Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
With that kind of money in politics, none of us will ever be able to speak again. May as well just shut down the Internet at this point.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
With that kind of money in politics, none of us will ever be able to speak again. May as well just shut down the Internet at this point.
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2012/06/americas_under_age_1_populatio.html
Also, why I question a Pennsylvania or Michigan drift, if demographic %s hold (a big if).
#BreakTheInternet
Also, why I question a Pennsylvania or Michigan drift, if demographic %s hold (a big if).
#BreakTheInternet
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
With such free speech on the internet being so cheap, I can't help but wonder why someone would waste $900 million on it.
Coriolanus
Banned
Thinking more along the lines that if republicans keep moving towards more common sense things like minimum wage and immigration, and decide to ditch the batshit crazy social points, there might yet be another fracturing of the electorate.
Would be naive of the dems to think that they'd get mad gains in such a scenario, since there should be a sizable parcel that is voting dems due to social issues, but would rather have republican economic approaches.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Doesn't look like they'll do it in 2016 at least.
Republicans will moderate eventually, they have to. But I think their base is generally more hardened than the Democratic base - what will they do if the GOP embraces gay marriage or immigration reform?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Already talking about VP possibilities, while at the same time claiming they learned the lesson of 2008's disastrous aura of inevitability. Brilliant...
That being said, I've long believed that a VA senator will be in the running. Warner probably screwed himself by taking his senate seat for granted, but Kaine can benefit. I truly believe that the Clinton and Obama camps worked out a deal to convince Tom Perriello not to run against Terry McAuliffe in the primary. Perriello is an Obama supporter and I truly believe he could have stomped McAuliffe's corporate buffoon ass in 2013. So if Kaine (another early Obama supporter) were to get the VP nom, McAuliffe will select Perriello to finish the term.
That being said, I've long believed that a VA senator will be in the running. Warner probably screwed himself by taking his senate seat for granted, but Kaine can benefit. I truly believe that the Clinton and Obama camps worked out a deal to convince Tom Perriello not to run against Terry McAuliffe in the primary. Perriello is an Obama supporter and I truly believe he could have stomped McAuliffe's corporate buffoon ass in 2013. So if Kaine (another early Obama supporter) were to get the VP nom, McAuliffe will select Perriello to finish the term.
(meandering around here)
How long do we get before their megadonors put their feet down? Lose another Presidential election? Two? Lose the Supreme Court?
I still think it's losing SCOTUS that'll really make things hit home. That changes everything. If Hillary wins and replaces one of the right-leaners.. that's going to be huge, and part of me wonders if we'll see a lot of folks on the right just give-up, knowing that a lot of their agenda will be killed at the bench. We need a photoshopped Back to the Future 2 pic of Doc Brown in front of the chalkboard - but with Election Day 2016 in the place of November 5, 1955. It'll be a red-letter day when it happens.
Even if you were to discard issues of civil rights, I know a lot of folks who won't look at the party because of their goofy anti-science schtick.
And this is going to sound contradictory, but here goes: I think 2016 will be tighter than a lot of folks think. The voting population has a built-in resistance to electing the same party to a third term in this era, so that might be one dampening factor. But I also think the electoral college is a near-lock.
How long do we get before their megadonors put their feet down? Lose another Presidential election? Two? Lose the Supreme Court?
I still think it's losing SCOTUS that'll really make things hit home. That changes everything. If Hillary wins and replaces one of the right-leaners.. that's going to be huge, and part of me wonders if we'll see a lot of folks on the right just give-up, knowing that a lot of their agenda will be killed at the bench. We need a photoshopped Back to the Future 2 pic of Doc Brown in front of the chalkboard - but with Election Day 2016 in the place of November 5, 1955. It'll be a red-letter day when it happens.
Even if you were to discard issues of civil rights, I know a lot of folks who won't look at the party because of their goofy anti-science schtick.
And this is going to sound contradictory, but here goes: I think 2016 will be tighter than a lot of folks think. The voting population has a built-in resistance to electing the same party to a third term in this era, so that might be one dampening factor. But I also think the electoral college is a near-lock.
TacticalFox88
Banned
If Hilldawg replaces TWO supreme Court justices, that will just be icing on an already delicious cake.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think you're forgetting that republicans will control the senate when a vacant spot opens up.
Kennedy & Scalia wont retire under a President Hillary. The only way they are leaving is if they die or a Republican is president under a Republican senate.
Idk if the senate stays Republican that Scalia or Kennedy retires under Hillary although she can nominate a moderate to liberal with few R votes I guess.
No doubt. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Scalia has a living will stipulating that he be kept alive through all possible artificial measures if there's a Democrat in the White House.
If the GOP has the Senate (I'd guess likely between 2019 & 2021), then I'd just say that Hillary should either pull a Bill and solicit recommendations from Republican senators (thank Hatch for Ginsburg, ha!), or just keep naming nominees for rejection after rejection so that the public can make a judgement.
Black Mamba
Member
There's a good chance she'd replace 4. Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsberg are all 78+. Breyer is 76.
It might not all happen in the 1st term, but assuming 2 terms it will have to happen.
2 terms of Hillary means 16 years of court appointments by a Democrat. Would do the most to alter the political landscape in America. Not just the SCOTUS but every jurisdiction.
Even if he did and could, Scalia not being able to actually vote on anything would make it an 8 person Court. The President can appoint anyone at any time. He can have 50 Justices if he so chooses and is confirmed.
If Scalia is brain dead with no hope of coming back on, the GOP may fight an appointment if they can, but I think they'd ultimately lose. The number of "actively voting" justices will be 9 and Scalia will be on his tubes doing nothing. Then we he does he isn't officially replaced.
In other words, I'm not worried about Scalia refusing to die but being incapacitated.
Aaron Strife
Banned
That shouldn't be said with such certainty. There's no reason why Democrats shouldn't be able to swing at least four Senate seats in 2016 if Hillary is running strong. PA, IL, and WI are all toss-ups at worst, then we just need to snag one of NH, NC, OH or FL.
Although admittedly we'd have to hold onto NV and CO as well, but if we're having a good year elsewhere there's no reason to assume Reid and Bennet can't win. Sandoval doesn't sound interested and Gardner only won a small victory over Udall in a year where everything that could have possibly gone wrong for the Democrats did.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And they will let a liberal justice through, just like. Not flaming liberals but people like obamas appointees will make it through
Also, looks like some Republicans have gotten in on the socialism game
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...n-news-outlet-to-compete-with-media/22370005/
I'm guessing he's gotten a lot of bad press and wants to try to control what people write about him. I'd bet any money that if he does this that reporters trying to cover a story his thing puts out won't be able to get any quotes or information from his office.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Honestly, a good rule of thumb is that people who found countries tend to be giant, raving dickbags.
As a rule.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Likewise, if Romney replaces both Ginsberg and the most moderate conservative in kennedy, it could make things look really ugly for a good long while.
Demographic changes are probably going to start hitting critical mass by 2024 either way, but that's not going to be very helpful if conservatives can find just 5 out of 6 extremely conservative justices to undo every single last thing liberals try to do.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
In 2018, Missouri and North Dakota are almost certainly gone for the democrats, and any possible pick-ups would have probably been picked up in 2012, unless Dean Heller from Nevada retires.
So, in order to keep the senate for at the full first term, Democrats need to pick up 6 plus the vice president tiebreaker in 2016 and they need to hold all their swing state seats in 2018, including Florida and Ohio.
Basically, you gotta hope Hillary doesn't just win, but wins big.
Holding the 5 Romney states are going to be hard. I'd argue they should focus on the swing state seats and leave Tester and Co. to fend for themselves. 2014 saw all that money for Pryor and Co. wasted.
The Democrats wont certainly do it but they should be wiser in when to pull the plug. Ultimately if Hillary is unpopular no amount of distancing is going to work. Their fates all lie with Hillary's standing come that Fall.
WayneMorse
Banned
We have no idea what the economic and political situation in 2018 will look like so why the fuck are we talking about races like we're certain who's gonna win and lose?
Could you predict ISIS and Ebola in 2011?
Could you predict ISIS and Ebola in 2011?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Sure, but say Democrats win a majority - no matter how big - after the 2016 elections and we have President Clinton. I think it's a fair assumption RBG would step down at that point. PD was saying the next time there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Republicans will hold the Senate, which isn't a certainty at least for the 2017-2019 cycle.
MO, IN, ND, MT and WV are problematic going into 2018 but we won't know what the political atmosphere will be until after the presidential election.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I still say I don't care how good everything is by 2024.
Assuming eight years of Hillary, the GOP will assuredly have 2024.
We only take so much of one party in the White House.
Assuming eight years of Hillary, the GOP will assuredly have 2024.
We only take so much of one party in the White House.
If I was a Democratic strategist, I would be putting 2018 on my radar. What happens next year has an effect on 2018.
Ultimately like aaron said, we wont know until after the presidential election how 2018 might go.
Also, I dont need to predict that the 5 romney state D's by the nature of their state is going to be competitive as well as the swing state D's. That's an objective given looking at mid-term turnout and state voting history.
McCaskall and Tester(twice) barely won their seats in GOOD years and McCaskill had to rely on a flawed nominee in a presidential election.
RustyNails
Member
As long as Hillary doesn't cheat with an intern, and the economy doesn't implode, I don't see why not.
Yup.
We hear the old cliché about how "this is the most important election" every four years, but this one might actually be it. It could set the judicial tone for the next few decades. I really don't think Ruth makes it to 2021, and the odds are decent that one of Kennedy or Scalia doesn't either.
The more I fret about the stakes, the more I like the idea of nailing-down VA with a VP pick. Kerry + NM + VA gets to 264. One more out of FL/NC/OH/CO/IA/NV does it at that point. Seems like a really safe route.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Is probably good to know since I now live in Canada.
95% NDP
93% Liberal
86% Green
68% Bloc Quebecios
4% Conservative
About what I expected.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The might of a Harris-Booker ticket will win out over incumbency curse.
WayneMorse
Banned
The only hope for Canada is Mulcair's beard.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I would just like to point out that McCaskill won by 16 points and Akin being her opponent was no accident, McCaskill's campaign ratfucked the Republican primary.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Joni Ernst and Thom Tillis both somehow won without Akining it up. It seems to me like Akin is probably the exception, not the rule.
Is there any reason why the Republican party will fundamentally change its policy by 2024? Unless party leaders outright abandon much of their base's goals this isn't happen even 9 years from now.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I wonder if that's because one party only takes so many losses before they reinvent themselves to be actually viable again.
For instance, democrats won the presidency just 12 years after Reagan was first elected and supposedly killed the democratic party for good, but they did it with a president that might be to the right of Eisenhower.
16 years is a long time to take losses, and if the overall vibe of the country is moving to the left, I can easily see Republicans run a president left of Bill Clinton by that point.
I guess that's the other possible reason why one party cant hold on very long. The economy tends to implode every 10 years no matter what you do.
Well, Ernst went against a flawed candidate and Tillis barely won with 1.5%. That's lower than McCaskill's 2006 win (2.3 points) and her 2012 win (15.5 points).
Also, before FarmerGate, polls had Braley up. Then, he wasn't.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
And yet neither of them ever said anything so controversial that everyone else in their own party even had to condemn it.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/26/corporate-media-dont-want-know-joni-ernst/
The interesting thing about Ernst is that she's basically teflon. Issues don't matter with her, it's all the smile and the back story.
If you want to talk about 2024 already, this is who you should be most worried about.
The interesting thing about Ernst is that she's basically teflon. Issues don't matter with her, it's all the smile and the back story.
If you want to talk about 2024 already, this is who you should be most worried about.
Not sure if history is going to repeat like that again. There just aren't the swing voters that there use to be. Clinton had the advantage of there being lots of conservative Democrats, especially in the South, that Clinton could appeal to. The so-called Reagan Democrats were a real thing back then.
Today, both parties have their base and that's it. Either they turn out to the polls and vote or stay home and don't, and that's basically all a candidate can do these days. Even by 2024, the Republicans can't do anything to expand their base unless they become a completely new party.
WayneMorse
Banned
Also note the top comment on the story I linked. Ernst was wearing an Americans for Prosperity pin when she gave her SOTU response.
At least she's honest about who she's really Senator for.
At least she's honest about who she's really Senator for.
Wait, what's your point? I don't really see how Ernst and Tillis are related to McCaskill's 2018 probabilities in any way.
Just saw this: You realize that Heidi Heitkamp is one of the most popular politicians in North Dakota, right? If anything Donnelly seems to be in more trouble than she is.
Baron_Calamity
Member
Dr. Ben Carson sure knows how to keep his name in the news.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...32-ben-carson-pulls-crowd-to-its-feet-in-iowa
I so hope he makes it to the debates.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...32-ben-carson-pulls-crowd-to-its-feet-in-iowa
I so hope he makes it to the debates.
The Republican party will bounce back eventually. They arent dead at any measure of the word. They control all but the White House at this point.
Even if they lose the next 2 presidential elections. They are set with the House and a coin flip with the senate for the next decade.
Heitkamp is popular.......until the droves of millions of dollars by the Koch brothers floods her small state and turn her into obama incarnate. Ayotte will suffer the same fate next year.
Even if they lose the next 2 presidential elections. They are set with the House and a coin flip with the senate for the next decade.
Heitkamp is popular.......until the droves of millions of dollars by the Koch brothers floods her small state and turn her into obama incarnate. Ayotte will suffer the same fate next year.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
But even now there's a lot of progressive issues the majority of republicans are for, like minimum wage, paid leave, and LGBT non-discrimination.
There has to be some sort of concessions they can make without really pissing off their base too much.
Aaron Strife
Banned
RustyNails
Member
The thing about Ernst is that you can only keep the lid on the crazy for so long. I'm not too worried about her. Only reason she got in was because her opponent shat on the state and Democrats didn't vote. Very solid combination to get your ass kicked out of politics for a long time. A half decent candidate will knock her out with all the crazyness that is bound to happen with her. It's like a Chris Christie situation. You just know that a bully like him is gonna have so much shit to drown himself.
Again, who knows! We don't even know who will win the election in 2016.
Your right x).
We dont that's why I cant wait till next year. It will be a fun and exciting campaign. I finally get the candidate barring some unforeseen disaster or death I wanted to win in 08. cough was not a obama supporter cough.
Those aren't really policy points that would change anyone's vote for President, probably not even Senator or Representative. They certainly didn't get many people to vote Democratic in 2014. Even if Republicans were to formally adopt those measures, I doubt the situation would change much. They're just too minor issues IMO.
The Republicans would have to do something pretty drastic, on par with supporting universal health care, supporting meaningful immigration reform, or support a strong green agenda, in order to change their demographics. Those policies would completely screw over their own base. I can't imagine that happen, even by 2024, unless the Republican complete reinvent themselves. It would really require their entire core of their base to basically die-off and replace by completely new blood before that happens.
speculawyer
Member
Dr. Ben Carson sure knows how to keep his name in the news.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...32-ben-carson-pulls-crowd-to-its-feet-in-iowa
I so hope he makes it to the debates.
Amazing. Couldn't a reporter ask him if the same should apply for black people openly buying wedding cakes?
He really is amazing. How can someone be so blind in other areas?
this has to be on purpose, like whoever handling this part wanted to be able to publically say one thing but procedurally say another
like
how does a STATE fail to pay a court fee
Aaron Strife
Banned
Education and intelligence aren't always the same thing.
He reminds me of this pharmacist friend of mine. He posts political stuff on facebook all the time and feels qualified to speak on such matters because he's had success filling prescriptions. I asked him in person one time, since he's a libertarian, where he came down on market externalities such as pollution. I've seen libertarians on both sides of that issue. He didn't know what I was talking about. Never even heard the term.
I personally wish political science in America was more widely considered as a field that requires specialized knowledge. Everyone over the age of 18 believes themselves to be an expert in it. Even political science majors really don't graduate with the necessary knowledge, it requires a lot of additional study and understanding on business, economics, international affairs, capital markets and such to see the big picture.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked