|
Misandrist Duck posted:Mark Kirk's seat is as good as gone. It'll be interesting to see if its Lisa Madigan or Tammy Duckworth that gets the D nomination. Kirk is in, he's quite workable on a personal level even if a bit brain-dead, especially now that his deputy chief of staff is Rauner's chief of staff for transition. Madigan wants mayor if Rahm gets picked for '16, and Duckworth is still angling for a cabinet/veep slot.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Gee, it sure would have been nice to not have lost the Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado seats just now. Sure would've been nice if that cornhusker senator didn't keep gaffing himself blind, now wouldn't it've been? Sure woulda been drat nice. Ah well, as a liberal elitist lawyer he's Iowa's Obama, too afraid to cut the balls off a boss hog. E: GOTV only results in a 1-4 pt shift, for statewide/federal elections. You artillery is TV, and your Gas! Gas! Gas! is targeted social media outreach. Also, signs don't loving vote. The people you pay for the signs may vote, and the folks who insist that signs be placed someplace above all other things probably will vote, although its not 90%. My Imaginary GF has issued a correction as of 03:04 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Rahm isn't getting picked for poo poo and will probably lose mayor. Madigan isn't running for mayor and will likely be the Senate candidate, if for whatever reason she doesn't run my money is on Simon for name recognition because who else is there? Simon couldn't organize her way through a state senate campaign, much less US Senate. Madigan did polling for mayor in 2010, and still eyes the slot. Rahm is angling for something higher than mayor; Senate might be a demotion for him. Cullerton is grooming his guy, and there is an opportunistic Hispanic candidate. Besides that, there's not much of a plate that I know.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Oracle posted:She'd be a figurehead if she ran for U.S. Senate, the party would handle that poo poo, she'd be making phone calls and posing for pictures. I don't see that happening while daddy runs the statehouse. Simon couldn't dial for dollars if a purple people lady were on the line, and that's the lowest of low-hanging fruits. It'd be the national party coming in to fund the whole thing, something the DSCC don't like to do. Far likelier someone like Schneider runs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That is going to require both major wins of state level legislatures and governor seats outside of traditional D strongholds and the courage to actually follow through. I am not going to hold my breath. Another issue is that traditional D strongholds cannot be taken for granted with the movement of white suburbanites to cities.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That would help Democrats, not hurt them. Bringing in Republican votes so they have less wasted votes in the cities would be a good thing. Those suburb-to-urban migrants still follow suburban voting trends, though, so it really doesn't help democrats. Unless you mean in a larger, "socially liberal and economically conservative republicans are easier to do a deal with" way?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean that cities are like 80% democratic, so every Republican vote you mix into there is wasted in a district by district election so it's to the Democrats advantage. If it was significant enough to disrupts their safe city districts it also disrupted whoever they used to vote for. Moving people around only changes wasted votes not the overall total. These are millenials who are aging whites though, and becoming more likely to vote and more frequent voters as they age. http://newssun.chicagotribune.com/2014/11/04/schneider-dold-campaigns-wait-results-10th-district-race/ One example of what I'm talking about - enough to change the outcome of a race between two candidates with no major position differences. It may also be enough to have put the state treasurer race in play in IL, from what would otherwise have been decided. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20141106/BLOGS02/141109851?template=mobile And here's the establishment take on the election, and what it implies about the power of progressive political positions: http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/if-tuesday-was-test-mayoral-contest-progressives-failed/wed-11052014-806pm quote:Rather than bringing more people to the polls Tuesday, voter turnout was down sharply in the city’s wards compared to the 2010 election. According to the city’s election authorities, less than 622,000 votes were cast — a drop of about 70,000 in four years. Quinn received more than 40,000 votes fewer in Chicago than four years ago. Further, those wards with near-parity turnout (40%+) for Rauner have a statistically significant higher concentration of campaign donors than those wards that went heavily Quinn (Af. American, working class).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Schakowsky. Yeah, Shakowsky could be a runner. Shakowsky, Duckworth, [Rich downtown imsurance man]: Pick two for your likely primary fight, assuming Duckworth isn't given the nod for Veep/included on the shortlist for cabinet positions. I'd have to know more about Duckworth's relations with the Clintons to make a better assessment. No gently caress'n way is it Sheila Simon though. Personally, I think Madigan won't run for governor--she isn't willing to place herself in a position where she'd have even the option to go against her father's machine.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
twoot posted:Do states lock in House re-districting to the post-census only? Your legislature can re-district at any time it pleases; if nothing changed during the census, you can keep your old map. However, things always change in 10 years, so re-districting after a census is a given occasion for which you use your clout to produce your best outcome and during which the party bosses try to gently persuade you which slot you should run in and during which election. At least, that's how it is in Illinois.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Oracle posted:She'll be 72. I realize the Senate is chock full of septegenarians but that's mostly because most of them have been there since the 60s. I don't think she's up for the political battle, especially when she's got a nice safe seat. Whoever it is, its up to Durbin to recruit them. Madigan really doesn't want Governor, why should she? She wants Mayor. Maybe she'll settle for Senate if Rahm doesn't move. She's polled it in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The only thing to create more entertainment from right wing media than this is for him to be the replacement for one of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Obama should nominate Lisa to the Supreme Court if he wants real right-wing outrage. Foster doesn't have the people-to-people ability to raise enough cash to win a Senate race, imo. Raul is a possibility, Quinn...well, he's Quinn, so who knows?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
So, Jessie Jackson's other son is back in town. Wonder if someone has their eyes on a Senate seat, or is willing to settle for Congress.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hiiiiiiigh hopes, the Tea Party's got hiiiiigh hopes. McCain/Palin would be so much  I almost think it could happenespecially since Sarah blames Old Man John for losing in 2008.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 20:33
|
|
, though it won't happen.
|
Oracle posted:If this were true, wouldn't we be seeing a Bill Clinton wave about now? He was the most popular Democratic president in recent memory. That's why there's a Billary wave among young, democratic-leaning millenial future campaign contributors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/people_yelled_and_carried_on_howard_dean_on_how_he_remade_the_dnc_and_dems_new_path_forward/ Yes, as states that aren't dominated by well-run Democratic machines continue with their poo poo practices, non-poo poo individuals will gravitate towards the opportunities available in non-poo poo areas. This process covaries with the rates of individuals' possession of pre-established social network established in non-poo poo areas, and is mediated by the value of those networks. This implies that, as non-poo poo areas continue to produce non-poo poo individuals at a higher rate than poo poo areas, non-poo poo individuals will have to be offered better comparative payments in order for non-poo poo areas to maintain the quality of their institutions. For instance, UofMichigan and UWMadison will be required to offer reduced payments for lower-quality staff and subcontracted employment opportunities, while offering increased payments for higher-quality staff from non-poo poo institutions. These non-poo poo individuals individuals from non-poo poo institutions, then, provide a gateway through which non-poo poo networks in non-poo poo states are shared with non-poo poo individuals at a higher rate and value than poo poo networks in poo poo states are shared with poo poo individuals, thus reducing the quality of available non-poo poo candidates which poo poo states' political parties are able to both attract and retain given the competitive advantages and reinforcing dynamics of non-poo poo states. tl;dr come to Chicago, for in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri, all is lost.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:
Well, if you want a non-poo poo Senator to win your election in 2016, yes, come to Chicago. I advice you to not put too much into your hopes for the states bordering Chicago; I certainly don't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 02:01
|
|
Yeah Chicago!
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Please outline for me how what you said is different than what Dean said without word salad. Dean brought some innovation; he went too far, too soon, and it resulted in a shitload of backlash in 2010. It isn't just having the best strategy and innovation, its knowing the right time and proper place for rollout. I suppose it goes back to whether you're solely focused on the next 2 cycles, or have the redistricting in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Where did the backlash come from? Why was there a backlash against his successful strategies for 06 and 08? Don't you think the Dems would have suffered less in 10 if he was still head of the DNC at that point? So, to answer your first two points, you have to work back from your third point. Why did Democrats lose 2010 so horridly? Simply, Obama. More complex? Obama's second-guessing of Rahm and turning from his trust on the House to his trust in the Senate. So, to then we've got to work back and figure out the factors which led Obama to ignore Emanuel and turn to Durbin. I've detailed them before, in other threads, and ultimately, they come back to Dean's rollout for the '06 cycle rather than holding back for the '08 cycle. He was one cycle too early.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:2010 explained as "he turned away from Rahm," how could I have guessed differently. 2010 explained as: "Obama placing his trust in Senate Democrats." Never loving place your trust in Senate Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If Rahm challenges Kirk in 2016 is your head gonna explode like that guy in Scanners? My head will be spouting, "Never trust the House. Those Rs in the Senate? They're just the opposition."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Was it Dean who didn't focus on building the local infrastructure for 2010 (when he was no longer head of the DNC) and beyond, or the people who succeeded him? Its loving easy to say, "See! I was right!" when you don't consider all the ways folks'll gently caress up what you did after. Its not enough to win; you have to win in a sustainable manner that isn't reliant upon you, the individual, retaining your leadership position. If you design a method for winning so easily broken, you've done worse than nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Well you're certainly living up to your reputation as the Worst Democrat Ever, Rahm. Its better to win consistently than it is to win by going full populist. Public whims change far too often to implement the structural reforms necessary to fully transition America, with the least harm, into the digital era.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:I'll bite: What should Dean have done in 06 and 08? Hold off on the 50-state rollout until 08 & 10's cycles. Focused every effort towards maximizing 10's gains in order to consolidate them during redistricting rather than winning with his unsustainable combined operational strategy. You plan for 10 being the year at which you maximize gains for, not 08. Its good that a D won President in 2008; it'd be far better that Ds win 2010 big and consolidate gains without caring who wins President in 2008, because, frankly , whoever won would be a moderate willing to compromise their core values. Far better for you to decide what values they get to compromise on, than it is to lose control over policy development for a decade. evilweasel posted:eripsa? gently caress no, I'm talking about consolidated services with realtime data-driven metrics that allow adaptive program delivery. Also, more urban workers and fewer suburbanites in order to meet the needs of a labor-mobile economy. My Imaginary GF has issued a correction as of 04:18 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:We've veered enough away from the original point (which was about candidate strength) that I might as well also mention there's evidence that the public reacts to administrations like a thermostat, becoming more conservative during Democratic administrations, more liberal during Republican administrations. More like, "As throughout history, most individuals in the general population focus on the figure-head of government over the structure which that government takes." You see the same thing everywhere, throughout history, from Germans who thought if only Hitler knew about the holocaust he'd have stopped it, or that Stalin would surely grant them reprieve and just didn't know about their situation, to records of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and discourse on the French Revolution, all the way back to antiquity with Emperors intervening if only they knew what was being done in their name. Americans know precisely what they want from their government: They want Democrats. Not all Americans know how to express their desires, so its the job of the Democratic Party to advance the structure of operations most likely to get Democrats to realize they're Americans and should go vote. Americans are consistent with what they want; they are inconsistent with how they focus on obtaining what they want. They don't want to moderate the branches of government, they want Democratic supermajorities crafting policy and are willing to accept a Republican executive every few cycles in exchange.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:By your logic, Clinton did "worse than nothing" as President, because Bush ruined his surplus and the economy. You're applying a post-9/11 mindset to pre-9/11 political affairs. Without that defining act, for which America had to rally around the President due to the contentions of the 2000 election, Bush likely would have likely been a one-term President. Admittedly, the data is extremely limited given the shortness of the pre-9/11 period. You need to examine campaigns by both cycle and redistricting period. Having a President elected every 4 years guarantees that you'll have a Presidential election falling on a redistricting election every 20 years. For those, you roll out the 50-state strategy over the immediately preceding 2 cycles and consolidate gains. To maximize redistricting gains, sometimes, its better to delay rollouts of improved party operational methodologies for a cycle. If you win 2 redistricting cycles in a row, you're effectively able to consolidate state party power enough that you turn the state into a solid operation. Its worth more to all levels of party financing to win a majority of states during redistricting; its even more important to win the second redistricting election to expand your solid seats while minimizing opposition party competitive electoral potential. This causes an atrophy of your state's opposition party until a national figure is willing to come in and completely rebuild it, and frankly, there aren't that many national figures who are willing, able, and see the business potential in doing so. Christ, its almost as if political observers are only focused on who'll be winning the next election, with no care for how to maximize party revenue while minimizing outlays. You need me to explaining anything else about the proper way to run a country as a well-oiled political machine?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:What? No. I'm making a statement about leadership, which is timeless. Germanicus was a good emperor, even if Caligula wasn't. Caligula and Nero were quite decent emperors and the most apt comparisons to Obama. The histories have them as horrid brutes mainly because the histories were written by the entrenched nobility who felt most hosed over by Caligula and Nero's public policies, whereas the great majority of Roman citizens were experiencing the greatest opportunities for class advancement in their life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Remind me---was it Boxer who openly quarreled with CIA?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Was she talked into this by a donor? She was talked into it by everyone who wants her out of her party position. Kander announcing against Blunt is no surprise. Just don't look at Kander's stance on racial issues.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Living in Utah, it occurs to me that Jim Matheson is the only Democrat with more then 5% of a chance at winning statewide election in Utah (either Governor or Senate). And considering that Matheson is basically a Republican... Manchin is basically a republican, and yet he pushed for gun control. Its far better to have a D who's basically a R, than it is to have an R.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:How do you select the independent members of the redistricting committee and what objectives do you give them? Objective? If you want on a redistricting committee, you don't need an objective. Like, we trust the individuals selected for such committees to know what the appropriate thing to do is. Horse-trading over redistricting is loving core to our institutional mechanisms of government.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Countries exist with quotas for female legislators. Quotas go against the principles of America.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Assigning numerical values to nonwhites is deeply ingrained in American culture. Those aren't quotas, that's accounting
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:This is also easily fixable with party list voting, as all you have to do is mandate the parties keep a certain percentage of minorities on their candidate lists instead of essentially rigging elections in dozens of single seat constituencies Parties are allowed to define their precincts and wards. So, what you'd do is design 600 wards of one person, stuff 'em with all the nation's minorities, and then keep doing business as usual while everyone laughs at West Virginia for being so wacky on those race relations.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If it's a legitimate Senate race, Todd Akin can shut that whole thing down. Boy, the worst thing I can say about Roy Blunt is that there's a man who don't know the hunt, I tell you what.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:Can we get a stronger phrase than "controversial comments about rape"? Maybe "blatant lies", "double-take inducing", "unbelievably ignorant", "national embarassment", somewhere in that region? I'm not sure what "uncontroversial remarks about rape" worth noting would be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:"Rape is bad. People shouldn't do it." lead of tomorrow's trib: 'RAPE IS BAD', DECLARES JOE WALSH KIRK HAS NOT COMMENTED Where's the sensationalism in that? How many copies will that sell?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Joementum posted:He's now officially declared his candidacy. Who will take his place in the House?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:An NBC reporter was jogging today on the National Harbor shore and spotted Donna Edwards taping a produced statement with a prompter. Her office won't comment on the substance but says she will make her decision about the Maryland Senate race "in the coming days". Who's Donna Edwards again, and how much of a trainwreck should be expected while Van Hollen crushes everyone?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Florida's issue is that it lacks one single urban entity as top dog. Is the economic center of Florida in Tallahasse, Miami, Key West, or Orlando? The world wonders.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Gyges posted:It's definitely not Tallahassee or Key West. The 4 contenders would be Miami, Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville. Jacksonville of course only being on there because it's bigger than the other choices for number 4 and because it has, like, all the military. Uncle Sam makes it rain like a Florida Thunderstorm in Northeast Florida. Point is, Florida has no center of gravity to dominate its political scene. Now compare with a good state like Illinois. When I say Illinois, what city do you think of? When someone says Florida, what city do they think of?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 19:48
|
|