|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:And we held onto the governor and Franken's seat by a ton, and even a few of the House seats that we were projected to lose. We did the best of any state except Oregon. It'd be more impressive if MNGOP wasn't such a total shitshow.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Chadderbox posted:"Rape is bad. People shouldn't do it." Yeah, if a Republican confined themselves to just that it would be pretty worth noting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Why's everyone in PA scared to step up against him? Isn't there a DA somewhere that can do it? Looks like there's lots of people willing to step up against him, it's just that he keeps steam-rollering them under his feet.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Being the majority/minority leader isn't about being the most progressive, it's about being the best at twisting arms and political maneuvering. Reid is great because he's an rear end in a top hat. Which is why Schumer really isn't a great candidate - he's not particularly good at arm twisting or political maneuvering (except for maneuvering in front of a camera.) Reid's going to be missed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Who do you think would be better than Schumer? I don't think Schumer will be a very good leader. Problem is I'm not really sure there is anyone appreciably better. Durbin doesn't really have the politicking down the same way Harry did either (though probably better than Schumer). Warren is better as a ideals person than as a political driver. Schumer might be best by default, as annoying as that is. Maybe Leahy? He isn't bad at negotiation and quiet arm-twisting on Judiciary. Not sure he'd want the job, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:So tonight the Democrats in Georgia picked this guy to run against GOP incumbent Johhny Isakson for Senate: You didn't exactly have a plethora of good options. (And at least he can self-fund.)
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
axeil posted:Er, how is a Democrat running for Senate not given much of a chance in Michigan? She's running for the Congressional district that contains Michigan's largest concentration of KKK activity.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Grassley only being up 7 is a pretty good starting point - he won by 30 in 2010 and 40 in 2004. If nothing else he's going to have to work to defend his seat which he hasn't really had to do since he got elected.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They're not (yet) disasters, but Arizona and Iowa being at all competitive is in itself very bad for Republicans as those weren't really on the target lists. Grassley's last even remotely competitive race was in 1980.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Just what the Senate needs! Another piece of poo poo. The alternative is an ex-Heritage Foundation employee. Bayh is gross, but his opponent is worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Update on the Georgia senate race: 48% Isakson, 42% Barksdale, 8% Barksdale's Cap.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I mean unreported as net neutrality-related. Jeez. The point is that you have no evidence this is happening. They were in 2007 (sort of - it was mostly a reflection of the CEO's misguided belief that net neutrality would interfere with copyright enforcement). These days they're more or less pro net neutrality because their business has shifted. And I was literally one of the staff being lobbied on PIPA, and it was a pretty even split.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:My evidence is that there are content deliverers who have lobbied openly/specifically for net neutrality instead of folding it up. By the way, I know you have trouble with definitions sometimes, so for your convenience the definition of speculation is literally the forming of a theory without firm evidence. Except NCTA is pro net neutrality and has been for years. They're anti-Title II, but that's because there's more to Title II than neutrality and their members don't really want to deal with the rest of title II (or have to worry about forbearance being lifted.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:If you don't have any evidence, it's speculation. Banning muni broadband isn't about net neutrality. (It's a separate area of bad policy.). SOPA also isn't net neutrality, except to ideologues - everyone else recognizes that neutrality doesn't include copyright infringement. (SOPA did it badly, but the goal it targeted wasn't bad, nor was it anti-neutrality.). As to your link - my god, they set up suggestion boxes to get people's views on the Internet and tried to convince people Title II regulation was a bad idea. They've been pretty explicit that net neutrality regulation is unnecessary (which is arguable but not without merit as a position) and have supported enforcement via existing mechanisms (primarily antitrust and fair competition approaches.) When the FCC put out their 701 order in 2010, NCTA was cautiously in favor of it as a compromise approach - they didn't think it was needed but more or less felt it was an acceptable outcome. It's only title II that they've fought against tooth and nail (which is unsurprising, given that title II hits their members directly and in a way that has no benefit to them, only hassles.) This used to be one of the issues I actively worked on in Congress. I guarantee I have spent more time talking to NCTA as well as to net neutrality advocates than you have reading about their views. As a reminder, other telecom predictions I made that people here thought were wrong about on which I've been proven right: Wheeler was going to be good and not at all favor ISPs and the telcos lost the 2014 case, even though they formally won it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:I forgot to correct you on this, but net neutrality does preclude fast lanes. Both by the definition and the FCC's net neutrality rules ( https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet ). It didn't until 2015 (fishmech is still wrong, but he was right until the 2015 rule.) One more example of how "winning" the open internet case was actually the ISPs losing (as I've been saying for quite some time.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 05:35
|
|