|
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). Didn't Brown not even appear in any ads for himself, he was doing so well?
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Didn't Brown not even appear in any ads for himself, he was doing so well? Watching the TV at the gym, Brown's campaign was running ads in favor of stuff like prop 1 and 2, but I don't think I ever saw him run an ad. Meanwhile, Kashkari had some incredibly entertaining in an oh-my-loving-Christ manner, like this one where he pretended to save a kid from drowning and started ranting about how Jerry Brown betrayed California schoolchildren. And since we're on the topic of California, have this macro of the shithead who tried running in my state senate district by fearmongering to Chinese-American parents about how SCA5 would mean that quotas would mean their precious snowflakes' deserved UC admissions slots would instead go to undeserving black and Latino kids: 
Jerry Manderbilt has issued a correction as of 22:49 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Dear god bill maher is an idiot. I just skipped ahead in that video and there he is, arguing against art programs in school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Remind me---was it Boxer who openly quarreled with CIA?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Remind me---was it Boxer who openly quarreled with CIA? That was Feinstein.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Dear god bill maher is an idiot. I just skipped ahead in that video and there he is, arguing against art programs in school. Maher has some serious myopia when it comes to certain issues. It can be pretty annoying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Not that this is a surprise, but the AP has called Louisiana for Cassidy, 54-46.  Admittedly, Doggett isn't and has never been a "Southern" conserva-Dem given that he's a super liberal and represents a majority-minority district in central Texas composed of Austin-San Antonio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:44
|
|
White, Southern Democrats.
|
I don't know if they'll wait to run against each other and see who sticks more, but the most likely scenario is that Kamala Harris runs for Senate, and Gavin has dibs on governor once old man Brown is finally gone. Gavin's been eyeing the governor spot for a long time, and I don't think has nearly as strong national aspirations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:That was Feinstein. Really want to know what the backstory to that is, she carried water for the CIA for years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Really want to know what the backstory to that is, she carried water for the CIA for years. They spied on her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:They spied on her. They spied on her and threatened senate staff with national securities crimes for not keeping the evidence of said spying in the safe hands of the CIA. And yet the Intelligence committee didn't go all Church committee on their asses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Hopefully Dems don't screw themselves with the Top 2 primary and the general ends up being 2 Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Ganon posted:Hopefully Dems don't screw themselves with the Top 2 primary and the general ends up being 2 Republicans. Do it. Get Top 2 repealed in 2017. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
So, I know Feinstein isn't particularly well liked as Dem senator among the D&D crowd, but Boxer is generally well respected amongst liberals, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Do it. Get Top 2 repealed in 2017. Why, top 2 is great? It resulted in Democrats being screwed ONCE (in a race that got corrected 2 years later) but at the same time people forget about all the good it has done and can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Lloyd Doggett would like a word with you. There's others like him in urban areas of NC and TN still. The rest are black majority seats. I'm not including KY or Northern VA because they are not the South in my book. There's no Dem majority in the house that's more than a seat or two that doesn't run through the South. They'll be back. It won't be in AL or rural districts, but they'll have to go through an R district eventually if they don't want a safe majority that won't be easily overturned in the next election. Oh, and if they don't go into some state houses down there, too, them they won't be drawing any of the seats the MW and NE will lose in 2020 and 2030. You can't base a majority on trying to endlessly redraw IL or maybe NY if they're lucky for a good map, especially as they lose population.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Why, top 2 is great? It resulted in Democrats being screwed ONCE (in a race that got corrected 2 years later) but at the same time people forget about all the good it has done and can do. Which is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Why, top 2 is great? It resulted in Democrats being screwed ONCE (in a race that got corrected 2 years later) but at the same time people forget about all the good it has done and can do. Top 2 makes the straw man about third parties splitting voters into a reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:You can't base a majority on trying to endlessly redraw IL or maybe NY if they're lucky for a good map, especially as they lose population. You shouldn't base a majority on redrawing anything, period. For both moral and strategic reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:You shouldn't base a majority on redrawing anything, period. That's nice. It's also completely irrelevant to reality, where a majority absolutely depends on favorable district drawing as the fact that Republicans have had a lock on the House despite losing the House popular vote in 2012. Gerrymandering is a reality regardless of if you like it or not, and refusing to play won't get you anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted: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). Newsom is pretty good on social issues (or at least he talks a good game) but he is very much of the DLC/business wing of the party when it comes to economic issues. 90% of his popularity as mayor of San Francisco had to do with the goodwill for his early championing of gay marriage and being young, good looking, and sorta-charismatic. If he focused his ambition on accomplishing something other than running for higher office, he could be useful, but I'm not sure he's ever done that. I agree that Harris would be probably very close in terms of a potential Senate voting record, but I would support her just for the handful of areas where she would likely be more actively progressive (maybe black and Latino issues, criminal justice reform, her personal opposition to the death penalty, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:Newsom is pretty good on social issues (or at least he talks a good game) but he is very much of the DLC/business wing of the party when it comes to economic issues. 90% of his popularity as mayor of San Francisco had to do with the goodwill for his early championing of gay marriage and being young, good looking, and sorta-charismatic. If he focused his ambition on accomplishing something other than running for higher office, he could be useful, but I'm not sure he's ever done that. Newsom wants to ban the death penalty, legalize marijuana, and supported the recent sentencing reform ballot measure in CA. I'm not sure what the major differences would be on "black and latino issues," but Newsom was big on making San Francisco a sanctuary city. I don't think it's fair to say he is part of the DLC / Business wing. He stood in the picket line of hotel workers who wanted to unionize and banned city officials from booking rooms with hotels that didn't agree to union contracts for their workers. His big "pro-business" moves were tax credits for bio-tech and green energy companies who headquartered in San Francisco. He increased business taxes (and sales taxes, but paired the sales tax increase with an expanded EITC) and pushed for free universal wi-fi in San Francisco. His only real "scandals" as mayor were when he claimed gay marriage was coming "whether you like it or not" and when he gave a city honor to a gay porn studio. Edit: Also he slept with a married woman when he was single. Leon Trotsky 2012 has issued a correction as of 17:15 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
A bit of a competitive primary would be nice, since it's California all the Democratic candidates would probably try to trend to the left.Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:His only real "scandals" as mayor were when he claimed gay marriage was coming "whether you like it or not" and when he gave a city honor to a gay porn studio. I like the cut of his gib.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Newsom wants to ban the death penalty, legalize marijuana, and supported the recent sentencing reform ballot measure in CA. I'm not sure what the major differences would be on "black and latino issues," but Newsom was big on making San Francisco a sanctuary city. I don't deny that he did some good things as mayor (I lived in the city for most of his tenure), but it's interesting that you bring up the business/sales tax increase ballot initiatives and city wi-fi, which were all failures. The picket line appearance is a good example of how he'll put on a good show for the sake of symbolism but won't really follow up with substantive action. It's nice that he did that, but I don't think even his allies would call him especially pro-union or pro-labor. Other examples are that he was pretty hands-off about fixing Muni and the appalling conditions in SF public housing. Some minimal improvements came about under his watch, but he always made sure he had a glowing writeup/photo op in the Chronicle about how outraged he was about the situation and would stop at nothing to fix it. He initially rode into office on Care Not Cash, which you could generously say was a badly implemented way of restructuring benefits to the homeless away from cash payments to services but didn't really improve services all that much. As far as I have read, it didn't do anything to make a dent in the homeless problem, but it appeased fiscal conservatives who thought the city's welfare policies were too generous. He arguably dropped the ball on keeping the 49ers in the city, but I don't really give a poo poo other than the fact that the new stadium in Santa Clara will probably result in more people driving and fewer people taking transit to football games. His vanity and excessive focus on optics and priming himself for higher office have always rubbed me the wrong way, even when he was doing the right thing. Harris may have the same vanity and ambition, but at least she's way less obvious about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Rep. John Flemming (R-LA) is "very interested" in running for Senate if Vitter runs for Governor. Mary Landrieu does not want to run again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Which is? Making it harder for extremist candidates to win in the general. Most of the people on this forum probably hate that (because they are extremists themselves) but when it comes to getting candidates who actually represent the largest portion of their district's values having a jungle primary or southern-style runoff is preferable to the default primary/general system used in most states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Making it harder for extremist candidates to win in the general. Most of the people on this forum probably hate that (because they are extremists themselves) but when it comes to getting candidates who actually represent the largest portion of their district's values having a jungle primary or southern-style runoff is preferable to the default primary/general system used in most states. Can you provide an example of an extremist candidate who did poorly in a jungle primary but would have taken a spot on the November ballot in a partisan one? An extremist who can garner a lot of support will have a good shot in either system, and one who turns people off will similarly be screwed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:What? No. I'm making a statement about leadership, which is timeless. Germanicus was a good emperor, even if Caligula wasn't. Germanicus was never Emperor, but he should have been! drat you Livia! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Can you provide an example of an extremist candidate who did poorly in a jungle primary but would have taken a spot on the November ballot in a partisan one? An extremist who can garner a lot of support will have a good shot in either system, and one who turns people off will similarly be screwed. Its not about taking spots, its about winning the final race. Look at the California 8th in 2012 for example. It was an establishment Republican versus one of the cofounders of the Minuteman movement. The Minuteman came in first in the primary and the establishment Republican came in second, only to score a pretty sizable victory in November (because the moderates and Democrats in the district voted for him.) Stark v. Swallwell was sort of similar with a moderate overtaking a more outside of the center opponent but it also involved Stark saying loads of goofy things over the years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Romentum!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Romentum! Sure, Claudius says he was born a Roman citizen. But has anyone spoke to his mother's midwife to confirm? I'm just asking questions, fellow citizens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Sure, Claudius says he was born a Roman citizen. But has anyone spoke to his mother's midwife to confirm? I'm just asking questions, fellow citizens. Actually, that was a huge issue in late Republic Rome. Someone stumbled across the fact that the senior consul of a few years ago had never actually been a roman citizen, but was actually an Italian from one of the allied city-states. It caused a big scandal, nevermind that he must have been an upstanding member of the political establishment for years and years to get elected. Some reformers questioned whether it might not be better to just make everyone in Italy a roman citizen, but they were safely knifed and tossed in a ditch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Its not about taking spots, its about winning the final race. Look at the California 8th in 2012 for example. It was an establishment Republican versus one of the cofounders of the Minuteman movement. The Minuteman came in first in the primary and the establishment Republican came in second, only to score a pretty sizable victory in November (because the moderates and Democrats in the district voted for him.) Stark v. Swallwell was sort of similar with a moderate overtaking a more outside of the center opponent but it also involved Stark saying loads of goofy things over the years. Imus only barely edged out Cook for the top spot, something that might easily have changed if second place hadn't been good enough; had Cook lost to Imus in a regular primary, it's entirely possible he would have endorsed the Democrat in the race, as happened to Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland in 2008. Stark v. Swalwell also had little to do with partisanship, Eric Swalwell wanting Stark to leave Congress after forty years and make room for new blood. Meanwhile, there's the 31st district, where 2 Republicans split just over half the vote and 4 Democrats took the rest, so an evenly split district gave little choice to many of its voters. I'm not seeing a real downside for extremists in this system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Meanwhile, there's the 31st district, where 2 Republicans split just over half the vote and 4 Democrats took the rest, so an evenly split district gave little choice to many of its voters. I'm not seeing a real downside for extremists in this system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Also what is wrong with Gavin?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Actually, that was a huge issue in late Republic Rome. Someone stumbled across the fact that the senior consul of a few years ago had never actually been a roman citizen, but was actually an Italian from one of the allied city-states. It caused a big scandal, nevermind that he must have been an upstanding member of the political establishment for years and years to get elected. Some reformers questioned whether it might not be better to just make everyone in Italy a roman citizen, but they were safely knifed and tossed in a ditch. What is your source on this? I've never heard of this before. How did he get into the Senate without one of the Censors (or any of the establishment) having a fit? Not to mention that, "make everyone . . . a Roman citizen," was a thing that actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:What is your source on this? I've never heard of this before. How did he get into the Senate without one of the Censors (or any of the establishment) having a fit? I can't remember his name, just that he was consul some time before the Brother Gracchi died. Way too many consuls for me to go hunting this early in the morning. It was because of him that Latin Rights communities stopped being created until the social war. As far as the eventual enfranchisement, you'll note that only came after Marcus Livius Drusus got knifed for proposing it, and it took a brutal civil war that nearly saw Rome totally fall apart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:I can't remember his name, just that he was consul some time before the Brother Gracchi died. Way too many consuls for me to go hunting this early in the morning. It was because of him that Latin Rights communities stopped being created until the social war. As far as the eventual enfranchisement, you'll note that only came after Marcus Livius Drusus got knifed for proposing it, and it took a brutal civil war that nearly saw Rome totally fall apart. Ah, okay. I don't know a lot about the pre-Gracchi Republic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
The Dems are trying to recruit several former Senators to run again in 2016, but they are reluctant to commit. Without these three candidates they don't have strong Senate benches in these states that are must wins to take the Senate back. The DSCC is trying to recruit: Wisconsin: Russ Feingold North Carolina: Kay Hagan New Hampshire: Maggie Hassan According to the article none of them have been willing to commit to it, but haven't ruled it out yet either. Feingold is considered the most likely to commit. http://www.nationaljournal.com//politics/democrats-2016-senate-hopes-turn-on-three-candidates-20150104?ref=nj_daily quote:Democrats' 2016 Senate Hopes Turn on Three Candidates
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Dems are trying to recruit several former Senators to run again in 2016, but they are reluctant to commit. Without these three candidates they don't have strong Senate benches in these states that are must wins to take the Senate back. The DSCC is trying to recruit: Won't Hagan be seen as a loser if she runs just two years after being beaten?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 21:17
|
|