• 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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Acheron said:
Why is there a belief Hillary Clinton is the "killer app" of the Dem bench?

1) Lost to Obama in the first place
2) Potentially weaker black/youth turnout
3) Republican leaners may not hate her now because she's been out of elected politics, but they did before and they can again

The only things I can hold onto are she's a woman, Bill Clinton and because she's white hillbillies won't hate her so much.

Formidable? Absolutely. But I don't see anything Biden or Schweitzer couldn't do better.
Click to expand...

Blacks actually went for her over obama earlier. also gain in women vote would be greater than loss in youth vote (which I don't actually see falling that much and its not like anyone else in the dems bench can capture obamas popularity)
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Barring some economy/foreign policy fuck up in the next 4 years, Hillary would get 70 million votes, write it down. Obama did rather poorly with white voters whereas Hillary (and any other white democrat tbh) would perform better there. She'd almost certainly win the female vote by a very big margin, including white women; the white female vote was basically 50/50 in 2012. And while she would do worse with AA voters, I don't think it would matter due to not having a large white vote deficit to make up.

I don't expect her to win Texas, W VA, Arkansas, and other red states polls show her doing well in, but she'd pad her popular vote margin - whereas Obama got wiped out in red states (which is natural as a democrat incumbent).

The Hispanic vote will be even larger in 2016 and she would certainly win it by at least Obama's margin; the best Rubio could do is 40% imo, and I doubt that considering he'll likely vote against immigration reform.

Clinton Schweitzer 2016
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Clinton Schweitzer 2016
Click to expand...

I freaking love schweitzer and think he's got a great future ahead of him in national politics.
Also I had no idea montana put another dem in helena last year

PhoenixDark said:
It'll be good to have a president who is focused on jobs and the economy
Click to expand...
oh_you.jpg
 
S

speculawyer

Member
An internal investigation of FreedomWorks—the prominent conservative advocacy group and super-PAC—has focused on president Matt Kibbe's management of the organization, his use of its resources, and a controversial book deal he signed, according to former FreedomWorks officials who have met with the private lawyers conducting the probe. One potential topic for the inquiry is a promotional video produced last year under the supervision of Adam Brandon, executive vice president of the group and a Kibbe loyalist. The video included a scene in which a female intern wearing a panda suit simulates performing oral sex on Hillary Clinton. [Author's note: The previous sentence contains no typos.]
Click to expand...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...n-sex-tape-freedomworks-matt-kibbe-dick-armey

The lesson here is that an "every man for themselves" philosphy based group ends up having everyone try to fuck each other over. Who would have guessed?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Gotchaye said:
More on Hillary - Does anyone doubt that she'd have done better in the 2008 general than Obama? Clearly a lot of 2008 was just buyer's remorse over W. No one symbolized better than Hillary the difference between the Bush and Clinton presidencies. And Bush hasn't been rehabilitated. If Bill Clinton goes out there and says that Republican X is saying all the same things Republicans said back then, all the things that led to George W Bush and Dick Cheney and the financial crisis, what is Republican X going to say? That at least he's not a socialist like the Democrat? If that Democrat is Hillary the attack just isn't plausible. It can literally be laughed off. No one is better placed to say that all the Democrats want to do is to go back to the policies that we had under Bill Clinton.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think that framing is accurate. I think the Democrats really are to the left of where they were in the 90s, and I also don't think that Bill Clinton deserves all that much credit for the economy. He got taxes raised, and that's great, but he's not a liberal hero. But this framing is so politically bulletproof that I don't see how it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
There might be states she would have won that Obama lost (Arkansas and Kentucky for example), but it would be canceled out by Obama's surprising victories in Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. So maybe about the same.

You can't underestimate Obama's insane ability at organizing his troops, which is what I'm hoping will beat gerrymandering in 2014 and deliver the House majority to the Democrats - in addition to more tea party fuckery.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Jack Remington said:
Interesting. I've only read a few opinion pieces on this, and they were all from the right (Forbes, WSJ, etc). I'll need to go look at some actual data.
Click to expand...

