Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

I'm skeptical. Can you name even one elected Republican who has offered any blowback to Cruz on net neutrality?

It looks like he has successfully turned it into a partisan issue.

 

Control of both houses of Congress is what they got. And they may well win the presidency in 2016 -- I'd say they have about a 40% chance.

There really is no penalty for any of the crap they have done.

 

Dammit, Obama this is what you get for putting a former lobbyist for the telecom companies in charge of the FCC.
You can come out in support of Net Neutrality all you want but he is going to screw you.

Net Neutrality Supporters Raise Questions About FCC Delay

--- merged: Nov 18, 2014 at 4:42 PM ---
Oh, and Ted Cruz responded to Al Franken proving that he really has no idea WTF he is talking about.
Way to dig the hole even deeper dude.

Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

 

Cruz reached a new low with his lame argument about innovation and the iPhone/rotary phone nonsense but the troops will eat it up and now waive their iPhone on demand as a sign of solidarity with Cruz and Comcast/Verizon/Time Warner who make the same anti-innovation argument.

As opposed to 150 tech companies/innovators, big and small who support Net Neutrality.

"We write to express our support for a free and open internet. Over the past twenty years, American innovators have created countless Internet-based applications, content offerings, and services that are used around the world. These innovations have created enormous value for Internet users, fueled ​

economic growth, and made our Internet companies global leaders. The innovation we have seen to date happened in a world without discrimination. An open Internet has also been a platform for free speech and opportunity for billions of users....​

​

... the Commission's rules should protect users and Internet companies on both fixed and mobile platforms against blocking, discrimination, and paid prioritization, and should make the market for Internet services more transparent.​

I am not surprise Wheeler postponed a vote. He boxed himself into a corner and now has to find a way out that responds to the overwhelming public demand (based on public comments to the FCC) and supported by such a high profile group of tech companies as opposed to the handful of ISPs who want act as an oligopoly.

 

At least they have people talking about it. Rand Paul was on Real Time with Bill Maher a while back and held positions and could explain why. He could easily start picking up some disenfranchised Democratic voters. He is more of an Austin, TX style 'Democrat'. Where is the Democrats talking about what they need to learn from this last election? Where is a plan and vision for what they want to accomplish? Where is there organization to counter the critics on-line?

While the map and changing demographics might be in the favor of Democrats in 2016 (Although I think Wisconsin and New Jersey aren't solid Blue on his map), if I were the GOP candidate, I would be going after WI, NJ, OH, CO, and FL. You could lose either WI or NJ, if you get CO. However, if the Democrats get on message and can run someone who can get through to rural white voters as well as urban middle class ones, they could take all those states and AZ, NC, and GA.

 

Maybe. But nominating Rand Paul would be catastrophic for the Republican Party, and a lot of leading Republicans know it.

 

Rand Paul has the law against him in Kentucky.

A state law prevents him from running for reelection to the Senate in '16 and for President at the same time. Most states allow running for two federal offices concurrently (Paul Ryan most recently), KY does not. He informally asked the Dem controlled State legislature (House) for a legislative fix. They laughed.

He claims the law is unconstitutional and will challenge it if he decides to run for pres.

 

Losing candidates always get heaped with undeserved blame. Pundits say Democratic senate candidates would have won if only they did what the pundit suggested. Almost all of that is horseshit and/or inside baseball and/or 20:20 hindsight (to string together a series of clichés).

If you were roll back time and put somebody else in charge of any of the losing 2014 campaigns, I doubt the result would have been different. Spend more money or time on one thing, well, that deletes it from something else equally important. Campaigns have inherently limited resources, and no ability to accurately foretell the future.

Those races all went the same way for an overarching reason, and it wasn't "messaging".

A whole lot of people didn't show up at the polls, because the election didn't interest or engage them. More TV ads or longer speeches or more elaborate get-out-the-vote apparatus has no impact on that basic reality.

 

I agree it was primarily low turnout/lack of interest in mid-terms and to a lesser extent, messaging. Money only buys visibility.

And an anti-incumbency mood. The interesting factor in Senate races ,with the six year cycle, is that this time around the Dems had to defend 22 seats to the Repub 11 seats. In 2016, it will be almost exactly the reverse, with Repubs having to defend nearly twice as many seats as Dems.

 

"Messaging" is a meaningless trendy buzzword. You can spray millions of gallons of blue paint up into the air, but it's not going to change the color of the sky.

 

I'm not sure money really mattered in this election, at least in elections other than governors and senate. In my district, the incumbent Republican made no attempt at campaigning, and I might have received one flyer in the mail. The Democrat candidate had no political training, nothing on the votes that the current guy has made and how he wold be different, no information on his website about the issues (free advertising), and sent out no e-mails to ask for support (free). His Facebook page was updated once a month, and just had one or two public access TV interview clips. Now, while there might be more Republicans living in my district due to gerrymandering and brainwashing to belong to part of the herd around here. But, it seems like it is more acceptable to openly support Republicans here, which is something the Democrats have a problem with... both on-line, on Facebook, and in the media. Plus in the real world in battleground states, in offices, on bumpers, and in yards.

But, if you are going to run a campaign for the US House, (as the Democrats/Green party should have run in 435 districts)... Even if you know you will lose, they can provide an argument against the other side. How many of the non-votes would have gone to someone who actually ran a good campaign?

 

What I don't understand is how so many state races were unopposed.
How is it that the Dems would let such egregiously bad candidates just slip right back into office without at least saying something.
John Oliver in his piece on state races pointed out a few of the worst.
There was a time when the local party would make sure that at least somebody would be on the ticket even if it was some green kid who knew they wouldn't get much backing just so there would be a D on the ballot.
And you never knew sometimes that kid would win.
But to let these people just sail on through with no opposition just makes the Republicans look like some kind of unstoppable juggernaut.