Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Bad news, Democrats - Republicans are starting to get along rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Maybe Hillary isn't a shoo-in for next prez after all. Do you think the Reps will actually nominate someone electable for 2016?


Senate GOP 'civil wars' lagging in NC, elsewhere
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140427/DADEI5C80.html

DAVIDSON, N.C. (AP) - The feisty personalities and anti-establishment fervor that fed tea party challenges in recent Republican U.S. Senate primaries are largely missing this year, a troubling sign for Democrats who want the GOP to nominate candidates with limited appeal.

Early pledges to oust Republican senators seen as insufficiently ideological by some tea partyers fizzled in Texas, South Carolina and Tennessee. In Kentucky, tea party-backed Matt Bevin is struggling against Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

A Colorado tea partyer stepped aside to let a congressman run unimpeded for the Senate. In Georgia, the tea party has not coalesced around any of the seven GOP Senate candidates.

These contests show that the tea party's dramatic emergence in 2009 and 2010 doesn't guarantee continued success. Conservative insurgencies need the right mix of money, angry and energized voters, magnetic personalities and some degree of campaign experience among those running furthest to the right.

Insufficient conservatism is the charge leveled by anti-establishment candidates who rocked the Republican Party in the past two elections by winning Senate nominations in nearly a dozen states.

Those candidates went on to win the general elections in Utah, Kentucky and Texas. But they suffered painful defeats in Delaware, Nevada, Indiana and other states, enabling Democrats to keep control of the Senate.

With establishment Republicans saying they won't be caught napping again - and sending cash to favored candidates - insurgent campaigns are struggling.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Iniguez
United States
Idaho Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems to relate more to the mid-terms and republican primaries then anything about the 2016 presidential race.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am not sure if it is right to say getting along, ignoring the loony fringe might be a better descriptor.

I hope this is teh case, and American politics once more becomes about compromise, and not chicken.

As to the great GOP hope, lets wait and see who they actually do nominate, as none of the names I have seen seem to be particularly inspiring (if their opponent in Clinton at least they do not need to be inspiring, just an ordinary human being, sadly lacking in US politics nowdays).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Obama wasn't electable in 2012, The R just nominated someone *less* electable. Persuading R to vote R in the presidentials is not the problem. It is persuading indeps you are less looney than the other guy. It is possible to beat Hillary, but I thought it was possible to beat Obama.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Republicans will win the mid-terms. This will put the lunatic fringe back into the saddle, causing them to lose the general.

On the other hand, no new Democratic presidential candidate has won a third consecutive term for the Democrats since 1808...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As someone above stated, to be successful in the next presidential election the GOP has to become better at ignoring and yes denouncing nut bags like this

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-grothman-says-jo...

Instead, the party has moved further to the right and has alienated the people they need most to vote for them including most minorities and women. They need to come back to the center more. Not sure if I see that happening in the next two years.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
Republicans will win the mid-terms. This will put the lunatic fringe back into the saddle, causing them to lose the general.

On the other hand, no new Democratic presidential candidate has won a third consecutive term for the Democrats since 1808...


4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:

On the other hand, no new Democratic presidential candidate has won a third consecutive term for the Democrats since 1808...


You mean the meaningless pre-to-post goldwater Democrat/Republican as a party platform? Completely useless metric.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
Republicans will win the mid-terms. This will put the lunatic fringe back into the saddle, causing them to lose the general.

On the other hand, no new Democratic presidential candidate has won a third consecutive term for the Democrats since 1808...




FDR won his third term as an incumbent. Hence my use of the word "new"

As for ignoring old Democratic history, that is fine but is just means no new Democratic presidential candidate has ever won a third consecutive term.

The good news for the Democrats is that every US presidential election has seen a precedent broken. There's a webcomic about that somewhere.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
I hope this is teh case, and American politics once more becomes about compromise, and not chicken.


Indeed - while I disagree, generally, with them - there are certainly a great number of Republicans I admire. Heck, my all-time-favorite-President-of-all-time is a Republican...and even a relatively 'modern' one...Teddy Roosevelt. Reasonable, but differing, ideologies and negotiated compromise is what makes the country great (when it IS great), and the more of that we get the better.

That said, while the Tea Party was a monstrosity that did its damnedest to ruin everything good and functional about the country...it seemed largely - where well funded and organized - little more than astroturfing by the Koch Brothers (et al). They have access to sufficient funds that I doubt the waning of the Tea Party will mean the death knell to this style of politics...

(Which is idiotic, because it pushes the Democrats to their-version-of-extremism, as well, and that's just as bad if not worse.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
いい竹やぶだ!

South Euclid
Ohio
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
(Which is idiotic, because it pushes the Democrats to their-version-of-extremism, as well, and that's just as bad if not worse.)

Since the Democrats are currently slightly right of center, they're already sitting almost right on top of their version of extreme. Even back when the USA had a significant Left, the Dems were never a part of it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I've got an 808 and a 303 and a record collection like the ABC
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
On what issue are dems right of center?

Privacy, habeus corpus, use of military, etc.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
On the other hand, no new Democratic presidential candidate has won a third consecutive term for the Democrats since 1808...


I'm trying to parse what this really means. The Democrats didn't win the Presidency in 1908 (Taft was Republican). So the starting point is really weird to begin with.

Then you have to wonder what "new" means. After FDR's four election wins, Truman won in 1948. While he was an incumbent due to Roosevelt's death, he was a "new" candidate for President - he had never run before. And if that's what you mean, then the Republicans have only done it once since 1908 - Hoover would be the only qualifier because George HW Bush was VP first.

What is this even supposed to mean?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
robigo wrote:
Quote:
(Which is idiotic, because it pushes the Democrats to their-version-of-extremism, as well, and that's just as bad if not worse.)

Since the Democrats are currently slightly right of center, they're already sitting almost right on top of their version of extreme. Even back when the USA had a significant Left, the Dems were never a part of it.


I didn't say that Democrat 'extremism' was leftism. Rather quite the contrary. 'Catering to their easily accessible power centers' more than historical precedent, though, would be descriptive. And those will be major corporations, just...different ones (sometimes) than the Republicans.

And THAT is why it's horrific - as soon as extremism becomes the modus operandi, and either party is put to the test, ALL ideology flies out the window and they are selling their souls to the nearest buyer.

sbszine wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
On what issue are dems right of center?

Privacy, habeus corpus, use of military, etc.


Amongst a number of other things, of course. 'Corporate welfare' covers a wide swatch of that territory.

The specific corporations differ...slightly...but as long as the two parties are sniping over extremist (and idiotic/unrealistic) ideologies, it merely paves the way for others to acquire influence.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I've got an 808 and a 303 and a record collection like the ABC
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
How in theee hell are they to the right on privacy and habeus corpus? What the hell is the left/right divide on privacy and habeus corpus?

To me, the right wing position is that national security trumps civil liberties and the left wing position is that civil liberties trump national security. Giving intelligence agencies a free hand in monitoring the citizenry on security grounds is a right wing policy from that perspective. Likewise, internment without charge, rendition, kill lists, etc on security grounds.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
On the other hand, no new Democratic presidential candidate has won a third consecutive term for the Democrats since 1808...


I'm trying to parse what this really means. The Democrats didn't win the Presidency in 1908 (Taft was Republican). So the starting point is really weird to begin with.

Then you have to wonder what "new" means. After FDR's four election wins, Truman won in 1948. While he was an incumbent due to Roosevelt's death, he was a "new" candidate for President - he had never run before. And if that's what you mean, then the Republicans have only done it once since 1908 - Hoover would be the only qualifier because George HW Bush was VP first.

What is this even supposed to mean?


1) 1808
2) Truman won a fifth consecutive term, not a third consecutive term
3) new presidential meaning new presidential .
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
1) 1808
2) Truman won a fifth consecutive term, not a third consecutive term
3) new presidential meaning new presidential .


The 1808 was certainly my mistake. But you're still talking about something that's happened a total of three times, once during the ACW/Reconstruction when the Democratic southern states weren't even fully participating in the process. So I'm not sure what the point here is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
As it pertains to right and left, privacy is largely the domain of conservatives with a few outliers, such as identifying yourself in order to vote.

... or sodomy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Simon Mueller wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
As it pertains to right and left, privacy is largely the domain of conservatives with a few outliers, such as identifying yourself in order to vote.

... or sodomy.


Or 'Terrorists' (Patriot Act)
Or the government support of private industries digging into your privacy.(data collection/mining)


Short truthoes someone have power? Then they want to know what you're doing so they can keep it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Simon Mueller wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
As it pertains to right and left, privacy is largely the domain of conservatives with a few outliers, such as identifying yourself in order to vote.

... or sodomy.

Got me there. However, opposition to gay marriage, does not equate. Not even the most ardent supporter equates it to anything less than the plight of black people. If it is a privacy issue, it is so tangential to be unimportant to the issue.

So unimportant that it required the Supreme Court to strike sodomy laws from the books of many "conservative" states. I wasn't referring to gay marriage, but to which sex position one practises. It's about as private as one can get, in my opinion, and was coincidentally used to jail gay people, since being gay was not illegal itself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
Maybe Hillary isn't a shoo-in for next prez after all. Do you think the Reps will actually nominate someone electable for 2016?

First, they need to find someone electable...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Elfbane wrote:
tesuji wrote:
Maybe Hillary isn't a shoo-in for next prez after all. Do you think the Reps will actually nominate someone electable for 2016?

First, they need to find someone electable...



Actually they decide who they eat alive first. Then they look for elect-ability out of what is left.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.