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.

 jasper76 wrote:
Never even heard of Scott Walker.

And that's his problem.

(R) got no one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens

The religious right doesn't have to go elsewhere, they can just stay home on election day.

But as long as they perceive the Democrats as worse, they won't.

 jasper76 wrote:

They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens

That's why I never understand the whole "we have to rally the base" talk in 2012. The republicans will always have "the base". They will vote for the biggest RINO as long as there is not a D beside the name.

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens

That's why I never understand the whole "we have to rally the base" talk in 2012. The republicans will always have "the base". They will vote for the biggest RINO as long as there is not a D beside the name.

Exacto.

I think once the bottle was uncorked in the late 70's of pandering to the religious right there really isn't any way to put the genie back in that bottle. Someone will always go for the easy votes there.

Indiana was pretty much as expected with nothing really unusual to report. Other than an Elvis impersonator winning back a seat they lost in the last election. Incumbents gonna incumbent, center is gooey blue with the outside a crunchy red.

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens

That's why I never understand the whole "we have to rally the base" talk in 2012. The republicans will always have "the base". They will vote for the biggest RINO as long as there is not a D beside the name.

Exacto.

It's a side effect of the nominating process though. Primaries, especially closed primaries, just make you pander to the fringe. We had so many Republican primary debates that there was plenty of opportunity to shoot yourself in the, and it didn't help that there was no "democrats saying stupid stuff" primary to balance things out. Romney might have gotten slack with his "etch-a-sketch" comment, but it's the truth. The political landscape means that you have to spend months being a crazy conservative pandering to the extreme of your party since that is who decides the primary, and then you have to turn around and try to paint yourself moderate for the general election.

It's mostly this:

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens

That's why I never understand the whole "we have to rally the base" talk in 2012. The republicans will always have "the base". They will vote for the biggest RINO as long as there is not a D beside the name.

Exacto.

It's a side effect of the nominating process though. Primaries, especially closed primaries, just make you pander to the fringe. We had so many Republican primary debates that there was plenty of opportunity to shoot yourself in the, and it didn't help that there was no "democrats saying stupid stuff" primary to balance things out. Romney might have gotten slack with his "etch-a-sketch" comment, but it's the truth. The political landscape means that you have to spend months being a crazy conservative pandering to the extreme of your party since that is who decides the primary, and then you have to turn around and try to paint yourself moderate for the general election.

True enough...all the more reason why Hilary seems so inevitable.

How many here was an adult going through the Clinton years in the 90's eh. He gave us a Surplus in funds when he left office but Bush blew it because 9/11 happen.

As for blaming Bush for getting us into Iraq you might as well blame the Senate for green lighting the Resolution
"But he LIED Jihadin" then show me PROOF he lied to the Senate and to Colin Powell

Obama is doing his best to not involve us with putting Boots on Ground in dealing with ISIS. I back him on that but I also know he pretty much kicked the can down the road. Now its dicey to use Apache's in dealing with ISIS being they have assorted MAN PADS. Still doing airstrikes and giving small arms to the Kurds. We're going to see a Caliphate form within a year

Let's not forget Libya airstrikes he authorized and hand over to NATO but pretty much provided the logistical support on that one.

All I can say is the ball is in the Republican court. They pass a bill authorizing Keystone (Northern Part) is Obama going to Veto it or sign it?
How do you feel having a strong military again at OIF and OEF levels? Clinton and Powell worked the ten division two front capability military that might have worked on short term but long term was not sustainable in the beginning.

All the talk on repealing (screwed up and said appeal at first) ACA is not going to happen. They're going to more likely fine tune it and remove or improve portions of it.

etc etc etc etc etc

I leave tomorrow for Thailand for 20 days

Sweet dude...have fun!

I didn't vote

Plan to Jaspar and since I am duel National I am also buying property there lol

Here's my prediction:

Clinton beats Paul Ryan, taking about 55% of the popular vote. If I'm right, I'll say I told you so. If I'm wrong, no one will remember anyways


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Plan to Jaspar and since I am duel National I am also buying property there lol

Sweet dude...sounds like a nice situation!

 jasper76 wrote:
But as long as they perceive the Democrats as worse, they won't.

Sure they will. Remember, US elections often have fairly low turnout and a big part of winning is just getting your people to make the effort and vote. Right now it's very easy to make a big show of hating all of the same people Jesus hates and get strong turnout from the religious right, free advertising from the churches, etc. But if you convince them that you're also hell-bound sinners by supporting gay marriage/abortion/etc you lose that enthusiastic turnout. Sure, some of them will still vote and reluctantly choose the lesser of the two evils, but it doesn't take that much to swing the results a percentage point or two and change an R to a D in a close race (as many are right now).

And of course the religious right staying home on election day is the best-case scenario. The alternative is a split in the republican party where the religious right runs its own candidates and drains votes away into a hopeless cause while the left-leaning vote remains undivided. Sure, everyone who isn't part of the religious right would know it would be a doomed effort, but if you're able to believe in young-earth creationism (and similar nonsense) it should be easy to convince yourself that the Jesus candidate will win as long as you pray hard enough. Or, worse, all of those poor voters who currently set aside their best interests economically to vote against gay marriage/abortion/etc might realize that the democrats are the ones who support government-funded health care and other welfare programs, and hey, if both sides are equally bad on religious issues you might as well make sure your family has enough to eat.

My feelings on the elections in Oklahoma, copied from my Facebook post:

The real voting results for Governor in Oklahoma based on registered voters: Fallin 22.7%, Dorman 16.7%, Willis 0.01%, Prawdzienski 0.004%. Not voting: 60%. I might not be happy that Fallin won, but I would feel a lot better if enough people would actually bother to vote so that a candidate actually gets the support of a true majority of the people they represent. We have a governor that 1 out of 4 Oklahomans voted for, and that shouldn't make anybody feel good no matter what letter they had next to the name on the ballot.

@Peregrine: Perhaps you're right about them staying home for a moderate candidate. I have noticed that many young Evangelicals seem much more tolerant than the Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell generation. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that they could become more moderate and diverse in politics as, say , Catholic voters. I doubt that would show itself by 2016 though.

 Jihadin wrote:
All I can say is the ball is in the Republican court. They pass a bill authorizing Keystone (Northern Part) is Obama going to Veto it or sign it?

Veto it, I'd imagine. Veto and demagogue the issue. It might get passed in 2016 if the Democrats pressure him enough.

 Jihadin wrote:
All the talk on repealing (screwed up and said appeal at first) ACA is not going to happen. They're going to more likely fine tune it and remove or improve portions of it.

I said earlier that Obama isn't going to let them touch the ACA. It's his legacy. His "New Deal" if you will. I think he'd see the Democrats out of power for 50 years before he'd give an inch on the ACA.

On the other hand, Congress (eventually) forced Clinton into balanced budgets so I guess anything is possible.

Ugh.... Just looked on the "official" ballot counting website for the state of Washington... some people are seriously fething stupid, ESPECIALLY when it comes to firearms.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Peregrine: Perhaps you're right about them staying home for a moderate candidate. I have noticed that many young Evangelicals seem much more tolerant than the Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell generation. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that they could become more moderate and diverse in politics as, say , Catholic voters. I doubt that would show itself by 2016 though.

I think that's the very long term outcome, once the older generations start to die off. But right now those older voters are too important to risk driving them into apathy, and the republican party has little room to back off from its conservative religious agenda. And who knows what the situation elsewhere in politics will be like by the time the trends change enough to make dumping the religious right a viable strategy.

I don't know. People were saying Hillary was a lock in 2008 as well and she still lost. I think she is very popular among certain Democrats but all, it gets murkier the more we move away from Primaries. There is a good chance she wins one but not the other. I'm not sold on Hillary being a certainty yet.

I'm a person who's only concern is ecological and social issues, so I'd vote for repubs if they were more liberal with that. It seems to me that if they focus soley on the economic, where (when not being stupid about it) they often have the upper hand in debates against dems.

I think the star IMHO to me would be Cotton in Arkansas
The MVP I would have to give to Joni Ernst

I was surprise Colorado, Georgia, and West Virginia flipped red

I think Lousiana will go red

Virginia I see a recount

Edit

Hillary needs to take a break from the media before everyone gets burned out from seeing her on the news all the time

Lousiana has to do a completely unnecessary runoff because of that loser Rob Maness who had no chance in hell of winning and took votes away from Cassidy. I swear to God, Tea Party types are their own worst enemies.

@Jihadin: I live in West Virginia....Manchin was probably the last Democrat you'll see come out of here into the Senate (although he'll likely keep his seat til he retires).

Once the words "clean" and "coal" were put together in the Democratic lexicon, people saw their livelihoods threatened, and that's what caused the flip.

I'm fairly certain the R is going to win Louisiana and Alaska, putting them at a comfortable 54 to 46. I don't see them winning Virginia. It was a lot closer than I thought it would be, that's for sure.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Jihadin: I live in West Virginia....Manchin was probably the last Democrat you'll see come out of here into the Senate (although he'll likely keep his seat til he retires).

Once the words "clean" and "coal" were put together in the Democratic lexicon, people saw their livelihoods threatened, and that's what caused the flip.

Yeah, you won't see a dem there until the mines run dry, and probably not for a while after that either. It's funny, if it wasn't for the eco side of things, the dems might be quite popular, with things like employee protection, and saftey standards often pushed more by dems than repubs.

Edit: ninjed

Think the Republicans put IRS, NSA, EPA, and some other ,latey, idiotic agencies in check and back in line?

 Jihadin wrote:
Think the Republicans put IRS, NSA, EPA, and some other ,latey, idiotic agencies in check and back in line?

I doubt it. Last time they were in office the republicans were quite happy to abuse the NSA and the current administration just followed their lead. Though I guess they might try to do something about the IRS and EPA, at least in the cases where those agencies are interfering with all of their rich friends with large bribes to offer. Obviously this won't provide any benefit to any of the people posting here though.

I should say, now that I've had a night's sleep on it... that of the 3 issues in Washington I actually gave a damn about, all 3 went the "wrong" way, and honestly.... only one of them surprises me.

As mentioned, there were two "gun control" measures, which both went the "wrong" (one basically reconfirmed that due process of the law had to be followed in order to confiscate firearms... failed, the other "closed" the gun show loophole, but apparently went so far as to now make quite a few safety classes illegal, passed. Well, when the next person gets killed by someone who illegally acquired a firearm, they'll realize the legislation did nothing)

But, the one that surprised me was a measure on making classroom sizes smaller. This failed. And it seriously boggles my mind why people WOULDNT want smaller classrooms. I'll admit, I voted for this one for rather self serving reasons as I am currently in school to become a teacher, having smaller classes can help make the pool larger and make it "easier" for me to get work once I'm done . BUT, as a parent, and I've already seen a classroom broken up as my daughter entered Kindergarten this year, and there was an influx of minions. The school and district deemed that there were too many students in the K classrooms, so fairly quickly hired a 3rd K teacher to bring the numbers a bit under control.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I should say, now that I've had a night's sleep on it... that of the 3 issues in Washington I actually gave a damn about, all 3 went the "wrong" way, and honestly.... only one of them surprises me.

As mentioned, there were two "gun control" measures, which both went the "wrong" (one basically reconfirmed that due process of the law had to be followed in order to confiscate firearms... failed, the other "closed" the gun show loophole, but apparently went so far as to now make quite a few safety classes illegal, passed. Well, when the next person gets killed by someone who illegally acquired a firearm, they'll realize the legislation did nothing)

But, the one that surprised me was a measure on making classroom sizes smaller. This failed. And it seriously boggles my mind why people WOULDNT want smaller classrooms. I'll admit, I voted for this one for rather self serving reasons as I am currently in school to become a teacher, having smaller classes can help make the pool larger and make it "easier" for me to get work once I'm done . BUT, as a parent, and I've already seen a classroom broken up as my daughter entered Kindergarten this year, and there was an influx of minions. The school and district deemed that there were too many students in the K classrooms, so fairly quickly hired a 3rd K teacher to bring the numbers a bit under control.

For the amount of time the media spends discussing gun control they do a horrific job on explaining what the laws already are and how they work, leading to severe misconceptions being held by the general public which allows pointless counter productive measures like the one in WA to pass. It's a depressing level of ignorance.

In regards to the class size measure I would think that competent principals would make sure that they don't overwhelm teachers with classes that are too big without needing to codify class size into state law. Nobody wants classes that are detrimental because of the student teacher ratio but if you make a legal limit then you create the problem of having no flexibility when you hit the magic number and have 21 or 26 or whatever X+1 is for students. You wouldn't want to lose control of your budget because you have to hire a teacher for only a couple of students and need additional classroom space for them too.

My thoughts on the elections themselves are:
I always sort of puzzle at how get such big bold statements about an event like last night. Tidal wave, stampede, resurgence...

In many cases, the big votes in contested areas were still by low single digit margins. All we saw were moderate/swing voters going the other way in limited numbers, in mid-terms that have very different voter demographics from presidential election years. I blame the stupid red/blue graphics every station uses. It's like that 1 vote that tips it from Blue to Red is somehow a huge shift. All we saw were a gakload of purple states go either slightly lighter or darker.

If the Republicans are smart, they will put forward a bunch of moderate bills, focused on immigration, privacy, the pipeline, with reasonable popular support. They make the dems live with Obama's vetoes of bills he doesn't want Republicans to take credit for.

But they aren't.. They are fething idiots who will believe their own hype. They will go all big government, social conservative and tick off a lot of people that just put them in office with a very slight tip of the scale.