|
Pinterest Mom posted:If you asked me if I wanted to be the party that does well in state-level races and congress, or the party that does well in the presidential contest, I don't think it's even close. I think it's a matter of whether we're actually living in that paradigm or whether this is still Reagan's America and we're just living in a dying democratic bubble produced by a freak year in 2008. If Hillary wins, we'll be able to talk about whether there has actually been a realignment. Jerry Manderbilt posted:Isn't Arkansas' state government completely controlled by the GOP now, and West Virginia looking to head the same way in 2016? Yes, hence "leftover dixiecrats in steady decline" I think Jack Conway will have a hard time beating James Comer too, so Kentucky might head that way as well. That still doesn't mean that the electorates in those states have decided they will never ever vote for a Democrat ever again, it means that the state GoPs are currently winning the campaign-trail war. In many places the county-level democratic machinery is still ironclad, but has refused to work on behalf of more liberal higher-level democratic candidates. This can change if the state-level democrats sell out hard enough. I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying that the recent republican trend in those states is not indicative of fierce partisan loyalty. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Feb 18, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I think it's a matter of whether we're actually living in that paradigm or whether this is still Reagan's America and we're just living in a dying democratic bubble produced by a freak year in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Jeb cracks me the gently caress up. How are you gonna give a speech trying to convince everyone you aren't GWB and then like 2 sentences later start dogwhistling your war boner? Go kick rocks dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Republicans will continue to win seats at the state and local level, but they won't win presidential elections anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Jeb cracks me the gently caress up. How are you gonna give a speech trying to convince everyone you aren't GWB and then like 2 sentences later start dogwhistling your war boner? Go kick rocks dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:
I wouldn't say Kentucky is heading that way but it is very blue dog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not like we can prevent libertarianism becoming mainstream. It was built to appeal to privileged idiots and it dovetails nicely with the policy goals of people who want to destroy social programs. Yeah - it would probably put down the personality cult around ronpaul/randpaul, but there's always going to be someone in the wings to flag down the ancap-in-drag types wondering why anyone should be forced to build wheelchair ramps and let minorities in the front door.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
It's weird studying past elections. Realignment elections are usually one-sided affairs where it's clear the national politics has shifted in a major way. But since 1980, it's been 35 years of fairly close elections ('84 notwithstanding) with a general trend of a slow bleed of white voters from D to R, with Ds picking up the rest from increasing minorities.The change has been so gradual that it may have staved off a realigning election for the time being. I don't think one is likely or even possible when both parties are evenly matched, even when that coinflip ends up D more often than not. We're about due for a realigning election, but what are the issues that will tip the scale? What major voting blocs can still shift parties? Is the gerrymandered House the major point of inertia the GOP has, or is it the good job both parties have done in marketing to essentially each lock up ~45% of the electorate? Does a D wave in 2020 (snatching some state legislatures and gerrymandering the House to benefit themselves after the census) make a realignment more or less likely?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Jeb cracks me the gently caress up. How are you gonna give a speech trying to convince everyone you aren't GWB and then like 2 sentences later start dogwhistling your war boner? Go kick rocks dude. This whole election season is gonna be funny because Jeb is very stick-to-his-guns regarding his father and brothers' legacies. He'll try talking around it at first but when people keep bringin' it he will eventually find himself in full-throated defense of Dubya. sbaldrick posted:I wouldn't say Kentucky is heading that way but it is very blue dog. I think Conway, being a slick city-boy lawyer from louisville, will have a hard time getting votes out of the rural people who elected good ol' Uncle Steve. You need a good share of the rural vote to win here, and I think a lot of that vote will lean toward Comer. Some of that will translate downticket, though I think the democrats will hold SecState and AG regardless. Yeah we've had a ton of democratic governors and everybody really hated Fletcher, but all of those democratic governors were good ol' boy (or good ol' girl, in Collins' case) country populists, where Conway is manifestly not that. It makes me nervous that we're suddenly drawing so many candidates from the urban louisville business community when historically that was the losing Republican wheelhouse. Conway is focusing all of his efforts on coal country in an effort to run up the vote in the east, but who knows whether that will be enough. Granted, the state GoP primary is a goddamn mess right now and I could see them nominating one of their Tea Party idiots in lieu of the sensible candidate PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Republicans will continue to win seats at the state and local level, but they won't win presidential elections anytime soon. And why should they really want to? I honestly believe they profit far more from taking every state and local office and the entire federal legislature while leaving the presidency to the Democrats. Seriously, how can you maintain the victim narrative when you hold all the branches? Having Hillary as a president is perfect for them, because what they want is actual stagnation. They want their base to stay angry and unfulfilled, they NEED to have someone else to blame for why everything is terrible, and they do the most for their sponsors by nickel and diming pork legislation through Congress while stalling any real legislation. I don't know how people can't see this. I'm serious, D&D, how can you think that the rich don't benefit from this gridlock? The Kochs and Adelson and the Waltons don't NEED to have a bunch of aggressive legislation passed to make money hand over fist while impoverishing the rest of America; they already have a great situation, and the only threat is actual movement. If the GOP wins both houses in 2016, they should WANT Hillary in the hotseat. You tell me about Supreme Court nominations, but I think that an energized GOP which already has 32 governorships, the House, and the Senate could actually exert enough power to block nominations, and I don't know why they wouldn't. I know a lot of people here think I'm crazy, but I don't see how the GOP loses by having a Democratic president, considering how essential the "most oppressed minority" meme is for white, evangelical, conservative voters. They NEED a Great Satan to constantly vilify, because their actual policy agenda is so thin. I also don't think I'm Arzying here, because I think we all agree that there is some very risky and unpleasant poo poo coming down the pike on a lot of issues, from the collapse of the anemic economic "recovery" and the burst of other financial bubbles, to a bunch of really ugly foreign policy situations, to very serious consequences arising on all level from the GOP's success in defunding and destroying so much infrastructure and so many services on the local, state, and national level. poo poo, I wouldn't want to be Obama, looking down the barrel of the next two years, and possibly having to face a tarnished legacy as president because the economy imploded on his watch or there's a gigantic foreign policy disaster. I cannot for the life of me understand why a Democrat would want to take the presidency in 2016, except for sheer, naked ambition. I feel like a smart person would have to see that they will be hamstrung just as Obama was, but will have even worse problems to deal with than HE did coming in. What the hell people? ^^^^^ Aliquid - This sort of artificially-maintained stasis is exactly what I'm talking about. I think that the GOP has worked from the ground up to create a resilient base that deliberately sacrifices the presidency to maximize their power in every lower office. What would we realign to? On what axis could this whole nation turn, when both parties' platforms are just a wedge salad of polarization? Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:
A lot of stuff in Kentucky at the moment is going to come down to Obamacare which is popular in coal country and if Rand attempts to break the party to get his way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:And why should they really want to? I honestly believe they profit far more from taking every state and local office and the entire federal legislature while leaving the presidency to the Democrats. Seriously, how can you maintain the victim narrative when you hold all the branches? Having Hillary as a president is perfect for them, because what they want is actual stagnation. They want their base to stay angry and unfulfilled, they NEED to have someone else to blame for why everything is terrible, and they do the most for their sponsors by nickel and diming pork legislation through Congress while stalling any real legislation. I don't know how people can't see this. I'm serious, D&D, how can you think that the rich don't benefit from this gridlock? Democrats will continue to lose mid-terms because Democrats don't like to vote very often. Conservatives love to vote, and vote often, even in the same election! Presidential elections will always matter more in the grand scheme because executive power has out weighed Congress' ability to make Americans satisfied with progress. Republicans control Congress, they're inept, and stand to lose Congress. Cycle will continue, until Republicans essentially kill the VRA and they can dilute the minority vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Democrats will continue to lose mid-terms because Democrats don't like to vote very often. Conservatives love to vote, and vote often, even in the same election! I guess I'll head to the downticket races thread then, because I know I don't have the data to make any proclamations. However, my feeling, which people like Joementum can correct, is that Republicans have not directly suffered for the failures, fuckups, and obstructionism which we may hate them for. I cannot envision a single practical narrative in which the GOP does something that they can't spin into being Obama's fault. I can't see how anything turns their base away from them, or away from the voting booth. Is that really the common consensus here, that the GOP is headed to lose one of the houses, or lose their ridiculous over-representation in state legislatures and governorships?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:And why should they really want to? I honestly believe they profit far more from taking every state and local office and the entire federal legislature while leaving the presidency to the Democrats. Seriously, how can you maintain the victim narrative when you hold all the branches? quote:Having Hillary as a president is perfect for them, because what they want is actual stagnation. They want their base to stay angry and unfulfilled, they NEED to have someone else to blame for why everything is terrible, and they do the most for their sponsors by nickel and diming pork legislation through Congress while stalling any real legislation. I don't know how people can't see this. I'm serious, D&D, how can you think that the rich don't benefit from this gridlock? quote:The Kochs and Adelson and the Waltons don't NEED to have a bunch of aggressive legislation passed to make money hand over fist while impoverishing the rest of America; they already have a great situation, and the only threat is actual movement. quote:If the GOP wins both houses in 2016, they should WANT Hillary in the hotseat. You tell me about Supreme Court nominations, but I think that an energized GOP which already has 32 governorships, the House, and the Senate could actually exert enough power to block nominations, and I don't know why they wouldn't. quote:I know a lot of people here think I'm crazy, but I don't see how the GOP loses by having a Democratic president, considering how essential the "most oppressed minority" meme is for white, evangelical, conservative voters. They NEED a Great Satan to constantly vilify, because their actual policy agenda is so thin. I also don't think I'm Arzying here, because I think we all agree that there is some very risky and unpleasant poo poo coming down the pike on a lot of issues, from the collapse of the anemic economic "recovery" and the burst of other financial bubbles, to a bunch of really ugly foreign policy situations, to very serious consequences arising on all level from the GOP's success in defunding and destroying so much infrastructure and so many services on the local, state, and national level. poo poo, I wouldn't want to be Obama, looking down the barrel of the next two years, and possibly having to face a tarnished legacy as president because the economy imploded on his watch or there's a gigantic foreign policy disaster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:I guess I'll head to the downticket races thread then, because I know I don't have the data to make any proclamations. However, my feeling, which people like Joementum can correct, is that Republicans have not directly suffered for the failures, fuckups, and obstructionism which we may hate them for. I cannot envision a single practical narrative in which the GOP does something that they can't spin into being Obama's fault. I can't see how anything turns their base away from them, or away from the voting booth. Is that really the common consensus here, that the GOP is headed to lose one of the houses, or lose their ridiculous over-representation in state legislatures and governorships? They're slated to lose a single chamber I think. I don't see them being kicked out of the House of Reps. for a very long while. Only hope is that 2020 is a census and Presidential election year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:They're slated to lose a single chamber I think. I don't see them being kicked out of the House of Reps. for a very long while. Only hope is that 2020 is a census and Presidential election year. A ton would have to go right to retake the senate in 2016, and then there's 2018 looming on the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:A ton would have to go right to retake the senate in 2016, and then there's 2018 looming on the horizon. Right they may always take it back as Victor points out the balance of power is very thin right now. I could be wrong on that perception though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Ummm... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
lmao yeah I was like "hold on how does this make sense I don't see Jeb in ther....oh.....oh poo poo"
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:lmao yeah I was like "hold on how does this make sense I don't see Jeb in ther....oh.....oh poo poo" Jeb: bring me everyone David Kochel: What do you mean, everyone. Jeb: EEEEVERYOOOONE!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Oh yes, Jeb's bringing George Shultz back from semi-retirement! If he serves as a non-Labor, Treasury, OMB, or State Cabinet-level position, he'll have been in an unprecedented five different positions! Nice restraint in enlisting Wolfowitz and Mukasey, but not Rumsfeld or Cheney. William Bear fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:The Great Myth of the Liberal Mainstream Media. It's almost like they actually do believe in Republican ideals and aren't just doing it for economic reasons. Never not funny to see D&D, normally a bastion of "man is not homo economicus", assume that that's the way that rich conservatives act.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's almost like they actually do believe in Republican ideals and aren't just doing it for economic reasons. But I thought economic reasons were supposed to be Republican ideals
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
James Baker for running mate, he would be 86 when sworn in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
In case some of those names aren't immediately recognizable (because some of you might have blocked out the Bush years to keep your sanity):Wikipedia posted:As Deputy Secretary of Defense, [Paul Wolfowitz] was "a major architect of President Bush's Iraq policy and ... its most hawkish advocate." In fact, "the Bush Doctrine was largely [his] handiwork." Donald Rumsfeld in his interview with Fox News on February 8, 2011, said that Wolfowitz was the first to bring up Iraq after the 9/11 attacks during a meeting at the presidential retreat at Camp David. quote:In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.  I have only one thing to say: if the apocalypse happens and we somehow get Jeb Bush as president, I want a real, independent loving Kurdistan in the Middle East. Since Jeb Bush re-re-invading Iraq is a given, I want something good to come out of all that poo poo. fade5 fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I have only one thing to say: if the apocalypse happens and we somehow get Jeb Bush as president, I want a real, independent loving Kurdistan in the Middle East. Since Jeb Bush re-re-invading Iraq is a given, I want something good to come out of all that poo poo. That's mostly up to Turkey and will probably happen regardless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Trailer to seriously anti-gay documentary featuring possible 2016 candidates Rand Paul and Huckabee Tanks, pie in the face, same difference right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
AGirlWonder posted:What the hell are "black credentials"? That'd be his James Brown pass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
damnit Jeb you can't select "all of the above" for everybody when you play gently caress-marry-kill -hire with W PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:Seriously, how can you maintain the victim narrative when you hold all the branches? It's already a narrative unmoored from reality, what should facts matter. Alteratively, if they truly constituted an ideological majority, scapegoating exists for a reason. quote:Having Hillary as a president is perfect for them, because what they want is actual stagnation. They want their base to stay angry and unfulfilled, they NEED to have someone else to blame for why everything is terrible, Dems had congress for most of the 80s, lost three straight, and came a-roarin' back in 1992 with a full-throated defense of the Great Society/New Deal, oh wait. quote:and they do the most for their sponsors by nickel and diming pork legislation through Congress while stalling any real legislation. Did you even touch a TV during 2002-2006? loving NASCAR got tax breaks. NASCAR. quote:The Kochs and Adelson and the Waltons don't NEED to have a bunch of aggressive legislation passed to make money hand over fist while impoverishing the rest of America; they already have a great situation, and the only threat is actual movement. Famine hurts the well-fed and the destitute alike, but the former have more meat on their bones to start. And when abundance (read: publicly-funded goodies) returns one of them can afford to buy a hell of a lot more. quote:I cannot for the life of me understand why a Democrat would want to take the presidency in 2016, except for sheer, naked ambition. It's a good thing Democrats aren't exempt from the human condition, then!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:damnit Jeb you can't select "all of the above" for everybody when you play gently caress-marry-kill -hire with W
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/233063-poll-huckabee-surging-bush-stalling-in-gop-2016-pack So apparently Mike Huckabee is your current 2016 GOP frontrunner?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
If the Republicans win in 2016 which do you think happens first, retarded foreign policy and being assholes to Putin starting a war with Russia, or Netanyahu successfully convincing them to start a war with Iran?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
binders full of
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:If the Republicans win in 2016 which do you think happens first, retarded foreign policy and being assholes to Putin starting a war with Russia, or Netanyahu successfully convincing them to start a war with Iran? All three in the same sentence of Jeb's inauguration speech.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:If the Republicans win in 2016 which do you think happens first, retarded foreign policy and being assholes to Putin starting a war with Russia, or Netanyahu successfully convincing them to start a war with Iran? If we bomb Iran, its likely Putin authorizes tactical nukes in Ukraine. If Putin authorizes tactical nukes in Ukraine, its likely that Obama's legacy becomes Mitt saying 'Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe' over and over and over and over until everyone remembers Obama for nuking Ukraine. Personally, I'd vote for Biden, Warren, Emanuel, hell, even Sanders '16 in a primary over Hillary. Hillary acts like she deserves presidency, which reeks of entitlement that I just don't like. Now, I'm a straight party D voter, even when it came to a decent R like that dead woman in IL. Still, I might consider Jeb over Hillary, given Hillary's foreign policy failures, her closeness to neo-ottoman emperor Erdogan, and her general air of entitlement. Hell, I might even write in Rahm for President rather vote for Hillary or Jeb because at least with Jeb, I know where he stands on Iran. I want Bill back in the white house...and I want American foreign policy to treat Iran with the adult gloves it deserves. How does Hillary convince me to vote for her?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:And why should they really want to? I honestly believe they profit far more from taking every state and local office and the entire federal legislature while leaving the presidency to the Democrats. Seriously, how can you maintain the victim narrative when you hold all the branches? Having Hillary as a president is perfect for them, because what they want is actual stagnation. They want their base to stay angry and unfulfilled, they NEED to have someone else to blame for why everything is terrible, and they do the most for their sponsors by nickel and diming pork legislation through Congress while stalling any real legislation. I don't know how people can't see this. I'm serious, D&D, how can you think that the rich don't benefit from this gridlock? I think you are correct, there are two important factors. One is it's typically like this for any presidency where the American public blames the current President's party for all of their problems. Reagan, Clinton, GWB (2002 was a weird year due to 9/11) and now Obama. The other factor is that the GOP outside money has a permanent presidential-like campaign ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...cc10_story.html ) that is having a huge influence on state, house and senate races. Millions of phone calls every week, tens of thousands of door to door visits, permanent physical presence in 36 states, permanent large number internet community presence. They are doing all that stuff even right now. I think #1 combined with #2 has created this nightmare where the GOP will control a significant amount of state positions, the house and maybe even the senate for a long time and can do some real damage to the country. The house is in an even worse position than everything else. It will be a decade of GOP control before it's even remotely possible (2020). Statistically there will be a recession sometime in the next 8 years and if it occurs during a Democratic presidency you might see a GOP house until 2028 or longer. 2 decades of GOP control of the house would be insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:The house is in an even worse position than everything else. It will be a decade of GOP control before it's even remotely possible (2020). Statistically there will be a recession sometime in the next 8 years and if it occurs during a Democratic presidency you might see a GOP house until 2028 or longer. 2 decades of GOP control of the house would be insane. This is why I hold the belief that the only way to win in the long run is by electing a Republican In 2016. Better to have those coattails on a non-Census year and at least have a chance of blaming the next economic crisis on the Republicans than take the one-two punch of an economic crisis leading to a one-term Hillary and Republican wave in 2020. Plus, a loss forces Dems to play for Congress and state houses in 2018, which are both far more necessary than trying to get 51 in 2016 only to be guaranteed to lose it again in 2018 in Hillary's midterm. Granted, this means Republicans have incumbency going into 2020, but incumbent coattails aren't going to help Ernst and her class as much as they would gain from an economic crisis in 2017. Now it's true that you lose Ginsberg's seat on SCOTUS but you aren't getting a new Warren Court until Scalia kicks the bucket anyway. And he's not going to until there's a Republican in the White House anyway, so it's a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
I too think handing Republicans control of both houses and the presidency at the same time is a choice that won't lead to immediate long-lasting disaster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Kalman posted:I too think handing Republicans control of both houses and the presidency at the same time is a choice that won't lead to immediate long-lasting disaster. You also think net neutrality is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 04:11
|
|