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.

(The Hill)   Boehner says the GOP is going to be fine in 2014. Behold Nostradumbass   (thehill.com) divider line 85
    More: Unlikely, Boehner, GOP, lower house, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee  
•       •       •

1159 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2013 at 5:24 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-23 05:10:05 PM
It's like when they interview a quarterback after a loss and he gives canned answers to hide the fact that his runningback has been humping the tackling dummies and his secondary is convinced the mascot is an avatar of Satan.
 
2013-10-23 05:17:54 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-23 05:21:41 PM
Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.
 
2013-10-23 05:21:58 PM
No, he admitted they're doomed:

"As long as we stay focused on the priorities of the American people, I think we're going to be fine,"
 
2013-10-23 05:23:16 PM

RexTalionis: Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.


Add in this country's 2 week attention span...
 
2013-10-23 05:26:20 PM

mediablitz: RexTalionis: Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.

Add in this country's 2 week attention span...


Mix vigorously in the right wing noise machine, and it will be largely a wash again.
 
2013-10-23 05:26:30 PM

mediablitz: RexTalionis: Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.

Add in this country's 2 week attention span...


OH LOOK!  Kim Kardashian just got engaged!
 
2013-10-23 05:29:14 PM

MrBallou: No, he admitted they're doomed:

"As long as we stay focused on the priorities of the American people, We've already rigged the voting, I think we're going to be fine,"

 
2013-10-23 05:30:41 PM

Diogenes: mediablitz: RexTalionis: Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.

Add in this country's 2 week attention span...

Mix vigorously in the right wing noise machine, and it will be largely a wash again.


Don't forget all the people who can vote but won't get off their lazy butts.

And then we have all the Republican-approved Voter ID laws, designed to prevent women and minorities from voting.

Altogether, this is a perfect recipe for the Republicans maintaining control of the House and doing very well at the state level.
 
2013-10-23 05:32:59 PM
What...? You're still here? The movie's over.
 
2013-10-23 05:34:40 PM
He's not wrong. 2014 won't change the balance of power much, and if it does change, there's a greater chance that it shifts significantly in the GOP's favor than against them...
 
2013-10-23 05:36:08 PM
Sadly, he may be correct.

The combination of Idiocracy and Gerrymandering means Repubs are safe.
 
2013-10-23 05:36:26 PM

Local Man: [img.fark.net image 300x225]


s11.postimg.org

(originally from http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7332/10127038704_3cea8bbb90_n.jpg)
 
2013-10-23 05:36:31 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

"As long as we stay focused on the priorities of the American people, I think we're going to be fine."
 
2013-10-23 05:36:48 PM

ManateeGag: mediablitz: RexTalionis: Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.

Add in this country's 2 week attention span...

OH LOOK!  Kim Kardashian just got engaged!


OMG MILEY!
 
2013-10-23 05:38:41 PM

Shostie: ManateeGag: mediablitz: RexTalionis: Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.

Add in this country's 2 week attention span...

OH LOOK!  Kim Kardashian just got engaged!

OMG MILEY!


SQUIRREL!
 
2013-10-23 05:41:17 PM
American's short attention span + gerrymandering = GOP House until at least 2020.
 
2013-10-23 05:41:33 PM

mediablitz: RexTalionis: Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.

Add in this country's 2 week attention span...


Yup, they're fine.  Which is why we're all screwed.

/AHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
2013-10-23 05:44:56 PM
I think they will be OK too.  Voters have very short memories.
 
2013-10-23 05:47:38 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

WHo Rebubblicans?
 
2013-10-23 05:49:13 PM
cdn.cultofmac.com

"As long as we stay focused on the priorities of the American people, I think we're going to be fine."
 
2013-10-23 05:50:43 PM
My guess is not much changes.

If there is a change, some of the tea party people will be replaced by "moderate" Republicans who hate Obama just as much.

Just less violently so.
 
2013-10-23 05:52:17 PM
Unfortunately, he's almost certainly right. Most of the House seats up for grabs are heavily gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. They may even pick up a few seats, which of course they will interpret as a 'mandate' and quadruple down on their derp. Anyone looking forward to the baggers being shown the door in 2014 is likely to be disappointed. 2016, on the other hand...
 
2013-10-23 05:55:25 PM
Their best bet is that people will forget how they tried to destroy the US, so they will probably want to double down and try it again because that is just the way that they roll.
 
2013-10-23 05:58:40 PM
www.brendanwalsh.us

Face-swap with crying Boehner plz
 
2013-10-23 05:58:57 PM
He's right. For 2014, anyway.
 
2013-10-23 06:01:00 PM
Americans are morons, so he's probably right
 
2013-10-23 06:01:03 PM
They can, indeed, hold everything they have now in 2014. Gerrymandered districts, low voter turnouts, and lots of open D seats mean that the GOP will probably manage things. They may lose a few seats due to Tea Party dumbassery and some close races to their shutdown shiatshow but they probably hold the House and keep a filibustery number of seats in the Senate

In 2016 they are in deep shiat.
 
2013-10-23 06:04:04 PM

odinsposse: They can, indeed, hold everything they have now in 2014. Gerrymandered districts, low voter turnouts, and lots of open D seats mean that the GOP will probably manage things. They may lose a few seats due to Tea Party dumbassery and some close races to their shutdown shiatshow but they probably hold the House and keep a filibustery number of seats in the Senate

In 2016 they are in deep shiat.


I disagree. By 2016, the Republican Party may have finally shifted far enough to the right that they will appear attractive to Real Americans, thus finally establishing themselves as the dominant political party for the indefinite future.
 
2013-10-23 06:07:19 PM

FuturePastNow: Americans are morons, so he's probably right


After the recent shutdown and almost-default, I think it was Pew [Pew! Pew!] that did a poll as to "what is your opinion of the Tea Party after all of this?"

48% of those polled had "no opinion", and that apparently included a significant number that "had not heard of the Tea Party".  No.  farking.  Opinion.

Whether the world's economy was on the brink of collapse, this was an unprecedented political maneuver that, if successful, would have let to a significant imbalance in the "checks and balances" system of our government.

48%.  No.  farking.  Opinion.
 
2013-10-23 06:08:19 PM
You've got a friend in Gerry Mander (if you're a Republican)
 
2013-10-23 06:10:42 PM
everybody here is mentioning the nation's attention span as if the GOP isn't going to keep this brinksmanship bullshiat up right until november 2014.
 
2013-10-23 06:11:21 PM

Tax Boy: [www.brendanwalsh.us image 396x361]

Face-swap with crying Boehner plz


www.brinkleys.org

You're welcome
 
2013-10-23 06:11:26 PM

Dimensio: odinsposse: They can, indeed, hold everything they have now in 2014. Gerrymandered districts, low voter turnouts, and lots of open D seats mean that the GOP will probably manage things. They may lose a few seats due to Tea Party dumbassery and some close races to their shutdown shiatshow but they probably hold the House and keep a filibustery number of seats in the Senate

In 2016 they are in deep shiat.

I disagree. By 2016, the Republican Party may have finally shifted far enough to the right that they will appear attractive to Real Americans, thus finally establishing themselves as the dominant political party for the indefinite future.


If they do go far enough right they may be popular enough but they will probably be too busy gathering skulls for the Blood God's throne to vote.
 
2013-10-23 06:13:37 PM

born_yesterday: FuturePastNow: Americans are morons, so he's probably right

After the recent shutdown and almost-default, I think it was Pew [Pew! Pew!] that did a poll as to "what is your opinion of the Tea Party after all of this?"

48% of those polled had "no opinion", and that apparently included a significant number that "had not heard of the Tea Party".  No.  farking.  Opinion.

Whether the world's economy was on the brink of collapse, this was an unprecedented political maneuver that, if successful, would have let to a significant imbalance in the "checks and balances" system of our government.

48%.  No.  farking.  Opinion.


This is why I'm increasingly losing faith in Democracy as an effective system of government in the US.

I'd rather be lead by rational people who weren't elected than irrational people who were.
 
2013-10-23 06:14:10 PM

Dimensio: odinsposse: They can, indeed, hold everything they have now in 2014. Gerrymandered districts, low voter turnouts, and lots of open D seats mean that the GOP will probably manage things. They may lose a few seats due to Tea Party dumbassery and some close races to their shutdown shiatshow but they probably hold the House and keep a filibustery number of seats in the Senate

In 2016 they are in deep shiat.

I disagree. By 2016, the Republican Party may have finally shifted far enough to the right that they will appear attractive to Real Americans, thus finally establishing themselves as the dominant political party for the indefinite future.


Too bad we don't live in this so-called "Real America" that Real Americans fancy themselves in. 2014 will be a mild shift blue, but 2016 will be a powerful push blue, to include the White House.
 
2013-10-23 06:14:17 PM
"As long as we stay focused on the priorities of the American people, I think we're going to be fine," he said. 

When have you ever been focused on the priorities of the American people, John?
 
2013-10-23 06:17:35 PM
He's not entirely wrong. With the way that the GOP has gerrymandered the maps, most of their caucus is safe even if they go completely insane. Take a look at the Cook Partisan Voting Index. The Republicans only own 9 seats in congress that are even or lean democratic. The democrats have 17 that lean R, and 6 "even". They could lose all 9 of their swing seats and gain nothing back, and still control the house. Complicating issues is that the more liberal electorate doesn't historically come out and vote for midterms - as was a big issue in 2010. So it's not like 2014 is a prime chance for dems to take over the house. 2012 was their big voter surge, they can't reasonably expect to do *better* than winning the popular vote by 1.5M.

Realistically, the House is probably going to stay red until 2020. That will be a big presidential election, it will have been 7 more years of old white folks dying off, and you will likely see an impressive voter surge for democrats. After 2020, the blue side will re-rig the districts in their favor, and hold house for a decade or so. That's the reality of the situation if Republicans don't alter their platform to connect to a wider base of voters. As it is, they can't really hope to win a presidential election against a competent Democrat. They lack any "superstar" that could be viewed favorably by moderates despite their ideals, and their ideals are not popular enough to win those races.
 
2013-10-23 06:20:01 PM

fusillade762: Shostie: ManateeGag: mediablitz: RexTalionis: Well, he's probably not going to be too wrong - almost none of his Republican caucus are in swing districts. They're mostly safe.

Add in this country's 2 week attention span...

OH LOOK!  Kim Kardashian just got engaged!

OMG MILEY!

SQUIRREL!


Go for the eyes boo!
 
2013-10-23 06:23:19 PM

JesusJuice: Unfortunately, he's almost certainly right. Most of the House seats up for grabs are heavily gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. They may even pick up a few seats, which of course they will interpret as a 'mandate' and quadruple down on their derp. Anyone looking forward to the baggers being shown the door in 2014 is likely to be disappointed. 2016, on the other hand...


I really don't know. I would say it's 50/50 to be honest.

For one, historically, the incumbent usually loses house and senate seats on the 6th year election day. But the notable exception is Clinton 1998, where the Democrats made huge gains. Mainly, the American people were fed up with the GOP obstructionism, Government Shutdown, and Impeachment witchhunt. And took out their anger at the GOP.

It also should be known that while the American people have notoriously short memories, are fat and stupid, can't locate most countries on a globe and don't know that footballs are round, most Americans don't vote. However, the likely voters, especially likely swing voters, look heavy Democrat in 2014, although that can change considerably in one year.

The key is, the GOP strategy of obstructionism, blowing minor scandals incredibly out of proportion (Fast and Furious, Benghazi), and partisan primarying, coupled with an aging voter base that does not exactly speak to the middle anymore, is not a winning one. If the GOP continues it's nonstop derp, it's highly likely that 2014 will be another Democratic wipeout of the national GOP, further cementing the GOP as a regional party and will likely continue down the road to complete irrelevance.

Where the GOP did well during Reagan, and got Bush elected, was mainly the "mad dog" approach which has been largely abandoned. Back at the nadir of the GOP, GOP officials always came across as reasonable, and avoided controversial statements and open confrontations as much as possible. Meanwhile, the GOP would use virulent talk radio hosts to push the agenda, lambasting Democrats and forcing them on their back heel. Now, modern GOP/Tea Party congressmen are no different from the caustic, unempathetic radio shock jocks of the 80's. In fact, I think most Tea Partiers would consider 1984 Wally George or Morton Downey Junior to be RINOs. That works to rally the base, but in general elections, this absolutely turns off swing voters.

And that was the point--The nomination of Sarah Palin, in order to "Rally the Base" of the GOP, has basically devolved into a war of ideological puritanism, which works great in bible-belt America but doesn't address the complex realities of the modern, 21st century America. The GOP is largely holding the bag of the 1960's culture wars, supply side economics, and the cold war, completely absent from the modern dialogues of healthcare, wealth inequality, civil rights, infrastructure development, and shifting global job markets. I genuinely think the reason why the GOP idolizes Reagan is that, for all intents and purposes, are literally stuck in 1984..Which means nothing to an election 30 years later. It's akin to talking about prohibition and temperance in 1950, where the red scare, the threat and promise of atomic energy, and the changing face of postwar America where the contemporaneous issues of the day.

Unless the GOP unleashes legislation that is forward thinking, and above all else, speaks to the 21st century, I don't see them doing anything more than holding the line in the south and midwest. From what I see, the derp will continue, and the GOP "Rallies their base". The dumber the false scandals and rhetoric are, the more seats the Democrats will win. Unless the GOP congress actually legislates something, forward thinking as well, it's gonna be a pyrrhic victory for the GOP--Keeping their house majority, but with a significantly reduced margin and going in with lesser national influence in the wake of the key 2016 election.
 
2013-10-23 06:24:12 PM

DarwiOdrade: "As long as we stay focused on the priorities of the American people, I think we're going to be fine," he said. 

When have you ever been focused on the priorities of the American people, John?


I don't recall anyone on FARK mentioning Cruz's speech after he was told/decided not to block the Senate bill ending the shutdown.  If I had to take a shot every time he mentioned "Americans that are suffering because of Obamacare", I'd be dead right now.  As if that opportunistic shiatheel gives a rat's ass about anyone.

JesusJuice: This is why I'm increasingly losing faith in Democracy as an effective system of government in the US.

I'd rather be lead by rational people who weren't elected than irrational people who were.


If we lived in a country where we could guarantee that voting tests accurately and solely excluded the ignorant and stupid, rather than being used by the ignorant and stupid to exclude people based on race, gender, sexuality, or predicted voting stances, I'd be all for them.  But we clearly don't, and we're stuck with these morons.

It never fails to pain me that I could spend my life reading the works of the founding fathers and the philosophers that influenced them, while getting a doctorate in constitutional law, as well as reading all available information regarding proposed legislation and opinions as to its ramifications, and my vote will never count more than someone whose knowledge of politics begins and ends with "BOOTSTRAPS!!!".
 
2013-10-23 06:29:09 PM

lacydog: As it is, they can't really hope to win a presidential election against a competent Democrat. They lack any "superstar" that could be viewed favorably by moderates despite their ideals, and their ideals are not popular enough to win those races.


While I believe this as well, I'm not really sure how good the Democrat's bench is. Beyond two aging stars (Clinton, Biden) there isn't too terribly much star power. Booker or Castro might be able to make the same meteoric rise from small-time to national Obama did. Also, letting such beliefs affect behavior could lead to complacency a la Coakley.
 
2013-10-23 06:34:36 PM

JesusJuice: I'd rather be lead by rational people who weren't elected than irrational people who were.


Spend some time around economists. We tend to fetishize about how great life would be under a "benevolent dictator" who would be immune to the various issues associated with representative government. Granted, it's not really a new or unique idea. If I remember my philosophy correctly, the idea has been around since ancient Greece.
 
2013-10-23 06:38:04 PM

bertor_vidas: lacydog: As it is, they can't really hope to win a presidential election against a competent Democrat. They lack any "superstar" that could be viewed favorably by moderates despite their ideals, and their ideals are not popular enough to win those races.

While I believe this as well, I'm not really sure how good the Democrat's bench is. Beyond two aging stars (Clinton, Biden) there isn't too terribly much star power. Booker or Castro might be able to make the same meteoric rise from small-time to national Obama did. Also, letting such beliefs affect behavior could lead to complacency a la Coakley.


Does it have to be about star power though? Obama wasn't too well known before his run. Someone with their head on straight will make for a good candidate, on either side. Everyone wants Warren, and she definitely shows the competence to get work done.
 
2013-10-23 06:41:36 PM

JesusJuice: born_yesterday: FuturePastNow: Americans are morons, so he's probably right

After the recent shutdown and almost-default, I think it was Pew [Pew! Pew!] that did a poll as to "what is your opinion of the Tea Party after all of this?"

48% of those polled had "no opinion", and that apparently included a significant number that "had not heard of the Tea Party".  No.  farking.  Opinion.

Whether the world's economy was on the brink of collapse, this was an unprecedented political maneuver that, if successful, would have let to a significant imbalance in the "checks and balances" system of our government.

48%.  No.  farking.  Opinion.

This is why I'm increasingly losing faith in Democracy as an effective system of government in the US.

I'd rather be lead by rational people who weren't elected than irrational people who were.


The problem, of course, is how do you ensure that the people who aren't elected are rational?  And you really can't.

I've often said that representative democracy is the second-worst form of government in history.  All the rest are tied for first.
 
2013-10-23 06:47:04 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: It's like when they interview a quarterback after a loss and he gives canned answers to hide the fact that his runningback has been humping the tackling dummies and his secondary is convinced the mascot is an avatar of Satan.


Standard talking points, really
 
2013-10-23 06:48:08 PM

Triple Oak: bertor_vidas: lacydog: As it is, they can't really hope to win a presidential election against a competent Democrat. They lack any "superstar" that could be viewed favorably by moderates despite their ideals, and their ideals are not popular enough to win those races.

While I believe this as well, I'm not really sure how good the Democrat's bench is. Beyond two aging stars (Clinton, Biden) there isn't too terribly much star power. Booker or Castro might be able to make the same meteoric rise from small-time to national Obama did. Also, letting such beliefs affect behavior could lead to complacency a la Coakley.

Does it have to be about star power though? Obama wasn't too well known before his run. Someone with their head on straight will make for a good candidate, on either side. Everyone wants Warren, and she definitely shows the competence to get work done.


Um, I noted that Booker and Castro could make the same jump as Obama. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama burst onto the scene in 2004 with the DNC keynote speech. His face got plastered all over the major media outlets. Sure, they weren't expecting him to run for president in 2008; however, they all talked about how he was a rising star who might run for president someday.
 
2013-10-23 06:49:40 PM
I cannot decide which of these is more appopriate...

♫ ♪ Oooh, dream weaver....♪ ♫
or
♫ ♪ Captain Jack will get you high tonight...♫ ♪



Boehner sez "Americans are worried about their jobs..."
So does that mean it's time to do some more anti-abortion or anti-LGBT or 'voter fraud' legislation?

Or hey...how about flag-burning! That one's always good to rouse the rabble, and it hasn't been used it for a while...
 
2013-10-23 07:09:15 PM
American Public: Well the last 1000 times I voted for Republicans they said they were going to get the government off my back and instead they just deregulated business that then screwed us all over, BUT MAYBE THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT!!
 
2013-10-23 07:37:17 PM

bertor_vidas: Triple Oak: bertor_vidas: lacydog: As it is, they can't really hope to win a presidential election against a competent Democrat. They lack any "superstar" that could be viewed favorably by moderates despite their ideals, and their ideals are not popular enough to win those races.

While I believe this as well, I'm not really sure how good the Democrat's bench is. Beyond two aging stars (Clinton, Biden) there isn't too terribly much star power. Booker or Castro might be able to make the same meteoric rise from small-time to national Obama did. Also, letting such beliefs affect behavior could lead to complacency a la Coakley.

Does it have to be about star power though? Obama wasn't too well known before his run. Someone with their head on straight will make for a good candidate, on either side. Everyone wants Warren, and she definitely shows the competence to get work done.

Um, I noted that Booker and Castro could make the same jump as Obama. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama burst onto the scene in 2004 with the DNC keynote speech. His face got plastered all over the major media outlets. Sure, they weren't expecting him to run for president in 2008; however, they all talked about how he was a rising star who might run for president someday.


A lot of people want that "star power" focus though and it's not right. Booker and Castro, not sure how high they want to try and jump as candidates. Maybe it's from a lack of paying attention at that time but I don't really remember Obama from the keynote speech. I'm much more detail-oriented now in political talk so it could be that change from nine years ago on why I don't remember it.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report