Forum:2014 American Midterms

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Since 2016 is still a long way from now, I figured to set a thread up for the 2014 midterms. I'm most interested in the gubernatorial elections and the state of the Senate, because I want Rick Scott outta my state and I don't really want Boehner to have a Senate that bows before him. I just finished my registration, so I can vote in the midterms. Serocco (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I heard a campaign ad that amounted to "those guys are getting funding in washington, why is outside money influencing nebraska politics. Vote our conservative guy cause he has over 80% nrbraska donations", which left me wondering why possibly 19% is any better if your complaining about outside funding--Mikal | lakiM 05:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing most Florida polls saying Charlie Crist would beat Rick Scott. Many people are saying this is the closest gubernatorial race in the midterms. Serocco (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
As it stands, my House prediction is effectively worthless. But the Senate is very much a coin toss, and history tells us the GOP tends to ratchet up the crazy by the fall. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Which incumbent governors are most vulnerable to losing? Serocco (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
A bunch. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Several of the Dem senators got in in 2008, when they won 60 seats of a wave of anti-Rep anger. They don't have that now and I expect the Denocrats to lose the senate. SophieWilderModerator 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My district is going to re-elect a Tea Partier :'( Samstr (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bad. Samstr (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not bad. Unextraordinary midterms + Obama unpopularity + low voter turnout + gerrymandering = Republican Senate. Nothing has changed distinctly in voter preferences, which puts the GOP in a very serious dilemma.
The United States is becoming more moderate (indeed, finally drifting leftward); it created an incentive for mostly "establishment" conservatives to claw back the Tea Party's hold on the party this year in the primaries. But they will have to go much further in 2016. Demographics are making once-solid red states the only Congressional battlegrounds (future ones to watch will be coasts most vulnerable to climate change), which means that the only route to a Republican POTUS will have to be via another "Massachusetts Moderate" under favourable political conditions — it's why Chris Christie received huge coverage until recently. Given the still unrelenting pressure on Boehner/McConnell by the hard-right not to strike any deals with Obama (remember, the GOP were just elected because they said they'd heal the gridlock) and the upcoming Shitshow of 2016, I'm not betting on "favourable political conditions." Osaka Sun (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Small correction here. (Intentional, political) Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the senate. Just an accidental legacy of our founding fathers' obsession with agrarianism. Ikanreed (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep'n you got it. Another brilliant analysis by that paragon of politic pundits, Osaka. Oh the warmth, the wit, the wisdom. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You better hope your Congress passes a few bills, doesn't force another shutdown and manages to churn out a competitive candidate against Clinton, Rob. Because the elephant in the room is not a Republican. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The debate here is over the employer mandate which retard job growth, productivity, consumer spending, lowers personal discretionary spending, increases poverty and widens the output gap. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 15:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You may very well get a reduction (or even removal) of the employer mandate. But don't exaggerate. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Removing the employer mandate would gut Obamacare completely, bring back the 40 hour workweek, improve productivity, personal income, and consumer spending (theoretically); but Obamacare was designed to fail (as Gruber and others have corroborated) to supposedly muster stupid American's voters to demand single payer. I doubt it. If I'd have to guess, once the employer mandate is repealed, voters will demand the individual mandate (or indentured servitude prescriptions) be repealed. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 01:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
First, the Tenth Amendment Center? Even I didn't think you'd go there!
Second, the employer mandate was removed in Massachusetts last year. Health care in the state is now gutted, and with it the 40 hour workweek, productivity, personal incomes and consumer spending have all reappeared! Nice try. (And since you're going to drag on about Gruber, which I'd advise not, here's Romney thanking Gruber for his "designed to fail" bill. Burst into a ball of rage, Rob.) Osaka Sun (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Primera (A), the 13th Amendment (abolition of involuntary servitude); (B) the 10th Amendment has not be repealed, AFAIK.
Segundo, Massive-two-tits is not hardly representative (A) American demographics, or (B) American mainstream public opinion, attitudes, thinking, beliefs, social values, or political leanings. At all. (C) Mitt Romney's candidacy was designed to fail. And (D) the rich scratch each other's backs all the time, why wouldn't Mitt thank an MIT Professor who grossed $6 million dollars in a big-government scam? In fact, when was the last time any college professor grossed $6 million? Gruber's written the How-to manual. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
When was the last time any university professor grossed $6 million? You live in a country where college sports coaches earn $7 million a year. (And apparently Republicans didn't mind Gruber being utilized elsewhere.) Plus, Romney's candidacy wasn't designed to fail, he was considered the most electable out of the nominees from the start. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wait, wha-? This is... I'd say troll, but other seemingly well-established members are taking you seriously (I'm new around here). You're trying to say that the ACA amounts to indentured servitude??? By that reasoning, any and all wealth redistribution, including governmental aid, would qualify as "forcing a class of citizens to work to serve the benefit of others." Do you live in Galt's Gulch? Or are you still in the early phase of your übermensch life in which you're accumulating the wealth and accomplishments to prove your worth there? UnerringlyErrant (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I see you haven't been introduced yet, UnerringlyErrant! Osaka Sun (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec) We'll see a fundamental reversal in process of selectinon in 2016: in the past GOP nominees were aged curmudgeons who "waited their turn", i.e. Reagan, Papa Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney. Democrats introduced a young, unknown governor with no record on the national level, i.e. Carter, Dukakis, Clinton. The aged and ailing Hillary's turn has finally come (she was supposed to have been nominated in 2004 and 2008). She's a known quantity at the national level with much baggage. Democrats will throw "change" in the trash for "experience". Fuck. We should have stuck with Papa Bush's "experience" in 1992. The GOP now has the youth, while Democratic leadership, Clinton, Reid and Pelosi, resemble Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko. Plus the 'under 30 crowd' are unemployed, saddled with student loan debt, living with their parents, and pissed-off for being called "stupid" by Gruber and the Democrats. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Unerringly Errant: We'll see more challenges to the individual mandate, if not the peoples elected legislators at the federal level, certaintly thru grassroots and the state level. The unemployed communists who imposed this legislation don't have the last word yet. Working families now do. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Robbie, red-baiting your opponents with is not for good boys. You need young competent candidates. And go speak to unemployed communist John Roberts about the individual mandate, yeah? I'm off. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Well communism, you know, has never really been tried.... nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh documented to be wrong[edit]

Limbaugh, in his praise of Scott Walker's victory, showed he doesn't have a clue about any of the facts.:

the Republican Party has a genuine star. The Republican Party has a demonstrated, genuine hero and potential star in its ranks, and he is the governor of Wisconsin. His name is Scott Walker. Scott Walker has won three out of four elections in the last five or six years, regular gubernatorial races and a couple of recalls. Every American labor union, every American labor union thug, a rigged judiciary, a rigged media...[1]

There's more errors in the transcript, but it supposed to be 3 wins in 4 years, and Walker has union backing. [2][3] Limbaugh blew it, he's not on the cutting edge as far as the next GOP president. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 00:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)