Support NeoGAF

[Roland_Gunner]

I don't even want to link to it but the Weekly Standard front page story about Hillary Clinton being out second "affirmative action President" is completely disgusting. She's more qualified than most of the people who have been elected President.

Jonathan Chait has a great summary of it here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/clinton-obama-affirmative-action-presidents.html

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I don't even want to link to it but the Weekly Standard front page story about Hillary Clinton being out second "affirmative action President" is completely disgusting. She's more qualified than most of the people who have been elected President.

Jonathan Chait has a great summary of it here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/clinton-obama-affirmative-action-presidents.html

One of the guys I work for has a subscription to the WS. Can you believe they charge $100/year for that rag? I pick up his mail and I'll usually leave a snippy note about the headline on the cover.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You could easily make an argument that Obama wasn't qualified to be president, but the same can be argued about a variety of other presidents.

You could also argue that no one is truly ready to be president outside of a select few. Dwight Eisenhower is probably the only modern president who was truly qualified for what is one of the most demanding jobs in the world, if not the most.

 

[Crisco]

I find the concept of experience so silly when it comes to President. There's no job to prepare you for it, especially given the size and power of our federal government in 2016. Pretty much anyone who gets it is just trying to hang on for the ride and hope they don't fuck anything up too bad. You'd have to live for 300 years to amass all the knowledge and experience necessary to sit in that office and never once say "I have no idea wtf I'm doing".

All you can hope for is a President to be the smartest/most thoughtful person in the room and have honest intentions that aren't entirely self serving. Just finding those two traits in one person is hard enough. The last thing I want is someone who comes in thinking they already have all the answers.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Number of Southern Legislatures that are Democratic:

1993 - 27/28
1995 - 24/28
1997 - 22/28
1999 - 22/28
2001 - 20/28
2003 - 18/28
2005 - 15/28
2007 - 13/28
2009 - 15/28
2011 - 7/28
2013 - 3/28
2015 - 1/28

Number of overall legislatures held by Democrats:

1993 - 65/99
1995 - 46/99
1997 - 50/99
1999 - 51/99
2001 - 48/99
2003 - 44/99
2005 - 47/99
2007 - 56/99
2009 - 62/99
2011 - 38/99
2013 - 39/99
2014 - 30/99

Thanks Obama and Democratic Party. x(

 

[HyperionX]

Number of Southern Legislatures that are Democratic:

1993 - 27/28
1995 - 24/28
1997 - 22/28
1999 - 22/28
2001 - 20/28
2003 - 18/28
2005 - 15/28
2007 - 13/28
2009 - 15/28
2011 - 7/28
2013 - 3/28
2015 - 1/28

Number of overall legislatures held by Democrats:

1993 - 65/99
1995 - 46/99
1997 - 50/99
1999 - 51/99
2001 - 48/99
2003 - 44/99
2005 - 47/99
2007 - 56/99
2009 - 62/99
2011 - 38/99
2013 - 39/99
2014 - 30/99

Thanks Obama and Democratic Party. x(

Those weren't exactly liberal legislatures, despite being Democratic controlled.

 

[ivysaur12]

Terrible polls for the Democratic Senatorial candidates in PA

http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll-May-2015#ballots

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Terrible polls for the Democratic Senatorial candidates in PA

http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll-May-2015#ballots

Jesus. Toomey is a fucking nightmare here too...

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Terrible polls for the Democratic Senatorial candidates in PA

http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll-May-2015#ballots

Bad numbers but Harper Polling is GOP robo-poller so don't give up just yet:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/hotl...their-own-controversial-robopollster-20130913

 

[NeoXChaos]

Terrible polls for the Democratic Senatorial candidates in PA

http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll-May-2015#ballots

Junk. Tommey has to win over a 400,000+ vote deficit between Hillary and the eventual Republican nominee. Hillary will most likely carry the senate nominee in the end.

 

[Manmademan]

Junk. Tommey has to win over a 400,000+ vote deficit between Hillary and the eventual Republican nominee. Hillary will most likely carry the senate nominee in the end.

exactly this. polls are worthless since *unlikely* voters will be coming out of the woodwork, and none of the democratic voters will be splitting tickets for Toomey.

He's finished.

 

[Wilsongt]

So middle east leaders are pulling out of a Camp David summit.

Cue Fox News crowing with delight.

 

[Third Strike]

Those weren't exactly liberal legislatures, despite being Democratic controlled.

Yup, blue dog Democrats. My previous rep was one. Honestly, besides for strengthening Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, he was conservative on every other issue.

In some ways, I think this is a good thing. I really do think Democrats have a great opportunity to rebuild their party in the South. They need to stop pretending to be Republican-lite, and instead push more to the left.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Yup, blue dog Democrats. My previous rep was one. Honestly, besides for strengthening Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, he was conservative on every other issue.

In some ways, I think this is a good thing. I really do think Democrats have a great opportunity to rebuild their party in the South. They need to stop pretending to be Republican-lite, and instead push more to the left.

At the end of the day its going to take time for the bold to happen. Theoretically, a left leaning movement could reach the South and the question is ultimately going to be how long and probably how much money it would take to get it done or speed up the process. Same with the parties decimation in the Appalachian Region(KS, ND, SD, KY, WV, MT, OK etc)

 

[JesseEwiak]

At the end of the day its going to take time for the bold to happen. Theoretically, a left leaning movement could reach the South and the question is ultimately going to be how long and probably how much money it would take to get it done or speed up the process. Same with the parties decimation in the Appalachian Region(KS, ND, SD, KY, WV, MT, OK etc)

The Democratic Party will continue to be weak in the South among white voters as long as the Democratic party continues to care about non-white people.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The Democratic Party will continue to be weak in the South among white voters as long as the Democratic party continues to care about non-white people.

EDIT: Well they can win IA and NH just fine. The South is more diverse in certain states with a minority population that makes up as high as 32% of the population like MS. Northern and Southern whites have been vastly different for generations it seems.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

you guys get way to far ahead of yourselves

 

[AntoneM]

One tragic thing is that Democrats have lost farmers and regions that depend on farming based on values. If they voted on economic support, the great plains would largely be Democratic. Obama was right when he said:

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

 

[NeoXChaos]

One tragic thing is that Democrats have lost farmers and regions that depend on farming based on values. If they voted on economic support, the great plains would largely be Democratic. Obama was right when he said:

wouldn't winning the Appalachian, South and Great Plain states mean sacrificing the gains made in the coastal west and Northeast?

There has never been a period in the History of the U.S where the NE was conservative and the South was liberal.( I dont think) I dont much about the Great Plains and Appalachian or the West Cast but were they swing states at any point?

I remember that. It strikes me as accurate looking at it now. Those states are culturally conservative and rural. That's how Brownback won in KS. He ran on social religious issue.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

One tragic thing is that Democrats have lost farmers and regions that depend on farming based on values. If they voted on economic support, the great plains would largely be Democratic. Obama was right when he said:

farm subsidies are pretty bad economic policy. This isn't 1896 and the democratic party isn't the peoples party

There has never been a period in the History of the U.S where the NE was conservative and the South was liberal.( I dont think) I dont much about the Great Plains and Appalachian or the West Cast but were they swing states at any point?

how far back does your history of the US go? and what counts as liberal?

 

[Roland_Gunner]

wouldn't winning the Appalachian, South and Great Plain states mean sacrificing the gains made in the coastal west and Northeast?

There has never been a period in the History of the U.S where the NE was conservative and the South was liberal.( I dont think) I dont much about the Great Plains and Appalachian or the West Cast but were they swing states at any point?

Up until around Vietnam large part of the plains were at least populist, and in some cases fully liberal. George McGovern, the most anti-war senator and Presidential candidate was from South Dakota.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Well then, how does the progressive message spread to these culturally conservative change averse states despite the support in ballot initiatives of progressive policies?

If we keep electing Governors(Vitter) who wont support expanding Medicaid or minimum wage then what will it take for them to listen? Being defeated in a Presidential contest wont affect them since they control their state legislatures

The South, Plains and Appalachia states IMO cant afford more Brownbacks, Scotts, & Jindals of the world. For some, moving isnt an option.

 

[thepotatoman]

wouldn't winning the Appalachian, South and Great Plain states mean sacrificing the gains made in the coastal west and Northeast?

There has never been a period in the History of the U.S where the NE was conservative and the South was liberal.( I dont think) I dont much about the Great Plains and Appalachian or the West Cast but were they swing states at any point?

I remember that. It strikes me as accurate looking at it now. Those states are culturally conservative and rural. That's how Brownback won in KS. He ran on social religious issue.

Check out William Jennings Bryan vs McKinley in 1896 and 1900, and against Taft in 1908 or Adlai Stevenson vs Eisenhower in 1952 for examples of the liberal south taking on the conservative north.

Tariffs and race were always the two things that really separated the south from the north, and now that the tariff battle is over, race is where the main separation is. Part of that is from a culture of racism that dates back to slavery, with parents passing on stronger versions of racism to their children, and part of it is from the rural small town spread, making people rarely have to confront people from any other race.

Either way, you can't win the south without getting around the race problem. Unfortunately, it seems pretty difficult to separate progressive issues from race after Reagan and dog whistle politics attached the two so successfully, and it'd be even harder to go straight to addressing the issue of race there.

Republicans made their stand in the south, and I don't think they can be toppled until they relent and start radically changing their platform, or we wait until some serious demographic changes take place.

 

[Chichikov]

http://watchdog.org/217942/christie-nj-expense-account/

Christie’s most notable spending spree occurred during the 2010 and 2011 NFL football seasons at MetLife Stadium, where the New York’s Giants and Jets play their home games. New Jersey’s governor traditionally enjoys free use of luxury boxes for games and other events at the government-owned venue, but food and beverages cost extra.

On 58 occasions, Christie used a debit card to pay a total of $82,594 to Delaware North Sportservice, which operates the concessions at MetLife.

 

[User 406]

Republicans made their stand in the south, and I don't think they can be toppled until they relent and start radically changing their platform, or we wait until some serious demographic changes take place.

They won't relent, because there are simply too many white racist voters for that bloc to be safely ignored by both parties. It'll be demographics and the glacially slow erosion of racism, or nothing.

 

[NobleXenon]

Well then, how does the progressive message spread to these culturally conservative change averse states despite the support in ballot initiatives of progressive policies?

If we keep electing Governors(Vitter) who wont support expanding Medicaid or minimum wage then what will it take for them to listen? Being defeated in a Presidential contest wont affect them since they control their state legislatures

The South, Plains and Appalachia states IMO cant afford more Brownbacks, Scotts, & Jindals of the world. For some, moving isnt an option.

How much damage would be done to Red States if the Feds were to overhaul Welfare (that includes farm subsidies too), Medicare, Education, etc funding in favor of a system were each X dollar the state invests in its people, the feds would put in Y amount dollars.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Check out William Jennings Bryan vs McKinley in 1896 and 1900, and against Taft in 1908 or Adlai Stevenson vs Eisenhower in 1952 for examples of the liberal south taking on the conservative north.

Tariffs and race were always the two things that really separated the south from the north, and now that the tariff battle is over, race is where the main separation is. Part of that is from a culture of racism that dates back to slavery, with parents passing on stronger versions of racism to their children, and part of it is from the rural small town spread, making people rarely have to confront people from any other race.

Either way, you can't win the south without getting around the race problem. Unfortunately, it seems pretty difficult to separate progressive issues from race after Reagan and dog whistle politics attached the two so successfully, and it'd be even harder to go straight to addressing the issue of race there.

Republicans made their stand in the south, and I don't think they can be toppled until they relent and start radically changing their platform, or we wait until some serious demographic changes take place.

and we are only 2 generations removed from Jim Crow and Civil Rights so would it make sense for strong resentment to still exit and be passed on to the current generation. The well sadly is still poisoned and it isn't just the South anymore in this country. Kansas is taking a beating and they still voted him back in.

A white person born in 1960 in MA would have a radially different upbringing than one born in MS in 1960. Their perception on race I suppose would be different too.

That also would explain the disparity of being white in economic peril but voting against policies that would be beneficial for them.

I am interest in knowing: Can someone who grew up in the North and one from the South mind sharing how racism/slavery/Jim crow was taught to them? I have suspicion that both sides will differ heavily on how its viewed.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I am interest in knowing: Can someone who grew up in the North and one from the South mind sharing how racism/slavery/Jim crow was taught to them? I have suspicion that both sides will differ heavily on how its viewed.

I actually went to high school in both, it just depends on where you are in the south. I grew up in a relatively large town for South Carolina, and education on the subject of slavery/jim crow etc. was identical to what I got in my later high school years after I went off to boarding school in Pennsylvania.

If you go a county or two over to some of the more impoverished white areas, I imagine it might not be as thorough of an education. They probably don't get as thorough of an education in any other subject either, mind you. Public ed in the south is almost universally trash.

Although I will say that my boarding school pushed the "the war wasn't just about slavery" narrative even harder than the southern school.

 

[RustyNails]

Can we start a "white people celebrating" thread?

 

[Chichikov]

Can we start a "white people celebrating" thread?

Yes we can!

 

[PhoenixDark]

That gif pisses me off so much. Bullshit call by the refs but ultimately we can't blame anyone but ourselves for losing that game. Horrible offense...

 

[Chichikov]

That gif pisses me off so much. Bullshit call by the refs but ultimately we can't blame anyone but ourselves for losing that game. Horrible offense...

Fuck that playoffs, it was the transitive curse of the Lions.
Like, you guys lost in a heartbreaking fashion to the Cowboys.
Who lost in an even more heartbreaking fashion to the Packers*.
Who lost in an even more heartbreaking fashion to the Seahawks.
Who lost in the mostest heartbreaking fashion to the fucking New England Cheaters.

The lesson here is that fuck everything.

* theoretically at least, no one gives a fuck about the cowboys.

 

[thepotatoman]

They won't relent, because there are simply too many white racist voters for that bloc to be safely ignored by both parties. It'll be demographics and the glacially slow erosion of racism, or nothing.

They might already be in a situation where they can no longer win national elections while still pandering to the south the way they are, but I guess they might be ok with that.

 

[pigeon]

They might already be in a situation where they can no longer win national elections while still pandering to the south the way they are, but I guess they might be ok with that.

I can think of no better demonstration of the ascendance of the Democratic Party, and of the votes of people of color, than to note that the primary issues under discussion this election season are criminal justice reform and immigration reform.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Oh, that explains it...

Ex-Bush Aide: Jeb Told Me He Misheard Question About Invading Iraq

"I emailed him this morning and I said to him, 'Hey, I'm a little confused by this answer so I'm genuinely wondering did you mishear the question?'" Navarro said. "And he said, 'Yes, I misheard the question.'"

On Tuesday morning, Navarro she wasn't sure whether he would clarify the answer.

Fellow guest and Democratic strategist Paul Begala chimed in after Navarro's answer.

"I didn't know he had a hearing impairment and we pray for his swift recovery," Begala said.

 

[CygnusXS]

Nate Silver starts up the "DEAD HEAT" machine early.

This article is the height of relying on quantitative arguments with no appreciation for the qualitative ones.

 

[Ecotic]

Well Megyn Kelly asked 'knowing what we know now', and Jeb gave a 'knowing what we knew at the time' answer.

I doubt he misheard as much as he didn't hear at all. Candidates often just hear "Iraq", "Iran", "Obamacare", and such and instantly zone out during the rest of the sentence while they get their prepared answer ready.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It would have looked pretty red. A 3.9-point Romney victory represents a 7.8-point swing from the actual result. So if the swing were distributed uniformly, Obama would have lost every state that he won by 7.8 percentage points or less. That means he’d have lost three “blue wall” states — Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — along with Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia.

Are you serious? Even Reagan couldnt win Minnesota both times and he won by almost 20pts nationally in 1984.

But this cuts both ways. If Obama had won by Reagan’s 1984 margin, Republicans would still have won Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah, Nebraska,4 West Virginia, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming — for 136 electoral votes. Neither party’s slate is close to a majority, however, and they mostly offset each other. (In the chart below, I’ve run this calculation for all possible outcomes, up to a 30-point win for either party.)

That polarization lol. Only by winning 30+pts does the rest fall.

I’m not saying Clinton is doomed. Rather, I think the “fundamentals” point toward her chances being about 50-50, and I wouldn’t argue vigorously if you claimed the chances were more like 60-40 in one or the other direction. But Clinton is no sort of lock, and if she loses the popular vote by even a few percentage points, the “blue wall” will seem as archaic as talk of a permanent Republican majority.

Okay Nate. Thank you for admitting it.

 

[Wilsongt]

Buck it.

President Obama spoke at a poverty forum at Georgetown University earlier today and took a swipe at Fox News for, as he put it, perpetuating certain stereotypes about poor people. The president addressed media efforts to “suggest the poor are sponges, leeches,” and that they’re “lazy” and undeserving.”

“If you watch Fox News on a regular basis,” Obama said, “it is a constant menu––they will find folks who make me mad, I don’t know where they find them.”

He’s referring to the “I just want a free Obamaphone” stuff that adds to a narrative, the president lamented, that needs to change, because that affects “people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy.”

 

[Manmademan]

Okay Nate. Thank you for admitting it.

yeah ok. Let's ignore that the popular vote is only "close" due to republicans drastically overperforming in bible belt states, winning places like Arkansas and Oklahoma by 20+ points.

Democrats take blue and purple states by much closer margins, but it is a LOT harder to move the needle in somewhere like pennsylvania than it is to continue to pander to assholes in west virginia and rack up another 8% in the red state column. The popular vote percentage is literally irrelevant because of this. It's not that hard to come up with a scenario where she loses the popular vote but still wins in a landslide. it's electoral vote count, period, and that's an insurmountable task for republicans right now.

Saying hillary has only a "50-50" or "60-40" shot at winning the presidency is simply dishonest. It would take a massive scandal to derail that train, and hillary isn't likely to end up in bed with any interns.

 

[Abinash117]

The trade deal failed for now. It seems Reid and other democrats want some other bills first before voting for the trade deal.

It might pass later though . Republicans and Obama will probably have to make a deal with the Democrats.

 

[thepotatoman]

Nate Silver starts up the "DEAD HEAT" machine early.

This article is the height of relying on quantitative arguments with no appreciation for the qualitative ones.

He's right about the blue wall. It wouldn't have been that hard for Romney to win all the swing states if he got the national popular vote to go his way by just 1 or 2 points. However, Hillary doing comparatively strong in just one swing state, like Ohio, would make a pretty strong blue wall. We'll probably have to wait until after the primaries to determine if that's the situation we're looking at.

It's his "Clinton Begins The 2016 Campaign, And It’s A Toss-up" article that's crazy, saying "Jeb Bush’s positions might be just moderate enough to give Republicans a slight advantage next November". I guess anything "might" happen, but he needs to build a better case for why before throwing that out there.

It's too early to evaluate the polls, too early to evaluate the economy, too early to evaluate the candidates, and too early to evaluate the electoral map. The only signal that's not too early is Obama's approval ratings, which aren't extreme enough in either direction to make a prediction off of. That article might as well had been "Clinton Begins The 2016 Campaign, And It’s Too Early To Predict Anything", but I guess that headline wouldn't get many clicks.

I might agree with it being too early to strongly predict anything, but I don't know if I'd say "too early to predict" equals a 50/50 chance.

The trade deal failed for now. It seems Reid and other democrats want some other bills first before voting for the trade deal.

It might pass later though . Republicans and Obama will probably have to make a deal with the Democrats.

The further into the election we get, the more likely Republicans will feel forced to take a stand against it. It's not like Cruz, Rubio, and Paul would be happy to be seen voting for the obamacare of trade deals in the middle of primary season.

 

[Grexeno]

The Bernie Sanders thread in OT reminds us that a lot of liberals are very short-sighted and have a distinct lack of self-awareness.

 

[PhoenixDark]

https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/598211702224728064/photo/1

Hmmm indeed. I've been trying to figure out Obama's pathetic behavior on TPP. Disagreeing with your party is one thing but Obama has taken it beyond that with his attacks on Warren. I can't tell if this is some attempt to make him look bipartisan/above the fray ("he's taking on extremists in his own party"), or if it's just him being thin skinned. Or maybe it's him trolling Warren into a presidential run.

BTW lol @ Hillary having nothing to say about this issue at all. What leadership.

 

[Coriolanus]

The Bernie Sanders thread in OT reminds us that a lot of liberals are very short-sighted and have a distinct lack of self-awareness.

Hope and change, mate.

 

[Abinash117]

He's right about the blue wall. It wouldn't have been that hard for Romney to win all the swing states if he got the national popular vote to go his way by just 1 or 2 points. However, Hillary doing comparatively strong in just one swing state, like Ohio, would make a pretty strong blue wall. We'll probably have to wait until after the primaries to determine if that's the situation we're looking at.

It's his "Clinton Begins The 2016 Campaign, And It’s A Toss-up" article that's crazy, saying "Jeb Bush’s positions might be just moderate enough to give Republicans a slight advantage next November". I guess anything "might" happen, but he needs to build a better case for why before throwing that out there.

It's too early to evaluate the polls, too early to evaluate the economy, too early to evaluate the candidates, and too early to evaluate the electoral map. The only signal that's not too early is Obama's approval ratings, which aren't extreme enough in either direction to make a prediction off of. That article might as well had been "Clinton Begins The 2016 Campaign, And It’s Too Early To Predict Anything", but I guess that headline wouldn't get many clicks.

I might agree with it being too early to strongly predict anything, but I don't know if I'd say "too early to predict" equals a 50/50 chance.



The further into the election we get, the more likely Republicans will feel forced to take a stand against it. It's not like Cruz, Rubio, and Paul would be happy to be seen voting for the obamacare of trade deals in the middle of primary season.

I extremely doubt that this something that will happen. It is very important and they still vote for something that many Americans are against. That goes with both parties. Also Dems want something out of this if a deal is done between Reps and them, then it is going to pass most likely. McConnell voted against it, apparently so he can bring it up again.

 

[Yellowtail]

Nate Silver also said the chance of Obama's reelection was 50-50 back in 2011. He's good at averaging polls but when he veers outside that area of expertise that he often becomes as bad as the beltway pundits he claims to hate.

The Bernie Sanders thread in OT reminds us that a lot of liberals are very short-sighted and have a distinct lack of self-awareness.

Not as bad as the Reddit Sanderistas who were considering yesterday whether Bernie could swing a Papal endorsement because wealth inequality.

 

[Coriolanus]

Not as bad as the Reddit Sanderistas who were considering yesterday whether Bernie could swing a Papal endorsement because wealth inequality.

You can't say stuff like that without also providing a link. Don't be cruel, man.

 

[Yellowtail]

You can't say stuff like that without also providing a link. Don't be cruel, man.

http://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForP...ould_bernie_sanders_be_supported_by_the_pope/

My favorite exchange in a thread chain somewhere was a guy who had worked on the McGovern and Mondale campaigns and was trying to urge realism, and a Sanders' supporter responded "Idk who they are. Did the media ignore them too? This will be different!"

lol youth.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The Bernie Sanders thread in OT reminds us that a lot of liberals are very short-sighted and have a distinct lack of self-awareness.

But you gotta gotta give them props for having the passion behind their candidate. I venture to say most Democrats who support Hillary do so with winning in mind. Not to say Hillary dose not have her passionate supporters. The internet can be skewed in reaction I suppose