|
Radish posted:I thought the average GOP voter wanted this type of dysfunctional inanity. Every single GOP politician wants the government to be extremely dysfunctional- only to the point where it doesn't hurt them in elections. They all just disagree on how to accomplish that and how much they care if it affects their majority. The 40 Tea Party members turn up the crazy to the maximum because it will only make them more likely to be re-elected in their districts, at the expense of the other 200 GOP house members.
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wonder what Reince Priebus must be feeling right now Joy at the possibility of GOP control of the white house, senate and house in 2017? And possibly ensuring a GOP supreme court for 30+ more years? Also being head of the RNC with cruise control mode on the house until 2022 at minimum.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Looks like Clinton's email "scandal" is going to reverse even more for the GOP:quote:Benghazi Committee Ex-Staffer Alleges He Was Fired For Refusing To Target Clinton http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bradley-podliska-benghazi-committee-allegations
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Probably not since Ryan knows the Speaker will be crucified regardless of what's done, so why take the poisoned chalice? If Ryan comes to his senses he will realize that he will never achieve higher power than being Speaker. The GOP will have the house until a minimum of 2022 and possibly even later. Getting to be speaker for 6+ years isn't exactly low on the totem pole in terms of power, even if you have to deal with a bunch of poo poo birds.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Charles Koch gave an interview today, When they went on 60 minutes and this CBS stuff it's nothing but huge glowing pieces about how awesome, nice and charitable the Kochs are. Downsides of their buddies owning the majority of the media outlets I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
point of return posted:In 2012 the claim was that Paul Ryan was actually smart, at least. Joe Biden actually used a lot of skill in the 2008 debate. He had to be trained significantly to deal with Palin's unconventional speaking and lack of truths, while also never attacking her and making her look sympathetic. It was especially difficult for him because at one point she got needlessly personal about family stuff on his side.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Is it just me or does CBS seem to be going full on right wing of late? COuld it be just a ploy to keep their primarily older audience happy? CBS has been that way for at least a few years. The Lara Logan Benghazi hit piece which turned out to be completely false. Bimonthly 100% positive segments on the Koch brothers. Anytime they get a democratic party member on one of their serious shows they suddenly turn into real journalists again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:"I don't want the job and I won't campaign for it, but should my party elect me as speaker anyway I will serve" would be a pretty good way to thread the needle and put the onus back on the rest of the party to gin up the votes while refusing any demands for the votes. Out of all of the GOP choices for speaker, I think Ryan as speaker is a win for the Democratic party. He's not very smart and when he speaks he seems weak and ineffective. I don't think he'll be able to handle the pressure well either. Jarmak posted:Is that why you're willing to alienate a large portion of the electorate who might otherwise support you on those issues just to support useless regulations that aren't going to pass? This guy sort of has a point. The only result of pushing gun legislation in the next 4 years will be increased motivation of the GOP base and more GOP politicians elected. The gun nuts will be more motivated to vote. Gun nuts are unreasonable but there is a lot of them. Any actual actions of the Democratic party to push gun legislation has backfired horribly in the past 8 years. See what they did to Colorado's state legislature over the course of a few years. What's the point in poking the bear?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Thus why I'm not sold on it. There's no HFC-style bloc in the Senate to topple him, and by the time he's up for reelection I expect the Tea Party to have either faded into irrelevance, become the dominant force in the GOP and thus encouraged Mitch to retire, or split off to form a third party. He might be trying to motivate the base for 2016 or just doesn't give a gently caress. Being able to put bills on the President's desk is symbolic. Their senate majority is relatively safe in 2016 and will get even bigger in 2018. Knowing how they operated in 2011 it wouldn't surprise me if they think that the 2016 election is a gimme for them. There's about a 40% to 50% chance that the GOP will control the house, a filibuster-less senate and white house for 2 years. Ramming through everything they can and stacking the supreme court for 30+ years. Obamacare would be gone, anti-union stuff federalized, EPA gutted, huge tax cuts for the wealthy and more. The GOP is pretty extreme now and they'll actually do those things. And if history repeats itself the American voters will reward the GOP for the bad results of those policies (bad healthcare, majority of deficit due to tax cuts -> blame Democrats for that and spending).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
foobardog posted:The crazy is in the Senate, but is definitely not as powerful as in the house, because you can't really gerrymander entire states and the races are much more expensive. Thus, I think a tea party candidate pushed to win the primary will not win the general. gently caress, look at how Lieberman held on to his seat. Even though no actual gerrymandering has taken or will take place, the Senate is sort of naturally gerrymandered. If you drew lovely GOP gerrymandered districts over the entirety of the US, that sort of resembles our current state borders. The GOP definitely has a built-in advantage when it comes to Senate seats.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The one Senator was Feingold. Sanders voted against it but he was a House member at the time. Fun fact: Fiengold was also the only Democratic Senator to essentially vote for impeachment of Bill Clinton
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I've gotta say that as a Canadian watching your miserably long election cycle from the outside, I really can't understand why anyone would support Hillary over Bernie. Just looking at their voting records alone seems to be enough to prove that Hillary is a complete shill and has no real beliefs or stances on any issues of substance, and that she doesn't give a poo poo about anything other than being elected. I mean I guess that's fine in a normal election where your only other options are weirdos like Webb and Chafee, but this election has an actual real human being in it who gives a poo poo about the country and seems to be willing to try to make real changes to try to repair some of the extensive damage that's been done to it since Reagan was elected, and there are still people on Hillary's side? I don't understand. Didn't Canada wanting to elect a far left wing candidate split the party vote and allow a conservative (Harper?) to be president for a while? Bernie Sanders is not a good general election candidate and would result in complete GOP control of the government for 2 years and supreme court for 30+ years. It's better to focus on results than trying to get your most politically "pure" candidate in office.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:IIRC about 2 weeks before Christmas, so the government shutting down during the busiest two weeks of consumer shopping will be loving ~amazing~. The debt ceiling relief would most likely last until Jan 2017.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
The 10 hour work requirement makes Hillary's plan much more likely to pass in congress since it makes the students have "skin in the game". Bernie Sanders always talks about this stuff as if he can just ram it through congress. His perfect visions of these plans have no chance in today's congress. Not that Hillary's do either, but hers have a greater chance.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:This is very interesting supposed leak on Drone Warfare we are contacting. I really like the way their website is designed as well. I guess this is turning into a big story. I think most of it seems reasonable, specifically the decision making for drone strikes and the relative low quantity of drone strikes. What the problem can be is when the system becomes unreasonable, like in 2017 if a Cheney-like person becomes the decision maker, disrupts the process and proceeds to amp everything up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Trump is really the most likely GOP candidate right now isn't he. Donald loving Trump. Trump is not the most likely GOP candidate. Most primary voters don't even start paying attention until December. I think people here are going to have a breakdown when the polls shift into the direction of an establishment candidate during that time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's Friday, you're blowing off work, so let's spend the day freaking out over this Ipsos model that says the GOP is going to win the presidency. There were similar articles posted in 2012 by university professors saying they had 100% accuracy since 1980. It got widespread media coverage. What they do is change their model each election year to match random metrics since 1980 and call it a perfect model. The authors revel in the media attention and act very confident about their predictions. After the 2012 election I emailed them at their personal emails and got no response.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I unironically really like Donald Trump today: If he can just bait Bush into saying "yeah but he kept us safe after that", that would be pretty damaging to Bush.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I like this Huffingtonpost article because the idea of Rubio and Bush tearing at each other while Trump throws in weapons is great. It's pretty funny that the article barely mentions in passing that they are both polling in the single digits.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Bernie Supporters are outside the CNN office building criticizing them for censorship and saying they are intentionally trying to get Hillary elected by pulling the online poll and editing debate media content. Do Bernie supporters not see the first several questions asked of Clinton? CNN was pretty hard on her and even gave a few GOP Benghazi talking points, including interrupting her and saying "But secretary, American citizens died in Benghazi under your watch"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/house/257167-gop-disarray-has-some-republicans-talking-about-dealing-with-dems The only way that this would happen is if the GOP gave up something and actually compromised with the Democratic party. Unfortunately the GOP is about 100x more likely to compromise or capitulate to the tea party wing before they do so to the Democratic party.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Boon posted:I feel like a Webb candidacy would hurt the GOP more than the Democrats but whatever A single GOP PAC could spend $100m on ads promoting Webb as a moderate democrat and have a good return on siphoning votes from Clinton. All you need is someone near Nader's support to tilt an election.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I think the ideal scenario is that no one is able to get the votes for speaker and Boehner is forced to serve out his entire term in a job he doesn't want, and is forced to cut deals with Dems to pass poo poo. There is no such thing as unelectable when it comes to the GOP house districts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Will Boehner save us Boehner spear-headed the strategy of using the debt-ceiling and shutdowns to play hostage games. Shortly before becoming speaker he passed out tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor immediately after an anti-tobacco bill passed. He's not the good guy in this situation and he's extremely unreliable. The only thing he gives a poo poo about is not hurting the GOP's chances at getting elected. Note that last time we got this close in 2011 it hurt Obama's numbers more than anything because the American people thought he wasn't leading the GOP well enough.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
We just need to mint a few dozen of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion_dollar_coin and be done with the debt ceiling junk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Biden is giving a talk now, throwing a lot of backhanded shade at Hillary. Says she wasn't fully onboard with getting bin laden and only Panetta was (contradicting her story at the debate) and that the republicans aren't his enemies (against her answer at the debate, also drat foolish as the past few years have made clear) Pretty stupid move on Biden's part. He's not going to gain support by doing that. edit: Seems like he's getting lambasted for changing his story- previous he said he opposed the raid.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Boehner is having problems even coming up with 30 votes for a clean debt ceiling vote now. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/257393-gop-votes-scarce-on-debt-ceiling-hike What happens when the GOP extremists completely take over the house? There's going to be at minimum a 2 year period where no budgets and no debt ceilings will get passed, unless the Democratic president/congress capitulate. Similar thing happened in Pennsylvania, the GOP held everything hostage long enough that everyone started blaming the Democratic governor for not "just giving in and ending the misery of the citizens".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Harry Reid just made an important endorsement. He's endorsed Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House quote:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/reid-paul-ryan-endorsement
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Probably not, at least not on purpose. The big, big money that runs the GOP knows exactly what a default will mean (economic chaos) even if the pols themselves like to pretend that it's no big deal, and enough phone calls from those people will shift 30 votes the right way. The problem is that brinksmanship like this runs the risk of us hitting the ceiling without intending to just because we have a few days where the bills that we pay are a bit higher than anyone thought. Assume that they get the 30 votes this year which is likely. What about in 2018-2020 when the house will be it's most ideologically "pure"? A 6+ month long shutdown or a default would be possible with a Democratic president. Who will the receive the most blame if it lasts that long or there is a default, the house or President Clinton? Will even more of them get elected in 2020? There is precedent that when one side is willing to burn things down and cause significant long-term problems, that the reasonable side is accused of being at fault for simply not giving in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Trey Gowdy's "investigative" committee is dumping 200 sensitive documents 1 day before Hillary Clinton's testimony, against the security recommendations of the State Department: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/state-department-objects-benghazi-panel-email-release-214965#ixzz3p8PXbVvp quote:While State is opposing the public email disclosure by the House panel, the agency also conducted a “sensitivity review” of the records in response to committee Chairman Trey Gowdy’s plan to make the records public. Certainly it's not political to release 200 documents against the security recommendations of the State Department 1 day before her testimony in an attempt to catch her unprepared. I imagine there must be some good talking points for the GOP in those documents unless he's just flailing around in response to his collapse in the past couple of weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Most people don't even know why it is important so that's another thing. I think that the Republicans sending us over the cliff wouldn't actually harm their party it'd be solely blamed on the Democrats and in fact i think they'd be better off as a party if we were in a horrible financial crisis. In the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, Obama's poll numbers went down more than anyone else or any party. Pennsylvania is blaming their Democratic governor for the state GOP's hostage taking. The 2013 Shutdown had 0 negative effect on the 2014 midterms, it actually might have motivated the GOP base more to vote. If a default or 6+ month long shutdown happens under President Obama or President Clinton, I highly suspect Obama/Clinton will receive most of the blame simply for being President when it happened. And I bet that the GOP will be rewarded heavily in the elections for it. Mitt Romney fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of recent articles from WaPo, WSJ and more talking about how poor people can't afford insurance under Obamacare and are choosing to forego insurance. The articles always leave out that tens of millions are insured now that weren't before. At the bottom of the articles they'll maybe mention that the poor people they are talking about are from the GOP controlled states which rejected the medicaid expansion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:That's the thing, to even get the speakership, he's going to have to acquiesce to some of their demands, but at the same time, he doesn't even want to be speaker. None of it makes any sense at all. Paul Ryan policies are just as extreme as the tea party caucus, they just disagree on tactics. That actually applies to most of the GOP house members.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:If the dem's had a lick of sense they'd clone him and make him senate leader for all time. Schumer replacing him as leader is going to be a bigger blow for the Democratic party than people think.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:As funny as this whole Speaker of the House thing is, this is still some scary poo poo. This exact reasoning is why financial analysts put the default risk at 40% if we reach Nov 2nd without a deal. If someone important dies, computers screw up etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:At this point, even if he changed his mind tomorrow, it is far too late for Biden to mount a credible campaign, he needed to get in several months ago. Money isn't everything, but you need to have some cash, he's got no organization, and no time to build either. Even if Biden was seriously considering running until recently, I imagine the backlash he got from his idiotic comments yesterday brought him back down to reality.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:If I remember correctly, he advised caution because it was a very dangerous mission and if it went badly, no less than Obama's presidency would be a stake. And additionally, we were doing it without telling the Pakistani government we were doing it. Additionally, in 2007 at one of the debates Obama was the only candidate on stage that said he would go into Pakistan unilaterally to get Bin Laden. Biden was his fiercest critic at that debate. Obama was also heavily criticized in the press for his statement. Then he proceeded to do just that in 2011 and suddenly all of the critics are silent / want to take credit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think Ryan knew they would say no and did it this way to save face and make them look bad. I think Ryan knows he's not going to get anywhere in Presidential politics and that being Speaker is the most power he'll ever get. I think he desperately wants to be speaker and he also desperately likes being begged to do so. I suspect he'll slowly decrease his demands and accept whatever he can in order to become speaker.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:I think you are seriously underestimating Ryan's ridiculous ego. That is a good point. Peztopiary posted:I think you're mistaken. He's very much a minimal effort maximum reward kind of guy, and W&M is plenty powerful without the danger of actually having to work for a living. Plus, I think he really would rather be with his family than wrangling his caucus. He's a politician with restrained ambitions. Hard as that is to believe, he isn't feigning reluctance. This is the same guy who on election day in 2012 was giddy because he thought they were going to win and was already picking out replacements for himself on his committee. His family excuses is a bullshit way of saying he's doesn't want to bother doing any fundraising like Boehner has. He's a power hungry politician, just like 99% of them are. You're eating up PR from his team.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is your seemingly weekly or daily reminder that the public have never blamed the Democrats for government shutdowns. Obama's poll numbers were more damaged from the 2011 debt ceiling crisis compared to the GOP. That's even with Obama offering a poo poo ton of stuff in the negotiations.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 21:32
|
|