benjipwns
Banned
shhhh we'll never sell it to Omni Consumer Products if you keep doing this
-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I don't see Illinois ever become a purple state, at least not in the short term. Cook County has positive population growth (for the first time in years), and it's currently outpacing the population growth in the rest of the state. Minnesota, I would need some more data, but it's far more left-leaning than Iowa, Wisconsin or Michigan, and I don't see a change in the short term.
I do think we're starting to see a shift in the midwest, though, as we're going to see a shift in Nevada, Virginia, and others.
EDIT: Looking up PA -- Pittsburgh looks like it'll have non-negative population growth for first time since the 1950 census.
1950 Pittsburgh pop: 676,806
2013 Pittsburgh pop: 305,841
Also interesting -- Philadelphia has already more than doubled its growth from 2000-2010 in the past four years.
Well it should. Those states are always going to have gubernatorial elections in mid-terms so the D's are going to have to find a way to win in those environments or risk irrelevancy in all but presidential election years.
Its just shocking that states like those can give Obama 10+ & 17+(Michigan) wins in 2008 and 2012 but swing so far right 2 years later. It astonishing how our politics are shaping up. We really could have a situation where D's are the WH party and the R's the Congressional/Mid-term party in the foreseeable future if trends dont change.
It makes you wonder why MI, PA, MN, arent competitive in Presidential elections considering how red they are at the state and congressional level. How in the world can the D's go 28 years by 2016 carrying those states like PA but hit rock bottom 2 years later?
Fascinating how different the electorate is.
speculawyer
Member
Winning is the only thing that matters in elections and if the Civil Rights Act changed who wins the elections, that is really all that matters.
We've been called everything from "The Paris of Appalachia" to a "mini San Francisco", whatever the hell that means.
Jack Remington
Banned
The Democrats really need to figure out a way to take out Susan Collins. There's got to be someone in Maine they could recruit.
benjipwns
Banned
Why is that one singular data point preferred to the Democrats shift to strongly socially liberal in the late 60's and early 70's while the GOP went silent on it and then went strongly socially conservative in the 1980's?
Why would the Confederacy vote for civil rights promoters like FDR, Truman, Stevenson and Kennedy? Not to mention vote for Johnson after he signed the Act, and then barely go for Nixon (another civil rights supporter) over Humphrey, the longest promoter of civil rights in the party if they were so upset about the Act that they would in lockstep somewhat forever except for certain years abandon the Democrats 30 years later?
The sexual revolution, acid, amnesty and abortion, death penalty, crime and riots, the Democrats desire to surrender the Cold War to the Soviets, etc.* all seem like they'd be more relevant issues to the South becoming competitive than one Federal Civil Rights Act (in an era with a number of them) that didn't stop them from voting for the Democrat who pushed it and signed it the same year it was passed and signed.
*aka things the parties were not polarized on by any significant amount before 1964 but strongly were by 1984.
WayneMorse
Banned
Yes I've been to Detroit and yes the suburbs there are safe, but there's still a lot of crime and poor infrastructure in the areas surrounding downtown and to say the city is ever going to be successfully gentrified just because of the low property rates is ridiculous.
WayneMorse
Banned
She'll be 74 in 2020 when she's next up for re-election so she may retire.
There's no way she'll lose though, 2008 had all the right factors for the Dem victory (strong candidate, GOP unpopular, Obama wave) and she still won in double digits.
I think she'll probably retire. But she's the most popular politician in the state. She will never be defeated if she's up for reelection.
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/01/amy_klobuchar_is_second_most_popular_senator_in_the_entire_country.php
Oh.
Collins is 17th, but still very high.
EDIT: Actually, if you sort by margin, she's 3rd.
benjipwns
Banned
From November, also PPP:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/11/maine-miscellany.html
EDIT:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/11/maine-miscellany.html
EDIT:
lol Johm McCain
I still don't know if it's possible for a Democrat to beat John McCain in Arizona, and I'm guessing his favorables would go up once he's the candidate and conservatives realize they have to vote for him or else they're getting the bisexual non-theist.
EDIT: lol omg no one likes their Senator in Arizona.
EDIT: lol omg no one likes their Senator in Arizona.
Jack Remington
Banned
The Democrats need to spend the next six years tying her to McConnell.
This is what they should have been doing since 2008, btw.
benjipwns
Banned
Meanwhile, Greece is about to have an election:
KAPA Research
You need 151 seats for a majority in the Greek parliament.
PASOK, The River and The Movement are all social democrats of some form (splinter groups off PASOK originally I think). New Democracy is their catch all conservative, Christian Democrats, pro-Europe, slight liberalism party. SYRIZA used to be closer to the Communists (hence, the name) but has become more of a broad Left party so you have social democrats and greens and Occupy types, they're euroskeptic. Golden Dawn is well, Golden Dawn, and Independent Greeks are like the G rated version of them, euroskeptics, nationalists and conservatives but probably not going to start a paramilitary anytime soon.
Communists are Marxist-Leninist. But not to be confused with the Communist Party of Greece (Marxist-Leninist) or Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Greece. Nor the Anticapitalist Left Cooperation for the Overthrow.
If you're looking for Maoism you want the Organization for the Reconstruction of the Communist Party of Greece.
If you'd like to restore the Monarchy, you want National Hope.
And if you're sane you can be one of the 1% to vote for the only liberal party, Drasi.
KAPA Research
You need 151 seats for a majority in the Greek parliament.
PASOK, The River and The Movement are all social democrats of some form (splinter groups off PASOK originally I think). New Democracy is their catch all conservative, Christian Democrats, pro-Europe, slight liberalism party. SYRIZA used to be closer to the Communists (hence, the name) but has become more of a broad Left party so you have social democrats and greens and Occupy types, they're euroskeptic. Golden Dawn is well, Golden Dawn, and Independent Greeks are like the G rated version of them, euroskeptics, nationalists and conservatives but probably not going to start a paramilitary anytime soon.
Communists are Marxist-Leninist. But not to be confused with the Communist Party of Greece (Marxist-Leninist) or Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Greece. Nor the Anticapitalist Left Cooperation for the Overthrow.
If you're looking for Maoism you want the Organization for the Reconstruction of the Communist Party of Greece.
If you'd like to restore the Monarchy, you want National Hope.
And if you're sane you can be one of the 1% to vote for the only liberal party, Drasi.
benjipwns
Banned
They're apparently a 6-7% thing. Probably would have been a good idea for them to come up with a platform that consists of more than EXPEL ALL NON ETHNIC GREEKS. Maybe something about education in there too. Or agricultural subsidies.
"EXPEL ALL THE FILTHY NON GREEKS! DESTROY THE LESSER RACES! Now here's our 380 page policy platform on agricultural subsidy reform."
"EXPEL ALL THE FILTHY NON GREEKS! DESTROY THE LESSER RACES! Now here's our 380 page policy platform on agricultural subsidy reform."
Hey, it's working for FN!
Absolutely. She might be too far gone, but it should be the recipe for other races.
"A vote for {This Ostensibly 'Moderate' Republican} is a vote for {This AntiScience Lunatic} as chairperson of {This Committee}."
That should've been the mantra since the beginning, for all blue state Republicans. They've done it to Democrats here in the South flawlessly. It works. Repeat it over and over again. Connect these folks and label them for what they truly are: enablers.
benjipwns
Banned
One problem is that it burnishes their MAVERICK credentials.
Johm McCain's entire career is based around taking slightly different positions from his party, dancing around it ever so that it looks like he's on every side of an issue and then as he himself stated endlessly in 2008 being a "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution" and being a good Republican. While going on every talk show that exists to promote himself as relevant.
The only reason he picked a fight with "Religious Right" social conservatives was because he thought they had fucked him over after they were suggesting they would support him if he was competitive with Bush. (Which they probably did.)
The other is that voters have heard of their Senator, they have no idea who that other person is or what committee they're going to be heading even does. And *their* Senator is one of the good ones.
The committed conservative voters are fans of that other guy and stuff, so it lets the candidate shift towards collecting more independents and Democrats because the attacks on conservatives are going to firm up that base.
I think one major reason it's been so hard to pull off in reverse though has been, well, candidates like Martha Coakley.
Johm McCain's entire career is based around taking slightly different positions from his party, dancing around it ever so that it looks like he's on every side of an issue and then as he himself stated endlessly in 2008 being a "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution" and being a good Republican. While going on every talk show that exists to promote himself as relevant.
The only reason he picked a fight with "Religious Right" social conservatives was because he thought they had fucked him over after they were suggesting they would support him if he was competitive with Bush. (Which they probably did.)
The other is that voters have heard of their Senator, they have no idea who that other person is or what committee they're going to be heading even does. And *their* Senator is one of the good ones.
The committed conservative voters are fans of that other guy and stuff, so it lets the candidate shift towards collecting more independents and Democrats because the attacks on conservatives are going to firm up that base.
I think one major reason it's been so hard to pull off in reverse though has been, well, candidates like Martha Coakley.
Trollbama is best Obama:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...bout-mitt-romney-running-for-president-again/
Yup.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...bout-mitt-romney-running-for-president-again/
Yup.
Aaron Strife
Banned
ABC/WaPo: Obama's approval rating is 50%
But PD said Hispanics and young voters were going to abandon Obama in droves.
But PD said Hispanics and young voters were going to abandon Obama in droves.
speculawyer
Member
Look, there are all sorts of interesting sociological aspects that can be analyzed and discussed.
But as far as politics go, the only thing that matters is the outcome of elections.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, the GOP does have a big latino problem. They are on the wrong side of immigration, Cuba is becoming irrelevant, latinos are concerned about climate change, and the abortion issue that they thought would help them is actually hurting them with latinos.
And with Argentine Pope Frank around, I think it will will just get worse for them.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't even know how the "Latinos are natural social conservatives!" meme even started but pundits wouldn't shut up about how gay marriage and abortion would turn them into Republicans eventually. Well I don't know how they came to that conclusion when 70% of Latinos support legal abortion (http://latinainstitute.org/en/latinopoll) and in a few years gay marriage won't be a wedge issue except to a handful of white southern knuckledraggers who they're already winning. Meanwhile Obama reaps all the benefits of relaxed immigration laws because it was all him, the GOP circumvented real reform so there you go.
ah, politico. the planet fitness of political journalism.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Yep, they're screwed both ways. Even if they were good with a few social conservative things among older minorities, that's still going to be a losing battle with both younger minorities and younger white people.
WayneMorse
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
That southerners are still salty about the civil war and civil rights will never stop being amusing
Benji, wait really?
1960
1964
1968
Literally, months after the 1964 Civil Rights Act the South did a 180.
What you don't get is that the South supported FDR and JFK because they had no problems with government programs and social safety nets. For the same reason they don't have a problem with Medicare and Social Security Today.
What changed after 1964 was that they viewed government programs as no longer going to them, but going to the blacks. And it no longer was about "the government should help us" but it became about "the government shouldn't steal our money to give to the blacks"
And a century of support for the Democratic Party at the Presidential level was erased overnight. Just as LBJ predicted. Which by the way, is the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. Because the Republican problem is that they can't embrace the changing electorate without alienating their base and as long as they decide to keep their southern base happy, they'll lose presidential elections without voter ID and citizens united gimmicks.
1960
1964
1968
Literally, months after the 1964 Civil Rights Act the South did a 180.
What you don't get is that the South supported FDR and JFK because they had no problems with government programs and social safety nets. For the same reason they don't have a problem with Medicare and Social Security Today.
What changed after 1964 was that they viewed government programs as no longer going to them, but going to the blacks. And it no longer was about "the government should help us" but it became about "the government shouldn't steal our money to give to the blacks"
And a century of support for the Democratic Party at the Presidential level was erased overnight. Just as LBJ predicted. Which by the way, is the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. Because the Republican problem is that they can't embrace the changing electorate without alienating their base and as long as they decide to keep their southern base happy, they'll lose presidential elections without voter ID and citizens united gimmicks.
Benji, wait really?
1960
1964
1968
Literally, months after the 1964 Civil Rights Act the South did a 180.
What you don't get is that the South supported FDR and JFK because they had no problems with government programs and social safety nets. For the same reason they don't have a problem with Medicare and Social Security Today.
What changed after 1964 was that they viewed government programs as no longer going to them, but going to the blacks. And it no longer was about "the government should help us" but it became about "the government shouldn't steal our money to give to the blacks"
And a century of support for the Democratic Party at the Presidential level was erased overnight. Just as LBJ predicted. Which by the way, is the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. Because the Republican problem is that they can't embrace the changing electorate without alienating their base and as long as they decide to keep their southern base happy, they'll lose presidential elections without voter ID and citizens united gimmicks.
This^^. Even chuck todd on MTP yesterday said it was the reason.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
oh my god oh my god oh my god
To some of these people "The War of Northern Aggression" lives on. Just take solace in the fact that a lot of these people will die soon and the younger generation will wonder what the fuck our ancestors were smoking.
speculawyer
Member
I can tell you because I bought into it for a while. A very large proportion of the latino population is Catholic and thus one might think that they buy into the anti-abortion politics and the anti-gay marriage stuff. But it just doesn't hold true. In the USA, latinos tend to be pro-choice. And they are a younger population and thus tend to be tolerant of gay rights. One can come up with lots of potential reasons why . . . such as the fact that South/Central American Catholic church tends to be a bit more liberal and had the whole 'liberation theology' thing going on in Central and South America.
But I am someone able to change my understanding based on new data received. A lot of the old GOPers have a view and then just stick with it no matter what the data says. And that is going to hurt them.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-duckworth-considers-senate-bid-met-20150119-story.html?track=rss
Tammy Duckworth considering a run for Senate.
Tammy Duckworth considering a run for Senate.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'd like to share in your optimism, but
http://jezebel.com/5958993/racist-teens-forced-to-answer-for-tweets-about-the-nigger-president
Racists breed more potential racists. Some of them do grow up and shed these hateful beliefs - many of them will at best learn to be quiet about it lest the "thought police" get on their case, at worst revel in it and buy Confederate flag iPhone cases and prom dresses and bitch on Twitter when black characters are played by black actors in movies.
Mark Kirk is begging her not to. So she has to.ivysaur12 said:
It's almost as desperate as when the GOP started running ads in 08 trying to convince voters "Obama will make a good president SOMEDAY, but not yet so vote for McCain PLEASE GIVE US FOUR MORE YEARS"
Sestak has been running basically since 2010, and Feingold is highly rumored to run. Just need Hagan and Hassan to go all in on NC and NH (respectively) and find good candidates in Ohio and Florida. Although even just a sweep of PA/IL/WI/NH/NC would give us back the Senate.
After voting not to recognize MLK day in his state... Twice. Yeah, massive iron balls.
WayneMorse
Banned
I was kind of hoping for Michelle Obama but that was a pipe dream.
And John McCain didn't.
Poodlestrike
Banned
He's not wrong. Dr. King's legacy does continue to empower and inspire anyone who seeks liberty, equality and justice.
It's just that Scalise isn't one of them
Avon Barksdale
Member
LOL.
Madigan is running for governor in 2018. Bustos will still run, but I'm assuming that something will happen between now and the primary where either Bustos or Duckworth steps out. And Duckworth has a bigger national profile and probably would be a better fundraiser.
I don't think Mark Kirk is an easy win compared to, say, Ron Johnson, who has done absolutely nothing to moderate himself since his election. And there hasn't been any polling done yet form a reputable 3rd party. I don't think Duckworth is necessarily worse than Bustos or anyone else running as far as a candidate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked