|
patrick murphy isn't exactly star human #1 but he won a light red district in 2014 with a D next to his name so he must be pretty good at the horse race. good thing policy and such means nothing and the horse race means everything. go team blue boo team red *burns down hippodrome* byzantine chariot racing snipe i guess? whatever
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:patrick murphy isn't exactly star human #1 but he won a light red district in 2014 with a D next to his name so he must be pretty good at the horse race. good thing policy and such means nothing and the horse race means everything. go team blue boo team red *burns down hippodrome* This metaphor is excellent, as the Greens faded into irrelevance long ago
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
I'm actually impressed that Tim Canova got as close to DWS as he did.axeil posted:Devi's advocate: how much of that was Dean and how much of that was the overall political environment in 2006? To also be fair, how much of those dem seats REALLY mattered? A lot of them were just Republican-Lite at best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I'm actually impressed that Tim Canova got as close to DWS as he did. In the senate? Every single one of them. Unless of course you didn't care about Obamacare overcoming the filibuster, in which case I guess not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
They also mattered in the House - the Dems managed to pass everything they wanted, including things the Senate didn't take action on like the public option and cap and trade. It just so happens that the Dems managed to pass everything with ~exactly~ 218 votes because Pelosi always freed up the members in vulnerable districts to vote against the Dems to show their independence. It doesn't mean that those people would have voted against the legislation if their vote was pivotal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
if it's already assumed the filibuster is gone if and when the dems retake the senate, why coudn't we've done that in 08? or 06? ~just asking questions~
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Zas posted:if it's already assumed the filibuster is gone if and when the dems retake the senate, why coudn't we've done that in 08? or 06? ~just asking questions~ There was much more value put on the Senate remaining a collegiate body. Now they don't even pretend they're not getting into fist fights in the hallway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
What about like 2012? Wasn't it that bad by then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Lol the Trumpenproles are already taking over the GOP, and I don't think they're too concerned with it burning down or not. What policies of Canova's is it even possible to disagree with, other than "Israel can do no wrong."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Zas posted:if it's already assumed the filibuster is gone if and when the dems retake the senate, why coudn't we've done that in 08? or 06? ~just asking questions~ Only people who enjoy getting disappointed are assuming the filibuster is gone in a close senate. Anyways, per RRH: quote:Congressman Ed Whitfield (R) has announced he will retire next week instead of at the end of the term. Whitfield is under investigation for the access he has given his wife, a lobbyist, to his congressional office. A special election will be held concurrent with the November general election for the remaining term.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
looks like it's R+14, yeah. 90% white district in the south. westernmost part of kentucky with some gerrymander-rear end bulges and poo poo. this is one of those places with tons of registered democrats who havent voted blue at the presidential level since like '92, and whitfield is the first republican ever to represent the seat ('95-'16) so maybe as late as 2010 they felt like they needed to exert some due diligence with their maps to keep blue dog democrats out demosaurs still run the kentucky state house, last legislature in the south controlled by ds i think? so i suppose there might be a decent bench, but it looks like realignment made it to the us house level a decade or more ago in the upper south
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:There was much more value put on the Senate remaining a collegiate body. Now they don't even pretend they're not getting into fist fights in the hallway. I'm loving pissed about it being in the hallway, in the good ol days they'd do it right on the Senate floor and with weapons
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I'm loving pissed about it being in the hallway, in the good ol days they'd do it right on the Senate floor and with weapons It's awful. We neither have a functional upper chamber of our legislature nor the magic that would be senators beating each other brutally on C-SPAN 666, pay per view only.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:What policies of Canova's is it even possible to disagree with, other than "Israel can do no wrong." what policies of his do you agree with
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Only people who enjoy getting disappointed are assuming the filibuster is gone in a close senate. It's been made pretty loving obvious that if the Dems retake the senate they are 100% prepared to go full nuclear if the GOP even hints it'll filibuster nominees just because they can. Especially Scalia's replacement* when Hilary makes her pick. If the Democrats have to pick between dealing with GOP filibusters or passing things to then send to the House so that all focus is on Ryan and his crazy assholes that's exactly what will happen. * assuming Garland isn't confirmed in the lame duck. If the Democrats are going to have the WH and a senate majority they're going to say gently caress it and confirm him because nobody who votes fore them will give a drat in 2018 that their "no nominees in an election year" thing was blatant political bullshit on their part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:what policies of his do you agree with Assault weapons ban, protect the environment, protect/expand social security, anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ, affordable college, no SOPA, dignity for tribal nations, no TPP, nationwide legalization of medical marijuana, pathway to citizenship, no fracking, campaign finance reform, etc. Although I did just find out he wants mandatory GMO labeling, which is annoying. It seems like US pols with the best policies always get duped on that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
wow, how bold of canova to not support a bill that's been dead for years (SOPA, last relevant in 2012)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:wow, how bold of canova to not support a bill that's been dead for years (SOPA, last relevant in 2012) I'm not sure what you're getting at but he was against it when it was proposed, and it's emblematic of how he's for net neutrality in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I'm not sure what you're getting at but he was against it when it was proposed, and it's emblematic of how he's for net neutrality in general. So's DWS. So are most people. He's never actually been in an elected position, so it's not like he voted against it or anything. The only things he supports that are good/neutral and DWS doesn't support, on your list, are weed and no fracking (though last I checked she still wants less fracking/more regulations).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Zas posted:if it's already assumed the filibuster is gone if and when the dems retake the senate, why coudn't we've done that in 08? or 06? ~just asking questions~ The simple reason is that it was incredibly useful to them during the years when George W. Bush was President, as the Democrats found themselves without a majority in either the House or the Senate or control of the Presidency for the first time since Eisenhower. If they chose to remove it and found themselves back in the same spot in 2012 or 2016 that they were from 2002 to 2006, they would have just removed one of the few levers that they would have to influence legislation. This was a really uncomfortable situation, and they relied on the filibuster, or the threat of the filibuster quite a bit. It's easy to forget that from 1956 to 1996, Democrats always controlled at least one, if not both chambers of Congress, even though they only controlled the presidency for 16 of those 40 years. In 2006 or 2008, there was far more fear that they'd find themselves shut out of the presidency but with solid baseline numbers in Congress than the other way around. Now, the Republican disarray at the national level and solid control of the House means that Democrats have far more to worry about from the filibuster than they stand to gain from it's use in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Another important thing to remember about not removing the filibuster in 2006 or 2008 is that they had yet to be on the receiving end of the ridiculous usage of the filibuster at that time. It had been getting steadily over used since around Clinton, but under Obama it just got patently ridiculous. While obviously the only moral filibuster is my filibuster, we've reached the point where almost all legislation needs to have at least 60 votes to pass, and that's loving idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
It might be bad for governance to require 60 votes to even have an up or down vote (although its also quite possible to argue that its good for governance,) but if you are one of those swing state Democrats that will rely on it to keep controversial votes away from the floor then its almost certainly good for your career. It won't be going away because those senators will see to it that it stays. Furthermore, while the house might be lost to Democrats for a long while the senate is not gerrymandered and not inherently unfavorable towards them. It would be smart for them to keep it around, in case it is they who need to start holding things up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
The 60 vote necessity means that the only stuff that gets passed is stuff that is popular enough or non-controversial enough to drat near be a constitutional amendment, which would require just 7 more votes to clear the Senate. As that graph above illustrates, it used to be something that only got trotted out in extreme circumstances, such as civil rights legislation (gently caress you Strom), but now has become progressively more commonplace. The bar itself isn't the problem though, a 60% majority isn't inherently better or worse than a simple majority, it's that it interacts very poorly with our current political polarization. It means that to get anything passed, one party needs to have absolute unity then convince enough of the other side to break rank, which is usually enough to stall just about anything. It's my hope that going back to a simple majority for drat near everything will allow more bipartisan legislation to get passed, because it won't require rigid adherence to party orthodoxy from either side. I'm a firm believer that any bill that passes should have people on both sides of the aisle voting against it and voting for it, in all but the most dire circumstances. With a 60 vote requirement, that basically can't happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Assault weapons ban, protect the environment, protect/expand social security, anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ, affordable college, no SOPA, dignity for tribal nations, no TPP, nationwide legalization of medical marijuana, pathway to citizenship, no fracking, campaign finance reform, etc. Although I did just find out he wants mandatory GMO labeling, which is annoying. It seems like US pols with the best policies always get duped on that. and what of those are stances DWS doesn't have?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:and what of those are stances DWS doesn't have? Other than the TPP, you'd have to look up DWS' policies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:In the senate? Every single one of them. Unless of course you didn't care about Obamacare overcoming the filibuster, in which case I guess not. I forgot that Dean was still chair in 2009. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Yeah back in 2009 I remember a lot of talk about a "41 vote majority" after Scott Brown got elected and Lieberman went independent.
Instant Sunrise has issued a correction as of 17:17 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:It's awful. We neither have a functional upper chamber of our legislature nor the magic that would be senators beating each other brutally on C-SPAN 666, pay per view only. C-SPAN 8, the Ocho
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
incidentally some blog commissioned a professional poll of the Louisiana Senate race. Louisiana has its unique stupid election format, where theres no primary, every candidate from all parties runs on one ballot in November, and the top two have a December runoff. it's a better way for the gop than the California and Washington method of doing the same thing, but with a primary and the runoff in November, since you get the important election on the lower turnout date. anyway the link and results http://thehayride.com/2016/08/the-h...tes-struggling/ John Kennedy: 27% Foster Campbell: 16% Charles Boustany: 13% Caroline Fayard: 12% John Fleming: 6% David Duke: 6% Rob Maness: 4% Abhay Patel: 0% Troy Hebert: 0% Undecided: 15% Campbell and fayard are Democrats, hebert is independent, the rest are Republicans so basically, probably a Kennedy Campbell runoff in December with the Republican winning easily and Duke having no effect other than constantly reminding anyone who will listen that donald trump is the white supremacist candidate right up to election day
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Another important thing to remember about not removing the filibuster in 2006 or 2008 is that they had yet to be on the receiving end of the ridiculous usage of the filibuster at that time. It had been getting steadily over used since around Clinton, but under Obama it just got patently ridiculous. While obviously the only moral filibuster is my filibuster, we've reached the point where almost all legislation needs to have at least 60 votes to pass, and that's loving idiotic. In '06 no, but in '08 yes. Charting filibusters by administration actually understates the scope of the change, since the number of filibusters almost doubled immediately after the Dems gained a majority in the Senate:  (This chart is from late 2013, hence 2013-4 has fewer filibusters.) Of course, this doesn't even take into account all the legislation that was never brought to the floor in the first place because it would definitely be filibustered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
yoctoontologist posted:In '06 no, but in '08 yes. Charting filibusters by administration actually understates the scope of the change, since the number of filibusters almost doubled immediately after the Dems gained a majority in the Senate: Unless they go "nuclear" and change the rules in the middle of a session, the filibuster would only be done away with at the start of a session the January after an election. So it wouldn't be until January 2011 that they would have begun a session where Obama and the Democrats had been hosed over by Republican filibusters. That was also when they lost the House and were down to 53 Senators caucusing with Reid, so he might not have had the votes to do it. They only finally ditched the ability to filibuster nominations by going "nuclear" in November of 2013, so it probably took that long for Reid to finally convince enough Democrats to do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So's DWS. So are most people. He's never actually been in an elected position, so it's not like he voted against it or anything. Lol no she isn't, she literally co-sponsored SOPA. One of the reasons Canova was correct to call her a corporate stooge. Everybody come look at Fishmech being technically wrong about something! fishmech posted:The only things he supports that are good/neutral and DWS doesn't support, on your list, are weed and no fracking (though last I checked she still wants less fracking/more regulations). And TPP. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Lol no she isn't, she literally co-sponsored SOPA. One of the reasons Canova was correct to call her a corporate stooge. But she's against it now, and has been since after it died. Sorry about you melting down over your terrible candidate though? And no, Canova was never correct to call her a "corporate stooge", because that's a term used by morons. Jewel Repetition posted:And TPP. The TPP is good
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But she's against it now, and has been since after it died. Oh, well I'm sure if she changed her position after it made no difference she's a staunch supporter of net neutrality. fishmech posted:Sorry about you melting down over your terrible candidate though? Generally if a poster phrases something as "sorry your x" they're the one melting down.  fishmech posted:And no, Canova was never correct to call her a "corporate stooge", because that's a term used by morons. It's never gonna stop being weird to me that you're supposedly a socialist but all your rhetoric and positions end up aligning with New Democrats. Is it really just out of spite that Bernie misused the term socialist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Oh, well I'm sure if she changed her position after it made no difference she's a staunch supporter of net neutrality. yes, it makes no difference, especially since political failure "tim canova" never had a chance to affect policy. especially since "net neutrality" is the very definition of a "corporate stooge" position because it's very much to the profit of tons of major corporations - which is the reason sopa was defeated, not because of internet nerds being angry at it Jewel Repetition posted:
i'm sorry that you have problems understanding things like "words" and "ideas", but then you did support a terrible candidate in a district you never visited based on misunderstandings in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:especially since "net neutrality" is the very definition of a "corporate stooge" position because it's very much to the profit of tons of major corporations - which is the reason sopa was defeated, not because of internet nerds being angry at it sopa had massive corporations on both sides; by that logic the guys on team Google are just as much corporate stooges as the guys on team Viacom
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
It amazes me that fishmech appears not to be able to comprehend that "Canova was bad" does not equate to "DWS is good." They can both be bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:sopa had massive corporations on both sides; by that logic the guys on team Google are just as much corporate stooges as the guys on team Viacom yes, they are both "corporate stooges", which is why it's a pretty useless descriptor of policy. there's just about no policy that isn't beneficial for a large grip of corporations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:It amazes me that fishmech appears not to be able to comprehend that "Canova was bad" does not equate to "DWS is good." They can both be bad. fishmech is the undisputed world loving champion of ludicrous false dichotomies
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
fishmech posted:yes, it makes no difference, especially since political failure "tim canova" never had a chance to affect policy. People say you have no sense of humor but I have to admit the scare quotes around Tim Canova genuinely made me laugh. fishmech posted:especially since "net neutrality" is the very definition of a "corporate stooge" position because it's very much to the profit of tons of major corporations - which is the reason sopa was defeated, not because of internet nerds being angry at it Corporations spend three times more money lobbying against net neutrality than lobbying for it. fishmech posted:i'm sorry that you have problems understanding things like "words" and "ideas", but then you did support a terrible candidate in a district you never visited based on misunderstandings in the first place. I don't think I misunderstood anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:48
|
|