|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Marco Rubio is a U.S. senator. And he just can’t stand it anymore.
“I don’t know that ‘hate’ is the right word,” Rubio said in an interview. “I’m frustrated.”
This year, as Rubio runs for president, he has cast the Senate — the very place that cemented him as a national politician — as a place he’s given up on, after less than one term. It’s too slow. Too rule-bound. So Rubio, 44, has decided not to run for his seat again. It’s the White House or bust.
“That’s why I’m missing votes. Because I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection,” Rubio said in the last Republican debate, after Donald Trump had mocked him for his unusual number of absences during Senate votes.
Five years ago, Rubio arrived with a potential that thrilled Republicans. He was young, ambitious, charismatic, fluent in English and Spanish, and beloved by the establishment and the tea party.
But Rubio had arrived at one of the least ambitious moments in Senate history and saw many of his ideas fizzle. Democrats killed his debt-cutting plans. Republicans killed his immigration reform. The two parties actually came together to kill his AGREE Act, a small-bore, hands-across-the-aisle bill that Rubio had designed just to get a win on something.
Now, he’s done. “He hates it,” a longtime friend from Florida said, speaking anonymously to say what Rubio would not.
Which makes for an odd campaign message.
Rubio must convince voters that his decision to leave the Senate — giving up the power he already has — is actually a mark of character, a sign that he is too dedicated to public service to stay.
Source
My guess is losing to Trump and Carson in the Florida polls doesn't help lol.
|
On October 26 2015 11:33 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 07:25 Rebs wrote:
Im sorry but please explain how Game Theory POV, makes Palin a good choice?
The line of argument your presenting for Palin being a good choice or Rick Perry (who is an absolute dunderhead) arent so much game theory as hail mary's and/or pandering too the conservative base.
If you think that the conservative base makes up an election winning electorate I dont think your quite sure what country you are living in anymore.
The other hilarious part about this is that you dont seem to mind having morons in charge just as long as they can draw meaningful distinctions with their counterpart (which while important, isnt really in anyones best interest except the winner) Thats a scary thought. That isn't my point at all. My first point was that McCain had no chance (unless Obama tried to murder him during a debate, in which case he still probably loses to Hillary if its possible to get her on the ballot. He gambled that Palin's fiery rhetoric and being a woman would have a tiny% chance of igniting Americans, and he gambled that she would be able to avoid missteps for, essentially, 4 months. He was actually mostly correct as she performed fine in the debates, just failed in 1 or 2 crucial interviews. People too often conflate post-election Palin (who exposed herself totally) with during-election-season Palin who was doing very well until the Couric interview.
First, you referred to "game theory", which is not at all the same as the pretty simple idea "he was going to lose so he went for a wildcard". Second, the idea that Palin simply failed in "one or two crucial interviews" is probably the understatement of the year, since she completely imploded in pretty much any interview where she was not thrown softballs by the interviewer, and her public speaking had to be closely monitored (and curtailed) by the McCain campaign. During-election Palin did not do "very well" by any metric except exist until the first time she had to open her mouth.
On October 26 2015 11:33 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 08:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 26 2015 06:57 cLutZ wrote:On October 26 2015 06:37 farvacola wrote:McCain's selection of Palin as running mate was very much a deliberate move. That's what makes it all the more painful  Yes, because he has a point .001% chance of winning because of the timing of the economic collapse and the general sentiment about the Iraq war at the time. No Republican candidate had a chance to win in 2008 unless they caught fire in a major way, which was why Palin was a good choice from a game theory POV: she was a wildcard. Regarding 2012, Romney, and addressing 10thdoc. Romney was not the Republican's best choice in 2012 because he had a very low chance of defeating Obama, a sitting President, with strong voter demographics, and very adept/talented campaign staffers (that basically never stopped campaigning and organizing for him post 2008). Romney was a poor choice because he was the establishment "safe" choice that ran him on the assumption that merely being milktoast conservative was what Americans would want. This was an absurd assumption (that conservatives all knew), and that Romney had Romneycare (and never disavowed it) convinced the not-corrupt portion of Republicans that he would likely lose unless Obama went Aaron Burh and committed a felony in public. The 2012 choice that would have had a chance was Perry, who had the terrible debate performance, or Christie if he had tried to run then. This is like a mini-Palin situation where you know your chance to win relies on either a massive mistake by the opposition (but then you win with anyone besides Santorum) or by lighting the right kind of fire and drawing favorable distinctions between yourself and (once again) a sitting President. Rick Perry had a chance? The man who couldn't remember his policy positions at a debate? The man who didn't win a single primary in 2012? The man who couldn't even run a functional campaign in 2016 long enough to get to the first debate? Judging by the map here he didn't even win a single county. How was that man going to have a better chance at beating Romney than Obama exactly? Would he have caused a meteor collision with Obama's headquarters or something? It's all Romney and McCain's fault for being too moderate. Nothing about the pivot they were forced into in the primary that, in Romney's case, made him abandon every single leverage point he had against Obama lest he be called a liar to his base and in McCain's case forced him into a Palin pick. "True" conservatives, no matter how incompetent, would have done better. Not my point at all. My point was that, in the event that Perry was somewhat equivalent to Romney in intelligence and debating skill (not true) he would have posed a serious challenge to Obama because he could have drawn critical distinctions between their records and said "Texas" and "Jobs" a lot of times. Romney could do none of those things, so IMO yes he was too moderate, in that he was fighting an uphill battle and his campaign motto was essentially "Obama-lite, but Mormon" and had no real chance of winning.
So basically your point is that a parallel universe Rick Perry with none of the flaws and intellectual failings of the real one would have been a better candidate than Romney. That's debatable, but that's in any case a different argument than what we were discussing, namely who stood a better chance among the candidates in the real world. In the real world, Perry was a much worst candidate than Romney.
|
On October 26 2015 11:33 cLutZ wrote: Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 11:10 frazzle wrote:On October 26 2015 06:57 cLutZ wrote:
Romney was not the Republican's best choice in 2012 because he had a very low chance of defeating Obama, a sitting President, with strong voter demographics, and very adept/talented campaign staffers (that basically never stopped campaigning and organizing for him post 2008). Romney was a poor choice because he was the establishment "safe" choice that ran him on the assumption that merely being milktoast conservative was what Americans would want. Hunh? After the first debate Romney pulled into a tie and had momentum. Sure, he petered out, but I can name a couple things that could have left him in position to win that aren't about him needing to be more conservative. 1. Don't make the 48% gaffe. Take that away and he might have been leading going into the debates. 2. Campaign on his record. Instead he had to campaign against his own record and people could see he came off as a hypocrite. 3. Take slightly more centrist positions. I get it. To win the primary he had to win the hard right and that made #2 and #3 near impossible. But that's not the argument here. The argument made here is if the right hadn't been such uncompromising ideologues than Romney could easily have won and was probably their best candidate to win the general. He was just hamstrung by his own base and Obama was a far cry from being a sure thing. I don't think this works for Romney because I don't think any of those prescriptions account for the advantages Obama always had. The reliable polling always had Obama at about the lead he had over Romney. And honestly, he couldn't campaign off his record because Mass had some fairly bad times, and his signature achievement was the same as Obama's, which was really the Republican's only winning issue in the campaign. I suppose he made a lot of statements that he got made fun of, like saying Russia was going to be a problem in Ukraine and the Middle East, but his "Obama is naive" narrative never really played and that may have been his fault, or Obama's media plot armor, but he needed more. Also I don't know where he goes more centrist in his positions, he said things like "severe conservative" but his positions were all very moderate when compared to the US as a whole.
Boy.
You could maybe find an issue or two where Romney had room to move his position to the right. For example, his immigration plan was the laughable, yet strict nonetheless, self-deport; but it did have a "join the military and get citizenship" clause for kids who came here young and grew up as Americans that the left some on the right upset. He could have eliminated that and just BS'd like Trump about magically deporting 7 million in a year.
But as general rule, his positions coincided with that of the base. Repeal ObamaCare. War with Iran. Stay in Iraq and Afghanstan. Put more people in Guantanamo. Eliminate various taxes on the wealthy. Turn Medicare into a voucher system. Etc, etc. That's part of what made his first debate (where he came off well and landed ahead in the polls) annoying for Obama supporters (apart from Obama's lack of interest in the debate it seems). He basically got away with making claims that directly contradicted his campaign claims and wasn't called out on it, and his poll number skyrocketed. The problem for him is that after the debate he claimed his positions hadn't softened and basically backtracked on what he said in the debate.
Romney truly was close, and even at a few times ahead, of Obama in the polls until a solid 3-5 point or so margin hardened towards the end (which the poll-truthers denied). If he had changed his campaign stances to be more in line with what he said in the first debate he easily could have won.
|
I don't know what electoral math you are looking at. But Romney never really had a chance. Even if Florida was a safe bet for him like most on his team assumed the demographics in the east coast battleground states were outdated in respect to the polls given to them. Not to mention he never had a chance in the turnout war to get evangelical Christians to get excited about a Mormon.
|
On October 26 2015 13:41 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 11:26 Cowboy64 wrote:On October 26 2015 09:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 26 2015 09:08 Cowboy64 wrote:
I don't understand why we're supposed to think that conservatism is so horribly unpopular that it can't win elections. It seems like most people on this forum are pretty liberal, some moreso than others, but overall definitely leaning to the left a bit. Just because the people on this forum don't like conservative political ideology, doesn't mean that is representative of the country as a whole. Public polling data supports the theory that most Americans find themselves somewhere in the middle of both parties, willing to go with either on most issues depending on how the issue is framed.
This idea that Carson has been this huge gaffe machine fails to see the realities of public opinion. It's only a gaffe if most Americans don't agree with it. Further, it is somewhat confusing that the party which was only just attempting to draft Joe Biden is going to think some gaffes are going to prevent a likable candidate from being competitive.
At the end of the day, it is silly to think that Democrats have a sure win coming up in 2015. That is an idea unsupported by both historical trends and the polling data.
Carson isn't saying conservative things though. There is nothing conservative about believing Muslims shouldn't be president (and doubling down on it), or that we should space out vaccines, or that Obamacare is analogous to slavery because it makes us subservient to the government (not that it does), or that ISIS will result in anarchy that will prevent the 2016 elections from happening, or that homosexuality is a choice because people go into prison straight and come out gay. Those are just dumb things to say, not conservative things to say. They are just misrepresentations of reality, not conservative talking points. And they change from gaffes into stupidity when they are then doubled down on by the candidate rather than correcting his mistake. Like not knowing what Muhammed himself said about sharia law, for example. Conservativism can win elections. Stupidity can't. Or shouldn't, at any rate. I understand where you're coming from, but you have to take these things in context. Carson didn't say Muslims shouldn't be President, but even if he did, the American public seemed in pretty close agreement with him about it. Polls of the issue around the time showed that most Americans did agree with his actual statement. Whether or not this is "stupid" is irrelevant in the context of who wins the argument. Spacing out vaccines was throwing a bone to Trump, who had just put his foot in his mouth over the issue while standing next to a doctor. The media offered Trump to Carson on a golden plate and he refused it, and came out looking better for it, regardless of whether what he said was currently backed up by any medical science or not. If we're being honest than we all know that the actual science of vaccines wasn't really the issue in that debate, it was whether not knowing the actual science was going to hurt Trump or not. It did, but in a more subtle, long-term way. Anyway, the point is that most Americans don't understand vaccinations, and they don't really care about the details all that much. That's the problem with a lot of these supposed gaffes that the media fall over themselves trying to elicit, and dance around gleefully whenever they succeed. Most of them aren't really all that effective as attack ads. And you're right when you say it's not conservatism that's being communicated in those specific moments. It's usually something else, some other idea that the candidates, being real people with real quirks, happen to let through the filter. Sometimes it hurts them, but most times it doesn't. Romney's 47% comment was effective because it actually displayed a core philosophical belief that Romney held, and it happened to be the main criticism of him: he was a disconnected rich guy who lacked empathy. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you or I think is stupid. It matters if everyone else thinks it's stupid, and if they thought Ben Carson was stupid than that should be showing up in the polling data. Also, good luck convincing anyone that a neurosurgeon is stupid. Once again though, don't come at me with all the reasons why a brain surgeon can be stupid in other areas, I already know that. I'm not who you have to convince. You have to convince Average Joe voter. edit: On October 26 2015 11:10 frazzle wrote:
2. Campaign on his record. Instead he had to campaign against his own record and people could see he came off as a hypocrite.
3. Take slightly more centrist positions.
. This is more what I was talking about with my "conservatism isn't unpopular" rant. The idea that the Republicans have to run to the center to win, but Democrats could probably win with Bernie Sanders, who is openly to the left and openly avoiding running to the center. That belief betrays another, more primary belief, namely that the opinion of the country is center-left. That right wing politics are firmly on the fringe and can't win elections. The real right wing, not the Romney/McCain/George Bush 1 and 2 kind of "right wing" that support big Republican government as opposed to big Democrat government. I think it's true that conservatism is a minority belief, but so is liberalism. Imo the country IS more center. That is why a lot of people are still skeptical of Sanders and really his ideas just so happen to hit a lot of chords with the younger audience so a lot of his supporters don't give a shit about how far left he is because his ideology sounds like honey after some of the hardships they have faced and the disillusionment with what they were told would work. I would suspect a good chunk of his support comes from 18 to mid 30ish and those so happen to be the more active on social media who that is where the internet hype comes form. The GOP on the other hand seems to pander mostly to the furthest parts of the right and I don't think its a winning strategy. It is why I think Clinton would walk over any GOP candidate because she can easily go more center and seem more reasonable then the GOP candidates who appear to the public to not willing to move any more center. They would have a good shot vs Sanders IF the younger demographic stays home but hey Sanders seems to be more or less rallying them so he could pose a threat as well.
So you're saying Sanders is kind of like the Left-ist version of Ron Paul, but perhaps just a little more mainstream to boot.
|
I think it's more that we've just seen so many center left center right and far right candidates in the public that an actual liberal is pretty fresh and new smelling.
|
On October 26 2015 22:39 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what electoral math you are looking at. But Romney never really had a chance. Even if Florida was a safe bet for him like most on his team assumed the demographics in the east coast battleground states were outdated in respect to the polls given to them. Not to mention he never had a chance in the turnout war to get evangelical Christians to get excited about a Mormon.
We're admittedly talking hypotheticals. 1. No 47% gaffe. 2. Cutting to the center, most likely on taxes/entitlements.
In the actual race it turned out Pennsylvania was never in play at the end and neither, really, was Ohio. But if Romney goes into the debate with a lead (no 47% gaffe) and then sticks to his more populist positions he adopted in the debate he could have had momentum and a poll lead.
A few percentage points change is all that was needed to put Ohio, and with a populist shift even Pennsylvania in play. That would have been enough.
In terms of explaining the actual win by Obama, what you point out is certainly correct. And the Republicans went full Poll Truther which made them less likely to course correct and killed any chance they might have had to win after the debates.
My point is that Romney COULD have won given a few changes. He wasn't dead in the water from the start. Even as late as October, with Benghazi in the headlines, he had pulled within a point in the polls. It wasn't a sustained high polling mark though, so it doesn't make a huge dent in, say, 538's predictions at that point, but it could have been sustained if Romney hadn't walked into a trap in debate #2 over the Benghazi stuff. I mean, even without changing his positions and not making the 47% gaffe he still had a window of opportunity there.
|
Eh, I think at his most competitive Romney would still have been weaker than Kerry. Interestingly, Kerry was likely even richer than Romney though he probably counts as old money rather than new money. IMO Kerry would/could have won if he hadn't been swiftboated; I think that dirty little trick was the Republicans' last trump card. Romney is a decent candidate. Just one that came a decade too late. Instead of a winner, he was a sacrificial lamb.
A couple percent in Ohio would have given Kerry the presidency. farva makes a great comment about Ohio below actually: Republicans turnout is solid and predictably year to year, while Democratic turnout is a little more momentum driven. If the Kerry candidacy had generated a little more turnout, Ohio could have been his. Then again, if that had happened we might not have gotten Barack Obama and while Kerry is a fine Secretary of State I can't say how his presidency would have looked like. There's a lot of hypotheticals that come out of a one-term Bush administration.
Things change, but I don't see Republicans winning another presidential election unless the party undergoes a paradigm shift (a productive one, not another Tea Party swing). Demographics are a bitch when you're on the wrong side.
Feels like we're going through a very quiet revolution though. Big money had it's time in politics, but the backlash is coming. People are frustrated at the disproportionate representation that money brings and they're beginning to speak and move against it.
|
On October 26 2015 16:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Marco Rubio is a U.S. senator. And he just can’t stand it anymore.
“I don’t know that ‘hate’ is the right word,” Rubio said in an interview. “I’m frustrated.”
This year, as Rubio runs for president, he has cast the Senate — the very place that cemented him as a national politician — as a place he’s given up on, after less than one term. It’s too slow. Too rule-bound. So Rubio, 44, has decided not to run for his seat again. It’s the White House or bust.
“That’s why I’m missing votes. Because I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection,” Rubio said in the last Republican debate, after Donald Trump had mocked him for his unusual number of absences during Senate votes.
Five years ago, Rubio arrived with a potential that thrilled Republicans. He was young, ambitious, charismatic, fluent in English and Spanish, and beloved by the establishment and the tea party.
But Rubio had arrived at one of the least ambitious moments in Senate history and saw many of his ideas fizzle. Democrats killed his debt-cutting plans. Republicans killed his immigration reform. The two parties actually came together to kill his AGREE Act, a small-bore, hands-across-the-aisle bill that Rubio had designed just to get a win on something.
Now, he’s done. “He hates it,” a longtime friend from Florida said, speaking anonymously to say what Rubio would not.
Which makes for an odd campaign message.
Rubio must convince voters that his decision to leave the Senate — giving up the power he already has — is actually a mark of character, a sign that he is too dedicated to public service to stay. SourceMy guess is losing to Trump and Carson in the Florida polls doesn't help lol.
Hates the senate, wants to be the president. Let me try this logic with my boss when I want a promotion.
|
On October 26 2015 23:34 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 22:39 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what electoral math you are looking at. But Romney never really had a chance. Even if Florida was a safe bet for him like most on his team assumed the demographics in the east coast battleground states were outdated in respect to the polls given to them. Not to mention he never had a chance in the turnout war to get evangelical Christians to get excited about a Mormon. We're admittedly talking hypotheticals. 1. No 47% gaffe. 2. Cutting to the center, most likely on taxes/entitlements. In the actual race it turned out Pennsylvania was never in play at the end and neither, really, was Ohio. But if Romney goes into the debate with a lead (no 47% gaffe) and then sticks to his more populist positions he adopted in the debate he could have had momentum and a poll lead. A few percentage points change is all that was needed to put Ohio, and with a populist shift even Pennsylvania in play. That would have been enough. In terms of explaining the actual win by Obama, what you point out is certainly correct. And the Republicans went full Poll Truther which made them less likely to course correct and killed any chance they might have had to win after the debates. My point is that Romney COULD have won given a few changes. He wasn't dead in the water from the start. Even as late as October, with Benghazi in the headlines, he had pulled within a point in the polls. It wasn't a sustained high polling mark though, so it doesn't make a huge dent in, say, 538's predictions at that point, but it could have been sustained if Romney hadn't walked into a trap in debate #2 over the Benghazi stuff. I mean, even without changing his positions and not making the 47% gaffe he still had a window of opportunity there.
"a few percentage points" can sometimes be a crack and sometimes a canyon. In a state like Ohio (granted I'm relying on generalization here), the mainstay Republican voting block, namely 28-50 white men and women from non-urban areas, is already going to be voting at a relatively high rate of participation, particularly in relation to other voting demographics. Democrats tend to rely on demographics with much lower rates of participation, namely minorities and the young, so questions of energy and momentum tend to be more important to them. In other words, when a party relies on a demographic that has relatively little capacity to swing into a substantially higher rate of participation, "a few percentage points" looks far more like a canyon than a crevice.
It is along those lines that I'd argue that states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, while "close" on paper, were actually much farther out of Romney's grasp than one might think.
|
Completely random idea: when we fix the income tax system, let's give more votes to those in a higher tax bracket. I don't think it'll have a massive impact on elections, but it's a tiny consolation to those who have to contribute more of their income. I think it's kind of fair in the sense that they have a slightly louder voice in policy since they're also contributing more funding (and yeah, they benefit from the system they pay for too). On the flip side, knowing that the rich people get more votes might drive middle and lower class people to the polls more as well. I hope that wouldn't create some sort of class warfare though.
I don't mean like a guy who pays 100K+ in tax gets a 200 vote-equivalents, maybe like 2 or 3. Just a random thought.
|
On October 26 2015 23:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 23:34 frazzle wrote:On October 26 2015 22:39 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what electoral math you are looking at. But Romney never really had a chance. Even if Florida was a safe bet for him like most on his team assumed the demographics in the east coast battleground states were outdated in respect to the polls given to them. Not to mention he never had a chance in the turnout war to get evangelical Christians to get excited about a Mormon. We're admittedly talking hypotheticals. 1. No 47% gaffe. 2. Cutting to the center, most likely on taxes/entitlements. In the actual race it turned out Pennsylvania was never in play at the end and neither, really, was Ohio. But if Romney goes into the debate with a lead (no 47% gaffe) and then sticks to his more populist positions he adopted in the debate he could have had momentum and a poll lead. A few percentage points change is all that was needed to put Ohio, and with a populist shift even Pennsylvania in play. That would have been enough. In terms of explaining the actual win by Obama, what you point out is certainly correct. And the Republicans went full Poll Truther which made them less likely to course correct and killed any chance they might have had to win after the debates. My point is that Romney COULD have won given a few changes. He wasn't dead in the water from the start. Even as late as October, with Benghazi in the headlines, he had pulled within a point in the polls. It wasn't a sustained high polling mark though, so it doesn't make a huge dent in, say, 538's predictions at that point, but it could have been sustained if Romney hadn't walked into a trap in debate #2 over the Benghazi stuff. I mean, even without changing his positions and not making the 47% gaffe he still had a window of opportunity there. "a few percentage points" can sometimes be a crack and sometimes a canyon. In a state like Ohio (granted I'm relying on generalization here), the mainstay Republican voting block, namely 28-50 white men and women from non-urban areas, is already going to be voting at a relatively high rate of participation, particularly in relation to other voting demographics. Democrats tend to rely on demographics with much lower rates of participation, namely minorities and the young, so questions of energy and momentum tend to be more important to them. In other words, when a party relies on a demographic that has relatively little capacity to swing into a substantially higher rate of participation, "a few percentage points" looks far more like a canyon than a crevice. It is along those lines that I'd argue that states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, while "close" on paper, were actually much farther out of Romney's grasp than one might think.
I agree with most of what you say, but take issue with the white Republican turnout being maxed. Turnout in 2012 was down compared to 2008 and 2004. There was room for play with the Republican turnout in Ohio and Pennsylvania in 2012. Maybe Appalachia simply wouldn't vote Mormon no matter how populist Romney got, maybe he was maxed. I'm not aware of any data out there that can solidify that claim though, only speculation, which is of course what I am doing.
|
While I think it would have been very difficult for Romney to win in 2012 (requiring multiple hypotheticals including actually analyzing polls) the idea that any of the other Republicans could have dethroned Obama-or that he lost because he "wasn't conservative enough"-is just bizarre.
I mean, the number of hypotheticals you have to make for a Santorum/Gingrich/Paul victory is much, much higher than the number of things you have to change for Romney to win. "Energizing the base" is an amazing strategy in midterm and gerrymandered Congressional elections (on both sides) but I don't really think it could overcome the Obama machine, especially since Santorum would have energized the opponent's base as much as his own.
And Gingrich...well, that man is about as far as you can get from energizing.
It doesn't help that none of them would have had nearly the war chest Romney had for one of the biggest spending elections in history.
|
On October 27 2015 00:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
Completely random idea: when we fix the income tax system, let's give more votes to those in a higher tax bracket. I don't think it'll have a massive impact on elections, but it's a tiny consolation to those who have to contribute more of their income. I think it's kind of fair in the sense that they have a slightly louder voice in policy since they're also contributing more funding (and yeah, they benefit from the system they pay for too). On the flip side, knowing that the rich people get more votes might drive middle and lower class people to the polls more as well. I hope that wouldn't create some sort of class warfare though.
I don't mean like a guy who pays 100K+ in tax gets a 200 vote-equivalents, maybe like 2 or 3. Just a random thought.
There is that whole Constitution thing that gets in the way. We don't even need to get into the classism issues with that system.
|
On October 27 2015 00:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I think it would have been very difficult for Romney to win in 2012 (requiring multiple hypotheticals including actually analyzing polls) the idea that any of the other Republicans could have dethroned Obama-or that he lost because he "wasn't conservative enough"-is just bizarre.
I mean, the number of hypotheticals you have to make for a Santorum/Gingrich/Paul victory is much, much higher than the number of things you have to change for Romney to win. "Energizing the base" is an amazing strategy in midterm and gerrymandered Congressional elections (on both sides) but I don't really think it could overcome the Obama machine, especially since Santorum would have energized the opponent's base as much as his own.
And Gingrich...well, that man is about as far as you can get from energizing.
It doesn't help that none of them would have had nearly the war chest Romney had for one of the biggest spending elections in history.
I don't disagree, because Romney is and was a super competent person, political figure, and campaigner. The problem I have continued to point out with him is that he (or his advisors) and the Republican Establishment thought that was enough. Not only that, but they seemingly always think that it is enough, and slap themselves on the back when they win nearly unlosable elections with this strategy, such as Mitch McConnell.
And those who say Romney could have tacked center, I think he did, and tried to be as unobjectionable as possible to the most Americans. Maybe going more populist would have worked, but only if he did it in a different manner than what he did. Obama was very good at this, his campaign really villified Romney in an effective manner, which actually shot down Romney's intended narrative that Obama was incompetent.
|
On October 27 2015 00:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
Completely random idea: when we fix the income tax system, let's give more votes to those in a higher tax bracket. I don't think it'll have a massive impact on elections, but it's a tiny consolation to those who have to contribute more of their income. I think it's kind of fair in the sense that they have a slightly louder voice in policy since they're also contributing more funding (and yeah, they benefit from the system they pay for too). On the flip side, knowing that the rich people get more votes might drive middle and lower class people to the polls more as well. I hope that wouldn't create some sort of class warfare though.
I don't mean like a guy who pays 100K+ in tax gets a 200 vote-equivalents, maybe like 2 or 3. Just a random thought.
This legitimately might be the worst idea I've ever heard. I don't even know where to begin with this.
|
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) has been able to count on his Facebook page for stalwart support during his long-running battle with the House Republican leadership, including a successful effort to oust House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
“Keep up the great work,” read a comment posted last week. “We the people thank you for ridding us of John Boehner!”
But in recent days, the tone of the comments on Meadows’s page, and those of the other members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, have changed significantly.
“You truly should be ashamed,” one commenter wrote Thursday. “The people in the caucus will be held responsible come election day.”
“You should all be replaced,” a critic told Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.). Another called Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-Idaho), one of the most persistent thorns in Boehner’s side, “a RINO establishment lap dog” and “another go-along to get along phony who will GLADLY step on the throats of the Conservative electorate.”
Things may never be the same for the Freedom Caucus after most of its members moved last week to support Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as the next House speaker. Suddenly, they may not be conservative enough for some in the party.
The groundswell of support from hard-core conservative voters that emboldened the group as it battled Boehner and the GOP establishment seemed to subside for the first time in months. That has put its members in the unfamiliar position of defending their right flank.
SOurce
|
Oh boy, I want to see how far right we can go next election season
Or maybe this "you're not right enough" split will give a more moderate/ establishment candidate a chance?
|
United States42778 Posts
On October 27 2015 00:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
Completely random idea: when we fix the income tax system, let's give more votes to those in a higher tax bracket. I don't think it'll have a massive impact on elections, but it's a tiny consolation to those who have to contribute more of their income. I think it's kind of fair in the sense that they have a slightly louder voice in policy since they're also contributing more funding (and yeah, they benefit from the system they pay for too). On the flip side, knowing that the rich people get more votes might drive middle and lower class people to the polls more as well. I hope that wouldn't create some sort of class warfare though.
I don't mean like a guy who pays 100K+ in tax gets a 200 vote-equivalents, maybe like 2 or 3. Just a random thought.
This is a terrible idea. Anyone that rich already knows that voting is irrelevant, if you want political change you just buy it.
It also ends with the rich burning in their mansions.
|
"This is a terrible idea, it already exists."
Between that and your blogs on personal finance, if I didn't knew better, I'd think you're trying to preach marxism without being caught KwarK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
