Not only can you not observe life, you cannot even Google.
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.
Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd?(Image removed from quote.)
Dax is also nowhere to be seen. Gave me shit for months due to my prediction that Hagan would lose in NC. And lo and behold it looks like she's going to lose.
President Walker and Vice President Martinez both have won their states it seems.
Quote from: Ripclawe on November 04, 2014, 10:23:11 PMQuote from: I'm a Puppy! on November 04, 2014, 10:21:12 PMIt's not a question of whether Hillary will win, but rather by how much.Warren going to do a run in. bank on itNot happening.
Quote from: I'm a Puppy! on November 04, 2014, 10:21:12 PMIt's not a question of whether Hillary will win, but rather by how much.Warren going to do a run in. bank on it
It's not a question of whether Hillary will win, but rather by how much.
What's the over/under for filibusters in the next two years?
Christ AIA is the worst poster on this board
Voting suppression was also in full effect. That Al Jazeera article will open everyone's eyes.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=137406019&postcount=3034
Midterm voters are so much different than regular general voters
Quote from: BrandNew on November 04, 2014, 11:35:45 PMMidterm voters are so much different than regular general votersYou have more excuses than Obama has. And that's saying something.
Quote from: Am_I_Anonymous on November 04, 2014, 11:37:12 PMQuote from: BrandNew on November 04, 2014, 11:35:45 PMMidterm voters are so much different than regular general votersYou have more excuses than Obama has. And that's saying something.He's not wrong though. I think he was just making an observation.
Quote from: Queen of Ice on November 04, 2014, 11:38:59 PMQuote from: Am_I_Anonymous on November 04, 2014, 11:37:12 PMQuote from: BrandNew on November 04, 2014, 11:35:45 PMMidterm voters are so much different than regular general votersYou have more excuses than Obama has. And that's saying something.He's not wrong though. I think he was just making an observation.It's cyclical. This one is significant harsher than most though. Dems have a lot of work to do.
Quote from: Am_I_Anonymous on November 04, 2014, 11:40:38 PMQuote from: Queen of Ice on November 04, 2014, 11:38:59 PMQuote from: Am_I_Anonymous on November 04, 2014, 11:37:12 PMQuote from: BrandNew on November 04, 2014, 11:35:45 PMMidterm voters are so much different than regular general votersYou have more excuses than Obama has. And that's saying something.He's not wrong though. I think he was just making an observation.It's cyclical. This one is significant harsher than most though. Dems have a lot of work to do.No they don't, when the electoral college continues to tilt their way. You keep saying the same thing and not backing it up.More bad news for republicans: the next Census will be held during a general election year.
Quote from: Phoenix Dark on November 04, 2014, 11:43:47 PMQuote from: Am_I_Anonymous on November 04, 2014, 11:40:38 PMQuote from: Queen of Ice on November 04, 2014, 11:38:59 PMQuote from: Am_I_Anonymous on November 04, 2014, 11:37:12 PMQuote from: BrandNew on November 04, 2014, 11:35:45 PMMidterm voters are so much different than regular general votersYou have more excuses than Obama has. And that's saying something.He's not wrong though. I think he was just making an observation.It's cyclical. This one is significant harsher than most though. Dems have a lot of work to do.No they don't, when the electoral college continues to tilt their way. You keep saying the same thing and not backing it up.More bad news for republicans: the next Census will be held during a general election year.You lost Colorado and Iowa dude...what do you mean "back it up?"
Davis down 21%, a loss so staggering she's probably done for good.Simply having a wonderful Christmas time.
2006 and 2012, I voted, Democrats won big.2010 and 2014, I didn't vote, Republicans won big.Yet, the data is incomplete. 2008, I didn't vote and Democrats won big. 2004, I voted and Republicans won big.More research funding is needed.
Sam Brownback won re-electioncomplete wipe out.
After years of tension between President Obama and his former Senate colleagues, trust between Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue had eroded. A fight between the White House and Senate Democrats over a relatively small sum of money had mushroomed into a major confrontation.At a March 4 Oval Office meeting, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and other Senate leaders pleaded with Obama to transfer millions in party funds and to also help raise money for an outside group. “We were never going to get on the same page,” said David Krone, Reid’s chief of staff. “We were beating our heads against the wall.”The tension represented something more fundamental than money — it was indicative of a wider resentment among Democrats in the Capitol of how the president was approaching the election and how, they felt, he was dragging them down. All year on the trail, Democratic incumbents would be pounded for administration blunders beyond their control — the disastrous rollout of the health-care law, problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs, immigrant children crossing the border, Islamic State terrorism and fears about Ebola.As these issues festered, many Senate Democrats would put the onus squarely on the president — and they were keeping their distance from him....Senate Democrats calculated that to win in red states, they also had to alter the midterm electorate.“There’s basically two Americas — there’s midterm America and there’s presidential-year America,” White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said. “They’re almost apples and oranges. The question was, could Obama voters become Democratic voters?”Another question hung over the party, as well: Could the White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill work together?...Obama told his team that his No. 1 political goal was to keep the Senate under Democratic control. “He was very focused on that,” said a senior White House official. “We made a decision to be pretty deferential to the candidates and the campaign committee about how to go about doing that.”But what the White House saw as deference and support, Senate Democrats viewed as “lip service,” in the words of Krone.This past Sunday, two days before Election Day, Krone sat at a mahogany conference table in the majority leader’s stately suite just off the Senate floor and shared with Washington Post reporters his notes of White House meetings. Reid’s top aide wanted to show just how difficult he thought it had been to work with the White House.With Democrats under assault from Republican super-PAC ads, Reid and his lieutenants, Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), went to the Oval Office on March 4 to ask Obama for help. They wanted him to transfer millions of dollars from the Democratic National Committee to the DSCC, a relatively routine transaction.Beyond that, they had a more provocative request — they wanted Obama to help raise money for the Senate Majority PAC, an outside group run by former Reid advisers.Despite his deep aversion to super PACs, Obama in early 2012 reluctantly sanctioned Priorities USA, a super PAC set up to back his reelection, and allowed White House and campaign officials to appear at the group’s fundraisers. But Reid and Senate Democrats thought the president was not giving the same level of support for Senate Majority PAC.Lawyers negotiated for months over legal minutia, with Obama’s counselors insisting that the president appear only as a guest and do no donor solicitation, which would have violated federal law. After Obama appeared at two Senate Majority PAC events — June 17 in New York and July 22 in Seattle — the president’s lawyers demanded that no staffer follow up with the donors for at least seven days.These contingencies were so strict, Krone argued, that it would be fruitless to involve the president at all. “They were setting the rules as they saw fit,” he said. “For some reason, they hid behind a lot of legal issues.”The White House maintains that it was prudent in protecting the presidency and avoid any appearances of a quid pro quo. The senior White House official voiced displeasure with Senate Majority PAC’s methods: “They were calling Obama donors who we had long relationships with and making asks that annoyed the donors.”The disagreements underscored a long-held contention on Capitol Hill that Obama’s political operation functioned purely for the president’s benefit and not for his party’s, although Obama allies note that the president shared with the Senate campaigns his massive lists of volunteer data and supporters’ e-mail addresses, considered by his advisers to be sacred documents.All year, Obama traveled frequently to raise money for the party. On June 17, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough offered to increase Obama’s appearances at DSCC fundraisers and to give donors access to the president through a “Dinner with Barack” contest and high-dollar roundtable discussions.But Krone said McDonough told him there would be no cash transfer to the DSCC, because the DNC still had to retire its 2012 debt. On Sept. 9, Reid pressured Obama to take out a loan at the DNC to fund a DSCC transfer, Krone said. The DNC did open a line of credit and sent the DSCC a total of $5 million, beginning with $500,000 on Sept. 15 and following with $1.5 million installments on Sept. 30, Oct. 15 and Oct. 24.“I don’t think that the political team at the White House truly was up to speed and up to par doing what needed to get done,” Krone said.The feeling about Krone in the West Wing was mutual. Although married to Alyssa Mastromonaco, one of Obama’s closest aides until she left in March, Krone was seen as an antagonist. He acknowledged that was his prescribed part: “Guy [Cecil] could be a good cop, and I was the bad cop.”The senior White House official said, “David was complicating things significantly in our ability to work with the Senate.” The official said a “fundamental game changer” that “broke trust” came in August, when a story in the New York Times included unflattering details about the president from an Oval Office meeting. White House officials, famous for their loathing of leaks, believed Krone was behind the story.Krone said that the White House “likes to cast aspersions and point fingers at us.”“No member of the Democratic caucus screwed up the rollout of that health-care Web site,” Krone added, “yet they paid the price — every one of them.”Exasperating matters was Obama’s Oct. 2 speech in Chicago, in which he handed every Republican admaker fresh material that fit perfectly with their message: “I am not on the ballot this fall. . . . But make no mistake — these policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.”“It took about 12 seconds for every reporter, every race, half of the Obama world to say that was probably not the right thing to say,” said a senior Democratic official.It was so problematic that many Democrats wondered whether Obama meant to say it. He did. “It is amazing that it was in the speech,” the official said. “It wasn’t ad-libbed.”It was just the kind of unforced error that Republican leaders had worked all year to avoid....Meanwhile, the Braley campaign had problems. With each of his missteps — a gaffe about towel service at the House gym, hostile questioning of witnesses in committee hearings and a local fracas over a neighbor’s roaming chickens — Braley caused heartburn in Washington.When the chicken incident became public, Reid called and said, “Bruce, look, you just have to be smarter than this — or you’re going to lose,” according to Krone. Schumer, the party’s message maven, called Braley repeatedly to help him become more disciplined.“Braley listens for a minute and then sort of just continues back on his merry way,” said a senior Democratic official. “He’s not a good politician, which may seem like a compliment but it’s not. . . . He comes across as arrogant, and I think it’s because he is.”...Next, Democrats turned to Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s youthful secretary of state. Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, longtime friends of Grimes’s father, Jerry Lundergan, called Grimes repeatedly, encouraging her. After some initial trepidation, she was in.Although Grimes exhibited strength as a candidate, Democrats in Washington thought her campaign was troublesome. Lundergan, a former state Democratic Party chairman and owner of a catering empire, ran the operation. Grimes prioritized staffers with local knowledge and rejected the national party’s recommendations on hires and advice about messaging.Asked last week about the tensions, Lundergan said: “I’m not going to say anything about folks in Washington, D.C. That’s what we’re running against — Washington, D.C.”Democrats who had been otherwise impressed with Grimes’s performance were agog at her refusal to say whether she voted for Obama in 2012. As a senior White House official said jokingly, “It would be interesting to have been an Obama delegate to the [2012] convention yet [to have] voted for Romney, but anything’s possible.”In October, Cecil, who had last spoken with Grimes during a spring fundraising tour with female senators, decided the DSCC would stop running TV ads in Kentucky. The news did not sit well with Grimes, who called Reid and a number of female senators to protest. The following week, the DSCC went back on the air.
Well gang, I'm checking out of politics for a while. I'll pop in every now and then but goddamn was tonight demoralizing.
