Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

@CraigCaplan
Senate confirms @vivek_murthy as 19th US Surgeon General on 51-43 vote. 3 Ds voted No: Donnelly,Heitkamp & Manchin; Kirk only R to vote Yes.

.

 

[speculawyer]

When the host noted that American liberals tend to agree with European liberals on the issue, Scalia added, “And American liberals too. Yes. But the Europeans are more self-righteous, I think.”

Says King Self-Righteous who thinks he needs to ban gay marriage and save us from the devil who he believes is literally running around and doing bad things.

 

[Aaron Strife]

.

Donnelly, Heitkamp and Manchin already bracing themselves for 2018. Sigh. As if they didn't learn this year it doesn't matter how "conservative" you are, you're not gonna win in a midterm election just because you vote like a Republican.

 

[thepotatoman]

It is with great pain that I will vote for the corporatist military-industrial-complex ally, Hillary Clinton.

Better her than to have all the above with a touch of bigotry coming from the Republicans.

Everyone has to vote for Hillary this time, no exceptions. A republican president likely also means a republican senate, which means an end to the filibuster and basically 2 years of a republican supermajority.

It also means Ginsburg needs to keep trucking as a justice until she's 87, or she'll be replaced by a conservative making it a 6-3 court.

This election is so important for democrats, it's unbelievable. It worries me to no end to see the field clear for Hillary without testing her campaign abilities that failed in 2008, relying on republican Todd Akin style gaffes that somehow never seemed to happen in 2014, early polling that is unreliable for a number of reasons, and presidential turnout numbers that may be more about Obama than presidential election itself.

 

[HyperionX]

Everyone has to vote for Hillary this time, no exceptions. A republican president likely also means a republican senate, which means an end to the filibuster and basically 2 years of a republican supermajority.

It also means Ginsburg needs to keep trucking as a justice until she's 87, or she'll be replaced by a conservative making it a 6-3 court.

This election is so important for democrats, it's unbelievable. It worries me to no end to see the field clear for Hillary without testing her campaign abilities that failed in 2008, relying on republican Todd Akin style gaffes that somehow never seemed to happen in 2014, early polling that is unreliable for a number of reasons, and presidential turnout numbers that may be more about Obama than presidential election itself.

It's rather unlikely that anyone can take down Hillary in 2016. I don't think many of us Obama supporters really recognize how close the 2008 primary election really was. In fact, Hillary probably got more votes in total than Obama, with Obama winning due to the caucus vs. primary advantage he had.

 

[ivysaur12]

Donnelly, Heitkamp and Manchin already bracing themselves for 2018. Sigh. As if they didn't learn this year it doesn't matter how "conservative" you are, you're not gonna win in a midterm election just because you vote like a Republican.

I would counter that with that the phrase "voted with Obama 97% of the time" is one of the reasons that Hagan (and less so Landrieu, but still) were so unsuccessful.

He still was confirmed and there's nothing wrong with staking out a few moderate positions. I could see them voting No on a few bullshit votes so that, mathematically, they didn't actually vote with Obama or Hilary 97% of the time. Winning in ND, IN, and WV is different than winning in MA (Martha Coakley sad trumpet) or CT.

 

[Snake]

It's rather unlikely that anyone can take down Hillary in 2016. I don't think many of us Obama supporters really recognize how close the 2008 primary election really was. In fact, Hillary probably got more votes in total than Obama, with Obama winning due to the caucus vs. primary advantage he had.

Well I can't say that I completely agree, since it's commonly recognized how close 2008 was. It was the most competitive Presidential primary ever, by far.

But Hillary only won more raw votes because she contested primaries after Obama had already secured the delegate math and the nomination, and ran up the score in states that he was not actively campaigning in because he was shifting to a general election footing. Not to mention she had votes from big states like Michigan and Florida that she contested when Obama didn't, due to him playing by the rules the DNC had laid out after those states violated the scheduling.

*edit*: though, looking at the post you quoted, it is a fair point to say that Hillary is currently being underestimated by some on the left.

 

[thepotatoman]

It's rather unlikely that anyone can take down Hillary in 2016. I don't think many of us Obama supporters really recognize how close the 2008 primary election really was. In fact, Hillary probably got more votes in total than Obama, with Obama winning due to the caucus vs. primary advantage he had.

But you also can't forget how inevitable she was made out to be back then holding about a 20pt lead from 2004 all the way up to 2008.

What I'm worried about is these 10 point leads over the republican candidate in the general election that democrats are so heavily banking on holding, when it very clearly wont.

Sure a 50 point gap isn't likely to be overcome in the primaries, but in a way I'm more laminating the party, journalists, and voters for not building up anyone else as a possibility before it got to this point.

EDIT: She also lost by 10 points according to the final polls, which lines up with Snake's point about Hillary running up the numbers past the time it was all over. I forgot about that whole ordeal.

 

[HylianTom]

At this point, I'm really glad that the 2008 primary season was so contentious, because it might be playing a role in why Hillary's numbers are markedly better than Obama's. Due to that primary fight, people might be seeing her as "the path not taken" back in 2008 - "maybe we should've gone with her. Damn."

There was a recent North Carolina poll out showing that she was leading or tied against her likely Republican opponents. If they're fighting to keep even with her in North Carolina, then she's likely holding numbers around Obama's re-election EC margin - not as high as his 2008 blowout, but still a healthy amount of breathing room.

My main worry comes from these slip-ups. She's gotta tighten that shit up. It's worrisome. And Bill is going to have to give the nominating speech of a lifetime. (I'm still very glad that the Dems bat last convention-wise. What in the fuck was the GOP thinking in deciding to go so early? Daaaamn!)

On the positive side, I'm betting that the gender gap is going to be at its largest since the 1990s. If the race tightens-up, that might be what saves her.

 

[HyperionX]

Well I can't say that I completely agree, since it's commonly recognized how close 2008 was. It was the most competitive Presidential primary ever, by far.

But Hillary only won more raw votes because she contested primaries after Obama had already secured the delegate math and the nomination, and ran up the score in states that he was not actively campaigning in because he was shifting to a general election footing. Not to mention she had votes from big states like Michigan and Florida that she contested when Obama didn't, due to him playing by the rules the DNC had laid out after those states violated the scheduling.

*edit*: though, looking at the post you quoted, it is a fair point to say that Hillary is currently being underestimated by some on the left.

True, true. But even so, that's still a lot of votes. She still would have to have a lot support to even get to that position, even if Obama clearly won. I think it would be safe to say that had the alternative candidate been anyone but Obama, Hillary would have won easily on the basis of that.

But you also can't forget how inevitable she was made out to be back then holding about a 20pt lead from 2004 all the way up to 2008.

What I'm worried about is these 10 point leads over the republican candidate in the general election that democrats are so heavily banking on holding, when it very clearly wont.

Sure a 50 point gap isn't likely to be overcome in the primaries, but in a way I'm more laminating the party, journalists, and voters for not building up anyone else as a possibility before it got to this point.

EDIT: She also lost by 10 points according to the final polls, which lines up with Snake's point about Hillary running up the numbers past the time it was all over. I forgot about that whole ordeal.

Demographics are even more favorable in 2016 than 2008. Even if she got only Kerry/Gore levels of support she'd win quite comfortable on that basis alone. Unlikely that polls are going to turn against here that much.

I'm also curious how much of her collapse in the polls (or perhaps Obama's soaring in the polls), is due to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton argument, that we would have doomed ourselves to 24+ years of two families dominating the government. I remember a huge chunk of the popularity of Obama deriving from the fact that Obama was so new to the political world, thus relieving people of that fear. I don't think people really feel that way anymore, and besides the "first female president" is going to carry a lot of weight now, now that the "first black president" doesn't.

 

[Aaron Strife]

There's a chance (obviously, there always is) that Hillary could lose but the math is in the Democrats' favor right now.

I'll predict Hillary will win comfortably, Democrats will swing the Senate and pick up 12-15 House seats but not enough to win it back.

 

[HylianTom]

Demographics are even more favorable in 2016 than 2008. Even if she got only Kerry/Gore levels of support she'd win quite comfortable on that basis alone. Unlikely that polls are going to turn against here that much.

Demographics are that slow drip-drip-drip of pressure against the GOP. You don't notice it easily, and a low-turnout midterm might offer false hope or prognostications of a comeback.. but demographics continue to march on in the background.

Kerry's states + Virginia + New Mexico + NV or IA, and we're done. And I have no doubt in my mind that while demographics drip onward, Hillary's going to do a bit better among white voters than Obama did. Virginia could get decided early, and Election Night's tension would suddenly evaporate.

If I were the GOP, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin would all have their electoral votes split by district now. But they've passed on this, and it could very well cost them the presidency and thus the Supreme Court.

 

[ivysaur12]

There's a chance (obviously, there always is) that Hillary could lose but the math is in the Democrats' favor right now.

I'll predict Hillary will win comfortably, Democrats will swing the Senate and pick up 12-15 House seats but not enough to win it back.

That seems about right. The Senate will probably be 51-52 Dems, with Ayotte holding on and all other Blue state GOPs losing.

 

[ivysaur12]

Kathleen Kane out for 2016 Senate, she's going to run again for AG. #Sestak2016IGuess

Also, early look at the House from Larry Sabato:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-republicans-start-with-a-commanding-edge/

The overall outlook

Plenty of this will change as members retire, run for other offices, and turn heads with their overperformance — or underperformance — in office. A few members — but probably just a few, if history is a guide — will lose primaries. Surprisingly impressive challengers will emerge, and seemingly impressive challengers will fizzle. Mid-cycle redistricting, in Virginia or in other places depending on the whims of the party in power or by order of the courts, could change the playing field.

The national environment two years from now will play an outsized role in the results, and while the electorate will likely be at least slightly friendlier to Democrats than 2014’s was, it’s not impossible that 2016 will be for Democrats what 2008 was for Republicans, a presidential-cycle wipeout that followed a midterm wipeout. On the other hand, a combination of factors — lots of Republican retirements in swing districts, GOP mistakes, primary chaos, excellent recruiting, a huge Clinton presidential triumph, etc. — could all break in the Democrats’ favor, a miracle scenario that could deliver them the House. There’s just no way of knowing at this point what will happen nationally.

Our early expectation is that the Democrats will net at least a few House seats in the 2016 election. The Republicans are overextended, and some of the districts they won in 2014’s low-turnout, wave environment probably will come home to the Democrats in a higher turnout presidential election. Of the 25 districts that seem most competitive right now — the Toss-ups and the Leaners — 17 are currently held by Republicans. So the Democrats should be able to play more offense than defense this cycle after having to suffer through the opposite last cycle.

However, 211 seats start as Safe Republican, which is just seven seats shy of a GOP majority. Even if Democrats held all their current seats and won all the Toss-ups and Leans Republican districts, they would only have 205 seats, 13 short of a majority. The Democrats will need to expand the playing field in a major way to credibly challenge the GOP in the House.

Bottom line: The Republicans begin the cycle with a very good chance to retain their U.S. House majority.

 

[Aaron Strife]

That seems about right. The Senate will probably be 51-52 Dems, with Ayotte holding on and all other Blue state GOPs losing.

I think Ayotte might lose. Hassan would be a formidable candidate and NH has been prone to wild swings between the midterms and presidential elections.

The most optimistic-yet-realistic scenario imo would be Dems swinging NC, WI, IL, OH, FL, NH, and PA for a 53-47 majority. It'd be even better if Grassley and McCain retired (although McCain might just go down anyway) and Democrats picked those seats up too, which would completely reverse the GOP's 2014 gains and give Dems a chance at holding the Senate in 2018 (just for the sake of tempering my expectations I'll assume all five of the Romney state Democrats will lose in 2018)

 

[HyperionX]

I think Ayotte might lose. Hassan would be a formidable candidate and NH has been prone to wild swings between the midterms and presidential elections.

The most optimistic-yet-realistic scenario imo would be Dems swinging NC, WI, IL, OH, FL, NH, and PA for a 53-47 majority. It'd be even better if Grassley and McCain retired (although McCain might just go down anyway) and Democrats picked those seats up too, which would completely reverse the GOP's 2014 gains and give Dems a chance at holding the Senate in 2018 (just for the sake of tempering my expectations I'll assume all five of the Romney state Democrats will lose in 2018)

I'm predicting Rep-Dem-Rep Senate control for 2014-2016-2018. 2018 map looks pretty bad for the Democrats.

 

[JesseEwiak]

In 2006, after the midterms, Kos from DailyKos was already saying that if Obama ran, he's win the nomination. There is nobody out there like that right now.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/05/277830/-2008-If-Obama-runs-he-wins

Standard caveats aside (it's early, we don't have a set field, blah blah blah), it's hard to see how Barack Obama loses the nomination barring scandal or the mother-of-all gaffes.

I've been working up a few scenarios given the primary calendar (which isn't set in stone, with states like California looking to move up), and really, it would be Obama's race to lose.

Iowa is right next door to Obama's Illinois, and while Vilsack will win it (getting no boost out of it), the race for second-place will determine the "true" winner. Hillary, for now, appears to be bypassing Iowa. So the early battle would appear to be between Edwards and Obama. A 2-3 finish for these guys, in any order, leaves them in good shape moving forward.

Nevada will be a battle between Edwards and his union allies, and Richardson and his southwestern and Latino base. New Hampshire will be fertile territory for Hillary and maybe Kerry (they hate Richardson because he pushed to insert Nevada into the calendar ahead of New Hampshire). And then South Carolina. With Iowa out of the big picture thanks to Vilsack, and New Hampshire diluted by Nevada, South Carolina may well decide our nominee in 2008. Richardson thinks he can win the state (I'm not sure how), and he, Edwards and Clark will stake their entire bids on the state. But given the state's large African American population, along with Obama's popularity with female voters (yeah, they love him), and it's tough to see how the rest, splitting the dwindling white male vote, can overcome those hurdles.

There's one thing that could put a skid on Obama's fast rise -- an Al Gore entrance into the race. Other than that, I don't see a way anyone stops him.

Again, we don't know what the final field will look like, so things can dramatically change. But an entrance into the race would make Obama the prohibitive favorite. If politics is about seizing opportunities, it would seem a no-brainer for him to enter the race now.

What's more, Obama would then be tough to beat in the general. He would very well be the favorite in that race, even against a McCain, and would probably be a net positive for Democrats running down the ballot. So it wouldn't be a terrible thing by any means.

(Tired disclaimer: None of this implies endorsement. I will say nice things and mean things about all these candidates before it's all said and done. As of now, I have no preferences or favorites.)

 

[ivysaur12]

I think Ayotte might lose. Hassan would be a formidable candidate and NH has been prone to wild swings between the midterms and presidential elections.

The most optimistic-yet-realistic scenario imo would be Dems swinging NC, WI, IL, OH, FL, NH, and PA for a 53-47 majority. It'd be even better if Grassley and McCain retired (although McCain might just go down anyway) and Democrats picked those seats up too, which would completely reverse the GOP's 2014 gains and give Dems a chance at holding the Senate in 2018 (just for the sake of tempering my expectations I'll assume all five of the Romney state Democrats will lose in 2018)

The only one I could see holding on is Hietkamp just due to the small population, popularity, and incumbency. Last poll I saw had her above water, which is crazy in such a Red state. Plus, the demographics of North Dakota have shifted so much since their population boom (though admittedly, I'm not sure which way that would swing the state, just that her electorate will be vastly different than 2012). Maaaaaaaaaybe McCaskill, but probably not unless she's gets another gimmie (unlikely).

I also don't see an OH win, at least not yet.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I do think all of the Romney state Dems could win in a good environment, although midterm dropoff will always be rough. Heitkamp is personally popular, Manchin exceedingly so (if he doesn't go back to being governor), and Tester is from a state not opposed to electing Democrats. Donnelly and McCaskill are more worrisome but their states at least aren't as hostile towards Democrats as AR/LA/KY/etc so they're not necessarily dead in the water.

Don't forget either that Dean Heller (R-Nevada) is up in 2018, a possible pickup. And Arizona was really close in 2012.

But yes - I'd agree it is more likely that GOP would win the Senate again in 2018 if Hillary became president.

Ohio is on the table if Strickland runs. Hoping for him, Feingold, Hagan, Sestak, Murphy, Hassan and Duckworth.

 

[WayneMorse]

Baldwin could have some problems in 2018 considering the results for the WI Dems in the last two midterms.

 

[ivysaur12]

Baldwin could have some problems in 2018 considering the results for the WI Dems in the last two midterms.

Absolutely. She's good branding her policies as exceeding populist, but if she were up against a Paul Ryan, it'd be tough. Though I assume he sees speakership in his future. I'd put it as a Lean-D but definitely something tbe GOP will have its targets on.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/u...s-what-to-know-about-the-rubles-collapse.html

Remember before the election when the media hyped up Putin as a genius who was eating Obama for lunch? Yeah about that...it turns out the Russian economy is on the brink of a collapse greater than it had in the 90s, Eastern Ukraine is a decrepit shit hole that everyone has fled from, and the sanctions are exacerbating the already collapsing economy.

But yea, Obama, totally incompetent.

BTW whatever happened to Ebola?

 

[Diablos]

There's a chance (obviously, there always is) that Hillary could lose but the math is in the Democrats' favor right now.

I'll predict Hillary will win comfortably, Democrats will swing the Senate and pick up 12-15 House seats but not enough to win it back.

You predict this a lot, but what's the point this far out? A lot of things could happen. Obama's last two years are going to be horrible for Democrats.

In 2006, after the midterms, Kos from DailyKos was already saying that if Obama ran, he's win the nomination. There is nobody out there like that right now.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/05/277830/-2008-If-Obama-runs-he-wins

I remember Hitokage PMing this to me on IRC, years ago...

In the Dem Planning Sessions - "Apparently we didn't go far enough to the right!"

I have no faith in the committees and their chairs for the House and Senate to understand why people stayed home, and thus have no faith in democrats as a whole (barring a select few bright spots).

This is exactly why I have no confidence in them for 2016. The White House is up for grabs. Hillary has her work cut out for her, with troubles coming from three different directions: the Democratic party, whatever morons she decides to have running her campaign, and the GOP.

But yes - I'd agree it is more likely that GOP would win the Senate again in 2018 if Hillary became president.

Dude, seriously, forget 2018 for now, it won't mean anything if Dems can't win 2016. Democrats can't even win Words with Friends right now. Scale it back.

 

[HyperionX]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/u...s-what-to-know-about-the-rubles-collapse.html

Remember before the election when the media hyped up Putin as a genius who was eating Obama for lunch? Yeah about that...it turns out the Russian economy is on the brink of a collapse greater than it had in the 90s, Eastern Ukraine is a decrepit shit hole that everyone has fled from, and the sanctions are exacerbating the already collapsing economy.

But yea, Obama, totally incompetent.

I knew from the beginning that Putin was being a dumbass and guaranteed himself economic disaster after sanctions hit. The whole crash in oil prices was gravy on top of that. If this was a game, Obama started the game with the strongest hand and now he has a straight flush. It will be an entertaining 2015 seeing how Russia deals with its crisis.

BTW whatever happened to Ebola?

It's contained in Liberia, but from what I understand still raging in Sierra Leone. Still nothing compared to malaria/AIDS/etc. plus few Americans are getting it so in the end the media stopped covering it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You predict this a lot, but what's the point this far out? A lot of things could happen. Obama's last two years are going to be horrible for Democrats.

Do you really think so? There's not much Republicans can do that they haven't already tried. The deficit and the unemployment rate will continue to go down, Obamacare will keep chugging along (sorry I really don't think Roberts will throw it out over a damn typo), and Obama will keep cutting deals with the Republicans to keep the government open (for better or worse). Don't assume a big midterm loss will set up a presidential loss, we clearly saw that wasn't the case after 2010. Additionally a majority of Republican gains in 2014 came from red states which won't help them much in the presidential election.

Dude, seriously, forget 2018 for now, it won't mean anything if Dems can't win 2016. Democrats can't even win Words with Friends right now. Scale it back.

Ok i won't talk about anything

 

[speculawyer]

I don't want to talk about 2016 but nothing else will happen in our gridlocked government so why not?

Hillary wins easily but it doesn't matter much since gridlock will persist....for years. Politics is thus dull now.

 

[thepotatoman]

Do you really think so? There's not much Republicans can do that they haven't already tried. The deficit and the unemployment rate will continue to go down, Obamacare will keep chugging along (sorry I really don't think Roberts will throw it out over a damn typo), and Obama will keep cutting deals with the Republicans to keep the government open (for better or worse). Don't assume a big midterm loss will set up a presidential loss, we clearly saw that wasn't the case after 2010. Additionally a majority of Republican gains in 2014 came from red states which won't help them much in the presidential election.

I guess it depends on what sort of deals Obama cuts without Reid to protect him anymore.

And Roberts loves to say "this decision only applies to this decision", which he can easily do with a typo that he couldn't with an insurance mandate, but I guess we'll have to wait and see about that.

Ok i won't talk about anything

No, don't do that. 2016 talk is a lot more fun than these depressing stories about police shootings and torture, which there isn't much disagreement on here anyway.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm always happy to bring news about which we can all agree, and so I offer for your consideration today's Supreme Court opinion in United States v. California.

That masterful opinion, written with the cogent, incisive logic we've come to expect from the justices, concludes as follows:

3. The federal-state boundary lines, referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, are located as follows:

EXHIBIT A

Location of the Fixed Offshore Boundary Between the United States and California that is Parallel to the Coastline of Mainland California.

NAD 83/WGS 84 UTM ZONE 11 (meters) x-coordinate y-coordinate

BEGINNING AT 482577.890 3599275.555
BY ARC CENTERED AT 488133.576 3599216.475
TO 482623.800 3599931.673
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 482614.890 3599955.433
BY ARC CENTERED AT 487607.655 3602392.938
TO 482190.149 3601160.149
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 482057.613 3601742.580
BY ARC CENTERED AT 487475.119 3602975.369
TO 481971.082 3602217.271
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 481943.171 3602419.914
BY ARC CENTERED AT 487447.208 3603178.012
TO 481894.818 3603378.270
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 481914.263 3603917.406
BY ARC CENTERED AT 487466.653 3603717.148
TO 481920.114 3604041.242
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 481923.174 3604093.622
BY ARC CENTERED AT 487277.352 3605577.508
TO 481905.559 3606996.303
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 481858.994 3607334.978
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 481788.241 3607715.408
BY STRAIGHT LINE TO 481731.131 3607968.326

It goes on like this for 109 pages.

 

[Diablos]

Do you really think so? There's not much Republicans can do that they haven't already tried. The deficit and the unemployment rate will continue to go down, Obamacare will keep chugging along (sorry I really don't think Roberts will throw it out over a damn typo), and Obama will keep cutting deals with the Republicans to keep the government open (for better or worse). Don't assume a big midterm loss will set up a presidential loss, we clearly saw that wasn't the case after 2010. Additionally a majority of Republican gains in 2014 came from red states which won't help them much in the presidential election.

Heard it all before. You may be right and you may be wrong. I don't think Roberts will give a damn about the fate of Obamacare as it matters to the everyday American who depends on the subsidy.

Ok i won't talk about anything

I just mean 2018 talk at this point is poppycock.

 

[thepotatoman]

I'm always happy to bring news about which we can all agree, and so I offer for your consideration today's Supreme Court opinion in United States v. California.

That masterful opinion, written with the cogent, incisive logic we've come to expect from the justices, concludes as follows:



It goes on like this for 109 pages.

Wait, so did the United States win or did California win?

 

[Diablos]

Wait, so did the United States win or did California win?

Staright lines and arcs won.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Wait, so did the United States win or did California win?

Neither. They were in agreement.

From the looks of it, the Court's supplemental decree amounted to, "Yeah, whatever." Which, let's be honest, is the only appropriate response to a motion like that of the U.S. and California.

 

[ivysaur12]

Dude, seriously, forget 2018 for now, it won't mean anything if Dems can't win 2016. Democrats can't even win Words with Friends right now. Scale it back.

Like in 2008 when the Republicans couldn't win anything or in 2010 when the Democrats were dead or like in 2012 when the Republicans were projected to be a regional party who could never win a nation election or like in 2014 when --

etc

etc

etc

 

[Aaron Strife]

Like in 2008 when the Republicans couldn't win anything or in 2010 when the Democrats were dead or like in 2012 when the Republicans were projected to be a regional party who could never win a nation election or like in 2014 when --

etc

etc

etc

To be fair the GOP still is a regional party in federal elections

Their strength in the South is what gives them the House majority.

Let'em secede again

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Bush is running

 

[Cat]

Sometimes I try to tell myself that we survived and managed through George W. Bush, and my heart just sinks, because that is not consolable in any form considering how much worse I felt the country was for the eight years we had him.

Ya'll have made it sound like Jeb is not as bad, but I just...I hate the Republican party platform too much for me to see any good from it.

 

[Averon]

Do the wealthy donors want Jeb Bush to run?

 

[Incognito]

Bush getting out there early so by this time next year all his negatives just induce eye rolls, sighs, and "already litigated" from his supporters

 

[NYCmetsfan]

https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan/status/544876110803386368?s=09

 

[HylianTom]

Hell yeah! If he's in, then he's confident that he has the money backing to buy his way through.

I need popcorn.

 

[kehs]

Actively explore the possibility of running.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/u...s-what-to-know-about-the-rubles-collapse.html

Remember before the election when the media hyped up Putin as a genius who was eating Obama for lunch? Yeah about that...it turns out the Russian economy is on the brink of a collapse greater than it had in the 90s, Eastern Ukraine is a decrepit shit hole that everyone has fled from, and the sanctions are exacerbating the already collapsing economy.

But yea, Obama, totally incompetent.

BTW whatever happened to Ebola?

You mean to say global politics aren't a game, they're a serious long term issue with multiple moving parts?! And swift immediate actions that impress the press are irrelevant compared to consistency?!

Too bad Obama isn't the type to passive aggressively brag or shit on the press.

 

[Wilsongt]

It's a bit sick to listen to Fox News put the psychologist who developed the torture techniques on a pedistal.

 

[Poodlestrike]

It's a bit sick to listen to Fox News.

FTFY

 

[Teggy]

Will be interesting to see if any republican candidates try to thread the needle comparing Jeb to W. By saying Jeb will just be more of W or the Bush's have had their turn implies that W was a crappy president. Then if Jeb makes the general he's going to wind up having to either say he's not his brother, implying his brother was less than ideal, or embrace his brother's policies, which won't go well.

 

[HylianTom]

Will be interesting to see if any republican candidates try to thread the needle comparing Jeb to W. By saying Jeb will just be more of W or the Bush's have had their turn implies that W was a crappy president. Then if Jeb makes the general he's going to wind up having to either say he's not his brother, implying his brother was less than ideal, or embrace his brother's policies, which won't go well.

And you have a really nice highlight reel of footage where the Bushes are heaping various lumps of praise upon the Clintons. There will be no graceful way to back away from that volume of material; it'll make for some lovely general election advertising, especially if you want to aim for an upbeat tone.

 

[Tim-E]

Reading the comments section on a DailyKos article about Elizabeth Warren's 8 millionth denial that she's running for president.

Man, some people can't let go of the dream.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...on-fighting-the-banks-and-her-political-futur

Sen. Warren, as you must know, that even as you were fighting over this in the Senate, there was a group called Ready for Warren that wants you to run for president, that released a letter signed by more than 300 people who describe themselves as former Obama campaign workers and staffers and aides. They want you to run. What do you say to them?

I'm, I'm not running for president. That's not what we're doing. We had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week. And I'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens after this.

Would you tell these independent groups, "Give it up!" You're just never going to run.

I told them, "I'm not running for president."

You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?

I am not running for president.

You're not putting a "never" on that.

I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?

She's going out of her way to keep the door open.




I remember Obama being adamant about saying "no" in 04-06.

"I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008."...--Barack Obama, Nov. 3, 2004

"I will serve out my six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed. I will not. [run for president in 2008] - Nov., 2004 on "Meet the Press"

"People have asked me this, and I'm sincere when I say it's not on my radar screen." - Jan. 19, 2005

"The day after my election to the United States Senate, somebody asked me, am I running in 2008. I said at that time: 'No.' And nothing so far has changed my mind." - Aug., 26, 2006

Hell, he was more forceful and specific about saying he wouldn't run in 08 than Warren is now.

 

[Wilsongt]

FTFY

I do it to listen to opposing arguments, and because I hate myself.

 

[pigeon]

Neither. They were in agreement.

From the looks of it, the Court's supplemental decree amounted to, "Yeah, whatever." Which, let's be honest, is the only appropriate response to a motion like that of the U.S. and California.

Take that, lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Pacific Ocean offshore of California! Justice has been done!

 

[Plinko]

As a democrat, I think Jeb wouldn't be that bad as president.