DescentBB

French politics may be a indication of what the elections in 2014 may be like. Seems the French are not exactly enamored with the socialist agenda they presently have:

"AFP - France's mainstream political parties were Monday scratching their heads over what to do about a surge by the Front National (FN) after a breakthrough by-election win for the far-right party."

http://www.france24.com/en/20131014-mai ... -far-right

ya want harbingers? Don't look at France. Look at tomorrow's bye-election for Senate in New Jersey, and then wait a few weeks and see what happens in Virginia and New Jersey general elections. If Christie even comes close to losing, the GOP is absolutely done for.

So, your thinking Clinton vs Christy? Whose your VP picks?

flip wrote:So, your thinking Clinton vs Christy? Whose your VP picks?

no way Christie wins the GOP nod, unless the Tea Party faction abandons the GOP altogether. He could never survive the primary process. Hillary, I suspect, is a given(although NOTHING is ever certain in politics). Even more unknowable is a VP pick. That has to be tailored to the times, the electoral map, the issues of the day, etc,etc. I wouldn't dare make a pick.
Christie is fascinating. I like him, despite not agreeing with much of his philosophy or priorities. He is, first of all, someone who does what he says he will do. Second, he understands the concept that, as governor, it is his duty to try and act in the best interest of his citizenry, politics aside. As such, he will get killed by the ideologues in his own party. As I stated, he should, by rights, win re-election by at least a 20% margin. If he doesn't, the GOP, as a party, in the North and Mid-Atlantic, is DONE.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:So, your thinking Clinton vs Christy? Whose your VP picks?

no way Christie wins the GOP nod, unless the Tea Party faction abandons the GOP altogether. He could never survive the primary process. Hillary, I suspect, is a given(although NOTHING is ever certain in politics). Even more unknowable is a VP pick. That has to be tailored to the times, the electoral map, the issues of the day, etc,etc. I wouldn't dare make a pick.
Christie is fascinating. I like him, despite not agreeing with much of his philosophy or priorities. He is, first of all, someone who does what he says he will do. Second, he understands the concept that, as governor, it is his duty to try and act in the best interest of his citizenry, politics aside. As such, he will get killed by the ideologues in his own party. As I stated, he should, by rights, win re-election by at least a 20% margin. If he doesn't, the GOP, as a party, in the North and Mid-Atlantic, is DONE.

If Christie is so outside the GOP standard how does the fate of the GOP rest on his re-election?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:So, your thinking Clinton vs Christy? Whose your VP picks?

no way Christie wins the GOP nod, unless the Tea Party faction abandons the GOP altogether. He could never survive the primary process. Hillary, I suspect, is a given(although NOTHING is ever certain in politics). Even more unknowable is a VP pick. That has to be tailored to the times, the electoral map, the issues of the day, etc,etc. I wouldn't dare make a pick.
Christie is fascinating. I like him, despite not agreeing with much of his philosophy or priorities. He is, first of all, someone who does what he says he will do. Second, he understands the concept that, as governor, it is his duty to try and act in the best interest of his citizenry, politics aside. As such, he will get killed by the ideologues in his own party. As I stated, he should, by rights, win re-election by at least a 20% margin. If he doesn't, the GOP, as a party, in the North and Mid-Atlantic, is DONE.

If Christie is so outside the GOP standard how does the fate of the GOP rest on his re-election?

good question. Because, if a moderate-right GOP candidate, not linked to any extent with the Tea Party and with great personal charisma, does poorly (defined as not hammering the opponent)in New Jersey, it will show the true extent to which the GOP brand has been done in by this recent radical-Teahadist nonsense. Frankly, Virginia in November will be the true test. Those 3 races(Gov, Lt Gov, Atty General) were all considered GOP slam dunks as recently as this past March. Just watch what happens in a few weeks there.

one can see that brand erosion, up this way, regularly. Republicans have NO chance in Delaware anymore, which is a state that sent several great GOP representatives to Washington, and elected many good GOP governors(Pete DuPont, Bill Roth, Mike Castle, etc, etc). Up in PA, a lot of rather conservative, but semi-sensible GOP congressmen are looking to be in real trouble, including two who I have contributed to in the past: Gerlach, who represents his constituents pretty well, and Pitts, who I supported because I despised his opponent, a liberal ideologue. It might be disconcerting to some of you, but I hate left-wing ideologues every bit as much as I do right wing ideologues.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:So, your thinking Clinton vs Christy? Whose your VP picks?

no way Christie wins the GOP nod, unless the Tea Party faction abandons the GOP altogether. He could never survive the primary process. Hillary, I suspect, is a given(although NOTHING is ever certain in politics). Even more unknowable is a VP pick. That has to be tailored to the times, the electoral map, the issues of the day, etc,etc. I wouldn't dare make a pick.
Christie is fascinating. I like him, despite not agreeing with much of his philosophy or priorities. He is, first of all, someone who does what he says he will do. Second, he understands the concept that, as governor, it is his duty to try and act in the best interest of his citizenry, politics aside. As such, he will get killed by the ideologues in his own party. As I stated, he should, by rights, win re-election by at least a 20% margin. If he doesn't, the GOP, as a party, in the North and Mid-Atlantic, is DONE.

If Christie is so outside the GOP standard how does the fate of the GOP rest on his re-election?

good question. Because, if a moderate-right GOP candidate, not linked to any extent with the Tea Party and with great personal charisma, does poorly (defined as not hammering the opponent)in New Jersey, it will show the true extent to which the GOP brand has been done in by this recent radical-Teahadist nonsense. Frankly, Virginia in November will be the true test. Those 3 races(Gov, Lt Gov, Atty General) were all considered GOP slam dunks as recently as this past March. Just watch what happens in a few weeks there.

So, according to you, as goes New Jersey, so goes the nation?!? I've never heard of that before.

New Jersey, one of the 13 original colonies, joined the Union in December 1787 and has participated in all 57 presidential elections. Thanks to the density of its population, New Jersey has more electoral votes per square mile than any state except Rhode Island. Its 14 electoral votes make it a rich prize. New Jersey has gone Democratic in the last six elections, after voting Republican in eight out of the previous 10. Barack Obama won the state over Mitt Romney by a margin of 58% to 41% in 2012.

Doesn't seem like the kind of state one would hold up as a GOP testbed. It seems to be trending away from GOP and Christie isn't the kind of candidate that runs on the GOP platform. How well a candidate in either of the big two parties does is largely dependent on how he brings out his base support.
I'd say New Jersey is a better testbed for independents.

that is sort of what I suggested, Will.....because, if you think about it, independants determine the outcome of virtually ALL major national level races.

callmeslick wrote:

good question. Because, if a moderate-right GOP candidate, not linked to any extent with the Tea Party and with great personal charisma, does poorly (defined as not hammering the opponent)in New Jersey, it will show the true extent to which the GOP brand has been done in by this recent radical-Teahadist nonsense.

So a grass roots political entity is utter nonsense? I wonder if the Federalist lovers felt the same way about the Democratic-Republican party

callmeslick wrote:that is sort of what I suggested, Will.....because, if you think about it, independants determine the outcome of virtually ALL major national level races.

Didn't last time. Romney had the majority of independants. Obama won because he had the young uninformed voting bloc.

woodchip wrote:So a grass roots political entity is utter nonsense?

oh, not at all. A group holding the nation hostage for their unpopular(as measured by the national voters) ideology is UTTER nonsense, and a disgrace.

I wonder if the Federalist lovers felt the same way about the Democratic-Republican party

one can only guess. You Whig, you!

Better than a Tory

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:that is sort of what I suggested, Will.....because, if you think about it, independants determine the outcome of virtually ALL major national level races.

Didn't last time. Romney had the majority of independants. Obama won because he had the young uninformed voting bloc.

actually true, too, in sheer numbers(50-45 as I recall). That is an outlier, though, in my experience, and a measure of the dropping number of self-identifying Republicans, as well.

woodchip wrote:Better than a Tory

ahh, the good old days!

callmeslick wrote:that is sort of what I suggested, Will.....because, if you think about it, independants determine the outcome of virtually ALL major national level races.

But if you don't turn out your base the independents aren't enough. I'm thinking Christie has lost the base, so he will run even further to the left thus making him a bad indicator for the GOP on a national level.

Of course I thought the GOP had Obama's number last time because they would turnout in higher than usual numbers and they didn't.... I guess the redneck peckerwoods don't have enough hate for the black guy after all, huh? I wonder if that label will scratch off...what kind of glue did you guys use?

I just want them both to lose really badly so I give up.

by contrast, Will, if 'the base' in a place here in the Mid-Atlantic becomes too far right-wing, you are in REAL trouble, because you've put yourself too far from the mainstream of the electorate.

callmeslick wrote:by contrast, Will, if 'the base' in a place here in the Mid-Atlantic becomes too far right-wing, you are in REAL trouble, because you've put yourself too far from the mainstream of the electorate.

That is their problem. They are welcome to it.

whose problem, the citizenry(the electorate)?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:that is sort of what I suggested, Will.....because, if you think about it, independants determine the outcome of virtually ALL major national level races.

Didn't last time. Romney had the majority of independants. Obama won because he had the young uninformed voting bloc.

No, he won DESPITE the all the Republican gerrymandering that went on before the election in many important large swing states. Romney couldn't even win with the Republicans rigging the vote in their favor, so somebody voted for Obama in large numbers. Yes, I know both parties are guilty of the practice of gerrymandering, but STILL, Obama won DESPITE the Republicans doing it beforehand. And Romney didn't get my independent vote either, so somebody's polling is wrong.

Obama won only because Romney was a joke, plain and simple.

Isaac wrote:Obama won only because Romney was a joke, plain and simple.

are you a US citizen? If so, you really can't make a 6 month campaign into a cartoon like that, or at least shouldn't. If not, you're winging a guess. Romney hardly ran a great campaign, but neither did Obama this time around. There were hard choices to make, and they fell to Obama, when all was said and done with virtually every subgroup of the population, except for white males.

I'm an Elbonian, from Elbonia. And we are of watchings presidential election likea foots balls.

Isaac wrote:I'm an Elbonian, from Elbonia. And we are of watchings presidential election likea foots balls.

yeah, dude, I read Dilbert, too.....

tunnelcat wrote:..Yes, I know both parties are guilty of the practice of gerrymandering, but STILL, Obama won DESPITE the Republicans doing it beforehand. ...

Or....he won because of the Democrat gerrymandering...
If both sides do it, and it makes a difference, you can't logically discount the effort of your side to do the thing you complain the other side did as well. And since your guy won maybe the Dems are just as skilled at it if not more so.

Truth is they both do it, have done so for a long time and it is an expected factor to consider when counting your chickens.... So it isn't a trick that The Amazing Obama overcame.

callmeslick wrote:.... There were hard choices to make, and they fell to Obama, when all was said and done with virtually every subgroup of the population, except for white males.

What did the white males do to be excluded as a sub group?

I think slick is inferring white males are racist.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:..Yes, I know both parties are guilty of the practice of gerrymandering, but STILL, Obama won DESPITE the Republicans doing it beforehand. ...

Or....he won because of the Democrat gerrymandering...
If both sides do it, and it makes a difference, you can't logically discount the effort of your side to do the thing you complain the other side did as well. And since your guy won maybe the Dems are just as skilled at it if not more so.

Truth is they both do it, have done so for a long time and it is an expected factor to consider when counting your chickens.... So it isn't a trick that The Amazing Obama overcame.

Yes Obama won, and he won despite Republican gerrymandering. And it does appear that Republicans do it far more than Democrats. Probably because fewer and fewer people can tolerate their nutty platform and that's the only way they can win.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/3 ... o-it-myth/

http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/01/ ... gress.html

Republicans won 55% of the House seats, but they got less than half of the votes for members of the House of Representatives. Half a million MORE people voted for Democratic House candidates than Republican House candidates, and yet, Republicans run the House. Magic, but just by winning state governments in many swing states in 2010, then proceeding to redraw the district lines for 2012, they got what they wanted.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18930 ... -the-house

tc please explain how gerrymandering gets a president elected?