General US Politics

[-Cynthia-]

obviously we'll make mexico pay for it along with the wall we'll make them build

I feel like Trump is just going to laugh at everyone if he ever gets elected President and people complain about stuff like this not actually happening.

[DarthMikey]

I am morbidly fascinated by what would actually happen in a Trump presidency. His positions are all over the place throughout time and even now some of what he expresses blatantly diverts from the Republican platform. (i.e.; advocating progressive taxation and universal health care) I don't actually want him elected but I would like some kind of portal into the future to see what Trump in the White House would look like a few years in, if only to sate my curiosity.

[ClevelandSteve]

Either way, much as I loathe Clinton, I'll be voting for her if she's the nominee. Lesser of the two evils and all that, but the gop is a whole 'nother level of awful. I feel kind of crappy voting for her, but I don't want to be like those nader-types who got bush in the white house.

Pretty much how I feel, too. Basically, I'm not voting for her, I'm voting for her Supreme Court nominees.

[I.M. Gei]

I am morbidly fascinated by what would actually happen in a Trump presidency. His positions are all over the place throughout time and even now some of what he expresses blatantly diverts from the Republican platform. (i.e.; advocating progressive taxation and universal health care) I don't actually want him elected but I would like some kind of portal into the future to see what Trump in the White House would look like a few years in, if only to sate my curiosity.

his tax plan has brackets, but given the huge cut for those at the top (which are already lower than they've been in 90 years, as has been the case for my lifetime), i would not call it progressive at all

[Radiant head]

I am morbidly fascinated by what would actually happen in a Trump presidency. His positions are all over the place throughout time and even now some of what he expresses blatantly diverts from the Republican platform. (i.e.; advocating progressive taxation and universal health care) I don't actually want him elected but I would like some kind of portal into the future to see what Trump in the White House would look like a few years in, if only to sate my curiosity.

Italy had a trump like prime minister for some time, so that might give you some idea.

This explains things quite well, even why his platform is ironically more moderate than most of the gop (outside the wall/immigration stuff).

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/25/9203405/trump-european-far-right

[Flamma]

I just love how some people keep acting like no one takes Trump seriously. It's real damn funny and pathetic as well. ( This isn't addressed to anyone here. js before i get shat on )

Btw, how did Hill do at the Benghazi hearing?

Edited October 24, 2015 by Flamma

[I.M. Gei]

I just love how some people keep acting like no one takes Trump seriously. It's real damn funny and pathetic as well. ( This isn't addressed to anyone here. js before i get shat on )

Btw, how did Hill do at the Benghazi hearing?

she completely clowned on the republicans on the benghazi committee for eleven straight hours. for reference you could have started flying from the west coast to london when the hearing began and it still wouldn't have finished when you landed

i'm honestly impressed both by her performance and how the republicans thought somehow they'd get a smoking gun this time, i swear guys! 8th time! trey gowdy reached "please proceed, governor" levels of self-ownage

Edited October 24, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[-Cynthia-]

Even Gowdy admitted they didn't come up with anything new so this will probably boost Clinton if anything.

[I.M. Gei]

tbh "even gowdy admitted they couldn't find anything" is a hot take on the level of "water is wet"; i mean, no fucking shit they're not going to find anything new on the eight investigation when one of their own even admitted that the investigations' entire raison d'être was to drive down hillary's poll numbers

by all means it probably already has; even aside from jeb lund here, the NYT and other outlets were also talking about how the hearings were a farce and how hillary did very well under pressure here

also more anecdotally, i've known a few bernie fans who are more enthusiastic about hillary after watching her grill gowdy and co.

Edited October 24, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Ansem]

im a bernie fan proud of clinton's performance at the 12830th hearing. republicans are saying they'll impeach her if she gets into office which is really funny because they think they are going to keep their majority

[Radiant head]

Well thanks to decades of gerrymandering and our abysmally low voter turnout, they might.

[Ansem]

damn democrats gotta step up their gerrymandering

[I.M. Gei]

yeah the gop is going to hold the house through 2020 at the very earliest

they picked just the right year (2010) to sweep state legislatures and gerrymander both state legislatures and congressional districts after that year's census

[ClevelandSteve]

Well, I think the more cunning members of the Republican Party will realize that impeaching Hillary over nothing would be political suicide (same reason why they haven't tried impeaching Obama). And they stand a decent chance of losing the Senate in 2016, so even if the House impeaches her they won't be able to actually remove her from office.

[Zasplach]

Well, I think the more cunning members of the Republican Party will realize that impeaching Hillary over nothing would be political suicide (same reason why they haven't tried impeaching Obama). And they stand a decent chance of losing the Senate in 2016, so even if the House impeaches her they won't be able to actually remove her from office.

There also hasn't been a party to have 2/3rds of the senate (the number required for conviction of the impeachment) since FDR ran the government during the Great Depression. Besides, they saw how well it worked with Bill, so it's a nothing idea.

[I.M. Gei]

Well, I think the more cunning members of the Republican Party will realize that impeaching Hillary over nothing would be political suicide (same reason why they haven't tried impeaching Obama). And they stand a decent chance of losing the Senate in 2016, so even if the House impeaches her they won't be able to actually remove her from office.

the democrats retaking the senate in 2016 would require pretty much everything to go right

and then the 2018 map looks brutal for the dems

[ClevelandSteve]

the democrats retaking the senate in 2016 would require pretty much everything to go right

and then the 2018 map looks brutal for the dems

2016 is when all the seats from 2010 are up for re-election. And 2004 was a good year for the Republicans, too. So any Democrats still surviving will be hard for the Republicans to beat even if they're having a huge national wave behind their nominee. Whether or not the Democrats will gain any ground, and if it will be enough, is still up in the air, though. The election is still more than a year away. Who knows what the political climate will be like then.

Unfortunately, even if the Democrats retake the Senate, you're right about the Republicans immediately retaking the Senate again in 2018 being a virtual certainty (unless a Republican wins the presidency, since midterms tend to favor the party that doesn't control the White House. And, even then, the Democrats have virtually no shot of gaining any seats), though, because, while 2004 and 2010 were both good years for Republicans, 2006 and 2012 were both good years for Democrats, so it can only go downhill.

[I.M. Gei]

2016 is when all the seats from 2010 are up for re-election. And 2004 was a good year for the Republicans, too. So any Democrats still surviving will be hard for the Republicans to beat even if they're having a huge national wave behind their nominee. Whether or not the Democrats will gain any ground, and if it will be enough, is still up in the air, though. The election is still more than a year away. Who knows what the political climate will be like then.

Unfortunately, even if the Democrats retake the Senate, you're right about the Republicans immediately retaking the Senate again in 2018 being a virtual certainty (unless a Republican wins the presidency, since midterms tend to favor the party that doesn't control the White House. And, even then, the Democrats have virtually no shot of gaining any seats), though, because, while 2004 and 2010 were both good years for Republicans, 2006 and 2012 were both good years for Democrats, so it can only go downhill.

the democrats need to win five to take the senate next year; of that, the likeliest picks are probably pennsylvania (where toomey can be knocked out, but the dem primary is looking like a shitshow at the moment), wisconsin (because lol ron johnson) and illinois (where mark kirk's running for re-election in a blue state)

new hampshire might be possible, since their popular democratic governor is running, but ayotte isn't a very weak incumbent from what i gathered. i'm not sure what to make of florida since rubio's retiring, but the florida democratic party is appallingly incompetent. in ohio, portman's a pretty strong incumbent, but ted strickland (governor who lost in the 2010 wave, but was still popular nonetheless) is running, so i dunno.

nevada would have been lost had governor harry sandoval decided to run, but mercifully for the dems, he decided not to. iowa might be a swing state, but chuck grassley is massively popular and keeps running away with re-election, so no go there.

while 2004 and 2010 were both good years for the republicans, a huge chunk of the seats they gained (e.g. in the dakotas and deep dixie) were won by picking off seats in these states where blue dogs and/or dixiecrats had been in steady, decades-long decline. i don't see a democrat being able to regain arkansas or louisiana, for instance

Edited October 28, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Radiant head]

I dunno, I heard the Democrat governor candidate in Louisiana is picking up steam thanks to the disaster of Jindal. An effect like that could pass over to the Senate.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Radiant head

[I.M. Gei]

I dunno, I heard the Democrat governor in Louisiana is picking up steam thanks to the disaster of Jindal. An effect like that could pass over to the Senate.

he's leading against vitter, but would lose against any other republican candidate, from what polling indicated. more notably, jindal being a horror show, which was already clear even during 2013, didn't save landrieu from getting booted in the runoff last year

and even then, louisiana's one of the states where the post-civil rights realignment took until 2010 to complete at the state legislature level

Edited October 28, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Radiant head]

couldn't even last 20 minutes in the debate. every question is followed by them whining about the moderators and liberal media. the gop no longer amuses or entertains me, tbh.

[I.M. Gei]

there was something surreal about seeing candidates call rick santelli a communist

[-Cynthia-]

couldn't even last 20 minutes in the debate. every question is followed by them whining about the moderators and liberal media. the gop no longer amuses or entertains me, tbh.

On one hand, I think the moderators could have phrased their questions to be more substantial and less accusatory.

On the other hand, Ted Cruz's extremely popular response complaining about the mainstream media completely avoided talking about the debt ceiling...which was the substantial issue in the question. That makes him a hypocrite, but the GOP doesn't seem to care about that. Both the moderators and candidates were to blame for not talking about the issues here IMO.

[I.M. Gei]

On one hand, I think the moderators could have phrased their questions to be more substantial and less accusatory.

i too think it's unfair that moderators asked the candidates about their stated beliefs, positions and history

is that the lost language of journalism i heard??

On the other hand, Ted Cruz's extremely popular response complaining about the mainstream media completely avoided talking about the debt ceiling...which was the substantial issue in the question. That makes him a hypocrite, but the GOP doesn't seem to care about that. Both the moderators and candidates were to blame for not talking about the issues here IMO.

are you only just now discovering that the GOP has a massive persecution complex and is much more prone to whining about liberal media journalists and "gotcha questions" instead of...taking personal responsibility?

e: lawl

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican National Committee says it's suspending its partnership with NBC News and its properties and won't allow the network to co-host a presidential primary debate scheduled for February.

full letter

Mr. Andrew Lack

Chairman, NBC News

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, New York 10112

Dear Mr. Lack,

I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.

The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.

CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.

While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.

I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.

While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.

I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus

Chairman, Republican National Committee

ahahahahahahaha man what a bunch of whiny pissbabies

Edited October 30, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Anouleth]

On one hand, I think the moderators could have phrased their questions to be more substantial and less accusatory.

On the other hand, Ted Cruz's extremely popular response complaining about the mainstream media completely avoided talking about the debt ceiling...which was the substantial issue in the question. That makes him a hypocrite, but the GOP doesn't seem to care about that. Both the moderators and candidates were to blame for not talking about the issues here IMO.

Rule number one of debating: answer the question you want to answer and not the question you were asked.