Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-roberts-20141201-story.html

LA Times implying that Obama's executive action on immigration could make Roberts feel more inclined to gut the ACA.

Part of me says this article is sensationalist bullshit; part of me says this might very well be true given the toxic mix of politics and law in this nation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-roberts-20141201-story.html

LA Times implying that Obama's executive action on immigration could make Roberts feel more inclined to gut the ACA.

Part of me says this article is sensationalist bullshit; part of me says this might very well be true given the toxic mix of politics and law in this nation.

This should never gone to print. Its a horrible article with no facts whatsoever only the wishful thinking of the Cato (Koch's) insitute

Experts say that legally the healthcare case is a close call. If so, the outcome may turn on whether the justices are inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt, or whether they believe it's time to rein him in.

None of this is true.

 

[Diablos]

I wonder what Metatarsal arthritis thinks.

 

[Chichikov]

Episode #1432 In the National Review being Racist (it was written by a black dude so I guess they think its cool?)


Besides the fact that this is racist nonsense. Notice something about the examples that he uses that didn't spur outrage

Why are we not protesting the police doing their job and arresting murders!?!@?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393611/silence-around-ferguson-deroy-murdock

Is it cool for a white man to post this video?
Going to go with 'no', and post it anyway.

 

[eBay Huckster]

speaking of papers, currently writing two

one's a policy brief on the effects of medicaid expansion in ohio & alternative structures for its reauthorization next year (with a short examination of its impacts in california, arkansas and kentucky)

the other's an analysis of amtrak's acela express route

 

[B-Dubs]

speaking of papers, currently writing two

one's a policy brief on the effects of medicaid expansion in ohio & alternative structures for its reauthorization next year (with a short examination of its impacts in california, arkansas and kentucky)

the other's an analysis of amtrak's acela express route

I rode that line from DC to NYC last year and all I can say is there is literally no better way to travel. Yes it takes longer than a flight, but the sheer amount of space you get is worth it. Don't even get me started on the drinks car. Why it isn't more popular I will never know.

 

[adamsappel]

I rode that line from DC to NYC last year and all I can say is there is literally no better way to travel. Yes it takes longer than a flight, but the sheer amount of space you get is worth it. Don't even get me started on the drinks car. Why it isn't more popular I will never know.

Because it's so damn expensive.

 

[B-Dubs]

Because it's so damn expensive.

Tell that to the airlines. I just looked it up in case it changed since last May and taking the Acella to DC would save me $50 over a normal flight. The prices are comparable these days. Combine that with no TSA and unless you're in a hurry there's no reason not to take the train.

 

[adamsappel]

The Acela's about $200. You can't fly from DC to NYC for cheaper than that (adding in taxi fare from an airport to anywhere into Manhattan does bring it closer in cost)?

I agree that the train is the nicer way to go, particularly if you are traveling with more than one person. I've never ridden the Acela, though.

 

[Oblivion]

You could localize it, "How the US involvement in Iranian affairs led directly to the Islamic Revolution."

Talk about all the freedom we gave to the middle east because we're AMERICA GODDAMNIT! USA USA USA

You can focus on the effects of sanctions against Iran on Iranian economy, the rise of theocracy, and how America came to become the great satan.

Great suggestions all of these, grazie.



So where the hell is everybody? This thread's been dead since Thanksgiving. Let us try to put things back on track by mocking Republican economic theory:

So how did Kansas fare against California?

From January 2013 through September 2014, the latest data, California grew jobs at 3.4 times the rate of Kansas. Total nonfarm payroll jobs in Kansas increased 2.1 percent, in California 7.2 percent. The rate of cutting government jobs was also larger in California than in Kansas, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show.

Compensation in California also grew faster than in Kansas. California’s average weekly wage of $1,165 in the first quarter of this year was 13.4 percent higher than in mid-2012, while the Kansas average of $840 was up only 10.1 percent.

California’s credit rating improved. The Golden State can borrow at lower rates, while Kansas will have to pay more to compensate investors for the risk that the Sunflower State will lack the revenue to repay its debts.

Opponents of California’s tax-rate hike predicted that it would cause the rich, especially entrepreneurs, to flee the state. They did not. That’s because making big money typically requires living where one’s business is. A big Los Angeles car dealer would not sell nearly so many cars in Topeka.

Rich retirees can move, but they are a small slice of the high-income pie. Empirical research shows that most rich retirees stay put.

Tax hikes did not hurt California job growth because the taxes were not on jobs but on high incomes. A stiff state payroll tax that made each worker costlier would have dampened hiring because it would raise the overall cost of labor. But quitting California because the state takes $30,000 more out of each additional million dollars that top earners make would be penny wise and pound foolish: They can make more money staying in California

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/12/laffer-curve-taxcutshikeseconomics.html

 

[B-Dubs]

The Acela's about $200. You can't fly from DC to NYC for cheaper than that (adding in taxi fare from an airport to anywhere into Manhattan does bring it closer in cost)?

I agree that the train is the nicer way to go, particularly if you are traveling with more than one person. I've never ridden the Acela, though.

Hey, go check the prices if you don't believe me. I looked for a round trip leaving wednesday and coming back Friday, leaving at 10AM. Airfare prices are about the same and once you factor in TSA lines the travel times are similar too. That's why I took it down to DC last spring instead of a flight, a regular train is even cheaper but an hour longer and not quite as nice. Of course this only works for trips of that length, any longer and the maths starts to skew towards airplanes again.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i've noticed that that line tends to be somewhere around 400 miles (for lower-speed trains, anyway)

 

[kehs]

"We're closer than we've ever been to achieving the extraordinary: An AIDS-free generation. #WorldAIDSDay

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014...united-states-helping-lead-fight-against-aids

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Remember when the White House though AIDS was funny? Cause lol "gay plague"

Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement—the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What’s AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It’s known as “gay plague.” (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it’s a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don’t have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don’t.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn’t answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President—
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don’t know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s been any—
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping—
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he’s had no—(laughter)—no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.
Q: The President doesn’t have gay plague, is that what you’re saying or what?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn’t say that.
Q: Didn’t say that?
MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn’t you stay there? (Laughter.)
Q: Because I love you, Larry, that’s why. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKES: Oh, I see. Just don’t put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q: Oh, I retract that.
MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.
Q: It’s too late.

Q: Larry, does the President think that it might help if he suggested that the gays cut down on their "cruising"? (Laughter.) What? I didn't hear your answer, Larry.
MR. SPEAKES: I just was acknowledging your interest—
Q: You were acknowledging but—
MR. SPEAKES: —interest in this subject.
Q: —you don't think that it would help if the gays cut down on their cruising—it would help AIDS?
MR. SPEAKES: We are researching it. If we come up with any research that sheds some light on whether gays should cruise or not cruise, we'll make it available to you. (Laughter.)
Q: Back to fairy tales.

MR. SPEAKES: Lester's beginning to circle now. He's moving in front. (Laughter.) Go ahead.
Q: Since the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta—(laughter)—reports—
MR. SPEAKES: This is going to be an AIDS question.
Q: —that an estimated—
MR. SPEAKES: You were close.
Q: Well, look, could I ask the question, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: You were close.
Q: An estimated 300,000 people have been exposed to AIDS, which can be transmitted through saliva. Will the President, as Commander-in-Chief, take steps to protect Armed Forces food and medical services from AIDS patients or those who run the risk of spreading AIDS in the same manner that they forbid typhoid fever people from being involved in the health or food services?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't know.
Q: Could you—Is the President concerned about this subject, Larry—
MR. SPEAKES: I haven't heard him express—
Q: —that seems to have evoked so much jocular—
MR. SPEAKES:—concern.
Q: —reaction here? I—you know—
Q: It isn't only the jocks, Lester.
Q: Has he sworn off water faucets—
Q: No, but, I mean, is he going to do anything, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: Lester, I have not heard him express anything on it. Sorry.
Q: You mean he has no—expressed no opinion about this epidemic?
MR. SPEAKES: No, but I must confess I haven't asked him about it. (Laughter.)
Q: Would you ask him Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: Have you been checked? (Laughter.)

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-me...-house-thought-aids-was-pretty-hilarious-1982

 

[Tim-E]

I hope the Democratic Party gets its head out of its ass. Even though Hillary Clinton would be the frontrunner if she ran, expecting her to just cruise to victory is an abysmal idea. Though Democrats will have a structural advantage in 2016, you gave to get the base excited about showing up. Obama was phenomenal at this, but after incumbent fatigue, it is going to take more than just the assumption that the same base is going to turn out because the republicans are worse.

Hillary isn't some impenetrable shield. I just hope the party can excite the base about nominating someone. It isn't inconcievable that NH, CO, FL, OH, IA, and NC would vote for a Republican candidate in the right environment for them.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Here's hoping that Hillary can run a slightly less dysfunctional campaign this time:

Hillary Insiders Say They Won't Work for Her If She Hires This Man (from last March)

In recent weeks, I've talked to several Washington politicos close to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and when I've asked if they will be joining Hillary's presidential machine, should she run, I've received a variant of this (understandably) not-for-citation reply: If Mark Penn is involved, no f-ing way.

Penn is famous—or infamous—for being the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign of inevitability that turned into a colossal failure. That effort was marked by hubris, lousy messaging, poor strategic planning, and legendary internal tensions—including back-biting, leaks, and fierce inside politics—that many within the politerati blamed, fairly or not, on Penn.

"There are a ton of people who say they won't get involved if Mark is around," another Democratic operative says. "And there are other people who don't want to get involved anyway because the 2008 campaign was so unpleasant. There were so many centers of gravity. People were constantly playing inside politics to have influence." Hillary Clinton's Penn problem extends beyond Penn. The campaign that Penn came to symbolize was, as this strategist recalls, "full of people from the first Clinton administration who were watching out for their own interests. This led to a leakier environment and a more difficult workplace. It was a pretty miserable place."

 

[Tim-E]

What is Penn's involvement in the Clinton circle now? She'd be a lunatic to just surround herself with people like him. I know Clinton had a core of people who worked well in the 90s, but the party has changed around them so they need to be a bit more forward thinking.

Is there any legitimate hint that she would have Penn involved?

Hillary did a lot of things that created some bad optics this year that made her look disconnected from normal people. She now has speaking gigs booked through February.

Imagine what a fucking mess this race will be for the democrats if she decided that raking in $200k per speech is more desirable than running for president again.

 

[Tamanon]

Mark Penn being involved would suddenly throw the general election into a toss-up instead of a likely Hillary win.

What is Penn's involvement in the Clinton circle now? She'd be a lunatic to just surround herself with people like him. I know Clinton had a core of people who worked well in the 90s, but the party has changed around them so they need to be a bit more forward thinking.

Is there any legitimate hint that she would have Penn involved?

Hillary did a lot of things that created some bad optics this year that made her look disconnected from normal people. She now has speaking gigs booked through February.

Imagine what a fucking mess this race will be for the democrats if she decided that raking in $200k per speech is more desirable than running for president again.

Eh, she's super-rich anyways. $200k/speech is nice, but no big deal. President puts her in the history books.

 

[ivysaur12]

Congratulations, 538, you've now published the dumbest article of the 2016 election cycle. We're still two years out, but you did it!

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-might-persuade-hillary-clinton-not-to-run-in-2016/

Most speculation about the 2016 presidential election has taken at least one thing for granted: Hillary Clinton will run. But the Cook Political Report’s Charlie Cook recently threw some cold water on that assumption (or at least some lukewarm water); Cook estimated Clinton has only a 60 to 70 percent chance of running.

I have no clue whether Cook’s estimate is right. But recent data illustrates why Clinton might balk at running: She no longer looks quite so invincible, and early indicators point toward a Republican-leaning political environment.

We’re still a long way from the 2016 election, but Clinton needs to decide soon whether to run. The political landscape right now is more Republican-leaning than at a comparable point in the 2012 cycle (when President Obama, with a 46 percent approval rating, led a generic Republican 42 percent to 39 percent). Obama’s approval has dropped to 42 percent.

In four polls conducted over the past month, YouGov asked more than 2,500 registered voters whether they would vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate for president in 2016. The Republican candidate led, on average, 39.2 percent to 36.7 percent. Again, these results are among registered, not likely, voters, so this lead has nothing to do with turnout.

Now, let's compare Hillary towards someone who won't run and isn't involved in the political process anymore:

Clinton’s edge against Republicans in a potential 2016 matchup has also taken a hit. She once led by double-digits in matchups against most Republicans. But recent live telephone polls in the key swing states of Iowa and New Hampshire have Clinton neck and neck with 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Nationally, Quinnipiac found Romney leading Clinton 45 percent to 44 percent among registered voters. At a comparable point in the 2012 cycle, Romney was down 7 percentage points to Obama. Clinton led New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 1 percentage point, and she holds leads of 4 to 9 percentage points on the other Republican candidates.

None of this means that Clinton would lose if she ran. Polls at this point are not very predictive. Obama may become more popular. The Republicans could nominate an extreme candidate. Any number of other things could happen.

Hillary might not run! Her favorability has dropped as she inevitably entered the political climate! She's losing a hypothetical race to a man who is no longer in politics and won't run! She's only beating Christie by 1 point and then beating everyone else by 4 to 9 points when Romney was down by 7 in the last election and lost by 4! And I'm going to bury at the end here that polling done two years out from the election is in no way predictive on what might happen in 2016 but I do want that Drudge click!

That's not to say that Hillary is an inevitability to be president. Her machine needs to be much better than it was in 2008, and she needs to hone in on the importance of her messaging. There could also be something disastrous that occurs in the last two years of Obama's presidency that makes the climate so toxic for any Democrat.

But what a shitty, stupid article.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I saw that chart on twitter with the headline, didn't click the article because it looked idiotic. So fucking stupid. Hillary's favorables decreased as she became more of a political figure, received negative attacks from the right, and as the administration's foreign policy collapsed? What a shock!

I'm going to assume her favorables are higher than any GOP candidate.

 

[Tim-E]

Eh, she's super-rich anyways. $200k/speech is nice, but no big deal. President puts her in the history books.

I agree. I still think she's running, but I don't think her coronation is very healthy for the party or her candidicacy in a general election.

 

[ivysaur12]

I saw that chart on twitter with the headline, didn't click the article because it looked idiotic. So fucking stupid. Hillary's favorables decreased as she became more of a political figure, received negative attacks from the right, and as the administration's foreign policy collapsed? What a shock!

I'm going to assume her favorables are higher than any GOP candidate.

And you'd be correct!

 

[RustyNails]

Congratulations, 538, you've now published the dumbest article of the 2016 election cycle. We're still two years out, but you did it!

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-might-persuade-hillary-clinton-not-to-run-in-2016/



Now, let's compare Hillary towards someone who won't run and isn't involved in the political process anymore:





Hillary might not run! Her favorability has dropped as she inevitably entered the political climate! She's losing a hypothetical race to a man who is no longer in politics and won't run! She's only beating Christie by 1 point and then beating everyone else by 4 to 9 points when Romney was down by 7 in the last election and lost by 4! And I'm going to bury at the end here that polling done two years out from the election is in no way predictive on what might happen in 2016 but I do want that Drudge click!

That's not to say that Hillary is an inevitability to be president. Her machine needs to be much better than it was in 2008, and she needs to hone in on the importance of her messaging. There could also be something disastrous that occurs in the last two years of Obama's presidency that makes the climate so toxic for any Democrat.

But what a shitty, stupid article.

Polls about favorability mean nothing when it comes to 2016 elections. Show me polls where a Republican candidate can flip OH, VA, CO, FL along with IA and then we will have a conversation.

 

[Jooney]

Remember when the White House though AIDS was funny? Cause lol "gay plague"

Contrast this to the white house reaction on the ebola outbreak. No comparison.

 

[AndyD]

Contrast this to the white house reaction on the ebola outbreak. No comparison.

I would not say Ebola is a good comparison as it's a well understood disease with long history. I am not even sure if we have something similar today, a previously unknown, highly deadly disease affecting only a small portion of the population that is historically discriminated and somewhat underground in the majority of America.

Perhaps the closest today would be the relatively normal diseases affecting illegal immigrant children. And we did have the outrageous statements about them from Congress members.

 

[Jooney]

I would not say Ebola is a good comparison as it's a well understood disease with long history. I am not even sure if we have something similar today, a previously unknown, highly deadly disease affecting only a small portion of the population that is historically discriminated and somewhat underground in the majority of America.

Perhaps the closest today would be the relatively normal diseases affecting illegal immigrant children. And we did have the outrageous statements about them from Congress members.

Agreed somewhat, but tone matters. I understand that it was a different time, but the CDC said it was an epidemic and the spokesman basically conveyed that they didn't know anything about it and that it wasn't worth investigating. I can't see that happening nowadays, but perhaps that's just my bias.

 

[Wilsongt]

BENGHAZI


Rand Paul Wants to Rename House ‘Intelligence’ Committee After Benghazi Report

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) thinks the Benghazi coverup now reaches all the way to the House GOP.

In an “EXCLUSIVE” for Breitbart (he’s written a column for them since losing his previous gig at the Washington Times over plagiarism issues, but whatevs) Paul trashed the committee’s recent report that deflated a good number of the right’s talking points about the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Libya, wondering if the report was “perhaps not telling the full story.”

RELATED: Gingrich: House Benghazi Report Was ‘Co-Opted by the CIA’

“Now, a Congressional Committee chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers is telling us no one is responsible because there was no intelligence failure to begin with,” Paul wrote. “It might be time to rename the House ‘Intelligence’ Committee.”

“This new Benghazi ‘intelligence’ report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to protect incompetent politicians and government agents at the expense of justice for the victims of September 11, 2012,” he wrote, finishing with a dig at Hillary Clinton, whom he’s been after over Benghazi for more than a year.

 

[B-Dubs]

BENGHAZI


Rand Paul Wants to Rename House ‘Intelligence’ Committee After Benghazi Report

Now the House is in on it?! I am fucking dying over here guys.

It'll ever fucking end :lol

 

[Wilsongt]

Now the House is in on it?! I am fucking dying over here guys.

It'll ever fucking end :lol

That rotting, maggot field, swampy mess of a decaying horse hasn't been beaten enough. There's still some visible meat on those bones.

 

[ivysaur12]

Guys, that overhaul in healthcare we've been waiting for, the one we've been asking conservatives about, it finally might be coming!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSKCN0JG26H20141202?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who will lead the chamber starting in January, told reporters: "If the court would rule the way they might, we could be in a very large comprehensive revisitation" of U.S. healthcare policy.

Oh boy! I wonder what the details would be. It's not like we've been asking for 5 years.

 

[Jooney]

gotta keep the benghazi flame burning bright until at least the general election season.

 

[Black Mamba]

Guys, that overhaul in healthcare we've been waiting for, the one we've been asking conservatives about, it finally might be coming!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSKCN0JG26H20141202?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter



Oh boy! I wonder what the details would be. It's not like we've been asking for 5 years.

 

[ivysaur12]

There's something oddly sad about the Landrieu campaign. Maybe it's because of its separation from the rest of the elections, maybe it's because she's an institution, but there's something very sad about this twilight of Landrieu's career. No help from the DSCC, either.

It speaks less about her than about the drift away from the Democratic party in the South, and I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done for the working class white person in Louisiana or Kentucky or increasingly West Virginia. They see a party that doesn't appeal to the populist tendencies of the roots of the Democratic party and they see a party that they believe increasingly values the issues of women, gays, blacks, and latinos over their own issues (they don't, but that's not the point). Whether or not that's true, and whether or not Republican policies actually help them (they don't), the mindset is that their values align more with the modern Republican party's. And I'm not sure if there's anything they can do about that. Mary Landrieu is just the last bastion of the Dixiecrat that I'm not sure we'll ever see again. Eve in increasingly blue states like Virginia, it's a different type of politician because the electorate is dramatically changed from Real Virginia to Fake Virginia.

EDIT: I also thinks this speaks to a larger issue for Democrats, where the Democratic brand is incredibly toxic in Red states that it's just not in Blue states, save for maybe California.

 

[NeoXChaos]

There's something oddly sad about the Landrieu campaign. Maybe it's because of its separation from the rest of the elections, maybe it's because she's an institution, but there's something very sad about this twilight of Landrieu's career. No help from the DSCC, either.

It speaks less about her than about the drift away from the Democratic party in the South, and I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done for the working class white person in Louisiana or Kentucky or increasingly West Virginia. They see a party that doesn't appeal to the populist tendencies of the roots of the Democratic party and they see a party that they believe increasingly values the issues of women, gays, blacks, and latinos over their own issues (they don't, but that's not the point). Whether or not that's true, and whether or not Republican policies actually help them (they don't), the mindset is that their values align more with the modern Republican party's. And I'm not sure if there's anything they can do about that. Mary Landrieu is just the last bastion of the Dixiecrat that I'm not sure we'll ever see again. Eve in increasingly blue states like Virginia, it's a different type of politician because the electorate is dramatically changed from Real Virginia to Fake Virginia.

EDIT: I also thinks this speaks to a larger issue for Democrats, where the Democratic brand is incredibly toxic in Red states that it's just not in Blue states, save for maybe California.

Real and fake VA?? you mean like north VA(fairfax, loudon etc) vs the rest of the state?

 

[ivysaur12]

Real and fake VA?? you mean like north VA(fairfax, loudon etc) vs the rest of the state?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/07/now-featured-in-virginia-governors-race-sarah-palin/

 

[Poodlestrike]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/07/now-featured-in-virginia-governors-race-sarah-palin/

I was trying to place where I'd heard "real Virginia," but I needn't have bothered. It was the obvious choice.

Man, how great would it be if she was the Republican candidate in 2016?

 

[Aaron Strife]

I was trying to place where I'd heard "real Virginia," but I needn't have bothered. It was the obvious choice.

Man, how great would it be if she was the Republican candidate in 2016?

I dunno, she might steal votes away from Hillary

 

[Poodlestrike]

I dunno, she might steal votes away from Hillary

Yeah, but she also drives basically every moderate voter away from the polls. Centrist republicans stay home, independents and everyone left of center votes Hillary. Hell, she probably improves voter turnout on average. Plus, remember how the 08 campaign went? Gaffe after gaffe.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah, but she also drives basically every moderate voter away from the polls. Centrist republicans stay home, independents and everyone left of center votes Hillary. Hell, she probably improves voter turnout on average. Plus, remember how the 08 campaign went? Gaffe after gaffe.

Hah i was totally kidding. Riffing on the GOP's hilariously misguided belief that all they need to do to win over minorities/women/etc. is run a minority/female/etc. candidate.

Hillary vs. Palin would be an absolute blowout. Hillary could sniff 400 EVs at that point.

 

[rocketknight]

It speaks less about her than about the drift away from the Democratic party in the South, and I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done for the working class white person in Louisiana or Kentucky or increasingly West Virginia. They see a party that doesn't appeal to the populist tendencies of the roots of the Democratic party and they see a party that they believe increasingly values the issues of women, gays, blacks, and latinos over their own issues (they don't, but that's not the point).

I don't know what you're talking about, I just got this today that lays out quite clearly that Landrieu is for SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOR GAYS!

 

[Poodlestrike]

Hah i was totally kidding. Riffing on the GOP's hilariously misguided belief that all they need to do to win over minorities/women/etc. is run a minority/female/etc. candidate.

Hillary vs. Palin would be an absolute blowout. Hillary could sniff 400 EVs at that point.

Ahhhh, I get it

I've seen some people actually speculating on that though, thus my confusion.

I don't know what you're talking about, I just got this today that lays out quite clearly that Landrieu is for SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOR GAYS!

What on earth does that even mean?

 

[zero shift]

So I'm playing that South Park game and I assume Al Gore and his craziness over his fantasy of "Man Bear Pig" is a play on how Matt Stone and Trey Parker think global warming is bullshit?

 

[Poodlestrike]

So I'm playing that South Park game and I assume Al Gore and his craziness over his fantasy of "Man Bear Pig" is a play on how Matt Stone and Trey Parker think global warming is bullshit?

I think it's more likely a joke about how global warming deniers see Al Gore, but it could go either way.

 

[rocketknight]

What on earth does that even mean?

It's meant to reference employment discrimination protection. Not being able to be fired for being LGBT is the "special right."

 

[B-Dubs]

I think it's more likely a joke about how global warming deniers see Al Gore, but it could go either way.

If that's the case then wouldn't Manbearpig be a real thing in the show? Like it sounds so crazy but Al Gore was right and it really does exist and it's really a threat?

 

[Poodlestrike]

It's meant to reference employment discrimination protection. Not being able to be fired for being LGBT is the "special right."

Well, it's "special" in the sense that most people don't need it, I suppose

If that's the case then wouldn't Manbearpig be a real thing in the show? Like it sounds so crazy but Al Gore was right and it really does exist and it's really a threat?

Not necessarily. If the whole point of the joke is to put a Conservative's image of Al Gore into the show, then the Manbearpig would need to never make an appearance.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't know what you're talking about, I just got this today that lays out quite clearly that Landrieu is for SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOR GAYS!

Not even mad. Good riddance.

 

[ivysaur12]

Landrieu isn't even for gay marriage publicly, jesus Faith and Freedom.

"My personal views have evolved quite a bit, but I have said on record that I would support the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage," Landrieu said during a debate at LSU on Wednesday.

Not even mad. Good riddance.

I'm as liberal as they come, but Democrats cannot have a Senate majority with just Elizabeth Warrens -- it also takes Hietkamps, Manchins, and Landrieus to form a majority coalition. And if the Democrats ever want a serious majority -- which means dipping into lean R-states, then that requires a different type of Democrat to win. That's probably the only way that Democrats will ever take control of the House again.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Landrieu isn't even for gay marriage publicly, jesus Faith and Freedom.

At what point in the process of running to the right do you actually become a Republican?

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think Matt and Trey just hate everyone.

I wouldn't call their (apparent) political views very enlightened.