benjipwns
Banned
Oh, so you just want to hide all the Scarlet Letters do you?
Typical soft on crime liberals.
-
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
Typical soft on crime liberals.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
why do they need the word fundamental? just say 'the right to vote'
neurosisxeno
Member
There's no justifiable reason that people outside of prison cannot vote due to past crimes.
eBay Huckster
Member
I'm not hearing a "this is a bad thing"...
benjipwns
Banned
Hagan skipped a debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xED_2XBX134
Reliable centrist sources say it's because she was afraid to answer charges about her growing unstoppable number of exposed felony crimes: http://www.carolinajournal.com/daily_journal/display.html?id=11481
MEANWHILE LIKELY SCOTT BROWN MOMENTUM FROM SHAHEEN REFUSING TO SAY IF SHE APPROVES OF OBAMA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfnc7N_Vf3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xED_2XBX134
Reliable centrist sources say it's because she was afraid to answer charges about her growing unstoppable number of exposed felony crimes: http://www.carolinajournal.com/daily_journal/display.html?id=11481
MEANWHILE LIKELY SCOTT BROWN MOMENTUM FROM SHAHEEN REFUSING TO SAY IF SHE APPROVES OF OBAMA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfnc7N_Vf3w
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think declining an invitation counts as "skipped out". Given how big of a show they made of her declining, it seems like that channel might be a bit anti-Hagan, and she probably made the right decision avoiding it.
And I don't see how anything she did was illegal in that article, nor does the article say anything about the legality of those actions. I know positions like governor have a lot of restrictions on state spending on their family and detonators because of how little separation a governor has to the people that make those decisions, but typically a senator is seen as having enough of a separation to not worry about corruption through things like government grants.
As for your Shaheen video, I'll just assume that's another one of your weird attempts at satire.
benjipwns
Banned
The debates this year are the inverse of 2012, all the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot, avoiding debates, breaking rules and demanding fans and stuff, refusing to endorse Barack Obama, saying absurd things. Even the party as a whole admitted that they're completely out of ideas.
At this point all the toss-ups and polls are just to keep viewers/readers from knowing about the coming landslide.
But yeah, it's probably Time Warner and The Raleigh Observer's* pervasive anti-Hagan bias.
*Which once EMPLOYED JESSE HELMS as a sports reporter.
At this point all the toss-ups and polls are just to keep viewers/readers from knowing about the coming landslide.
Or you know, because the sitting Senator refused vehemently to appear at a debate with a live audience and face voter questions they were astonished at how little she cares for real North Carolina values.
But yeah, it's probably Time Warner and The Raleigh Observer's* pervasive anti-Hagan bias.
*Which once EMPLOYED JESSE HELMS as a sports reporter.
neurosisxeno
Member
I wouldn't lump Crist in with the Dems despite his name showing up with a D next to it on the ballot.
But it is kind of mind-blowing that most of these races could be won by Dem's if they just pulled their heads out of their asses. McConnell has like the lowest approval rating of any Senator in office currently, and somehow Grimes is refusing to just be a Generic Democrat and take shots at him, instead opting for this weird media-unfriendly enigma. It's definitely frustrating. The only Dem's that are running good campaigns are unfortunately doing it in places that are probably lost causes--if Pryor were running against McConnell I'm pretty sure he'd be up like 10 points about now. But nope, he's running in Arkansas against Cotton who seems like Obama and Liberal are the only real things he knows about Politics.
It seems like Republicans are running against Obama and Democrats are running themselves into the ground, forgeting that Obama won 2 elections quite convincingly...
neurosisxeno
Member
So their reaction is to run as...moderate republicans? How does that even make sense...
benjipwns
Banned
"Race to the center" actually means "become as obtuse and mushy and incoherent as possible in hopes you hit the right combination at the right times to squeeze out a win since nobody whose vote you can change actually cares about the entire campaign" and since I'd argue the country wants and has wanted "Moderate Republican" governance for some decades since Eisenhower, that by process of elimination becomes the target political personality.
Only nobody actually agrees on what that means.
Only nobody actually agrees on what that means.
neurosisxeno
Member
A Moderate Republican during the Eisenhower-era was basically a Progressive by todays standards.
benjipwns
Banned
No, no, no, you have to stick to the myths.
Moderate Republicans were/are good stewards of the economy and budget, hands off but good managers of government, pro-strong military, anti-crime, pro-America, pro-family but in terms of a good family life not that butting into sex part, caring but strict, welfare for the most poor, but only a pittance and only where it's most visible.
All the things McGovern wasn't with his acid, amnesty and abortion. Cradle to grave socialist welfare state. Pro-crime, anti-America, anti-military, hippie protesting stuff that made us lose in Vietnam.
Strength, like Reagan! No apology tours, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL instead!
Moderate Republicans were/are good stewards of the economy and budget, hands off but good managers of government, pro-strong military, anti-crime, pro-America, pro-family but in terms of a good family life not that butting into sex part, caring but strict, welfare for the most poor, but only a pittance and only where it's most visible.
All the things McGovern wasn't with his acid, amnesty and abortion. Cradle to grave socialist welfare state. Pro-crime, anti-America, anti-military, hippie protesting stuff that made us lose in Vietnam.
Strength, like Reagan! No apology tours, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL instead!
neurosisxeno
Member
Oh, naturally.
benjipwns
Banned
Reagan won the "Moderate Vote" strongly, got independents in a landslide and got 25-30% of the Democratic vote. Reagan even won 58% of women in 1984. Dukakis tipped the Moderates back and shrank the Independents, then after that neither has ever voted Republican again. W. Bush got 10% of Democrats.
neurosisxeno
Member
Which is impressive considering how much Reagan actually sucked.
28 Percent of Americans admit to being Internet Trolls
If the PD/Metamucils of the world would admit so as well, that number would probably jump to 38%. :-D
If Dems hold the Senate I want my tag removed.
If the PD/Metamucils of the world would admit so as well, that number would probably jump to 38%. :-D
I am not even worried about Udall.
If Dems hold the Senate I want my tag removed.
Guilty as hell. A not-small chunk of my downtime at work is spent as a "we {conservatives} are doomed!" character over at FreeRepublic. They should've sniffed me out by now, but I think I've blended in to the point where I'm safely under the radar.
I feel like the Jane Goodall of troglodyte "thinkers"..
PhoenixDark
Banned
Guilty as charged. Don't take it personal. I just enjoy breathing some life into this place to avoid the 90% politics focus. If we talked more about policy and serious issues like the deficit I wouldn't joke as much.
Nunn is rising at the right time. Seems like Orman did the opposite, and once Kansas realized he's basically a democrat they jumped ship.
Nunn is rising at the right time. Seems like Orman did the opposite, and once Kansas realized he's basically a democrat they jumped ship.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's not so much that anyone jumped ship. Orman's numbers have remained fairly consistent. It's more that Roberts probably snapped up most of the R-leaning undecideds. Orman's double digit leads were always gaudy due to the high number of no preference respondents.
That being said, I still think Orman and Davis will edge it out. PPP at the very least gave Orman a small lead.
But thankfully, if Nunn, Braley and Udall win (and no surprises in NC or NH or wherever) we wouldn't need Orman. Biden would just be on permanent tiebreaker duty.
Btw there was a poll today with Ernst ahead by 1. The pollster (Monmouth) actually got more respondents for Braley originally, but their sample was admittedly female-heavy and they adjusted it a bit to bring it down to an Ernst lead. I think Braley will eventually take the lead, as he has in PPP's most recent poll, once more "unlikely" voters who voted early start being included in the mix. Everyone who's included a subset of early voters shows Braley dominating among them.
RustyNails
Member
PD for all we know you could be a troll from freep and you blended in with us
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
As I mentioned before, you're making a new argument not raised by Yglesias in his article. You're saying that it's better to have an express constitutional right to vote, rather than an implicit constitutional right to vote, because an express right is more secure against judicial whimsy. But Yglesias doesn't even understand that there is already an implicit constitutional right. As a consequence, Yglesias believes that enacting an express right to vote would "flip the script," causing courts to review voting regulations differently than they do now. He's not just saying, "Well, it'd be nice if they couldn't change their minds about this," which is the gist of your argument.
Why, you ask, would there be a need for a Fifteenth Amendment, in light of the Fourteenth Amendment, under my logic? This question is based on a misunderstanding of my argument. As I said in distinguishing my argument from benji's, I'm not saying there's no need for an amendment where an existing provision of the Constitution arguably provides for what we want, but we still have to convince judges that our interpretation is correct. My argument is that there is already a constitutional right to vote, and the enactment of an express provision codifying that right won't have the effects that Yglesias mistakenly believes it would.
Additionally, you suggest that, really, the right to vote is not protected, and an amendment would change that. But I don't see why that would be so. The courts' current approach takes as a given that the right to vote is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution; an amendment telling them the exact same thing isn't going to change how they address these questions.
Finally, you believe an amendment codifying existing doctrine would preempt the portion of section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment that appears to validate felon disenfranchisement, but that's probably not true. The courts will not treat a later amendment as repealing an existing constitutional provision unless that's clearly the intent of the later amendment. So, without specifically calling out felon disenfranchisement, your new amendment would probably do nothing about it. As for the other issues you address, without a specific provision addressing them, there remains every reason to believe the courts will simply continue with existing doctrines, and merely add a new citation to their opinions. (Also, my research prowess in this case involved Google and Wikipedia, so quit selling yourself short.)
Is it really so hard to believe that you and I simply disagree about stuff?
Aaron Strife
Banned
14% of CO early voters voted in 2012, and not 2010
GOP has a 40,000 vote advantage right now but Denver and other major cities haven't returned their ballots yet
GOP has a 40,000 vote advantage right now but Denver and other major cities haven't returned their ballots yet
WayneMorse
Banned
If you watch the Morning in America ad it's kinda funny because none of those achievements had anything to do with Reagan and were just policies Paul Volcker's Fed implemented.
I wish somebody would edit that ad to have footage of things like 80's Times Square and Cabrini-Green to show the real America in 1984.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Rounds is caught up in another maybe-ish scandal. Really hope Weiland can win.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Suffolk is the pollster that stopped polling FL, NC and VA because they called them all Safe Romney states
At this point in 2010, Denver had cast 10,000 ballots. In 2012, 26,000 ballots. Now, 20,000. Not bad.
Remember all the hoopla about DSCC abandoning Kentucky? They're on the air with a 650k ad buy. Combined with 300k in ground game investment.
But but but......the pundits aaron. They are getting to me, especially Nate Cohn and Nate Silver. How can you be so confident?
Something in your gut must be telling you that CO is going to be a Truman vs Duey race.
Black Mamba
Member
Suffolk poll only counts "very likely voters" in their screen, which is pretty ridiculous.
Nearly every poll would come out with the GOP ahead if they always did that...
what is the difference between "likely" and "very likely"
"Likely" means that you vote in >50% of all elections.
"Very likely" (for this pollster) means that you vote in >50% of all elections and you have an Antonin Scalia health shrine in your den or childrens' playroom, upon which you leave weekly offerings of lamb or quail carcass.
RustyNails
Member
No pollster has got CO right. Hispanic turnout is notoriously difficult to poll. Hispanic population in western states also grows much faster than any other creating a larger reservoir every election.
Black Mamba
Member
Probably something like
"very likely" = 95% to vote
"likely" = 80% to vote
But who knows. GOPers are always "more likely" to vote but there's less of them overall...
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm not kuh-raaaazy confident about keeping the Senate right now, but I feel good about Colorado. Pollsters have missed the mark on CO for several cycles now and not only are they aware of it, they seem to be doubling down on it.
Very small nugget with regard to the new Kentucky ad buy:
That SUSA poll had her down 1, but undecideds were pretty much even as far as favorable demographics between Grimes and McConnell. I've also heard Grimes' internal polling tracker has been ranging from up 2 to down 1, while McConnell's has had him up 4-6 points. Dare I dream?
Since you are from Colorado. Can you give us if you can some insight on the D's ground game there? Have you been contacted by the Udall team? What are the locals feeling about the Senate race? Is the atmosphere feeling like a Gardner swing? Do you think the polls are under sampling CO Hispanic voters and are going to be wrong again?
It would be bizarre if Udall and Braley lost, but Nunn and Grimes won.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Don't think it would break that way, but there are so many close contests this cycle that uncertainty is the prevailing emotion right now.
SD, GA, KY, KS, IA, AR, AK, LA could all break either way, I figure.
I actually only moved to Colorado in July 2013 so I don't have too much insight into the area or the situation to be honest with you. Since I came from out of state, I only have my original cellphone number so I don't see how the Udall team could contact me. When I helped campaign for Elizabeth Warren, there was a much more pronounced political atmosphere at the time, but part of that was just the presidential election. To me, I don't see much buzz for Gardner or Udall aside from the constant political ads of course.
There has been a significant number of transplants the last couple years and I think that's something that's difficult for pollsters to gauge. I don't fully understand how the polls take cellphone only households into account, especially if they have numbers from out of state like me. A significant amount of transplants are young liberal leaning professionals (at least from my experience) so it might work in Udall's favor. However, the energy sector is also growing quite a bit in Colorado and I would wager those workers tend to lean more conservative.
I don't have much more to say on the Hispanic demographic than what's already said here but I feel like they're under represented for sure. I believe back in 2010, everybody thought that Harry Reid was going to lose his seat but the Hispanic vote was enough for him to win. I feel like that's going to be the situation here in Colorado.
I really don't think AR, AK, and LA are realistic possibilities for the Ds. And if they do break D, that means that the entire polling for this election cycle had a huge R bias.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Pryor is up in internals, Begich's GOTV is ridiculous and Landrieu will have a much better chance at winning if she doesn't decide the majority.
I wouldn't call any of them favorites but I have reason to believe all three of them could win.
Not to mention Democratic incumbents don't lose very often. No sitting Democratic senator lost reelection in 2006, 2008 or 2012, and only two did in 2010.
Precedence isn't always law of course, but it seems incumbent Democrats are pretty good at holding down their seats except in extraordinary circumstances.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I think Udall has it. Colorado is becoming fools gold like Penn for the GOP. The only good thing I hear about Gardner is that he is 'charismatic' . . . . is that enough really?
That person who exposed his loopy views on 'personhood' really slammed him.
theprodigy
Member
Arkansas is gone, but Begich probably has a chance in Alaska with how few polls exist out there, and Louisiana is going to a runoff last time I checked which means who knows what will happen (it is, right?)
PhoenixDark
Banned
I used to troll Stormfront breh.
Udall...still reminding me of 2012, I think he'll win - and if he loses it'll be ridiculously close.
I agree AK, AR, and LA are gone.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked