• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.

HylianTom

Banned
what is "too moderate" for the TP? not impeaching Obummer?
Presumably, not shutting down the government until Obamacare is dismantled. And not impeaching if he acts on immigration.

Their expectations are sky-high. Humorously so.

Tea Party to GOP Leaders:
tc0a9fv.gif
This is going to be a big silver lining. Democrats shouldn't spend too much time freaking out.
yAtVH4E.gif
 
A bigger House majority should make Boehner's job easier. We'll see.

I think these years could be productive, and will no doubt be used to troll President Hillary in the future ("President Obama worked with us to do x, but Clinton won't do y"). Whether it'll be good policy is another issue.
 
I found what looks to be the program to the 1964 democratic convention in my house. I think my grandfather might have gone.

Really neat look at history. I might post some pictures later.

Most interesting thing? Corporatism isn't new, more than half the program was ads and they even listed the corporate sponsors.

Happier days for progressives and democrats though.
 
I found what looks to be the program to the 1964 democratic convention in my house. I think my grandfather might have gone.

Really neat look at history. I might post some pictures later.

Most interesting thing? Corporatism isn't new, more than half the program was ads and they even listed the corporate sponsors.

Happier days for progressives and democrats though.

If you want to get mad, look up some stuff on the various things that were passed around and said at the 1964 RNC about JFK. Jackie Robinson was so disgusted by that, and the way the black delegation was treated by Goldwater supporters, that he almost left the party.
 
When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers,” he wrote. “Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

LOL @ this reasoning. Since when does "playing a hero" come into play when discussing matters of law.
 

Wilsongt

Member
LOL @ this reasoning. Since when does "playing a hero" come into play when discussing matters of law.

These judges playing hero for the Republican base, so they don't have to be called "liberal activist judges". This is the second circuit to uphold the ban, right?
 
Apparently it was a 2-1 ruling, so they could ask for an en banc ruling. Could also just ask the SCOTUS to step in.

Not sure the play coming.

These judges playing hero for the Republican base, so they don't have to be called "liberal activist judges". This is the second circuit to uphold the ban, right?

No, first one.
 
Oh man...if the SC declares gay marriage the law of the land will the newly minted GOP senate draft up an amendment banning gay marriage?

I know the answer but boy this will be funny.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Aah. Coulda swore another circuit also upheld the ban.
It might be the Louisiana court you're thinking of.

Can't wait to see how this affects the primaries. All those candidates on the debate stage, trying to out-anti-gay each other..

This is a gift. Lovely timing.
 
Reading some of this Opinion, it seems the Judge is saying that only the SCOTUS can overrule these same sex bans because of a previous summary judgment and basically they're trying to punt it to the SCOTUS.

...

And then it compares same sex marriage to allowing polygamy. le sigh.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Reading some of this Opinion, it seems the Judge is saying that only the SCOTUS can overrule these same sex bans because of a previous summary judgment and basically they're trying to punt it to the SCOTUS.

...

And then it compares same sex marriage to allowing polygamy. le sigh.

Who elected these judges?
 
Reading some of this Opinion, it seems the Judge is saying that only the SCOTUS can overrule these same sex bans because of a previous summary judgment and basically they're trying to punt it to the SCOTUS.

...

And then it compares same sex marriage to allowing polygamy. le sigh.

Why, given that that they know how the SC will rule.?
 
Why, given that that they know how the SC will rule.?

I answered that. They claim the SCOTUS already rules on this issue (somewhat true) years ago and thus only the SCOTUS can overturn it.

Technically, as long as they uphold the ban, they are punting it to SCOTUS whether they want to or not but there at least seems to be an indication that they are trying not to rock the boat.

lol @ the dissent, though. Basically calls the judge a buffoon.
 
Report: Obama sent secret letter to Iran

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in response to a report that U.S. President Barack Obama had written a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei about the campaign against Islamic State insurgents.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Obama sent a letter to the Iranian leader last month describing their shared interested regarding Islamic State.

Earnest said he could not comment on private correspondence between Obama and a world leader.

And the conservatives go wild . . . the comments are filled with 'Obama is a secret Muslim!' stuff you'd expect.

Sample:
Spurt 23 minutes ago 5 64
Here is a copy of the secret letter:

Dear Brothers,

Please make sure you save a place for me when I am done destroying the United States. Remember to get my 72 virgins ready (all young boys please). I have been homesick for the bathhouse of Chicago and am looking forward to cutting loose. Make sure you get my favorite camel ready and the dirty towel to wrap around my head. See ya all soon, can I bring you anything like a nuke weapon or something?
Barrack (Ali Baba Bed Wetting) Obama
That got 64 thumbs up.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I answered that. They claim the SCOTUS already rules on this issue (somewhat true) years ago and thus only the SCOTUS can overturn it.

Technically, as long as they uphold the ban, they are punting it to SCOTUS whether they want to or not but there at least seems to be an indication that they are trying not to rock the boat.

lol @ the dissent, though. Basically calls the judge a buffoon.

The dissent is so funny and blistering.

But they won't ask for en banc. That's not in this playbook -- at this point, they want the SCOTUS to take the case. They know they have the votes and this is a heavily flawed opinion that is perfect to overturn.
 

HylianTom

Banned
The dissent is so funny and blistering.

But they won't ask for en banc. That's not in this playbook -- at this point, they want the SCOTUS to take the case. They know they have the votes and this is a heavily flawed opinion that is perfect to overturn.
So.. if they appeal this immediately, we could still see SCOTUS take it up this term, right?
(I always get the timing of these mixed-up)

If so, we'd see a ruling in the middle of next year..
 

ivysaur12

Banned
So.. if they appeal this immediately, we could still see SCOTUS take it up this term, right?
(I always get the timing of these mixed-up)

If so, we'd see a ruling in the middle of next year..

Yes. The ACLU just said they're appealing immediately to the SCOTUS. They'd need to get their filings in by mid-December (tight but possible) so that the SCOTUS could have time to review for vert, though they would probably grant cert very quickly given the circuit split.

We'd probably have a ruling by May. Remember, DOMA and Prop 8 didn't get cert granted until December and were decided upon by May.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I found what looks to be the program to the 1964 democratic convention in my house. I think my grandfather might have gone.

Really neat look at history. I might post some pictures later.

Most interesting thing? Corporatism isn't new, more than half the program was ads and they even listed the corporate sponsors.

Happier days for progressives and democrats though.
You can find pretty much all of the old platforms here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

There's also a UK archive back to 1900:
Liberals/SDP/Liberal Democrats: http://www.libdemmanifesto.com/
Conservatives: http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/
Labour: http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/

EDIT: Oh, you said program, I read it as platform for whatever reason. Sorry!
 

HylianTom

Banned
Yes. The ACLU just said they're appealing immediately to the SCOTUS. They'd need to get their filings in by mid-December (tight but possible) so that the SCOTUS could have time to review for vert, though they would probably grant cert very quickly given the circuit split.

We'd probably have a ruling by May. Remember, DOMA and Prop 8 didn't get cert granted until December and were decided upon by May.
I'm sitting here half-stunned. Not only at the, err, let's say "uniqueness" of the ruling, but also at the sudden fact that we won't have to wait for the foot-dragging fifth appeals court.

This is really happening. We're going to have a big "Landmark Case™" for the issue to be settled.
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-ben-carson-republican-throw-hat-2016-ring/story?id=26735300
Yes, the 2016 race for the White House has already gotten started -- and it looks like Dr. Ben Carson is first in the ring.

Carson, a famous pediatric neurosurgeon and conservative political star, will air a nearly 40 minute-long ad introducing himself to the American people this weekend, an aide to Carson confirms to ABC News.

The documentary titled “A Breath of Fresh Air: A New Prescription for America” will air in 22 states and Washington, DC. The paid video will detail some of his biography and family life, including his rise from being born to a single mother with a poor childhood in Detroit to director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins for almost 40 years, known for his work separating conjoined twins, to potential 2016 presidential candidate.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I'm sitting here half-stunned. Not only at the, err, let's say "uniqueness" of the ruling, but also at the sudden fact that we won't have to wait for the foot-dragging fifth appeals court.

This is really happening. We're going to have a big "Landmark Case™" for the issue to be settled.

Now watch Roberta Kaplan, Olson & Boies, and Martha Bonauto to try to join one of these states's cases as outside counsel.

Eeeeeeeveryone wants to do The One.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Because we need actual liberal policy not lame half-measures that still don't put us close to where we were in the 60s.

I'm glad we can get gay marriage, weed, and minimum wage (still to low) increases. But we aren't making college affordable, tackling climate change, strengthening worker protections, taxing the rich, providing a real safety net, changing the retributive justice system, strengthing PUBLIC education. In fact were slowly losing on most of those issues.

I don't think democrats are doomed just the liberal policy is.

There was a good article in vox today that really gets to the crux of trying to do liberal things to tackle things like income inequality and climate change in the context of the Maryland Loss. The rain tax

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7159239/rain-tax



Progressive policy isn't passing, measure that are progressive and require nothing from people are passing. How we fix this problem is unknown and what's got me down. Its the same thing with Obamacare.

We are a country that doesn't want to help anyone if it requires us to contribute our self. We're not europe and I can't see us ever changing. We just hate taxes above all and democrats aren't changing or challenging that.
On a national level, liberals clearly need people to trust in the government before we ask people to make an investment in it, and it's the democrat politician's job to get people to trust in them and by extension, the government.

In Maryland's case, I can kind of see why they might be ready to take a break from tax increases. O'Malley was pretty aggressive on that front. But even after all his fights for tax increases, over the course of 8 years he only raised the top income tax bracket from the previously flat tax of 4.75% to 5.75%. That's still lower than a ton of even Red states. Maybe O'Malley should have focused even more on income taxes instead of so much on sales taxes and tolls and alcohol/tobacco taxes.


EDIT: Looking into it more, in his first term he increased income tax on the rich from 4.75% to 5.5% while sales tax for everyone went from 5% to 6% and everyone seemed fine with it. Everyone was paying more, rich maybe a bit more so, but it worked. He was very popular going into reelection.

But in his second term, he increased taxes on the rich only a tiny bit to 5.75%, while Baltimore harbor tolls went from $2 to $4, gas taxes went from 23.5 cents a gallon to a planned 42 cents by 2017, Alcohol started getting an additional 3% tax on top of the 6% sales tax.

Combine that stuff and you can start to see why they might feel nickled and dimed without enough benefit. The stuff O'Malley did for education is great, but if most of the tax increases went to the poor in order to pay for it, is it really helping the state overall?
 
Post-mid-term advice to Republican Congress: Don't govern

According to the editors of the National Review, there's only one thing for Republicans to do with their new-found control of the US Congress: nothing.


The political reality is that as long as President Barack Obama is in office and can veto bills he doesn't like, Republicans aren't going to be able to achieve any of their legislative objectives. So why try?

"If Republicans proclaim that they have to govern now that they run Congress, they maximise the incentive for the Democrats to filibuster everything they can - and for President Obama to veto the remainder," they write. "Then the Democrats will explain that the Republicans are too extreme to get anything done."
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-29942241

Ah those patriots over on the right . . .
 

bonercop

Member
No it wouldn't. Judicial appointments, vetoing GOP bills, etc.

It wouldn't move the party to the left. Did carter's (who was pretty center leaning) loss help the dems?

Well, not that I necessarily agree with Angry Fork about losses being a good thing, but those were very different circumstances. Carter wasn't ousted during a time were polls showed a real hunger for economic populism, but during a historic realignment of american political priorities.

But in any case, I do agree with angry fork on the part where liberals really need to start folding up the big tent. Udall and Braley were, like, the only progressives with big money behind them that got ousted, but Udall didn't run as a progressive(or as anything really) and braley kind of insulted his electorate in the run-up to the election. At the end of the day, though, whether a more progressive crop of candidates would have pulled off a victory where these centrists wouldn't have is mostly irrelevant. What's important is whether they would have done any worse.

If the idea behind being so open to having most of the leadership and a significant portion of the representatives as center-right ideologues is that they will stem the silly liberals from getting a little too progressive and scaring away ~*centrists*~ -- what happens when it turns out they keep fucking losing? Why should liberals tolerate centrists in the democratic party if they don't bring electoral victory? It all goes to show that this supposed "middle-ground" voter being the wise shepards of the american people, keeping the population from turning too extreme is nothing more than a beltway fantasy. An idea born from looking at polls, seeing that most people identify as "moderate" and taking that to mean that "ah, so if i worm myself into an arbitrarily defined middle point i can win elections without needing to support popular policy!!!!!"

Meanwhile, despite assurances every election cycle that the republicans are totally gonna destroy themselves because they so crazy -- they keep getting crazier. the center keeps shifting to the right. and while you can celebrate the occasional victory like a paltry minimum wage increase and gay marriage, please do keep in mind how much horrible policy has been locked into place the past two years. Remember the vast majority of the bush tax cuts being made permanent. Remember that what constitutes a "centrist" budget in 2013 was considered a randian wet dream just 3 years earlier. Remember the terrible charter school movement that sprung up. I don't understand how people can say the republicans winning the senate ain't a big deal because it'll be "like the last two years". That means more crippling austerity, more cut benefits, lower taxes and anti-worker policy dressed up as "trade deals"
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
LOL @ this reasoning. Since when does "playing a hero" come into play when discussing matters of law.

At the conclusion of an opinion after the judge has already given the legal reasoning behind underlying the outcome. It's not as if the hero-playing discussion was a part of the rationale for the decision.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
The numbers tell the story: In 2009, Democrats had 60 senators, when you include the two independents who caucused with them; in 2015, they will have 45. In 2009, Democrats had 256 members of the House; in 2015, they will have 192. In 2009, Democrats had 28 governors; in 2015, they will have 18. In 2009, Democrats controlled both legislative chambers in 27 states; in 2015, they will control only 11. In 2009, Democrats controlled 62 legislative chambers; in 2015, they will control only 28 (with one tie and two still undecided).

The impact of the carnage in state legislatures on Obama's watch is hard to overstate. This is where the future classes of mayors, governors, and members of Congress are bred. This is where the boundary lines are drawn for congressional and legislative districts. This is where party leaders come from. And this is where the rules are made for party primaries and election laws are set. According to Tim Storey at the National Conference of State Legislatures, what we saw on Tuesday was an almost unprecedented "Republican wave," which he said, leaves "Democrats at their lowest point in state legislatures in nearly a century."
 
Democrats only had 60 Senators and 256 members of the House in 2009 because of Obama's coattails. Also, Democrats will only have 192 members of the House in 2015 because of some ridiculous gerrymandering. There is no doubt Obama has become unpopular with a large part of the electorate who votes in the midterms, but numbers are just numbers without context
 

benjipwns

Banned
In 2005, Democrats had 44 Senators. In 2005, Democrats had 202 members of the House.

In 2007, Democrats had 51 Senators. In 2007, Democrats had 233 members of the House.

Also, Democrats will only have 192 members of the House in 2015 because of some ridiculous gerrymandering.
Most reports have said only about 5-7 seats would flip due if you drew the lines more fairly.

In any case the Republicans got 52-53% of the popular vote this year against 44-45% for the Democrats based on early returns.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Seems the general opinion of economists it that we'll be adding around 285k jerbs for October.

Dat GOP midterm takeover bump.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
The most daunting thing about the D's going forward with the senate is that there are only 5 senators remaining from Romney states. The original deep south aside from FL and Va is gone. Romney states make up a total of 48 senators if you add the 5 remaining one like Tester, Mckasill, Heittkamp, Manchin & Donnelly. 43 of them are now with the R's as we speak. (Landrieu and begich lose)

Arguably since NC is still purple, R's naturally going forward would start with 46.

If the D's are giving up on the south and the heartland/mountain like KS, MS, ND, SD, UT, WY etc then all they have are the coastal west, northeast & picking off swing state seats to even have a chance at senate control.

Obama states aside from swing states encompass about 34-36 senators including them MI, PA, MN since they arguably have voted D for the last 6 cycles and excluding NV, CO because purple but including NM and maybe WI.

Anyway, between 30-36 senators from consistent blue states who have no chance of flipping like DE etc. Let throw NH in there.

I am pretending Kirk, Collins etc are taken by a D eventually btw.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Another piece in the Senate vs. Obama relationship:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...dd257a-650e-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html
The episode left a particularly bitter taste for Reid’s chief of staff, David Krone, who had been privately assuring people that there would be no deal and that Congress would go “over the cliff” — as taxes soared for every American, giving the Democrats great political leverage when Congress returned for a period of more intense negotiations in January 2013.

Technically, the president’s first term wasn’t even complete, and he had just been reelected, but the fault lines within his own party were already sharply drawn. That tension blew up Tuesday when Krone’s comments about Democrats’ dismal showing in the 2014 midterms went public. He accused Obama of paying “lip service” to concerns about helping finance the midterm elections and said the president was an anchor that took down Democrats across the country, costing them the Senate majority.

“The president’s approval rating is barely 40 percent,” Krone said. “What else more is there to say?”

It was an unusual breach of Washington decorum that stunned a political community used to the shadowy “background” comments from “senior administration officials” or “senior Senate aides.” In general, staffers do not say such things on the record about a sitting president, especially from the same party.

...

Three of those five appear to have lost on Tuesday, and Shaheen and Warner survived only by the narrowest of margins.

Throughout the tough votes, those Democrats enjoyed almost no real relationship with Obama, whose approach to social engagement with lawmakers is almost nonexistent.

Udall is considered one of the best golfers in the Capitol, and also one of the most genuinely likable people. In six years, he was asked to join the president for a round of golf just once — a few days after The Washington Post noted that Obama had never played golf with Udall. (The round was on a Monday afternoon, and it lasted only 15 holes because the Senate came back into session and votes were called.)

...

In the summer of 2011, Obama played a round of golf with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). From there, the duo got close to reaching a massive budget deal that would have raised taxes and cut entitlement programs — slashing at two political sacred cows for Republicans and Democrats.

But Reid’s operation, along with his close ally, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), did not trust Obama’s negotiating skills, and at one point they directly leaked the emerging proposal, timing the release precisely so that the news broke just as Jack Lew, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, entered a meeting with Senate Democrats.

As aides then recounted, Reid read the news bulletin aloud to a stunned audience of staunch liberals who had protected Social Security and Medicare with their political lives. Reid turned the lectern over to Lew.

The grand bargain, at that point, was essentially dead.

In 2012, however, the two sides ran perfect campaigns.

Then came “the cliff.”

Boehner and Obama again came close to a grand bargain, and it infuriated Democrats who saw it as fruitless, given how slight a hold the speaker had on his conservative ranks in the House. That effort folded, and indeed, as Krone had been predicting, it seemed that the economy was headed for a brief-but-significant jolt of higher taxes.

Many Democrats figured that once the cliff had been jumped, all the leverage would be in their hands and they could extract even deeper concessions from Republicans, particularly on across-the-board spending cuts that they wanted to nix.

Reid and McConnell engaged in some brief talks — talks that included a key mistake by Democrats: They made an offer on the tax levels, and Republicans actually accepted it. There were other key issues to resolve, but once that central issue was settled, the momentum headed toward resolution.

At that point, McConnell called Biden and famously asked: “Does anyone down there know how to make a deal?”

Reid, Schumer and other leaders and their advisers then waited to see the final details, furious that the deal was being made. Democrats leaked stories to The Post, Politico and other outlets about how at one point Reid took an offer that Obama was considering making to McConnell and threw it into the fireplace in his office on the second floor of the Capitol as others watched.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
The most daunting thing about the D's going forward with the senate is that there are only 5 senators remaining from Romney states. The original deep south aside from FL and Va is gone. Romney states make up a total of 48 senators if you add the 5 remaining one like Tester, Mckasill, Heittkamp, Manchin & Donnelly. 43 of them are now with the R's as we speak. (Landrieu and begich lose)

Arguably since NC is still purple, R's naturally going forward would start with 46.

If the D's are giving up on the south and the heartland/mountain like KS, MS, ND, SD, UT, WY etc then all they have are the coastal west, northeast & picking off swing state seats to even have a chance at senate control.

Obama states aside from swing states encompass about 34-36 senators including them MI, PA, MN since they arguably have voted D for the last 6 cycles and excluding NV, CO because purple but including NM and maybe WI.

Anyway, between 30-36 senators from consistent blue states who have no chance of flipping like DE etc. Let throw NH in there.

I am pretending Kirk, Collins etc are taken by a D eventually btw.

It just means that Dems need to be more aggressive in the south. They can be and with the right environment they will be. You'll get a great candidate in a good year for the Dems against a less-than-ideal GOP candidate in a Kentucky or Georgia or Montana or North/South Dakota.

I don't think you'll ever see a GOP Senator in Oklahoma or Nebraska or Mississippi, just like I don't think you'll see a Dem senator in Washington, California, or Vermont.

It's likely that there are GOP Senate seats that will one day be in play for places like New Jersey, Connecticut, or Oregon. But the reverse is true -- the climate could also lead to a national mood and the right candidate in a Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, or Dakota. It just depends.
 
The numbers tell the story: In 2009, Democrats had 60 senators, when you include the two independents who caucused with them; in 2015, they will have 45. In 2009, Democrats had 256 members of the House; in 2015, they will have 192. In 2009, Democrats had 28 governors; in 2015, they will have 18. In 2009, Democrats controlled both legislative chambers in 27 states; in 2015, they will control only 11. In 2009, Democrats controlled 62 legislative chambers; in 2015, they will control only 28 (with one tie and two still undecided).

The impact of the carnage in state legislatures on Obama's watch is hard to overstate. This is where the future classes of mayors, governors, and members of Congress are bred. This is where the boundary lines are drawn for congressional and legislative districts. This is where party leaders come from. And this is where the rules are made for party primaries and election laws are set. According to Tim Storey at the National Conference of State Legislatures, what we saw on Tuesday was an almost unprecedented "Republican wave," which he said, leaves "Democrats at their lowest point in state legislatures in nearly a century."

and your point is what? Are we going start throwing around that laughable permanent majority bullshit for the 100th time?
 

Averon

Member
“The president’s approval rating is barely 40 percent,” Krone said. “What else more is there to say?”

Hearing Democrats continuing to blame Obama and using his poll numbers as an excuse for what happened Tuesday night is infuriating. Yeah, Obama poll numbers are what they are. But it wasn't a secret. It wasn't like Obama poll numbers crashed a month ago and left Democrats scrambling to respond. Obama's poll numbers has been hovering around 40% for well over a year. It should have been a well known factor congressional Dems worked into their political calculus well before the campaign season began.

Yes, Obama share some of the blame for not being forceful enough to highlight the good that has occurred during his term, but congressional Democrats did their damnedest to help the GOP paint as bad a picture about Obama as possible running up to the election. What did these Democrats think would happen when Dem voters and independents sees Obama's own party trash him?

It wasn't Obama's fault that congressional Democrats felt repeating the disastrous 2010 strategy (run away from Obama, play defense, not talk up popular Democratic proposals, etc...) was the way to go. It wasn't Obama's fault that congressional candidates didn't run on the minimum wage. It is not Obama's fault that congressional Democrats failed to talk up about how Obama insured millions of poor families. It is not Obama's fault that congressional Democrats absolutely suck at politics and campaigning.

Hearing this is extra disheartening because it makes me think that Dems still don't get that running as Republican-lite ALMOST NEVER WORKS and will repeat this strategy again.

We often make fun of Republicans doing the same thing over and over again only to get the same results (hoping every presidential election cycle Pennsylvania and/or Michigan will finally flip red, voting to repeal Obamacare, etc...). Well Dems certainly deserve ridicule this time around.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Hearing Democrats continuing to blame Obama and using his poll numbers as an excuse for what happened Tuesday night is infuriating. Yeah, Obama poll numbers are what they are. But it wasn't a secret. It wasn't like Obama poll numbers crashed a month ago and left Democrats scrambling to respond. Obama's poll numbers has been hovering around 40% for well over a year. It should have been a well known factor congressional Dems worked into their political calculus well before the camping season began.

Yes, Obama share some of the blame for not being forceful enough to highlight the good that has occurred during his term, but congressional Democrats did their damnedest to help the GOP paint as bad a picture about Obama as possible running up to the election. What do these Democrats think would happen when Dem voters and independents sees Obama's own party trash him?

It wasn't Obama's fault that congressional Democrats felt repeating the disastrous 2010 strategy (run away from Obama, play defense, not talk up popular Democratic proposals, etc...) was the way to go. It wasn't Obama's fault that congressional candidates didn't run on the minimum wage. It is not Obama's fault that congressional Democrats failed to talk up about how Obama insured millions of poor families. It is not Obama's fault that congressional Democrats absolutely suck at politics and campaigning.

Hearing is etra disheartening because it makes me think that Dems still don't get that running as Republican-lite ALMOST NEVER WORKS and will repeat this strategy again.

We often make fun of Republicans doing the same thing over and over again only to get the same results (hoping every presidential election cycle Pennsylvania and/or Michigan will finally flip red, voting to repeal Obamacare, etc...). Well Dems certainly deserve ridicule this time around.

where is the the rock clapping gif when you need it. Well said.
 
x) not me. should have quoted that. Nothing is ever permanent. KS will eventually elect a non-republican to the senate even if it is not in our lifetime.

In 1998 Democrats had 17 governorships despite everybody having no problem with Clinton's performance. What does that tell you?

If you're party does well in Presidential elections you have to accept losses will happen at lower levels. If Clinton and Reagan had that much trouble what hope does anyone else have let alone Obama?
 

Wall

Member
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7159239/rain-tax[/url]



Progressive policy isn't passing, measure that are progressive and require nothing from people are passing. How we fix this problem is unknown and what's got me down. Its the same thing with Obamacare.

We are a country that doesn't want to help anyone if it requires us to contribute our self. We're not europe and I can't see us ever changing. We just hate taxes above all and democrats aren't changing or challenging that.

QUOTE]
When looking at the comparison to European social democracies that the article is trying to make, it is important to keep in mind that the GINI coefficient of the U.S. is roughly twice as large as those countries, so of course regressive taxes are going to bite harder here, especially in high cost of living states. VOX should probably be the last publication to lecture on that point though, considering their writers love advocating technocratic policies like "sin" taxes.

All that being said, I heard that the Democratic candidate for governor in Maryland was blamed for messing up the implementation of the ACA exchange, so that issue might also have contributed to his defeat.

But in any case, I do agree with angry fork on the part where liberals really need to start folding up the big tent. Udall and Braley were, like, the only progressives with big money behind them that got ousted, but Udall didn't run as a progressive(or as anything really) and braley kind of insulted his electorate in the run-up to the election. At the end of the day, though, whether a more progressive crop of candidates would have pulled off a victory where these centrists wouldn't have is mostly irrelevant. What's important is whether they would have done any worse.

I've always had the suspicion that Democrats remain open to "big tent" ideas to ensure the continuation of campaign contributions from wealthy donors, while Republicans remain open to "big tent' ideas to give them the ability to at least give lip service to sufficient moderation so that they do not become completely unpalatable to voters. I agree, though, that its is pointless for Democrats to continue running candidates that try to be "republican-lite", especially when they take positions necessitating cuts to Social Security and Medicare like endorsing Simpson-Bowles.

What this election really showed was the complete electoral irrelevance to the Democrats of the type of voter that the Clintons tried to target in the 90's. Landrieu, Grimes, and Pryor were all pretty much triangulating Clinton candidates, and they all lost. The rural white working class voters that the Clintons tried to target in the 90's are rapidly aging and gone from the party for good. Whatever good will is left for Bill Clinton is due to memories of the relatively good economic times of the late 1990s; those economic conditions will not be repeated during a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency absent action on the economy for which there is currently no political will.

My biggest fear going forward is that the Democrats decide to retreat further into their shell after this election in pursuit of some mythical inoffensive centrism. That simply will not work. The only way for Democrats to win is to motivate the portion of the electorate that isn't primed to reflexively hate them to vote for them. They won't do that by simply running on a platform of "vote for us we are not crazy".
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Hearing Democrats continuing to blame Obama and using his poll numbers as an excuse for what happened Tuesday night is infuriating. Yeah, Obama poll numbers are what they are. But it wasn't a secret. It wasn't like Obama poll numbers crashed a month ago and left Democrats scrambling to respond. Obama's poll numbers has been hovering around 40% for well over a year. It should have been a well known factor congressional Dems worked into their political calculus well before the camping season began.

Yes, Obama share some of the blame for not being forceful enough to highlight the good that has occurred during his term, but congressional Democrats did their damnedest to help the GOP paint as bad a picture about Obama as possible running up to the election. What do these Democrats think would happen when Dem voters and independents sees Obama's own party trash him?

It wasn't Obama's fault that congressional Democrats felt repeating the disastrous 2010 strategy (run away from Obama, play defense, not talk up popular Democratic proposals, etc...) was the way to go. It wasn't Obama's fault that congressional candidates didn't run on the minimum wage. It is not Obama's fault that congressional Democrats failed to talk up about how Obama insured millions of poor families. It is not Obama's fault that congressional Democrats absolutely suck at politics and campaigning.

Hearing is extra disheartening because it makes me think that Dems still don't get that running as Republican-lite ALMOST NEVER WORKS and will repeat this strategy again.

We often make fun of Republicans doing the same thing over and over again only to get the same results (hoping every presidential election cycle Pennsylvania and/or Michigan will finally flip red, voting to repeal Obamacare, etc...). Well Dems certainly deserve ridicule this time around.

Yup.
 
Yeah, Obama poll numbers are what they are. But it wasn't a secret. It wasn't like Obama poll numbers crashed a month ago and left Democrats scrambling to respond. Obama's poll numbers has been hovering around 40% for well over a year. It should have been a well known factor congressional Dems worked into their political calculus well before the camping season began.
Obama's poll numbers have been around the mid to lower 40's for the past 3 years, except 2012. It was no surprise. But what I heard was that Obama was infuriated that dems were running away from his achievements and the democratic platform.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Obama's poll numbers have been around the mid to lower 40's for the past 3 years, except 2012. It was no surprise. But what I heard was that Obama was infuriated that dems were running away from his achievements and the democratic platform.

You know someone close to obama circle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom