Post Midterm elections and the general political consequences

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
I can see the ACA have a small impact..... But the biggest one my simply be party fatigue.

Yep, the issue is enthusiasm gap. Democrats have effectively articulated nothing to enthuse the base. They tried with raising minimum wage, but that never had much of an impact.

Whereas Republicans have that residual rage that builds up when the other side holds power. People will say opposition to ACA is a reason they're going to vote, but I reckon maybe one in fifty of them could give a decent summary of the bill and what it has and hasn't done, and maybe only half of them could articulate a coherent answer as to why all that stuff is actually bad.

**whembly**

Didn't know where to stick this, so... I cried "HAVOC!"

Top senators battle on campaign-finance restrictions

WASHINGTON – In a clash of Senate titans, the nation's two most powerful senators disagreed sharply Tuesday over the growing role of unlimited money in American elections – and a proposed constitutional amendment to curb political spending.

"American families cannot compete with billionaires," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared at the opening of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "Our involvement in government should not be dependent on our bank account balances."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called a proposed amendment that would give Congress and the states the power to regulate campaign spending a "dangerous proposal" that would "dramatically weaken one of our most precious freedoms."

"I understand that no politician likes to be criticized," McConnell said. "But the recourse is not to shut up your fellow citizens."

Tuesday's packed hearing offered a rare sight: The Senate's leaders sitting together at a witness table. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the joint appearance before the panel to debate policy was the first in the four decades he has served in the Senate. (In 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and the Senate's top Republican at the time, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, appeared together before Judiciary to introduce a nominee.)

Although they sat by side-by-side Tuesday, Reid and McConnell couldn't be further apart on the issue.

Reid has spent much of this year denouncing the growing role of money in politics – and the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, in particular -- as Democrats push an election-year narrative that portrays Republicans as siding with moneyed special interests.

At the hearing, he picked up the theme, saying the Kochs "must have 50 different phony organizations to pump money into the system."

"The American people reject the notion that gives the Koch brothers, corporations or special-interest groups a greater voice in government" than any other voter, Reid said.

This year, Democrats plan to hold a vote on the constitutional amendment, proposed by Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., that would allow lawmakers to rein in spending by candidates and independent groups. Outside groups have reported spending more than $106 million to influence midterm elections, more than three times what was spent at this point in the 2010 election, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The measure stands little chance of winning the required support from 67 senators, but Democrats want to keep a spotlight on the issue and the Supreme Court's recent rulings that have opened the spigot for more cash in elections.

McConnell, one of the nation's biggest foes of campaign-finance regulations, says Democrats are playing election-year politics with Americans' free speech rights.

"This is a political exercise, and that's all it is," he said. "The goal here is to stir up one party's political base, so they'll show up in November."

Despite their sharp disagreement, Reid and McConnell did not feud directly at the hearing. Reid spoke first and left immediately after testifying. "We've criticized each other for years," Reid said of McConnell. "He won't be upset that I'm leaving."[whembly: ]

Democrats and campaign-finance watchdogs have criticized the high court's ruling in April in McCutcheon v the Federal Election Commission that tossed out limits on the total amount of money individual donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties. Four years earlier, the court's blockbuster Citizens United decision allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections as long as they operate independently of candidates.

Shortly before the hearing began, a coalition of liberal groups — including MoveOn.org and People for the American Way — wheeled in a stack of boxes containing petitions urging Congress to act on the amendment.

Republicans on the panel and free speech advocates urged restraint before any attempt to alter the First Amendment.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the measure would allow Congress to ban books and films.

"If this amendment passed, Congress can say, 'You are no longer a citizen. You are a subject because we have taken away your ability to speak,' " he said.

Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer, said he rejected the notion that outside money in elections is inherently bad. "The First Amendment favors more rather than less speech."

The complaints of those who argue that spending by wealthy interests drowns out other voices in politics is "like telling a newspaper, "You should have fewer editorials,' " Abrams said.

**Piston Honda**

Political ads on tv are in a greater need of a cap than baseball.

1 political ad per hour per station.

More than enough.

And please stop coming to my doorstep volunteers. More annoying than gnats at a BBQ.

**Da Boss**

I'd be happy if all that could go through your box was a notification that an election was on, and directions to a public place you could find more information, or an address you could write to if you were looking for more information. In that place is info on the politicians, their achievements, voting records and current policies. Do that, and then make voting mandatory (but allow spoiled votes). Bring it down to policy and previous records rather than who can spend the most.

I'm sure the big money candidates would find a way around it of course, but it would at least level the playing field.

Blah blah First Ammendment blah blah constitution.

**sebster**

Piston Honda wrote:
Political ads on tv are in a greater need of a cap than baseball.

1 political ad per hour per station.

More than enough.

And please stop coming to my doorstep volunteers. More annoying than gnats at a BBQ.

I love that at the congressional and constitutional law end of town they argue about threats to democracy against freedom of speech and association... but among regular folk like yourself the argument is more 'they should limit those ads because they're annoying'

**Easy E**

The results in Mississippi were interesting.

Incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran received 48.9 percent of the vote Tuesday and his Tea Party challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel won 2,000 more votes to earn 49.6 percent. In Mississippi, if no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, a run-off follows.

Will there actual be the much baley-hooed Republican Civil War?

Spoiler:

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
The results in Mississippi were interesting.

Incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran received 48.9 percent of the vote Tuesday and his Tea Party challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel won 2,000 more votes to earn 49.6 percent. In Mississippi, if no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, a run-off follows.

Will there actual be the much baley-hooed Republican Civil War?

Spoiler:

Answer: No

Civil War... nah.

Are the Establishment upset that Cochran may lose? You betcha!

**Easy E**

Hint: See my spoiler for more details on my position about the Republican Civil War.

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
Hint: See my spoiler for more details on my position about the Republican Civil War.

Oops... didn't click.

I just hate any politicians who has the mindset that their seat is theirs... as if, it was owed to them.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Hint: See my spoiler for more details on my position about the Republican Civil War.

Oops... didn't click.

I just hate any politicians who has the mindset that their seat is theirs... as if, it was owed to them.

We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little Teapartiers . Wicked, tricksy, false!

**d-usa**

I hate my state..

http://kfor.com/2014/06/10/oklahoma-political-candidate-expresses-extreme-views-on-homosexuality/

MOORE, Okla. – Scott Esk is running for House District 91 state representative.

On his website, he says he is a conservative who wants to apply biblical principles to Oklahoma law.

Like Sharia law, but with the Bible? How could that possibly to wrong?

Morris said, “This guy posted on Facebook that homosexuals should be stoned to death. My first response was you’re nuts, nobody would be stupid enough to do that.”

Morris says he found those postings from last summer on Facebook.

At the time, Esk had commented on a story about the pope saying “Who am I to judge?” on homosexuality.

Esk posted some old testament scripture that referred to homosexuality being punished.

Someone asked – “So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?”

Esk responds – “I think we would be totally in the right to do it. That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

Oh...

**Co'tor Shas**

Christ, that's bad. In my state all we have a governor's with the current (Cuomo) having a 33 point lead.

**whembly**

Really cool site:
http://voteview.com/polarizedamerica.asp

Spoiler:

**d-usa**

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-discusses-view-homosexuality-084840239--politics.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Texas Gov. Rick Perry, during a visit that focused primarily on economic issues, drew on a reference to alcoholism to explain his view of homosexuality.

Perry's comments to the Commonwealth Club of California came after Texas' Republican Convention on Saturday sanctioned platform language allowing Texans to seek voluntary counseling to "cure" being gay.

The San Francisco Chronicle http://bit.ly/1oWq0qR reports that in response to a question about it, Perry said he did not know whether the therapy worked.

Perry, a former and potential future GOP presidential candidate, was then asked whether he believed homosexuality was a disorder.

The paper says that the governor responded that "whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that."

He said: "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."

The Texas Republican platform stand on the issue is in contrast to California and New Jersey, which have previously banned licensed professionals from providing such therapy to minors.

During the bulk of his talk, Perry held up his own state as a model for responsible energy production and economic growth in California.

Perry said he believes Texas is leading the way in achieving energy independence by producing crude oil and electricity in many forms, including solar power.

Perry also suggested that deregulating electricity had started a boom for renewable energy in Texas, which he called the nation's leading developer of wind energy.

Perry said shale drilling techniques had doubled oil production in Texas, and he urged Californians to tap the full energy potential in its Monterey Shale.

On Tuesday, Perry drove up to California's state capital of Sacramento in a Tesla Model S electric car — underscoring his desire to lure a Tesla battery factory to Texas.

**Ahtman**

This is how this sounded in my head.

d-usa wrote:
Perry said that fething up the Texas environment had doubled oil production in Texas, and he urged Californians to feth up their environment for some money too.

**d-usa**

The only Californians that care about what Texas thinks already moved to Austin...

**whembly**

*meh*

What's the controversy?

Perry's comparison by saying that he's predisposed to alcoholism because of his genetic makeup?

To me, isn't he saying the some folks are genetically more predisposed to be gay?

I’m not convinced that such therapy is even very effective, but I think people ought to have the right to pursue it if that’s what they want.

*shrug*

I mean... if there were therapies that could make a straight person gay, would the critics be against it??? Or would they demand that it receive federal subsidies, like Sandy Fluke’s birth control? [insert your gay bomb theories here

]

**motyak**

I think if there was a history of negative effects, and of gak parents forcing their children to go to this therapy, then yeah there'd be push back in the opposite as well.

I guess adults can choose to go to this therapy, just as they can choose to join a cult where they give all their money to a Leader, and then kill themselves when authorities show up. But they have NO right to subject their kids to the therapy in question. It's like forcing your kid to undergo invasive surgery which has a high chance of psychologically damaging them. It's insanity

**sebster**

So does anyone think Perry has a real shot this time around? The 2012 disaster has been explained away by back surgery and pain killers, and his recent speaches seem much improved. And as far as pathways to the Whitehouse go, there aren't many more reliable ways to get there than being a strong conservative governor of Texas.

whembly wrote:
I’m not convinced that such therapy is even very effective, but I think people ought to have the right to pursue it if that’s what they want.

Such therapies aren't effective. They have some effect at making bi-sexual people a little more straight and a little less bi-sexual, but other than that they basically just shame people for a period of time in to asexuality.

I mean, could you imagine any kind of therapy that could make you want to have sex with men?

I mean... if there were therapies that could make a straight person gay, would the critics be against it???

Yes. Because the point is that trying to change someone's sexuality, particularly by shaming their natural sexual drive, is very likely to screw that person up in all kinds of ways.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
So does anyone think Perry has a real shot this time around? The 2012 disaster has been explained away by back surgery and pain killers, and his recent speaches seem much improved. And as far as pathways to the Whitehouse go, there aren't many more reliable ways to get there than being a strong conservative governor of Texas.

No... he's toast.

HRC would win in a landslide over him.

**kronk**

Perry is a fething joke.

<---- Republican that just recently moved from Texas after living there for 15 years.

**Easy E**

Perry will be a side show that will entertain the media a bit and then go nowhere int he primaries; IF he even tries again.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
So does anyone think Perry has a real shot this time around? The 2012 disaster has been explained away by back surgery and pain killers, and his recent speaches seem much improved. And as far as pathways to the Whitehouse go, there aren't many more reliable ways to get there than being a strong conservative governor of Texas.

whembly wrote:
I’m not convinced that such therapy is even very effective, but I think people ought to have the right to pursue it if that’s what they want.

Such therapies aren't effective. They have some effect at making bi-sexual people a little more straight and a little less bi-sexual, but other than that they basically just shame people for a period of time in to asexuality.

I mean, could you imagine any kind of therapy that could make you want to have sex with men?

I mean... if there were therapies that could make a straight person gay, would the critics be against it???

Yes. Because the point is that trying to change someone's sexuality, particularly by shaming their natural sexual drive, is very likely to screw that person up in all kinds of ways.

Ya know... I change my mind on this...

Perry is wrong, very wrong.

Predisposition to alcoholism (or any addiction for that matter) is not curable, but it *is* treatable. That distinctly a flaw in chemistry, not in character. Was Perry suggesting alcoholism and homosexuality are both flaws that need fixing? Was he suggesting that homosexuality is a disease? Probably not... but, we don't really know that. As someone who aspires to take a run for Presidency... he's totally flubbing this.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Perry will be a side show that will entertain the media a bit and then go nowhere int he primaries; IF he even tries again.

Agreed. I think he's running for a cabinet position in the next republican administration.

**whembly**

Oh...

!

Romney is running again??!?!?

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-june-15-2014-n131601

...
Well, the playbook I believe is to look at her record. I think you have to consider what's happened around the world during the years that she was secretary of State. And you have to say it's been a monumental bust. And then her most recent comments as she was rolling out the book, she was asked whether the Bowe Bergdahl trade was one that presented a threat to the United States.

And she came back with a clueless answer. She was clueless. She said, "Look, these commandos don't represent a threat to the United States." Well, of course they do. And then she went on to say, "They only represent a threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan." Are you kidding? I mean, we're in Afghanistan.

And we're in Afghanistan in part to protect America's security. I think her clueless comments about the Bergdahl exchange as well as her record as the secretary of State are really going to be the foundation of how a Republican candidate is able to take back the White House.
...

**dogma**

It amuses me that the nonsense argument "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is running head-first into the equally nonsense argument "we leave no man behind".

And as to whether or not we supported Syrians rebels with arms:

Yep, we did.

Good job Romney staff.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
No... he's toast.

HRC would win in a landslide over him.

I think you put a lot more emphasis on the individual candidates than I do. I think that no matter how strong the individual candidate, most of the election is decided by external factors - namely the economy and how much of a narrative gets built up by forces outside of the candidates control.

For instance, people make a lot of noise about Bill Clinton, and he was a fantastic campaigner, but he won primarily because the economy was flatlining that year. On his re-election bid the economy was bubbling along nicely, and so he won again.

HRC has definite strengths (but also her fair share of weaknesses), but ultimately I don't think any of that matters compared to whatever the state of the nation will be in 2016. If the economy is poo, then a garden gnome could run against HRC and win.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Ya know... I change my mind on this...

Perry is wrong, very wrong.

Predisposition to alcoholism (or any addiction for that matter) is not curable, but it *is* treatable. That distinctly a flaw in chemistry, not in character. Was Perry suggesting alcoholism and homosexuality are both flaws that need fixing? Was he suggesting that homosexuality is a disease? Probably not... but, we don't really know that. As someone who aspires to take a run for Presidency... he's totally flubbing this.

Looking at the issue purely politically, typically when a Republican has to start proving their social conservative credentials they're in a pretty bad place. Because the things you have to say to keep those people on side typically play really badly with the rest of the country, and work as great soundbites to get the other motivated to get out and vote against you.

It seems a Republican candidate is strong when he doesn't actually have to say anything to get social conservatives on side - they just 'know' he's one of them, and this leaves the candidate free to go out and appeal to the mainstream, while throwing in enough coded references to the fringe of his party.

Whether that means the skill is in side-stepping the question asked to Perry, or just in not ever being asked the question in the first place, well I don't know - you'd have to ask that of a great politician.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
It amuses me that the nonsense argument "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is running head-first into the equally nonsense argument "we leave no man behind".

It seems that pretty much every absolute rule should always have the following attached to the end "... or at least we try to do that, sometimes it just doesn't work out that easily and we have other principles that we also stick to and in life you sometimes have to make tough choices."

**Easy E**

sebster wrote:
If the economy is poo, then a garden gnome could run against HRC and win.

I used to believe this too. Then Obama v Romney happened.

**Co'tor Shas**

Easy E wrote:
sebster wrote:
If the economy is poo, then a garden gnome could run against HRC and win.

I used to believe this too. Then Obama v Romney happened.

Well 47% was never going to vote for him anyway

.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Romney is running again??!?!?

Romney will never run again. He took his last best shot and lost.