-
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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Didn't he already announce?
BertramCooper
Banned
He's clearly running, but I still don't know why he's so determined to enter this particular presidential race. He's only 62. He can certainly afford to wait another four years.
This election is probably his last chance to run and possibly win before demographics and the electoral college further sinks his party into presidential oblivion for the foreseeable future.
The problem for him is he will be facing a likely candidate in the general who has the chance to make history, electoral college/demographics advantage and has a last name that is remembered more fondly compared to his own.
If he does get the nomination and ultimately loses, his last name will probably be his downfall. The Hillary team will take him serious as they should with him or any other nominee but I am confident that his advantages will not be enough to overcome her advantages.
I don't think he can officially announce until he hands over his superpac to another person.
rip to Beau Biden, I was reading through an article earlier about it on Huffington Post and I started tearing up even though I don't personally know the Bidens. They seem like really good people though and it's such a tragedy.
His sell-by date wouldn't last another 4 years. He's been out of office long enough already, 8.5 years. That's pushing it as it is. By 2020 he'd have been written off definitively as old news.
BertramCooper
Banned
I dunno. If Newt Gingrich can run a semi-legitimate campaign in 2012, I think Jeb can run a fully viable campaign in 2020.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Yeah but from his standpoint in 2020 you have one of two things:
1. A Republican wins, so game over there until 2024 and he'll be completely out of the picture by then.
2. Hillary wins. As we saw in the last election beating an incumbent is incredibly hard unless the country is in the middle of a recession or an unpopular war. So he's basically betting on one of those two things.
So realistically this is it for someone like Jeb or Huckabee.
Rhomega Beta
Member
I'm getting annoyed by the assertion that every looter and violent protester is a liberal, and that conservatives are perfect angels that never cross the line.
1972, right after he first won election to the US Senate. His wife and daughter died in the car accident while his two sons survived. They had to swear him in while he was still with his kids in the hospital.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Hahaha. I shouldn't laugh but it still blows my mind how they didn't even try to be fair in how they were reporting people trying to SURVIVE. Nor did they care to hide how biased they were in their reporting.
Black people loot things, white people find things.
For fuck's sake, even the police were looting.
Oh right, I forgot Biden re-married. I thought they were referring to his current wife.
Black people loot things, white people find things.
This picture is ancient now, and it's always bothered me for its intellectual slovenness. It's from two different sources! You need a 1:1 comparison. For all we know the AP was consistent across race in its use of 'looting' and the AFP was consistent in its use of 'finding'.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You're right that it's a little misleading, but there's definitely more benefit of the doubt given to white people over minorities in the media.
White guy shoots up a school and "the big conversation" starts being about mental illness. Black guy gets shot by a cop and everyone starts making excuses for the cop.
When it comes to something like Hurricane Katrina the reporting is front and center for WEEKS. Just because it wasn't AP doesn't mean that you can't come to a conclusion that the reporting was biased. A lot of the TV reporting was absurd as well. The whole thing was fucked up.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Inevitable like Pat Buchanan. 😂
There is no next time. His party will be further in the hole by 2020. He would also have to contend with those who lose this time around in 2016. Bush certainly has an ego but not that big of one.
The idea that Bush is the inevitable one is pretty mind boggling. This is who the establishment republicans are banking on? Another Bush? They expect America to welcome him with open arms?
The money people yes but privately the establishment? I'm so sure. Privately some of them would rather have a fresh face like Rubio. Some of them I suppose really do believe Jeb can beat Hillary despite his last name. I suppose they think her baggage outweighs his baggage and he can successfully run away from the Bush name. Common private arguments boil down to "He isnt his brother, America will see him differently" "Once they get to know him"
Btw, what happened to our good Republican friend Benji?
Coriolanus
Banned
Chich, that post looked so much like something benj would've written that i had to do a double take. kudos.
Benji ain't republican. Got baleeted over what i assume was his armenian genocide discussion with piecake or some other reason. Could pm a mod to find out exactly why and how long it'll last.
Then again, he had been juniored, if memory serves.
Yellowtail
Member
RIP Beau. So so awful
And P is Hispanic so that will obviously counter demographic trends. It's almost as if the Bushes had a long term gameplan to stay in power forever.
You're all forgetting another big reason Jeb isn't delaying - George P! He'll run for Texas governor in the next few years, and the Republican nomination will be his for the taking in 2028 or 2032. Jeb's got to leave that 8 year gap between the Bush presidencies just like his father and brother.
And P is Hispanic so that will obviously counter demographic trends. It's almost as if the Bushes had a long term gameplan to stay in power forever.
RIP Beau. So so awful
You're all forgetting another big reason Jeb isn't delaying - George P! He'll run for Texas governor in the next few years, and the Republican nomination will be his for the taking in 2028 or 2032. Jeb's got to leave that 8 year gap between the Bush presidencies just like his father and brother.
And P is Hispanic so that will obviously counter demographic trends. It's almost as if the Bushes had a long term gameplan to stay in power forever.
I have no doubt George P will be around if his father fails. We haven't gone a decade without a Bush running for something since 1980. We will probably be stuck with them and the Clinton's for most of our lives.
If Clinton or Bush wins two terms, we will have gone 40 out of 44 years with one of them in the WH(Clinton as SoS) with Obama as a placeholder.
Our children will look back and wonder if 1980 was the start of a dynasty.
Clinton-Bush era 1980-2013
Federal positions
George H. W. Bush - Vice President (1981-1989), President (1989-1993)
Bill Clinton - President (1993-2001)
George W. Bush - President (2001-2009)
Hillary Clinton - U.S. Senator (2001-2009), U.S. Secretary of State (2009-2013)
Non-federal positions
Bill Clinton - Governor of Arkansas (1979-1981, 1983-1992)
George W. Bush - Governor of Texas (1995-2000)
Jeb Bush - Governor of Florida (1999-2007), Florida Secretary of Commerce (1987-1988)
2015-Present
George P. Bush - Texas Land Commissioner (2015-Present)
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Where is benji?
He ate a ban a while back and hasn't been seen since. I dunno if it was a perm, but I was hoping he'd be back.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Sorry to be responding a few days late, fellows. Brawndo Addict, I'll begin with your last response to me, since it is so confused (and confusing).
You correctly note that the term "at least" denotes "a minimum that can go up in size." (I'd quibble over your word choice here, but I see no benefit in arguing over how you said something when I can clearly understand what it is that you've said. This rule not only saves space but also preserves me from looking like a total dickbag--er, that's "scrotum" in common parlance. Oh, and does this parenthetical follow your style guide?) From there you proceed immediately to forget the definition you just enunciated--presumably because you realized that's how I used the term--and point to other things I "perhaps . . . meant." Nope. I meant the first thing. (In case (or, if you're still in the mood for choose-your-own-inappropriate-replacement-phrase, at least/insofar as it applies to/at most--and what does your style guide say about parentheses-within-parentheses, btw?) you're still confused, the "minimum" was "elections to governmental bodies with members apportioned by population" and the "can go up in size" (style-guide thoughts on using that phrase as a noun?) would be, by process of elimination, "other elections.")
Inexplicably assuming that I must have meant "at most" or "insofar as it applies to," you next accuse me of mistakenly segregating the phrase that correctly began with "at least" from the rest of the sentence by means of parentheses. Given that you conditioned the validity of this accusation on the truth of your inexplicable assumption, I see no need to address it further, since the condition failed.
Your concluding assumption wasn't an assumption. You simply read what I said and comprehended it. Congratulations, I guess. (Well, kind of. My use of "at least" conflicts with your use of "only," and you've completely ignored the beginning of the sentence, where I said "I . . . thought . . . we c[ould] all agree that...." (ending a quotation with ellipses isn't going to earn me another lecture on punctuation and its Brawndo-Addict-approved uses, is it?))
I don't understand your complaint here. Well, I do, but what I understand you to mean can't possibly support a complaint, so I can't accept that I'm right about it. It seems to me that you're complaining that my conclusion necessarily follows and is true. It's as if I said, "If X, then Y," and you said, "Of course Y if X! But Q if P! Illusion of choice!" (And I'm not sure where this "illusion of choice" garbage is coming from. I left ample room for people to disagree with my conclusion. Black Mamba, for instance, rejects the idea that each vote should carry the same electoral power. But, in any event, that a conclusion necessarily follows from given premises is not a valid basis for criticism.)
This complaint ignores the context in which this challenge was brought. The plaintiffs in this case are not arguing that requiring states to equalize voting populations is a nice idea or in furtherance of some foundational principle unembodied in law. They're arguing that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution mandates such equalization. So there's no reason to ask, "BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH SENATE?!!1! CHECKMATE REPULBICANS!" because under no interpretation of the Constitution could one legitimately argue that the Senate must be apportioned by population rather than by the two-senators-per-state rule.
Your final sentence merely restates the question raised by this case: is "One Person, One Vote" the constitutional principle when it comes to divvying up population into districts, or is it only a principle that exists in tension with, and can be overcome by, other principles (such as representational equality)?
I don't see anyone--honest or otherwise--suggesting "that there is latent ambiguity regarding whether person means an eligible voter." "Person" is clearly broader than "voter" or "citizen," and no, there is no ambiguity between "citizen" and "person," either. So, we might either view this as another pre-existing structural exception to the OPOV rule, or we might recognize that apportioning representatives among the states is a separate process from establishing districts within states; and, in any event, we might argue (as the Evenwel plaintiffs do) that the duty to equalize voter populations exists at least (most/insofar/Toledo/whatever) when states can equalize both total populations and voter populations among districts.
In short, the text of the Constitution doesn't answer this question.
I'm rethinking my earlier congratulations. For starters, I never said what you quote me as saying ("The issue is not the different ways" etc.). Second, the "different governments" and "different populations" I referred to are actual "different governments" and actual "different populations." The population subject to government by the City of Dallas at any given time is completely different the population subject to government by the City of Muleshoe at that time, and the governments of those cities are also completely different. However, those living in Dallas are no more nor less subject to the authority of the Texas Legislature than are those living in Muleshoe. In this regard, it is the same government and the same population.
With all the effort you've put into not understanding, I can't say this outcome surprises me. You accused me of begging the question by appending "population" parenthetically to the stated principle. I didn't beg the question, but to accommodate your confusion I offered to remove it. You complain now that the principle doesn't apply across the board (a point that had been addressed by the parenthetical I generously removed). Fine. It doesn't.
But, and this is the heart of this controversy, when it does apply, does it mean that voter populations must be equalized among districts? Every other topic you've raised--the Senate, municipalities, the phrase "at least," the proper usage of parentheticals, and all the rest--are red herrings.
If the Court is to enforce both, then the plaintiffs win.
This is just a question of evidence, though. Either a plaintiff can produce reliable and persuasive evidence to make his case that the OPOV rule has been violated, or he can't. If the former, he wins; if the latter, he loses. But, unless it is literally impossible to reliably calculate the number of eligible voters in a locale--which I highly doubt--then there's no reason to decide whether OPOV is the governing rule based on evidentiary issues. That'd be like saying, "Gosh, it's really hard to prove that a person was fired because of her sex. You know what, it's no longer illegal to discriminate based on sex in employment decisions!"
You correctly note that the term "at least" denotes "a minimum that can go up in size." (I'd quibble over your word choice here, but I see no benefit in arguing over how you said something when I can clearly understand what it is that you've said. This rule not only saves space but also preserves me from looking like a total dickbag--er, that's "scrotum" in common parlance. Oh, and does this parenthetical follow your style guide?) From there you proceed immediately to forget the definition you just enunciated--presumably because you realized that's how I used the term--and point to other things I "perhaps . . . meant." Nope. I meant the first thing. (In case (or, if you're still in the mood for choose-your-own-inappropriate-replacement-phrase, at least/insofar as it applies to/at most--and what does your style guide say about parentheses-within-parentheses, btw?) you're still confused, the "minimum" was "elections to governmental bodies with members apportioned by population" and the "can go up in size" (style-guide thoughts on using that phrase as a noun?) would be, by process of elimination, "other elections.")
Inexplicably assuming that I must have meant "at most" or "insofar as it applies to," you next accuse me of mistakenly segregating the phrase that correctly began with "at least" from the rest of the sentence by means of parentheses. Given that you conditioned the validity of this accusation on the truth of your inexplicable assumption, I see no need to address it further, since the condition failed.
Your concluding assumption wasn't an assumption. You simply read what I said and comprehended it. Congratulations, I guess. (Well, kind of. My use of "at least" conflicts with your use of "only," and you've completely ignored the beginning of the sentence, where I said "I . . . thought . . . we c[ould] all agree that...." (ending a quotation with ellipses isn't going to earn me another lecture on punctuation and its Brawndo-Addict-approved uses, is it?))
I don't understand your complaint here. Well, I do, but what I understand you to mean can't possibly support a complaint, so I can't accept that I'm right about it. It seems to me that you're complaining that my conclusion necessarily follows and is true. It's as if I said, "If X, then Y," and you said, "Of course Y if X! But Q if P! Illusion of choice!" (And I'm not sure where this "illusion of choice" garbage is coming from. I left ample room for people to disagree with my conclusion. Black Mamba, for instance, rejects the idea that each vote should carry the same electoral power. But, in any event, that a conclusion necessarily follows from given premises is not a valid basis for criticism.)
This complaint ignores the context in which this challenge was brought. The plaintiffs in this case are not arguing that requiring states to equalize voting populations is a nice idea or in furtherance of some foundational principle unembodied in law. They're arguing that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution mandates such equalization. So there's no reason to ask, "BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH SENATE?!!1! CHECKMATE REPULBICANS!" because under no interpretation of the Constitution could one legitimately argue that the Senate must be apportioned by population rather than by the two-senators-per-state rule.
Your final sentence merely restates the question raised by this case: is "One Person, One Vote" the constitutional principle when it comes to divvying up population into districts, or is it only a principle that exists in tension with, and can be overcome by, other principles (such as representational equality)?
I don't see anyone--honest or otherwise--suggesting "that there is latent ambiguity regarding whether person means an eligible voter." "Person" is clearly broader than "voter" or "citizen," and no, there is no ambiguity between "citizen" and "person," either. So, we might either view this as another pre-existing structural exception to the OPOV rule, or we might recognize that apportioning representatives among the states is a separate process from establishing districts within states; and, in any event, we might argue (as the Evenwel plaintiffs do) that the duty to equalize voter populations exists at least (most/insofar/Toledo/whatever) when states can equalize both total populations and voter populations among districts.
In short, the text of the Constitution doesn't answer this question.
I'm rethinking my earlier congratulations. For starters, I never said what you quote me as saying ("The issue is not the different ways" etc.). Second, the "different governments" and "different populations" I referred to are actual "different governments" and actual "different populations." The population subject to government by the City of Dallas at any given time is completely different the population subject to government by the City of Muleshoe at that time, and the governments of those cities are also completely different. However, those living in Dallas are no more nor less subject to the authority of the Texas Legislature than are those living in Muleshoe. In this regard, it is the same government and the same population.
With all the effort you've put into not understanding, I can't say this outcome surprises me. You accused me of begging the question by appending "population" parenthetically to the stated principle. I didn't beg the question, but to accommodate your confusion I offered to remove it. You complain now that the principle doesn't apply across the board (a point that had been addressed by the parenthetical I generously removed). Fine. It doesn't.
But, and this is the heart of this controversy, when it does apply, does it mean that voter populations must be equalized among districts? Every other topic you've raised--the Senate, municipalities, the phrase "at least," the proper usage of parentheticals, and all the rest--are red herrings.
If the Court is to enforce both, then the plaintiffs win.
This is just a question of evidence, though. Either a plaintiff can produce reliable and persuasive evidence to make his case that the OPOV rule has been violated, or he can't. If the former, he wins; if the latter, he loses. But, unless it is literally impossible to reliably calculate the number of eligible voters in a locale--which I highly doubt--then there's no reason to decide whether OPOV is the governing rule based on evidentiary issues. That'd be like saying, "Gosh, it's really hard to prove that a person was fired because of her sex. You know what, it's no longer illegal to discriminate based on sex in employment decisions!"
makingmusic476
Member
What's the consensus on O'Malley? This article from the Daily Beast paints him in a pretty positive light, but I'm pretty sure I've read some pretty negative things about him from Marylandians on here in the past.
Coriolanus
Banned
Jacobin did a pretty good job of ripping him a new one.
---
legit surprised with all the old people that came for bernie. Damn thing looks like a republican convention.
Yellowtail
Member
This is another good article: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/martin-omalley/bs-md-rodricks-0531-20150530-column.html
He's essentially a centrist DLCer who has positioned himself as a progressive populist out of political opportunism. He's Edwards 2.0. Except this time leftists have a genuine firebrand to rally behind.
They'll support him because he looks older than they are
He's by far my favorite alt account.
He's going nowhere. His policies as mayor directly contributed to how fucked up Baltimore police are. With inequality in the justice system seemingly being a theme for at least the democratic primary, if not the general, there's no way O'Malley gains any traction. Especially since there's no reason for someone uncomfortable with Clinton from the left to go for a blatant opportunist like him with Bernie in the race.
makingmusic476
Member
Thanks guys, great reads.
---
So Hillary Clinton seems interested in rebuilding the national Democratic party infrastructure, but wouldn't the cyclical nature of the last few elections suggest that midterm results are more an issue of demographics than infrastructure?
I know here in Louisiana the statewide Democratic infrastructure is in shambles due to a lack of local support, thanks to demographics and an inability to win in most districts regardless of support, but I'd imagine Republican parties in Democratic controlled states are in a similar situation, and that this is ultimately a systemic exacerbation of problems caused by the state's demographics.
I mean, I think we need to be vigilant in maintaining a strong party infrastructure nationally, but I think consistently pointing to infrastructure as the solution to the party's electoral problems is misguided.
Great to see another fellow Louisianan like myself and Tom.
Republicans are just as dead in Delaware and California as Democrats are in Kansas and in Alabama. Turnout is partly the reason and demographics as well as polarization. Republicans and Democrats can win in each others turfs but that is becoming the exceptions and not the rules. See MD and MA governorship in 2014 as an example.
Vitter is going to cruise into the Governor's Mansion if he faces Edwards this fall. 25 years ago it would be the opposite. The national and state parties aren't separate anymore like they once were. Whites atleast in the south and the great plains (SD, ND etc) have defected from the Democratic party in droves. The Obama coalition simply does not exist in great numbers in these states to counter the loss among whites and it will take probably years before minorities can outnumber whites enough to change the south from red back to blue IF they stay democratic.
I hope I answered your question. >.<
Black Mamba
Member
this isn't completely accurate, because the remedy matters, too. If the Court has no remedy, that the plaintiffs are right is really moot. And that is possible in this type of case.
Late, but so sad about Joe's son.
makingmusic476
Member
I think you described the current situation quite well, but my point of interest was that a number of party leaders, like Clinton, are pointing to infrastructure as the cause of losses as opposed to demographics. Demographics are, in my mind (and apparently yours), the cause of the infrastructure problems Clinton et al. intend to address, so simply "rebuilding the party infrastructure" isn't a feasible solution to the problem.
Also, yup, New Orleanian here!
I've been thinking about making a New Orleans thread that could be a kinda catchall for local politics, state level politics, and a place for tourists, etc. to ask questions. Would you, HylianTom, or anyone else be interested?
I've been itching for people to talk to about all the crap going on with the University Medical Center, for instance.
Infrastructure is certainly a start but it wont solve all the Democrat's problems. I do however believe that the lack of investment in these states prevents the Democrats from one day becoming competitive in them Kansas isnt going blue again for who knows how long but it does not hurt to invest money in it for the long term. Georgia has enough voters to make the state go blue but the problem is having enough resources to turn those voters out and in big numbers to counteract the more rural and conservative parts of the state. It can be done though.
Idk. There are so many LouisianaGAF on this board that it may be time to do a meetup sometime next year in 2016 though. As for the thread thing, that's up to you. Hurry before Jindal closes that too.
makingmusic476
Member
There was a southern gaf meet up proposed with New Orleans as a potential location way back in 2012, but it never got off the ground.
There seemed to be a decent amount of interest in having it in New Orleans then, and I'm sure there's more of us now.
And lol @ the bolded.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I still think you're describing an evidentiary issue. The remedy is obvious: the state would have to redraw its districts so as to equalize voter populations. So long as the plaintiffs have the evidence to show distorted voting strength, they have the evidence to guide the redistricting effort.
Also, I think I'm going to use my newly free metadata to call everyone ever all day tomorrow.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
So the Patriot Act is currently dead. Feels weird when 10 years ago this was practically the biggest issue to me and many other internet users.
A little bit harder to care now that the balance between national security and civil liberties no longer seems to be as big of a deal as it once was, but it's still great regardless.
A little bit harder to care now that the balance between national security and civil liberties no longer seems to be as big of a deal as it once was, but it's still great regardless.
Coriolanus
Banned
Seriously? Given how terrible that governor is, one would think it wouldn't be THAT hard to come up with a viable alternative.
I'd probably make a New Orleans thread my next constantly-open tab. There's never a shortage of drama or events in this town.
---
Edit: JUNE!
Supreme Court decisions ahoy!
BertramCooper
Banned
It's almost like old people prefer a government that provides an ample safety net.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Man is it just me or does the news media really want Jeb to be the GOP nominee? There was a story on politico that said something like "It's gonna be Jeb vs. Hillary, deal with it"
He did just propose to raise the retirement age of social security which makes him Very Serious
He did just propose to raise the retirement age of social security which makes him Very Serious
They can feel the DEAD HEAT in their bones and they crave it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked