Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

Willimon never should have made Frank a Democrat. I mean, Urquhart was a Tory in the UK version, so I really don't know why he made him a Democrat. Maybe he was afraid of making it look too much like a demonization of conservatives or something (even though the original was pretty much that exactly).

But Frank is basically a mix of Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz at this point in the show. It's fucking absurd.

I think there's a fear not to demonize conservatives, especially since almost all writers are liberals. I went out with a pitch a few months ago and had to change the POV from the Democrat to the Republican to alleviate that perceived issue.

 

[djkeem]

So how is the green party doing these days?

 

[Trouble]

I think there's a fear not to demonize conservatives, especially since almost all writers are liberals. I went out with a pitch a few months ago and had to change the POV from the Democrat to the Republican to alleviate that perceived issue.

Alpha House gets away with it somehow. They don't demonize the main characters too much, they are mainly well meaning but flawed guys. They do demonize the hell out of the far right tea party-ish types, though. Some of the best comedy in the show comes from the latter.

So how is the green party doing these days?

gotgwho.gif

 

[WayneMorse]

The story and product placement in HoC is utter crap, I can't watch it anymore.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Alpha House gets away with it somehow. They don't demonize the main characters too much, they are mainly well meaning but flawed guys. They do demonize the hell out of the far right tea party-ish types, though. Some of the best comedy in the show comes from the latter.



gotgwho.gif

I will never forget the insanity that was the episode when that one senator basically held up the capitol building.

 

[Jooney]

Yes Minister is still the GOAT political show. Heck, it's up there with the funniest comedies ever.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Willimon never should have made Frank a Democrat. I mean, Urquhart was a Tory in the UK version, so I really don't know why he made him a Democrat. Maybe he was afraid of making it look too much like a demonization of conservatives or something (even though the original was pretty much that exactly).

But Frank is basically a mix of Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz at this point in the show. It's fucking absurd.

Yup. If I remember, one one of the writers admitted that basically, the show wouldn't be as popular if it was Underwood doing f'd up things for conservative ends.

Even though, maybe I'm just maybe too liberal, once the main thrust of the show in the 1st season was a showdown over education reform, I was out.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, and John Barrasso have a plan for fixing health care:

Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about whether the Obama administration used the IRS to deliver health insurance subsidies to Americans in violation of the law. Millions of Americans may lose these subsidies if the court finds that the administration acted illegally. If that occurs, Republicans have a plan to protect Americans harmed by the administration’s actions.

When the court rules in King v. Burwell, we anticipate that it will hold the administration to the laws Congress passed, rather than the laws the administration wishes Congress had passed, and prohibit subsidies in states that opted not to set up their own exchanges, as the language in the law clearly states. Such a ruling could cause 6 million Americans to lose a subsidy they counted on, and for many the resulting insurance premiums would be unaffordable.

Republicans have a plan to create a bridge away from Obamacare.

First and most important: We would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period. It would be unfair to allow families to lose their coverage, particularly in the middle of the year.

Most of these people have gone through the wringer to get this insurance. Millions lost their previous health-care plans because those plans didn’t meet Obamacare’s requirements; others no longer have access to the doctors or hospitals they were accustomed to; millions spent weeks trying to purchase insurance on the flawed Web site rolled out by the administration; and many have seen their out-of-pocket health costs or premiums skyrocket.

People do not deserve further disruption from this law.

Taking Randy Barnett's advice to heart--sort of.

 

[ivysaur12]

Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, and John Barrasso have a plan for fixing health care:



Taking Randy Barnett's advice to heart--sort of.

People do not deserve further disruption from this law.

el oh el.

Also:

Republicans have a plan to create a bridge away from Obamacare.

Where? You've had 6 years to do so. Where is it? Where are you hiding it?

There is no plan.

 

[Oblivion]

Willimon never should have made Frank a Democrat. I mean, Urquhart was a Tory in the UK version, so I really don't know why he made him a Democrat. Maybe he was afraid of making it look too much like a demonization of conservatives or something (even though the original was pretty much that exactly).

But Frank is basically a mix of Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz at this point in the show. It's fucking absurd.

I don't have too much of a problem with the dude being a Democrat. After all, he's still doing evil shit, and people realize he's the bad guy. You couldn't do that as blatantly by casting him as a Republican. By doing it this manner, there's a lot more leeway when it comes to demonizing conservative views.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't have too much of a problem with the dude being a Democrat. After all, he's still doing evil shit, and people realize he's the bad guy. You couldn't do that as blatantly by casting him as a Republican. By doing it this manner, there's a lot more leeway when it comes to demonizing conservative views.

Exactly. I would've done the same thing. I just wouldn't have made him from South Carolina. I probably would've made him from Tennessee's 5th.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

lol

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...g-netanyahu-and-turning-their-backs-on-israel

Here’s a List Of 26 Anti-Jew Democrats Boycotting Netanyahu and Turning Their Backs On Israel

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) — Wrote a Jan. 29 column in The Huffington Post explaining his decision, saying the Constitution “vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president.”

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.) — The head of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) focused on Boehner undermining Obama in a statement and emphasized he’s not urging a boycott.

Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)

Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) — Clyburn is the highest-ranking Democratic leader to say he’ll skip the speech.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.): “After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister’s speech. My decision not to attend is not a reflection of my support for Israel and its continued existence as a state and home for the Jewish people. I have always strongly supported Israel and I always will,” said Cohen in a statement.

Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)

Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)

Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) — He is head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a member of the CBC and the first Muslim in Congress.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) — Grijalva is a co-chairman of the CPC.

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) — A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times that Gutierrez has a “strong” record on Israel but called the speech “a stunt.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) — “The Congresswoman has no plans to attend the speech at this time,” a spokeswoman said.

Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) — A member of the CBC and former head of the CPC.

Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) — His office confirmed he’s not going but emphasized he’s not organizing a formal boycott

Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.): “In my view Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is nothing more than a campaign event hosted by Speaker Boehner and paid for by the American people,” McCollum said in a statement.”

Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) — “I do not intend to attend the speech of Bibi,” he said in an email to a Seattle newspaper.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) — A CBC member.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)

Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)

Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) — “I’m offended as an American,” he said on MSNBC.

Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)

Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)

Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.) — “We know what he is going to say,” the Jewish lawmaker said in a statement.

Senate (3)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) — Leahy called it a “tawdry and high-handed stunt,” according to a Vermont newspaper.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said it’s “wrong” that Obama wasn’t consulted about the speech.

Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) — “The U.S.-Israel relationship is too important to be overshadowed by partisan politics,” said Schatz in a statement. “I am disappointed in the Republican leadership’s invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress with the apparent purpose of undermining President Obama’s foreign policy prerogatives.”

The bolded are all jewish.

But I'm sure the christians behind this website know better than these members how the feel about jews

 

[Jooney]

Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, and John Barrasso have a plan for fixing health care:



Taking Randy Barnett's advice to heart--sort of.

Sigh.

A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

We can only go by what Orin Hatch wrote, not what he wishes he had wrote, as indicated within the plain language of the text.

 

[Jooney]

lol

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...g-netanyahu-and-turning-their-backs-on-israel



The bolded are all jewish.

But I'm sure the christians behind this website know better than these members how the feel about jews

You've never heard the term "self-hating jew"? Exhibit A: that list above.

I also like how they called out Keith Ellison's religion in that list, because a muslim must be the only reason why he is not planning to attend.

 

[Chichikov]

Speaking of politics-themed TV shows, I'm already planning a list of shows to watch in the months leading-up to the election..

Alpha House
House of Cards (seen the British version a while ago, but not the American)
VEEP (probably saving this one for last)

Any other suggestions? My consumption of new, scripted TV shows over the past 15 years has gone from "extremely heavy" in 2000 to "almost zero" currently, so there's a LOT that I've likely missed. The last scripted political TV show I watched regularly was The West Wing (and even that was over a decade ago, so it might be worth a re-visit).

So 2016 will be a good excuse to catch-up in the politics genre..

The Thick of It is fantastic (if you've seen In The Loop, it's the same characters, if you haven't, go watch it now, what is wrong with you?).

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sigh.

We can only go by what Orin Hatch wrote, not what he wishes he had wrote, as indicated within the plain language of the text.

I'm not sure why this parody is thought to be so amusing, as if what you're saying is actually false and nobody would accept it. In practice, we do interpret texts in accordance with the words used, and we assume that an author's selection of some words rather than others is meaningful, affecting what the work means. So, here, we should take Hatch at his word, not pretend he said something else simply because giving the text its plain meaning might be embarrassing to him now. Surely you're not saying otherwise, are you? Because, if so, then there's simply no tension between his 2010 op-ed (which means whatever it needs to mean so that he can avoid embarrassment) and the 2015 op-ed I just linked to, in which case there's no point to bringing up the former.

 

[Jooney]

I'm not sure why this parody is thought to be so amusing, as if what you're saying is actually false and nobody would accept it. In practice, we do interpret texts in accordance with the words used, and we assume that an author's selection of some words rather than others is meaningful, affecting what the work means. So, here, we should take Hatch at his word, not pretend he said something else simply because giving the text its plain meaning might be embarrassing to him now. Surely you're not saying otherwise, are you? Because, if so, then there's simply no tension between his 2010 op-ed (which means whatever it needs to mean so that he can avoid embarrassment) and the 2015 op-ed I just linked to, in which case there's no point to bringing up the former.

What parody? I am simply taking a plain language interpretation of his op-ed. His original view as stated in the Op-Ed is clearly in line with that of the administration and that of Congress. If he has changed his mind (for political reasons, or otherwise), let him be forthright with his change of heart. But in doing so he should withdraw from using language such as "prohibit subsidies in states that opted not to set up their own exchanges, as the language in the law clearly states" if his new understanding of the statute is diametrically opposite to that of his old understanding.

 

[benjipwns]

Speaking of politics-themed TV shows, I'm already planning a list of shows to watch in the months leading-up to the election..

Alpha House
House of Cards (seen the British version a while ago, but not the American)
VEEP (probably saving this one for last)

Any other suggestions? My consumption of new, scripted TV shows over the past 15 years has gone from "extremely heavy" in 2000 to "almost zero" currently, so there's a LOT that I've likely missed. The last scripted political TV show I watched regularly was The West Wing (and even that was over a decade ago, so it might be worth a re-visit).

So 2016 will be a good excuse to catch-up in the politics genre..

Yes Minister is still the GOAT political show. Heck, it's up there with the funniest comedies ever.

The Thick of It is fantastic (if you've seen In The Loop, it's the same characters, if you haven't, go watch it now, what is wrong with you?).

How did it take so long for the king and the prince to get mentioned? West Wing came first ffs. I was half expecting Political Animals before these two.

The only aspect where the Britishism affects them is you might need to look up what a quango is or some other slang term.

Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister (original, not reboot) is required viewing, should just replace political courses with it. I love The Thick of It, but with Veep existing I'm letting it slide a bit.

 

[benjipwns]

Does anyone else remember this Donald Trump? The guy who, for much of 2006-2008, couldn't stop attacking Bush as the worst President of all-time, said to abandon and forget about Iraq, called Hillary a great friend who would make a good President, and praised Democrats? I think Republicans are just afraid to point out how he was a moderate until 5 years ago because he'll launch into a vicious PR campaign against them.

2007 article

From YOUR OFFICIAL TRUMP 2016 HQ:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=148270112&postcount=15
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=148271225&postcount=22

 

[gcubed]

His state's economy isn't great but unemployment continues to decrease. I think you're looking at his record from a liberal perspective. He has signed voter ID laws, destroyed unions, will sign a right to work law, and has cut higher education. How is that not an impressive record for a conservative in a primary that will largely be determined by conservative voters?

