• 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.
Romney's got no one to blame about these recent stories coming out but himself. People were well enough with causally remembering what a dick he was and laughing and pictures of him in mom pants. But he's been toying with another run for the presidency, so now we'll get stories vividly reminding us about what a dick he was.
 

benjipwns

Banned
He said a similar thing a week later http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...as-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/?_r=0

Of course this can't 100% prove anything but why would the president so clearly misinterpret something that Romney said blatantly a week later
I guess the only thing I would wonder is why he'd say it to Obama directly, or even try to explain the election or anything in that kind of call, I can see "explaining" your defeat to fundraisers, friendly media, etc. You'd have to be a real sore loser, even Gore and Bush had a friendly chat iirc when he finally conceded. I want to say Reagan and Mondale joked with each other about the election during their call.

Though looking up past concession calls led me to this nice article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/fashion/31Concession.html

EDIT: Here's another that says Kerry refused to talk to Bush for years lol: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/84365.html

Maybe it's a Massachusetts thing.

Reagan taking Mondale's:
c25679-5.jpg
 

benjipwns

Banned
Wow, I didn't know that. Is that common knowledge?
Yeah, Nixon (and Kissinger) regularly talked with Clinton people, generally over foreign policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ised-Bill-Clinton-on-post-Cold-War-world.html
An exhibition opening on Friday at the Nixon Presidential Library in California features documents and memos detailing his relations with the White House after Mr Clinton took office in 1993.

In a video message recorded for the library, Mr Clinton recalls seeking the advice of his predecessor at a time when many Americans were tempted to say: “We’ve had enough of the world”.

“President Nixon knew we had to continue to reach out to old friends and to old enemies alike,” says Mr Clinton in the clip. “He knew America could not quit the world”.

Some 18 years after his resignation following the Watergate scandal, Mr Nixon wrote to Mr Clinton to congratulate him on his hard-fought presidential election victory over President George HW Bush.
...
In Mr Nixon, he found advice from an elder statesman who won plaudits while in the White House for thawing relations with China and went on to make several visits to Russia.

In a three-hour meeting with a senior Clinton aide weeks before his death, Mr Nixon said that the young president had “not been tough enough when it comes to Russia’s dealings with its neighbours,” one document shows.

Offering to carry messages to Boris Yeltsin, then the Russian president, Mr Nixon also proposed that US aid to Russia be linked to nuclear non-proliferation and reforms to the Russian military.

...

At his funeral, Mr Clinton said: “May the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close.”

“After he died, I found myself wishing I could pick up the phone and ask President Nixon what he thought about this issue or that problem, particularly if it involved Russia,” he says in the clip. “I appreciated his insight and advice and I’m glad he chose, at the end of his life, to share it with me”.

http://nixonfoundation.org/2013/02/nixon-and-clinton-documents-revealed/

Though Nixon died in 1994 so it wasn't a long relationship.

EDIT: lol from Monica Crowley's book apparently:
He despises other ex-Presidents -- ''he resented being grouped with them,'' and he blew up at Bush for sending an emissary to him ''on the same day that he was sending him to talk to Ford and Carter and Reagan.'' Bush is a lightweight, Baker an egotist -- and those are just the people on his side. As for Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton is ''cold as ice''; Janet Reno is ''a partisan witch.'' Bill Clinton was all right for a period, when he flattered Nixon, but Whitewater is worse than Watergate because ''we didn't have a body'' like Vince Foster's. Intellectuals and Ivy Leaguers are worthless -- that is the trouble with the Foreign Service, the Democratic Party and the press. One of the few people Nixon expresses unqualified admiration for is Oliver North: ''North and Weinberger got to the heart of it, like I did with Hiss. They were against the goddamned Commies!''
 

benjipwns

Banned
Something about voteview doesn't sit right with me. I think it's because I feel like you'd get a super close correlation with just plotting the amount of each party in the houses.

And the "liberal"/"conservative" score and chart is just silly.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Did you all read the articles?

Dont dismiss them completely. They have valid points.
Hillary aint running away with this election. I dont want to see meltdowns come fall 2016 if a Republican (Jeb Bush) is elected.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Oh god.

Democrats have the keys. That could change but that doesn't mean it will change.

The past few decades have been remarkably stable in terms of states that are reliably blue and states that are reliably red. And now we have reinforcing mechanisms (diversification & segregation of media outlets & information sources, increased partisan sentiment, a strong urban-rural divide, fewer "up for grabs" swing voters, etc) that are going to make breaking out of this stable pattern rather difficult.

Something absolutely huge is going to have to happen for us to realign the map. Until then, the Dems have one pretty solid distribution of electoral vote outcomes and the Republicans have another well-defined distribution of electoral outcomes.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Something about voteview doesn't sit right with me. I think it's because I feel like you'd get a super close correlation with just plotting the amount of each party in the houses.

And the "liberal"/"conservative" score and chart is just silly.

That was my concern and it's why I didn't post it when I saw it. Like, yes, in 2014, a higher % of likely voters voted for Republicans than in 2008, which was lower than 2012. Like... Well, duh?

Show me the graph from 2000-2008 and I'm sure it's look very similar to the House/Presidential results.

EDIT: What I mean by this is... Party identity doesn't necessarily drive a candidate as much as a candidate would drive party identity.
 
Still, if in every state there were a more modest uniform shift of 3 points in the 2012 result from the Democratic ticket to the Republican ticket, Republicans would win 305 electoral votes—35 votes more than the 270 needed to lock up the election. Precisely uniform shifts among a diverse 50 states don’t happen, but 270 electoral votes certainly isn’t an impossible dream for the GOP, despite demographic changes — including the growth of the Hispanic electorate — that favor Democrats. Does the Electoral College really feature a “Big Blue Wall”? Not necessarily.
This is dumb math and Sabato should know better. If you take three points from the Democrat and then add another three points to the Republican, that's actually a six-point swing. In his scenario Republicans would also win Pennsylvania which is an immediate sign that no one should take you seriously.

An actual three-point swing (giving the Republicans 1.5% and taking 1.5% from the Democrats) would still produce a Democratic victory with 285 electoral votes, and Republicans would only win Ohio by .02%.
 

pigeon

Banned
Did you all read the articles?

I did. You can tell from the part where I quoted a specific thing from the article to explain why it was poorly sourced and essentially meaningless speculation.

Dont dismiss them completely. They have valid points.
Hillary aint running away with this election. I dont want to see meltdowns come fall 2016 if a Republican (Jeb Bush) is elected.

You definitely will see meltdowns.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I think there's also a lot of value -- as we saw in 2012 -- towards making it seem like a horse race or a nail biter to stoke both hope in those at a polling disadvantage and fear into those with an advantage for clicks/viewers.

For anyone paying attention, yes, the Democratic camdidate has a natural advantage in the electoral college this year. And Hillary is polling well above other candidates. That could change. But that's the reality of February 2015.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
That said, I do think the Dems probably do have some sort of "coalitional" or "demographic" adv in presidential elections that GOP can't ignore

-Nate Cohn

Remember folks, they are pundits not psychics. Past wont determine this election 2016. Next year will be fun for all of us. Btw, where are the Republican poligaffers. Your opinions are welcome here. Dont tell me we scared them away x(.
 
-Nate Cohn

Remember folks, they are pundits not psychics. Past wont determine this election 2016. Next year will be fun for all of us. Btw, where are the Republican poligaffers. Your opinions are welcome here. Dont tell me we scared them away x(.
Republicans don't like having to back up their beliefs with factual evidence so they don't like posting here.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Republicans don't like having to back up their beliefs with factual evidence so they don't like posting here.

really? so at some point republicans posted here in earnest??

I asked that because I feel like its just us democrats that post here. No one here seems to be rooting for a republican to win. Where are the millennial republicans?
 

benjipwns

Banned
That was my concern and it's why I didn't post it when I saw it. Like, yes, in 2014, a higher % of likely voters voted for Republicans than in 2008, which was lower than 2012. Like... Well, duh?

Show me the graph from 2000-2008 and I'm sure it's look very similar to the House/Presidential results.

EDIT: What I mean by this is... Party identity doesn't necessarily drive a candidate as much as a candidate would drive party identity.
lol, the only data in this graph is the inverse of the difference between the two parties in House seats and the Congress/year and I smoothed it to be a moving ten year average:

This is the DW-NOMINATE graph that's supposed to be proof of the horrible polarization of modern politics based on a ton of votes and determining ideology and so on:

If it wasn't for that crazy jump in my graph caused by the 1920 election combined with my smoothing...
 

benjipwns

Banned
Btw, where are the Republican poligaffers. Your opinions are welcome here. Dont tell me we scared them away x(.
PoliGAF is like any other community, it "runs" off outsiders just by the inherent nature of being a community.

If you look at threads that are more topic specific rather than broad you can see there are conservative, Republican, etc. posters but PoliGAF's broad view of subjects and interests aren't shared by them so they don't pop-in and stay.

There's still not many, if I remember iSideWith's stats when they used to hold them for sites that linked to it and then took their quiz, GAF was something like 60% Democrat, 25% Green, 10% Libertarian, 5% Republican.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Did you all read the articles?

Dont dismiss them completely. They have valid points.
Hillary aint running away with this election. I dont want to see meltdowns come fall 2016 if a Republican (Jeb Bush) is elected.

I can assure you that there'll be no possible way for me to avoid a meltdown if Jeb is elected, surprise victory or not.

For the record, I do.

If you simply like watching meltdowns, I'm sure there'll be enough to satisfy you no matter what the outcome is.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Look, if you're a Democrat and weren't politically active to the PoliGAF level until after 2004 you need a 2016 defeat.
 
Look, if you're a Democrat and weren't politically active to the PoliGAF level until after 2004 you need a 2016 defeat.
Wasn't a gaffer but I was pretty salty after the 04 election.

Also 2010 was pretty bad for me - 2014 was worse politically but I like to think I've embraced gallows humor pretty well.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Having another Clinton elected will be right below Obamas reelection on the "end of the world" meter
I dunno, I think it'll be a bit higher.. they have to know that this one has incredibly high stakes. Losing a third one in a row, the sixth popular vote since 1992 (and their only time - 2004 - was riding on a war after a terror attack) , and probably SCOTUS and the lower courts for a generation.. we're going to see some huuuuge, ugly, secessionist-flavored meltdowns.

And I am still salty as fuck about 2000. I'll go to my grave pissy about it.
 

Diablos

Member
Anyone think the GOP will tease the SCOUTS into thinking they have a bill on hand so they can feel more confident about leaning towards a ruling favoring King?

There's been some buzz about that lately...
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'd like to see somebody here top Democratic meltdowns after 1984 being the third crushing landslide defeat in four elections.

A favorite was always Ted Kennedy rushing to the Senate floor minutes after Bork's nomination to rant:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.

America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.

The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

That's not to say that the only good thing about Bork on the Supreme Court isn't that he'd be dead by now.
 

Diablos

Member
Well, Ted was right.

I can't believe the Senate has gone from a juggarnaut like Ted Kennedy to a simpleton like Ted Cruz in like six years.
Insane.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I'd like to see somebody here top Democratic meltdowns after 1984 being the third crushing landslide defeat in four elections.

A favorite was always Ted Kennedy rushing to the Senate floor minutes after Bork's nomination to rant:


That's not to say that the only good thing about Bork on the Supreme Court isn't that he'd be dead by now.

Just think that strong resistance 30 years ago is what is likely allowing us to give gay people equal marriage rights all across the country in 2015.

Though I guess the fact that Bork is dead also could mean that strong resistance is what kept Democrats from getting a liberal court under Obama. Funny how that works.
 

pigeon

Banned
really? so at some point republicans posted here in earnest??

I asked that because I feel like its just us democrats that post here. No one here seems to be rooting for a republican to win. Where are the millennial republicans?

Metaphoreus is pretty clearly a Republican. Benji is closer to Republican than to Democrat (in the sense that Mars is closer to Earth than it is to the sun).

All the other Republicans that used to post here are banned now, as far as I know.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Just think that strong resistance 30 years ago is what is likely allowing us to give gay people equal marriage rights all across the country in 2015.

Though I guess the fact that Bork is dead also could mean that strong resistance is what kept Democrats from getting a liberal court under Obama. Funny how that works.

I was just thinking the same thing. Kennedy instead of Bork has changed so many 5-4 outcomes. So many lives affected.

The Democrats got thrashed pretty thoroughly in that era. Their exception election was 1976, after Watergate. The GOP's exception election in this era has been 2004, after 9/11. The Dems adapted in order to compete again. I wonder how long it'll take the GOP to adapt.
 

benjipwns

Banned
What 5-4 cases are you guys thinking of that Bork would have voted different from Kennedy? (Honestly, I haven't bothered to look up big 5-4 cases.)

Assuming all else being equal any 5-4 cases roughly 2012 forward would have been decided by an Obama appointee rather than Kennedy/Roberts.
 
I was just thinking the same thing. Kennedy instead of Bork has changed so many 5-4 outcomes. So many lives affected.

The Democrats got thrashed pretty thoroughly in that era. Their exception election was 1976, after Watergate. The GOP's exception election in this era has been 2004, after 9/11. The Dems adapted in order to compete again. I wonder how long it'll take the GOP to adapt.

Congress 1975-1977 was the last aggressively progressive Congresses. We haven't had anything matching it since.

Once the Democrats have dominance like they had 1965-1967 maybe we'll see the GOP seriously change.
 

Diablos

Member
What 5-4 cases are you guys thinking of that Bork would have voted different from Kennedy? (Honestly, I haven't bothered to look up big 5-4 cases.)

Assuming all else being equal any 5-4 cases roughly 2012 forward would have been decided by an Obama appointee rather than Kennedy/Roberts.
It's dumb to think this, because if Bork made it to the court then there's no way of knowing if things would have moved forward in the same way. I.e. you take a job at one place opposed to another, and x, y and z happen to your life and those around you because of it.

Bork on the court could have caused liberals to rage against the right-wing more than they even did back in the 80s which could have changed the direction of US politics and thus impaced races differently resulting in different people elected to Congress, a set of Democratic governors that varied from what we had, outside influences, etc. etc.
 

HylianTom

Banned
What 5-4 cases are you guys thinking of that Bork would have voted different from Kennedy? (Honestly, I haven't bothered to look up big 5-4 cases.)

Assuming all else being equal any 5-4 cases roughly 2012 forward would have been decided by an Obama appointee rather than Kennedy/Roberts.

Off the top of my head..

Kelo v New London I think would've gone in the other direction.
United States v Windsor as well.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey maybe? Since it was a jumble of opinions. One vote towards the Scalia camp could've been significant.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
A Republican winning next year wont be so bad as some of us are making it out to be. Jeb Bush can be different then W and his father.

We have had great Republican presidents in the past.....
 

benjipwns

Banned
It's dumb to think this, because if
Duh, but it's the only way to do counterfactual history. We have to hold all else equal and only look at Bork on the court as a voter since we can't know with good knowledge any of the other variables except that one.

Kelo v New London I think would've gone in the other direction.
That would have been great. Though I feel like Bork would have gone for it because he's a jerk.
United States v Windsor as well.
Bork was dead.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey maybe? Since it was a jumble of opinions. One vote towards the Scalia camp could've been significant.
That was the best one I could think of. On the other hand, that would have made the ruling even more hilariously confusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom