US Politics: Elecciones Generales 8 De Noviembre, 2012

[Prince of the North]

a new study. it purports to show that MSNBC is more partisan than Fox

does it address whether MSNBC is more or less dishonest than fox? i.e., if it's true, then who gives a fuck about purprted "bias"?

Exactly. I saw a blurb on this study on Slate.com and, yes, it's an absolutely horrible, meaningless metric.

MSNBC is negatively biased toward Mitt Romney in the same way that the healthcare establishment is negatively biased toward tobacco use :rolleyes:

[Jaxom 1974]

What is the fundamental difference at hand here?

It seems to met he only distinction is one is a genuine believer in the party platform and one isn't. And the second group (the "Republicans" if you would) will not leave the Tea Partiers because without them, they have no power at all. It's why they courted the crazy motherfuckers in the first place after all. (southern strategy, value voters, tea partiers, etc)

I've likely spoken incorrectly in trying to make a point/ask a question. "Fundamental difference" is where I'm referring to the methodology of the two branches of the party. Or more to the point, the outsiders perceived differences between the two.

Ah. I can't seem to find the turn of phrase to ask the basic question: What will it take to break the Republican Party into the two different factions that it is? Perhaps creating that third party option...at least for a time...

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

I think Ras et al is moving his numbers, but I also think that we are seeing a move towards Obama that is real, possibly due to his handling of Sandy, possibly due to the huge negative backlash against Romney's auto industry ads in Ohio (which have been pretty roundly blasted by many prominent OH newspapers), and possibly due to the combo of Bloomberg's endorsement and Christie's compliments. Or, rather, all of the above.

[Guest]

I think Ras et al is moving his numbers, but I also think that we are seeing a move towards Obama that is real, possibly due to his handling of Sandy, possibly due to the huge negative backlash against Romney's auto industry ads in Ohio (which have been pretty roundly blasted by many prominent OH newspapers), and possibly due to the combo of Bloomberg's endorsement and Christie's compliments. Or, rather, all of the above.

Consumer confidence is also, I believe, at its highest level since O took office. There are a lot of things trending his way. Time to seal the deal.

[awesome possum]

Donnelly +3 over Mourdock (guess the rape thing did hurt)

Don't worry, it's just as God intended. And if it's not a legitimate lead, Mourdock's campaign will just naturally reject the loss and shut that whole thing down.

[Guest]

Don't worry, it's just as God intended. And if it's not a legitimate lead, Mourdock's campaign will just naturally reject the loss and shut that whole thing down.

Mourdock losing is really important. He's is pure teabag, and he needed to oust Richard Lugar of all people in order to be the candidate. Thus Mourdock's candidacy is a microcosm of the radical nature of the state of the party right now. I don't know if the message would be received with his loss, but I hope that it is.

[Sci-2]

Don't worry, it's just as God intended. And if it's not a legitimate lead, Mourdock's campaign will just naturally reject the loss and shut that whole thing down.

Latest Election Polls: Tea Party Candidates Will Destroy Republican Hopes in 2012

[Fez]

Don't worry, it's just as God intended. And if it's not a legitimate lead, Mourdock's campaign will just naturally reject the loss and shut that whole thing down.

I always get so confused about these things. Fortunately I found this handy, dandy chart.

.

[awesome possum]

Mourdock losing is really important. He's is pure teabag, and he needed to oust Richard Lugar of all people in order to be the candidate. Thus Mourdock's candidacy is a microcosm of the radical nature of the state of the party right now. I don't know if the message would be received with his loss, but I hope that it is.

Both Mourdock and Akin losing are vital. I almost hope that the Senate ends up 51-49 with Dems holding, and the GOP can look back and see that Akin and Mourdock - who were both winning if not on the verge of winning big - cost them the Senate.

Latest Election Polls: Tea Party Candidates Will Destroy Republican Hopes in 2012

This is why I don't think Akin and Mourdock will change much. The examples in this article were all tea party darlings who lost because they were constantly saying idiotic, nonsensical things. And yet, while they were pushed out of the spotlight, the tea party has doubled down on idiotic, nonsensical things.

When Akin and Mourdock both lose, I doubt it will be because of their archaic views. It will be because the damned liberal mainstream media unfairly turned those stalwart lionhearted men among men into jokes. Not because they were jokes in the first place.

I always get so confused about these things. Fortunately I found this handy, dandy chart.

I got my Akinism and Mourdockism mixed up, but looking at my quote, its like they've always belonged together.

[Shryke]

I've likely spoken incorrectly in trying to make a point/ask a question. "Fundamental difference" is where I'm referring to the methodology of the two branches of the party. Or more to the point, the outsiders perceived differences between the two.

Ah. I can't seem to find the turn of phrase to ask the basic question: What will it take to break the Republican Party into the two different factions that it is? Perhaps creating that third party option...at least for a time...

I'm not really sure, to be honest. I used to think we'd see some sort of dissolution or realignment over the current decade or so post-2006/2008 as the GOP became less viable, but I don't see that anymore, especially post-2010.

While the demographics are against them in every way (as Lindsey Graham so succinctly put it "We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.") that doesn't seem to and doesn't seem predicted to hinder their political power anytime in the near future. They are looking to control Congress for the near future, as well as many state EC votes and legislatures and all that. They aren't getting lost in the wilderness. (One could probably attribute much of this to their core demographic of old angry white people being a very committed voting group. Hence their party focus on voter caging.)

The only thing that could really shatter the GOP is a lack of ability to achieve electoral power and I don't see that happening any time soon. Because that's what the coalition is in large part forged upon. And because there is no alternative to that coalition. SOMEONE has to represent the "Tea Party faithful" or whatever you choose to call them. They are too large to be ignored.

Perhaps it's more clear to say that the differences aren't external, they are internal. The Tea Party is just the GOP practising what it preaches in many ways. To their voters (or core voters really) all that's changed is they've kicked out the RINOs for real Republicans.

There is really nothing to fracture the party over because the Tea Partiers like where the party is headed and the erst of the coalition can't leave cause they've got nowhere to go.

A thing to note here is that while the GOP has seen a ton of purges of it's moderate members, that hasn't cost them a ton of seats. A few high profile ones, certainly, but overall it hasn't been a issue and has even increased enthusiam (see - 2010 yet again). They may have narrowed the political views of the party to the far right, but they haven't narrowed their political power, so there seems little pressure on the party to change right now. You need more then just a few loses in the Senate to create the kind of force needed to shatter a major political party.

And, as AP points out, the loss will be blamed on the media or some other external force and not the positions themselves. Essentially, the GOP will not change because of the loses because they can't learn from them. To the GOP base, it cannot be a problem with their positions, only with the people's/media's reactions to those positions. Hence, Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

PS - As an end-note, one could attribute some of the second last paragraph there to the culture of party loyalty in many places across the US and the general partisanship of the political environment making "crossing the lines" much less palatable for many. The other side is after all commie, fascist, socialist, nazi, kenyan and evil.

And a side helping of "they don't really hold that position, I don't believe you" too, as was seen with Romney's platform. Romney, after all, did his best to run as "generic republican" with no real positions because party ID was a stronger force for him then personal charisma or the party's actual platform.

[Whoring Drunkard]

For those of us in Canada, CBC Radio One is interviewing Nate Silver tonight on As It Happens.

[TrackerNeil]

Both Mourdock and Akin losing are vital. I almost hope that the Senate ends up 51-49 with Dems holding, and the GOP can look back and see that Akin and Mourdock - who were both winning if not on the verge of winning big - cost them the Senate.

Nah...I hope the Senate ends up 56-44, which would be far more delicious.

[lokisnow]

Sadly, from the 2014 Senate map I don't see a lot states with Republican held seats that have a good opportunity for the Tea Party to fuck up the race ala Akin and Mourdock. Some of those solid south seats probably won't have a strong enough Dem candidate to be able to take advantage of these sorts of republican rape scandals. And they're probably so solidly republican that they wouldn't be as swingy as states like Missouri and Indiana. So the race in TN could swing ten points after a comment like Akins and probably still not change the outcome to a dem pickup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014

Then again these things are hard to predict. and almost as good would be tea party republican challengers in places like Arkansas and West Virginia helping to defend Dem held seats with their tea party shenanigans.

[Fez]

There is really nothing to fracture the party over because the Tea Partiers like where the party is headed and the erst of the coalition can't leave cause they've got nowhere to go.

I posted this article before, but it may have gotten lost in the polling madness. The author is essentially arguing that the Republicans are fine as long as they're in opposition, but the moment they come back to power they're gonna be fucked. The coalition really does represent a lot of different interests and right now they're only united by a hatred of Obama (and in 2016, of Hillary). I tend to agree.

Romney will face these problems early in his presidency. He will inherit the leadership of a party with commitments to (1) further increasing tax cuts -- especially for the wealthy; (2) reducing deficits; (3) shrinking the size of government; (4) increasing defense spending; and (5) promoting a muscular foreign policy unafraid to use military force to solve foreign-policy problems, for example, in Iran and Syria. At the same time, Romney has promised to "save" popular middle-class entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and to replace Obamacare with reforms that keep its most popular elements but jettison the features that make it economically practical. To top it off, he faces a reckoning in January 2013, when the Bush tax cuts expire and a sequester of defense and social programs goes into effect. That combination of tax increases and spending cuts will help solve the deficit problem, but it risks pushing the economy into a new recession, and it is completely unacceptable to the tax cutters and defense hawks in his party.

It is very difficult to see how Romney can maintain all of the commitments he has made to the various factions of his party, no matter what he says on the campaign trail. For example, passing the Ryan budget, further reducing tax rates, and repealing Obamacare will exacerbate the deficit problem, not help to solve it. Romney will have to pick and choose among these commitments, and in choosing, he will likely alienate significant segments of his coalition. Moreover, he will face insistent pressures from defense hawks and neo-conservatives in his party to keep the war in Afghanistan going and to use American military force against other targets. (Iran is the most obvious possibility.)

The more aggressive his foreign policy, however, the more it is likely to cost, and the more it will increase federal deficits. George W. Bush faced a similar problem in his first term, and simply arranged with Republicans in Congress to fund his military adventures through supplemental appropriations -- abandoning any pretense of deficit reduction.

To keep the economy afloat, Romney will likely pursue a Keynesian strategy once in office, goosing the economy through a combination of tax cuts and economic stimulus. He will simply choose a different mix than the Democrats would, and call it by another name. Yet this strategy will probably also increase the deficit in the short run and require Romney repeatedly to raise the debt ceiling, risking the ire of the Tea Party.

Romney's advisers have floated the idea that, in order for their leader to make all of the tough choices necessary to solve the country's problems, he should adopt the example of the 19th-century Democrat James K. Polk and be willing to serve for only one term.

....

If he truly is like Polk, Romney will not be able to make difficult choices in the public interest. Rather, he will find himself hemmed in by the conflicting demands of a radicalized party. Opposition to Barack Obama's presidency unified the Republicans. But once Obama is gone, the various factions of the party will find themselves in fierce competition, and the incoherence of the Republicans' various commitments will emerge starkly.

[Fez]

Whoops, double post

Sadly, from the 2014 Senate map I don't see a lot states with Republican held seats that have a good opportunity for the Tea Party to fuck up the race ala Akin and Mourdock. Some of those solid south seats probably won't have a strong enough Dem candidate to be able to take advantage of these sorts of republican rape scandals. And they're probably so solidly republican that they wouldn't be as swingy as states like Missouri and Indiana. So the race in TN could swing ten points after a comment like Akins and probably still not change the outcome to a dem pickup.

http://en.wikipedia....elections,_2014

Then again these things are hard to predict. and almost as good would be tea party republican challengers in places like Arkansas and West Virginia helping to defend Dem held seats with their tea party shenanigans.

Its way too far out to tell for sure (remember when this was going to be the year that Democrats lost the senate?), but there's a few opportunities there:

Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska are three of those states where a ConservaDem, who pushes really hard on agricultural issues instead of anything else, can win. They won't be much help in office of course, but still, it'd be an extra vote on a few issues. They are tougher ground then one of the Dakota or Montana, but its still doable. It would also probably require the incumbent retiring for it to be possible. But if one does, and we luck out and get a social crusader winning the Republican primary, a strong focus on agriculture could overcome that.

Tennessee and Kentucky both have lots of Democrats (particularly Tennessee), they just don't vote that way nationally anymore. A ConservaDem can definitely win under the right circumstances. Remember it was just last year that Democrats won all but one of the statewide races in Kentucky, including the Governor getting another term.

Maine, if Collins retires like Snowe did this year, will go the Democrats.

Conversely, Democrats look at first glance to have about six or seven fairly at-risk seats.

So if they have a good year this year. by which I mean 55+ (and I think 56 is definitely possible, maybe even likely), they'd probably be favored in 2014. But obviously a lot can change over the next two years, not the least of which being who they're dealing as President.

[Shryke]

I posted this article before, but it may have gotten lost in the polling madness. The author is essentially arguing that the Republicans are fine as long as they're in opposition, but the moment they come back to power they're gonna be fucked. The coalition really does represent a lot of different interests and right now they're only united by a hatred of Obama (and in 2016, of Hillary). I tend to agree.

That is an interesting point. Alot of what's holding competing factions of the GOP together right now is that when you have no power to implement legislation, you can yell and scream about anything you want. Your choices only have to narrow to one real option if you have the power to make that option happen.

[Darzin]

A fair amount of people predicted the death of the Republican party in 2008 and we saw how that turned out. That said I think the article Fez posted made a lot of good points its a lot easier to maintain fanatical discipline in your party when all you have to do is say no to someone you all hate, rather than propose concrete ideas. Plus if Romney was elected he would have to take a solid position on something which could lead the Tea party to throw a fit. Or if Romney is not elected and the economy picks up in the next four years we could see Obama pass off the torch to someone else maybe, Hillary and see 16 or so years of Democratic presidents.

That may be wishful thinking but the Republican parties fissures would grow more as they would stay in the opposition. Whatever happens and despite the excellent points Shryke made the Republican party’s demographics are not sustainable long term in 20-40 years they simply won’t have enough old white people to win national elections no matter how much they vote, and at that point they’ll have to change in order to win national elections. I would guess they’d take on a more libertarian or Wall Street bend and drop some of the social issues, but something will have to change.

[Fez]

By the way, for those who liked that article on a Romney presidency, the author put up one today on a second-term for Obama. Essentially he thinks that Obama's second term will look a lot like his first and like Clinton's terms, however Obama has "one shot at greatness". If he can successfully leverage the coming fiscal cliff (which the author calls a misnomer since it can be retroactively fixed several months after), Obama will be able to completely transform the policy landscape.

January 2013 is Obama's magic moment. He has a chance to break the Republican stranglehold on the country's domestic agenda and put Democratic policies in place. That is how Obama might become a transformative president -- or failing that, one of the most successful preemptive presidents in American history. But he will only get one shot at greatness, and he must take maximum advantage of it.

It will not be easy. There will be enormous pressure on Obama to cut a deal during the lame-duck session of Congress immediately after the election. Wavering Democrats fearful of a new recession will insist that Obama prevent the Clinton-era tax rates from ever going into effect. Centrist pundits will demand that Obama adopt the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction proposal, which is actually to the right of what he could probably get from the Republicans after January 2013.

But if Obama can hold tough until January, he can strike a deal on entitlements, defense, and taxes that will favor Democratic priorities for a long time. This would also increase the fissures in the Republican coalition, heightening the divisions between defense hawks, anti-tax ideologues, and deficit crusaders. And, to top it off, Obamacare will remain in place, and a guarantee of health care for Americans will become part of the social contract for the foreseeable future.

Obama needs to do one other thing, however, that will make his task much easier. He must champion reform of the Senate. The current combination of filibuster and hold rules limits effective legislative reform, and it makes it difficult for Obama to staff federal agencies -- like the new consumer protection agency and the Federal Reserve -- with experts who will promote his policies. It also prevents him from stocking the courts with new judges who agree with his constitutional values. As Reagan well understood, no transformation in political regimes is complete without a transformation of the executive branch, the independent administrative agencies, and the judiciary.

Democrats have little to gain from sticking with the existing Senate rules. If Mitt Romney wins and his party retakes the Senate, the Republicans will have few scruples about changing the rules of the game to promote their policies. McConnell has no intention of allowing current Majority Leader Harry Reid to do to him what he did to Harry Reid. Because some kind of Senate reform is inevitable, it is rational for the Democrats to benefit from it first, while they can.

Of course, if they retain control of the House in the 2012 election, Republicans have one last card to play: impeachment. Republicans have been trying their best to find a damaging scandal during Obama's first term, so far with little success. But the longer a presidency lasts, the greater the chances are that something will turn up, especially in a president's second term. And if a scandal takes off, Republicans can try to impeach Obama. Scandal and impeachment are serious dangers for preemptive presidents, whose legitimacy is usually already under siege. It is worth noting that of the three presidents who have either been impeached (Andrew Johnson, Clinton) or resigned under threat of impeachment (Nixon), all three were preemptive presidents (Johnson, a war Democrat, became president following Lincoln's assassination and quickly got caught up in a power struggle with a Republican Congress).

Finally, if Obama wants to make his influence lasting, he must work to create an economy prosperous enough to help ensure that a Democrat follows him in 2016. Preemptive presidents usually aren't succeeded by members of their own party, but reconstructive presidents often are. If another Democrat -- say, Hillary Clinton -- takes the oath of office in January 2016, that will be the strongest indication that, at least for the Democrats, it is morning in America. The Age of Reagan will be over, and the Age of Obama will have begun.

I sure like the sound of that last sentence.

[Whoring Drunkard]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/whos-really-winning-early-voting/264436/

Another take on the early voting. In short, GOP doing well in CO, FL, NC. Dems doing well in IA and NV, and probably Ohio.

[The Undead Martyr]

Reagan was a fascist dick (okay, plenty of presidents were, but still) whose dissimulations and bald-faced bullshit still stain our national psyche and have engendered two festering cancer known as neoliberal economics and the Christian Right.