Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[RedKing]

And even when you have an unambiguous, one-sided fuckup, it's the role of talk radio and FOX News to obfuscate it into "Well, both sides are to blame/the Dems have done the same thing before/hey look, a missing white girl!"

I took enough public opinion courses in grad school to sour me on the democratic process but good. Most people do not make rational voting decisions (even highly educated voters), and party affiliation is the single strongest predictor of voting outcomes. It's heartening to see an increase in independents, but all that does is make the outcome less clear, it doesn't mean that people are voting any *smarter*.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can't seriously expect me to buy the "nothing ever changes in politics" drivel, when it's obviously not the case. I'm telling you, the Republicans don't have the base to win national elections anymore. Even when things were going their way they only just managed to reclaim and hold the House, which should be the easiest feat for an opposition party.

[FearfulJesuit]

You can't seriously expect me to buy the "nothing ever changes in politics" drivel, when it's obviously not the case. I'm telling you, the Republicans don't have the base to win national elections anymore. Even when things were going their way they only just managed to reclaim and hold the House, which should be the easiest feat for an opposition party.

Well, that depends on who the Republican is. Christie is miles away from Cruz. Of course, there aren't very many Christies out there...but in 1989, how many Republicans would have thought Bush I would have lost the '92 election? Nobody saw Clinton coming.

[RedKing]

I'm not saying nothing ever changes. The 1964/68 election cycles being an instance of huge party ID realignment, for instance (and the birth of the modern Republican Party). Party affiliations can change, which changes voting outcomes.

What I'm saying is that it's a bit too easy to get sucked into the liberal echo chamber where we all sit around and say "Man, Republicans are dumb. NOBODY I know would vote for a Republican, so there's no way they can win." It's a selection bias.

There are more than enough people who still think the Democrats are the scourge of all that is right and good in America. What'll be interesting is to see if the GOP (and especially the far-right wing, which is somewhat independent of the party itself) will be able to pivot their attacks from Obama to the Democratic Party itself. After all, Obama won't be on the ballot come 2016. If they spend all their efforts attacking him rather than the Dems as a whole, that's a major strategic blunder. My guess is that they'll keep primarily attacking Obama through the 2014 elections and then pivot hard to attacking the party rather than the man for the remaining two years.

Spoiler: Party ID trends, 2009-current (click to show/hide)

Since the 2012 election, self-identification of Dems and Dem-aligned independents ("leaners") is down six points (from 50% to 44%)
Self-identified Republicans and Repub-aligned is virtually unchanged (42%, although there's a four-point drop in solid identification. But then there's a five-point drop in solid ID for Democrats.)

That's after ALL the clusterfucks of the last 13 months. The only major change is an 11-point growth in Independents who don't claim to align to either side. Now, I think some of that is a hipster effect -- it's cool to be indie these days. And some is an attempt by people to stay out of political arguments by saying "I'm an independent". But some of it is genuine discontent with the current political environment. The problem is, you can't bank on those people to all vote in ways that will benefit the Democrats.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can't seriously expect me to buy the "nothing ever changes in politics" drivel, when it's obviously not the case. I'm telling you, the Republicans don't have the base to win national elections anymore. Even when things were going their way they only just managed to reclaim and hold the House, which should be the easiest feat for an opposition party.

Well, that depends on who the Republican is. Christie is miles away from Cruz. Of course, there aren't very many Christies out there...but in 1989, how many Republicans would have thought Bush I would have lost the '92 election? Nobody saw Clinton coming.

Clinton convincing the nation's liberals to moderate for political survival is far and away more viable of a move than Christie convincing the nation's conservatives to moderate for political survival. They're too ideologically convicted, which is my main point. They are going to radicalize themselves into a box, control a small amount of the nation, and not be able to leave it. Had Obama blown the election away with Reagan-level support a mirrored reaction might be viable, but that didn't happen.

[RedKing]

One looming problem in 2014: the Dems may lose control of the Senate. And this is after invoking the nuclear option. *facepalm*

The reason has to do with some ill-timed retirements by blue senators in red states.

Montana's Max Baucus, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, and West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller are all retiring, and most projections have those three seats anywhere from a tossup to a Republican takeaway, depending on whose numbers you use.

Best hope for the Democrats, perversely enough, is for some of the slightly-less crazy Republicans up for re-election to get waylaid in the primary by Tea Partiers. Lindsey Graham in SC is a good example. (Although in Carolina Inferior, a Tea Partier is probably *more* likely to get elected...)

[FearfulJesuit]

You can't seriously expect me to buy the "nothing ever changes in politics" drivel, when it's obviously not the case. I'm telling you, the Republicans don't have the base to win national elections anymore. Even when things were going their way they only just managed to reclaim and hold the House, which should be the easiest feat for an opposition party.

Well, that depends on who the Republican is. Christie is miles away from Cruz. Of course, there aren't very many Christies out there...but in 1989, how many Republicans would have thought Bush I would have lost the '92 election? Nobody saw Clinton coming.

Clinton convincing the nation's liberals to moderate for political survival is far and away more viable of a move than Christie convincing the nation's conservatives to moderate for political survival. They're too ideologically convicted, which is my main point. They are going to radicalize themselves into a box, control a small amount of the nation, and not be able to leave it. Had Obama blown the election away with Reagan-level support a mirrored reaction might be viable, but that didn't happen.

I don't know...it's possible that Obama is just the anti-Nixon to someone's anti-Reagan (possibly Warren, probably someone we've barely heard of). Christie could be the anti-Carter.

(Of course, this analogy falls apart on several levels. It would- kind of- be nice if the NSA scandals were the anti-Watergate, but they won't be.)

One looming problem in 2014: the Dems may lose control of the Senate. And this is after invoking the nuclear option. *facepalm*

The reason has to do with some ill-timed retirements by blue senators in red states.

Montana's Max Baucus, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, and West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller are all retiring, and most projections have those three seats anywhere from a tossup to a Republican takeaway, depending on whose numbers you use.

Best hope for the Democrats, perversely enough, is for some of the slightly-less crazy Republicans up for re-election to get waylaid in the primary by Tea Partiers. Lindsey Graham in SC is a good example. (Although in Carolina Inferior, a Tea Partier is probably *more* likely to get elected...)

They might take the Senate back, but it wouldn't last. In 2016, the Tea Party's wave Senators will be up for reelection; this includes Senators from Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, Richard Burr, and Kelly Ayotte, all from swing states, will be up for re-election, too. All in all, of 34 seats up for re-election in 2016, the Republicans currently hold 24, while the Dems hold 10, of which only Colorado's and Nevada's are considered competitive. So we'll see.

[Bauglir]

They're too ideologically convicted, which is my main point.

I'd dispute this. You're confusing the Republican voter base with the Tea Party leadership.

[RedKing]

You can't seriously expect me to buy the "nothing ever changes in politics" drivel, when it's obviously not the case. I'm telling you, the Republicans don't have the base to win national elections anymore. Even when things were going their way they only just managed to reclaim and hold the House, which should be the easiest feat for an opposition party.

Well, that depends on who the Republican is. Christie is miles away from Cruz. Of course, there aren't very many Christies out there...but in 1989, how many Republicans would have thought Bush I would have lost the '92 election? Nobody saw Clinton coming.

Clinton convincing the nation's liberals to moderate for political survival is far and away more viable of a move than Christie convincing the nation's conservatives to moderate for political survival. They're too ideologically convicted, which is my main point. They are going to radicalize themselves into a box, control a small amount of the nation, and not be able to leave it. Had Obama blown the election away with Reagan-level support a mirrored reaction might be viable, but that didn't happen.

I don't know...it's possible that Obama is just the anti-Nixon to someone's anti-Reagan (possibly Warren, probably someone we've barely heard of). Christie could be the anti-Carter.

(Of course, this analogy falls apart on several levels. It would- kind of- be nice if the NSA scandals were the anti-Watergate, but they won't be.)

So...Obama resigns, we get Biden for a couple of years (can totes see him as Mirror Universe Ford), then Chris Christie is a failed one-termer, followed by eight years of Elizabeth Warren becoming a demigod to the Democratic faithful?

[FearfulJesuit]

You can't seriously expect me to buy the "nothing ever changes in politics" drivel, when it's obviously not the case. I'm telling you, the Republicans don't have the base to win national elections anymore. Even when things were going their way they only just managed to reclaim and hold the House, which should be the easiest feat for an opposition party.

Well, that depends on who the Republican is. Christie is miles away from Cruz. Of course, there aren't very many Christies out there...but in 1989, how many Republicans would have thought Bush I would have lost the '92 election? Nobody saw Clinton coming.

Clinton convincing the nation's liberals to moderate for political survival is far and away more viable of a move than Christie convincing the nation's conservatives to moderate for political survival. They're too ideologically convicted, which is my main point. They are going to radicalize themselves into a box, control a small amount of the nation, and not be able to leave it. Had Obama blown the election away with Reagan-level support a mirrored reaction might be viable, but that didn't happen.

I don't know...it's possible that Obama is just the anti-Nixon to someone's anti-Reagan (possibly Warren, probably someone we've barely heard of). Christie could be the anti-Carter.

(Of course, this analogy falls apart on several levels. It would- kind of- be nice if the NSA scandals were the anti-Watergate, but they won't be.)

So...Obama resigns, we get Biden for a couple of years (can totes see him as Mirror Universe Ford), then Chris Christie is a failed one-termer, followed by eight years of Elizabeth Warren becoming a demigod to the Democratic faithful?

If Warren is elected in 2020, we'll just keep going in 40-year cycles. By 2060, cyrogenics and human cloning will have been perfected, and the Zombie Gipper will rise again to herald a new morning in Americanada.

[RedKing]

You can't seriously expect me to buy the "nothing ever changes in politics" drivel, when it's obviously not the case. I'm telling you, the Republicans don't have the base to win national elections anymore. Even when things were going their way they only just managed to reclaim and hold the House, which should be the easiest feat for an opposition party.

Well, that depends on who the Republican is. Christie is miles away from Cruz. Of course, there aren't very many Christies out there...but in 1989, how many Republicans would have thought Bush I would have lost the '92 election? Nobody saw Clinton coming.

Clinton convincing the nation's liberals to moderate for political survival is far and away more viable of a move than Christie convincing the nation's conservatives to moderate for political survival. They're too ideologically convicted, which is my main point. They are going to radicalize themselves into a box, control a small amount of the nation, and not be able to leave it. Had Obama blown the election away with Reagan-level support a mirrored reaction might be viable, but that didn't happen.

I don't know...it's possible that Obama is just the anti-Nixon to someone's anti-Reagan (possibly Warren, probably someone we've barely heard of). Christie could be the anti-Carter.

(Of course, this analogy falls apart on several levels. It would- kind of- be nice if the NSA scandals were the anti-Watergate, but they won't be.)

So...Obama resigns, we get Biden for a couple of years (can totes see him as Mirror Universe Ford), then Chris Christie is a failed one-termer, followed by eight years of Elizabeth Warren becoming a demigod to the Democratic faithful?

If Warren is elected in 2020, we'll just keep going in 40-year cycles. By 2060, cyrogenics and human cloning will have been perfected, and the Zombie Gipper will rise again to herald a new morning in Americanada.

I can picture it now, his unblinking visage pictured in front of the majestic Eaglemoose.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Descan]

You're forgetting there's another option for a disaffected Republican on election day.

Staying home.

[lue]

What I'm saying is that it's a bit too easy to get sucked into the liberal echo chamber where we all sit around and say "Man, Republicans are dumb. NOBODY I know would vote for a Republican, so there's no way they can win." It's a selection bias.

Hey, I've been wondering what the liberal version of the Conservative Echo Chamber™. That sounds about right. Though to be fair, I've always assumed two things about the GOP:

• Despite my own beliefs, there's clearly something to the GOP platform that attracts a lot of people still.
• It's the party leaders who're responsible for all the crazy, not the majority of people of who vote GOP.

Unfortunately, I only became politically cognizant a couple years ago, which means I've never really seen how a moderate, sensible GOP operates. So I have to keep reminding myself that it did exist once, and it's that old moderate party that most of its supporters cling to, not this Tea Party insanity.

I've occasionally wondered how a "Vote Dem in 2014 to Vote GOP in 2016" (maybe change up the years) campaign would work in getting sensible-minded GOP members to do their part to make the GOP moderate again.

My guess is that the campaign would either not work or backfire miserably.

[RedKing]

You're forgetting there's another option for a disaffected Republican on election day.

Staying home.

Same result as the other two -- it's a default vote for the Democrat, thanks to the two-party system.

[kaijyuu]

Isn't it sorta like half a vote?