The Politics Thread

[quartermainefan]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

When FiveThirtyEight last issued a U.S. Senate forecast — way back in July — we concluded the race for Senate control was a toss-up. That was a little ahead of the conventional wisdom at the time, which characterized the Democrats as vulnerable but more likely than not to retain the chamber.

Our new forecast goes a half-step further: We think the Republicans are now slight favorites to win at least six seats and capture the chamber.

[DRW50]

I'm so frightened of what this will lead to. Hell, I won't be surprised if a Republican House and Senate try to annex us to be part of Russia. They love Putin enough.

[quartermainefan]

Obama lost his halo with that "if you like your insurance you can keep it" lie. After that, nobody pays attention to anything he says and are less likely to believe him. I don't see how the democrats can recover barring a mass acceptance of Obamacare, and that does not seem to be happening just yet. It might happen in time for 2016, but he has nothing to say that anybody wants to hear currently.

[DRW50]

I doubt it has much to do with that "lie." Democrats lost big in 2010 as well. The truth is that the President in control of the White House almost always loses big in Congress during the midterms for his second term. I think the only exception in recent memory was 1998.

[Roman]

Lost his halo. Well, I knew that they very fist one to ever get into office would have to put up with some really silly and sorry comments about him/her.

[marceline]

I think a lot of these dire predictions are just concern trolling by the liberal (read: corporate) media. All of these reports about the Dems losing the Senate came out at the same time last week. That tells me there's an agenda being served. It doesn't help that Priorities USA has made the unfathomably stupid decision to basically sit out the midterms in order to focus on Hilary in 2016.

Yes the roll out was a disaster. I don't dispute that but but there's no telling what can happen between now and Election Day. I've been following politics for too long to make predictions. Remember that Obama and McCain were fairly evenly matched in 2008…and then Lehman Brothers imploded. The real (electoral) issue with Obamacare is that there's not the kind of marketing/rhetorical push that the program needs because we don't have an equivalent to the Koch Brothers who are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ads. Also the fact that Democrats are, for the most part, total pussies. </end Jon Stewart>

[Max]

With all due respect, DRW, how exactly could something this outrageous happen, epsecially with a Democratic president still in office (and Hillary favored to win in 2016)? Even when Bush was president (and the GOP held the House and Senate) gay rights were better in the US than they are currently in Russia.

Roman, I hope that you're not trying to suggest that Qfan's criticism of Obama is "racist" in nature. The fact is that Obama was ridiculously hyped up by the mainstream media (as a different type of politician), and after he made his false statement (about people getting to keep their insurance), anybody objective has to conclude that Obama failed to live up to the hype.

Democrats certainly weren't pussies in 2012, when an ad was run blaming Mitt Romney for somebody's cancer, or when Biden said the GOP would put African-Americans "back in chains," or when they talked about the "Romney/Ryan/Akin" ticket, or when "War on Women" was brought up on a constant basis. (Even durinig Obama's "uplifting" 2008 campaign, McCain was compared to George Wallace, and "warnings" were also issued stating that McCain would be a worse president than Bush.) Even now, the Democrats are still echoing the "War on Women" mantra. However, the unpopularity of ObamaCare is the major problem for the Democrats this year, partly because it relates the the marketing/rhetorical push to which you alluded. Specifically, the public is confused because they are getting two different messages regarding the ACA: The vulnerable (and more moderate) Democrats are distancing themselves from it, while the very liberal Democrats (who face safe re-election bids because they represent dark blue areas) are embracing it.

I am so sick of hearing about the Koch Brothers as some sort of excuse for Democrats losing. The fact is that Obama actually had more money than Romney ($1.123 billion vs. $1.019 billion) in 2012.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/barack-obama-mitt-romney-both-topped-1-billion-in-2012-84737.html

If the Koch Brothers had so much power, then Obama would have lost the election. Furthermore, plenty of extremely wealthy donors give to liberal candidates, from George Soros to the Hollywood Elite. I never hear "progressives" complain about this, nor did I hear any complaints from them back in 2008 when Obama outspent McCain by nearly 3 to 1 (because McCain accepted public financing while Obama--in breaking an earlier promise--opted out of the system):

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/

Campaign finance imbalance must be the issue that liberals are most insincere about. They only seem to be outraged when the GOP has more money than they have.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Max

[DRW50]

Presumably a Democratic President would stop it, but we don't know what will happen with the White House after 2016. I just saw a prominent GOP Congressman praising what happened in Crimea.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-na-pn-rohrabacher-ukraine-putin-reprise-20140327,0,3229059.story

[Max]

DRW, thanks for sharing that article, but as it mentions, that Congressman thankfully was in the tiny minority regarding his views on Putin. If history is any indication, nobody that extreme could ever win the GOP presidential nomination, but if somebody like that ever did get nominated, he would lose the general election.

This isn't going to be popular, but I actually think that the U.S. should send many troops to Crimea, because I think that is the only way to stop Putin. Few potential presidents (even those well to the right of Obama) would be willing to do this, however, because the American public is so against it.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Max

[quartermainefan]

No way. Crimea is not worth a major war over. American kids should get killed because the Russians want back a piece of Russia Kruschev gave away?

Here is something that will be unpopular: America sent 300,000 troops into Iraq, another 100,000 into Afghanistan, we helped oust the regime in Libya, we stuck our two cents in Egypt and told their president he had to go, and we do many of these things against the wishes of the UN. When we do it it is painted as reclaiming our sovereign rights and not genuflecting to the new world order. Putin sent 6,000 troops across his border, literally into a country right next door filled with Russians...and this is a crime against humanity for daring to go against the UN and using military force to achieve a goal. Well, that is what the US has been doing every decade since WW II ended. The US has in the past ousted democratically elected governments and installed dictators (which is why Iran hates us) and because we write the history books we are the good guys.

Let Russia and Ukraine settle their own business. It's not worth a single american life.

Edited March 28, 2014 by quartermainefan

[Max]

If it were just Crimea, then it wouldn't be worth a major war over. But the thing is that Putin could have Hitler-esque potential (which Hillary seemed to allude to when she compared Russia to Nazi Germany). Once Putin seizes Crimea (which seems inevitable at this point unless troops are sent), he probably won't be appeased, but instead will want more and more. If he acquires too much of an empire, the result could be World War III. And, of course, far more bloodshed would happen then as opposed to a war in Crimea that would take place today.

But yes, I understand that mostly because of Iraq (and also Afghanistan to a lesser extent), the public wants no troops in Crimea. Yet just because a preemptive war was a mistake once doesn't always make it the case.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Max

[Roman]

Max, what you think.....just doesn't matter.

[Max]

Roman, I've given up trying to change your view that my opposition to the president is "racist" in nature. But I was deeply disturbed to see you suggest that Qfan might disapprove of Obama for racial reasons. (At least that is how I interpreted your comments. Please correct me if I am wrong.) Qfan is a very fair person, and is also somebody who is quite liberal. If one thinks that a liberal who twice voted for Obama is some sort of "racist," then that is beyond sad. Dismissing those who voted against Obama as doing so "because they don't want a black man as POTUS" was bad enough.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Max

[quartermainefan]

Going to war on ifs and maybes and coulds is just another war of choice. Britain went broke, the soviets went broke, America is going broke fighting endless wars. I know America loves war because there is so much money and jobs to be had from it, but enough is enough. If Russia shows interest in EU countries that is one thing, but Crimea is filled with Russians who seem to want to be part of Russia for the most part.

[Roman]

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/conservative-stars-gamed-irs-donors-three

Just not surprised anymore.