|
I hope someone is trying to convince Brian Schweitzer that he's not going to be president but he could be a Senator. Namely because I don't have much faith in Baucus to pull it off and hope he retires.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 07:53 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 01:29 |
|
I think the vast majority of people that are that injured by the big (non-fiscal) political issue of the past few months will just vote R even harder this time around. It isn't like the rhetoric surrounding that issue has let up over the past decade. If people are single-issue voters on that item but for some reason still with the Democratic party then they're not going to be swayed by the hysteria because they have a different view on it from folks who think all people who share a very specific, expensive, and shrinking hobby with them think exactly the same. It's like trying to point out that the per capita income in the US means everyone's doing pretty well, except that's not the case, and while there's a lot of money, it's in the hands of very few people. Oddly enough, that same "THE AVERAGE MEANS EVERYONE HAS THAT MUCH" is what often drives GOP rhetoric in fiscal matters. "grow the pie" and all that. What this bodes for the midterms is that you could quite reasonably say that the supposed can of worms is not much of a can at all, electorally. I don't think it'll be a decisive or even major factor. It's just a lot of talk about the Democratic party 'losing' a bunch of people they never had in the first place. That being out of the way, consider obstructionism. I am concerned that this is also not going to be as big of an issue as people think. Filibusters are still effectively not reported in the media unless they're high profile like Hagel. However, with OFA shifting into an issues-based role, this could gain more light and quickly. It can't campaign for candidates but it sure as poo poo can run ads in states/districts whose Rep/Senator is being a star-spangled shitheel. They don't even have to name the bastards, just "Call your congressman/woman and tell them to stop being a fuckface and do their job." This can be something you can tie to the SOTU address in that specific policy goals were put forth, meaning specific policies are desired, meaning specific legislation will be drafted, meaning one party will be a flock of kentucky-fried duckfuckers. If legislation defines the party, then campaigning for legislation becomes campaigning for a party, and midterms are by dint of being legislative branch only, closer to the gears than the Presidential election. Right now John Boehner and his Crybaby Caucus/Master Mitch and his Geriatric Mutant Off-Meds Turtles aren't being called out to the fullest extent possible, but once campaign season gets rolling and if OFA ever gets their drat sea legs this could change. I'm not feeling too confident about OFA, though, considering they were outmaneuvered by a bunch of paranoid hicks. As for Nebraska, the governor (Dave Heineman, right-wing as fuuuuuck) might be running for the Senate seat, but it's exceedingly thin speculation. He's prime teabag material, tried passing legislation that replaced income taxes with sales taxes. The twist here is that it failed. You'd expect that poo poo to pass with room for spare luggage in this state. The NDP just puts out press releases in response to poo poo these days, so it's up in the air as to who is on the cards in 2014. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Feb 19, 2013 |
# ? Feb 19, 2013 08:43 |
|
Here's what I see as the unknowns for 2014: 1. How well is Obamacare implemented? Is the Federal system actually, you know, funded? Over half the states will be relying on it and it's up to this Congress with this House of Representatives to appropriate sufficient funding. How well do the remaining states actually do in their implementation of the exchanges? The blame for their failures will roll uphill. And how unpopular will the mandate be once it's implemented. 2. How big of a factor was the Republican intransigence of the 112th Congress in the 2012 election? Was this a factor at all or was 2012 really about Obama? For that matter, will Obama campaign to help the House Democrats in 2014, as they are hoping? 3. How successful will the Republicans be in assuring that the Tea Party stays out of Senate races? They can afford Tea Partiers in House races, but they can't afford Steve King winning his primary if they have any chance to take the Senate back. Right now I'd say (1) slightly favors the Republicans, (2) is a complete unknown, and (3) slightly favors the Democrats.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 13:11 |
|
The tea party in Michigan really wants Carl Levin gone. Last summer they launched an unsuccessful campaign to recall the senator. He hasn't done any fundraising, has very little funds on hold to launch a campaign and everyone here is waiting to see what he will do. Hopefully not retire yet.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 13:44 |
|
The Landstander posted:I hope someone is trying to convince Brian Schweitzer that he's not going to be president but he could be a Senator. Every time I see Brian Schweitzer's name I have to go look it up to make sure I'm remembering who he is correctly (former governor of Montana), and every time I do, I remember just how badly I hope this man runs for national office.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 15:51 |
|
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the Obama campaign apparatus, currently evolving into "Organizing for Action", a nonprofit dedicated to supporting the president's agenda which I suspect has big plans for the midterms. I wonder what Democrats can get out of that network, now that it isn't devoting all of its manpower to the Presidential election? I think it could be another big variable in the midterms, along with Obamacare's implementation and Republican dysfunction.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 16:21 |
|
Highspeeddub posted:The tea party in Michigan really wants Carl Levin gone. Last summer they launched an unsuccessful campaign to recall the senator. He hasn't done any fundraising, has very little funds on hold to launch a campaign and everyone here is waiting to see what he will do. Hopefully not retire yet. I vomited a bunch of info about this last night. I really hope his bare war-chest currently is more like it was in 2001, when he only had $27,000 when he announced his reelection campaign.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 16:51 |
|
Highspeeddub posted:The tea party in Michigan really wants Carl Levin gone. Last summer they launched an unsuccessful campaign to recall the senator. He hasn't done any fundraising, has very little funds on hold to launch a campaign and everyone here is waiting to see what he will do. Hopefully not retire yet. The tea party in Michigan wants the state to split off as a separate country, and declare war on the United States. The tea party in Michigan will get nothing of what they actually want, because they are idiots.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 17:03 |
|
AsInHowe posted:The tea party in Michigan wants the state to split off as a separate country, and declare war on the United States. Oh, do share!
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 17:24 |
|
Joementum posted:Here's what I see as the unknowns for 2014: This is what has always drove me insane about our eagerness to appease the "states rights" mouth-breathers. The reliance on allowing each state to individually administer a given program just means you get 50 different levels of cost-effectiveness, competence, etc. It's an age-old tautology and it pisses me off: Democrats: Our new program is federally administered, so it can done be cheaply and equitably! Republicans: Liberal facists! You're just want to give the govt MORE POWERS! Democrats: Okay, we'll let each state decide how best to implement it. Republicans: Fiscally irresponsible pigs! Our states don't have the resources to administer your unfunded mandates! *Repeat ad infinitum* e: On topic: Looking forward to the Judd-McConnell debates Also, gently caress Paul LePage. Acrophyte fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Feb 19, 2013 |
# ? Feb 19, 2013 20:13 |
|
I'm looking forward to some friggin' Coors or other going after Mark Udall and losing YET AGAIN. The R's are amazingly stupid in Colorado.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 20:14 |
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:I'm looking forward to some friggin' Coors or other going after Mark Udall and losing YET AGAIN. The R's are amazingly stupid in Colorado. Why not dig up Ken Buck and run him again? Dude came pretty close to bumping off Michael Bennet in 2010. However, if you can't win in a wave year...
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 20:14 |
|
AsInHowe posted:The tea party in Michigan wants the state to split off as a separate country, and declare war on the United States. The tea party in Michigan will get nothing of what they actually want, because they are idiots. it's been done
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 20:15 |
|
Everyone seems to have a good sense of humor about it at least.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 20:54 |
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:I'm looking forward to some friggin' Coors or other going after Mark Udall and losing YET AGAIN. The R's are amazingly stupid in Colorado. Whoever it is will get a turnout boost from pissed-off gun owners. Probably not enough to put a dent in Udall though.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2013 23:28 |
|
Indie Rocktopus posted:I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the Obama campaign apparatus, currently evolving into "Organizing for Action", a nonprofit dedicated to supporting the president's agenda which I suspect has big plans for the midterms. I wonder what Democrats can get out of that network, now that it isn't devoting all of its manpower to the Presidential election? I think it could be another big variable in the midterms, along with Obamacare's implementation and Republican dysfunction. As someone who worked for OFA and is fairly familiar with the plans that they have for Organizing for Action.. I'm not super optimistic. They have some interesting ideas, but I'm skeptical there will be a large number of operating OFA chapters.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2013 03:50 |
|
On the Iowa Senate race, both Vilsack and his wife said they aren't running and the other two Iowa Democratic Reps have endorsed Braley, so he's almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee. The Republicans, on the other hand....
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 01:55 |
|
Meanwhile in Montana.quote:We spoke to Schweitzer on Wednesday and he said, "I am not goofy enough to be in the House, and I'm not senile enough to be in the Senate."
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 02:05 |
|
Some new polling from PPP regarding the upcoming Senate race in Georgia.quote:PPP looked at match ups involving 5 Republicans (Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, Karen Handel, Jack Kingston and Tom Price) and 3 Democrats (John Barrow, Jason Carter, and Max Cleland). Cleland is the only person in the whole bunch who has more than 50% statewide name recognition, with 48% of voters rating him favorably to 29% with an unfavorable view. Barrow did better than Carter, but former Senator Cleland bested both. Barrow is actually my representative and epitomizes the blue dog Democrat. I doubt that he will attempt a go at the seat. I find it surprising they didn't throw Kasim Reed's name out there. What is pretty humorous about the results is how poorly the respective republican candidates are received.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 02:45 |
|
Erkenntnis posted:I find it surprising they didn't throw Kasim Reed's name out there. Because he's not running.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 03:01 |
|
Joementum posted:Meanwhile in Montana. Are there any open cabinet positions left? I sort of lost track.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 05:46 |
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Every time I see Brian Schweitzer's name I have to go look it up to make sure I'm remembering who he is correctly (former governor of Montana), and every time I do, I remember just how badly I hope this man runs for national office. Schweitzer taking out Baucus would be awesome.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 05:59 |
|
Noted human garbage Steven Chu is resigning as Sec. of Energy. Energy is one of Schweitzer's areas of expertise.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 06:06 |
|
Sinestro posted:Noted human garbage Steven Chu is resigning as Sec. of Energy. Energy is one of Schweitzer's areas of expertise. This seems a lot more plausible for an announcement next week than anything 2014 related.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 07:14 |
|
Sinestro posted:Noted human garbage Steven Chu is resigning as Sec. of Energy. Energy is one of Schweitzer's areas of expertise. Is there something about Steven Chu I'm missing that makes this description appropriate?
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 10:41 |
|
Majestic posted:Is there something about Steven Chu I'm missing that makes this description appropriate? I was about to ask the same thing.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 12:12 |
|
richardfun posted:I was about to ask the same thing. If I had to guess I would guess it has something to do with cars, given the post history.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 12:48 |
|
Majestic posted:Is there something about Steven Chu I'm missing that makes this description appropriate? Maybe he's pissed about SOLYNDRYA!!!!!
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 15:44 |
|
mcmagic posted:Maybe he's pissed about SOLYNDRYA!!!!! Occam's Razor: He could just be incredibly racist.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 15:53 |
|
Majestic posted:Is there something about Steven Chu I'm missing that makes this description appropriate? Back in college I heard nasty rumors about the circumstances of his divorce and his grad student selection bias, but I can't dig up anyone complaining about those to back them up?
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 15:55 |
|
JawnV6 posted:Back in college I heard nasty rumors about the circumstances of his divorce and his grad student selection bias, but I can't dig up anyone complaining about those to back them up? Yes because Steven Chu is the only professor ever to do this. Stop judging the Energy Secretary on his relationship with his wife.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 16:56 |
|
mcmagic posted:Schweitzer taking out Baucus would be awesome. After reading up on Baucus too (I've heard his name but didn't actually know much about it)...holy poo poo do I agree. How did that shitbag make it into office? His wiki article makes it sound like he's one of the biggest reasons single-payer wasn't even considered for healthcare reform.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 17:12 |
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:After reading up on Baucus too (I've heard his name but didn't actually know much about it)...holy poo poo do I agree. How did that shitbag make it into office? His wiki article makes it sound like he's one of the biggest reasons single-payer wasn't even considered for healthcare reform. He's horrible. One of the 10 worst senators, republicans included.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 17:40 |
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:After reading up on Baucus too (I've heard his name but didn't actually know much about it)...holy poo poo do I agree. How did that shitbag make it into office? His wiki article makes it sound like he's one of the biggest reasons single-payer wasn't even considered for healthcare reform. Dollar. Dollar. Bills, y'all.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 18:50 |
|
quote:We spoke to Schweitzer on Wednesday and he said, "I am not goofy enough to be in the House, and I'm not senile enough to be in the Senate."
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 19:07 |
|
Majestic posted:Is there something about Steven Chu I'm missing that makes this description appropriate? I wouldn't say it makes him a shithead but wanting to deliberately drive up gas prices is pretty much straight up "gently caress the poor." He did later retract that comment though to be fair.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 19:39 |
|
MaxxBot posted:I wouldn't say it makes him a shithead but wanting to deliberately drive up gas prices is pretty much straight up "gently caress the poor." He did later retract that comment though to be fair. It's entirely reasonable to suggest that gasoline in the US is too cheap and that it doesn't reflect the damage carbon emissions do to the environment. While it would undoubtedly hurt the poor, lessening American oil consumption is a generally desirable goal. The "how" is a separate argument.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 19:51 |
|
No, the dude in charge of energy saying in a candid moment that our gas prices are objectively some of the lowest in the world and that poorly reflects the damage carbon emissions do, and ideally we shouldn't use the argument 'BUT GAS IS CHEAP' to blockade energy research, was for sure secretly saying 'straight up gently caress the poor'.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 19:58 |
|
Acrophyte posted:It's entirely reasonable to suggest that gasoline in the US is too cheap and that it doesn't reflect the damage carbon emissions do to the environment. While it would undoubtedly hurt the poor, lessening American oil consumption is a generally desirable goal. The "how" is a separate argument. I totally agree but driving up gas prices is probably the most regressive way you could possibly go about doing it. We need to actually invest in the R&D necessary (using money from progressive taxation) to develop a viable alternative for the average American to get to work and such before we put a massive burden on their finances by driving up gas prices. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Feb 21, 2013 |
# ? Feb 21, 2013 19:59 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 01:29 |
|
Acrophyte posted:It's entirely reasonable to suggest that gasoline in the US is too cheap and that it doesn't reflect the damage carbon emissions do to the environment. While it would undoubtedly hurt the poor, lessening American oil consumption is a generally desirable goal. The "how" is a separate argument. Ah, but then you run into the problem where mass transit in america--or at least 90%+ of it--is total poo poo and not up to the task of getting people from A to B. And then you have shipping concerns on top of that--doubling gas prices will play hell with our truck based infrastructure and food deliveries. Basically, you'll completely gently caress the US economy for at least a few years, and that's assuming an easily adapted transition. Doesn't really help matters when you have the Rick Scotts of the world doing all he can to poo poo all over mass transit expansions, either.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2013 19:59 |