Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

Turnout in 2014 was even lower than it was in 2010, and that was everywhere - I don't really think you can infer a broad conclusion from that. Turnout was lower in Pennsylvania than it was in 2010, does that mean Tom Wolf was a bad candidate compared to Dan Onorato?


Explain how. You said Cuomo was such a disaster you wouldn't be surprised if New York flipped red. Maybe you wouldn't be surprised but I'm pretty sure everyone else who pays attention to politics would be.


As much as I'd love to blame the politicians/parties for this one, it's not all on them. The GOP has a vested interest in keeping turnout low, sure, but the Democrats went balls out in 2014 to try and amp up turnout and turnout actually dropped compare to previous midterms. There's such a strong apathy towards everything but the presidential elections and the parties shouldn't be holding voters' hands to the voting booths. People should care - the fact that they sit out elections in which their mayors, governors, etc. are elected (who will have a far more direct effect on issues affecting their personal lives than the president) because they don't know what the difference between a Senator and a Congressman is is inexcusable.

Agreed 1000%

 

[NeoXChaos]

So lets compare apples to apples, or Coakleys to Coakleys

Deval Patrick (obama 1.0) won his first election with 1,234,984 of 2,243,835
Deval Patrick (obama 1.0) won his second election with 1,112,283 of 2,319,963
Martha Coakley lost her election with 1,004,408 of 2,158,326

Turnout was down significantly, and she lost by 40,165 votes which was significantly made up of the lower turnout.

Martha Coakley is resembled Hillary in many ways, just like Deval resembled Obama in many ways (and no, Im not just referring to race, but yes, thats a factor).


The New York comment is being taken out of context.

Let me pose a question to you:

If Scott Walker was up in 2012(or 2008) on the ballot with barack obama, would he have won?

 

[ivysaur12]

I understand that you may not have followed Patricks tenure closely, but no need to be hostile.

He in many ways was a trial balloon for the Obama campaign from the Democrat party. His life story (Chicago, Harvard law, etc), and then his political campaign and then leadership role were remarkably similar to Obama's, but played out 2 years earlier. Some politicians run polls to test out the public response to potential positions. The Democrats had Deval.

I'm not being hostile, I'm serious, and I'm obviously not talking about the part of your post concerning Deval Patrick. Show me empirical evidence, not just your own conjecture, on why you believe that Hillary Clinton is like Martha Coakley.

Or, like, don't say things that don't resemble reality or every piece of polling evidence since the elections started?

 

[jamesinclair]

Let me pose a question to you:

If Scott Walker was up in 2012(or 2008) on the ballot with barack obama, would he have won?

Obama would have beat anyone in 2008. except maybe Zombie Reagan.

I think he still would have won in 2012, but it would have been dangerously close.

I'm not being hostile, I'm serious, and I'm obviously not talking about the part of your post concerning Deval Patrick. Show me empirical evidence, not just your own conjecture, on why you believe that Hillary Clinton is like Martha Coakley.

Or, like, don't say things that don't resemble reality or every piece of polling evidence since the elections started?

Lets be serious now, its April 2015, the polls are less meaningful than Wii U sales.

 

[Coriolanus]

The Disposition of Justice Souter's Papers



I mean, on the one hand, it's Justice Souter, so who cares? But on the other, the justices' papers provide an important glimpse into arguably the most secretive branch of the federal government. Here's an old(ish) LA Times op-ed on this point: What are the Supreme Court justices hiding?

...
that level of transparency is the kind of thing that i've always assumed that every country had. quite horrifying that the US doesn't. If it isn't a matter of national security or one of the other few cases where legal confidentiality is justified, why wouldn't it be public? Allowing each judge to decide when to release, or if to release at all? Allowing them to destroy records? The fuck.

Why don't they automatically become public when they die?

Why don't they automatically become public once a trial is over?
Secrecy should be the exception, and it should always need justification.

 

[ivysaur12]

Lets be serious now, its April 2015, the polls are less meaningful than Wii U sales.

So you have nothing. Just wanted to make that clear. Even though every single poll is showing high enthusiasm for Hillary, none of that matters because she's just like Martha Coakley because feelings.

 

[Jooney]

I think Citizens United will eventually be a good thing. While the GOP keeps winning all these local elections with national money, they will never be able to out raise a Democratic Presidential candidate bankrolled by Silicon Valley. They'll have to relent to some campaign finance reform limiting the influence of big money if they ever want the WH again.

Silicon Valley money is not why Obama won 2012. Nor will it be a reason going forward. Besides, extraction industry money > tech money.

Oh, and the lack of success at the local and state levels is killing the Dems. Not just in losing previously won battles and constantly playing defense but also in developing a farm team that can be groomed at the national level. You only have to look at the lack of contenders in the primaries to see there's an issue with identifying young talent.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

...

Why don't they automatically become public once a trial is over?

I can understand privacy concerns and the fact the job is for life. I don't think we should be digging through their papers while they're still on the job but when their dead and not making decisions. We should see if the court is functioning properly

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Most important thing is that Hillary gets rid of those Gerrymandering rules and choose some open minded SCOTUS members.

 

[jamesinclair]

So you have nothing. Just wanted to make that clear. Even though every single poll is showing high enthusiasm for Hillary, none of that matters because she's just like Martha Coakley because feelings.

I have years of precedence and following elections.

Remind me, what side of the Kay Hagen debate were you on?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

who would I write a FOIA request to if I wanted to know what game she was playing and who owned the gameboy and what the score was. That's written communication correct?

 

[Jooney]

Most important thing is that Hillary gets rid of those Gerrymandering rules and choose some open minded SCOTUS members.

Country districts are typically drawn at the state level, and more often than not by the ruling legislature (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Which feeds in nicely to my post above.

 

[Coriolanus]

I can understand privacy concerns and the fact the job is for life. I don't think we should be digging through their papers while they're still on the job but when their dead and not making decisions. We should see if the court is functioning properly

If they emitted an opinion while holding the job, they should be prepared to defend that opinion. I see no reason why people with such power should not be subjected to intense scrutiny, not do i quite see the negative aspects that higher scrutiny would cause.

They'd be more careful with what they write? Good.

The job is indeed for life. They can retire if they can't deal with it any longer.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If they emitted an opinion while holding the job, they should be prepared to defend that opinion. I see no reason why people with such power should not be subjected to intense scrutiny, not do i quite see the negative aspects that higher scrutiny would cause.

They'd be more careful with what they write? Good.

The job is indeed for life. They can retire if they can't deal with it any longer.

I thought we were talking about personal papers. The opinions are made public. I don't think internal memos and notes to clerks need to be made public at all. They aren't in any other branch before a long time period

 

[NeoXChaos]

Obama would have beat anyone in 2008. except maybe Zombie Reagan.

I think he still would have won in 2012, but it would have been dangerously close.



Lets be serious now, its April 2015, the polls are less meaningful than Wii U sales.

but they are showing a trend and it clearly shows the opposite of what you are insinuating. Hillary Clinton with all her 2008 campaign flaws and all Obama's oratorical gifts and charisma barely beat her. She won the popular vote overall if you include MI and FL.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think Citizens United will eventually be a good thing. While the GOP keeps winning all these local elections with national money, they will never be able to out raise a Democratic Presidential candidate bankrolled by Silicon Valley. They'll have to relent to some campaign finance reform limiting the influence of big money if they ever want the WH again.

This assumes the party's ideologies will remain stagnant. The GOP will "evolve" on gay rights and a variety of other social issues, that's simply inevitable.

 

[ivysaur12]

I have years of precedence and following elections.

Remind me, what side of the Kay Hagen debate were you on?

Okay, great, next time I need to ignore any data, I'll make sure to give you a call.

And I was on the side where it looked like she could win by a point or two, instead of losing by a point or two. It's almost like it was a super close election that we all knew it would be!

I also don't quite understand what your point is here? You called something correctly? Great. You had about a 50/50 shot of calling that race correctly, per almost every single polling aggregate.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The primary point of that exchange was "fuck Cuomo" and if anyone is going to kill the Democrat brand for a generation, it is him

Cuomo will kill the Cuomo brand for a generation. There will not be some mass exodus from the Democratic Party because of a shitty governor in New York.

 

[Black Mamba]

Monday was another dark day for Kansans hoping to see better state services in the future.

Officials announced that state revenues would come in almost $90 million short of expectations over the next three months of the year — and almost $200 million less than once predicted in the next two budget years.

What’s that mean?

First, the income tax cuts approved by Gov. Sam Brownback and the Legislature in 2012 still aren’t bringing in nearly enough new tax revenue through additional jobs once bravely predicted by Republican lawmakers.

Second, Brownback and the Legislature will have to keep cutting services, borrowing money and/or raising other taxes just to balance the budget.

Funding of K-12 schools just got a little dicier. And will the state have to borrow more from the state’s already-tapped highway fund?

Budget director Shawn Sullivan said Monday that Brownback would have a plan to offer by Thursday of this week.

That means lots of state-funded institutions will be holding their breath the next three days.

It’s getting repetitive, but the easy solution to this fiscal crisis is still the best: Roll back the deep income tax cuts that were selectively handed out to some Kansans starting in January 2013.

The numbers that emerged Monday show that revenues still are coming in slower than predicted just five months ago in November. And that was the month that state officials also lowered their previous expectations for state tax receipts.

In short, nothing is going as planned when it comes to prognosticating how much money the state will have on hand to provide strong public services to more than three million Kansans.

Brownback’s great income tax “experiment” is still failing in Kansas.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/o...abouhalkah/article19078119.html#storylink=cpy

Any day now, Kansas tax cuts will turn things around!

 

[Yellowtail]

but they are showing a trend and it clearly shows the opposite of what you are insinuating. Hillary Clinton with all her 2008 campaign flaws and all Obama's oratorical gifts and charisma barely beat her. She won the popular vote overall if you include MI and FL.

There's an argument to be made that Obama acutally underperformed in 2008. Considering the Iraq War, the economy collapsing, Bush's approval ratings near 20%, his huge fundraising advantage, minority turnout, Sarah Palin etc. he should have done better than 53% against McCain.

It could well be the case that although Obama is the far better campaigner, Hillary is actually the stronger general election candidate. Stronger than 2012 Obama at least.

 

[Jooney]

Wow, didn't know that Lindsay graham was critical of big money in politics vis-a-vis citizens United.

 

[ivysaur12]

There's an argument to be made that Obama acutally underperformed in 2008. Considering the Iraq War, the economy collapsing, Bush's approval ratings near 20%, his huge fundraising advantage, minority turnout, Sarah Palin etc. he should have done better than 53% against McCain.

It could well be the case that although Obama is the far better campaigner, Hillary is actually the stronger general election candidate. Stronger than 2012 Obama at least.

It doesn't matter though if there's no motivation for anyone to vote her :-(

 

[Aaron Strife]

There's an argument to be made that Obama acutally underperformed in 2008. Considering the Iraq War, the economy collapsing, Bush's approval ratings near 20%, his huge fundraising advantage, minority turnout, Sarah Palin etc. he should have done better than 53% against McCain.

It could well be the case that although Obama is the far better campaigner, Hillary is actually the stronger general election candidate. Stronger than 2012 Obama at least.

You know whenever people are like "We should elect a far-right Republican so that the nation will realize how bad the GOP is and elect Bernie Sanders"? I feel like Obama is the most realistic result of that exact strategy. If not on substance then at least in style he's probably more unabashedly liberal than a majority of Americans would ever admit to being. His first election was before Republicans gained Congress and gerrymandered the hell out of it though - and now I would consider it more important that we have a Democratic president to combat the GOP House (the Senate will flip back and forth) than making sure the most liberal candidate wins the primary.

 

[jamesinclair]

Any day now, Kansas tax cuts will turn things around!

Prediction:

New revenue options are on the table = the most regressive options are on the table.

Lets sales, hiking the sales tax, raising transit fares, and a tax on rents under $1,000?

 

[CygnusXS]

Any day now, Kansas tax cuts will turn things around!

Studying the long-term effects of the Brownback administration, in both the local political and the economic dimensions, is going to be a fascinating project for somebody in 20-30 years.

 

[Crisco]

Any day now, Kansas tax cuts will turn things around!

Clearly Obamacare's fault.

 

[Jackson50]

CNN polls the presidency

Hillary dominates in the Democratic primary, naturally.

Who's ready for a repeat of 1964/1972/1984?

Christie's numbers are now the lowest they've ever been according to Quinnipiac as well. Remember when this guy was viewed as a serious contender?

Wow. Why hold an election?

By the way, has anyone made the argument over why should it be our responsibility to stop Iran from "dominating" the Middle East? So we have a relatively large country, with a young and sophisticated population, that managed to advance their economy beyond just digging in the sand. It's not like Sunni/Saudi domination has done the region any good, maybe a shake up would be good for the place. The whole "Death to America/Israel" thing will go away with time, as it's a natural prerequisite to Iran ever become a true global power. It's just a red herring.

Because we want to dominate the region. Thus, we pursue partnerships that bolster our influence. And Saudi Arabia has been more amenable to American influence than Iran. There are myriad historical factors that support strong Saudi-American relations. However, the US should not allow that to preclude relations with Iran. The question is not why should we stop Iran from dominating, but rather why should we not engage Iran. That is preference for most Republicans and even some Democrats. Yet the policy of disengagement is irrational and counterproductive. We have missed potentially critical junctures for reform without a compelling reason. It pushes Iran to seek security, often through the use of proxies and unconventional assets, that further destabilizes the region. I agree that a shake up would be beneficial. And the nuclear framework is an important first step. Hopefully, it leads to further engagement.

 

[Coriolanus]

The Blaze's Matt Walsh, on explaining why fast food workers do not deserve a pay raise, ends up writing an article that shows absurdly well why everybody in the lower strata needs a raise.

To understand how delusional, consider that a $15 an hour full-time salary would put you in the same ballpark as biologists, auto mechanics, biochemists, teachers, geologists, roofers and bank tellers.

You’d be making more than some police officers.

You’d easily out-earn many firefighters.

Ironically, you’d be fast food workers with starting salaries higher than many professional chefs, which is a bit like paying a tattoo artist less than the person who paints cat whiskers on your face at the carnival.

You’d be halfway to the income of accountants, engineers and physical therapists.

How dare fast food workers try to get nearly half the pay per hour that engineers get, really?

There's a lot more drek in there, evidently.

 

[Jooney]

The Blaze's Matt Walsh, on explaining why fast food workers do not deserve a pay raise, ends up writing an article that shows absurdly well why everybody in the lower strata needs a raise.



How dare fast food workers try to get nearly half the pay per hour that engineers get, really?

There's a lot more drek in there, evidently.

A full time salary at $15/hour would be $30k. I find it hard to believe that police and firefighters don't earn $30k per annum.

Also I bet the author clings on to the notion that only teenagers should work at fast food outlets.

Why is it that people who oppose the minimum wage provide no recognition that the city and urban areas have been de-industrialised and that fast food service jobs are only game left in town for a lot of folk?

 

[NeoXChaos]

There's an argument to be made that Obama acutally underperformed in 2008. Considering the Iraq War, the economy collapsing, Bush's approval ratings near 20%, his huge fundraising advantage, minority turnout, Sarah Palin etc. he should have done better than 53% against McCain.

