Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't even agree with the non-aggression principle, So IMO its not even a persuasive moral argument.

DWS diablosing

 

[WayneMorse]

It's always bad news.

We're not out of this yet we still have to worry about Iowa.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Wait, what? How are they not a handout?

What is a tax exemption to begin with? It's when the government decides that a group of people, or some kind of organization does not pay taxes while others do.

Just cause you don't get a direct check for the government doesn't mean it's not a handout.

Its not a hand out the government isn't giving you anything, you're just not being forced to give something you already have (your money)

The default, absent a government, is no taxes so the government not taxing isn't an assertive power, its their withdrawl of power.

Again I think we're agreeing on but I think liberals are harming themselves when they refer to tax breaks as "hand outs." People feel taxes take what is theirs already. So saying that keeping 'what is theirs" provokes a reaction that is angry and anti-government because your arguing that money isn't theirs.

That's why I say the same problem should be framed not as a hand out problem but the government letting some play by special rules. I think that's far more likely to get voters to vote in a more liberal direction.

Anyways I'm not in favor of taxing churches, and I don't really have a problem with them being political. I don't view taxes through the lens of gaining more revenue but through the transference of wealth.

I thought that was CPAC?

CPAC is the standard orthodoxy of the GOP.

Value Voters is the religious fundies, they overlap but CPAC tries to be a bit more presentable.

 

[Aaron Strife]

We're not out of this yet we still have to worry about Iowa.

There's a new poll of that coming out tonight from Selzer (#1 pollster according to 538's rankings). I'm betting a tie or a lead for either candidate within MOE

 

[Souldriver]

Just stopping by to tell you that while i kinda like the idea of a Hilary presidency, she's just so awkward everytime I see her. She was on the Colbert report recently (or daily shiw) and I had to shut it off because it was embarrassing. Same thing with footage I saw of her speaking to a crowd in Iowa. She's just so awkward when trying to come off as genuine and off the cuff.

My 2 cents

 

[East Lake]

You gotta work on your game, you spar with benji in the realm of things long forgotten.

Let me help, "It's cool how this quote skips over Buenaventura Durruti and Nestor Makhno.

"

Thank you. I'm trying bro I haven't read all the things yet. Trying to use my puny brain to figure it out without any help.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

There's a new poll of that coming out tonight from Selzer (#1 pollster according to 538's rankings). I'm betting a tie or a lead for either candidate within MOE

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...leads-bruce-braley/16351013/?sf31690561=['1']

The ground under Bruce Braley has shifted.

The Democratic U.S. Senate candidate is 6 points behind his GOP rival, Joni Ernst, according to The Des Moines Register's new Iowa Poll of likely voters.

Ernst leads 44 percent to 38 percent in a race that has for months been considered deadlocked. She leads nearly 4-1 with rural voters, and is up double digits with independents.

"Very interesting, and good news not just for Ernst but also for the GOP's chances of taking the U.S. Senate," said national political prognosticator Larry Sabato of "Sabato's Crystal Ball."

Just seven months ago, political analysts considered Braley almost a shoo-in for a seat held for 30 years by liberal Democrat Tom Harkin.

Still, the 6-point deficit isn't insurmountable with 37 days left until the Nov. 4 election, political analysts say. Twelve percent of likely voters remain undecided.

Some of the vulnerabilities for Braley, a lawyer and eight-year congressman: He isn't winning in his home district, in northeast Iowa. Two-thirds of likely voters think it's a problem that he missed a large percentage of Veterans Affairs Committee meetings in the U.S. House. Fifty-nine percent think his role in crafting the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, is a problem.

And he's suffering badly with rural voters. Only 15 percent support him compared with 58 percent for Ernst. One potential reason: Two-thirds of likely voters who live in the country are bothered by a remark he made about Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley that's been perceived as besmirching farmers.

@Nate_Cohn 15m
Here's something you don't see every day: a 38 point gender gap. D+13 w/women, R+25 w/men in Iowa

 

[WayneMorse]

Welp Senate is gone.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The gloating from the right is going to be unbareable.

Its a second midterm. THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS

* In the past century, only one president -- Bill Clinton -- has gained congressional seats in his second midterm -- and even then, it was not enough to win back the majority in the House. In 1998, Clinton's Democratic Party picked up five seats in the House, while the Senate stayed the same. So, it's pretty difficult to make second midterm gains, period. What's more, House Democrats need to gain 17 seats to win back the majority in 2014, more than three times what the party netted during Clinton's second midterm. And as Wilson and Rucker note, Clinton's 1998 approval rating was 14 points higher then than Obama's is now.

 

[BigWeather]

Had two Kagan supporter visits the last week, none for Tillis. Hopefully they'll keep it up, I shudder to think about Tillis taking over.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Only thing good thing is I can't see ersnt being popular in 2020. The state is purple and she doesn't have grassley's charm. Also grassley is probably gonna be out soon so they can get a seat back.

I'm happy we're defending NC because that is changing the map. I really want to keep CO though. I'll be more pissed about than loosing the senate because AK and AR went red

 

[B-Dubs]

Had two Kagan supporter visits the last week, none for Tillis. Hopefully they'll keep it up, I shudder to think about Tillis taking over.

Bad news for Kay Hagan.

You know, it occurs to me that if this meme is widespread enough it may just be making her campaign work that much harder...

 

[alstein]

Only thing good thing is I can't see ersnt being popular in 2020. The state is purple and she doesn't have grassley's charm. Also grassley is probably gonna be out soon so they can get a seat back.

I'm happy we're defending NC because that is changing the map. I really want to keep CO though. I'll be more pissed about than loosing the senate because AK and AR went red

The state legislature is what's changing the map in NC.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...leads-bruce-braley/16351013/?sf31690561=['1']

shit

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The state legislature is what's changing the map in NC.

There was Edwards, 2008, and hopefully 2014. The state is purple I don't know what happened in 2012

 

[HylianTom]

shit

Yeah.. no worries. Not like much was going to get done in the last two years anyway. The only real point of concern I have is with any unexpected SCOTUS vacancies.

Get used to hearing "this Republican Congress," "Republican extremists on the Hill," etc.. a lot in campaign speeches and commercials. Bill Clinton has a bit of experience running against this type of foil, and with pretty impressive results. And the GOP base quickly gets frustrated when their new control of Congress doesn't yield the policy results they want, so expect the fire to die-down a bit; in some ways, it's a party comprised of Veruca Salt impersonators ("I want it NOOOOW!").

Now.. who's going to play the role of 2016's evil GOP supervillain (i.e., Newt Gingrich 2.0)? There's gotta be a supervillain!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

shit

The one thing is I think Baley can retool is his campaign for the last month. But from his twitter presence he seems to be pretending to be something he's not which is just reinforcing his problems. Its not over, but this is a wake up call that their campaign isn't working

Outside money needs to come in and pound ernst. Half her positions are insane. You can drive down GOP enthusiasm and have people say they'd rather vote for the guy who hates farmers than the one who things Iraq had WMDs, the UN is going to steal everyone's farms and is going to vote to privatize social security.

Yeah.. no worries. Not like much was going to get done in the last two years anyway. The only real point of concern I have is with any unexpected SCOTUS vacancies.

Get used to hearing "this Republican Congress," "Republican extremists on the Hill," etc.. a lot in campaign speeches and commercials. Bill Clinton has a bit of experience running against this type of foil, and with pretty impressive results. And the GOP base quickly gets frustrated when their new control of Congress doesn't yield the policy results they want, so expect the fire to die-down a bit; in some ways, it's a party comprised of Veruca Salt impersonators ("I want it NOOOOW!").

Now.. who's going to play the role of 2016's evil GOP supervillain (i.e., Newt Gingrich 2.0)? There's gotta be a supervillain!

this is why I say I'm not really concerned with 'the senate' but the seats we'd lose. Iowa should be blue. CO should be blue, NC should be blue. AK would be awesome to have 6 more years of blue. I don't care about losing AR or LA besides the fact it'd be nice.

also turtle can be the republican pelosi

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah.. no worries. Not like much was going to get done in the last two years anyway. The only real point of concern I have is with any unexpected SCOTUS vacancies.

Get used to hearing "this Republican Congress," "Republican extremists on the Hill," etc.. a lot in campaign speeches and commercials. Bill Clinton has a bit of experience running against this type of foil, and with pretty impressive results. And the GOP base quickly gets frustrated when their new control of Congress doesn't yield the policy results they want, so expect the fire to die-down a bit; in some ways, it's a party comprised of Veruca Salt impersonators ("I want it NOOOOW!").

Now.. who's going to play the role of 2016's evil GOP supervillain (i.e., Newt Gingrich 2.0)? There's gotta be a supervillain!

I mainly want Democrats to hold the Senate this year because if they do, there's a chance they could win a supermajority in 2016. We'll see I guess.

this is why I say I'm not really concerned with 'the senate' but the seats we'd lose. Iowa should be blue. CO should be blue, NC should be blue. AK would be awesome to have 6 more years of blue. I don't care about losing AR or LA besides the fact it'd be nice.

This too... We should be winning Iowa and Colorado. NC is tougher but we're doing better there for some reason (well, Tillis).

If AR/AK/LA don't go this year they will anyway in 2020, but still. I really like Landrieu as well so it'd be nice for her to win.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I mainly want Democrats to hold the Senate this year because if they do, there's a chance they could win a supermajority in 2016. We'll see I guess.


This too... We should be winning Iowa and Colorado. NC is tougher but we're doing better there for some reason (well, Tillis).

If AR/AK/LA don't go this year they will anyway in 2020, but still. I really like Landrieu as well so it'd be nice for her to win.

I'd be interested in the special election in 2015/6 in LA. Its probably gonna be the GOP but there will be money spent if the Dems can get a good candidate. (Mitch?) That would make FL, PA, WI, OH, AZ that much easier to win or at least make super competitive.

Edit: supermajorities are over there's no need. once one party gets all three branches, they're gone. Well be going on 6 or 8 years of no real legislative work because of them.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Edit: supermajorities are over there's no need. once one party gets all three branches, they're gone. Well be going on 6 or 8 years of no real legislative work because of them.

Fair enough... but the more seats we win this year, the better insulated we are against losses in 2018 and so on. Senate elections are chess games.

 

[AntoneM]

I'm pretty sure the Republicans will gain a slight majority in the Senate which will eventually lead to a government shutdown where Republicans will be forced to actually explain why they are shutting down the government (repeal healthcare benefits, reduce SSA benefits, cut medicaid, cut medicare, cut food aid, cut veterans benefits... etc.) and will have no one to blame but Obama and Obama can argue against all 200+ Republicans in congress. 2016 will be a damned blood bath for Republicans

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm pretty sure the Republicans will gain a slight majority in the Senate which will eventually lead to a government shutdown where Republicans will be forced to actually explain why they are shutting down the government (repeal healthcare benefits, reduce SSA benefits, cut medicaid, cut medicare, cut food aid, cut veterans benefits... etc.) and will have no one to blame but Obama and Obama can argue against all 200+ Republicans in congress. 2016 will be a damned blood bath for Republicans

Blood bath is a bit much since I don't think they'll shut it down, (though cruz might screw it up with his house buddies). There are about 6 seats the dems have a great shot at winning. 10 that are possible.

Say we lose this year and go down to 48. That only puts us back at 52-58.

 

[zero shift]

I'm still wondering how effective Obama has been as president.

Thinking of it he:

- Appointed two left leaning Supreme Court members
- Appointed a left leaning federal reserve chariperson
- Let Bush tax cuts expire
- Is pushing for Arab nations to handle situations in the Middle East
- Cooled tensions with Iran
- Built a strong base for the Democratic Party

 

[thepotatoman]

I mainly want Democrats to hold the Senate this year because if they do, there's a chance they could win a supermajority in 2016. We'll see I guess.

Forget supermajority, if 2014 goes to badly, 2016 might not quite be enough to fix things. The worst case scenario of AK, IA, CO, and NC all going republican would combine with King and Orman caucusing with the republicans as the majority, and put it to a 55-45 gap for Republicans, requiring Democrats to pick up 5 plus the presidency to make the switch back.

Democrats would still be favored to take back the senate, but it wouldn't be 100% anymore as they'd need take out the incumbent in one of FL, NC, or OH to get it, and if Hillary somehow screws up, Republicans could find themselves with the presidency, senate, and house.

I still think Democrats will do better than that worst case scenario, but I just wanted to point out that it isn't ok for them to just roll over on this one.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans will gain a slight majority in the Senate which will eventually lead to a government shutdown where Republicans will be forced to actually explain why they are shutting down the government (repeal healthcare benefits, reduce SSA benefits, cut medicaid, cut medicare, cut food aid, cut veterans benefits... etc.) and will have no one to blame but Obama and Obama can argue against all 200+ Republicans in congress. 2016 will be a damned blood bath for Republicans

That's true. It does seem highly likely, especially with the circus of the republican primary race with everyone having to keep finding ways to one up everyone else.

 

[Aaron Strife]

King and Orman would probably switch to the Ds though. King at least.

 

[thepotatoman]

King and Orman would probably switch back though.

They wouldn't switch to switch the majority. They'd only switch if democrats get the majority, similar to how King wont be the one to decide the switch to the republicans here in 2014, that's why democrats need 5 seats plus presidency to get them to switch back, in that worst case scenario.

 

[Aaron Strife]

They wouldn't switch to switch the majority. They'd only switch if democrats get the majority, similar to how King wont be the one to decide the switch to the republicans here in 2014, that's why democrats need 5 seats plus presidency to get them to switch back, in that worst case scenario.

Right, just that it would pad their majority a little at least.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

@Taniel 17m
More bad polls to come for Dems: PPP tweets that Ernst is "definitely ahead" in poll they're running now, implies Landrieu will be down too.

 

[Aaron Strife]

@Taniel 17m
More bad polls to come for Dems: PPP tweets that Ernst is "definitely ahead" in poll they're running now, implies Landrieu will be down too.

Sigh. It's gonna be a rough few weeks.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388990/khorosan-group-does-not-exist-andrew-c-mccarthy

We’re being had. Again.

For six years, President Obama has endeavored to will the country into accepting two pillars of his alternative national-security reality. First, he claims to have dealt decisively with the terrorist threat, rendering it a disparate series of ragtag jayvees. Second, he asserts that the threat is unrelated to Islam, which is innately peaceful, moderate, and opposed to the wanton “violent extremists” who purport to act in its name.

Now, the president has been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been “decimated.” The jihad, in fact, has inevitably intensified under his counterfactual worldview, which holds that empowering Islamic supremacists is the path to security and stability. Yet even as war intensifies in Iraq and Syria — even as jihadists continue advancing, continue killing and capturing hapless opposition forces on the ground despite Obama’s futile air raids — the president won’t let go of the charade.

Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group.

The who?

There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.

You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one.

For a product of the radical Left like Obama, terrorism is a regrettable but understandable consequence of American arrogance. That it happens to involve Muslims is just the coincidental fallout of Western imperialism in the Middle East, not the doctrinal command of a belief system that perceives itself as engaged in an inter-civilizational conflict. For the Left, America has to be the culprit. Despite its inbred pathologies, which we had no role in cultivating, Islam must be the victim, not the cause. As you’ll hear from Obama’s Islamist allies, who often double as Democrat activists, the problem is “Islamophobia,” not Muslim terrorism.

This is a gross distortion of reality, so the Left has to do some very heavy lifting to pull it off. Since the Islamic-supremacist ideology that unites the jihadists won’t disappear, it has to be denied and purged. The “real” jihad becomes the “internal struggle to become a better person.” The scriptural and scholarly underpinnings of Islamic supremacism must be bleached out of the materials used to train our national-security agents, and the instructors who resist going along with the program must be ostracized. The global terror network must be atomized into discrete, disconnected cells moved to violence by parochial political or territorial disputes, with no overarching unity or hegemonic ambition. That way, they can be limned as a manageable law-enforcement problem fit for the courts to address, not a national-security challenge requiring the armed forces.

The president has been telling us for years that he handled al-Qaeda by killing bin Laden. He has been telling us for weeks that the Islamic State — an al-Qaeda renegade that will soon reconcile with the mother ship for the greater good of unity in the anti-American jihad — is a regional nuisance that posed no threat to the United States. In recent days, however, reality intruded on this fiction. Suddenly, tens of thousands of terrorists, armed to the teeth, were demolishing American-trained armies, beheading American journalists, and threatening American targets.

 

[pigeon]

King is a Senator from Maine who opposes oil drilling, supports background checks for all gun transactions, is pro-choice, called the people taking out anti-Obamacare ads "guilty of murder", and signed the amicus brief against DOMA.

He will never caucus with the GOP. The only reason he's an independent is that Maine has a weird independent fetish. And since he's an independent he has to say he'll decide who to caucus with on his own. But he has zero Republican-friendly positions.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sigh. It's gonna be a rough few weeks.

The thing is the GOP is going to be unable to govern. I'm really looking forward to them failing spectacularly .

King is a Senator from Maine who opposes oil drilling, supports background checks for all gun transactions, is pro-choice, called the people taking out anti-Obamacare ads "guilty of murder", and signed the amicus brief against DOMA.

He will never caucus with the GOP. The only reason he's an independent is that Maine has a weird independent fetish. And since he's an independent he has to say he'll decide who to caucus with on his own. But he has zero Republican-friendly positions.

Yeah I don't know what the fretting about him is all about.

The dems are looking at a worse case scenario of being needing for or 5 pick ups in 2016.

 

[benjipwns]

King originally ditched the Democrats because Joe Brennan had a strangle hold on the Maine party process.

 

[thepotatoman]

Well, even if Iowa falls, there's still a path to senate control through Alaska and Colorado.

 

[thepotatoman]

King is a Senator from Maine who opposes oil drilling, supports background checks for all gun transactions, is pro-choice, called the people taking out anti-Obamacare ads "guilty of murder", and signed the amicus brief against DOMA.

He will never caucus with the GOP. The only reason he's an independent is that Maine has a weird independent fetish. And since he's an independent he has to say he'll decide who to caucus with on his own. But he has zero Republican-friendly positions.

I don't know much about him, I'm just basing the assumption on his comments in this article:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/203161-king-may-flip-to-gop-in-2015

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well, even if Iowa falls, there's still a path to senate control through Alaska and Colorado.

MT, SD, WV, LA, IA and AR is 51 for the GOP

AK is 52 CO is 53, NC is 54

Thank god for 2012 or we could have been looking at a GOP super majority this year.

2018 is crap for dems they're gonna be holding ground and its a midterm. I'm struggling to see how any party controls all three till 2020.

 

[benjipwns]

2016:

2018:

 

[NYCmetsfan]

2016:

2018:

these maps are speculative but show Competitive races as things are now. Light Colors.
2016

2018

 

[Aaron Strife]

The good thing about 2016 is that the only obviously competitive races the Ds hold are Nevada and Colorado. There are at least 10 GOP held seats that are competitive.

2018... Things could change a lot in four years but it'll probably be MT/MO/ND like it was in 2012, as well as Indiana now. But Arizona might be competitive in both years, John McCain is hugely unpopular and Jeff Flake only won by 3 points last election.

 

[benjipwns]

I'd imagine Indiana is one of the bigger threats to flip back in 2018, assuming the candidate doesn't talk about rape.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'd imagine Indiana is one of the bigger threats to flip back in 2018, assuming the candidate doesn't talk about rape.

Yeah, MT and ND really like their incumbents.

And retirements and deaths are a big thing nobody knows about.

 

[benjipwns]

2020 could have a decent number of open seats, there's quite a few class of 1996ers. (Assuming they survive since Roberts, Landrieu, etc. are some of those.)

2018 is interesting, except for Feinstein (who I'd imagine will retire) and Hatch (who is retiring) everyone else was elected in the 2000s. Carper, Bill Nelson, Stabenow and Cantwell are your "old timers" in that group. Everyone else (non-special election) is either a class of 2006 or class of 2012.

 

[thepotatoman]

MT, SD, WV, LA, IA and AR is 51 for the GOP

AK is 52 CO is 53, NC is 54

Thank god for 2012 or we could have been looking at a GOP super majority this year.

2018 is crap for dems they're gonna be holding ground and its a midterm. I'm struggling to see how any party controls all three till 2020.

Sorry, I'm counting Kansas too. KS + AK + CO + NC = 50-50

Of those 4 I feel AK is the lowest percentage chance of going dems way, even with the chance of Orman caucusing with republicans should he be the deciding vote.

 

[benjipwns]

I can't see any reason Orman would caucus with the Republicans unless they get 51 seats without him.

 

[benjipwns]

There’s also at least one high-profile long-shot on the informal list being circulated inside Obama’s camp: former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who left Washington in 2013 to take over the massive University of California system, according to one Democrat with close ties to the White House. Napolitano was the original choice for the job at the start of Obama’s first term – a favorite of then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Holder, who had considered himself the sole front-runner for the job, was startled during the 2008-09 transition period when he was handed a Department of Justice binder that included headshots of himself and Napolitano as potential AGs.

no

 

[NYCmetsfan]

no

I'm in complete agreement with benji.

Also: 2012's rape-fest probably had a lot to do with this, that tanked two races at minimum.

Only one of those came at a debate though.

But yeah, your gonna see candidate's withdraw. Can't have them interacting with the pesky press and voters.

Who knows, they might actually have to answer a question, or be forced to stare into space while avoiding answering one

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/28/in-big-races-debates-few-and-far-between/

Voters in Michigan torn between giving Gov. Rick Snyder (R) a second term or opting for his opponent, former Rep. Mark Schauer (D), will have only one chance to see the two men share a stage to debate their records. They’re lucky – voters in Minnesota are getting no debates at all: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) has even refused to participate in a Minnesota Public Radio debate at the state fair, a tradition that stretches back 20 years

Across the country, in some of the most competitive contests for Senate seats and governorships and some of the least, incumbent office-holders are refusing to meet their opponents in front of television cameras.

The dearth of televised debates isn’t for lack of trying: Media outlets have proposed dozens of televised forums. But this year, more than ever before, candidates have squabbled over venues, hosts, dates and formats for debates – and as a consequence, all but a small handful of the faceoffs, rare opportunities for voters to weigh two candidates against each other, have been canceled.

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) did not debate his primary opponent, state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R), and has not scheduled a debate before his general election showdown with former Rep. Travis Childers (D).

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) is threatening to pull out of previously-scheduled debates with his opponent, Rep. Mike Michaud (D), ostensibly because a group running ads on Michaud’s behalf accused LePage of describing Social Security and Medicaid as forms of welfare. In Ohio, the campaign of Gov. John Kasich (R) – sitting on a 20-point lead – said last week it would refuse any and all debates with his opponent, Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald (D).

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has agreed to only one debate with former Bush administration official Neel Kashkari (R) as he seeks support from voters in the country’s largest state – and insisted it take place on the first Thursday of September, opposite the first NFL game of the season.

In many of these cases, incumbents are rejecting debates they, or their predecessors, had readily agreed to in the past.

...

In Michigan, the Snyder and Schauer campaigns argued over whether a proposed debate before the Detroit Economic Club would be a lunchtime meeting or a prime time event. Either way, just five weeks before Election Day, that debate still hasn’t been scheduled. Snyder’s campaign didn’t respond to an invitation from WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids – so two weeks ago, the station canceled its debate.

The two candidates have managed to agree to just one faceoff: a one-hour, town hall-style gathering moderated by the editorial page editors of the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press.

Like Snyder, Republican Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land, trailing Rep. Gary Peters (D), has not responded to WOOD-TV’s efforts to schedule a debate. Michigan State University and the League of Women Voters cancelled planned debates too, after Land’s campaign declined invitations.

Colorado voters weighing whether to keep Sen. Mark Udall (D) in office or elect Rep. Cory Gardner (R), will likely have three chances to see the two candidates debate on television – but only after months of atypical uncertainty and delay.

Udall’s campaign was approached by KDVR-TV, Denver’s Fox affiliate, in mid-July, in hopes of scheduling a debate for September or early October. Udall aides did not respond until on Sept. 4, more than seven weeks later, at 11:47 p.m., declining the invitation. The campaign also declined a debate on KCNC-TV, Denver’s CBS affiliate; six years ago, Udall debated his then-rival, Rep. Bob Schaffer (D), on the same station.

“Given that Udall had time to climb mountains over the August recess and that he has time to do a 30-minute sit-down interview with me for our Sunday morning politics show, it’s clear the issue isn’t really a lack of time but a clear – and understandable — strategic decision by the campaign to limit debates,” said Eli Stokols, KDVR’s chief political reporter.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) did not debate Columbia University law professor Zephyr Teachout (D) before the Sept. 9 Democratic primary. Cuomo told The New York Times he didn’t think debates were necessarily good for democracy. “I’ve been in many debates that I think were a disservice to democracy,” Cuomo said, in a comment he has since classified as a joke. On Saturday, a little over five weeks before Election Day, Cuomo finally agreed to two debates with Republican opponent Rob Astorino.

,,,

“People complain about the debates, that they are too much canned answers, we want more free-flowing conversation. On the other hand, people want a broad range of topics covered,” said Ron Klain, a Democratic strategist who has handled debate preparations for President Obama, former president Bill Clinton and countless other candidates.

“The pendulum has swung towards more questions with shorter answers this time,” Klain added. “We’re seeing answer times in a lot of debates as short as a minute, as short as 45 seconds.”

Candidates seem to have decided that taking criticism from editorial boards for avoiding debates is worth skipping an event that offers them limited political value. Several campaign strategists, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly, said offering an opponent running far behind in the polls a free media platform would amount to political malpractice.

“Debates are not debates. They’re joint press conferences. They’re dueling one-liners designed to fire up your base,” Yepsen said.

Saw this coming and was a bit baffled at how many debates were happening in 2010 and 2012, however, there's going to be just as many if not more debates for the Presidential primaries because it's free nationwide advertising and you want those one liners.

Also: 2012's rape-fest probably had a lot to do with this, that tanked two races at minimum.

 

[pigeon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/28/in-big-races-debates-few-and-far-between/

Saw this coming and was a bit baffled at how many debates were happening in 2010 and 2012, however, there's going to be just as many if not more debates for the Presidential primaries because it's free nationwide advertising and you want those one liners.

Also: 2012's rape-fest probably had a lot to do with this, that tanked two races at minimum.

That seems like such an easy issue to prep.

"Rape is?"

"I forget."

"Cmon."

"Rape is...usually reasonable?"

"Rape is bad."

"Bad, really? It's really bad?"

(sound of index card turning over)

"Goddamn it. Okay, let's go again."

 

[thepotatoman]

I can't see any reason Orman would caucus with the Republicans unless they get 51 seats without him.

Right, Taylor and Kobach didn't fight so hard over ballot issues because they're concerned Orman will be the key vote on a campaign finance bill.

 

[benjipwns]

That seems like such an easy issue to prep.

I figure the campaign handlers just assumed it's not something you ever needed to prep for.

You have to imagine even the true believer pro-life Religious Right political advisers were pounding their heads against the wall after "legitimate rape" was said.

Only one of those came at a debate though.

Huh, thought Akin's was at a debate too.

But at least messing that up led me to learn this:

In July 2014, Akin's book, Firing Back: Taking on the Party Bosses and Media Elite to Protect Our Faith and Freedom, was published. In it, he said that he regretted apologising, because, "by asking the public at large for forgiveness, I was validating the willful misinterpretation of what I had said." He also defended his original comments and attacked various Republicans for "wronging" him, including Karl Rove, former National Republican Senatorial Committee Executive Director Rob Jesmer, Senators Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, John McCain Roy Blunt and Lindsey Graham and House Speaker John Boehner. He also repeatedly attacked the Republican establishment for seeing his comments "as their opportunity to take [me] out and select someone more palatable to their tastes", and the "liberal media" for making him "the target of a media assassination."