• 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.

Diablos

Member
I really think Trump is going to get the nomination at this point. The GOP establishment must be having a meltdown behind closed doors. Clearly it has already turned into a PR disaster; making statements where they act like a Trump independent run would not hurt them is just silly.

There's a thread here about Trump creeping up on Hillary in the polls. Some of the responses in there give me a headache.
 

Cheebo

Banned
I really think Trump is going to get the nomination at this point. The GOP establishment must be having a meltdown behind closed doors. Clearly it has already turned into a PR disaster, making statements where they act like a Trump independent run would not hurt them.

There's a thread here about Trump creeping up on Hillary in the polls. Some of the responses in there give me a headache.
There is absolutely no chance Trump makes it that far.
 
Jeb has already started going after Trump by trying to paint him as a tax raising democrat. It doesn't cost alot money to change some talking points, tweet, or make a youtuve video. But no doubt about it, Jeb is concerned about Trump's rise and is starting to attack him directly.

This is the classic Bush strategy. Appear to be the good guy in public statements then use your money machine to beat them down.
 
CM7zyX9WsAAYzdw.png
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Democratic Blues

Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression—even if Hillary wins


Under Obama, the party started strong. “When Obama was elected in 2008, Democrats were at a high water mark,” says David Axelrod, who served as one of Obama’s top strategists. “Driven by antipathy to George W. Bush and then the Obama wave, Democrats had enjoyed two banner elections in ’06 and ’08. We won dozens of improbable congressional elections in states and districts that normally would tack Republican, and that effect trickled down to other offices. You add to that the fact that we would take office in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, and it was apparent, from Day One, that we had nowhere to go but down.
”
The first signs of the slowly unfolding debacle that has meant the decimation of the Democratic Party nationally began early—with the special election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s empty Senate seat in Massachusetts. That early loss, even though the seat was won back eventually by Elizabeth Warren, presaged the 2010 midterms, which saw the loss of 63 House and six Senate seats. It was disaster that came as no surprise to the White House, but also proved a signal of what was to come.

The party’s record over the past six years has made clear that when Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017 the Democratic Party will have ceded vast sections of the country to Republicans, and will be left with a weak bench of high-level elected officials. It is, in fact, so bleak a record that even if the Democrats hold the White House and retake the Senate in 2016, the party’s wounds will remain deep and enduring, threatening the enactment of anything like a “progressive” agenda across much of the nation and eliminating nearly a decade’s worth of rising stars who might help strengthen the party in elections ahead.

When Obama came into the White House, it seemed like the Democrats had turned a corner generationally
; at just 47, he was one of the youngest men to be elected as president. But the party has struggled to build a new generation of leaders around him. Eight years later, when he leaves office in 2017 at 55, he’ll actually be one of the party’s only leaders not eligible for Social Security. Even as the party has recently captured more young voters at the ballot box in presidential elections, its leaders are increasingly of an entirely different generation; most of the party’s leaders will fade from the national scene in the years ahead. Its two leading presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are 67 and 73. The sitting vice president, Joe Biden, is 72. The Democratic House leader, Nancy Pelosi, is 75; House Whip Steny Hoyer is 76 and caucus Chair James Clyburn is 75, as is Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, who will retire next year. It’s a party that will be turning to a new generation of leaders in the coming years—and yet, there are precious few looking around the nation’s state houses, U.S. House or Senate seats.

Now turn to state legislatures—although if you’re a loyal Democrat, you may want to avert your eyes. In 2009, Democrats were in full control of 27 state legislatures; Republicans held full power in 14. Now? The GOP is in full control of 30 state legislatures; Democrats hold full power in just 11. In 24 states, Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature—giving them total control over the political process. That increased power at the state level has already led to serious consequences for Democrats, for their political future and for their goals

Whatever the explanations, there is an unsettling reality for Democrats: While they may warm themselves over presidential prospects—demographic shifts and a Republican Party deeply at war with itself and consumed by a chaotic primary highlighted by the debate earlier this month, starring Donald Trump at the center of the stage—the weather where so much of our politics and policies will be shaped looks distinctly chiller.

“We are fooling ourselves,” says one well-placed Democratic operative, “if we think we can advance a progressive agenda in Washington, if half the Congress and half the states are controlled by a Republican Party enthusiastically working to undo every trace of progressive policy.
”

The political consequences of the grass-roots Democratic weakness are clear. State control means a determined party can enact laws that severely weaken the opposition. Gerrymandering is just one example. If newly Republican legislatures undo a series of laws to make voting easier—no more same-day registration, fewer early-voting days, more stringent voter ID laws—the impact will be felt most among likely Democratic voters. If states like Wisconsin weaken the power of public employee unions, or free public and private workers from paying union dues, it will mean fewer union dollars and fewer union foot soldiers for future Democratic campaigns. Politics, however, is only part of the story—and not the most important. Republican domination of state legislatures and state houses means an approach to tax policy, corporate regulation, education, the environment and abortion that is at least as consequential as the proclaimed views of a future Democratic president.

The Republican Party and supporting oligarchs like the Koch Brothers have invested exponentially more time and resources into building electoral strength from the grass roots up, concentrating on down ballot state offices, legislative races—even school board and City Council races. This has helped turn more than a few legislatures from blue to red, and also had created a larger pool of potential candidates for higher offices in the future.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/democratic-blues-121561.html#ixzz3jSkmens0


Thx Obama.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
The FL House has rejected the Senate map and will not conference it, meaning the SCOFL will draw the congressional map. Which is (probably) a win for the Democrats.
 
It's not too surprising to see a fall-off after the anti-GOP surge at the end of Bush's 2 term (when even conservatives started calling themselves "libertarian"). And a health about of that dropoff I'd attribute to racism as well.

Neither are exactly his fault.

But... Politico.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
It's not too surprising to see a fall-off after the anti-GOP surge at the end of Bush's 2 term (when even conservatives started calling themselves "libertarian"). And a health about of that dropoff I'd attribute to racism as well.

Neither are exactly his fault.

But... Politico.

no it is not his fault but the Democrats as the article states did not do any long term investment in the States years earlier before they lost the House the first time.

For longtime Democratic operative Joe Trippi, the problems began at the end of the 1980s, when Republicans, after decades in the minority, “put everything in their energy and funding towards solving their problems in winning the House of Representatives. And [in 1994] it worked. And they also recruited for state races—we didn’t. None of the Washington committees of the Democratic Party really gave a damn who was running for attorney general or secretary of state.”

Howard Dean comes along and want to do a 50 state strategy in 05 and Rahmn Emanuel disagrees.

More than a decade ago—years before the successive midterm disasters—one prominent Democrat sought to address his party’s grass-roots weaknesses. In 2005, former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean became chair of the Democratic National Committee, and pronounced a “fifty state strategy,” looking to find candidates and foot soldiers even in deepest red America. It was a strategy that brought Dean into direct conflict with Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who wanted resources targeted to the most winnable districts. In the short run, Emanuel’s approach worked; Democrats won back control of the House in 2006. In the long run, however, it left the party virtually disarmed against a determined GOP drive to win state and local contests

For his part, Dean—who left the DNC chairmanship in 2009—-told Governing Magazine back in 2013, “It would be a terrible mistake to leave even one state out of a basic package of training, IT and staffing,” he said. “I don’t advocate putting a zillion dollars into Alaska, but I do advocate having a competent, well-run Democratic Party in place, because you never know where lightning is going to strike.”

No doubt because of the party in power effect losses were going to happen but the Democrats did nothing in the intervening years to limit them.
 

dabig2

Member
If a Dem wins the Presidency in 2016, I don't really care about the state of the party as much as I do the state of the country and its future. In those regards, if Hilary or Bernie wins, then overall Obama did relatively well.

I mean, consider this, Carter led to Reagan. We're still feeling the consequences of that 35 years later. Hell, it's what fuels Conservatives TODAY. It's their goddamn lifeblood.

And don't forget about Clinton leading to Dubya. Holy hell I hope I don't have to go into how much the country has been and will be fucked from that 8 year period.

So I like to look at everything overall. Do the Republicans hold a great advantage in terms of state governments? Yes. In terms of the House? Yes. In terms of the Senate? Remaining to be seen, but they're definitely in the lead.

But the country? No. What we're seeing is something like a wounded animal lashing out before its demise. It's ferocious and will even influence the battle for a brief time, but it's just a matter of time. The writing is on the wall and soon the Conservatives as they exist now - to take a page from the good book - will be weighed on the scales and found wanting.
 
So I like to look at everything overall. Do the Republicans hold a great advantage in terms of state governments? Yes. In terms of the House? Yes. In terms of the Senate? Remaining to be seen, but they're definitely in the lead.

This is what is so important - and what myopic Bernie lunatics fail to realize.

Yes, we harp about how important the Supreme Court is, but we often don't explain one of the main reasons why it's so important.

As long as batshit crazy Republicans control state governments, we need as many liberal justices as possible on SCOTUS to strike down their most egregious bullshit.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
If a Dem wins the Presidency in 2016, I don't really care about the state of the party as much as I do the state of the country and its future. In those regards, if Hilary or Bernie wins, then overall Obama did relatively well.

I mean, consider this, Carter led to Reagan. We're still feeling the consequences of that 35 years later. Hell, it's what fuels Conservatives TODAY. It's their goddamn lifeblood.

And don't forget about Clinton leading to Dubya. Holy hell I hope I don't have to go into how much the country has been and will be fucked from that 8 year period.

So I like to look at everything overall. Do the Republicans hold a great advantage in terms of state governments? Yes. In terms of the House? Yes. In terms of the Senate? Remaining to be seen, but they're definitely in the lead.

But the country? No. What we're seeing is something like a wounded animal lashing out before its demise. It's ferocious and will even influence the battle for a brief time, but it's just a matter of time. The writing is on the wall and soon the Conservatives as they exist now - to take a page from the good book - will be weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Both are important. The state of the party includes not the just the presidency but Congress makeup and the states. The Republican Party is not dying anytime soon in the next decade or 2. The future of the party rest on new up comers and you get those from the state and local races. If they keep getting blown away every off year you left with a diminished bench.

Atleast until 2019 the current Republican Party with the likes of Brownback, Walker, Snyder, Kasich etc are not going away till then.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
At worse we replace Breyer and Ginsberg. At best replace them, Kennedy & Scalia. Hopefully the latter two don't come with a Republican Senate.
 
Weirdly, part of me expects Hillary to be a one-term president. Not because she can't secure two terms, but because she elects not to run again.

Dunno why.

Unless her VP runs this isn't happening. Nobody would forgo the benefits of incumbency unless they were losing which if then, does it matter that she quits vs loses?
 
Scalia will continue to hold out until a Republican takes the office, or he will opt to die before that happens. Kennedy would probably prefer a Republican choose his replacement, but I also doubt he wants his seat to be taken by another Alito, and not someone who is more libertarian. He will probably retire whenever he feels like it.
 
no it is not his fault but the Democrats as the article states did not do any long term investment in the States years earlier before they lost the House the first time.



Howard Dean comes along and want to do a 50 state strategy in 05 and Rahmn Emanuel disagrees.



No doubt because of the party in power effect losses were going to happen but the Democrats did nothing in the intervening years to limit them.

I agree but I don't think that's Obama's Legacy. Just the current state of the DNC.
 

dabig2

Member
Both are important. The state of the party includes not the just the presidency but Congress makeup and the states. The Republican Party is not dying anytime soon in the next decade or 2. The future of the party rest on new up comers and you get those from the state and local races. If they keep getting blown away every off year you left with a diminished bench.

Atleast until 2019 the current Republican Party with the likes of Brownback, Walker, Snyder, Kasich etc are not going away till then.

Good I say. Let them continue to prove to the country that they can't govern for shit. Again, I'm looking extremely long term. The framing of my post was, at least in my mind, set 35 years from now (same amount of time since Reagan started the slide we find ourselves in). So yes, it looks dire in the state governments for the moment, but it's fools gold for Conservatives. It's buying time, and during that time they will continue to prove to their constituents that the ideals of Reagan are shit.
 
I am not sure why 60% of Americans want ground troops against ISIS and 60% of Americans want to reject the Iran deal.

I think recent US history has shown how bad we are at war in the Middle East, but I guess Americans want another go?
 
Weirdly, part of me expects Hillary to be a one-term president. Not because she can't secure two terms, but because she elects not to run again.

Dunno why.

I think it's very like she's a one term president, but not because of that. The economy pretty much falls once every decade, and more than likely it'll occur during the next president's term.
 

Grexeno

Member
ISIS is so despicable that I want nothing more than to crush them into nothing, even though I know that won't work and will just lead to something just as bad if not worse coming down the pipeline.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Scalia will continue to hold out until a Republican takes the office, or he will opt to die before that happens. Kennedy would probably prefer a Republican choose his replacement, but I also doubt he wants his seat to be taken by another Alito, and not someone who is more libertarian. He will probably retire whenever he feels like it.

I could see Kennedy waiting to see if the Senate goes Republican in 2018 (or whenever). At that point, both sides in the process - the nominator, and the advisor/consentor - would have to cooperate to a greater extent.

...

As far as the state of the party goes, I'm reeeeeally hoping that this gender gap thing is for real.

When Obama ran, African American turnout went up about 4% (in contrast, white turnout was relatively flat). But because of gerrymandering by race, that rise in turnout didn't translate into an even rise in the Democratic tide as far as House races were concerned. We saw enough of a rise to help capture the House, but the effect really wasn't maximized.

Since the mapmakers can't gerrymander by gender due to the distribution of females being more homogeneous throughout the population (contrast with African Americans, who tend to live in a more clustered pattern), we'd see more of an evenly rising blue tide across the map.. assuming that Hillary were to carry some sort of gender gap coattail effect with her.

I keep going back to gender being the story of this election, but it could set the Democrats up to recover a bit for beyond 2016, to the point where they're a bit better positioned going into the critical 2020 election cycle.
 

KingGondo

Banned
ISIS is so despicable that I want nothing more than to crush them into nothing, even though I know that won't work and will just lead to something just as bad if not worse coming down the pipeline.
That's kinda their whole shtick. They're trying to provoke the west into a horrible, protracted guerrilla war.

Expect to be horrified continually, but that doesn't mean we should commit to a military conflict.
 
Jeb!

His massive inconsistencies aside, @realDonaldTrump’s immigration plan is not conservative and does not reflect our nation's values.

lol, this new strategy of "Trump is actually a Democrat" isn't going to work when you say repealing the 14th amendment isn't a conservative thing. Scot Walker and the other loonies are already on this shit and the far right desperately wants it. Good luck selling this idea, Jeb!
 
Jeb!



lol, this new strategy of "Trump is actually a Democrat" isn't going to work when you say repealing the 14th amendment isn't a conservative thing. Scot Walker and the other loonies are already on this shit and the far right desperately wants it. Good luck selling this idea, Jeb!

A real conservative would be calling for forced labor like Scott Walker.
 
Jeb!



lol, this new strategy of "Trump is actually a Democrat" isn't going to work when you say repealing the 14th amendment isn't a conservative thing. Scot Walker and the other loonies are already on this shit and the far right desperately wants it. Good luck selling this idea, Jeb!
Trump is gonna end Jeb's campaign if he keeps up with the attacks, just like he ended Rand's.
 

Crisco

Banned
ISIS is so despicable that I want nothing more than to crush them into nothing, even though I know that won't work and will just lead to something just as bad if not worse coming down the pipeline.

The Baathists were despicable. The Taliban are despicable. And yes, ISIS is despicable. The main difference? Not one US soldier has died fighting ISIS and the amount of money spent has been negligible. Let's keep it that way.
 
I think I know how Trump is gonna implode. He's gonna go after Jebe and in doing so he will question his commitment to immigration by dragging his marriage to a Latina as an attack.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I really hope Trump brings up Walker going on the radio host who talked about slavery's show.
 

dabig2

Member
I think I know how Trump is gonna implode. He's gonna go after Jebe and in doing so he will question his commitment to immigration by dragging his marriage to a Latina as an attack.

Nah, that'll probably just energize the racist part of the base even more. Not like others haven't questioned Jeb's marriage already anyways. His McCain attack was far more dangerous considering the rabid pro-military aspect of the Republicans and he escaped that looking better than ever. It'll take something a little more.

fake edit: Looks like Trump himself was already apart of those "others" that have already questioned that marriage.
 
I think it's very like she's a one term president, but not because of that. The economy pretty much falls once every decade, and more than likely it'll occur during the next president's term.
While this is probably trolling (and I clearly remember you saying the same thing about Obama and that we were due for a "string of one-termers") I actually somewhat agree with you. Carrying four consecutive terms in the White House is a heavy load.

But it's foolish to predict anything that far out with such certainty. For all we know the economy could be fine in 2020 and Hillary might not even win in 2016. But I do think Democrats should brace themselves for the possibility of losses both in 2018 and 2020, and fight like hell to change that or at least minimize our losses. 2018 in particular is going to be crucial for redistricting as that's when many gubernatorial seats will be up (flipping Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and holding Pennsylvania should be our top priorities).
 
Campaigning in New Hampshire, where he finds himself tied in the polls with also-rans Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) labeled questions as to whether he would meet with Black Lives Matter activists as “ridiculous,” reports the Daily Mail.

With his campaign also floundering in neighboring Iowa, where he once polled in the double figures, Walker has become more aggressive as of late, echoing many of the same talking points that have boosted blustery businessman Donald Trump to the lead for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

Asked at a ‘Politics and Eggs’ breakfast forum in Manchester on Friday if he would take some time to sit down with the African-American activists, Walker called the question “ridiculous.”

“I’m going to meet with voters. I mean, I’ve said, it’s not just – who knows who that is?” the flustered Walker replied before comparing the grassroots civil rights organization to the Tea Party.

“I’m going to talk with American voters. Period. It’s the same way as saying you’re going to meet with the Tea Party,” he continued. “Who’s the Tea Party? There’s hundreds of thousands of people out there.”

“I’m here to talk to voters in New Hampshire about things that matter,” Walker told the Daily Mail reporter.

Well.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
While this is probably trolling (and I clearly remember you saying the same thing about Obama and that we were due for a "string of one-termers") I actually somewhat agree with you. Carrying four consecutive terms in the White House is a heavy load.

But it's foolish to predict anything that far out with such certainty. For all we know the economy could be fine in 2020 and Hillary might not even win in 2016. But I do think Democrats should brace themselves for the possibility of losses both in 2018 and 2020, and fight like hell to change that or at least minimize our losses. 2018 in particular is going to be crucial for redistricting as that's when many gubernatorial seats will be up (flipping Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and holding Pennsylvania should be our top priorities).

1. She is going to win. Believe in it.
2. They are going to have losses and it is crucial that they prepare for that now.
 
While this is probably trolling (and I clearly remember you saying the same thing about Obama and that we were due for a "string of one-termers") I actually somewhat agree with you. Carrying four consecutive terms in the White House is a heavy load.

But it's foolish to predict anything that far out with such certainty. For all we know the economy could be fine in 2020 and Hillary might not even win in 2016. But I do think Democrats should brace themselves for the possibility of losses both in 2018 and 2020, and fight like hell to change that or at least minimize our losses. 2018 in particular is going to be crucial for redistricting as that's when many gubernatorial seats will be up (flipping Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and holding Pennsylvania should be our top priorities).
The problem I have with this is politics is different now. Back during the time periods we keep looking back to the electorate was very firm in its fluidness (this doesn't make literal sense but you know what I mean) and solid in its composition (White). This isn't true now. Unless minorities start changing their votes or stop showing up why should we expect change, even with economic troubles (Doesn't everyone remember how crappy things were in 2012 when Obama got reelected).

A lot of the reasons people voted for the challenger in those years wasn't only the economy but because the challenging party had different ideas about how to fix thins. There was the hope that these policies would be better. That's not to say the Dems can't lose but you can't just say "there's always an economic crisis" or "4 terms is too much, people want change!"
 

Walker's entire career has been based on stiring white racial resentment. Lets not forget he went after state workers union (were minorities are prevalent) and left cops and firefighters alone. There's also a lot base on his time as county leader or whatever they call that up in Milwalkee (I believe its the most segregated city in the country or something).
 

NeoXChaos

Member
The problem I have with this is politics is different now. Back during the time periods we keep looking back to the electorate was very firm in its fluidness (this doesn't make literal sense but you know what I mean) and solid in its composition (White). This isn't true now. Unless minorities start changing their votes or stop showing up why should we expect change, even with economic troubles (Doesn't everyone remember how crappy things were in 2012 when Obama got reelected).

A lot of the reasons people voted for the challenger in those years wasn't only the economy but because the challenging party had different ideas about how to fix thins. There was the hope that these policies would be better. That's not to say the Dems can't lose but you can't just say "there's always an economic crisis" or "4 terms is too much, people want change!"

Not enough data to say that 4 terms would be too much. We have only one data point and that is FDR during the time of war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom