-
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
dave is ok
aztek is ok
I think Coakley still wins in MA. This is the exact same situation as in NY-23 where the republicans are assuming victory and some grand rebuttal of Obama's policies which will not happen.
The one thing I don't understand is how Scott Brown can vote for Romney's health care "reform" which was basically a mandate + tax fine for people without insurance and not vote for the very very similar plan in the Senate. He's a hypocrite.
The one thing I don't understand is how Scott Brown can vote for Romney's health care "reform" which was basically a mandate + tax fine for people without insurance and not vote for the very very similar plan in the Senate. He's a hypocrite.
cartoon_soldier
Member
dave is ok said:
Politicians take positions on issues based on what they think will get them Elected.
Currently, I think Dems will lose MA.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
There is certainly a lot of hype around Brown, but the race getting as popular as it did probably hurt him a lot more than it hurt Coakley.cartoon_soldier said:
I know I'm voting for her, even if she is a shitty candidate.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
dave is ok said:
Exact same thing except that the Republican is a Republican, and not a "Conservative Party" candidate where the Republican dropped out two days before the election. Just that SMALL, itty...BITTY difference.
Oh and that means nothing right? I mean, the Republican, combined with the conservative party candidate beat the Democrat. They just split the vote. Kind of like Nader in 2000 with Al Gore.
I love all of the justification and rationalization going on in this thread. The excuses are mounting.
Coakley was over 30% ahead in the polls two months ago.
It's Massachusetts! There hasn't been a Republican senator in over three decades in the state. There is NO state wide Republican holding a SINGLE office in the state, no congressman, no nothing. ALL Democrats. This is TEDDY KENNEDY's seat for FUCK'S SAKE! This race is being fought based on health care reform, Teddy Kennedy's MAIN ISSUE FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER!
Look, I'm with you guys, I don't think a Republican can win in MA. I don't think Brown will win. I sure hope he does. But I don't think he will. Even so, that this is a race, in the bluest of blue states, that ought to tell you SOMETHING! This is like Obama winning Alabama.
I wish you guys would understand the situation here. The longer Democrats continue to deny gravity itself, the worse it will be for us. We need a more moderate, balanced state of government. These wild swings from super conservative to super liberal governments are BAD. We need a balanced government. Currently we have the most imbalanced government seen in 70 years. THIS is why MA just may fall to Republicans. Most people recognize that this crazy imbalance and this train wreck of a Democrat super majority is HORRIBLE for the country. It's horrible for everyone. Nobody should have that much power.
We need slow, responsible reforms. We do not need the society ripped apart further in the midst of an economic disaster. This is why there is a race at all in MA.
People in this thread sound desperate to explain away how a Republican might win in MA. The answer is the obvious one. It's not the Rube Goldberg machine you're trying to build to explain it away. It's plainly obvious that even in MA they realize that what's going on right now in Washington is immoral, wrong, and bad for everyone.
You should ALL be praying that Brown wins. It is the very best thing that could happen to Democrats. It would give them an out on this horrid bill. They could blame it all on Brown, get out, and recover. Let's be honest, Obama requires a foil. He needs someone to blame his failures on. Blaming Bush for every single problem the man has is not washing with people anymore, and Obama loves blaming people for everything. He accepts ZERO responsibility for ANYTHING. He hates responsibility. Loves blame. It's his best game. So for him to finally have someone to blame things on is something he needs more than anything right now. Democrats will get the seat back in six years, Democrat losses in 2010 will be limited, and this horrid health bill will die. It's a win, win, win for Democrats.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Eh Drake, I agree that a republican being so close to winning Ted Kennedy's former seat IS a troubling sign for democrats. But at the same time I think this wouldn't be close if the democrat candidate was more likable.
People aren't upset because Obama isn't running a moderate administration. They're upset because the unemployment rate is 10%, and the economy recovery that is happening is not helping many regular people. If unemployment was at 8% we wouldn't be having this discussion, Croakly would be on her way to a nice victory, and the health care bill's numbers would be higher.
People aren't upset because Obama isn't running a moderate administration. They're upset because the unemployment rate is 10%, and the economy recovery that is happening is not helping many regular people. If unemployment was at 8% we wouldn't be having this discussion, Croakly would be on her way to a nice victory, and the health care bill's numbers would be higher.
Byakuya769
Member
loosus said:
Have you ever visited any developing countries to see how people are living off of $1.50 a day? Because the way you're framing your solution seems extremely naive.
Still debating going out and voting in few days. For people not in the area though, Brown is ALL over the place in terms of adverts, signs, and word of mouth. Practically everyone I know has asked me if I'm voting for him and he is getting huge support on the local radio stations. Get ready for an upset.
While the standards of living may be less (substantially less in some of the extraordinarily less-developed countries), very rarely is the difference 42 times (that's the difference between $0.18 an hour and $7.50 an hour). Good luck living off $7.50 an hour in the United States even if you live in a mud hut and no entertainment -- much less $0.18 an hour.Byakuya769 said:
charlequin
Banned
Diablos said:
Same thing I said since the first freaking poll -- Likely Voter models in this kind of election are just shy of bullshit so all these polls tell us are that Coakley is a mediocre candidate (knew that already), she ran a shitty post-primary campaign (knew that already), and the only relevant factor whatsoever to who wins the election is whether Democrats go to the polls (definitely knew that already.) :lol
There is literally no way for Brown to win if the Democrats have even moderately okay turnout and the whole panic about these bad poll numbers make such a turnout dramatically more likely. As Ghal said, it's literally 3:1 registration-wise.
schuelma said:
Fuck no! :lol This is the shittiness of special elections at play -- with no time for people to really consider their runs, you don't get strong candidates, just people who already have money sitting around and enough public recognition to make a break for it.
I voted for Capuano.
Tamanon said:
Nope, guy's a total douchebag.
GhaleonEB said:
He's not a terrible poster pestilence on all that is good and right like Cheebs, but he's way more comedically full of ludicrous pessimism than anyone else I remember, yeah.
dave is ok said:
Because the first was about staying electable in the ongoing elections for MA State Legislature while the second is about winning one single time on the back of a 10% turnout of the douchiest, jackholiest Masshole shitheads with a teabag hanging out of your mouth.
Aaron Strife
Banned
C'mon man.Sanjuro Tsubaki said:
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/another-house-democrat-announces-retirement/
Another long term Dem who won comfortably in every election he ran steps out after a Dem commissioned poll shows him down 17 points against the Republican candidate.
This is a Tsunami. The ONLY thing that can save Dems is for this bill to fail, and for them to focus on the economy instead of things that will make it worse, like health care and cap and tax.
Another long term Dem who won comfortably in every election he ran steps out after a Dem commissioned poll shows him down 17 points against the Republican candidate.
This is a Tsunami. The ONLY thing that can save Dems is for this bill to fail, and for them to focus on the economy instead of things that will make it worse, like health care and cap and tax.
Preview of the final PPP poll
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-were-seeing-in-massachusetts-week.html
The more I read about this race the more I'm convinced Coakely is just a bad candidate.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-were-seeing-in-massachusetts-week.html
The more I read about this race the more I'm convinced Coakely is just a bad candidate.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
AniHawk said:
We WILL see. If Brown wins, I'm guessing that you will need to say that phrase and look in the mirror. It isn't me that's out of touch right now.
Averon said:
And Dorgan was a bad candidate too, right? So are all of the POPULAR moderate dems who have bowed out as a result of the tsunami headed their way. You can blame it on Coakley, but before today she was touted as a well respected, honorable woman.
No you are ALL throwing her under the bus. Just like Obama. Just like that lawyer (can't recall the name) that Obama leaked to death, destroyed his reputation etc...
Whatever, we'll see. I'm feeling a bit more confident about 2010 than most of you. If I'm not...well, ha, we'll see. I was the first to admit that Republicans were going to get DESTROYED last year and in 06. Denying reality didn't help those that tried to do it last year. It only made it worse.
I repeat, we need a more moderate government. We need these massive swings to stop. We need stability, a strong opposition, and compromise. COMPROMISE!
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
thefit said:
That's true! But I'm pretty excited for the first time since 04. As a conservative I've felt beat down since 04, almost literally since that election ended. It's been bad news. I feel very excited about this year. I'm engaged and excited for the first time in 6 years.
Sanjuro Tsubaki said:
You just said every radio station is going for brown and you point out you have right leanings I'm guessing all the dials on your radio point to the right or are affiliated to each other and/or have been advertised by Brown. Thats not new or groundbreaking thats every cit/state every election year.
drakesfortune said:
Oh, see I don't really care if the republican or democrat wins, I just wanted to point out that you are very far removed from reality. You go on these long rambling posts that never make sense and just show how deep in your own mind you really are. Oh I'm prone to walls of text too, but at least I'm aware of my own insanity. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if I didn't worry about your claims of being a father were true.
I don't lean to the right far or at all.thefit said:
Democrats ALWAYS win here. I mainly listen to sports radio, however the morning show (which is all politics at this point) and the later shows get into this talk. Republicans exist heavily around here but either they don't show up to vote or Dems who love to complain. It's very backwards and odd.
I remember back in the 2008 election that the national media would call the Obama/McCain election to be in a "statistical dead heat" when Obama was up a good 4 points in the polls. If you are relying on the national media to gauge interest on a special election that had a democrat senator in that seat for thirty plus years, then you are doing it wrong.
drakesfortune said:
I'm saying Coakely is a bad candidate because she'd boring, uninspiring, and, most importantly, sat on her lead after winning the primary. On the other hand, Brown was out campaigning. Now, I'm not saying Coakely is the sole reason she's in the position she's in; I'm sure the national political climate is a factor. But, it would be naive to think that Coakely basically disappearing from the campaign trail post primary isn't a strong factor as well.
reilo said:
I don't think Brown will win. I also don't like all this chicken little crap on these boards. If I recall correctly we got majorly owned one year because we tried to keep up with all the goddamn polls. Anyhoo what gets me is that the Democrats allowed healthcare to take up so much time by letting it go through the snail route especially the whole August debacle and once Teddy passed the were unable to calculate for the special election its like they just realised that this shit was coming up. WTF are they going to do when Bird passes? Do even have a plan? This shit should have been thought out a long time ago. sloppy.
If there is credit to be given to the GOP its that they are in constant campaign mode in order to keep securing power this was well documented during the W administration but the flaw in that plan was they completely neglected everything else in order to secure campaigns. The Democrats should have taken a page from that game plan and tweaked it with room for meaningfully legislation.
PhoenixDark
Banned
drakesfortune said:
That's the best response you could come up with to an article showing a +20 Obama/dem electorate? Either you didn't read the article or you're ignoring facts to continue peddling your narrative. Obama is popular in MA, Croakly is struggling; if that doesn't tell you she's not a good candidate I don't know what will.
And why do you continue harping on "moderate" government when your every post exposes you as a conservative? Finally, have you been hiding under a rock for the last yea,r totally ignoring the constant compromises Obama has made only to run into more and more obstruction from the right?
The Chosen One
Member
I think Brown will win...
... actually I WANT Brown to win...
The Dems haven't been impressive with their super-majority. This healthcare bill probably would have already been passed if the Dems had 55-56 seats instead of 59-60. Either way as others have pointed out, this is going to be the situation when the Dems lose seats in the mid-terms. So maybe by having Brown win, it'll "shock" the Dems and maybe they'll move more boldly for the remainder of the year. Use the simple majority or make Republicans filibuster. It may even make the Republicans look even more like obstructionist and the mid-terms might be a little kinder to the Dems. But right now the Dems look inept at governing. They have super majorities in the House and Senate and control the White House, yet they still struggle tremendously to get key initiatives passed.
The leadership is weak. Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Leiberman, Landru (sp?), and Snow successfully ran out the clock this past fall with the healthcare bill. But just maybe the leadership (including the WH) might grow some balls if they lose their super-majority.
... actually I WANT Brown to win...
maybe
The Dems haven't been impressive with their super-majority. This healthcare bill probably would have already been passed if the Dems had 55-56 seats instead of 59-60. Either way as others have pointed out, this is going to be the situation when the Dems lose seats in the mid-terms. So maybe by having Brown win, it'll "shock" the Dems and maybe they'll move more boldly for the remainder of the year. Use the simple majority or make Republicans filibuster. It may even make the Republicans look even more like obstructionist and the mid-terms might be a little kinder to the Dems. But right now the Dems look inept at governing. They have super majorities in the House and Senate and control the White House, yet they still struggle tremendously to get key initiatives passed.
The leadership is weak. Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Leiberman, Landru (sp?), and Snow successfully ran out the clock this past fall with the healthcare bill. But just maybe the leadership (including the WH) might grow some balls if they lose their super-majority.
WickedAngel
Banned
The Democrats have never had a "supermajority" in the Senate. This has already been discussed a dozen times already; the Blue Dogs might as well be Republicans so far as movement on progressive issues goes.
Having the "D" by your name doesn't make you a Democrat.
Having the "D" by your name doesn't make you a Democrat.
MightyKAC
Member
The Chosen One said:
That has ALWAYS been my problem with Democrats. Since as far back as I can remember they have lack the leadership/conviction/will to get anything meaningful done that thier Republican opposition is pretty much known for. But unfortunately with all that resolve comes the batshit insanity that we've all come to expect from the Republican party. So it really is quite a conundrum.
One positve thing about these last few years of crazy politics is that is been a real exposé of sorts. The problems that have existed for years with both parties are now on full display for a public that's becoming more and more politically savy due to all this media attention.
The optimist in me says that something in all of this might affect some change for the better but the rest of me isn't gonna hold its breath
.The problem is the rules of the caucus, which I have no idea whether Reid can even change or if it has to be a caucus vote. The GOP leadership can punish its membership by yanking committee chairmanships on a moments notice, which tends to keep them in line. Reid cannot, and really has no tools to herd his caucus along other than to ask nicely. The seniority system drives it all.MightyKAC said:
I'd like to think the healthcare bill makes the case that the system needs to change, but I have a feeling it won't, for the same reason Reid can't/won't go nuclear.
empty vessel
Member
WickedAngel said:
I don't understand this reasoning. Having a "D" by your name does indeed make one a Democrat. Clearly, there are Democrats who have principles that align with progressives. Just as obviously, there are many Democrats that don't. But if the Democratic party, as a whole and with a supermajority, isn't doing what you want, maybe it's time to consider that you aren't in fact a Democrat at all because the Democratic party, as a whole, isn't representing your interests. A party is the sum of its parts, by definition. Collectively, the Democrats are right now a conservative, pro-business party. As I am neither conservative nor pro-business, I am not a Democrat.
Politics isn't sport, though. It is utterly irrelevant which party "wins." This is because it is outside pressure that moves representatives. The Democratic and Republican parties are whatever the vocal and politically active members of our society force them to be. Unfortunately, right now, the only vocal and politically active segment of society is the right wing, which is why the Democratic party is so conservative. Until the left organizes and mobilizes, as it did in the 30's and 60's, it will not win any real policy gains.
WickedAngel
Banned
It's beyond absurd to assert that I'm not a Democrat because a handful of Democrats are bogging everything down.
The party at large isn't the problem.
The party at large isn't the problem.
empty vessel
Member
WickedAngel said:
That's ridiculous. The party at large isn't doing what you want. Is it?
You can call yourself whatever you want, but why bother? It's silly to pick a team and pretend that team is something other than what it plainly is.
empty vessel
Member
MightyKAC said:
That's what a political party is. A collective entity. This isn't some newfangled political theory.
If you only mean to imply that Democrats are dysfunctional, that's all well and good, but the point stands.
MightyKAC
Member
A collective entity perhaps but the Democratic party in power right now can hardly be considered a team. A team is a group of like minded individuals that work together to accomplish a common goal. What we're seeing right now are folk who claim to be Democrats but are following very few of the actual core ideals.empty vessel said:
These individuals should NOT be looked upon as the "party at large".
- Status