Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 29, 2015, 07:25:52 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 242
1701  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How would you have voted on the Affordable Care Act (2010)? on: October 05, 2013, 10:23:52 pm
No, certainly not. And then Yes on all 41 attempts at repeal.
1702  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Which side loses less from the shutdown on: October 05, 2013, 09:28:08 pm
I think the GOP will lose this one but not nearly as badly as some are predicting.
1703  Election Archive / 2014 Senatorial Election Polls / Re: SD: Harper Polling: Rounds (R) leads Weiland (D) by 14 on: October 05, 2013, 09:23:27 pm
Rounds is ahead of 50, leading by double-digits, in a Republican state where the undecideds will probably break in his favor. I don't understand what everyone is tearing out their hair over; if you set ND 2010 as a standard for a clear lead you'll be disappointed all the time. Very Safe R.

Plus Harry Reid publicly repudiated Weiland as "not my choice" back in May.

Pretty sure Harry Reid is taking into account his approval rating in South Dakota and is trying to sneakily help Weiland out Wink
1704  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gun to your head: Who will be the Presidential nominees? on: October 05, 2013, 09:04:52 pm
Cruz can't run he wasn't born here.

Cruz can run, almost certainly will, and almost certainly won't get anywhere and will only embarrass himself.
1705  Election Archive / 2014 Senatorial Election Polls / Re: SD: Harper Polling: Rounds (R) leads Weiland (D) by 14 on: October 05, 2013, 09:03:12 pm
Rounds is ahead of 50, leading by double-digits, in a Republican state where the undecideds will probably break in his favor. I don't understand what everyone is tearing out their hair over; if you set ND 2010 as a standard for a clear lead you'll be disappointed all the time. Very Safe R.
1706  Election Archive / 2014 Senatorial Election Polls / Re: WV-PPP: Capito up 14 on: October 05, 2013, 09:00:48 pm
Fine, but Tennant, especially Walsh's chances have improved since the shutdown.

I'm willing to accept they've gotten closer (bumps deflate usually, but whatever), but what makes you think Walsh especially? On the contrary, Montana is the sort of rural state that's stereotyped as having libertarian sympathies where you would think Republican supporters would be willing to go along with a government shutdown at higher-than-average rates. Not really the case in more populist-y West Virginia.
1707  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Which chamber is more likely to flip in 2014? on: October 05, 2013, 08:58:07 pm
they're only guaranteed 2 Senate seats in South Dakota and West Virginia and Montana which leans their way.

Two years ago, we thought North Dakota was a guaranteed Republican pickup in 2012.  Sometimes you just don't know, and that one wasn't even the Tea Party's fault...

Exactly. Of course I think Mike Rounds will win in South Dakota, but it is worth noting that he, a popular ex-Governor in a very conservative state, is only 14 points ahead of a total unknown with 0 experience or name recognition whatsoever. Not exactly a reason for Rounds to be concerned, but he should probably be ahead by 30.

Why do you keep repeating this bizarre talking point that you can be 'only' 14 points? Most challengers running in a seat held by the other party would sell their souls to be ahead 14 points.
1708  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Early 2016 Senate Ratings on: October 05, 2013, 08:44:26 pm
who are clearly about to lose several seats

All right, slow down tiger. South Dakota is the only seat that's gone

West Virginia is as gone as South Dakota, Democrats are already behind in Montana and tied in Arkansas (red states where undecideds usually break against them); Begich barely leads Treadwell, far from 50, in an Alaska where Democrats consistently overpoll (and before you cite Miller he has not lead in a single poll), and in Louisiana, if Landrieu fails to break 50 she will have to deal with a runoff election where turnout will not be in her favor. It's quite a stretch to see Democrats winning three of these six.

and Kentucky and Georgia are on the table.

I'll address these separately. In Kentucky, Grimes is currently effectively tied with McConnell in the mid-40s, but Kentucky has been extremely averse to electing Democrats at the federal level recently and Grimes' campaign has been poorly managed (still time to fix that, but it's a bad early sign). In Georgia, polling has shown Nunn consistently in the low 40s, and like in Louisiana if she does not break 50 she will have to deal with an off-date election with low turnout. And Georgia is a more polarized state than, say, Indiana or Missouri -- it will be harder for Nunn to bounce off a gaffe or bad candidate to victory. In summary, Georgia is doubtful for Democrats but at least possible; while Kentucky won't fall without a strong regional or national wave for Democrats, neither of which is anywhere in sight.

The plausible range is from D+1 to R+6

To get D+1 Democrats need to sit down and get at least one more race seriously on the table. Natalie Tennant trailing in WV by double-digits doesn't count. The plausible range is somewhere from 0 (GA+KY/SD+WV) to around R+10ish (every Romney state and Michigan is clearly on the table, which makes 8, plus a maximum of 2 more from the 'a-hair-away-from-safe' quintet of CO/IA/MN/NH/OR; more than 2 of those is extremely doubtful).

, but realistically, it's gonna fall between R+1 and R+3

Realistically, Republicans are currently seriously shooting at 6 seats (AK, AR, LA, MT, SD, WV), while Democrats are shooting at 2 (GA, KY), so R+4 is probably the 'median' of possible futures. Democrats should be pretty satisfied with an R+3 result; that could correspond with small gains in the House.

Just because a democratic governor got elected doesn't mean this race is a potential pickup. Susana Martinez isn't going to block Tom Udall from sliding to victory in New Mexico is she? The right democrats can get elected in Missouri, but Blunt is the incumbent this time. The race is probably in his favor.

Martinez has never indicated any interest in the Senate, while Nixon actually ran for the Senate once already in 1998, doesn't seem to be planning to exit politics soon, won't be that old in 2016, and would have the Democratic nomination sewed up if he wants it, leading many to conclude that he is a possible 2016 Senate candidate.
1709  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: The GOP and VAP in their districts on: October 05, 2013, 06:09:29 pm
Meh, you can find the same examples of Democrats being elected and chalk that off to the same effects.
1710  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Early 2016 Senate Ratings on: October 05, 2013, 05:35:16 pm
Alabama. Safe R.
Alaska. Safe R.
Arizona. Leans R. McCain is most likely out, which means a close race but probably also a narrow Republican victory -- pretty polarized, inelastic state.
Arkansas. Likely R. The state Democratic Party hasn't been exterminated yet like in other parts of the South, and Hillary at the top of the ticket could have powerful coattails. But on the whole, Boozman is pretty safe and has recently become very popular in the Republican Senate Caucus.
California. Safe D.
Colorado. Leans D. Swing state, Republican bench exists, but Republicans will be busy with defense and Bennet will have incumbency.
Connecticut. Safe D.
Florida. Leans R. Whether Rubio goes or not, Democrats will be competitive, but most likely will lose in a leans-R state to a good R candidate. With West this turns into Leans D, but I doubt he'll be the candidate if Rubio leaves.
Georgia. Safe R. Yeah, the state is trending, but Democrats have a very weak bench and Isakson is a strong enough incumbent to avoid this sort of trouble. Plus inelasticity.
Hawaii. Safe D.
Idaho. Safe R.
Illinois. Leans D. An uncontroversial Democratic candidate should be able to put this one away, but the Illinois Democrats are not known for not being controversial (don't like that sentence, too many negatives). Hedging my bets.
Indiana. Likely R. Coats is not a strong incumbent, but the Indiana Democrats don't have much of a bench.
Iowa. Likely R. Obviously Safe if Grassley runs, but I won't believe it till I see it. Tossup without Grassley.
Kansas. Safe R.
Kentucky. Leans R. Whether Paul runs for reelection or not, Democrats have a bench here but the state doesn't like electing Democrats federally. Depends on the top of the ticket, as well.
Louisiana. Safe R.
Maryland. Safe D. Mikulski could retire, but I don't think it'd matter.
Missouri. Leans R. Blunt vs. Nixon is Tossup, maybe even a shade of Tilt D; any other serious Democrat against Blunt is Likely R, verging on Safe. Averaged the two.
Nevada. Tossup. Reid vs. Sandoval is Tossup. Reid against anyone else is Likely D; Sandoval against anyone else is Likely R. Do the math.
New Hampshire. Tossup. Very elastic state. Ayotte seems to be doing OK now in my opinion, but this is a state where both parties seem to have enormous benches and she should receive a credible opponent.
New York. Safe D. I'd probably vote for Schumer myself.
North Carolina. Leans R. Tossup if it's Burr vs. Cooper, Likely R otherwise (though still competitive, Democrats do have a bench).
North Dakota. Safe R. Safe with Hoeven; Leans R if it's an open seat. Decided Hoeven is pretty likely to seek reelection, so Safe R.
Ohio. Leans R. Tossup if it's Portman vs. Cordray; Likely R if it's anyone else.
Oklahoma. Safe R.
Oregon. Safe D. I'd probably vote for Wyden myself as well.
Pennsylvania. Leans R. One of the few races where the matchup can be predicted with a good deal of confidence (Toomey vs. Sestak). And, yeah, in a good D year Sestak should win but otherwise Toomey seems to have impressed his constituents. Still, R Senator in an inelastic leans-D state, don't count out Sestak.
South Carolina. Safe R.
South Dakota. Safe R.
Utah. Safe R.
Vermont. Safe D.
Washington. Safe D. If the GOP didn't beat Murray in a midterm wave, 2016 can't work. She's on my retirement watchlist, but I doubt it'll matter. Republicans could decoy Democrats here, though.
Wisconsin. Tossup. Leans D if it's Johnson vs. Feingold (could be), Tossup if it's Johnson vs. Kind (doubtful), and Leans R if it's Johnson vs. anyone else (most likely). Averaged it out to Tossup.

Might make a map later, might not.

EDIT: And here it is:



To elaborate a bit further, the Republicans' problem isn't that of the Democrats of 2014, who are clearly about to lose several seats, but that they are so overstretched a couple of seats are bound to slip through the cracks and be Democratic victories. And the potential for gains, while there, seems to be even more miserly than the Democratic potential for gains in 2014 (though that might just be distance from the elections talking).
1711  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gun to your head: Who will be the Presidential nominees? on: October 04, 2013, 11:53:03 pm
If I have to pick, Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul, but both are at less than 50% likelihood.
1712  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Reid: Bohener reneged on negotiated agreement to have a clean CR on: October 04, 2013, 11:44:39 pm
It's time to destroy the Republican party.

1713  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Vo Nguyen Giap 1911-2013 on: October 04, 2013, 03:34:29 pm
If for nothing else (and there's other things to praise him for), an FF for organizing resistance to Japanese occupation. May the veterans of the Great Patriotic War rest in peace.
1714  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Do you drink tea? on: October 04, 2013, 02:57:29 pm
On a daily basis; at home on an hourly basis. At home I drink usually Earl Grey or English Breakfast, first uber-concentrated, then very slightly diluted with hot water. I used to add 1-2 teaspoons of honey, but I've pretty much abandoned that except for sicknesses or holidays. Embrace the bitter!
1715  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do conservatives hate Jimmy Carter? on: October 03, 2013, 10:29:38 pm
As of late I would say Carter is reviled by many on the neoconservative side of the spectrum for tepidly speaking out against Israeli apartheid.

Do we really have to go through all the reasons that the comparison between modern-day Israel and apartheid South Africa is one of the most inane and stupid equivocations found in today's politics? To the extent that the rump PLO is probably more similar?
1716  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Reid won't fund care for kids with cancer on: October 03, 2013, 10:24:24 pm
What the hell is there even to negotiate??

The GOP have gotten everything they've wanted

No. The key plank of the GOP -- the one thing that binds every wing of the party together, moderates to Tea Partiers, interventionists to libertarians, really the party's raison d'etre -- is opposition to the Affordable Care Act. As long as it is in place, the GOP have gotten crumbs at best. This is why the party was willing to shut the government down in the first place over it.

It's an utterly disingenuous tactic, and you're well aware of it, Vosem.

Republicans have been quite open that their 'goal', their best-case scenario, is to end the shutdown and defund Obamacare. There's nothing secretive or disingenuous about it, it is common knowledge.

Democrats aren't budging (so far) because caving to that tactic completely lets the Republicans off free from public outrage by reducing as much inconvenience of the government shutdown as possible, but still letting the Republicans grandstand over something that they're obsessed with on a level that no political party has been obsessed with anything in recent political history.

'Because it would be better for the other party' isn't a good reason to do anything and doing things purely to spite the Republicans isn't a road sane Democrats want to take. (As an aside, large parts of the Republicans have been doing this to Democrats recently; you can see it hasn't done these wings much good.)

Democrats had one request: a clean, simple, funding resolution to keep the government funded until the Republicans turn around and do this all again in however long it takes for the funds to run out, as they've been wont to do. No special funding, just funding the laws and the programs on the books. Republicans don't want to fund one of those laws, so they caused the shutdown, and now that they're getting all sorts of flak for it,

Up to here, a very accurate sum-up of recent history

they want to mitigate the pain caused by the shutdown they caused so the media can move on and the public can forget about it, but they can still hold up Obamacare.

Are you saying Democrats don't want to mitigate the pain of the shutdown? And you have to remember that every individual Republican was elected with the voters of their district understanding that they would do anything within reason to hold up, delay, or remove Obamacare. That is a large part of the point in their being there in the first place.

If you proudly think that's an acceptable political move, and the fault of the evil Democrats for not gladly taking, you are a sociopath or completely ignorant.

It's acceptable, but it's not the Democrats' fault for not going along with it -- they, on the other hand, were elected and, with just a few exceptions, all promised to support and defend Obamacare. That's a large point of them being there as well.

There is nothing to negotiate.

...the alternative is literally waiting for Republicans to change their minds about Obamacare en masse. What do you think the likelihood of that is? Spoiler: Not high.

It's a law, and this is a funding debate, not a debate over a new health reform proposal.

True. Why is a funding debate less valid than a debate over a new proposal?

The time to replace the health care law was anytime in the last two and ahalf years+, and they declined to seriously do so.

Republicans haven't been elected to the House on platforms of replacing Obamacare. They've been elected on platforms of repealing it.

These constant "government by crisis/shutdown/temporary funding resolution" controversies have got to stop, are not how a country of this size and stature should be run, and is the fault of one group. Spoiler: It's not the Democrats.

OK, but that doesn't explain how you propose to end the shutdown.

What the hell is there even to negotiate??

How to end the government shutdown on some mutually acceptable terms...

What those would be, I don't know. But Republicans have at least indicated a willingness to try and find them, while Democrats have reacted by spitting in their faces.

There is one acceptable term: clean government funding, no strings attached. Republicans said no. That's the beginning and end of this debate. You are a crazy person.

I've explained already that this is anathema to House leadership; that the entire Democratic strategy consists of trying to bully the House into passing it, and that this is profoundly unlikely to succeed. Until/unless Democrats do agree on some other terms, nothing will happen. If that's what the Democrats prefer, that's their choice to make; it is in fact a choice they are making.

There is one sticking point that this shutdown revolves around and that is not funding Obamacare.

This is why Vosem's argument seems so hilariously stupid. He admits the Republicans caused this shutdown themselves by refusing to fund Obamacare, but a few days in, it's now the Democrats fault for... refusing to agree to funding everything but Obamacare. What?

It's the Democrats' fault for not attempting to find some amount of common ground. Not believing any can be found is no excuse not to try.

What the hell is there even to negotiate??

How to end the government shutdown on some mutually acceptable terms...

What those would be, I don't know. But Republicans have at least indicated a willingness to try and find them, while Democrats have reacted by spitting in their faces.

No, the only goal is to get rid of Obamacare; an established law of the land, backed up by the SCOTUS and the electorate who re-elected the man who signed it into law.

Getting rid of Obamacare is the best-case scenario and it's obviously the long-term goal; nobody is denying this.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, the shutdown is being framed by the media as a game of chicken by both sides, when a better analogy would be one guy driving the wrong way in the right-side lane directly at the other car.

It still makes no sense to hope a collision happens because the other guy would be at fault if you're sitting in the other car.

Republicans know that Obama is not going to sign off on an Obamacare repeal, so continuing to force the issue is what is is prolonging the shut down.

You could easily reverse the names, replace "repeal" with "funding", at get a statement about as valid.

Bull-f[inks]ing-sh[inks].

What on Earth could motivate you to think that makes any sense?

Err...facts?

On one hand, we have a party that refuses to repeal a law that has already gone into effect, and opposed a government shutdown to that effect.

On the other side, we have a party that is not going to sign off on Obamacare funding. This is valid insofar as it represents the truth, sure. You know what the rest of the truth is here, though? The President has signed off on it. The Senate passed it. The House passed it. The people voted in a Democratic majority last election partially in response to it. SCOTUS stated it was constitutional. Nowhere in there do the House Republicans have any mandate for their actions.

They all have mandates to whatever they ing can to get rid or chip away at Obamacare as much as possible from their own districts. If they don't do this, they risk being replaced by someone who will.

They're being obstinate. Sure, it's a truthful statement to state that their intentions are to derail funding. Now you tell me how their actions are justified.

The point isn't that the act of shutting down the government a few days ago was justified, because it wasn't. The point is that what the Democrats are doing right now by refusing to enter negotiations is just as unjustified.

This idea that the Republican Party is all of a sudden interested in "compromise"...hilariously pathetic.

It's obvious to anyone paying attention that it is extremely unlikely the Republicans (and the Democrats) won't get anywhere without one. The Democrats are trying to evade it, but that strategy doesn't look like it's getting anywhere soon.
1717  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does the left not realize that Americans dont want the ACA? on: October 03, 2013, 10:01:44 pm
The Democrats are being blocked from governing the country by people who don't believe in a positive role for government, Vosem. The Republicans are doing this on purpose. There is no negotiation in good faith with them.

But the alternative (for the Democrats) seems to be waiting until Republicans come around to the Democrats' point-of-view, which isn't a very...realistic...strategy. It basically consists of agreeing with the more extreme parts of the Tea Party that, on the whole, they would like for the government shutdown to last as long as possible.
1718  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Reid won't fund care for kids with cancer on: October 03, 2013, 09:58:36 pm
What the hell is there even to negotiate??

How to end the government shutdown on some mutually acceptable terms...

What those would be, I don't know. But Republicans have at least indicated a willingness to try and find them, while Democrats have reacted by spitting in their faces.
1719  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does the left not realize that Americans dont want the ACA? on: October 03, 2013, 09:54:09 pm
The point was that because there is a Republican House, Obama has to deal with it; he doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever he wants and no amount of Internet screeching will give it to him. Whether the Republicans deserve a House majority is a separate issue; but that it exists is indisputable.

Yes... but considering their 'negotiation' strategy is to ignore what happened in 2012, think 2010 was the jumping off point. It's hard to negotiate with someone when they say "so, unless we get EVERYTHING we want, and at the same time undermine something of yours and oh, you get nothing in return... we're burning the place down"...

'It's hard' is not an excuse to not attempt to govern the country. Let's keep in mind that 2012 was a 'status quo election' that did not shift in any significant way the balance of power elected after 2010.

The point was that because there is a Republican House, Obama has to deal with it; he doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever he wants and no amount of Internet screeching will give it to him. Whether the Republicans deserve a House majority is a separate issue; but that it exists is indisputable.

Your point failed and were shut down, no need to continue rambling, child. That is unless you want to get further read for nonsense, lol.

Wow

Of course they do not care. The fact that photo voter ID is settled law hasn't prevented the screeching.

hey you know what else is settled law

obamacare

BAM
[/quote]

Nothing's really settled until either its proponents or its critics stop being elected to office.
1720  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Reid won't fund care for kids with cancer on: October 03, 2013, 09:49:42 pm
Republicans know that Obama is not going to sign off on an Obamacare repeal, so continuing to force the issue is what is is prolonging the shut down.

You could easily reverse the names, replace "repeal" with "funding", at get a statement about as valid.

If you can't see that Republicans caused the shutdown but Democrats are now prolonging it...

Huh?  The nation has been patiently and impatiently waiting for Boehner to bring up the clean CR for a vote for several days now.

What you've got is a series of proposals that the House GOP has passed to refund the government earlier today that Senate Democrats aren't just refusing to bring up for a vote (not a totally unreasonable position in and of itself if they think they can get something better), but they aren't merely refusing to negotiate, they're going on TV and loudly announcing that they won't be negotiating with the Republicans. I suppose it's a strategy to make Boehner crack (though it's telling in and of itself that the Republicans are the ones passing legislation while the Democrats are trying complex strategies to make the House leadership crack), but if it doesn't work it'll backfire on them heavily -- telling everyone you won't negotiate doesn't win you votes. Democrats could still come out the winners just because of the initial anti-Republican backlash at the start of the shutdown, I suppose, but they're busy reversing it right now.

It's very doubtful you're going to get a vote on a clean CR in the House, so by insisting on it (or waiting until the political situation has shifted (which it might not at all) until you do) you're unconstructively prolonging the shutdown. There's no other way to look at it.

There is, one based on facts.

The GOP could solve this right now, show leadership, do what they KNOW is right, tell the nutcases to back off, work with the Dems to pass the CR.

...beyond it being a very inadequate bill whose strongest argument is that it is a lesser evil compared to there being no government at all, again the reverse (why don't Democrats just pass the Republican piecemeal funding?) is just as valid of an argument.

If you don't see that, then you're truly delusional.

I see it, but if you don't see that the opposite is just as much the case you're the delusional one here.

If you can't see that Republicans caused the shutdown but Democrats are now prolonging it...

Huh?  The nation has been patiently and impatiently waiting for Boehner to bring up the clean CR for a vote for several days now.

What you've got is a series of proposals that the House GOP has passed to refund the government earlier today that Senate Democrats aren't just refusing to bring up for a vote (not a totally unreasonable position in and of itself if they think they can get something better), but they aren't merely refusing to negotiate, they're going on TV and loudly announcing that they won't be negotiating with the Republicans. I suppose it's a strategy to make Boehner crack (though it's telling in and of itself that the Republicans are the ones passing legislation while the Democrats are trying complex strategies to make the House leadership crack), but if it doesn't work it'll backfire on them heavily -- telling everyone you won't negotiate doesn't win you votes. Democrats could still come out the winners just because of the initial anti-Republican backlash at the start of the shutdown, I suppose, but they're busy reversing it right now.

It's very doubtful you're going to get a vote on a clean CR in the House, so by insisting on it (or waiting until the political situation has shifted (which it might not at all) until you do) you're unconstructively prolonging the shutdown. There's no other way to look at it.

The 'piecemeal CRs' are utter BS and you know it.  The whole point is to get all of them passed except the one that funds Obamacare.

That doesn't make them BS. You could just easily say (and I'm repeating myself because you all keep preempting my posts) that the clean CR is BS because the whole point of it is to fund Obamacare.

  The strategy is completely transparent to even the densest people paying the slightest attention.

It's not a secret.

Republicans keep crying foul because Democrats "refuse" to negotiate on Obamacare.  Well, no sh[inks].  It's the f[inks]ing law.  It already passed, survived the SCOTUS, and survived a presidential election.  Negotiations ended a long time ago, and the GOP lost.  Get over it.

You and I both know that there are endless examples of policies that have passed and then been repealed shortly thereafter through legislative action/public pressure/whatever, and that it's quite likely that sooner or later (or at some point already) you'll be the one calling for something that's already passed and survived to be repealed. Right now, the lack of Democratic negotiations is what is prolonging the shutdown -- they're waiting for Republican action, they've expressly stated that they won't negotiate come hell or high water, and they themselves are doing nothing at all (except try to bully House Republicans, but not very successfully in any case) to try to end the shutdown. The strategy is completely transparent to even the densest people paying the slightest attention.
1721  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does the left not realize that Americans dont want the ACA? on: October 03, 2013, 09:42:10 pm
The point was that because there is a Republican House, Obama has to deal with it; he doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever he wants and no amount of Internet screeching will give it to him. Whether the Republicans deserve a House majority is a separate issue; but that it exists is indisputable.
1722  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Reid won't fund care for kids with cancer on: October 03, 2013, 09:38:12 pm
If you can't see that Republicans caused the shutdown but Democrats are now prolonging it...

Huh?  The nation has been patiently and impatiently waiting for Boehner to bring up the clean CR for a vote for several days now.

What you've got is a series of proposals that the House GOP has passed to refund the government earlier today that Senate Democrats aren't just refusing to bring up for a vote (not a totally unreasonable position in and of itself if they think they can get something better), but they aren't merely refusing to negotiate, they're going on TV and loudly announcing that they won't be negotiating with the Republicans. I suppose it's a strategy to make Boehner crack (though it's telling in and of itself that the Republicans are the ones passing legislation while the Democrats are trying complex strategies to make the House leadership crack), but if it doesn't work it'll backfire on them heavily -- telling everyone you won't negotiate doesn't win you votes. Democrats could still come out the winners just because of the initial anti-Republican backlash at the start of the shutdown, I suppose, but they're busy reversing it right now.

It's very doubtful you're going to get a vote on a clean CR in the House, so by insisting on it (or waiting until the political situation has shifted (which it might not at all) until you do) you're unconstructively prolonging the shutdown. There's no other way to look at it.
1723  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does the left not realize that Americans dont want the ACA? on: October 03, 2013, 09:28:09 pm


Suck it, bitch.

1724  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Reid won't fund care for kids with cancer on: October 03, 2013, 09:21:41 pm
By that logic, Boehner won't fund care for kids with cancer since he won't allow a vote on a clean CR.

That may be true, but the Republican House wants to send this and other measures, to be handled on a one on one basis, to the Senate.

...

And Reid, a majority of both Houses, and a majority of Americans want Congress to just pass a clean bill funding everything rather than picking and choosing like this.

You can't spin your way out of this one.

If you can't see that Republicans caused the shutdown but Democrats are now prolonging it...
1725  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Which chamber is more likely to flip in 2014? on: October 03, 2013, 07:25:54 pm
Btw, everybody in this thread, probably including myself, is way too confident
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 242


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines