|
My Imaginary GF posted:Americans know precisely what they want from their government: They want Democrats. Not all Americans know how to express their desires, so its the job of the Democratic Party to advance the structure of operations most likely to get Democrats to realize they're Americans and should go vote. Yes, if only the Democrats had better messaging, all Americans would get out and vote them into supermajorities every election.  My Imaginary GF posted:You need me to explaining anything else about the proper way to run a country as a well-oiled political machine? This is a rhetorical question and you know it. My Imaginary GF posted:Caligula and Nero were quite decent emperors and the most apt comparisons to Obama. The histories have them as horrid brutes mainly because the histories were written by the entrenched nobility who felt most hosed over by Caligula and Nero's public policies. Eh, I think we're done here Rahm.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Caligula and Nero were quite decent emperors and the most apt comparisons to Obama. The histories have them as horrid brutes mainly because the histories were written by the entrenched nobility who felt most hosed over by Caligula and Nero's public policies, whereas the great majority of Roman citizens were experiencing the greatest opportunities for class advancement in their life. You're missing my point (and, yeah, Nero was a much better emperor than he gets credit for, but Caligula... eh) It was a rhetorical example. (I did say "even if") You said: My Imaginary GF posted:Its loving easy to say, "See! I was right!" when you don't consider all the ways folks'll gently caress up what you did after. Its not enough to win; you have to win in a sustainable manner that isn't reliant upon you, the individual, retaining your leadership position. If leader A does a good job, leader A does a good job. If Leader A is succeeded by Leader B, and Leader B does a bad job and ruins A's good work, it doesn't make A a failure. Therefore, Dean was a good DNC chair regardless of what Schultz has done or will do. The 50 state strategy cost no more than the traditional "focus on big purples" strategy-- like both parties don't blow their entire warchest each election-- and it actually probably would have cost less in the long term. Think of it like a garden: you tend to state parties enough for them to grow strong, while the candidates develop better and better incumbent advantage. Eventually, you'll have local favorites who've successfully survived waves, and the state starts turning blue. In the meantime, Republicans will have to fight you all over the place, which takes away money from the big races and increases the chances of Republicans creating loonies that dominate the news cycles with crazy comments, poisoning the well for others-- somewhat like in 2010, but to a greater extent. It's not like you need to conserve the 50 state strategy to be used as a surprise. It will work whether or not they know it's coming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Caligula and Nero were quite decent emperors and the most apt comparisons to Obama. The histories have them as horrid brutes mainly because the histories were written by the entrenched nobility who felt most hosed over by Caligula and Nero's public policies, whereas the great majority of Roman citizens were experiencing the greatest opportunities for class advancement in their life. While you may have had a (bad) argument with regards to Nero I guess we can nevertheless add "history of the Roman Empire" to the long and ever-growing list of poo poo about which MIGF is staggeringly ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Didn't the 50-state strategy just end up electing a bunch of Blue Dogs who lost re-election by not opposing Obama hard enough? It doesn't seem like the people who want the 50-state strategy to come back are very thrilled with the Joe Manchins of the world but that's what expanding the map is going to get you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Eventually, you'll have local favorites who've successfully survived waves, and the state starts turning blue. That isn't how states turn colors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Didn't the 50-state strategy just end up electing a bunch of Blue Dogs who lost re-election by not opposing Obama hard enough? It doesn't seem like the people who want the 50-state strategy to come back are very thrilled with the Joe Manchins of the world but that's what expanding the map is going to get you. Keeping seats warm while maintaining a democrat majority leader in the Senate and a democrat Speaker in the house is all they really needed to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:That isn't how states turn colors. Debates, speeches, and public appearances do affect people's opinions. Plenty of conservatives in this country have never met or heard a real, live, persuasive liberal. That's part of the problem. Maybe we can change minds a few opinions at a time, or at least get conservatives to understand and respectfully disagree with us. For example, you can't say the Kennedys' presence wasn't at least partially to credit for why Massachusetts turned into one of the bluest states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:For example, you can't say the Kennedys' presence wasn't at least partially to credit for why Massachusetts turned into one of the bluest states. At the state level they're not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Didn't the 50-state strategy just end up electing a bunch of Blue Dogs who lost re-election by not opposing Obama hard enough? It doesn't seem like the people who want the 50-state strategy to come back are very thrilled with the Joe Manchins of the world but that's what expanding the map is going to get you. Didn't a lot of those Blue Dogs work as hard as they could to not be associated with Obama? At the end of the day people will ultimately vote for a Red Republican than a Red Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Didn't a lot of those Blue Dogs work as hard as they could to not be associated with Obama? At the end of the day people will ultimately vote for a Red Republican than a Red Democrat. Nothing says Blue Dog failure to me more than Grimes. She had a tough uphill fight against McConnell for sure, but she was stillborn because she was such a coward who spend most of her time acting like "did you vote for Obama" was some kind of wild and inappropriate question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
I'd rather have a Republican than a Blue Dog since you know the Republican is going to gently caress you and they might have to actually take the blame for it. With Blue Dogs you can't count on them to not quit in exchange for a job offer from the opposition leaving a Republican majority after you voted them in, to support Reagan's lovely tax policy and then give the Democratic congress the blame for when it fails, or to gently caress over minorities in general. Blue Dogs are worthless and the sooner they all run to the Republican party they desperately want to be a part of the better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
So you guys would've rather the Dems not win majorities during Dean's two cycles as DNC chairman if the choice was between a Blue Dog and a Republican? Hmm okay. I mean, like I've said several times, the Dems are worthless anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Didn't a lot of those Blue Dogs work as hard as they could to not be associated with Obama? At the end of the day people will ultimately vote for a Red Republican than a Red Democrat. A lot of those people had been around for many years prior, at least in the south. Most of the 2006-08 class was taken from moderate Republicans with some exceptions. Also, there were liberals that got slaughtered in reddish districts as well, idiots like Alan Grayson as well as inoffensive ones whose names you'll never recall. It wasn't the candidate so much as it was the district. And now those districts are sewn up due to redistricting. But if you can figure out a Dem majority path that doesn't require a Joe Manchin or two, I'll bet you can make a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:While you may have had a (bad) argument with regards to Nero I guess we can nevertheless add "history of the Roman Empire" to the long and ever-growing list of poo poo about which MIGF is staggeringly ignorant. Were their policies good for the empire in the long run? No, but I imagine that both Caligula and Nero were quite popular among the commoners of Rome given how much money they spent on them. Imagine if in the future, the only historical record we had about Obama came from Rush transcripts and WaPo editorials, this is essentially the problem with the historical records of Rome, our sources are almost entirely the elite's point of view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Caligula and Nero were quite decent emperors and the most apt comparisons to Obama. The histories have them as horrid brutes mainly because the histories were written by the entrenched nobility who felt most hosed over by Caligula and Nero's public policies, whereas the great majority of Roman citizens were experiencing the greatest opportunities for class advancement in their life. Honestly? They both ended up unhinged monsters as their reigns went on, but that's pretty much roman_emperor.txt. True, Roman history is always willing to poo poo all over people on the losing side of conflicts---but even giving them that, the two of them combined were pretty loving nutty. (I can't remember if it was Caligula or Nero that had regular conversations with statues---not the "hey zeus what's up" variety but the "yes YES KILL THEM ALL OF COURSE" variety. Still, it's the senate where all the day-to-day heavy lifting was done, and we don't have too many records of minutia like that unless someone said something particularly clever. it was Cicero So IMO, it's hard to judge how much impact either had on day to day life unless they directly ordered soldiers to physically take wealth and distribute it to the proletariat. Which... they may have done, come to think of, but that's neither here nor there. On the other hand, this My Imaginary GF posted:Caligula and Nero were quite decent emperors and the most apt comparisons to Obama. is what finally made me appreciate MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:At the state level they're not. Really just for the governor, though. The legislature is overwhelmingly democratic
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:While you may have had a (bad) argument with regards to Nero I guess we can nevertheless add "history of the Roman Empire" to the long and ever-growing list of poo poo about which MIGF is staggeringly ignorant. Uh I'll have you know that migf wrote for 3 newspapers in 2nd century Rome, he's sort of an expert here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:So you guys would've rather the Dems not win majorities during Dean's two cycles as DNC chairman if the choice was between a Blue Dog and a Republican? Hmm okay. I mean, like I've said several times, the Dems are worthless anyway. Problem is if you can't control them you dilute your message and look like a fractured party. The republicans are having a similar problem with the tea party contributing to several losses where republicans should have won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Yeah Cicero was pretty much one of the most contemptible people in history. He's right up there with Franklin Pierce
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:At the state level they're not. The Democrats have an overwhelming supermajority in both legislative chambers. The senate is 36-4, and the house is 128-32. That is pretty overwhelmingly Democratic, Coakley pratfalls aside. Basically the new Republican governor can't even veto a bill credibly unless it massively split the Dem caucus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
I think he meant that the Kennedy's weren't responsible for killing Republicanism in that state. I dunno if they are or not, I never studied Mass state politics but am liable to bet that its demographics at work again instead of a political family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
I registered in 2003 hoping to vote for Howard Dean and probably still would
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Honestly? They both ended up unhinged monsters as their reigns went on, but that's pretty much roman_emperor.txt. True, Roman history is always willing to poo poo all over people on the losing side of conflicts---but even giving them that, the two of them combined were pretty loving nutty. (I can't remember if it was Caligula or Nero that had regular conversations with statues---not the "hey zeus what's up" variety but the "yes YES KILL THEM ALL OF COURSE" variety. Nero was mostly just too young for the job, too concerned with his sweet lyre solo jam sessions, theatre, consorting with commoners, and generally being the most powerful teenager in Europe. He wasn't crazy and seems to have genuinely cared for the people since he rebuilt large sections of Rome after the famous fire from the imperial treasury. Caligula was fine for the first year or two and then he came down with meningitis or something along those lines and lost his sanity. Neither of them were really the gleeful, power-mad kind of crazy that has been attached to them in the popular mind. Well, Caligula sort of was but not because of an "absolute power corrupts absolutely" kind of thing. Jazerus has issued a correction as of 04:34 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Nero was mostly just too young for the job, too concerned with his sweet lyre solo jam sessions, theatre, consorting with commoners, and generally being the most powerful teenager in Europe. He wasn't crazy and seems to have genuinely cared for the people since he rebuilt large sections of Rome after the famous fire from the imperial treasury. Isn't it possible that they might have been, but most of our sources were from the senatorial classes that both men shat on from a great height?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Isn't it possible that they might have been, but most of our sources were from the senatorial classes that both men shat on from a great height? It's 'possible', in the same sense that it's possible that a UFO really did crash in Roswell with a subsequent government cover-up. Not every source that we have regarding the (admittedly very fragmented & faded) history of Rome is from connected Roman officials. A lot of it is from overseas visitors to the city, foreign governments, personal journal entries from random people educated enough to write, etc. Believe it or not, you are not the only person to have considered the possibility that certain actors in Rome would write biased opinions / distorted histories; the professional historians & archaeologists who study this sort of thing for a living are aware of this. If Caligula was acting like a totally normal person during the worst years of his reign, it's very strange that he had next to no supporters, and that every account from everyone we could find - including, again, foreigners with no direct interest in Roman politics - talked about how loving batshit crazy he was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Democrats have an overwhelming supermajority in both legislative chambers. The senate is 36-4, and the house is 128-32. That is pretty overwhelmingly Democratic, Coakley pratfalls aside. Basically the new Republican governor can't even veto a bill credibly unless it massively split the Dem caucus. drat what are we doing wrong in Connecticut. I mean yeah on one hand we re-elected our Democratic governor, but on the other Dems have in the past 3 elections consistently had their majority chipped away at. After 2008 they had a super majority in both houses. Come January it will be 21-16 in the Senate and 87-64 in the House.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:drat what are we doing wrong in Connecticut. I mean yeah on one hand we re-elected our Democratic governor, but on the other Dems have in the past 3 elections consistently had their majority chipped away at. After 2008 they had a super majority in both houses. Come January it will be 21-16 in the Senate and 87-64 in the House. Have Mitt Romney campaign for the Republican candidates, that's what got the Mass. democrats get such a huge supermajority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Not that this is a surprise, but the AP has called Louisiana for Cassidy, 54-46. White, Southern Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Not that this is a surprise, but the AP has called Louisiana for Cassidy, 54-46. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
I didn't even know they were having the election today, that's how much faith I had in Landrieu even making it remotely competitive. So what is the Senate at, 55-45?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I didn't even know they were having the election today, that's how much faith I had in Landrieu even making it remotely competitive. So what is the Senate at, 55-45? 54-46. It would have been 55-45 if Gillespie had managed to make all the Beltway insiders' wet dreams come true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Landrieu only losing by 12 should be seen as a moral victory. It wasn't even the biggest loss by a sitting Senator this year!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
So Boxer's retiringquote:A parade of ambitious California public figures, who’ve spent years itching for a shot at the state’s top political offices, are anticipating a shake-up of the state’s political hierarchy that could begin in a matter of weeks with the possible retirement of Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. And some big names — including the mayor of Los Angeles — are already sizing up possible bids to succeed her. First off, Harris looks way younger than 50, but I'd tentatively support her or Chiang I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:So Boxer's retiring I hope it's her rather than Gavin, he comes off a more palatable MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Damnit, why couldn't it be the other California senator.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Damnit, why couldn't it be the other California senator. Feinstein isn't running again either, but her term isn't up until 2018. Also what is wrong with Gavin? He was a fairly accomplished and liberal Mayor and has been doing a good job keeping the seat warm as the LG. He has kind of the same problem as T-Mac in that he turns some people off because he just comes off slimy and a little too polished even though he's perfectly fine. He and Harris are like 99.8% aligned on issues though. Here's a good clip of him on Bill Maher (the whole episode is a better reflection of him, but HBO only makes overtime public). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vft65rz24R0 Garcetti, Harris, Newsom, and Chiang would all be very solid Senators. Steyer is useless, but maybe he would channel his zeal into something worthwhile in the Senate other than pissing away a lot of money on ineffective TV ads and being smug. Leon Trotsky 2012 has issued a correction as of 22:00 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Personally I'd rather Gavin stick around and run for governor when jerry brown retires/dies, I don't think Harris would do as well running for governor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
poo poo. How competent is the California GOP? Harris might as well run--she's never going to get that SCOTUS appointment everyone thinks she should get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:poo poo. How competent is the California GOP? If it's anything, after the full results were in it's turned out that the GOP hasn't unseated an incumbent Democratic congressman since 1994. Kashkari was also a complete assclown of a candidate and went down in a landslide, even with very reduced turnout (though Brown did significantly better amongst white Californians than Obama did two years ago). If anything Boxer was looking vulnerable for a while in 2010 against HP vulture CEO Fiorina, but she pulled through in the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:If it's anything, after the full results were in it's turned out that the GOP hasn't unseated an incumbent Democratic congressman since 1994. Kashkari was also a complete assclown of a candidate and went down in a landslide, even with very reduced turnout (though Brown did significantly better amongst white Californians than Obama did two years ago). So they're even less competent than the MA GOP, who at least just got a Republican governor elected (thanks, Martha Coakley!) I just realized--I think 2016 will be the first time in like 8 years where Massachusetts has not had a Senate seat up for grabs (unless you're not counting this year when Ed Markey won in a walk).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:44
|
|