Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About

Red Racing Horses analyzes and discusses elections from a Republican-leaning perspective. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog. Please read our site Terms of Use.

~The RRH Moderators: BostonPatriot, Daniel Surman, GoBigRedState, Greyhound, James_Nola, Right Reformer, Ryan_in_SEPA, and Shamlet.

Problems logging into your account? Inside information? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at: redracinghorses@yahoo.com. We check it often!

RRH's 2014 General Election Preview Series:

Part 4 - Northeast/South House

Part 3 - Midwest/West House

Part 2 - Row Officers

Part 1 - Legislatures and Local

The Current RRH Race Ratings:

Senate

Governor

House

Row Officers

Q2 Fundraising


SOTU Open Thread

by: shamlet

Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 20:30:00 PM EST


An open thread for those of you watching Ted Nugent Obama, Rubio, & Paul tonight.
shamlet :: SOTU Open Thread
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

SOTU Open Thread | 44 comments
Responses
Just 1 tonight? Or is there another Tea party response like last time?

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

Paul as well
nt

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
It will be interesting
to see who is more reported, Rubio or Rand.  It will depend largely on how "provocative" Rand is or how the media perceives him to be I should say.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Minnesota Special Elections
You can look at results here as they come in while watching the SOTU.

http://electionresults.sos.sta...

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.


Way-too-early 19A vote analysis
Quist (R) seems to be under-performing ever so slightly in the few Blue Earth Precincts, but keeping ahead of his totals in rural Nicollet precincts. IP candidate pulling about 7%. Looks like Johnson (D) is going to win so far, but it's too early to call the race.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

Johnson (D) is keeping up with Obama '12 numbers, even outperforming by a point or 2
Quist looks very unlikely to pull 40%, with Gieseke (IP) poised to take ~7%

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
All I can say tonight is...
thank God the House is safely in our control for the decade.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.

Carl DeMaio for CA-52!


Safely?
No, Likely yes, but I wouldn't say safely.  Democrats COULD win it, its just not likely they will.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Umm...
It's going to be virtually impossible for the Dems to take back the House this decade, you guys would need a wave, and even then...

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
I acknowledge
It won't be easy, but I just don't agree with it being Safe R.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
It's almost safe
if the Dems win the Presidency in 2016.
I see three ways for the Dems to win back the House this decade, in order of likelihood.

1. R wins Presidency in 2016, followed by backlash and wave election in 2018. (15% chance).

2. D nominate Hillary Clinton, R nominates some far-right extremist (i.e. Santorum).  Result is wave election in 2016, resulting in a D takeover of the House. (5% chance).

3. A conservative justice retires/dies in the next two years, and is replaced with a liberal.  Supreme Court rules that gerrymandering is unconstitutional (violating one-man one-vote) and orders court redraws of several states.  Result is a bunch of new maps, and a D leaning year in 2016 or 2018 would flip the House (<1%).

Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
Your 3 points
It's difficult to say, of course, how well Democrats would need to do in order to win the House. Democrats had 50.6% of the two party vote in 2012. If they got 51.6% they'd be unlikely to gain 2% in each race. They aren't likely to do much better in dark blue districts, so they'd probably gain more in red and purple districts. So I don't think they'd need more than 53%. That's possible.

1. This one is possible. A Republican President will likely face a backlash in 2018. The question is how much.

2. I don't think you need a far right extremist for a Democratic wave. You need a hugely popular Democrat and a poor Republican brand. That was the combination in 2008 and McCain wasn't an extremist. I don't see either of these things as likely.

3. You're going to need more than one conservative justice replaced. Perry v. Perez was decided 9-0 that the state legislature is the one that has the authority to draw maps however they choose as long as they don't violate the VRA. If you're getting justices like Ginsberg and Kagen pretty much saying gerrymandering is okay, you're going to have a difficult time finding justices who think it's unconstitutional.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
My responses
On #2- I think you do need someone who is either out of the mainstream or just a terrible candidate.  Unlike 2008, Dems have been in power for 8 years.  For a landslide w/ coattails that would flip the House, I think you'd need more than simply a popular Dem candidate.    

On #3- the liberals on the Court compromised in order to hold the line on the VRA, since they needed conservative support to avoid a sweeping ruling (sort of the same as with the Medicaid issue on Obamacare).  If they no longer must do that, they could well rule partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional.  Further, seeing what happened in 2012 (from the left's point of view) may tilt the liberals to strike it down.

As far as what is needed to flip the House, it would be less in a midterm than a presidential year.  Fewer city votes to prop up the House popular vote.


Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
Response to your two points
Presidential elections may hinge on an unpopular opponent, but House elections don't. A President can have coat tails, but a Presidential loser just isn't going to bring down the congressional party. People just won't base their House vote on an unpopular Presidential candidate.

I don't think you're familiar enough with Perry v. Perez. The case had nothing to do with VRA other than saying that legislative redistricting had to adhere to Federal laws. Perry affirmed that the Constitution explicitly gives the power to redistrict to the legislature. The liberals on the court said that gerrymandering is within a state's rights. There's no Constitutional argument against it.

Supreme Court justices aren't ideological operatives of the party. The liberals on the court don't view it as their job to help out the Democratic party. You're implying that they do.

Perry was a significant ruling for elections. It reaffirms that the Supreme Court believes they shouldn't interfere with politics if at all possible and that they shouldn't interfere with a power given specifically to the states. It was 9-0.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Perry is being badly misread here
Perry was specifically about how Courts are supposed to go around drawing interim maps when no ruling has been made on the validity of the original. In this sense it is fully compatible with the Supreme Court's general position on gerrymandering. Not that it is acceptable or even legal - only four justices supported that position in Vieth, and it was not at issue in Perry. Of the four Justices on the Court, two, Ginsberg and Breyer, are on record as saying that excessive partisan gerrymandering raises constitutional questions, while one more, Kennedy, is on record saying it could raise them, but only if a clear standard can be discerned. Two other Justices, Scalia and Thomas, are on record saying no such standard can ever exist.

Currently the Supreme Court does not want the courts becoming the drawers of maps, and therefore any standard courts adopt for excessive partisan gerrymandering, must, as Kennedy noted in Vieth, be sufficiently clear and comprehensible that the courts will not be forced to interpret it in each and every case, and become the de factor authors of all of legislative lines in the country.

The greatest obstacle to imposing limitations is therefore developing a standard. But standards can be adopted on either end, and can be adopted piecemeal. Make no mistake - four justices were willing to strike down Pennsylvania's map as excessively partisan in 2004. I suspect a Liberal-dominated court would not "outlaw" gerrymandering, but that it would move against it, for instance striking down population deviations in legislative districts that serve no  state interest other than partisanship(ie. in the New York Assembly and Senate) or raising questions about whether or not line-drawing must have a check from the electorate either through a gubernatorial veto or the referendum process(which would only apply to North Carolina and provide room for remedies other than new maps).

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
Pop Dev
That one has already been struck down. NYS stays because they underpopulate/overpopulate by region.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Or so they claim
I could see an aggressively "Liberal" using the population deviation argument as a proxy to strike down a host of legislative maps without having to come up with an explicit partisan standard.

I think thats the sort of nibbling around the edges that they could get away with.

I also think there is an argument that the North Carolina situation is unique, because its conceivable that a minority can gerrymander themselves into power indefinitely without any sort of majority check. In most states, if the majority really cares enough, it can either change the system by referendum, or elect a governor who can veto. But its possible to imagine a world where Democrats win the vast majority of statewide races, but are unable to influence policy. The North Carolina maps are uniquely vulnerable as well due to the low threshold for vetoes. The GOP won veto-proof majorities on 51-53% of the vote with a lopsided selection of uncontested seats.

I think such an eventually would require a bit of a wait though. I think it would require at the very least a Democratic governor, and probably quite a few other wins as well. Also the remedy that would be attractive would be to either allow for direct citizen referendums or to give the governor a veto, rather than telling the legislature what map to draw and how to draw it.


27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
"Liberal Court"
Sorry for the typo

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
No, it really is by region
Breslin's seat is just as underpopulated as Maziarz's, and Skelos's seat is just as overpopulated as Diaz's. That is the only use for systematic over/under that is acceptable because it is perfectly counterbalanced by the assembly, which systematically underpopulates every downstate district. OMOV stays because the aggregate worth of an Assembly + a Senate vote stays constant.

What you're talking about is a different matter, which would be striking down pop dev with cause all together. Things like WV-Congress seem on much shakier ground because it's a federal map. But when you're interfering with state legislatures, that seems even another bridge to cross beyond that. Until/unless they are ready to make zero deviation the universal standard - which will increase rather than decrease gerrymandering, "with cause" legislative pop dev will be far beyond the reach of the court.

R - MD-7


[ Parent ]
Pop Deviations are a different story
The courts have ruled that population deviations are illegal per the 14th Amendment. We're not talking about population deviation, but the legislature's ability to draw maps however they see fit as long as 1) there's no population deviation 2) they comply with the VRA.

In Perry the Supreme Court gave the district court a narrow charge. They could draw the maps as long as they took the legislature's maps and made small corrections for them to comply with the VRA. The maps were invalidated because of that and the task for drawing new maps was returned to the legislature and not to the court.

How the districts are drawn is up to the legislature or whoever the state deems should draw them.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
One pol not watching..
They just showed Gov. Snyder courtside in Lansing for Michigan/Michigan State.

Spend Spend Spend Spend
That's all I am hearing

Baker '14
R, MA-3


I am actually loving this
I think sooner or later the narrative is going to finally end that Obama is somehow the "reasonable" one.

R - MD-7

MN-14A
First precinct in. Hard to make an extrapolation based on a single precinct, but it's right on the button of Obama/Romney in a 50/50 district. This will be close

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

14A
I am calling this one for Theis (R). She is outperforming Romney across the board.  

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

19A
One precinct from St. Peter is in at 67-25 Johnson; vs. Obama 59-38. This one is over. I am calling it for Johnson

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

Liberal Speech
Hit all liberal talking points and so tired of his smirk  

It's what you're going to get
for the next four years.  Obama sees himself as the Democratic Reagan.  He doesn't care about passing any more legislation.  He cares about "transforming" the country into a liberal one.

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
he's a gigantic pompous ass
I don't know what the point of listening to him talk is.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Rubio
Impressive but he is bit nervous.

Rubio's water bottle grab
"Rubio's water bottle grab was obviously an endorsement of bottled water and his attempt to shill for big, polluting corporations!1!"-what I bet Manan Trivedi is thinking right now. :p

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.

Carl DeMaio for CA-52!


[ Parent ]
Seriously, why did somebody not think
to pour the water into a discreet glass for him?

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
In the 1968 campaign
Nixon ran a tightly wrapped media campaign that seemed very calculating & cold. So Humphrey's handlers went election eve for a very loose, casual feel with folks in folding chairs & visible cue cards on stage. Folks at the time thought it worked  

[ Parent ]
Likely the strategy here
The occasional chin stroke and other nervous gestures may have been actual nervousness, but to the regular guy it can be seen as relatable. Not many want to see a stoic politician stand there perfectly, they want realism. That's what Rubio gave tonight.

21-Cubano, R, CA-38
City Commission Vice-Chair, College Republican Club President


[ Parent ]
Should have had him sit in that case
If they were going for informal and relatable, just having him sit makes a world of difference.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Rubio's drink of water
That would have been a great opportunity for some product placement... "And that's why we need great American businesses, like that fresh taste of Poland Spring!"

R - MD-7

Ryan talking up Obama's immigration points
Seems like it's coming down the turnpike.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

Liberals gonna have field day w water grab
He got thirsty big deal?  You know SNL gonna hit that

[ Parent ]
If it wasn't that, maybe they'd focus on something real
Did you expect them to not pick apart Rubio?  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Worst result is being ignored by pop culture
Rubio seems up to being goofed on; he hasn't shown thin skin at this before  

[ Parent ]
Joe Camel
I think we need Joe Camel to respond to the SOTU next year. We know camels don't get thirsty.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

SOTU
I have not watched one since 2005. It does not sound like I missed much.  Obama railing against partisanship, but is a blind partisan.  Rubio mocked for drinking water.  Rand being Rand.

28, Republican, PA-6

Go Spartans
I passed on the SOTU.....

MI-08 - Chairman - Livingston County Republican Party Since 2013 - Opinions are my own and not that of LCRP.  

I was hoping that my own college team was playing during it but
they weren't (their mid week game is tonight this week), so I just had the TV off last night and glanced at summaries this morning.

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
SOTU Open Thread | 44 comments
Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox