The Evil Genius Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'm guessing Ken Cuccinelli's group wasn't successful enough in intimidating African American voters away from the polling locations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/06/23/ken-cuccinellis-mississippi-misstep-against-thad-cochran/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'm guessing Ken Cuccinelli's group wasn't successful enough in intimidating African American voters away from the polling locations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/06/23/ken-cuccinellis-mississippi-misstep-against-thad-cochran/ They should have asked a bunch of those open carry groups to stand around at the polls in minority districts with assault rifles. I'm sure they would have been more than happy to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I think they're going to have to come up with an electrifying policy. The Right's problem is that, after having their policies rejected for over a decade, they continue to cling to the notion that there's nothing wrong with their policies, they just have to figure out a new slogan, to sell them with. I would argue the opposite. So sucessul have been the conservative agenda in this country that both parties have adopted it. Ever since Johnson we've had a series of moderate conservative Presidents from the Democratic party... The evangelical from Georgia - Jimmy Carter - who held down domestic spending and modestly increased defense spending. The moderate who proclaimed the era of big governemnt is over in Bill Clinton and who proceeded to balance the budget and give the country it's first surplus in several generations And Obama, who has slashed the deficit/ gdp ratio by 65-70% in six years and has the best record on new spending of any President since Ike. I don't know if this is the reason, but the net effect has been Republicans are getting more and more extreme to differenciate themselves from the moderate conservatives coming out of the Democratic party. Democrats aren't very good at a lot of things, but one thing they excell at is to offend the folks on the finge of their own party in favor of seeking the middle of the road, or even the moderately conservative pragmatic answer.. This really upsets liberals. The Republicans need to emulate this disipline. They need to learn to stand up to their fringe and stop allowing the fringe whackadoodles to define them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I think the GOP should sue Obama for using Executive Orders......and not because he's used them less than any President in a long time. Oh wait.....they are. http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-says-file-lawsuit-over-obama-executive-actions-163758722.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Don't forget that right now, most of the states are heavily gerrymandered in favor of the GOP. That is why North Carolina voted 51 percent for Democrats and 49 percent for Republicans, but the Republicans got nine house seats and the Democrats got only four. Same thing in Texas. Same thing in Michigan. Same thing in Ohio. Same thing in Virginia. Same thing in Pennsylvania. Same thing in Wisconsin. And, of course, the Senate always favors the GOP because they naturally win so many less populated states, each of which gets two senators, same as California and New York. The GOP might have trouble winning the Presidency, but it is going to be a long time before they lose their control of Congress, demographics or not. I read an article about that. The jist was that gerrymandering has been with us for a very long time; but today their is a big difference because it's much more efficient than it's ever been in the passed. The thought was that new software used for gerrymandering is so precise that districts today can be designed so precisely that their is nearly no doubt left in the equation of how they will vote. Prior to recent software improvements even gerrymandered districts had a reasonable chance to flip based upon current events. When do states redistrict? In response to Poll data right? every 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 When do states redistrict? In response to Poll data right? every 10 years? I believe that they're allowed to do so, any time they feel like it. But, trying to do so at any time other than following the once-a-decade national census carries a huge political backlash. (Or at least, ought to.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 When do states redistrict? In response to Poll data right? every 10 years? Generally, its every 10 years after the census. It depends on state law. The low turnout election of 2010, when the country was in the doldrums and the only people who voted were angry tea party types, really screwed the Democrats over. It won't be fixable until 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Generally, its every 10 years after the census. It depends on state law. The low turnout election of 2010, when the country was in the doldrums and the only people who voted were angry tea party types, really screwed the Democrats over. It won't be fixable until 2020. Texas used Homeland Security to go after Dems who were hiding; when they tried to redraw the lines in 2003 or 2004. Think, part of the reason Tom Delay was charged was because of his attempts to force this. The 2018,2020 elections will be hard fought since those will win those races will get to redraw for 2022. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Sweet Sassy Molassy Thad Cochran Press Call Turns Into Disaster After Caller Asks About 'Harvested' Black Votes A press conference call for Sen. Thad Cochran's (R-Miss.) re-election campaign turned into a fiasco on Wednesday when an unidentified caller began asking whether Cochran improperly "harvested" votes from African-Americans like "black people harvesting cotton." According to several reporters, Austin Barbour, a GOP operative and adviser to Cochran's campaign who was speaking before the interruption, shut down the call after repeated interruptions by the unidentified caller. A shouting match ensued with the remaining callers on the line, and some suggested that either the Cochran campaign had "planted" the question, or perhaps "even Obama" was to blame. More madness from the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Sweet Sassy Molassy More madness from the link. The Daily Show had a pretty funny segment in which they covered that ordinary, and another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 The GOP might have trouble winning the Presidency, but it is going to be a long time before they lose their control of Congress, demographics or not. You may be right, but I think I saw Nate Silver said that dems just need a plus 6 or 7 in the generic congressional ballot. Its about +3 now. So, it could just take something really stupid from the GOP again.. which seems to happen every three years or so anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 You may be right, but I think I saw Nate Silver said that dems just need a plus 6 or 7 in the generic congressional ballot. Its about +3 now. So, it could just take something really stupid from the GOP again.. which seems to happen every three years or so anyway. Chris Hayes brought a straight-up slam last night...the buses of migrants being turned back by a whackadoodle group in Cali. I thought, "Geez, what those little kids must think of us." Almost 1100 people took their citizenship oath the other day at Turner Field. I doubt they'll be voting R after what they've seen...(one lady interviewed said that being able to vote was extremely important to her). And knowing that the House leadership refuses to legislate toward a solution, I think the left has a good shot... ...didn't you mean to say "every 3 days or so"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Sometimes I wonder if these people know what the word "impeach" means, or if they use it like the word "smurf". Sarah Palin Calls For Obama's Impeachment Sarah Palin is now calling for President Barack Obama's impeachment. In a column published on Breitbart.com Tuesday, Palin accused the president of "purposeful dereliction of duty," likening the Obama's treatment of the United States to that of an abusive spouse. "Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president," Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate, wrote. "His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.'" Palin suggested that the president has deliberately left the U.S.-Mexico border unsecured, echoing a similar theory floated by Texas Gov. Rick Perry ® earlier this week. "Without borders, there is no nation," Palin wrote. "Obama knows this. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. This is his fundamental transformation of America. It’s the only promise he has kept." On Tuesday, Obama requested $3.7 billion from Congress to address the situation at the border. The funds would help improve security at the border in addition to providing care for the children who have come into the Department of Health and Human Services' custody. Palin, who last year suggested that Obama could be impeached over the debt limit, argued in the Tuesday column that Obama's "rewarding of lawlessness" had caused "irreparable harm." More from the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 What always gets to me about pieces like this, are the number of independent-minded ES posters who have nothing but contempt for people like Sarah, but who say the same things she says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 i would think (hope) that those people would have the MOST contempt for Sarah Palin. I know that nothing chaps MY butt quite like somebody that ostensibly agrees with my position... but does so in a booger-eating-moronic manner that makes me sorry to agree with them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Obama and the Dems would welcome impeachment because that would rile up their voters so much so that they could win back the House. Clinton's impeachment proceedings lead the Dems to winning Senate seats bucking the 6 year itch. Clinton remained but one Newt Gingrich had to resign after the 1998 election shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Obama and the Dems would welcome impeachment because that would rile up their voters so much so that they could win back the House. Oh, agreed. The Dems would outright pay the GOP to use the word "impeachment". Preferably over Benghazi. Biggest problem the Dems are going to have, in '14 and '16, will be voters staying home. The more things there are that remind them of the Glory Days of Bill, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Palin…Annoying to her enemies, deadly to her allies! I'm pretty sure she's doing it for the lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Can't fix stupid. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html In a condemnatory speech last week against the Obama administration’s new Environmental Protection Agency carbon emission regulations, Kentucky state Sen. Brandon Smith ® claimed that man-made climate change is scientifically implausible because Mars and Earth share “exactly” the same temperature. Smith, the owner of a mining company called Mohawk Energy, argued that despite the fact that the red planet doesn’t have any coal mines, Mars and Earth share a temperature. Therefore, Smith reasoned, coal companies on Earth should be exempt from emission regulations. During a Natural Resources and Environment Committee meeting Thursday, Smith, the Senate majority whip, said: As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Sometimes I wonder if these people know what the word "impeach" means, or if they use it like the word "smurf". More from the link. I would still like to see someone from the extreme right lay out an actual case for impeachment. Because I can't find one. Unsecured borders? I guess she is overlooking the Bush administration's apathy towards this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I would still like to see someone from the extreme right lay out an actual case for impeachment. Because I can't find one. I dunno, but I think it could at least be argued that Congress can impeach a President over pretty much anything they want to. Yeah, I'm aware that "high crimes and misdemeanors" can also be read to say that there has to be something illegal. but I'm not 100% certain that that interpretation is the only one. But let's face it. The real limitation on the impeachment power isn't legal or constitutional. It's political. If 80% of the voters wanted Obama impeached, he'd be impeached. Even if it was for, say, refusing to comply with a FOIA demand for his birth certificate. And, if the SC were stupid enough to even touch the matter with a 10 meter stack of law books, they would agree with it. (Out of fear for their lives if they didn't.) But, right now? If the House were to vote to, say, begin impeachment proceedings. And if enough Republicans voted in favor of it, for it to pass, then in January, the Democrats would have a majority in the House, and a super majority in the Senate. And the Republicans know it. Heck, they know that they have a shot at winning control of the Senate, this November. If they all keep their mouths shut about what they want to do with that power, if they get it. Any little thing they do, to even act like Republicans, runs the risk of waking up the sleeping Democrat voters (who outnumber them). Maybe it's just me, but if I didn't know better, I would think this wasn't an election year, from all the quiet from the R's. So, they can make vague hints about impeachment. People who aren't actually running for office can run around and endorse the notion. Maybe Ted Cruz will do so, to increase his name recognition for his Presidential run. But there's no way in Dallas they actually do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Sometimes I wonder if these people know what the word "impeach" means. They'd prefer to use the word "lynch", but don't think that would play well with the mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 They'd prefer to use the word "lynch", but don't think that would play well with the mainstream. They aren't playing to the mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 They aren't playing to the mainstream. I don't know that they don't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.