• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

benjipwns

Banned
Referencing something specifically?
I want to say one specific example I'm thinking of is Georgia where the Democrats controlled everything and drew new lines that they thought was going to create a firewall based on 1990 results, but it wound up creating GOP fiefdoms and competitive districts as suburbs exploded in size.

The Congressional delegation went from 9-1 Democratic (with Newt the one R) to 7.5-3.5 to 8-3 Republican over two elections.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Greek elections, SYRIZA fell two seats short of majority:
SYRIZA - 36.34% - 149 seats (+78)
New Democracy - 27.81% - 76 seats (-53)
Golden Dawn - 6.28% - 17 seats (-1)
To Potami - 6.04% - 17 seats (+17)
Communists - 5.47% - 15 seats (+3)
Independent Greeks - 4.75% - 13 seats (-7)
PASOK - 4.68% - 13 seats (-20)

This looks like it could be setting up John Kerry's 2016 bid when he saves Europe.

The Butcher of Benghazi vs. the Savior of Europe.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
My guess is that Syriza will form a coalition with The River. There's an air of moderation that they might want, versus an Independent Greeks, that could help when dealing with Brussels and Berlin.
 

benjipwns

Banned
While we're on 2015 elections*, saw that iSideWith added UK and Canada:
https://canada.isidewith.com
62% New Democratic
39% Green
39% Conservative
30% Liberal
2% Bloc Québécois
https://uk.isidewith.com
72% UK Independence
60% Conservatives
56% Liberal Democrats
37% Green
18% Scottish Nationals
15% British Nationals
11% Labour
7% Plaid Cymru
Though a British news site I took their version on the other day with like ten questions I got equal UKIP/Green/LD, with like 10% Tory, 10% Labour so lol anarchy in the UK!

*He says as if he didn't bring it up.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Frankly I wish we'll amend the constitution and actually made these long-stand rulings the absolute law of the land. Like a second bill of rights that Roosevelt wanted, so we don't have to worry about insane right-wing courts like we have today, potentially undoing some of these accepted policies.
If you think court cases are currently a mess try parsing the meanings behind these out:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
Define "useful", "remunerative", "recreation", "a return [giving] a decent living", "a decent home", "economic fears", "the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health", etc.

Figure out how to uphold the right of every businessman to trade in freedom abroad.

And who's legally accountable for these "rights" violations. Who do I sue? It certainly wouldn't be the government.

I love the "insane right-wing courts" line though. Bizarro Mark Levin.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Let me preface by saying Im not trying to doom and gloom but:

If 2018 is like 2014 or 2010, the Democrats can pack it and go home. MI, PA, NM, FL, OH,NV, WI and even MN if Dayton retires will be up. The Democrats suck at mdterms and I see no evidence that they have found a way to fix it. They can have a landslide the size greater than LBJ, Nixon & Reagan combined next year and fall flat on their face in 2 years.

I have no confidence 2018 will be a good Democratic year "presently". Yes things can change but lets not forget 2018 also brings senate seats in play like PA, OH, WI etc.

My opinion x)
I tend to agree. We're in this odd pattern where each party gets to boast going into every other election cycle, and nothing I see makes me think we'll see a change until at least next decade. If Hillary wants to get any appointees through the Senate, if any libs want to retire from SCOTUS, etc.. then the window between 2017 & 2019 is it.

Despite hopes for coattails that somehow get us the House for the first two years, I'll believe it when I see it. Like the GOP's electoral map math, it's too daunting a path to navigate.. like shooting the moon in a card game (Hearts, Spades, etc). Other than that, I'm thankful that the next redistricting election is during a divisible-by-four year.

To reference Spaceballs for a moment: it's like there are two sides to the Political Schwartz in this country: Dems got the upside (Presidential years), GOP got the downside (midterms). That's a huge relief.
 
Secret Service: 'Quad copter' device crashed at White House complex

Secret Service says a 2-foot 'quad copter' device crashed at the White House complex, during the middle of the night while President Barack Obama and the first lady were in India, but his spokesman said Monday that it posed no threat.

It may have been harmless, but it makes you wonder how soon before someone tries to maybe disrupt a Rose Garden ceremony with a drone, or even includes a small explosive charge for a "symbolic strike" on the White House.
 
Hey guys, imagine if Obama spent money on our weather forecasting systems rather than illegal NSA spying?

Maybe then wed be able to predict things more than 2 hours in advance

Secret Service: 'Quad copter' device crashed at White House complex

It may have been harmless, but it makes you wonder how soon before someone tries to maybe disrupt a Rose Garden ceremony with a drone, or even includes a small explosive charge for a "symbolic strike" on the White House.

Im surprised more terror fear hasnt been made of these things.

Load up your drone with explosives, fly it into any "secure" target.

White House, Superbowl, FBI, whatever

They cant stop it.

You just park outside the perimeter, and fly your drone right in. Unless they start banning private vehicles from like half a mile of any potential target, theres no stopping them short of a laser air defense system.
 

Mike M

Nick N
Hey guys, imagine if Obama spent money on our weather forecasting systems rather than illegal NSA spying?

Maybe then wed be able to predict things more than 2 hours in advance



Im surprised more terror fear hasnt been made of these things.

Load up your drone with explosives, fly it into any "secure" target.

White House, Superbowl, FBI, whatever

They cant stop it.

You just park outside the perimeter, and fly your drone right in. Unless they start banning private vehicles from like half a mile of any potential target, theres no stopping them short of a laser air defense system.

I seem to recall it was a topic of active concern in Afghanistan.

Seems like it would be limited by the amount of weight it could carry and setting up a radio frequency jammer would be trivial.

Or, you know, just ban them outright if such an attack were ever successful.
 
I seem to recall it was a topic of active concern in Afghanistan.

Seems like it would be limited by the amount of weight it could carry and setting up a radio frequency jammer would be trivial.

Or, you know, just ban them outright if such an attack were ever successful.

Yeah its weight limited, but if you could set one up to carry 10 grenades and drop them, I dont think it would be trivial. Imagine that at an NFL game?

Radio jammer is a good idea, but Im sure theres a way around that. IE, design your drone so it runs on the frequency used by emergency personnel or something so they wont jam it.

I think the ship has sailed on banning anyway. Just the parts are enough for some smart terrorist to build his own unit.

It will be interesting to see what is done.

The feds are absolutely ridiculous with all their truck-bomb requirements which quite frankly make DC a shitty place to walk as a pedestrian. Now you have the FBI looking for new headquarters and demanding a massive setback, but a drone could whiz right over that.

$10 someone seriously proposes moving the federal government to a secure location like Nome, Alaska.
 
Strategically, it is kinda stupid to have your capital right on the coast these days.

I hear North Dakota has low taxes and a booming economy. Perfect place for our nations capital.


And seriously, Obama, your weather forecasting models are garbage. Start acting like a leader and get them some new computers.
 
A worse threat would be deploying multiple inexpensive drones. You may be able to shoot down a single threat, but can you intercept ten drones converging on a location at once?
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Regarding the Oklahoma death penalty case the Court accepted last week:

Execution Case Highlights the Power of One Vote:

Adam Liptak said:
There are nine justices on the Supreme Court. It takes four votes to hear a case, but it takes five to stay an execution. That can leave a lethal gap. . . .

In agreeing on Friday to hear a challenge to the chemicals Oklahoma uses to execute condemned prisoners, the court brought fresh attention to the life-or-death importance of a single vote. . . .

The Supreme Court did not say on Friday whether it would stay the other three executions. . . . The petitioners' lawyers will doubtless seek stays. In Mr. Glossip's case, they will have to act quickly.

How the court responds will illuminate the current vitality of its fitful commitment to a procedure it sometimes uses to bridge the voting gap: the "courtesy fifth" vote to stay executions. Such votes are said to be available once the court makes a formal decision to grant review of a condemned prisoner's case.

According to the article, Chief Justice Roberts said the following regarding the "courtesy fifth" at his confirmation hearing in the Senate: "I don't want to commit to pursue a particular practice, but it obviously makes great sense."

On the other hand:

Orin Kerr said:
Liptak’s story raises an obvious question: Why might method-of-execution claims not get the usual courtesy fifth? Recognizing that this is just speculation about a hypothetical, I wonder if the nature of method-of-execution claims might alter the dynamic to some Justices. Here’s my thinking. By their nature, method-of-execution claims apply to everyone on death row who would face that method of execution. If there are multiple death row inmates involved in a case, the execution of one doesn’t moot the case. And if a grant means a courtesy fifth and a stay, granting on a method-of-execution claim stops the death penalty in its entirety for every state that follows that method of execution until the cases are decided many months later. Given that methods of execution are currently in flux, and the Court might want to grant in multiple method-of-execution claims over the next few years, some Justices may worry that the courtesy fifth will amount in practice to a four-Justice-imposed death penalty moratorium for a few years while the Court works through the various methods and claims. If there are five Justices on the Court who think the relevant methods of execution are constitutional, that five-Justice majority may not want to let the four-Justice minority do that.

I guess we'll know soon enough whether a "courtesy fifth" vote will be available.

EDIT:

TWIST!

Lyle Denniston said:
The state of Oklahoma will ask the Supreme Court on Monday to delay three executions by lethal drugs while the Justices weigh a new test case, but it will also seek the option of resuming executions if the officials put together a new drug protocol, lawyers for the state said. The application for postponement is expected to be filed at the Court shortly. . . .

Lawyers for the inmates had been expected to seek a delay, to keep the three inmates alive while the Justices hear and decide their case. State officials, however, moved ahead first in the Court on Monday, apparently seeking to limit the scope of any postponement. Their application, the state attorney general’s office said, will be seeking a postponement only as to the three inmates now involved in the case.
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/u...losely-tied-to-his-faith-allies-say.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — A prominent Republican delivered a direct request to Mitt Romney not long ago: He should make a third run for the presidency, not for vanity or redemption, but to answer a higher calling from his faith.

Believing that Mr. Romney, a former Mormon pastor, would be most receptive on these grounds, the Republican made the case that Mr. Romney had a duty to serve, and said Mr. Romney seemed to take his appeal under consideration.

...

But now as Mr. Romney mulls a new run for the White House, friends and allies said, his abiding Mormon faith is inextricably tied to his sense of service and patriotism, and a facet of his life that he is determined to embrace more openly in a possible third campaign.

Kirk Jowers, a Mormon family friend who lives in Utah and chaired Mr. Romney’s leadership PAC, said that Mr. Romney’s contemplation of a third bid is motivated by an “almost devout belief that he needs to do something for this country.”

But this time, Mr. Jowers said, Mr. Romney would treat his religion differently. “In 2008, Romney risked being a caricature of the Mormon candidate,” he said. “Now everyone seems to know everything about him, and that will be very liberating for him to talk about his faith.”

Mr. Romney’s faith was complicated by the fact that during his 2012 run, his team was reluctant to let him mention his religion at all, creating a vacuum that hid a side of him from voters and allowed it to be filled with Democratic attack ads. The 2014 Netflix “Mitt” documentary — from filmmaker Greg Whiteley, a Mormon — offered an appealing, behind-the-scenes look at Mr. Romney as a man of faith and family. Many in his inner circle said that if he runs again, this is the version of Mitt Romney that they would present to the country.
 

FyreWulff

Member
I don't think his Mormonism was the problem, inner circle

it was the fact that you get the idea that it seemed he thought opening a door for himself was below him
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Hopefully, other democrats are taking notes on how to be popular.
 
Yeah its weight limited, but if you could set one up to carry 10 grenades and drop them, I dont think it would be trivial. Imagine that at an NFL game?

Think outside the box, mate. Been too long since the last anthrax scare. Far less weight. Spread that thing from above and it is quite possible that most wouldn't even notice the dust.

(it comes in powder, yes? Powell wouldn't lie about that :( )

Hopefully, other democrats are taking notes on how to be popular.

Here's hoping.
 

Cloudy

Banned
Hopefully, other democrats are taking notes on how to be popular.

Eh....Popularity is basically due to media coverage. Obama's floor is very high considering party polarization because of how personally invested most of his supporters are (this is not common for politicians this long into their career).

The truth is, the economy has been pretty good since 2012 but the media chose to highlight the negatives and drumbeat on that 24/7. Same thing with Obamacare. Website issues and phony sob-stories were promoted while people getting coverage was not.

On foreign policy as well, Obama is seemingly blamed for anything major that goes wrong in the world and a lot went wrong last year lol. If they are successful with pinning the collapse of the Yemeni government on him, his numbers will come back down...
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
On foreign policy as well, Obama is seemingly blamed for anything major that goes wrong in the world and a lot went wrong last year lol. If they are successful with pinning the collapse of the Yemeni government on him, his numbers will come back down...

Does the average American voter know or care anything about the Yemeni government? I wouldn't have thought so.

Is there actually much coverage of that in the US right now?
 
democrats are better Republicans than Republicans are!

Be a true Democrat Obama :(

This is always funny to mention, but in reality, divided governments are better at being Republicans than either party having control. Gridlock drives down spending, at least at a casual glance.

I wish AL Franken's old SNL stuff was online, he actually had s bit on this in the 90s. I'd also love to find his "Al Franken Decade" bits again.
 
Think outside the box, mate. Been too long since the last anthrax scare. Far less weight. Spread that thing from above and it is quite possible that most wouldn't even notice the dust.

(it comes in powder, yes? Powell wouldn't lie about that :( )



Here's hoping.

So, uh, when I quote you, it looks, quite interesting.

Also, why not grenades coated in anthrax? Maybe some measles too.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Well, both parties are on the right. Obama is a more Republican candidate than any of the actual Republican candidates, all you have to do is be left of current GOP - the spot on the spectrum they used to occupy.
 

Cloudy

Banned
Does the average American voter know or care anything about the Yemeni government? I wouldn't have thought so.

Is there actually much coverage of that in the US right now?

No one cares till the media starts telling them why they're unsafe now because YEMEN!
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Inside Hillary Clinton’s 2016 plan
New campaign takes shape, with ‘big-tent mentality’ and ‘good cop’ for press.


There's a lot here, and it's worth reading. A lot of lessons learned from 2008, it seems. But there's thing:

The Clinton team knows it can’t campaign with the swagger of a presumptive nominee because the air of inevitability was so damaging last time around. That said, some advisers are already privately talking up potential running mates, with Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado and Tim Kaine of Virginia dominating the early speculation.

Some advisers expect a push for diversity on the ticket. So the shortlist also is expected to include Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and perhaps California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is running for U.S. Senate.
 
Personally I'd like to see her pick one of the Castro brothers, and Harris and Booker can run on a ticket together in 2024 (or 2020 if Hillary loses in 2016).

Kaine is interesting, I always thought most people speculated it would be Warner. Maybe his performance in 2014 weakened his standing whereas Kaine won by a larger margin in 2012 (in a better year, but against a better opponent as well). Kaine also seems like he'd be a more dynamic candidate. IIRC he was on Obama's shortlist as well.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Personally I'd like to see her pick one of the Castro brothers, and Harris and Booker can run on a ticket together in 2024 (or 2020 if Hillary loses in 2016).

Kaine is interesting, I always thought most people speculated it would be Warner. Maybe his performance in 2014 weakened his standing whereas Kaine won by a larger margin in 2012 (in a better year, but against a better opponent as well). Kaine also seems like he'd be a more dynamic candidate. IIRC he was on Obama's shortlist as well.

The Castro brother, Julian in particular will make the final 3 I bet. The only problem with picking Castro is "Is he ready to be President if the moment should come"?

Even I have to admit he isnt ready right now.
 
The Castro brother, Julian in particular will make the final 3 I bet. The only problem with picking Castro is "Is he ready to be President if the moment should come"?

Even I have to admit he isnt ready right now.
I agree but the promotion to Secretary seems to have been done with the intention of giving him some clout as a plausible VP candidate. If he were still Mayor of San Antonio then he wouldn't have a chance.

Going forward I think diversity will be a big part of the Democratic selection process. Not just racial, but gender as well. Not that there won't ever be another pair of white men, but it will be considered.
 

HylianTom

Banned
It sounds mighty tempting to pick one of the VA guys so that she starts off at 264EVs. All it would take is one swing state at that point.

Thankfully, the GOP picks first, so she has the luxury of adjusting her pick to the map and their ticket. If the race gets tight like 2000 & 2004, help with VA would be really nice. But if the polls show her with a stubborn lead after the GOP's convention, I wouldn't blame her for going with a riskier/higher-upside/map-expanding/coattails pick.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Arkansas forgot to pay its docketing fees to the 8th Circuit in their gay marriage appeal and now they have 14 days to say why the case shouldn't be dismissed. Oops.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-uphill-path-to-270-in-2016/2014/01/18/9404eb06-7fcf-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html

What can she realistically expand on with the Obama 12' map plus NC?

Hillary starts off at 257. VA, OH, FL, NC, GA get her 270. IA and CO combined get her 270.

GA and AZ might join the swing state arena but that's probably it.

Dan Balz "Given the current alignment, the Republicans must find states that have been voting Democratic and convert them to their column in 2016."

Good Luck

"From the GOP perspective, Florida and North Carolina may be moving in a Republican direction. But one GOP strategist said that Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia are actually moving toward the Democrats. Most of the other possible battlegrounds, with the exception of Georgia, appear to be politically static, which would be better news for Democrats."

"Several Democratic strategists see movement toward Democrats almost everywhere, although they stop short of claiming an electoral-college lock. Democrats contend that a growing Hispanic population is pushing Florida in the party’s direction and that Georgia’s growing diversity eventually will make it a contested state. Democrats also have hopes that Arizona and Texas will become competitive for the same reason, although it is doubtful that Texas will be competitive by 2016."
 
Missouri and Indiana will be swing states if her current numbers hold up. And also NE-2 which was won by a Democrat in 2014 against the Republican incumbent.

Some of her campaign insiders said they're going to target Arkansas which makes sense I guess but unless her poll numbers are really good I'd hope they don't put much money there.

NeoXChaos said:
"From the GOP perspective, Florida and North Carolina may be moving in a Republican direction. But one GOP strategist said that Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia are actually moving toward the Democrats. Most of the other possible battlegrounds, with the exception of Georgia, appear to be politically static, which would be better news for Democrats."
What

NC 2004 - Bush+13 (R+10)
NC 2008 - Obama+.3 (R+7)
NC 2012 - Romney+2 (R+6)

The PVI for North Carolina has gotten drastically more Democratic over the last decade.

I'd also question Florida which seems to be fairly stable.

FL 2004 - Bush+5 (R+2)
FL 2008 - Obama+3 (R+4)
FL 2012 - Obama+1 (R+3)
 
The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalelled effort by an outside group to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.

The goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat in Palm Springs, Calif., would effectively allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican parties. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.

The network’s $889 million budget includes spending on both the presidential campaign and congressional races, and would be financed by donors as well as the Koch brothers themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html
 

HyperionX

Member
If you think court cases are currently a mess try parsing the meanings behind these out:

Define "useful", "remunerative", "recreation", "a return [giving] a decent living", "a decent home", "economic fears", "the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health", etc.

Figure out how to uphold the right of every businessman to trade in freedom abroad.

These aren't really as hard to parse as you think. The first two just means right to a good paying job that isn't incredibly menial. The third just means access to vacation or time off. The fourth might be a little controversial, as it probably implies farm subsidies, but that's already the case today anyways. The next one is just right to housing, something that is effectively provide through rent control and government sponsored home loans. The last two are just your standard health insurance, unemployment benefits stuff. In fact, all of these ideas are effectively enshrined in modern society, they just aren't formally written down. It's not suppose to be absolutely clear either. The courts are suppose to interpret them as they see fit. They just are now forced to decide what counts as enough or not enough, not whether we should have them at all. That's a huge leap forward from today.

And who's legally accountable for these "rights" violations. Who do I sue? It certainly wouldn't be the government.

Yes it indeed would be the government, for not providing enough or failing to properly administrate these problems.

I love the "insane right-wing courts" line though. Bizarro Mark Levin.

The current SCOTUS is pretty close to that. Especially if they take the "typo" ACA case seriously.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Missouri and Indiana will be swing states if her current numbers hold up. And also NE-2 which was won by a Democrat in 2014 against the Republican incumbent.

Some of her campaign insiders said they're going to target Arkansas which makes sense I guess but unless her poll numbers are really good I'd hope they don't put much money there.

I don't actually see them as gettable -- but it's important that she does better than Obama there for those states's legislatures and potential candidates in MO and IN.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Missouri and Indiana will be swing states if her current numbers hold up. And also NE-2 which was won by a Democrat in 2014 against the Republican incumbent.

Some of her campaign insiders said they're going to target Arkansas which makes sense I guess but unless her poll numbers are really good I'd hope they don't put much money there.


What

NC 2004 - Bush+13 (R+10)
NC 2008 - Obama+.3 (R+7)
NC 2012 - Romney+2 (R+6)

The PVI for North Carolina has gotten drastically more Democratic over the last decade.

I'd also question Florida which seems to be fairly stable.

FL 2004 - Bush+5 (R+2)
FL 2008 - Obama+3 (R+4)
FL 2012 - Obama+1 (R+3)

In 2004:

Bush won by 2.4% points in the popular vote. Bush won Florida by 5.01%, a difference of R+2.61 versus general electorate.

In 2008:

Obama won by 7.2% points in the popular vote. Obama won Florida by 2.81%, a difference of R+4.39 versus the general electorate.

In 2012:

Obama won by 3.9% points in the popular vote. Obama won Florida by .88%, a difference of R+3.02% versus the general electorate.

It's fairly static, though I would also say that the R+versus general electorate margin shrinking from 2008 to 2012 is impressive, if just because if we held the electorate trends from 2008 to 2012, Obama probably should've lost Florida. He didn't.

It may be a drift. A slow one. But demographically, there are also forces working against Republicans continued dominance in Florida.
 

kingkitty

Member
Hopefully there's one or two actual candidates that will run against Hillary in the primary.

I'd like to see her go through a few primary debates before she gets anointed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom