should be inching in on some Democrat territory at least being a possibility, but instead they're mostly stuck fighting on their home turf.

That's not a very healthy situation for them as far as I'm concerned. If I were Republican, I would be worried if the Republicans simply barely win the Senate back this year, and would terrified if they fail to even do that.
 

stonesak

Okay, if you really insist
It is the famed second midterm of a presidency which always goes for the opposing party to the presidency. There's even articles all the way back in the Reagan era showing people saw this as a foregone conclusion for him, with them saying a relatively minor loss proved the Reagan shift as reality, and history proved them right.

Add that to Obama's approval rating, a not great economy, and scary foreign events popping off left and right and it should be a foregone conclusion that Republicans win every red and swing state in this election. But Colorado and Iowa aren't being easy for them, and even red states like Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana are being a challenge for them. To be honest, they should be inching in on some Democrat territory at least being a possibility, but instead they're mostly stuck fighting on their home turf.

That's not a very healthy situation for them as far as I'm concerned. If I were Republican, I would be worried if the Republicans simply barely win the Senate back this year, and would terrified if they fail to even do that.

Louisiana isn't going to be a challenge for the GOP, and they're in much better position in Alaska, Arkansas and Georgia than Democrats are in CO and IA.
 

Diablos

Member
PPP released Arkansas and Alaska polls and they're not good. Pryor's losing by 5, Begich by 2. The Alaska one is still close enough that I think Begich can win, but ugh, starting to think Arkansas is lost.

Amazing to think before 2010, 3 out of 4 of their representatives and both senators were Democrats. Pryor didn't even have a Republican opponent in 2008. All it took was one black president for the South to completely lose its shit.

The good thing is losing the South was a long time coming anyway. Might as well get it over with in an election where it doesn't really matter.
annnnnnnnnnd there goes the Senate.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
I don't view political pressure and having US officials there to stir people up being equal, especially with geographical positions taken into consideration.

And I don't view John McCain making an ass of himself in Kyiv the same as Ukraine's former imperial master trying to turn it into a puppet state against its peoples' wishes.

And as for the bolded, this is a stupid thing to "take into consideration". Just because a country is close to a more powerful one doesn't mean the superior party can control it. It's just as wrong to try excuse Russia's belligerence and imperialism towards states in Eastern Europe with it as it is America's imperialism in Latin America.
 
Voter fraud

A Republican candidate running for the Illinois state legislature has switched the state where she voted between Illinois and Wisconsin in the past few years.

The candidate, Kathy Myalls (pictured, left), voted in a primary election in Illinois and three months after that voted in Wisconsin's recall election aimed at recalling Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker (pictured right), according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Myalls also voted in Wisconsin in the 2012 presidential election. The following spring she came back to Illinois to vote there.
 

Owzers

Member
O_______O Outnumbered....Decaprio shouldn't be talking about global warming because he's really rich and the precautions taken will affect those who are poor. Someone that rich shouldn't be making decisions like that.


These gals.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Question Poligaf (and please no snark): Is it generally accepted the US was involved in the Ukraine Revolution ousting of Viktor Yanukovych?
Yes, Obama personally ordered the neoliberal NATO to overthrow Ukrainian democracy and establish a fascist Nazi President in his place. It's part of the Western neoliberal plot to surround Russia and crush her with the evils of capitalism by cutting her off from other nations free from NATO's yoke.

I'm against the idea of criticizing liberals because that takes away attention from conservatives doing dumb shit as well as providing them with more ammo against liberals. Do you want people like Bill O'Reilly using you as a cudgel to attack democrats?

"Even far left, ultraliberal neogaf poster, APKmetsfan, thinks Rachel Maddow has gone too far!"
Actually, that was one of Reagan's smarter ideas. Democrats shouldn't attack other Democrats unless said Democrats are doing things that Republicans would be doing. Beyond that, they should always be united and we should be looking the other way when they do something unfortunate (like when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt one time).
In principle, not in governance. ...
Being unified and on message 100% of the time is the only way to get ahead in a world of soundbites.

We've had to endure several days of "military doesn't trust Obama" talk because Dempsey said something to the effect of "I think the plan would work, but in the hypothetical you suggested, I would advise the president the best strategy"
But, if we're true to our principles, it's OK that the GOP wins because they're better at politics. We can all say to ourselves, "at least we were right," as Social Security is privatized.
Party over country!

you guys legit scare me, no joke.
Collectivists amirite? Everything within the Party, nothing outside the Party, nothing against the Party.
 
Instigating or undercover assistance. America has a history of covert regime changes and in the case of Syria, supporting rebels.

These are very vague allegations. What specific actions? It is clear we support free & fair elections. And we don't support dictators or corrupt leaders
that don't do what we want.
 
Suffolk poll of Arkansas shows Pryor leading 45-43

tumblr_ldv8jzmyhn1qc7j5lo1_500.gif


Let's turn those frowns upside down, kids!

And SUSA polled Georgia, Perdue is leading by 1 in the Senate race, Carter by 1 in the gov race. Reverses from a 3 point Perdue lead and 1 point Deal lead.
 
Louisiana isn't going to be a challenge for the GOP, and they're in much better position in Alaska, Arkansas and Georgia than Democrats are in CO and IA.

Don't be so sure about that. SurveyUSA found Georgia as a 1 point lead for the Republican today. Georgia is very close to becoming a real player for Dems. The racial composition change in the state is massive.

And every dollar used to defend a GOP stronghold is not used elsewhere.

Interestingly, Nunn would be ahead if she was winning the hispanic vote. She's also nearly 30% of the white vote. If she can somehow cross 30%, she would be the favorite.

http://archive.11alive.com/assetpool/documents/140923120250_11AlivePoll092414.pdf
 

Ecotic

Member
Why is Rick Scott doing so well in Florida? I thought he was hated, enough so that any acceptable alternative would be chosen.
 
Don't be so sure about that. SurveyUSA found Georgia as a 1 point lead for the Republican today. Georgia is very close to becoming a real player for Dems. The racial composition change in the state is massive.

And every dollar used to defend a GOP stronghold is not used elsewhere.

Interestingly, Nunn would be ahead if she was winning the hispanic vote. She's also nearly 30% of the white vote. If she can somehow cross 30%, she would be the favorite.

http://archive.11alive.com/assetpool/documents/140923120250_11AlivePoll092414.pdf
Those crosstabs are actually pretty good for her.

If she wins 30% of the white vote and black voters make up 30% of the electorate, she wins. Both are entirely possible. The demographic shifts over the past six years will make the 2014 electorate look like the 2008 electorate, even with the usual midterm drop-off which was barely significant in 2010.

I have a feeling this could surprise a lot of people, especially with how hard Democrats have been going in registering voters. One group signed up almost 100,000 new black voters (which was challenged by one of the state officials, and then dismissed when they only found about 25 of them to be illegitimate). The most miraculous thing of all would be for Nunn to cross 50% on election night and just win the thing outright, without having to go to a runoff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom