I hope so, I want to see what happens when someone loses this bet.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
I hope so, I want to see what happens when someone loses this bet.
Jack Remington
Banned
I forgot he's on the record stating this. Perfect campaign commercial material.
Still incredibly torn on who will end-up being the antiTrump. I'll read something about Rubio and think it's him in one moment, and then Michael Steele will say something cryptic & oddly uber-confident about Jeb's behind-the-scenes organizing/connections/etc and make me wonder if he knows something..
For fun, I tried to come-up with a really tight Rubio-Kasich vs Clinton-Kaine map tonight. Generous to the GOP in some ways, generous to the Democrats in some ways.
Imagine an Election Night where New Hampshire is called for Rubio, then Iowa for Hillary, then Colorado for Rubio, and then it all comes down to Nevada. Spoooooky!
---
And yep, Rubio is on the record on the abortion issue. That's going to be a big honkin' red flag in a general, especially for female voters in the middle.
For fun, I tried to come-up with a really tight Rubio-Kasich vs Clinton-Kaine map tonight. Generous to the GOP in some ways, generous to the Democrats in some ways.
Imagine an Election Night where New Hampshire is called for Rubio, then Iowa for Hillary, then Colorado for Rubio, and then it all comes down to Nevada. Spoooooky!
---
And yep, Rubio is on the record on the abortion issue. That's going to be a big honkin' red flag in a general, especially for female voters in the middle.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I think when OT people are wondering why Trump / Carson / Fiorina is such a joke and why nobody thinks they could actually win the general election, they're forgetting an easy smell test:
Who does each pick to run with them down ticket?
It's such a simple question the answers reveal why they're all just so fucking absurd to believe in.
Who does each pick to run with them down ticket?
It's such a simple question the answers reveal why they're all just so fucking absurd to believe in.
Jack Remington
Banned
Fiorina's HP and Lucent record is so goddamn bad. I didn't realize quite how bad until I read the case study by that Yale Business School guy. Her record includes everything from piss-poor strategy to shady financial reporting to fostering terrible employee morale. And she's really supposed to be a potential leader of the free world. GTFO.
neurosisxeno
Member
I see no way the Democrats lose Colorado in 2016. It would take a monumental amount of screw ups for them not to easily take it by ~5%.
Basically this. He's a good shot for them to take Ohio, but only as the actual nominee. We saw how well Paul Ryan handed the GOP Wisconsin last time around...
EDIT: Also, Elizabeth Warren killed it on the Late Show. I kinda wish Bernie had gotten a mention because they run on similar ideology and people love Warren.
Jack Remington
Banned
Can't forgive Colorado for giving us Gardner. Iowa can get sucked up by Emergence Day too.
Give it a rest, you're not going to win at the Supreme Court repubs. It's not happening. Are they actually delusional enough to think they'll accomplish anything with this? It's going to get knocked down in court so fast it'll make their head spin.
What is the end goal here? Is it to drum up anger and excitement for 2016? Because this seems early for that.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Bennett is unpopular and a well respected republican like Coffman would have had a decent chance at beating him. Coffman not running probably saved Democrats a seat here.
The fact that they're honestly looking at running that attorney that prosecuted the aurora shooting case makes me think there's nothing to worry about. I'm sure someone like that does still have a chance for any contested statewide election (see Chris Christie), but I think they need someone that really knows what they're doing to take on an incumbent democrat in an election that is probably leaning democrat.
He's a largely unknown Senator. Last time PPP polled him, he has like 30% No Opinion. Winning in 2010 is no small accomplishment, though.
Gardner was also a perfect candidate in a terrible year for his opponent.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think Trump picks Cruz.
I can't believe it but the way things are playing out... it probably will be Rubio. The one I despise the most all things considered.
Put me down on Blondie.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
He ran the exact same campaign that caused Udall to lose, solely pushing the abortion issue. I don't see how anyone can say Bennett won based off his own charisma and popularity.
Dynamics were simply different. The state's GOP party was in shambles with the candidate for governor being involved in scandal after scandal. And Ken Buck had a ton of missteps himself. Look up Dan Maes and Ken Buck on wikipedia and it shouldn't be hard to see why colorado went democrat in 2010. You don't get much worse than those two. You might as well say McCaskill is a super good politician for winning in a very red state, when her main accomplishment is helping Akin to win his primary.
At some level, it has to be part of the candidate to go against the national mood. Bennet isn't really "unpopular" as much as he unknown, like Burr. The statement that "Bennett is unpopular" isn't really the whole story, if we're to use the latest polling as a general barometer. His last QPac poll had him at 41/34 approval. That's not "unpopular".
And McCaskill is a super good politician. She's probably, like, one of the best politicians in the Senate, in terms of someone you wouldn't want to underestimate in an election.
neurosisxeno
Member
I'll put in for Rubio. I think Bush is sinking and Trump will start to sooner or later so the GOP will try and salvage the Latino vote by taking Rubio and hoping it also delivers Florida (which it probably won't).
Jack Remington
Banned
I wonder just how much of a draw Rubio would be in Florida. He got lucky in 2010, getting a 3-way race in an awful year for Democrats (still the greatest example of mass idiocy I've seen in my lifetime, but I'm trying to watch my blood pressure, so I'll stop there). Could Rubio have won a Florida Senate seat in 2008 or 2012?
BertramCooper
Banned
I love how people think the 10th amendment gives states carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want.
Black Republican
Member
Quinnipiac Poll
id say yeah, FL dems arent exactly invicible, plus Rubio always had a great story/charisma etc. It was only time for him to move up imo
id say yeah, FL dems arent exactly invicible, plus Rubio always had a great story/charisma etc. It was only time for him to move up imo
Trump is really starting to look tired and slow down. I really think he's going to get bored of this soon.
Given how close Florida has been in the past few cycles, I tend to think that if Rubio gives the GOP even just the slightest of nudges, then they'd have a slight-but-distinct edge if he's on the ticket.
Hillary could contest it with him on the ticket (and I bet she would, if only to force him to spend time & money in defense of such an expensive/broad state), but if she wins Florida, then we know she's likely winning other states elsewhere to the point where she won't even need it.
And Trump's on Morning Joe right now, complaining about Fox News. He'll be calling-in all over TV this morning, apparently.
Hillary could contest it with him on the ticket (and I bet she would, if only to force him to spend time & money in defense of such an expensive/broad state), but if she wins Florida, then we know she's likely winning other states elsewhere to the point where she won't even need it.
And Trump's on Morning Joe right now, complaining about Fox News. He'll be calling-in all over TV this morning, apparently.
A ton of people have moved from Puerto Rico to Florida since 2012 due to Puerto Rico's economy being awful, so that's the big wildcard in Florida for 2016.
Dems are trying to get them registered in Florida as they lean Democratic.
Dems are trying to get them registered in Florida as they lean Democratic.
Their numbers are slim. They won't matter. In Florida the biggest thing is getting people out to vote. GOP has their base on lock in terms of turnout. Reminds me that a "senior center" is my assigned polling place. Too damn convenient for the GOP base. Not that my county will turn blue, they always vote overwhelmingly red but still - you get the picture.
BertramCooper
Banned
BREAKING NEWS: FLORIDA DEMOCRATS TRYING TO REGISTER NON-US CITIZENS TO VOTE
Mobile Suit Gooch
Grundle: The Awakening
So there's this 13 year old Conservative name C.J Pearson, who was upset that Obama blocked him on Twitter. Anybody hear about that?
BertramCooper
Banned
Yeah, he's that crazy little Ted Cruz stan who posted the YouTube video bashing Obama for inviting Ahmed Mohamed to the White House.
WH press office is denying that he was blocked.
brainchild
Banned
I legit LOL'd
The title of the legislation, "Natural Marriage Defense Act", has to be one of the most vile, homophobic turns of phrase I've read in a while.
Black Republican
Member
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...od-of-more-funding-b99583192z1-329087701.html
Walker must be rubbing his hands
BertramCooper
Banned
The kid is probably lying for three reasons:
1) If the POTUS Twitter account were routinely blocking people, we'd hear about it A LOT.
2) Why would this little twerp be the first to be blocked by them? That account probably gets all sorts of incendiary and threatening bullshit tweeted at it on a regular basis - stuff far worse than some dumb pestering bullshit from an Obama-hating teenager.
3) I'd imagine the Secret Service probably uses that Twitter account to monitor threats against the president. For that reason, it doesn't make sense that they'd be blocking people. It would only make it harder for them to be notified of threatening tweets.
1) If the POTUS Twitter account were routinely blocking people, we'd hear about it A LOT.
2) Why would this little twerp be the first to be blocked by them? That account probably gets all sorts of incendiary and threatening bullshit tweeted at it on a regular basis - stuff far worse than some dumb pestering bullshit from an Obama-hating teenager.
3) I'd imagine the Secret Service probably uses that Twitter account to monitor threats against the president. For that reason, it doesn't make sense that they'd be blocking people. It would only make it harder for them to be notified of threatening tweets.
After watching his video it wouldn't surprise me that he thinks Obama blocked him on twitter. I bet he thinks if the mail comes 20 minutes late, Obama personally made it happen to piss him off. Of course he's just a kid, so it's not a crime that he has no idea how anything works.
Now if he were a full grown adult who spent a significant part of his adult life in politics and didn't, say, understand how the Supreme Court works for example, that would be a little concerning. Or if he wanted to vote to repeal Obamacare dozens of times despite the fact that the President would obviously veto the repeal if it made it that far. Or if he thought our military was in trouble because we don't have some arbitrary number of tanks ready to deploy. Or if he thought it should be illegal to based American government on Sharia Law but be OK making laws based on the Bible.
All THAT would be troubling. Thank goodness he's just a kid and will learn and grow with more experience.
benjipwns
Banned
lolololololololololololol
Which is why drivers licenses prevent bad drivers. (And police officers never are terrible.)
And the FDA would never approve and then stonewall studies against Vioxx. Then reapprove it. (Canada reapproved it 12-1!)
The actual best part of the Vioxx story is the class action lawyers almost throwing the settlement out the window because they were only going to get $300 million out of the $5 billion settlement. Luckily, a judge intervened and found that $1.6 billion was a more appropriate amount of the settlement being legal fees.
Yeah, we have places for those other people like Pruitt-Igoe and Cabrini–Green.
I doubt even the Secret Service bothers to read the other end of the twitter feed.
I'm surprised they bother retweeting John Kerry.
I have no idea what this chart is supposed to be telling me in regards to the problems of health care provision.It's so strange to see people twist and squirm on how to "fix" healthcare without even looking at the big fucking glaring problem: profits.
The CEO of Goodwill earns $3+ million in salary, and they're a non-profit. He gets almost 4% of their expenses. Wayne Smith gets less than less than 1% of CHS's revenue. .004%.
(I picked him over say the CEO of fucking J&J, and Schleifer of Regeneron because like many smaller pharma companies he's the founder and they make all their money off of basically 1-2 drugs and he makes his money off the stock.)
We'll let the doctors keep their licenses because licenses from the state are magical, but heaven forbid we ever talk about cartels.
When do we get even 10% of people aware of Certificates of Need? No, no, best to let current health care providers and regulators decide how much new competition and services are "needed" in an area. I foresee zero impacts on costs. Not a one.
Literally zero. Okay? And I've talked to everybody, don't listen to just me, I've talked to the biggest and best experts on this and they all tell me the same thing. Okay? This isn't just a problem, it's a problem. Okay? A disaster! I've seen it first hand, doing my youuge business deals, and we're going to make a great deal, not a bad one like the Kurds got, they have been horribly mistreated by the way, just terribly mistreated, but then these nonsense issues pop-up and it's no wonder nobody in Washington knows how to make a good deal. It's a disaster. We're getting our butts kicked. Okay? I don't think in America anyone should be forced to make a bad deal, I know it's not impossible to make good deals, ask anyone about my history, I've made the biggest and best deals in history, but it's too hard for some people, especially when Mexico and China are kicking our butts, so we need to negotiate a great deal that allows everyone to make great deals.
Woah, sorry there, I don't know what happened. I'd see a doctor about it but how can I trust someone in bed with the state? I'll continue to self-medicate thank you very much.
Just going to leave this here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-gay-marriage-ruling_56031472e4b00310edf9e6b0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-gay-marriage-ruling_56031472e4b00310edf9e6b0
Double post but holy shit
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ged-highly-vulnerable-in-runoff-election.html
Could just be noise. But also
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ged-highly-vulnerable-in-runoff-election.html
Could just be noise. But also
Freakin' Scalia, man, I swear. First, he knows it's not mandatory, right? We're not going to force you to get gay married, Anton.
And does he really think the Court is supposed to rule based on the religious beliefs of many of our citizens? I refuse to believe that he's that stupid.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Vitters still the favorite but I expect some upsets in LA, OK, the plain states, etc. The fall in oil prices really hurts them and angry voters do surprising things.
rocketknight
Member
This has been in the cards for a while now. I'm excited.
I work a couple blocks from the capitol for a progressive organization. Bobby Jindal's campaign had our office before us, years ago. Today we got his AAA card in the mail!
Coriolanus
Banned
You usually try a little harder than that, benj.
I said we shouldve gone with "is this from the onion?"
NYCmetsfan
Banned
These kind of arguments always make me think of some libertarian thinking he's got a pulled his trap card or something. When it says nothing but that licenses aren't perfect. Nobody say they are but they do reduce risk, create safer drivers, provide a better police forces (even though they still make racists decisions and need far more reform, studies have shown they're better than the general public for evaluating risk)
Every time this topic comes up it seems as if libertarians can point out on failure or lack of perfecting while simultaneously pointig out a single success of no regulation they've checked mated liberals and disproven the regulatory state!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
dude should resign if he doesn't feel qualified to do his job.
I mean they've been debating these questions since the beginning of the constitution and they've been greatly increased by the addition to the constitution of the 14 amendment that directly provoked these questions.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
A solider killing affords him due process?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
The implosion is coming.
Any minute now.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaany minute.
Any minute now.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaany minute.
benjipwns
Banned
No, it's that progressives pretend that state mandated/restricted licenses are anything but a protection racket.
Licensed drivers commit the vast vast majority of accidents. Where's the evidence that licensed drivers are safer and reduce risk more than unlicensed ones? You can't compare it because the latter can't be counted except when they do something wrong.
More importantly is taking into account that the mere act of criminalizing unlicensed behavior skews the data. Hence commercial retailers of schedule one drugs are so often criminals and thus more willing to engage in risky and criminal behavior unrelated to their unlicensed commerce.
If you don't understand the difference between near-immediate self-defense in person and murdering innocent Americans from the sky on a whim I can't help you or Justice Scalia.
I'd be curious to see where you got your numbers. Wouldn't licensed drivers be in more accidents because most drivers are licensed?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked