Sirpopopop
Member
Tamanon said:
Did you read his Boston Globe editorial?
The guy is an establishment Republican.
Even uses the code words for an anti-gay agenda, "Let's leave it to the states."
-
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 Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Did you read his Boston Globe editorial?
The guy is an establishment Republican.
Even uses the code words for an anti-gay agenda, "Let's leave it to the states."
Diablos said:
I don't know how many times this has been stated but special elections are very difficult to poll consistently.
Looking back at the NY-23rd, every poll at some point had Hoffman with a pretty significant lead, before and after Scozzafava. Did that pan out? Even then the conservative base was "energized" and it didn't materialize in the form of a victory. By no means am I say that Coakley will coast to victory, but sometimes you can't always trust the polls, or the coverage of the national news media. Sometimes things are sensationalized, and then it has the effect of creating chicken littles.
This happens every so often in my state (Wyoming), where a democrat will look really strong on paper or in the limited media. Election time roles around, and the Republican literally stomps them into the ground at the polls. Papers and local news channels will run with close polls, because quite frankly it interests people rather than a 20 point ho-hum blowout.
I'm concerned about HCR as well, but even though I am from a hugely conservative state, I support the passing of this by any means necessary. If Coakley loses, pass it by reconcilation, and fix it later. After dealing with an insurance company for months, and seeing that they can pretty much do whatever the fuck the want, I see the need for putting some pressure on them to do better for their customers. Win or lose, it shouldn't stop the Democrats from carrying out something for the American people. Hell, if it was up to the Republicans, they would try to get it done in an any means necessary fashion, so why not give them a taste of their own medicine?
Godslay, good points all around, but again, this is a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by like 5:1. They shouldn't have to be worried about anything right now.
I've argued against the point for a long time, but now that I myself am truly witnessing how Democrats govern, they have a problem in doing so far too often. When the Democrats threatened to block Bush's Supreme Court nominations, Republicans threatened to go for the nuclear option, giving Democrats/moderates a real incentive to actually negotiate or else.
I don't see any of this from Senate Democrats. They're being very ineffective. Reid and many others lack the leadership to have the balls to seriously threaten the opposition. You can always blame Obama, but it's really not up to him, even though it makes him look like a jackass. Bush being in lockstep with House and Senate leadership is what made him look like he had a handle on his agenda, but really, the House and Senate are free to make decisions however they want regardless how the President feels. It's a damn shame Reid can't be more like, say, Pelosi, and demonstrate some leadership.
This is Obama's first real chance to prove that yes, he can govern and lead by passing serious legislation beyond the stimulus, which he can't run on alone.
Every now and then we hear a Congressman/Senator (or two) randomly bring up the possibility of using reconciliation or changing the rules, but nothing ever happens.
The fact is, even if Coakley wins, Democrats need to seriously grow a pair and learn how to fucking govern. By the end of the fall, they will no doubt, at the very least, have lost their 60 seat majority, which gives the GOP 41+ Senators to filibuster anything Obama tries to get passed. And they'll no doubt do so. Democrats need to have a gameplan, otherwise Obama will look like a lame duck for at least half of his first term, which doesn't help him get re-elected.
I've argued against the point for a long time, but now that I myself am truly witnessing how Democrats govern, they have a problem in doing so far too often. When the Democrats threatened to block Bush's Supreme Court nominations, Republicans threatened to go for the nuclear option, giving Democrats/moderates a real incentive to actually negotiate or else.
I don't see any of this from Senate Democrats. They're being very ineffective. Reid and many others lack the leadership to have the balls to seriously threaten the opposition. You can always blame Obama, but it's really not up to him, even though it makes him look like a jackass. Bush being in lockstep with House and Senate leadership is what made him look like he had a handle on his agenda, but really, the House and Senate are free to make decisions however they want regardless how the President feels. It's a damn shame Reid can't be more like, say, Pelosi, and demonstrate some leadership.
This is Obama's first real chance to prove that yes, he can govern and lead by passing serious legislation beyond the stimulus, which he can't run on alone.
Every now and then we hear a Congressman/Senator (or two) randomly bring up the possibility of using reconciliation or changing the rules, but nothing ever happens.
The fact is, even if Coakley wins, Democrats need to seriously grow a pair and learn how to fucking govern. By the end of the fall, they will no doubt, at the very least, have lost their 60 seat majority, which gives the GOP 41+ Senators to filibuster anything Obama tries to get passed. And they'll no doubt do so. Democrats need to have a gameplan, otherwise Obama will look like a lame duck for at least half of his first term, which doesn't help him get re-elected.
The Librarian
Banned
Thanks. I'm assuming MSNBC/CNN will be covering this all day?GhaleonEB said:
The Librarian
Banned
UNDERWHELMING.GhaleonEB said:
3:1 or 5:1, Democrats are sitting pretty in one of the most liberal states, period. This race should not be close. They shouldn't even have to try.GhaleonEB said:Whereas I am cautiously optimistic, you are in full out panic mode. I don't equate the two, but hey. Go for it. :lol
3:1
You too often confuse me being in panic mode with being frustrated. If you can't see the serious problem Democrats have in leadership, that's silly. If all it takes is one Senator to block Obama at every step of the way, imagine what's going to happen in the fall? Like I said, if she wins or loses, it's still alarming because it shows that Democrats have no plan to deal with not having an epic majority anymore, which is really the biggest problem as far as I'm concerned. Because whether their majority goes to less than 60 now or in the fall, it's going to happen this year regardless.
Like you said, it's crazy that we live in a country where a 41 seat minority > 59 seat majority; Democrats need to stop trying to compromise with a party that is batshit insane and adapt. They need to stop thinking they can reach out and make enough compromises to stay afloat. They can't. If they go into 2011 thinking just that, Obama will be rendered into a lame duck, and far too early, no doubt. They need to start copying off of Republicans when Democrats would threaten them throughout the Bush era.
It's a sad state of affairs, but the gap in ideology in between the two parties is so large that these tactics are the only way you are going to be able to consistently get anything passed in this country. The Democrats need to smarten up.
platypotamus
Member
On the bright side, once Dems are down to 59 in the Senate (now or after midterms), Republicans will either have to play ball, or the pressure to do some Senate reform will build astronomically over the next couple of years.
If the Republicans were in this position it wouldn't take them a couple years. This is what pisses me off.platypotamus said:
The GOP will never play ball. Keep dreaming. They'd first obstruct everything until the end of his term, render him into a lame duck and give the GOP a lot of motivation and enthusiasm in 2012.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think the greatest thing that could happen in 2010 is Harry Reid losing his seat, Senate Majority Leader going to Russ Feingold or Tom Harkin and the following dialogue taking place within the first week:Diablos said:
"Hey, we're going to filibuster your energy/immigration/education bill."
"No. Fuck you"
platypotamus
Member
Diablos said:
I look at that as the far less likely option as well, though completely shutting down the legislative branch isn't going to win them support outside of the support they already have, so I think they can only go so far with the obstructionism.
Play ball? You gotta be kidding. Its not like the the senate hasn't been in this position before and the amount of gridlock was even worst then. The GOP has no plans of its own it really is just the party of no.
Now that said a loss isn't entirely a bad thing politically especially this early in the year for one the GOP will continue to resist any meaningfully legislation mostly because they don't have any and thats going to make them look like the bad guys again. Also, the Dems get the excuse of "we don't have the majority" back, remember them getting 60 votes was dreaded by some because they would have to put up or shut up, this gives them plenty of time to gather enough sentiment back from those that would have possibly tilted Republican in November.
Now that said a loss isn't entirely a bad thing politically especially this early in the year for one the GOP will continue to resist any meaningfully legislation mostly because they don't have any and thats going to make them look like the bad guys again. Also, the Dems get the excuse of "we don't have the majority" back, remember them getting 60 votes was dreaded by some because they would have to put up or shut up, this gives them plenty of time to gather enough sentiment back from those that would have possibly tilted Republican in November.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't do it much, but I'm going to predict Brown wins on tuesday. An entire year spent on something that won't get voted on.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Officials say we probably won't know who'll win for a week or two. Well, if we can believe them.
Anyway, what are the odds of Obama getting alternative energy reform passed before November elections? I know the financial reform bill is already making its way, but all I really want is health care, financial, and alternative energy reform done before Dems get sweeped in November. :lol
Anyway, what are the odds of Obama getting alternative energy reform passed before November elections? I know the financial reform bill is already making its way, but all I really want is health care, financial, and alternative energy reform done before Dems get sweeped in November. :lol
platypotamus
Member
Tamanon said:
Well, Byrd's onboard, in theory...
Tamanon said:
I doubt he'll get any support from republicans even if energy reform had GOP friendly elements in it. We need to realize the GOP is on full "no" mode for at least remainder of Obama's first term. Obama really shouldn't expect any GOP support on any major legislation.
Christ.Diablos said:
Healthcare reform, financial regulations and energy cannot be separated from the economy. Those things are HUGE parts of the economy. The entire reason to do them is to help the economy.
So, when you say to turn to the economy, what are you talking about? A second stimulus? That's the jobs bill.
Reid has said they are going to do the jobs bill first, then financial reform and the energy bill, with the last one there due spring/early summer.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Gelman on Brown being a liberal republican
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/scott-brown-is-liberal-republican.html
Imagine if he won and demanded malpractice reform, less subsidies, or whatever in exchange for his vote. He'd be doing far more to advance "conservative health care ideas" than the obstructionists who don't want to deal with the issue.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/scott-brown-is-liberal-republican.html
Imagine if he won and demanded malpractice reform, less subsidies, or whatever in exchange for his vote. He'd be doing far more to advance "conservative health care ideas" than the obstructionists who don't want to deal with the issue.
platypotamus
Member
PD, did a mod force that avatar on you, or did you accept it willingly as your just comeuppance?
Someone with more patience than I should chronicle a "greatest hits" compilation of your predictions over the last couple of years.
Someone with more patience than I should chronicle a "greatest hits" compilation of your predictions over the last couple of years.
He can focus on job losses for the short-term and later expand on it with energy reform. The public doesn't want to hear about another huge sweeping reform (even though it does impact the economy, and hopefully for the better, people are dumb). They want to see something done about jobs that isn't tied to another issue, i.e. energy policy.GhaleonEB said:
Christ.
Don't get pissy with me all the time just because I don't play the role of a Democratic strategist on here, which is basically what you are. Not saying that's an awful thing, but I'm not going to always be "cautiously optimistic" when the Democrats are fucking it up big time. That's the difference between you and I.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Diablos said:
Article from Yglesias on this issue
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/a...orm-a-political-blunder-how-could-we-know.php
Same applies to energy, which is a part of the economy. They're planning on doing the jobs bill after health care (assuming health care even passes)
How? I keep hearing people say "focus on the economy" or "focus on job losses". How? Be specific now. And don't say pass a jobs bill, or a bill of make-work programs - because they're doing that. You also can't include energy or healthcare, or anything else they're working on.Diablos said:
:lolDiablos said:
I try to play the role of a pragmatist focused on policy. You spend much of your time spazzing out at polls, be it a dip in Gallup or the special election.
I'm generally an optimist about things, with a realistic streak. You're a pessimist. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but that's pretty much the big difference between us.
They can expand on the jobs bill or make-work programs. That's what people want. Over the past year, nearly, Obama to many voters appears to be someone who takes too long to make a decision -- be it Afghanistan or HCR -- and he needs to dig himself out of that hole before he attacks climate change.GhaleonEB said:How? I keep hearing people say "focus on the economy" or "focus on job losses". How? Be specific now. And don't say pass a jobs bill, or a bill of make-work programs - because they're doing that. You also can't include energy or healthcare, or anything else they're working on.
:lol
I try to play the role of a pragmatist focused on policy. You spend much of your time spazzing out at polls, be it a dip in Gallup or the special election.
I'm generally an optimist about things, with a realistic streak. You're a pessimist. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but that's pretty much the big difference between us.
Anyway, WOW. Obama and the DNC must be freaking the hell out. It's 7:30 on a Saturday evening and I get a text: "Crucial. Massachusetts Senate race for Kennedy's seat in jeapordy. Can you call a few voters? Log in to get a list of people to call: [Obama Neighbor to Neighbor URL]"
It's safe to say the party is in full panic mode. Holy shit. I can't remember the last time I got a text from OFA after the 2008 election. I'm not even remotely close to Massachusetts, either.
The Librarian
Banned
:lol :lolDiablos said:
Your concern trolling is really getting out of hand.
Only two things will decide the Mass election: 1.) Does recent polling news scare Dems enough to actually go out and vote in force on Tuesday and 2.) Will independents, which Brown is leading in and who outnumber Dems, come out in significant enough numbers?
Answer those two questions and you can probably predict the outcome.
Answer those two questions and you can probably predict the outcome.
Here is what a fucking "jobs bill" looks like:
--Start finding real, substantial ways of getting the currency of the United States more in-line with that of other nations to curb the absolutely massive exodus of jobs to other nations. I can understand a nation having cheaper labor on a level playing field, but it doesn't make sense that nations can pay their workers $1.50 a day and have them live off of it, whereas in the U.S., $7.50 an hour won't cover the basic necessities.
--Unify, down to a local level, the permits and licenses required to start a small business. Legally starting a business in the U.S. at this point is a fucking debacle. There are so many governmental, tax-collecting hurdles in the way that you will be lucky to create a business from scratch without breaking a law. In addition, some permits and licenses should be done away with completely if they serve no purpose than to generate revenue for a government.
Many successful businesses nowadays break the law for years without realizing (or caring about) it. Then, when they get big enough to recognize it, they have the resources to make good on getting those licenses/permits or meeting some other regulatory measure. That's not fair to all the others who want to start a business but recognize the legal risk in doing so if they defy the law. So, like usual, law-abiding citizens are bitten in the ass.
It should be as simple on getting on a Web site to figure out what licenses you need. You might think that this already exists, but if you have actually tried these sites, you'll see that they suck and can't account for every level of ever-changing government.
--Create incentives for businesses to invest in rural communities for a set period of time -- possibly by creating more manufacturing jobs in these areas initially, until they have the people and resources necessary to move to other industries. Having rural communities flourish will help the entire nation. Having said that, we have to be careful that these incentives do not overly burden urban and suburban areas because that is not really the point.
--Create ways that welfare recipients can contribute back to their communities for the money they are taking from their communities, particularly for those recipients who are chronic users. In exchange, welfare recipients should receive -- if needed -- highschool-level training in math, English, Spanish, Mandarin, social studies, and science. They could also be put through health and wellness programs to make them more active participants of society that -- hopefully -- would make them more go-getters.
--Start finding real, substantial ways of getting the currency of the United States more in-line with that of other nations to curb the absolutely massive exodus of jobs to other nations. I can understand a nation having cheaper labor on a level playing field, but it doesn't make sense that nations can pay their workers $1.50 a day and have them live off of it, whereas in the U.S., $7.50 an hour won't cover the basic necessities.
--Unify, down to a local level, the permits and licenses required to start a small business. Legally starting a business in the U.S. at this point is a fucking debacle. There are so many governmental, tax-collecting hurdles in the way that you will be lucky to create a business from scratch without breaking a law. In addition, some permits and licenses should be done away with completely if they serve no purpose than to generate revenue for a government.
Many successful businesses nowadays break the law for years without realizing (or caring about) it. Then, when they get big enough to recognize it, they have the resources to make good on getting those licenses/permits or meeting some other regulatory measure. That's not fair to all the others who want to start a business but recognize the legal risk in doing so if they defy the law. So, like usual, law-abiding citizens are bitten in the ass.
It should be as simple on getting on a Web site to figure out what licenses you need. You might think that this already exists, but if you have actually tried these sites, you'll see that they suck and can't account for every level of ever-changing government.
--Create incentives for businesses to invest in rural communities for a set period of time -- possibly by creating more manufacturing jobs in these areas initially, until they have the people and resources necessary to move to other industries. Having rural communities flourish will help the entire nation. Having said that, we have to be careful that these incentives do not overly burden urban and suburban areas because that is not really the point.
--Create ways that welfare recipients can contribute back to their communities for the money they are taking from their communities, particularly for those recipients who are chronic users. In exchange, welfare recipients should receive -- if needed -- highschool-level training in math, English, Spanish, Mandarin, social studies, and science. They could also be put through health and wellness programs to make them more active participants of society that -- hopefully -- would make them more go-getters.
Sirpopopop
Member
PhoenixDark said:
No, just no.
Just say no:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e..._new_day_is_coming_restore_faith_and_balance/
Also:
Scott Brown has been endorsed by pro-life groups.
He's appeared at tea party rallies.
Fuck 2002, this isn't 2002. It's 2010. Scott Brown is bad news.
Diablos said:
I understand that your concern is legitimate, which is fine. The thing is, and it is stated in the same text/email you received,
"The truth is, special elections often have very low turnout and are notoriously unpredictable." - Mitch Stewart.
Is that you can be overly concerned for nothing. The polls in this case are like a see-saw, and in my opinion very unreliable. The best you can do at this point is to hope that on Tuesday things go the way that you want them to.
In as much as donating to the OFA, I don't really plan to this late in the game, especially when Haitians have nothing. The money is much better utilized there rather than what is perceived (although I don't believe it) as a coin flip in MA. I'm in the same boat as GhaleonEB in that it will be somewhere around a 5% win, + 2 or 3%. Then again it is pure speculation, and I very well could be completely wrong.
If she doesn't win and the Republicans think that they have effectively killed healthcare, I would hope that they bring out the big guns.
Averon said:
Agree, which is why right now I think I'm picking Brown- I think there is a very real enthusiasm gap that Obama for all his talents won't be able to overcome. I believe people flat out don't like Coakley and won't be motivated to go to the polls just for her on Tuesday.
Will be fascinating to watch.
Y2Kev said:
I think its hard for polls to measure enthusiasm in a race like this. I'm just going off the same articles everyone else is reading- reports of the meet and greets, speech reception, etc. Not to mention logic tells me that there is more enthusiasm for Brown given dems don't even seem to like Coakley.
Some of the polls did probe that. The PPP poll, for instance, asked voters who they supported in 2008 and then how excited they were for the special election.Y2Kev said:
Code:
How excited are you about casting your vote in
the Senate election? If you are very excited,
press 1. If somewhat excited, press 2. If not
very excited, press 3. If youre not sure, press
4.
Very Excited.................................................... 51%
Somewhat Excited .......................................... 30%
Not Very Excited ............................................. 17%
Not Sure.......................................................... 3%And then the crosstabs showed 62% of GOP voters "very excited", and only 44% of Dem voters.
Of course, Dems outnumber Reps by 3:1 in MA. Turnout is pretty much a guess.
schuelma said:
I agree that Coakley, if not unlikeable, is at least uninspiring a candidate. However, special elections are known of very low turnout and those that do go to the polls are largely the party faithful, which in this case is fortunate for Coakely since Dems outnumber Reps 3 to 1. I just don't think independents are motivated enough to vote for Brown to overcome the democractic voter advantage Coakley has.
- Status