|
Pauline Kael posted:There was never any doubt in anyone's mind in NYS that he was going to win. I'll tell you something though, and I probably shouldn't... I was meeting with my company's lobbyist on Wednesday, who has extensive dealings with the Governor's office. Apparently he was very angry at his margin of victory. He was counting on 60% (dear old dad got 66%!) but didn't crack 54, and actually *lost* upstate. Living in upstate NY, we're pretty used to NYC running the show, but I'm glad at least to have done my part to ruin his day, even if just a little. Yeah, that anger is reflected in the article. Pauline Kael posted:Aaaaaaaand cue the 'everyone is racist' argument. I'm not asking you if you think it's going to happen, I'm telling you that it's already happening. Wendy Davis got a bare majority of Latino votes in Texas. The gap narrowed nationally between 2012 and 2014. I don't think you can extrapolate Latino voting trends from the midterms, especially since the voting Latino population in the midterms is 1) demographically skewed towards more conservative Latino subgroups (namely, older Latinos) that 2) are not where the growth is (and even then, Hispanic allegiance to the Democrats midterm-to-midterm actually increased). I'm not terribly concerned about a Latino defection or really a significant in the short-term (though remember that Bush pulled in a significant chunk of the Latino vote through actual, genuine outreach), but I think they're probably a vulnerable demographic for the Democrats not based on some theory of deracialization through size but because Democrats (with the exception of Hispanic candidates and Obama's 2012 operation) are perpetually stuck in 1993 when it comes to Hispanic voter analysis and outreach. This is stagnant and bad, and it's really only been workable for so long because the GOP is stuck in 1893.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I'm smarter than you are on this issue because I am relying on verifiable facts, while your arguments are relying on things that are trivially disproven. Furthermore, my argument is supported by the Republican Party itself. We'll agree to disagree. Remember, Florida has a lot of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen Latinos who aren't nuts about Amnesty. Republicans are going to win Texas, in nearly any scenario, and Florida if the Cuban and first wave Latino people decide they don't like Amnesty, not to mention that among non-hispanic whites, this is a losing issue for Dems, especially if Obama does this by Exec Order. Also, sorry for the derail, the whole reason I came to this thread was to say I CANT BELIEVE THE REPUBLICANS WON, SINCE NO ONE I KNOW VOTED FOR THEM thanks for listening
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:We'll agree to disagree. Remember, Florida has a lot of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen Latinos who aren't nuts about Amnesty. Republicans are going to win Texas, in nearly any scenario, and Florida if the Cuban and first wave Latino people decide they don't like Amnesty, not to mention that among non-hispanic whites, this is a losing issue for Dems, especially if Obama does this by Exec Order. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation Latinos are likely to not give a poo poo about amnesty, really, and generalizing Cubans is ignoring the very real shift of the Florida Cuban bloc into a split vote rather than reliably conservative. Part of that is generational, part of that is having seen FOX News since the 2004 immigration reform debacle and realizing "holy poo poo, they're talking about us!" I think the ship has sailed on immigration and non-Hispanic whites, though - the widespread belief that Obama is going to grant amnesty has siphoned off the people who would flip for that already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:We'll agree to disagree. Remember, Florida has a lot of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen Latinos who aren't nuts about Amnesty. Republicans are going to win Texas, in nearly any scenario, and Florida if the Cuban and first wave Latino people decide they don't like Amnesty, not to mention that among non-hispanic whites, this is a losing issue for Dems, especially if Obama does this by Exec Order. Oh Texas isn't happening anytime soon no, that was a pretty forlorn hope (especially in a non-Presidential year). But as Warszawa said, anyone who gets all frothy at 'amnesty' is already a Republican - you can make the case they'll be more motivated to vote but they're already pretty motivated by whatever the liberal conspiracy against Real Americans is that week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Probably, already been posted, but here's Robert Reich with some commentary: Mentioned it before the last time it was brought up but the study Reich is getting his 45-50,000 vote statistic from in NC takes into account the photo ID requirement, which wasn't in place this year. In fact early voting turnout demographics were on par with 2012 (where democrats in statewide races did fairly well bar the governor/lt gov race for reasons specific to them), and turnout overall was higher than in 2010. What happened with Hagan is election day turnout completely poo poo the bed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Honestly, it's one of the biggest issues I have with the decision to punt immigration action until after the elections - the people who are strong flips over it already know you're going to do it, so they're flipping anyway, and the people who would be energized by you doing it don't loving believe you until you do it. I don't think it would have been a game-changer because - and I think Obama is all the way up to 1999 as far as Hispanic voter analysis goes - immigration is not the end-all-be-all for the Latino electorate that the largely non-Hispanic punditry thinks it is, but why leave runners on base if you don't have to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Honestly, it's one of the biggest issues I have with the decision to punt immigration action until after the elections - the people who are strong flips over it already know you're going to do it, so they're flipping anyway, and the people who would be energized by you doing it don't loving believe you until you do it. I don't think the rationale was a pure turnout thing. Even if you assume it would have been a wash, there was still a real risk: he'd have put the vulnerable candidates in the position of having to either embrace the move (which is a loser in their states) or run against it. Democratic candidates running against immigration reform, even in deep-red states, would not have been great for the party's image going forward. It certainly would not have helped with the people who would be energized by the move to go out and vote for the Democratic candidate attacking it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think the rationale was a pure turnout thing. Even if you assume it would have been a wash, there was still a real risk: he'd have put the vulnerable candidates in the position of having to either embrace the move (which is a loser in their states) or run against it. Democratic candidates running against immigration reform, even in deep-red states, would not have been great for the party's image going forward. It certainly would not have helped with the people who would be energized by the move to go out and vote for the Democratic candidate attacking it I mean, poo poo, it didn't stop Grimes, did it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:We'll agree to disagree. Remember, Florida has a lot of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen Latinos who aren't nuts about Amnesty. Republicans are going to win Texas, in nearly any scenario, and Florida if the Cuban and first wave Latino people decide they don't like Amnesty, not to mention that among non-hispanic whites, this is a losing issue for Dems, especially if Obama does this by Exec Order. As someone who's lived in Rochester, NY for a few years, lived most of my life in Florida and spent a lot of time in Georgia, you northern conservatives (well not you personally maybe, all the ones I've met) have this weird idealistic idea of what Republicans will do to the country that just plain isn't what happens in the south, where they're actually in power most of the time. Our schools suck, our social services suck, our workplace laws suck, our prisons suck, our economy sucks, our roads suck, our discrimination laws suck, everything sucks. I guess some people dismiss this as the "bad" Republicans or the "Crazy Tea Party / Religious Types" or whatever but that's most of them these days as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Aaaaaaaand cue the 'everyone is racist' argument. I'm not asking you if you think it's going to happen, I'm telling you that it's already happening. Wendy Davis got a bare majority of Latino votes in Texas. The gap narrowed nationally between 2012 and 2014. I'd also like to see some evidence that more entrenched immigrant families are beginning to oppose "amnesty" (which doesn't even appear to be part of either party's agenda at this point).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Latinos are impervious to FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Senator Chuckles posted:Shrinking latino vote does seem to be a real phenomenon, but I'm not convinced that it is due to a conservative shift so much as a disappointment in Obama's delay on Administrative Action. He essentially made a promise to a lot of groups, then failed to follow through on it. More accurately, dumb Democratic candidates/incumbents like Udall insisted that he not follow through on it. And they ended up paying the price for it. Pauline Kael posted:The problem with your analysis, and really all of the head in the sand stuff I've seen over the last couple days from the left, is you're assuming that the Democratic message resonates with voters, and that it's just a matter of getting people to the polls. Maybe you have it just backwards, maybe if the ideas were better, people would come to the polls. Alternatively, perhaps the permanent Democratic majority build on the backs of minorities and women is such a dumb over simplification that anything following that isn't going to make any sense either. I said this in one of these threads a long time ago, might have even been before the 2012 election, that lumping "latinos" in with blacks is dumb as hell. As Latinos grow in the US, they're not going to vote as a bloc any more than any other ethnicity that's been here a while. Only an idiot would talk about the German vote, or the Scots Irish vote. Doubling down on tribal loyalty isn't a smart plan, but as a republican leaning voter, i'm glad to see the Dems continue to do it You don't get to claim that lefties have their heads in the sand if you're going to pretend that Republican policies towards Latinos aren't openly hostile - or suggest that Latinos aren't smart enough to realize this. Or do you somehow think that Republican policies towards Latinos are going to become friendlier over the next couple years? Because that would be tan lindo!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I don't think it would have been a game-changer because - and I think Obama is all the way up to 1999 as far as Hispanic voter analysis goes - immigration is not the end-all-be-all for the Latino electorate that the largely non-Hispanic punditry thinks it is, but why leave runners on base if you don't have to? On the contrary, I spend a lot of my time listening to a range Spanish language media and I get the opposite impression. Latino media literally talks about immigration issues Every. Single. Day. For years, and regardless of whether it's an election year. The rare Republican Latino will show up and stress the point that "Latinos care about things other than immigration!" Obviously. But this is an issue of "additional interests," not "which do you care about, immigration or jobs?" I usually only hear white Republicans telling Latinos what issues they supposedly care about. Immigration is the major issue for Latino voters. People were really pissed when Obama didn't take executive action over the summer. I think their anger is misguided, but they were literally organizing marches and protests explicitly telling fellow Latinos to stay home and not vote in the mid-term because Democrats "had turned their backs on them, trick them." Not many can bring themselves to vote Republican, but they can be convinced to not vote. Note that my comments mostly pertain to Mexican and Central American Latinos. I understand that Cubans have their own take on issues. I'm honestly curious as to how much Marco Rubio would resonate among non-Cuban Latinos in the rest of the country. Thesaurus fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Wrap it up, Gillespiailures, he has conceded the Virginia Senate race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:On the contrary, I spend a lot of my time listening to a range Spanish language media and I get the opposite impression. So I think there's an interesting merger in progress with Cubans and the "Latino bloc," and it's actually driven by Republicans more than Democrats. Rubio will likely end up the test case for this sort of thing if he can overcome his individual shortcomings, but a lot of the old nationality-based divisions are starting to erode based on the last three decades of treating Latinos as a bloc - the pols have effectively created the situation they assumed was already in place. I think we may be conflating "immigration" with "issues related to immigration" - like enforcement (and adjacently, racial profiling), etc. I wholeheartedly concur that Latinos care about immigration and when promises are made and broken, that creates resentment and negative action though I think this has a lot to do with institutions and public trust as well as desired outcomes. Obama 2012 ran Spanish-language ads about healthcare rather than immigration. Immigration is an (really the) important Latino-specific issue, but Latino voters can and should be courted on the economy, healthcare, etc. as those issues affect the community. A bad position on immigration is poison, but a good position on immigration is necessary but not sufficient for energized Latino turnout.* * This is based on doing Latino outreach for multinational populations as a Latino** ** Albeit a filthy Cuban
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:A bad position on immigration is poison, but a good position on immigration is necessary but not sufficient for energized Latino turnout.* I agree completely. I wrote my response because I've heard enough people (who surprisingly don't seem to talk to many hispanics or immigrants) attempt to hand wave away concern about Republic positions on immigration issues by suggesting that what hispanic voters REALLY care about is the economy, etc. Another strange point that I've only heard white Republicans make (although I'm sure it's also held by a minority of hispanics) is that legal immigrants should naturally take a hard line against "amnesty" or other comprehensive reform, because they themselves went through the process "properly" and therefore so should everyone else. This ignores the fact that many legal residents or naturalized citizens have family members (including parents) and friends who are not legal.* *All based on my own obversations as a privileged bilingual gringo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
I love that poo poo because it's assuming that all legal immigrants have the same process, when the process varies tremendously at the individual level based on nationality, among other factors, so everyone has a different idea of what "the right way" actually is (because our immigration system is an omnishambles). Even Cubans, who by and large have the easiest time of it, have radically different views on the legal process depending on when they came over, how they came over, and the speed of their fastball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:I agree completely. I wrote my response because I've heard enough people (who surprisingly don't seem to talk to many hispanics or immigrants) attempt to hand wave away concern about Republic positions on immigration issues by suggesting that what hispanic voters REALLY care about is the economy, etc. Hell, I actually had a friend in college who was undocumented. It surprised the hell out of me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Lowest turnout since 1942.http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/11/06/?entry=5253&_php=true&_type=blogs posted:According to estimates by the United States Election Project, turnout by eligible voters nationally was about 37 percent, the lowest level for a midterm since 1942. Great resource here: http://www.electproject.org/2014g
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Lowest turnout since 1942. I'm actually curious how military absentee ballots worked back then or if they were counted, I mean, were there ships of ballots coming back from the Pacific Theater?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
I believe it, I didn't vote and I feel a little guilty but mostly I dont give a gently caress anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Sylink posted:I believe it, I didn't vote and I feel a little guilty but mostly I dont give a gently caress anymore. You think Republicans believe America is a shining bastion of democratic efficiency in the world? Of course not. But they still vote like clockwork because they know it's to their immediate narrow self interest to do so. It's a game, yes, and it's one you automatically lose by not playing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Hell, I actually had a friend in college who was undocumented. It surprised the hell out of me. the key to fixing immigration is to developing latin america see how likely that bill is to pass, tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:the key to fixing immigration is to developing latin america "Pay to Stay" boom, I just took your job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Another thing about immigration reform: It would have inspired a few Akin moments where a Republican said something completely racist, which would have helped change the conversation in the media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:"Pay to Stay" boom, I just took your job. We have that already. The issue is the folks can't afford the price to stay, so.we depart them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:the key to fixing immigration is to developing latin america President Romney would have passed the Self Deportation Act of 2013 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:We have that already. The issue is the folks can't afford the price to stay, so.we depart them. You misunderstand - we pay for Latin America to stay (by developing Latin America).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:You misunderstand - we pay for Latin America to stay (by developing Latin America). The way I see it, there are really only two options on the issue that'll solve it long-term: incentivize development using currently available tools in Latin America while also instituting and strengthening a truly American system of judiciary branches, or make Latin America a radioactive hellscape that no-one would want to pass through to make it to our American Eden. Clearly, the 2014 election has spoken towards which way Americans lean on the issue. Joementum posted:President Romney would have passed the Self Deportation Act of 2013 You know, its in the finer details of Romney's plan that things begin to work. You create a Self-Deportation Registration Office and give individuals a $2,000 signatory bonus before sending them back to their home country. Unfortunately, immigration activists made hay over this and proved once again to the GOP that only the GOP truly understands the needs of the global poor and knows the appropriate payoff necessary to not give a poo poo about meeting those needs. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Wrap it up, Gillespiailures, he has conceded the Virginia Senate race. He'll be back in 2017, and if it's Hillary in the WH, he'll win. NoVA Dems are now going to basically be the whole party and their usual strategy of "NO LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU HARDER WHY YOUR OPINION IS WRONG WAR ON WOMEN HOW COULD YOU SUPPORT THEM???" basically the 10th CD campaign and the Deeds 2009 campaign) will fail because it only worked on Ken C and that's just because he's weird even without the politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
It will be pretty funny (and fitting) if Virginia elects a soulless RNC flak immediately after electing a soulless DNC flak as their Governor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:He'll be back in 2017, and if it's Hillary in the WH, he'll win. NoVA Dems are now going to basically be the whole party and their usual strategy of "NO LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU HARDER WHY YOUR OPINION IS WRONG WAR ON WOMEN HOW COULD YOU SUPPORT THEM???" basically the 10th CD campaign and the Deeds 2009 campaign) will fail because it only worked on Ken C and that's just because he's weird even without the politics. To be fair, Terry McAuliffe is almost the least likable candidate ever and still won. I'm sure he will be a better candidate than Ken C but the Democratic candidate is almost definitely going to be better as well and might even have a positive characteristic to campaign on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Hahahah I totally forgot Terry McAuliffe is the Governor of Virginia oh my lord what an amazing world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:There was never any doubt in anyone's mind in NYS that he was going to win. I'll tell you something though, and I probably shouldn't... I was meeting with my company's lobbyist on Wednesday, who has extensive dealings with the Governor's office. Apparently he was very angry at his margin of victory. He was counting on 60% (dear old dad got 66%!) but didn't crack 54, and actually *lost* upstate. Living in upstate NY, we're pretty used to NYC running the show, but I'm glad at least to have done my part to ruin his day, even if just a little. This makes me wonder how Warner is feeling about just barely winning his Senate race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
I definitely hate voted for McAuliffe against the Cooch and I may be missing something but honestly he hasn't been doing that bad of a job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:This makes me wonder how Warner is feeling about just barely winning his Senate race. Man, does anyone remember when Mark Warner was considered a potential presidential candidate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Radish posted:I definitely hate voted for McAuliffe against the Cooch and I may be missing something but honestly he hasn't been doing that bad of a job. To be fair governing VA doesn't seem like that hard of a job, it's basically a colonial outpost of DC and it's not like they have poo poo for government services outside the money areas to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:To be fair, Terry McAuliffe is almost the least likable candidate ever and still won. I'm sure he will be a better candidate than Ken C but the Democratic candidate is almost definitely going to be better as well and might even have a positive characteristic to campaign on. Gillespie is less offensive to NoVA than Bob McD was in 2009. Too many people just accept that political operative is an acceptable job. See: T-Mac. Now, you can argue Deeds had fewer liabilities than T-Mac as well and lost, but while people here blame dumb stuff like him "not understanding NoVA" or whatever, he lost for these reasons: 1. He disappeared from the June primary to after Labor Day (turns out he was in the middle of a divorce! Oops!) 2. He doesn't have to deal with the DC media in his home district and he was always visibly irritated by them 3. But the biggest problem was that they ran a Mark Udall Prototype Campaign against McD, fixating on his stupid WAR ON WOMEN grad thesis for most of Sept-Oct even when the polls weren't moving. Also, everyone was thinking about Obamacare and jobs at that point, not abortion laws. We were still in year 1 of the crash. So you could say a candidate less offensive than T-Mac could run and win, but they can't run a "HE'S A LOBBYIST!!!" or a "WAR ON WOMEN" campaign against him, which is all they seem to have had against Gillespie, Cooch, and McD. They'll need something better if there's a Dem still in the WH. I doubt Gillespie shits himself between now and 2017.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Man, does anyone remember when Mark Warner was considered a potential presidential candidate? Who? I've seen Cotton's name bellied about. Meanwhile, Rauner continues to build his ground game for Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Out of people who did bother to vote, some exit polling from an AP article says the share of white votes Democrats got was down quite a bit in most races. I'm definitely thinking Democrats are going to try to attract more white people for the next 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:28
|
|
