Election 2016

The 2014 Midterm Was an Anti-Obama Election. That's Bad News for Hillary Clinton.



It's hard to avoid the conclusion that last night's midterm election was a referendum on President Obama. Republicans in nearly every close race made opposition to President Obama issue number one. Exit poll and pre-election surveys make it clear that voters were dissatisfied with the economy and the president's job performance, and they cast their votes in protest of the president. 

President Obama wasn't on the ballot, of course, but as he himself insisted last month, his policies were. Many of the incumbent Democrats up for a vote had voted heavily in support of the president's agenda. Democrats struggled mightily to distance themselves from Obama, but they could not escape his gravity. Governor's race losses in blue states like Maryland and Massachusetts, while less explicitly about Obama, further suggest the depth of the dissatisfaction with the Democratic message. 

To put it another way: Voters didn't like Obama—and they took it out on his fellow Democrats.

That has to be worrying for Hillary Clinton. Because unless there's a dramatic change in voter sentiments about the president, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee is likely to face similar headwinds.

Clinton has not yet announced that she is running for the Democratic nomination, but she is widely expected to run, and if and when she does, she will be the immediate frontrunner. But unless the political ground shifts in a way that makes the presidential race quite favorable to Democrats, Clinton, who served as Obama's secretary of state, will face the same Obama-related challenges that many Democrats faced this round.

Her history with the president and the Democratic party means she won't be able to run far away from the president in a way that is plausible. And yet she also won't be able to run aggressively on his achievements and legacy either.

Knowing Clinton, she'll likely attempt a tailored version of the strategy that Democrats in close races adopted this time around—positioning herself as separate from the president but not actively opposed to him. She'll highlight the parts of policies that are widely liked, but acknowledge that many need to be fixed, tweaked, or updated—while providing as few specifics as possible about what those specifics should be. Indeed, to some extent, this is already the approach that Clinton has taken, vaguely moving away from Obama in ways designed to cause as little real friction as possible. She'll be neither with Obama nor against him, emphasizing distance but not disagreement.

That awkward, fence-straddling approach led to some slightly ridiculous moments, and ultimately failed to work for Democrats in this year's midterm. It's not likely to work for Clinton (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 either.

Yes, President Obama's approval could change, but that would probably require the White House to change first. Don't expect that to happen. Despite the GOP tide, the administration has already dropped hints that it won't be making major adjustments to its approach.

In two years, of course, President Obama's second term will be ending, and Democrats already seem to be consoling themselves that he won't be a drag on the next election. His time will be over, and voters won't punish Democrats for his presidency. Tell that to John McCain. A two-term president can still hurt a party even on the way out, as Bush did in 2008. And if last night's anti-Obama Republican wave is any indication, the current president could hurt Democrats in the next election too.

NEXT: Reactions to Marijuana Votes: 'Prohibition Is on Its Way Out'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Related: Jezebel screams "Uncle Tom" until they go hoarse.

    A little poison from the comments:

    Today 11:41am
    They will go out of their way to shit on their fellow black people. There is nothing worse than a black person that denies racism and think that other black people "play the victim." They will bend over backwards to prove they are "not those kind of blacks." Oh and in my own experience, immigrant black people are some of the fucking worst when it comes shitting on African-Americans.

    1. "They will bend over backwards to prove they are "not those kind of blacks." Oh and in my own experience, immigrant black people are some of the fucking worst when it comes shitting on African-Americans."

      In my neighborhood, immigrant black people start businesses, get married, have kids and value education. Great neighbors. On the other hand, a good many African-Americans in my neighborhood choose an entirely different rely dipath, while disparraging those who don't. What do immigrant black people have to gain from not shitting on those African-Americans?

      1. "What do immigrant black people have to gain from not shitting on those African-Americans?"

        The author does have a point, though. Some of the harshes critics of black American's I've met are black immigrants. They don't mince words.

        1. And why should we?

          1. You shouldn't.

        2. They do it, I think, because they don't want to be mistaken for an African American. They are just making sure those within hearing distance know the difference.

          1. ^This. We had a couple of black nannies/baby sitters from Jamaica - they despised black Americans. Every epitaph in the book that I won't repeat here.

            Caution, sample size of three.

            1. John's keyboard really is contagious.

              My family has used Ghanaian immigrants as home health aides for a while. They're not too impressed with American blacks, either. The West Indian bricklayers that used to work for my father's company also weren't too keen on them.

              1. There is a tremendous amount of animosity between native African blacks and African Americans. It is one of those stories that never gets reported or talked about because the possibility that black people might be racist towards anyone but white people is just too horrible for the media to contemplate.

                1. "It is one of those stories that never gets reported or talked about"

                  It's why I brought it up. To be fair, I have seen SE Asians strongly despising African-Americans as well.

                  1. So have I, even forty years ago.

            2. Every epitaph in the book...

              You mean epithet? Epitaphs go on tombstones - although I suppose that might be appropriate, too.

              1. Yes, yes, that's what I meant...

                *sad trombone...*

      2. THIS. I live in an immigrant neighborhood and the Ethiopians that live there have done much to help themselves by starting businesses, youth centers, etc...You rarely hear them complain

        1. Well, don't fret. By the time the left is done re-molding them into "African-Americans" they won't lift a finger to help themselves anymore.

      3. What's a "rely dipath"?

        1. Fair question. Should be "choose an entirely different path"

    2. A reserved golf clap? They don't even deserve that. Does being the first black ______ matter when you gained said position by essentially renouncing your blackness?

      1. How do they fail to hear how utterly and disgustingly racist that is?

        1. They just rationalize it away. Much like my kids do when they get caught being nasty to each other.

    3. A reserved golf clap? They don't even deserve that. Does being the first black ______ matter when you gained said position by essentially renouncing your blackness?

      How dare you leave the plantation, boy?

    4. Oh and in my own experience, immigrant black people are some of the fucking worst when it comes shitting on African-Americans.

      Wow. I didn't think someone could criticize immigrants and black people while claiming, in the same sentence and without a hint of irony, that everyone else is racist, but there you go.

      1. Pretty impressive, right? Remember, everything a prog accuses other people of doing, they do themselves. And all you have to do is give them a few minutes and they will prove it to you without the tiniest hint of self-awareness. Just like here.

        They are projection.

        1. Sometimes "projection" seems like a bit of an overplayed meme. But it is really not. It is just uncanny how they are themselves guilty of everything they accuse their opponents.

          1. Not overplayed at all. Most people project. When I'm dealing with a customer who doesn't trust me as a vendor, I assume they're getting ready to stick it to me. I'm almost always right unfortunately. They don't trust me because they themselves are untrustworthy.

            1. And they figure everyone else is the same.

        2. Speaking of projection

          After January, I predict that the DC media will re-discover the evil of the filibuster and also re-discover how it obstructs government so terribly. I further predict that the phrase "60 votes needed for passage" will be struck from the media lexicon, to be replaced with "majority vote needed for passage".

          I'll just leave that prediction here and check back in a few months to see if I'm right.

          1. It's like that person was living on mars for the last like 8 years. Skynet is so going to win, it doesn't even have to be self-aware.

          2. Reading John Coleslaw and his fellow proglydytes go through the five stages of grief was wonderfully cathartic.


    6. I read an article about a woman who immigrated from Africa a few years ago. Until she got to the US she never considered herself as "African", but as Sudanese (if I remember correctly).

      1. Ask a Hutu and a Tutsi whether they're both "african", and you'll get an answer that is not too dissimilar to a Jezebel's writing about Black Republicans

        1. One's not really African because they sold out to the Belgians?

          1. Belgians...who are probably in league with the koch brothers...

      2. It would be weird if it was any other way. I don't go around thinking of myself as North American. Pan-Africanism is pretty silly. It's like saying that Japanese people and Arabs are more or less the same because they are all Asian. In fact Japanese and Arabs are probably more closely related than black people from different parts of Africa. There is by far more human genetic diversity within sub-Saharan Africa than in all the rest of the world.

    7. Of course immigrant blacks are the worst when is comes to shitting on African-Americans - they don't consider themselves to be 'African-American' and think they have little in common.

      They don't come from places where the black/white division is of any particular effect so most of the culture-war/race-baiting that occupies mainstream A-A politics is meaningless to them.

      1. They're from places where cultural/tribal differences will get you killed/raped/amputated, not micro-aggressed.

        1. Certain West African countries come to mind.

      2. If you moved to some Eastern European shithole where everyone was alcoholic racist dirtbags who've lived in a corrupt society for generations.... would you feel like you *strongly identified* with the locals because you were both *white*? Or would you ignore them and do your best to get along despite them?

        African Americans like the author don't see how anyone isn't "Race First" all the time.

        And instead of recognizing the flaws in their own perception, they project hatred onto immigrant blacks... who don't *give a shit* about being black, and just want to make money and be successful like anyone else.

        1. who don't *give a shit* about being black

          Isn't this the goal that we were all trying to work towards? That no one would give a shit if you were white, black, etc.

          Hey, and you the know the best way to keep racism alive? Ensuring that racism will have new victims by reminding everyone that it exists.

          1. Hey, and you the know the best way to keep racism alive? Ensuring that racism will have new victims by reminding everyone that it exists.

            I am quite convinced of this. It is the people who are always on the lookout for the slightest bit of racism that contribute the most to continuing the kind of racism that causes real harm. Casual racism would have no power if people didn't take it seriously. Racist morons should just be laughed at.

        2. It's not fair to only point out African Americans this way. Tribalism is human nature and conservatives do it too. Remember when Obama went on his "apology" tour? The Right went apeshit, not because he questioned American foreign policy, but because he did so *gasp* in front of a foreign audience. This is the same mentality that many blacks have. Many identify first as blacks, and second as Americans. Thus to this author, it's understandable behavior in this context.

          1. Yep. Tribalism is human nature. I think that SJWs, in general, are unhappy with society because of white privilege, racism, sexism, etc. And their way of discussing the issue - the tribalism rhetoric wrapped up in political tribalism - tends to throw gasoline on the problems rather than help resolve them.

    8. Jezebel, a magazine owned by a bunch of annoying white women are now telling African Americans who do not stick to the script that they are the worst kind of blacks.

      As an immigrant black, that is reciprocal. African Americans shit on us so we do the same. Not only that, but when we see all the opportunities offered to black Americans and we have to constantly hear them complain, we get irritated and tell them to shut it. I guess in Jezebel's world, it means we are shitting on them

      1. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

        1. I agree with EV, and would also like to hear more of this perspective.

    9. Wow. Just the first paragraph is full of all kinds of insanity. She will applaud them just for being black and successful. Which isn't racist at all, no sir.
      And the reference to Zora Neale Hurston is extra clueless. That's as far as I made it.

      1. Wasn't Hurston libertarian leaning? Or a radical individualist?

        1. Yeah, pretty much that's what I was getting at.

    10. "Or if you are a tea party enthusiast who supports a party that was whipped up around getting "back our America" that really meant, in my view, the 1950s when black lives were restricting by things like segregation, lynchings, vicious dogs ... and President Obama's position wouldn't have been possible."

      I'm curious to know if this writer is uneducated or simply unwiling to mention that it was Democrats who were responsible for all the laws that supported this era which she detests ?

  2. She's going to have a hard time distancing herself from Obama.

    1. She won't need to, Jeb Bush and Christie will ensure her victory.

    2. What are you talking about? By tomorrow she'll have been saying for decades that she hates that motherfucker.

      1. Clinton has always been at war with Obama.

      2. And she'll be telling the truth for once.

        Obama has so shat on the Democrat brand that Hillary will have to extemporize a new one, as well as a new Hillary, in two short years. He has multiplied the difficulty of her upcoming campaign at a time when she's punch-drunk, worn out, and more unattractive than ever. He's left her to howl and fight like a pit dog when he was supposed to hand her graciously into the Oval.

        I can't imagine the Clintons aren't threatening him one way or the other about various plans of his, including the upcoming executive amnesty. I wonder what they're communicating to his people about what they'll do or reveal if he doesn't quit ruining her prospects for 2016.

        1. "By tomorrow she'll have been saying for decades that she hates that motherfucker."

          "And she'll be telling the truth for once."

          Yes, that would be one of the most honest things I've ever heard from Hillary Clinton.

          Also, let's get a Joe Biden 2016 campaign going. The VP has very little mouth control, and it's frackin' hilarious.

    1. my neighborhood WalMart has already replaced the tampons with cigarettes & ammo.

      1. Free bibles instead of free birth control.

    2. Apparently they are too stupid to understand what a flow chart should actually look like.

      1. It's a chart-like chart, not a chart chart.

        1. A chart shart?

          1. Never trust a shart.

      2. It makes me sad that one of the commonalities of having an actual job is understanding how a flow chart is supposed to work.

    3. I get to play in white women's lady parts? Jesus why wasn't that front in center Gillespie's campaign? No wonder he lost.

    4. Wow, that didn't take long. You'd think that if those issues were important, the Democrat Senate, House, and President would have passed laws to address those issues back when they had the majority. Oh that's right, they thought Obamacare was so important they ignored everything else.

    5. Is this a parody?

      1. Probably not. Remember, Peak Derp is a myth. These fuckers will just continue to get dumber and dumber.

        1. They will never achieve Peak Derp. But if they chase it hard enough, they just might catch retardation.

    6. Wow, they completely screwed up a flow chart. There's no damn arrows or decision points. I'm guessing the author had a PhD in some kind of Liberal Arts or Social Science.

    7. derpographic?

    8. That has to be a parody of stupid leftists. It may also be by stupid leftists (sort of like SWPL, though that is much less stupid and more funny). But no one could possibly be that stupid.

  3. Reminder, everything is still the law of the land.

    1. I got a pen.

  4. Hillary made a big mistake by joining the Obama administration.

    Over the next few months, I think we'll see whether Obama cares even a whit about the future of his party beyond himself. If the "wise men" in the Democratic party have any sense, they're already telling Obama to shitcan his plans to rule by executive order over the next two years, starting with the amnesty stuff. Immigration is a complex political issue in both parties and could be used against the GOP, if done the right way. But a blanket amnesty conducted by executive order is not that way. All that does is give the Republicans further ammunition.

    Obama can ignore them and go into full community organizer mode, of course, but the Democrats would pay dearly for that in 2016.

    My guess is that Obama is incapable of Clintonian triangulation. It'll be Nixon-style vindictiveness and fist-pounding arrogance all the way to the end.

    1. Now is an awesome time to charge hill GC by executive decree

    2. I can't think of a single thing, from my reading of conservative websites over the last two years or so, that would motivate the GOP base more than Obama going executive order on amnesty or anything that looks like it. Mostly they cannot stand the idea of all those dirty pot-smoking, ass-sex having, ISIS pawn, Ebola-carrying Messicans being normalized in any way. It would drive the GOP base bonkers.

      1. Man, do I like ass-fucking your mother! She makes this funny little snorting sound.

        1. Just be sure to leave the money on the nightstand on the way out next time.

          1. Yeah, or Popeye is gonna want to have a 'little chat' with your kneecaps.

            1. The Bear Jew...

      2. It's not just conservatives who feel that way, or even just Republicans. Open borders is not a particularly popular opinion in the black community, for example. That's why I said it's a complex issue politically.

        If there's going to be immigration reform, it'll need to be done with a much bigger consensus than exists right now. Obama could make it happen, since the will is pretty clearly there on the part of the Republican leadership, but I suspect he try to force exactly what he wants through the EO process, instead.

        1. Oregon voted 66% to 33% last night against a proposition that would have given drivers' licenses to illegals. Oregon!! Amnesty for illegals is opposed by a very broad based majority in this country.

          1. Yes, and nearly all Senate candidates who supported the Gang of Eight amnesty lost.

            1. Immigration just was not a hot topic for the midterms. Sorry, you're all alone in your obsession with the brown hordes.

              1. Sure we are. it is just bad luck that the supporters of comprehensive immigration reform did so badly last night.

                And we are totally alone. That is why Obama put off doing it until after the election. Clearly it is wildly popular and he wanted to save doing it until after it could have done his party any good or something.

                1. Keystone is popular and it keeps getting put off. Don't try to make sense of what Obama does. It's like trying to lick your elbow.

                  1. Keystone isn't popular with Obama's supporters. Immigration is. And he still didn't do it because he knows how unpopular it is with the country at large.

                  2. It's like trying to lick your elbow.

                    Thanks for reminding me. It's been a long time since I got anyone to try that.

                1. "I don't think" would be a sufficient and accurate quote for you.

                  A bunch of Dems got the shaft in a referendum on a president people hate. Some of them voted or supported the Gang of 8 Non-Amnestry bill. Correlation=/=causation

                  1. The correlation matches popular feeling about mass immigration and amnesty. It's not a stretch to see some causation there.

                    Or to put it another way, you'd have to jump through many intellectual hoops to argue that people just coincidentally defeated a bunch of amnesty proponents, and that it somehow has nothing to do with the fact that most voters oppose amnesty.

                  2. != not =/=

                2. Schumer can lick his elbow?

        2. Down here in Texas I talk to and know people with Spanish surnames who's families have been American for generations.

          Many of them are against mass illegal immigraton and some vote conservative.

          Anti-illegal immigration does not automatically equate to racism regardless how loud the Democrats scream it does.

          1. No, of course it isn't all about racism.

            One thing I will say is that saying you are anti-illegal-immigration is kind of weasely and avoids the issue. Very few people are in favor of mass illegal immigration. Open borders people certainly aren't for it. The question is what restrictions there should be, not whether or not you approve of illegal immigration.

          2. It may not 'equate' to racism but there is a strong correlation with racism. And it basically *is* xenophobia.

    3. Obama does not care about the Democratic Party. That much is very clear. Obama cares about Obama and his perceived place in history. Obama is also completely incapable of accepting blame for anything or understanding much less appreciating the other side's position.

      To be able to triangulate you have to understand the merits and flaws of the opposing position so that you can properly pick on which positions to give ground. The idea is to choose a few positions that make you look the most reasonable while also robbing the other side of its motivation to oppose you. Obama couldn't triangulate even if he wanted to, because he is a typical faculty lounge Progressive who wakes up every day with the absolutely conviction that the other side is evil and its positions completely without merit.

      1. I think that's true, but I also think that Obama came of age politically in the one party state of Chicago, and he's never had to deal with real opposition. He wouldn't know how to make a deal even if it was wildly in his self-interest to do so.

        1. That too. People forget Bill Clinton, though he is at heart every bit the Prog Obama is, had been governor of Arkansas. More importantly, Clinton had played the crusading full retard prog in his first term as governor and gotten his ass kicked out of office as a result. Clinton understood how to work with and co-opt an opposition. Obama doesn't and worse still seems incapable of learning how.

          1. And he did the same thing his first two years as President, got his butt kicked in '94, and then tacked towards the center. I agree that Obama seems incapable of doing the same thing.

            1. It's tough to figure out how to co-opt opposition when you refuse to speak to them. He's talked to Mitch McConnell twice in six years? How is he going to have the first idea how to pitch anything McConnell's going to be interested in? How would he even know what McConnell's interested in?

              That press conference today was absolutely hilarious, as well as predictable. Obama seems to think that the GOP is going to fall over themselves now, trying to forge relationships with him to get his signature on their legislation. He doesn't even realize that the second he signs an executive order on immigration, like he threatened, they're going to spend the next two years figuratively violating every orifice on his body with Congressional investigations, special counsels, and every nasty trick in the book.

              He hasn't got Harry Reid running interference for him, and he burned every friend he used to have in this election...the GOP is going to make his life an absolute hell the next two years, and he'll be lucky if he's able to avoid prison if just one of those scandals gets tracked back to him. And there are going to be Democrats in the Senate willing to defect to throw Obama under the bus for how badly he screwed them.

        2. "Obama does not care about the Democratic Party. That much is very clear. Obama cares about Obama and his perceived place in history. Obama is also completely incapable of accepting blame for anything or understanding much less appreciating the other side's position."

          It's too soon to tell. Either Obama has a come to Jesus moment in the next few months or it's Nixon class intransigence. But I doubt anyone could accurately predict it at this point.

          While Obama's nature clearly will push him towards confrontation, he's going to have a substantial amount of advisors pushing back hard.

          1. I don't see a single thing in Obama's past behavior that would indicate he will back off. I can't read his mind and therefore can't say he won't. But it would be at odds with every piece of evidence we have regarding his character.

            1. Oh I agree with that synopsis. But on the other hand, he's going to have a lot of interested stake holders (Hillary Clinton, every Democrat House member in a close seat, etc), pushing back hard. There will be a couple of weeks of denial, but then it's going to sink into an awful lot of politicians that if Obama goes down in a Nixonian style self immolation he'll take a good chunk of the national party with him. Self survival is a powerful instinct and tends to clear the vision.

              1. I agree with you that a lot of powerful Democrats are going to make that conclusion. The problem is that they are not President. Obama is. And there is nothing they can do to stop him if that is what he decides to do. And I bet that is what happens.

                1. If any of those powerful Democrats are in the Senate, or have the ear of Democrats in the Senate, there's an awful lot that they can do to stop him.

                  It takes 12 more Senate votes to override a veto (assuming the GOP ends up with 54 seats). There are an awful lot of Senators who'll be pressured to vote, if not for their own election then to help the electoral chances of their party in other regions of the country.

                  That's the thing about Obama...he's spent the last few years helping no one and building no friends. He just assumed that the Dems will be grateful for his presence. After this election, they've no reason to be grateful to him anymore...he's just a liability for him, not just in 2014, but in 2016 as well.

      2. I really hate to bring up this analogy because its almost always a lazy, childish,assinine tactic, but...

        Near the end of WWII Hitler became convinced that the German people had utterly failed him. He then set out to destroy Germany and crush his own people as much as he could. I wouldn't be shocked of Obama goes that same route with his party. He's certainly narcissistic enough.

        1. Interesting. Is it documented that that was actually Hitler's intention. Obviously fighting to the bitter end had that effect, but I hadn't heard that he did it specifically to fuck over Germany for failing him.

          1. Yes, it's documented in surviving diaries, testimony, etc. that Hitler was quite petulant towards the end and blamed the German people for failing him. He accused his commanders of treachery and incompetence. I don't know that he actively worked to destroy the country, but he certainly blamed them, rather than himself or his policies, for the loss.

            There are already reports coming out that Obama has adopted the same attitude and is threatening executive action purely out of spite. Doesn't care what it does to the Democratic Party...he just wants to send a "fuck you" to the GOP. Doesn't care if the GOP comes up with good ideas that will help, he's just going to veto them to try and make the GOP look bad.

            Basically, the same piece of shit he's always been...only more bitter.

          2. *Obviously fighting to the bitter end had that effect, but I hadn't heard that he did it specifically to fuck over Germany for failing him.*

            You 'hadn't heard'? For real? He gave an epic rant in the fuhrerbunker to that effect, then ordered the u-bahns flooded and anything of any value left in one piece to be blasted to smithereens as to not aid the Allies in their occupation/feeding/housing/clothing whomever was left after his fall.

    4. That's my guess as well. He's too narcissistic to do anything else. He really is the Chocolate Nixon.

      1. ChocoNix. I love that.

    5. Hillary made a big mistake by joining the Obama administration.

      Truer word was never spoken.

      If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, she could be the most powerful woman in U.S. politics now, a thorn in Obama's side, able to craft her image and her position independently of his needs. She would not have to risk her own career making stupid statements about where jobs come from on behalf of other candidates. Good God, having to denounce capitalism on behalf of some two-bit political hack!

      1. Yes. And she could have also played to the center. She could have come out against Obama's more unpopular policies and acted as a fair arbiter.

        Imagine if Hillary had stayed in the Senate and voted against Obamacare. She would be unstoppable right now.

        1. Imagine if Hillary had stayed in the Senate and voted against Obamacare. She would be unstoppable right now.

          After hearing your analysis...

        2. Imagine if Hillary had stayed in the Senate and voted against Obamacare. She would be unstoppable right now.

          Quick...name the biggest legislative accomplishment of her time in the Senate.

          And that's why she didn't stay in the Senate. Because she couldn't get anything done there either. She knew that if she stayed, she'd be exposed as a political nothing eventually. So she hitched her wagon to someone she thought would be wildly successful and take her places...because she couldn't tell that Obama was actually less capable than her.

  5. OT: Pinellas light rail goes down in flames, 62% vote no (thank you north county GetOffMyLawn types)


    The local rag then publishes angry tweets from the other 38% that insult the majority.

    1. I've been listening to bitching about this. Some official was claiming that not having rail hurts our tourism. Oh, really? What, did the ocean evaporate?

      1. What, did the ocean evaporate?

        The global warming thread is down there, buddy.

      2. Pro haven't you heard the shore lines are receding, getting further and further from tampa.

      3. Surely the Rental-Car-Industrial-Complex begs to disagree.

        1. Who else do you think is suppressing the unlimited untapped energy of smug farts?

        2. And the UAW, presumably. Without the rental car industry, who would buy all of those American sedan cars?

    2. Pinellas light rail goes down in flames

      Were I you, I'd keep a close eye on those glowing embers. There's a long history of not giving a shit what the voters and the taxpayers want when it comes to government crooks and cronies finding a way to feed at that particular pig trough.

      You're familiar with Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees and Michael Myers? Trying to kill light rail plans is like that. When it comes to slaying the light rail monster, cutting off its head, stuffing its mouth with garlic, driving a stake through its heart and tying it down with silver chains is at best a petty annoyance to the resurrectionists hell-bent on ramming light rail down our throats.

      1. It's failed repeatedly here. Frankly, I don't think the money or the patience with yet more never-ending construction is here, either.

      2. It really befuddles me why leftists are so big on trains/light rails/streetcars technology that has was rendered nearly obsolete decades ago.

        1. It's borderline sexual.

        2. We're heading towards hybrid or even electric vehicles, operated by computers. What the fuck do we need mass transit for?

        3. Because Europe. Same with national healthcare. Civilized countries - or countries they vacationed in in 1997 - have light rail and NHC, therefore, to be civilized, we need the same.


          1. When people use the "because Europe" argument , I always like to bring up the fact that no country in Europe has an insane corporate tax rate like the US does, and Europe doesn't pay for a large chunk of its defense - the US does.

            1. And Europe is still a stagnant backwards shithole by and large.

            2. AND....How are the EU economies working out now?

              Eventually, we all need to pay for our free shit, even if it's high quality free shit.

            3. Then we should also have much more restrictive abortion laws. Because EUROPE!!

          2. Europe is a model for anything? Maybe some food, which we've already ripped off, but surely not economic or political systems. I mean, seriously.

        4. "It really befuddles me why leftists are so big on trains/light rails/streetcars technology that has was rendered nearly obsolete decades ago"

          To be fair, there are a some cases where light rail / street cars could work. But on the other hand Leftists are so in love with Big Government, they inevitably scale it up in an unworkable fashion and pay enormous amounts of money 'friendly' contractors. And then they insist that tickets be sold below market rate, which generally insures that the whole system can't fund itself.

          Reference: Nashville Music City Star

          "The current line is 32 miles long with 6 stations. The line is mostly one track, so this limits arrivals and departures to how long each train has to wait for the other to pass. The first "starter line" cost $41 million, or just under $1.3 million per mile, which made it the most cost efficient commuter rail start-up in the nation.[7] By comparison: San Diego Coaster, $91 million for 41 miles; Seattle Sounder, $860 million for 33 miles; Salt Lake City FrontRunner, $360 million for 43 miles; and New Mexico Rail Runner Express, $125 million for 29 miles."


          How the hell did Seattle manage to spend $860 million for a 33 mile line?

          1. Hell that is cheap compared to the greenlight plan. They were talking 1.2 billion for something even crapier

            1. And to be honest, after checking the numbers, and I had to dig past the Train-filia articles to get to the real numbers, the line still loses a shit load of money every year.

              I had thought, based on reading (apparently biased articles) that it broke even a few years ago. A deeper reading indicates that it collects $1.5 million in fares per year and costs $4 million per year to run.

              So, I'll retract my initial statement and amend it to: Light rail done very well is just a boondoggle, instead of a license to shovel barrels full of tax payer money into a furnace.

          2. Light rail and such does work quite well in some places. And those places generally already have it and have had it for a long time.

          3. Nashville politicians also wanted to put in the "AMP" which is a bus system for one of their main arteries, West End Ave. It would be 7.1 miles for a whopping $175 million (about $25 million per mile.) It would take 2 lanes out of a 6 lane street. They wanted to drop off passengers in the middle of the road so the buses could stay in the fast lane only. No one talked about the potential for pedestrian fatalities. I used to work near West End avenue. If you didn't sprint across the street on the green walk sign, you were toast.

            Fortunately, it looks like they have postponed it for now.

        5. It really befuddles me why leftists are so big on trains/light rails/streetcars technology that has was rendered nearly obsolete decades ago.

          The obsolescence is the bestest part!

          This stuff is a status marker for the proggies. A way to show their superiority to the strip mall suburbanites. If it were practical, that would just mean it was something any old rube could go with.

          1. My god... it's "Progressive Jewelry"! I think you're on to something.

        6. That quote from our old friend JsubD would be appropriate right here. I can't find it right now and have to stop wasting time.

        7. It really befuddles me why leftists are so big on trains/light rails/streetcars technology that has was rendered nearly obsolete decades ago.

          The explanation is in the phrase: mass transit. They like herding the masses around like frigging cattle.

          1. There will always be a place for mass transit in big, dense cities. If not trains or street cars, there will be buses.

      3. I like your motivation, and look forward to day when we can demonstrate to the freeShit masses what 'sensible' actions look like.

      1. Whoa, that's a headline in itself.

      2. It will be back. As someone who saw it finally rammed through in Houston after umpteen tries, you can trust me on that.

  6. At least one pundit on CNN last night thought Democrats lost big because they refused to embrace Obama, which cost them minority votes.

    1. Impossible. Too lazy to google it, but Michelle urged "the community" to vote D *regardless* of the person on the ballot.

      1. Yes, vote for our candidates no matter how bad they are, or how much worse they are making your life. Oh, but as a consolation prize, you can eat fried chicken afterwards! Why didn't she tell them they could have some watermelon with the fried chicken?

        1. I think the watermelon is implied.

          1. The watermelon is fine, but the fried chicken is way to fattening for American's to be allowed to consume.

        2. Melon's out of season.

      2. It's true. It was Van Jones spouting that nonsense.

        One of the few Obama administration officials toxic enough to get fired.

    2. That's the conventional wisdom at Daily Kos, except without the "which cost them minority votes." They think Dems lost because they ran away from Obamacare, which Americans universally love.

      1. So how did the Republicans win by running against Obamacare, since it is so universally loved? Oh, that's right, it's Kos, the Rethugs must have cheated.

        1. KOCHTOPUS!!!

          1. The KOCHS bought the election!!11!!!
            (even though the dems outspent the GOP)

  7. Could be bad for Clinton..... or it could be perfect. One other possibility is that the voters have vented their anger at Obama and now the Republicans are on the hook for the next couple of years.

    Also, 6 years of bad economy is an epic record. At some point it has to bounce back, even in the face of bad economic policies. Forget that 6-18 months is normal, if we are 18 months into a big recovery during the 2016 election cycle who is going to get the credit for that, even if they did everything in their power to prevent it?

    Forgive me for being cynical. I watched Obama get reelected in the teeth of the worst economy in many decades and with no positives on his resume. By everything I know about politics that should not have been possible. So I am not reading any tea leaves as pointing to the electorate coming to their senses. If Rand Paul wins the 2016 election, I'll revisit my cynicism. Until then, get off my lawn!

    1. My buying positions point to an unpleasant economy in 2016. I foresee another real estate crash, and this time it will leave even more individuals holding the bag. The investors who survived the 2007-2008 blowout have learned a thing or two.

      1. I'm on board with the real estate crash. It's coming. Not as big as last time, but enough to fuck things up again.

        1. Ya hopefully it will be a proper crash, and the final note holders will have to take a rapid pay cut. However the most of the final notes are held by Uncle Sam. It could go either way either let prices rapidly tank and liquidate, or drag it out for another 2 years

          1. You have to wonder what market prices for homes would be without the government constantly meddling. Much, much lower than right now, that's for fucking sure.

    2. The Republicans will be defending some vulnerable Senate seats, so it's entirely possible they lose the Senate in 2016.

      At this point, the U.S. downturn is clearly larger and more structural than just the regular ups and downs of the business cycle. The number of long-term unemployed and underemployed people is huge, and that's not counted in statistics that count only new unemployment benefits claims. I don't see how that magically changes in two years.

      One thing I've learned over the years is that one election doesn't tell you that much about the next election.

      The Republicans appear to have a deeper pool of presidential hopefuls than the Democrats do. Beyond Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, they have no one. Among Republicans, Scott Walker is the one I'm watching the closest.

      1. The Republicans are going to end up with 53 seats in the Senate. I think Harry Reid very well might retire. The Republicans would have a good shot at Dem incumbents in Colorado and Nevada. If they won even one of those, that would leave the Democrats the task of beating five incumbents to take the majority. Possible but it would take a good year to do it.

        1. But the Repubs will be defending seats they won in 2010, which was a big wave for them. A little reversion to the mean is to be expected.

          1. They didn't win that many Senate seats in 2010. People forget that. They won 60 or whatever House seats but they only won four Senate seats. And some of the Dems who won in 2010 like the Bearded Marxist in Delaware only won because the Republicans fielded weak candidates. In 2016 they will become weak incumbents.

    3. That would be a plausible theory if Obama were smart and knew how to co-opt and triangulate the opposition the way Clinton did and also didn't have a scandal plagued administration. The problem is that Obama isn't smart and his administration is so scandal plagued that it is unlikely he will be able to run out the clock on all of them.

      What is more likely to happen is that Obama goes all in doing one unpopular thing after another via executive action leaving the Democrats in the impossible position of trying to distance themselves from a sitting President within their own party without destroying the image of the party or demoralizing their base.

    4. "Also, 6 years of bad economy is an epic record."

      That WAS the bounce-back. That was it. Another 2008 style correction is baked in and it will be brutal.

      I don't think Hillary benefits from the GOP Congress anymore than McCain benefited from a Dem Congress.

      1. I agree with that. I can't think of a single President of either party who has ever managed to blame a bad economy on the Congress. That line just doesn't work.

      2. Fed has already said it will start raising rates soon. 2016 could easily be affected by how quickly they pull that Band-Aid off the economy's broken leg.

        1. I think Yellen and others are actually getting kind of nervous about this and s l o w l y realizing the hawks were right. They're too late but I'll take anything.

    5. At some point it has to bounce back, even in the face of bad economic policies.

      Its entirely possible that the last several years have been all the recovery we will get, and the normal cycle will assert itself with a downturn soon.

  8. Wait and see, in two years, the voters may be sick of both Obama and the GOP Congress and want something in between the GOP and Obama, and that would be perfect for Gary Johnson Hillary Clinton. She opposed Obama in the 2008 primary, remember, so she can claim that she's always been opposed to Obama and she's definitely opposed to the GOP. (She's opposed to anybody questioning her omniscience and omnipotence, also, but that's a reflection on the fact that she's a psychopath and a megalomaniac and a soulless empuse and not a reflection on the infamous Clinton triangulation strategy.)

    1. Empuse.

      Was not aware of the term until moments ago.
      Perfect aptonym for Hillary, what with the one donkey leg, blood-sucking and all.

      I will be stealing this.

      Thanx, Jer.

  9. I think I've figured out DU's favorite word.

    I have to fucking get this off my chest.

    Fuck those lying, thieving, democracy destroying, psychopathic GOPers and the conservative SCOTUS and their citizens united, voting rights act, voter ID bullshit!

    What the fuck is the matter with this nation? Things aren't getting better, they're getting worse, and as hard as we try and yell and cuss, no one is doing shit about all the criminality going on with the banks, politicians, and anyone that breaks the law as long as they're filthy rich.

    I'm so fucking pissed off right now I can't see straight. My blood pressure is sky high. I need to take it easy.

    I'm so sick and tired of being sick and tired! FUCK IT!!!

    1. as hard as we try and yell and cuss, no one is doing shit

      And then -- you die.

    2. Things are getting worse. Thanks to everyone, but most especially thanks to the Democrats.

    3. In the same thread here's some classic liberal obtuseness:

      Glad we bought our SF house in the 1980's, since we could never afford it now.

      I think the rent for a one bedroom apartment averages almost $3000 per month!

      1. God Damn it Nerfherder. If those fucking Koch Funded Fundie Republicans didn't run everything in San Fransisco, people might be able to afford to live there.

        1. You should check out the comments in the thread from the older Democrats who survived the Reagan years. Like it was some post nuclear apocalypse that no one should have come out of.

          1. Those horrible days when gas was less than a buck a gallon, the economy was booming, inflation was nonexistent and the unemployment rate was like 5% (a real 5% not one that is the result of people giving up and dropping out of the workforce)

            I don't know how any of us survived that.

            1. The fucked-up thing is that I thought government was too big and too interventionist in the economy back then. Little did I know that the shit would get worse.

      2. OMG the RETHUGLICANS have destroyed the poor san fran communities why won't somebody vote them out?

      3. "I think the rent for a one bedroom apartment averages almost $3000 per month!"

        Thanks, DiFi, for 'rent control'!

      4. "Glad we bought our SF house in the 1980's, since we could never afford it now."

        Well, I'm sure they'll be perfectly happy to sell their house at a much lower than market rate, so they aren't being "greedy" or anything.

    4. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. I just can't say it enough. n/t

    5. Somebody needs a nap and his blankie.

    6. Basically DU has turned into one big bitchfest. These are hardcore Democrats who just can't handle a setback. They would burn the opposition at the stake given half the chance.

      We need to start having our own Nuremberg trials.

      A lot of information about how the Nazis ran things was revealed in the Nuremberg trials. If we started arresting and prosecuting the Kochs, the bankers and everyone else involved in the tanking of our economy and the destruction of the middle class, we'd learn some scary shit too.

      1. To bad they need guns to do this.

        1. Well, they do have this option (please, please, please, please...)

          I've said it several times now

          maybe it is time for leftists to leave the country en masse, or rather, to set up some collective funds and organization to help us all move. It is a historically validated alternative to revolution since that likely isn't happening anytime soon.

          1. Who would take them? (Canada please.)

              1. Hell, something like 95% of Canada's current population lives within 100 miles of the US border, so just make the proggies stay far greater than 100 miles north of the border in the frozen tundra where they can't bother anyone. Everyone wins!

                1. Let them rely on green energy to keep warm.

              2. We'll do a hostage swap. You can come to America. At that point we'll be on an upward trend.

          2. Sort of like an Anti-Free State Project?

            1. So in other words, a Slave State Project. I believe Democrats have some historical experience running something like that.

          3. Never happen. They are way, way too chickenshit to ever leave their cozy environs.

            1. And who would they get to pay for their Liberaltopia? How can you tax the hell out of the rich, if there aren't any rich?

              1. Well duh, you join the European Union of course. No reason the rich you're taxing have to be in *your* state.

      2. Geez, if you're looking to start a civil war, that'd probably do it.

      3. "If we started arresting and prosecuting the Kochs, the bankers and everyone else involved in the tanking of our economy and the destruction of the middle class, we'd learn some scary shit too."

        Speaking of those N?rnberg trial guys guys, replace "Kochs" with "Jews" in the above quote and what do you see?

        1. Progtards bein' Progtards.

        2. But this is different, it's National Bocialism.

    7. Things aren't getting better, they're getting worse, and as hard as we try and yell and cuss, no one is doing shit about all the criminality going on with the banks, politicians, and anyone that breaks the law as long as they're filthy rich.

      Ge,, it's almost as if yelling and cussing aren't substitutes for real, no-bullshit, focused action.

      Not that I'm encouraging them to change tactics now. The last thing anyone needs is for DU to get off their asses and 'do something.'

      1. And how have they not noticed that voting for Democrats doesn't seem to help at all with doing shit about criminal bankers and politicians? I think they need to yell and curse about their own team first.

    8. There are some tasty morsels of liberal angst all over that DU thread =

      "This vote reflects a nation-wide constituency that doesn't know what the hell to think."


      "How can people claim to be disgusted with Congress and still vote for the party responsible for the dysfunction? It is truly frightening. "

      "'not funding and de-funding education is the core of the problem. the more uneducated, the easier to control. ""

      ""For all the blame we can lay on the teahadists and their dirty tricks, the Democratic Party really dropped the ball - and at the worst possible time. We need Howard Dean to come back and wrench the party out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's sickly hands.""

      ""This country cannot have clean air, water and earth in many states, because Republicans. This country cannot have science in many states, because Republicans. This country cannot have rational, thoughtful, logical gun regulations, because Republicans. Women cannot exercise control over their own bodies in many states, because Republicans. ""

      1. clean air, water and earth in many states

        Honestly, which states are they talking about? And how can the country not have these things when it is a only a few states?

        1. the hardcore progressives create exaggerated rhetoric to justify government programs, then seem to expect reality to conform to their worst nightmare when Federal Regulations fail to materialize.

          Therefore = anywhere that hasn't 'banned fracking' is a dystopian environmental disaster by definition

          I've had a few conversations with anti-fracking advocates (read: mostly college students) and most of them couldn't explain how fracking actually worked. Nor have they actually visited any of the places they believed had been 'environmentally devastated' by the practice. Its all projection of their rhetoric onto the outside world. When you share facts with them, they freak out that you must be 'corrupted by Big Oil' or something.

          People like this in NYC are what MADE ME into a more-conservative human being. They were just too absurd to tolerate any longer.

          1. I've had a few conversations with anti-fracking advocates (read: mostly college students) and most of them couldn't explain how fracking actually worked.

            I work in the industry and see this all the time. And when I try to talk to people about what the process really is, I'm dismissed as an industry shill. Which, technically I am, but I know what I'm talking about and they don't.

            I don't even try anymore, really.

            1. when it comes to the 'environment', i've had even good friends stop me from talking by saying, "I DONT WANT TO KNOW"

              I would explain to them the actual details of water-table pollution, and how its actually more affected by agricultural runoff than anything else...

              ...or air quality - carbon emissions, methane, etc. how much is actually produced by natural processes versus 'industry'. they will say, "But human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle!" Yes. And so do volcanoes, fires, decomposing biomass, etc. There is no 'natural balance' level. Its a false premise about how the climate 'works'.

              or whatever. pro-nuclear-energy examples vs. 'green tech', in terms of cost-benefit.

              How by any measure, we're far more 'clean and green' now than at any time in history. And *without* any 'much needed' legislation handcuffing the economy.

              And they said, "I'm not interested in the *facts* - I know how i feel, and we need to put limits on economic growth to save the planet"

              Admittedly this was only one person who said this.

              Sadly, it was a public-school principal in NYC

              1. Reading that post was like watching a libertarian-themed episode of The Twilight Zone, complete with a horrifying revelation at the end.

      2. We need Howard Dean to come back and wrench the party out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's sickly hands.

        This part is actually probably true.

      3. I wish I could chalk it up to 'All this election PROVES is that 50% the people who showed up to vote in 6 states ... are mouth-breathing, brain-washed, Faux-Watching knuckle-draggers', but the reality is, it goes MUCH deeper than that. Nearly 1/2 the country are this way. This is proof that lies and propaganda ... work. This election shows that a great many people in this country ... are actually either morons, or they are evil.

        1. This election shows that a great many people in this country ... are actually either morons, or they are evil.

          Well, about half are Stupid Party and the other half are Evil Party, so sure.

    9. I enjoy talking about politics a little bit (duh, I'm here!), but people like this unfortunate soul seem to have no other form of identity.

      The wisdom of age helps. This leading light of DU comes off like a college student. I'm 47. I've learned not to take politics too seriously. Remember, kids, (1) they're all lying shitbags, (2) constituents are nothing more than a source of money and/or votes, (3) nobody ever leaves politics poorer than when they entered it, (4) hold onto your wallet whenever someone mentions the "greater good."

      1. Anyone who views a political party or a politician with anything less than extreme skepticism bordering on solipsism hasn't been paying attention.

  10. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. If Hillary runs, that expression will be ubiquitous (and grating).

      1. ..that expression will be ubiquitous (and grating)

        Just like Hillary herself then.

        That should be the goal.

        I'm getting this bumper sticker:

        Hillary '16: Because what difference, at this point, does it make?

        1. The Republican Party should invest in millions of those and just send them everywhere.

          I am aesthetically opposed to bumper stickers on the RC Cruiser, but that one I might make an exception for.

  11. Rand has already come out swinging at Hitlary, saying that the midterms were a rejection of Hillary as well as Obama.

    He also just called her out on that quote about jobs, saying this:

    "Hillary Clinton comes up and she says, 'Businesses don't create jobs. Anybody here think businesses don't create jobs?"

    Tony is always talking about how he wants to see Hillary debate Rand. I think when he sees it he will be wishing he could un-see it.

    1. I cannot think of a candidate better suited for Rand to destroy than Hillary. Really, how could you even custom build-one to be easier for him go through like a hot knife through butter? Rand will own her on almost all the issues, but foreign policy is where he'll give her The Lethal Tap. He can Goldwater her.

      1. She'll go warboner and talk about how she wanted to attack syria, and ISIS happened because Obama didn't listen to here and now can we afford another isolationist president who will ignore the next ISIS (not saying this is a valid argument, but it would probably work politicially).

        1. And there goes a chunk of her core lefty prog supporters. Maybe. Warboners are hard to sell in a Dem primary.

          1. the lefty progs still voted for Obama despite bombing nearly every place he could get away with. I'm sure they'd overlook Hillary's aggressive foreign policy.

            1. Word

              They also overlooked Bill's sexual harassment etc

              Progs are like

              Leona Helmsley , except they prefer an oligarchy of the far left

            2. Obama lost tons of voters in 2012 compared to 2008. Not sure if those were lefty progs, but average Americans aren't interested in the TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE much more than Ron Paul's faith-based head-in-sand approach.

              1. Obama went from 52.9% of the vote in 2008 to 51.1% of the vote in 2012. A difference of roughly 3.5 million voters.

                It was an insignificant amount of the voters, even if you assume that every single one of them was someone upset over his foreign policy.

            3. First cut is the primary, where the lefty prog anti-war types have disproportionate sway.

          2. Core lefty progs love warboners - as long as they're *Democratic* warboners.

            1. As Obama's and her husband's administrations attest.

        2. I don't see how it would work politically. Being soft on the war is not even in the top 100 of reasons why Obama is so unpopular.

          1. No, the "Obama is a pussy who's afraid to defend AMURICA" line of argument is a big part of why he's unpopular. Not the most, certainly, but it's up there. As much as I hope the Rand wing prevails, the Ted Cruz wing is quite popular.

            1. That is just not true. He is unpopular because the economy sucks and Obamacare has been such a disaster and he seems to be a completely incompetent administrator.

              There isn't a single poll that lists Iraq as a major issue in this election and not a single Republican candidate ran on the issue. People who don't vote Democrat are often different that the charactatures that live in your head.

              1. ISIS Threat Top Concern for Republican Voters ? WSJ/NBC Poll

                In the survey, 41% of Republicans said acting on the ISIS threat is the most important issue in deciding their midterm vote. Just 18% of Democrats agreed, placing the issue fifth behind economic growth, breaking the partisan gridlock in Washington, health care and social security.

                1. Fifth is pretty lame, and it's from the War Street Journal which is desperate to maintain the neocon grip on the GOP.

                  1. Fifth for dems, but first for Repubs, which is why I'm sure Hillary will try to use it against Rand.

                2. So what? Those people are Republicans. What makes you think they are going to vote for Hillary?

                  And even among Republicans it is only the fifth most important issue. So you honestly think Republicans are going to vote against their party and for someone they have spent 22 years loathing because she is better on the fifth most important issue? Not seeing it.

                  1. Former McCain chief of staff: If Rand Paul is the 2016 nominee, Republicans concerned with national security will have to support Hillary

                    It sucks, but if it comes down to Hillary vs. Rand, a big chunk of the Republican warboners are going to side with Hillary.

                    1. No they won't. McCain barely his nomination in 2016. No Republicans are going to vote for Hillary. You are just telling yourself that because the idea that the GOP could nominate someone you can't easily hate is just too much for you to contemplate.

                      And Rand isn't as stupid as his father. He is not going to say the stupid things his father did.

                  2. I think the generally hawkish views of the Republican base will make things difficult for Rand in the primaries. Also, it is more than a bit concerning that both parties may put out candidates that are hawkish.

                3. Some more evidence that lends credence to your claim:

                  "Accoridng to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released last week, 69 percent of Republicans call themselves "hawks" and just 25 percent identify themselves as "doves." Those percentages are even more interesting considering the hackneyed definitions the pollsters assigned to those descriptors. A hawk, they said, is someone "who believes that military force should be used frequently to promote U.S. policy" and a dove believes "the U.S. should rarely or never use military force."


                  "Less than a year ago, just 18 percent of GOPers said that the United States does "too little" when it comes to helping solve the world's problems, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Today, that number has more than doubled, to 46 percent.

                  Over that same span ? from November to today -- the percentage of Republicans who say the United States does "too much" has dropped from 52 percent to 37 percent, and those who say the United States does about the right amount has declined from 26 percent to 14 percent."


                  1. They're still not voting for Hillary. They will fall in line with Rand if he's nominated. Rand just has to articulate a sensible foreign policy and that will upset his Dad and Kristol alike but it will work.

                    1. That assumes Rand will win the nomination. That's a big 'if'.

                    2. You also have to take into account that Hillary's hawkishness may help her a bit with independents. She doesn't necessarily have to draw in Republicans in large numbers.

                  2. Again, who cares what the Republicans think? Those are not the people who are going to vote for Hillary.

                    1. At the very least Republican politicians have to listen and try to appeal to them.

        3. Rand will then laugh and laugh some more and ask her how attacking Assad would have not massively benefited ISIS.

          1. And the only plausible answer would involve some sort of occupation of Syria, if not by the U.S., then by some U.N. peacekeeping force. Let's see someone try to sell that to the American people.

      2. I think Rand will destroy her and win the election. But the GOP establishment will never let it happen, they want Hillary.

        Rand's trump card is Turtle Head. That's why he helped the Turtle get re-elected. Now he's the most powerful person in congress and he owes Rand.

    2. Hilary has an unfortunate position of being even "more aggressive" about desiring Syrian intervention than Obama

      And the 'kind' of intervention she wanted was MORE of the CIA shipping guns and money to the people who became ISIS

      And the CIA has since said specifically - this is a bad idea that hasn't worked, and won't work.

      Paul was on the right side of the issue from the beginning. He's toasted her over benghazi, and he'll toast her over Russia, Egypt, Libya, and everywhere else her ideas resulted in megafuckups.

      she'll blast him for sexism. People will get tired of it quick.

      That's the thing with this culture-war rhetoric = its like anything 'sensational'. It has immediate emotional impact... then dissipates into boring repetition that fails to motivate people.

      1. I agree with you completely in terms of the actual nature of what happened. The problem is that politics has very little to do with what actually happens, and I think Hillary will have an easier time lying to make herself sound great then people here realize.

        1. Maybe.

          i believe most politics are very basic and primitive.

          Rand is young, good looking, and different from the past GOP

          Hilary is old, bitter, and the same as the old centrist Dems that even liberals dislike.

          Hilary apparently thinks 'Businesses don't create jobs'. This isn't likely to sell well to people who actually work in the private sector.

          If she wins, it will be because the GOP fucked it all up.

          1. ^^THIS^^

            You have to come across as likable to win the Presidency. It is stupid and shallow but it is the way it is. Whatever Hillary's virtues, coming across as likable is not one of them. It is why she is never winning the White House.

            1. Even more low-brow =

              there's a lot of people who said, "post-bush, i think its important to signal cultural change and elect a black guy"

              A lot of those people were even republicans. They just said, "fuck it, it feels right" It gave a brief feeling of 'cultural simpatico'

              I do not think the mere fact of being a woman is going to help Hilary nearly as much. Particularly as an old, baggage-laden woman with a track record of some major political nastiness and unbelievably stupid remarks.

              1. She missed her chance. Last election was her best chance, when the war on wiminz crap was at it's peak. But unfortunately for her, there was an incumbent and now war on wiminz has worn out it's welcome with the people as well as war. So Hillary's neocon like hawkishness will hurt her as well. And she's old and haggard looking with cankles and has a shitty personality. Her only chance is that the GOP puts up another loser candidate. And they will if Rand can't stop them.

          2. And the GOP will fuck it all up by not letting Rand get the nomination. They know he will beat Hillary and they don't want that.

  12. Her history with the president and the Democratic party means she won't be able to run far away from the president in a way that is plausible.

    Wasn't she part of that "warhawk wing" that wanted to attack Syria? She could easily cast herself as having been pushing for more aggressive foreign policy and then leaving when it became clear Obama didn't have the guts to defend america.

    1. Sure she could. The only problem is that being a dove is not the reason why Obama is so unpopular. Whose votes would that position win her? The staff of the Weekly Standard?

      1. I agree that Obama's problem is not being too dovish, but there's certainly a public swell for "do something" on the ISIS issue.

        1. And unless she could convince people Paul was a Manchurian Candidate for ISIS, most of that group are loath to vote for a Democrat. I just can't see that working. And absent another 911, the major issue in 2016 is going to be the economy. So talking about being soft on ISIS will work about as well as McCain's accusations of Obama being soft on the war. No one cared because of the economy.

          1. Hilary isn't just hawkish on that issue, she's just plain hawkish as duck

      2. Hillary will be running as a warhawk and it will get her a lot more votes than the Weekly Standard staff. If Rand manages to survive all the GOP-led assassination attempts and win the nomination, the establishment GOP will be voting for Hillary.

        1. But the rank and file won't be. All the actual voters want to know is that they can trust him to defend the country and that he is not like his father and likely to respond to an attack by apologizing and explaining why we deserved it. That is it.

          1. Jerryskids.

            No Republican will ever vote for Hillary.

            This isn't even worth postulating.

            She is hated by Republicans at a reptillian level.

            It is beyond my imagining her getting elected with all the baggage she brings with her. Way back to attempting to keep Nixon from having legal representation, dodging bullets in Bosnia, the great right wing conspiracy, FBI files in the White House, Rose Law Firm billing, etc. etc. plus Bengahzi.

            Plus her shrill like voice when she tries to raise a crowds emotion is so harsh she reminds too many people of a schrewish screaming bitchy woman. I don't think she can ever get to the White House.

            Don't you remember how quickly her own kind turned on her in the primaries when a viable option was offered ?

            Her time has come and gone.

        2. ", the establishment GOP will be voting for Hillary."

          That's just not going to happen. The establishment GOP will vote party line. It's their distinguishing trait. That's why they are called establishment.

          They might hate Rand Paul during the Primaries, but they'll suck it up and vote for him because there's an R behind his name.

    2. Obama's problem isn't being dovish, it's that it's nakedly obvious he and his coterie have no idea what they're doing and don't really care anymore.

  13. I think the GOP deserves an itty bit of credit for not going being the stupid party a la Akin or something like that. Discipline pays.

    1. Yes. I'll give them credit for not trotting out the most incompetent speakers available this time around.

      1. They saved Thad Cochran and Pat Roberts' sorry asses. And Gillespie was a crony capitalist asshole, though he in fairness ran a hell of a campaign and still may beat Warner.

        But overall they had some good candidates and a few downright respectable ones.

        1. Warner has to be a little rattled. There's no way he could have thought it would be this close.

          1. He is 12,000 votes ahead and there will probably be a recount. Chances are he wins. I cannot see him being too interested in voting to cover for Obama over the next two years.

            1. He'll make a dead run for the center, guaranteed.

              1. Gotta get those Sarvis votes!

  14. Who is ready for Hillary?

    1. I've got my 55 gallon drum of industrial lube here, so I guess I'm sort of ready.

      1. Lube doesn't protect from the spikes and teeth.

    2. There's a banner ad:

      "I'm ready for Hillary!" over a picture of a tube of AstroGlide.

  15. Voters didn't like Obama?and they took it out on his fellow Democrats.

    Seriously? No, voters don't like *Democrat policies*, for which Obama is merely the figurehead, and they took it out on Democrats.

    If they liked what the *Democrats* were doing elsewhere, the Dems wouldn't have lost those seats. Those people lost their seats because they supported/helped implement policies that a good number of people in the US didn't want/don't like.

    *That's* why the election came out the way it did.

    This wasn't a referendum on *Obama*, it was a referendum on the *Democrats*.

    1. Yes. And proof of that is the various polls that show that a majority of Americans still consider Obama a good person. They don't dislike Obama. They think his policies have been a disaster and want something different.

      1. That's amazing & disgusting to me. How could anyone look at his behavior and conclude he's "a good person?" Is it just how he comes across in his highly coached public speaking persona? Is America that stupid?

        I waited for evidence before forming an opinion on the man. He's a lying, slimy politician, through and through.

  16. You have to give Hillary credit for getting off the sinking ship on time. We can only hope she will wash up ashore on a deserted island.

    1. Why do you hate deserted islands, Jerry?

      1. Because even fish deserve something better.

        1. Why do you hate coconuts and sand and Wilson?

          1. Wilson just has a punchable face.

  17. At mother jones, the nation etc. They are (of course) saying the exact opposite - that it's merely cynicism and that when you look at individual Republican issues they clearly don't support them.

    It reminds me of their patronizing claims about people voting against their interests

    I'm sad that gun control won here in WA state. It's possible our state Supreme Court could overrule it due to our constitutions very strong protection of privacy and the right to keep and bear arms but I'm not holding my breath

  18. OT:

    A Joni Ernst campaign ad. Here's another social issue for you, John.

    1. Speaking of political ads, in a year that included some of the worst ads I have ever seen, this might be the most devastating and best political ad I have ever seen. I doubt it persuaded any blacks to vote against Landrieu but it should have.


      1. That was good. The only thing missing was a Republican solution.

        1. Only have so much time in one ad. And no one is going to listen to any solutions Republican or otherwise until they realize how badly the Democrats are fucking them.

      2. Damn, that was awesome. Did he really just quote Thomas Sowell in a political ad? I wonder if it worked though? Did Landrieu fail to pull in 95% of the black vote?

        1. Double awesome. Dr. Sowell is a giant among men.

    2. Honestly she ran an awesome campaign. Did you see her pig commercial?

      1. A woman talks about castration in a political ad. Can it get any better?

        Plus, she's pretty, like Taylor Swift, and seems like a nice person.

        1. She at least seems like a normal person you could stand to be in the same room with for more than five minutes. That right there puts her above most of Washington.

          And yeah, I would hit that.

        2. she's pretty, like Taylor Swift

          Blech. TSwift is hideous. Someone pointed out yesterday that she looks like Janice from the Muppets. It totally fits.

      2. I remember that ad, back then she was readily dismissed as a marginal candidate:

        ?Ernst is running for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. According to a Quinnipiac University poll released March 13, Ernst has an uphill battle should she win the Republican primary and face the Democratic candidate, U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa. The survey showed Braley leading Ernst, 42 percent to 29 percent.

        Braley also held double-digit leads against others in the GOP primary field.

        "The curse of President Obama's low approval does not seem to be hurting U.S. Rep. Braley as he campaigns for the U.S. Senate seat which opens up as Sen. Tom Harkin retires," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

        1. "Remain Calm, All is Well" said Peter Brown.

  19. Still trying to find a Media Appearance Schedule for Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC progtard prognosticator extraordinaire.

    At least Maddow has the balls to be out there, still scrappin'. Literally. And I literally mean that, literally. Maddow has balls.


  20. It's bad news for Hillary in another way. She went around the country helping candidates, and it amounted to near zip. This indicates she doesn't have anything near the influence she's supposed to have. It's a huge blow to her prestige and her fundraising potential.

    I'm still not convinced she'll run. Her health is rather dicey. She might decided to head some big NGO and be rich and blather to adoring audiences for the rest of life.

    1. Both of those are interesting points.

    2. She'll have a hard time in the primaries versus Joe Biden, I think.

      1. I have a hard time envisioning the Democrats nominating a straight white guy. Identity politics is all they have left.

        1. And a white guy at least as gaffe-prone as Dan Quayle.

          1. Joe Biden surpassed Dan Quayle's record ages ago.

    3. Not going to happen. She already has enough money to retire and live the rest of her life on any island of her choice. Self-important people are not wired to bow out gracefully - she is only interested in power and assuring her perceived place in history.

      1. I largely agree, but I doubt she wants to be remembered as the first major-party female Presidential candidate who got defeated. And even the power-hungry can get tired, or be hobbled by health problems.

    4. yes to both points -

      - that hillary has less pull with the general population than establishment Dems want to believe

      - that she may herself see the writing on the wall and decide that fighting a potential 'losing battle' may not be worth it. Her time in the white house were not the best years of her life.

      Contrarily, she could make millions sitting on her ass.

      The problem is that she's a "Party Animal" (pun intended); the democrats would be guaranteed to lose without her.

      i'm not sure they have any options.

      1. Their bench does seem a little thin these days.

  21. It's not likely to work for Clinton (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 either.

    Not completely sure I agree with the "or any other Democratic nominee" part. Warren could easily enough run a hard left campaign on the premise that the Obama/Clinton wasn't leftist enough. Don't know if it will sell, although I have my doubts, but I don't see it as an implausible argument.

    1. I don't think it would sell. Obama ran as a centrist in 08 and really again in 2012. The art of leftist politics consists of pretending to be something that your not. While Warren has a lot of experience pretending she is an Indian, she doesn't seem too good at pretending to not be a full retard prog.

      1. Obama didn't run on anything except hope, change, and being black.

        1. That, and being Not Bush. Which, ironically, ended up being completely untrue.

    2. She would be the Democratic equivalent of a Ron Paul. By that I mean she would be seen as the extreme wing of the party by most people, not that she would coherently present new ideas for how to do things.

      Unfortunately, I think she would be better received by Democrats than Ron Paul was by Republicans.

  22. On ongoing crisis in the ME could make people favor a more hawkish approach, I guess. But if, after two years of increasing engagement, ISIS is still an issue, I'm betting there will be war weariness among a substantial portion of the electorate, and it will be the independents Democrats need to court and the party base they need to motivate. That doesn't help Clinton.

  23. Hillary Clinton: What difference does it make?

    Her campaign theme song could be


    1. We laugh but that was a devastatingly damaging and stupid thing to say. Nothing worse than giving your opposition a pithy line to hang around your neck.

  24. Obama can go suck a big fat one.


    1. anon bot is every American.

  25. I would normally say that it isn't fair to blame a congressman for the sins of the president, but Obama injected himself hard into the legislative process and demanded all of his party members fall in line. It was in the mind of all voters that an elected Democrat meant a vote for whatever Obama wanted to pass.

    I want a president that does the job as described in the Constitution. The legislative branch makes the law, then the president executes it the only influence he should have should be based on the ability to enforce, not the merit or politics of the law.

    If congress passed a law that said you can only blink with one eye at a time for safety reasons, the president is free to veto as unenforceable, but shouldn't point out how dumb the law was to begin with. If the people want an anti-blinking law then so be it.

    The it's been with the past few administrations it's totally backwards. The president says what laws he wants, and then forces his party members to make it happen in all branches of government on down to the local and state levels which makes our entire concept of the republic a joke.

    1. Obama has hyper-injected himself so hard and deep into the legislative process he's been a hair breadth from being a full-fledged dictator more often than is anything remotely comfortable for this nation.

  26. Aw man! There's a lot of folks who have been fingering their buttholes drooling for a Hillary presidency. All those painful finger cramps for nothing. They won't be pleased!

  27. Democrats'll probably nominate Gore again. Why not? He got a majority of the popular vote in 2000.

  28. Obama might well no longer be a drag on Democratic election chances in 2016 however I suspect that Mrs.Clinton will be.

  29. Hilary should also worry that except for Bush 41, there is a party shift after 2 terms. For me this only indicates a dissatisfaction with the principles of the expanding government. Today with GSAs and bureaucrats partisanship, there may be a big shift away. Who is the most viable Libertarian Governor for me to back in 2016?

  30. Rather than calling the election anti-Obama, let's be more accurate....

    Among the small percentages of voters who turn out for midterms - historically white and angry - the dissatisfaction of the do-nothing Gubment (which, of course, if largely due to the GOP) caused them to vote anti-incumbent and also anti-Obama, since he's at the helm, so to speak.

    Further, many of the close elections (within 1 or 1.5%) were swayed by the amount of money spent by the Koch's and friends..as well as other circumstances.

    Congress has an approval rating somewhere between 10 and 15%. The GOP Congress generally polls lower than the Dems. But, as many here have agreed, we have so little choice - except to just get mad.

    It's foolish to think that the 100 MILLION spent by Rick Scott in Florida, 50 MILLION more than Crist, didn't swing 1% or so of votes. Is there really anyone here who denies that if those figures were reversed, Crist would have won?

    If so, you are saying the Koch's and Scott himself are complete fools for throwing away 50-100 million dollars for no results.

    Congratulations! We are getting very close the libertarian paradise of one dollar=one vote. The Koch's and friends will double down now that they've been able to buy office by spending much more.

    1. QQ Moar headinass. =D

    2. Hi, ASSHOLE!
      craiginmass|11.6.14 @ 3:19PM|#
      "Rather than calling the election anti-Obama, let's be more accurate...."

      Can't get "more accurate", ASSHOLE. Your fave lying piece of shit was handed his hat. But ASSHOLES like you are trying desperately to find some spin from that, right ASSHOLE?
      "The Koch's and friends will double down now that they've been able to buy office by spending much more."

      Yeah, ASSHOLE, how about that worthless twit Steyer?
      "Tom Steyer's ads test the boundaries of the 'bizarre'"
      "Innovative? Or just plain weird?
      Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is trying to sway national climate policy and the midterm elections with an ad campaign that is raising eyebrows among independent fact-checkers, some television stations, his political opponents and even a few allies
      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/.....z3IMRNGh65

      Weird, yes. Outright lies bought with millions of his dollars? You bet!
      Hey, fuck-face; fall in a gutter and drown. The world will be a far better place.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.