But I have a spear and magic helmet!
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
But I have a spear and magic helmet!
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
I'd say two reasons joecct,
1) primaries are low turnout affairs, so "hey, I knew so-and-so's daddy when he was in office" often carries weight. 2) its not like there's better people running to take their place. As I wrote earlier, you can often have failed lawyer Smith running against failed lawyer Jones for a state rep seat, not Thornton Mellon or Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield references
) running against failed lawyer Jones.
I'd say two reasons joecct,
1) primaries are low turnout affairs, so "hey, I knew so-and-so's daddy when he was in office" often carries weight. 2) its not like there's better people running to take their place. As I wrote earlier, you can often have failed lawyer Smith running against failed lawyer Jones for a state rep seat, not Thornton Mellon or Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield references
) running against failed lawyer Jones.Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
In re Coakley, I've seen nothing but good reports on how she's run the AG's office. I think it speaks well to her potential as governor, which makes it sad that she's such a terrible campaigner.
In re Coakley, I've seen nothing but good reports on how she's run the AG's office. I think it speaks well to her potential as governor, which makes it sad that she's such a terrible campaigner.
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Semi-big scandal in AK - a questionable organization has been mailing letters stating names and addresses of people's neighbors and whether they voted. They're threatening to do it again after the election.
Though technically whether you voted (not for whom you voted) is public knowledge, people are NOT. HAPPY. Alaska is HUGE on personal privacy - it's specifically mentioned in the state constitution.
Semi-big scandal in AK - a questionable organization has been mailing letters stating names and addresses of people's neighbors and whether they voted. They're threatening to do it again after the election.
Though technically whether you voted (not for whom you voted) is public knowledge, people are NOT. HAPPY. Alaska is HUGE on personal privacy - it's specifically mentioned in the state constitution.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Nate examines the "w" word.
Nate examines the "w" word.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Must be nice that everyone is such a mindless automaton that these clowns (Republicans) can get elected just because they're not in Obama's party. What a ridiculous reason for voting for someone.
I hope they do win the Senate. It'll be great to set everything back another 20 years again.
Must be nice that everyone is such a mindless automaton that these clowns (Republicans) can get elected just because they're not in Obama's party. What a ridiculous reason for voting for someone.
I hope they do win the Senate. It'll be great to set everything back another 20 years again.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
The arc of moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
This was always going to be a bad year. A second term midterm with Senate terms from the 2008 Dem wave expiring, all played out in enemy territory. I predicted a +7 six months ago, and it looks like it's going to be somewhere between +6 and +8.
The good news is the 2016 map is in friendly territory, plus it's a general election, plus the Dems should have a very strong nominee while the GOP is still looking under rocks. The next Congress will be even more of a dumpster fire than the departing one, and that will all be on the Republicans. And, of course, in the background the demographic clock ticks on and on with the GOP continuing not just to fail to deal with it, but actively exacerbating the effects by pandering to the herpa-derps.
It's going to be a bad two years for the country, but hopefully it will be only two years.
The arc of moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
This was always going to be a bad year. A second term midterm with Senate terms from the 2008 Dem wave expiring, all played out in enemy territory. I predicted a +7 six months ago, and it looks like it's going to be somewhere between +6 and +8.
The good news is the 2016 map is in friendly territory, plus it's a general election, plus the Dems should have a very strong nominee while the GOP is still looking under rocks. The next Congress will be even more of a dumpster fire than the departing one, and that will all be on the Republicans. And, of course, in the background the demographic clock ticks on and on with the GOP continuing not just to fail to deal with it, but actively exacerbating the effects by pandering to the herpa-derps.
It's going to be a bad two years for the country, but hopefully it will be only two years.
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
20 years ago all we heard about was this dramatic shift in favor of the Republican party. The Democrats were dead, politically.
Well, that lasted a long time.
Then the we see this shift back to the Democrats. Since 2008, pretty much all we've heard nationally, and certainly around this message board, is about the coming thousand year reich of the Democratic party, notwithstanding all the crepe hanging that has occurred in the last 8 months.
Apparently that's now about to change as well.
In my opinion, Romney is right. About 47% of the people in this country will never vote for him, or anyone like him. And about 47% of the people in this country won't vote for anyone like Obama, or Clinton, or anyone like them.
The other 6% are "the grass is always greener" types. They vote for the other guy because they are disappointed the guy they voted for has not markedly improved their lives.
That's the way I think it's going to continue, certainly for my remaining days on the planet.
I tend to agree with the thoughts expressed in the point cited by Nate in your recent 538 link -- that predictions of one party or the other taking over, in the long term, are likely doomed to failure.
20 years ago all we heard about was this dramatic shift in favor of the Republican party. The Democrats were dead, politically.
Well, that lasted a long time.
Then the we see this shift back to the Democrats. Since 2008, pretty much all we've heard nationally, and certainly around this message board, is about the coming thousand year reich of the Democratic party, notwithstanding all the crepe hanging that has occurred in the last 8 months.
Apparently that's now about to change as well.
In my opinion, Romney is right. About 47% of the people in this country will never vote for him, or anyone like him. And about 47% of the people in this country won't vote for anyone like Obama, or Clinton, or anyone like them.
The other 6% are "the grass is always greener" types. They vote for the other guy because they are disappointed the guy they voted for has not markedly improved their lives.
That's the way I think it's going to continue, certainly for my remaining days on the planet.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Depends how many days you have left.
I think there are systemic reasons why the parties will always remain more or less 50/50. That doesn't mean the country doesn't evolve; it just means that the parties move with the country so that midpoint moves as well.
There is a general social movement towards greater openness and tolerance in democracies because people are, on the whole, not monsters. A hundred years ago everybody who wasn't a wealthy white Christian straight male was a second-class citizen - not only that, but people unabashedly defended that order as natural and appropriate. Today, people are still hung up about the "natural, appropriate" reasons to privilege the wealthy, but pretty much all those other bigotries are put to rest. That is progress, and that's the primary mission of the left in every society: to extend equal protection to more people. The right operates to exclude those protections, for justifications which vary with the time (religion, economic efficiency, work ethic, etc). Over time, the right always loses the battle and we are all better for it. But as the new reality of inclusion migrates to the center of the political spectrum, the left doesn't gain a permanent advantage. Short term advantages occur when either: (1) the right has held back progress for so long that there is an earthquake to catch up, or (2) people used to the old order are so threatened and overwhelmed by the loss of their old privileges that there is a reactionary backlash. In each case, the correction is temporary, the new balance is attained, and then the dialectic starts all over again.
In economics, there is no such progress. Instead there's a more or less random wandering between periods of lesser or greater inequality. The parties have their positions staked out again: liberals try to break down inequality while conservatives try to protect it. At any given time either side appears to be "winning" (the right has enjoyed a virtually unbroken string of victories on economic policy since the late 1970s). But again, there's no permanent victory, and indeed there's no progress at all. Things change, but not for any discernible reason. Preferences for high or low inequality seem to rise and fall like hemlines.
Depends how many days you have left.
I think there are systemic reasons why the parties will always remain more or less 50/50. That doesn't mean the country doesn't evolve; it just means that the parties move with the country so that midpoint moves as well.
There is a general social movement towards greater openness and tolerance in democracies because people are, on the whole, not monsters. A hundred years ago everybody who wasn't a wealthy white Christian straight male was a second-class citizen - not only that, but people unabashedly defended that order as natural and appropriate. Today, people are still hung up about the "natural, appropriate" reasons to privilege the wealthy, but pretty much all those other bigotries are put to rest. That is progress, and that's the primary mission of the left in every society: to extend equal protection to more people. The right operates to exclude those protections, for justifications which vary with the time (religion, economic efficiency, work ethic, etc). Over time, the right always loses the battle and we are all better for it. But as the new reality of inclusion migrates to the center of the political spectrum, the left doesn't gain a permanent advantage. Short term advantages occur when either: (1) the right has held back progress for so long that there is an earthquake to catch up, or (2) people used to the old order are so threatened and overwhelmed by the loss of their old privileges that there is a reactionary backlash. In each case, the correction is temporary, the new balance is attained, and then the dialectic starts all over again.
In economics, there is no such progress. Instead there's a more or less random wandering between periods of lesser or greater inequality. The parties have their positions staked out again: liberals try to break down inequality while conservatives try to protect it. At any given time either side appears to be "winning" (the right has enjoyed a virtually unbroken string of victories on economic policy since the late 1970s). But again, there's no permanent victory, and indeed there's no progress at all. Things change, but not for any discernible reason. Preferences for high or low inequality seem to rise and fall like hemlines.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Yeah this is great when you don't live in a state that'll be gaining one of the empty headed, far right voting robots hand picked by the GOP to be your Senator. Which is fantastic in a state reliant on federal funding.
At least we seem to be heading towards not reelecting our Governor so we may not be economically *ed...
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
From the left, another ringing endorsement of democracy. Speaking of "automatons," there are parts of our big cities where George "Kingfish" Stevens would get 90+ percent of the vote. And frequently his total would exceed the number of voters registered. It's called the Marionbarrymelreynoldsjessejacksonjunior phenomenon.
From the left, another ringing endorsement of democracy. Speaking of "automatons," there are parts of our big cities where George "Kingfish" Stevens would get 90+ percent of the vote. And frequently his total would exceed the number of voters registered. It's called the Marionbarrymelreynoldsjessejacksonjunior phenomenon.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
I think you guys are really overselling Hilary Clinton as a slam dunk candidate. She is, sadly, a lightning rod for the right and would galvanize them against her.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
I think so too.
I think Mitt will get dragged back in to run on lying and deceit of what the GOP really stands for and I think he will be elected this time. We'll nominate Hillary and she'll screw it up just like she did in 2008.
I think so too.
I think Mitt will get dragged back in to run on lying and deceit of what the GOP really stands for and I think he will be elected this time. We'll nominate Hillary and she'll screw it up just like she did in 2008.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Everybody with a D after their name is a lightning rod for the right. Anybody with the temerity to run against them is THE GREAT SATAN.
Hillary, who I believe I am on record as not caring for, is strong in two senses: (1) she has a huge base of people who will work themselves to death for her, God knows why, and (2) she's going to have more money than God. Liberals are going to have to back her because we won't have another choice. Centrists are going to back her because she's even farther right than Obama. The smart money will want in because she has party backing. Wall Street will want in because she's already their lap dog.
She's not a slam dunk in the general, at all, since a doorknob with an "R" painted on it starts with 47% of the popular vote. But for the nomination she looks nigh-on unstoppable. There is no appealing liberal other than Warren, who is far too good a person to do well in any national political campaign.
Everybody with a D after their name is a lightning rod for the right. Anybody with the temerity to run against them is THE GREAT SATAN.
Hillary, who I believe I am on record as not caring for, is strong in two senses: (1) she has a huge base of people who will work themselves to death for her, God knows why, and (2) she's going to have more money than God. Liberals are going to have to back her because we won't have another choice. Centrists are going to back her because she's even farther right than Obama. The smart money will want in because she has party backing. Wall Street will want in because she's already their lap dog.
She's not a slam dunk in the general, at all, since a doorknob with an "R" painted on it starts with 47% of the popular vote. But for the nomination she looks nigh-on unstoppable. There is no appealing liberal other than Warren, who is far too good a person to do well in any national political campaign.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
If anything, Hillary running will make Blue states bluer and red state redder. Which is fine if you want to win the Presidency, but if you want to control Congress as well its not a good move.
As a personal note, if Begich loses tomorrow 2016 is gonna be worse than this election in Alaska.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
The 2008 campaign showed just the opposite. Hillary ran better in the redder states. Blue collar Pennsyltuckians still remember Bill.
I think you are going by the lunatic screams from the right. At the moment they go up to 11 on Hillary, because (1) they are still butthurt over losing to Bill twice, and (2) BENGHAAAAAAAAZIIIIIIIIII!!!!111!1. But the thing you have to remember is the Echo Chamber will give any Dem nominee the same treatment -- it's a wash. The GOP reaction to the nominee makes no difference. All that matters is the nominee's organization and funding, and both those things are going to be off the charts for the Queen of the Night.
The 2008 campaign showed just the opposite. Hillary ran better in the redder states. Blue collar Pennsyltuckians still remember Bill.
I think you are going by the lunatic screams from the right. At the moment they go up to 11 on Hillary, because (1) they are still butthurt over losing to Bill twice, and (2) BENGHAAAAAAAAZIIIIIIIIII!!!!111!1. But the thing you have to remember is the Echo Chamber will give any Dem nominee the same treatment -- it's a wash. The GOP reaction to the nominee makes no difference. All that matters is the nominee's organization and funding, and both those things are going to be off the charts for the Queen of the Night.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Rachel Marron is running? I thought she was dead.
Campaign slogan? Ready-made: "I got the stuff that you want, I got the things that you need, I've got more than enough to make you drop to your knees."
Rachel Marron is running? I thought she was dead.
Campaign slogan? Ready-made: "I got the stuff that you want, I got the things that you need, I've got more than enough to make you drop to your knees."
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
The Queens we use would not excite you.
The Queens we use would not excite you.
- Status