Latvia:

r1E3aqZ.png


Guess which year Latvia stimulated by increasing gov't expenditures? That's right, last year!

You will see the same with Estonia only they stimulated in 2011.

ZMDKzrD.png


What the WSJ and others will fail to mention is that Latvia and Estonia are far behind their pre-recession peak compared to nearly every other country (and all those without austerity). They're better than Greece, so they have that going for them.

I suggest reading this while you're at it: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_12_05.pdf
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
Thanks for linking that study Black Mamba. It confirms what I was skeptical about: namely that anything about Baltic austerity is even applicable to countries like the US, which is usually the implication when a publication like the WSJ runs that kind of story.
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
Are we still on the road to the sequester happening? Why was there a ton of pressure to avert the fiscal cliff but very little pressure to avert the sequester?
 
E

Ecotic

Member
Aaron Strife said:
There might be states she would have won that Obama lost (Arkansas and Kentucky for example), but it would be canceled out by Obama's surprising victories in Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. So maybe about the same.

You can't underestimate Obama's insane ability at organizing his troops, which is what I'm hoping will beat gerrymandering in 2014 and deliver the House majority to the Democrats - in addition to more tea party fuckery.
Click to expand...
Agreed on both counts. Also I was in my early 20's at a University in 2008 and saw how much Obama meant to fellow college students and the young in general. If Obama had lost it really would have felt to young people like something had been taken from them. I was devastated after his loss in New Hampshire, and so were the others huddled around the t.v. that night in the student center. Obama tapped into a sense of limitless possibility in 2008, and that's a hard thing to lose (look at Chris Matthews who still can't let go of JFK).

It really is fortunate that Obama won in 2008 and not Hillary. Hillary's strength was among older, white Americans, which is a demographic with a 25 year expiration date and wavering loyalties. Obama's locked in a such a sizable bloc of young voters that it'll pay dividends for years. If young voters had walked away with blue balls in 2008 had Obama lost the nomination.. well, it would have been real unfortunate.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
If Hillary runs and there are no fuck ups for the next four years she's going to absolutely murderstomp whoever is sent to die. To add to PD I will say 400+ EV total.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Synth_floyd said:
Are we still on the road to the sequester happening? Why was there a ton of pressure to avert the fiscal cliff but very little pressure to avert the sequester?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. A million people literally lose their jobs in a week and no one cares, whereas the fiscal cliff was hyped to Olympian heights despite being a mirage.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I have no idea. A million people literally lose their jobs in a week and no one cares, whereas the fiscal cliff was hyped to Olympian heights despite being a mirage.
Click to expand...

Probably because no one at all wants taxes to go up, and meanwhile crazy people actually want drastic spending cuts.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Acheron said:
Why is there a belief Hillary Clinton is the "killer app" of the Dem bench?

1) Lost to Obama in the first place
2) Potentially weaker black/youth turnout
3) Republican leaners may not hate her now because she's been out of elected politics, but they did before and they can again

The only things I can hold onto are she's a woman, Bill Clinton and because she's white hillbillies won't hate her so much.

Formidable? Absolutely. But I don't see anything Biden or Schweitzer couldn't do better.
Click to expand...

She also just spent 4 years as a very successful and popular Secretary of State, and instead of being opposed by Obama, she presumably has his endorsement.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
Presumably? Lol, did you watch that joint interview?
Click to expand...

Eh, I was being deliberately non-committal. She might tick him off in a coupld of years or he might end up with a preferred candidate. But as of today, yes, of course he woudl back her. Can you imagine the juggernaut that is Obama and Clinton campaigning for her?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Synth_floyd said:
Are we still on the road to the sequester happening? Why was there a ton of pressure to avert the fiscal cliff but very little pressure to avert the sequester?
Click to expand...

A variety of reasons. From the Democratic side, Obama could get most of what he wanted with the fiscal cliff by waiting, and his position was overwhelmingly popular. This gave him the opportunity to publically seek compromise while negotiating relatively aggressively. The Democratic position on the sequester is less popular, and current law doesn't lead to it, so it's harder to push -- instead of saying "the GOP is holding up tax cuts for 98% of Americans," it has to be "the GOP is forcing spending cuts on the whole government." The problem is that people like spending cuts in the abstract, so that argument doesn't impress much until after the cuts hit.

From the Republican side, well, as always, the Republican-controlled House can't actually come together and pass a bill to avert the sequester. That's why they keep talking about the bill they passed in the LAST Congress as though it's a viable alternative, though it's actually legally dead. Any sequester-averting bill is going to pass with mostly Democratic votes -- but Boehner can't bring up any such bill until he's forced. After the sequester hits, if the Senate passes something, he may be able to bring it up then, just as he did during the fiscal cliff. But he already promised not to negotiate, remember? Without negotiation, and with a caucus that can't actually pass anything, there's nothing for him to do except wait.

Basically, as with the fiscal cliff, both sides are afraid of the political backlash from acting to prevent spending cuts, so nothing will happen until public opinion turns against the spending cuts. Hopefully that will happen when the spending cuts actually take place and people realize they like having parks and police forces.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
pigeon said:
A variety of reasons. From the Democratic side, Obama could get most of what he wanted with the fiscal cliff by waiting, and his position was overwhelmingly popular. This gave him the opportunity to publically seek compromise while negotiating relatively aggressively. The Democratic position on the sequester is less popular, and current law doesn't lead to it, so it's harder to push -- instead of saying "the GOP is holding up tax cuts for 98% of Americans," it has to be "the GOP is forcing spending cuts on the whole government." The problem is that people like spending cuts in the abstract, so that argument doesn't impress much until after the cuts hit.

From the Republican side, well, as always, the Republican-controlled House can't actually come together and pass a bill to avert the sequester. That's why they keep talking about the bill they passed in the LAST Congress as though it's a viable alternative, though it's actually legally dead. Any sequester-averting bill is going to pass with mostly Democratic votes -- but Boehner can't bring up any such bill until he's forced. After the sequester hits, if the Senate passes something, he may be able to bring it up then, just as he did during the fiscal cliff. But he already promised not to negotiate, remember? Without negotiation, and with a caucus that can't actually pass anything, there's nothing for him to do except wait.

Basically, as with the fiscal cliff, both sides are afraid of the political backlash from acting to prevent spending cuts, so nothing will happen until public opinion turns against the spending cuts. Hopefully that will happen when the spending cuts actually take place and people realize they like having parks and police forces.
Click to expand...

If all this is true, then what we will witness is the power of deficit rhetoric to plunge the world's most powerful country into needless recession.

This is why it is so hurtful when Democratic politicians and liberal and progressive pundits and writers reinforce it, and why people who know better should denounce it whenever they see it.
 
A

airmangataosenai

Member
Regarding Hillary running and her losing to Obama as a reason why she would be a weak candidate: She came closer to beating Obama than any Republican has managed to do to date, at any level of office he's run for.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Key House Republican: Don’t Even Think About A Path To Citizenship

Immigration reform’s chances in the House are looking bleaker after one of the top Republicans tasked with shepherding a bill to passage ruled out a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chair of the Judiciary Committee that will mark up any House legislation on the issue, told NPR this week that he will not support a bill that eventually grants citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in America.

“People have a pathway to citizenship right now: It’s to abide by the immigration laws, and if they have a family relationship, if they have a job skill that allows them to do that, they can obtain citizenship,” Goodlatte said. “But simply someone who broke the law, came here, [to] say, ‘I’ll give you citizenship now,’ that I don’t think is going to happen.”
Click to expand...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...think-about-a-path-to-citizenship.php?ref=fpa

but remember, it's all Obama's fault
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
This is why were fucked...


Why $85 billion in budget cuts miss the mark
The cuts, set to kick in March 1, are indiscriminate and don't get at the real drivers of debt, Medicare and Social Security, writes CNNMoney's Jeanne Sahadi. FULL STORY
Click to expand...

Front page on CNN. The fucking debt, when we should be talking about jobs. Dat framing :/
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Doc Holliday said:
This is why were fucked...

Why $85 billion in budget cuts miss the mark
The cuts, set to kick in March 1, are indiscriminate and don't get at the real drivers of debt, Medicare and Social Security, writes CNNMoney's Jeanne Sahadi. FULL STORY
Click to expand...

Front page on CNN. The fucking debt, when we should be talking about jobs. Dat framing :/
Click to expand...

Not only that, it's not even accurate.

First and primarily, the driver of the debt is an archaic law that arbitrarily requires the government to sell bonds to match the difference between the money it destroys in taxes and the money in creates in spending, when that law is wholly unnecessary. In fact, this single law is the only real driver of the debt, because it is the only thing that makes debt issuance necessary in the first place.

Second, and assuming the Congress insists on forcing the government to issue debt in the current arbitrary manner it does, then the primary driver of debt is health care prices, which is not "Medicare." Medicare is a government program that pays health care expenses. The driver of the debt is not this program but private health care prices, which are inflated due to rent-seeking by profit-seeking entities being left to freely operate in a non-market.

Third, and continuing to assume Congress chooses to force the government to issue debt, Social Security has nothing at all to do with that debt issuance.

So not only are we fucked because the media insists on banging the debt drum, we are also fucked because it brazenly lies about it while doing it.
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
empty vessel said:
Not only that, it's not even accurate.

First and primarily, the driver of the debt is an archaic law that arbitrarily requires the government to sell bonds to match the difference between the money it destroys in taxes and the money in creates in spending, when that law is wholly unnecessary. In fact, this single law is the only real driver of the debt, because it is the only thing that makes debt issuance necessary in the first place.

Second, and assuming the Congress insists on forcing the government to issue debt in the current arbitrary manner it does, then the primary driver of debt is health care prices, which is not "Medicare." Medicare is a government program that pays health care expenses. The driver of the debt is not this program but private health care prices, which are inflated due to rent-seeking by profit-seeking entities being left to freely operate in a non-market.

Third, and continuing to assume Congress chooses to force the government to issue debt, Social Security has nothing at all to do with that debt issuance.

So not only are we fucked because the media insists on banging the debt drum, we are also fucked because it brazenly lies about it while doing it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, of course if you bring any of this up people give this fucking look of bewilderment.
 
K

KingK

Member
So I had to attend a public discussion on gun violence at my college campus today for my political science class. When they got to Q&A at the end, a lot of people kept bringing up "enforcing the current gun laws," so I decided, fuck it, I'll weigh in, and brought up that Daily Show segment from a few weeks ago and detailed some of the ways that the NRA has successfully lobbied congress to prevent the ATF from enforcing those laws (like by not having a director for the past 6 years).

A gun-nut proceeded to go off on me. We went back and forth a few times and I kept my cool until he started drifting into crazy land, bringing up Mexican drug cartels and Fast and Furious and bunch of other Fox News talking points irrelevant to my argument and the host stepped in and stopped him. Afterwards as I was leaving to head to my next class a couple people from the local news asked me for an interview lol.
 
C

codhand

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Wrestling fans have enjoyed a host of ridiculous joke characters based off ethnic and cultural stereotypes, it would be hypocritical to get butthurt over this. Hell, Vince is a tea party disciple
Click to expand...

butthurt? thanks dude, cmon, i find it hilarious and entertaining, especially the added subtext of WWE being run by linda....
 
A

Arrowgigantic

Member
Jack Swagger is not a new star, however this is a new angle for him. Also however, he got busted for DUI and pot possession two nights ago so this angle might be canned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
924
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
730
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom