• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
What an ignorant post that once again displays your disinterest in local/state politics.
Click to expand...
Explain to me what Scott "Yay, we're mediocre!" Walker, Rick "committed Medicare fraud in a retiree state" Scott, Sam "Living chicken hawk meme" Brownback, Paul Crazy-Eyes LePage and Rick "I have one black supporter and he posts on NeoGAF" Snyder did that were so great that they deserved reelection.

Without blaming the Democrats.

They all have terrible records and/or glaring political flaws that voters were either willing to overlook so they could stick it to Obama or didn't care to even vote.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Sirpopopop said:
Never I thought I would see the day when I thought you were being too optimistic about the beliefs of your fellow Americans.

I don't see it playing that way at all. Progressives are outnumbered by conservatives in the U.S. The right will make sure the government takes the blame and not wall street.
Click to expand...
Bailing out banks is a much more of a progressive stance than a conservative one (and for the record, I totally supported saving the financial industry, pulling a Hoover would have made it much worse, we just did it in pretty much the worst way possible).
Fuck, the tea party rallying call early on was the bailout.

Also, if you go policy by policy, the voting public is much more progressive than conservative, which is quite remarkable, considering who is advocating progressivism in this country.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
APKmetsfan said:
‏@StephanieKelton
I've accepted a position as Chief Economist on the Senate Budget Committee.
Click to expand...
I would have been cool to have kept the senate.

She is one of the big voices of MMT, aka deficits don't matter
Click to expand...

Wow, that's great. She's also been a critic of Krugman, Summers, and Yellen for not learning from the debt crisis by looking to people like Hyman Minsky and pushing for disincentivizing over-accumulation of private debt. And much of her Twitter account focuses on labor compensation and inequality.

Basically she's the complete package, as far as progressives are concerned.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
thepotatoman said:
Wow, that's great. She's also been a critic of Krugman, Summers, and Yellen for not learning from the debt crisis by looking to people like Hyman Minsky and pushing for disincentivizing over-accumulation of private debt. And much of her Twitter account focuses on labor compensation and inequality.

Basically she's the complete package, as far as progressives are concerned.
Click to expand...

Oh if only we had a Progressive Congress...
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Chichikov said:
Bailing out banks is a much more of a progressive stance than a conservative one (and for the record, I totally supported saving the financial industry, pulling a Hoover would have made it much worse, we just did it in pretty much the worst way possible).
Fuck, the tea party rallying call early on was the bailout.

Also, if you go policy by policy, the voting public is much more progressive than conservative, which is quite remarkable, considering who is advocating progressivism in this country.
Click to expand...
This is a kind of revisionist history, Santellis rant was the bail out of the mortgage industry which is what the tea party was attached to, not the banks. They were never again tax bail outs or stablization, they were against helping the "losers" who took out loans the banks lied to them about. Their outrage was to yell at poor people.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
APKmetsfan said:
This is a kind of revisionist history, Santellis rant was the bail out of the mortgage industry which is what the tea party was attached to, not the banks. They were never again tax bail outs or stablization, they were against helping the "losers" who took out loans the banks lied to them about. Their outrage was to yell at poor people.
Click to expand...
The tea party is mostly an astroturf movement, they attached themselves to whatever they thought will work. Santelli is a wall street shill no doubt, but there were plenty of tea-party protests against the financial bailout.
But I don't really want to split that hair, my main point is that a financial bailout is more a progressive policy than a conservative one, it's government intervention in the free market.
APKmetsfan said:
I would have been cool to have kept the senate.

She is one of the big voices of MMT, aka deficits don't matter
Click to expand...
Just read about her a little bit, seems like a great choice, if only empty vessel could've lived to see the day...
Also, MMT doesn't really say "deficits don't matter".
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Democrats will get the Senate back when Hillary wins at least.

But lose it again when the red state Democrats pressure her into not doing anything substantial and lose anyway because of their states' political climates and base apathy fueled by a lack of anything substantial getting done by Hillary.

You know, the usual Dem strategy.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Chichikov said:
The tea party is mostly an astroturf movement, they attached themselves to whatever they thought will work. Santelli is a wall street shill no doubt, but there were plenty of tea-party protests against the financial bailout.
But I don't really want to split that hair, my main point is that a financial bailout is more a progressive policy than a conservative one, it's government intervention in the free market.
Just read about here a little bit, seems like a great choice, if only empty vessel could've lived to see the day...
Also, MMT doesn't really say "deficits don't matter".
Click to expand...
EV banned?

And I know its " the only thing that matters is inflation " but even that is simplifies
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
What an ignorant post that once again displays your disinterest in local/state politics.
Click to expand...

There are so few places now where politics is local, even in local elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/09/all-politics-is-local-not-anymore/

As they have for several elections now, national factors such as partisanship and presidential approval largely drove the results of the 2014 election. According to the exit poll, 92 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans voted for their party’s House candidate. As voters have sorted themselves more clearly as Republicans and Democrats, they have become more likely to support candidates of the same party in different elections and have become less likely to be swayed by personal factors such as a candidate’s personality or political record.

There are a number of ways to demonstrate this trend. The figure below shows the Democratic share of the popular vote in presidential and U.S. House elections from 1948 to 2014. From the 1950s to the 1980s, Democrats maintained a consistent majority in the House popular vote while Republicans had the advantage in the presidential vote.
Click to expand...

But these districts have declined precipitously. The number of “cross-partisan” districts dropped to 26 after the 2012 election. Republican victories in Obama seats earlier this month increased that number to 31.
Click to expand...

There are so few cross-ticket voters now, especially compared to before. Yes, local issues matter and yes, incumbency matters, and yes, turnout matters, but people who are Democrats now vote for Democrats and people who are Republicans now vote for Republicans. Even the perennial cross ticket existence of West Virginia and Kentucky's House will fade -- fuck, Nick Randall has been in Congress since 1977 and just lost his district. All 3 of West Virginia's congressmen are Republicans. And while they hold the state houses, again, that will fade. Just like now New Hampshire and Minnesota's swing state-ness will gradually fade as well as the trend is to sort into boxes. You will see the occasional senator who can win and election, but it's increasingly unlikely.

Also, Malia Obama is totally going into film and television. Can you imagine "Created by Malia Obama"?! Get ready. The Obamas will take over your television.

APKmetsfan said:
They're super cereal this time

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-readies-immigration-measures-1419635441
Click to expand...

Do they want to put Texas in play.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
There are so few places now where politics is local, even in local elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/09/all-politics-is-local-not-anymore/





There are so few cross-ticket voters now, especially compared to before. Yes, local issues matter and yes, incumbency matters, and yes, turnout matters, but people who are Democrats now vote for Democrats and people who are Republicans now vote for Republicans. Even the perennial cross ticket existence of West Virginia and Kentucky's House will fade -- fuck, Nick Randall has been in Congress since 1977 and just lost his district. All 3 of West Virginia's congressmen are Republicans. And while they hold the state houses, again, that will fade. Just like now New Hampshire and Minnesota's swing state-ness will gradually fade as well as the trend is to sort into boxes. You will see the occasional senator who can win and election, but it's increasingly unlikely.

Also, Malia Obama is totally going into film and television. Can you imagine "Created by Malia Obama"?! Get ready. The Obamas will take over your television.



Do they want to put Texas in play.
Click to expand...

Strife's post was about governors, which is indeed a local issue. Rick Snyder didn't win because Obama, he won because he faced a bad opponent who was handpicked by MI democrat insiders instead of going through an actual primary process. The economy in Michigan has improved since Snyder became governor, that's just reality. And perhaps most importantly Shauer had direct ties to Jennifer Granholm, who is basically the George W Bush of Michigan governors - utterly toxic.

Wisconsin's economy isn't bad - it's shrinking, but their unemployment level isn't shockingly high and Walker has already embarrassed the local democrat party in a recall. It's pretty clear voters there are fine with him, and that his divide/conquer war against unions has been successful.

Florida's economy is bad and Scott Walker barely won - against a two faced party switcher. I remember Kos noting that democrats didn't get the turnout they needed in Hispanic areas of the state. Perhaps that's an area where a national issue could have helped, ie the immigration executive order.

This has less to do about race and more to do about the economy and local politics. If Hillary was president the political climate would be nearly as toxic as it is now, that's just a fact. I'm tired of people who clearly weren't paying attention in the 90s acting like the main reason things are toxic now is due to Obama's race. Personally I'm more apt to agree with the argument that if there's a racial component it's moreso tied to democrat interests than Obama's race: the perception is that black people benefit when democrats are in office, so those with racial animus go crazy regardless of the democrat's race. This was certainly true of Bill Clinton, it's true of Jimmy Carter (see: republicans still trying to blame the housing crash on him/black people getting loans), and JFK/LBJ with the Civil Rights Act.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Strife's post was about governors, which is indeed a local issue. Rick Snyder didn't win because Obama, he won because he faced a bad opponent who was handpicked by MI democrat insiders instead of going through an actual primary process. The economy in Michigan has improved since Snyder became governor, that's just reality. And perhaps most importantly Shauer had direct ties to Jennifer Granholm, who is basically the George W Bush of Michigan governors - utterly toxic.

Wisconsin's economy isn't bad - it's shrinking, but their unemployment level isn't shockingly high and Walker has already embarrassed the local democrat party in a recall. It's pretty clear voters there are fine with him, and that his divide/conquer war against unions has been successful.

Florida's economy is bad and Scott Walker barely won - against a two faced party switcher. I remember Kos noting that democrats didn't get the turnout they needed in Hispanic areas of the state. Perhaps that's an area where a national issue could have helped, ie the immigration executive order.

This has less to do about race and more to do about the economy and local politics. If Hillary was president the political climate would be nearly as toxic as it is now, that's just a fact. I'm tired of people who clearly weren't paying attention in the 90s acting like the main reason things are toxic now is due to Obama's race. Personally I'm more apt to agree with the argument that if there's a racial component it's moreso tied to democrat interests than Obama's race: the perception is that black people benefit when democrats are in office, so those with racial animus go crazy regardless of the democrat's race. This was certainly true of Bill Clinton, it's true of Jimmy Carter (see: republicans still trying to blame the housing crash on him/black people getting loans), and JFK/LBJ with the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the personal animosity is over blown. They say a lot of the same stuff about Pelosi, Clinton, Biden, and local politicians.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
there has definitely been a white flight of sorts occurring within the Democratic Party. It didn't start with Obama but it certainly seems to be culminating with him. White voters have always turned out at higher rates than minorities but Democrats are starting to get fucked over because they're leaning so heavily Republican now.

If not the swing states then look at the deep red states. Mark Pryor had no opponent in 2008 because the GOP was convinced they couldn't beat him. Six years later he loses by 17 to a candidate who by all accounts looked good on paper yet ended up being terrible.

Even in MN where Democrats had a good night overall we lost the House thanks to not-so-subtle dog whistling that Dayton had abandoned the rural population for the "urban" community, even as Dayton won by a huge margin. Shit is everywhere man.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
there has definitely been a white flight of sorts occurring within the Democratic Party. It didn't start with Obama but it certainly seems to be culminating with him. White voters have always turned out at higher rates than minorities but Democrats are starting to get fucked over because they're leaning so heavily Republican now.

If not the swing states then look at the deep red states. Mark Pryor had no opponent in 2008 because the GOP was convinced they couldn't beat him. Six years later he loses by 17 to a candidate who by all accounts looked good on paper yet ended up being terrible.

Even in MN where Democrats had a good night overall we lost the House thanks to not-so-subtle dog whistling that Dayton had abandoned the rural population for the "urban" community, even as Dayton won by a huge margin. Shit is everywhere man.
Click to expand...
Not really. He's done better with the same or better whites than every president since Johnson save for Carter's first election and 96.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

What your seeing is the local parties finally attach themselves to the national parties acceptance of gays, civil rights, pluralism. That's killed the party in the south and Midwest. Its the same people voting for the same candidate. The party has just moved left on these issues.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
Not really. He's done better with the same or better whites than every president since Johnson save for Carter's first election and 96.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

What your seeing is the local parties finally attach themselves to the national parties acceptance of gays, civil rights, pluralism. That's killed the party in the south and Midwest. Its the same people voting for the same candidate. The party has just moved left on these issues.
Click to expand...
Valid point on the gays/rights thing but that's also an effect of the party becoming more inclusive and nominating minority candidates. I think they go hand in hand.

Clinton's numbers are a little skewed because of Perot and I don't think there's much merit comparing his numbers to Dukakis or Mondale who lost horribly. Essentially you're saying he did worse than the only two Democrats to actually get elected since Johnson.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Did he in 2012? (At work can't check) I know he did in 08 but that election is a bit of an anomaly. Also Clinton's numbers are a little skewed because of Perot.

Valid point on the gays/rights thing but that's also an effect of the party becoming more inclusive and nominating minority candidates. I think they go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

he got 43 in 2012, 44 in 2008

And clinton's numbers aren't skewed. He got 39 percent of the white vote. Perot didn't run as a liberal he ran as a conservative. He's taking white voters that chose his platform over clintons. Your also seeing the death of liberal seniors which is under reported. Clinton won elderly voters. Now the GOP dominates in many regards
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Republicans have dominated the white vote for decades, it's nothing new unless you got into politics in 2007...

The democrat party's implosion in the south is largely due to adopting the liberal platform of the national party in districts that are conservative on social issues. Obama is hated in the south and there are major race issues...but is Hillary Clinton popular in the south?
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Republicans have dominated the white vote for decades, it's nothing new unless you got into politics in 2007...

The democrat party's implosion in the south is largely due to adopting the liberal platform of the national party in districts that are conservative on social issues. Obama is hated in the south and there are major race issues...but is Hillary Clinton popular in the south?
Click to expand...

People love to point out that Clinton won places like LA but ignore the fact he didn't run on liberal social issues. Hillary won't have that ability, she can't run away from civil rights, gay rights, etc.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
I think if Hillary were president, Pryor and Landrieu may not have won but they wouldn't have lost as hugely as they did in November.

And yes Clinton's numbers are absolutely skewed by Perot. Exit polling showed Perot took evenly from Bush and Clinton and the only state he swung was Ohio. Furthermore after Perot dropped out of the race Clinton staked out leads in every state except Utah and Indiana, leads that shrunk when Perot got back in. The notion that Perot stole the election for Clinton is revisionist history from the Republicans who don't want to admit they lost.

I would also disagree that Clinton wasn't liberal on social issues - DADT was a compromise (he wanted to lift the ban period) and he signed a gun control bill. Maybe he didn't explicitly run on those but he still did them.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
PD's right in that Obama's number one problem is that he's a Democrat, but his melanin count sure as hell doesn't help things.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Oblivion said:
PD's right in that Obama's number one problem is that he's a Democrat, but his melanin count sure as hell doesn't help things.
Click to expand...
I guess that's what I'm getting it. I know there are plenty of other Democrats who were treated just as vilely by the right, but I feel like if the president was white right now you wouldn't see things like WV electing its first Republican senator in who knows how long.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
I think if Hillary were president, Pryor and Landrieu may not have won but they wouldn't have lost as hugely as they did in November.

And yes Clinton's numbers are absolutely skewed by Perot. Exit polling showed Perot took evenly from Bush and Clinton and the only state he swung was Ohio. Furthermore after Perot dropped out of the race Clinton staked out leads in every state except Utah and Indiana, leads that shrunk when Perot got back in. The notion that Perot stole the election for Clinton is revisionist history from the Republicans who don't want to admit they lost.

I would also disagree that Clinton wasn't liberal on social issues - DADT was a compromise (he wanted to lift the ban period) and he signed a gun control bill. Maybe he didn't explicitly run on those but he still did them.
Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing that. If Hillary won with a similar majority that Obama had in 2008 there's no telling what legislation she would have passed...but I'm sure it would have pissed republicans off. And if Hillary had turned the party as left as Obama has (on social issues), the exact same thing would happened to democrats in red states.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
You have no way of knowing that. If Hillary won with a similar majority that Obama had in 2008 there's no telling what legislation she would have passed...but I'm sure it would have pissed republicans off. And if Hillary had turned the party as left as Obama has (on social issues), the exact same thing would happened to democrats in red states.
Click to expand...

To quote you, "You have no way of knowing that."
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
President Barack Obama is ending the year, and his sixth year in office, on a high note — even performing better than his predecessor.

A recent Gallup poll shows Obama with a 43 percent December approval rating at the end of his sixth year in office. This puts him ahead of former President George W. Bush, who saw a 37 percent approval rating at the end of his sixth year in 2006.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...tings-december-2014-113816.html#ixzz3N8wXhB3C

Domed.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
You have no way of knowing that. If Hillary won with a similar majority that Obama had in 2008 there's no telling what legislation she would have passed...but I'm sure it would have pissed republicans off. And if Hillary had turned the party as left as Obama has (on social issues), the exact same thing would happened to democrats in red states.
Click to expand...
"You have no way of knowing that"

"Let me explain my own purely hypothetical scenario"
 
A

Averon

Member
So, Jeb Bush is emerging as the frontrunner in the GOP primary in that CNN poll. It will be fun to watch him backtrack on immigration.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
"The Republican Party has not won a presidential election without either a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket since 1928."

How does the above happen? America must love the Bush and Nixon family.

Btw, Dole was on the ticket in 76 & 96. Nixon loss in 60 & Bush in 92.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
NeoXChaos said:
"The Republican Party has not won a presidential election without either a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket since 1928."

How does the above happen? America must love the Bush and Nixon family.
Click to expand...
Because correlation is not causation?

Election season is rife with these "X has never happened without Y" factoids that are all thoroughly meaningless.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Mike M said:
Because correlation is not causation?

Election season is rife with these "X has never happened without Y" factoids that are all thoroughly meaningless.
Click to expand...

Eeeyup.

electoral_precedent.png
Click to expand...
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Mike M said:
Because correlation is not causation?

Election season is rife with these "X has never happened without Y" factoids that are all thoroughly meaningless.
Click to expand...

Poodlestrike said:
Eeeyup.
Click to expand...

That factoid isn't meant to mean that republicans can't win in 2016 without a bush or a nixon on the ticket. I think it does mean that republicans push for the same small group of people in the situations which give those people the biggest shots at power.

For instance, a Bush probably could have been on the ticket in 2012 if it weren't so likely the republican was going to lose in the general thanks to the incombency factor, and that loss would negatively affect 2016 chances when a republican might win.

And I thought we got past people throwing out "correlation does not equal causation" years ago, once people realized that causation literally cannot be studied without correlations. You can disagree with conclusions made from those correlations, but don't attack the fact that a conclusion was made from correlations.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
thepotatoman said:
And I thought we got past people throwing out "correlation does not equal causation" years ago, once people realized that causation literally cannot be studied without correlations. You can disagree with conclusions made from those correlations, but don't attack the fact that a conclusion was made from correlations.
Click to expand...

"Correlation does not equal causation" is a completely true statement that does not speak to the relationship between causation and correlation beyond cautioning that one should not conflate the two.

Reducing presidential election dynamics to "Republicans only win if there's a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket" is about as intellectually rigorous as "All serial killers drank milk as children."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom