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!

«‹›3 »

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

My one prediction is that the rollout of PPACA will ultimately determine the result of the midterms, for better and for worse.

On one hand, you'll have tens of millions of people subsidized for their health insurance or newly covered by Medicaid. On the other hand, the feds are scrambling to put together a national exchange for the states' rejecting state-based exchanges; there's a loophole for dependents when it comes to family coverage offered by employers that might leave millions of families priced out of healthcare; and there will be continued increases in the cost of insurance and in deductibles/co-pays for all insurance plans.

Even though PPACA is federal legislation, a lot of it will be carried out at the state level, which means reps and senators will take the accolades or hits from it. And its passage was pretty much the determining factor in the GOP's 2010 sweep, so it's bound to be a hotbutton issue for 2014.

As far as the Dems go, there will probably be more retirements of older guys like Lautenberg and the party will continue to fill those slots with New Dems like Booker. But I think it'll take the first quarter of 2014 to see where voter sentiment is regarding PPACA before we know the Dems' shots at keeping the Senate or retaking the House.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2013 00:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 18:23

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Bloomberg has also poured a ton of money into funding an anti-teachers-union school board candidate here in L.A., so beware of looking at his beneficence through a single-issue lens. (Unless RTTT and other privatization "reforms" are your educational cup of tea.)

His infusion of money to sway local races across the country is pretty gross, actually, for those who object to the influence of bought-and-sold politics.

quote:

Half a continent away, Bloomberg�s money also was at work in the political terrain: His pro-gun-control super PAC, Independence USA, spent at least $2.2 million in a special congressional election in Chicago, four times what the top five candidates' campaigns spent � combined. And it paid off. His candidate, gun-control backer Robin Kelly defeated former Rep. Debbie Halvorson, once the odds-on favorite to succeed Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

This largesse follows on the heels of Bloomberg�s multi-million-dollar spending in a series of races last year, such as the California U.S. House of Representatives race between Democrat Gloria Negrete McLeod and incumbent Democratic Rep. Joe Baca. Independence USA put $3.3 million into McLeod�s campaign to unseat Baca, a foe of gun-control measures.

Why does this story intrigue me? Because for much of last year, one of the obsessions of the liberal-progressive side of the political spectrum was the fear�bordering on terror�that a collection of �millionaires and billionaires� would unleash a money bomb of staggering proportions that would overwhelm the political process, defeating President Obama and sending armies of legislators and executives into power.

Over here were the Koch brothers, with their think tanks and their political action committees, pushing their anti-environmental agenda; over there was Sheldon Adelson, with his millions keeping alive the presidential candidacy of Newt Gingrich. Feeding this fear was the worry over the Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court had eviscerated a century of campaign finance regulation, permitting those millionaires and billionaires to make �one man one vote� an anachronism, replaced by �one million dollars, one million votes.�

In Michael Bloomberg, we have one of the wealthiest people in the world�with a net worth estimated as high as $25 billion�prepared to put at least some of his money where his political beliefs are. And if, as Bob Dylan says, "money doesn't talk, it swears,� Bloomberg has the potential to sound like a David Mamet play. Consider: Over the past decade, the National Rifle Association (with its subsidiaries and employees) has donated $2.8 million in campaign contributions. For Bloomberg, that�s not even tip money.

So, the question is: If you�re of a liberal or progressive persuasion, are you appalled by the presence of a single individual with the power to shape political races from one end of the country to the other? Or do you welcome the �leveling of the playing field?�

http://news.yahoo.com/michael-bloomberg%92s-cross-country-election-shopping-spree-141250310.html

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 18:55

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

nachos posted:

Bloomberg is certainly an established piece of poo poo, but it's ok for the right things to happen for the wrong reasons sometimes. It's not as if Bloomberg will stop using his money to influence politics, so may as well utilize him on your side for once.

My point was the money he's also funneling personal money to anti-union candidates, which is the wrong thing to happen for the obvious wrong reasons. And using his personal wealth will carry far greater weight and garner far greater results to his liking by helping anti-union candidates rather than funding pro-gun-control candidates.

If you're a Dem who agrees with the party's current stances on both gun control and teachers' unions, on the other hand--and also believe in the right of wealthy individuals to purchase candidates to their liking--then Bloomberg's your guy.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Feb 27, 2013

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 23:46

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

They've rebranded themselves as New Dems now; DLC is so 1998.

# ¿ May 7, 2013 07:54

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

A Democratic strategist lays out the challenges that the party faces in 2014:

quote:

One of the Democrats� most veteran strategists warns that the party is �in decline� and �at considerable risk� when President Barack Obama is no longer on the scene.

�Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats,� Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton�s White House, writes in a new memo.

While Republican branding problems get the lion�s share of attention, the Democratic Party�s favorability rating has declined by 15 points since Obama took power. A Pew Research Center survey this January showed that the Democratic Party was viewed favorably by 47 percent of Americans, down from 62 percent in Jan. 2009.

With the likelihood of gridlock and near-record-low confidence in public institutions, Sosnik expects 2014 to bring the fourth change election in the past eight years.

�This puts Senate Democrats in a vulnerable position, while threatening Republican�s control of the House as well as their sizeable numerical advantage in the governorships across the country,� writes Sosnik, who advised Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race and now does consulting work for a variety of private-sector clients.

Obama neither directly campaigned nor raised money for down-ticket Democrats last year. The post-election creation of Organizing for Action to push his own agenda has upset party regulars because it makes the Democratic National Committee less relevant than ever, squeezes fundraising for other Democratic groups and emphasizes issues that put moderates in a bind.

***

� Obama�s personal popularity does not easily translate for other candidates. The president is not building the Democratic Party�s institutional apparatus in a way that it will thrive when he�s gone.

� The losses in the 2010 midterms gave Republicans control of the redistricting process, which will be in effect until after the 2020 census. This gives the GOP a structural advantage in keeping the House.

� Millennials, born 1981 to 1994, and Generation X�ers, born 1965 to 1980, are voting Democratic, but a plurality identify themselves as independents � which makes them less reliable.

� Democrats cannot count on the same level of African-American turnout without Obama at the top of the ticket. Sosnik cites new analysis showing that in 2012 for the first time ever eligible black voters turned out a higher rate than whites.

While Republicans have a serious Hispanic problem, Sosnik explains, �younger Hispanics feel less of an allegiance to the Democratic Party than their elders.� Only 50 percent of Hispanic voters aged 18-34 identify themselves as Democrats, according to Gallup, compared to 59 percent of Hispanic voters 55 or older.

Entire memo here: http://images.politico.com/global/2013/05/09/sosnik_memo_59_final.html

# ¿ May 10, 2013 22:53

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

glowing-fish posted:

Oh, I am not doubting that 2014 will be a bad year for the Democrats, or at least not a good year. But the original quote said that the Democratic Party was "in decline", when overall, I would say the Democratic Party right now is at its healthiest since 1966.

Political pundits tend to take a single event and try to build a narrative around it. The Wave of 2010 was quite an event, and it did show a slight shift in the electorate (populist right wingers being a force in the Republican Party), but it didn't rewrite American politics.

The report said Dems had "declined" over the past most recent years--which is understandable, given the lethargic economy, the uncertainty over PPACA's implementation, and the Dems insistence on talking about scalping earned benefits (and the GOP's seizing upon all of those). Dems are still viewed more favorably than the GOP, but that carries less weight for congressional elections than presidential elections, especially given the Dem demographic groups that don't usually turn out to vote in the midterms.

Even with the decline, Dems had an approval rating in the high 40s, as I recall.

# ¿ May 13, 2013 23:19

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

jeffersonlives posted:

That's really not why he will win at all; it's because he already has a statewide profile as a literal superhero while the other two are largely unknown even in their own districts. Booker has a frosty relationship with a lot of the "plutocrat" elements, although he's fairly in with the Adubato/Joe D old Essex machine these days.

Booker has a frosty relationship with plutocrats? I guess that's why he attacked Obama (from Obama's right--fathom that) last year for trash-talking those upstanding hedge funds and why he's good friends with Michelle Rhee.

He's about as pro-Wall Street as any Dem slightly to the left of Lieberman, and totally onboard with teacher-union-busting and charter-schooling "education reform." In short, he's a fine example of the young turk neoliberal Democrats replacing old proggies like Harkin (and Lautenberg, for that matter) across the party in state and federal positions who knows that as long as he throws a social bone or two to the starving masses while he's sweet-talking the hedge-fund owners, he'll rake in the money from the party and coast to a primary victory.

(He seems like a nice, smart and personable guy. He's also the last sort of Democrat needed in the Senate to propel any kind of meaningful reform. But boy-howdy, I'll bet he'll make some good speeches if he wins the general election.)

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 23:53

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

It's kind of funny how lefties are chastised for not wanting to work within the system and are told to effect change within the Dem party, then every time a party primary rolls around suddenly it's time to close ranks in support of the non-leftist candidate.

The U.S. Senate (and the Dem party at large) needs more Holts; it's already filled to the brim with Hookers.

SedanChair posted:

I want Booker to run if only so I can see his team's exquisitely crafted repositioning statement on medical marijuana and drug arrests.

Haha, no lie.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2013 03:39

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

jeffersonlives posted:

The Norcross machine is old labor to the core. Be careful about ascribing the problems that they've had with the NJEA and AFSCME to turn them into generic "corporatists."

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?

# ¿ Jun 10, 2013 19:54

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

dilbertschalter posted:

Why would problems with a union be the hallmark of a corporatist? Corporatism as a amorphous term, but the broad meaning is a system where various interest groups come together and negotiate over the distribution of influence and wealth. It doesn't mean anything like "rule by corporations."

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.

jeffersonlives posted:

The answer is basically "Norcross has grand plans for Camden and they got in his way." But that still doesn't make him a corporatist, mostly because I don't think he's anything; I'm not sure the man actually has any coherent political philosophy or guiding political principles.

Sounds like just the guy to put his weight behind Booker, then.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2013 20:49

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

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: Mar 11, 2005

jeffersonlives posted:

Off the top of my head, Brian Schweitzer is pro-death penalty, wants to increase mandatory minimums on drug charges and make it harder for prisoners to be paroled in general, has an A rating from the NRA, keeps freaking out because the Obama administration is blocking Keystone XL, ran with a Republican lieutenant governor, and loves tax cuts. I have never understood the "progressive" infatuation with him.

Others of us are equally baffled by the "progressive" love for Cory Booker. At least Schweitzer has the excuse of representing a conservative state.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2013 19:08

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

jeffersonlives posted:

A reminder: Brian Schweitzer actively opposed Dodd-Frank for "penalizing" banks with too much "regulation." That's his "thinking" on financial reform; he's as "pro-business" as you can possibly ever get out of a Democrat.

Actually, that's your "misinterpretation" and "distortion" of "what he actually said":

quote:

Banks that actually did their job like in Montana � where we didn�t have banks go upside down, because they made you bring your financials in and they�d only loan you money if they understood your business plan � now, they are the ones that are being penalized. They now have more regulation on them, and it�s more difficult for them to make the loans. The very banks that were doing their job are having a tougher time because of the banks that are too big to fail.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2013 23:48

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

menino posted:

Plenty of people on the left are unhappy with the ineffectiveness and incoherence of parts of Dodd-Frank, I don't see why Schweitzer's being among them makes him 'anti-regulation'

It doesn't; the point he was making was that it penalizes smaller, community banks while letting the TBTF banks almost completely off the hook. But he said something that goes directly against the hagiographied image of Democrats as caring for the common folk, so he must be punished and smeared at all costs.

jeffersonlives posted:

I get why Schweitzer is popular among some parts of the left: he's a bombastic self-promoter who effectively projects a pissed off "regular guy" image, and he talks a loud game on some stuff like single payer and Citizens United. I mean, I like the guy too, he gives a heck of a speech. But he holds quite a few really lovely positions in between the bombastic pleas to the left.

Tell us again about Cory Booker's progressive bona-fides. :allears:

# ¿ Jun 23, 2013 00:45

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Deteriorata posted:

Four years versus a year and a half has to make a significant difference for a lot of this stuff. It's hugely complicated and there's a lot of changes to get used to.

It's hard to know what's really going on behind the scenes. "Think of an excuse to delay this part, we don't have time to get it ready!" is a plausible reality. There's no necessity to assume that the stated reason is the actual reason.

Medicare was rolled out within a year.

This bill is a house-of-cards with various government agencies' being inextricably tied together to determine and track eligibility, and to fine those who reject the mandate. But the main reason for deferring the "good stuff"--the subsidies and the Medicaid expansion--was to fool everyone on how much that would cost over 10 years. Those subsidies are gonna be a massive budget-buster, and the current admin will be out of office by the time the cost to the taxpayer of unlimited subsidies to private insurers becomes a hotbutton political issue.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2013 05:32

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Hilarious story on Booker's mastery of Twitter.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2013 21:30

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Lautenberg's family endorses Pallone:

quote:

"My father was known as a workhorse, not a show horse," Josh Lautenberg, the late senator's son, told The Hill.

"He lived every moment through his last days to serve the people of New Jersey, and that is something that is so important to him. But he [saw] Cory as a show horse, not a workhorse, something that, in his guts, bothered him."

***

In the statement announcing the endorsement, the Lautenberg family urged voters to "stick with Frank" and made several thinly veiled criticisms of Booker.

"Frank Pallone, like our Frank, will put in the hours and hard work necessary to fight for New Jersey in the Senate," the family said. "And Frank Pallone knows that gimmicks and celebrity status won�t get you very far in the real battles that Democrats face in the future."

The endorsement wasn't a surprise, but it is still a high-profile snub of Booker, who is leading New Jersey Senate polls by a wide margin.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/309537-lautenberg-family-endorses-pallone-over-booker

# ¿ Jul 9, 2013 03:51

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

What do you all think the average term of service is? Because I was surprised at the numbers when I looked them up:

I have mixed feelings about longterm incumbents: Generally (as in California) they get a pass by the state parties, which know they'll save money, time and effort in a reelection, whether the incumbents deserve it or not. On the other hand, the Dems in particular seem to have spurned older, more liberal candidates in favor of younger neoliberals like Booker, and I don't think that serves the party (nor the country) well.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2013 20:24

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Booker's last nationally covered political action was defending hedge-fund managers against Obama's campaign rhetoric. Holt's last nationally covered political action was writing a bill that repeals the PATRIOT Act.

eta: Booker's gonna walk away with the primary, and will win the general. He'll get along well with the current Democratic Party, because he'll raise oodles of money from FIRE, he's telegenic and a good public speaker, and because he fits the party's current strategy of throwing social-justice bones to rank-and-file voters while helping to prop the ever-growing and always-ignored issue of economic inequality.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jul 11, 2013

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 22:12

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Yah, I worded that poorly. I should have said "throwing around social-justice rhetoric while furthering economic inequality." Social-justice legislation is a public good--except when it's used as rhetorical diversion from economic issues.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 23:02

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Dystram posted:

Liberals have a tough time with the moral calculus of selling out to get elected vs. not selling out and going nowhere vs. selling your soul completely like the Republicans.

Haha; no they don't. Neoliberals (ie, the vast majority of current Dems) made a calculated effort starting in the 1990s to become "business-friendly" and rake in the same kind of corporate cash the GOP had been getting, as well as set themselves up for lucrative post-public careers.*

And Obama single-handedly set the new precedent of rejecting public financing for a general-election presidential campaign in a year when any Dem candidate would have trounced the GOP candidate.

The idea that Dems are being some kind of good-government martyrs, forced to take evil corporate cash in order to better mankind through their legislation, is ludicrous--particularly when you consider the legislation and policies that result from their whoring themselves out to corporatism in its various forms.

* Geithner's making between $100,000 and $200,000 per speech these days.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2013 00:14

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

ufarn posted:

Wasn't Christie's initial response to Sandy quite slow?

I know he was a prominent figure after the fact, but I seem to recall some silence or inaction in the early stages.

He moved pretty quickly getting in front of the camera with Obama, especially given his size.

eta: Seriousanswer: Yah, he was pretty quick on the draw; it was the after-set that he/FEMA hosed up.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2013 01:00

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Deteriorata posted:

Apparently the bomb is going to drop on Schweitzer tomorrow in a newspaper expose, so more will be clear then.

Source or link?

eta: The only thing I can find is posted by the Montana Family Foundation, citing Fox News.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 13, 2013

# ¿ Jul 13, 2013 22:44

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Kalman posted:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3542686/ is some more.

Yah, definitely bad news, and I can see why he's dropping out of the Senate race. I'm sure there's an inoffensive Baucus staffer somewhere who can be groomed for the race.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 00:00

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Is there an active thread for admin appointments and departures, or is this where we should post about those now?

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 23:21

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

I thought ew closed it, but I might be thinking of another thread.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 23:26

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Silver says the Senate has a 50-50 chance of tipping GOP:

quote:

Statistician Nate Silver predicted Monday that the GOP will likely have 50 to 51 Senate seats after the 2014 midterm elections, potentially enough to reclaim a Democratically-controlled body since 2006.

�A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year�s elections,� wrote Silver at the FiveThirtyEight blog Monday.

Silver�s prediction comes after former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer announced Saturday that he will not run for the state�s open Senate seat in the upcoming midterm. This is a blow to Democrats who saw Schweitzer as the best chance to hold a seat occupied by Democrat Max Baucus since 1978, who will retire at the end of this term.

eta link to Silver's piece: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Jul 16, 2013

# ¿ Jul 16, 2013 07:01

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

That reminds me: I read that Ro Khanna's already raised $1 million in his valiant effort to primary Mike Honda.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2013 08:44

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Feinstein was just reelected last year to serve another six years. She'll be serving till after she's been dead for four years, and someone finally notices.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2013 10:23

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

The Hill has a good analysis about the Dems' chances of holding the Senate:

quote:

That party seems likely to lose seats in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, where it cannot find find strong candidates.

The GOP will probably need to capture six Democratic seats in 2014 to grab the majority, as Newark mayor Cory Booker is well positioned to win the seat held by interim Sen. Jeff Chiesa (R-N.J.) in a special election. Democrats hold a 54 to 46 advantage, counting two independents who caucus with them.

But they must also defend four vulnerable incumbents and the seat soon to be vacated by Sen. Tom Harkin (D) in Iowa, a swing state.

Sens. Mark Pryor and Mark Begich, Democrats from Arkansas and Alaska, where Obama lost badly in 2012, are in greatest danger. Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), a three-term survivor perpetually on the GOP target list, and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who had a solid lead in a recent Public Policy Polling survey, will also have competitive races.

Pryor is seen as the most vulnerable, though Begich is a close second.

The Arkansan has taken hits from the right and the left this year as the anti-tax group Club For Growth and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have aired attack ads against him. A late-June poll commissioned by the Senate Conservatives Fund showed him in a dead heat with freshman Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

Senate Republicans, left dispirited after a net loss of two seats in 2012, now feel a gust of optimism.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) says his colleagues are becoming more energetic as they see the rising possibility of a GOP Senate majority in 2015.

�That lends itself to people working harder, that lends itself to people contributing more,� Moran said.

Republicans have history on their side. The president�s party has lost Senate seats in almost every midterm election of his second term going back to 1938. The exception is 1998, when neither party picked up a seat in the middle of Bill Clinton�s second term.

Democrats will have to defend 21 seats while Republicans must worry about only 13. The most vulnerable Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). He has weak approval numbers but has amassed nearly $10 million with which to fund his campaign. He also has experience on his side; his opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Grimes, is only 34 years old.

Midterm turnout is expected to be lower, older and whiter than in last year�s presidential election, which should favor Republicans.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312339-mood-turns-somber-for-dems-in-2014-race-for-senate

If the Dems do lose the Senate, it'll be another result of the DNC's abandoning the state-level structures that Dean put in place during the aughts.

And Business Insider has a gossipy piece on the circular firing squad among Montana Dems:

quote:

The source said Tester was "sticking knives" in Schweitzer's potential run. In the days before Schweitzer decided to drop his potential bid, a number of stories emerged about Schweitzer's ties to "dark" and "secret money" groups.

Three sources close to Schweitzer's campaign fingered Tester's camp as the source of two unflattering stories that popped up in the past week � one in Politico and one in the local Great Falls Tribune. These sources singled out Tester and Tom Lopach, his chief of staff.

Tester's office vehemently denies that he had any role in Schweitzer's decision at all or in the stories.

"Jon Tester and his entire organization had nothing to do with the bad press that Brian Schweitzer got last week," said Andrea Helling, Tester's press secretary. "Jon Tester and his chief of staff have never provided a single anonymous quote attacking Brian Schweitzer."

http://www.businessinsider.com/montana-senate-race-2014-brian-schweitzer-jon-tester-max-baucus-2013-7

The Dems, the DNC, and the DSCC really need to get their poo poo together, before they lose Congress entirely.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2013 23:01

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Soooo, how about that Weiner?

Cheekio posted:

Let me tell you, there is something in the water in Massachusetts, and it only occasionally doesn't create rabid reality defying liberalism. See: Elizabeth Warren.

As one of those who didn't think she'd be able to make her voice heard, once elected, I think she's been doing a bang-up job of getting the word out about economic injustice and things like student loans.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 00:37

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

The Landstander posted:

Also, as Willa referenced, wrap it up Weinailures:

I was kinda rooting for him, but this stuff starts to add up - especially when he's still doing it at home in 2012.

He's now saying that he warned everyone that more dirt would come out when he announced his mayoral bid, but the extent to which he's shown bad judgment pre- and post-resignation is probably gonna destroy him--especially representing a party that brands itself as valiantly fighting a war on women.

I think that if he doesn't drop out then party leaders will force him out (as they did with his rep seat in Congress). He's asking for "a second chance" but he's way beyond that point now. The actual tweets from 2012 are vulgar enough that he'd better go find a nice non-profit to work for and abandon the idea of resurrecting his political career until he's aged out of being a crazed horndog.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 03:06

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Oh yah; that Carlos Danger nic's a great idea for someone repping the party trying to pass immigration reform, too. :ughh:

vvv We finally found something on which we agree!

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 03:17

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Hubris, the major reason pols get caught in sex scandals in the first place.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 03:57

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

evilweasel posted:

Yeah...but you'd think getting caught once would have punctured that.

A second opinion on which we agree!

But hubris by its nature is pretty immune to logic; who in the world would have expected Edwards to gently caress around on his cancer-ridden wife while formally campaigning as a presidential candidate?

eta: Not even just gently caress around, but knock her up, to boot.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jul 24, 2013

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 04:07

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

jeffersonlives posted:

The NYC mayor field is so split that I think he's still got a good chance to get in a runoff, and if it's against Quinn or even Thompson, there's a hell of a lot of Democrats that will hold their nose for Weiner.

Have you read the newer tweets in question? I'm guessing not.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 04:15

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Fair enough; I think you're wrong. Dems are not gonna let him stay in the race if for no other reason than the optics of this mess. (And I mean political optics, not the dick-pics.)

eta laffo: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/07/anthony-weiner-continues-sexting-during-apology.html

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jul 24, 2013

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 04:18

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Dean has come out in favor of de Blasio. (I'm just mentioning this, not making a further argument against JL.)

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 04:27

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

I think I'd have more respect for Weiner if he hadn't trotted out Huma at the presser. Check out her body language, starting at :50.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 04:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 18:23

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

The 50-state strategy was more than just getting out red-state voters; it relied on building party structures at state and local levels to groom candidates for higher office. Before (and after) Dean led the DNC, the conventional wisdom was to only concentrate the party's time, energy and money on a handful of swing states (which works as a presidential-election strategy and not much else for the party, as we saw with the 2010 midterms).

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 06:39

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

«‹›3 »