Wait, when was the last time conservatives got who they wanted for a presidential candidate?

 

[kingkitty]

The story and product placement in HoC is utter crap, I can't watch it anymore.

I'm not finished with the third season yet, but I lol'ed when Frank actually mentioned a (fictional) video game review of the show's product placement.

The show gives no fucks. And neither does Frank. Didn't this guy a season or two ago

Spoiler

avoid a government shutdown by raising the retirement age? what

 

[Metaphoreus]

What parody? I am simply taking a plain language interpretation of his op-ed. His original view as stated in the Op-Ed is clearly in line with that of the administration and that of Congress. If he has changed his mind (for political reasons, or otherwise), let him be forthright with his change of heart. But in doing so he should withdraw from using language such as "prohibit subsidies in states that opted not to set up their own exchanges, as the language in the law clearly states" if his new understanding of the statute is diametrically opposite to that of his old understanding.

I'm not going to defend Hatch's position in 2010 or 2015, or any waffling between those two dates. I linked to the op-ed because it was an interesting development--these Republicans claim to have a plan (though, as ivysaur12 pointed out, they haven't exactly produced a bill implementing that plan), and that plan includes transitional relief for those affected by a government defeat in King.

If you were not trying to parody my defense of the lawsuit with your comment, then we are in agreement regarding how to interpret Hatch's 2010 op-ed.

 

[thepotatoman]

Regarding King v Burwell. It basically comes down to these 3 statements, right?

APPLICABLE STATE HEALTH SUBSIDY PROGRAM.—In this section, the term ‘‘applicable State health subsidy program’’ means— (1) the program under this title for the enrollment in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange, including the premium tax credits

IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.—

IN GENERAL.—If a State is not an electing State or the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014 or has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement the other requirements set forth in the standards:

The Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

Combine the bolded and you get:

"Applicable State health subsidy program’’ means qualified health plans offered through an Exchange.

An Exchange is established by a State.

If a State is not an electing State, The Secretary shall establish and operate such Exchange within the State

So if I understand it correctly, the secretary of health establishing an exchange within the state is practically the same as the state establishing an exchange when looking at the text in full context, right?

Seem like a more understandable interpretation of the context than the context that says the states should take multiple obscure statements from multiple separate pages of a 950 page bill to interpret a threat to coerce those states into making a exchange of their own.

All going by a strict textualist interpretation, of course.

 

[Ecotic]

I read this article by Alan Abramowitz a month ago and it's shaken my confidence in 2016 ever since. He says his model spots the opposing party 4 points after a 2 term Presidency, which was Obama's whole margin of victory in 2012.

Despite the small number of open-seat elections, a clear pattern emerges from the data: The fate of the incumbent party’s candidate is strongly influenced by the popularity of the outgoing president. In fact, the incumbent president’s approval rating explains over half of the variance in the vote share of his party’s nominee. All three candidates seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings below 50% were defeated, and the two seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings below 40% were decisively defeated. In contrast, two of the three candidates seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings above 50% won the popular vote, although one of those candidates, Al Gore in 2000, ended up losing the electoral vote.

His model's prediction:

What if Obama's at a 45% approval ceiling in 2016 (where he is now in the RCP average) and you spot Republicans 4 'time for a change' points? It'd be very close.

 

[ivysaur12]

I read this article by Alan Abramowitz a month ago and it's shaken my confidence in 2016 ever since. He says his model spots the opposing party 4 points after a 2 term Presidency, which was Obama's whole margin of victory in 2012.



His model's prediction:

What if Obama's at a 45% approval ceiling in 2016 (where he is now in the RCP average) and you spot Republicans 4 'time for a change' points? It'd be very close.

Yeah, but the end of that is the key part:

However, the results of recent open-seat races also indicate that candidates and campaigns matter: The prediction of a close election could be upset if either party nominates an unusually appealing or unappealing candidate or runs an exceptionally effective or inept campaign.

 

[Jooney]

Regarding King v Burwell. It basically comes down to these 3 statements, right?







Combine the bolded and you get:


So if I understand it correctly, the secretary of health establishing an exchange within the state is practically the same as the state establishing an exchange when looking at the text in full context, right?

Seem like a more understandable interpretation of the context than the context that says the states should take multiple obscure statements from multiple separate pages of a 950 page bill to interpret a threat to coerce those states into making a exchange of their own.

All going by a strict textualist interpretation, of course.

Definition of terms? C'mon man, the only part of the law that matters are the tax provisions.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Regarding King v Burwell. It basically comes down to these 3 statements, right?

Combine the bolded and you get:

So if I understand it correctly, the secretary of health establishing an exchange within the state is practically the same as the state establishing an exchange when looking at the text in full context, right?

Seem like a more understandable interpretation of the context than the context that says the states should take multiple obscure statements from multiple separate pages of a 950 page bill to interpret a threat to coerce those states into making a exchange of their own.

All going by a strict textualist interpretation, of course.

Your first quote comes from section 1413, which really doesn't have anything to do with the argument in King. Your second quote is from 1311(d)(1), which I've discussed before. Briefly, 1311(d)(1) is the first of a series of "requirements," not "definitions," and reading it as a definition neuters it as a requirement. (That is, if it's a definition, then it doesn't matter if the Exchange is actually a governmental agency or nonprofit in fact--any entity (including a for-profit corporation) would be deemed to be a "governmental agency or nonprofit entity.") Your third quote is the "such Exchange" language from 1321. That language makes clear that the Exchange to be established by HHS is intrinsically identical to the Exchange that would have been established by the State, had the State established it, but 36B makes the availability of credits turn on the extrinsic fact of who established the Exchange, not merely the intrinsic features of the Exchange.

 

[thepotatoman]

Definition of terms? C'mon man, the only part of the law that matters are the tax provisions.

Hey, the first quote defines those tax provisions.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Hey, the first quote defines those tax provisions.

Actually, it doesn't. That quote is from section 1413(e), which defines the phrase "applicable State health subsidy program" solely for purposes of section 1413 ("In this section"). (It makes sense that it limits that definition to that section, since 1413 is the only place in all those 1000ish pages where the phrase "applicable State health subsidy program" appears.)

 

[thepotatoman]

Actually, it doesn't. That quote is from section 1413(e), which defines the phrase "applicable State health subsidy program" solely for purposes of section 1413 ("In this section"). (It makes sense that it limits that definition to that section, since 1413 is the only place in all those 1000ish pages where the phrase "applicable State health subsidy program" appears.)

Sorry, I didn't see your post before I posted, and will need some time to look into this part.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sorry, I didn't see your post before I posted, and will need some time to look into this part.

No worries. And regarding 1311(d)(1), that provision is often quoted by those arguing for the government's reading, but it's still wrong. Here (scroll down to the first full paragraph of the edit) is where I discussed it before.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I still can't we're debating king like its a real argument.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I still can't we're debating king like its a real argument.

I don't see the point in this kind of disparagement of a topic that others find merit in discussing, so I'll just passive-aggressively correct your post (though perhaps not so "passive" since I'm telling you about it):

I still can't [believe? accept?] we're debating king King like it[']s a real argument.

EDIT: (c:

 

[benjipwns]

Underrated classic since it comes from the latter seasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeF_o1Ss1NQ

 

[ivysaur12]

Even though I fundamentally disagree with every opinion that Metaphoreus has posted regarding King, I do admire how thoroughly he is with his posts.

I also don't know what the legitimate end game of a win for the plaintiffs would be in King -- nothing will pass the House and Senate. Even a Republican execute with a Republican House and Republican Senate still probably couldn't overcome a filibuster to replace the law. Given that Republicans have offered no plans since Obamacare was signed into law and don't have a plan, I can't see what the end is. Outside of the legal issues on which I find the government with the most convincing argument, the practical effects would be catastrophic.

And since it's not as if the law will be replaced or mended or fixed with anything, what do Republican senators and governors up for reelection think? Especially ones that didn't set up exchanges.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I read this article by Alan Abramowitz a month ago and it's shaken my confidence in 2016 ever since. He says his model spots the opposing party 4 points after a 2 term Presidency, which was Obama's whole margin of victory in 2012.



His model's prediction:

What if Obama's at a 45% approval ceiling in 2016 (where he is now in the RCP average) and you spot Republicans 4 'time for a change' points? It'd be very close.

I dunno man. Since Eisenhower there have only been three two-term presidents besides Obama (Reagan, Clinton, Bush II). There's not much data to look at here.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I dunno man. Since Eisenhower there have only been three two-term presidents besides Obama (Reagan, Clinton, Bush II). There's not much data to look at here.

Not only that, but it isn't as if voters are a machine that produces reliable outcomes. It's interesting information from a historical perspective, but let's not pretend we're discussing the laws of physics here.

 

[benjipwns]

The Republicans haven't won a Presidential election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928!!!!!

 

[CygnusXS]

The Republicans haven't won a Presidential election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928!!!!!

Just don't tell this to the Republican primary voters or they'll nominate Jeb for sure and then we'll be fucked.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wait, when was the last time conservatives got who they wanted for a presidential candidate?

Probably 2000. But I get you point. Still, the alternative is Jeb Bush. I just don't see him winning in Iowa, SC, or the group of southern states in March. He's going to look weak early. Yes he can rebound in winner take all bouts later in the year but I expect Walker to be the front runner by then.

 

[Coriolanus]

The Republicans haven't won a Presidential election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928!!!!!

That moment when you realize that the guy would rather run with cocks as a last name than mention that he's a nixon.

Got a nixon eisenhower, tho.

 

[HylianTom]

We heard over and over again in 2012 about how a sitting president would have his re-election chances reduced if unemployment stayed as high as it was (just under 8%), and Obama still won pretty handily. Given this, given continued demographic changes, given the whole "first female" factor, etc.. I'm not as worried about those kinds of general rules anymore. Hillary might see some degree of third term fatigue, but the other factors could very easily override that factor.

I finished watching the Election Night 2012 coverage last night, and one thing that stuck out at me was a comment made toward the end of the broadcast: the election's polling - with the exception of the week following Debate #1 - was remarkably stable for over a year before Election Day. Even before Romney became the nominee, Obama's lead remained small but rather stubborn. I'd love to see if we get any similar pattern this time around. The longer Hillary's numbers hold and nothing bad externally happens, the better I feel.

Tick-tock..


(Edit: now I need to see if I can find the two additional recommendations above.. looooove British TV)

Spoiler

(It's pronounced "Bouquet")

 

[Diablos]

Underwood's policies are all over the map. Weakening teachers' unions and guts entitlements, but the centerpiece legislation is a 500 billion dollar jobs program...

Dude is a DINO. His leadership style is toxic. He just gives zero fucks.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's gonna be real funny when rightwing media (and myself) question the polling in September 2016, showing Hillary firmly ahead by 2-3 points nationally but winning most of the major states. Get ready for more poll skewing, maybe a conservative alternative to Nate Silver (who is more professional than the unskewing guy from 2012), etc.

 

[BertramCooper]

Not only that, but it isn't as if voters are a machine that produces reliable outcomes. It's interesting information from a historical perspective, but let's not pretend we're discussing the laws of physics here.

I'd say the last two elections have proven that yes, voters actually are pretty damn predictable.

 

[HylianTom]

It's gonna be real funny when rightwing media (and myself) question the polling in September 2016, showing Hillary firmly ahead by 2-3 points nationally but winning most of the major states. Get ready for more poll skewing, maybe a conservative alternative to Nate Silver (who is more professional than the unskewing guy from 2012), etc.

The main questions that they'll be able to hang their hopes upon: what will the electorate look like? Were 2008 & 2012 an Obama-specific phenomenon, or are those turnout patterns a part of the new normal?

Either way, I'm comforted in that (a) the electorate will likely be 3-4% less white, and (b) Hillary will almost certainly do better among white working class voters. Those two factors alone should go a long way in buffering any losses she'd see on turnout.

...

Separate note: Nebraska's same sex marriage ban has fallen as of this morning. 12 to go!

 

[Diablos]

I'm not going to defend Hatch's position in 2010 or 2015, or any waffling between those two dates. I linked to the op-ed because it was an interesting development--these Republicans claim to have a plan (though, as ivysaur12 pointed out, they haven't exactly produced a bill implementing that plan), and that plan includes transitional relief for those affected by a government defeat in King..

It isn't really a matter of defending specific positons or not at the end of this day, but exposing King v. Burwell for the farce it really is and how tragic it would be if the SCOTUS doesn't side with the government. Scalia himself wrote that Congress had a backup plan in the law for when states refused to set up exchanges with subsidies by themselves. True, it was for a case that had absolutely nothing to with the federal exchanges/subsidies and the validity of the text enabling them, but he still put those words to paper. Hatch clearly came to the same conclusion, only now to completely shift positions. He and many others in his party are basically seeing this asinine case as the only thing that can stop the ACA. After all, everything else they've tried has been completely exhausted and basically proven to be futile and ultimately symbolic if nothing else.

Because the GOP is appearing to be more... diplomatic in dealing with fallout from King (i.e. grace periods for those who would otherwise have no choice but to stop paying their premiums due to a huge spike in cost), it tells me they're taking this case very seriously and taking the necessary steps to get a fifth justice (i.e. Roberts) to side with a conservative ruling in favor of King. They haven't put forth legislation yet, but it's still early as the ruling likely won't come until May or June. The GOP moves at a snail's pace and they have plenty of time to put a half-assed bill together that could play a role in forming the deciding vote in the SCOTUS.

This is all very troubling to me because this might have been the only thing keeping someone like Roberts from siding with King. The only problem is there's no guarantee this backup plan would pass and even if it did, what it would be replaced with, if anything. It will still hurt the health insurance industry and economy, and will negatively impact the lives of so many people who desperately need health insurance.

Basically, I was not expecting the GOP to come around to the idea of even a grace period. Because they are, this can only tell me the people involved in this case who are in support of King feel like they finally have the kick in the gut to the ACA that they always wanted.

Even though I fundamentally disagree with every opinion that Metaphoreus has posted regarding King, I do admire how thoroughly he is with his posts.

I think he either has something to do with the case (i.e. lawyer, some kind of advisor, etc) or knows some important people who are. He'd be a fool to admit it here at this point in time, but that's my gut feeling about him. He told me he wasn't "that" kind of lawyer once before, but I don't believe that. He has a level of confidence about this case that is most certainly not just trolling or beating his chest over his opinion just so he can be right on a message board; it's like he knows something.

 

[WayneMorse]

Barbara Mikulski is retiring in 2016, her seat should be easy for the Democrats to hold but I don't know considering the Dems blew the governors race last year.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Gubernatorial race in a midterm, Senate race in a presidential

Democrats shouldn't take it for granted but I strongly doubt they'd lose it

 

[BertramCooper]

Heh. I just saw Rick Perry's CPAC comments about ISIS being the greatest threat to freedom since communism. What a dong.

It's funny to see Republicans pivot back to defense as a key election issue. Hey, the economy's recovering, so let's go back to needlessly scaring the shit out of people in order to drum up votes.