Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

Stahp

The first first lady with a sex tape? one who broke the internet? what a time to be alive!

 

[User1608]

You guys ready for kim kardashian as first lady in 2021?

I think I'll phone home if that happens...

 

[NeoXChaos]

Donald Trump's musings about running for president as a third-party or independent candidate have struck fear into the hearts of many Republicans, since he could well split the conservative vote and throw the election to the Democratic nominee.

Unless, that is, he's blocked from even appearing on the ballot by "sore loser laws."

Already in Ohio and Michigan, existing sore loser laws would block a Trump third-party bid if he runs in the primaries and loses. And if Republicans pass similar measures in other swing states, the damage from a third-party or independent Trump candidacy could be contained.

It's a sort of nuclear option that the party could take in a last-ditch effort to stop Trump from tanking their presidential chances. But he certainly wouldn't go down quietly. As Ezra Klein recently wrote, "There's nothing Donald Trump hates like being called a loser."

Would Republicans in other states pass sore loser laws to stop Trump?

If Trump continues to dangle the possibility of an independent candidacy, Republicans in other key states could pass similar sore loser laws applying to the presidential contest. Such a blatant anti-Trump move would likely result in some backlash, but party elites might calculate that it's worth doing anyway, since Trump puts their presidential chances at such risk. In Florida, Wisconsin, and Nevada, the governorship and state legislature are all in Republican hands (though it might be awkward for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to sign such a law, considering he's running for president himself).

But if the GOP makes such a move, expect many Democrats to suddenly wax loquacious about how undemocratic sore loser laws are for their own partisan reasons. Virginia's governor is Terry McAuliffe, a longtime close ally of the Clintons. Colorado, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania have Democratic governors, too, and Iowa's state Senate is (barely) controlled by Democrats. They have little incentive to do the GOP presidential candidate a favor.

Republicans could accurately make the case that in the long run, both major parties will be helped by sore loser laws. But the potential short-term benefits of a Trump independent candidacy could be so great for Democrats that it would be a tough sell.

Well that sucks. He would never be able to get on Ohio's ballot.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9127435/donald-trump-third-party

 

[benjipwns]

We've been talking about how the republicans are going to extreme and will be doomed since forever now. Every single time they move further right we say "this is the time they went too far and this screw them for the general" and it never ever happens.

The Republicans haven't moved appreciably to "the right" either in any real tangible measure.

This crop of candidates isn't any more "extreme" than the ones in 1996.

Same with people saying this is the most "left-wing" Democratic crop. (When they were including Biden, Warren, Cuomo, etc. early in the cycle)

Trump's moved clearly outside the "mainstream" on issues, but it's not consistently "to the right" or to the fringe "right" edge of the Republican Party. (See his tax and health care comments recently.) Fighting immigration is like a centrist position within the base. It was a centrist position within the party base in 1996 too. California Senator/Governor Pete Wilson's entire plausible boomlet candidacy* was because he was piggy-backing on Proposition 187. Pat Buchanan was trying to deport anyone who even visited another country.

The GOP in general has mostly upset what's within Congressional-norm bounds. The Tea Party crop has not been willing to just go along with long-term leadership's organization and "the way things work." The Watergate Babies caused this same kind of problem and the old hands went mad trying to corral some of them just like Boehner has.

Just to save myself time, let's take the "most extreme" (and I would agree by most any spectrum you made) GOP candidate, Ted Cruz from OnTheIssues.org:
Anti-abortion. Anti-gay marriage. Likes God a lot. Anti-Obamacare. Privatize Social Security. Pro-vouchers. Anti-EPA. Pro-death penalty. Pro-guns. Anti-taxes. Anti-immigration. Pro-free trade. Pro-unilateralism. Pro-expand military. Pro-intervention. Anti-green energy.

How much of this differs with the GOP platforms circa 1980-2012? The majority of candidates post-1980? Phil Gramm and Steve Forbes ran on this platform George W. Bush ran on a toned down version of the platform in 2004 and only a slightly different one in 2000.

It's not like there's a comparable Democrat version that's not the inverse of this platform. You get some hearsay here and there on some issues just like with the GOP. But other than the foreign policy stuff, the Democratic Party has been basically the inverse of this for most of the same period.

This is rhetoric. And it's not really unchanging, but when elected, it all comes crashing down into some kind of incoherent blob. Reagan wanted to eliminate two Departments (Perry did top him there, though Reagan could remember both) and wound up not only expanding them but creating one of the largest new Departments in Veteran Affairs.

We've all seen Obama's compromises with governing after his insanely lofty and overpromising rhetoric in 2008.

A pertinent old Washington Monthly piece: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

Indeed, what is so striking about these books--besides their sheer number--is their collective determination to exalt Reagan as the heroic embodiment of American conservatism.

This is no accident. In fact, there is an active campaign to nail into place a canonical version of Reagan's life and career. Energetic conservatives have organized a drive to glorify the former president by trying to do everything from affixing his name to public buildings in each of the nation's 3,066 counties to substituting his face for Alexander Hamilton's on the $10 bill. A similar dynamic applies here. Many of these hagiographies are written by noted conservative authors (Buckley, Noonan, D'Souza) or former Reagan staffers (Wallison, Martin Anderson, Michael Deaver), under the auspices of conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (Wallison), the Hoover Institution (Anderson and Schweizer), and the Heritage Foundation (Stephen F. Hayward's The Age of Reagan, the first of two volumes).

One would have to go back to FDR to find a comparable example of a president portrayed in such consistently glowing terms--and the swashbuckling triumphs depicted in these books mythologize Reagan to a degree which exceeds even that. As one might expect, most gloss over or completely avoid mentioning the many embarrassing and outright alarming aspects of his presidency: from consulting astrologers to his fixation with biblical doom to the tortured rationalizations that enabled him to believe that he never traded arms for hostages. But they also do something else. Most of his conservative biographers espouse a Manichaean worldview in which Reagan's constancy in the face of liberal evils is the key to his greatness. But to sustain such an argument requires more than simply touting (and often exaggerating) his achievements, considerable though some of them were. The effort to gild Reagan's legacy also seems to demand that any accomplishment that didn't explicitly advance conservative goals be ex-punged from his record. And so they have been.

Reagan is, to be sure, one of the most conservative presidents in U.S. history and will certainly be remembered as such. His record on the environment, defense, and economic policy is very much in line with its portrayal. But he entered office as an ideologue who promised a conservative revolution, vowing to slash the size of government, radically scale back entitlements, and deploy the powers of the presidency in pursuit of socially and culturally conservative goals. That he essentially failed in this mission hasn't stopped partisan biographers from pretending otherwise. (Noonan writes of his 1980 campaign pledges: "Done, done, done, done, done, done, and done. Every bit of it.")

A sober review of Reagan's presidency doesn't yield the seamlessly conservative record being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued. Reagan broke with the hardliners in his administration and compromised with the Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized; instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised.

All of this has been airbrushed from the new literature of Reagan. But as any balanced account must make clear, Reagan acceded to political compromises as all presidents do once in office--and on many occasions did so willingly. In fact, however often unintentionally, many of his actions as president wound up facilitating liberal objectives. What this clamor of adulation is seeking to deny is that beyond his conservative legacy, Ronald Reagan has bequeathed a liberal one.

*Before he had throat surgery and could barely speak at his own announcement speech, which...was in New York City...in front of the Statue of Liberty...because immigration is good?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Well that sucks. He would never be able to get on Ohio's ballot.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9127435/donald-trump-third-party

That would limit the damage, but he'd still be able to run a write-in campaign, which would still torpedo the GOP candidate.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

We've been talking about how the republicans are going to extreme and will be doomed since forever now. Every single time they move further right we say "this is the time they went too far and this screw them for the general" and it never ever happens

Well, it happened in 2008 and 2012. The GOP had historical losses of the youth vote.

And the demographics favoring Democrats have only increased since then. Hispanics and women are getting shat on by the GOP front-runner and the GOP in general. Youth still don't trust old, white, conservative, religious zealots.

The Republicans, in their current state, are doomed.

 

[benjipwns]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-i-can-get-beyond-the-noise-to-pass-gun-rules

Sen. Bernie Sanders is arguing that his record makes him the best qualified presidential candidate to push through new limits on guns.

Despite criticism that the independent Vermonter has been to the right of many liberals on gun rules, Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he is best positioned to negotiate new restrictions preventing mentally ill people from acquiring weapons.

“I do not accept the fact that I have been weak on this issue. I have been strong on this issue,” Sanders claimed.

“In fact, coming from a rural state that has almost no gun control, I think I can get beyond the noise and all of these arguments and people shouting at each other and come up with real constructive gun control legislation which, most significantly, gets guns out of the hands of people who should not have them,” he said.

Despite the fact that Sanders is considered among the most liberal Democrats on many issues, he has been more moderate on gun issues

...

On Sunday, Sanders trumpeted the fact that he has a “D-minus” lifetime voting record from the National Rifle Association, and has cast difficult votes in opposition to the group.

Jack Reacher • 15 hours ago
Bernie cannot get rid of guns; he needs them to ward of those scary and crazy black people.

wiseoldfart • 15 hours ago
True. They'll come gunning for him if he wins the "D" nomination and loses the White House to Trump.

lol

FastEddie • 10 hours ago
As far as I'm concerned Sanders lost all credibility when two girls shoved him away from his podium, took his microphone away, and hijacked his public speech.

Road Stack • 10 hours ago
If the Chinese demanded to land their military in L.A. Sanders would respond by re-routing commercial air traffic, clearing the runways and ordering the airport food court to make fried rice.

Jack Frost • 11 hours ago
This is so simple, even a blind man could see it! Just link the National Instant Background Check system to the nation's voter registration lists... Anyone that is registered other than a Republican is instantly denied the ability to purchase a firearm! Viola! Problem solved! It has been proven by 97% of all scientists that every mass shooter is a liberal, lunatic, left-wing, democrat, progressive socialist nut job.

DanB_Tiffin • 12 hours ago
He has already proven what a weakling he is. Black folks can shut him down any time they want to.

Madderton • 9 hours ago
In all reality, Bernie hasn't ever authored any legislation that has passed.

SaraB55 • 4 hours ago
I think he once passed a bill to rename a post office in Mossjaw, VT. But it has since been closed because it ran out of other people's money.

Angelo Sentenza • 15 hours ago
GAY FLAGS ARE OFFENSIVE
_________________________ The homosexual that murdered the female TV reporter on live TV flew the GAY FLAG.

Allowing comments on news stories was the greatest idea ever.

Last one has this avatar:

 

[RustyNails]

Last one has this avatar:

People who lose the GOP nomination bet in poligaf will be forced to wear this avatar.

 

[Retromelon]

There are worse fates on this cruel earth to bear. Some have billions and want to be worshipped for it and some live bereft of hope and food and shoes

 

[kess]

The Republicans haven't moved appreciably to "the right" either in any real tangible measure.

I think, it's easier to see these kinds of things on a state level. If you're living in a state like Pennsylvania, there's a clear progression over the years from Heinz to Santorum to Toomey. Admittedly, the national platform hasn't changed much in that time frame, and there's a good argument to make that Robert Taft would almost certainly be considered as conservative (or moreso) than the current crop of Republican candidates running today.

 

[benjipwns]

UNPRECEDENTED

"Though he campaigned as a moderate Democrat, and delivered on such longtime Republican goals as a balanced budget and welfare reform," the Post explains, "Clinton's administration ultimately proved highly divisive." But Clinton proved divisive not, as the article implies, because he or his party grew more uncompromising or extreme. Just the opposite: Clinton was dragging his party closer to the center. This was divisive within the Democratic Party, because liberals were betrayed and outraged by his challenges to traditional Democratic orthodoxy on such policies as welfare and crime. And it was divisive in Washington because the Republican Party was becoming so uncompromising and extreme that it found even a moderate Democrat in the White House completely unacceptable.

Here, too, the evidence is pretty clear. While scores of Democrats supported tax and spending blueprints offered up by Reagan and the first President Bush, not a single Republican in either house of Congress voted for Clinton's 1993 budget. The budget essentially renounced Keynesian spending advocated by economic liberals such as Robert Reich and embraced deficit reduction, a longtime goal of the business community and the mostly-Republican deficit hawks in Congress. But it also raised marginal rates on the wealthy a bit, so Republicans, many of whom had gone along with Reagan's tax increases, voted against Clinton's entire budget package.

Indeed, quite early on in Clinton's presidency, GOP leaders explicitly decided to make the failure of Clinton's presidency their overriding goal, regardless of, and indeed in spite of, his attempts to move to the middle.

...

While many Republicans were skeptical of Clinton's preferred solution to the [health insurance] problem, they at first accepted a responsibility to pass some sort of plan. Yet they came to be persuaded by the advice of conservative operative William Kristol, who urged in a series of influential memos that the GOP oppose the Clinton plan "sight unseen," and commit to sinking whatever plan was devised--on the grounds that successful passage of any plan would keep the Democratic Party in power. In keeping with this advice, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole even abandoned his own health-reform proposal, the better to create gridlock.

Digging through old magazine archives is fun.

What If Bush Wins?

The Triumph of Anything Goes
David Greenberg

The Plutocrats Go Wild
James K. Galbraith

The Democratic Party Is Toast
Grover Norquist

The Scandals Finally Break
Kevin Drum

The Empire Strikes Out
Gideon Rose

Hoover's Court Rides Again
Cass R. Sunstein

Vengeance Is His
Paul Begala

Bush Becomes a Moderate, Really
Mickey Edwards & Nancy Sinnott Dwight

The Left Learns From Goldwater
Todd Gitlin

The Deficit Conquers All
Sebastian Mallaby

W. Takes On Global Warming
Gregg Easterbrook

The Roquefort Cheese Wars
Christopher Buckley

Decline of American Greatness
Elaine Kamarck

America Gets Privatized
E.J. Dionne

The Glorious Revolution: A Look Back
Jeff Greenfield

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.norquist.html

The Democratic Party is Toast

By Grover Norquist

The modern Democratic Party cannot survive the reelection of President George W. Bush and another four years of Republican control of both Congress and the White House.

No brag. Just fact.

I do declare "No brag. Just fact." needs to become a PoliGAF meme. No brag. Just fact.

I think, it's easier to see these kinds of things on a state level. If you're living in a state like Pennsylvania, there's a clear progression over the years from Heinz to Santorum to Toomey. Admittedly, the national platform hasn't changed much in that time frame, and there's a good argument to make that Robert Taft would almost certainly be considered as conservative (or moreso) than the current crop of Republican candidates running today.

Heinz did knock off Specter to get the nomination for his Senate seat.

I think the major contributing factor is that there's more Republicans in general. As the piece I quoted above and above further about Reagan. The GOP couldn't pass anything without working with the Democrats prior to 1994. Since, they've had periods where they controlled every branch. The New Deal coalition falling apart had forced a "centrist bloc" to dominate the Senate. That's gone with Congress being in play every few years.

The states have also really polarized, just looking at a couple examples, New York, Texas, South Carolina. This makes it easier to elect more conservative or more progressive members to Congress which inherently are less likely to deal with one another. Both parties have really chased this after 1994 in terms of really locking in their Senators especially. When your worse case scenario is 55% of the vote you're free to be much more ideological and hardline.

New York was a swing state as late as 1988:
1940: 51.5% Roosevelt, 48.0% Willkie
1944: 52.3% Roosevelt, 47.3% Dewey
1948: 46.0% Dewey, 45.0% Truman, 8.3% Wallace
1952: 55.5% Eisenhower, 43.6% Stevenson
1956: 61.2% Eisenhower, 38.8% Stevenson
1960: 52.5% Kennedy, 47.3% Nixon
1964: 68.6% Johnson, 31.3% Goldwater
1968: 49.8% Humphrey, 44.3% Nixon, 5.3% Wallace
1972: 58.5% Nixon, 41.2% McGovern
1976: 52.0% Carter, 47.5% Ford
1980: 46.7% Reagan, 44.0% Carter, 7.5% Anderson
1984: 53.8% Reagan, 45.8% Mondale
1988: 51.6% Dukakis, 47.5% Bush
...
2008: 62.9% Obama, 36.0% McCain
2012: 63.4% Obama, 35.2% Romney

South Carolina:
1940: 95.6% Roosevelt, 4.4% Willkie
1944: 87.6% Roosevelt, 7.5% No Candidate, 4.5% Dewey
1948: 72.0% Thurmond, 24.1% Truman, 3.8% Dewey
1952: 50.7% Stevenson, 49.3% Eisenhower
1956: 45.4% Stevenson, 25.2% Eisenhower, 29.5% States Rights
1960: 51.2% Kennedy, 48.8% Nixon
1964: 58.9% Goldwater, 41.1% Johnson
1968: 38.1% Nixon, 32.3% Wallace, 29.6% Humphrey
1972: 70.6% Nixon. 27.9% McGovern
1976: 56.2% Carter, 43.1% Ford
1980: 49.6% Reagan, 48.0% Carter
1984: 63.6% Reagan, 35.6% Carter
1988: 61.5% Bush, 37.6% Dukakis
1992: 48.0% Bush. 39.9% Clinton
1996: 49.9% Dole, 43.9% Clinton
...
2008: 53.9% McCain, 44.9% Obama
2012: 54.6% Romney, 44.1% Obama

Texas:
1940: 80.9% Roosevelt, 18.9% Willkie
1944: 71.4% Roosevelt, 16.6% Dewey, 11.8% No Candidate
1948: 66.0% Truman, 24.3% Dewey, 9.1% Thurmond
1952: 53.1% Eisenhower, 46.7% Stevenson
1956: 55.3% Eisenhower, 44.0% Stevenson
1960: 50.5% Kennedy, 48.5% Nixon
1964: 63.3% Johnson. 36.5% Goldwater
1968: 41.1% Humphrey. 39.9% Nixon, 19.0% Wallace
1972: 66.2% Nixon, 33.2% McGovern[
1976: 51.1% Carter, 48.0% Ford
1980: 55.3% Reagan, 41.4% Carter
1984: 63.6% Reagan. 36.1% Mondale
1988: 56.0% Bush, 43.4% Dukakis
1992: 40.6% Bush, 37.1% Clinton. 22.0% Perot
1996: 48.8% Dole, 43.8% Clinton
...
2004: 61.1% Bush. 38.2% Kerry
...
2012: 57.2% Romney, 41.4% Obama

Alaska is actually a fun one cuz they loved third parties:
1960: 50.9% Nixon, 49.1% Kennedy
1964: 65.9% Johnson, 34.1% Goldwater
1968: 45.3% Nixon, 42.6% Humphrey, 12.1% Wallace
1972: 58.1% Nixon, 34.6% McGovern, 7.2% Schmitz
1976: 57.9% Ford, 35.7% Carter, 5.5% MacBride
1980: 54.3% Reagan, 26.4% Carter, 11.7% Clark, 7.0% Anderson
1984: 66.7% Reagan, 29.9% Mondale
1988: 59.6% Bush, 36.3% Dukakis
1992: 39.4% Bush, 30.2% Clinton, 28.4% Perot
1996: 50.8% Dole, 33.3% Clinton. 10.9% Perot
2000: 58.2% Bush, 27.7% Gore, 10.1% Nader
2004: 61.1% Bush, 35.5% Kerry
2008: 59.4% McCain, 37.9% Obama
2012: 54.8% Romney, 40.8% Obama

Pennsylvania:
1932: 50.8% Hoover, 45.3% Roosevelt
...
1940: 53.2% Roosevelt, 46.3% Willkie
1944: 51.1% Roosevelt, 48.4% Dewey
1948: 50.9% Dewey, 46.9% Truman
1952: 52.7% Eisenhower, 46.9% Stevenson
1956: 56.5% Eisenhower, 43.3% Stevenson
1960: 51.1% Kennedy, 48.7% Nixon
1964: 65.0% Johnson, 34.7% Goldwater
1968: 47.6% Humphrey, 44.0% Nixon. 8.0% Wallace
1972: 59.1% Nixon, 39.1% McGovern
1976: 50.4% Carter, 47.7% Ford
1980: 49.6% Reagan. 42.5% Carter, 6.4% Anderson
1984: 53.3% Reagan, 46.0% Mondale
1988: 50.7% Bush. 48.4% Dukakis
1992: 45.2% Clinton, 36.1% Bush, 18.2% Perot
1996: 49.2% Clinton, 40.0% Dole, 9.6% Perot
2000: 50.6% Gore, 46.4% Bush
2004: 50.9% Kerry, 48.4% Bush
2008: 54.5% Obama, 44.2% McCain
2012: 52.0% Obama, 46.6% Romney

 

[Chichikov]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.norquist.html


I do declare "No brag. Just fact." needs to become a PoliGAF meme. No brag. Just fact.

"Without effective control of the government, the Democratic Party is like a fish out of water, a vampire in the sun, Antaeus held aloft, an appliance unplugged".

Grover is a true wordsmith.
No brag.
Just fact.

 

[Retromelon]

That phrase is from an old tv western actually
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_Will_Sonnett

 

[Tarkus]

"Without effective control of the government, the Democratic Party is like a fish out of water, a vampire in the sun, Antaeus held aloft, an appliance unplugged".

Grover is a true wordsmith.
No brag.
Just fact.

"a moonbat flying clumsily into a tree called federal debt"

 

[BertramCooper]

jeb!'s been out of the news for almost an entire week it seems

Aside from losing key campaign staffers.

 

[Pizza Booty]

Aside from losing key campaign staffers.

yup. and I heard that the crazy SC rally over the weekend didn't have many Jeb! supporters there. He's not even being talked about. When Carson drops out his base is going to merge with trump's I'm guessing? Cruz will probably be in the race for a while but his supporters are going to Trump's batch as well.

 

[benjipwns]

Carson's the #2 guy in Iowa now and nationally. Walker's free fall in Iowa looks like it's halted actually. I think he's been saved by Jeb!'s complete implosion. Kasich and the rest haven't really taken off. Paul and Huckabee's numbers have evaporated.

Carly's rise has done as much damage as Trump's only it seems to have sapped off all the other middle-tier folks. If things hold not too different, she'll be sending Christie down to the losers debate. (Or Paul or Huckabee.)

Bit surprised Paul hasn't been able to hold onto something more like his dad's share. Even 2008. I wonder if some of the more...let's say fliers-from-the-van contingent...has gone over to Sanders. Especially after they found out about his virulent racism.

Or maybe there's just an old unkempt looking dude fetish voter cleavage.

 

[noshten]

Carson's the #2 guy in Iowa now and nationally. Walker's free fall in Iowa looks like it's halted actually. I think he's been saved by Jeb!'s complete implosion. Kasich and the rest haven't really taken off. Paul and Huckabee's numbers have evaporated.

Carly's rise has done as much damage as Trump's only it seems to have sapped off all the other middle-tier folks. If things hold not too different, she'll be sending Christie down to the losers debate. (Or Paul or Huckabee.)

Bit surprised Paul hasn't been able to hold onto something more like his dad's share. Even 2008. I wonder if some of the more...let's say fliers-from-the-van contingent...has gone over to Sanders. Especially after they found out about his virulent racism.

Or maybe there's just an old unkempt looking dude fetish voter cleavage.

It's pretty clear that a lot of republicans have simply latched onto Carson as the more calm Trump alternative. They still want their anti-establishment candidate but Trumps unfavorability numbers are through the roof.

Christie, Paul and Huckabee will continue to deflate because they don't have enough support from either people looking into establishment or the actual people looking for anti-establishment candidates.

Paul is not his father, he has taken centrists positions to endear himself to the Republican base and in the process has lost all the libertarian leaning republicans. It's pretty clear even as he was distancing himself from his father last election cycle.

 

[BertramCooper]

My best friend (who used to be a Democratic staffer on the Hill) thinks that Jeb!'s implosion is going to give Kasich a real shot at the nomination.

I'm very skeptical. Had his solid debate performance moved the needle even a little bit, I'd have thought he stood a chance. But even with some of that sweet, sweet cash from Jeb!'s fleeing donors, I just don't see enough of the GOP electorate warming up to Kasich to make him viable.

He still has a solid shot at VP, though, depending on who gets the nom.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Carson is too prone to say idiotic stuff to last, and it's quite clear he's one of the worst prepared candidates. Obviously Trump says idiotic stuff too but for whatever reason he's great at getting away with it.

Looks like Jeb is drowning...I wouldn't say he's imploding yet. But it's quite clear there is very little excitement for him outside of elite donors and beltway types. In the real world he's just another Bush, which is why his campaign (not his PAC) is running out of money.

Meanwhile Walker is rising a bit. His gaffes matter little thanks to Trump dominating headlines, so he'll be able to put the chips on the table at the next debate. I'm still confident he'll be the nominee.

 

[BertramCooper]

I'll be ecstatic if Scott Walker is the nominee.

As others have said, the dude deserves to be humiliated on a national stage. He's a fucking moron.

 

[RDreamer]

Walker/Kasich would be interesting.

And by interesting I mean slightly scary.

I'll be ecstatic if Scott Walker is the nominee.

As others have said, the dude deserves to be humiliated on a national stage. He's a fucking moron.

I'd be ecstatic if he was humiliated on a national stage, I just fear him a bit more for some reason. He's a fucking moron who's managed to convince quite a lot of people that he's republican jesus. I don't like it one bit, and kind of feel more confident in Clinton vs Bush than Clinton vs Walker.

 

[BertramCooper]

Walker/Kasich would be interesting.

And by interesting I mean slightly scary.

I can't see Walker picking Kasich as VP. There are too many fundamental differences between the two on issues like Medicaid.

Walker would probably pick someone like Rubio, who's more inclined to sign on to Walker's far-right bullshit than Kasich.

 

[RDreamer]

I can't see Walker picking Kasich as VP. There are too many fundamental differences between the two on issues like Medicaid.

Walker would probably pick someone like Rubio, who's more inclined to sign on to Walker's far-right bullshit than Kasich.

I could see Walker trying to pivot hard if he got the nomination, though.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

A great look at the comically evil conservative lawyers who want to drive us into ayn rand's fantasy world were the government and democracy are subservient to "contracts" (which really is just about preserving their wealth and extracting more from the less well-off)
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122645/rehabilitationists-libertarian-movement-undo-new-deal

About their end goal:

I asked Barnett whether the social welfare laws on the books today would be permitted under his reading of the Constitution. “Probably not at the federal level,” he said.

This is a lesson every Democrat, and really every establishment-minded Republican, should relearn, because a president who adopted the same model, with the goal of rehabilitating Lochner, could erode the legal and administrative foundations of the past century in a matter of years. A rule change undertaken by Senate Democrats last Congress eliminated the filibuster for nominees to lower courts, and by the time the next president is sworn into office, three sitting Supreme Court justices will be over 80 years old.

These people should be villians in the eyes of everyone who doesn't have wealth in the upper 6 figures

 

[BertramCooper]

I could see Walker trying to pivot hard if he got the nomination, though.

I don't see him pivoting as much as the typical GOP candidate would, though, primarily because of ideological leanings of his primary financial backers.

If there's anything we know for certain about Walker, it's that his first priority will always be the people giving him money.

 

[Zona]

We've been talking about how the republicans are going to extreme and will be doomed since forever now. Every single time they move further right we say "this is the time they went too far and this screw them for the general" and it never ever happens. And guess what? It wont happen this time either.

Even if Trump is the nominee, the gap will close within 5 points and democrats will win thanks solely to demographic changes and a good economy, and if the economy tanks then republicans will win. It's simple as that. It doesn't matter how poorly they appeal to the mythical median voter.

The one and only thing hurting republicans in the long term isn't their extremism, but the changes in racial demographics.

I mean, do you see any of the blue or swing state republicans ever going away from the strict party line because they're in a swing state where that vote might be risky to their median voters? And yet they're still doing fantastically on every front but the presidential one. It's a miracle when you see the few republicans in swing states accepting medicaid expansion paid for by the federal government.

Yeah, midterms are historically bad for the president's party, but it's been especially terrible for the Democrats lately. 2010 and 2014 both come close to rivaling 2006 for having huge margins, but have Democrats really been so extreme to rival Bush's extremism did to deserve a backlash as huge as that? If anything, it's the Republicans who've been more extreme, so if the median voter theory was right Republicans would be underperforming the average, but they've clearly been outperforming it.

I actually just read an interesting article about this, though I can't remember if I saw it linked here. Ah well, No Cost for Extremism Why the GOP hasn't (yet) paid for its march to the right.

Republicans, then, have a strong motive to move right. And we have seen that they have greater opportunity to do so because of uneven turnout and favorable apportionment. Still, as Judis suggests, Republicans are winning over many centrist voters, including many who express positions on specific policy issues that are relatively moderate. How have Republicans managed to escape the iron law of the median voter theorem: move to the center or lose?

Part of the explanation is that electoral accountability is far from perfect. As the political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have documented, politicians are often punished for things they do not control, such as weather and momentary economic shifts. Misplaced accountability is a vital issue in electoral democracies. Where voters systematically make major mistakes, accountability vanishes. And without accountability, politicians don’t have to worry so much about being responsive to voters.

Call it the “shark attack” problem. In July 1916, a series of shark attacks on the Jersey shore left four people dead and prompted a media frenzy. (Sixty years later, the events would become the basis for the movie Jaws.) Four months afterward, Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election. On the Jersey shore, his vote was down three points.

Political scientists have found many examples of the shark attack problem:

•Voters are often only dimly aware of the policy positions and legislative actions of politicians, and politicians can do many things to diminish what awareness they have. (UCLA’s Kathleen Bawn and her colleagues call this “the electoral blind spot.”)


•Voters often have a hard time distinguishing more moderate candidates from more extreme ones. The mainstream media’s horse-race orientation and strong incentive to maintain an appearance of neutrality often make journalists unwilling to describe one party or candidate as more extreme than the other.


•Voters make decisions on the basis of factors (such as the very recent performance of the economy) that are unrelated to the policy stances of politicians.


•Voters may be increasingly willing to support the candidate perceived to be on “their” team rather than the one whose policy positions are closer to their own.


•Given the intensity of the base, extremism may generate compensating support (in money, endorsements, or enthusiasm) that offsets any potential lost ground among moderates.


All these factors suggest that we shouldn’t assume—in the style of evolutionary biology—that Republicans are winning because they are a better fit with voters’ beliefs. But Judis is right about one thing: Voters are a lot more fed up with government. And here we come to another depressing fact about accountability in America’s distinctive political system: The anti-government party has a huge advantage.

Long article but worth a read.

 

[ivysaur12]

Alaska is actually a fun one cuz they loved third parties:
1960: 50.9% Nixon, 49.1% Kennedy
1964: 65.9% Johnson, 34.1% Goldwater
1968: 45.3% Nixon, 42.6% Humphrey, 12.1% Wallace
1972: 58.1% Nixon, 34.6% McGovern, 7.2% Schmitz
1976: 57.9% Ford, 35.7% Carter, 5.5% MacBride
1980: 54.3% Reagan, 26.4% Carter, 11.7% Clark, 7.0% Anderson
1984: 66.7% Reagan, 29.9% Mondale
1988: 59.6% Bush, 36.3% Dukakis
1992: 39.4% Bush, 30.2% Clinton, 28.4% Perot
1996: 50.8% Dole, 33.3% Clinton. 10.9% Perot
2000: 58.2% Bush, 27.7% Gore, 10.1% Nader
2004: 61.1% Bush, 35.5% Kerry
2008: 59.4% McCain, 37.9% Obama
2012: 54.8% Romney, 40.8% Obama

I wonder what happens if Alaska ever reaches a gender parity.

Part of me wants Alaska to be a swing state to force campaigning in Alaska. Which would be fun.

 

[benjipwns]

I can't see Walker picking Kasich as VP. There are too many fundamental differences between the two on issues like Medicaid.

Walker would probably pick someone like Rubio, who's more inclined to sign on to Walker's far-right bullshit than Kasich.

Walker and Kasich are not substantially different in their positions. Kasich is just a far more experienced politician and more of a budget hawk.

A great look at the comically evil conservative lawyers who want to drive us into ayn rand's fantasy world were the government and democracy are subservient to "contracts" (which really is just about preserving their wealth and extracting more from the less well-off)
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122645/rehabilitationists-libertarian-movement-undo-new-deal

About their end goal:


These people should be villians in the eyes of everyone who doesn't have wealth in the upper 6 figures

More like good natured souls who are hardly heroes but merely people who can read and understand that the Constitution (the supreme contract) wasn't a grant of unlimited power.

Wickard deserves to be placed with crimes like Raich, Kelo, Dred Scott and Plessy not a ruling as reasonable and sane as Lochner. (Or say, Citizens United.)

 

[BertramCooper]

Walker and Kasich are not substantially different in their positions. Kasich is just a far more experienced politician and more of a budget hawk.

Nobody in this field has substantially different positions from the others on pretty much any issue, save for Rand Paul on foreign policy.

But Walker and Kasich are different enough on things like entitlement programs to make them a less-than-ideal pairing in the general election.

Kasich would be an ideal pick for someone like Jeb!, but he's less-than-ideal for someone like Walker.

Also, I don't think Kasich would like playing second-fiddle to Scott Fucking Walker, who is a far worse governor and a complete dumbass.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

More like good natured souls who are hardly heroes but merely people who can read and understand that the Constitution (the supreme contract) wasn't a grant of unlimited power.

Wickard deserves to be placed with crimes like Raich, Kelo, Dred Scott and Plessy not a ruling as reasonable and sane as Lochner. (Or say, Citizens United.)

They are people who are literal beyond all actual historical understanding and have goals which put wealth, and power beyond the reach of democratic control.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is pretty disgusting of moveon.org to do.

There is no threat of war, the votes are there and why is schumer (who not actually been that vocal and actively NOT whiping) the "most likely to vote for war" and not menendez who is a war monger.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Probably because Menendez will likely be in jail soon whereas Schumer will be minority/majority leader.

 

[BertramCooper]

This is pretty disgusting of moveon.org to do.

There is no threat of war, the votes are there and why is schumer (who not actually been that vocal and actively NOT whiping) the "most likely to vote for war" and not menendez who is a war monger.

Still think that Schumer's vote should put his succession of Reid into question, but yeah, that's a bit ridiculous.

 

[Plinko]

I'll be ecstatic if Scott Walker is the nominee.

As others have said, the dude deserves to be humiliated on a national stage. He's a fucking moron.

I have nowhere near enough faith in the democratic party and their messaging to let Scott Walker anywhere NEAR the nomination. I could easily see him being elected and setting our country back 20 years.

Meanwhile Walker is rising a bit. His gaffes matter little thanks to Trump dominating headlines, so he'll be able to put the chips on the table at the next debate. I'm still confident he'll be the nominee.

No, he's really not.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Short term, republicans have no incentive to change. They're going to retain the House and senate next year. The economy has improved enough since 2010 for their governors to remain in power. And in the short term they have the advantage on the Supreme Court.

They're basically waiting for another recession or economic crash. That's literally all it takes to sweep them back into the presidency, with full control of Washington. It won't happen next year but 2020 can still work. The democrat party is far weaker now after 7 years of Obama than it was in 2006 or 2007. Republicans will continue to exploit that until demographics truly catch up with them on the state level.

Let's say Hillary wins in 2016. I'm going to assume she'll do so with a worse margin than Obama's 08 or 12 victories. What political capitol will she be able to expend, given her liberal agenda and the hatred the GOP has for her? Imagine how bad Obama's presidency would have been if not for the legislative victories in the first two years. Now look at Hillary, who will have to work with a republican house and senate from day one. History says democrats won't regain either the House or senate in 2018 btw, which means Hillary will be at the mercy of republicans for her entire first term. What will she accomplish outside of some triangulation that annoys her base? If there's a recession or crash, how will she be able to turn things around with a far right congress? She's walking into a trap.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I have nowhere near enough faith in the democratic party and their messaging to let Scott Walker anywhere NEAR the nomination. I could easily see him being elected and setting our country back 20 years.



No, he's really not.

PD is building his rational to keep walker in our game.

Democrats have a good chance of regaining the senate next year.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

To be fair, Scott Walker was in the news yesterday so that's a big change from recently.

I mean, it was about the Canadian Wall, but after six people cared about his foreign policy speech, that's something for Walker.

 

[ivysaur12]

Why is Menendez still a voting member of the Senate, again?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why is Menendez still a voting member of the Senate, again?

Presumption of innocence? He's under investigation. The senate hasn't acted on any censure and was democratically elected. Why shouldn't he be? Dispite out odious I find his foreign policy

 

[benjipwns]

But Walker and Kasich are different enough on things like entitlement programs to make them a less-than-ideal pairing in the general election.

How so? Just because Kasich accepted Medicaid expansion when he got backed into a corner?

Kasich has been strongly in favor of Social Security privatization for decades, he was for it before Bush, something Walker hasn't touched other than saying the age probably has to be raised.

He's also way more religious and doesn't believe in the concept of separation of church and state.

John Kasich really needs to stop getting nominated for the Jon Huntsman Memorial "Republican I Could Vote For" Award.

As an aside, Rubio's probably farther to the "right" than either of them. He's pretty hardcore on social issues, almost near Santorum levels. Walker's much fuzzier on those than some of the other candidates on his side of the party. (I also believe he agreed with the Daniels critique.)

They are people who are literal beyond all actual historical understanding and have goals which put wealth, and power beyond the reach of democratic control.

Or they're people who have a different interpretation from you. An opinion which just so happens to coincide with restoring Constitutional limits on power and increasing the republican democracy the federal government is tasked with maintaining. But still a differing interpretation from your purely evil and pro-Satanic-hellscape agenda.

 

[benjipwns]

EDIT: Nope, they just mislinked. http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/85775b52-ec99-4ad3-bbee-14826bdf86e5.pdf

When Iowa Republicans are asked who they would support in their local caucus, Ben Carson
(23%) and Donald Trump (23%) tie for the top spot. The next tier of candidates includes Carly Fiorina
(10%) and Ted Cruz (9%), followed by Scott Walker (7%), Jeb Bush (5%), John Kasich (4%), Marco
Rubio (4%), and Rand Paul (3%). The last two Iowa caucus victors, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum,
each garner 2% of the vote. None of the other six candidates included in the poll register more than 1%
support.

Tea Party –Trump leads Carson 27% to 22% among Tea Party supporters, with Cruz at
16%. Among non-supporters of the Tea Party, Carson takes a 25% to 19% lead over
Trump.

Ideology – Very conservative voters split their vote among Carson (24%), Trump (23%),
and Cruz (16%). Somewhat conservative voters are most likely to back either Carson (25%) or Trump (23%). Moderate to liberal voters prefer Trump (26%), followed by
Fiorina (18%) and Carson (17%).

Iowa Republicans now hold an
almost universally positive opinion of Ben Carson at 81% favorable to just 6% unfavorable, compared to
63% favorable and 11% unfavorable in July. Carly Fiorina has also seen her numbers improve to 67%
favorable and 8% unfavorable, up from 44% and 10% in July. John Kasich’s name recognition has also
gone up but the gap between his positive and negative ratings remains similar at 32% favorable and 23%
unfavorable, compared to 24% and 17% in the prior poll.

Donald Trump’s rating has ticked up slightly – now standing at 52% favorable and 33%
unfavorable, compared to 47% and 35% in July – while the ratings for Scott Walker and Jeb Bush have
taken a dip over the past month. Walker’s rating is now 64% favorable and 16% unfavorable, compared
to 73% and 9% last month. Bush’s rating is now 32% favorable and 51% unfavorable, compared to 40%
and 42% last month. Ted Cruz’s rating of 58% favorable and 21% unfavorable is similar to the 53% and
17% rating he held last month.

 

[thepotatoman]

This is pretty disgusting of moveon.org to do.

There is no threat of war, the votes are there and why is schumer (who not actually been that vocal and actively NOT whiping) the "most likely to vote for war" and not menendez who is a war monger.

Schumer is whipping for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...humers-sneaky-whipping-against-the-iran-deal/

And there is no alternative to this deal other than a nuclear iran or a war. The idea that we can get a significantly better deal through tougher talk is pure fantasy.

 

[BertramCooper]

How so? Just because Kasich accepted Medicaid expansion when he got backed into a corner?

"Backed into a corner?"

Kasich enthusiastically embraced Medicaid expansion and fought like hell for it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Schumer is whipping for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...humers-sneaky-whipping-against-the-iran-deal/

And there is no alternative to this deal other than a nuclear iran or a war. The idea that we can get a significantly better deal through tougher talk is pure fantasy.

He's not whiping. You literally just posted a Rubin piece....

My personal feeling is not all opponents want war but like the constant antagonism with Iran. And people like schumer have held similar views since forever. I don't like to impuign their motives. People like cotton or mccain....

 

[Aaron Strife]

Short term, republicans have no incentive to change. They're going to retain the House and senate next year. The economy has improved enough since 2010 for their governors to remain in power. And in the short term they have the advantage on the Supreme Court.

They're basically waiting for another recession or economic crash. That's literally all it takes to sweep them back into the presidency, with full control of Washington. It won't happen next year but 2020 can still work. The democrat party is far weaker now after 7 years of Obama than it was in 2006 or 2007. Republicans will continue to exploit that until demographics truly catch up with them on the state level.

Let's say Hillary wins in 2016. I'm going to assume she'll do so with a worse margin than Obama's 08 or 12 victories. What political capitol will she be able to expend, given her liberal agenda and the hatred the GOP has for her? Imagine how bad Obama's presidency would have been if not for the legislative victories in the first two years. Now look at Hillary, who will have to work with a republican house and senate from day one. History says democrats won't regain either the House or senate in 2018 btw, which means Hillary will be at the mercy of republicans for her entire first term. What will she accomplish outside of some triangulation that annoys her base? If there's a recession or crash, how will she be able to turn things around with a far right congress? She's walking into a trap.

Want to bet on Democrats regaining the Senate in 2016? I think they will.

 

[Plinko]

EDIT: Nope, they just mislinked. http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/85775b52-ec99-4ad3-bbee-14826bdf86e5.pdf

Even though I told you all this would happen with Carson (and many of you scoffed at me for saying it), I still find the love for Carson absolutely bizarre. He's clearly the most unprepared in debate and the most unprepared for the job in general. I mean, at least Trump has experience with business negotiations. Carson has nothing anywhere near that level. His response for why he'd be a good president was "I separated Siamese twins" and then a folksy comment. That means nothing.

Are GOP voters really thinking that the job is so easy that somebody who has no qualifications could do it? It's the only explanation at this point.

Everntually, if he doesn't implode, SOMEONE will have to start taking shots at him politically. His tax idea would destroy the economy, so there's a starting point, I guess.

 

[benjipwns]

He needed the money to get a surplus by campaign time, he opposed everything else but did an end run around the legislature in order to get the extra federal billions which just about matched the tax cuts he pushed through. It's an experience move, not a principled stand on broad entitlement expansion.

Are GOP voters really thinking that the job is so easy that somebody who has no qualifications could do it? It's the only explanation at this point.

Well, Obama will have done it for eight years. And W. Bush did it for eight years before him.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Even though I told you all this would happen with Carson (and many of you scoffed at me for saying it), I still find the love for Carson absolutely bizarre. He's clearly the most unprepared in debate and the most unprepared for the job in general. I mean, at least Trump has experience with business negotiations. Carson has nothing anywhere near that level. His response for why he'd be a good president was "I separated Siamese twins" and then a folksy comment. That means nothing.

Are GOP voters really thinking that the job is so easy that somebody who has no qualifications could do it? It's the only explanation at this point.

Everntually, if he doesn't implode, SOMEONE will have to start taking shots at him politically. His tax idea would destroy the economy, so there's a starting point, I guess.

Where is his support coming from? He said nothing sound bite worthy in the debate.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm not too scared of Walker anymore. He might've gotten away with his know-nothing schtick at a state level of affairs, but he's pretty clearly out of his league on this level. I could easily see him botching at least one debate, especially against a certain kind of wonky, detail-oriented candidate. He isn't charming or clever enough for Plan B: to pull-off snappy one-liners.

I just don't want either of Kasich or Rubio to get the nomination. If one's on the ticket, that's still manageable. If both are on, things start to get a bit dicier on the map.

(And I agree: Dems retake the Senate, but only for two years. Just enough time to replace RBG.)