|
notthegoatseguy posted:Actually, its really weird. There WAS a 2013 Virginia gubernatorial primary. Hell, Terry won his primary race in which only he ran. Republicans decided to just go straight to the convention and skip the primary altogether. How a candidate is chosen is determined by the party. The GOP specifically chose conventions so they could nominate Cuccinelli over current Lt Gov Bill Bolling, who is relatively moderate in comparison and likely would have won a primary.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
JoeCL posted:How a candidate is chosen is determined by the party. The GOP specifically chose conventions so they could nominate Cuccinelli over current Lt Gov Bill Bolling, who is relatively moderate in comparison and likely would have won a primary. And would likely have won the general too. Instead McAuliffe is leading by 7 and a half right now: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2013/governor/va/virginia_governor_cuccinelli_vs_mcauliffe-3033.html Good job GOP! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:And would likely have won the general too. Better a Democrat than a filthy RINO I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
crowfeathers posted:Better a Democrat than a filthy RINO I guess. Yes, but even in this case the Democrat isn't squeaky clean either. Virginia really has the opportunity to vote for the less horrible person to be governor, rather than a moderate that as far as we know is a decent enough human being that can survive in politics today and would as a Republican be able to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Highspeeddub posted:Yes, but even in this case the Democrat isn't squeaky clean either. Virginia really has the opportunity to vote for the less horrible person to be governor, rather than a moderate that as far as we know is a decent enough human being that can survive in politics today and would as a Republican be able to win the election. He wasn't saying he was, he was mocking the Republicans for yet another self-inflicted shot on the foot. I don't know anyone without the last name Clinton that likes McAuliffe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee is not seeking re-election. No one cares about Rhode Island because it's an imaginary place, but I wouldn't be surprised to see current Providence mayor Angel Taveras take Chaffee's place. He's been showing signs that he's been thinking about a run for a while and he's relatively well-liked and clean in a notoriously corrupt city/state, although he'd be one of the youngest governors in the country and I gotta imagine the further away from Providence you get, the less support he'll find as it gets more white and conservative (by RI standards).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:He wasn't saying he was, he was mocking the Republicans for yet another self-inflicted shot on the foot. I don't know anyone without the last name Clinton that likes McAuliffe. Yep pretty much. In informal talks with people I know here in Virginia most everyone would've voted for Bolling over McAuliffe and this is up in deep blue Arlington/Alexandria. The VA GOP squandered a good chance to keep control of the VA Governor's Mansion by changing the rules so their crazy candidate could get nominated. It's almost like they actively wanted to lose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
On the flip side of that what is wrong with the Democratic party that they put up a guy that has to have an opponent as terrible as Cuccinelli in order to get votes, even from Democrats especially in the election right after Virginia went blue for Obama. If Cuccinelli wasn't such a monster I would definitely be staying home or throwing my vote away on whatever left wing third party squeezes its way onto the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:On the flip side of that what is wrong with the Democratic party that they put up a guy that has to have an opponent as terrible as Cuccinelli in order to get votes, even from Democrats especially in the election right after Virginia went blue for Obama. McAuliffe has spent two or three decades as the Clintons' right-hand man and has been building up favors and connections for this with the Clintons and their supporters. It wasn't like he was the best candidate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:McAuliffe has spent two or three decades as the Clintons' right-hand man and has been building up favors and connections for this with the Clintons and their supporters. It wasn't like he was the best candidate. Yeah I know he's politically connected and this is basically his turn but you'd think that the chance they'd be blowing their shot at a Democratic controlled governor's mansion would make them pick somebody more electable and less risky but whatever politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
You know your candidate is terrible if you're losing to McAuliffe, of all people, one of the worst possible Dem candidates around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Radish posted:On the flip side of that what is wrong with the Democratic party that they put up a guy that has to have an opponent as terrible as Cuccinelli in order to get votes, even from Democrats especially in the election right after Virginia went blue for Obama. If Cuccinelli wasn't such a monster I would definitely be staying home or throwing my vote away on whatever left wing third party squeezes its way onto the ballot. The VA Democrats are, funnily enough, horribly disorganized. It really does seem like they discovered that they have a good shot at statewide office in 2008 and haven't figured out what to do about it since.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:The VA Democrats are, funnily enough, horribly disorganized. It really does seem like they discovered that they have a good shot at statewide office in 2008 and haven't figured out what to do about it since. This is made even more interesting when you consider the Senate delegation is made up of two former Democratic Governors: Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. So it's not like the Democrats haven't been successful state-wide. Granted, the House Delegation is 8-3 in favor of the Republicans but that's probably due to how district boundaries are drawn. Based on state-wide results the Democrats should probably be far more successful in the state than they actually are. I think a lot of that poor performance has come from state-level party incompetence. I've gotten the sense over the years that a lot of state-level political parties are poorly run. axeil fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Who cares, did Booker express any support of the faith if this bothers you so much? You realize that I was defending Booker, right? edit: re: Democrats in VA, their support is a relatively recent phenomenon (past decade) due to growth in the DC suburbs. It probably happened a lot faster than they were expecting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
This is why I continue to think that party conventions are a better idea than primaries. The party gets to put up a candidate that reflects its ideals and the taxpayers in the state don't have to subsidize the selection. And then if it turns out the that party is completely off its rocker crazy they end up losing in the general election. Hard to see the downside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
So Utah's 2nd Congressional District has a Democrat who isn't a "some guy" running, State Senator Luz Robles. It's still a really Republican district (too Republican for Jim Matheson), but Robles (who isn't up for re-election in 2014, so can take a free run at anything) is probably the absolute strongest candidate we've got there. At the very least she'll do better than the 33% the 2012 candidate got, and since she's a high-profile Latina candidate, she may help legislative races featuring Hispanic Democrats over here. That "lets register 40,000 Dem voters" effort might help as well. And hopefully it'll draw attention away from Matheson vs Love, I'm sick of that election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
And in the end it might work for Republicans if McAullife pulls a Corzine and is a corrupt piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Bill de Blasio is a big fat racist because his son is black, according to Mike Bloomberg.quote:CHRIS SMITH: Then there’s Bill de Blasio, who’s become the Democratic front-runner. He has in some ways been running a class-warfare campaign— Please end your divisive campaign tactic of having black people in your family, Bill de Blasio. It is tearing apart the good city of New York. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
The idea that the wealthy want to move away from the quality-of-life parts of NYC is just silly. I mean, they're in the city as it is for a reason, otherwise they could already just gently caress off to their summer home in the Hamptons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:The idea that the wealthy want to move away from the quality-of-life parts of NYC is just silly. I mean, they're in the city as it is for a reason, otherwise they could already just gently caress off to their summer home in the Hamptons. Why is it silly? It has happened before in that city. Knock Bloomberg for a lot of things, but he's right that it's much easier to run a city when you have a bunch of wealthy people paying taxes in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
NYC is not going to have rich people move away; it's literally where Wall Street lives. It's not going to have a large number of rich people run away because their taxes were raised a bit. Or at least that's my impression as a person who lives right next to the NYC of Utah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:NYC is not going to have rich people move away; it's literally where Wall Street lives. It's not going to have a large number of rich people run away because their taxes were raised a bit. There are a lot of nice places to live in that are close to NYC. Saying people "won't leave" because of higher taxes is speaking with groundless confidence. It's not as though it'll guarantee an exodus, but having to pay more for something makes it less attractive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Bloomberg himself doesn't really oppose raising taxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Why is it silly? It has happened before in that city. Knock Bloomberg for a lot of things, but he's right that it's much easier to run a city when you have a bunch of wealthy people paying taxes in it. Is there any behavioral research showing at what effective tax rate the "rich" living in Manhattan start to perceive a better substitute? We're talking about a few thousand people in the first place, are we really going to rely on this subset to accurately self-report their preferences? It's a pretty silly charge to make if you intend it to be anything other than a “messaging” thing that most informed observers would immediately recognize as a self-serving shuck and jive. It's theoretically posssible, of course, but in micro it elucidates exactly nothing about how people will actually behave.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
menino posted:Is there any behavioral research showing at what effective tax rate the "rich" living in Manhattan start to perceive a better substitute? We're talking about a few thousand people in the first place, are we really going to rely on this subset to accurately self-report their preferences? It's a pretty silly charge to make if you intend it to be anything other than a “messaging” thing that most informed observers would immediately recognize as a self-serving shuck and jive. The same people who complain about wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to keep their income taxes low are the people who pretend a wealthy person doesn't care about taxes when it comes to where they live. Can't have it both ways. And it's not theoretical, cities with high property taxes like Detroit and Philadelphia have seen a mass exodus of wealthier citizens. Retirees have flooded to states with friendlier tax situations for decades. I doubt you'll find research that can pinpoint what effective tax rate people will choose to leave the city they live in. Mainly because there are so many other variables at play to determine whether that tax is worth paying for what they receive. But most people have a threshold, otherwise realtors wouldn't bother to inform people of the property tax in a particular area. Wealthy people wouldn't bother finding a good rate for their mortgage or negotiating the price of a house if cost didn't matter. That threshold is likely much higher in a city like New York that has a lot to offer. And maybe a tax increase to those residents won't matter, but to act like wealthy people don't care what they pay is what is silly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:The same people who complain about wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to keep their income taxes low are the people who pretend a wealthy person doesn't care about taxes when it comes to where they live. Can't have it both ways. And it's not theoretical, cities with high property taxes like Detroit and Philadelphia have seen a mass exodus of wealthier citizens. Retirees have flooded to states with friendlier tax situations for decades. The wealthy "care" about property taxes more because they know that tax arbitrage is more likely to work in their favor than an income tax change. There's very few substitutes for a new income tax regime, but quite a bit more for municipal property taxes. Anyone who says that the wealthy don't care about taxes is obviously wrong, but conversely anything a wealthy person says about what their behavior is going to be is 100% horseshit in terms of their own personally volunteered statements being predictive of how an effective tax rate would affect where they live.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
I would also assume that there is still a bragging rights thing saying I live in New York City at this place, despite a slightly higher tax rate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I'm maybe not the world's biggest progressive. I'm more an Eisenhower Republican. I believe in making the changes you can, and setting things up so the people after you can make more changes. I didn't know Barack Obama was a goon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Holy. loving. poo poo. America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8glEKH30M I'd ask if it were something in the American drinking water, but given your environmental standards, it probably is.  More info. ufarn fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Holy. loving. poo poo. America. It's fortunate that there are no dumb politicians in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:The same people who complain about wealthy people fighting tooth and nail to keep their income taxes low are the people who pretend a wealthy person doesn't care about taxes when it comes to where they live. Can't have it both ways. And it's not theoretical, cities with high property taxes like Detroit and Philadelphia have seen a mass exodus of wealthier citizens. Retirees have flooded to states with friendlier tax situations for decades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Why is it silly? It has happened before in that city. Knock Bloomberg for a lot of things, but he's right that it's much easier to run a city when you have a bunch of wealthy people paying taxes in it. If you think the uber-wealthy are going to move out of their comfortable existences in Manhattan to New Jersey or Long Island solely because of a modest tax hike, I would submit that you aren't all that familiar with that class of people. To the extent that it's happened in cities like Detroit, it's white flight, not property taxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Holy. loving. poo poo. America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:To the extent that it's happened in cities like Detroit, it's white flight, not property taxes. Middle and upper class black families bailed on that city too. Can't blame every person with money leaving a city on racism. Detroit's property taxes were ridiculously high. Cost of living is a factor for every income level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I have, or had might be a better description, a very rich banker friend living in NYC. His family lives in what I assume is a nice building, it is a few blocks from where the World Trade Center used to stand. About 5 years ago he was debating paying a million dollars to purchase his neighbors apartment so he could expand his living space. His wife is an Executive/Obgyn at a major NYC hospital. Every single year at tax time he wails and cries about taxes, but for one, he practices international law. He can only work in a few, limited cities. Two, he really, really loves living in NYC for a variety of reasons. Three, He hates most of the rest of the country, as in, actively hates it. That sort of goes back to two, and reinforces why he loves NYC so much. He isn't moving anytime soon, and I'm fairly certain you could double his taxes and he still wouldn't move. Pohl fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Middle and upper class black families bailed on that city too. Can't blame every person with money leaving a city on racism. Detroit's property taxes were ridiculously high. Cost of living is a factor for every income level. Are we really pretending the problem in Detroit is/was property taxes and not a race riots/crime/corrupt infrastructure death spiral? de Blasio isn't even proposing a property tax hike anyways, he's proposing an income tax hike (which is of course notable in that the city has no independent power to raise income taxes but does have the power to raise property taxes, which means anyone who thinks everything through knows BdB is making a wholly empty gesture to the left).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Why is it silly? It has happened before in that city. Knock Bloomberg for a lot of things, but he's right that it's much easier to run a city when you have a bunch of wealthy people paying taxes in it. You obviously aren't familiar with NYC politics. Every time a tax increase on top income brackets has even been hinted at over the last decade or two on the city, county or state levels, the opposition has sworn we can't do it because all the rich people will move away. Despite several increases, this has not happened and has been pretty thoroughly been demonstrated as bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
The people who were going to leave New York City because of higher taxes have already left decades ago. That is, besides the people rich enough to use creative accounting to avoid it, who of course will never leave.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Middle and upper class black families bailed on that city too. Can't blame every person with money leaving a city on racism. Detroit's property taxes were ridiculously high. Cost of living is a factor for every income level. That was bandwagoning, not fear of a Taxachussets planet. Once the white professionals left for reasons both racial and slightly less racial, there was a prisoner's dilemma among the black middle class left in the city in regards to their property values. First one to leave loses the least on the sale, regardless of their blackness or whiteness. Last one to leave is last because they can't afford to go anywhere else, but just *coincidentally*, that last person is more likely to be black. Go figure huh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:You obviously aren't familiar with NYC politics. Every time a tax increase on top income brackets has even been hinted at over the last decade or two on the city, county or state levels, the opposition has sworn we can't do it because all the rich people will move away. Despite several increases, this has not happened and has been pretty thoroughly been demonstrated as bullshit. What happened in the past is irrelevant, rich people always respond rationally to economic incentives, that's why they're rich.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 10:34
|
|
