Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 09, 2019, 08:22:48 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

Filter Options Collapse

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10

 on: Today at 05:27:09 am 
Started by boss - Last post by Meclazine
Ozzy Man Reviews

Koala in a Car


Darwin is a city in Australia you go to when you are trying to flee the police or custody or both.

 on: Today at 05:10:36 am 
Started by TDAS04 - Last post by Cory Booker
There wont be any Rs representatives representing New England. Of course there will, the Senate impeachment trial will move to the Senate, and the R Senators up for reelection will be vulnerable like Tillis, McSally, Ernst and Collins.

As I said before, the election map that looks like today  will look different than what it does tomorrow

 on: Today at 04:50:17 am 
Started by Trans Rights Are Human Rights - Last post by Pericles
Strong FF

 on: Today at 04:31:24 am 
Started by Old School Republican - Last post by Old School Republican
Largely agree. Barring a Bloomberg nomination and Presidency, I do think a Biden win in 2020 followed by a DeSantis win in 2024 is the best win for Conservatism overall. The risks of Trump 2020 into AOC 2024 are near-apocalyptic.

And this is why I will refuse to vote for Biden if he is the nominee.

Biden doesnt need Texas to win the General anyway. Just taking MI, PA , WI or AZ will do the job

That is not anywhere close to the point I was making. A Biden victory would be a Pyrrhic victory at best for Democrats and would almost definitely result in Republican blowouts in 2022 and 2024 with nothing to show for it other than getting Trump out of office.

A re-elected Trump is preferable to a useless one-term Biden presidency. The Supreme Court is already fóked anyway, so thereís not much risk there

Dude, winning the presidency is basically always a kind of pyrrhic victory, look at 2016 ; it was a big win for republicans on the short term but look at what was the cost of this win, we got trounced in 2018 when we lost 41 seats in the House and our dream of a 60 seats Senate majority never happened   

If Kasich or even Marco were President, the Republicans would still have control of the House today.

 on: Today at 04:29:04 am 
Started by Cory Booker - Last post by Old School Republican
Biden's take on the GOP is wishful thinking at best and naive at worst. As member of the Obama Admin, he should know better. The GOP is an obstructionist party that embraces far right policies, is in the pocket of special interests and a threat to our democracy. Its elected officials in congress are a bunch of cowards for selling out to Mr. Trump, the most unethical, corrupt and personally disgusting prez, and surrendering before their Fox "News" base. All because they put career and party over country. And these people won't change even if Mr. Trump goes down in flames next year. Let's be real here. Biden may know some of these congressional GOPers in private and thinks they are good people. But who cares if they are too cowardly to stand up to Mr. Trump's many violations or block everything to improve people's lives? I have zero respect for these GOPers in congress.

Biden certainly wishes the GOP would be a normal conservative party like the Canadian Tories or most Christan Democratic parties in Europe. But they have abandoned this many, many years ago. It may be there a few honorable GOP officials, like Gov. Baker, but they are not in congress.

Biden has not been my 1st choice, and I haven't decided who I will vote for in the CA Dem primary. It's going to be him, Warren or Butti. Anyone else beyond Sanders seems to have no chance either. For sure, I'll vote for any Dem nominee. Not that CA matters much though.

This is where I disagree with you , I dont think the GOP politicians today are more cowardly than they were in 1974. The main difference is back then the voters were no where near as partisian as they were and almost every state in the union could potentially be won by the other party in some circumstances.This then forced the politicians to be honorable and not accept Nixon's crimes.

On the other hand today its the opposite, where over 80% of the states and races are basically Safe for one party(with rare exceptions like Roy Moore situations) and due to that politicians real only realistic threat of reelection comes from primaries not general elections.

When that happens you get our current situation.

GOPers in 1974 were much less cowards, even right wingers like Goldwater. If I remember correctly, it was him who told Nixon in August 1974 that he lacks support to survive the impeachment and that it's over. The base back then was less tribal for sure, what can be explained through the media landscape then and now. But evidence on Mr. Trump's misconduct is clear as day. And these congressional enablers are deflecting in phony excuses and embrace conspiracy theories that US Intel agencies debunked and warned them not to spread. If this is not a moment to put country over party, then what is? These senators and congressmen have no backbone. It's all about Mr. Trump's cult. Not even about conservative policies or Federalist Society judges. If Mr. Trump was removed, they would still get this stuff with Pence.

The GOP of 1974 had no choice but to force Nixon out or the GOP very well could have been wiped out to 1936 levels. That is why they did what they did , as the defeat they actually were given in 1974 is nothing compared to the defeat they would have gotten if they stood with Nixon.

Today on the other Republican politicians are more likely to get reelected if they stand with Trump then be in support of impeachment while the exact opposite was true in 1974.  That is the main problem , the GOP politicians not standing up to Trump is the symptom of the problem not the the problem it self.

The problem is that over 80% of the races in our country(and that is a generous number) are Safe by the time of the general election which means the politicians really are at risk at losing their seat in primaries and not general elections which incentivizes politicians to be even more partisan .

 on: Today at 04:20:29 am 
Started by Sen. Dean Heller - Last post by National Progressive
If you want to know why, the reason is based in who votes Dem in each county. The Inland Empire democratic party relies very heavily on Hispanics who drop off in off-year elections. While Orange Dems also depend on Hispanics, it is the Asian vote that powered the Blue wave down there in 2018. Asians didn't go as hard for Dems as they did for Clinton, but they mainly stayed blue (outside of local Asian GOP races) and mainly kept their turnout levels proportional to the rest of the population. So OC went blue whereas Riverside whites overpowered their Hispanic neighbors.

Despite the easy answer to 2018, your main question in regards to 2020 is still an interesting one. OC has more voters available to flip blue and has more  people moving in with democratic leanings. Riverside is less flexible. However, Riverside has been Blue for longer then OC, so it has a head start. If dems are able to get Hispanics to vote with higher rates for some reason, that will be felt more in Riverside than in OC.

Makes sense, though I'm still curious: Why did Riverside vote to the right in 2016 in that case?

Riverside County is one of the few areas of the Southern California metroplex with a significant White Working-Class demographic.

 on: Today at 04:17:12 am 
Started by 2020 Dem Sweep in Maine Inevitable - Last post by 2020 Dem Sweep in Maine Inevitable
Easy HP vote from me. Definitely not among the most intelligent users on this forum.

 on: Today at 04:17:05 am 
Started by MissScarlett - Last post by National Progressive
No, Sanders and Corbyn *do* both espouses left-wing populism on socioeconomic issues and polling suggests that many of their signature issues such as reversing austerity, nationalization and/or single-payer are popular. However, Corbyn and Sanders diverge on their foreign policy stances and (hence) their public perceptions. Sanders is fundamentally a social liberal and progressive on Foreign Policy issues but not outside the Democratic Party mainstream-he voted to send US troops to Afghanistan after 9/11 even as he opposed the subsequent adventure in Iraq and remains a critical left-Zionist with regards to Israel. Republicans and even some centrist Democrats will rail against his foreign policy views as too dovish or isolationist but fundamentally they are not that far from the party mainstream and he would largely maintain American interests and alliances albeit reoriented in a more humanitarian direction. Here, Corbyn is clearly distinct given his history of far more radical opposition to the State of Israel itself and his willingness to meet with members of such groups as the IRA and Hezbollah. Not only are these stances radical in and of themselves, but it builds the image that Corbyn is not merely a left-winger but some sort of a fanatic fundamentally opposed to the British state and values. In this, Corbyn is more comparable to (say) how McGovern was perceived in 1972. It is this perception of cultural and anti-national radicalism that is the Achilles Heel of left-wing candidates, be it McGovern, Foot, or Corbyn.

 on: Today at 04:08:46 am 
Started by darklordoftech - Last post by kelestian
"Right-wing Russians" is sort of a nebulous concept; while there were attempts to formulate ideologically programmatic parties, these of course fell by the wayside, and the center-right in any case could be characterized as "liberal" in Russia. Privatization aside, liberals were an opposition force even in the 1990s ("Yabloko" being the big-name party there). If you mean "conservative" Russians, they probably had no reason to care that a man had been in the security services (let alone in as innocuous a position as Putin, described above).

I can't contribute much to Cassius' big picture view, but it's also worth noting that his first foray into politics was local, as he was recruited into the administration of St. Petersburg's first democratically-elected mayor, Anatoly Sobchak. After Sobchak lost the first for re-election, Putin then transferred to Moscow owing to the favor of a St. Petersburg-based official (as I recall) and then proceeded to hold a number of appointed positions (including head of the FSB) before becoming prime minister then president. So it's not like he was out there in 1994 trying to run for state senate and someone was like "Hey, weren't you part of the KGB!?" He was a bureaucrat handling bureaucratic responsibilities.

It's probably also worth noting, as described in other ways by the above posters, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was not necessarily a rejection of the Soviet system by Russians themselves. The breakup began in the Baltics and, if I recall correctly, Yeltsin launched Russia's secession from the Union based on the idea that Russia should no longer support for other republics (my grasp of that period is shaky). You weren't persona non grata for having "collaborated" with the regime--this wasn't post-Vichy France.

About Yeltsin and collapse of Soviet Union: Yeltsin actively support destruction of USSR because USSR was headed by his enemy Gorbachev. Yeltsin controlled RSFSR, technically Gorbachev was above him and of course Yeltsin didn't like it.

 on: Today at 04:06:21 am 
Started by Tender Branson - Last post by Epaminondas
Nice 55 point swing against the GOP in Knott county.
A taste of the Suburbaggedon coming in 2020.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10

Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC