US Politics - We're through the looking glass here people

[Bonesy]

Fez, thanks. My sodium levels were spiking with how many grains of salt I was taking every time I read about it.

Scot, yes. CNN randomly assigned it one way and then randomly reversed it four years later, and that's when it stuck.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

Correct.  I believe the incumbant party was "blue".  Hence the 84 "lake of Blue" for Reagen.

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

He's better when scripted. He's bad on his feet. And Trump was a national champion debator while at Princeton.

Parliamentary debate.

In my experience, nobody took parly that seriously. Policy debate is a different animal, but also bears no resemblance to the actual art of persuading human beings.

Basically, I think collegiate debate credentials mean very little when evaluating politicians.

[Fez]

Yes, but if I remember correctly  before the Bush/Gore election the TV networks actually went back and forth every presidential election between which party was designated "Blue" and which "Red" on their maps. So the Republicans were never consistently "Blue", just for particular elections. 

And in 1976 the colors were blue and yellow.

 

[Maithanet]

Not anytime soon. A blue Texas has been the Democratic white whale for at least a decade now, and its even stupider than the Republican white whales of a red New Jersey or Connecticut. Democrats pin their hopes in Texas on the constant, massive growth in the Hispanic population there. The problems are that the voter turnout among most of those Hispanics is really low, and that Republicans keep on improving how they do among Whites in Texas. 

Democrats should be far more focused on trying to turn Georgia blue. Its got the same dynamic as Texas, only with the increased population being a balance of Hispanic and Asian immigrants. Also, unlike Texas, Democrats have a much higher floor due to the large African American population. In 2012, Romney only won Georgia 53-45, and that was without the Obama campaign trying to contest the state at all. It was the second smallest margin of victory that Romney had, after North Carolina. It'd be hard work to win Georgia, and it wouldn't destroy the Republican party the way winning Texas would. But its more realistic, and with 16 electoral votes, it'd still really mess up any Republican strategy to win the white house*.

*Seriously. Republicans could win Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida and they'd still lose the race if the Democratic candidate won Georgia and the rest of the blue Obama states.

The Republican path to victory is already really strained.  New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado are all fading away as swing states - all have significant and growing Latino populations that are moving increasingly away from the Republican party.  Bush won all three of those states in 2004, but Obama went 6/6 in those three, with a margin >5% every time.  If those three are gone as swing states, Republicans need to a clean sweep of the big swing states like OH, VA, NC, FL, and win at least one of the Kerry blue states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  It's doable with the right political factors, but it is a tall order.  And VA is the same story - increasing Latino/Asian voting population turning a purple state blue. 

[TrackerNeil]

The Republican path to victory is already really strained.  New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado are all fading away as swing states - all have significant and growing Latino populations that are moving increasingly away from the Republican party.  Bush won all three of those states in 2004, but Obama went 6/6 in those three, with a margin >5% every time.  If those three are gone as swing states, Republicans need to a clean sweep of the big swing states like OH, VA, NC, FL, and win at least one of the Kerry blue states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  It's doable with the right political factors, but it is a tall order.  And VA is the same story - increasing Latino/Asian voting population turning a purple state blue. 

Yup. If you go to 270towin.com you can find a neat little app that lets you game out various Electoral College scenarios. Fact is, the Democrats can lose both Ohio and Florida and still take the presidency, but if the Republicans lose just one they are most likely doomed.

[Fez]

Democrats definitely have an electoral college advantage. And of course Georgia is better used as a place to force Republicans to spend money on defense rather than an integral part of a winning map. But its not too difficult to imagine a 2016 map looking like this. (I think VA is closer to being a blue state than CO is; I think the divergence in 2014 results showed that)

That'd require a Republican to thread a very tight needle and I think most of them couldn't do it. Rubio might though. The electorate is getting more and more diverse, but its still majority white by a wide margin; and there's at least a few elections left where Republicans can win by maximizing their white vote so long as they don't completely tank among minorities.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I can't see a Democrat losing Iowa and (especially) New Hampshire while winning Virginia.

[TrackerNeil]

I can't see a Democrat losing Iowa and (especially) New Hampshire while winning Virginia.

Same here. If Clinton (or whoever) loses New Hampshire, she's likely losing the whole horse race.

[Fez]

I can't see a Democrat losing Iowa and (especially) New Hampshire while winning Virginia.

New Hampshire is super swingy. And, different races I know, but Democrats won the 2014 senate race in Virginia and lost the one in Iowa. And in 2012, Obama won Virginia 51-47 while he won Iowa 52-47, so they weren't that far apart. And Iowa is one of the rare states where Democrats are winning because they still do well with non-college educated whites and that makes me extremely nervous since that is the Republican base, demographically.

I'm not saying its likely. I think Clinton probably wins 2016 by picking up every Obama 2012 state again plus North Carolina, but if things go south it doesn't take much for the map to start looking ugly.

[Fez]

By the by, in actual news, the House passed a 5-year, fully-funded transportation bill today, 359-65. All 65 no's were Republicans, but the fact that Ryan was able to get the vast majority of his caucus to actually vote yes on an important bill (its a $305 billion package, and the first long-term transportation bill in over a decade) makes me think he may have a much better ability to deal with his caucus' messed up dynamics than Boehner did.

The senate's expected to vote on it tonight or tomorrow; depending on when they wrap up this reconciliation nonsense.

In a fun twist, the bill does in fact also authorize the Import-Export Bank, so Ryan was even able to give establishment Republicans and Democrats a secondary policy rider victory.

Unfortunately, the bill doesn't raise the gas tax, and uses a bunch of dumb gimmicks and one-time transfers to cover the difference in costs instead. So that's a shame.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

By the by, in actual news, the House passed a 5-year, fully-funded transportation bill today, 359-65. All 65 no's were Republicans, but the fact that Ryan was able to get the vast majority of his caucus to actually vote yes on an important bill (its a $305 billion package, and the first long-term transportation bill in over a decade) makes me think he may have a much better ability to deal with his caucus' messed up dynamics than Boehner did.

The senate's expected to vote on it tonight or tomorrow; depending on when they wrap up this reconciliation nonsense.

In a fun twist, the bill does in fact also authorize the Import-Export Bank, so Ryan was even able to give establishment Republicans and Democrats a secondary policy rider victory.

Unfortunately, the bill doesn't raise the gas tax, and uses a bunch of dumb gimmicks and one-time transfers to cover the difference in costs instead. So that's a shame.

This is where pork barrel projects used to be really handy to wrangle votes.

[Shryke]

At least at first that might've been true. But he's now spent something like six months surrounded by adoring crowds telling him they want him to be president. That's gotta be a head trip. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we eventually found out this was just an ego trip for him at first but that he's since become convinced that he really should be president.

I think he wants to be president now. I think he probably wanted it back then too, just not as badly as now and he didn't think he had a chance anyway. As he's kept surging though, it's seeming more and more possible so he's sticking with it and his ego won't let him back out as it costs him deals and such.

He's in this till the bitter end.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Donald Trump "you folks"-es his way through a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-jewish-summit

lol

He also just went on the Alex Jones show. Every time I think "this guy couldn't give less of a fuck" he goes and proves me wrong. 

 

[Ramsay Gimp]

Trump made some pretty damn ballsy comments to that crowd though (I'm not surprised DanteGabriel left them out since they don't fit his narrative)

Mr. Rubio was referring to comments Mr. Trump made earlier in the week to the Associated Press, in which Mr. Trump said he would try to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians but had “a real question as to whether or not both sides want to make it.”

“A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal, whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things,” Mr. Trump said. “They may not be, and I understand that, and I’m okay with that. But you’re just not going to have a deal.”

 

“You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money,” Trump told members of the Sheldon Adelson-funded hardline pro-Israel lobbying organization.

He went on to mock rival Jeb Bush for taking money from interest groups and then toeing their line. “That’s why you don’t want to give me money, OK, but that’s OK, you want to control your own politician. That’s fine, good,” he concluded.

And then, unlike the candidates who do want the coalition’s money, Trump broke with GOP orthodoxy, questioning Israel’s commitment to peace, calling for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusing to call for Jerusalem to be Israel’s undivided capital — provoking a wave of boos from the audience.

Pretty encouraging stuff for a GOP candidate. Win has Hillary ever shown this kind of strength?

[ThinkerX]

Been seeing this comparison in a few places:

 

Trump more or less the new George Wallace.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Been seeing this comparison in a few places:

 

Trump more or less the new George Wallace.

I thought he was the new Hitler?

[Bonesy]

This is the worst election I've been expected to participate in my life.

I have serious concerns about my preferred candidate's electability, the ability of said candidate to accomplish anything that matters to me, while gazing upon the verdant field of assholes, liars, and narcissists of which the victor may arise.

Then again, Matt Bevin has yet to burn down Kentucky, so maybe lunacy is containable.

[Ormond]

I detest most of what Donald Trump has said and done as a Presidential candidate, but I do have to agree that some of his remarks about even-handedness toward Israel and the Palestinians are both appropriate and much needed within American political discourse. 

Unfortunately, I have very little faith in his ability to maintain consistency on this or that his understanding of it is more than superficial. And I'm not sure a narcissistic willingness to say anything in front of anybody is the same as true bravery on the issues. 

[Swordfish]

This is the worst election I've been expected to participate in my life.

 

I have serious concerns about my preferred candidate's electability, the ability of said candidate to accomplish anything that matters to me, while gazing upon the verdant field of assholes, liars, and narcissists of which the victor may arise.

 

Then again, Matt Bevin has yet to burn down Kentucky, so maybe lunacy is containable.

I think it's actually the best, for essentially the same reasons you think it's the worst.

because it's hard to continue denying at this point that something is fundamentally broken, when the candidate pool is so utterly repugnant, inept, whatever you want to call it.  it appears to me that no one really wants to rally around any of these candidates with enthusiasm, and rightfully so. Hopefully it's eye opening to a lot of moderate party supporters on both sides.