Skip to content
 
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.

(Politico)   The "Bubba Strategy": How Democrats can win over Southern Democrats and not how Bill Clinton manages to get laid   (politico.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1499 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2014 at 3:49 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-07-09 9:42:53 AM  
It's a nice idea, but you have to wonder how well a Democratic "Southern Strategy" would go with urban and minority voters.  Especially on issues like gun control, race and immigration.
 
2014-07-09 10:03:06 AM  
Conversely, Republicans should stop pandering to bigots and morons if they want to gain significant footholds in the blue states.  There's a reason Maine likes its Republican senators.  Hell, Collins didn't even get a tea party challenge in the primaries.

/Of course, it could be argued that Republicans pander to morons because the party's been overrun with morons...
 
2014-07-09 10:44:44 AM  
Jesus Christ the election doesn't start in earnest for over a f*cking year.

We need a Hillary tag apparently, since an opinion blog on a major news site is going to come out about Hillary every day until she's elected.
 
2014-07-09 10:47:19 AM  
Even stupider, look at our current president. Dude can't do sh*t because of Congress.

Who gives a f*ck who the president is if Congress is staffed by a bunch of do-nothing morons? This isn't the 90s, Hillary isn't going to do any better than Obama. Congress is actively working against the people.
 
2014-07-09 10:49:29 AM  

xanadian: Conversely, Republicans should stop pandering to bigots and morons if they want to gain significant footholds in the blue states.


static2.businessinsider.comView Full Size
 
2014-07-09 10:53:18 AM  

vpb: It's a nice idea, but you have to wonder how well a Democratic "Southern Strategy" would go with urban and minority voters.  Especially on issues like gun control, race and immigration.


Well, as far as gun control, who else are they going to vote for, Republicans?

Democrats don't lose votes in urban areas to Republicans if they are pro-gun rights, so long as they are appropriately liberal in other areas, but they *DO* lose votes in rural areas if they are pro-gun control, even if they are appropriately conservative in other areas.

It's a door that mostly swings just one way.  Support for gun control is periodically very wide, but exceedingly shallow.  Almost nobody votes solely on gun control.  Support for gun rights is narrower, but much deeper, and there are a significant number of people who vote solely, or largely, based upon gun rights.   It's not always enough to change the results of an election, but sometimes it is.

If Democrats nationwide got religion on the Second Amendment, they'd have a lock on the White House and Congress that would be nigh on impossible for the Republicans to break for decades to come.

And I doubt that it would cost them any of their core urban vote.
 
2014-07-09 10:59:06 AM  
Worrying about a Bubba strategy in the south is a complete waste of time for the Democrats.

Come up with a Bubbette strategy, dumbasses.
 
2014-07-09 11:05:06 AM  

dittybopper: Almost nobody votes solely on gun control.


Bull. There are a ton of people who are single-issue voters because of gun control.

They're intensely paranoid, they believe that every politician- especially Democrats- are planning to take their guns, and they feel that guns are an absolutely integral part of their personality.

And they vote solely on gun control.
 
2014-07-09 11:22:54 AM  

Gonz: dittybopper: Almost nobody votes solely on gun control.

Bull. There are a ton of people who are single-issue voters because of gun control.

They're intensely paranoid, they believe that every politician- especially Democrats- are planning to take their guns, and they feel that guns are an absolutely integral part of their personality.

And they vote solely on gun control.


How is that different from what I said:

Support for gun rights is narrower, but much deeper, and there are a significant number of people who vote solely, or largely, based upon gun rights.
 
2014-07-09 11:31:04 AM  

Gonz: dittybopper: Almost nobody votes solely on gun control.

Bull. There are a ton of people who are single-issue voters because of gun control.

They're intensely paranoid, they believe that every politician- especially Democrats- are planning to take their guns, and they feel that guns are an absolutely integral part of their personality.

And they vote solely on gun control.


Yes, but no one cares about gun control, really, because those same paranoid delusional GOP types are the same people buying into the same 20 issues the GOP establishment has brainwashed them to buy into on FoxNews and Rush.

Lump them together:
Gun control. Abortion. Taxes. Climate change. Evolution. Welfare. School vouchers. Capital punishment. The list goes on and on. It's mostly the same people though. They overlap to an extreme degree.

For that same reason, dittybopper is completely wrong about gun control being a key issue. Democrats can't simply peel away votes in rural areas by advocating gun rights because Democrats aren't popular enough in rural areas due to all the other conservative issues. Furthermore, urban areas are growing.

Also frankly speaking a lot of Democrats would like tighter gun control restrictions in certain areas of the law, mostly around how people obtain weapons and things like magazine restrictions (I'm not getting into a debate with anyone on this, I'm merely pointing out that this is where the source of 'tension' exists). Some people are completely against guns, but that's a minority of the party. The NRA has done themselves no favors in the long-term by becoming so polarizing and paranoid.

Gerrymandering, money in politics, and general dissatisfaction with both parties are the only reasons the GOP has any kind of major say in the country at the moment.
 
2014-07-09 11:34:24 AM  

Gonz: dittybopper: Almost nobody votes solely on gun control.

Bull. There are a ton of people who are single-issue voters because of gun control.

They're intensely paranoid, they believe that every politician- especially Democrats- are planning to take their guns, and they feel that guns are an absolutely integral part of their personality.

And they vote solely on gun control.


I highly doubt that anyone who is that adamant about gun rights are single issue voters.  I live in Oklahoma.  Everyone here is pro gun rights.  No one is going to switch their vote if the Democrats give up on gun control.  Democrats should stick with what works.  Focus on issues that are important to minorities, women and the young and try to peel off enough middle class whites in the general election to tip the scales.  It's not as if the Republicans aren't giving them plenty of ammunition (har har) in that regard.
 
2014-07-09 11:42:11 AM  
Also let me just point out that Democrats are largely progressive. They believe in things like taxation and government services. This is the baseline for their party. It's not going anywhere.

Gun control and taxation is probably the most overlapping issue because both signal a level of trust in government. For conservatives it tends to be a mistrust in government - remember the Bill of Rights including the 2nd amendment was borne out of a fear for government itself. There's a reason people have those ridiculous Don't Tread on Me bumperstickers.

You can't easily disassociate the two. You can't say I'm pro tax and pro gun and take a large number of voters away from the conservative side. It simply makes no sense, especially when you add all the other issues most progressives agree upon.

Some Democrats win in conservative areas because they are basically moderate or in some cases even conservative Republicans, but they don't tend to last long in our current system.

Sadly the ignorance about what government actually provides through its taxation is enormous.
 
2014-07-09 11:47:55 AM  
Don't be black?
 
2014-07-09 12:25:14 PM  

Mentat: I highly doubt that anyone who is that adamant about gun rights are single issue voters.  I live in Oklahoma.  Everyone here is pro gun rights.  No one is going to switch their vote if the Democrats give up on gun control.  Democrats should stick with what works.  Focus on issues that are important to minorities, women and the young and try to peel off enough middle class whites in the general election to tip the scales.  It's not as if the Republicans aren't giving them plenty of ammunition (har har) in that regard.


It's a difference in motivation.

They won't have as many people voting against them.

People who are motivated by the gun issue vote on the issue.  But if it's not an issue, they aren't as likely to vote.

But that *DOES* swing both ways:  If you've got two candidates, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, and both are pro-gun control, then they just won't vote.  Why bother?  It's an implied approval of the policy, and you're going to get screwed no matter what you do, so they stay home*.

This is what essentially happened in the 2012 election:  Barack Obama didn't move significantly on gun control prior to the election, and Mitt Romney's record on the issue was less than stellar from the point of view of gun rights*, so despite a massive campaign by the NRA, many gun rights voters said "Who the fark cares?  Either one is likely to screw us anyway".

Likewise, if you've got two candidates, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, and both are pro-gun rights, then they aren't necessarily as motivated to vote (again if gun rights is their major issue), because they feel covered.
It's when you have a distinct difference in the two candidates on the issue where the pro-gun rights voters get motivated.

But they aren't a *HUGE* majority here, they can only have an effect on elections that are close on the margins.  They can tip a close election one way or the other, but they can't overcome a landslide.


*Though not quite as bad as it was made out to be.  But certainly not a

**Or vote third party, which is much the same thing, unfortunately.
 
2014-07-09 12:45:04 PM  

vpb: It's a nice idea, but you have to wonder how well a Democratic "Southern Strategy" would go with urban and minority voters.  Especially on issues like gun control, race and immigration.


Democrats are ignoring what Progressive city liberals want regarding guns and immigration now.

So it wouldn't change a whole lot. The modern Democratic party is already more like a Moderate Republican party, Progressives are told to fall in line, and unless we want another third party fiasco like Nader 2000, we tend to vote Democratic despite being burned again and again.

What's the choice? Vote for an effing derp tard?
 
2014-07-09 1:47:23 PM  

dittybopper: If Democrats nationwide got religion on the Second Amendment, they'd have a lock on the White House and Congress that would be nigh on impossible for the Republicans to break for decades to come.


If Democrats "got religion" on the Second Amendment, as you say (I'd say "sell out" on the Second Amendment), it wouldn't take very many election cycles until they were facing Democratic primary opposition similar to what the GOP faces with the Tea Party.  They'd be creating a problem for their own incumbents rather than strengthening themselves for the general.
 
2014-07-09 2:10:32 PM  
The Bubba strategy is to sell 50 million, then call it quits.
 
2014-07-09 2:11:15 PM  

dittybopper: How is that different from what I said:


You left out the paranoia, the fervent belief that politicians all want to take their guns (although, apparently, a politician signing a gun ban as governor is "not quite as bad" as being a Democrat), and the whole bizarre "guns are a part of who I am!" identity crisis.
 
2014-07-09 2:24:45 PM  
bubbas"-Southern slang for people of limited means and less education

I understand the desire to get more votes, but do the Dems really want to be beholden to these people?
 
2014-07-09 2:33:46 PM  

bdub77: Who gives a f*ck who the president is if Congress is staffed by a bunch of do-nothing morons?


SCOTUS appointments matter.
 
2014-07-09 2:35:50 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: bubbas"-Southern slang for people of limited means and less education

I understand the desire to get more votes, but do the Dems really want to be beholden to these people?


Are the Republicans really beholden to them? It's not as if the Republicans have does anything to improve their lives.
 
2014-07-09 2:44:34 PM  

DeaH: Lionel Mandrake: bubbas"-Southern slang for people of limited means and less education

I understand the desire to get more votes, but do the Dems really want to be beholden to these people?

Are the Republicans really beholden to them? It's not as if the Republicans have does anything to improve their lives.


No they haven't, but they have taken a stance on many - primarily social - issues to court their votes.  So yes, they are beholden to them.  The fact that the GOP  does not a actually improve their lot, yet still get their votes is evidence of the "less education" the author mentioned.
 
2014-07-09 3:54:59 PM  
they need to say that as a middle class or poor person the only thing you might agree with republicans on is a handful of extremist type gun laws, is that really worth them shifting all the taxes on to you and take away services some members of your family could possibly need.
 
2014-07-09 3:55:43 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: dittybopper: If Democrats nationwide got religion on the Second Amendment, they'd have a lock on the White House and Congress that would be nigh on impossible for the Republicans to break for decades to come.

If Democrats "got religion" on the Second Amendment, as you say (I'd say "sell out" on the Second Amendment), it wouldn't take very many election cycles until they were facing Democratic primary opposition similar to what the GOP faces with the Tea Party.  They'd be creating a problem for their own incumbents rather than strengthening themselves for the general.


I doubt it.

The anti-gun crowd is mostly astroturf.  There just isn't massive widespread *DEEPLY* held feelings about it.   Sure, after some tragedy there is an upswell of pro-control feelings, and shortly thereafter it dies back down, even lower than before.

Where is the Million Mom March today?  Where will Moms Demand Action be two or three years from now?

I've been watching this issue for decades now (at least 30 years).  Long enough that I've seen some patterns.  Pro-gun rights people are much, much more likely to vote specifically on that issue than pro-gun control people.

No one ever wins a national election campaigning for *MORE* gun control.  It's just never happened.  Even President Obama understands this:  He avoided the question as much as possible in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, despite having incidents he could have used to campaign on (Gabby Giffords shooting, Aurora theater shooting).

Ask yourself why that is, if gun control is so popular, the president avoided the issue until he no longer had to worry about his own re-election.
 
2014-07-09 3:57:19 PM  

bdub77: Gonz: dittybopper: Almost nobody votes solely on gun control.

Bull. There are a ton of people who are single-issue voters because of gun control.

They're intensely paranoid, they believe that every politician- especially Democrats- are planning to take their guns, and they feel that guns are an absolutely integral part of their personality.

And they vote solely on gun control.

Yes, but no one cares about gun control, really, because those same paranoid delusional GOP types are the same people buying into the same 20 issues the GOP establishment has brainwashed them to buy into on FoxNews and Rush.

Lump them together:
Gun control. Abortion. Taxes. Climate change. Evolution. Welfare. School vouchers. Capital punishment. The list goes on and on. It's mostly the same people though. They overlap to an extreme degree.

For that same reason, dittybopper is completely wrong about gun control being a key issue. Democrats can't simply peel away votes in rural areas by advocating gun rights because Democrats aren't popular enough in rural areas due to all the other conservative issues. Furthermore, urban areas are growing.

Also frankly speaking a lot of Democrats would like tighter gun control restrictions in certain areas of the law, mostly around how people obtain weapons and things like magazine restrictions (I'm not getting into a debate with anyone on this, I'm merely pointing out that this is where the source of 'tension' exists). Some people are completely against guns, but that's a minority of the party. The NRA has done themselves no favors in the long-term by becoming so polarizing and paranoid.

Gerrymandering, money in politics, and general dissatisfaction with both parties are the only reasons the GOP has any kind of major say in the country at the moment.


Being pro-gun control isn't the only reason Democrats do poorly in rural areas, but it certainly is  a reason, and a fairly major one.  They will never have a chance in such areas as long as they are pro-gun control.  Dropping that from the platform doesn't guarantee success, but not doing so guarantees failure.
 
2014-07-09 4:02:23 PM  
Honestly, the Democrats could win bigger and more handily if they would just adopt an actual liberal progressive platform and marginalize the old-skoolers.

It's headed there, but we don't really have the luxury to keep inching along.
 
2014-07-09 4:03:44 PM  

Headso: they need to say that as a middle class or poor person the only thing you might agree with republicans on is a handful of extremist type gun laws*,


*The Second Amendment of the US Constitution
 
2014-07-09 4:04:30 PM  

dittybopper: Three Crooked Squirrels: dittybopper: If Democrats nationwide got religion on the Second Amendment, they'd have a lock on the White House and Congress that would be nigh on impossible for the Republicans to break for decades to come.

If Democrats "got religion" on the Second Amendment, as you say (I'd say "sell out" on the Second Amendment), it wouldn't take very many election cycles until they were facing Democratic primary opposition similar to what the GOP faces with the Tea Party.  They'd be creating a problem for their own incumbents rather than strengthening themselves for the general.

I doubt it.

The anti-gun crowd is mostly astroturf.  There just isn't massive widespread *DEEPLY* held feelings about it.   Sure, after some tragedy there is an upswell of pro-control feelings, and shortly thereafter it dies back down, even lower than before.

Where is the Million Mom March today?  Where will Moms Demand Action be two or three years from now?

I've been watching this issue for decades now (at least 30 years).  Long enough that I've seen some patterns.  Pro-gun rights people are much, much more likely to vote specifically on that issue than pro-gun control people.

No one ever wins a national election campaigning for *MORE* gun control.  It's just never happened.  Even President Obama understands this:  He avoided the question as much as possible in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, despite having incidents he could have used to campaign on (Gabby Giffords shooting, Aurora theater shooting).

Ask yourself why that is, if gun control is so popular, the president avoided the issue until he no longer had to worry about his own re-election.


I support more gun control, but I am one of those voters where the issue does not run deep.  Why?  Because the gun control laws are not where I'd like to see them, but they are not insane.  If Democrats "got religion" on the Second Amendment and basically morphed their views into the GOP views, and legislation started coming down that way, my support for more gun control would become much deeper in a heart beat.

I think that Democrat's are shallow on the issue because the current state of affairs isn't all that far off from where they think it should be in general.  If those lunatics in the GOP had their way because the Democrats went along, they'd get primaried the hell out of office.
 
2014-07-09 4:05:58 PM  

vpb: It's a nice idea, but you have to wonder how well a Democratic "Southern Strategy" would go with urban and minority voters.  Especially on issues like gun control, race and immigration.


What are they going to do? Vote GoP?

Some will stay home, but how many?
 
2014-07-09 4:06:01 PM  

bdub77: Even stupider, look at our current president. Dude can't do sh*t because of Congress.

Who gives a f*ck who the president is if Congress is staffed by a bunch of do-nothing morons? This isn't the 90s, Hillary isn't going to do any better than Obama. Congress is actively working against the people.


The Presidency is very difficult to gerrymander. And it can block nearly everything a unified Congress could do.

The President also has executive powers to get some stuff done. And, with the Senate, can appoint a large number of important positions irrespective of the House.

The Presidency is also the most prominent official.

If you have one of the three, their importance would likely be the President, the Senate, then the House.
 
2014-07-09 4:07:18 PM  

1derful: Headso: they need to say that as a middle class or poor person the only thing you might agree with republicans on is a handful of extremist type gun laws*,

*The Second Amendment of the US Constitution


Which A: allows regulation, and B: has been obsolete ever since America formed a standing army and should be removed.

/Not saying guns should be outright banned, but they should be MUCH more heavily restricted.
 
2014-07-09 4:09:17 PM  

dittybopper: Ask yourself why that is, if gun control is so popular, the president avoided the issue until he no longer had to worry about his own re-election.


I'd just like to point out that this didn't stop the "Obama comin' to take yer guns!" rhetoric.

Which feeds back into the larger point: a Democrat who has not come out (guns blazing?) as so ridiculously pro-gun rights that Yosemite Sam starts giving them sideye is a "gun grabber", while a Republican who has actually attempted to grab guns is "100% NRA approved".

S-some men, y-you just cain't reach.
 
2014-07-09 4:09:57 PM  

1derful: Headso: they need to say that as a middle class or poor person the only thing you might agree with republicans on is a handful of extremist type gun laws*,

*The Second Amendment of the US Constitution


even if that is your perception of the situation, the freedom to own a machine gun is no good if the republicans have taken all your discretionary spending to give tax cuts to the rich.
 
2014-07-09 4:10:41 PM  
Ignoring the fastest growing voter bloc in the US in order to chase the Southern/Appalachian Bubba vote seems a little dumb to me.  Sort of like passing harsh laws on migrant workers and then wondering why there's nobody around to harvest your tomatoes.
 
2014-07-09 4:11:37 PM  

whidbey: Honestly, the Democrats could win bigger and more handily if they would just adopt an actual liberal progressive platform and marginalize the old-skoolers.


[Citation Needed]

Moving to the left in purple or red areas will just result in electoral failure.
 
2014-07-09 4:12:44 PM  
That's right Farkers, Hillary don't lay down for nobody and whether she leave the election the President, it don't matter because it's not going to change her focus on getting even with Biden for defeating her in 2008. Biden! She's getting even for you defeating her in 2008 and she's gonna prove to you that she's the person with the largest brain in the world! She's the genetic freak and size does matter!

And that statement, Farkers, comes true whether she's in the race or not in the race. See where all her freaks are horizontal, they understand size, they appreciate size and size does matter and they know that they don't have to wait for the Earth to rotate on a 47 degree axis so the stars can touch the sky and create an equinox so they see the big dipper. No no no, all they gotta do is call the Big Momma, cause she's the woman with the big dipper and satisfaction's coming when she goes behind and does the bump n' grind and it's only a matter of time before they call her the big bad brainy momma! So Biden, realize this. She only cares about two things in this world: her freaks and her mental peaks and she'll beat your ass down at the primary and she's about to put you in the concession speech and she's gonna whisper in your ear, 'Size does matter, biatch!'
 
2014-07-09 4:12:54 PM  
When a large group of people have spent more than a generation voting against their own self interests, it's safe to assume they're not eager to change.
 
2014-07-09 4:15:49 PM  

dywed88: bdub77: Even stupider, look at our current president. Dude can't do sh*t because of Congress.

Who gives a f*ck who the president is if Congress is staffed by a bunch of do-nothing morons? This isn't the 90s, Hillary isn't going to do any better than Obama. Congress is actively working against the people.

The Presidency is very difficult to gerrymander. And it can block nearly everything a unified Congress could do.

The President also has executive powers to get some stuff done. And, with the Senate, can appoint a large number of important positions irrespective of the House.

The Presidency is also the most prominent official.

If you have one of the three, their importance would likely be the President, the Senate, then the House.


The President can only do about two things on his own: Bomb stuff and pardon people.  And, in theory, he needs congressional approval to bomb stuff (just that many Presidents tend to ignore that particular bit).  Everything else he wants to do requires approval (at some point in time, in some sort of manner) from both the House and Senate to do.  Executive Orders are merely stating the specific way the President wants certain laws passed by the House and Senate carried out.
 
2014-07-09 4:16:11 PM  

Gonz: dittybopper: Almost nobody votes solely on gun control.

Bull. There are a ton of people who are single-issue voters because of gun control.

They're intensely paranoid, they believe that every politician- especially Democrats- are planning to take their guns, and they feel that guns are an absolutely integral part of their personality.

And they vote solely on gun control.


I know at least two myself, and one other who oscillates between "I love my gun" and "fark everybody who doesn't work as hard as me".  To be fair, he does work harder than he should, and has yet to reap any real reward from it.
 
2014-07-09 4:17:21 PM  

machoprogrammer: That's right Farkers, Hillary don't lay down for nobody and whether she leave the election the President, it don't matter because it's not going to change her focus on getting even with Biden for defeating her in 2008. Biden! She's getting even for you defeating her in 2008 and she's gonna prove to you that she's the person with the largest brain in the world! She's the genetic freak and size does matter!

And that statement, Farkers, comes true whether she's in the race or not in the race. See where all her freaks are horizontal, they understand size, they appreciate size and size does matter and they know that they don't have to wait for the Earth to rotate on a 47 degree axis so the stars can touch the sky and create an equinox so they see the big dipper. No no no, all they gotta do is call the Big Momma, cause she's the woman with the big dipper and satisfaction's coming when she goes behind and does the bump n' grind and it's only a matter of time before they call her the big bad brainy momma! So Biden, realize this. She only cares about two things in this world: her freaks and her mental peaks and she'll beat your ass down at the primary and she's about to put you in the concession speech and she's gonna whisper in your ear, 'Size does matter, biatch!'


HOLLA IF YA HEAR ME!
 
2014-07-09 4:18:14 PM  

Geotpf: whidbey: Honestly, the Democrats could win bigger and more handily if they would just adopt an actual liberal progressive platform and marginalize the old-skoolers.

[Citation Needed]

Moving to the left in purple or red areas will just result in electoral failure.


Just saying what needs to be done. You're welcome to keep naysaying.
 
2014-07-09 4:21:35 PM  

LordJiro: 1derful: Headso: they need to say that as a middle class or poor person the only thing you might agree with republicans on is a handful of extremist type gun laws*,

*The Second Amendment of the US Constitution

Which A: allows regulation, and B: has been obsolete ever since America formed a standing army and should be removed.

/Not saying guns should be outright banned, but they should be MUCH more heavily restricted.


The Supremes have said you can't ban handguns, and the only truly effective gun control measure, IMHO, would be a nationwide ban on handguns (which also couldn't politically happen anyways).  The vast majority of gun murders are committed with handguns because they are easily carried and concealed, and local gun control is worse than useless because all that means is that criminals (who are willing to break the law by merely driving to a place with weaker gun control laws and buying whatever was banned locally there) will be better armed than non-criminals (who aren't willing to break the same law because they aren't criminals).
 
2014-07-09 4:22:18 PM  

machoprogrammer: That's right Farkers, Hillary don't lay down for nobody and whether she leave the election the President, it don't matter because it's not going to change her focus on getting even with Biden for defeating her in 2008. Biden! She's getting even for you defeating her in 2008 and she's gonna prove to you that she's the person with the largest brain in the world! She's the genetic freak and size does matter!

And that statement, Farkers, comes true whether she's in the race or not in the race. See where all her freaks are horizontal, they understand size, they appreciate size and size does matter and they know that they don't have to wait for the Earth to rotate on a 47 degree axis so the stars can touch the sky and create an equinox so they see the big dipper. No no no, all they gotta do is call the Big Momma, cause she's the woman with the big dipper and satisfaction's coming when she goes behind and does the bump n' grind and it's only a matter of time before they call her the big bad brainy momma! So Biden, realize this. She only cares about two things in this world: her freaks and her mental peaks and she'll beat your ass down at the primary and she's about to put you in the concession speech and she's gonna whisper in your ear, 'Size does matter, biatch!'


*tears up*

ItsBeautiful.jpg


/holla if ya hear me!
 
2014-07-09 4:22:43 PM  

whidbey: Geotpf: whidbey: Honestly, the Democrats could win bigger and more handily if they would just adopt an actual liberal progressive platform and marginalize the old-skoolers.

[Citation Needed]

Moving to the left in purple or red areas will just result in electoral failure.

Just saying what needs to be done. You're welcome to keep naysaying.


I know!  We aren't winning over the moderates because we aren't extreme enough!

You sound like a Mirror Universe version of a Tea Partier.
 
2014-07-09 4:23:01 PM  

Geotpf: dywed88: bdub77: Even stupider, look at our current president. Dude can't do sh*t because of Congress.

Who gives a f*ck who the president is if Congress is staffed by a bunch of do-nothing morons? This isn't the 90s, Hillary isn't going to do any better than Obama. Congress is actively working against the people.

The Presidency is very difficult to gerrymander. And it can block nearly everything a unified Congress could do.

The President also has executive powers to get some stuff done. And, with the Senate, can appoint a large number of important positions irrespective of the House.

The Presidency is also the most prominent official.

If you have one of the three, their importance would likely be the President, the Senate, then the House.

The President can only do about two things on his own: Bomb stuff and pardon people.  And, in theory, he needs congressional approval to bomb stuff (just that many Presidents tend to ignore that particular bit).  Everything else he wants to do requires approval (at some point in time, in some sort of manner) from both the House and Senate to do.  Executive Orders are merely stating the specific way the President wants certain laws passed by the House and Senate carried out.


And that is far more power than either the House or Senate alone hold. Short of a veto-proof majority in both chambers that is far more than Congress can do.

It may not be a hell of a lot, but the executive alone holds more power than the legislature
 
2014-07-09 4:23:09 PM  
okmoviequotes.comView Full Size
 
2014-07-09 4:24:00 PM  

bdub77: Gerrymandering, money in politics, and general dissatisfaction with both parties are the only reasons the GOP has any kind of major say in the country at the moment.


i don't think that the republican party is going to break in two, as others have suggested. the republican party is on the wane, after the 2020 census they're done as a national party.

i think that disaffected "mainstream" republicans will join with conservative democrats to form a new party -- the democrats will split in two. conservative on social issues (like gun control), more liberal on economic issues than the current republicans, this new "conservative" party will displace the republican party over time and could dominate national politics.
 
2014-07-09 4:25:38 PM  

Geotpf: dywed88: bdub77: Even stupider, look at our current president. Dude can't do sh*t because of Congress.

Who gives a f*ck who the president is if Congress is staffed by a bunch of do-nothing morons? This isn't the 90s, Hillary isn't going to do any better than Obama. Congress is actively working against the people.

The Presidency is very difficult to gerrymander. And it can block nearly everything a unified Congress could do.

The President also has executive powers to get some stuff done. And, with the Senate, can appoint a large number of important positions irrespective of the House.

The Presidency is also the most prominent official.

If you have one of the three, their importance would likely be the President, the Senate, then the House.

The President can only do about two things on his own: Bomb stuff and pardon people.  And, in theory, he needs congressional approval to bomb stuff (just that many Presidents tend to ignore that particular bit).  Everything else he wants to do requires approval (at some point in time, in some sort of manner) from both the House and Senate to do.  Executive Orders are merely stating the specific way the President wants certain laws passed by the House and Senate carried out.


The President has a lot of direct authority in foreign policy, even the parts that don't involve bombs. The President's authority on domestic policy is more indirect. Appointments to the Supreme Court and Federal Reserve have big, long-lasting effects.
 
2014-07-09 4:27:06 PM  

Geotpf: whidbey: Geotpf: whidbey: Honestly, the Democrats could win bigger and more handily if they would just adopt an actual liberal progressive platform and marginalize the old-skoolers.

[Citation Needed]

Moving to the left in purple or red areas will just result in electoral failure.

Just saying what needs to be done. You're welcome to keep naysaying.

I know!  We aren't winning over the moderates because we aren't extreme enough!

You sound like a Mirror Universe version of a Tea Partier.


Not really. But you do waste a lot of guff making arguments that the Democrats continue to shoot themselves in the foot politically. Also, it's pretty funny you would ask for a citation on my opinion, but turn around and state yours as fact.

You don't know that straightening up and flying right would cause "electoral failure."

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The Dems need strong progresssive leadership. This is a fact given the environmental crises we're facing and the deteriorating economic factors in this country. You just don't want to admit that people would come out of the woodwork to support long-held progressive ideas demonstrated over and over again in polls.
 
2014-07-09 4:28:19 PM  

clancifer: xanadian: Conversely, Republicans should stop pandering to bigots and morons if they want to gain significant footholds in the blue states.


"What's wrong with being racy?"
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.