Clinton is polling over 70% with African Americans, over 60% with liberals, women, and seniors, and over 50% with moderates, men, and younger voters. There's no major demographic group within the Democratic electorate she fails to receive majority support from.
In a way, having challengers legitimizes Clinton quite a bit. She's run and lost, and now actually is running against others. It counters the notion that she's anointed via political dynasty.
Imagine if Edwards wasn't such a shithead in his personal life we would have two great candidates left over from the 08 group instead of banking on just one.But she's not really running against anyone. A socialist, a former republican governor, and the guy who put cops everywhere in Baltimore. It might as well be a coronation.
Too bad John Edwards shat the bed.
Kasich up 47-40 on Clinton in Ohio is troublesome, but he's unlikely to get the nomination.
I think he's by far their best candidate though. Problem is he's made pesky rational choices like supporting Medicaid expansion, which really irks a lot of the primary base.
Hillary has token opposition but I mean it's more than like what Al Gore got.
I wouldn't call him a great candidate - dude was pretty vain and somewhat of a limousine liberal. However he would have fought Clinton hard in the early states and kept her out of cruise control.Imagine if Edwards wasn't such a shithead in his personal life we would have two great candidates left over from the 08 group instead of banking on just one.
Hillary has token opposition but I mean it's more than like what Al Gore got.
The dem party is really full of people who haven't been able to run on any accomplishments. It's a testament of Obama's failed presidency and the lack of liberal governance in states. Whereas a few 2010 GOP governors have benefitted from the economy inproving.
I wouldn't call him a great candidate - dude was pretty vain and somewhat of a limousine liberal. However he would have fought Clinton hard in the early states and kept her out of cruise control.
The dem party is really full of people who haven't been able to run on any accomplishments. It's a testament of Obama's failed presidency and the lack of liberal governance in states. Whereas a few 2010 GOP governors have benefitted from the economy inproving.
Yesterday, we described how legislation in Louisiana may be encouraging teachers to introduce religious material in science classes. But Louisiana is clearly not alone in recommending that its educators engage in constitutionally forbidden activities. Later that day, we were directed to a document suggesting that problems could be brewing in Idaho.
The document is a set of proposed resolutions crafted by the state Republican Party's Central Committee. Among those is Resolution 2015-P20, "A Resolution Supporting Bible Use in Idaho Public Schools." While the Bible could add value to a number of curricula (social studies, literature, and comparative religion, for example, all of which are named in the resolution), it's not widely recognized for being much help with plate tectonics. Yet the resolution also suggests that the Bible should be used in classes on astronomy, biology, geology, world geography, archaeology, music, and sociology. Somehow, chemistry and physics escaped the committee's notice.
While a resolution like this is a long way from becoming law, the Republican Party holds the governorship and large majorities in both houses of the legislature, so there is a heightened risk.
On the plus side, a number of state parties have had creationism as an official part of their platform for years without any laws getting passed. For example, the Minnesota Republican platform states, "Educators who discuss creation science should be protected from disciplinary action and science standards should recognize that there is controversy pertaining to the theory of evolution." That approachprevent educational authorities from disciplining teachers who introduce religionis the basis for a law that was passed in Tennessee.
I wouldn't call him a great candidate - dude was pretty vain and somewhat of a limousine liberal. However he would have fought Clinton hard in the early states and kept her out of cruise control.
The dem party is really full of people who haven't been able to run on any accomplishments. It's a testament of Obama's failed presidency and the lack of liberal governance in states. Whereas a few 2010 GOP governors have benefitted from the economy inproving.
why do you keep repeating this? are you that hopeless? you cant be serious. I understand that the party is in dire straits in the states because of 2010 and 2014 but come on.
why do you keep repeating this? are you that hopeless? you cant be serious. I understand that the party is in dire straits in the states because of 2010 and 2014 but come on.
And that's why you weren't the second diablos, mate.
One day you'll learn how to stop listening to PD's bullshit.
I'm getting really close to it. I guess I'm not the 2nd Diablos after all. No one told me PD used this doom and gloom language. Its makes Diablos look composed.
I'm getting really close to it. I guess I'm not the 2nd Diablos after all. No one told me PD used this doom and gloom language. Its makes Diablos look composed.
Nope. You wuz warned, boyo. You was warned.
. It's a testament of Obama's failed presidency and the lack of liberal governance in states. Whereas a few 2010 GOP governors have benefitted from the economy inproving.
The bit about 'obama's failed presidency' is classic PD troll bait though. If so much of the party didn't try to distance themselves from the president I would suspect things would be much better nationally.
lol good detective work. Is there a #4?
Because we all know most of America is dumb enough to believe the GOP is responsible for the recovery.How the GOP gains from an economy Obama presided over when the GOP has fuck all to do with that recovery is beyond me.
Because we all know most of America is dumb enough to believe the GOP is responsible for the recovery.
The thing I hope democrats take from 2014 is that people elect you to get things done. Kaish, Walker, and Brownback pushed their agenda through no holds barred, and bet on the economy improving enough for voters not to focus on the extremism. And it worked. Democrats pushed through ACA on the national level sure, but it's becoming more and more clear they should have shitcanned the filibuster and gone no holds barred. If it works it works, if not...you tried.
2009 and 2010 should have been nonstop ramming through shit. Yes there were blue dogs and Lincoln Blanche types, but not enough was done to handle that. They passed the stimulus and decided that was enough, from an economic standpoint. And now here we are.
^^I admit though that PD actually has good points when he's not doom and gloom like this post from last year.
It's very telling that so much of Obama's re-election campaign was based on very little specific legislation. Likewise in 2010 and 2014 democrats literally had nothing to run on, nothing they could point at and say "I helped passed that" without turning voters off. That's how you lose elections.
The thing that annoys the hell out of me is that all of a sudden now that he can't get anything done, Obama has all these ideas about programs. They couldn't have addressed college tuition in 2009? Pre-K? Turning USPS offices into credit unions? Something, anything.
Republican governors deserve credit for just going HAM after the 2010 election. That's what you're supposed to do. If the economy improves and you don't fuck up too much (Kaish, Snyder, Walker) you get rewarded. Brownback fucked up but still got re-elected, whereas Tom Corbett fucked up and lost.
So why say "failed presidency" or "the democratic party implosion is complete" when we can agree that Obama passed things but the democrats didnt run on them?
Unpopular yes but they certainly had the ACA, Dodd Frank, minimum wage increase to $7.25 etc.
Clinton didn't have anything besides the economy being ridiculously awesome.I wouldn't call him a great candidate - dude was pretty vain and somewhat of a limousine liberal. However he would have fought Clinton hard in the early states and kept her out of cruise control.
The dem party is really full of people who haven't been able to run on any accomplishments. It's a testament of Obama's failed presidency and the lack of liberal governance in states. Whereas a few 2010 GOP governors have benefitted from the economy inproving.
In more "Michigan eventually turning red" news:
1. Michigan passed a law allowing discrimination against gay prospective adoptive parents.
2. Their House also just passed a bill eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit to pay for roads.
Since Snyder came into power 4 years ago, republicans ended up lowering net business tax income by 90% and nearly depleted the state's $1.3 billion general fund.
This is also why the "Don't blame me I didn't vote herpderp" crowd pisses me off. Great of you to pretend you're above it all instead of admitting you're a lazy asshole.Democrats and Democratic leaning Independents sat out for 2 midterms. What can you expect. Those states get what they voted for or did not vote at all.
Hm... oddly, the most pessimist dude that i can recall after PD and Diabs is APKmets, but there's, like, a whole bloody canyon between whoever is legit #3 (or #4) and PD/Di. It'd be akin to saying that Benji is (or was) the second most republican poster here. Technically correct, but... still completely absurd.
Clinton didn't have anything besides the economy being ridiculously awesome.
The midterms being disastrous has really sucked for party building but I don't know what Obama could have been expected to do about that besides "pass more shit". I feel like Democrats are at a point where they have a pretty solid grip on presidential elections where everyone votes, but what the hell are they supposed to do about turnout in midterms? Not asking you, just in general. No one gives a shit about Senate/gov elections besides hard partisans, and I'd wager there are more hard Republicans than there are hard Democrats.
That's been transpiring across the country. Republicans have been on a mission to torpedoe state budgets since 2010. Part of the problem is structural, and some Democratic states have also experienced shortfalls. But for many Republican states, much of the problem is self-inflicted. Fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement have created intractable budget gaps . Massive tax cuts failed to spur economic growth, and now state budgets are a mess.In more "Michigan eventually turning red" news:
1. Michigan passed a law allowing discrimination against gay prospective adoptive parents.
2. Their House also just passed a bill eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit to pay for roads.
Since Snyder came into power 4 years ago, republicans ended up lowering net business tax income by 90% and nearly depleted the state's $1.3 billion general fund.
Yes. He does.^^I admit though that PD actually has good points when he's not doom and gloom like this post from last year.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150610/NEWS0605/150619874Union Leader to host Presidential candidates' forum Aug. 6
On the same August night that Fox News hosts a much-criticized and limited Republican presidential debate in Cleveland, the Union Leader will host a New Hampshire Presidential Forum in the first primary state.
It will be televised nationally by C-SPAN, which will also broadcast it on radio.
Union Leader Publisher Joseph W. McQuaid said the newspaper has been considering such a forum for some time. He said an open protest letter sent Wednesday to Fox and the Republican National Committee from 56 prominent state Republicans should be a wake-up call to everyone in New Hampshire.
"What Fox is attempting to do, and is actually bragging about doing, is a real threat to the first-in-the-nation primary," McQuaid said. "Fox boasts that it will 'winnow' the field of candidates before New Hampshire gets to do so. That isn't just bad for New Hampshire, it's bad for the presidential selection process by limiting the field to only the best-known few with the biggest bankrolls. Why the RNC and, especially, its New Hampshire representative, Steve Duprey, would defend this and be a party to it is baffling."
Fox News' Chris Wallace, who is to moderate the Cleveland debate, said last week that, "A lot of people would say around the country, we've given Iowa and New Hampshire enough of a role and maybe the nation should play something of a role."
I think this misses what's happening. The party in power tends to lose at midterms. Democrats have were in power both of those midterms and get more shit down (Obama's executive orders) which gets the other party hyped up.
Look at 2006 for the opposite. Its not that theirs more more hard republicans its that the narrative is the dems are winning and the governors of the country. So discontent can be put on them.
I didn't think I'd be depressed even though I knew this was coming. I'm just really frustrated our elections system is anti-democratic and rewards gridlock and conservatism.
I really don't know what the path forward is.
This is my biggest problem with dems.
They don't run on policy they run screaming about how radical the GOP is so "vote for us" but has its been shown people love giving the benefit of the doubt to politicians (this also works for dems in 2012, voters didn't by the Obama hates business and wants socialism stuff). There needs to be a reason to vote for them.
Run on their platform.
So we have a development today that Maddow just covered..
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150610/NEWS0605/150619874
My mind immediately goes to this question: if you're a candidate and things remain roughly stable with today's race status/positioning, which event do you participate in?
If I'm Jeb, for example, and Iowa isn't looking good while New Hampshire is looking pretty possible, I'd strongly consider going. A New Hampshire bounce would do him some wonders.
But we know this won't hold. And no matter what course of action the party decides, not everyone is going to be happy.
.
.
*titter*
That's been transpiring across the country. Republicans have been on a mission to torpedoe state budgets since 2010. Part of the problem is structural, and some Democratic states have also experienced shortfalls. But for many Republican states, much of the problem is self-inflicted. Fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement have created intractable budget gaps . Massive tax cuts failed to spur economic growth, and now state budgets are a mess.Yes. He does.
This is going to be a thing, someone will move their event. Probably the Union Leader. Anyone that goes to the Union Leader's debate over FOX's will be done, FOX will tear them down over it.
I wondered about that as soon as I posted.. and then found out that Fox will now be airing a second event on the same night - a "forum" for the candidates who don't make the cut for the big, official debate.
The reactions to this should be really fun to witness. I've seen Maddow and a few others already deeming it the equivalent of the "kids' table" (the Left is getting really good at snarky bumpersticker stuff in this age of 140-character communication!), which I'm sure some of the runners-up (and their supporters) will love.
I was wondering about the dem 'field', such as it is. Chafee, Malley and (to a lesser extent, but certainly with regard to electability) Sanders are all quite weak. The CW holds that this is because no 'real' candidate dares to challenge Clinton. But had Clinton somehow decided not to run, which dems would have entered the fray that now have not?
Biden, certainly. Warren, maybe. Warner? Kaine? Booker? DeBlasio? Franken? And would any of them count as especially formidable?
Who's on the horizon for 2024 (or, if Hillary loses, 2020), other than the names above and maybe Castro? I guess what I'm asking is how deep you guys think the dem bench really is.
I was wondering about the dem 'field', such as it is. Chafee, Malley and (to a lesser extent, but certainly with regard to electability) Sanders are all quite weak. The CW holds that this is because no 'real' candidate dares to challenge Clinton. But had Clinton somehow decided not to run, which dems would have entered the fray that now have not?
Biden, certainly. Warren, maybe. Warner? Kaine? Booker? DeBlasio? Franken? And would any of them count as especially formidable?
Who's on the horizon for 2024 (or, if Hillary loses, 2020), other than the names above and maybe Castro? I guess what I'm asking is how deep you guys think the dem bench really is.
I was wondering about the dem 'field', such as it is. Chafee, Malley and (to a lesser extent, but certainly with regard to electability) Sanders are all quite weak. The CW holds that this is because no 'real' candidate dares to challenge Clinton. But had Clinton somehow decided not to run, which dems would have entered the fray that now have not?
Biden, certainly. Warren, maybe. Warner? Kaine? Booker? DeBlasio? Franken? And would any of them count as especially formidable?
Who's on the horizon for 2024 (or, if Hillary loses, 2020), other than the names above and maybe Castro? I guess what I'm asking is how deep you guys think the dem bench really is.
I was wondering about the dem 'field', such as it is. Chafee, Malley and (to a lesser extent, but certainly with regard to electability) Sanders are all quite weak. The CW holds that this is because no 'real' candidate dares to challenge Clinton. But had Clinton somehow decided not to run, which dems would have entered the fray that now have not?
Biden, certainly. Warren, maybe. Warner? Kaine? Booker? DeBlasio? Franken? And would any of them count as especially formidable?
Who's on the horizon for 2024 (or, if Hillary loses, 2020), other than the names above and maybe Castro? I guess what I'm asking is how deep you guys think the dem bench really is.
I feel that Hillary is favored to win 2016, but that she could easily be an awful President and Democrats could lose the 2018 midterms badly and the 2020 re-election, leaving the party in one of the worst positions in many decades. It could take 8 years or more before an opportunity to get back in the driver's seat arrives. If she falters I hope some strong Democrats are ready to step up in 2020 or 2024.
Shit. How many polls have it like this?Kasich up 47-40 on Clinton in Ohio is troublesome, but he's unlikely to get the nomination.
I think he's by far their best candidate though. Problem is he's made pesky rational choices like supporting Medicaid expansion, which really irks a lot of the primary base.
de Blasio. Klobuchar. Gillibrand. Malloy. Brown (if he ever decides he wants it). I think Gina Raimondo in Rhode Island is a rising star, but I want to see how she deals with her state's unemployment crisis.
Honestly? We're so far away from 2024 that the bench will look so wildly different if Hillary wins.
http://www.wral.com/nc-house-overrides-veto-of-magistrates-bill-/14705339/NC House overrides veto of magistrates' bill
RALEIGH, N.C. With no warning and no debate allowed, the N.C. House voted Thursday morning to override the governor's veto of Senate Bill 2, allowing magistrates and Register of Deeds' employees to opt out of performing marriages for religious reasons.
The veto override has been on the House calendar for more than a week, but House Republican leaders did not have the needed votes - three-fifths - until Thursday.
With 110 members present and voting, the override required 66 votes. The final vote was 69-41.
The Senate overrode the veto last week, so the measure now becomes law.
Senate Bill 2 is intended to allow magistrates who object to same-sex marriage to refuse to perform any marriages. A magistrates doesn't have to opt out in advance - he or she can refuse to serve a couple at the time they come before the bench, and would then be barred from performing any other marriages for a period of 6 months.
Opt out of any marriage?North Carolina's House has overrode the governor's veto of the marriage opt-out bill.
http://www.wral.com/nc-house-overrides-veto-of-magistrates-bill-/14705339/
Court challenge in 3.. 2.. 1..
No wait. It'll go:
- SCOTUS ruling, then
- court challenge