Because everything you said after the word outsource is wishful thinking.
-
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
zero shift
Banned
Any type of action related to outsourcing is wishful thinking with this government. It is up for the population to put the elected representative's feet to the fire to enact legislation that will minimize the effects of it.
2 more weeks. I have my Republican tears gif ready.
RustyNails
Member
2 weeks? Damn does time fly. I can't believe its so close.
PD, just get your new avatar ready.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Bad news, guys. Ben Carson says he'd refuse to be surgeon general if Obama asked him to:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-carson-i-wouldnt-serve-as-surgeon-general-if-obama-asked/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-carson-i-wouldnt-serve-as-surgeon-general-if-obama-asked/
Bad news, guys. Ben Carson says he'd refuse to be surgeon general if Obama asked him to:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-carson-i-wouldnt-serve-as-surgeon-general-if-obama-asked/
Damn.
SUch a lossBad news, guys. Ben Carson says he'd refuse to be surgeon general if Obama asked him to:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-carson-i-wouldnt-serve-as-surgeon-general-if-obama-asked/
Now who will he pick?
speculawyer
Member
Oh, you'll get your answer. Just assume that Dems will lose in any red state run-off.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Careful. That's what Republicans did in 2002. They called Louisiana's Senate race "Operation Icing on the Cake."
More like pie in the face.
"The Democrat will almost always win the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win.
They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes.
The Republican will almost always win Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Those states give the Republican a base of 170 electoral votes.
This electoral vote allocation leaves the Democrat just 28 electoral votes from The White House, while the Republican needs an additional 100 electoral votes to win. There are only 126 electoral votes left among the 11 battleground states.
This assumes Colorado and Virginia really remain toss-up states. Thus, the Republican must win 79 percent of the remaining electoral votes.
To put a starker gloss on the Republican’s tough predicament, a loss in just Florida ends the race. Period."
_______________
I did not realize the predicament R's are in until I read the above article segment. NH only voted R once since 1988 in 2000. NM, NH & NV lean blue and the D's probably start off at 257. They have to run the table. Even in a close tie election, they can still lose. 5 out 6 in popular vote & electoral victories in the 300s for Clinton and Obama only bested by Bush 41 & Reagan since 1980. I feel bad for the R's.
Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win.
They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes.
The Republican will almost always win Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Those states give the Republican a base of 170 electoral votes.
This electoral vote allocation leaves the Democrat just 28 electoral votes from The White House, while the Republican needs an additional 100 electoral votes to win. There are only 126 electoral votes left among the 11 battleground states.
This assumes Colorado and Virginia really remain toss-up states. Thus, the Republican must win 79 percent of the remaining electoral votes.
To put a starker gloss on the Republican’s tough predicament, a loss in just Florida ends the race. Period."
_______________
I did not realize the predicament R's are in until I read the above article segment. NH only voted R once since 1988 in 2000. NM, NH & NV lean blue and the D's probably start off at 257. They have to run the table. Even in a close tie election, they can still lose. 5 out 6 in popular vote & electoral victories in the 300s for Clinton and Obama only bested by Bush 41 & Reagan since 1980. I feel bad for the R's.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Give Democrats Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada and New Mexico and they're past 270. Or they can just win Florida.
Not gonna say Republicans won't win 2016 but it's highly unlikely.
Not gonna say Republicans won't win 2016 but it's highly unlikely.
It most certainly will have to either involve changing blue states to red or running the table on swing states or both. GA isn't doing them any favors if that is in play in 2016. Its another electoral headache.
The GOP has learned nothing from the past two presidential elections. I'm going to be very, very interested in seeing how they handle a third presidential election defeat.. especially if that defeat results in an enduring liberal Supreme Court majority.
November 9th, 2016 - the day after Election Day - might be the moment where they realize their party's untenable predicament, and part of me wonders how the more extreme parts of their base are going to cope. They're in a shitty spot. Go left to compete, and their base threatens to sit out or bolt. Go right, and their electoral woes continue.
Such a pity. Couldn't've happened to a nicer bunch of scumbags.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
And yet, weirdly enough, democratic states are still leading the charge for abolishing the electoral college.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/status.php
I do really like the idea of having a democrat in a red state/district or a republican in a blue state/district still have some say in his federal representation. Small states are already protected by the power of the senate, so the modicum of power they get from the electoral college doesn't really do much, while I think that spot serves perfectly for representing the minority opinions in those states that maybe aren't getting representation they deserve.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/status.php
I do really like the idea of having a democrat in a red state/district or a republican in a blue state/district still have some say in his federal representation. Small states are already protected by the power of the senate, so the modicum of power they get from the electoral college doesn't really do much, while I think that spot serves perfectly for representing the minority opinions in those states that maybe aren't getting representation they deserve.
They plotted from Day 1(Jan 20, 2009) to say No to Obama. McConnell "Our top political party for the next 2 years is to deny Obama a 2nd term"
They will reap what they sew in 2016 if they continue in the same direction. Political autopsy? what a joke. Did I mention all the voter suppression? "Voter ID which will allow Gov Romney to win the state of PA, DONE"
They quite frankly deserve to be locked out for the next 25 years. I cant see a scenario where Hillary loses if she runs ATLEAST a half-decent campaign. Electing a 3rd Bush over the 1st woman? LOL
I'd be surprised if they make any significant changes before their base (this is including the few rich guys paying the bills) starts dying off and they get new blood in the party leadership.
Although a strong enough defeat in 2016 may at least get Priebus out of there by 2017.
As far as Hillary goes, I feel pity for the GOP candidate in that he will be competing not only against her, but against Bill as well. We're going to see many not-so-subtle messages saying that a vote for her ticket will essentially be a vote for him to return as well. Bill was incredibly transparent about this in an interview a few weeks ago - he and the interviewer had a good laugh dancing around the topic linguistically.
Having to compete against Bill Clinton again just isn't fair. He can give one hell of a convention speech.
This, and I really suspect that folks are underestimating how much white women (who voted Republican last time around) are going to swing for her. This might help shore-up losses among Obama's stronger demographics.
Republicans would be significantly more screwed under that proposal than they are with the electoral college, is why. Republicans are right now suppressing the vote in swing and reddish states as part of their efforts to stay competitive. NPV makes that counterproductive and even gives Democrats in blue states reason to try to increase voter participation.
You cant blame Bill Clinton. That man leaks charisma. He is probably the only politician in our lifetime that is most like a regular guy, your everyday neighbor. "One of us"<--as the saying goes. He is aside from his past transgression a humble man who like us all make mistakes. He is a gifted orator & was a imo the best president so far in my lifetime. He is truly one of a kind. Even R's look back at his presidency in great light. The era of "peace and prosperity"
He certainly had a humble upbringing. "Man from Hope"
Aaron Strife
Banned
Don't forget that 2016 should be a good year for Democrats in Senate elections.
You've got Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wisconsin - all GOP held and either inherently competitive or could become competitive (imagine Mike Beebe running in Arkansas, for example).
The only two Dem held seats that will probably be competitive are Nevada and Colorado, and if they didn't go red in 2010 I can't imagine anything will happen by 2016 to change that.
I think Hillary's star power will draw out a lot of great congressional candidates who sat out 2012 and 2014 as well. So Democrats could win a majority in the House while easily winning it in the Senate.
And if Democrats do hold the Senate this Fall, hoo boy.
You've got Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wisconsin - all GOP held and either inherently competitive or could become competitive (imagine Mike Beebe running in Arkansas, for example).
The only two Dem held seats that will probably be competitive are Nevada and Colorado, and if they didn't go red in 2010 I can't imagine anything will happen by 2016 to change that.
I think Hillary's star power will draw out a lot of great congressional candidates who sat out 2012 and 2014 as well. So Democrats could win a majority in the House while easily winning it in the Senate.
And if Democrats do hold the Senate this Fall, hoo boy.
Sandoval and Gardner should he lose to Udall
I think it's premature to just assume that 2016 will be kind to Dems even if this year is not.
The map by default is so much better for them, yes... and having a strong candidate at the top of the ticket (Hillary) helps, too. That being said, a lot can happen in two years, and if Obama's approval drops even further he's going to drag the party down with him. It is entirely possible.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Presidential year plus six years of demographic changes, yeah right.
If anything they'll go even crazier, he's been fighting off nutbags for a few years now.
Get a strong Hispanic candidate.
How? Where's their path to victory if Hilary is at the top of the ticket? I'm serious.
Is there anyone built up enough in the state for that?
There isn't one, short of Hilary miraculously imploding.
By 2016, the electorate will dip below 70% white. That whole "the GOP is fucked!!1!" thing we've been talking about for years is finally happening, right before our eyes.
The great consolation about 2014's Senate map is that, for many conservatives, it disguises what's happening to their party's long-term prospects. They can point to the results of this year and tell themselves that nothing's wrong.
Anyone thinking a lot of liberals will rebel against Hillary and back Warren?
Even though she'd still lose the primary, it could piss off a lot her supporters.
I think the primary debates will be interesting.
Again, really scary with the whole "Hillary is invincible" mantra. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush would be tough candidates for her to go up against. It is also entirely possible that the GOP nominates a woman for President. It would be smart because it could let women who really want to see a female elected President vote for one who is more in line with their views. The GOP has a lot of women who would make for great candidates. Okay, well, not a lot, but Haley and Martinez come to mind.
Even though she'd still lose the primary, it could piss off a lot her supporters.
I think the primary debates will be interesting.
It isn't so much a path to victory but the Democratic brand at that point; if Obama's final two years are as dismal as the first two of his second term, it is going to have a lasting negative impact on the party.
Again, really scary with the whole "Hillary is invincible" mantra. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush would be tough candidates for her to go up against. It is also entirely possible that the GOP nominates a woman for President. It would be smart because it could let women who really want to see a female elected President vote for one who is more in line with their views. The GOP has a lot of women who would make for great candidates. Okay, well, not a lot, but Haley and Martinez come to mind.
This might be my naïveté at work, but I tend to believe Warren's claim that she won't run.
If she does though, I'd love to see the debates, and think that the primary divide would be more like an amicable Gore-Bradley divide instead of a bloody "soul-of-the-party" Christie-Cruz divide. If Hillary wins and Warren pulls her a bit to the left during the process, I don't think it'll hurt Hillary's prospects much at all, as Warren's key areas of concern can be pretty appealing to general election voters.
{Fun exercise: contrast this discussion with the GOP's candidates! While the GOP's extreme candidates are howling about the homos and baby-killing, the Democrats "extreme candidates" are expressing worry about consumer protection and how to stop Wall Street from screwing the middle class. It's a comparison I'd welcome if I were a strategist.}
Map-wise, I don't see how Christie and Bush would be all that challenging. Christie isn't going to deliver New Jersey into the red column. And even if Bush delivers Florida (a possibly questionable assumption, according to some admittedly early polling), he still needs a near-perfect run on the rest of the map.
He has a point. I'm sorry but the country is going to seriously pass up the opportunity to elect the "First Woman President" for a 3rd Bush? No matter how "electable" Jeb Bush may be, he is not running and if he did, he will get steamrolled in the primary over his stance on "education" and "Immigration reform"
45% is the R's floor I admit, but getting to 50%? Let be realistic. barring a catastrophic implosion by Hillary, 2016 is tilt D. Objectively they start at a 246 minimum to the R's 170. It would be a shock if Hillary didn't win.
Chris Christie is a bomb waiting to go off, it'll either be a scandal (god knows there's enough of them waiting in the shadows to come out) or he'll curse some guy out on camera on the campaign trail. He plays in Jersey because Jersey is full of nutters, anywhere else he'd never have been elected.
He is and without a "competitive primary"(someone will challenge her) Hillary's team has ample time to opposition research the day lights out of Christie. He will no doubt limp to the nomination if he gets it and Hillary's bombs will be waiting if not start the moment she wraps up the nomination. The Conservatives will not go down without a fight this time.
That's assuming he doesn't self-destruct before then. He's more than capable of sinking his own ship without anyone else's help.
R's:"He can be competitive in blue state."
Competitive? No, R's need someone who can 'WIN" blue states.
Competitive wont get them to 270. Winning will.
Christie can be competitive in PA but if he cant win it, it's still a loss.
Avon Barksdale
Member
I don't think she's invincible per se, I just don't see any Republican beating her nationally right now.
I don't see how a GOP candidate can win the presidency short of a disaster on the Democratic side without having some way to limit the Tea Party and religious right's influence during the primary. Those two groups push GOP contenders so far to the right that the Democratic nominee has a treasure trove of videos and comments they can use to paint the GOP nominee as extreme to moderate and swing voters.
A shorter primary will help limit the influence of the Tea Party and religious right but it could also lead a crazy person to taking the nomination.
Then again, if we look at 2012, Romney only got the nomination because he was able to outspend and outlast everyone. With a shorter nomination process someone like Herman Cain could have won, oh if only.
One fun thing about the Clintons is that there is now a treasure trove of video footage with members of the GOP saying nice, glowy, flattering things about them over the past decade (sometimes contrasting Hillary and/or Bill against Obama). It'll make for some really great advertising that they won't be able to easily back-away from.
Oh god, I forgot about that. Turning those into commercials would be political trolling of the highest levels.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yeah. I mean, Bill Clinton gave one of the best speeches of my lifetime for Barack Obama, a guy who frankly, he probably doesn't like all that much. Now, imagine the speech, hell, speeches he's going to be giving for his wife, especially since I know the GOP will GOP when it comes to sexist attacks against her.
Assuming both parties keep their safe states, they'd have to win:
Indiana
Missouri
North Carolina
Florida
Ohio
Virginia
Iowa
to get 272. They could also conceivably get it with wins in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. But...
I keep forgetting this could mean 8+(including the campaigning) years of Bill Clinton again. It will be almost surreal.
*whispers Hispanics*
neurosisxeno
Member
More than likely Warren will be on par for Sanders. If either or both run it will be explicitly to galvanize the middle class with talk of issues they actually care about, and drag Hillary back to the left a bit. Lets be frank, Hillary is basically a Moderate Democrat at this point, with Warren being an actual Liberal and Sanders being a Social Democrat\Progressive. If they can shift the focus of debates towards things like social programs, infrastructure investments, tackling income inequality, and focusing on America, they will have been successful.
I wish Elizabeth Warren stood a chance against Hillary, but she doesn't. She is however the Democrats ace-in-the-hole, in that she is phenomenal at fund raising, and cares about the issues facing a lot of people. She has an army of young voters behind her with her crusade against student loan debt, and appeals to the middle class by focusing on tackling Wall Street and the super wealthy. She manages to do all this with grace and enough charisma to avoid a Howard Dean 2000 moment.
The debates should be exciting for Democrats if either Sanders or Warren get up there and have some actual air time. Compare that to what is likely to be the most embarassingly bad debates in recent memory from the GOP, and 2016 looks really favorable to Democrats.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked