Support NeoGAF

[HylianTom]

I don't have enough empty bottles to hold all of these anti gay marriage tears. Mary Fallins filled 3 alone.

Monday Night Football looks like a bust tonight, but, due to getting killed here at work today, I have some catching-up to do with sodomite marriage-related tear-sippin' when I get home tonight. Gonna be glorious!

SCOTUS schadenfreude is second only to electoral college schadenfreude. Maybe.. maybe.

 

[pigeon]

The thing about the gerrymandering conversation is that there are a lot of little issues getting conflated when it comes to district drawing.

People are talking about gerrymandering more because of the 2010 lines, which seemed undemocratic. But they bring up examples of crazy districts that much predate 2010. And often, as APK is suggesting, those crazy districts are drawn that way to create majority minority districts, which were intended by Democrats to elect minority representatives. Of course, that also has the effect of sucking Democratic votes out of other districts and turning them redder. And then we get into the whole discussion of urban vs. rural, to say nothing of the fact that these districts are supposed to represent actual local governance blocs, so that people with common interests by virtue of their geography are grouped together.

I think this is why APK is saying we need to be clear as to what issue we're trying to solve. If the districts are just ugly, well, honestly, is that really a problem in itself?

Personally I think that nonpartisan redistricting is an end in itself. I am not an expert in mapmaking and am happy to leave the questions up to experts, but we should remove politics from the discussion. (Obviously this is not easy to do.) It isn't likely to solve the structural disadvantage that Democrats have in the House -- we need proportional representation for that. But we really have a responsibility to create nonpartisan democratic institutions.

 

[Ecotic]

The upside is the Republican 2016 field won't receive a get of jail free card on gay marriage by the Supreme Court removing the issue. They'll have to take the unpopular stand in the debates.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The upside is the Republican 2016 field won't receive a get of jail free card on gay marriage by the Supreme Court removing the issue. They'll have to take the unpopular stand in the debates.

Not only that, they'll be compelled by multiple interest groups to sign petitions pledging to ban gay marriage legislatively. And when Ted Cruz or whichever early fringe candidate is riding a wave of popularity in late December 2015/early January 2016, the moderates will face even more pressure to cave.

 

[Black Mamba]

The upside is the Republican 2016 field won't receive a get of jail free card on gay marriage by the Supreme Court removing the issue. They'll have to take the unpopular stand in the debates.

Not sure it'll make it to 2016, though. If the 5th or someone else upholds the ban, SCOTUS will hear it before 2016. If not, all the circuits will end up allowing it and it will be legal without the SCOTUS touching it.

I am really of the belief this is probably done one way or another by 2016's election.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nate Cohn with the number crunching, looking at Georgia registered voters:

GA RVs now 58% white. Since November 2013, the number of white registered voters in GA has increased by 84,582. Nonwhite: 125,446.

At 2010 turnout rates, new RV numbers would yield an electorate that's 63.2 white, 29.4 black, 7.3 other.

Average electorate in recent GA polls: 65.6 white, 26.4 black (includes Landmark D+3 poll, which was 29.2 black, 64.7 white)

Between 2013 and 2012 ACS, the number of white eligible voters in Georgia increased by 3,423. Nonwhite: 64,135.

Well then.

In order to win 50% of the vote with that 2010 electorate, Nunn would need something like 30% of the white vote, 65% of "other" and 90% of the black vote. Matching Obama's numbers (2008, no exit poll data for 2010 or 2012 which sucks) gets her to 48%.

I really think Nunn could win this.

Btw PPP polled Connecticut, Gov. Malloy up 8.

 

[Ecotic]

Is gay marriage on the ballot anywhere in the mid-terms?

 

[Oblivion]

Well looky, here. Seems Obama's done better on the UE rate than even Mitt Romney thought he could do.

Funny how that works out.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Nate Cohn with the number crunching, looking at Georgia registered voters:



Well then.

In order to win 50% of the vote with that 2010 electorate, Nunn would need something like 30% of the white vote, 65% of "other" and 90% of the black vote. Matching Obama's numbers (2008, no exit poll data for 2010 or 2012 which sucks) gets her to 48%.

I really think Nunn could win this.

Meanwhile in actual polling news, Perdue is up 5.

I thought she could have beaten Kingston but Perdue is too solid.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Meanwhile in actual polling news, Perdue is up 5.

I thought she could have beaten Kingston but Perdue is too solid.

Last SUSA poll had him up just 1. I don't trust Ras for shit and neither should you. Also notice how I hedge my bets, "Michelle Nunn could win" isn't the same as some dumbass statement like, hm, I don't know... "Scott Brown has this on lockdown"? "Todd Akin will win"?

And you call this solid?

U.S. Senate candidate David Perdue said Monday he is proud of outsourcing he has done in his career as a corporate executive, pushing blame for lost jobs back on Washington.

Perdue, a former CEO for Dollar General and Republican nominee to replace retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss, was stung by his own words last week in an article on Politico.com. The Washington political news website quoted Perdue from a 2005 deposition where he said he "spent most of my career" outsourcing.

"Defend it? I'm proud of it," he said in a press stop at The White House restaurant in Buckhead. "This is a part of American business, part of any business. Outsourcing is the procurement of products and services to help your business run. People do that all day."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Not sure it'll make it to 2016, though. If the 5th or someone else upholds the ban, SCOTUS will hear it before 2016. If not, all the circuits will end up allowing it and it will be legal without the SCOTUS touching it.

I am really of the belief this is probably done one way or another by 2016's election.

Just like abortion. Anyways the debate isn't going to be over recognition but the religious liberty to discriminate

 

[PhoenixDark]

And you call this solid?

Doesn't seem to be hurting him, I'll wait for polls to suggest otherwise. The defense that outsourcing is brought on by high taxes isn't hard to sell people who want to believe the worst about taxes/democrats ("taxes cost me my job, lowering taxes will get my job back"). Obviously that's an oversimplification (and false) but it's how the issue is viewed by many people.

My problem with Nunn (and Hagan) is that both will need large black turnout to win, and I don't see that happening without Obama on the ballot, and the horrible economic conditions black people face in both states. Ultimately that's what midterms are about IMO. People didn't vote in 2010 because the economy was shitty and they didn't have an incentive. I don't think anything has changed for many people in states like NC and Georgia.

 

[Black Mamba]

Just like abortion. Anyways the debate isn't going to be over recognition but the religious liberty to discriminate

I agree here. This is probably where SCOTUS will have to step in.

If the SCOTUS has to overturn a ban on gay marriage, it's probably better for that, though. In using 14th Amendment and giving protected class status, it would force the discrimination cases' hands.

Without an official SCOTUS ruling, they don't have to do that if they take up the case.

Very interesting.

Hopefully, the 5th upholds the ban and SCOTUS takes it up and overrrules.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/10/rounds-support-falls-to-35-in-south-dakota-race.html

Holy shit if the Dems manage to pull off SD it would be incredible, and considering Weiland is a progressive he would make a nice edition to the Senate.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Doesn't seem to be hurting him, I'll wait for polls to suggest otherwise. The defense that outsourcing is brought on by high taxes isn't hard to sell people who want to believe the worst about taxes/democrats ("taxes cost me my job, lowering taxes will get my job back"). Obviously that's an oversimplification (and false) but it's how the issue is viewed by many people.

My problem with Nunn (and Hagan) is that both will need large black turnout to win, and I don't see that happening without Obama on the ballot, and the horrible economic conditions black people face in both states. Ultimately that's what midterms are about IMO. People didn't vote in 2010 because the economy was shitty and they didn't have an incentive. I don't think anything has changed for many people in states like NC and Georgia.

Did you read Cohn's tweets? Even if turnout was at 2010 levels, the huge number of black registered voters added over the past couple of years would put them at a little under 30% of the electorate. I did the math for you - Nunn would just need to perform as well with minorities as any other Democrat while winning 30% of white voters.

Not to mention black turnout didn't even decrease that much in 2010. It was 30% in 08 and 28.3% in 10.

 

[theprodigy]

Doesn't seem to be hurting him, I'll wait for polls to suggest otherwise. The defense that outsourcing is brought on by high taxes isn't hard to sell people who want to believe the worst about taxes/democrats ("taxes cost me my job, lowering taxes will get my job back"). Obviously that's an oversimplification (and false) but it's how the issue is viewed by many people.

My problem with Nunn (and Hagan) is that both will need large black turnout to win, and I don't see that happening without Obama on the ballot, and the horrible economic conditions black people face in both states. Ultimately that's what midterms are about IMO. People didn't vote in 2010 because the economy was shitty and they didn't have an incentive. I don't think anything has changed for many people in states like NC and Georgia.

you still stubbornly holding on to this?

clearly you only "believe" in polling when it favors your trolling gimmick

 

[Black Mamba]

Doesn't seem to be hurting him, I'll wait for polls to suggest otherwise. The defense that outsourcing is brought on by high taxes isn't hard to sell people who want to believe the worst about taxes/democrats ("taxes cost me my job, lowering taxes will get my job back"). Obviously that's an oversimplification (and false) but it's how the issue is viewed by many people.

My problem with Nunn (and Hagan) is that both will need large black turnout to win, and I don't see that happening without Obama on the ballot, and the horrible economic conditions black people face in both states. Ultimately that's what midterms are about IMO. People didn't vote in 2010 because the economy was shitty and they didn't have an incentive. I don't think anything has changed for many people in states like NC and Georgia.

Nate Cohn actually showed you could be very wrong. And showed it today, coincidentally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/u...ecide-senate-control.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Black turnout in Louisiana wasn’t higher in 2002 than it was in the 2000 presidential election. White turnout just dropped off more. The same thing happened in 1998, when the black share of the electorate nearly reached 30 percent, even higher than in the Democratic wave year of President Obama’s election in 2008.

Georgia, another one of this year’s Senate battlegrounds, has a record of fairly strong black turnout in midterm elections. In 1998, black turnout in Georgia increased by 1.7 percentage points above 1996 levels.

If anything, it's not the black turnout that is the issue, it's the white turnout. And I don't see whites voting like they did in 2010, which puts these seats more in play than before given demographic changes.

 

[The Librarian]

you still stubbornly holding on to this?

clearly you only "believe" in polling when it favors your trolling gimmick

+1

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nate Cohn actually showed you could be very wrong. And showed it today, coincidentally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/u...ecide-senate-control.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

32% of the electorate being black would be nuts. Obama could have won both years if he had that going for him.

Given the surge in registration of black voters, I'd expect black turnout to hold pretty steady with the past two presidential elections (relatively speaking), especially since much of the registration is being done through Nunn/Carter groups who have a vested interest in making sure they vote.

 

[thepotatoman]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/10/rounds-support-falls-to-35-in-south-dakota-race.html

Holy shit if the Dems manage to pull off SD it would be incredible, and considering Weiland is a progressive he would make a nice edition to the Senate.

I think SD might actually be in play. October 1st was the first real political ad in south dakota attacking him on his new scandal. It seems real likely this was an actual shift in opinion and not just an outlier. Plus South Dakota advertising is super cheap, so it won't be the last one we see, especially after that poll.

Without putting up a fight, SD was obviously going to default to their party of choice, but who knows once there's an actual fight, and people learn that there's an actual candidate behind that party name, which may not be as likable as they thought.

It's no game changer like Kansas, but I'd always welcome another red state to shift into battleground territory.

 

[eBay Huckster]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/10/rounds-support-falls-to-35-in-south-dakota-race.html

Holy shit if the Dems manage to pull off SD it would be incredible, and considering Weiland is a progressive he would make a nice edition to the Senate.

If this (and the latest Bluegrass Poll) turn out to not be outliers I'm gonna be serving so much goddamn crow in a month

 

[zero shift]

Nate Cohn with the number crunching, looking at Georgia registered voters:



Well then.

In order to win 50% of the vote with that 2010 electorate, Nunn would need something like 30% of the white vote, 65% of "other" and 90% of the black vote. Matching Obama's numbers (2008, no exit poll data for 2010 or 2012 which sucks) gets her to 48%.

I really think Nunn could win this.

Btw PPP polled Connecticut, Gov. Malloy up 8.

I wonder how much longer until much of the deep red states in the deep south start turning purple or even blue?

 

[Black Mamba]

 

[Hobbestetrician]

^ Obama has truly ushered in the Socialist era.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If this (and the latest Bluegrass Poll) turn out to not be outliers I'm gonna be serving so much goddamn crow in a month

One thing that gives me a little bit of optimism for Kentucky is the Mellman poll that Grimes was pushing. Mellman is a great pollster and doesn't generally release outliers to prop up his candidate of choice, and focuses more on modeling the electorate rather than obsessing over likely voters the way the media does. Ground game is becoming increasingly important to Democratic campaigns and if pollsters are screening people out for arbitrary reasons that skews results to the Republicans.

It's ironic that the GOP was behind the unskewing movement in 2012 considering polls underestimated Obama by 3 points.

 

[Oblivion]

Surprised no one's mentioned the gay marriage thing.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Surprised no one's mentioned the gay marriage thing.

It's good news but I'm not surprised SCOTUS is avoiding it. We'll have to wait until another court rules against gay marriage, if that even happens.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Jeb is cutting ads for the chamber of commerce.

They bland, don't mention party or really anything.

But they're in spanish

 

[Black Mamba]

Lol, Magellan released an Iowa Senate poll 50-41 for Ernst.

Way more Republican registered voters than 2010!?!? LMAO @ this poll.

Some day the GOP will stop paying for trash polls to make themselves feel better. Some day.

Surprised no one's mentioned the gay marriage thing.

We talked about it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

If the SCOTUS has to overturn a ban on gay marriage, it's probably better for that, though. In using 14th Amendment and giving protected class status, it would force the discrimination cases' hands.

A holding that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional wouldn't entail anything with respect to private discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The equal-protection clause is a restriction on government action, not private action; and the concept of a protected class under antidiscrimination statutes is distinct from the concepts of suspect and quasi-suspect classifications under the EPC. So, even if the Court held that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect or suspect classification (which it needn't do to rule the same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional), that holding would have no effect on antidiscrimination laws applicable to individuals.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm saying that in a potential SCOTUS case, they'd end up giving them protected class status. Just my opinion.

edit: Or essentially lay the groundwork for it as the DOMA case laid the groundwork for what's happening now.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm saying that in a potential SCOTUS case, they'd end up giving them protected class status. Just my opinion.

edit: Or essentially lay the groundwork for it as the DOMA case laid the groundwork for what's happening now.

See I see this as part of the reason they didn't take this case and nationalize it. Kennedy seems really wanting to go out of his way to not give them protected class status while at the same time ruling for them with some out their interpretations

DOMA was overruled on the 5ths due process clause, not equal protection

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm saying that in a potential SCOTUS case, they'd end up giving them protected class status. Just my opinion.

edit: Or essentially lay the groundwork for it as the DOMA case laid the groundwork for what's happening now.

But that's not how it works--the concepts are completely unrelated. For instance, say that the federal government decided one day to repeal the Civil Rights Act and similar anti-discrimination statutes. The courts would not then step in to make private discrimination on the basis of race illegal, even though it would remain a suspect classification for EPC purposes. The question of what standard of review applies in an EPC challenge simply has no relevance to the question of whether it is illegal for a private person to discriminate on a given basis.

EDIT: To clarify and restate my point somewhat differently, the Supreme Court doesn't create protected classes for the purpose of private antidiscrimination laws; those are enacted by legislation. The Supreme Court tells Congress and state legislatures when they can or cannot discriminate; but only Congress or state legislatures tell private persons when those persons cannot discriminate.

 

[ivysaur12]

I fully expected to come into this thread and see someone argue that the marriage equality bans struck down in CO (soon to be) NC would be terrible news for Udall and Hagan. Pleasantly surprised.

 

[Wilsongt]

I fully expected to come into this thread and see someone argue that the marriage equality bans struck down in CO (soon to be) NC would be terrible news for Udall and Hagan. Pleasantly surprised.

Why state what is already known?

Terrible news for Hagan. The conservatives in NC will rise up and crush her.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Lol, Magellan released an Iowa Senate poll 50-41 for Ernst.

Way more Republican registered voters than 2010!?!? LMAO @ this poll.

Some day the GOP will stop paying for trash polls to make themselves feel better. Some day.




We talked about it.

It's shitty that pollsters/analysts don't have any sort of perception re:shitty polls. They just throw it on the pile and let it average out.

 

[Black Mamba]

But that's not how it works--the concepts are completely unrelated. For instance, say that the federal government decided one day to repeal the Civil Rights Act and similar anti-discrimination statutes. The courts would not then step in to make private discrimination on the basis of race illegal, even though it would remain a suspect classification for EPC purposes. The question of what standard of review applies in an EPC challenge simply has no relevance to the question of whether it is illegal for a private person to discriminate on a given basis.

EDIT: To clarify and restate my point somewhat differently, the Supreme Court doesn't create protected classes for the purpose of private antidiscrimination laws; those are enacted by legislation. The Supreme Court tells Congress and state legislatures when they can or cannot discriminate; but only Congress or state legislatures tell private persons when those persons cannot discriminate.

Right, the issue is whether they'd be applied to existing law. You are correct that it's not the same but I wouldn't say it is unrelated; it's just not direct. The case, imo, would lay the foundation for protected class status in discrimination lawsuits to come.

 

[WayneMorse]

I fully expected to come into this thread and see someone argue that the marriage equality bans struck down in CO (soon to be) NC would be terrible news for Udall and Hagan. Pleasantly surprised.

Colorado Springs has now devolved into a boiling hot lake of rage so no.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Right, the issue is whether they'd be applied to existing law. You are correct that it's not the same but I wouldn't say it is unrelated; it's just not direct. The case, imo, would lay the foundation for protected class status in discrimination lawsuits to come.

But in a discrimination lawsuit, a plaintiff would have to point to something that makes the discrimination illegal, and the thing the plaintiff would point to would be a statute. But if that statute doesn't make the challenged discrimination illegal, then the court would have to throw the suit out. No court would add a protected class to a statute, because they don't have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court holding that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification would have literally no bearing on the outcome of the discrimination lawsuit.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Right, the issue is whether they'd be applied to existing law. You are correct that it's not the same but I wouldn't say it is unrelated; it's just not direct. The case, imo, would lay the foundation for protected class status in discrimination lawsuits to come.

Well you'd challenge laws that affirmatively allowed for the discrimination like a state passing a law saying they don't have to serve all couples and you'd argue the state was targeting gays there.

You can never use this to force people to not discriminate if there is no law disallowing it.

 

[Diablos]

Holy shit SurveyUSA has Grimes up 2 in KY, 46-44

HOPIUM

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/10/rounds-support-falls-to-35-in-south-dakota-race.html

Holy shit if the Dems manage to pull off SD it would be incredible, and considering Weiland is a progressive he would make a nice edition to the Senate.

OH MY FUCKING GOD

 

[Aaron Strife]

HOPIUM


OH MY FUCKING GOD

This hopium is dopium

Win KY, win SD, win GA, win KS, Democrats win the House and pick up ten governorships and mid-decade redistrict that shit and repeal term limits for Obama. Scalia resigns to find Jesus and SCOTUS legalizes gay pot and exiles Ted Cruz to Canada where he becomes prime minister

 

[HylianTom]

My worst nightmare?
.. 5th Circuit overturns pro-marriage equality ruling, ending gay marriage in its jurisdiction
.. Justice Ginsburg is no longer able to serve on the bench
.. SCOTUS accepts the 5th Circuit case
.. 4-4 ruling means that the 5th Circuit's ruling stands

I might need to go on blood pressure pills.

 

[Diablos]

That Ginsburg lady sure is stubborn, I tells ya.
I do have a tremendous amount of respect for her... but she's so old.

 

[jamesinclair]

Which party is more likely to push for more house representatives.

 

[Diablos]

My worst nightmare?
.. 5th Circuit overturns pro-marriage equality ruling, ending gay marriage in its jurisdiction
.. Justice Ginsburg is no longer able to serve on the bench
.. SCOTUS accepts the 5th Circuit case
.. 4-4 ruling means that the 5th Circuit's ruling stands

I might need to go on blood pressure pills.

HylianTom
is a verb

 

[HylianTom]

HylianTom
is a verb

Guilty as charged, especially when it comes to my woman.

For each time when Obama crossed 270, the first words out of my mouth were a solemn, Big Brother-style "Ruth - you are safe."

 

[Diablos]

Guilty as charged, especially when it comes to my woman.

For each time when Obama crossed 270, the first words out of my mouth were a solemn, Big Brother-style "Ruth - you are safe."

Explain?

 

[HylianTom]

Explain?

As soon as I knew that Obama had won and that he'd be doing the nominating in the event of a vacancy, I was able to relax on whatever she chose to do.. at least for a few years.

(And the Big Brother reference was to the cheesy reality TV show. If a contestant wasn't being nominated to be kicked off the show, they were usually told in a quiet/calm/solemn manner, "You are safe.")

---

And my comment earlier about how it seems like the 5th Circuit is deliberately taking its sweet-ass time on a gay marriage ruling? My hunch is stronger now..
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...upreme-court-gay-marriage-what-next/16813325/

In the 20 states where gay marriage bans remain, what's next?

Texas: A federal judge invalidated Texas' same-sex marriage ban in February. The state appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit. The plaintiffs in that case asked the appeals court to speed up the case on Monday, saying they wanted to have it resolved — and be married — before their second child is born. Texas indicated it would oppose speeding up the appeal.

 

[benjipwns]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1N3rbwRA_k

“If we can get her elected do you think she is going to do the right thing and she’s gonna try to wipe out that coal industry and go for better resources?” asks an undercover videographer in one segment of the video.

“I absolutely think she is,” responds Fayette County Democratic Party operative Gina Bess.

...

“She’s saying something positive about coal because she wants to be elected,” said Ros Hines, a staffer in Grimes’ Lexington campaign office. “And in the state of Kentucky, if you are anti-coal, you will not get elected, period, end of conversation.”

Some Grimes supporters captured in the hidden-camera video likewise suggest that Grimes is lying about her support for the industry in order to get elected.

“She has to say that,” remarked Juanita Rodriguez of the Warren County Democratic Party. “But you know what? Politics is a game. You do what you have to do to get [elected]. … It’s a lying game unfortunately.”

Rodriguez speculated that Grimes does not in fact support the industry to the extent that she has declared publicly.

“I really don’t think her heart is 100 percent in backing coal. But she has to say she is because she will not get a high number of votes in this state if she doesn’t. But she’s got to get in there first and she’s gonna say whatever she has to say or do. And that’s the way the political game is played.”