Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

It's difficult to have a unifying theme when your coalition is made up of multiple blocs you have to juggle because they aren't natural allies as much as circumstantial ones.

This actually applies in both parties.

This is actually really important. The "unifying theme" of a political party is generally just the one common issue that the disparate interest groups currently forming a coalition in that party can agree on.

The Republican unifying theme is "less federal government" because all the Republican interest groups -- Randians, libertarians, racists, and social reactionaries -- agree that the only way they'll get to put their goals into place is with less federal government. Part of the big reason the Republicans are so bad at governing is that, given actual control of federal power, it turns out that the positive goals of the Republican party coalition are not common at all -- they all want to do DIFFERENT insane things, and generally think the positive agendas of the other groups are at best unimportant and at worst actually a bad idea.

Insofar as there's a Democratic unifying theme today it's something like "less social restrictions" because all the Democratic interest groups -- women, GLBT, people of color, technocrats, Millenials, inexplicable rich white liberals -- agree that codified social restrictions are usually discriminatory. This is still a pretty effective positive message because intersectionality works well enough for everybody to agree that laws against gay marriage, abortions, driving while black, etc. are pretty clearly bad social restrictions. Eventually we will run out of low-hanging fruit, though, and it will be more difficult to explain how enacting a citizen's wage is fundamentally about repealing a social restriction created by nature, and then we won't accomplish much.

I actually think that the Democrats have done a pretty excellent job of communicating this theme. I mean, electing a black guy and a woman are pretty clear markers of what our coalition is all about. But it's naturally a difficult message to sustain and we have a coalition literally designed around people who don't show up for midterms. We just need to work on figuring out how to change that.

 

[benjipwns]

And when you start getting down to specifics and disputed territory with the Democratic Coalition you start to get the infighting going. Unions/blacks vs. immigration. Blacks/Hispanics/radfems vs. "radical" LGBT. Older unionized/blue collar workers against young degreed social liberals. Blacks vs. Hispanics, rich corporate interests vs. everyone, dedicated interest groups vs. "just win" party-first, etc.

This is how the Republicans used to win the Presidency despite the Democratic domination of Congress. In a district you only faced so much of the New Deal coalition, but nationally you could pit parts against one another much easier. Acid, Amnesty and Abortion was one devastating example.

The Republican unifying theme is "less federal government" because all the Republican interest groups -- Randians, libertarians, racists, and social reactionaries -- agree that the only way they'll get to put their goals into place is with less federal government.

You left out one key group that really throws a spanner into things for them, the military-industrial complex. This was the first big internal fight of the Reagan Administration, the fiscal conservatives came in basically assuming like a 5% yearly bump in military spending and still being able to balance the budget even with tax cuts. They get into power, Defense wants 25% and Caspar Weinberger is siding with them. So they wind up "compromising" on tax cuts by phasing them in and only a 20% yearly bump in defense spending. (figures made up)

 

[Black Republican]

So alaska Senate race finally went GOP? not surprised. thats 54 for GOP in the senate right?

 

[neurosisxeno]

From that Sanders story:

Maybe he can get ahold of Bob Shrum too.

Dukakis is really the only loser there. Kerry gets a bad rep and Gore for all intents and purposes probably should have won. I've been saying it for monthes and I'll continue saying it, don't count Bernie out. The man is great at getting peoples votes, and he tends to focus on issues that directly affect people--which is what most voters are really after.

 

[thepotatoman]

From that Sanders story:

Maybe he can get ahold of Bob Shrum too.

I hope this means we get a photo of Bernie Sanders saluting from atop a tank.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Alabama's back in the Supreme Court today, defending its 2012 redistricting.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday takes up the thorny question of what kind of gerrymandering is acceptable, and what kind is not. The court is being asked to decide whether a 2010 state legislative redistricting in Alabama overloaded some districts with black Democrats on the basis of race or party.

Voting rights cases scramble politics and race. In this case, it is the Democrats who are crying foul because of what they call unconstitutional quotas. In contrast, conservative Republicans, usually critics of racial considerations, this time are defending government classifications based on race.

 

[Diablos]

I certainly I am not describing policy as themes. To be more specific: Democrats need a unifying framework with which to sell their policies to voters.

I don't know how else to express myself without writing a novel, but it it is getting late and I feel as if I am being misunderstood.

They had a framework and still do. 2006 and 2008 were huge elections, and 2012 didn't waiver from it. They had a framework for the economy, taxes, health care, war/defense, climate change, immigration...
The GOP blocked nearly everything for the past six years, putting a dagger through the heart of said Democratic "framework".

Dems made huge mistakes on the 4th no doubt, so I'm not acting like the GOP is 100% to blame for them dropping the ball when campaigning. However, the Democratic base is demoralized (and independents either turned off or starting to drink the Republican gravy) largely in part because the minority party in Congress kicked and screamed like a baby to say the least. They ensured nothing meaningful policy-wise on the Democratic side would pass post-2010 while billions of dollars were pumped into state elections to further reject Democratic initiatives and policies. It's hard to campaign on a framework when you know 100% of the time, the other party will have absolutely nothing to do with it. Six years in, it's going to take its toll on the party and electorate alike. There's a difference between finding common ground (what the GOP acts like they wanted) and extorting the other party and dictating what counts as being "bipartisan" (what they consistently do) or the global economy can go up in flames for all they care.

Frankly, that this election had the lowest turnout since 1942 tells me that it was angst and fear of the President and his policies that drove the voters who actually gave a shit to the polls in most races. Most others sat it out. That's unfortunate because this election isn't a good indicator of where voting trends are really going in this country, and it will only prove to hurt those who chose not to vote this time around like they did in 2008 and 2012, which is just sad because when they get to the polls they outnumber or can at least hold off an onslaught of a dwindling but reliable Republican vote.

 

[stonesak]

Well, what kind of framework would you sketch out that semi-accurately represents the parties policies?

What do I need to say to get elected?

 

[AndyD]

Alabama's back in the Supreme Court today, defending its 2012 redistricting.

It was an interesting listen this morning on the way into work. But it was also confusing a bit as the quote was that they redistricted based on rural/urban not race, race was just incidental to the rural/urban separation.

But I did like the part where they mentioned the VRA being taken as a solid rockbed for the districting, because no one thought it would be overturned, then the surprise and shock when it was recently altered.

 

[Coriolanus]

What do I need to say to get elected?

That's for republicans.
For democrats it is more in the lines of "what should i avoid saying?".

 

[HylianTom]

And down goes South Carolina..

Federal Judge Strikes Down South Carolina's Ban on Gay Marriage
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...down-south-carolinas-ban-gay-marriage-n246951

 

[TacticalFox88]

And down goes South Carolina..

Federal Judge Strikes Down South Carolina's Ban on Gay Marriage
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...down-south-carolinas-ban-gay-marriage-n246951

HOLY SHIT.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Aaron Strife]

I tend not to diablos but I'm a little concerned about the GOP splitting up the electoral votes in states like Michigan, Florida etc. by congressional district.

Like oh boy, now we can gerrymander the fucking presidency too.

 

[HylianTom]

I tend not to diablos but I'm a little concerned about the GOP splitting up the electoral votes in states like Michigan, Florida etc. by congressional district.

Like oh boy, now we can gerrymander the fucking presidency too.

Yup. If there's any one thing I can worry about regarding the 2016 presidential race, this is it. The Dems probably won't be too hurt if just one state does it, but after that the math starts to get more difficult.

 

[Tim-E]

I tend not to diablos but I'm a little concerned about the GOP splitting up the electoral votes in states like Michigan, Florida etc. by congressional district.

Like oh boy, now we can gerrymander the fucking presidency too.

Its definitely worth the concern. Incumbent party fatigue coupled with this in a couple states could cut it dangerously close.

After 2012 liberals were ecstatic about the EC tilting in their favor for the rest of history, but considering how fickle some swing states are, I am not going to go into this just expecting a comfortable electoral coushion.

 

[Averon]

I don't see how the GOP get away with EC vote splitting. They tried that in Michigan and quickly dumped the idea. Too much money and attention would be lost for for states in this scenario.

I think the GOP is going to push hard on voter ID laws. It is easier to sell, easier to implement, and it doesn't look as blatant to the media.

 

[HylianTom]

I don't see how the GOP get away with EC vote splitting. They tried that in Michigan and quickly dumped the idea. Too much money and attention would be lost for for states in this scenario.

I think the GOP is going to push hard on voter ID laws. It is easier to sell, easier to implement, and it doesn't look as blatant to the media.

I'm concerned, but not actively worried. I guess that's how I'd put it. The few times other states have considered this, there has been sufficient resistance that the proposals were dropped.

I've been thinking about Florida this morning. They aren't going to split Florida. Giving the Dems even just 10 guaranteed electoral votes would alter the math in a big way. Dems wouldn't have to spend time or money in such an expansive, expensive market, and they'd have an even more formidable starting point for electoral votes. Hell, if Jeb or Rubio is on the ticket, the effort that would've been poured into Florida is going to make a nice difference in other swing states..

 

[CygnusXS]

They can't possibly be serious about having congressional hearings over this Gruber stuff.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm concerned, but not actively worried. I guess that's how I'd put it. The few times other states have considered this, there has been sufficient resistance that the proposals were dropped.

I've been thinking about Florida this morning. They aren't going to split Florida. Giving the Dems even just 10 guaranteed electoral votes would alter the math in a big way. Dems wouldn't have to spend time or money in such an expansive, expensive market, and they'd have an even more formidable starting point for electoral votes. Hell, if Jeb or Rubio is on the ticket, the effort that would've been poured into Florida is going to make a nice difference in other swing states..

This is true. Like you said if they only did it in one state it probably wouldn't change too much.

But imagine if Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada and Florida all did it, all swingy to light blue states with Republican governors and legislatures. Hello President Walker.

 

[HylianTom]

This is true. Like you said if they only did it in one state it probably wouldn't change too much.

But imagine if Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada and Florida all did it, all swingy to light blue states with Republican governors and legislatures. Hello President Walker.

Yup.

And after 2000, I can't imagine the country getting into too much of an uproar over it, even if the Democrat wins each state and the country's popular vote handily. My expectations are pretty low in that department.

 

[Crisco]

They can't possibly be serious about having congressional hearings over this Gruber stuff.

That's all we're going to get for the next 2 years, brinksmanship and investigations into "scandals".

 

[Black Mamba]

This is true. Like you said if they only did it in one state it probably wouldn't change too much.

But imagine if Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada and Florida all did it, all swingy to light blue states with Republican governors and legislatures. Hello President Walker.

This will not happen.

Bernie Sanders will not be President.

This place is starting to go stir crazy....

 

[Jooney]

This place is starting to go stir crazy....

PoliGAF's midterm election PTSD.

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-12/will-florida-ever-be-a-battleground-again

Bloomberg looks at the changing demographics of Florida and why it's trending away from Republicans (in presidential years).

Given Rubio's very polarizing approval ratings, I doubt he would change much. Maybe Jeb?

 

[HylianTom]

The best I can find is this article from about a month ago, where Hillary and Jeb are essentially tied and Hillary leads Rubio pretty handily.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/st...ose-florida-2016-poll-marco-rubio-lags-behind

Hillary - 37
Jeb - 36

Hillary - 43
Marco - 35

If Jeb struggles to keep his home state against her, well, haha..

 

[ivysaur12]

The best I can find is this article from about a month ago, where Hillary and Jeb are essentially tied and Hillary leads Rubio pretty handily.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/st...ose-florida-2016-poll-marco-rubio-lags-behind

Hillary - 37
Jeb - 36

Hillary - 43
Marco - 35

If Jeb struggles to keep his home state against her, well, haha..

Jeb has also been out of the public eye for so long. I would imagine his favorables would drop as they naturally do when someone enters an election.

Basically, not great Bob.

 

[thepotatoman]

I tend not to diablos but I'm a little concerned about the GOP splitting up the electoral votes in states like Michigan, Florida etc. by congressional district.

Like oh boy, now we can gerrymander the fucking presidency too.

If I were a republican I'd do this. They've been pretty successful with every other terrible political maneuver they've done, being saddled with temporary unpopularity at worst.

It's not like Democrats are going to show up to vote in midterms no matter what you do, so might as well do it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This will not happen.

Bernie Sanders will not be President.

This place is starting to go stir crazy....

If splitting electoral vote by congressional districts somehow got Bernie Sanders to be president I might be ok with it

I don't really think this will happen. But I also didn't think Hagan would lose.

 

[Oblivion]

Oh happy day. The Republican boy genius is back with another one of his inane medicare shredding budgets.

Democrats need to hammer this shit pretty much every single day until the election.

I tend not to diablos but I'm a little concerned about the GOP splitting up the electoral votes in states like Michigan, Florida etc. by congressional district.

Like oh boy, now we can gerrymander the fucking presidency too.

Yeah, that's the main thing I'm worried about going into the next election. Dems need to start fearmongering this shit just like the GOP does. Run ads upon ads that say "REPUBLICANS ARE RIGGING THE PRESIDENCY BY TRYING TO MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT LESS!".

That Daily Show segment on the Colorado recalls was spot on. If you want people to come to vote, you have to make them angry. Angry people vote.

 

[RustyNails]

Bernie Sanders electoral college would look like John Kerry's 2004 map. He will lose all purple states.

 

[GaimeGuy]

This is true. Like you said if they only did it in one state it probably wouldn't change too much.

But imagine if Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada and Florida all did it, all swingy to light blue states with Republican governors and legislatures. Hello President Walker.

Or Minnesota. Solid Blue, but with 2 or 3 red districts. Gerrymandering the electoral college in MN would allow for the equivalent of swinging New Hampshire or Montana in any given election.

Edit: In fact, Romney would have won the presidency in 2012 under a CDM or CDP rule (winner of the popular vote in a congressional district gets that district's EC vote. in a CDM model, winner of the majority of the districts in the state gets the 2 at large state ECs. In CDP , winner of the state popular vote gets the 2 at large state ECs). This despite the fact that Obama had 5 million more votes than Romney did.

And in fact, the GOP had a 34 seat majority in the House after the 2012 elections, despite the fact that every house seat was up for election, and democrats received 1.5 million more votes than republican candidates. So we already see how gerrymandering screws this up

 

[Wilsongt]

Lol. The AG in SC is going to appeal the gay marriage ruling to the 4th circuit court. Good luck with that. Wasting tax payer money.

 

[thepotatoman]

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Man you really don't see much outright propaganda like that. Edit: it's usually more subtle than that is what I mean, at least what I've come across.

Color that appropriately and it would fit right in with wwII style propaganda

 

[thezerofire]

that doesn't look like Ted Cruz

 

[ivysaur12]

A few caveats:

-- Yes, I know that it may not be a public dissent even if Alito and Roberts did dissent.

-- Yes, I know that this isn't based on the merits of the case.

-- Yes, I know that they're going to lose anyway.

That all being said, I really wouldn't want to be on the anti-gay marriage side after this dissent:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-ends-stay-on-kansas-same-sex-marriage-order?utm_term=4ldqpia&bftw=pol

 

[Wilsongt]

A few caveats:

-- Yes, I know that it may not be a public dissent even if Alito and Roberts did dissent.

-- Yes, I know that this isn't based on the merits of the case.

-- Yes, I know that they're going to lose anyway.

That all being said, I really wouldn't want to be on the anti-gay marriage side after this dissent:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-ends-stay-on-kansas-same-sex-marriage-order?utm_term=4ldqpia&bftw=pol

What exactly is the big thing here?

 

[benjipwns]

that doesn't look like Ted Cruz

Looks more like Kahn Souphanousinphone.

 

[ivysaur12]

What exactly is the big thing here?

Who (publicly) dissented and who didn't.

 

[Wilsongt]

Who (publicly) dissented and who didn't.

Oooh. Possible 7-2 incoming?

 

[ivysaur12]

Oooh. Possible 7-2 incoming?

Even as I listed my caveats earlier, I would've expected Alito to dissent. Alito and Roberts also young and are going to be on the court longer than Scalia will (Thomas is young but I don't think he cares about any of this).

 

[benjipwns]

“In less than a year Jonathan Gruber has gone from being cited [by Obama administration supporters] as an outstanding expert on health reform modeling to being downplayed as ‘a private citizen’ who misspoke,” notes Breitbart.com’s John Sexton. The evidence Sexton cites is striking.

In March, a group of left-leaning “economics scholars,” including Gruber himself, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case of King v. Sebelius, then under consideration by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. (Last week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the case, now styled King v. Burwell.) The March brief appealed to Gruber’s authority:

Economist and MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber has developed a sophisticated economic model that allows for a robust prediction of outcomes in the health care system, depending on various policy changes. The Gruber Microsimulation Model (“GMSIM&#8221 utilizes two primary sets of data: (1) Fixed information on individuals, derived from 2011 Current Population Survey data and updated to 2013 and later years; and (2) varying information on policy parameters, which inform the changes in price and eligibility of various forms of insurance. . . . The GMSIM has been cited as one of the leading options for modeling health insurance reforms such as the ACA [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act].

...

in July, Gruber himself had asserted on multiple occasions that it was Congress’s intention to limit the subsidies to state-established exchanges. In that view, Congress’s intent was to make it so attractive to set up an exchange that no state would refuse.

Last week, the day before Election Day, 18 Democratic state attorneys general, led by Virginia’s Mark Herring, filed a brief with the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the full court should reverse the panel’s decision in Halbig. According to them, Gruber is no authority at all:

The best that Appellants and their amici come up with are YouTube videos of Professor Jonathan Gruber, a private citizen at non-governmental meetings in January 2012, years after the ACA was enacted. But Appellants fail to demonstrate that Professor Gruber’s message was disseminated to the State officials responsible for determining whether to build their own Exchange. In any event, Gruber later corrected himself, calling his earlier statements a mistake.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/o...e-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare/

Gruber, speaking on an October 2013 panel at the University of Pennsylvania. Said he:

This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in—you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. . . . Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. . . . Look, I wish Mark [another panelist] was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/11/y...are-architect-calling-americans-stupid-video/

brief clip in which Gruber asserts “that a part of the ObamaCare [law] passed because ‘the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.’ ” That was part of an October 2013 lecture at Washington University of St. Louis.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/11/g...-of-trying-to-confuse-people-about-obamacare/

Gruber appeared on WGBH-TV, the PBS station in Boston, where he had this to say about the Halbig and King cases: “I think this comes to the master strategy of the Republican Party, which is to confuse people enough about the law so that they don’t understand the subsidies they’re getting are because of the law.”

 

[Wilsongt]

Alaska called for the republicans.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/o...e-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare/


http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/11/y...are-architect-calling-americans-stupid-video/


http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/11/g...-of-trying-to-confuse-people-about-obamacare/

and?

 

[ivysaur12]

It looks like the Keystone pipeline is going to get approved so that Mary Landrieu can get reelected.

Uh.

 

[Averon]

It looks like the Keystone pipeline is going to get approved so that Mary Landrieu can get reelected.

Uh.

Democrats folding like a pair of cheap lawn chairs?

Surprise Surprise

Democrats have absolutely fallen back into their pre-Howard Dean habits. Capitulation. Shitty campaigning. Inability to rally behind a coherent message. Scared of their own shadow. Democrats have learned absolutely nothing over these past 8 years.

 

[ivysaur12]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/12/rand-paul-re-election-bid-highlights-hurdle-in-kentucky-law/

Why Rand Paul kicks and screams to try to find a way to run for both the Senate and presidency at the same time, Rubio says he will only do one, meaning that it's likely there will be an open seat in 2016 in Florida.

 

[benjipwns]

and?

QED ipso facto la petite mort

Might be looking at an 8-0 Supreme Court verdict. (With Kagan excusing herself.)

 

[Oblivion]

So net neutrality is fucked.

Another stellar agency pick by the Fuhrer.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Or Minnesota. Solid Blue, but with 2 or 3 red districts. Gerrymandering the electoral college in MN would allow for the equivalent of swinging New Hampshire or Montana in any given election.

Edit: In fact, Romney would have won the presidency in 2012 under a CDM or CDP rule (winner of the popular vote in a congressional district gets that district's EC vote. in a CDM model, winner of the majority of the districts in the state gets the 2 at large state ECs. In CDP , winner of the state popular vote gets the 2 at large state ECs). This despite the fact that Obama had 5 million more votes than Romney did.

And in fact, the GOP had a 34 seat majority in the House after the 2012 elections, despite the fact that every house seat was up for election, and democrats received 1.5 million more votes than republican candidates. So we already see how gerrymandering screws this up

Minnesota wouldn't do this - Democrats control the State Senate and hold the governor's mansion. Those other states all have GOP legislatures and governors, hence why they're in trouble.

Approving Keystone to save Landrieu seems kind of dumb when the DSCC isn't spending a cent on her. The GOP can just wait until they have both houses to pass it.

Hopefully SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage so we can have one liberal accomplishment to look forward to in the next twenty years.