Shryke Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 last thread, Shryke said I'm a chicken little for refusing to believe that Clinton is an electoral college lock in 2016 or for suggesting that she's got an uphill battle. specifically, I said she's going to lose if the strategy is to employ a Electoral College "Prevent Defense" since that approach has always failed to win elections but is the approach advocated by most liberals in this thread, it seems to me. I've also pointed out that Republicans won every presidential election from 1968 to 1988, other than once-in-200-years outlier occurrence of the biggest political scandal in american history resulting in the fluke election of Carter. Any perception originating from drawing a line in 1992 and claiming democrats have an advantage at winning the presidency is profoundly stupid because nothing on the scale of the Civil War, the New Deal, or the Civil Rights Act / Voting Rights Act happened in 1992 to fundamentally alter national politics. Turns out, Nate Silver agrees with me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-blue-wall/ Not really. You should read the whole thing.* Also the 90s were a big shakeup for US political culture. Not Southern Strategy big, but the flipping over of Congress was very important and the result of under the hood changes going on. *To wit: I’m not saying Clinton is doomed. Rather, I think the “fundamentals” point toward her chances being about 50-50, and I wouldn’t argue vigorously if you claimed the chances were more like 60-40 in one or the other direction. But Clinton is no sort of lock, and if she loses the popular vote by even a few percentage points, the “blue wall” will seem as archaic as talk of a permanent Republican majority. He's arguing against the blue wall saving Clinton if she loses the popular vote. And arguing against your chicken littling too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 last thread, Shryke said I'm a chicken little for refusing to believe that Clinton is an electoral college lock in 2016 or for suggesting that she's got an uphill battle. specifically, I said she's going to lose if the strategy is to employ a Electoral College "Prevent Defense" since that approach has always failed to win elections but is the approach advocated by most liberals in this thread, it seems to me. I've also pointed out that Republicans won every presidential election from 1968 to 1988, other than once-in-200-years outlier occurrence of the biggest political scandal in american history resulting in the fluke election of Carter. Any perception originating from drawing a line in 1992 and claiming democrats have an advantage at winning the presidency is profoundly stupid because nothing on the scale of the Civil War, the New Deal, or the Civil Rights Act / Voting Rights Act happened in 1992 to fundamentally alter national politics. In fact you've predicted repeatedly that Clinton will lose badly and on other occasions that Republicans are headed for a half-century lock on legislative power. No one would give you shit for saying Clinton has an uphill battle, it's your repeated prediction of unmitigated electoral disaster for Demcorats for the foreseeable future. Nothing Silver is saying supports those outlandish predictions. Pointing to Republican success between 68 and 88 and choosing to ignore Democratic success since then- winning the popular vote 5 of 6 elections*- is meaningless and aimed only at supporting your frankly baffling need to predict Democratic electoral failure from here to eternity. If nothing has changed to alter national politics since 1968 someone must have forgotten to tell the voters, who have somehow changed and formed new patterns nationally and regionally. According to you we can expect Vermont and California to go Republican in 2016, everything is basically the same as 1968 after all. *And a 2000 situation, where they narrowly won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college, Silver suggests would now work out in their favor due to changed EC math: What about in the event of an extremely close election, instead of a lopsided one? Another election as close as 2000, for instance? Obama would probably have won such an election in 2012. My method has him winning the Electoral College 285-253 in the event of an exactly tied popular vote, for instance. But it would have had to be very close indeed. If Obama had lost the popular vote by just 1 percentage point, for instance, I have him losing the election 279-259, as highly elastic states like New Hampshire and Colorado would have fallen out of his column. The net impact of this is minor. Our Election Day forecast in 2012 estimated that there was about a 5 percent chance that Obama would win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote (and about a 1 percent chance that Romney would do so).5 So if you want to argue that Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the popular vote next year are 50 percent but that her Electoral College chances are more like 53 percent or 55 percent instead, go ahead — that’s probably about what the “blue wall” amounts to. (And even that advantage is tenuous, possibly reflecting Obama’s superior turnout operation in swing states — an edge that Clinton might or might not replicate.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Jonathan Chait absolutely destroys the "Affirmative Action President" meme circulating around the Right these days:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/clinton-obama-affirmative-action-presidents.html That last paragraph burn. Damn.I. Can't. Stop. Laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ok, you guys are falling down on the job again... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-deals-stinging-defeat-to-obama-trade-agenda/ar-BBjGIxU?ocid=msnclassic Senate Democrats on Tuesday delivered a stinging blow to President Obama’s trade agenda by voting to prevent the chamber from picking up fast-track legislation. A motion to cut off a filibuster and proceed to the trade bill fell short of a 60-vote hurdle in the 52-45 vote. Sen. Tom Carper (Del.) was the only Democrat to back it. Not even close...though I have an uneasy suspicion this pact or its first cousin will pass before the decade is out. Too many corporations want it, and they pretty much own the lawmakers outright. That said, I have been doing a bit of googling lately on this Trans Pacific Pact. Lots of articles out there, many making detailed analysis's...but almost all negative. The bare handful of 'pro' pieces I have found barely qualify as sound bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/12/clinton-facing-new-ethics-questions-on-role-in-boeing-deal/Can't wait to see those servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/11/elizabeth-warren-fires-back-at-obama-heres-what-theyre-really-fighting-about/THE PLUM LINE: Whats your response to the latest from President Obama?SENATOR WARREN: The president said in his Nike speech that hes confident that when people read the agreement for themselves, that theyll see its a great deal. But the president wont actually let people read the agreement for themselves. Its classified.PLUM LINE: But dont you get 60 days to review it after the deal is finalized, with the authority to revoke fast track?WARREN: The president has committed only to letting the public see this deal after Congress votes to authorize fast track. At that point it will be impossible for us to amend the agreement or to block any part of it without tanking the whole TPP. The TPP is basically done. If the president is so confident its a good deal, he should declassify the text and let people see it before asking Congress to tie its hands on fixing it.The dems had no problem doing this with healthcare, what's the big deal know!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/12/clinton-facing-new-ethics-questions-on-role-in-boeing-deal/Can't wait to see those servers.Isn't this pretty much standard practice for US executives? *cough* Halliburton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I will totally cop to being a complete Eyeore when it comes to democrats and elections. I freak out, you guys scold me, and all is right with the world. :D As for the republican lock on electoral power, that is the House of Representatives that they have sewn up, and as I've said many times, they've sewn up the HoR by redrawing the state district lines far more severely than the federal district lines. That means democrats can't win state legislative majorities in the elections leading into the 2020 census, and probably not for the 2030 or 2040 census either. The inability to win state legislative majorities means democrats have an inability to redraw federal district lines, which means they have no ability to win a majority in the HoR for longer than one two year term, as the results will revert to the mean after any wave election might occasionally disrupt the permanent republican majority in the house. This is not a fluke, but a deliberate long term strategy that has only recently come into fruition. Republicans believe they can "govern" from the house, by which they mean not governing. http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8587629/thomas-schaller-stronghold-republican-party Schaller goes further than just arguing that the GOP does well in Congress. He also makes the provocative claim that the modern conservative movement might actually view control of the House as more important than the presidency. In the Reagan years, conservative activists viewed winning the presidency as their most important goal. But after the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, it was "interesting how quickly the attitude changed to 'the presidency would be nice, but the House and Senate are more important,'" antitax activist Grover Norquist told Schaller. The House is particularly important because, unlike the Senate, it can be controlled by a narrow majority. "You can run the country out of the House," said Norquist. "To Democratic ears, the notion that you can govern with the House is patently absurd," Schaller told me. But conservatives whose top priority is to limit government expansion can use their control of the House as a crucial veto point to block new proposals. "Even if you don't have a single senator and you don't have the White House, if you can hold the line in the House you can, quote, 'govern,' if governing means not doing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Governing does not mean growing government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 As for the republican lock on electoral power, that is the House of Representatives that they have sewn up, and as I've said many times, they've sewn up the HoR by redrawing the state district lines far more severely than the federal district lines. That means democrats can't win state legislative majorities in the elections leading into the 2020 census, and probably not for the 2030 or 2040 census either. 1. Gerrymandering can backfire horribly. Just ask Arkansas Democrats. 2. The solution for Democrats in the short to medium term is focussing on winning governorships. If they can do that, they have a foot in the door as far as redistricting goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 last thread, Shryke said I'm a chicken little for refusing to believe that Clinton is an electoral college lock in 2016 or for suggesting that she's got an uphill battle. specifically, I said she's going to lose if the strategy is to employ a Electoral College "Prevent Defense" since that approach has always failed to win elections but is the approach advocated by most liberals in this thread, it seems to me. I've also pointed out that Republicans won every presidential election from 1968 to 1988, other than once-in-200-years outlier occurrence of the biggest political scandal in american history resulting in the fluke election of Carter. Any perception originating from drawing a line in 1992 and claiming democrats have an advantage at winning the presidency is profoundly stupid because nothing on the scale of the Civil War, the New Deal, or the Civil Rights Act / Voting Rights Act happened in 1992 to fundamentally alter national politics. Turns out, Nate Silver agrees with me. Silver's analysis seems to assume that the electorate has remained the same since 1968, when that is clearly not true. America is getting less white with every day, and at this point that is an advantage for Democrats. Younger Americans are also siding increasingly with Democrats. Jonathan Bernstein goes over this apparent Democratic EC advantage, and links from there to other interesting reads. I think there is indeed an emerging Democratic advantage here, and while it won't last forever, it might last long enough to give Hillary Clinton a term or two in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 That last paragraph from the Chait column was amazing. What I wouldn't do to know what rationalization the author of that Weekly Standard piece would come up with if they ever saw it. lockesnow - as long as you cop to it. you and kallhus had me feeling depressed in the run-up to 2012. I'm actually getting more bullish on Hillary despite having been vocal in a few recent threads about the email stuff and the foundation stuff. I maintain that it still worries me a bit, but I'm now thinking that without something much bigger coming out, it's not going to do shit. Others online have pointed out that it's virtually impossible for a GOP nominee to attack someone for shady financial contributions. And recent polling suggests that this stuff has hurt Clinton not a bit. Frank Bruni had a really good column the other day using some evidence that Hillary also has this other huge advantage: not being a Republican. The party is still hated by everyone who isn't a member, and they're caught in this trap where their base will demand stuff that everyone outside the clown car finds repulsive. Throw in Hillary's resume and 90's nostalgia, and she's looking pretty strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Reptitious Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 right wing arglebarglesphere :rofl:Love it! :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I keep thinking this has to be fake. But from the 'right' perspective, I suppose its reasonable: http://americanactionsurveys.com/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=darkpost&utm_campaign=obamacaresurvey&utm_content=image Most of the comments treat this as some sort of sick joke, which is encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Not been following the election so far. Who is Hilary's opponent, or have the Republicans not selected one yet?And how's polling - who's tipped to win, or too early to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 The primary season hasn't even started yet for either party, so it's not even confirmed that it's Clinton yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 This thing ain't counting votes, son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Sadly, the 2016 election started about a millisecond after the end of the 2012 election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Sadly, the 2016 election started about a millisecond after the end of the 2012 election.Some would say before even... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.