Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

In any case, I don't think Rick Perry can get elected. America has had enough of Texas oilmen and their wars in the middle-east.

 

[thepotatoman]

So . . . would a good summary of the GOP immigration proposal be: OK, you can hang out, BUT YOU'LL NEVER GET TO VOTE!

How would that be any different than it is now?

Is it really like that? Does the constitution actually allow for legal, tax paying immigrants to not be considered voting eligible citizens? I would think that'd be incredibly unconstitutional, but I don't know. It certainly goes against the "no taxation without representation" policy this country was literally founded on.

If that's true, since you have to prove to be able to live without welfare, the only real benefit for illegal immigrants is to not have to worry about being deported, at the cost of fines, back taxes, and the risk of deportation from outing yourself to the government and failing their path to citizenship tests. Seems like a really bum deal that few people would take.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Is it really like that? Does the constitution actually allow for legal, tax paying immigrants to not be considered voting eligible citizens? I would think that'd be incredibly unconstitutional, but I don't know. It certainly goes against the "no taxation without representation" policy this country was literally founded on.

Ask the people who live in the District of Columbia! (not exactly the same situation but I enjoy bringing this up whenever possible)

 

[VanMardigan]

Or Puerto Ricans, or virgin islanders etc.

 

[pigeon]

Is it really like that? Does the constitution actually allow for legal, tax paying immigrants to not be considered voting eligible citizens? I would think that'd be incredibly unconstitutional, but I don't know. It certainly goes against the "no taxation without representation" policy this country was literally founded on.

What "no taxation without representation" policy? Second-class citizenship for people of color is literally a founding principle of America!

 

[pigeon]

Meanwhile...

The [Republican] party is divided and in turmoil, with a civil war raging between its establishment and insurgent factions. For the first time in memory, there is no obvious early favorite — no candidate with wide appeal who has run before, no incumbent president or vice president, no clear establishment pick.

Meanwhile, an enormous number of potential contenders are looking at the race, including, perhaps, a return of virtually everyone who ran in 2012. Come this time next year, 15 or more of them could be traveling the early primary states, jockeying for attention and money....

But two years out from the Iowa caucuses, the Democrats are the ones who are closing ranks. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows presumed contender Hillary Rodham Clinton already holding the support of 73 percent of those likely to vote Democratic. In the poll’s 30-year history, no one has ever had such a strong grip on the party at this early point.

On the Republican side, things are so wide open that even 2012 nominee Romney is getting another look, although the former Massachusetts governor himself recently told the New York Times: “Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no.”...

...there is always the possibility that an ill-timed breakout moment could catapult one of the less-viable candidates to the nomination, said Republican consultant Mike Murphy, who mentioned Cruz as a potential “poison pill in a general” election.

“The Democrats had their McGovern,” Murphy said, referring to the 1972 landslide election. “Hopefully, we won’t have ours.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3fe17e-8a91-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html
Here's my prediction, for the record: Hillary's opponent will receive less than 100 electoral votes.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Here's my prediction: Hillary will get beat in the primary again if she even runs.

 

[gcubed]

Here's my prediction: Hillary will get beat in the primary again if she even runs.

That's about as likely as me winning the powerball... And i never buy a ticket

 

[rocketknight]

Both Jonathan Chait and Charlie Pierce are beating up on David Brooks today, so it's twice the usual fun:

David Brooks Wants Bowles-Simpson for Everything by Jonathan Chait

Why not extend the power of the Bowles-Simpson brand beyond mere deficit scolding to other policy areas? What about a Bowles-Simpson commission for everyday life decisions? The husband says we should spend $5000 to repair our car, the wife says we can't afford it. Then they hire a Bowles-Simpson commission to tell them they should reject that debate and instead ride around on an invisible unicorn.

Moral Hazard Comes Home by Charles P. Pierce

This is the orgasmic howl of the Beltway Gollum -- One, two, many Simpson-Bowleseses, precious, precious, yes, YES, YES!!!! A whole exaltation of useless collections of wise men bringing out policy proposals that will not solve a single problem and which, in any case, will not pass the House of Representatives because of the mad collection of Democratic donors, Democratic congressional constituencies, and those doggone Washington rules that require that David Brooks be taken seriously.

 

[Trouble]

Lol. He looks like a kid that wants dad to go throw the ball with him in the back yard.

 

[platypotamus]

Meanwhile...

On the Republican side, things are so wide open that even 2012 nominee Romney is getting another look, although the former Massachusetts governor himself recently told the New York Times: “Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no.”...

#dead

 

[GaimeGuy]

The Onion needs to write an article centered around this

 

[Sibylus]

The Onion needs to write an article centered around this

"Off the forehead, off the window, off the trash can..."

 

[B-Dubs]

The Onion needs to write an article centered around this

He's just lonely because Worm isn't around anymore.

 

[theprodigy]

Meanwhile...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3fe17e-8a91-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html
Here's my prediction, for the record: Hillary's opponent will receive less than 100 electoral votes.

that's absurd

 

[zero shift]

Here's my prediction: Hillary will get beat in the primary again if she even runs.

By who? It's clear that the Democrats have put all their focus on grooming Hilary over the past eight years. Warren? While I'm sure she's PoliGaf's preferred candidate she is too new and "radical" for the average American voter. There was some hoopla over Julian Castro but he's way too green thus why he faded into oblivion for the time being. Nobody is going to beat Hilary.

Meanwhile...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3fe17e-8a91-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html
Here's my prediction, for the record: Hillary's opponent will receive less than 100 electoral votes.

The Republican party is currently in a way a lot like the Democratic party of the 1980s. Much of their base has deteriorated, the party is not on solid ground anymore. There are currently two factions of the party. One that wants to continue the march toward their end of the spectrum and the other more "moderate" faction that is willing to march the other direction (the direction where the general public is heading) to compromise in order to still win elections.

 

[Trouble]

By who? It's clear that the Democrats have put all their focus on grooming Hilary over the past eight years. Warren? While I'm sure she's PoliGaf's preferred candidate she is too new and "radical" for the average American voter. There was so hoopla over Julian Castro but he's way too green thus why he faded into oblivion for the time being. Nobody is going to beat Hilary.

Agreed.

The only person who could potentially be competitive, IMO, is probably Joe Biden. I don't see him running, though. Maybe if Hillary doesn't.

The real question I'm curious about is who Hillary picks as a V.P. running mate. My guess is Mark Warner, he'd help lock down VA which has quickly become the preeminent swing state.

 

[CygnusXS]

What would the hypothetical scenario be if Clinton doesn't run though? For the sake of argument, say she has a medical issue that prevents her from running. Are there any legitimate candidates?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

What would the hypothetical scenario be if Clinton doesn't run though? For the sake of argument, say she has a medical issue that prevents her from running. Are there any legitimate candidates?

Andrew Cuomo and Martin O'Malley are probably going to run either way. Plus Biden. And Brian Schweitzer as a possible "dark horse."

 

[campfireweekend]

Ok, so this quote

Today almost two thirds of the poor families in America have washing machines. Over half have dryers, A third have a dishwashers. Those machines are servants aren't they? And they're usually more reliable than the old fashioned kind. Yes, the highest earning people today are making more than the highest earning people ten or twenty years ago... but so is everyone else.

is from the required reading of my Micro Econ class. It's a book called the price of everything. Aside from the obvious lie at the end, and the recurring right wing obsession with poor people having utilities, this is blatant right wing economic propaganda right? Like not substantive knowledge I in any way need to know for Micro econ?

 

[rocketknight]

Ok, so this quote is from the required reading of my Micro Econ class. It's a book called the price of everything. Aside from the obvious lie at the end, and the recurring right wing obsession with poor people having utilities, this is blatant right wing economic propaganda right? Like not substantive knowledge I in any way need to know for Micro econ?

Correct.

 

[zero shift]

I never grew up with a cell phone when I was a child! Spoiled fucks!

It's a book called the price of everything. Aside from the obvious lie at the end, and the recurring right wing obsession with poor people having utilities, this is blatant right wing economic propaganda right? Like not substantive knowledge I in any way need to know for Micro econ?

Yes. The right wing really is stupid enough to not know the difference between how food, education, and savings affect one's social standing and an Xbox and washing machine. The only relevance it has is that through research and pricing competition products become cheaper.

 

[campfireweekend]

Correct.

Awesome. Plus its pretty damn condescending. The story is framed around a teacher teaching a kid economics through what amounts to anecdotes.

My professor is a pretty devout catholic. I wonder how he reconciles that and all that the Pope's been saying recently with all the stupid economics he both believes in and tries to push on his students.

 

[WayneMorse]

Agreed.

The only person who could potentially be competitive, IMO, is probably Joe Biden. I don't see him running, though. Maybe if Hillary doesn't.

The real question I'm curious about is who Hillary picks as a V.P. running mate. My guess is Mark Warner, he'd help lock down VA which has quickly become the preeminent swing state.

O'Malley will probably run to build a base and name recognition for 2024 and may be chosen as Hillary's running mate.

Bernie Sanders says that if he runs in 2016 it'll be as an independent, it could throw in a wild card in for Hillary, I don't think it could cost her the election but it could deny her the mandate that her husband never got.

 

[empty vessel]

Ok, so this quote is from the required reading of my Micro Econ class. It's a book called the price of everything. Aside from the obvious lie at the end, and the recurring right wing obsession with poor people having utilities, this is blatant right wing economic propaganda right? Like not substantive knowledge I in any way need to know for Micro econ?

Yes, the author is with the Hoover Institution. Here is Brad DeLong's take on him: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/02/economist-russ-roberts-liar.html

 

[campfireweekend]

Yes, the author is with the Hoover Institution. Here is Brad DeLong's take on him: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/02/economist-russ-roberts-liar.html

Ooh, is the writer of that blog a teacher at Berkeley? I'm hoping to transfer there from my community college in the fall to Major in economics.

God I wish there were some sort of statute barring teachers from lying their students.

You always seems pretty versed in econ, and I think you recommended that I read American Prometheus (which I loved) Do you have any books on economics I can read to balance out the stupidity and rage I get from that book?

 

[gogosox8]

What would the hypothetical scenario be if Clinton doesn't run though? For the sake of argument, say she has a medical issue that prevents her from running. Are there any legitimate candidates?

Cuomo would be my guess. Maybe Biden.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Meanwhile...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3fe17e-8a91-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html
Here's my prediction, for the record: Hillary's opponent will receive less than 100 electoral votes.

http://www.270towin.com/

Any GOP candidate will get at least 180 EV votes. The best Hillary could do is 347 EV (winning all the 2012 swing states) but I don't see that happening.

 

[RustyNails]

http://www.270towin.com/

Any GOP candidate will get at least 180 EV votes. The best Hillary could do is 347 EV (winning all the 2012 swing states) but I don't see that happening.

Hillary can probably flip West Virginia and other reagan democrat strongholds. Maybe even Arkansas if Bill can work it.

 

[Trouble]

http://www.270towin.com/

Any GOP candidate will get at least 180 EV votes. The best Hillary could do is 347 EV (winning all the 2012 swing states) but I don't see that happening.

If Hillary takes every state that ever went for Bill or Barack, that would do it.

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bFLM

Not that I think there is a snowball's chance in hell.

Edit: I'm terrible at this, see below.

 

[B-Dubs]

If Hillary takes every state that ever went for Bill or Barack, that would do it.

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bFLM

Not that I think there is a snowball's chance in hell.

That is one blue map you've got there

 

[Trouble]

That is one blue map you've got there

A 400+ EV result would be glorious. 'Mandate' and such.

Edit: You can blame Bob Dole for losing a lot of 'safe' states by today's standards.

 

[Trouble]

If Hillary takes every state that ever went for Bill or Barack, that would do it.

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bFLM

Not that I think there is a snowball's chance in hell.

Whoops. I screwed up.

Correct map: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bFLN

Even with every state that Bill or Bams won, still doesn't get the GOP candidate below 100. Close at 102, though.

 

[zero shift]

Whoops. I screwed up.

Correct map: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bFLN

Even with every state that Bill or Bams won, still doesn't get the GOP candidate below 100. Close at 102, though.

Louisiana? Tennessee?

Pipedream.

 

[thepotatoman]

Louisiana was +17%, Tennessee was +20%, and Arkansas was +24% for Romney. Even Texas would be easier to turn at +15% for Romney.

Though I am honestly super interested in how much states like those will all of a sudden shift back to the relative left without a black president to be afraid of. I'm looking forward to compare the relative shift for each state between 2004 to 2008 and 2012 to 2016.

 

[Ecotic]

Ugh, I've already got Clinton fatigue again. John Kerry's robust deal-making has shown me she didn't really do anything as Secretary of State except keep the seat warm. She didn't truly distinguish herself in anything before that, except botch healthcare reform and lose the presidential nomination due to incompetence or bad instincts. Her most valuable skill seems to be endurance or maybe just annoyance. Her good 2016 position is almost entirely because Obama needed her somewhere where she couldn't primary him.

Now we have a forthcoming open election and the Republicans are at least being treated to an open debate between party wings and ideologies. They look hungry, which is something I'm envious of. Democrats are just kind of weakly waiting on Clinton, someone who doesn't even seem to want it all that badly. It really kills the mood. I'd really love to see a competitive primary process with valid comparisons between Cuomo's or O'Malley's accomplishments compared to Clinton's, but we can't have that, for some reason.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Louisiana was +17%, Tennessee was +20%, and Arkansas was +24% for Romney. Even Texas would be easier to turn at +15% for Romney.

Though I am honestly super interested in how much states like those will all of a sudden shift back to the relative left without a black president to be afraid of. I'm looking forward to compare the relative shift for each state between 2004 to 2008 and 2012 to 2016.

I think Missouri, Georgia and maybe Arizona could flip.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Louisiana was +17%, Tennessee was +20%, and Arkansas was +24% for Romney. Even Texas would be easier to turn at +15% for Romney.

Though I am honestly super interested in how much states like those will all of a sudden shift back to the relative left without a black president to be afraid of. I'm looking forward to compare the relative shift for each state between 2004 to 2008 and 2012 to 2016.

So this then...under 100.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The south is gone, Hillary won't win there. Benghazi, welfare, Obamacare, etc.

 

[KingK]

By who? It's clear that the Democrats have put all their focus on grooming Hilary over the past eight years. Warren? While I'm sure she's PoliGaf's preferred candidate she is too new and "radical" for the average American voter. There was some hoopla over Julian Castro but he's way too green thus why he faded into oblivion for the time being. Nobody is going to beat Hilary.

Schweitzer is going to be running an anti-establishment campaign. He's criticized the administration in a lot of aspects recently, he's anti-NSA, he's to the left of Hillary on some issues (healthcare) and to the right on others (guns), and was governor of a red state so he can make an argument that he's more electable than other potential Hillary challengers like Warren and O'Malley. I think he has a shot of pulling off an upset if the base is suffering from heavy Obama fatigue during the primaries and Hillary isn't able to distance herself from him enough. But if Obama is pretty popular among the base at the end of his term then Hillary will win the primary.

Ugh, I've already got Clinton fatigue again. John Kerry's robust deal-making has shown me she didn't really do anything as Secretary of State except keep the seat warm. She didn't truly distinguish herself in anything before that, except botch healthcare reform and lose the presidential nomination due to incompetence or bad instincts. Her most valuable skill seems to be endurance or maybe just annoyance. Her good 2016 position is almost entirely because Obama needed her somewhere where she couldn't primary him.

Now we have a forthcoming open election and the Republicans are at least being treated to an open debate between party wings and ideologies. They look hungry, which is something I'm envious of. Democrats are just kind of weakly waiting on Clinton, someone who doesn't even seem to want it all that badly. It really kills the mood. I'd really love to see a competitive primary process with valid comparisons between Cuomo's or O'Malley's accomplishments compared to Clinton's, but we can't have that, for some reason.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with this. I'm not a big fan of Clinton, and would love to see a more competitive primary, but it looks like pretty much everyone is just rolling over for her and running for VP.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Ooh, is the writer of that blog a teacher at Berkeley? I'm hoping to transfer there from my community college in the fall to Major in economics.

God I wish there were some sort of statute barring teachers from lying their students.

You always seems pretty versed in econ, and I think you recommended that I read American Prometheus (which I loved) Do you have any books on economics I can read to balance out the stupidity and rage I get from that book?

There is no statute barring the NEWS from blatantly lying to people.

FREE SPEECH!!!11111

 

[Lafiel]

God I wish there were some sort of statute barring teachers from lying their students.
/QUOTE]
They aren't lying though.. because crazy teachers who spread misinformation usually believe their "shit".

 

[Myansie]

Ugh, I've already got Clinton fatigue again. John Kerry's robust deal-making has shown me she didn't really do anything as Secretary of State except keep the seat warm. She didn't truly distinguish herself in anything before that, except botch healthcare reform and lose the presidential nomination due to incompetence or bad instincts. Her most valuable skill seems to be endurance or maybe just annoyance. Her good 2016 position is almost entirely because Obama needed her somewhere where she couldn't primary him.

Now we have a forthcoming open election and the Republicans are at least being treated to an open debate between party wings and ideologies. They look hungry, which is something I'm envious of. Democrats are just kind of weakly waiting on Clinton, someone who doesn't even seem to want it all that badly. It really kills the mood. I'd really love to see a competitive primary process with valid comparisons between Cuomo's or O'Malley's accomplishments compared to Clinton's, but we can't have that, for some reason.

Are you talking about sport or politics?

 

[Lafiel]

Just finished reading this article http://leighphillips.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/frankenpolitics-the-left-defence-of-gmos/

Pretty damn good defence of GMOs from a left-wing perspective.. anti-gmo hysteria is pretty much my biggest problem with left-wing politics right now, with the best left-wing political party in Australia having a pretty shitty policy on GMOs (if you are familiar with the science) as being evident of how negatively it has impacted on left-wing discourse: http://greens.org.au/policies/genetically-manipulated-organisms

 

[thepotatoman]

It is funny how much the left prides itself on being pro-science, while taking the anti science route when talking about food. It's not science to say that natural = good and unnatural = bad in all circumstances. In fact it's anti science to assume that just because science is involved that makes it unhealthy.

And the biggest problem is that by holding back scientific progress on foods, you're creating inefficiencies which leads to more greenhouse gases and higher food prices.

It really is one of the worst trends that belongs exclusively to the left, but if that's the worst we have, that's honestly not so bad.

 

[Hitokage]

It is funny how much the left prides itself on being pro-science, while taking the anti science route when talking about food. It's not science to say that natural = good and unnatural = bad in all circumstances. In fact it's anti science to assume that just because science is involved that makes it unhealthy.

Care must be taken to not go to the other extreme as well, where progress is unambiguously good and that anything natural or traditional is to be discarded with prejudice, basically the kind of fetishistic modernism that Ayn Rand espoused.

In the end, you have to rationally consider the full positive and negative impacts and then decide whether it's something worth doing on balance. The article Lafiel linked to mentioned that in some cases organic food provides advantages, and it'd be great to dig into the issue to figure out what works best with what. It's also important to remember the downsides so they can be best mitigated or managed, and this also helps with establishing public trust.

 

[Diablos]

Who the hell is going to beat Hillary in the primaries? Obama was a once in a lifetime kind of candidate; there is no other Obama waiting in the ranks just begging to go head to head with de facto Democratic Presidential candidates.

Louisiana? Tennessee?

Pipedream.

Yeah, it is not even worth getting excited about those states. Better to focus southern efforts on securing places like Florida and Virginia, getting back North Carolina, and if there were an additional state worth trying to pick up it wouldn't be LA or TN, but Georgia.

 

[East Lake]

It is funny how much the left prides itself on being pro-science, while taking the anti science route when talking about food. It's not science to say that natural = good and unnatural = bad in all circumstances. In fact it's anti science to assume that just because science is involved that makes it unhealthy.

And the biggest problem is that by holding back scientific progress on foods, you're creating inefficiencies which leads to more greenhouse gases and higher food prices.

It really is one of the worst trends that belongs exclusively to the left, but if that's the worst we have, that's honestly not so bad.

Also keep in mind that anti-gmo positions people have are a lot of times not about "science" but are actually rooted in their fear for their health and distrust of corporate practices, so I don't often think it's appropriate to look at them like global warming deniers who are reactionary towards the left's position and just parrot whatever fud the energy companies would like them to.

 

[Diablos]

Schweitzer is going to be running an anti-establishment campaign. He's criticized the administration in a lot of aspects recently, he's anti-NSA, he's to the left of Hillary on some issues (healthcare) and to the right on others (guns), and was governor of a red state so he can make an argument that he's more electable than other potential Hillary challengers like Warren and O'Malley. I think he has a shot of pulling off an upset if the base is suffering from heavy Obama fatigue during the primaries and Hillary isn't able to distance herself from him enough. But if Obama is pretty popular among the base at the end of his term then Hillary will win the primary.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with this. I'm not a big fan of Clinton, and would love to see a more competitive primary, but it looks like pretty much everyone is just rolling over for her and running for VP.

Is it 'rolling over' so much as it is realizing none of the other Democratic candidates would make anyone feel confident about securing the Presidency for at least another four years? Warren, O'Malley, Cuomo even... none of these people are Presidential material. I'm sorry.

Honestly, had it not been for Obama deciding to run, Hillary would be President right now. Depending on what went down in IL with Obama being a prominent Senator there, he may or may not have been able to hold on to his credibility enough to run in 2016.
Not to mention, had Hillary not employed Mark Penn early on I think she may have very well went on to beat Obama anyway. Also, 'rolling over' for the first black President to be succeeded by the first female President should make any Democrat proud and not feel like a tool. The guys on the right act like tools.

 

[Gruco]

Ok, so this quote is from the required reading of my Micro Econ class. It's a book called the price of everything. Aside from the obvious lie at the end, and the recurring right wing obsession with poor people having utilities, this is blatant right wing economic propaganda right? Like not substantive knowledge I in any way need to know for Micro econ?

I have no idea when this was written, and 10 or 20 years ago isn't remotely the right time frame to think about any of that relative to 2014. Consumer durable adoptions were remarkably rapid before the 80s but had pretty much leveled off by then.

In its defense, it is an important story and my grad labor class covered a handful of papers about it, but nothing in the context of income distribution. Also not a topic that I've ever seen come up in a 101 class.

Overall, I vote propaganda.