Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 02:05:57 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 80
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DREAMers crash Rubio appearance at GOP fundraiser in South Carolina on: August 30, 2014, 04:52:50 am
So much for being the GOP's great Hispanic hope.  Rubio will perform poorly with the Latino (and Asian) vote if he runs for President in 2016.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC response to Rand Paul's op-ed on: August 29, 2014, 11:50:20 pm
This morning, Rand Paul ran an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he laid out his troubling foreign policy worldview.

Below please find a response from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin to Paul’s vision:

“It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of “blame America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be – The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”


This might piss some leftists off.

If you take out all the references to Rand Paul, it's absolutely impossible to not mistake this for what the Neo-cons said during the Bush years.

Disgusting, although not as awful as the Democrats who opposed the Iraq War, but will suddenly discover their inner neo-con if Hillary is nominated.

Biden, Reid, Harkin, Kerry, Edwards, Dorgan, Cantwell, and Kohl all voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Are they all neocons as well? It's not as though Hillary is the only one (either in terms of politicians or regular citizens) who flip flopped on this issue, as it used to have overwhelming support.

She's not a neo-con just because she supported the Iraq War (and still refuses to acknowledge it was a mistake).  I'm talking about her entire foreign policy record.  Also, I'm not sure that John Edwards is someone who want to be comparing Hillary to when you defend her Tongue  As for the Senators you mentioned, obviously most of them aren't (although Biden is definitely a liberal interventionist which has some significant overlap with neo-conservatism).  However, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein, and Bayh arguably are to varying degrees (especially the first two) and they also voted for the Iraq War.  Additionally, many of the Democrats who supported it were conservaDems like Landrieu, Breaux, Nelson (NE), Miller, Lincoln, Carper, etc.  I can't imagine why you left them out.  Surely you weren't cherry-picking names Roll Eyes

That is incorrect.  In her book Clinton says:

"When I voted to authorize force in 2002, I said that it was 'probably the hardest decision I had to make.'  I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had.  And I wasn't alone is getting it wrong.  But I still got it wrong."


3  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: August 2014 Federal Election - At-Large Senate on: August 22, 2014, 11:06:08 pm
[1] Polnut
[2] GAWorth
[3] Bacon King
[4] Lumine
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Howard Dean: I hope Hillary Clinton becomes president on: August 20, 2014, 02:43:51 am
Hillary can deliver the Congress to the Democrats, then you can teabag her from the left and force her to sign laws to her left. That's all you should want out of a President if you are a progressive.

I think this is fair point -- the way to get a progressive President Hillary Clinton is to elect a progressive Congress -- admittedly a difficult assignment given the gerrymandering in U.S. House districts.  But I consider judicial nominations a big deal and that is hugely impacted by the makeup of the U.S. Senate.

Back in 2008 many people were hoping that President Obama would be some liberal hero/magician once in the Oval Office.  History and experience should make them more realistic. 
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders: Not sure about Hillary on: August 13, 2014, 12:55:38 am
Bernie Sanders is definitely running for the Democratic nomination against Hillary Clinton. While I only see him winning the Vermont primary, he can potentially give Hillary Clinton a run for her money in the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary by receiving 20-30% of the vote in them.

So you're thinking he will become a Democrat (last I checked, he wasn't) just for the sake of running against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries?  

From his public statements over the past nine months, that's exactly what it sounds like he's going to do (should he run).  He says that he doesn't want to be a spoiler in the general election, and he's highlighted the fact that if you run in the primaries for either of the two major parties, that gives you an opening to participate in the primary debates.  So that sounds like he's looking at running for president as a Democrat, but nothing's official yet.

Never thought I'd say this, but I think the party establishment should shut him out. He's not a legitimate Democratic candidate if he's not even an actual member of the party. Doesn't he do the same thing in Vermont every time he's on the ballot? He runs for the Democratic Nomination but ends up being an independent.

I don't agree.  The last thing we need is a Nader 2000 style situation in 2016.  And Sanders caucuses with us in the Senate, so it's not like he's some random nobody trying to run.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary vs. Rand - national demographics on: August 11, 2014, 02:20:29 am
Alright? I think we're all aware that Obama won Asians. Doesn't mean that Clinton will gain ten points with that demographic.

Obama won Asians 62-35 in 2008 and won them 73-27 in 2012 so Asians shifted 11 points to Obama in four years so it's not out of the question for it to trend even further to the left.

Obama probably hit the ceiling with the Asian vote in 2012 due to Romney's self-deportation comments. Plus, what makes Clinton such a good fit for Asians? Especially considering the fact that a lot of Asians are wealthier than average (especially Asian Indians), and most of them tend to be economically moderate, but only vote Dem because of social and foreign policy issues, so Rand may actually be a good fit for the demographic.  I could see Rand making huge inroads with the Asian Indian vote (speaking as an Asian Indian myself), thus making Asian vote as a whole slightly more Republican than it was in 2012.

Couple of things on this.  One is that Bill and Hillary Clinton did a lot of outreach to both the Latino and Asian American political communities during Bill's time as President and appointed a number of Asians to prominent posts -- Clinton was the first president to appoint an Asian to his Cabinet (Norman Mineta).  Notably, it was during Clinton's Presidency that the Asian vote began to shift toward the Democrats.  After losing the Asian vote 36-55 to George H.W. Bush in 1992, Clinton lost it much more narrowly (44-48) to Dole in 1996.  In 2000, Gore won Asians 55-41 and the Democratic Party has easily won them in every Presidential election since.

Obama did very well with Asian voters in both of his general election races, but Hillary Clinton actually defeated Obama by a wide margin with Asian voters in the 2008 Democratic Primary (with the exception of Hawaii).  She has a lot of experience with political outreach to Asians, both from her time as First Lady as well as representing New York, a state with a large Asian population.  As Secretary of State she made Asia a diplomatic priority -- the "Pivot to Asia" as it later became known.

7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul: the GOP can't "flip" and support gay marriage on: August 09, 2014, 03:10:21 am
We will not let the public forget that the Republican Party was on the wrong side of history.
8  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who will win the Senate control in November? on: July 29, 2014, 02:46:31 pm
At this point the GOP is definitely favored.

I'm predicting pickups in WV, NC, IA, AR, LA, SD, MT, and AK at the moment.  

I would bet money that the GOP will not have a net gain of eight seats.

Um.......it is definitely within the realm of possibility.

If the GOP can get momentum on the generic ballot, which is very possible in the last 100 days, and they can lock down KY, then I could easily see them get the net gain Del Tachi is predicting.  I would also throw in Colorado and Michigan if they are lucky.  I know this forum hates Scott Brown, but he could win if we see the Generic Ballot shift to R+5.  It isn't likely, but NH is extremely elastic in Senate elections, and I could see them break hard to the right if we see a national swing as well.

That being said, I am much more optimistic for the GOP than this forum.

It is also "within the realm of possibility" that Senate Democrats could only suffer a net loss of only one or two seats.  I did not predict that because it is most unlikely.  I think the scenario you present is based on a lot of not very plausible ifs.  Scott Brown -- that certainly is chuckle worthy.  The man cannot even figure out which state he is in.

Momentum on the generic ballot?  Well, the GOP has not shown any up till this point.  Certainly nothing like they had in 2010 or the Democrats had in 2006.  But perhaps you are thinking it is just going to suddenly materialize. 


9  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who will win the Senate control in November? on: July 29, 2014, 02:27:32 am
At this point the GOP is definitely favored.

I'm predicting pickups in WV, NC, IA, AR, LA, SD, MT, and AK at the moment.  

I would bet money that the GOP will not have a net gain of eight seats.

Well, what number would you bet on? I'd bet on a GOP net gain of 6-7 seats myself, but now I'm wondering what you are predicting.

I think Senate Democrats will only lose 3-4.  However, I could see a net loss of 6 if things go badly.  I would be willing to bet that the GOP net gain will be six or less.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who will win the Senate control in November? on: July 29, 2014, 01:42:34 am
At this point the GOP is definitely favored.

I'm predicting pickups in WV, NC, IA, AR, LA, SD, MT, and AK at the moment.  

I would bet money that the GOP will not have a net gain of eight seats.
11  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who will win in North Carolina? on: July 29, 2014, 01:39:20 am
Hagan.  I am more confident about her chances than some.  She's not an overly strong incumbent, but Tillis has major political baggage due to his connection with the NC state legislature.  Hagan is also a strong fundraiser while Tillis is a mediocre one.
12  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who will win in Montana on: July 27, 2014, 03:36:42 am
13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Who will win in Iowa? on: July 26, 2014, 10:51:35 pm
Braley, but by a margin closer than it should have been.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kaine or Warner as VP? on: July 03, 2014, 07:16:32 pm
Both would be solid picks.  Neither is really loved by the base, but Warner would be slightly more controversial due to his work on deficit reduction which was distrusted by some liberal members of our party.  Also, I have heard rumors about Warner's past private life.  For obvious reasons that is a scenario Hillary in particular would want to avoid.

Kaine has served as a No. 2 before, will have a good level of experience by 2016 and IMO he is slightly more liberal than Warner, which is a plus.  He would be a boring pick but if we are following the standard "do no harm" rule for the running mate selection, he looks like the better choice to me.

15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What does a Hillary coalition look like? on: July 02, 2014, 07:59:30 pm
Voters under 40.  White Women.  Asians + Hispanics.  Try to hold as much Black support as possible.  Gays and Lesbians.  Jewish voters.

She will probably do better than Obama among all these groups except Blacks and voters under 40.  Still more than enough to win.

Wouldn't Hillary do worse among Hispanics? This likely has nothing Obama, but rather that Hillary probably won't face an opponent that advocate "self-deportation".

Also, African American might not be such a problem. After all, they did turnout in an odd year for a some dude McAuliffe.

The death of immigration reform (at least until after Obama leaves office) will be a huge millstone around the neck of the 2016 Republican nominee -- and that's before we get to whatever bigoted contortions the nominee will have to twist himself into to get through the GOP primary.  Polls suggested that if immigration reform died, Latino voters would blame the GOP by a 3-1 margin.  And Clinton has been courting the Latino community for a long time -- since the 1990s.  Her performance in the 2008 primary suggests her brand is well-established there.

I think the recent Hobby Lobby ruling and utterly crass reaction from several right-wing men could have a similar galvanizing effect on women voters and Clinton is well-positioned to take advantage there as well.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Hillary getting overexposed? on: June 27, 2014, 02:28:48 am
No.  After six years away from electoral politics, this is an opportunity to get back into political "fighting form," experiment with political messaging and feel out the media in the relatively low pressure environment of a book tour.  It is essentially a test-run/listening tour for a presidential campaign.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary should have female opponents in the Democratic Primary on: June 26, 2014, 07:16:21 pm
I agree with this in theory, but it's also kinda ridiculous. Gillibrand running against her mentor, Hillary? That's less likely than Rubio and Jebby both running...

I agree it would be extremely difficult for Gillibrand to run against Hillary.  She would be instantly tagged as disloyal to the mentor who helped groom Kirsten for political office.  So perhaps she should be given a pass on this.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Hillary should have female opponents in the Democratic Primary on: June 26, 2014, 06:58:30 pm
So says Rebecca Traister, who specifically encourages Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Hillary to run.

Viewing women as adversaries—ideologically and also within their own parties—is an urgent next step in helping the nation adjust to the idea that female politicians are just like, you know, regular politicians. That means we have to swiftly abandon the processional model, in which one diligent woman takes her hard-earned turn, while the next waits patiently in the wings.

When a single avatar stands in for womankind, womankind projects onto that avatar its own varied ideas and priorities and standards. Clinton suffered from this last time, metaphysically unable to satisfy a million divergent hopes. She couldn’t be progressive enough, authentic enough, strong enough, stoic enough, or well-dressed enough for everyone. That’s part of why it’s dangerous for one woman to mean so much to so many.

19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary's "Latino Problem"? on: June 24, 2014, 08:33:38 pm
Navarette is a conservative columnist so it's not exactly a surprise he is trashing Clinton.  His column conveniently omits Clinton's support for immigration reform and the DREAM Act, but of course those facts would not fit with the false narrative he is trying to create.  If Mr. Navarette would like to do something about the undocumented children here perhaps he could try supporting the DREAM Act himself instead of acting like an a$$ as he does in this column:

I know just what a lot of those so-called DREAMers deserve to get for Christmas: a scolding. There are good and bad actors in every movement, and the bad ones -- if not kept in check -- can drag the good ones down with them.

At times, these young people act like spoiled brats. They don caps and gowns and disrupt committee hearings and occupy the offices of members of Congress. They dare police to arrest them, and then act surprised when it happens. They're not realistic, or respectful. They don't ask. They demand.

So sorry, Mr. Navarette.  SOMEONE has a Latino problem, but it isn't Hillary or her party.  Latino voters know that what Republicans (and you) are offering them is a turd on a plate and vote accordingly.  You can go back and dream up some other obfuscation for the Right while the GOP continues to fail to act on immigration reform, passes more voting restrictions, opposes an increase in the minimum wage and makes more racist comments. 
20  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Sen-IL 2016; Michelle proves she's not Hillary Clinton on: June 24, 2014, 01:38:04 am
The only way I see her running is if she really wants to tick off the GOP after their attempts to gut her school lunch programs (given she would win the seat in a walk if she ran), but I don't think she has the fire in the belly. She has also emphatically denied that she will run, did Hilldawg do that prior to her 2000 NY-Sen run?

From what I recall, when the rumor first surfaced in early 1999 about First Lady Hillary Clinton running for the U.S. Senate, the response from Hillaryland was a curious silence.  I do remember vague statements about being flattered (we later learned that several N.Y. politicians were encouraging her to run) but she had "no plans" to do so.  By the spring this had morphed into statements that she was considering her options.  By June 1999 she was actively and openly exploring a run.

At this point in the 2000 cycle (June 1998) the possibility of Hillary running was on nobody's radar.  So Michelle Obama is experiencing scrutiny at a much earlier date.  There's still time for her to change her mind but I think she will probably not run.

21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Christie on how he'd treat legal marijuana states: "Not Well" on: June 21, 2014, 01:03:14 am
As an aside, at the recent CNN Town Hall, Hillary Clinton hedged her bets but left the door open to marijuana legalization:

As for recreational marijuana, Clinton displayed a similarly cautious but open approach. "On recreational, you know, states are the laboratories of democracy," Clinton said. "We have at least two states that are experimenting with that right now. I want to wait and see what the evidence is."

22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Brian Schweitzer on Eric Cantor and Dianne Feinstein on: June 20, 2014, 06:54:13 pm
Brian Schweitzer is not ready for prime time and has no business being on a national ticket. 
23  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: June 2014 Federal Election - President, VP and Regional Senators on: June 20, 2014, 06:45:56 pm
President and Vice President
1. DemPGH and Windjammer

Pacific Senator
1. Tyrion
2. Flo
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP releases god-awful ad against Hillary on: June 18, 2014, 12:36:49 am
It gets stranger -- the RNC is sending this squirrel around to Hillary's events.  She is being tracked by a giant squirrel.

So Hillary gets out of her car and gives the squirrel a copy of her book.


This all feels like an episode of Veep or a SNL skit waiting to happen.  It looks like we are in for a very bizarre presidential campaign.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should Democrats be happy abour Cantor's loss? on: June 14, 2014, 10:05:15 pm
Democrats interested in the Presidential race should be happy.  Winning Latino and Asian voters just got easier.  For Democrats who were praying for the miracle that immigration reform would somehow pass the House during this Congress, their hopes have been dashed.

...or the next Congress. Or the next. Or even the one after that. Cantor's loss will seriously discourage bipartisan discussion on the issue and could derail such reform. For the rest of the decade.

That's fine. The only way anything ever gets done is when there is a Democratic House, Democratic President, and 60 Democratic Senators. Cantor's absence or presence isn't going to change that, but another Tea Party loon in Congress makes the march to supermajority easier.

If Eric Cantor was making serious noises about immigration reform--and he was--there was at least a decent chance of passing a compromise version of the Dream Act in the next congress. Any Republican with an ounce of pragmatism--includingg even the arch-conservative Cantor--realizes that it's necessary to recoup the mamoth losses among Hispanic and Asian voters since 2004, but isn't likely to undermine base turnout against Hillary substantially.

If you so fully believe sacrificing meaningful immigration reform is a worthwhile sacrifice so Democrats can continue dominating among Hispanic and Asian voters, then I'm happy for you.

To say that there was a "decent chance" of the Dream Act passing had Cantor been reelected is stretching it.  I would call it more of a "very low" chance given the nonstop excuses, foot-dragging and backpedaling we have seen from the the GOP House Leadership over the past 18 months on this issue.  And they were going to pass it in the next Congress under the pressure of the presidential cycle and their wingnut base?  Possible but I find it most unlikely.  Too many House Republicans have no motivation to pass immigration reform.  In their custom drawn conservative cocoon districts with a mostly white electorate their only worry is a Tea Party challenge.  

At any rate, Cantor lost, so the chances are now zero.  Which is too bad, but from a political standpoint Democrats are fine playing the hand we've been dealt by the GOP.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 80

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines