• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
were you in FL when Jeb was Governor? if so how was he? He seems to have foot in mouth disease.

I was pretty politically apathetic in my early years but I remember Shiavo well, he also wasn't bad on the Hurricanes. I think he's an effective manager but his policies tend to be corporatist and exacerbate problems of inequality, social immobility, etc. He doesn't have a problem with the state footing the bill, just can't have democratic control over it!

I actually do appreciate him deciding to pay for AP testing. He literally footed the bill for me walking into college as a sophmore
 

benjipwns

Banned
Assuming this poll isn't complete garbage this is a real shocker. The idea that 10% of Michigan Republicans wouldn't love Walker's anti-union shtick is hard to understand.
Mitchell is a solid pollster for Michigan. For example they never once put out a poll where Snyder wasn't leading.

Walker has only been above 6% in one Michigan 2016 poll. PPP's in June where he had 15% vs. 14% for Trump, 14% for Bush, 14% for Carson.

his policies tend to be corporatist
It'd be easier to list the politicians where this wasn't the case.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Assuming this poll isn't complete garbage this is a real shocker. The idea that 10% of Michigan Republicans wouldn't love Walker's anti-union shtick is hard to understand.

Even Michigan republicans are starting to get a little agitated with the republicans cutting funding to roads/schools/ etc in Michigan.

Walker was even worse in Wisconsin.
 
Never fear poligaf. At a campaign stop in iowa, one man is speaking truth to power - and the washington elites are squirming
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/Bobby-Jindal-mocks-Hillary-Clinton-over-email-saga/articleshow/48468070.cms

"Breaking news: Hillary Clinton's emails are being investigated by the FBI. Our nation's top secrets could be on that server. Question for service members: If you had been reckless with the nation's secrets, what would have happened to you?" Jindal asked.

"Why should rules be different for Clinton? I'm tired of the political class thinking they're on higher ground," he added.

"The gross negligence of this administration is breathtaking. Obama's first Secretary of State was keeping Top Secret emails on her home server and his second can't keep his emails from being read by foreign governments."

Stating that the nation's top officials are admitting to "ineptitude" and "incompetence," Jindal added, "Hillary Clinton and John Kerry need to explain why they think that they can surrender our national security to our enemies and not face any consequences."
 

benjipwns

Banned
I think this is especially due to our constitution which handicaps the government from directly administrating programs they should be and instead handing it off to third parties
That wouldn't explain the European parliamentary nations where corporatism is even more rampant and enshrined.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I think you're the one using a vastly different meaning of corporatism here. It has nothing to do with contracting out public services or even privatizing them.

Corporatism is like the NRA, or syndicalism or fascism, or more prominently like tripartism which is how Scandinavia runs. (And Belgium and the Netherlands.)
 
I think you're the one using a vastly different meaning of corporatism here. It has nothing to do with contracting out public services or even privatizing them.

Corporatism is like the NRA, or syndicalism or fascism, or more prominently like tripartism which is how Scandinavia runs. (And Belgium and the Netherlands.)

Well, i'll be. Think you just handed me my thesis topic.

For some reason that was never covered during my education. Tkz m8

Oh hey, it links with the ILO. Gods, this is so perfect.
 

Ecotic

Member
Might be for the best that he didn't though. He would have ended the Iraq War sooner, maybe. Which would mean a significant amount to the families who lost loved ones in that war. But imagine if a Democrat was in the White House during the recession, which almost certainly would have happened anyway. 2006 probably wouldn't have been nearly as good for Democrats so he wouldn't have had a cooperative Congress. The party would lose dramatically in 2008 leaving their asshole in ruins.

Well, maybe not. Kerry would lose reelection to say, McCain. Economy doesn't improve much, Democrats do well in the midterms (and thus redistricting), Obama runs in 2012 and wins, now he's running for reelection with a strong economy.

But in general I tend to think everything happens the way it does for a reason.

I agree with your first scenario, that 2004's outcome's was for the best. Katrina, Iraq deteriorating, and the subprime meltdown would have sunk Kerry's reelection and Republicans would have rode the recovery and washed away Bush's memory in a repeat of what happened in 1980. It's almost too horrible to think about. Obama would really be the only consolation in that scenario, he wouldn't be denied the Presidency at some point down the line.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Well, i'll be. Think you just handed me my thesis topic.

For some reason that was never covered during my education. Tkz m8

Oh hey, it links with the ILO. Gods, this is so perfect.
Yeah, it's one thing I always find amusing when Americans and Europeans are both talking about trade unionism in the same conversation without actually saying what that would be. They're probably not thinking of the same exact setup regarding trade union powers.

The Scandinavian countries all had a period where if you wanted to work you had to join the national union and to join the national union you had to join the Social Democratic Party (or equivalent) and participate in it (send your kids to the youth group, attend party meetings), etc. Sweden was basically the nice version of a totalitarian one-party state during the Cold War era.

The American unions never went this route into industrywide/nationwide unions because they saw each other as competition within industries and against others. It was later that circumstances pushed them together out of necessity, not a grand notion that all workers should negotiate together. There were even some unions in the early 20th century that would send "scabs" to work where other unions were striking, so that they'd then be able to represent that factory or what have you. Same thing with unions in one industry (say steel) siding against ones in another (railroads) because the latter strike hurt their industry and they cared more about that than some kind of worker unity. (Similar to how unions treat new members.)

God Bless America.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I agree with your first scenario, that 2004's outcome's was for the best. Katrina, Iraq deteriorating, and the subprime meltdown would have sunk Kerry's reelection and Republicans would have rode the recovery and washed away Bush's memory in a repeat of what happened in 1980. It's almost too horrible to think about. Obama would really be the only consolation in that scenario, he wouldn't be denied the Presidency at some point down the line.

1st Term: Tax Cuts, No Child Left Behind, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq War
2nd Term: Katrina, the surge, the Financial Collapse and failed Immigration Reform

His whole presidency was a nightmare looking back. I am shocked Obama was able to bring us back from that period. 2001-2009 was definitely a dark moment in America's history. Can't believe we lived through that let alone survived it.

Was most of Bush's problem some of which were not of his fault indirectly done in his 1st or 2nd term?
 
I agree with your first scenario, that 2004's outcome's was for the best. Katrina, Iraq deteriorating, and the subprime meltdown would have sunk Kerry's reelection and Republicans would have rode the recovery and washed away Bush's memory in a repeat of what happened in 1980. It's almost too horrible to think about. Obama would really be the only consolation in that scenario, he wouldn't be denied the Presidency at some point down the line.
I think given the circumstance, a small GOP win in 2004 leading into a massive Democratic win in 2006 and 2008 was the best possible scenario. Most of the damage Bush did was in his first term, his second term revolved more around bungling crises that would have happened no matter who the president was. The 06 midterm was such a strong rebuke for the GOP.

I would always rather have the presidency than Congress if I had to choose. But man, another midterm like that would be swell. The Republicans can't even really take consolation in winning the midterms because they haven't done anything with it, at least Pelosi got legislation signed by Bush.
 

HyperionX

Member
I think given the circumstance, a small GOP win in 2004 leading into a massive Democratic win in 2006 and 2008 was the best possible scenario. Most of the damage Bush did was in his first term, his second term revolved more around bungling crises that would have happened no matter who the president was. The 06 midterm was such a strong rebuke for the GOP.

I would always rather have the presidency than Congress if I had to choose. But man, another midterm like that would be swell. The Republicans can't even really take consolation in winning the midterms because they haven't done anything with it, at least Pelosi got legislation signed by Bush.

I disagree. A huge reason why politics today is so screwed up is because of Bush's Supreme Court nominees, which happened in his second term. Not to mention the trillions that he squandered in Iraq and tax cuts. Much rather miss that whole period altogether.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery

"You have to look at the intent," Carson said before beginning a campaign swing through New Hampshire. "To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it."

I've read this several times and I'm not sure what the hell he's trying to say. Someone wanna help me out here?
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I think given the circumstance, a small GOP win in 2004 leading into a massive Democratic win in 2006 and 2008 was the best possible scenario. Most of the damage Bush did was in his first term, his second term revolved more around bungling crises that would have happened no matter who the president was. The 06 midterm was such a strong rebuke for the GOP.

I would always rather have the presidency than Congress if I had to choose. But man, another midterm like that would be swell. The Republicans can't even really take consolation in winning the midterms because they haven't done anything with it, at least Pelosi got legislation signed by Bush.

I'd rather have both but beggars can't be choosers.
 
I disagree. A huge reason why politics today is so screwed up is because of Bush's Supreme Court nominees, which happened in his second term. Not to mention the trillions that he squandered in Iraq and tax cuts. Much rather miss that whole period altogether.

We would have gotten a left-leaning Chief Justice. That would have been big. O'Connor would have held out, though.

Edit: On second though, if a Republican had won in 2008, Sotomayor and Kagan would have not be chosen, and we could have ended up with two more conservative stooges. Nah, I'll take the current timeline.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
We would have gotten a left-leaning Chief Justice. That would have been big. O'Connor would have held out, though.

yup. Truman was the last Democrat to pick a SC Justice. Looks like Truman, FDR and Jackson are the only 3 Democrats to select a SC Justice since the 2 modern parties have existed.

EDIT: Add Cleveland. Benji is right.
 
I disagree. A huge reason why politics today is so screwed up is because of Bush's Supreme Court nominees, which happened in his second term. Not to mention the trillions that he squandered in Iraq and tax cuts. Much rather miss that whole period altogether.
Hm. Kerry would have been able to replace Rehnquist. So you might have a point there.

I think the bigger problem is that politically these pendulum swings just tend to happen. Clinton was the start of the transformation of America from the Nixon-Bush era of GOP presidency domination (Carter being the exception and something of a fluke), and hopefully we'll see in 2016 a firm majority for the Democrats that started with Obama's presidency.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Hm. Kerry would have been able to replace Rehnquist. So you might have a point there.

I think the bigger problem is that politically these pendulum swings just tend to happen. Clinton was the start of the transformation of America from the Nixon-Bush era of GOP presidency domination (Carter being the exception and something of a fluke), and hopefully we'll see in 2016 a firm majority for the Democrats that started with Obama's presidency.

1993-2025

Democrats control 24 out of 32 years with W as an exception. Win 6 out of 8 presidential elections. So glorious if it happens. Don't want to think that far ahead though. GAF might be dead by then. Tyler might have quit
 
1993-2025

Democrats control 24 out of 32 years with W as an exception. Win 6 out of 8 presidential elections. So glorious if it happens. Don't want to think that far ahead. GAF might be dead by then. Tyler might have quit.
You're forgetting Booker/Castro/Harris' eight years.

Also seven of eight in the popular vote.
 

benjipwns

Banned
yup. Truman was the last Democrat to pick a SC Justice. Looks like Truman, FDR and Jackson are the only 3 Democrats to select a SC Justice since the 2 modern parties have existed.
Wow, Cleveland got kicked out of the party.

Interestingly, FDR elevated someone Coolidge originally appointed to the court. (And Taft elevated one of Cleveland's associates giving him two Chief Justices.)
 

benjipwns

Banned
Clinton was the start of the transformation of America from the Nixon-Bush era of GOP presidency domination (Carter being the exception and something of a fluke)
It only seemed like GOP domination because of the Carter failure and H.W. Bush fluke. Otherwise it's been eight years of D followed by eight years of R, etc. since 1945:

1945-1953: Truman (D)
2016!!!!
1953-1961: Eisenhower (R)
1961-1969: Kennedy/Johnson (D)
1969-1977: Nixon/Ford (R)
1977-1981: Carter (D)
1981-1993: Reagan/Bush (R)
1993-2001: Clinton (D)
2001-2009: Bush (R)
2009-2017: Obama (D)
 

benjipwns

Banned
Also, Kerry would have appointed Lieberman or McCain to the Supreme Court.

Book it in some alternate universe where I'm saying this prior to his election. Although it's still possible in this one.

EDIT: Oh god, I forgot Janet Napolitano was one of Obama's four finalists for Sotomayor's seat.

And that Granholm was supposedly top six.
 

benjipwns

Banned
You guys are in such a Democrat bubble you didn't even know that Hillary supports the Iran Deal ONLY because of her e-mail legal problems:
Notice Clinton doesn’t address the specifics of the deal at all, as opposed to Chuck Schumer who did so at considerable length in his rejection of the pact. It’s virtually impossible to support rationally this absurd agreement in which the U.S. gave in on practically everything and then donated $150 billion to the ayatollahs for the privilege of doing so.

Nevertheless, Hillary has no choice but to support it for two reasons. One: Bernie Sanders is backing it and he is getting all the popular attention on the Democratic side. But that’s minor and perhaps transitory. The major reason is clear and deserves a separate paragraph.

Hillary Clinton is in such deep legal trouble over her emails that she needs the backing of Obama to survive. He controls the attorney general’s office and therefore he controls Hillary (and her freedom) as long as he is president. Everything she says and does in the presidential campaign must be viewed against this reality. This is further enhanced by her need to hold together Obama’s electoral coalition. But that’s the least of it compared to having erased 32,000 emails, most of which were undoubtedly government property, and done who-knows-what to the server, something that not even Nixon would ever have dreamed of.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s — and other Democrats’ — support for the Iran deal has now basically been reduced to this: It may not be a terrific, but we’re stuck with it and it would be a huge embarrassment to vote it down now. Moreover, the sanctions could never be reinstated, so what’s the point? Oh, and by the way, if you don’t agree, you’re a warmonger.
 
You guys are in such a Democrat bubble you didn't even know that Hillary supports the Iran Deal ONLY because of her e-mail legal problems:
Dem bubble? On here?

grxToKi.jpg


Only if you've been skipping my jindal article posts
Which everyone reads
 

benjipwns

Banned
That's probably only because he got a shoutout in the campaign memo: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2271396/final-mook-memo-state-of-race-1-1.pdf
Fact: Aside from Tom Harkin, no Democratic candidate who wasn’t a sitting President or Vice President has won over 50 percent support in the Iowa caucuses.

Dem bubble? On here?

Only if you've been skipping my jindal article posts
Which everyone reads
Put your giant hideous images in quote tags buster.
 
I fail to see how anyone could complain about the resolution of that image
Hehe i post on my junky phone exclusively, i have no clue wtf im doin
 

watershed

Banned
Gore not running is the dumbest non-story of this election season so far. It's been less than a full day between "he might" to "he isn't."

Harkin's endorsement, while not unexpected, is a little more interesting. I think establishment democrats (for lack of a better phrase) are gonna start lining up for Hillary to try to blunt Bernie's surge. Harkin is just the beginning but it would be even more interesting if Hillary looses Iowa despite getting the endorsement of all the major Iowan dems.
 
Bernie down 63k in Facebook likes to Clinton. 1,099k to 1,162k. He's really closed the gap. I wrote down the tally a few weeks back. July 18: Hillary 1,066k Bernie 838k. She's got 96k since then. He has gotten 261k. Bernmentum.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Bernie down 63k in Facebook likes to Clinton. 1,099k to 1,162k. He's really closed the gap. I wrote down the tally a few weeks back. July 18: Hillary 1,066k Bernie 838k. She's got 96k since then. He has gotten 261k. Bernmentum.
The Hillary campaign memo I linked to above, one of things it touts is that she's the fastest candidate to ever get one million Facebook likes or something.
 
Bernie down 63k in Facebook likes to Clinton. 1,099k to 1,162k. He's really closed the gap. I wrote down the tally a few weeks back. July 18: Hillary 1,066k Bernie 838k. She's got 96k since then. He has gotten 261k. Bernmentum.

at this rate, he'll have 5 million by Election Day, 32 million by 2025, and 305 million by the time the Elder Race finally overthrows the Solar Federation

BERNIEMENTUM
 

kess

Member
I knew the 2004 election was lost after the Republican convention. Bush's ideas were bad, but had some semblance of initiative after Kerry's mostly vacuous DNC speech.

I don't like to think Kerry deserved what happened to him, but he walked right into his worst mistakes. The famous "I voted for it before I voted against it" line was in response to a heckler that he continued to engage in a civil manner. The inevitable attack ads never sat well with me -- a cheap flip-flopping charge enhanced by poor civics knowledge of Senate proceedings.

This is all pretty quaint by 2015 standards, but Kerry was often caught flat-footed, and I wonder how much of that fell on his campaign advisor, Bob Shrum (who should have been better prepared after being atomized by three Bush campaigns). His fingerprints are all over that campaign, a typical mealy-mouthed, middle-class appeal to reasonability, moderation, and an aversion to strong ideological issues. Kerry was already branded a radical early in the campaign, tried to appear above petty politics, let it stick, lost control of the message to the Republicans and/or demagogues like Michael Moore, and ran a mostly dispassionate campaign until the end.

Bush's "ownership society" imploded pretty quickly, but he managed to appoint Alito and Roberts.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Everybody here is overlooking the fact that TRUMAN 2016 has seen even more momentum. The percentage growth is infinite considering it started at zero just a few months back.

I think Bernie should start considering asking Harry to be his running mate. TRUMAN/Sanders.

I knew the 2004 election was lost after the Republican convention. Bush's ideas were bad, but had some semblance of initiative after Kerry's mostly vacuous DNC speech.
"I'm John Kerry and I'm REPORTING FOR DUTY!"

That was when I first noticed the trend I'd mentioned here before, that Kerry's poll numbers went up when he wasn't in the news and just W. was. Then Kerry would do something like go to Wendy's and be back on TV and his numbers would collapse.

Romney had something similar happening for a bit. They were better as not-Bush/not-Obama than they were as Kerry or Romney.

One other thing I hated about Kerry's campaign was his whole "BUSH FOOLED ME WITH WMDS!" like I want the guy who got fooled by this fool in office?!?

Kerry did more after the campaign, like Romney, to make himself likable. Like when it came out that he found John Edwards to be creepy as fuck and told Shrum to keep Edwards away from him if possible.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Howard Dean should have been the nominee in 2004.

the media killed Dean just because of one audio clip of "yeaaaahs!!" which is ridiculous

Dean had more balls than Kerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom