US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6849

On February 12 2017 11:11 Sermokala wrote:
Bush was special. He was viewed as the product of post cold war neo con that was as deeply as unpopular in his party as outside of it. Everything that could go wrong with a legacy, war, economy, prestige, ideology, we're are at incredible lows. The base had no idea what to do with itself and had no way to oppose anything in the nation with the supermajority in the senate.

Obama was a young lion orator for the ages. His speech at the 2004 convention could bring a diehard republican to his feet. His campaign was a model of next generation technology and traditional campaign strategies. His coalition beyond his race promised demographic domination with trends that could only strengthen it.

All this was thrown away in year when they lost an election to a guy who's main selling point was that he drove a truck.

On February 12 2017 10:47 Sermokala wrote:
Causation isn't colataltion. History isn't fate. Bush into obama should have created a generation that would never know a lost presidential campaign that rove dreamed of.

But then the dream died and dems forgot how to win anything at all.

On February 12 2017 11:15 Aquanim wrote:

I'm not sure why you're saying Obama being so great as an orator says anything at all about the Democrats' chances of winning after Obama's two allotted terms.

The right wing of America was super mad about Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, border protection, etc.

EDIT: Furthermore, every 4-12 years (to be a bit generous) the unemployed low-educated people of America are going to be mad at whoever's in power for not fixing their problems, and vote for whoever's not in power. (And yes, that's a broad overgeneralisation, but you see the direction I'm arguing in.)

On February 12 2017 11:27 Sermokala wrote:

Beacuse it's the stupid inspiring things that matter in democracy. Justin troudou rockyed his way to the Canadian pmship.

On February 12 2017 11:27 zlefin wrote:

i want to respond to this, but i'm unsure what the final sentence of the first paragraph is supposed to mean. i'm also not sure how rove (you mean karl rove, right?) is involved in it.

i'm assuming you meant correlation for the 3rd word.

On February 12 2017 11:29 Aquanim wrote:

Sure - but that says nearly nothing about what's going to happen in Canadian politics after Trudeau retires, so this isn't relevant to anything I said.

On February 12 2017 11:36 Sermokala wrote:

You miss the point completely. A guy making a great speech or being a national military hero or organizing a public political visibility that the nation rallies behind is and has always been a route to power be it a speech at the convention or challenging a political rival to a charity boxing match and taking it seriously.

On February 12 2017 11:33 Sermokala wrote:

Yeah sorry auto correct weirded out.

Karl rove declared after Bush's first election that there would now be a generation of Conservativeatism that would know only presidential victory. To be fair to the guy the bush machine was the McLaren f1 of campaign orgs.

On February 12 2017 11:48 zlefin wrote:

well, karl rove declared sillilly, and in contradiction to the wide amount of historical data that exists.
or he was just being rhetorical.

On February 12 2017 12:12 LegalLord wrote:
A short while ago, we predicted that the Republicans were in for a dark period of troubled times.

Then Hillary Clinton came on the scene and reversed the trend with her horrendous candidacy.

On February 12 2017 12:19 Aquanim wrote:

That's my point though - I don't think that's a fair characterisation. Pretty much every prediction I've seen in modern politics that a party was in for "a dark period of troubled times" has turned out to be complete hogwash inside five years, and generally far less. No matter who they put up I am pretty sure the Democrats were almost certain to lose in either 2016 or at the outside 2020 - the pendulum always swings.

On February 12 2017 12:26 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
so apparently the Republican response to angry town halls is to blame George Soros and claim that everyone there is being paid and bussed in from out of state.

On February 12 2017 12:44 Simberto wrote:


George Soros is basically a one-person illuminati. He does all the things, and is fundamentally at fault for everything.

On February 12 2017 12:59 Introvert wrote:


Like the Koch brothers!

But Democrats have a rich history of busing people around from out of town, so it wouldn't be a surprise that a good number aren't exactly protesting in their own districts.

On February 12 2017 11:40 Aquanim wrote:

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to anything I said at all.

On February 12 2017 13:11 Liquid`Jinro wrote:

With how gerrymandering works, are buses really necessary to get between districts?

(Not entirely clear on how town halls work so potentially this joke makes no sense, pre-emptive apologies)

On February 12 2017 13:38 Sermokala wrote:

I'm not sure how it's somehow not to you. It's about how the situation was. Obama being an good speech means he's useful far after he's put to pasture. In america presidents who are popular get drawn out every cycle to support the canidate. A sucsessful obama can take a vacation in Florida reliving his glory on the campaigns dime. Dems secure Florida like cali and new York and end the republican national ambitions for a generation.