Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 31, 2015, 06:24:34 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 255
1701  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: RNC spotlights Black History Month on: February 06, 2014, 11:52:36 pm
Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Sure, you can try and argue that two black pioneers of the civil rights movement would be affiliated with the party dominated by white racists of today,

I don't think anyone's arguing they'd be part of the National Socialist Movement, and I can't think of any other American political party that is. Certainly no prominent major/minor party.

  That would be quite retarded, though.

Not when compared to the ignorance of your posts in this thread, though.

Maybe it's the party that has had multiple officials from different states say things like "we don't want black people to vote". That's probably the one with the racists.

The Democrats have changed quite a bit since the 1960s (and even then, most of the party opposed the racists), and it's beyond Oldies levels of absurd to call them racists today.
1702  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: MT-SEN: Baucus resigns on: February 06, 2014, 08:21:34 pm
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_06071118.pdf
This.
However, Republicans are clearly favored!

The thing is, Montana is a solidly Republican state while Massachusetts is solidly Democratic. If anything, the undecideds will move to expand Daines' lead (while they moved towards Warren in Massachusetts). Massachusetts is a terrible precedent for your side's chances in this race.
1703  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: RNC spotlights Black History Month on: February 06, 2014, 08:08:06 pm
Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Sure, you can try and argue that two black pioneers of the civil rights movement would be affiliated with the party dominated by white racists of today,

I don't think anyone's arguing they'd be part of the National Socialist Movement, and I can't think of any other American political party that is. Certainly no prominent major/minor party.

  That would be quite retarded, though.

Not when compared to the ignorance of your posts in this thread, though.
1704  Election Archive / 2014 Senatorial Election Polls / Re: SC-Wenzel: R Primary: Graham under 50 but up big on: February 06, 2014, 07:51:31 pm
He's going to lose if he's forced into a runoff, and judging from those "time for someone new" numbers, he will be.

No, he's probably not -- in SC, runoffs occur almost immediately after the general election, so usually the key opposition figure that emerges fails to unify the vote and the most prominent candidate wins -- this is how Mark Sanford won, and he was far worse than Graham. The only counterexample I can think of is the Senate primary in 2004 (where DeMint emerged as the key opposition figure, then beat ex-Governor Beasley), but Beasley was far weaker than Graham or Sanford (Beasley led DeMint by just 11 points in the first round; Sanford led his opponent Bostic by 24 points, and in this poll Graham leads Bright by 29).

The danger to Graham is if someone -- probably Bright -- surges. But I don't think that's too likely considering no outside groups seem interested and he has far less money than Bright and other contenders on his heels to contend with.
1705  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Mark Pryor on: February 06, 2014, 07:47:02 pm
Because of the massive popular backlash over Obamacare
1706  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Dems bank on ground game to make '14 like '12, '08 on: February 06, 2014, 07:46:35 pm
That, and add a seat or two once Republicans start talking about rape, and I like the DEMs' chances.

Their chances of what, losing fewer than 10 seats in the House?
1707  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rasmussen: 49% of Americans think Death Penalty Effective Against Terrorism on: February 06, 2014, 07:45:18 pm
It's certainly more just than life imprisonment/whatever other options there might be, which is just as (if not more) significant.
1708  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: German federal election, 2006 on: February 06, 2014, 07:31:58 pm
Since the National Bloc seems to be gaining, I will be heading in the opposite direction and supporting the United Left at this election.
1709  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Got hit head on by someone going the wrong way who was likely drunk on: February 06, 2014, 12:04:29 am
Glad you're OK. About a month ago, the uncle of a friend of mine died in the aftermath of a collision with a drunk driver. While I never met him, from the descriptions he seemed like a very remarkable person. The point being, you're quite lucky and should be very thankful if you are religious.
1710  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who has a >50% chance of beating Hillary? on: February 06, 2014, 12:01:23 am
Who would beat her tomorrow? I don't think anyone. But as to who would beat her in 2 years, or at the November election? That question will be hard enough to answer in 2016 itself, and really only becomes sort of clear through hindsight. In February 2014, we don't know.
1711  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: RNC spotlights Black History Month on: February 05, 2014, 12:21:21 am
It's a bit disingenuous to spotlight people such as Frederick Douglass or Hiram Revels (or really any black political figures from the 19th or early 20th centuries) as notable Republicans.  Sure, it's factually accurate, but everybody knows they'd be Democrats today.

It is Black History Month, though.

...

Quote from: the article in the OP
In honor of Black History Month, the Republican National Committee announced Monday it’s rolling out advertisements in black media outlets highlighting the efforts of black Republicans, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Frederick Douglass.

...

The print ads honor Rice and Douglass, the first African-American senator, Hiram Revels of Mississippi, as well as South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, Mia Love.

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Black History Month was an extension of Negro History Week, which was invented in 1924 to reverse the airbrushing and whitewashing of black Americans out of US history.

This is true.
1712  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The NRCC is scamming voters out of their money on: February 05, 2014, 12:12:00 am
So tell me then, what exactly is the purpose of registering that domain?

To disseminate negative advertisements about Sink to Sink supporters, and to try to dissuade Sink supporters from donating to her -- and in a best-case scenario to donate to the NRCC. It is very obviously targeted toward Sink supporters, but the website doesn't make any show of being pro-Sink and it's ludicrous to suggest it does.
1713  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: RNC spotlights Black History Month on: February 05, 2014, 12:06:09 am
It's a bit disingenuous to spotlight people such as Frederick Douglass or Hiram Revels (or really any black political figures from the 19th or early 20th centuries) as notable Republicans.  Sure, it's factually accurate, but everybody knows they'd be Democrats today.

It is Black History Month, though.
1714  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The NRCC is scamming voters out of their money on: February 05, 2014, 12:04:50 am
It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys.

No it does not.

Quote from: Vosem
No reasonably literate person is going to be tricked into donating money by the Democratic candidate's picture.

Yes they are.

Do you have anything to offer besides thoughtless contradiction?

Quote from: Vosem
It's an insult even to a Democrat to think they would donate to this by mistake.

Nice deflection from the insult to Democrats by the NRCC for their disgusting fundraising dishonesty.

I think you have some prepositions mixed up because I couldn't make heads or tails of this sentence.

It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys. No reasonably literate person is going to be tricked into donating money by the Democratic candidate's picture. It's an insult even to a Democrat to think they would donate to this by mistake.

Yeah, what kind of idiot would visit 'sinkforcongress2014.com' and assume it's pro-Alex Sink?

Having just opened the website on a separate tab, I'd have to say it would take someone very remarkable. The website says in large bold print 'Alex Sink - a risk we can't afford', and then in bigger letters, 'Help us stop Alex Sink from bankrupting us in Congress - Sign up Today'. The YouTube video it invites everyone to watch (the only thing bigger than the word 'DONATE') is a negative ad attacking Sink's pretty pro-Obamacare record that most of the district opposes. The website also features a large picture of Sink scowling.

It would have to take someone pretty idiotic.
1715  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: Ban Van Der Blub on: February 04, 2014, 09:12:00 pm
What is wrong with some people?
1716  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Pryor retiring. on: February 04, 2014, 09:10:32 pm
WELCOME BACK BLUBB!
1717  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Ideology of the Tea Party on: February 04, 2014, 01:45:23 pm
It started off as a rebranding of Paulism back in 2009, but it very quickly spun out of control and by late-2011-ish it was fully under the control of anti-establishment conservative types like Bachmann and Cruz. Conservative.
1718  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Was anyone else pushed to the Left by the Tea Party? on: February 04, 2014, 01:41:22 pm
The TP probably pushed me to the right on economic issues; I quite liked their opposition to Obamacare and success at mobilizing voters against it back in 2010, and I was inclined to be more sympathetic to their views the more I saw of them. I found it difficult to identify as a TP member because of my socially liberal views (and, later on, as the name 'Tea Party' started to mean less and people affiliated with it began to piss away winnable races), but in its heyday I had a very positive opinion of the TP.
1719  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The NRCC is scamming voters out of their money on: February 04, 2014, 07:12:26 am
It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys. No reasonably literate person is going to be tricked into donating money by the Democratic candidate's picture. It's an insult even to a Democrat to think they would donate to this by mistake.
1720  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How differently would a President Romney be doing things? on: February 04, 2014, 07:07:25 am
Obamacare would've been gotten rid of. Some of the pushes that took place, for gun control or immigration reform, wouldn't've taken place, but I don't know what would've replaced them -- even in early 2009, nobody really saw healthcare reform as the issue that would come to dominate basically the entire Romney Presidency. Kerry's push for an Israeli-Palestinian deal would not have happened in a Republican Department of State. Romney would probably have gotten Republicans to do clean debt limit increases without too much fuss; or, if they really wanted to attach things to those increases, the attached things would become law. One thing I definitely see happening is the Keystone XL pipeline.

I don't think Romney would be too popular by now; the NSA scandal would have happened on time no matter who was the President and I think it would be more damaging in a Republican than a Democratic Administration because of differing perceptions of the parties. Not quite fair, but there you have it. Republicans would probably be looking at October 2013 levels of polling; substantial Democratic gains in the House but barely not enough to take it, but the Senate still a stalemate or narrow Republican gains. Romney would probably've gotten Republican congressional majorities for the full four years.

Just for the repeal of Obamacare at the start of his term, though, it would've been worth it.
1721  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Costa Rica election - February 2nd (TODAY) on: February 02, 2014, 05:45:21 pm
"Oscar Arias acolytes" also works as a descriptor for the PLN

No, actually, it doesn't (far from it). The PLN is an internally divided party which has been split by feuding factions (or clans) for the past 30 or so years. Oscar Arias is only one faction of the PLN, and one which hasn't been particularly strong. The current President, Chinchilla, was Arias' candidate in 2010 but he has since criticized her and she has therefore been left without a clear faction. The PLN's current candidate, Johnny Araya, is from the arayista faction, whose founder (Araya's uncle) was Luis Alberto Monge, Arias' predecessor in the 1980s and a sworn enemy of Arias. Arayismo is generally on the left of the party, notably in opposition to Arias' neoliberal policies (the arayistas opposed CAFTA). Johnny Araya ran and lost in the 2009 PLN primaries against Chinchilla, and although he himself backed her in the election, his brother (Rolando Araya Monge) ended up supporting the PAC candidate. Although he won this year's nomination unopposed it was because his advantage over his rivals (which included Arias' brother and former President José María Figueres Olsen, the son of the PLN's founding patriarch) was so massive that they dropped out rather than any partisan unity. Araya's campaign has tried to distance itself from the unpopular government, basically running on his record as mayor of San José and even (briefly) trying to drop the PLN's traditional green in favour of blue (associated with the moribund PUSC). Neither Arias or his brother are in the PLN's presidential campaign this year.

I'm actually fascinated -- while I knew the party was quite internally divided in the past, I'd been under the impression that since the '06 election it was basically dominated by supporters of Arias. You learn something new every day Tongue
1722  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Federal Probe into New Jersey Sen. Menendez Is Widening on: February 02, 2014, 05:17:24 pm
Kind of a shame, I've liked the job he's been doing as Committee Chairman. Pallone is probably the frontrunner to succeed him, no?
1723  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Costa Rica election - February 2nd (TODAY) on: February 02, 2014, 05:13:22 pm
Looks like everyone forgot about these too.

The two main candidates are the PLN (neo-liberal/"social democrat") candidate and a left-wing candidate from a new party Broad Front.

"Oscar Arias acolytes" also works as a descriptor for the PLN, which is a bit of a dominant party in Costa Rica right now (akin to the Liberal Party in Canada in the 1990s; the old "other" party, the Unidad Socialcristiana, basically fell apart in 2006 (the 1993 analogue) and multiple parties have been vying to replace them, including -- wait for it -- Libertarians!

My support is for Guevara, of course, but I don't really think he'll make it into the runoff; the polls consistently overestimated him last time, and he isn't making it into the runoff in polling this time (though Costa Rica doesn't really have the infrastructure for polling and polling is therefore not too accurate). He, Solis, and Villalta are all serious possibilities for getting into the runoff with Araya (who'd probably win against any of them tbh); the polls show Villalta, but I kind of doubt it'll be him. Solis may benefit from people confusing him with Otton Solis, who was the Citizens' Action candidate 2002-2006-2010. But really in countries like Costa Rica it can be difficult to tell until the results actually come in.
1724  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Highest violent crime rates by state - guess who "wins" on: February 02, 2014, 10:12:34 am
Guess, pre-reading: Louisiana

EDIT: ...I don't think too many people will be able to guess it.
1725  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Am I the only one who thinks Romney will stage a comeback in 2016? on: February 02, 2014, 12:37:52 am
I don't think it's likely, but it's possible. If numerous possibilities (Christie/Paul/Walker) have removed themselves through scandal and in 2015 Republicans are looking for additions to the field, I think Romney would be sorely tempted by a draft movement, especially if it's backed up with good primary polling (like what happened before Perry entered the race in 2011); and if it goes to a brokered convention, I think Romney could be an uncontroversial compromise candidate. But I don't Romney is entering unless it unless he can plausibly say he had too for the good of the party.

Really, the meme that losers don't run a second time is one that exists because of a confluence of specific reasons. Going back to 1980 -- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bush, Dole, and McCain lost decisively (greater than 5% margin); Gore could have had the nomination sewn up if he'd still wanted to be President; and Kerry found himself outclassed by superior candidates in 2008 (Hillary/Obama). None of these apply to Romney if he doesn't want them to.
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 255


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines