|
My two cents on impeachments for Clinton. They'll the new The GOPe knows that kind of stuff is BS theater, but as we can see from the Trumpster fire, the tea party/true believers/stupid nazis don't and are going to do it. LOL gently caress the R's and their Southern Strat.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:She won't ever ever do this, there's more of a chance she tries to put a moderate in there as to not anger Republicans or to secure her "legacy" as a unifier. I know she won't ever do it but I'm not sure about your reasoning. That sounds like something Obama would (did) do, not Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Gort posted:So are we pretty much - best case, assuming Trump loses badly - just looking at more of the Obama years, with a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, and a President who can't actually pass much in the way of worthwhile laws? Depends how much we get to run up the score this cycle. The more our wins, the better the flow of money downballot come 2020.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Clinton's going to nominate MechaRBG. Why would she nominate a centrist? To justify your dislike of her?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:I think what he's asking is how many points would she need to be winning by to indicate such a huge electoral wave that the influence on the downticket races would result in a flipped House and Senate. I think such a question is unknowable, but if I'm speculating she'd have to have a blowout in just about every state. As I recall, the realistic minimum is something like 55-45 but even that requires limited ticket splitting and a lot of gains in traditionally GOP district without running up the score too much in Democratic areas. It's highly unlikely, especially since Koch and others are funneling all their cash downticket. There are three caveats that make retaking the House somewhat more plausible: 1-Districts were drawn based on the demographics and populations from the 2010 census. Trump has been antagonizing the fastest growing and most undercounted demographic from those censuses. If the surge in Hispanic registration is accurate and Hillary manages to GOTV, this could change the map dramatically. Given that the GOP strategy in 2010 was diluting the Hispanic vote by spreading it between districts, that could come back to bite them in the rear end even harder. 2-White Women. Even Romney won White Women by 14 points and White Catholics by 10. Given the abysmal view on Trump and Pence, and the nature of Hillary's candidacy, this group could also swing to Hillary in large numbers. They represent a group that Republicans assumed they had a safe advantage with in 2010, meaning that if Democrats can keep them from splitting votes... we're talking major cracks in the levee. 3-Hillary's Coattails. If we're talking 10 points, that's the widest margin since Reagan-Mondale. There may come a time that Hillary doesn't feel the need to run up her totals in urban centers and Democratic strongholds. It's a risk, but if that happens she can essentially enter midterm campaign mode. With the advances in data and voter targeting, she can find the districts vulnerable for switching (especially the ones due to the factors above, which the national services cannot account for in their at-risk projections). tl;dr: Normally, there's no chance in hell Democrats take back the House without first capturing statehouses and redistricting. There are some indicators that this election may break the traditional rules  Trabisnikof posted:Obama recently signed a massive toxic chemical overhaul bill, so it isn't impossible to pass new major legislation. fakeedit: Mystic_Shadow posted:She won't ever ever do this, there's more of a chance she tries to put a moderate in there as to not anger Republicans or to secure her "legacy" as a unifier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Clinton's going to nominate MechaRBG. Why would she nominate a centrist? To justify your dislike of her? Clinton nominating Our Nation's Sassy Grandma was an elaborate ruse to cover for his wife decades later nominating a generic middle of the road Democrat as part of her master plan to...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:I have a good feeling that Duckworth will beat Kirk in IL, but it might not be that much of a help because Kirk is pretty consistently the only R willing to cross the aisle on things like gun control, healthcare and appointments. One of the most difficult things about retaking the House will be seats where there are no D challengers. In my district our current R rep, the shitacular Adam Kinzinger, is running completely unopposed. If the Dems don't grow some balls and run someone next election and I'm still living here, I've considered just running myself as an independent just so people have someone else to vote for. For the first time in like 20 years the Kansas state democratic party is running a candidate in every senate and congressional race, and a whole 75% of state level offices. It's kind of pathetic but it's partly because of the whole bleeding Kansas thing (the state legislature hasn't had a democratic majority since 1917 and the last democrat senator from the state was elected in 1939) and it's still progress of a sort but it tells you how dire the situation is in a lot of Midwest states. I hope that the next DNC chairperson invests in state level parties that aren't traditional democrat strongholds because they really really need to set up for the 2020 elections/census and subsequent district redrawing. e: realized that I said the same thing as MIGF more or less, gonna go take a shower now rscott fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Obama is not going to withdraw Garland. In addition to the tactical mistake it would be, it's a huge insult to the man himself. Obama wants Garland on the Supreme Court. "The Republicans believed the next acting president should make the decision. I bow to their opinion." Assuming he wants to. I agree with you that he likely doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:As I recall, the realistic minimum is something like 55-45 but even that requires limited ticket splitting and a lot of gains in traditionally GOP district without running up the score too much in Democratic areas. It's highly unlikely, especially since Koch and others are funneling all their cash downticket. A moderate justice is someone who would not be immediately hated by 100% of Republicans. In hindsight such a candidate might not even exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Note that a solid SC has the potential to strike down at the very least the most problematic excesses of partisan gerrymandering (several of the existing liberal justices have expressed misgivings about partisan gerrymandering IIRC) and restore the VRA, which goes a long way towards making the House more plausible. This is very true and a big part of why republicans feel the need to back their idiot in my opinion. But that wouldn't be in effect for this election, and the midterms would need both a strong ruling against gerrymandering swiftly implemented, and all the berniebros coming out to vote in an off year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
What I'm hearing and seeing, both online and in person, from righties (I live in a red area of a red state): -Radio silence -"BOTH candidates suck so what are ya going to do" (of course they are going to vote for clown cheeto man) -Julian Assange will be our savior and smite our enemies! This is pretty much the thread they are holding on to, the ones who aren't completely insane recognize either consciously or subconsciously this is probably the only way their team wins the election. As far as stuff like trumped up impeachment - yeah like 30-40 percent (the intelligent ones with money) recognize the lesson from Bill Clinton, the rest are incapable of learning any lesson at all, ever, including an increasing number of GOP Congressmen and Senators. Yeah I see very little from the right examining what it is about their electorate that would make them susceptible to such a candidate as a silly racist Cheeto man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Republicans are going to stonewall all nominations for the next four years, just because they can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Dork457 posted:
So we're in pretty much the same race as 2012. In order to win the GOP needs to hold Florida, Ohio, AND Virginia. If the Democrats can grab any one of those 3 it's virtually impossible for the GOP to eek out a win elsewhere. Hell, even if Trump somehow wins the big 3, the Dems can still hit a majority if they hold Nevada+Colorado+Iowa+NH. The poll showing Virginia as >10% for Hillary today is a pretty good sign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Republicans are going to stonewall all nominations for the next four years, just because they can. They would only be able to do it for 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
They will either cave November 9th and put garland in or CONTINUE to stonewall if they retain congress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
This contrariness by the GOP does seem astonishingly daft. The whole purpose of the current system was to try and force compromise, and instead they are ignoring it and trying to prop up their party even though it is slowly decaying around them. Why do people vote them in if they aren't doing anything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This contrariness by the GOP does seem astonishingly daft. The whole purpose of the current system was to try and force compromise, and instead they are ignoring it and trying to prop up their party even though it is slowly decaying around them. Why do people vote them in if they aren't doing anything? Because the people who vote them in don't want the government to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
I expect that no matter how much Clinton wins by Republicans will claim she is illegitimate and refuse any legislation until impeachment proceedings relating to benghazi are concluded. That's assuming of course that they don't lock her in a closet on January 20 and then claim the "inaugural deadline" has expired and the whole electoral process must begin again and if Ms Clinton had any respect for this great Country or it's laws then she would have been on time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Because the people who vote them in don't want the government to do anything. So that they can then say "SEE I TOLD YOU THE GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER DO ANYTHING RIGHT! I WAS RIGHT! I AM ALWAYS RIGHT!", because they're goddamn idiot assholes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
None of those will happen because this is not some erotic Right Wing fanfiction. She will not be impeached or locked in a loving closet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Help me wrap my head around Assange - he says they're holding on to info that would guarantee Clinton's indictment, but the announcement is just an admission of the opposite, right? If they had good info they wouldn't let her know they have it in advance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:So that they can then say "SEE I TOLD YOU THE GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER DO ANYTHING RIGHT! I WAS RIGHT! I AM ALWAYS RIGHT!", because they're goddamn idiot assholes. vyelkin posted:Because the people who vote them in don't want the government to do anything. You know I don't think this is true. Oh I mean in abstract doing things in government is what the GOP are against, but in truth? They need farm subsidies sorted out and all the rest of it. The longer nothing happens the less they will see the need to vote for another guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Because the people who vote them in don't want the government to do anything. Yeah it's this. Grover Nordquist and the whole government small enough to down in the bath tub and all of that
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:Help me wrap my head around Assange - he says they're holding on to info that would guarantee Clinton's indictment, but the announcement is just an admission of the opposite, right? If they had good info they wouldn't let her know they have it in advance. He's a grandstanding idiot who is also a propagandist for the Kremlin. That's basically it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:A moderate justice is someone who would not be immediately hated by 100% of Republicans. In hindsight such a candidate might not even exist. That would require Hillary nominating someone who is okay with 2 of the following 3 things: The Roberts Court stance on the VRA, Outlawing Abortion, maintaining Citizens United. To say nothing of the 2nd ammendment and church/state. There is zero indication on Hillary's background that she'd be okay with any of those, and all three would be actively hurting her electoral chances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:None of those will happen because this is not some erotic Right Wing fanfiction. She will not be impeached or locked in a loving closet. The House can introduce articles of impeachment but the Senate wouldn't convict because a 2/3 majority is needed there. This is what happened with Clinton. It's still called "X was impeached" even though it didn't go through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:Help me wrap my head around Assange - he says they're holding on to info that would guarantee Clinton's indictment, but the announcement is just an admission of the opposite, right? If they had good info they wouldn't let her know they have it in advance. He wants people to think he does, as long as he says he has stuff on her it doesn't matter if he has it that's enough for the Fox News/Talk Radio propaganda machine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
rscott posted:Yeah it's this. Grover Nordquist and the whole government small enough to down in the bath tub and all of that Small enough to fit in a uterus, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This contrariness by the GOP does seem astonishingly daft. The whole purpose of the current system was to try and force compromise, and instead they are ignoring it and trying to prop up their party even though it is slowly decaying around them. Why do people vote them in if they aren't doing anything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
ParliamentOfDogs posted:I expect that no matter how much Clinton wins by Republicans will claim she is illegitimate and refuse any legislation until impeachment proceedings relating to benghazi are concluded. I think (hope) the Republicans are going to be busy with their faction fight for a while after the election, depending on how much they lose by.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:None of those will happen because this is not some erotic Right Wing fanfiction. She will not be impeached or locked in a loving closet. Are you questioning the Right Wing's desire to shove people into closets and keep them there in order to make themselves feel more comfortable about the world around them? (It was a joke)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This contrariness by the GOP does seem astonishingly daft. The whole purpose of the current system was to try and force compromise, and instead they are ignoring it and trying to prop up their party even though it is slowly decaying around them. Why do people vote them in if they aren't doing anything? This is the part where I think the role of Fox News, Rush, Drudge etc. is a lot more important than I think it's sometimes given credit for. RW Media doesn't often convert people in my opinion. But what it does do is keep people firmly on the team, even when the team is making GBS threads its pants repeatedly. Through propaganda. A presidency like the GWB one would, I think, have led to a lot of defection and realignment towards the left due to its horrible results. But when you consume this stuff 24/7 you always have a handy talking point ready, stuffed into your head, why it really wasn't your team's fault, it was the other team's fault, and how they are the worst, so people don't seriously look at what they've been supporting unless something really drastic starts to happen, and even then often not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:RW Media doesn't often convert people in my opinion. But what it does do is keep people firmly on the team, even when the team is making GBS threads its pants repeatedly. Through propaganda. A presidency like the GWB one would, I think, have led to a lot of defection and realignment towards the left due to its horrible results. But when you consume this stuff 24/7 you always have a handy talking point ready, stuffed into your head, why it really wasn't your team's fault, it was the other team's fault, and how they are the worst, so people don't seriously look at what they've been supporting unless something really drastic starts to happen, and even then often not. People were defending Nixon back in the 70s with exactly the same fervor as they did with Dubya. Media had very little to do with it. If anything they dropped him quicker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:Help me wrap my head around Assange - he says they're holding on to info that would guarantee Clinton's indictment, but the announcement is just an admission of the opposite, right? If they had good info they wouldn't let her know they have it in advance. You could make the case that he wants Hillary to believe him and panic trying to cover up dirt he may or may not have, and then also spring whatever he's got on her, but that would be a bit out of character for her. It's most likely he's got something that looks damning but isn't after some inspection, so he wants to prime people that he has some dirt and bring it up late in October and hope it has legs for a few days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:President black, future scary, please make the fear go away until I die. Oh, it's so cold. So cold. Basically this. My grandparents keep saying stuff like "Oh your generation will have to handle things, all this trouble, and you can try this stuff (Socialism in my case) that you keep talking about. But there are just too many of us in our generation who don't want change, we want things the way they've been, we invested in it and we'd see it as bad." So yeah, they vote the way they do because any change scares them. It's even better because the only thing that allowed my grandpa to have a middle class lifestyle at all was the existence of strong unions into the 1970s. They both directly benefited from worker protections. But now they're both anti-union, because "The unions went too far!". How did they go to far? Negotiating it so that polemen got their birthday's off...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:While I am sure there are cranky old sticks in the mud out there, what I'm hearing sounds a lot more like "We actually don't want to train people any more; we would like to make our employees train themselves, on speculation, out of their own funds, and if they don't - or don't make the correct training decisions - we're going to fire them." This is pretty much the case, with the exception in my field that you have to make the trade off in sysadmin world that you can get trained, but you'll get paid 50% below market value and the company has the potential to be owned by a literal crackhead that makes crackhead decisions (my actual first IT job), so your life is a shitshow. But you drat sure get the experience you need to get paid above market at your next job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Remember that if Democrats win the White House and Senate, this will be cheered as a clear political mandate for House Republicans
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Antti posted:The House can introduce articles of impeachment but the Senate wouldn't convict because a 2/3 majority is needed there. This is what happened with Clinton. It's still called "X was impeached" even though it didn't go through. I don't need the history lesson, I am well aware what articles of impeachment are. The House will not do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Dork457 posted:
Wait, people are seriously confused by this? It lines up all the states from the likeliest blue states to the likeliest red states, adjusts their length in proportion to electoral votes, and sticks a finish line in the middle. If the blue states cross the finish line, it's a likely Clinton victory, and vice versa for red/Trump. Ordering the states this way indicates which states are highest priority for the candidates to defend or try to flip (for example, Trump's best path to victory would be to target the light blue states that are furthest right on the diagram, and in this snapshot that'd be VA through AZ). If you're asking why it's shaped the way it is instead of a straight bar or rows/columns, it's because this keeps the line continuous without having to shrink everything down too much. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:You know I don't think this is true. Oh I mean in abstract doing things in government is what the GOP are against, but in truth? They need farm subsidies sorted out and all the rest of it. The longer nothing happens the less they will see the need to vote for another guy. The GOP establishment loves using government for things; starve the beast is just what they've their base who took it as solemn gospel. Government can't do anything right, so all the good it does do just gets credited to something else, or considered a basic service that they haven't found a way to gently caress up yet and could totally be executed better by anything else. Now it's come round to biting them in the rear end with the tea party, many of which hold that particular cognitive dissonance close to heart and will burn everything down with a smile because they are willfully ignorant of the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:17
|
|