2014 US Midterms: Good News - The Polls Were Skewed!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2014 US Midterms: Good News - The Polls Were Skewed!

«‹›326 »

Ammat The Ankh: Sep 7, 2010; Now, attempt to defeat me!
And I shall become a living legend!

Chernobyl Prize posted:

Scott Brown isn't running for governor, or anything else it sounds like. https://www.facebook.com/ScottBrownforSenate/posts/10151772008118168

We were talking about him touring the Iowa State Fair in the Presidential Election thread. If he's gunning for 2016, he wouldn't want to run a campaign and take on a new job right before hand. It's a good thing there's not another, better known North-Eastern Republican campaigning for 2016, otherwise Scott Brown would be right hosed.

# ? Aug 22, 2013 04:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 01:46

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

Joementum posted:

And then not only is he going to New Hampshire ... he's going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and he's going to California and Texas and New York! And he's going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then he's going to Washington, D.C.

Close D&D, there's nowhere to go but down from here.

# ? Aug 22, 2013 04:31

Chernobyl Prize: Sep 22, 2006

Ammat The Ankh posted:

We were talking about him touring the Iowa State Fair in the Presidential Election thread. If he's gunning for 2016, he wouldn't want to run a campaign and take on a new job right before hand. It's a good thing there's not another, better known North-Eastern Republican campaigning for 2016, otherwise Scott Brown would be right hosed.

He's done in the context of this thread at least. I don't see a future for him in the presidential primaries either being a tea party traitor and re-election loser. He's a Pawlenty at best no matter how many corn dogs he eats.

# ? Aug 22, 2013 05:40

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Chernobyl Prize posted:

He's a Pawlenty at best no matter how many corn dogs he eats.

In this business, it's not about how many corndogs you eat, but about eating the right corn dogs.

:dong:

# ? Aug 22, 2013 07:08

AsInHowe: Jan 11, 2007; red winged angel

A compilation of thought:

Highspeeddub posted:

^^^ Hoekstra! The laziest campaigner ever.

Sadly, Hoekstra's not running.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/08/pete_hoekstra_trounced_in_2012.html

The headline does prominently mention Hoekstra's blowout loss in 2012, which is nice.

Highspeeddub posted:

Who's running and who isn't next year has a lot to do with who has the money to do it. Dave Camp has the war chest but he's not interested in leaving the house. Land has the money, but she's not conservative enough. Frankly, Land against Peters is a win for the Democrats in Michigan.

Land against Peters is a win for the Democrats, and if the Tea Party decides to fragment the race, it could be a huge win. The Tea Parties have refused to cooperate on anything, and I doubt they can even agree on their own candidate.

Highspeeddub posted:

This has the same sound to it as some people I'm seeing say Snyder will win another term next year because the "silent" majority will come out and vote for him.

This has come up in multiple threads, so let me debunk it here: there is no silent majority for Snyder, or any other Republican. There is no silent majority for the Tea Party, or any of their policies.

Furthermore, all of these Tea Partiers feel that they have a silent majority on all of their own stupid ideas. Hey, Tea Party, think that all schools are a government conspiracy? Think that people have a fundamental right to use their guns to shoot minorities? Think that people have a right to sell poisoned or unsafe food in a free-market economy? Then you might think that you have a silent majority who agrees with you, that you don't have.

Many Tea Partiers feel that, not only does the Tea Party have a silent majority in this country, but they themselves also have a silent majority, where their own personal ideas represent the majority of the nation. That's why there are so many pointlessly minor fights in Tea Party politics - every idea, no matter how small, must be fought for to the death because the majority of the country wants it, in their own minds. Doesn't matter if it's fighting Obamacare, or fighting for hot dogs over hamburgers at a picnic. Everything is a fight over our nation's liberties, for freedom, et cetera.

At some point over the next couple election cycles, you'd have to assume that these people will eventually figure out that the country does not support their extremist ideas in the slightest. The backlash started in 2010. It keeps getting stronger. Eventually, that political reality will have to set in.

# ? Aug 22, 2013 15:40

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Quinnipiac has polled the VA Governor's race using their likely voter model and found McAuliffe up by 6. This is interesting as it's their first poll using their likely voter screen so we can finally start to see what pollsters think the 2013 electorate will look like. Short answer: pretty much like every other midterm, whiter and older.

This is given additional weight since Quinnipiac is one of the few live interview pollsters left. But before getting ahead of ourselves it's still too early to take much out of this and one poll can be misleading. That said, if the voting population is in fact older and whiter than in 2012 and McAuliffe is still up by a fair amount I think it's going to be very difficult for Cuccinelli to win.

source: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114402/virginia-governor-poll-2013-mcauliffe-leads-likely-voters

The New Republic posted:

McAuliffe Overcoming the GOP's Turnout Advantage

If Virginia�s gubernatorial contest was a fight between two equal candidates nominated by two equally evil parties, as it was initially billed, Ken Cuccinelli would have been a modest favorite. The state has a slight but clear Republican lean in an off year election, when Virginia�s new Democratic coalition of young and non-white voters is disproportionately likely to stay home.

But clearly, Virginia voters do not think this is not a contest of two equally evil candidates and parties. The latest Quinnipiac survey shows McAuliffe taking a 6 point lead, 48-42. If confirmed by other surveys�and it should be noted that this is the first Virginia survey in a while�it would be an impressive advantage, since it�s a poll of likely voters. It would mean McAuliffe is overcoming the GOP�s off year turnout advantage.

Compare the racial composition of today�s poll to Quinnipiac�s final survey of the 2012 presidential election. In their final poll last October, President Obama held a 5 point lead, about the same as his eventual 3.9 point victory. The electorate was 68 percent white, 19 percent black, and 4 percent Hispanic, with the balance saying �other� or not responding. Today, McAuliffe holds a 6 point lead, but the electorate is distinctly less diverse: 72 percent white, 16 percent black, 2 percent Hispanic.

The same thing is true for age. Quinnipiac didn�t release the weighted share of people over age 65 in last October�s poll, but the Census and exit polls put seniors at 13 and 14 percent of the electorate in 2012. Today�s Quinnipiac poll shows people over age 65 representing 21 percent of the electorate.

So McAuliffe has a 6 point lead in an electorate that might not have reelected the president last November. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he�s doing better among whites with a college degree. Last October, Obama trailed by 7 points; today, McAuliffe has it all tied up. But McAuliffe is also doing well among whites without a college degree. He�s narrowed the president�s 30 point gap down to just 16 points. Perhaps most incredibly, McAuliffe leads among seniors. We�ll see whether he can keep that up, especially if the campaign becomes a culture war referendum. On the other hand, McAuliffe only has a 74-7 lead among black voters with plenty undecided. If true, I have a hunch about how they would break.

Even though the poll shows the clear markings of diminished non-white and youth turnout in an off-year electorate, there�s some creeping GOP poll �unskewing� going on this morning. Glen Bolger, a prominent Republican pollster at Public Opinion Strategies, couldn�t help but note that the poll shows Democrats with a 2012-esque advantage in party-ID, and therefore argued that turnout will �favor� the Dems as much in �13 as �12. I saw a few other tweets, but unfortunately didn�t save them.

No. Turnout does not �favor� Democrats in the Quinnipiac poll. Party ID is an attitude, not an immutable characteristic. We don�t have a great idea of what it would look like if Democrats got a �good� or �bad� turnout in 2013. If you want to see whether Democrats are getting their 2012-esque turnout advantage, check the verifiable stuff, like age and race. By those reliable metrics, it�s completely obvious that this is not the 2012 electorate. And yet, McAuliffe still has a distinct advantage.

Now, it�s certainly possible that the Quinnipiac survey ends up on the higher end of the Democratic ID advantage. Similarly, it�s possible that other polls will show McAuliffe with a smaller lead. Who knows. It�s only one poll. But there�s no reason to frame that the possibility that this is a good poll for McAuliffe in terms of party ID�and I�d think that would be especially true for the folks who were embarrassed last November by contesting the party ID of every survey. And I�d think they would be doubly reluctant in today�s Virginia, where, well, the GOP is kind of melting down. McDonnell is under investigation. His ratings have tanked. The national GOP is a bit of a mess, too: Democrats might have widened their party-ID advantage among adults since last November. At the very least, recent surveys put the GOP in the upper-teens and low-twenties.

So it�s totally conceivable that this poll is about right. There�s even a bit of corroborating, if circumstantial evidence: the poll shows McAuliffe doing worse among independents than Obama, despite an overall advantage over Obama and lower turnout from Democrats. That�s what we�d expect if a big chunk of Republicans were now calling themselves �independent.� And by the way: Quinnipiac is a decent pollster, with big samples and live interviews with cell phone voters. Take it seriously.

Can Cuccinelli win? Absolutely. Voters just aren�t tuned into the race yet. 31 percent of likely voters haven�t heard enough about McAuliffe to formulate an opinion. There are plenty of bad things to help a voter formulate an unfavorable opinion of McAuliffe. It is possible that the poll does not fully reflect the consequences of the "GreenTech" controversy, if there ultimately are any. So it's very conceivable that things will tighten--or even reverse--as voters learn more about a flawed Democratic candidate.

But there are also plenty of bad things to hear about Cuccinelli, especially if you're a cultural moderate in northern Virginia. McAuliffe exits the campaign pre-season with more than twice as much money in the bank. Given the baggage on Cuccinelli, the Virginia GOP�s baggage, McAuliffe�s financial advantage, and his current (if unconfirmed) lead in the polls, it seems McAuliffe has an edge.

# ? Aug 22, 2013 16:19

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

See, this is why I don't like strategic politics. I'm supposed to be like "woo hoo go Terry freaking McAuliffe" just because his opponent is Cooch?

Terry McAuliffe.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 15:53

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

SedanChair posted:

See, this is why I don't like strategic politics. I'm supposed to be like "woo hoo go Terry freaking McAuliffe" just because his opponent is Cooch?

Terry McAuliffe.

No, you're supposed to be like "Ugh, Terry freaking McAuliffe. Well, could be worse--at least he's not Cooch."

Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 16:09

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

SedanChair posted:

See, this is why I don't like strategic politics. I'm supposed to be like "woo hoo go Terry freaking McAuliffe" just because his opponent is Cooch?

Terry McAuliffe.

For me if I just look at Terry McAuliffe it's pretty much "Terry McAuliffe is winning I guess that's good... :effort:

."

But since Cuccinelli is an absolute lunatic I get more excited when I remember that McAuliffe winning means Cuccinelli loses.

VA Gov would be a landslide for the GOP had they nominated Bill Bolling or actually allowed a primary.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 16:15

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

The only reason I'm excited about the race is because it's the ultimate test of the "not conservative enough" narrative. It's really, really difficult to claim that your guy lost because he was a RINO when he's up there talking about jailing people for sodomy and adultery. Sure people will still do it or find some other idiotic excuse if he loses but it will be hilarious to watch.

MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Aug 23, 2013

# ? Aug 23, 2013 16:25

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

MaxxBot posted:

The only reason I'm excited about the race is because it's the ultimate test of the "not conservative enough" narrative. It's really, really difficult to claim that your guy lost because he was a RINO when he's up there talking about jailing people for sodomy and adultery. Sure people will still do it or find some other idiotic excuse if he loses but it will be hilarious to watch.

They can always run EW Jackson if Cuccinelli isn't conservative enough! :v:

Actually I have a horrible feeling that's what they'll say if Cuccinelli loses.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 16:37

Gygaxian: May 29, 2013

axeil posted:

For me if I just look at Terry McAuliffe it's pretty much "Terry McAuliffe is winning I guess that's good... ."

But since Cuccinelli is an absolute lunatic I get more excited when I remember that McAuliffe winning means Cuccinelli loses.

VA Gov would be a landslide for the GOP had they nominated Bill Bolling or actually allowed a primary.

Don't forget the Lt Gov race; Ralph Northam might be a terrible Democrat who agreed to let the Republicans control the State Senate until the news broke on Twitter, but he's way better than E.W. Jackson. Jackson is even worse than Cuccinelli.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 16:37

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

MaxxBot posted:

The only reason I'm excited about the race is because it's the ultimate test of the "not conservative enough" narrative. It's really, really difficult to claim that your guy lost because he was a RINO when he's up there talking about jailing people for sodomy and adultery. Sure people will still do it or find some other idiotic excuse if he loses but it will be hilarious to watch.

And yet a decent segment of the party will still play the no true conservative card anyways. We all thought the same thing after 2010 with candidates who wouldn't allow any exception for abortions or wanted to repeal the 17th amendment, and well, here we are.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 16:37

The Landstander: Apr 20, 2004; I stand on land.

axeil posted:

That said, if the voting population is in fact older and whiter than in 2012 and McAuliffe is still up by a fair amount I think it's going to be very difficult for Cuccinelli to win.

This poll was interesting, and reminded me of this memo from Democracy Corps.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/carville-greenberg/why-seniors-are-turning-against-the-gop/

quote:

�In 2010, seniors voted for Republicans by a 21 point margin (38 percent to 59 percent). Among seniors likely to vote in 2014, the Republican candidate leads by just 5 points (41 percent to 46 percent.)

�When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives at the beginning of 2011, 43 percent of seniors gave the Republican Party a favorable rating. Last month, just 28 percent of seniors rated the GOP favorably. This is not an equal-opportunity rejection of parties or government � over the same period, the Democratic Party�s favorable rating among seniors has increased 3 points, from 37 percent favorable to 40 percent favorable.

�When the Republican congress took office in early 2011, 45 percent of seniors approved of their job performance. That number has dropped to just 22 percent � with 71 percent disapproving.

�Seniors are now much less likely to identify with the Republican Party. On Election Day in 2010, the Republican Party enjoyed a net 10 point party identification advantage among seniors (29 percent identified as Democrats, 39 percent as Republicans). As of last month, Democrats now had a net 6 point advantage in party identification among seniors (39 percent to 33 percent).

This is actively biased firm, of course, so a ton of grains of salt are in order. But their releases tend to be less narrative setting stuff (like PPP or Rasmussen) and more in the realm of "hey, we think this is what Democrats should do to win elections". Here's a pretty good example from last cycle, involving Obama's economic messaging).

2010 was fueled in large part by old white people - if they still hate Obama but are kinda tepid about the Republicans and think they're assholes as well and are willing to make a call based on that, that could actually have some real implications.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 17:13

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

The Landstander posted:

This poll was interesting, and reminded me of this memo from Democracy Corps.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/carville-greenberg/why-seniors-are-turning-against-the-gop/

This is actively biased firm, of course, so a ton of grains of salt are in order. But their releases tend to be less narrative setting stuff (like PPP or Rasmussen) and more in the realm of "hey, we think this is what Democrats should do to win elections". Here's a pretty good example from last cycle, involving Obama's economic messaging).

2010 was fueled in large part by old white people - if they still hate Obama but are kinda tepid about the Republicans and think they're assholes as well and are willing to make a call based on that, that could actually have some real implications.

Yeah, I really think the main takeaway on that VA Gov poll shouldn't be "McAuliffe is winning" but rather "McAuliffe is winning white seniors by a healthy margin...even after a likely voter screen is applied."

# ? Aug 23, 2013 17:22

Alec Bald Snatch: Sep 12, 2012; by exmarx

The Landstander posted:

This poll was interesting, and reminded me of this memo from Democracy Corps.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/carville-greenberg/why-seniors-are-turning-against-the-gop/

This is actively biased firm, of course, so a ton of grains of salt are in order. But their releases tend to be less narrative setting stuff (like PPP or Rasmussen) and more in the realm of "hey, we think this is what Democrats should do to win elections". Here's a pretty good example from last cycle, involving Obama's economic messaging).

2010 was fueled in large part by old white people - if they still hate Obama but are kinda tepid about the Republicans and think they're assholes as well and are willing to make a call based on that, that could actually have some real implications.

I mentioned it when this poll was brought up in the GOP thread but that shift among the elderly probably has a lot to do with the oldest, more liberal cohort of baby boomers hitting 65 in 2011.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 17:29

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Here's an interesting piece on everyone's favorite Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate race in New Jersey.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/why-do-liberals-hate-cory-booker/278992/

quote:

Cory Booker is not yet a senator, but many on the left have already made up their minds that the onetime Democratic wunderkind is a sellout.

The 44-year-old two-term mayor of Newark won the New Jersey Democratic primary by 39 points last week, all but guaranteeing he will take his place in Washington in a couple of months. (One recent poll had him up 16 points on his little-known Republican opponent.) Yet Booker's triumph was greeted not by cheers but by scathing takedowns in two prominent liberal publications. Salon called him "an avatar of the wealthy elite, a camera hog, and a political cipher"; The New Republic declared Booker only interested in "agitating for the cause of himself" and doing the bidding of "the moneyed classes." Booker has faced a steady drumbeat of criticism from sites like Daily Kos, which asserted last year that he "would actually be much more at home in the Republican Party." Booker's team has grown all too familiar with the rap that he is "some sort of Manchurian candidate for the right," as his campaign spokesman, Kevin Griffis, put it to me with a sigh.

What's curious about the criticism is there's very little substance to it. It's not based on Booker's record as mayor or the policies he espouses. Most of his policy stances are conventional liberal ones: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, in favor of raising taxes on the rich and increasing government spending on welfare and infrastructure programs. As he told Salon's Matt Taylor last month, "There's nothing in that realm of progressive politics where you won't find me."

What Booker's critics mainly take issue with are his associations, his persona, and unprovable allegations about his "worldview." Exhibit A is always Booker's notorious appearance on Meet the Press in May 2012, in which he called the Obama campaign's attacks on private equity "nauseating" and pleaded for more civility in the campaign. Booker subsequently attempted to clarify that he supported the specific critiques of Mitt Romney's record that had been leveled, but for some liberals, the betrayal was complete and irreversible. "When the predatory nature of America's business elites threatened to become an actual political issue, Cory Booker leaped to salve the wounded fee-fees of the crooks," Esquire's Charlie Pierce wrote this month. "Which is why I would not vote for Cory Booker."

Booker has, it is true, raised plenty of money from Wall Street over the years. Of the $8.6 million he's raised for his Senate campaign, $531,000 came from the financial industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This is hardly unique, even for a Democrat, and especially for a Democrat from New Jersey, a solidly blue state where many financial firms are headquartered. The two sitting members of Congress against whom Booker ran in the primary have both taken hundreds of thousands in financial-industry donations over the years. Frank Lautenberg, the late Democratic senator Booker is aiming to replace, raised $2 million of his $9 million campaign war chest in 2008 from the industry. Booker's campaign has also drawn $700,000 in donations from Silicon Valley, according to the New York Times. The ties go beyond campaign support: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has donated $100 million to improve Newark's schools, while various tech bigwigs have invested in Booker's dubious tech startup.

The startup helped make Booker a millionaire; he has also made over $1 million for speaking appearances. Critics charge he's used his connections to enrich himself. Without those endeavors, Salon noted, his circumstances would be relatively modest for a political star with degrees from Stanford and Yale. (His salary as mayor, which he has cut twice while in office, was $174,000 last year.) Booker spent eight years living in one of Newark's worst housing projects; when he had to move out because it was being demolished, he purposefully chose a new home in one of the city's most crime-plagued neighborhoods instead. He has also gone on a 10-day hunger strike to draw attention to drug dealing and spent a week subsisting on the budget of a food-stamp recipient. But to his critics, these are all empty stunts, proof that he's more about getting good press than getting things done. "He has done lots of stunts designed to make people aware of poverty, or at least to make people aware of Cory Booker's awareness of poverty," Salon snarked.

Booker's major substantive difference with many progressives is on education policy. He is -- like President Obama -- an advocate of the "education reform" movement; he has backed New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's expansion of charter schools and merit pay for teachers, as well as a form of vouchers for some impoverished areas. He sits on the board of Democrats for Education Reform. During last summer's Democratic convention, Booker spoke at an event hosted by lightning-rod former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, who teachers unions see as working to privatize public education and undermine collective bargaining. The school-reform issue is the subject of a major schism in today's Democratic Party; Obama's "Race to the Top" education initiative, which has encouraged state-level reforms, has infuriated traditional Democratic allies but also drawn support from many party officeholders.

Booker has also been deemed suspicious when it comes to entitlement reform. The sole concrete criticism in The New Republic's recent takedown was an allusion to Booker "hinting that he'd be open to raising the Social Security retirement age for young people -- before backtracking furiously when progressives called him on it." Booker had been paraphrased in the Bergen Record as saying that he "opposes raising the retirement age for most people in the country -- except, perhaps, for people in their 20s or younger." When the vagueness of that position prompted furious criticism, Booker tweeted that he opposes all cuts to Social Security and Medicare; would, if anything, expand the programs; and also opposes raising the retirement age and curbing benefits through the "chained CPI" inflation index.

But the case against Booker seems to rest chiefly on tone and approach. Like Obama, he has positioned himself as a conciliator willing to work across the aisle; like Obama, he is a black politician who has attempted to transcend racial divisions and has challenged inner-city black machine politics. Progressives disdain the spectacle of Booker's friendship with Christie -- another pol who, despite mostly doctrinaire policy stances, has found himself at odds with his party's base for palling around with the other side (in Christie's case, with President Obama). Obama, for his part, is said to see his younger self in Booker. Endorsing his Senate bid in a statement this week, the president said, "Cory Booker has dedicated his life to the work of building hope and opportunity in communities where too little of either existed."

Booker's allies find it perplexing that normal politician activities, like raising money and being ambitious, are seen as uniquely damning in his case. They insist that he is sincerely motivated by issues of inequality and social justice; the first policy paper he released during the current campaign was about child poverty, hardly a political winner. The hobnobbing with billionaires, the Twitter stunts, the television talk-show appearances, are all aimed at attracting attention for his causes and investment in his city, they say -- from a program to help ex-offenders set up by the right-wing Manhattan Institute to some $400 million in philanthropic investment in the city and $1 billion in new development. "The mayor is someone who hasn't just talked about fighting for the underprivileged," his spokesman, Griffis, said. "Working to help people has been the the focus of his life."

Nonetheless, it seems clear Booker will not be riding to Washington on a wave of esteem from national progressives. Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and a former communications director for the New Jersey Democratic Party, said there's still time for Booker to earn liberals' esteem. "There's a healthy skepticism, given his record of cozying up to Wall Street donors, defending corporations like Bain Capital, and supporting Michelle Rhee's extreme school-privatization agenda," Green said. "That said, there's a real willingness to take a second look, given his airtight commitment to oppose any Grand Bargain that cuts Social Security benefits and his openness to actually increasing those benefits." Booker, he said, would "earn a lot of goodwill" if he committed to the PCCC-backed proposal to expand those programs. For now, though, the skepticism remains.

I think this article raises some really good points, even though it dances around the obvious.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:01

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

C'mon, we elected a black guy as president, Racism Is Over, didn't you hear?

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:05

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005; Can't post for 11 hours!

Haha; it's not "tone" nor "approach" nor his skin color for which the left dislikes Booker; it's his policies in furtherance of neoliberalism. It's the height of sophistry to try to blame it on those things ( :ssh:

but serves as a handy distraction from his actual policies).

If you're happy with Obama as president, and satisfied with his policy proposals, then Booker's your man. If, however, you find neoliberalism to be just as odious under blue jerseys as red ones, then Booker's more of the same, and one of the many younger Dems who are more conservative than the Dems they're replacing. (Warren is the only recently elected Dem I can think of, offhand, who's more liberal than her most recent Democratic predecessor.)

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Aug 23, 2013

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:13

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Sure, his "tone" or "approach" aren't the expressed problem so long as you ignore all the snide comments about him being "arrogant" and a "self-aggrandizing camera-hog." If you limit it to the one criticism in ten that's focused on his actual stated policies, like education, you're absolutely right. But then you've got the other nine to deal with.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:19

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005; Can't post for 11 hours!

The Warszawa posted:

Sure, his "tone" or "approach" aren't the expressed problem so long as you ignore all the snide comments about him being "arrogant" and a "self-aggrandizing camera-hog." If you limit it to the one criticism in ten that's focused on his actual stated policies, like education, you're absolutely right. But then you've got the other nine to deal with.

Critiques of Booker from the left concentrate on his policy; critiques of Booker from the right would probably be tone arguments.

But by lumping the critiques together, you've painted leftists as racists, which I'm guessing was your (eta: and the Atlantic's) aim. Well done!

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:22

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

He's the Muhammad Ali to Obama's Jackie Robinson. They're like "ahhh fine OK you're more talented than us. But quit shoving it down our throats!" :qq:

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:24

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Willa Rogers posted:

Critiques of Booker from the left concentrate on his policy; critiques of Booker from the right would probably be tone arguments.

But by lumping the critiques together, you've painted leftists as racists, which I'm guessing was your (eta: and the Atlantic's) aim. Well done!

Pretty sure the people bringing up the arrogant, self-aggrandizing camera-hog poo poo in this very thread weren't criticizing Booker from the right.

Being a leftist doesn't inoculate you from saying racist poo poo, sadly.

Edit: Boy, was that a funny time to type left instead of right.

The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Aug 23, 2013

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:30

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005; Can't post for 11 hours!

The Warszawa posted:

Pretty sure the people bringing up the arrogant, self-aggrandizing camera-hog poo poo in this very thread weren't criticizing Booker from the left.

Being a leftist doesn't inoculate you from saying racist poo poo, sadly.

And being black doesn't inoculate you when backing lovely neoliberal policies.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:33

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Willa Rogers posted:

And being black doesn't inoculate you when backing lovely neoliberal policies.

Thankfully, neither I nor the Atlantic were suggesting it did.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:41

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

People, people. Can't progressives be racist and Booker be a corporate stooge?

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:45

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

Booker can surely be a corporate stooge, but as the Atlantic piece pointed out, Frank Lautenberg would also be a corporate stooge by a certain metric.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:52

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

SedanChair posted:

People, people. Can't progressives be racist and Booker be a corporate stooge?

Yep (though I certainly don't think all progressives or leftists are racist or even fall into racist rhetoric when critiquing Booker, which is why it's so dismaying to me, as a progressive, when that happens), though I don't think Booker is markedly more cozy with corporations than his "more progressive" Democratic competitors, such as Rush Holt (D-Johnson & Johnson), or Frank Lautenberg.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:54

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

Joe Biden (D-MBNA) should also go on that list.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 21:55

Warcabbit: Apr 26, 2008; Wedge Regret

Indeed. Basically, Booker's no more a corporate stooge than any other politician of either party, who might be in his position and location.
Again, I _really_ look forward to seeing how his behavior changes once he hits DC. He may well turn into a Franken.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 22:13

Grapplejack: Nov 27, 2007

serewit posted:

Joe Biden (D-MBNA) should also go on that list.

MBNA doesn't exist anymore though. It was spun off, then bought by Bank of America and rebranded to FIA Card Services. Whether or not he has ties to BoA is up in the air but I doubt anyone at MBNA still works there.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 22:15

Lee Harvey Oswald: Mar 17, 2007; by exmarx

I think it was Booker's :qq:

defense of venture capitalism during the 2012 campaign that raised his profile as a corporate stooge, thus the more pointed attacks at him. Most Dems are quiet about their corporate hackery, but Booker is one of the first ones I can recall being so open about it.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 22:23

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005; Can't post for 11 hours!

Warcabbit posted:

Indeed. Basically, Booker's no more a corporate stooge than any other politician of either party, who might be in his position and location.
Again, I _really_ look forward to seeing how his behavior changes once he hits DC. He may well turn into a Franken.

Is that reference to Franken snark, or damning with faint praise?

Personally, I find Booker's stances on education to be terrible and damaging--but one more drop in the bucket of a party propelling RTTT from pre-K through college isn't going to matter, in the scheme of things. It's just another data point of how terrible the Democrats have gotten, and how co-opted by corporate interests they've become while moving further away from voters' interests.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 22:34

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

Grapplejack posted:

MBNA doesn't exist anymore though. It was spun off, then bought by Bank of America and rebranded to FIA Card Services. Whether or not he has ties to BoA is up in the air but I doubt anyone at MBNA still works there.

They certainly existed when Biden helped push through Bankruptcy "reform", though.

It's not that Biden's an entirely objectionable person or politician, but even the biggest detractors of his ties to the credit card industry weren't as vocal as Booker's detractors are about his defense of private equity. Certainly, you'd think that helping push through a bill that absolutely hosed over debtors would be something worthy of criticism, but somehow Booker is a pariah because he said Obama shouldn't attack Romney over Bain (which he walked back later anyway).

Just strikes me as a double standard.

# ? Aug 23, 2013 22:41

Spatula City: Oct 21, 2010; LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING

National Democratic politicians are depressingly abysmal on education in general. There is absolutely no evidence charter schools are more effective than public schools, and many of them are worse, but noooo, facts don't matter when you have a slick presentation, an award winning documentary, and generous campaign contributions. :smith:

# ? Aug 23, 2013 22:44

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005; Can't post for 11 hours!

Believe it or not, some of us have criticized Biden in the past for the same sorts of things we're criticizing Booker in the present. The two are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, are part of the greater problem, as we've said. It's only a "double standard" in your imagination, serewit.

Spatula City posted:

National Democratic politicians are depressingly abysmal on education in general. There is absolutely no evidence charter schools are more effective than public schools, and many of them are worse, but noooo, facts don't matter when you have a slick presentation, an award winning documentary, and generous campaign contributions.

Too much money to be made by funneling public money into private schools, while disempowering teachers, students, and parents and preparing a future docile workforce.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Aug 23, 2013

# ? Aug 23, 2013 22:45

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Booker isn't undergoing undue levels of scrutiny from the left. Everybody's been through this gauntlet. Obama went through it--remember when we were talking about his GS internship and Reagan worship? Booker just stuck his head out for Bain and it was really funny, not because it was especially bad or something but because it seemed like Romney jumped into his body for a second, made Booker blab a gaffe (which Booker tends to avoid usually, though mayors don't undergo the sort of scrutiny that produces gaffes) and jumped out again.

It was kind of cute in a way, almost like he was new to this whole "defend finance on the Sunday shows" thing.

# ? Aug 24, 2013 00:25

Geoff Peterson: Jan 1, 2012; by exmarx

Willa Rogers posted:

And being black doesn't inoculate you when backing lovely neoliberal policies.

And when the critiques coming out are about his policies, giving any iota of recognition to the environment in which they were made, we can have an honest discussion about them.

People coming in and complaining about a mix of "RACE CARD" (seriously, no smilie for this?) and the policies does nothing beside drive the topic back towards race. Which I'm actually fine discussing. The sooner that Clintonland and the Progressive Left learn that racebaiting (or, if I'm being generous, unwittingly jumping on the bandwagon started by racebaiters outside of their groups) is not an acceptable method of defeating minority candidates they feel are insufficiently progressive, the better.

To be clear-I'm not fond of his education policies. I can also recognize that the challenges he faced with NPS are dramatically different than the challenges presented to Rush Holt with Princeton and the 12th District... and I can accept, without necessarily agreeing with, the argument that a different solution is necessary when dealing with a union and administration with elements in leadership which are, charitably, obstinate to any changes. Uncharitably, it's a system that's been stuffed with the (mostly unfireable) cronies of a ridiculously corrupt former mayor... in an environment where tensions are still so high after races 6 (and 11) years ago that riot police wound up macing the crowd at a council meeting last year.

When it comes to the financial industry, I've made my opinions known regarding the validity of extrapolating his positions as executive of Newark into what his policies as senator might be. Putting that aside, it's tough for me accept his acquaintances and a single appearance on Meet the Press should be proof of complete corporate stoogedom when the same folks pointing to that dismiss his rejecions of corporate/biglaw job offers and previous 10 years of living in some of America's worst projects as a community organizer as somehow not genuine. While there are reasons that corporate stooges would reject jobs that would pay them very well to be corporate stooges, living in a legitimately terrible neighborhood while attempting to maybe one day unseat one of America's most corrupt mayors in one of America's most awful cities seems unlikely to me.

Unless Cory Booker figured that being Mayor of a city where every mayor since 1949 has been tied to corruption (and the three mayors immediately preceding him had done time after their terms were finished was a good career launching pad). In which case, how long has it been since a legitimate prophet has run for president? I'm down for that.

e to avoid doublepost and because I left that window open way too long:

Willa Rogers posted:

Too much money to be made by funneling public money into private schools, while disempowering teachers, students, and parents and preparing a future docile workforce.

Sometimes the union sucks. Sometimes teachers suck. Sometimes the manner through which the money is distributed is too inefficient to work with. I don't believe this happens nearly as often as the Republicans claim it does, but I also don't believe teachers, students, parents, unions and education administrators are automatically paragons of virtue who somehow avoid any temptation towards corruption and are universally competent. Don't let the conservative framing of "Awful unions protecting terrible teachers everywhere" prevent you from recognizing legitimately awful unions and terrible teachers when they're staring you in the face.

Geoff Peterson fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Aug 24, 2013

# ? Aug 24, 2013 01:11

Warcabbit: Apr 26, 2008; Wedge Regret

Willa Rogers posted:

Is that reference to Franken snark, or damning with faint praise?

More the latter. He's not perfect enough for you, I know.

# ? Aug 24, 2013 01:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 01:46

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Willa Rogers posted:

Critiques of Booker from the left concentrate on his policy; critiques of Booker from the right would probably be tone arguments.

But by lumping the critiques together, you've painted leftists as racists, which I'm guessing was your (eta: and the Atlantic's) aim. Well done!

You can't use not everyone joining your tantrum about the uppity neo-liberals hogging the camera (by getting votes and lots of local support, THE AUDACITY OF THOSE TYPES) to pull some kinda weirdo 'you're just playing the race card' argument straight out of Hannity.

# ? Aug 24, 2013 08:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2014 US Midterms: Good News - The Polls Were Skewed!

«‹›326 »