It could well be the case that although Obama is the far better campaigner, Hillary is actually the stronger general election candidate. Stronger than 2012 Obama at least.

America is more polarizing now than in 1984, 1972, 1964 etc. A lot of political analyst have notice this with the many landslides we had last century in Presidential elections. Think 1952 and 1956 with Eisenhower or 1932 & 1936 with FDR. You had very few close elections like 1960, 1968 and 1976 but usually landslides for either side with 400+ EC votes in most cases. LBJ won Kansas of all places and Idaho by 3,000 votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

 

[thepotatoman]

Marco Rubio fares best against the former first lady, trailing Clinton by 14 points,

I mean.

I know polls can and will swing as debates get started, but man they are going to have to swing hard to overcome those types of polls.

 

[Coriolanus]

Why is it that people who oppose the minimum wage provide no recognition that the city and urban areas have been de-industrialised and that fast food service jobs are only game left in town for a lot of folk?

Same reason he pretends that 8 dollars 8 years ago has the same buying power as today.

Plus you obviously didn't read the article. All people in those situations have to do is start writing for a website. Ain't that hard, he's done it.
-

Bwhaahah, got curious, checked his sauce for the police wages. What follows in the link provided in the article.

https://www.google.com/#q=starting+salary+police+officer

First link:

This chart describes the expected percentage of people who perform the job of Police Patrol Officer in the United States that make less than that annual salary. For example the median expected annual pay for a typical Police Patrol Officer in the United States is $52,481 so 50% of the people who perform the job of Police Patrol Officer in the United Sates are expected to make less than $52,481.

Source: HR Reported data as of April 2015

Second link:

More than two-thirds of the officers at state and local law enforcement agencies in the U.S. were employed by police departments as of 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The average starting salaries of new police officers ranged from $26,600 to $49,500, with larger jurisdictions generally paying higher wages, the BJS says. The median annual wage earned by police officers as of 2011 was $54,230, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Salaries received by the bottom 10 percent of officers were $32,080 or less.

Ye Brittania's third link:

Salaries vary between forces but the typical starting salary for police constables in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is £23,317 and £25,962 after initial training. In Scotland it's slightly higher, starting at £23,493 and rising to £26,223 after completing the initial training period.

That's about 40k obamas.

 

[Aaron Strife]

"You'd be making more than some police officers"

No you wouldn't you stupid shit the minimum wage does not just apply to jobs that currently pay the minimum wage

Wow. Why hold an election?

If 2012 is any indication, if the election truly is a blowout the media will ask this. Had people asking what the point of the 2012 elections were when the majorities didn't change. Because democracy is only necessary when it's "interesting"

 

[Ecotic]

I think Citizens United will eventually be a good thing. While the GOP keeps winning all these local elections with national money, they will never be able to out raise a Democratic Presidential candidate bankrolled by Silicon Valley. They'll have to relent to some campaign finance reform limiting the influence of big money if they ever want the WH again.

Money has a marginal utility like everything else. The campaigns will probably face such diminished returns on their last hauls of money that it won't matter who outraised who.

 

[Jooney]

Plus you obviously didn't read the article.

The Blaze though. Didn't want to give them the courtesy click.

 

[Jooney]

Money has a marginal utility like everything else. The campaigns will probably face such diminished returns on their last hauls of money that it won't matter who outraised who.

But who holds the resources determines who selects the candidates and which issues are up for debate.

Not to mention that it also precludes sitting office holders to recognise issues that may undermine the interests of their donors. See: OK Gov not wanting to recognise that the extraction/fracking industry may have something to do with the exponential rise in earthquakes that have occurred in the state in just the past few years.

 

[Fenderputty]

What biochemist only makes $15 and hour? And why does he not consider a policeman and fireman's awesome benefits and pension plans?

 

[Jooney]

In today's edition of shocking news:

Charles G. and David H. Koch, the influential and big-spending conservative donors, have a favorite in the race for the Republican nomination: Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

On Monday, at a fund-raising event in Manhattan for the New York State Republican Party, David Koch told donors that he and his brother, who oversee one of the biggest private political organizations in the country, believed that Mr. Walker was the Republican Party’s best hope for recapturing the White House.

“We will support whoever the candidate is,” said Mr. Koch, according to two people who attended the event. “But it should be Scott Walker.”

The remark — made before dozens of top New York donors who had gathered to hear Mr. Walker speak at the Union League Club — could effectively end one of the most closely watched contests in the “invisible primary,” a period where candidates crisscross the country seeking not the support of voters but the blessing of their party’s biggest donors and fund-raisers.

Most of the leading Republican candidates have aggressively courted the Kochs, who control a network of political nonprofits, “super PACs” and hundreds of like-minded donors, all of which are planning to spend almost $900 million over the next two years advancing conservative candidates and policies.

I can only imagine how many gyrocopters one can buy for $900m.

 

[Teggy]

Yeah, never saw that coming.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's great that Bush's Shock and Awe plan worked so well to scare away everyone else.

 

[Yellowtail]

Bush is one of the victims of Citizens United. Having a vast network of bundlers doesn't work at scaring people out of the race, when any candidate can find themselves a billionaire sugar daddy to fund their Super PAC. The W playbook of 1999 doesn't work in 2015.

Cruz got $30 million in a week, Walker has the Kochs, Rubio has monetary commitments of $40 million already and will likely have Sheldon Adelson's support, Paul probably has his own set of rich libertarian donors. They'll all have as much money as Romney had in the primaries.

I think Bush will far exceed the $100 million expected when he posts his numbers, but he's not going to be able to prevent a long bloody primary. And if he loses IA/NH/SC/NV all the money in the world won't stop his campaign from being DOA.

 

[Poodlestrike]

In today's edition of shocking news:



I can only imagine how many gyrocopters one can buy for $900m.

Man, I wish I had a gyrocopter. I could keep it on the roof of my building.

 

[ivysaur12]

I still think the most electable person that could enter the race on the GOP side is Kasich, but it already seems like most of the mega donors have picked their horse in this so-called "invisible primary".

 

[HylianTom]

So they're going to end-up spending hundreds of millions of dollars trashing each other in a very public, strident fashion? Such a shame.

 

[PhoenixDark]

In today's edition of shocking news:



I can only imagine how many gyrocopters one can buy for $900m.

Kind of surprised, given the initial news that they were very interested in Rubio.

Will they finance ads to trash the other nominees on Walker's behalf though?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Kind of surprised, given the initial news that they were very interested in Rubio.

Will they finance ads to trash the other nominees on Walker's behalf though?

More importantly, will they conduct their business entirely through cell phones mounted to drones?

...

When's the next season of Alpha House, again?

 

[Jooney]

Kind of surprised, given the initial news that they were very interested in Rubio.

Will they finance ads to trash the other nominees on Walker's behalf though?

The brothers were supporters of Walker prior to his ascension to the governorship. I thought it was common knowledge that he is their man.

And I think yes to your question, when push comes to shove in the fourth quarter of the primaries game.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

just what Brussels needs!

http://www.politico.eu/

and papa bear dropping knowledge

 

[Teggy]

Well he at least seems to be trying to keep a straight face.

 

[NeoXChaos]

So they're going to end-up spending hundreds of millions of dollars trashing each other in a very public, strident fashion? Such a shame.

I hope so. The only way the conservative right will finally get their man after countless times of nominating "the moderate" is with money and lots of it. If Walker and his team arent willing to bury Jeb Bush with negative ads, they and the conservative alternatives will have failed.

Because at the end of the day, if they wont Jeb will. The moment Scott Walker leads Jeb in the primary/delegate count, is the moment Jeb and his team will go hard negative to take him out and he HAS to be ready for that or face the same fate as past alternatives.