(06-20-2017, 10:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So basically you have a guy who doesn't live where he's running to represent, getting pumped full of donations from other states... going against a woman who's getting money pumped in from party groups (if you ever wonder why third party doesn't stand a chance) and outside groups.
Just the biggest battle of money in House campaign history, covered in the finger prints of tons of outsiders.
The worst.
I agree, that doesn't look good. And every side has to do it becuase the other side does it, and so on. Only question is, would a republicanesque/libertarianesque person like yourself ever be in favor of public campaign funding and restriction of additional donor money. Because one thing seems clear, only more state and more (specific) regulations could ever solve that problem.... isn't that true.
So the republicans in GA elected (another) republican to a seat that has been "R" since 1979?
And they voted for the woman running as a political insider...not an "outsider"...who said she had experience that her opponent did not so she could do the job.
Interesting.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Push for an amendment that would overturn Citizens United.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-21-2017, 08:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: So the republicans in GA elected (another) republican to a seat that has been "R" since 1979?
And they voted for the woman running as a political insider...not an "outsider"...who said she had experience that her opponent did not so she could do the job.
Interesting.
Yes in the fourth referendum on Trump they lost again. Maybe they should stop referring to special house elections this way, because it's blowing up in their faces.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-21-2017, 09:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Push for an amendment that would overturn Citizens United.
I'm all for limiting what a candidate can receive, or hell even spend, but if I want to spend my own money on ads or whatever, that's my business.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-21-2017, 09:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes in the fourth referendum on Trump they lost again. Maybe they should stop referring to special house elections this way, because it's blowing up in their faces.
He didn't try to attach her to Trump as much as she tried to attach her to Pelosi. But whatever makes you feel better.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-21-2017, 09:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: He didn't try to attach her to Trump as much as she tried to attach her to Pelosi. But whatever makes you feel better.
Not him. The left media. They get all fired up for these elections, and what probably was going to happen in these districts happens, and they look stupid.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-21-2017, 09:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Not him. The left media. They get all fired up for these elections, and what probably was going to happen in these districts happens, and they look stupid.
And the right wing media made it about the opposite...so did the POTUS. And?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-21-2017, 09:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: And the right wing media made it about the opposite...so did the POTUS. And?
And they won because it was a real safe bet so they get to brag while the left has to explain why what they said two months ago, and two days ago really wasn't true. I just think it's a stupid move to try to tie these elections to Trump when you are most likey going to lose them and have to resort to margin of victory celebrations.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-21-2017, 10:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And they won because it was a real safe bet so they get to brag while the left has to explain why what they said two months ago, and two days ago really wasn't true. I just think it's a stupid move to try to tie these elections to Trump when you are most likey going to lose them and have to resort to margin of victory celebrations.
Again, he didn't try very hard to tie it to Trump. That was the "media". And they do it because he has amazingly low approval ratings. If the democrats can flip a district that would be a YUGE sign that even Republicans realize Trump is moron. However in this case a normally safe "R" seat stayed an "R" seat because they voted for someone with experience. To me that means maybe they base realizes Trump is an outlier...and they need to vote for better candidates.
Not that I agree with her on a lot of topics but really she was going to win no matter what. That's why the outsiders flooded money into him.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-20-2017, 11:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Scott Brown flat out won in insanely Democratic Massachusetts in a similar situation. This is a bad loss for the Dems, especially given the outside funding, and there is no spinning it otherwise. My hope is that they pull their heads out of their asses and start calling out the insane rhetoric on their side right now. We need to pull back towards the middle.
I live in Georgia and while I knew this election was taking place, I didn't hear much about it or didn't pay attention. I don't live in that Congressional district. So I'm curious what insane rhetoric came out of this special election?
(06-21-2017, 09:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm all for limiting what a candidate can receive, or hell even spend, but if I want to spend my own money on ads or whatever, that's my business.
Then there is no point in bitching about the spending on campaigns. Limiting what the campaign itself can do will only push for more to be directed to outside money. Campaign finance reform and the outside spending have to both be addressed or you are just making symbolic gestures.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-20-2017, 11:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Scott Brown flat out won in insanely Democratic Massachusetts in a similar situation. This is a bad loss for the Dems, especially given the outside funding, and there is no spinning it otherwise. My hope is that they pull their heads out of their asses and start calling out the insane rhetoric on their side right now. We need to pull back towards the middle.
Eh. As one of my more poli sci oriented friends put it:
Quote:In political nerd terms, when you lose an R+9 by 5, you go looking for R+4 districts for next year. The Pubs didn't shift 14 percent of the House in 2010 by shifting 14 percent of the votes. They won by shifting 3 or 4 percent in a lot of districts. Someone once said to avoid the person who claims 20 years of experience but really has just one repeated 20 times. So it's sort of like that in reverse. Or as Commander Data once said, "It is a matter of perspective, Doctor. In the strictest sense, I did not win. I busted him up."
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
I didnt really follow up on it. But the words that came out of this ladies mouth was " i dont support a livable wage"
And the guy who won a few weeks back choke slammed a reporter for asking a question the night before the election and goes to Washington with a fresh assault charge.
This isnt attack ads. This is her words and his actions.
(06-21-2017, 08:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: I agree, that doesn't look good. And every side has to do it becuase the other side does it, and so on. Only question is, would a republicanesque/libertarianesque person like yourself ever be in favor of public campaign funding and restriction of additional donor money. Because one thing seems clear, only more state and more (specific) regulations could ever solve that problem.... isn't that true.
Yeah, I am not an anarchist or anything. I do understand there is room for necessary rules and regulations, I just don't want them involved in things they shouldn't be involved in. Campaign finance reform is something they should be in.
I would probably want it so no money from outside a state can effect a state-level election, and same on the county level. Maybe look at something to limit Super PACs as well. Then I would create standardized non-partisan polling method and allow anyone who polls say... 5% to join the debates, while giving each of them equal allotments of funds to operate their campaign off of.
Not sure if any of that would work, but even if it did, the problem is that realistically the majority of people get elected because they spent a lot of money to get elected. So it would be hard to get enough people elected who are not enriched by the campaign process, in order to pass any kind of meaningful reform.
Then next would be the whole lobbyist problem. AKA Legal Politician Bribes (exhibit B)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
