Support NeoGAF

[brainchild]

"I'll give you $1000 dollars if you vote for me"

As illegal as that would be, that would do it!

 

[Basileus777]

The differential between the Midterms/Presidential hasn't been within 5% since the 1800s.

Don't worry, once Bernie gets his supermajority in 2016, he'll pass compulsory voting laws that will fix everything.

 

[Makai]

The chances of voters returning to vote in two-years are the same as a meteor striking Earth? I really don't think so.

Unfortunately, we have no hard data or scientific polling to make a fair assessment anyway, so the comparison is ridiculous.

Wait, wait, I got it.

Obama voters 2012: 66 million
Deaths in two years since 2012: 5 million

No idea how many of those voted for Obama, but we're just making up numbers so why not - half of the deaths were Obama voters. 4% of 2012 voters were dead. 96% < 98%

GAME OVER

 

[brainchild]

Wait, wait, I got it.

Obama voters 2012: 66 million
Deaths in two years since 2012: 5 million

No idea how many of those voted for Obama, but we're just making up numbers so why not - half of the deaths were Obama voters. 4% of 2012 voters were dead. 96% < 98%

GAME OVER

LMAO

There it is. Hard, scientific data. I shall revise my numbers accordingly.

Don't worry, once Bernie gets his supermajority in 2016, he'll pass compulsory voting laws that will fix everything.

All joking aside, we need to get with the Australian times and make voting mandatory.

 

[theprodigy]

I've just assumed Daniel is our anonymous confessor.

idk, that totally sounded like Retromelon, I think we have a true believer here

 

[B-Dubs]

All joking aside, we need to get with the Australian times and make voting mandatory.

Everyone will just vote for the guys who want to get rid of that law. You'd see more success making election day a national holiday and giving everyone the day off.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

How badly would Trump have to be projected to lose to Hillary (assuming they are the nominees to project a lopsided race) for Republicans to stay home to the point of where Democrats could win many House seats?

Or is there a possibility that independents just vote straight D because they associate Republicans with Trump on that election day?

 

[Basileus777]

Everyone will just vote for the guys who want to get rid of that law. You'd see more success making election day a national holiday and giving everyone the day off.

Make election day a federal holiday, simplify voter registration so that normal government IDs can be used for it (ie drivers licenses), make early voting periods mandatory, and etc. There are a ton of things that could be done to make voting more convenient, it's just that most of it is in the hands of the states.

 

[Tarkus]

All joking aside, we need to get with the Australian times and make voting mandatory.

Don't tell me what to do. That's un-American.

 

[Daniel B·]

So, now we're back in reality, does my supposition have some merit, that Bernie's programs would inevitably lead to significant U.S economic growth, or as Brainchild once put it, no, that's pure "bullshit". Perhaps somone who knows their U.S. history could indicate whether the original interstate highway program, stimulated the economy.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Hmm, I forgot that Cruz's Politifact file is Ben Carson/Donald Trump bad:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

 

[Makai]

So, now we're back in reality, does my supposition have some merit, that Bernie's programs would inevitably lead to significant U.S economic growth, or as Brainchild once put it, no, that's pure "bullshit". Perhaps somone who knows their U.S. history, could indicate whether the original interstate highway program stimulated the economy.

We already have roaring growth. We are the envy of the developed world

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Unemployment is now low enough that further decreases could lead to inflation. A jobs program is not what we need now. A better policy would target inequality.

 

[Makai]

Hmm, I forgot that Cruz's Politifact file is Ben Carson/Donald Trump bad:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

It's not fair to compare them like this. The editorial staff might have just picked more of Ted's lies to evaluate than it did for Jeb.

 

[Daniel B·]

We already have roaring growth. We are the envy of the developed world

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Unemployment is now low enough that further decreases could lead to inflation. A jobs program is not what we need now. A better policy would target inequality.

Yeah, but, how many of those jobs are minimum wage, with some being filled by over qualified workers, who could perhaps get a job as a result of one of Bernie's programs, that allows them to use their full experience.

 

[RustyNails]

Are you trolling? I'm being 100% serious, because if not.........ho-ly shit

Babby's first election.

 

[Tarkus]

Yeah, but, how many of those jobs are minimum wage, with some being filled by over qualified workers, who could perhaps get a job as a result of one of Bernie's programs, that allows them to use their full experience.

Are you sure your name isn't actually spelled &#1044;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080;&#1083; &#1041;, comrade?

 

[ivysaur12]

Politico article about Democrats' efforts to retake the Senate in 2016. This stuck out.

Kander could surprise if the mood is good. Missouri has a weirdly good Dem bench.

Also, Ross is going to be a good candidate. Watch.

 

[danm999]

All joking aside, we need to get with the Australian times and make voting mandatory.

Start with establishing an equivalent to the Australian Electoral Commission. I can see neither party wanting to do that of course.

 

[Daniel B·]

Are you sure your name isn't actually spelled &#1044;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080;&#1083; &#1041;, comrade?

If you had the choice between, flipping burgers, or helping to address the chronic state of the nation's infrastructure, which would you choose, especially if you had a relevant qualification?

If you add a guaranteed living wage, even having to work in the cold winter months, I think you have your answer .

 

[Cerium]

Bernie fans make me feel old. I want to yell at them to get off my lawn.

 

[brainchild]

Everyone will just vote for the guys who want to get rid of that law. You'd see more success making election day a national holiday and giving everyone the day off.

If that happens, then so be it. At least we'd finally have an actual consensus of the American people.

I also think making it a holiday would be a great idea, but not necessarily mutually exclusive with mandatory voting.

Make election day a federal holiday, simplify voter registration so that normal government IDs can be used for it (ie drivers licenses), make early voting periods mandatory, and etc. There are a ton of things that could be done to make voting more convenient, it's just that most of it is in the hands of the states.

Those are all great ideas as well.

Don't tell me what to do. That's un-American.

A worthy sacrifice in order to have a democracy where most of the country's citizens voices actually contribute to the governance of our country. If most Americans say that we shouldn't have mandatory voting, then at least that will be determined by a more representative democracy.

 

[Konka]

If you had the choice between, flipping burgers, or helping to address the chronic state of the nation's infrastructure, which would you choose, especially if you had a relevant qualification?

If you add a guaranteed living wage, even having to work in the cold winter months, I think you have your answer .

Did you see the latest jobs report? These aren't burger flipping jobs being created.

 

[East Lake]

Of all the the things to criticize Bernie on infrastructure spending should not be one of them.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

We already have roaring growth. We are the envy of the developed world

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Unemployment is now low enough that further decreases could lead to inflation. A jobs program is not what we need now. A better policy would target inequality.

What do you mean by roaring growth and envy of the developed world based off the link you gave? Also, according to CBO estimates the US has a significant output gap. Why would targeting inequality be better than putting idle resources to use?

 

[thepotatoman]

I mean that's part of the point though.

The less educated are more likely to be lower income. They're also more likely to be socially conservative.

And the Democratic Party is too trans-, gay-, women-, racial minority- friendly for the socially conservative poor to vote for, even if they do see the potential economic benefit. So they'll vote in favor of minimum wage referendums, but install a Republican in the Governor's mansion.

In 2008, based on the survey linked in that article, 27% of people with only some high school education think a women's place is in the home. 11% of the lowest percentile income.

That the Republican Party is able to make it into a racial issue in itself kind of speaks to the social conservatism of this electorate.

Ironically, the biggest strategic problem with new democrats is that they're too liberal socially. They all think if democrats were a little more like reagan economically, they'd win more elections, but questioning pro-choice is completely out of the question.

If you want to compromise your values to win a state like Kansas, it's pretty freaking obvious that compromising on financial issues isn't going to do it. Seems like there might be a better coalition of socially conservative but fiscally liberal voters, and get the votes of the types of people you're talking about.

Now, is it worth giving up your social values to push your economic values in states where you know the alternative is going to be just as bad socially and way worse economically? Maybe not, but if the answer is no, than we should probably stop making fun of kansas voters for making the clear wrong choice economically.

Either way, I'm still fed up with third way Democrats. They're only useful if they win elections Democrats would otherwise lose, and they're not doing that anymore.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Ironically, the biggest strategic problem with new democrats is that they're too liberal socially. They all think if democrats were a little more like reagan economically, they'd win more elections, but questioning pro-choice is completely out of the question.

If you want to compromise your values to win a state like Kansas, it's pretty freaking obvious that compromising on financial issues isn't going to do it. Seems like there might be a better coalition of socially conservative but fiscally liberal voters, and get the votes of the types of people you're talking about.

Now, is it worth giving up your social values to push your economic values in states where you know the alternative is going to be just as bad socially and way worse economically? Maybe not, but if the answer is no, than we should probably stop making fun of kansas voters for making the clear wrong choice economically.

Either way, I'm still fed up with third way Democrats. They're only useful if they win elections Democrats would otherwise lose, and they're not doing that anymore.

like Edwards?

 

[thepotatoman]

like Edwards?

I guess so.

I haven't payed close enough attention to see if he's trying to position Vitters to the left on family issues or if he's just running the standard campaign of being the governing democrat against a flawed republican.

 

[Cerium]

I guess so.

I haven't payed close enough attention to see if he's trying to position Vitters to the left on family issues or if he's just running the standard campaign of being the governing democrat against a flawed republican.

He's Pro-Life and Pro-Gun.

 

[ivysaur12]

I guess so.

I haven't payed close enough attention to see if he's trying to position Vitters to the left on family issues or if he's just running the standard campaign of being the governing democrat against a flawed republican.

He has an ad out about how he didn't abort his daughter.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Kander could surprise if the mood is good. Missouri has a weirdly good Dem bench.

Also, Ross is going to be a good candidate. Watch.

I hope Hillary competes there and Georgia. After coming close in both states (Missouri was a nail biter and most pundits considered it more likely to go Obama than NC or Indiana) it was a shame that OFA pulled out of both of them in 2012. I mean ultimately it didn't matter since McCaskill still won without much help from the top of the ticket but if Democrats have a chance to take down Blunt they should pounce on that.

In many states where Obama didn't bother competing in 2012, Romney didn't do much better than McCain. Romney gained less than 40,000 more votes over McCain 08 - Obama lost over 200,000 in the four years. His drop off is almost entirely due to voter disinterest. Georgia is quite similar.

 

[Cerium]

I hope Hillary competes there and Georgia. After coming close in both states (Missouri was a nail biter and most pundits considered it more likely to go Obama than NC or Indiana) it was a shame that OFA pulled out of both of them in 2012. I mean ultimately it didn't matter since McCaskill still won without much help from the top of the ticket but if Democrats have a chance to take down Blunt they should pounce on that.

In many states where Obama didn't bother competing in 2012, Romney didn't do much better than McCain. Romney gained less than 40,000 more votes over McCain 08 - Obama lost over 200,000 in the four years. His drop off is almost entirely due to voter disinterest. Georgia is quite similar.

If Trump is the nominee I think Hillary will be competing on a very broad map. Arizona will probably be in play.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If Trump is the nominee I think Hillary will be competing on a very broad map. Arizona will probably be in play.

In a Hillary vs. Trump scenario, assuming everything is the same as it is now (as in relatively good economy and Obama breaking even on approval) I think she'd win every state Obama won in 08 as well as North Carolina, Indiana, Arizona, Georgia and Missouri. And Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. 10 seat gain in the Senate (WI/IL/PA/FL/OH/NH/NC/AZ/IN/MO, no losses), 25 in the House.

It would be glorious. The only thing that'd be better is if you tacked on 5 to that House total. Unfortunately even in a best case scenario I don't think Democrats would be able to overcome gerrymanders, although Florida and Virginia getting new maps should give them a bit of an assist.

 

[theprodigy]

I dunno if I'd be that optimistic about it considering what the Republicans have as a floor

but then again it wouldn't be an Aaron Strife post otherwise

 

[Retromelon]

idk, that totally sounded like Retromelon, I think we have a true believer here

No it didn't!
I'm not the tallest guy in the world if im being completely honest
But thats neither here nor there. Im loving daniel b lately he speaks the truth and the hilldawgs are lighting their pitchforks for him

How do i sound to you prodigy. ^^^lol lighting pitchforks

 

[Aaron Strife]

I dunno if I'd be that optimistic about it considering what the Republicans have as a floor

but then again it wouldn't be an Aaron Strife post otherwise

Trump as the nominee would be such a disaster for them that Democrats would have to overperform.

In a previous cycle it would be the kind of thing that would result in a near-total lockout (1964, 1972, 1984) but I think the nation is too polarized for that sort of result nowadays. But who cares? A win's a win.

 

[Makai]

Yeah, but, how many of those jobs are minimum wage, with some being filled by over qualified workers, who could perhaps get a job as a result of one of Bernie's programs, that allows them to use their full experience.

You can't just transform burger-flippers into construction workers, nor would they want to. If they want better jobs, that's on them.

 

[Makai]

What do you mean by roaring growth and envy of the developed world based off the link you gave? Also, according to CBO estimates the US has a significant output gap. Why would targeting inequality be better than putting idle resources to use?

Just look at this shit. Straight-up garbage growth in every country but ours:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/gdp-growth

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp-growth

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-growth

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth

 

[Holmes]

Also, Ross is going to be a good candidate. Watch.

If 2016 is like 2010 or 2014, Ross loses. If it's like 2006 or 2008, Ross wins. If it's like 2012, Ross loses to Burr by around 5%.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You can't just transform burger-flippers into construction workers, nor would they want to. If they want better jobs, that's on them.

Furthermore, as long as there are places that require people to flip burgers there will always be burger-flipping jobs.

Now, it's a problem if educated or skilled professionals need to resort to flipping burgers to make a living because they can't find anything in their field. But given the growth we've been seeing in professional fields like medical it doesn't seem like it's any more of a problem now than it's been for a while. A socialist president isn't going to make that go away on his own, with or without a Democratic Congress.

If 2016 is like 2010 or 2014, Ross loses. If it's like 2006 or 2008, Ross wins. If it's like 2012, Ross loses to Burr by around 5%.

Thank you for posting this because I literally had no idea who Ross was, besides the always hilarious David Schwimmer.

That being said I think she'll be fine. Hagan was a first-time candidate after all. If she loses it won't be through any fault of her own.

 

[ivysaur12]

Who wants a report on fundraising for Senate candidates? Yeah you fucking do. I'm also only going to list major candidates

Colorado:

Democrat (I): Bennet

Total Contributions: $5,525,238
Cash On Hand: $5,387,554

Republican: --

Nevada:

Democrat: Catherine Cortez-Masto

Total Contributions: $5,387,554
Cash On Hand: $1,508,381

Republican: Joe Heck

Total Contributions: $889,653
Cash On Hand: $2,293,899

Arizona:

Democrat: Ann Kirkpatrick

Total Contributions: $1,002,399
Cash On Hand: $766,604

Republican (I): John McCain

Total Contributions: $4,226,861
Cash On Hand: $4,958,606

Missouri:

Democrat: Jason Kander

Total Contributions: $2,327,452
Cash On Hand: $1,547,006

Republican (I): Roy Blunt

Total Contributions: $3,606,216
Cash On Hand: $4,371,781

Arkansas:

Democrat: Connor Eldridge (1 mo of fundraising)

Total Contributions: $403,039
Cash On Hand: $400,761

Republican (I): John Boozman

Total Contributions: $1,093,571 (this is much lower than he should be raising)
Cash On Hand: $1,124,025

Illinois:

Democrat: Tammy Duckworth

Total Contributions: $2,726,568
Cash On Hand: $2,850,264

Republican: Mark Kirk

Total Contributions: $3,287,517
Cash On Hand: $3,627,428

Indiana:

Democrat: Baron Hill

Total Contributions: $420,052 (looooooool)
Cash On Hand: $293,341 (looooooooooooooool)

Republican: Todd Young

Total Contributions: $2,156,357
Cash On Hand: $2,254,871

Republican: Marlin Stutzman

Total Contributions: $1,326,551
Cash On Hand: $1,078,981

Wisconsin:

Democrat: Russ Feingold

Total Contributions: $4,736,853
Cash On Hand: $3,375,900

Republican (I): Ron Johnson

Total Contributions: $4,489,644
Cash On Hand: $3,537,015

Florida:

Democrat: Patrick Murphy

Total Contributions: $4,180,816 (my god)
Cash On Hand: $3,476,853

Democrat: Alan Grayson

Total Contributions: $1,047,011
Cash On Hand: $249,849 (?????)

Republican: Ron DeSantis

Total Contributions: $2,081,763
Cash On Hand: $2,457,069

Republican: David Jolly

Total Contributions: $848,025
Cash On Hand: $658,454

Republican: Carlos Lopez-Cantera

Total Contributions: $462,404
Cash On Hand: $379,822

North Carolina:

Democrat: Deborah Ross

-- Hasn't been in long enough to have reported

Republican (I): Richard Burr

Total Contributions: $3,697,023
Cash On Hand: $4,746,624 (super impressive)

Ohio:

Democrat: Ted Strickland

Total Contributions: $2,654,384
Cash On Hand: $1,519,391

Republican (I): Rob Portman

Total Contributions: $7,263,700 (!!!!!)
Cash On Hand: $11,100,663 (!!!!!!!)

Pennsylvania:

Democrat: Kathleen McGinty

Total Contributions: $990,626
Cash On Hand: $892,359

Democrat: Joe Sestak

Total Contributions: $1,591,004 (a lot less impressive when you realize this is from Jan 1st and McGinty's total is from July)
Cash On Hand: $2,416,291

Republican (I): Pat Toomey

Total Contributions: $5,908,519
Cash On Hand: $8,598,021

New Hampshire:

Democrat: Maggie Hassan

-- Hasn't been in long enough to have reported

Republican (I): Kelly Ayotte

Total Contributions: $2,927,157
Cash On Hand: $5,069,226

Looking through the non-competitive races to see if there's anything of note.

If 2016 is like 2010 or 2014, Ross loses. If it's like 2006 or 2008, Ross wins. If it's like 2012, Ross loses to Burr by around 5%.

Yeah, the entire race will be dictated by the top of the ticket, especially in North Carolina

 

[East Lake]

You can't just transform burger-flippers into construction workers, nor would they want to. If they want better jobs, that's on them.

Are you sure you're not a conservative?

Also you shouldn't be so quick to call what we have roaring growth. It only looks great in comparison to countries who totally botched their response to the recession. It's not even a radical position to think our growth has been below what it should be.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-08-07/why-growth-in-u-s-economy-isn-t-sufficient

^Obama's former economic advisor Alan Krueger on why US growth is not enough.

 

[ivysaur12]

Chuck Schumer has 22 mil on hand. Thune has 11 million.

Hoeven has pretty shitty fundraising, but the North Dakota DFL is in such a shitty state they would have no one to run. They can't even find anyone to run in their open seat, and their one candidate is already in the Senate.

Isakson, unfortunately, has some great fundraising.

Kander seems to be the real deal, from a fundraising POV. Would be interesting if Trump got the nominee and put a lot of downballot Republicans in trouble.

 

[Holmes]

That being said I think she'll be fine. Hagan was a first-time candidate after all. If she loses it won't be through any fault of her own.

Hagan was a good fit for her state, and ran a great campaign last year. And she still lost. In 2008, Dole did all the work for her, really. Sure, Obama helped, but she overperformed Obama by about 10ish points. Burr has incumbency to help him, and in a state like North Carolina, being a non-problematic Republican incumbent is better than being a great Democratic incumbent.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Toomey and Portman will be tough to beat. Luckily I think Toomey will be easier because Hillary will likely win Pennsylvania by at least five points and I can't imagine that many ticket-splitters saving him. Ohio will likely be too close to call, however.

Picking up WI, IL, FL, PA, and NH and holding NV/CO - probably the likely outcome of a 2012-esque election, maybe add another Senate seat - would be okay, but Democrats would almost certainly lose the Senate in 2018.

Hagan was a good fit for her state, and ran a great campaign last year. And she still lost. In 2008, Dole did all the work for her, really. Sure, Obama helped, but she overperformed Obama by about 10ish points. Burr has incumbency to help him, and in a state like North Carolina, being a non-problematic Republican incumbent is better than being a great Democratic incumbent.

Hagan losing was really unfortunate, especially considering the polls had her up. Oh well. Wish she, Udall and Begich could have held on. NC and CO could easily swing back in 2020 but AK is probably gone for a while.

 

[ivysaur12]

Hagan was a good fit for her state, and ran a great campaign last year. And she still lost. In 2008, Dole did all the work for her, really. Sure, Obama helped, but she overperformed Obama by about 10ish points. Burr has incumbency to help him, and in a state like North Carolina, being a non-problematic Republican incumbent is better than being a great Democratic incumbent.

Yeah, but 2008 North Carolina is going to have a different look than 2016 North Carolina anyway -- it'll be (slightly) friendlier to a Democrat. Hagan's campaign perfect, but she was hit with ISIS! and Ebola! during that fall and a disastrously low turn out. And she still lost by only 45,000 votes. If Hagan had run that campaign in 2012, she would've cruised to victory.

I'm not saying that Ross will have it easy or has a better-than-50-percent-chance of winning, but it's a much more winnable race than Politico seemed to imply.

 

[Holmes]

Republican (I): Rob Portman

Total Contributions: $7,263,700 (!!!!!)
Cash On Hand: $11,100,663 (!!!!!!!)

Portman may be down in the polls now but this should give Democrats pause. I know Strickland will get a big boost in fundraising when the campaigns kick into high gear but this is a big head start for Portman. This will be a closely watched race next year.

Pennsylvania:

Democrat: Kathleen McGinty

Total Contributions: $990,626
Cash On Hand: $892,359

Democrat: Joe Sestak

Total Contributions: $1,591,004 (a lot less impressive when you realize this is from Jan 1st and McGinty's total is from July)
Cash On Hand: $2,416,291

Sestak's been running for this seat for the past 6 years and this is all he has? And his endorsement list is very pathetic, especially compared to McGinty. But I don't really know if McGinty herself is a weak candidate or not. Certainly controversial, to put it mildly. The three Democratic judges that were elected last week were elected to replace two judges that resigned in scandal. Is it really smart to be the ones running the candidate who's been mired in scandal this time around?

re: North Carolina. I know that demographic changes in the state benefit Democrats. And it put Obama on top in 2008 and let him barely lose the state in 2012. But aside from Obama and Hagan in 2008, there hasn't been much to celebrate. Republicans took the state legislature and the governor's mansion in that time, gerrymandered the state to hell (though to be fair, the state was gerrymandered badly in favor of Democrats beforehand) and Democrats lost quite a few statewide offices. Cooper is looking good so far for the governor's race, but Democrats still need to try very hard. Clinton being on the top of the ticket over Sanders should give the downballot a bigger boost.

The good thing is that Burr doesn't run extremely negative campaigns like many other Southern Republicans do, but now that SuperPACs are a dominant force in elections, Ross needs to define herself asap. I really wonder what their message will be next year though. "Obama = Hillary = (local Democratic candidate)"? It's so unoriginal and uninspired that it probably will be just that. But for the good of the Democratic party, Hillary needs to tap into that 90's nostalgia and remind people of the weight the Clinton name holds. It worked for Trudeau a few weeks ago. If people remember how good things were when Bill was in office, especially compared to today, and especially if the opposition is flawed and weak, people will go for the old times. Better the devil you know.

 

[Makai]

Are you sure you're not a conservative?

Also you shouldn't be so quick to call what we have roaring growth, in fact it only looks great in comparison to countries who totally botched their response to the recession. It's not even a radical position to think our growth has been below what it should be.^Obama's former economic advisor Alan Krueger on why US growth is not enough.

You're in the fringe of American liberals if you think the government should determine which jobs people deserve. The hiring process is famously inefficient, but what is the government supposed to do? No amount of shovel-ready jobs is going to turn a barista into the white-collar office drone she aspires to be. It's up to her to switch jobs.

Sometimes I feel like the only guy who recognizes the fantastic success of the Obama administration. Chin up, people. We live in America's best days.

 

[ivysaur12]

aniel &#8207;@Taniel
Day 1 of voting in #LAGov: 42K voters (that's 3.7% of October's electorate), 67% white/30% black. http://electionstatistics.sos.la.go...istics/Statewide/2015_1121_StatewideStats.pdf &#8230; h/t @jmilescoleman

Full breakdown here:

http://electionstatistics.sos.la.go...istics/Statewide/2015_1121_StatewideStats.pdf

The primary electorate was only 28% black. #BELieve

 

[East Lake]

You're in the fringe of American liberals if you think the government should determine which jobs people deserve. The hiring process is famously inefficient, but what is the government supposed to do? No amount of shovel-ready jobs is going to turn a barista into the white-collar office drone she aspires to be. It's up to her to switch jobs.

Sometimes I feel like the only guy who recognizes the fantastic success of the Obama administration. Chin up, people. We live in America's best days.

Nobody said big government needs to go in and manage who deserves to be a burger flipper.

You claimed that we shouldn't bother to create jobs because of inflation and roaring growth, both of which certainly aren't clear cut reasons to avoid creating jobs.

 

[Makai]

Nobody said big government needs to go in and manage who deserves to be a burger flipper.

You claimed that we shouldn't bother to create jobs because of of inflation and roaring growth, both of which certainly aren't clear cut reasons not to create jobs.

I was specifically responding to the guy who said we should spend $1 trillion to convert 1 million burger-flippers into construction workers and engineers to improve our infrastructure.