PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I did that before, not doing it again, I think I got 21, it's my love of drugs and hate of nationalism that did me.
Also, it's the worst survey ever.
Where did you lose your 5 points by the way?
RustyNails
Member
benjipwns
Banned
It's not really serious, Caplan made it in response to a challenge that it was impossible to truly make a "Libertarian Purity Test" as one of the scores alludes to. I think it was as part of a discussion about how the Nolan Test was silly.
Here's how I lost the five points, though when I disagree with an-caps it's usually along the lines of how C4SS does:
The snapshot results of the survey are interesting though: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/result.htm
Right about 31-40 is where it finally goes off the rails and starts getting majority "no" responses.
With effort, you may harden. rawr
Rhomega Beta
Member
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Hey Poligaf,
I'm new here so I though I should introduce myself. I am a Political Science/Economics double major in college. I am a conservative republican. I also study Pre-Law and my focus is political philosophy. I also enjoy political history.
If you want to talk about John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Cicero, Hobbes, Locke, Milton Friedman, Immanuel Kant, how Henry Clay should have won at least one of his three elections (1824, 1832, 1844), how TR is a badass for being shot and finishing his speech, how its strange that no one knows that FDR was actually James Cox running mate in 1920, or anything of that sort I'm your guy.
I'm new here so I though I should introduce myself. I am a Political Science/Economics double major in college. I am a conservative republican. I also study Pre-Law and my focus is political philosophy. I also enjoy political history.
If you want to talk about John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Cicero, Hobbes, Locke, Milton Friedman, Immanuel Kant, how Henry Clay should have won at least one of his three elections (1824, 1832, 1844), how TR is a badass for being shot and finishing his speech, how its strange that no one knows that FDR was actually James Cox running mate in 1920, or anything of that sort I'm your guy.
benjipwns
Banned
The greatest thing about double majoring in Economics and Political Science is when you inevitably don't use it for Economics or Political Science (that's what I double majored in...).
Oh, and I scored a 14 on Benji's quiz. I think I'd re-write the "what your score means" section though, slant it the other direction.
TheSadRanger
Banned
Hey guys quick question, I know this thread is centered around U.S politics but I didn't want to start a new thread on this so I thought I'd ask here.
Have there been any recent articles lately about what's been going in post Gaddafi era Libya that are current?
I've done some google searches and all the articles seem to be at least over a year old. I know the place was in a state of turmoil and I haven't seen anything on it lately. It seems like it's been completely forgotten in the media.
Have there been any recent articles lately about what's been going in post Gaddafi era Libya that are current?
I've done some google searches and all the articles seem to be at least over a year old. I know the place was in a state of turmoil and I haven't seen anything on it lately. It seems like it's been completely forgotten in the media.
Whats wrong with the Great Compromiser. He's one of the top five Senators in US History and would have probably made a better president than Quincy did in 1824.
Or are you more of a WJB Man (1896, 1900, 1908)
RustyNails
Member
Why would it be in a worse shape?
I'd say worse. The parties bench is utterly decimated. There lucky they have Hillary otherwise I don't know what they'd do. Looking ahead to 2018 the situation isn't any better. The 2018 map is substantially worse for democrats than even the 2010 or 2014 maps. They control all but like 9 seats and those seats are in places like Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, etc. I don't think its possible for republicans to lose a seat, there's nothing to lose.
The Democrats are in danger of becoming the party that controls the presidency and basically nothing else, especially if Hillary wins in 2016
Jack Remington
Banned
Reading through some sections of the Affordable Care Act again, the idiocy of King v Burwell becomes even more apparent.
What we have isn't just a "typo", it's a series of instances in which "the state under 1311" seems to refer to any and all exchanges.
The text is here: https://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf
1311 comes up 40 times, in all sorts of contexts.
1321 comes up 5 times after the table of contents, and every one of those mentions is related to the HHS' authority to set national standards that would override state standards. That is literally the only context in which "1321" appears.
So what you have, apparently, is a scenario in which the bill's authors did not find it necessary to go back and insert "or HHS under 1321" after every instance of "by the state under 1311". It seems like they just stipulated that an exchange created by HHS would function as a state exchange (such exchange), and left it at that.
This might be the most ludicrous high-profile Supreme Court case in history.
What we have isn't just a "typo", it's a series of instances in which "the state under 1311" seems to refer to any and all exchanges.
The text is here: https://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf
1311 comes up 40 times, in all sorts of contexts.
1321 comes up 5 times after the table of contents, and every one of those mentions is related to the HHS' authority to set national standards that would override state standards. That is literally the only context in which "1321" appears.
So what you have, apparently, is a scenario in which the bill's authors did not find it necessary to go back and insert "or HHS under 1321" after every instance of "by the state under 1311". It seems like they just stipulated that an exchange created by HHS would function as a state exchange (such exchange), and left it at that.
This might be the most ludicrous high-profile Supreme Court case in history.
RustyNails
Member
Eh, we're looking too much into the 2014 shellacking. President's party always get hammered during midterms. That combined with the 2010 redistricting pretty much guaranteed especially bad midterm elections for democrats. Dems are not gonna get a supermajority until a census in 2020, and that is only if majority of the states are not controlled by republican governors.
Why wouldn't it be. Can you name one way the Democratic party is in better shape today than it was in January 2009. Even if Hillary wins in 2016 that doesn't make the party better off considering they would just be holding on to something the already have. Plus it sets the democratic party up for a Midterm tsunami in 2018 that will make 2010 and 2014 look like simple beach waves.
Here are possible pickups for Democrats in 2018
Arizona-Couldn't pull it off in 2012 with a credible challenger
Nevada-Couldn't pull it off in 2012, admittedly though the challenger was weak
Mississippi-Deep red territory
Nebraska-Deep red territory
Tennessee-Deep red territory
Texas-Deep red territory
Wyoming-Deep red territory
And that's literally it. There are only 7 Class 1 republican senators
Jack Remington
Banned
Why would 2018 be a tsunami?
2010 was about the economy and the folly of expecting immediate results.
In 2014, Democratic candidates were leading in a lot of those races until the summer of ISIS, Ebola, and Obama running some of the worst optics of all time (like the golf game). Besides that, they ran awful campaigns in some states that were winnable.
2018 isn't an automatic loss for Democratic incumbents if Hillary wins. Some of them might very well lose their seats, but there would probably need to be some kind of external shock to produce a wave.
2010 was about the economy and the folly of expecting immediate results.
In 2014, Democratic candidates were leading in a lot of those races until the summer of ISIS, Ebola, and Obama running some of the worst optics of all time (like the golf game). Besides that, they ran awful campaigns in some states that were winnable.
2018 isn't an automatic loss for Democratic incumbents if Hillary wins. Some of them might very well lose their seats, but there would probably need to be some kind of external shock to produce a wave.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The "spirit of the law" is a conjuration of judges who bristle at the idea of legislative supremacy. Rather than recognizing that the federal government makes law through the processes of bicameralism and presentment, it permits the judge to usurp for him- or herself the legislative task.
The idea of a "spirit of the law" is today antiquated, thankfully. It has been largely displaced by textualism and replaced by purposivism. In other words, some people think laws should be interpreted in accordance with their purposes, or the subjective intentions of those who enacted them. But this invites judges to climb what Justice Scalia has referred to as the "ladder of ambiguity," whereby the judge defines the purpose of a statute and enters judgment accordingly. So, in King, is the purpose of the law to expand health insurance coverage primarily through state action? Or to expand health insurance coverage through whatever means? Or generally to improve the health of the populace? Which statement of purpose a judge chooses may very well dictate the outcome of the case, and there is no objective standard to which he or she may resort (other than the text, naturally).
Additionally, purposivism pretends that a statute (or legislature) has an intent or a purpose. But a legislature is composed of many individuals, each of whom may have harbored his or her own understanding and intention in voting for the law--which may have been no understanding at all. A statute is the product of many minds working together, often working at cross-purposes and with different understandings of the meaning of the language used. For all we know, the only purpose or intention shared by every legislator who voted for a bill is that that bill, as voted on, become law.
But, you ask, why not just go ask the legislators who enacted the statute what their intent was? This commits the error a number of others have committed, choosing to ignore the statute enacted by Congress in favor of polling post hoc, self-serving justifications. If we want to know what the statute means, we can read it. That's why it's written. We are not bound by unenacted subjective intentions, purposes, or understandings. Laws do not become enacted through the silent assent of legislators; they become enacted through the processes outlined in the Constitution (i.e., bicameralism and presentment). The statute, once enacted, is binding law, and nothing else is.
Regarding your first sentence, I will no longer respond to your posts concerning King (which may not strike you as a loss, but which I do consider regrettable in light of your most recent post on that topic, wherein you finally--finally--offer a substantive argument). You've shown yourself incapable of having an adult conversation on this subject.
But, before I go, regarding your second, the phrase "such exchange" cannot bear the weight you want it to carry. "Such," in context, refers back to the Exchange described earlier in section 1321--i.e., an Exchange that meets the requirements of HHS regulations. But 36B doesn't say that credits are available for insurance purchased through an Exchange that meets the requirements of 1321 and associated regulations; it says they are available for insurance purchased through an Exchange "established by the State." "Such" does not change who established the Exchange, which is what matters under 36B.
Not so. The textualist, when confronted with a silent text, will not impose his or her views on that silence. He or she will recognize that the statute does not answer the question before the court. Here's Justice Scalia's approach, as explained in the book, Reading Law, which he co-wrote with Bryan Garner:
Scalia & Garner said:
Jack Remington
Banned
Check it out, BM, Metaphoreus runs away again when faced with someone who doesn't wilt before his inane logical circus.
Dude only wants to argue with people he can overwhelm by using words he learned in 1L.
Dude only wants to argue with people he can overwhelm by using words he learned in 1L.
Jack Remington
Banned
I'll post 1321 here:
It is pretty goddamn clear what "such exchange" means here, Metapod.
It is pretty goddamn clear what "such exchange" means here, Metapod.
Republicans haven't won a class 1 senate election since 1994. If you look at the map there's no conceivable way democrats come out ahead. Plus you have
Joe Donnelly
Jon Tester
Heidi Heitkamp
Claire McCaskill
Considered Flukes helped by terrible candidates
Tammy Baldwin
Manchin's seat (if he runs for governor)
Kaine (if Gillespie Runs)
Unlikely but possible
Bill Nelson
Martin Heinrich
Sherrod Brown
I suppose on paper it doesn't look that bad. The point I was trying to make is that its hard to see how democrats could win
RustyNails
Member
The democratic party is more or less the same as it was in 2008. Both the times it was aided or destroyed by the external factors...in 2008, the democrats could have ran a bag of rocks and it would have won against McCain because of recession. In 2012, despite a still struggling economy, they actually gained a bunch of seats lost in 2010. All those red states you mentioned are now impossible mostly because of redistricting. The play area might not be as open as it once was, but their platform and message is more progressive than 2008.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
This is nonsense. I don't think a single person in PoliGAF has "wilted" in the face of my arguments. They have, to varying degrees, offered pushback and their own responses, rejecting my arguments where they see fit.
What you fail to understand is that they do so respectfully, which is why I continue to engage them.
(You also fail to understand the crude double entendre I intend by the acronym "BM.")
benjipwns
Banned
History and Political Science is even better. Especially when you continue onto graduate degrees.
That's it. Meet me somewhere!
The easiest way separte your list is this
5 romney state democrats
Joe Donnelly
Jon Tester
Heidi Heitkamp
Claire McCaskill
Joe Manchin
5 swing state democrats
Tim Kaine
Bill Nelson
Sharrod Brown
Tammy Baldwin
Bob Casey
Being more progressive than 2008 doesn't help the party, unless I misunderstood the intent behind the original poster's question.
In 2008 Democrats controlled 60 senate seats now they control 46
In 2008 Democrats controlled 257 house seats now they control 188
In 2008 Democrats controlled 29 governorships now they control 18,
Democrats now control less than a third of state legislatures
For the first time since the great depression Americans now view the republican party more favorably than the democratic party (after the 2014 midterms)
The original author of the emerging democratic theory has disowned it saying the parties are on pretty much equal footing for the near to mid future.
How is that more or less the same as 2008?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Your score is...19
16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.
benjipwns
Banned
Oh shit, I forgot why I originally came in this thread earlier when I saw people talking about the benji rating scale.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz considering 2016 Senate bid
gimme those tears you guys
Debbie Wasserman Schultz considering 2016 Senate bid
gimme those tears you guys
Ugh, Debbie Schultz is probably on of my least favorite democrats. Good thing I can't see her winning a statewide election.
16 and I already feel like that's too high
Found the articles I mentioned in an earlier post, interesting stuff
Emerging Democratic Majority RIP
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/04/emerging_democratic_majority_--_rip_125492.html
What to make of John Judis' Republican Advantage
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/11/what_to_make_of_john_judis_republican_advantage_125558.html
Democratic Allegiance hits a Low
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/12/democratic-allegiance-hits-a-low-can-the-gop-seize-the-opportunity/
Quick clarification, democratic allegiance is at its lowest point in 34 years, not since the great depression. I was going from memory so I exaggerated a bit.
Emerging Democratic Majority RIP
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/04/emerging_democratic_majority_--_rip_125492.html
What to make of John Judis' Republican Advantage
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/11/what_to_make_of_john_judis_republican_advantage_125558.html
Democratic Allegiance hits a Low
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/12/democratic-allegiance-hits-a-low-can-the-gop-seize-the-opportunity/
Quick clarification, democratic allegiance is at its lowest point in 34 years, not since the great depression. I was going from memory so I exaggerated a bit.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I like this guy. Can we keep him?
(Benjipwns and I are more or less your only cohorts on the right among those who post regularly in PoliGAF. I hope you'll stick around.)
You're not using a 1:1 comparison. Comparing the state of the party after the Republicans handed them everything on a silver platter vs. the state of the party after the notorious 6 year itch won't yield any useful information. A better comparison would be 2008 vs. 2016, if you must compare to a point in the past.
I personally think better questions to ask about the Democrats would be has the party advanced its agenda? Has the country moved more leftward? Has the party advanced its agenda without utterly decimating its chances in the next Presidential election? It doesn't do a party any good if they've advanced their agenda but tainted their brand so horribly that they have no chance of building on that legacy.
PhoenixDark
Banned
here you go
http://www.270towin.com/
Find me a logical map that republicans win against Hillary Clinton.
Those may be better questions to ask but the poster I responded to didn't ask those questions. He asked if the state of the Democratic party was worse now than it was in January 2009 when Obama took office. Maybe I misjudged his intent, but when someone asks me about the state of a party in any year I judge it by the number of offices the party holds. Plus even if you did use 2016 as a starting point the same holds true. It would take the largest wave in history for the democratics to move back to 2008 standards. 14 senators, 70 something house members, over 10 governorships, and over half of the state legislatures. Do you think that's feasible?
To Phoenix, will being just a presidential party get us anywhere on progressive legislation passing in the long term?
Hillary wins in 2016. House stays Republicans. (In our heart of hearts, its going to happen sadly, a wave of 06 size wont get us it). Senate goes D or stays R. Regardless, divided government for 1st term.
Name me something progressive that can get done.
Hillary wins in 2016. House stays Republicans. (In our heart of hearts, its going to happen sadly, a wave of 06 size wont get us it). Senate goes D or stays R. Regardless, divided government for 1st term.
Name me something progressive that can get done.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The problem for democrats is that their coalition only shows up for general elections, which means they'll continue to lose ground on the state level. Looking at those articles there's quite a focus on the white vote, but the problem is that the white vote is falling. Worse yet I don't think it's ridiculous to assume Hillary Clinton will do better than Obama with white voters.
Udall lost in Colorado due to the Hispanic vote not being dominant; that wouldn't be a problem in a general election. Which makes it hard to base an argument entirely on what happened in 2014. The entire electorate was more conservative than it would be in a general election. Which not only means liberal minorities didn't show up, it means fewer liberal white people showed up.
The true danger for democrats is Hillary being a one term president IMO, due to the economy.
Udall lost in Colorado due to the Hispanic vote not being dominant; that wouldn't be a problem in a general election. Which makes it hard to base an argument entirely on what happened in 2014. The entire electorate was more conservative than it would be in a general election. Which not only means liberal minorities didn't show up, it means fewer liberal white people showed up.
The true danger for democrats is Hillary being a one term president IMO, due to the economy.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=137415391&postcount=3156
.
It would also be foolish, on the day he was elected, to think that the state of the Democratic party would be stronger on February 17th, 2015, than it would have been on the day of Obama's inauguration, if history is any guide. It's a dumb benchmark.
.
It would also be foolish, on the day he was elected, to think that the state of the Democratic party would be stronger on February 17th, 2015, than it would have been on the day of Obama's inauguration, if history is any guide. It's a dumb benchmark.
I don't believe in the blue wall
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/17/democrats_blue_wall_not_impregnable_to_republicans_--_if_theyre_smart_125631.html
Walker
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bJOU
Rubio
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bJOV
Using the Cook PVI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index
Republican wins by 1 (50-49)
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bJOW
Republican wins by 2 (51-49)
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bJOX
Republicans win by 4 (52-48)
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bJOY
PhoenixDark
Banned
You have to link to the specific map or it will just link to the front page. For instance:
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bJOT
Walker has never won an election in a general election year.
edit: nm just saw your edit, will wait
"State of the Democratic party" can be interpreted to mean many things, so it's best to make it be interpreted as something meaningful. 2008 really isn't a high water mark for Democrats besides sheer numbers. 2012 was a 'lesser' victory for Democrats, but it did more to secure their hard-won gains (meager as some might consider them) than just having empty jubilation on election night 2008.
Do I think the Democratic party can get back to its 2008 numbers after 2016? No, or at least the chances are very remote. But to Democrats that's not what victory looks like in 2016. Holding onto the Presidency and possibly regaining the Senate in 2016 is victory enough to secure and build upon Obama's legacy.
Democratic victory in 2016, even if it's just the Presidency by an inch, would be extremely meaningful just for the Supreme Court and federal court nominations, veto power, and control of the federal government apparatus.
To your first point: Heitkamp is, at the moment, one of the most popular politicians in North Dakota with a rapidly changing demographic. Will she win? It'll be a tough victory of her. The weird thing about North Dakota is that the state's population will be almost 15% larger in 2016 than it was in 2012, so the electorate will have completely shifted. We don't know where/how that will affect her race. Tester is also an extremely favorable politician, and Montana is more purple than any of the other states mentioned. Not to mention that Claire McCaskill is more politically shrewd than most. It didn't help Landrieu, but counting her out is foolish.
To your second: Arizona will increasingly become easier for Democrats to be viable in. 2018 may be the wrong electorate for that, but to shrug it off is silly. Same with Nevada.
There's nothing to that point that would be a wave bigger than 2010 to 2014, at least not initially. And, outside of Donnelly, Republicans in 2018 have the same issue that Democrats have in 2016 -- the incumbents they're going against are very good.
Walker would have a very uphill battle to win Minnesota and Michigan, and especially Pennsylvania and Virginia against Hillary. Also, Rubio would have little to no chance beating Hillary in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Virginia. And with an ever shifting North Carolina demographic, Hillary would probably play better than either there.
EDIT: Didn't mean to double post, assumed someone would've posted in between my posts.
Black Mamba
Member
I think it's pretty stupid to contemplate whether the "democratic party" is in a better place in 2014 than it was in 2008.
Here, let me explain by asking it in a different way.
Do you think the Republican party is better off today than it was in 2008?
The obvious answer is yes. And when you understand why that answer is yes, everything makes sense.
So yeah, the Democrats, in terms of power, are worse off today and going forward than 2008 when Obama took office. But it had nothing to do with Obama whatsoever. Obama's ascension and the massive Democrat power gained in 2008 had to do with an immensely unpopular Republican President who oversaw two (at the time) failing wars (one of which was completely unjustified) and also the greatest recession our nation has seen since the 1930s.
The GOP couldn't possibly be in a worse position than it was in 2008. That is the sole reason why you can claim the Democrats are worse off now than then. Because the GOP was at its lowest point.
But if we ignore silly things like that, the Democrat position in terms of overall policy going forward is much stronger than prior to Obama. The country is far more progressive than ever. Immigration, taxes, health care, same-sex marriage, etc have all moved left and will continue to do so.
And when Hillary is President, the Dems will control the Executive and the Judicial branches (don't forget, Obama has set up tons of liberal leaning judges already) for years to come. The Legislative may ebb and flow and will be hard to control, but with the other branches in their pocket, the national policy will continue to move left.
Let me give you a free tip, just like high-school, on your first day you need to find the biggest, baddest motherfucker and shank them in the neck to get respect.
In any case, welcome, more diverse voices are always welcome, you probably get a bit piled on from time to time, there are more pinkos than conservatives in this thread, but that's just the nature of it, people are more likely to reply to posts that they don't agree with. Just remember, you don't have to reply to everyone (AKA doing the benji).
JesseEwiak
Member
You win election to do things, not to win elections.
Yes, the DNC is in a low point at stat legislatures, even though I'd argue that's because we have lots of states that have 7 people that are very red and a lot of former traitorous states that still don't like political parties that help black or brown people.
But, I'd rather be in the current position we are now, and have passed the ACA, the stimulus, and everything else, than passed Bill Clinton '96 triangulated bullshit, and still have majorities.
Yes, the DNC is in a low point at stat legislatures, even though I'd argue that's because we have lots of states that have 7 people that are very red and a lot of former traitorous states that still don't like political parties that help black or brown people.
But, I'd rather be in the current position we are now, and have passed the ACA, the stimulus, and everything else, than passed Bill Clinton '96 triangulated bullshit, and still have majorities.
Talking about electoral/ american politics is fun and all. Its one of the reasons's I got into politics, but I was wondering if there are any other Political Theorists here. Right now I'm reading Mill's On Liberty so that's fresh in my mind. I also can talk about Rawls, Cohen, Nozick, Locke, Kant (though I'm more familiar with his works in ethics), and others.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked