whembly wrote:

Uh... it's the flagship of the left".

For example: have you ever wondered what Media Matters’ budget is? I can tell you: in 2013, it raised $13,820,000, of which $2,700,000 came from Democracy Alliance partners. Most of the rest, if I am not mistaken, was contributed by George Soros

Politicians like Harry Reid have denounced Charles and David Koch and others who contribute to conservative causes as “shadowy,” “secretive” people who infest politics with “dark money.” In that context, it is worth noting that most of the groups to which the Alliance and its elite liberal members contribute are 501(c)(4)s that do not disclose their donors. In fact, this question is addressed in a “FAQ” in one of the DA documents:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I'm not sure what it's trying to prove though. That "rich leftists" also make big political contrabutions?

Yup.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I'm not sure what it's trying to prove though. That "rich leftists" also make big political contrabutions?

Yup.

Didn't we already know that? It's just logic.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I'm not sure what it's trying to prove though. That "rich leftists" also make big political contrabutions?

Yup.

Didn't we already know that? It's just logic.

You might wanna educate Harry Reid then.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I don't think anyone, I don't care what their views are, should be able to donate whatever they want, but I'm more concerned about companies. They only care about themselves (it's the point) so their influence on politics will generally not be beneficial for us.

The supporters of a proposal to split California into six states say they have enough signatures to place their proposal on the ballot in 2016.

The proposal, backed by the venture capitalist Tim Draper, is an extreme long shot. Even if it makes the ballot, and even if voters support it, the proposal will need to win the support of the state legislature and a majority of the members in Congress.

Nevertheless, it is irresistible to play with the electoral implications.

If California were to split into six states, it would create huge opportunities — and risks — for both parties in presidential elections. It would also empower Democrats in the Senate. Most of all, it would significantly increase the electoral clout of Hispanic voters, who are currently marginalized by America’s electoral system.

Three of the six proposed states — North California, Silicon Valley and West California — would be solidly Democratic. The other three states — Jefferson, Central California and South California — would all be fairly competitive in presidential elections. Each of these three states would have been closer than battlegrounds like Virginia or Colorado were in the last presidential election.

If there had been six mini-Californias in 2012, President Obama would have carried South California, which includes San Diego, the Inland Empire and Orange County. Mitt Romney would have narrowly carried Central California, which includes the southern half of the Central Valley, and Jefferson, which includes the liberal Northern California coast and the conservative interior.

The implications for the Senate are obvious: 10 new Senate seats, four of which would almost certainly go to Democrats. The other six would be competitive, especially in presidential election years. If Democrats and Republicans were to split the six competitive seats, Democrats would net four seats in the Senate. That would give Democrats a 62-48 advantage in the Senate but push Democrats only one seat closer to a filibuster-proof majority, which would now require 66 seats.

Today’s Californians would go from being the most underrepresented by the Senate to slightly overrepresented. The people of Jefferson would probably become America’s most overrepresented citizens — just 949,000 people in possession of two competitive Senate seats, a competitive House seat and three competitive electoral votes.

The possible effect of splitting up California is far less clear in presidential elections. The six states would total 64 electoral votes.

In the short term, the split would help Republicans. The three blue states would be worth 36 electoral votes. That’s 19 votes less than the 55 votes that Democrats are currently assured of by a united California.

Back in 2012, however, Mr. Obama would have won South California’s 17 electoral votes, bringing him up to 53. Mr. Romney, by carrying Central California and Jefferson, would have added 11 electoral votes of his own.

Mr. Obama would have still easily won re-election. But splitting up California would undo and reverse the structural advantage Mr. Obama built in the Electoral College. In 2012, Mr. Obama won states worth 270 electoral votes by 5.4 percent, more than his 3.9-point victory in the national popular vote. Those states would now be worth 253 electoral votes, 22 short of the 275 needed to win.

A Democratic victory would then require Florida, or two states among Virginia (13 electoral votes), South California (17 electoral votes) and Ohio (18 electoral votes). That means that the next Democratic presidential candidate would need to win a state where Mr. Obama performed worse than he did in the national popular vote.

This disadvantage could cost Democrats a close presidential election. Nonetheless, the disadvantage would be fairly modest. In fact, it would be about the same size as Mr. Obama’s Electoral College advantage in 2012, which is hardly considered insurmountable. There is not even a guarantee that the Electoral College advantage built during the Obama years will last four more years.

Perhaps even more important, there is cause to question whether the Republicans would retain their advantage in these competitive states.

The reason is simple: Hispanic voters. Splitting California into six states would create three of the four most heavily Hispanic states in the country. Hispanics would represent a larger share of the population in Central California than any other state. At 47 percent Hispanic in 2010, it would today be on the verge of becoming the country’s first majority Hispanic state. West California would barely edge out New Mexico for a close second, at 46 percent Hispanic. South California would be the fourth-most Hispanic state, at 39 percent Hispanic.

As a result of demographic change and Mr. Obama’s huge improvement among Hispanic voters over John Kerry’s performance, Mr. Obama made big gains in Central California in 2012 — a net 18-point improvement — and South California.

If Democrats maintained Mr. Obama’s huge advantage among Hispanic voters, demographic change would almost certainly push South California to the left of the popular vote, and flip Central California from red to blue. The new Republican advantage in the Electoral College would evaporate.

On the other hand, Republicans would reap huge rewards if they could gain among Hispanic voters. Today, Republicans mainly need Hispanic voters to stave off demographic doom, not as a magic bullet to single-handedly win the presidency. Mr. Obama would have won in 2012 even if he had lost the Hispanic vote, by adding states like Ohio, Virginia, Iowa to the states won by Mr. Kerry.

But if states like Central California and South California came into play, suddenly gains among Hispanic voters would become a big part of a plausible way for Republicans to win the presidency. Republicans could carry the states won by Mr. Romney, in addition to Florida, South California, Central California and Jefferson, to reach 261 electoral votes. Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada would get them over what would be the crucial 275 mark.

So what should you support? If electoral politics are guiding your decision, one thing is clear: Vote to split up California if you want to increase the importance of Hispanic voters in American politics. Hispanic voters are marginalized for a variety of reasons. They live in a small number of big states. They live in uncompetitive states. They live in minority-majority districts. Creating several competitive states with a near-majority or soon-majority Hispanic population would go a long way toward giving Hispanic voters representation on par with their numbers, particularly in the Senate.

If you’re more concerned by partisanship, the answer’s a little less clear. The Democrats have more upside: If they continued to fare this well among Hispanic voters, they wouldn’t lose ground in the Electoral College and they’d gain several new senators.

Republicans, on the other hand, would have an opportunity to break and reverse the Democratic advantage in the Electoral College, but only if they made gains among Hispanic voters, winning a state like Florida.

Yet even if Republicans did make those gains, they’d probably still lose ground in the Senate. It’s not clear that’s a win.

All considered, Republicans guided by electoral considerations should probably vote “no,” and Democrats should vote “yes.” But obviously, if splitting up California comes to a vote, there’s a lot more to consider than politics.

 Easy E wrote:
#wasteoftime

In other new, the Ds are going to try to use the recent Hobby Lobby ruling to drive votes in the mid-terms. Especially to mobilize/engage the women voters.

Last mid-term time the D's couldn't get the votes out. Will this time be different?

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- Republican Congressional hopeful Andrew Walter throws a fundraiser with a bang.

He held an event called Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms at the Scottsdale Gun Club Friday night.

Walter is a former Arizona State University quarterback now running for District 9 in the United States Congress.

"This fundraiser is definitely unique and that's kind of what we were going for," Walter said. "Politics don't always have to be bland or dry."

For a donation to the campaign of $250 to $1,000, supporters can shoot anything from a Glock to an automatic weapon.

"What's more all-American than guns, cigars," said supporter Allison Quinn. "What a great way to get people together, shoot some guns, smoke some cigars, and support the man that we want in Congress."

Walter only took a quick break from the shooting to discuss politics.

"The price for food, the price for gas, college, health care -- these are all going in the wrong direction," he said. "And wages are either stagnant or down, so we need economic freedom and that's really what my campaign is all about."

The event wrapped up with cigars on the patio and drinks at a restaurant nearby.

3TV reached out to Congresswoman Krysten Sinema, incumbent in District 9, for comment about this event. We did not get a response.

 whembly wrote:

"What's more all-American than guns, cigars,"

 whembly wrote:
Heh... a congressional candidate throws an "ATF" fundraiser in AZ...

 whembly wrote:
That'd be basically their only strategy.

 motyak wrote:
"She joined a group of moderate Democrats who work with moderate Republicans to craft bipartisan policy"

I like her already (the incumbent). Do the Blue Dogs do good work, and put in the effort, or do they tend to just putter along doing nothing?

 Easy E wrote:
America: When you go so far to the Right, that Centrism is considered Left.

 Easy E wrote:
Your scale is laughable with only the US context and only proves my point.

 d-usa wrote:
It fails from the start by putting the court as centrist...

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Your scale is laughable with only the US context and only proves my point.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks.

 d-usa wrote:
It fails from the start by putting the court as centrist...

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Your scale is laughable with only the US context and only proves my point.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks.

I never knew that Whembly was just a sock puppet of Fraz!

 dogma wrote:
What does the second dimension indicate?

 dogma wrote:
Ah, its OC. Yeah, that has about as much use to everyday political consideration as my dissertation does. This means the second dimension doesn't represent anything, its just an analytic contrivance.

If you want to read up on it, read this first.

 whembly wrote:

Is it worthless?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Is it worthless?

Academically, no. Colloquially, yes.

 whembly wrote:

Hmm... do you know of a site that attempts to plot voting patterns like this?