NYCmetsfan
Banned
FL?
Do it! And get your friends signed up for absentee ballots you can pick up forms at any crist office or the supervisor of elections in your area. You can also sign up any immediate family member.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
FL?
Do it! And get your friends signed up for absentee ballots you can pick up forms at any crist office or the supervisor of elections in your area. You can also sign up any immediate family member.
benjipwns
Banned
Me too, for the House, since I still like the Senate check.
I once did a Pythagorean estimate of the EV's based on the PV difference, 2012 was the polls at the time:
Code:
2012 294-244 1.7
2008 363-175 7.2
2004 237-301 -2.4
2000 276-262 0.5
1996 388-150 8.5
1992 358-180 5.5
1988 169-369 -7.7
1984 73-465 -18.2
1980 138-400 -9.7
1976 298-240 2.1Wonder what it looks like with actual vote numbers...
California now more or less does use France's system.
The answer to any question of "why not do" is usually "tradition."
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't mind the senate check, I think its fundamental conservatism, in the literal meaning of the word, is a underrated value for locking in change even if its difficult to get that change.
Westminster houses have nasty habit of wholesale reversing the acts of previous governments.
I'd like it to be more proportional (or more nationalized with the elimination or reduction of the three classes) but I don't think regional representation is by itself bad. It doesn't retard change in germany.
Westminster houses have nasty habit of wholesale reversing the acts of previous governments.
I'd like it to be more proportional (or more nationalized with the elimination or reduction of the three classes) but I don't think regional representation is by itself bad. It doesn't retard change in germany.
benjipwns
Banned
Bundesrat is still chosen by the state governments 
That said, it'd be funny just for a bit to see what would happen if the Senate had the similar rule about how all the delegates from a state have to vote together or the state's vote isn't counted. (Along with the rule that things still need a majority of the states.)
I think you have to stagger the Senate in order to keep that conservatism. Imagine if the entire Senate was elected in 2010 for example...
That said, it'd be funny just for a bit to see what would happen if the Senate had the similar rule about how all the delegates from a state have to vote together or the state's vote isn't counted. (Along with the rule that things still need a majority of the states.)
I think you have to stagger the Senate in order to keep that conservatism. Imagine if the entire Senate was elected in 2010 for example...
NYCmetsfan
Banned
WayneMorse
Banned
I've said it before but I still don't think W would hurt Jeb's campaign in both the primary and the general election. The American people have forgotten about W. and Jeb can position himself as a pragmatic moderate.
California? What the shit are these guys smoking and where can I get some?
zero shift
Banned
Bundesrat is still chosen by the state governments
That said, it'd be funny just for a bit to see what would happen if the Senate had the similar rule about how all the delegates from a state have to vote together or the state's vote isn't counted. (Along with the rule that things still need a majority of the states.)
I think you have to stagger the Senate in order to keep that conservatism. Imagine if the entire Senate was elected in 2010 for example...
I would definitely consider moving to California if the cost of living wasn't so ridiculous.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Split it in two classes and shorten the term to 4 years.
So if he wins all of those states in that first group (some of which boring-ass Kerry won after 9/11), he has 295EVs. Hmm.
That's insanely optimistic.
At some point, I wonder if the GOP's financial backers will throw their hands up and say "fuck it," and begin diverting money to House, Senate, and Governors' races for 2016.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Yeah, because he's been out of the spotlight but the second Jeb announces a run, expect old wounds to reopen.
Well, I'm in SC. And it's kinda a pain to get a absentee in FL. It was easier for me to request one because I'm in the Navy.
benjipwns
Banned
California/New York/New Jersey have long been the GOP moderate dream. RUDY COULD BEAT HILLARY IN NY!!!!
They don't realize it's the brand, not the candidate.
Other than that people who controlled the state political machines it was rare for someone to serve more than two Senate terms, most bailed after one. And the bosses were constantly jumping between offices more to simply stay in power than anything.
I'm not sure if it would be good or bad for my cause or yours but it would be interesting to see what type of Senators we'd have today, and if we'd still have the seats for life.
They don't realize it's the brand, not the candidate.
I'm not really responding to this but I just wanted to continue regarding the Senate discussion and note that Senate turnover was much more prominent when the state legislatures were picking them. Now the Senators themselves are basically the institution, not the seats. Especially with seniority advantages.
Other than that people who controlled the state political machines it was rare for someone to serve more than two Senate terms, most bailed after one. And the bosses were constantly jumping between offices more to simply stay in power than anything.
I'm not sure if it would be good or bad for my cause or yours but it would be interesting to see what type of Senators we'd have today, and if we'd still have the seats for life.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Agreed but I don't see Jeb getting the nomination in the first place. Worse yet, I don't see the establishment rallying around one person quickly. This isn't 2012, where there was one legitimate candidate in a sea of shit. There are going to be a lot of big candidates in 2016 who are capable of raising a lot of money (Christie, Walker, Perry, Bush, possibly Romney and/or Ryan, etc). But the problem is that a lot of the major candidates are pretty much the same, with different weaknesses. Jeb Bush has the biggest weaknesses of them all: immigration/sympathy for brown people, and Common Core. I just don't see him winning.
All those establishment candidates are going to struggle to stand out in debates IMO, and once again the bomb throwers will take center stage. But this time the bomb throwers will actually be able to raise money. Rand Paul will have his dad's infrastructure, Ted Cruz could be the grassroots candidate, and of course Ben Carson will be wasting people's money too. I don't see how Jeb Bush will manage to differentiate himself and avoid taking damage while not only fending off establishment types, but also taking pot shots from the crazier candidates.
benjipwns
Banned
There were two. Then one decided to have back surgery, thought he could run the same way he had in his state and...oops...
PhoenixDark
Banned
True, but Perry entered late and cratered almost immediately.
benjipwns
Banned
Because of those debate performances where he was on medication from back surgery. He had the cash stockpiled, the "conservative credentials" and was above Romney in the polls until then. The late entry was according to plan as their goal was for the lower class candidates to burn themselves out financially.
It would have been a Perry v. Romney money war but Perry bombed out and everyone bailed instantly, then Cain bombed out, then Gingrich bombed out, and Santorum was just a last minute rush to the only guy left.
It would have been a Perry v. Romney money war but Perry bombed out and everyone bailed instantly, then Cain bombed out, then Gingrich bombed out, and Santorum was just a last minute rush to the only guy left.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That quote is from the guy who wrote game change and double down or whatever the last one was called.
Black Mamba
Member
Why does the GOP do this to themselves all the time. Compete in California? lmao. The Bush name is considered vile garbage out here.
No GOPer stands a chance in this state.
Do you know what Jerry Brown wrote in his statement for the election ballot thing we get before an election (you know, where they explain the props and the candidates make their case for voting for them)?
Nothing. Literally nothing. It was blank. His GOP opponent is so ingsinificant here, he didn't even acknowledge he's in a race for office.
The GOP is about to have the worst turnout in California during any of our lives. It's going to be a slaughter from the top-down. The super-majority is expected to increase.
But keep believing a moderate GOPer has a chance in Cali for President, GOP. Waste your time and money. I enjoy it.
No GOPer stands a chance in this state.
Do you know what Jerry Brown wrote in his statement for the election ballot thing we get before an election (you know, where they explain the props and the candidates make their case for voting for them)?
Nothing. Literally nothing. It was blank. His GOP opponent is so ingsinificant here, he didn't even acknowledge he's in a race for office.
The GOP is about to have the worst turnout in California during any of our lives. It's going to be a slaughter from the top-down. The super-majority is expected to increase.
But keep believing a moderate GOPer has a chance in Cali for President, GOP. Waste your time and money. I enjoy it.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Serious People told him so it must be serious.
The lack of journalistic curiosity or critical thinking is amazing, but then again it's not. Halperin exists to tell us the establishment opinion. It shouldn't be surprising that he hates Obama, who shuns that side of the establishment (unless he needs their money).
Jeb Bush already flipped on immigration and attacked Rubio. Then he flipped back to supporting immigration. In order to win the nomination he'd have to flip against immigration again (see a pattern?). He's not winning shit...
benjipwns
Banned
John Oliver wins for taking up my personal "libertarian hateboner":
http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2014/10/john-oliver-skewers-law-enforcement
But I've approved of the show in general, this just cements it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins
http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2014/10/john-oliver-skewers-law-enforcement
But I've approved of the show in general, this just cements it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins
Aaron Strife
Banned
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
But gerrymandering isn't there to protect the minority. Exactly the opposite actually, as the majority is the one that gets to draw the lines. The timeline just happened to line up in the minority's favor this time.
And I don't know why you don't think gerrymandering could be fixed. It's actually pretty fair in a lot of states. I don't see what's wrong with independent commisions or simple rules/laws that force districts to follow geographic, city, or county lines. You act like they're simply grouping up by political identity, but that's not what gerrymandering is doing. Gerrymandering has you purposely leaving a large enough population of the opposing ideology with the goal of disenfranchising as many people as possible. That's a problem, and one which wasn't even known of back in Madison's time.
And funny you bring up Madison, because the Madisonian structure of government can only work with compromise. With the situation we're in right now, that's not happening. The minority is taking the power that Madisonian thinking has given them and used it for obstructing absolutely everything to force their way. So even if gerrymandering lined up with Madison's thinking (which I don't think it does), it's still only natural that people are starting to rally against a system like that.
benjipwns
Banned
Didn't they stop polling the weekend before in 2000? And everyone had overestimated Nader's performance? (That 5.7% there I think was pretty common, people thought he was getting 4-5%.)
It'd be interesting if Silver/Wang/etc. went back and used the much worse polling data pre-2004 and inserted into their models so we could look at what they "predicted" at any point in time back then.
1992 would be interesting, iirc, before Perot dropped out he had snagged the lead in two out of three polls.
Old polling was pretty great, Carter was up like 30 points on Ford and Dukakis had something similar on Bush before the gap completely disappeared. But you only had like five or six total polls in the meantime. It's part of why nobody saw the Reagan landslides coming. "That can't be right!" (Though Pat Caddell claims he did because the crosstabs didn't make any sense otherwise.)
It'd be interesting if Silver/Wang/etc. went back and used the much worse polling data pre-2004 and inserted into their models so we could look at what they "predicted" at any point in time back then.
1992 would be interesting, iirc, before Perot dropped out he had snagged the lead in two out of three polls.
Old polling was pretty great, Carter was up like 30 points on Ford and Dukakis had something similar on Bush before the gap completely disappeared. But you only had like five or six total polls in the meantime. It's part of why nobody saw the Reagan landslides coming. "That can't be right!" (Though Pat Caddell claims he did because the crosstabs didn't make any sense otherwise.)
As somebody who I forget said, let me pick where to start drawing the lines and I can make a map that gives you the number of seats you want.
Considering that Madison knew Eldridge Gerry, and that rotten boroughs had long been an issue in the UK I'd imagine he and most of the rest of the Founders were familiar with it. Even if not in the same sense that we think of it currently.
benjipwns
Banned
YouTube version of John Oliver's epic segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Let's assume for a moment that Jeb Bush had no relation to the other Bush's. Is he really a good candidate overall? Does he have a resume, or a charisma, or a political agenda good enough to get people to care? He at least wouldn't have any baggage, but if that's all it took, then Marco Rubio would be the front runner.
It seems to me like he's only getting attention because of his family name. And while you might argue that the family name won't hurt him, I have a really hard time seeing the family name helping him enough to win anything.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
"Let me pick" except I said we shouldn't let them pick. "Where to start drawing lines" except I said they shouldn't be able to choose where to start drawing lines. Hell, simply saying "no oddly shaped districts, and no cutting populated areas apart" would reduce gerrymandering greatly.
Heh, not just knew him, but apparently had him as his vice president. So yeah I guess that statement maybe was pretty wrong, but it doesn't really change the overall point, particularly with how gerrymandering is done currently. I believe his type of gerrymandering was more simply putting together ideologically likeminded people. There certainly wasn't mathematical research papers out there for finding the exact right ratio of supporters and opposition to ensure the maximum number of disenfranchised voters possible.
benjipwns
Banned
He was a two-term Governor of Florida, ran three times in all, before that had all sorts of business investments and ties which led to him becoming Secretary of Commerce in Florida before his governor bids.
It's not like he's some unknown state politician with no record or legitimate birth certificate who just got elevated to the national stage and has never faced a competitive statewide election.
It's not like he's some unknown state politician with no record or legitimate birth certificate who just got elevated to the national stage and has never faced a competitive statewide election.
You do realize that someone has to draw the lines right? They just don't appear.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
As far as resumes go, that's pretty close to the minimum to be a presidential hopeful. You still have to bring a bit more than that to have a chance at winning. For instance Scott Walker would have a similar resume, but he's actually a good speaker and debater to boot.
You know what I mean, and I already know there's literally no action that could be taken which will make you happy, so there's no need to go through this.
benjipwns
Banned
No, I don't know what you mean. Somebody has to draw the districts, someone has to pick the starting point, someone has to define "oddly shaped", someone has to decide all of this stuff.
Oklahoma has 5 Congressional districts that are all GOP right now.
You can draw a map that turns three of those seats into easy Dem seats and follow all your guidelines:
http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/davesredistricting2.0.aspx
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Scotus denied appeal on 5 gay marriage cases. Making it legal there. Guess they're waiting for a circuit split?
If it only takes 4 for cert I think its clear the cconservatives know they're boned
If it only takes 4 for cert I think its clear the cconservatives know they're boned
Aaron Strife
Banned
Holy shit SurveyUSA has Grimes up 2 in KY, 46-44
The fact that she's at 46 means more than that she's leading - if this was a 42-40 lead or something (like her public internals have said) that wouldn't mean shit but the closer she gets to 50 the better.
And Braley and Ernst are tied in Iowa according to Loras.
The fact that she's at 46 means more than that she's leading - if this was a 42-40 lead or something (like her public internals have said) that wouldn't mean shit but the closer she gets to 50 the better.
And Braley and Ernst are tied in Iowa according to Loras.
RustyNails
Member
I would be content as fuck if we lost the senate, and also kicked out old man mitch in the process.Holy shit SurveyUSA has Grimes up 2 in KY, 46-44
The fact that she's at 46 means more than that she's leading - if this was a 42-40 lead or something (like her public internals have said) that wouldn't mean shit but the closer she gets to 50 the better.
And Braley and Ernst are tied in Iowa according to Loras.
And the fifth circuit almost seems to be dragging their feet on just hearing the case. Seems like we've been waiting for the appeal for a long time now.
So it seems to all hinge on the fifth. I might have to go witness the hearing myself. History in the making?
Aaron Strife
Banned
With Orman in the mix I can't even see how that would be possible. GOP would have to win like 8 Dem-held seats. But I totally agree that booting McConnell would be a prize all of its own. It seems the DSCC agrees because they've added another million in ad spending to the 400k they've reserved for October. Wonder if that Clinton ad had any effect.
It seems the absolute best case scenario would be for Dems to break even by winning KY, GA and KS and holding everything else. Maybe even +1, I wouldn't consider SD a slam dunk for Republicans like WV or MT are but I'm not so optimistic to think Weiland could win it. Both he and Rounds are trying to win some Pressler voters, we'll see how that goes.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Gerrymandering predominantly favors electoral minorities. As does geographical representation. It divides people up and throws cogs into the machine.
You have to start this conversation by asking: What is the problem you're trying to fix? If you want the composition of the House to better represent the popular vote then Independent commissions aren't going to solve your problem. They prevent the most egregious violations but on a net whole they still give rural voters more power than urban voters, which in todays world benefits conservatives. Like I said geography gerrymanders when you put in the requirement of contiguous districts, following geographic boundaries, following other political boundaries which are requirements. Don't think every state is California. And what is your proposed solution to the problem of minority voting rights and districting? What is the value you place the most weight on and can one out weight the other?
And gerrymandering was certainly around at the constitutions founding. Madison was a victim of it (edit: there looks to be debate about this, but even then the founders would have been familiar with geographic gerrymandering in the english parliment, the 3/5s compromise was in essence a kind of gerrymander or artificial messing with districts to effect elections)
Besides the fact that this is pretty much the equivalent of using a Ouija board to divine intent. I think the Federalist papers makes clear the founders never really intented the type of activist legislature liberals want. Conservatives are right on that.
I for one have no problem telling the founders, if the zombie apocalypses comes, they were wrong. I just wish more liberals were open about saying that instead of singing paeans to 'madisonian governance' when its ideas are anti-liberal. I do like how in America we actually debate the structure of our government away from bare partisanship (UK and other countries are way more partisan) but we sometimes forget that the structure of government isn't just an end to its self. Its designed for an end and we should talk about what kind of ideals and values we want to promote. I think a lot of the constitutions values are outdated and should be abandoned
thezerofire
Banned
what's the origin of the "but that's none of my business" meme? I must have missed it
Avon Barksdale
Member
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I really don't know how half those images look like they were created 20 years ago in microsoft word 95
thezerofire
Banned
Ok I get this part, but what's the connection with Terri Lynn Land?
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Kermit has a tea cup, she has a tea cup. She asked the viewer to think about something and sat there drinking like it ain't none of her business.
thezerofire
Banned
Ah, I just haven't seen the ad then
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I almost don't feel like we're talking about the same thing here. I'm not asking we strive for competitive districts, like Arizona does. If geography coincidentally gerrymanders, then I'm actually personally fine with that. I do just want the egregious stuff to go away. And not just the weird shaped districts that everyone likes to tout out, but the ones like in Texas where they nibble away at cities by putting just a just big enough portion of them in with the rural areas so that the city isn't really represented by anyone.
That's what annoys me. I'm not really a historian, but it definitely goes against what representative democracy means to me. If independent panels wont work, then fine just put in limits on the types of things the lines follow, and the types of things they can't cut up, and I'd be fine.
I wonder if we could just use zip codes. They tend to separate urban/suburban/rural pretty well. Are zip code maps also crazy shaped in some areas?
thezerofire
Banned
wow lol, that's terrible
Black Mamba
Member
Right again. SCOTUS will legalize same sex marriage the day they take the case up which is exactly why they're dragging their feet.
Pretty obvious they're waiting for a ban to go through a circuit ruling and if not, it means they never have to officially rule.
The 4 liberal justices must have made a deal with the other 5 to let them get away with it. Wonder what it is...oh to be a fly in their conference room.
BTW, there is absolutely no question same sex marriage would be legalized by the SCOTUS now otherwise they'd have taken those cases. The debate is officially over. The only question is the process length.
Pretty obvious they're waiting for a ban to go through a circuit ruling and if not, it means they never have to officially rule.
The 4 liberal justices must have made a deal with the other 5 to let them get away with it. Wonder what it is...oh to be a fly in their conference room.
BTW, there is absolutely no question same sex marriage would be legalized by the SCOTUS now otherwise they'd have taken those cases. The debate is officially over. The only question is the process length.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked