Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

The first signs of repeating 2012's "Anyone but Romney" where front runner status lurches between various prominent idiots before boiling down to the inevitable.

Who's the Hermain Cain in this cycle. I don't think anyone is likeable enough personally

 

[Oblivion]

Who's the Hermain Cain in this cycle. I don't think anyone is likeable enough personally

Well, I wouldn't call him the "true" heir to the Cain Train, but...close enough, I guess?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Well, I wouldn't call him the "true" heir to the Cain Train, but...close enough, I guess?

Why's that?

'Cause he's black?

 

[Oblivion]

Why's that?

'Cause he's black?

Yes?

 

[Plinko]

Well, I wouldn't call him the "true" heir to the Cain Train, but...close enough, I guess?

Wow.

Carson is a respected neurosurgeon and speaks pretty well. He isn't even close to Cain.

 

[Mike M]

So far Trump seems to be the closest Cain analog, though it appears he's peaking earlier (has Trump even filed yet?). Rich business executive with no government experience saying dumb things.

Only richer and dumber.

 

[Fenderputty]

So far Trump seems to be the closest Cain analog, though it appears he's peaking earlier (has Trump even filed yet?). Rich business executive with no government experience saying dumb things.

Only richer and dumber.

Yeah I think this is probably the most accurate. I will also be sad when trump drops out of the race due to sexual assault charges. lol

 

[ivysaur12]

Carson seems legitimately interested in running a campaign and has been polling consistently above average for most of the pre-primary season. I don't see him as the Cain of this election at all.

EDIT: POLLS! (clearly a busy day at work for me everyone)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/toss-up-for-governor-in-kentucky.html

Toss Up for Governor in Kentucky

PPP's first poll of the general election for Governor in Kentucky finds a toss up race. Republican Matt Bevin gets 38% to 35% for Democrat Jack Conway, with independent Drew Curtis getting 6%. In a two person race with Curtis taken out of the mix, Bevin's lead over Conway is 40/38.

More than 20% of voters are undecided and that's a function of neither candidate being particularly well known. Even after a pair of terms as Attorney General, a 35% plurality of voters in Kentucky have no opinion about Conway with those who do have one pretty evenly divided on him- 31% see him favorably and 34% unfavorably. Bevin is even less well known to voters in the state- 40% have no opinion about him. Among those who do have one, 31% see him favorably and 34% unfavorably.

Republicans have the advantage in all the down ballot races in the state. Interestingly the contest with the lowest level of undecideds, even more so than the one for Governor, is Secretary of State where Republican Steve Knipper leads Democratic incumbent Alison Lundergan Grimes 47/42- that seems to suggest some strong residual feelings from the Senate race last year.

The rest of the races feature the GOP nominees leading as well, but only at 39-41% and with anywhere from 23-29% of voters still undecided. The closest is for Attorney General where Whitney Westerfield has a 5 point advantage over Andy Beshear at 41/36. Mike Harmon leads incumbent Auditor Adam Edelen 39/33. In the open races for Treasurer and Agriculture Commissioner the Republican leads each by 9- it's 41/32 for Allison Ball over Rick Nelson and 40/31 for Ryan Quarles over Jean-Marie Lawson Spann.

Kentucky voters are pretty evenly divided in their feelings about Rand Paul- 43% approve of the job he's doing to 42% who disapprove. Nevertheless he is looking like a pretty strong favorite if he runs for reelection to the Senate next year. He would lead hypothetical match ups over both Steve Beshear (49/39) and Crit Luallen (51/37). What's particularly notable about the match up with Beshear is that he is the state's most popular politician- he matches Paul's 43% approval rating, but only 35% of voters disapprove of him. Yet he still trails Paul by 10- it says something about the difficulties for Democrats in national elections in Kentucky.

If Paul were to somehow win the Republican nomination we do find that hypothetical match ups for Beshear and Luallen with Thomas Massie as an alternative GOP candidate would start out as toss ups. Beshear leads Massie 43/38 while Massie leads Luallen 37/35. A lot of that potential competitiveness for Democrats may tie back to Massie only having 27% name recognition though.

Despite his easy reelection last fall, Mitch McConnell continues to be quite unpopular with only 32% of voters approving of the job he's doing to 54% who disapprove. Republicans (47/37) only narrowly approve of the job McConnell is doing and he's in the 20s for approval with both Democrats and independents. How did he win anyway? Barack Obama's 33/60 approval in the state trumped McConnell's unpopularity among the many voters in the state who dislike both of them.

 

[B-Dubs]

Wow.

Carson is a respected neurosurgeon and speaks pretty well. He isn't even close to Cain.

Until he starts talking about gay marriage, then he's a raving lunatic.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Carson seems legitimately interested in running a campaign and has been polling consistently above average for most of the pre-primary season. I don't see him as the Cain of this election at all.

EDIT: POLLS! (clearly a busy day at work for me everyone)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/toss-up-for-governor-in-kentucky.html

Could the Republicans sweep in KY? I hope the D's can hold on and not become like Arkansas. This is worrying but sadly not surprising.

 

[Oblivion]

Wow.

Carson is a respected neurosurgeon and speaks pretty well. He isn't even close to Cain.

And my man the Cain train was a literal rocket scientist. :lol

So far Trump seems to be the closest Cain analog, though it appears he's peaking earlier (has Trump even filed yet?). Rich business executive with no government experience saying dumb things.

Only richer and dumber.

The only reason I didn't choose Trump is cause Trump ran last time too. So the 2012 equivalent of Trump is...well, Trump.

Carson seems legitimately interested in running a campaign and has been polling consistently above average for most of the pre-primary season. I don't see him as the Cain of this election at all.

I don't see that at all. Carson seems to be in on the same moneymaking racket that Cain and most of the other goobers in the GOP were in at the time.

 

[Plinko]

Until he starts talking about gay marriage, then he's a raving lunatic.

Is there anyone in the GOP field who doesn't at this point?

 

[Mike M]

The only reason I didn't choose Trump is cause Trump ran last time too. So the 2012 equivalent of Trump is...well, Trump.

Pretty sure he never actually ran in 2012, just talked a big game about jumping in before climbing down from the diving board.

 

[Crisco]

Ben Carson's comments about the ACA and beliefs on cannabis shows that he's hardly the empirical thinker you'd expect of someone in his profession. Yeah, he's a talented neurosurgeon, which proves he has good hand-eye coordination and can read a book. That's about it.

 

[Oblivion]

Pretty sure he never actually ran in 2012, just talked a big game about jumping in before climbing down from the diving board.

Wasn't he dominating the polls for a while?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Is there anyone in the GOP field who doesn't at this point?

Some of them just sound like ordinary bigots.

 

[Mike M]

Wasn't he dominating the polls for a while?

Yes, but he was never actually running.

 

[Ecotic]

With 7 cases left to decide (Tex. DHCA, AZ. Leg, Burwell, Utility Air, Johnson, Obergefell, Glossip), here are the amount of opinions written by each justice this term:

Roberts: 6
Scalia: 7
Kennedy: 4
Ginsburg: 6
Breyer: 8
Alito: 7
Sotomayor: 7
Kagan: 7

Kennedy has not written any opinions (yet) from January. Roberts, Kennedy, and Ginsburg have not written any February opinions. Scalia has not written any March opinions. Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor have not written any April opinions.

Wait, so Clarence Thomas doesn't write opinions either in addition to never speaking? Did he used to write opinions in the past?

 

[Farmboy]

Morning Joe:

Joe Scarborugh: "Jeb is going to win FL, OH(with Kasich) and I'm sorry but Jebs going to win VA. With the Hispanic states out west if he wins(the election) NM, CO and NV will go for him."

He is delusional.
[/IMG]

He's actually not completely wrong about that last part. Hear me out!

If Bush ends up getting 4-5% more of the popular vote than Clinton, then all of the states mentioned will fall into his column. Although the EC (and the demographics of the Western states especially) is/are favorable to the Democrats to a certain degree, that will matter only if the race is especially close. If Bush emerges as a clear front runner, many of the swing states will go his way.

Of course, if Scarborough was implying that Bush is actually in an especially advantageous position in all of those states (because of his ability to speak Spanish or whatever), then yeah, that's delusional.

 

[ivysaur12]

Wait, so Clarence Thomas doesn't write opinions either in addition to never speaking? Did he used to write opinions in the past?

Plz excuse my copy and pasting.

He's written 7.

 

[AntoneM]

Morning Joe:

Joe Scarborugh: "Jeb is going to win FL, OH(with Kasich) and I'm sorry but Jebs going to win VA. With the Hispanic states out west if he wins(the election) NM, CO and NV will go for him."

Finally a republican who speaks spanish. They can at last, after all these decades, get their message out to the Latino population who, as we all know, are monolithic in opinions and are natural Republican voters.

At least that's how I imagine his thought process played out.

 

[Fenderputty]

Finally a republican who speaks spanish. They can at last, after all these decades, get their message out to the Latino population who, as we all know, are monolithic in opinions and are natural Republican voters.

At least that's how I imagine his thought process played out.

Well it better than painting him brown.

 

[Trouble]

Plz excuse my copy and pasting.

He's written 7.

Awww, I was hoping his number was actually 0. It would seem so fitting.

 

[Ecotic]

I get this feeling Jeb has a higher floor but a lower ceiling than other candidates. I can't see him losing catastrophically like Santorum, Huckabee, or Carson could, but that he'd probably top out around Romney's level, 47-48%. Due to his name he'd just grind out a respectable loss. Republicans are going to have to go with a higher-risk, higher-reward candidate if they want a chance at winning.

 

[BertramCooper]

The key difference I see between Jeb and Mittens is that there is a decent-sized portion of the GOP who really, really hates the idea of Jeb being the nominee (though I don't think they actually hate him as a person).

In 2012, the GOP rank-and-file didn't entirely love Mitt as the nominee, but I don't think many of them necessarily hated him as the nominee, either. It was mostly a "Meh, whatever, he'll do," sort of reaction. He was the default candidate and they hoped for someone better, but ultimately they were fine, if not enthusiastic, with him as the candidate.

I just can't see Jeb overcoming this sort of antipathy in the primaries, even with a ton of money behind him.

This is all based on science and sciency things and totally not anecdotal.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The right hates Hillary more than they dislike Jeb so they will come out and vote for "another Bush"

 

[PhoenixDark]

Jeb pretty much has to win NH. Without it he could be looking at a very long string of losses, based on how the primary schedule is set up. Maybe he can win Nevada but then again, the folks who will be voting in the primary won't be very pro-immigration. At all...

 

[BertramCooper]

The right hates Hillary more than they dislike Jeb so they will come out and vote for "another Bush"

Well, yeah, in the general election they grudgingly would, but are they really going to pick him over someone like Scott Walker in the primaries?

 

[Black Mamba]

The key difference I see between Jeb and Mittens is that there is a decent-sized portion of the GOP who really, really hates the idea of Jeb being the nominee (though I don't think they actually hate him as a person).

In 2012, the GOP rank-and-file didn't entirely love Mitt as the nominee, but I don't think many of them necessarily hated him as the nominee, either. It was mostly a "Meh, whatever, he'll do," sort of reaction. He was the default candidate and they hoped for someone better, but ultimately they were fine, if not enthusiastic, with him as the candidate.

I just can't see Jeb overcoming this sort of antipathy in the primaries, even with a ton of money behind him.

This is all based on science and sciency things and totally not anecdotal.

This comes back down to him being a Bush.

In 2012, the GOP was convinced anyone but Obama would win as long as they didn't do something stupid or crazy. They believed Obama's Presidency was a disaster and they just felt like they had to get someone "safe: in there.

This time, they're fucking terrified of Hillary. And while the GOP will vote Jeb! in 2016 general, they are completely unconvinced a Bush can beat a Clinton. Which is an improvement because they're right. The Bush name can't beat Clinton.

 

[Ecotic]

The key difference I see between Jeb and Mittens is that there is a decent-sized portion of the GOP who really, really hates the idea of Jeb being the nominee (though I don't think they actually hate him as a person).

In 2012, the GOP rank-and-file didn't entirely love Mitt as the nominee, but I don't think many of them necessarily hated him as the nominee, either. It was mostly a "Meh, whatever, he'll do," sort of reaction. He was the default candidate and they hoped for someone better, but ultimately they were fine, if not enthusiastic, with him as the candidate.

I just can't see Jeb overcoming this sort of antipathy in the primaries, even with a ton of money behind him.

This is all based on science and sciency things and totally not anecdotal.

No, I can see that. Romney made damn sure over many years that he would be the conservative that primary voters wanted, even if it killed him, no matter how much it wasn't him at his core. He'd live in Iowa in 2008 and be the social conservative, he'd double Guantanamo, he'd wear brownface, he'd have people self-deport. There was no low he wouldn't reach, no issue unpandered. Republicans understood the bargain Romney was proposing, he'd give them whatever they wanted if they gained him the Presidency. The desperation was real.

So far Jeb has bent a tad but made it clear he wants to do things his way, and if not, oh well. Life goes on and he's okay with that.

 

[Fenderputty]

This comes back down to him being a Bush.

In 2012, the GOP was convinced anyone but Obama would win as long as they didn't do something stupid or crazy. They believed Obama's Presidency was a disaster and they just felt like they had to get someone "safe: in there.

This time, they're fucking terrified of Hillary. And while the GOP will vote Jeb! in 2016 general, they are completely unconvinced a Bush can beat a Clinton. Which is an improvement because they're right. The Bush name can't beat Clinton.

I don't think any of their other candidates can beat Hillary either. What's the risky choice here if they don't go with the "safe" one?

Maybe Rubio?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The Roberts Court's Surprising Move Leftward (NYTimes)

This seems to be a rediclous analysis. How do they determine if something is liberal or conservative?

The court has continued decimating union rights, women's rights, abortion rights, civil rights, class action rights, etc.

The only liberal thing they seem to be consistently good on is speech, gay rights (by a 5-4 majority) and some criminal defense (I think this is an inevitability considering how far the police have moved).

Calling this a liberal court is insulting and a premise that divorces the very real factors of precedent, impact, etc.

This is a ridiculous statement

At the same time, the court does seem to have drifted slightly to the left since 2008, in part because of rulings on gay rights, health care and the environment.

Gay rights is the only leftward drift there. The EPA is just executive deference which isn't "liberal". Lets not pretend not overturning ACA is "liberal" its not.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Also question for Meta.

Secondary boycotts/strikes are illegal in the US since taft heartley. Has there ever been a court challenge of that?

Seems one could make the case they're restricting free speech and association rights, though one could counter with commerce clause justification.

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't think any of their other candidates can beat Hillary either. What's the risky choice here if they don't go with the "safe" one?

Maybe Rubio?

If you know Jeb! can't win, go for a high variance candidate. It's like basketball. If you're a bad team but want to win, shoot lots of 3s. If you randomly make a lot, you can win!

(note, I am not saying shooting 3s is only a high variance strategy. Speaking to bad teams only).

 

[Fenderputty]

If you know Jeb! can't win, go for a high variance candidate. It's like basketball. If you're a bad team but want to win, shoot lots of 3s. If you randomly make a lot, you can win!

(note, I am not saying shooting 3s is only a high variance strategy. Speaking to bad teams only).

Yeah but there's a legit statistical reason for jacking up 3's. I'm not sure stats has anything to do with jacking up a political hail marry and snubbing Jeb for a Walker or a Rubio or something like that. What makes Walker and Rubio 3's compared to jeb's 2 point lay-up anyway?

Thinking risk reward here ... I see the risk in the other candidates, I don't necessarily see the reward. LIke do they think Spanish people will vote Rubio because he's got an "O" at the end of his name. That would make sense for a "risky" move. What's the upside, nationally, for the "not jeb" candidates? Because I mostly see added risk. Is it all in the name, or more accurately, lack there of?

 

[Black Mamba]

Yeah but there's a legit statistical reason for jacking up 3's. I'm not sure stats has anything to do with jacking up a political hail marry and snubbing Jeb for a Walker or a Rubio or something like that. What makes Walker and Rubio 3's compared to jeb's 2 point lay-up anyway?

Thinking risk reward here ... I see the risk in the other candidates, I don't necessarily see the reward. LIke do they think Spanish people will vote Rubio because he's got an "O" at the end of his name. That would make sense for a "risky" move. What's the upside, nationally, for the "not jeb" candidates? Because I mostly see added risk. Is it all in the name, or more accurately, lack there of?

jeb!'s name prevents him from winning the Presidency, plain and simple. A Bush is not being elected in 2016. In other words, Jeb! is the riskiest. Someone said it, he has a higher floor but a lower ceiling.

They can't run him.

 

[Fenderputty]

jeb!'s name prevents him from winning the Presidency, plain and simple. A Bush is not being elected in 2016. In other words, Jeb! is the riskiest. Someone said it, he has a higher floor but a lower ceiling.

They can't run him.

It's fucking crazy to me to think that Bush is the more risky proposition with the other clowns they're running. Wild world we live in.

 

[Dan]

I just want these Supreme Court decisions out so I can stop hearing my coworker freak out about so many hypotheticals. It's basically utter doom and gloom no matter what. Subsidies get struck down, real people are fucked. Or they're upheld and Republicans rally and win the White House. Gay marriage is expanded, and social conservatives will be hunting gay people in the streets. If it's kept to the states, that's terrible too.

It's like working next to Diablos.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I just want these Supreme Court decisions out so I can stop hearing my coworker freak out about so many hypotheticals. It's basically utter doom and gloom no matter what. Subsidies get struck down, real people are fucked. Or they're upheld and Republicans rally and win the White House. Gay marriage is expanded, and social conservatives will be hunting gay people in the streets. If it's kept to the states, that's terrible too.

It's like working next to Diablos.

They rally like in 2012? When Mittens won 320 EVs?

 

[ivysaur12]

I just want these Supreme Court decisions out so I can stop hearing my coworker freak out about so many hypotheticals. It's basically utter doom and gloom no matter what. Subsidies get struck down, real people are fucked. Or they're upheld and Republicans rally and win the White House. Gay marriage is expanded, and social conservatives will be hunting gay people in the streets. If it's kept to the states, that's terrible too.

It's like working next to Diablos.

First question: Are you from PA?

 

[Dan]

They rally like in 2012? When Mittens won 320 EVs?

They'll be even more motivated now! Or something.

First question: Are you from PA?

Hmm? No, roots in Michigan and New Jersey, current resident of Los Angeles.

 

[Dan]

Oh, haha. I see where you went with that now. Duh.

 

[Jooney]

This seems to be a rediclous analysis. How do they determine if something is liberal or conservative?

It doesn't look like determine an issue is liberal or conservative by its nature; instead, its determined by the political lean of each justice. Not the best methodology, I agree.

How do you square the rest of your post with your view that the country is drifting leftwards (in general)? It's great if the people think one thing, but if the power structures maintain the status quo or even go against popular opinion then the country's body politic isn't really drifting towards populism.

 

[Crisco]

The "leftward" drift is just a reflection of the "rightward" drift that mainstream conservatism has been on since we got a black President. Plain and simple.

 

[Retromelon]

Herman cain was more of an unintentionally funny candidate than stock conservative, outlandish belief type. (Uzbekibekibekistanstan and his ad with the smoking guy and slow smile)
Basically he is trump with fiorinas commercials.

 

[ivysaur12]

Hagan out.

http://atr.rollcall.com/kay-hagan-wont-challenge-richard-burr-2016/

Former North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan will not be mounting a challenge to her former GOP colleague, Sen. Richard M. Burr.

Hagan, who was defeated by Thom Tillis in 2014, has been making calls to inform donors she will not be running for the seat that comes up in 2016, two sources familiar with the calls told Roll Call.

While Hagan’s statewide name recognition and relatively strong performance in a year that saw Republicans weep into the Senate majority would have made her a top challenger to Burr, a national Democratic strategist said there are plenty of Democrats who could win this seat, including Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, state Treasurer Janet Cowell, longtime University of North Carolina President Tom Ross, and State Senate Minority Whip Josh Stein.

Democrats will likely now work to convince Cowell to run. Cowell said no to a bid earlier this year, but Democrats say she would be a top candidate. They also believe Burr’s not that well known throughout the state and could prove vulnerable.

The strategist also mentioned former Rep. Heath Shuler, the Blue Dog Democrat also known for his unsuccessful tenure as a Washington Redskins quarterback. He retired in 2012, after three terms.

Democrats in the Tar Heel State had already been thinking about contingency plans in case Hagan declined to run. The North Carolina Senate seat on the ballot in 2016 is rated Leans Republican by the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report/Roll Call.

 

[benjipwns]

It doesn't look like determine an issue is liberal or conservative by its nature; instead, its determined by the political lean of each justice. Not the best methodology, I agree.

This seems to be a rediclous analysis. How do they determine if something is liberal or conservative?

Then it's the same as DNOMINATE scores, if you aren't going to actually define liberal or conservative then you can fake it by playing the "everyone knows [X] is [liberal/conservative]" card and extrapolating distance from that individuals voting to place everyone else.

I know there's judicial equivalents of the ACU/ADA scores, they should have looked for those as additional variables.

Could also do it by who filed amicus briefs for/against.

I mean since everything in the world fits neatly along an irrational "liberal" and "conservative" spectrum that primarily exists to delineate our two sports teams and if it doesn't, it's not important.

From NYT:

The court has issued liberal decisions in 54 percent of the cases in which it had announced decisions as of June 22, according to the Supreme Court Database, using a widely accepted standard developed by political scientists.

...

It is obviously possible to quarrel with the coding of any individual case. But there is relatively little disagreement about the judgments among legal scholars, and the coding conventions are both consistently applied and in line with most people’s intuitions. Some examples: Decisions favoring criminal defendants, unions and people claiming discrimination or violation of their civil rights are considered liberal. Decisions striking down economic regulations and favoring prosecutors, employers and the government are conservative.

From The Database:
http://supremecourtdatabase.org/documentation.php?var=decisionDirection

In order to determine whether the Court supports or opposes the issue to which the case pertains, this variable codes the ideological "direction" of the decision.

Specification of direction comports with conventional usage for the most part except for the interstate relations, private law, and the miscellaneous issues. "Unspecifiable" has been entered either because the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). This variable will also contain "unspecifiable" where one state sues another under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and where parties or issue cannot be determined because of a tied vote or lack of information.

Note especially that the direction (pro- or anti-liability)of the three liability variables (80060, 80070, and 80080) depend on the disposition the Court made of the case, and which party won or lost. For 80070 -- non-governmental liability - a liberal vote and case decision support the injured person, organiation, or thing (res). For 80060 - governmental liability - a vote and case outcome that supports government is invariably defined as liberal. Note that if the injured entity is the other party in the case, said party loses, by definition. On the other hand, of course, if the injured entity wins, then of necessity the government loses. Where liability is assigned to both plaintiff and respondent, direction is considered indetermnable.

For purposes of the governmental liability issue, government includes state and local governmental entities, foreign governments, and governmentally owned property. In the rare instance of a conflict between governmental body and an injured person, organiation, or thing the governmental outcome controls directionality. Most such conflicts, however, locate in other issues; e.g., attorneys' and governemtnal employees' compensation or fees, and military personnel and veterans.

It bears emphasizing that the entry for directionality is determined by reference to the issue variable. If you are using the Case Centered Dataset organized by split votes, it is entirely possible for a citation to relate to a second issue whose direction is opposite that of the first issue. For example, in Air Pollution Variance Board of the State of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corporation, 416 U.S. 861 (1974), the Court decided that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by a health inspector's warrantless entry onto the property of a business to inspect smoke pollution. The first issue (search and seizure) is coded conservative; the second issue (natural resources) is coded liberal.

In order to determine whether an outcome is liberal (=2) or conservative (=1), the following scheme is employed.

1. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, liberal (2)=

pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial
pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality)
pro-child or juvenile
pro-indigent
pro-Indian
pro-affirmative action
pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases
pro-female in abortion
pro-underdog
anti-slavery
incorporation of foreign territories
anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business
violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident
pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases
pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending
pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents
pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records

conservative (1)=the reverse of above

2. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, liberal (2)=

pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition
pro-government
anti-business
anti-employer
pro-competition
pro-injured person
pro-indigent
pro-small business vis-a-vis large business
pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases
pro-debtor
pro-bankrupt
pro-Indian
pro-environmental protection
pro-economic underdog
pro-consumer
pro-accountability in governmental corruption
pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims
anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union
anti-union in union antitrust
anti-union in union or closed shop
pro-trial in arbitration

conservative (1)= reverse of above

3. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, liberal (2)=

pro-exercise of judicial power
pro-judicial "activism"
pro-judicial review of administrative action

conservative (1)=reverse of above

4. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, liberal (2)=

pro-federal power
pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes
anti-state

conservative (1)=reverse of above

5. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, liberal (2)= pro-United States; conservative (1)= pro-taxpayer

6. In interstate relations and private law issues, unspecifiable (3) for all such cases.

7. In miscellaneous, incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority = (2); legislative veto = (1).

Values:
1 conservative
2 liberal
3 unspecifiable

SCIENCE

 

[BertramCooper]

Hagan out.

http://atr.rollcall.com/kay-hagan-wont-challenge-richard-burr-2016/

This definitely isn't good news for Kay Hagan's election chances.

 

[Third Strike]

Hagan out.

http://atr.rollcall.com/kay-hagan-wont-challenge-richard-burr-2016/

Although I've always believed that Hagan would have lost to Burr in 2016, I really can't think of another candidate that would have done better than her. Guess NC is going to be stuck with two Republicans until 2020 (I really can't see Tillis surviving a presidential wave).

 

[benjipwns]

The Washington Post: What three psychics told us will happen in the 2016 election