-
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
Do you think Dems winning the house by vote count but losing control by seats in 2012 is undemocratic?
Thanks for clarifying
Anyways one of the most interesting ponderings I've had is if Communism ever really existed. Now I'm not a communist, and lean far right but if I had to make the argument I would say that communism never really existed as Marx envisioned it. For Marx it was a natural progression from Feudalism to Capitalism to Communism. Marx himself admitted that Capitalism was incredible for generating wealth and economic growth and that it was a necessary precondition to communism so there would be something to redistribute. Marx wrote that revolution would break out in Germany, England, and France. These being industrialized nations. Marx didn't write about Russia, China, or North Korea. These nations had Feudalistic societies. The Problem was that these nations skipped a step so there was really nothing to redistribute.
What existed in these countries is a kind of Redistributive Feudalism. So if I had to make the argument I would say Communism never failed because it was never tried and never existed.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't mean to shit on a new member but hoo boy. Let's just say I find your projections a bit fanciful and bordering on Dick Morris territory.
No Republican is going to win Minnesota, Michigan or Pennsylvania in 2016, especially Minnesota.
For the record this is more or less what I believe a tied popular vote would look like:
http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bJOZ
Sure, my business school had many required courses on the history of capitalism, classical liberalism, the enlightenment, and more modern theorists such as Engels/Keynes/Schumpeter. All of it was fascinating and more useful than I would have ever imagined.
Oh, I also need to say welcome. This place does need new blood and more diverse opinions. I'm the kind of person whose always in search of new ideas and different mindsets of seeing things, so even if I'm seemingly disagreeing with you I'm probably secretly molding some of your thoughts into useful ideas of my own.
I'll say I did agree with your point about the Democratic bench being thin, and that's one area where they're worse off. There's a few people with some very bright futures ahead of them such as the Castro brothers and Kamala Harris, but it's not their time yet. Hillary Clinton in that regard, is a very necessary bridge.
My projections for Rubio and Walker were based on the Barone article. As for the bottom 3 I don't know if I'd call them my predictions. There predictions based on models and statistical analysis. I believe them to be true, but not because I want them to be (although I do), but because the data backs them up.
benjipwns
Banned
He won in 2012. Though it wasn't at the same time as the Nov. election.
I don't reply to everyone!
You (and some others) get the treatment because you're one of the important ones.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's hard to take your Walker map seriously. Barring some huge financial collapse or a Clinton scandal I'd argue that map is impossible. I didn't glance at the other maps before turning my computer off for the night (I'm on my phone) but I'll comment on them tomorrow.
Why is Illinois still blue on your map? If your answer is that Illinois is too hard to beat due to the democrat machine, why doesn't that apply to Michigan and PA? I live in Michigan...there's no way a republican can win this state in 2016 against Hillary. The vote influx from the major cities is too high to overcome. Likewise Philly makes PA nearly impossible for republicans to win. I think Michigan could become a red state in a decade due to gentrification/demographic shifts but you're not going to win here bragging about opposing the auto bailouts and being fiercely anti-union in a general election. Walker and Snyder got away with that in midterms...
Minnesota is a solid union blue state with a good economy, why would it shift for Walker under normal circumstances?
How does a republican win Virginia in 2016, given the rise of the Hispanic vote there? Warner was saved by decent enough turnout in black and brown districts. A general election would inflate that turnout.
Would it surprise you to learn that Pennsylvania is as conservative as Colorado and Minnesota is just a hair more liberal (D+2). Bush almost won it in 2000 and 2004
All it takes is a 51-49 split and the Midwestern "Blue Wall" comes crashing down
Also I'm from Minnesota too, nice to meet another Minnesotan on Gaf. I look forward to our state getting progressively redder and redder in the near to mid future.
ONE of the important ones?
Are you cheating on me with that hussy APKmetsfan?!?
JesseEwiak
Member
"Almost" being the key word. Dude, I've been in arguments w/ conservatives since indeed, that 2004 election that this was going to be the year they win Pennsylvania. As PD pointed out, Philly is growing quickly and it's not red-leaning people moving there, it's hipsters priced out of New York and DC.
As for Minnesota, then you really don't understand your own states politics. Yes, parts of Minnesota, such as the Iron Range are getting redder. But, they're getting redder as they lose population. The areas of Minnesota that are actually growing, such as the Minneapolis suburbs and the actual Twin Cities shifted left sharply in the past eight years and most importantly, a nominee like Walker, who's well known in the Minnesota area for having a horrible record as compared to the Dayton administration, isn't winning it.
Uniform shifts don't happen. They just don't. But, even if they did, explain to me how any Republican candidate is going to win 51% of the vote, in the background of an economy with unemployment hovering around 5%, job growth continuing, and two of the best political campaigners of the past century backing Hillary up?
I've got to get to bed. I'm battling the worse illness I've had since I was a sophomore in High School. I'm not sure what it is but I've had it for about a week so I've got to go to health services tomorrow.
I'll just say this. I do believe that Hillary is one of the strongest non-incumbent candidates in presidential history and the republican could very well lose.
As for the blue wall its at its weakest point since 1992 when it was formed. The evidence and data backs that up. Intuitively it seems like those states are as blue as ever but the models tell a different story. Republicans ignored those models in 2012 and Democrats ignored them in 2014 and we all know what happened.
I'll try to post when I can. I'm sick and have tests coming up so it might be a while
I'll just say this. I do believe that Hillary is one of the strongest non-incumbent candidates in presidential history and the republican could very well lose.
As for the blue wall its at its weakest point since 1992 when it was formed. The evidence and data backs that up. Intuitively it seems like those states are as blue as ever but the models tell a different story. Republicans ignored those models in 2012 and Democrats ignored them in 2014 and we all know what happened.
I'll try to post when I can. I'm sick and have tests coming up so it might be a while
You do realize that's the opposite trajectory that Minnesota is on, correct?
Black Mamba
Member
Democrats didn't ignore shit in 2014. First off, not a Presidential election. Second, as always, it's about turnout, not an issue in Presidential elections as much.
Your maps are like the unskewed polls stuff from 2012. The data most certainly does not back up your contentions.
I could see a map relatively similar to this happening if Obama's approval is in the low 40's or below in the RCP average and the 'time for a change' phenomenon keeps Hillary at 45% of the vote.
What keeps me from believing it's likely is John Kerry got 48.3% in a relatively unfavorable climate for Democrats and with less favorable demographics. Many election analysts see that performance almost as Democrats' baseline now. Again though, Republicans can carry your map but Obama will have to be rather unpopular and hence the outcome of the election to not be in doubt in the run-up to it.
edit: Damn it guys, you scared him off with your strong adjectives and gifs.
Also, the nature of the "Blue Wall", as its called, is always changing. Michigan will become easier for Republicans to compete in -- the same is probably true of Ohio. But states like Virginia and eventually North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and eventually Arizona and Georgia will become much easier for Democrats to win/carry. And those states aren't the ones that lose electoral seats every 10 years.
benjipwns
Banned
No one can talk Rawls. The original position is nutbaggery gibberish.
Marx didn't invent communism, he just proved its inevitability with science. What he was wrong about was historical dialectics.
His theory of communism is based on the idea that it's historically guaranteed to come about because "science" and it's why he refused to define how the steps of the transition would work. (And got pissed at Engels when he tried to do so.) Lenin eventually worked out the "steps" which had the effect of disproving Marx's historical "scientific" guarantee which is all that underlies Marx's notion of how communism would work or exist.
This is part of the same reason his economics (but not his critiques) are garbage, he doesn't account for time properly.
Soviet support wasn't the only reason Marxism-Leninism was the dominant ideology of the Communist Bloc.
As an aside, communism isn't about redistribution in as much as it's about abolishing all classes and then immediately setting up a second elite class with totalitarian powers.
Don't forget Texas. My prediction is future POTUS Castro flips it blue in 2024.
Eh, I think Texas is longer away than most optimistic Democrats would think, but who knows. 10 years is a while from now.
I also think that it will be Hillary/Castro.
A Hussein won twice!
Was about to post that, heh.
Also Julian has a twin brother. Think of the hilarious hijinks.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You'll be waiting a very long time then. Just look at the 2014 results. Six years ago who would have predicted that Al Franken would coast to re-election by double digits while Mark Warner in Virginia would only hang on by a point? The only upshot for Republicans is they were able to win the House of Representatives by pitting the rural communities against the Twin Cities, but this is only the flip side of this - the Twin Cities are now big enough that they can outvote the rest of the state. We saw this in 2012 with the Vote No campaigns and we saw it again in 2014 with the Franken/Dayton campaigns.
Our state will be getting progressively more something but it certainly won't be "redder." For one "redder" implies that there was any red here to begin with.
"As conservative"Zimmy64 said:
you know the highest vote-getters in both states in 2014 were Democrats right
Easy fix. Who credits the 90's economy to President Blythe III?
benjipwns
Banned
Only because Bush got the actual bad one and both his sons.
And Obama and the media covered up his foreign Muslim birth.
benjipwns
Banned
Not the best example, we all thought until like six hours before that Warner was going to coast.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Even then Franken looked safer. Plus it doesn't matter how we perceived it at the time - the final results are what we should analyze.
Apparently Warner's internal polling showed a much tighter race, he just didn't say anything because why would he contract the narrative that he was in the lead?
benjipwns
Banned
City-Journal is a conservative leaning magazine, but they occasionally have some good long form pieces on oft-ignored topics, if you can get past the usual lines like "job-killing Obamacare" and so on. I thought this one on union tensions was pretty interesting.
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_labor-divide.html
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_labor-divide.html
eBay Huckster
Member
Christ on a cracker, I'm glad election season's over for a while just because I don't get 30 of those a day for a few glorious months
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Hey, I just want to tell you that while I do not agree with you quite a bit of the time, I respect your perspective. You always have very well written posts and it's nice to read about your thoughts on a given subject. You bring a much needed counterpoint to this thread and having legitamate discussions and debates is what this place is about.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Except... we can't, in this case. There's clear ambiguity in how the law was enacted and interpreted and how it strictly reads. Thus, King*. That's why we acknowledge that lawmakers are neither prescient nor perfect, and we seek further clarification. This can be by seeking "self-serving post-hoc justifications," or we can examine how the law was enacted, or we can seek day and date explanations from lawmakers. The point is, strict textual analysis denies the ambiguity entirely, which is frankly bunk.
Scalia is, essentially, a troll who believes that by holding to a strictly literal interpretation he can better support and conceal his back-asswards beliefs (no offense). A strict textualist may pretend, even try to avoid imposing their views on the text, but that's not actually possible in anything but the most tortured of legalese. There's almost always going to be some ambiguity, and that's where perception fills the void.
*Well, technically, King is just the latest in a long-ass line of partisan attempts to derail the ACA. But that's another discussion.
EDIT: Also, looking over the previous page... didn't we just have a discussion about how PA is "Republican Fool's Gold?" It looks flippable, because the margin is pretty small, but there's really not much elasticity there.
PhoenixDark
Banned
A 2016 loss for democrats is possible, but it would take some major event to overwhelm demographic shifts.
1) A terrorist attack. I think the table is set for a really nasty media and public response to any attack on US soil. Obama's recent behavior (golf, softball interviews, Buzzfeed video) could easily be used to paint the WH as unserious during a dangerous time. Personally I don't care about those things I mentioned, my point is that the media is serving as a propaganda tool for war, highlighting every ISIS move to stir concern amongst people. One attack and we'll be in ugly territory, with the public looking for a "strong" leader and response. Since Obama is neither of those things, expect people to look to the Republican Party.
2) economic collapse. Banks are once again playing around with junk mortgages, student debt is at astronomical heights, Europe could plunge into another recession, etc. I don't expect a collapse to happen but if one does and wrecks our economy, Obama gets the blame. And by proxy so will his successor.
3) Clinton or Obama scandal
Republicans are currently searching for any dirt on Hillary. An obvious route would be through Bill. There was discussion of an affair in 2008, which the Clinton campaign was worried about. I would assume Bill still has someone on the side; he hasn't slept with Hillary in years, their marriage is more of a friendship/partnership, etc. Perhaps another scandal could create the Clinton fatigue republicans want.
Obama has avoided scandals for the most part. I still think the NSA leaks hurt his presidency, but outside of that he has avoided trouble. But what if a cheating scandal embroils him over these last couple years, with republicans in control of the house and senate? He has seemed more reckless lately, at least to me; bucking Israel, slapping Christian hypocrites, executive actions that might get struck down, etc. Or maybe the scandal could be something else.
-----
The flip side is that things continue as they are. Gas prices increase but remain relatively low, job growth remains strong, wages increase a bit, Obama continues to vex republicans with popular executive orders, the country remains safe, no military involvements outside of airstrikes, etc. If we remain on this cruise control he could have good approval rates into 2016, democrats will take a victory lap, and Hillary will win big. However I'm always cautious of stuff like this. Multiple posters here had ridiculous expectations for the future after the 2012 election. What we got was two ugly years of failure and a slow economy. We'll see how 2015 and 2016 go.
1) A terrorist attack. I think the table is set for a really nasty media and public response to any attack on US soil. Obama's recent behavior (golf, softball interviews, Buzzfeed video) could easily be used to paint the WH as unserious during a dangerous time. Personally I don't care about those things I mentioned, my point is that the media is serving as a propaganda tool for war, highlighting every ISIS move to stir concern amongst people. One attack and we'll be in ugly territory, with the public looking for a "strong" leader and response. Since Obama is neither of those things, expect people to look to the Republican Party.
2) economic collapse. Banks are once again playing around with junk mortgages, student debt is at astronomical heights, Europe could plunge into another recession, etc. I don't expect a collapse to happen but if one does and wrecks our economy, Obama gets the blame. And by proxy so will his successor.
3) Clinton or Obama scandal
Republicans are currently searching for any dirt on Hillary. An obvious route would be through Bill. There was discussion of an affair in 2008, which the Clinton campaign was worried about. I would assume Bill still has someone on the side; he hasn't slept with Hillary in years, their marriage is more of a friendship/partnership, etc. Perhaps another scandal could create the Clinton fatigue republicans want.
Obama has avoided scandals for the most part. I still think the NSA leaks hurt his presidency, but outside of that he has avoided trouble. But what if a cheating scandal embroils him over these last couple years, with republicans in control of the house and senate? He has seemed more reckless lately, at least to me; bucking Israel, slapping Christian hypocrites, executive actions that might get struck down, etc. Or maybe the scandal could be something else.
-----
The flip side is that things continue as they are. Gas prices increase but remain relatively low, job growth remains strong, wages increase a bit, Obama continues to vex republicans with popular executive orders, the country remains safe, no military involvements outside of airstrikes, etc. If we remain on this cruise control he could have good approval rates into 2016, democrats will take a victory lap, and Hillary will win big. However I'm always cautious of stuff like this. Multiple posters here had ridiculous expectations for the future after the 2012 election. What we got was two ugly years of failure and a slow economy. We'll see how 2015 and 2016 go.
RustyNails
Member
Its because you panic. Diablos was diablosing in 2008 elections, forget 2012.
Anyway, I agree with PD. The GOP certainly has a way to whitehouse, a way which absolutely does not depend on the GOP candidate's qualities but rather externalities. An economic collapse for one. I dont know about a terrorist attack. Such attacks have rally around the flag effect, and it wont matter what Fox will be yelling. Another externality is if something like the Iran Hostage Crisis occurs, or something just as bad. ISIS is potentially one of them, but as far as they do not reach US interests, they wont matter.
Because you admit to certain political leanings I won't bore you with specifics, but if you want to talk about far-left socio-political theory above APKmetsfan tier you shouldn't conflate agrarian economies with feudal modes of production if you're trying to analyze history through Marx's materialist conception of history.
Additionally, the primitive accumulation of capital wasn't (according to Marx) a natural progression from feudalism, but the result of globalization and, in particular, the plundering of Africa and the Americas.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Thanks. I'm glad to hear that you think so.
The "ambiguity" you've identified is a difference between what the law says and what you would expect it to say. That's not an ambiguity, and certainly no reason to disregard the text of the statute. A poorly written law is still the law (most of the time). Your approach invites judges to ignore Acts of Congress in favor of their own policy preferences. Textual analysis certainly ignores the distinction between the text and judicial expectations about the text, but that's as it should be. The text is what was voted on and signed into law.
But note that even judges who consult legislative history do so only when the text itself is ambiguous. If the text is clear--and I think the text in the ACA regarding credits is--then no judge would permit legislative history to override the clear meaning of the statute. (Not that the legislative history of the ACA is all that helpful, one way or the other.)
This isn't the case. A textualist can't transform a progressive statute into an enactment of libertarian ideals. A progressive statute would be given a progressive effect, in accordance with its text. Here's Scalia again:
Scalia and Garner said:
Aaron Strife
Banned
Republicans once again displaying their mastery of projection:
I hope he's not too choked up when she's the next senator of New Hampshire.
I hope he's not too choked up when she's the next senator of New Hampshire.
Poodlestrike
Banned
"Local politician will only use position to seek higher office," says Governor of New Jersey on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I think your outside perspective could be valuable. I think we ourselves are stuck digged in too far in our trenches to be looking at it objectively, and it just turns into a Germany vs Southern Europe flamewar.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Also the Republicans' last Senate candidate in NH was a Senator from Massachusetts so like, what the actual fuck.Poodlestrike said:
Quinnipiac polls of Colorado, Iowa, Virginia for 2016
Colorado:
Clinton 43 Paul 41
Clinton 43 Christie 34
Clinton 44 Bush 36
Clinton 42 Walker 40
Clinton 44 Huckabee 39
Iowa:
Clinton 45 Huckabee 38
Clinton 45 Paul 37
Clinton 44 Christie 34
Clinton 45 Bush 35
Clinton 45 Walker 35
Virginia:
Clinton 44 Bush 44
Clinton 44 Paul 42
Clinton 44 Huckabee 41
Clinton 44 Christie 39
Clinton 45 Walker 40
Clinton as usual is the most well-known of the candidates, followed by Christie and Bush. Walker is more of an unknown quantity and that might be holding down his numbers a bit. It's comforting to know that Clinton is doing great in Iowa which people seem to be very rashly writing off along with Wisconsin and Ohio.
That was an interesting article, thanks for sharing. Republican intraparty fights seem to get all the media attention (since they've been having open races for the nom while Dems have been and will for the foreseeable future be pretty united behind Obama/Hillary), so it's nice to read something about that side of the spectrum.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Your score is...16
16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.
I very much doubt that.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
https://twitter.com/jmartnyt/status/567901571541004288
Brendan Johnson (US Attorney, son of former Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota) resigning, thought to be considering a congressional bid. A response tweet thinks he's setting himself up for a Senate run in 2020 or earlier if Thune retires.
Brendan Johnson (US Attorney, son of former Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota) resigning, thought to be considering a congressional bid. A response tweet thinks he's setting himself up for a Senate run in 2020 or earlier if Thune retires.
Those numbers will tighten as time goes on -- but comforting starts for HilDawg.
And compete against Kristi Noem's hair?!?!
It's gotta be up there. This is forgetting the fact that none of the actual plaintiffs have a legitimate claim to being damaged by the IRS rule. Or that this entire thing started it's life as a legal case over the constitutionality of the alleged "threat", before morphing into a lawsuit demanding it be carried out. Or this,
that they want us to believe the language itself was inserted by a clandestine cell of Democrats who wanted to sabotage the law for ...... reasons? All in the name of damaging the legacy of our first black President and denying healthcare to millions of Americans, thousands of which who would die as a direct result of an adverse ruling. It doesn't just stain the intellectual credibility of anyone who's siding with challengers, it paints them as sociopaths who just want to be right at all costs. A real trainwreck for all involved.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked