• 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.
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I've been saying for two years that Scott Walker will be the 2016 republican nominee. No major scandals or baggage (take that John Doe nonsense to Daily Kos backwaters please), unites corporate and tea party conservatives, is respected by the religious right, will do very well in the mid west (in the primary, not the general), can learn foreign policy talking points and probably avoid the embarrassments Christie has faced on the subject.

Christie is hated by the far right and religious right, and I can't help but think there are figures in both parties just waiting to torpedo his campaign with ugly leaks/scandals; plus I'd expect operatives to help him implode by sending agitators to his rallies. Jeb Bush is also hated by the far right, and isn't on the religious right's wish list. Rand Paul is hated by the establishment. Ted Cruz will be destroyed by the establishment. Rick Perry is a dumbass. I think Paul Ryan will be smart enough not to run, and instead consolidate power in the House.

Who else is there, outside of Romney?
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I've been saying for two years that Scott Walker will be the 2016 republican nominee. No major scandals or baggage (take that John Doe nonsense to Daily Kos backwaters please), unites corporate and tea party conservatives, is respected by the religious right, will do very well in the mid west (in the primary, not the general), can learn foreign policy talking points and probably avoid the embarrassments Christie has faced on the subject.

Christie is hated by the far right and religious right, and I can't help but think there are figures in both parties just waiting to torpedo his campaign with ugly leaks/scandals; plus I'd expect operatives to help him implode by sending agitators to his rallies. Jeb Bush is also hated by the far right, and isn't on the religious right's wish list. Rand Paul is hated by the establishment. Ted Cruz will be destroyed by the establishment. Rick Perry is a dumbass. I think Paul Ryan will be smart enough not to run, and instead consolidate power in the House.

Who else is there, outside of Romney?
Click to expand...

He just has no charisma, he doesn't really have a presidential appearance, and he generally comes across as a shitty person. Maybe he'll be the nominee. But if that's their answer to Hillary, oh boy.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
He just has no charisma, he doesn't really have a presidential appearance, and he generally comes across as a shitty person. Maybe he'll be the nominee. But if that's their answer to Hillary, oh boy.
Click to expand...

Romney was really charismatic!

So was Dole!

And Bush Sr

walker is someone to fear because he's taken on the teachers and other unions and won. That message has traction in places like ohio, mi and wi. He will act on that.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
Romney was really charismatic!

So was Dole!

And Bush Sr

walker is someone to fear because he's taken on the teachers and other unions and won. That message has traction in places like ohio, mi and wi. He will act on that.
Click to expand...

Romney looks the part.

draft_mitt_romney_facebook.jpg


Looks like a president.

scott-walker.jpg


Looks like your friend Courtney's shitty Republican dad who's has a middle of the road job at Deloitte.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
He just has no charisma, he doesn't really have a presidential appearance, and he generally comes across as a shitty person. Maybe he'll be the nominee. But if that's their answer to Hillary, oh boy.
Click to expand...

To be fair, how much charisma did Romney have? Granted he didn't compete against anyone decent, whereas 2016 will feature some very potent GOP challengers with a lot of money.

Ultimately I think Christie and Bush are the establishment favorites, with Walker coming in third. However I think the primary schedule favors Bush over Christie early. Both candidates will probably struggle in Iowa, but NH strikes me as a Bush target. The first Super Tuesday features Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Utah. Can't say any of those places strike me as Christie wins, whereas Bush taking Colorado makes sense, Walker takes Minnesota and possibly Missouri. After that the bigotry begins: Nevada, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, and Michigan. I'm telling you guys, Walker will work wonders in Michigan and other states with teachers/union issues.

All Jeb Bush has to do is survive until March 1st, the next Super Tuesday which features Florida. Christie could very easily be finished after this, leaving Bush and Walker as the remaining establishment candidates, plus whichever teatards remain. Walker is the perfect compromise candidate: the rest of the party hates Bush but will be fine with Walker.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Walker also doesn't have a college education

It's the type of thing I don't expect Democrats to bring up specifically but I wonder if the media will go with it
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
AndyD said:
So if SC says the subsidies are fine, what's the next major attack point? I know there's discussions about the durable goods tax, the full-time/part-time definitions, but neither of those are looked at as illegal or unconstitutional, but more like wishlist for change.
Click to expand...

The Origination Clause.

Randy Barnett said:
The Origination Clause, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 1, states that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills..” PLF contended that, once the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius upheld the “shared responsibility payment” solely as a tax, rather than as a penalty enforcing a mandate to buy insurance pursuant to the Commerce Clause, it raised a new constitutional objection. Because the ACA originated in the Senate, and not the House, it violated the Origination Clause. PLF also denied that the ACA was a proper “amendment” of the House bill that was totally gutted by the Senate and replaced with the text of the ACA.

But the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel never reached most of these issues because it ruled that the ACA was not a bill “for raising revenue” and therefore the Origination Clause simply did not apply. The panel did so on the ground that the primary “purpose” of the ACA was not “to raise revenue,” but was to induce people to buy insurance and provide affordable health care to Americans; so that its revenue raising effect was merely “incidental” to this purpose.

...

In our 8 page amicus brief, we focus on a most serious error in the panel’s analysis that has the functional consequence of eliminating the Origination Clause from the Constitution: its mistaken reading of the text, original meaning and precedent to conclude erroneously that the ACA was not a bill for raising revenue because the principal “purpose” of the shared responsibility payment in particular or the ACA as a whole was to achieve affordable health care rather than add to the coffers of the treasury.

We explain that prior references to the “purpose” of the statute were actually references to constitutional objects or purposes. So if the purpose of a monetary exaction was to enforce a commerce clause regulation — e.g. by a monetary fine or penalty — or would have been within the commerce power of Congress, the fact that the exaction revenue “incidentally” contributes money to the treasury does not make it a bill for raising revenue. BUT, if the monetary exaction is justified only as a “tax” under Congress’s power to tax, then it necessarily must be a bill for raising revenue. In sum, “a bill that imposes a tax, under the sole authority of the taxing power, is necessarily a bill for raising revenue. Only when a measure is upheld pursuant to some other constitutional power is it warranted to characterize the money it may raise as ‘incidental’ to another object or ‘purpose.’”
Click to expand...
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
APKmetsfan said:
walker is someone to fear because he's taken on the teachers and other unions and won. That message has traction in places like ohio, mi and wi. He will act on that.
Click to expand...

Which will result in him being painted as an anti-education and anti-labour, as well as being held accountable to corporate interests, in an election where the Democrats (thanks in part to a presumed Bernie Sanders and maybe Elizabeth Warren throw in) are going to be crusading against corporations and running on a pro-populism platform. Talk about polarizing. On top of that the Democrats will probably run on Marijuana Legalization and a higher Minimum Wage, which are things every day people want. If Walker runs he would get obliterated in the General Election.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
neurosisxeno said:
Which will result in him being painted as an anti-education and anti-labour, as well as being held accountable to corporate interests, in an election where the Democrats (thanks in part to a presumed Bernie Sanders and maybe Elizabeth Warren throw in) are going to be crusading against corporations and running on a pro-populism platform. Talk about polarizing. On top of that the Democrats will probably run on Marijuana Legalization and a higher Minimum Wage, which are things every day people want. If Walker runs he would get obliterated in the General Election.
Click to expand...

this reads like alt-world liberal freep

no it won't, dems have tried that in WI, MI, FL and countless other places, they've lost.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
this reads like alt-world liberal freep

no it won't, dems have tried that in WI, MI, FL and countless other places, they've lost.
Click to expand...

I agree, but getting elected governor as a Republican in 2010 and 2014 doesn't really speak volumes towards your ability to connect with an election year electorate.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
neurosisxeno said:
Which will result in him being painted as an anti-education and anti-labour, as well as being held accountable to corporate interests, in an election where the Democrats (thanks in part to a presumed Bernie Sanders and maybe Elizabeth Warren throw in) are going to be crusading against corporations and running on a pro-populism platform. Talk about polarizing. On top of that the Democrats will probably run on Marijuana Legalization and a higher Minimum Wage, which are things every day people want. If Walker runs he would get obliterated in the General Election.
Click to expand...

True but we're talking about the primary, where his anti-union shit will work.

Also I'm not 100% sold on Hillary running a populist campaign. I think her people might convince her that Obama's failure has been that he is "too liberal" and thus they'll run a safe, centrist campaign based around "common sense" solutions and opposed to the extremism of "both sides."
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
APKmetsfan said:
this reads like alt-world liberal freep

no it won't, dems have tried that in WI, MI, FL and countless other places, they've lost.
Click to expand...

Democrats lose because they campaign like idiots. It doesn't indicate bad policy views, just that their candidates are bad at winning elections for a variety of reasons.

PhoenixDark said:
True but we're talking about the primary, where his anti-union shit will work.

Also I'm not 100% sold on Hillary running a populist campaign. I think her people might convince her that Obama's failure has been that he is "too liberal" and thus they'll run a safe, centrist campaign based around "common sense" solutions and opposed to the extremism of "both sides."
Click to expand...

Oh definitely. His anti-union shit will help him in th primaries, but I don't see how it will translate positively to the general election. The GOP as a whole really has to consider how the primaries run this time, because Romney was really hurt by being pulled even further Right than he wanted just to clear the primaries.

If Warren and Sanders throw in, during the primaries she will have to offer something comperable to their solutions of Democratic voters won't care for her. They will just see her as Obama-lite. I'm actually hoping to see Progressive policies creep into the Primaries at least, hopefully even into the General Election because the country by and large is left-leaning. I don't doubt if those two fail to materialize or fall on their face that we'll see Moderate Hillary Clinton in full swing boring us into voting for her.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
APKmetsfan said:
Romney was really charismatic!

So was Dole!

And Bush Sr

walker is someone to fear because he's taken on the teachers and other unions and won. That message has traction in places like ohio, mi and wi. He will act on that.
Click to expand...

Romney did look the part. Not real charismatic when talking though.

Dole was a war hero.

Bush Senior was vice president.

Scott walker . . . . he seems like a doofus. He can take orders from the Koch brothers and sign ALEC-written legislation in some mid-west state. But president? No.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
APKmetsfan said:
this reads like alt-world liberal freep

no it won't, dems have tried that in WI, MI, FL and countless other places, they've lost.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. Mid-terms are very different from presidential years.

neurosisxeno said:
Democrats lose because they campaign like idiots. It doesn't indicate bad policy views, just that their candidates are bad at winning elections for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...
They did campaign like shit but the only thing worse than the Dem candidates were the Dem voters. If you only show up half the time then you will lose.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
speculawyer said:
Oh come on. Mid-terms are very different from presidential years.
Click to expand...

Yea I wasn't sure if he was referring to mid-terms or something else, if mid-terms was the aim that is a horrible line of reasoning. None of those states had particularly good candidates running on the Democratic side, and most of them ran horrible campaigns. Need I point out Crist's campaign of "At least I'm not Rick Scott"? And I agree, the insanely low turnout (I thought I saw last page it was lowest in 72 years) did a number on Dems. We knew they would get a lower turnout, just not that low of a turnout.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
I'm on 270 right now, and Walker would need to win Ohio (sure?), Wisconsin (sure), Iowa (eh), Minnesota (hmmm), Michigan (hmmm), and then he'd still need to get Florida, New Mexico (no), and Virginia (no).

That's assuming that Hillary's (EDIT: presumed) campaign would completely fall apart. And if she nominates someone like, say, Klobuchar as her VP, the math becomes a lot harder. Or she doesn't and nominates someone from another swing state. Or whatever.

The math is just really hard.

EDIT 2: Hmm I'm a grown man and this is how I'm spending my nights. Okay.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
There is no fucking way Walker gets Minnesota. Reagan couldn't get Minnesota, and unlike the rest of the country we've done a pretty good job at avoiding the slide to the right
 
R

reggieandTFE

Member
The Technomancer said:
There is no fucking way Walker gets Minnesota. Reagan couldn't get Minnesota, and unlike the rest of the country we've done a pretty good job at avoiding the slide to the right
Click to expand...

True to some extent but don't forget how close Dayton came to losing in 2010. Right to work, amongst other terrible bills, would have passed with the Rs controlling both houses then and MN would look a lot more politically like MI right now than being the last true bastion of progressive values in the Midwest, what with IL electing an avowed Union-busting plutocrat as governor.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Yeah a Republican winning MN in 2016 is absolutely a pipe dream at this point. It would take a perfect storm of a shitty two years for Obama and a dreadful Democratic candidate.

If the Dem candidate were someone like Cuomo I'd probably skip voting for president...
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
ivysaur12 said:
I'm on 270 right now, and Walker would need to win Ohio (sure?), Wisconsin (sure), Iowa (eh), Minnesota (hmmm), Michigan (hmmm), and then he'd still need to get Florida, New Mexico (no), and Virginia (no).

That's assuming that Hillary's (EDIT: presumed) campaign would completely fall apart. And if she nominates someone like, say, Klobuchar as her VP, the math becomes a lot harder. Or she doesn't and nominates someone from another swing state. Or whatever.

The math is just really hard.

EDIT 2: Hmm I'm a grown man and this is how I'm spending my nights. Okay.
Click to expand...

There's no way he wins even half those states.I could see Michigan, Wisconsin, and maybe Ohio. But I wouldn't be surprised if Ohio went Blue, Obama did win it 2 elections in a row if I remember correctly.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
reggieandTFE said:
True to some extent but don't forget how close Dayton came to losing in 2010. Right to work, amongst other terrible bills, would have passed with the Rs controlling both houses then and MN would look a lot more politically like MI right now than being the last true bastion of progressive values in the Midwest, what with IL electing an avowed Union-busting plutocrat as governor.
Click to expand...
Meh. MN will vote for their own goper but I can't see them voting for that walker doofus. Let's not forget that Franken just won reelection by such a healthy margin that no one even mentions that race.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
neurosisxeno said:
There's no way he wins even half those states.I could see Michigan, Wisconsin, and maybe Ohio. But I wouldn't be surprised if Ohio went Blue, Obama did win it 2 elections in a row if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

To be clear: I completely agree. But I'm assuming this in a best case scenario for Walker. As in, Hillary gets caught on a hot mic calling him a shitstain who never went to college or something.

If Walker is the candidate, he COULD win by getting Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. But, that's a perfect storm of events. But Walker has only won Wisconsin in 2010 and 2014. That's not the same electorate that would be voting him in 2016. Lose one of those states, and he's done. And he would also need to make sure that North Carolina didn't get away from him.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
ivysaur12 said:
To be clear: I completely agree. But I'm assuming this in a best case scenario for Walker. As in, Hillary gets caught on a hot mic calling him a shitstain who never went to college or something.

If Walker is the candidate, he COULD win by getting Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. But, that's a perfect storm of events. But Walker has only won Wisconsin in 2010 and 2014. That's not the same electorate that would be voting him in 2016. Lose one of those states, and he's done. And he would also need to make sure that North Carolina didn't get away from him.
Click to expand...

Yea I'm pretty sure she would have straight up call him a retard on National TV, and even then she might still put up a decent fight. Walker is completely out of his league.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Isn't Wisconsin's economy in the shitter compared to its neighboring states?
You can nuke him based just on that.

On charisma in elections, recent history
Gore vs Bush, Bush has more
Kerry vs Bush, Bush has more
Hillary vs Bams, Bams has more
McCain vs Bams, lol.
Romney vs Bams, lol.
Hillary vs Walker... hillary? i guess? marginally? got that gilf firebrand thing going?

tbh, if romney's 47% comment didn't completely nuke his chances, i can't see hillary calling someone a retard producing a much different result.
Plus it is a gop candidate, dude is bound to say something dense too.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Yeah a Republican winning MN in 2016 is absolutely a pipe dream at this point. It would take a perfect storm of a shitty two years for Obama and a dreadful Democratic candidate.

If the Dem candidate were someone like Cuomo I'd probably skip voting for president...
Click to expand...

If Cuomo was the candidate I'd vote republican in an attempt to kill the democrat party and start fresh
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
At this point when I play on 270 (which is already an almost-daily thing.. I imagine it'll be just a constantly-open tab later on), I automatically assume that VA is gone.. which pretty dramatically changes the math.

Will this be the first time in years (or ever? I'm not sure) where a GOP primary candidate explicitly points out the electoral map as one of his main arguments? That'd be very interesting to see how the primary voters respond.

And it does my heart good to see Franken re-elected so easily. The uncertainty over his election result was my biggest cloud on Election Night 2008, but I was convinced that once he got in, he was in for life. A fantastic senator.. I'm seriously jealous of Minnesota.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
RustyNails said:
In retrospect I do think it would have served our country better if Hillary won in 2008, and Obama carried the baton in 2016. I supported Obama over Hillary during the primaries (well, started as a Paulite) and thought of Hillary as part of the problem.

Besides, Obama's game was 10/10. It was hard not to think that DC was going to be rebooted with a brand new operating system as oppossed to the DOS that was currently in place for decades.
Click to expand...
Going back to this thought, I think all isn't for naught. Obama has served as a guinea pig for Hillary and can learn from his mistakes mainly stemming from his over eagerness to compromise with Republicans and the tea party nutjobs. She HAS to take something from Obama's presidency. I hope once she becomes the President she does not invite Boehner for lunches and do golf offs. Seriously fuck em. I am tired of it. Its probably not gonna happen but I can hope. Her #1 objective should be to preserve obamacare, and hopefully build on it.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Oblivion said:
Don't we have net neutrality right now? And so that would mean that Obama wants to keep the status quo without changing anything. Which means....holy shit the internet's been under Obamacare since the Clinton Administration! :O
Click to expand...

Tell that to Netflix.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
HylianTom said:
At this point when I play on 270 (which is already an almost-daily thing.. I imagine it'll be just a constantly-open tab later on), I automatically assume that VA is gone.. which pretty dramatically changes the math.

Will this be the first time in years (or ever? I'm not sure) where a GOP primary candidate explicitly points out the electoral map as one of his main arguments? That'd be very interesting to see how the primary voters respond.

And it does my heart good to see Franken re-elected so easily. The uncertainty over his election result was my biggest cloud on Election Night 2008, but I was convinced that once he got in, he was in for life. A fantastic senator.. I'm seriously jealous of Minnesota.
Click to expand...

The fact that republicans couldn't even beat Warner with a near perfect electorate should tell us that Virginia isn't a big worry. Once the bigger, browner areas reporter Warner was safe. General elections will simply multiply that effect, especially two years from now when the white % vote is lower.

Long term I'd be more worried about states like Michigan and possibly Ohio. Short term, Michigan's legislature is considering splitting the EV vote by district, thus allowing losing candidates to receive more of the EV than the popular vote winner (for instance Romney would have received more EVs than Obama in Michigan in this scheme).

This could be the next move for the GOP, given how many state legislatures they completely dominate right now.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
The fact that republicans couldn't even beat Warner with a near perfect electorate should tell us that Virginia isn't a big worry. Once the bigger, browner areas reporter Warner was safe. General elections will simply multiply that effect, especially two years from now when the white % vote is lower.

Long term I'd be more worried about states like Michigan and possibly Ohio. Short term, Michigan's legislature is considering splitting the EV vote by district, thus allowing losing candidates to receive more of the EV than the popular vote winner (for instance Romney would have received more EVs than Obama in Michigan in this scheme).

This could be the next move for the GOP, given how many state legislatures they completely dominate right now.
Click to expand...

Yup. Michigan's vote-splitting threat is probably the biggest crack in the Blue Wall. If Michigan becomes a non-swing state, its national political clout collapses - something I'm sure the voters there are acutely aware of. It reeks of election rigging, especially when (as you said) the loser gets more EVs.

There was enough resistance when it was proposed in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, so I'm hoping to see the same there, should they attempt anything.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
It'll be very interesting. I think republicans legit thought they'd win 2012 regardless. Now that they control the House and senate, perhaps this is the perfect time to change EV rules. They've already thrown the kitchen sink at Hillary, maybe this will be icing on the cake.

It's worth noting that Hillary will automatically do better than Obama among white voters; she won't win them obviously but a 3-6 point shift will have big implications. Kneecapping her in a state like Michigan, which will go blue in 2016, would make a lot of sense for the GOP. Especially with Florida as such a tossup, and Ohio (potentially) in flux. Obviously Hillary wouldn't need either to win, just as Obama didn't in 2008 or 2012, but the closer things are the easier it is to fuck up.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Meanwhile, Colorado and Nevada are going to get tougher and tougher for the GOP to win in a presidential year..

(And I'd be willing to bet that Hillary wins white women outright)
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Given how much of an issue the EC voting plan had in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania when they should've been passed, I don't really think that's something that's realistically going to happen.

If you lookup "electoral college michigan" you get 7 news results: 5 are blogs, one is an opinion piece from Roll Call and one is an article on MSNBC. It doesn't seem like these ideas are actually being floated outside of a scary liberal think piece.

Avon Barksdale said:
Ohio won't split its EVs, candidates won't bother visiting if they already they can't win in certain districts.
Click to expand...

That too. There's a huge loss of clout and money that you lose with this. It's also short sighted -- though, I don't expect the GOP to really understand that one.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
So it turns out, both parties ARE THE SAME.
Cuomo had a secret re-election ‘pact’ with Republicans

The state’s most powerful Republican secretly worked for months to help Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo win re-election — in exchange for Cuomo’s promise not to aid Senate Democrats in their Long Island races, a top New York GOP leader has charged.

Former state Republican Party Executive Director Michael Lawler — who managed Rob Astorino’s ill-fated gubernatorial run against Cuomo — told The Post that he learned of the alleged bombshell deal between Senate GOP leader Dean Skelos and Cuomo just days ago, after suspecting for months that it existed.

“Dean Skelos clearly was working against Rob’s campaign — he and the governor cut a deal,’’ seethed Lawler, a protégé of GOP Chairman Ed Cox.

The Nassau County-based Skelos and his aides “fight for nothing, stand for nothing except staying in power,’’ Lawler charged.

Lawler said he found out about the alleged Skelos-Cuomo arrangement from a top political aide to Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano, a Republican and Skelos ally who, in a serious setback to Astorino, endorsed Cuomo last month. “We heard rumblings that Mangano was going to [endorse Cuomo], and I reached out to his folks and was told ‘absolutely not,’ that Mangano would endorse Astorino, although he would then let Cuomo use a video of him praising the governor,’’ Lawler said.

“But after Mangano actually endorsed Cuomo in a video on TV, I called Mangano’s guy and said, ‘What the f–k?’ He said, ‘When this is over, give me a call.’

“So I called him a few days ago, and he said, ‘A deal was cut for Mangano to endorse Cuomo in exchange for Cuomo staying out of the Senate races on Long Island,’ ’’ Lawler continued. “I asked him, ‘Who cut the deal?’ And he said, ‘People higher than me.’

“I said, ‘Dean?’ And he responded, ‘That would be a pretty good guess.’ ”

Both GOP and Democratic sources had been speculating on the possibility for a while, noting that in the lead-up to last week’s election, Cuomo had been doing little to help his party win a majority in the Senate. If the governor made any appearance on behalf of a Democratic candidate on Long Island, it was a token in-and-out visit, with no follow-up and virtually no financial support, observers said.
Click to expand...

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/cuomo-had-a-secret-re-election-pact-with-republicans/

The modern Democrat party everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom