Stink is one way to put it. Offering nothing of substance to inspire people to actually vote would be another.

 

Shouldn't Dems be embarrassed that they can't beat a two-faced moron?

Well, what exactly overcomes the indifference to odd year elections?  

 

Do really think there's a Democratic equivalent to the tea party's anger that could rabble up a voting majority?   Isn't that--at best--Bernie Sanders?  Local politics just don't turn on issues that motivate the youth or necessarily speak to liberal rallying cries.   (The marijuana monopoly bill aside).

 

It would take tremendous amounts of financing and organization to really outshine the Republican network of radio, people with time and money, etc.   I can't imagine there's much potential to raise local dollars, either.  

Edited November 5, 201511 yr by PseudoSABR

Stink is one way to put it. Offering nothing of substance to inspire people to actually vote would be another.

 

Shouldn't Dems be embarrassed that they can't beat a two-faced moron?

Yes, they should be embarrassed.

 

So should anyone that voted for this guy or support those like him.

Well, what exactly overcomes the indifference to odd year elections?

 

Do really think there's a Democratic equivalent to the tea party's anger that could rabble up a voting majority? Isn't that--at best--Bernie Sanders? Local politics just don't turn on issues that motivate the youth or necessarily speak to liberal rallying cries. (The marijuana monopoly bill aside).

 

It would take tremendous amounts of financing and organization to really outshine the Republican network of radio, people with time and money, etc. I can't imagine there's much potential to raise local dollars, either.

These strike me as lame excuses for a political party.

 

I'm a little skeptical of the off year/Presidential year divide. 08 was probably an aberration and Obama is skilled enough to cobble together a coalition, but not exactly sure that will be repeated going forward. Otherwise the Dems get crushed.

 

As far as fear, that is preferable to voters over nothing. There are many, many people facing tough circumstances and there is very little being offered. I'll ask the same question I asked in 14, what exactly do Dems offer that would inspire someone not naturally inclined to vote for them to consider the party?

 

I think Clinton should be able to scrape out a victory, mostly because the opponent will be mediocre, but she has to be very careful. Outside of that hard to see the Dems doing much else.

And if young people aren't inspired by the issues and can't bother to vote (and is anyone sure they'll bote for a Dem not named Obama), perhaps they should consider policies attractive to older voters.

 

Electing Matt Bevin is confirmation that Kentucky is full of stupid people.  Allow John Oliver to explain.  (Go to the 11:15 mark)

 

You meen I could watch a video where some guy calls me and people like me stupid?  I understand John Oliver is the new Jon Stewart or something to that I say who cares.  I get liberal politics and I respect liberal politics, but if you find it really important to call me stupid that's fine.

 

Not really, the Dems stink at getting turnout in non-Presidential elections.  

 

I mean, it's not much to hang your hat on that you managed to get a two-faced moron elected because the other side is lazy and apathetic.

 

Wouldn't it be "stupid" to choose not to vote because the race that impacts you the least isn't on the ballot?  I do like that Democrats are assuming these people that more often then not choose not to vote will show up for an elderly white woman.

You meen I could watch a video where some guy calls me and people like me stupid?  I understand John Oliver is the new Jon Stewart or something to that I say who cares.  I get liberal politics and I respect liberal politics, but if you find it really important to call me stupid that's fine.

John Oliver's attacks know no ideology. Some are against government waste and stupidity and others point out the hypocrisy of people like this schmuck.

 

He seriously bailed out his failed company with government money. But he says the right things to a mass of idiots and they vote him in.

And if young people aren't inspired by the issues and can't bother to vote (and is anyone sure they'll bote for a Dem not named Obama), perhaps they should consider policies attractive to older voters.

So your argument is that in order to get voted in the Republican candidates are selling out principles just to appease those most likely to go to a ballot box?

 

I really dislike liberalism, and as big a panderer as Sanders is, the Tea Party is the absolute dregs of pandering. And now this moron got elected.

 

How anyone can be happy with that is beyond me.

 

You meen I could watch a video where some guy calls me and people like me stupid?  I understand John Oliver is the new Jon Stewart or something to that I say who cares.  I get liberal politics and I respect liberal politics, but if you find it really important to call me stupid that's fine.

You obviously know nothing about John Oliver.

 

Yes, he's liberal but he's just as willing to take swings at the left as he does the right (he's one of the few people on TV who has aggressively gone after Obama for his drone usage).

 

I see you're not actually defending Matt Bevin here, though... Instead, you choose to use an ad hominem attack on Oliver. It's not John Oliver's fault Matt Bevin is a slimeball.

In other news, the leading GOP presidential candidate thinks the pyramids were built by Moses, on purpose, to store grain for the jews......

 

And people are wanting to vote for this guy. I got no problem voting for smart Republicans, but this is unreal to me.

 

In other news, the leading GOP presidential candidate thinks the pyramids were built by Moses, on purpose, to store grain for the jews......

 

And people are wanting to vote for this guy. I got no problem voting for smart Republicans, but this is unreal to me.

It's surreal. There's no other way to put it, really. It's as if the GOP base is trolling the rest of the country in some kind of Kaufman-esque prank.

 

Nobody in their right mind would honestly believe Carson is a legitimate presidential candidate. The same goes for Trump.

 

While I intensely dislike guys like Cruz, at least I can dig really deep and see why someone might think he's a good candidate.

Like, Moses tricked the Egyptians into enslaving his people? Is that what Carson is saying?

John Kasich is the only guy in the GOP field that doesn't turn my stomach... And just like Jon Huntsman in 2012, he's basically ignored by the GOP base.

 

Like, Moses tricked the Egyptians into enslaving his people? Is that what Carson is saying?

It certainly puts an interesting twist on Biblical Literalism.

 

Then again, critical thinking isn't exactly a strong point of the radical right.

 

John Kasich is the only guy in the GOP field that doesn't turn my stomach... And just like Jon Huntsman in 2012, he's basically ignored by the GOP base.

 

Pretty certain I would have voted for Huntsman.....the part that scares me about that is giving the "freedom party that hates freedom that isn't christian freedom" control of the Congress and the WH. If I wasn't so scared of what giving the GOP full control, I 100% would have voted Huntsman had he been the nominee.

 

Like, Moses tricked the Egyptians into enslaving his people? Is that what Carson is saying?

 

No. He is referring to granaries built by Joseph 400 years before Moses was born. Joseph rose to power in Egypt under the Pharaoh by predicting that Egypt would face a severe famine, building granaries to store food that would be able to be used during the famine. When this came true, he was promoted to the top advisor of the Pharaoh. This famine is also what brought Jacob and the brothers of Joseph back to Egypt and settled them there to eventually be enslaved as the Jewish people over the next several centuries.

 

*For the record, I am not endorsing or defending or supporting Carson in this. It is a ridiculous theory. Pyramids were not granaries.

 

No. He is referring to granaries built by Joseph 400 years before Moses was born. Joseph rose to power in Egypt under the Pharaoh by predicting that Egypt would face a severe famine, building granaries to store food that would be able to be used during the famine. When this came true, he was promoted to the top advisor of the Pharaoh. This famine is also what brought Jacob and the brothers of Joseph back to Egypt and settled them there to eventually be enslaved as the Jewish people over the next several centuries.

 

*For the record, I am not endorsing or defending or supporting Carson in this. It is a ridiculous theory. Pyramids were not granaries.

 

thanks, doesn't help his argument, but at least it's more clear to me now.

I feel like if I voted for Donald Duck this year I'd be making a more rational vote than pretty much anything on the actual ballot.

 

We reasonable people have to stand up to this somehow, I just don't know how that happens.  My first theory is to hire some scientists to secretly unleash a virus that sterilizes members of the Tea Party and anyone registered with a party.

 

At least then we can save future generations.

 

It certainly puts an interesting twist on Biblical Literalism.

 

Then again, critical thinking isn't exactly a strong point of the radical right.

 

I don't know how you could get that interpretation out of the Bible, no matter how liberal the translation of the original text was.

Hmmm.

 

Start out wanting to talk about issues, end up wanting to sterilize the opposition. Sounds about like a typical term in public office.

 

These strike me as lame excuses for a political party.

I'm a little skeptical of the off year/Presidential year divide. 08 was probably an aberration and Obama is skilled enough to cobble together a coalition, but not exactly sure that will be repeated going forward. Otherwise the Dems get crushed.

As far as fear, that is preferable to voters over nothing. There are many, many people facing tough circumstances and there is very little being offered. I'll ask the same question I asked in 14, what exactly do Dems offer that would inspire someone not naturally inclined to vote for them to consider the party?

I think Clinton should be able to scrape out a victory, mostly because the opponent will be mediocre, but she has to be very careful. Outside of that hard to see the Dems doing much else.

I think Clinton crushes who ever the GOP nominates.  

 

I think you're simply out of touch with the facts on the ground if you're skeptical of the odd year, and non-presidential elections rationale for low democratic turnout.   My intent with my post was not to defend Democratic campaigns, but to answer your question of why Dems perform so poorly in such elections.  Incompetence might be part of the reason, but if that's the only rationale you'll accept, well, I'm not sure why you asked the question.

Edited November 5, 201511 yr by PseudoSABR

No. He is referring to granaries built by Joseph 400 years before Moses was born.

Forget it, he's rolling.

 

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fLZubB22edw/maxresdefault.jpg

 

Forget it, he's rolling.

 

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fLZubB22edw/maxresdefault.jpg

 

I feel like I should know this movie reference. Alas.

 

I think Clinton crushes who ever the GOP nominates.  

 

I think you're simply out of touch with the facts on the ground if you're skeptical of the odd year, and non-presidential elections rationale for low democratic turnout.   My intent with my post was not to defend Democratic campaigns, but to answer your question of why Dems perform so poorly in such elections.  Incompetence might be part of the reason, but if that's the only rationale you'll accept, well, I'm not sure why you asked the question.

 

I'm quite skeptical of Clinton crushing anyone, that seems a tad optimistic. I think she scratches out a victory, but I wouldn't put it any higher than 60-40 that she wins right now.

 

I'm not really out of touch with the facts on the ground, I'm quite aware of why the election results happen, which can probably be summed up as the Democrats don't have a platform that appeals to the majority of the voters the majority of the time.

 

I also don't think this is due to incompetence, but rather a mix of ignorance of what voters are actually dealing with and prioritize in their life, combined with arrogance of an attitude that if people just weren't so stupid and understood what they were offering and weren't being tricked by those dirty Republicans they would win more elections

 

That strikes me as something they Democrats might want to remedy, rather than hope that every Presidential election breaks their way and throw up their hands otherwise.

 

I will acknowledge that part of the problem is that the party of the sitting President takes lumps, especially in midterms, but this is now about as bad as it can get. And, in my mind, the elections should be fought on economic issues that would seem to favor Democrats, but they obviously haven't offered solutions.

 

Republicans haven't exactly either, but they have at least offered someone to blame and emphasized issues that are more of an emotional outlet for very real concern and discomfort felt by the electorate. A winning strategy considering the alternative.

 

I feel like I should know this movie reference. Alas.

Animal House.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE

 

I don't know how you could get that interpretation out of the Bible, no matter how liberal the translation of the original text was.

 

You don't know how they would come to conclusion that Joseph built granaries before the plague in Egypt?

 

Historically (talking 1500 years ago and earlier) there had been speculation by some that that was the purpose of the pyramids, but that was also before we had the technology to learn what was actually inside and had a better understanding how they were built.

 

Of course this is "charm" of the problem of Carson and others of his ilk, not exactly interested in any of that modern science or stuff.

 

Animal House.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE

 

OK, so I know that scene, just didn't catch it from the screen grab posted.

You don't know how they would come to conclusion that Joseph built granaries before the plague in Egypt?

 

Historically (talking 1500 years ago and earlier) there had been speculation by some that that was the purpose of the pyramids, but that was also before we had the technology to learn what was actually inside and had a better understanding how they were built.

 

Of course this is "charm" of the problem of Carson and others of his ilk, not exactly interested in any of that modern science or stuff.

No, discussing grain storage and Moses really cannot be taken from the Bible. Nothing turning pyramids to food storage is Biblical either.

Is anyone else more hung up on the part where he said "scientists say aliens helped???"

LMAO

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/natemcdermott/ben-carson-egyptian-pyramids-built-for-grain-storage-not-by#.fo3NlpM6N