|
comes along bort posted:The bigger news is the million bucks spent by AFP et. al. to oust a state supreme court justice backfired when they accused her of helping child molesters and put two dipshits on the ballot in a jungle primary. Buying judiciaries is the next step in the right wing takeover of state governments, so this is something worth looking out for. Wow, I didn't know the backstory but actually did vote for Hudson yesterday. Glad I did. I based my vote on looking at the candidate profiles at the last minute and the two people running against Hudson sounded terrible.
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
comes along bort posted:Buying judiciaries is the next step in the right wing takeover of state governments, so this is something worth looking out for. The ABA really needs to de-certify Liberty et al.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:The bigger news is the million bucks spent by AFP et. al. to oust a state supreme court justice backfired when they accused her of helping child molesters and put two dipshits on the ballot in a jungle primary. Buying judiciaries is the next step in the right wing takeover of state governments, so this is something worth looking out for. I knew next to nothing about the NC Supreme Court race, but I still voted for her. Basically, in their own statements I read that that Eric Levanson was a Bush toadie, and Jeanette's experience seemed to be "pro business" lawyering. Glad I made the right decision!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:But yeah, story selection aside, I am referring more to the tone of DN! and not content (I haven't heard it since I left DC). I imagine any other left leaning show being like Ed Schultz and that makes me cringe. I like Ed as a personality, but god yes, I can't stand when liberals do the "let's-give-the-right-a-taste-of-their-own-medicine" schtick. Fake polls, overblown outrage, blah blah blah. It's disappointing. I can stand TYT, but only occasionally, and only because their tone is less mocking and more skewering.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:I knew next to nothing about the NC Supreme Court race, but I still voted for her. Basically, in their own statements I read that that Eric Levanson was a Bush toadie, and Jeanette's experience seemed to be "pro business" lawyering. Glad I made the right decision! It's not the first time this happened. About $2 million was spent keeping Paul Newby's seat on the supreme court in 2012. One of the big goals of the legislature after the republicans took over was doing away with public financing for judicial races in order to flood elections with outside money.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
I don't support judicial elections for this very reason. I'd rather the judiciary committee and the Bar be in charge than leave it up to AFP $$$ alone. In Virginia, they just nominate whatever former state delegate or senator lives in the district, is a member of the Bar, and wants the job.
De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 20:55 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:The poor guy he ran against was a 70-something former state cabinet sec. who barely appeared in his own ads. And he still almost lost. And it's a strong R district. Clay must be vain and aloof. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/07/clay-aiken-leads-but-n-c-primary-too-close-to-call-ap-says/ Of course, that doesn't mean he isn't also bad at politics. And as a semi-famous person he really should be able to out-raise any normal candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Yeah Crisco self-financed and Aiken had fundraising problems.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Aiken couldn't self-finance too? although an off-year primary would have basically none of his base voting
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Corbett's already running anti-Wolf ads.  11-dimensional chess means he either does or doesn't want Wolf as an opponent, I guess. Unsurprisingly the ad didn't mention the billion dollar shortfall in Corbett's fantasy budget.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Aiken couldn't self-finance too? although an off-year primary would have basically none of his base voting Aiken's probably well off, but probably not well-off enough to start lighting it on fire by using it for a political campaign. There's a lot of rich politicians, and there's a reason that few of them self finance. It looks weak, and it's a really lovely use of money. This is one of the things that makes me think Aiken isn't as vain as people want to believe he is. Vain people usually say more stupid poo poo and are willing to self-finance. The X-man cometh posted:Aiken's a gay hollywood liberal who wants to increase taxes, increase the minimum wage and put more money into special education. He was running against a Blue Dog establishment candidate. I didn't expect him to do this well. Aiken is such a good candidate. He is a gay hollywood liberal, but he has some serious pro-family and faith credentials in a way that seems genuine compared to those things just being used as tokens to signify being anti-gay. If there's anyone out there that can rise above partisanship to legitimately grab votes from Republican women, it's him. The only female demographic the GOP does well with is married women. Guess which demographic Clay Aiken has had on lockdown for the entirety of his career as a celebrity?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
ErIog posted:he has some serious pro-family and faith credentials in a way that seems genuine It's because he used to look like a bedheaded opie.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Aiken is such a good candidate. He is a gay hollywood liberal, but he has some serious pro-family and faith credentials in a way that seems genuine compared to those things just being used as tokens to signify being anti-gay. If there's anyone out there that can rise above partisanship to legitimately grab votes from Republican women, it's him. The bigger factor will be continuing growth in urban areas in the district, and if they'll be enough to offset the rural areas (they won't, at least probably not for a couple more cycles). Ellmers' floor is still somewhere around 53-54%.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
My grandmother was gerrymandered out of the 2nd, but now she's in an assisted living home that's back in the district. She always votes. She was obsessed with Clay. She's also not mentioned her love of Clay since he went gay. This will be an interesting test.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
This is going to be a bloodbath for the Dems. Nobody in America cares about politics, faith in government is at all time lows, and young people think elections only happen every four years. The less people like and trust government, the more the Republican message will appeal to them. It'd be a tough year for Democrats even with a popular president and an active voter base. Everything I can see this far out points to it being a historic election for the GOP, insuring inaction and gridlock for the next two years.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
How much people trust the government is relatively immaterial. "Throw the bums out" is almost always followed by "Except our guy. He's one of the good ones."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:This is going to be a bloodbath for the Dems. Nobody in America cares about politics, faith in government is at all time lows, and young people think elections only happen every four years. The populace at large is much less engaged than in 2010. It was the thought of being a part of some sort of "movement," the one that disrupted town halls and held rallies, that led to that. No amount of ads can replicate that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:This is going to be a bloodbath for the Dems. Nobody in America cares about politics, faith in government is at all time lows, and young people think elections only happen every four years. The GOP's already maximized their gains in the House, the Tea Party is nowhere NEAR as popular or as pristine as it was in 2010, and if they try to run on Obamacare this time it's gonna burn them. Badly. It's not going to be a good election for Dems, but I fail to see how we get a repeat of 2010.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
There just aren't a lot of GOP reps in blue or purple districts and there aren't a lot of Dem reps in red or purple districts. LOTS of the districts seem to be in 6-10% and while that isn't an insurmountable burden to overcome, it is one where riding a wave helps a whole lot. There just aren't too many Congressional districts like the "Bloody Whatever" where the elections always seem to be 1-3 points apart.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:There just aren't a lot of GOP reps in blue or purple districts and there aren't a lot of Dem reps in red or purple districts. A lot of quality D candidates are holding off until 2016 to challenge in tougher districts. Everyone wants to run with someone more popular on the ticket ahead of them. The R+4 district beside me has no Dem this year. 2 are planning to run in 2016. It's smart strategically to hold off and just protect the senate this year. There's no hot button issue to push things beyond status quo.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:insuring inaction and gridlock for the next two years. I agree that the election will be bad for the Democrats, though I still think the Senate is hold-able and I don't think it'll quite be 2010-level bad. However, the House isn't in play and we're immediately going into 2016 season, so this part was basically guaranteed no matter what. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
The Landstander posted:I agree that the election will be bad for the Democrats, though I still think the Senate is hold-able and I don't think it'll quite be 2010-level bad. Obama's legacy will be made or broken be next two years, and it seems he'll go down as either a man who went yo Washington to make milquetoast reforms and failed or an insufficiently strong willed man to break the gridlock and partisanship in Washington. Either way, I'm worried about 2014. Extremely. This is going to be historically low turnout if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Obama's legacy will be made or broken be next two years, and it seems he'll go down as either a man who went yo Washington to make milquetoast reforms and failed or an insufficiently strong willed man to break the gridlock and partisanship in Washington. Either way, I'm worried about 2014. Extremely. This is going to be historically low turnout if you ask me. Low turnout could either be good or bad. You seem to be basing this a lot on feelings and vague generalities. The Dems will not retake the house but the Republicans are in charge so their argument of elect us to make government work better rings a bit hallow. The Senate is a toss up but quite frankly, won't be a huge switch if the Rs only get 51 seats. Plus it's loving May. Let's see what happens in June, July, August.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:The Senate is a toss up but quite frankly, won't be a huge switch if the Rs only get 51 seats. It means you better hope that no justices die until 2017, because those seats aren't getting filled unless it's Scalia's protege.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Obama's legacy will be made or broken be next two years, and it seems he'll go down as either a man who went yo Washington to make milquetoast reforms and failed or an insufficiently strong willed man to break the gridlock and partisanship in Washington. Either way, I'm worried about 2014. Extremely. This is going to be historically low turnout if you ask me. Just because the PPACA is a neutered half-toothless piece of crap that didn't go far enough doesn't mean it isn't simultaneously a legacy that most presidents would kill for.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:The man who literally has a health care reform named after him will go down as ineffective either way? The legacy of the PPACA will be making healthcare in this country available for eight million people inside of six months, and for probably another six million considering its striking down of pre-existing conditions, its raising of the parental insurance bar to age 26, et al. Certainly it's not everything we need in this country, considering that you can still rack up a 2000 dollar emergency room bill in one visit which can utterly destroy your finances. But plenty of other things in this country have been done by degrees as well. The PPACA will have literally saved thousands of lives within a year of going live. I'd call that a success.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:The legacy of the PPACA will be making healthcare in this country available for eight million people inside of six months, and for probably another six million considering its striking down of pre-existing conditions, its raising of the parental insurance bar to age 26, et al. Certainly it's not everything we need in this country, considering that you can still rack up a 2000 dollar emergency room bill in one visit which can utterly destroy your finances. But plenty of other things in this country have been done by degrees as well. The PPACA will have literally saved thousands of lives within a year of going live. Again it's not whether it succeeded its whether anyone actually ties government actions to the politicians that head them. (Very few people ever will)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Again it's not whether it succeeded its whether anyone actually ties government actions to the politicians that head them. (Very few people ever will) Well those few that do include everyone I overhear at clinics being told about "Obamacare" by staff.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
As I said before, we're starting to reach the point where everyone either knows someone who has health insurance now because of the law, or even better are related to someone who is now insured, let alone those who themselves now have insurance. Trying to pain that as a bad thing isn't going to work much anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
I hope the Senate ends up 50-50 so we get to see a lot more of Diamond Joe 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
duz posted:I hope the Senate ends up 50-50 so we get to see a lot more of Diamond Joe This is my favorite scenario.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
duz posted:I hope the Senate ends up 50-50 so we get to see a lot more of Diamond Joe Is this a 50-50 split with Angus King caucusing with the Democrats, or the Republicans? Because he has said that he was considering doing the latter, and it would be terrible if he served as the Senate's equivalent of Anthony Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
King and Biden will form their own tag-team caucus. King sets up the tie vote, tags in Biden, and it's Diamond Joe with the bodyslam!!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Is this a 50-50 split with Angus King caucusing with the Democrats, or the Republicans? Because he has said that he was considering doing the latter, and it would be terrible if he served as the Senate's equivalent of Anthony Kennedy. It's part of his image as being a "consensus builder" and frankly just a matter of him being solely about getting on committees and as part of legislation. He's surprisingly open about his practicality but I just take that as part of his larger image and appeal he puts on. I wouldn't discount it but I think the Republican Caucus wouldn't appeal to him because of how much more would be expected of him. Washington Post posted:“What does ‘join a caucus’ mean?" he added in the interview. "Does it mean casting one vote to organize the Senate, and then you’re on your own? Or does it mean you have to truly join the caucus, go to the meetings and participate fully, or you lose your committee assignments? How the parties handle that with me is going to have a significant influence on my decision.”
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Again it's not whether it succeeded its whether anyone actually ties government actions to the politicians that head them. (Very few people ever will)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
To the left, Obama will go down as a corporatist shill who continued Bush's civil liberty violations, and his presidency will be seen as the exact moment when Americans completely gave up on their elected officials to solve any of society's problems. The Right will continue to see him as the chooming Kenyan socialist who tried to Benghazi the U.S. into a new Islamic Caliphate.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Tuff Ghost posted:To the left, Obama will go down as a corporatist shill who continued Bush's civil liberty violations, and his presidency will be seen as the exact moment when Americans completely gave up on their elected officials to solve any of society's problems. The Right will continue to see him as the chooming Kenyan socialist who tried to Benghazi the U.S. into a new Islamic Caliphate. This strikes me as far too harsh. Obama is the Man Who Couldn't Do Enough. In 2008 there was almost a desperation to be rid of Bush and anything about him--even as a high schooler I could sense it in the people around me. You could have run a Martian on a message of Hope and Change that year and he probably would have won the popular vote. It certainly didn't help that Obama was a fantastic campaigner. He seemed like he really believed in what he was selling--and God knows we wanted that after Bush. We drank it up. Of course, things didn't go as we'd hoped. Though honestly, we hoped for a lot more than we could have ever gotten. And we got a lot! Badly needed healthcare reform, which literally saved thousands of lives and will continue to save lives as long as it's enacted. The auto industry, which was falling literally to pieces in 2008, turned back around and is making profits today. Extensive financial reform, some of it more powerful than others--the banks no longer have any role in the federal student loan program, for instance. That was part of the Healthcare reform bundle. Enormous advances have been made in the realm of gay rights--inevitable social shift or no, there is a whole lot of value in having a sitting President go on TV and say he supports your struggle. Bush's torture policies revoked on the second day of his term. Ended the War in Iraq, and Afghanistan on track to be finished this year. The F-22 is FINALLY dead, we're not buying any more of the things. Libya was started and ended inside a year. Opted not to prosecute new marijuana regulations in Colorado and Washington. Vastly expanded green energy subsidies, enacted more stringent fuel standards policies, pushed through carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Kicked Russia in the golden nutsack instead of starting the Third World War. And, sated a certain degree of national bloodlust by killing a certain out-of-the-loop, washed-up terrorist operator. That's not even the complete list. So much of this poo poo is easy to forget about. There's also the fact that while he was in office, though unrelated to him, the CIA has finally come to blows with its regulatory committee, which will ideally lead to positive change in Agency practices. I'm not going to pretend like the good news is the only news, though. Obama has disappointed one bright-eyed young man who'd been following him since before the 2008 primaries. Guantanamo Bay is still open. Unsanctioned killing of people suspected to be connected to terrorists continues, often with drones. The financial reform didn't go far enough or cut deep enough--Wall Street is worse than ever, instead of cowed by nearly setting the loving world economy on fire. The Supreme Court is busily dismantling civil liberties on one side while building new ones on the other. Congress is still a shitstorm, and will likely continue to be for the foreseeable future. The wealth divide in this country is possibly the worst in the history of the world, and it's eating at our political system like one of those brain-controlling mushrooms. I have no idea how long the current situation can last, but I know it's not going to be much longer. I've been disillusioned pretty hard on Obama's capacity for real change, I won't lie. I don't know how much of that is being hamstrung by outside forces and how much of that is his own centrist tendencies showing through. I'd like to think better of him than worse--I voted for him twice, after all, and looking back on what's been done I feel like I might have given up too easily. I'm done thinking that he'll walk on water. But maybe I can follow the advice I keep giving to other people and look at the best of what's come of it all. Redeye Flight fucked around with this message at 11:19 on May 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
Not to defend everything he could have done and didn't, but Obama is going to look pretty loving good to the left in retrospect once we're living under President Cruz.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Not to defend everything he could have done and didn't, but Obama is going to look pretty loving good to the left in retrospect once we're living under President Cruz. The only way Ted Cruz sees the inside of the Oval Office is if everyone else in the legislative and executive branch dies in a nuclear explosion.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Not to defend everything he could have done and didn't, but Obama is going to look pretty loving good to the left in retrospect once we're living under President Cruz. Give it one or two terms of the next president, Clinton or not, and he'll start to look good. A good chunk of the Left gaze back at Bill's presidency with rosy nostalgia glasses. Plus Obama's negatives have a healthy dose of not going far enough while also generally being not as notable in the long term as his achievements. Also the Republicans refused to allow him lovely grand bargain mistakes. W's mistake is that he didn't do anything big for people to focus on instead of the wars, torture, tax cuts and economic implosion. Maybe the Medicare D thing? I honestly know very little about it sitting in the dwindling bubble of my youth. Even if he did, Johnson shows that dumb wars cast a large shadow over the other things you do. Edit: Post President activity is also going to play a role. Obama's going to be free to be that cool guy without the pesky burden of doing disagreeable things. I'm assuming he stays in the public eye like Clinton and doesn't just gently caress off to Chicago to take up reclusive painting like W. Gyges fucked around with this message at 15:31 on May 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 15:25
|
|
