If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   NY Democrats to NY Republicans: Stop being crazier than we are, otherwise Cuomo can't run for president. NY Republicans: But we've got this poo-flinging thing all figured out...now, if you Democrats would just hold still   (nypost.com) divider line 52
    More: Strange, Republican, Democrats, Andrew Cuomo, Carl Paladino, John McLaughlin, Marist, Erie County, Quinnipiac University  
•       •       •

999 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Feb 2013 at 9:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-18 08:28:16 AM
"Who in the national press corps is going to pay attention to Andrew's re-election if he's running against a bozo like Paladino?'' asked a Democratic activist with ties to the governor.

Three things here.

First, they aren't gonna run a "Any Palamino's a pal o' mine-o" Paladino type candidate next time.

Second, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Third, the buzz around Cuomo's 2016 nom run is about as loud as a mosquito half a block away.
 
2013-02-18 09:37:26 AM
Cuomo torpedoed his own chances of 2016 when he advocated seizure of banned assault weapons.

That will get trotted out just like Romney's desire to see the Detroit automakers go bankrupt will be, and will be poisonous in the same way.

Being strongly anti-gun is a huge strike against you in this political climate, and having a long anti-gun record might not be a negative in New York, it's going to cost him big beyond traditional Anti-Gun places.
 
2013-02-18 09:38:28 AM

Silverstaff: Being strongly anti-gun is a huge strike against you in this political climate


You really think so? Why? No one but the derpers cares that much, and as a Democratic candidate Cuomo would never get their votes anyway.
 
2013-02-18 09:40:50 AM
Political analysis from the New York Post is like watching a dog try to do origami.
 
2013-02-18 09:45:21 AM

qorkfiend: Silverstaff: Being strongly anti-gun is a huge strike against you in this political climate

You really think so? Why? No one but the derpers cares that much, and as a Democratic candidate Cuomo would never get their votes anyway.


It would make it next to impossible for him to win Democratic primaries in middle-America, away from the urban anti-gun areas.  You think somebody will win the Iowa Democrat caucuses who built a long record of being anti-gun?  You think he'll win primaries in any states in the south, or the midwest, or the great plains when that record can be trotted out?

Rural democrats are not as anti-gun as outspoken gun control advocates on Fark would have you believe.

Even Bill Clinton warned the gun control advocates to not underestimate their opposition, including from within their own party:  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-t rivialize-gun-culture-86443.html
 
2013-02-18 09:45:50 AM

qorkfiend: Silverstaff: Being strongly anti-gun is a huge strike against you in this political climate

You really think so? Why? No one but the derpers cares that much, and as a Democratic candidate Cuomo would never get their votes anyway.


because it will motivate a lot of people to make sure to take the time to vote
 
2013-02-18 09:55:42 AM

Lehk: qorkfiend: Silverstaff: Being strongly anti-gun is a huge strike against you in this political climate

You really think so? Why? No one but the derpers cares that much, and as a Democratic candidate Cuomo would never get their votes anyway.

because it will motivate a lot of people to make sure to take the time to vote


They will be motivated to do that regardless of the candidate's stance on gun control.

Silverstaff: qorkfiend: Silverstaff: Being strongly anti-gun is a huge strike against you in this political climate

You really think so? Why? No one but the derpers cares that much, and as a Democratic candidate Cuomo would never get their votes anyway.

It would make it next to impossible for him to win Democratic primaries in middle-America, away from the urban anti-gun areas.  You think somebody will win the Iowa Democrat caucuses who built a long record of being anti-gun?  You think he'll win primaries in any states in the south, or the midwest, or the great plains when that record can be trotted out?

Rural democrats are not as anti-gun as outspoken gun control advocates on Fark would have you believe.

Even Bill Clinton warned the gun control advocates to not underestimate their opposition, including from within their own party:  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-t rivialize-gun-culture-86443.html


From within the Democratic party? No, it won't be too much of a problem. "Gun nuts" within the Democratic party, such as they are, are not single-issue voters like their Republican analogs are; if they were, they wouldn't be Democrats.

Do you honestly think that if Cuomo, or any other Democratic candidate, rolls into the Iowa caucus with serious and attractive plans to combat any number of problems, that Democratic voters are not going to vote for him specifically and solely due to his stance on gun control? Especially when most of them are smart enough to know that federal action on this issue is entirely a non-starter?
 
2013-02-18 09:59:16 AM
Oh Crazy Carl.  Please run again, that would be so much entertainment.
 
2013-02-18 10:00:29 AM
Actually, if Cuomo could get control over the nutter wing of the Republican party in his state, he's a shoe-in for the nomination. At this point, anyone who looks like they could govern well despite Republican nutters would be hailed as the Leader for the New Millennium.
 
2013-02-18 10:00:51 AM

qorkfiend: any other Democratic candidate, rolls into the Iowa caucus with serious and attractive plans to combat any number of problems


What is it called when you start an agrument with a false premise?
 
2013-02-18 10:01:11 AM

Guns aren't going to be a factor in the nomination race. The gun nut demographic is noisy but it is smaller than people think.  Even more so in the Democratic Party.


Hell, Mitt Romney had a strong gun control record as governor of Massachusetts, and he had no problem winning the Republican nomination, so what does that tell you?


Guns are going to be pretty far down the list of issues in 2016. If anything, having a strong gun control record will somewhat help a Democratic candidate in the primaries, where each party must play to its base.  A Democratic candidate must campaign as a liberal to win the nomination, before moving back towards the center for the general campaign.


I think Cuomo's got as good a shot as anybody for 2016.  He's extremely popular all across New York State, which is saying something, since New York's regions are all pretty different. From liberal Manhattan to Wall Street to the rich people in the Hamptons, the large NYC suburbs, the farmers in the middle of the state, old-school pro-labor working class Dems in the Rust Belt western part of the state...

 
2013-02-18 10:02:03 AM

Silverstaff: Rural democrats are not as anti-gun as outspoken gun control advocates on Fark would have you believe.


...and most people's position on assault weapons is not as extreme as the NRA would have you believe.
 
2013-02-18 10:09:29 AM

qorkfiend: From within the Democratic party? No, it won't be too much of a problem. "Gun nuts" within the Democratic party, such as they are, are not single-issue voters like their Republican analogs are; if they were, they wouldn't be Democrats.


I'm not talking about a General Election and a hypothetical Cuomo vs. Generic Republican.

I'm talking about primaries.  You think in a 2016 primary with a half-dozen candidates on the ticket, that somebody who is outspoken in favor of gun control won't have serious problems in a lot of states?  Red states still have Democratic primaries too, and in those states even Democrats are likely to be opposed to gun control.  In a primary, when you might not know a whole lot about the various candidates, knowing one is openly in favor of gun confiscation is a kiss of death in a lot of places.

If you'd read that warning from President Clinton to the Democrats about this, you'd see he's speaking from experience, that even Democrats must pay some attention to the gun lobby if they want political success at a national scale.

The Democrats lost Congress in '94 due in significant part from the backlash against the Assault Weapons Ban.  There is not as much support for strong gun control as the more liberal wing of the party assumes there is.
 
2013-02-18 10:09:48 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Silverstaff: Rural democrats are not as anti-gun as outspoken gun control advocates on Fark would have you believe.

...and most people's position on assault weapons is not as extreme as the NRA would have you believe.


I still think it would be an issue in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Virginia. Which as a block decides the presidency.
 
2013-02-18 10:12:27 AM

Doc Daneeka: Guns are going to be pretty far down the list of issues in 2016.


Because it will have been resolved to most people's satisfaction by then and anyone bringing it up will be thought of as digging up old crap just to be a trouble-maker, sure.

Not because advocating the seizure of private property obtained legally isn't a negative in the Democratic primaries, though.  There's a level of extremism that doesn't work very well in what is nowadays pretty much a consensus party.  If he actually brought it up he'd probably get smacked down pretty hard for it.  But yeah, if he doesn't bring it up in all likelihood no one else will either, the issue should have cycled out by then.
 
2013-02-18 10:16:21 AM

Silverstaff: I'm talking about primaries.  You think in a 2016 primary with a half-dozen candidates on the ticket, that somebody who is outspoken in favor of gun control won't have serious problems in a lot of states?  Red states still have Democratic primaries too, and in those states even Democrats are likely to be opposed to gun control.  In a primary, when you might not know a whole lot about the various candidates, knowing one is openly in favor of gun confiscation is a kiss of death in a lot of places.


Maybe you should read the responses I've written, where I make it pretty clear I'm talking about the primaries. And no -  it will not make a major difference, because Democratic primary voters do not base their votes on this single issue, even in red states.What half-dozen candidates for the Democrats do you imagine where gun control is the final and deciding issue? Any candidate who makes gun control their sole issue doesn't stand a chance, or is  not running as a Democrat in the primaries.

You'll notice Clinton says "don't trivialize it", not "avoid the subject entirely".

It would probably have an impact on Congressional races, but that's not what we're talking about.
 
2013-02-18 10:19:35 AM

qorkfiend: From within the Democratic party? No, it won't be too much of a problem. "Gun nuts" within the Democratic party, such as they are, are not single-issue voters like their Republican analogs are; if they were, they wouldn't be Democrats.


It's not so much that they'll vote Republican, so much as they'll stay home because while they might want a Democrat to win, they won't want *THAT* Democrat to win.

Look at the margins in 2 of the states that barely went blue in the last election:

Ohio:  2.98%
Florida: 0.88%
Virginia: 3.88%

Combined, if they had gone the other way, that would put any Republican in striking distance of winning.  All are big hunting/shooting states.  All it would take is for a Vermont, or New Hampshire, or Maine, or a number of other states where the difference was less than 6% to flip.

Vermont is a big possibility, too:  They are liberal, but they do love their guns, so much so that the local Burlington gun range where the police practice has forbidden them from doing so until Burlington drops it's proposed assault weapons ban.

Andrew Cuomo is never, ever going to become president.  He's like the NRA's wet-dream of a presidential opponent, having pushed gun control when HUD secretary, and now with his latest shenanigans of cramming through a draconian gun and magazine ban in the middle of the night, using a political maneuver normally reserved for natural disasters, and  having openly talked about confiscation.

Yeah, that's just not going to fly in most of fly-over country.  Cuomo slit the throat of his own presidential aspirations.  Not to mention the fact that he's not married, but living with his girlfriend.  That'll go over real well in the Bible Belt.
 
2013-02-18 10:22:13 AM
What about Bloomberg as a challenger?  He's an Independent not a RINO anymore, but he could always re-register.
 
2013-02-18 10:23:54 AM

Silverstaff: qorkfiend: From within the Democratic party? No, it won't be too much of a problem. "Gun nuts" within the Democratic party, such as they are, are not single-issue voters like their Republican analogs are; if they were, they wouldn't be Democrats.

I'm not talking about a General Election and a hypothetical Cuomo vs. Generic Republican.

I'm talking about primaries.  You think in a 2016 primary with a half-dozen candidates on the ticket, that somebody who is outspoken in favor of gun control won't have serious problems in a lot of states?  Red states still have Democratic primaries too, and in those states even Democrats are likely to be opposed to gun control.  In a primary, when you might not know a whole lot about the various candidates, knowing one is openly in favor of gun confiscation is a kiss of death in a lot of places.

If you'd read that warning from President Clinton to the Democrats about this, you'd see he's speaking from experience, that even Democrats must pay some attention to the gun lobby if they want political success at a national scale.

The Democrats lost Congress in '94 due in significant part from the backlash against the Assault Weapons Ban.  There is not as much support for strong gun control as the more liberal wing of the party assumes there is.


This is exactly the kind of astute political analysis one gets from Fox News.  94 election was impacted far more by the health care issue and taxes.  As was stated earlier, Democrats aren't generally single issue voters like Republicans.  Cuomo has negatives, but guns won't be one of them in Democratic primaries.
 
2013-02-18 10:28:03 AM

qorkfiend: Maybe you should read the responses I've written, where I make it pretty clear I'm talking about the primaries. And no - it will not make a major difference, because Democratic primary voters do not base their votes on this single issue, even in red states.What half-dozen candidates for the Democrats do you imagine where gun control is the final and deciding issue? Any candidate who makes gun control their sole issue doesn't stand a chance, or is not running as a Democrat in the primaries.

You'll notice Clinton says "don't trivialize it", not "avoid the subject entirely".

It would probably have an impact on Congressional races, but that's not what we're talking about.



You're right, he does say not to trivialize it.  Having a record of speaking out in favor of confiscation of firearms from otherwise law abiding owners is going to step on some political landmines.  That's essentially trivializing the anti-gun control position, by completely ignoring their position and making no compromise.  The "Cuomo wants to take your guns" attack ads will be harsh.

To most of America beyond New York State, Andrew Cuomo is an unknown.  He's not going in with a long track record known to the country like Biden or Hillary Clinton.  His political opponents can set the stage, and that quote will be able to come back and bite him in the ass.  Even with Biden leading the gun control commission, he's not advocating seizure, which lets him remain somewhat viable into 2016.
 
2013-02-18 10:28:51 AM

Doc Daneeka: Guns are going to be pretty far down the list of issues in 2016


I think you are wrong.

Guns were pretty far down the list of issues in 2008 because the Supreme Court affirmed the right to keep and bear arms in DC v. Heller.  They were far down the list of issues in 2012 because the SC also ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment was incorporated against the states.

Those two decisions pretty much took guns off the table as an issue, and Barack Obama studiously avoided making any gun control proposals until *AFTER* the 2012 election, despite numerous opportunities to do so.

It's out in the open, now, though.  It's not something that can be dismissed, and if you put Cuomo up as the presidential candidate, he lose a number of states that were blue in 2012, but are generally gun friendly or full of sportsman.

The only way that's *NOT* going to happen is if the Supreme Court rules that things like assault weapons bans and bans on magazines with more than 7 or 10 round capacity are unconstitutional.
 
2013-02-18 10:32:08 AM
Any Carl Paladino reference needs a link to my favorite greenlight: 7252902
 
2013-02-18 10:33:07 AM
As a resident of NYS, I feel that Andrew's gun legislation has made him toxic waste in red states, and right leaning blue states. If he runs I will be surprised if he wins
 
2013-02-18 10:33:42 AM
All I can say is... Chocolate Rain.

/That is all
 
2013-02-18 10:35:19 AM

dittybopper: qorkfiend: From within the Democratic party? No, it won't be too much of a problem. "Gun nuts" within the Democratic party, such as they are, are not single-issue voters like their Republican analogs are; if they were, they wouldn't be Democrats.

It's not so much that they'll vote Republican, so much as they'll stay home because while they might want a Democrat to win, they won't want *THAT* Democrat to win.

Look at the margins in 2 of the states that barely went blue in the last election:

Ohio:  2.98%
Florida: 0.88%
Virginia: 3.88%

Combined, if they had gone the other way, that would put any Republican in striking distance of winning.  All are big hunting/shooting states.  All it would take is for a Vermont, or New Hampshire, or Maine, or a number of other states where the difference was less than 6% to flip.

Vermont is a big possibility, too:  They are liberal, but they do love their guns, so much so that the local Burlington gun range where the police practice has forbidden them from doing so until Burlington drops it's proposed assault weapons ban.

Andrew Cuomo is never, ever going to become president.  He's like the NRA's wet-dream of a presidential opponent, having pushed gun control when HUD secretary, and now with his latest shenanigans of cramming through a draconian gun and magazine ban in the middle of the night, using a political maneuver normally reserved for natural disasters, and  having openly talked about confiscation.

Yeah, that's just not going to fly in most of fly-over country.  Cuomo slit the throat of his own presidential aspirations.  Not to mention the fact that he's not married, but living with his girlfriend.  That'll go over real well in the Bible Belt.


Yes, it could potentially be a detriment in the general election, but since I was referring to the primaries originally...

The NRA had no problems with Mitt Romney, despite him increasing gun control in Massachusetts during his tenure as Governor. The NRA will support the Republican and oppose the Democrat, regardless of the actual nominees' positions on the issue.

I don't think Cuomo's history of gun control - especially if he avoids the subject entirely during a general campaign - would cause a 4- or 5-point swing in Ohio or Virginia. There are some people who are very loud and outspoken about guns, to whom gun control is the single overriding issue, but like I've said,  they do not vote Democrat under any circumstances, andI seriously doubt that they comprise 4-5% of the swing voters in Ohio or Virginia. If you think that Cuomo and whoever the eventual Republican nominee is are exactly identical in every single way except gun control, then yes, you might not vote for Cuomo; this is not due to Cuomo's historical actions on gun control, it's due to poor framing of the issues for the election on the part of the hypothetical Cuomo campaign.

If the path to the presidency for Cuomo - or any Democrat, for that matter - lies through the Bible Belt, they've already lost.
 
2013-02-18 10:37:06 AM

dittybopper: It's not something that can be dismissed, and if you put Cuomo up as the presidential candidate, he lose a number of states that were blue in 2012, but are generally gun friendly or full of sportsman.


The faulty assumption you are making here is that all of the voters of these states will base their votes solely on gun control. This is false.
 
2013-02-18 10:39:30 AM

quatchi: First, they aren't gonna run a "Any Palamino's a pal o' mine-o" Paladino type candidate next time.


Sez who? New York's GOP is a clusterfark. Paladino was a nut and dragged down the rest of the ticket. The candidate they put up against Giillibrand last year was a nut.`

The only way George Pataki managed to win in 1994 is that the entire state was sick of 12 years of Mario Cuomo, and one term isn't enough for Andrew to wear out his welcome.
 
2013-02-18 10:39:51 AM

dittybopper: Doc Daneeka: Guns are going to be pretty far down the list of issues in 2016

I think you are wrong.

Guns were pretty far down the list of issues in 2008 because the Supreme Court affirmed the right to keep and bear arms in DC v. Heller.  They were far down the list of issues in 2012 because the SC also ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment was incorporated against the states.

Those two decisions pretty much took guns off the table as an issue, and Barack Obama studiously avoided making any gun control proposals until *AFTER* the 2012 election, despite numerous opportunities to do so.

It's out in the open, now, though.  It's not something that can be dismissed, and if you put Cuomo up as the presidential candidate, he lose a number of states that were blue in 2012, but are generally gun friendly or full of sportsman.

The only way that's *NOT* going to happen is if the Supreme Court rules that things like assault weapons bans and bans on magazines with more than 7 or 10 round capacity are unconstitutional.




I was talking about he Democratic primaries. Guns are not going to be an issue in the Democratic primaries.

Any voter for whom gun rights is their #1 issue is already a Republican or independent, not a Democrat.

If anything, having a strong gun control position might help Cuomo in the primaries, where Democrats must appeal to the party's base - it's most liberal and enthusiastic segment.
 
2013-02-18 10:42:33 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Political analysis from the New York Post is like watching a dog try to do origami.


Hey now - Fred Dicker is a legend in the mind of Fred Dicker.

/anyway, are Cuomo's people really that surprised here? That a GOP with any semblance of power still exists in this state is thanks to Cuomo's awkwardly propping them up in the State Senate.
 
2013-02-18 10:45:15 AM

Howie Spankowitz: This is exactly the kind of astute political analysis one gets from Fox News. 94 election was impacted far more by the health care issue and taxes. As was stated earlier, Democrats aren't generally single issue voters like Republicans. Cuomo has negatives, but guns won't be one of them in Democratic primaries.


So, President Bill Clinton is a FOX News analyst?

From the article I linked to:


"Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban "devastated" more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms - and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress. "

Bill Clinton himself, as recently as a couple months ago, placed much of the blame from 1994's election losses on the AWB, based on his own position as President talking to the various congressmen trying to get support for the bill and the Democratic Congressmen who refused to back it because they knew it would cost them their seats and the ones who did back it, and lost to Republican candidates who pressed that point against them.
 
2013-02-18 10:46:09 AM

ThisSideofSteinway: That a GOP with any semblance of power still exists in this state is thanks to Cuomo's awkwardly propping them up in the State Senate.


Also, a big motherfarking this.

If Cuomo runs and doesn't win the nomination, it won't be because of his stance on gun control; it will be because the Democratic Party doesn't trust him.
 
2013-02-18 10:46:40 AM
This NY resident thinks "NO"
 
2013-02-18 10:47:49 AM

TheHighlandHowler: What about Bloomberg as a challenger?  He's an Independent not a RINO anymore, but he could always re-register.


He doesn't live at Gracie Mansion because he can't legally have his girlfriend stay over.  He's liberal, he's Jewish and he's not rabidly pro-Israel.

In other words, he could never get a foothold in the modern Republican party.
 
2013-02-18 10:48:02 AM

Silverstaff: Howie Spankowitz: This is exactly the kind of astute political analysis one gets from Fox News. 94 election was impacted far more by the health care issue and taxes. As was stated earlier, Democrats aren't generally single issue voters like Republicans. Cuomo has negatives, but guns won't be one of them in Democratic primaries.

So, President Bill Clinton is a FOX News analyst?

From the article I linked to:


"Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban "devastated" more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms - and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress. "

Bill Clinton himself, as recently as a couple months ago, placed much of the blame from 1994's election losses on the AWB, based on his own position as President talking to the various congressmen trying to get support for the bill and the Democratic Congressmen who refused to back it because they knew it would cost them their seats and the ones who did back it, and lost to Republican candidates who pressed that point against them.


Why do you keep talking about the 1994 midterms in a discussion about the incipient 2016 Democratic primary?
 
2013-02-18 10:50:48 AM

Howie Spankowitz: This is exactly the kind of astute political analysis one gets from Fox News.  94 election was impacted far more by the health care issue and taxes.  As was stated earlier, Democrats aren't generally single issue voters like Republicans.  Cuomo has negatives, but guns won't be one of them in Democratic primaries.


Oh yes it will be.  Not so much on the coasts, but definitely in fly-over country.

Besides that, however, it will hurt him badly in the general election.  Someone who openly talks about confiscation (something that even Barack Obama was smart enough to avoid) is going to be a non-starter among many blue-collar Democrats.  They might not vote republican, but they won't vote for someone who openly talks about taking guns.

Also, it's not just the gun control that he passed, it's the way he passed it, in the dead of night without the required 3 days of public comment that will piss a lot of people off.  Even if you think gun control is a good idea, the manner in which the New York SAFE Act was introduced and passed should piss off anyone who respects democracy as an idea.

Cuomo's approval rating dropped 15% due to that.  In New York State, dominated as it is by solidly democratic New York City and the downstate areas surrounding it, he can take a hit like that and still have a 59% approval rating.  Thousands have descended on the state capitol to protest after, more than once, and another protest is planned for the end of this month.

If his actions are that contentious in NY, that it caused his approval rating to drop that far, and that have caused thousands to protest, what do you think his odds are going to be in less liberal areas?
 
2013-02-18 10:50:50 AM
Anyway, I think it's wrong to assume that even most gun owning Dems (and hunters and sportsmen of both parties really) hold a position as extreme as the NRA's - namely that the 2nd amendment confers a right to any and all guns, and pretty much any regulations or restrictions are bad. I suspect most gun owners are more moderate and reasonable.

The NRA is an industry lobbying group representing the interests of gun manufacturers. It is wrong to assume they represent the interests and views and rights of any group of voters. That is not their purpose.
 
2013-02-18 10:52:00 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Political analysis from the New York Post is like watching a dog try to do origami.


You.  I like you.
 
2013-02-18 11:01:49 AM

qorkfiend: Why do you keep talking about the 1994 midterms in a discussion about the incipient 2016 Democratic primary?


Because, if you'd actually read what I was saying, I have been talking about the impact of taking a strongly pro-gun control position on the Democratic electorate.

Andrew Cuomo is politically non-viable in many states due to his strongly anti-gun positions, including advocating outright confiscation of personally owned firearms.  In a Democratic primary, they run in red states too, and do not assume that just because they are a Democrat that they are anti-gun.

He hasn't just had a position of being in favor of gun control, he passed a sweeping assault weapon ban and magazine restriction literally overnight ramrodding it through the state legislature before the public (and media) could comment, and told the media that he wanted to just seize guns outright if he could.  That might not be political poison in New York, but a lot of states that went Blue in 2012 might well not in 2016 with that kind of millstone around the neck, and in a hotly contested primary contest expect things like gun control positions to be an issue.

You think Iowa Democrats (as an example of a prominent place in the Primaries process where some campaigns are made or broken, and is pretty rural and conservative) are anti-gun just because that is the stereotype?  You think Democrats in "Red States" don't hunt and target shoot?
 
2013-02-18 11:02:50 AM

qorkfiend: The NRA had no problems with Mitt Romney, despite him increasing gun control in Massachusetts during his tenure as Governor.


Two points:

1. He didn't actually increase gun control in Massachusetts as governor, he actually decreased it.  I've independently verified the claims on that page by actually reading the bills in question.  What you *THINK* you know is wrong.

2. The NRA endorsed him knowing that it has more influence over republicans than democrats, and the idea was that a republican president, even one as wishy-washy as Romney, would be more likely to nominate pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court justices than Barack Obama.

That second point is important:  No one envisioned any actual gun legislation coming up on the horizon, not even the NRA.  Their main concern was Supreme Court nominations, given the slim 5 to 4 majorities in both Heller and McDonald.  Replacing one of those 5 with a liberal justice would tip the balance, and it was with that in mind that the NRA endorsed Romney, even though he wasn't their ideal candidate.
 
2013-02-18 11:20:30 AM

dittybopper: 1. He didn't actually increase gun control in Massachusetts as governor, he actually decreased it.  I've independently verified the claims on that page by actually reading the bills in question.  What you *THINK* you know is wrong.


Alright, I'll take your word for it.

dittybopper: 2. The NRA endorsed him knowing that it has more influence over republicans than democrats, and the idea was that a republican president, even one as wishy-washy as Romney, would be more likely to nominate pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court justices than Barack Obama.


This just further reinforces the idea that the NRA will support the Republican and oppose the Democrat, regardless of the individual candidates' positions.
 
2013-02-18 11:31:05 AM

Silverstaff: Howie Spankowitz: This is exactly the kind of astute political analysis one gets from Fox News. 94 election was impacted far more by the health care issue and taxes. As was stated earlier, Democrats aren't generally single issue voters like Republicans. Cuomo has negatives, but guns won't be one of them in Democratic primaries.

So, President Bill Clinton is a FOX News analyst?


No, but drawing a correlation between a midterm election that took place nearly 20 years ago and a presidential election that will take place 3 years from now is exactly the kind of "analysis" I expect from Fox News.

From the article I linked to:

"Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban "devastated" more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms - and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress. "

Bill Clinton himself, as recently as a couple months ago, placed much of the blame from 1994's election losses on the AWB, based on his own position as President talking to the various congressmen trying to get support for the bill and the Democratic Congressmen who refused to back it because they knew it would cost them their seats and the ones who did back it, and lost to Republican candidates who pressed that point against them.


I really don't care.  The consensus among political scientists who studied data from the 94 elections is that tax increases and the health care issue had a more significant impact than the AWB.  All of this is immaterial to the 2016 presidential election.  Particularly in the Democratic primaries, which is the original argument you were making.


 
2013-02-18 11:41:34 AM

dittybopper: Howie Spankowitz: This is exactly the kind of astute political analysis one gets from Fox News.  94 election was impacted far more by the health care issue and taxes.  As was stated earlier, Democrats aren't generally single issue voters like Republicans.  Cuomo has negatives, but guns won't be one of them in Democratic primaries.

Oh yes it will be.  Not so much on the coasts, but definitely in fly-over country.


Oh no it won't.  Did I just accidentally stumble into the Arguments room?  Again, Democrats aren't single issue voters like Republicans.

Besides that, however, it will hurt him badly in the general election.  Someone who openly talks about confiscation (something that even Barack Obama was smart enough to avoid) is going to be a non-starter among many blue-collar Democrats.  They might not vote republican, but they won't vote for someone who openly talks about taking guns.

Also, it's not just the gun control that he passed, it's the way he passed it, in the dead of night without the required 3 days of public comment that will piss a lot of people off.  Even if you think gun control is a good idea, the manner in which the New York SAFE Act was introduced and passed should piss off anyone who respects democracy as an idea.

Cuomo's approval rating dropped 15% due to that.  In New York State, dominated as it is by solidly democratic New York City and the downstate areas surrounding it, he can take a hit like that and still have a 59% approval rating.  Thousands have descended on the state capitol to protest after, more than once, and another protest is planned for the end of this month.

If his actions are that contentious in NY, that it caused his approval rating to drop that far, and that have caused thousands to protest, what do you think his odds are going to be in less liberal areas?


You aren't factoring in at all the changing tide on this issue following incidences like Sandy Hook.  When coupled with a (literally) dying Republican party and younger voters who are much more liberal on these issues than the previous generation, I don't see this as having the impact you think it will.  Also, see my comment above.  In direct answer to your final question, his odds will be better in the primaries if he clearly articulates a broad agenda that appeals to Democrats.  Guns won't even be close the the top of the list for Dems, even in "real Murka."
 
2013-02-18 11:47:02 AM

qorkfiend: dittybopper: 1. He didn't actually increase gun control in Massachusetts as governor, he actually decreased it.  I've independently verified the claims on that page by actually reading the bills in question.  What you *THINK* you know is wrong.

Alright, I'll take your word for it.

dittybopper: 2. The NRA endorsed him knowing that it has more influence over republicans than democrats, and the idea was that a republican president, even one as wishy-washy as Romney, would be more likely to nominate pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court justices than Barack Obama.

This just further reinforces the idea that the NRA will support the Republican and oppose the Democrat, regardless of the individual candidates' positions.


I disagree.

I'm betting that if Romney had been running against a very pro-Second Amendment democrat, say, Bill Richardson, they would have endorsed Richardson instead.  In fact, they *DID* endorse Richardson over his republican opponent for governor of New Mexico.  He was their favored candidate of either party early in the 2008 election cycle.
 
2013-02-18 12:02:09 PM

Howie Spankowitz: dittybopper: Howie Spankowitz: This is exactly the kind of astute political analysis one gets from Fox News.  94 election was impacted far more by the health care issue and taxes.  As was stated earlier, Democrats aren't generally single issue voters like Republicans.  Cuomo has negatives, but guns won't be one of them in Democratic primaries.

Oh yes it will be.  Not so much on the coasts, but definitely in fly-over country.

Oh no it won't.  Did I just accidentally stumble into the Arguments room?  Again, Democrats aren't single issue voters like Republicans.


This is abuse.  You want the thread next door.

Besides that, however, it will hurt him badly in the general election.  Someone who openly talks about confiscation (something that even Barack Obama was smart enough to avoid) is going to be a non-starter among many blue-collar Democrats.  They might not vote republican, but they won't vote for someone who openly talks about taking guns.

Also, it's not just the gun control that he passed, it's the way he passed it, in the dead of night without the required 3 days of public comment that will piss a lot of people off.  Even if you think gun control is a good idea, the manner in which the New York SAFE Act was introduced and passed should piss off anyone who respects democracy as an idea.

Cuomo's approval rating dropped 15% due to that.  In New York State, dominated as it is by solidly democratic New York City and the downstate areas surrounding it, he can take a hit like that and still have a 59% approval rating.  Thousands have descended on the state capitol to protest after, more than once, and another protest is planned for the end of this month.

If his actions are that contentious in NY, that it caused his approval rating to drop that far, and that have caused thousands to protest, what do you think his odds are going to be in less liberal areas?

You aren't factoring in at all the changing tide on this issue following incidences like Sandy Hook.  When coupled with a (literally) dying Republican party
 and younger voters who are much more liberal on these issues than the previous generation, I don't see this as having the impact you think it will.  Also, see my comment above.  In direct answer to your final question, his odds will be better in the primaries if he clearly articulates a broad agenda that appeals to Democrats.  Guns won't even be close the the top of the list for Dems, even in "real Murka."

I disagree.  First, gun voters vote guns, and guns have become more popular and more mainstream over the last few years.  The trend of declining hunters has reversed, and their numbers have increased by 5% in just the last few years (to over 15 million), more and more guns are being purchased, to the point where it's damned hard to find them along with ammo, we've had several years of pro-gun characters on TV who aren't idiots.  Shooting is more popular than it's been in a long time.  We've got 2 Supreme Court decisions under our belts.

I think you are confusing Gun Culture 2.0 with Gun Culture 1.0.  Gun Culture 1.0 is commonly referred to as "The Fudds".  Generally they are older, and yes, they are dying out.  They are the traditional hunter, or skeet shooter, and they tend to be older white males.

Gun Culture 2.0 is more brown overall, more female, and more likely to own guns for defensive purposes and to hold a CCW than GC 1.0, and unfortunately for your thesis, they also tend to be younger, and more likely to own a gun for purely ideological reasons.

Gradually, starting back when I was a younger lad back in the 1980s, but accelerating recently, GC 2.0 has been replacing GC 1.0.

Here is an interesting article on the demographic shift of gun owners.
 
2013-02-18 12:32:01 PM
Fred Dicker? And you're discussing it seriously?
 
2013-02-18 02:07:50 PM

dittybopper: I'm betting that if Romney had been running against a very pro-Second Amendment democrat, say, Bill Richardson, they would have endorsed Richardson instead.  In fact, they *DID* endorse Richardson over his republican opponent for governor of New Mexico.  He was their favored candidate of either party early in the 2008 election cycle.


I doubt it. You've said the NRA's primary concern was Supreme Court justices, which I agree with; however, a hypothetical President Bill Richardson would be highly unlikely to nominate justices that would be on the NRA's side in gun control, even if Richardson himself was. Bill Richardson's stance on gun control also didn't do him any favors during the 2008 primaries.

In particular, Richardson's statements from 2008 indicate he is strongly in favor of instant background checks, something the current NRA vigorously opposes.
 
2013-02-18 02:27:23 PM

qorkfiend: dittybopper: I'm betting that if Romney had been running against a very pro-Second Amendment democrat, say, Bill Richardson, they would have endorsed Richardson instead.  In fact, they *DID* endorse Richardson over his republican opponent for governor of New Mexico.  He was their favored candidate of either party early in the 2008 election cycle.

I doubt it. You've said the NRA's primary concern was Supreme Court justices, which I agree with; however, a hypothetical President Bill Richardson would be highly unlikely to nominate justices that would be on the NRA's side in gun control, even if Richardson himself was. Bill Richardson's stance on gun control also didn't do him any favors during the 2008 primaries.

In particular, Richardson's statements from 2008 indicate he is strongly in favor of instant background checks, something the current NRA vigorously opposes.


Imagine, though Richardson up against Romney.  Romney, despite not actually signing a strengthening of the Massachusetts assault weapons ban, BELIEVED he had done so, and apparently so do the vast majority of people*.

The NRA would have two possibilities:  The A-rated Democrat (Bill Richardson), or the B-rated Republican (Mitt Romney).

I'm betting they'd rather have the A rated Democrat, but in any case, it would have been an election they essentially couldn't have lost.

By the way, it appears that Romney got a "B" rating largely because he wasn't Barack Obama, who has well-known anti-gun views (I've been posting evidence of that for years here on Fark).
*See the link from one of my previous posts.
 
2013-02-18 02:30:25 PM
The article dittybopper linked to was curiously absent of any surveys, facts, etc., of actual gun owners.
 
2013-02-18 04:17:06 PM

stpickrell: The article dittybopper linked to was curiously absent of any surveys, facts, etc., of actual gun owners.


Short google away:

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
Poll: Majority of Young People Considering Gun Ownership

It's confusing to people who don't understand the underlying ideology of political gun ownership:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/chart-day-gun-ownershi p- 30-year-decline

If you look at the Gallup Poll here on gun ownership, the numbers bounce around a lot.  In the last 10 years, they've gone from a low of 38% who claim to own a gun, up to 45% (latest number post Sandy Hook is 43%).

I find it hard to believe that there was a real gain of 16 million new gun owners between 2004 and 2011, which is what that would imply.  But if you look *CAREFULLY*, some interesting things emerge.  Roughly 50% of people reported owning a gun until after 1968, which is the year the first major gun control got enacted, then it dropped down to the low 40's.  It peaked again at 51% in October of 1993, which is when the original Brady Bill was being debated in Congress (it was signed by Clinton on November 30th, 1993).

The "low" of gun ownership in that poll was right after Columbine, with only 34% responding that they have guns.  Yet a single year later, that number bounced back up to 42%  That implies that nearly 17 million adults bought guns in a single year (there were 207 million people age 18 and above in 1999, and 8% of that population is 16.56 million).

I find that result ludicrous.  Even *HALF* that number, say, 8 million gun "purchases" to account for families that purchased a gun (so both wife and husband would "own" it) is pretty ridiculous considering that at the time the total net domestic production and importation (minus exports) of firearms totaled around 4.6 million guns.

Something else has to be at work, and I think that because some gun owners are suspicious of strangers asking them if they have guns.  This seems to be the case after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed into law.

When the poll is done immediately after a high profile gun crime (like Columbine), the numbers drop drastically, and rebound within a year.

There is another suspicious drop:  In 1993, right before the Assault Weapons ban, and while the original Brady Bill was being debated, the 3 poll numbers average out to 49%.  In 1996, next time the poll is taken and *AFTER* the original Assault Weapons Ban and just a few months after the Dunblane shooting in Scotland (which got a lot of press in the US), the number drops to 38%.

That's a drop of 11% on the average, and of 13% off the peak.  That translates to a difference of between 21.2 and 25 million gun owners.

To suggest that 12 to 25 million people sold their guns in the short span of 3 years just boggles the mind.

In other words, I think you can demonstrate that people are lying to pollsters about whether they own guns, and the lying seems to be 100% on the side of "Nope, don't have them" when they actually *DO* have them, because fewer people seem to be answering in the affirmative immediately after restrictive gun legislation is passed or after some high-profile crime committed with guns, or both.

My guess is that the true number of households with legal guns is at least 50%, and probably much higher, up into the 60% range, if you include "illegal" guns.
 
2013-02-18 04:46:58 PM
It's not the gun thing that would be problematic for Cuomo, it's the -NY thing.

The rest of the country looks at New York the way Obi-Wan looked at Mos Eisley.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report