... because not every minor development needs a thread of its own.
Anyhow, 538 says it looks about 50-50 that the GOP will get a majority in the senate right now: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/
So, assuming a GOP majority in both the house and the senate, what could we expect to see for the next two years? Would the GOP push a bunch of hard right legislation and dare Obama to veto all of it?
Yay stalled nominations forever.
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
... because not every minor development needs a thread of its own.
Anyhow, 538 says it looks about 50-50 that the GOP will get a majority in the senate right now: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/
So, assuming a GOP majority in both the house and the senate, what could we expect to see for the next two years? Would the GOP push a bunch of hard right legislation and dare Obama to veto all of it?
There'd definitely be a move to roll back Obamacare.
I don't agree with the Republicans on much these days, but I do agree with them on that. Health care reform is a necessity but the Obamacare bill is just awful.
It would get filibustered. I don't think anyone will be able to repeal it at this point. I think we'll see a bunch of tweaks over the next few years on certain aspects though. Like they are doing with pushing back the employer mandate a year.
Having a tough time seeing a GOP majority in the Senate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 03:35:21 PM
Having a tough time seeing a GOP majority in the Senate.
Quote from: fhdz on July 18, 2013, 03:09:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
... because not every minor development needs a thread of its own.
Anyhow, 538 says it looks about 50-50 that the GOP will get a majority in the senate right now: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/
So, assuming a GOP majority in both the house and the senate, what could we expect to see for the next two years? Would the GOP push a bunch of hard right legislation and dare Obama to veto all of it?
There'd definitely be a move to roll back Obamacare.
I don't agree with the Republicans on much these days, but I do agree with them on that. Health care reform is a necessity but the Obamacare bill is just awful.
Where do you see a middle ground between our current system and the Euro-Canuck single payer method?
The insurance reforms are nice but the biggest change that needs to happen is what the provider is charging the payer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 03:35:21 PM
Having a tough time seeing a GOP majority in the Senate.
What's your take on 538 and did you read the link? Mr. Silver is saying it looks about fifty-fifty right now.
Seems like something you and Dguller should take a bet on.
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
What's your take on 538 and did you read the link? Mr. Silver is saying it looks about fifty-fifty right now.
Seems like something you and Dguller should take a bet on.
Didn't read the link. Too busy formulating a response to The Big Bean's thoughtful comment.
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 03:35:21 PM
Having a tough time seeing a GOP majority in the Senate.
What's your take on 538 and did you read the link? Mr. Silver is saying it looks about fifty-fifty right now.
Seems like something you and Dguller should take a bet on.
I dunno - I read it and kind of took "well it's a long way off and lots can happen between now and then"...
I think it's just too fricking early to be making such projections.
I have complete faith in the American public's ability to fuck this country up even more by giving the GOP both houses of Congress.
I can see it. Midterm elections during the president's second term rarely turn out well for the party holding the presidency, and Obama has had a few setbacks. Some of them was just manufactured foam-at-the-mouth Republican bullshit, but the spying stuff could be bad for him. The economy may also improve enough to the point that Americans would again feel secure enough to actively try to fuck it up.
The analysis was predicated on the specific seats up for grabs and the candidates as they stand.
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2013, 05:25:06 PMbut the spying stuff could be bad for him.
Has that really gained any traction among normal voters? My guess would be the people who care generally don't vote if there's not a Paul on the ballot.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 18, 2013, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2013, 05:25:06 PMbut the spying stuff could be bad for him.
Has that really gained any traction among normal voters? My guess would be the people who care generally don't vote if there's not a Paul on the ballot.
I would guess that a lot of young Obama supporters are semi-libertarian, and that's a block he can't afford to piss off or disenchant. I would also guess that they're not as docile as Languish intelligentsia.
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2013, 05:43:43 PM
I would guess that a lot of young Obama supporters are semi-libertarian, and that's a block he can't afford to piss off or disenchant.
Yes he can. I've said since 2008 that the one group who can feel legitimately betrayed by Obama are civil libertarians and that doesn't matter at all because there are roughly 10 people in any country who care about those issues more than anything else, but they've all got blog.
His civil liberties record didn't hurt him in 2012 any more than his lack of action on the environment did. They're (rightly) fringe issues to most people and I doubt they'll have much effect in 2014 either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 18, 2013, 05:46:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2013, 05:43:43 PM
I would guess that a lot of young Obama supporters are semi-libertarian, and that's a block he can't afford to piss off or disenchant.
Yes he can. I've said since 2008 that the one group who can feel legitimately betrayed by Obama are civil libertarians and that doesn't matter at all because there are roughly 10 people in any country who care about those issues more than anything else, but they've all got blog.
His civil liberties record didn't hurt him in 2012 any more than his lack of action on the environment did. They're (rightly) fringe issues to most people and I doubt they'll have much effect in 2014 either.
I think your own rather contemptible take on that issue clouds your judgment a little bit.
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2013, 05:50:50 PM
I think your own rather contemptible take on that issue clouds your judgment a little bit.
I don't think so. There are certain subjects that I think people may take very strong opinions on, but that ultimately are more or less irrelevant on election day: civil liberties, the environment, generally foreign policy.
The number of people who care enough about those issues is miniscule and nowhere are they concentrated enough to matter.
It's like Europe in the UK.
So America has invented the bloodless civil war, though with the downside of longer period of state inactivity.
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Seems like something you and Dguller should take a bet on.
Is Guller in the habit of making bets he hopes he loses? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 18, 2013, 06:47:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Seems like something you and Dguller should take a bet on.
Is Guller in the habit of making bets he hopes he loses? :hmm:
I don't know if I'd call that a habit, but I definitely can bet against my favorable outcome. I bet Yi that Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare, and I was winning until that bastard Roberts flip-flopped. :mad:
Quote from: sbr on July 18, 2013, 03:58:25 PM
Where do you see a middle ground between our current system and the Euro-Canuck single payer method?
I don't. I'd definitely prefer single-payer over the labyrinthine mess we have today.
I'd also prefer an utterly free-market solution to the labyrinthine mess we have today.
But of the two solutions I'd prefer single-payer.
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
What's your take on 538 and did you read the link?
OK, read the link and the argument is persuasive.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) says he may run for the GOP presidential nomination because:
Quote from: Peter Kinga lack of a real defense policy or defense debate among Republican candidates for president, focusing primarily on Rand Paul and Ted Cruz
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/peter-king-says-rand-paul-is-fueling-his?ref=fpb
Good luck with that. Republicans from New York, no matter how believably repugnant, have between nil and zero chance of winning the nomination.
Quote from: DGuller on July 19, 2013, 01:21:33 PM
Good luck with that. Republicans from New York, no matter how believably repugnant, have between nil and zero chance of winning the nomination.
You might even say it's predictable.
Quote from: fhdz on July 19, 2013, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 19, 2013, 01:21:33 PM
Good luck with that. Republicans from New York, no matter how believably repugnant, have between nil and zero chance of winning the nomination.
You might even say it's predictable.
That would be a poor choice of words.
Quote from: DGuller on July 19, 2013, 01:26:18 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 19, 2013, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 19, 2013, 01:21:33 PM
Good luck with that. Republicans from New York, no matter how believably repugnant, have between nil and zero chance of winning the nomination.
You might even say it's predictable.
That would be a poor choice of words.
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2013, 05:25:06 PM
I can see it. Midterm elections during the president's second term rarely turn out well for the party holding the presidency, and Obama has had a few setbacks. Some of them was just manufactured foam-at-the-mouth Republican bullshit, but the spying stuff could be bad for him. The economy may also improve enough to the point that Americans would again feel secure enough to actively try to fuck it up.
Also Barack came into office with large coat-tails; the freshmen senators from 2008 are up for re-election. Republicans was in an similar position in 1986 and lost 8 Senate seats.
We shouldn't be too certain though. The Republicans have chosen to nominate mentals rather than pick up a number of easy senate seats in the last few elections. Their ability to self-harm shouldn't be underestimated.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2013, 06:01:06 PM
We shouldn't be too certain though. The Republicans have chosen to nominate mentals rather than pick up a number of easy senate seats in the last few elections. Their ability to self-harm shouldn't be underestimated.
It's not self-harm, it's the long game. Is it self-harm to execute soldiers for disobeying orders?
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
... because not every minor development needs a thread of its own.
Anyhow, 538 says it looks about 50-50 that the GOP will get a majority in the senate right now: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/
So, assuming a GOP majority in both the house and the senate, what could we expect to see for the next two years? Would the GOP push a bunch of hard right legislation and dare Obama to veto all of it?
While the geography looks good, the base will probably sabotage a winnable seat or two by nominating a wingnut that can't win.