|
But wait, what if Booker runs a really bad campaign, insults a local sports team, and Lonegan reveals that he has a truck and/or barncoat?
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
Joementum posted:But wait, what if Booker runs a really bad campaign, insults a local sports team, and Lonegan reveals that he has a truck and/or barncoat? Booker's pretty much in dead boy/dead girl territory at this point, because I don't think hardly any of his voters would give a poo poo about a live boy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
What's his stance on drones? (Voters might not care about the dead girl, either, if she's a foreign one.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What's his stance on drones? (Voters might not care about the dead girl, either, if she's a foreign one.) His foreign policy stance is "What would Cheney/AIPAC do" Pallone and Holt should've got together and realized that they couldn't both be in the race and have any real chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Problems with the state's teachers' union, as well as the state/muni employees' union, would appear to be the hallmarks of a corporatist. What sorts of problems does he/his machine have with the state's two largest unions for public employees? Public sector unions being too powerful in NJ doesn't really have any bearing on them being too weak in other places, or private sector unions. mcmagic posted:His foreign policy stance is "What would Cheney/AIPAC do" You do realize that Pallone really doesn't differ on Booker much economically, and is probably worse on social issues? Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jun 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Public sector unions being too powerful in NJ doesn't really have any bearing on them being too weak in other places, or private sector unions. Pallone believes in single payer (I know this because he told me), he's no worse on Wall St and he's pretty much the same as Booker on social issues though you can criticize his views on the drug war. From a pure political perspective, Holt and Pallone are splitting votes and I would easily support either of them over Booker for nothing else than to kill his national political career in the crib.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
I'm watching the C-SPAN feed because I want to see if the Leahy amendment to provide rural gigabit internet pilot programs passes and the mics accidentally just picked up someone with a Southern accent talking to Jeff Chisea saying, "Y'all're gonna learn more 'bout immigration than ya ever wanted to."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Booker's pretty much in dead boy/dead girl territory at this point, because I don't think hardly any of his voters would give a poo poo about a live boy. One of my favorite posts from the 2012 election threads, which I can unfortunately not attribute or provide context, but can remember in full, was "dead girl / live boy / some sort of sexy ghost."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Sadly, I think we're looking at an era where the Democratic Party will have greater pressure on it to promote media-friendly, cool politicians like Obama for quite some time. It's pretty much a given among Poly Sci dorks that the Obama victories were the result of a turnout machine driven more by personality than anything else. This is why you'll see Booker ushered to the front as the face of the party, and it's why, where I am in Virginia, you're going to see a better candidate on the issues and on life biography get beaten in the Lt. Gov. primary tomorrow by Obama's former Chief Technology Officer, who's a hip young Indian guy who talks exclusively about grants for computers in schools and cool new apps you can use for health care purposes in his stump speech. Never mind that he supported private financing and ownership of infrastructure, hasn't said whether he supports vouchers or "school reform," and donated $1,000 to Bobby Jindal (I guess we just assume because they are both of a similar skin color?). It's going to be tough to fight for more social democratic leaning issues as long as they have Booker and we have guys that look like Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Sadly, I think we're looking at an era where the Democratic Party will have greater pressure on it to promote media-friendly, cool politicians like Obama for quite some time. It's pretty much a given among Poly Sci dorks that the Obama victories were the result of a turnout machine driven more by personality than anything else. This is why you'll see Booker ushered to the front as the face of the party, and it's why, where I am in Virginia, you're going to see a better candidate on the issues and on life biography get beaten in the Lt. Gov. primary tomorrow by Obama's former Chief Technology Officer, who's a hip young Indian guy who talks exclusively about grants for computers in schools and cool new apps you can use for health care purposes in his stump speech. Never mind that he supported private financing and ownership of infrastructure, hasn't said whether he supports vouchers or "school reform," and donated $1,000 to Bobby Jindal (I guess we just assume because they are both of a similar skin color?). It's not that. Chris Christie is one of the worst looking human beings on the planet and the plutocrats LOVE him. This is about those who serve the powerful while also giving the commoners just enough scraps so that low info voters are fooled into voting against their economic interest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
This is for 2016, but still noteworthy... Russ Feingold hinted he might be run for office again. At a meeting of Wisconsin Democrats he said, "I don't come to you tonight as a candidate, at least not in 2013 or 2014, or 2015." Which is enough to get people thinking that he'll try to take his seat back from Ron Johnson. Or maybe run for president... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not that. Chris Christie is one of the worst looking human beings on the planet and the plutocrats LOVE him. This is about those who serve the powerful while also giving the commoners just enough scraps so that low info voters are fooled into voting against their economic interest. No, come on. He's plump and sleek. He's just like you, citizen! His morbid obesity means he understands you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not that. Chris Christie is one of the worst looking human beings on the planet and the plutocrats LOVE him. This is about those who serve the powerful while also giving the commoners just enough scraps so that low info voters are fooled into voting against their economic interest. He's got a gregarious personality, which is a different kind of charming. And really this is nothing new, not since the DLC after 1984, and it's not going to change as long as there's no public financing in place. deoju posted:This is for 2016, but still noteworthy... Russ Feingold hinted he might be run for office again. He'd be the perfect anti-Hillary, but it would probably be smarter for him to run for the Senate again. He'll probably just end up splitting the progressive vote between him and Warren or (more likely) someone like Marty O'Malley. I mean, a presidential campaign would better suit the issues he cares the most about, but he'd only be out to make a statement and would almost certainly just end up a voice in the wilderness after being dismissed, sort of like Eugene McCarthy after '68. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Sadly, I think we're looking at an era where the Democratic Party will have greater pressure on it to promote media-friendly, cool politicians like Obama for quite some time. I've said this before, I'll say it again. The Dems will shift right as the Republicans become regional. As soon as complete Democratic domination over the country is assured, the Dems will be too far right to maintain a coalition, and will split into a right and left party. It may be true that it'll be fights on the primary level rather than the election day level for a while, but the left will reappear, once the insane right is gone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Actual party splits are a bold prediction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
The only way I could see a split is if left wing Dems/progressives in deep blue areas where the GOP is non-existent or beyond inept (most major cities, states like CA and NY) went full-on into a group like the Working Families Party. That would still only work on a local level, since WFP relies on labor boots-on-the-ground to have influence rather than ad buys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:The only way I could see a split is if left wing Dems/progressives in deep blue areas where the GOP is non-existent or beyond inept (most major cities, states like CA and NY) went full-on into a group like the Working Families Party. That would still only work on a local level, since WFP relies on labor boots-on-the-ground to have influence rather than ad buys. The WFP just nominates the Dem. candidate most of the time anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
deoju posted:This is for 2016, but still noteworthy... Russ Feingold hinted he might be run for office again. I would vote for Russ Feingold so hard over Hilary. If Hilary's the candidate then I'll still vote for her over whoever the GOP spits out, but with the same amount of enthusiasm I voted for Obama last fall; Russ Feingold, however, I feel like I can truly get behind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
mooyashi posted:One of my favorite posts from the 2012 election threads, which I can unfortunately not attribute or provide context, but can remember in full, was "dead girl / live boy / some sort of sexy ghost." Its from the Futurama episode where Senator NotObama travels back in time to attend his own birth and take on Richard Nixon for President of Earth. He wins, then disappears from reality after changing history. Nixon is reelected in a landslide. NIXON ALWAYS WINS! Specifically its Calculon introducing the nominee for VP and under what circumstances he would have to step in and become Prez.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Actual party splits are a bold prediction. Eh. I think it's more the case that a party will be able to, what's the phrase, 'primary from the left'. Maybe not an actual split, but an effective one, equivalent to the tea party today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:It's pretty much a given among Poly Sci dorks that the Obama victories were the result of a turnout machine driven more by personality than anything else. Well, this isn't actually true, so I wouldn't worry too much. Consensus in 2008 was that eight years of Bush war weariness combined with the "black swan event" of the financial collapse produced the Obama win while in 2012 the economy had sufficiently recovered and Obama had ended the war in Iraq to produce a favorability rating comfortable enough to win. The turnout machine helped, but it just padded what would have been a narrow victory. Unsurprisingly, poly sci dorks think that their econometric models showed Obama victories, Super PAC guys think that ads like Coffin won the day, and campaign organizers think that turnout and campaign tech pushed him over the edge. See here for a discussion of the magnitude of these effects in 2012. Joementum fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:The WFP just nominates the Dem. candidate most of the time anyway. Well, yes, for now. In NYC, I would be surprised to see a WFP-only candidate eventually should Democrats continue gutting the schools.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Unsurprisingly, poly sci dorks think that their econometric models showed Obama victories, Super PAC guys think that ads like Coffin won the day, and campaign organizers think that turnout and campaign tech pushed him over the edge. But yeah. the evidence seems to point to the fundamentals (popularity, employment) driving the reult, explaining about 90% of the outcome (presidents usually win re-election unless the economy stinks or there's some huge scandal, the economy picked up enough in 2012 to give Obama a narrow victory, QED). Nate Silver (PBUH) had an article in March saying that if unemployment was below 8% on election day, Obama would win, and that's exactly what happened. All the campaign stuff and tactical maneuvering and messaging between March and November was pretty much just going through the motions, or at best canceled each other out. Both sides ran competent saturation media campaigns, both sides raised the funds they needed, both sides put together functional turnout operations (Obama's was better than Romney's, but both sides managed to turn out most of their voters so the effect was minimal).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well, this isn't actually true, so I wouldn't worry too much. Consensus in 2008 was that eight years of Bush war weariness combined with the "black swan event" of the financial collapse produced the Obama win while in 2012 the economy had sufficiently recovered and Obama had ended the war in Iraq to produce a favorability rating comfortable enough to win. The turnout machine helped, but it just padded what would have been a narrow victory. Unsurprisingly, poly sci dorks think that their econometric models showed Obama victories, Super PAC guys think that ads like Coffin won the day, and campaign organizers think that turnout and campaign tech pushed him over the edge. Who are the people who think that running against Mitt Romney was the reason he won? Because they are the right ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Who are the people who think that running against Mitt Romney was the reason he won? Because they are the right ones. If the economy were a little worse and Todd Akin didn't talk about rape and the 47% video didn't exist, Romney could have won. It would be horrible, but I don't think it was impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
prefect posted:If the economy were a little worse and Todd Akin didn't talk about rape and the 47% video didn't exist, Romney could have won. It would be horrible, but I don't think it was impossible. Romney didn't lose because of Todd Akin and the economy was tepid at best. Romney had the lowest personal favorability of any presidential candidate in recent memory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Romney didn't lose because of Todd Akin and the economy was tepid at best. Romney had the lowest personal favorability of any presidential candidate in recent memory. Romney's favorables actually bubbled back up towards the end of the campaign, and were around three points superior to John Kerry's by November of their respective years (although these things aren't exact due to methodology).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well, this isn't actually true, so I wouldn't worry too much. Consensus in 2008 was that eight years of Bush war weariness combined with the "black swan event" of the financial collapse produced the Obama win while in 2012 the economy had sufficiently recovered and Obama had ended the war in Iraq to produce a favorability rating comfortable enough to win. The turnout machine helped, but it just padded what would have been a narrow victory. Unsurprisingly, poly sci dorks think that their econometric models showed Obama victories, Super PAC guys think that ads like Coffin won the day, and campaign organizers think that turnout and campaign tech pushed him over the edge. It's unsurprising that field didn't have a decisive effect. Field and turnout by itself rarely decides any Federal election aside from the closest, and its real use is as an insurance policy in case the race tightens up to even. You never know how these things are turned out and no one wants to be caught with their pants down if it's down to the wire on the eve of a Get Out The Vote. In a presidential race like 2012, however, OFA was definitely not a deciding factor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:It's unsurprising that field didn't have a decisive effect. Field and turnout by itself rarely decides any Federal election aside from the closest, and its real use is as an insurance policy in case the race tightens up to even. You never know how these things are turned out and no one wants to be caught with their pants down if it's down to the wire on the eve of a Get Out The Vote. Deciding? No. But I'd say it might have delivered an extra state or two. Keep in mind the margins on many states were fairly tight--Florida went by 90K votes out of almost 8.5 million cast. VA and OH were a bit better but still slight, and for VA and its lack of early voting especially having an organized and well-run GOTV is crucial to securing a win. Just saying--don't downplay the organizing. It might not have carried the race, but it probably turned a squeaker into a comfortable win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Over here in Utah we just had two polls on Utah's 4th Congressional District come out from the NRCC and DCCC respectively. The NRCC (whose polling was done by Harper Polling) said that Jim Matheson was leading Mia Love 44 to 41, while the DCCC said he was leading 54-40. I'm leaning on the side of the DCCC, with the caveat that the lead seems a little high. My favorite part of the NRCC poll is a point that the Salt Lake Tribune brings up:quote:Though this far out, the big take away from the NRCC polling is how much effort the national party is expending on Matheson's race. And it should be noted that the poll seemed to go out of its way to tie Matheson to President Barack Obama. That's right, in an in-house poll where they went out of their way to tie Matheson to Obama (in Utah no less, a state that hates Obama), with the most popular Republican challenger in over a decade, Matheson is still leading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Over here in Utah we just had two polls on Utah's 4th Congressional District come out from the NRCC and DCCC respectively. The NRCC (whose polling was done by Harper Polling) said that Jim Matheson was leading Mia Love 44 to 41, while the DCCC said he was leading 54-40. I'm leaning on the side of the DCCC, with the caveat that the lead seems a little high. My favorite part of the NRCC poll is a point that the Salt Lake Tribune brings up: Seeing that she lost in to this guy 2012, how exactly is she expecting to somehow win 2014?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Utahns? Really?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:It's unsurprising that field didn't have a decisive effect. Field and turnout by itself rarely decides any Federal election aside from the closest, and its real use is as an insurance policy in case the race tightens up to even. You never know how these things are turned out and no one wants to be caught with their pants down if it's down to the wire on the eve of a Get Out The Vote. Most races, close or not, have some sort of field program so I don't think it's insurance. Obviously huge national races are complex but there were a few major factors most have already been mentioned but another sorta meta problem occurred for the Romney campaign that they couldn't crack is the incumbency advantage. Running against an incumbent is hard because your message has to meaningfully define you against the opponent. Romney (and similarly Kerry) did only the 2nd part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Well, the word among the political watchers is that she's entirely banking on having a better campaign, since she's hired veteran GOP campaign manager Dave Hansen, who's a former state GOP chair and who saved Orrin Hatch's campaign from the Tea Party hordes. One of her problems last time was a really crappy campaign that completely relied on Romney being on top of the ticket and Utah's natural GOP lean to win. She didn't even try for the growing Hispanic vote, for example. Matheson's campaign went into overdrive with a get-out-the-vote effort, and grabbed for every Hispanic vote they could get. So Love's priority seems to have been fixing that. The impression is that Hansen will be such an effective campaign handler that Matheson will effectively be running against him instead of Love. However, rematches against Matheson don't end up well for the challenger, so I'd say she's still at a disadvantage. OAquinas posted:Utahns? Really? I don't get what you mean by this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:making GBS threads on major public-employees unions (if that's what Norcross has done) is usually the first step toward privatizing those jobs, weakening collective bargaining, and enriching private corporations and political donors. That's why I asked for details on the remark. Sure, but his comment was mostly semantic. 'Corporatism' is a political system wherein the state legitimizes specific organizations representing different interest groups (most importantly, labor and capital), who are then forced to play nice. It's an arrangement that was set up in certain Western European states immediately after WWII and it is still in existence today, even if it has gradually been crumbling since the mid-seventies due to globalization and neoliberalism. There are other, more diffuse definitions of the concept of corporatism, but in no way does it mean 'rule by corporations'. It's derived from corpus, meaning body, because it implies an organic view of society with an emphasis on interdependence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:I don't get what you mean by this. "Ha ha that pluralization is funny"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Utahns? Really? Utites?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Interesting results here in VA in the elections that may cast the mood over the 2014 midterms. With Northam winning over Chopra for Lt. Gov, the VA Democratic base chose an experienced, qualified, plugged-in state legislator. He's from Norfolk (a low turnout area for Dems in non-Presidential years) and has good policy positions hewing the President's line or edging left on most issues. This is notable in particular because he's pro-universal background checks and more. With Herring winning the AG race, you have another triumph of a well-connected state politico. Again, good policy positions, especially re: the attempt to open rural Virginia to large scale industrial uranium mining. The advantages of the new Northam-Herring-McAullife slate: regionally diverse across the state, access to strong donor and local networks in VA, relatively seasoned campaigners. Disadvantages of Northam-Herring-McAullife slate: all white, all male, all boring speakers and presenters with no media value-added to induce coverage and no turnout-amping appeal to any significant minority group in the state. All toe the more liberal side of the Democratic party line pretty well, which will further enhance turnout among moderate Republicans who "may not love Jackson but will be damned if they see a gun-banning-son-of-a-bitch in office." I am not sure what, if any bones you can cast for the 2014 midterms or even the upcoming VA Gov/Lt/AG elections, but there it is. BrotherAdso fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:Northam-Herring-Cuccinelli slate: Unless Cuccinelli jumped ship in the last hour and I missed the memo, I believe you mean Northam-Herring-McAuliffe slate. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Unless Cuccinelli jumped ship in the last hour and I missed the memo, I believe you mean Northam-Herring-McAuliffe slate. Edited and fixed. I have Cuccinelli on the brain, since I am worried/convinced he will be our next governor absent a miracle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:21
|
|