The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I have hope in the growing vocational movement. My school has a great cosmetology, emt, hac, dental and (amazingly) butcher programs, all without much prerequisites.

And you can't outsource these jobs! We need electricians, plumbers, carpenters--all jobs that pay very well. I think teaching kids to be more entrepreneurial would go a long way as well, because we are moving towards an economy that is going to depend on that mindset.

[Buccaneer]

As much as I have advocated vocational training, the downfall is in the placements. I am leaning more towards companies (public and private) sponsoring courses/degrees at colleges, vocational training and school partnerships, as well as internships. For example, there is an acute shortage of trained electric linemen. So my company set up a vocational school to do just that. Employers know what they need, they can't depend upon educational entities to meet their needs. Now if we can solve the single biggest problem in healthcare : the shortage of physicians...

[Edward64]

Some news on what Obama will say on his address.

Obama to call for tax increases on wealthy in State of the Union address | Fox News

The centerpiece of the president's tax proposal is an increase in the capital gains rate on couples making more than $500,000 per year to 28 percent, the same level as under President Ronald Reagan. The top capital gains rate has already been raised from 15 percent to 23.8 percent during Obama's presidency.

Obama also wants to close what the administration is calling the "Trust Fund Loophole," a change that would require estates to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they're inherited. Officials said the overwhelming impact of the change would be on the top 1 percent of income earners.
:
:
Administration officials pointed to a third proposal from the president as one they hope Republicans would support: a fee on the roughly 100 U.S. financial firms with assets of more than $50 billion. Officials said the fee is similar to a proposal from former Republican Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, who led the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Camp's plan, however, was part of a larger proposal to lower the overall corporate income tax rate.

Raising the capital gains rate, ending the inheritance loophole and tacking a fee on financial firms would generate $320 billion in revenue over a decade, according to administration estimates. Obama wants to put the bulk of that money into a series of measures aimed at helping middle-class Americans. Among them:

--A credit of up to $500 for families in which both spouses work. The administration says 24 million couples would benefit from the proposal, which would apply to families with annual income up to $210,000.

--Expanding the child care tax credit to up to $3,000 per child under age 5. The administration says the proposal would help more than 5 million families with the cost of child care.

--Overhauling the education tax system by consolidating six provisions into two, a move that could cut taxes for 8.5 million families. Republicans have been open to the idea of consolidating education tax breaks.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Or continue to add more and more administrators while enslaving the academic faculty in part-time poverty.

Enslaving?

Originally Posted by Edward64

Some news on what Obama will say on his address.

Obama to call for tax increases on wealthy in State of the Union address | Fox News

Why?

By this question, I mean this has no chance of happening from just a political standpoint. Is it just to push the rhetoric?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

By this question, I mean this has no chance of happening from just a political standpoint. Is it just to push the rhetoric?

Starting point for negotiations.

[larrymcg421]

Any thoughts on the SCOTUS gay marriage cases? It looks like we'll finally get a direct resolution. The questions presented are:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Starting point for negotiations.

This, plus trying to change Dem messaging going forward.

Honestly, I'm no fan of the cuts as they are too gimmicky for me. I love the financial transaction tax. Something needs to be done so that skimming isn't the country's biggest industry.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This, plus trying to change Dem messaging going forward.

Honestly, I'm no fan of the cuts as they are too gimmicky for me. I love the financial transaction tax. Something needs to be done so that skimming isn't the country's biggest industry.

The speech will also call for higher taxes on the wealthy.

I don't mind tax cuts (I'm a Fair Tax/consumption-tax guy, but that's another debate), but they won't mean anything unless you have spending reforms/cuts to go along with them. The financial transacition tax...I'm all for it. The thing I like about it is that it's gets the public markets back to it's original purpose, and not a scheme based on high-frequency trading and algorithms, and it's almost like a consumption tax--not forced.

What is the change in the message going forward with this? Hasn't this been the message all along?

[Dutch]

Obama's message. Why earn it when you can just take it?

[JPhillips]

That's an interesting way for a conservative to frame tax cuts.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Obama's message. Why earn it when you can just take it?

Always the argument. Always. It's always ok if money moves up from the bottom, never for it to move down in any fashion.

Money begets money. When you have it, you can make it easy to take from those who are trying. When you don't, you're pretty much fucked.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Always the argument. Always. It's always ok if money moves up from the bottom, never for it to move down in any fashion.

Money begets money. When you have it, you can make it easy to take from those who are trying. When you don't, you're pretty much fucked.

Obama already moved that bracket from 15% to 24% under this same argument just a couple of years ago. Did that not have any positive effect? Because all I keep hearing about is how much the people in that tax bracket are bunch of selfish assholes. So if it didn't, what good will this do? We move it to 28% and then what? We like those rich people now? Of course not. It's an easy steal, which is my point.

[JPhillips]

The cap gains rate will still be lower than the top rates on earned income and this will return the rate to the level during the great socialist Reagan admin.

Ronald Reagan = theft from the wealthy!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The cap gains rate will still be lower than the top rates on earned income and this will return the rate to the level during the great socialist Reagan admin.

Ronald Reagan = theft from the wealthy!

Oh trust, me, I understand why that was placed in the article. But how is Hillary supposed to top this 28% tax that Obama just handed out? 33% in the first term. 38% in the second. Am I right? And the Democrat that takes her spot? 43% in the first term....48% in the second? Am I right again?

[JPhillips]

No. We liberals will only be happy with 110% tax rate!!!!

DEATH TO CAPITALISM!!!

[Dutch]

Exactly my point, nobody has an answer to this, but it's an easy steal.

[JPhillips]

There's no point in having a rational discussion when your argument is 28% will inevitably lead to 50% and the death of the American economy. If you want to discuss why 28% is clearly worse than 20% I'll listen. Personally I think capital gains should be at or close to the rates on earned income.

But none of this will happen, so neither of us should spend too much time on it.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Exactly my point, nobody has an answer to this...and it's an easy steal.

What confuses me is there is no focus on real spending reforms and cut. Government can't, and shouldn't keep spending like a drunken sailor and trying to take care of every little need/

If half of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes, once credits kick in (which can pay back more than what people paid in), and the top 10% of income earners paid over 70% in federal taxes, with the to 20% paying 93% of all federal income taxes, how do you continue this argument?

"Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757#.

I guess the question is, and it's more philosophical, is should government--one that is about democracy-treat everyone the same in terms of "fairness"? With all of the credits available, should government be about playing favorites with all of these credits? Yes, we need to get lobbying and donations out of politics (and both sides aren't willing to do this), and introduce the financial transaction tax to reward investment and not gambling, but that's half of the battle.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's no point in having a rational discussion when your argument is 28% will inevitably lead to 50% and the death of the American economy. If you want to discuss why 28% is clearly worse than 20% I'll listen. Personally I think capital gains should be at or close to the rates on earned income.

But none of this will happen, so neither of us should spend too much time on it.

Didn't we have the same argument and you have the same point when we went from 15% to 24%? The only real solution is a flat tax--and I understand the problems associated with that-but benefit is that it affects all voters each and every time. Not just Democrats picking on Republican voters and vice-versa...although, as you pointed out, looks like Reagan picked on his own voters too.

[JPhillips]

You can't ignore other taxes. The federal system is still progressive, but when you look at all taxes it isn't anything like what you point out for income taxes.

I'll agree that the difference between marginal and effective rates should be narrowed.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

If half of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes, once credits kick in (which can pay back more than what people paid in), and the top 10% of income earners paid over 70% in federal taxes, with the to 20% paying 93% of all federal income taxes, how do you continue this argument?

You can continue it by pointing out the growing gulf between the haves and the have nots. Fairness is more than just absolute numbers. Before the reductions in the top income tax rate in the early 1980s, the top 0.1% of wage earners received 8% of the total income. Now that figure is 18%. Meanwhile the bottom 20% of wage earners had their share of the total income drop by 1/3rd.

Money is like oxygen to the economy. You have to keep it circulating.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Didn't we have the same argument and you have the same point when we went from 15% to 24%? The only real solution is a flat tax--and I understand the problems associated with that-but benefit is that it affects all voters each and every time. Not just Democrats picking on Republican voters and vice-versa...although, as you pointed out, looks like Reagan picked on his own voters too.

Would you apply this to all forms of income or just earned income?

The problem with a flat tax is that when you add state and local taxes you'd end up with a fairly significantly regressive tax system. The income tax is the one place where progressivity balances the system.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll agree that the difference between marginal and effective rates should be narrowed.

I've bolded the parts to help people better understand what you are talking about here.

A MARGINAL tax rate refers to the tax rate an individual would pay on one additional dollar of income.[1][2][3] Thus, the marginal tax rate is the tax percentage on the highest dollar earned. In the United States in 2013, for example, the highest marginal tax rate was 39.6%, applying to earnings over $400,000. Earnings under $400,000 that year had a lower tax rate of 33% or less.[4]

The marginal tax rate on income can be expressed mathematically as follows:
\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta i}
where t is the total tax liability and i is total income, and ∆ refers to a numerical change. In accounting practice, the tax denominator in the above equation usually includes taxes at federal, state, provincial, and municipal levels. Marginal tax rates are applied to income in countries with progressive taxation schemes, with incremental increases in income taxed in progressively higher tax brackets.

In economics, marginal tax rates are important because they impact the incentive of increased income. With higher marginal tax rates, individuals have less incentive to earn more. This is the basis of the Laffer curve, which theorizes that population-wide taxable income decreases as a function of the marginal tax rate, making net governmental tax revenues decrease beyond a certain taxation point.

With a flat tax, by comparison, all income is taxed at the same percentage, regardless of amount. An example is a sales tax where all purchases are taxed equally. A poll tax is a flat tax of a set dollar amount per person. The marginal tax in these scenarios would be zero.

Implicit marginal tax rate

For individuals that receive means tested benefits, benefits are decreased as more income is earned. This is sometimes described as an implicit tax.[5] These implicit marginal tax rates can exceed 90%[6] or even greater than 100%.[7] Some economists argue that these issues create a disincentive for work or promotion and may result in a structural income inequality.

The term EFFECTIVE tax rate has different meanings in different contexts. Generally its calculation attempts to adjust a nominal tax rate to make it more meaningful. It may incorporate econometric, estimated, or assumed adjustments to actual data, or may be based entirely on assumptions or simulations.[8]

The term is used in financial reporting to measure the total tax paid as a percentage of the company's accounting income, instead of as a percentage of the taxable income. International Accounting Standard 12,[9] define it as income tax expense or benefit for accounting purposes divided by accounting profit. In Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States), the term is used in official guidance only with respect to determining income tax expense for interim (e.g., quarterly) periods by multiplying accounting income by an "estimated annual effective tax rate," the definition of which rate varies depending on the reporting entity's circumstances.[10]

In U.S. income tax law, the term is used in relation to determining whether a foreign income tax on specific types of income exceeds a certain percentage of U.S. tax that would apply on such income if U.S. tax had been applicable to the income.[11]

The popular press, Congressional Budget Office, and various think tanks have used the term to mean varying measures of tax divided by varying measures of income, with little consistency in definition.[12]

Investors usually modify a statutory marginal tax rate to create the effective tax rate appropriate for their decision.

For example: If capital gains are only taxed when realized by a sale, the effective tax rate is the yearly rate that would have applied to the average yearly gain so that the resulting after-tax profit is the same as when all taxed at statutory rates on sale. It will be lower than the statutory rate because unrealized profits are reinvested without tax.

For example: When dividends are both taxed as income, and also generate a tax credit in the UK and Canadian system, the effective tax rate is the net effect of both - the net tax divided by the actual dividend's value.

For example: When contributions are made to Tax Deferred Accounts the reduced tax base will result in reduced taxes calculated at the statutory marginal rate. But the reduction in the tax base may also affect qualification for other government benefits. The difference in those benefits is added to the numerator to increase the effective marginal rate due to the contribution.

Tax rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Would you apply this to all forms of income or just earned income?

The problem with a flat tax is that when you add state and local taxes you'd end up with a fairly significantly regressive tax system. The income tax is the one place where progressivity balances the system.

I'm not sure, what I would like is a vision for taxes needed and apply it fairly across all spectrums. And this may need an honest discussion of what services we can provide as a baseline. I'm okay with less taxes for the poor and more for the rich, but I'm not a fan of Democrats hiking Republican taxes and Republicans hiking Democrats taxes.

When it comes to taxes, philosophically, our political extremes are clearly not in the best interest of our nation.

[albionmoonlight]

Pres. Obama seems to finally be embracing his liberal side to some degree. He is proposing a series of tax breaks for the middle class, paid for by closing tax loopholes and increasing taxes on the very wealthy. Of course, he only proposes this after the Democrats lose any control in Congress and, therefore, his proposals will have no chance whatsoever of even being debated, let alone enacted.

If he were serious about this, he would have proposed it when the Dems had some power in Congress. As it is now, it is empty rhetoric and red meat for the Daily Kos crowd.

Both parties have abandoned the middle class in favor of their wealthy donor class. At least the Republicans admit that. The Dems still lie about who they are and what they represent.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I like it as an investment if the costs are not prohibitive. Not sure if community is same as vocational but would support vocational as well. Let's see the nos.

Apparently part of the cost is going to be covered by taxing 529 college savings plans. What a load of crap.

[bob]

Nothing in here about Obama's state of the union address.

Is that a sign of FOFC's decline or the lame duck-ness of his presidency?

[Thomkal]

Best moment is when the President zinged the Republicans when he said he won't be running for office anymore and they cheered him. Then he told them he won them both R's stop cheering.

It really didn't matter too much what he said-Repblicans won't allow him to fulfill any of his promises or plans except through executive action, and they are looking to find a way to take even that away legally.

And then to rub it in, Boehner announced that the Israeli PM would be speaking to Congress next month...telling the President minutes before-not asking, telling. So that PM can tell Americans how wrong the President's plans for Iran are...which is exactly the way The R's see it.

So in other words, just another day in Washington.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bob

Nothing in here about Obama's state of the union address.

Is that a sign of FOFC's decline or the lame duck-ness of his presidency?

A sign of the times. I streamed Transparent that night and checked blog reactions later that night.

Also, the Patriots played a football game with footballs that contained less air than normal. So that kind of [pun]took all of the air out of the room.[/pun]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

Nothing in here about Obama's state of the union address. Is that a sign of FOFC's decline or the lame duck-ness of his presidency?

{shrug}

I haven't watched one in years, in part they seem to be made even more pointless by how much of their content is out there days ahead of time.

[miked]

Well, to kick off the new season the republicans canned a bill they were going to vote on because they could not agree amongst themselves. The vote was on an anti-abortion bill that they had previously passed last session that went nowhere because of the same reasons it did not advance today. So, in other words, business as usual no matter what Obama says. If he proposes a tax cut, they'll oppose it because they want the credit. The tone of his speech was actually not as fiery as Fox News suggested, but rather scrap the shit they can't agree on (i.e. Healthcare) and do something on the stuff where they may be common ground.

[RainMaker]

Yeah I don't see the point in watching them. They are all available online. Most of the speeches are filled with "feel-good" soundbites and overly rehearsed.

Blah blah middle class hurting...blah blah working two jobs. He doesn't give a shit about most of that stuff and certainly isn't going to change anything.

[molson]

I was reading something yesterday about the history of the state of union addresses. Amazingly, the state of the union always tends to be "strong" if you listen to these speeches. Has there every been a president who said that the state of union sucked? I know Jimmy Carter had a pretty negative one.

Edit: Ah, here's the list I was looking for:

Why is the State of the Union Always 'Strong'? | Acton PowerBlog

Reagan started the "strong" gimmick, everyone has followed it since then. And good 'ole Gerald Ford keeping it real, things were "not good" in 1975

[Desnudo]

Wants to tax withdrawals on 529 contributions which are already post-tax contributions. Good luck with that.

529 college plans: Just for the rich? - Yahoo Finance

[ISiddiqui]

It may already be post-tax contributions, but the 529s have special tax breaks to begin with. Before 2001, withdrawals from 529s were treated as ordinary income. It is literally a tax loophole (as are tax breaks for employer sponsored health care). You may think its a good loophole, but its a loophole, none the less.

[bob]

So I don't think this would pass, and even if it did, it would likely only be for new accounts and deposits made after the bill passed.

But let's say it passed against all accounts. Would you rethink retirement accounts like Roth IRAs? There's a lot more money to tax in those.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd think you'd want to keep Roth IRA's as incentives to investment for retirement - the income limits allow for taxing those who may have less need for incentivizing investment.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It is literally a tax loophole (as are tax breaks for employer sponsored health care).

I suggested eliminating this to some liberal-leaning people a while back at a get together, and they were outraged at such a suggestion. It doesn't bother me that it's not taxed or taxed--just that it is a tax break that plays with the insurance/health care costs.

[JPhillips]

In a big unexpected twist in the new Congress, Senate Republicans are reportedly crafting a plan to do away with the 60-vote filibuster for Supreme Court justice nominees.

Politico reported Friday evening that the plan, though in its early stages, was being led by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Roy Blunt (R-MO).

“What we would like to do is adopt by rule the way the Senate has always operated,” Alexander told Politico. “The history of the Senate has been up-or-down votes, as I call them, at 51.”

I'm not necessarily opposed to eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS, but the incredible hypocrisy of Alexander's quote is shameless.

[Edward64]

I get that Bibi needs to do what he thinks is best for his country but I don't understand the rationale for being so disrespectful to a sitting president. He could have told Obama that he was coming at the invitation of the GOP regardless of any Obama objections, why hide it?

There's probably been some earlier incident where he thought this was payback.

Netanyahu snub takes relations with White House to a new low - CNN.com

President Barack Obama and U.S. officials were completely blindsided by the announcement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will come to Washington to address a joint session of Congress this spring -- a move that's rattled the White House and diplomatic officials.

The announcement from House Speaker John Boehner's office this week came after several high-level interactions between U.S. and Israeli officials, including a phone call between Obama and Netanyahu and a multi-hour meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, a senior administration official told CNN.
:
The Boehner announcement came just over a week after Obama spoke over the phone with Netanyahu and urged him not to lobby in favor of new Iran sanctions, "asking for some space," a senior administration official said. But the hawkish Israeli Prime Minister has a track record of supporting tougher sanctions against Iran and he's expected to make that case when he addresses Congress in March.
:
Obama's phone call with Netanyahu and Kerry's meeting with Dermer just before the announcement give the snub a more personal veneer.

Kerry had made more than 50 calls in the preceding month to world leaders on the hot topics of Israeli-Palestinian relations, such as Palestinian attempts to gain statehood through international organizations, the source said, adding that Kerry's "patience is not infinite."

The in-your-face move from Netanyahu's camp comes at a time when Israel needs American support on the international stage, with Palestinians making a full-court press to obtain statehood unilaterally through international institutions.

Another senior U.S. official said the Israeli breach of protocol and diplomatic courtesy takes a toll on U.S. officials working strenuously to support Israel on the international stage.

"They come to us with a lot of requests, but don't have the courtesy of telling us? That is what tipped it for us," the official said.

[flere-imsaho]

Netanyahu's been disrespectful of Obama since day one. This isn't out of character.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Boy, you'd think it would take more than four months for this statement to look bad. From the President last September.........

"This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Today, the U.S. Embassy in Yemen has basically told everyone they're on their own and to exit ASAP.

Obama Tonight: Yemen and Somalia Are Models of Success (!) | The Weekly Standard

[ISiddiqui]

Yemen's previous government is obvious not our partner on the front lines anymore... since, you know, they've been overthrown in a coup. Sooo... what's the big deal?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not necessarily opposed to eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS, but the incredible hypocrisy of Alexander's quote is shameless.

Well, to be fair (lol) he was probably saying things like that in 2006 when the words "nuclear option" first entered the lexicon. It's just that after 2008, the filibuster was a useful tool to try to prevent President Obama from appointing "liberal" judges.

Now they're looking ahead to 2016 and going "we have the House and the Senate and everything's going to be Republican forever let's get rid of the SCOTUS filibuster."

It's a dangerous play. If you look at the 2016 Senate map, Republicans have 24 seats to defend, including one in Vermont, one in Wisconsin, one in Illinois, one in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania. None of those are certain to flip, of course, and Wisconsin in particular has been weird. They voted Johnson in over Feingold in 2010, then voted to re-elect Barack Obama and to elect Tammy Baldwin before voting to re-elect Scott Walker. Don't ask me to predict whether the Democratic Party in this state will be able to evict Johnson from office.

The point is, it's a Presidential election year. All five of those states voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and 2008. Yes, Ohio and Pennsylvania are swing states, Vermont's kinda independent-minded, and Wisconsin, as I said above, has been fucking weird the last six years or so. But those states represent opportunities all the same.

The Republican nightmare? Nuking the SCOTUS filibuster and then waking up on November 9, 2016 to a Democratic President-elect who also has a 52- or 51-seat majority in the Senate. Yes, there'd be time to re-impose the filibuster because OH SHIT WE LOST but it's just as possible that the incoming Democratic Senate says 'nope. you made that bed, fuckers. We'll be removing the SCOTUS filibuster again.'

That's a move I'd expect to see from the Republicans if their candidate for President won the election in 2016, not just because in 2015.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Wisconsin in particular has been weird. They voted Johnson in over Feingold in 2010, then voted to re-elect Barack Obama and to elect Tammy Baldwin before voting to re-elect Scott Walker. Don't ask me to predict whether the Democratic Party in this state will be able to evict Johnson from office.

The pattern seems to be Democrats are strong in Presidential election years, making Johnson vulnerable in 16. Then again, WI Democrats have been putting up some weak candidates. Ron Kind is about the only name I can think of that would be a good bet to unseat Johnson. I'd say Kind was the only person that could've challenged Walker but he is smarter than I am and knew Walker was beating anybody that was put out there.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by lungs

The pattern seems to be Democrats are strong in Presidential election years, making Johnson vulnerable in 16. Then again, WI Democrats have been putting up some weak candidates. Ron Kind is about the only name I can think of that would be a good bet to unseat Johnson. I'd say Kind was the only person that could've challenged Walker but he is smarter than I am and knew Walker was beating anybody that was put out there.

Kind would probably get some crap from the netroots in the primaries for having voted to weaken the Wall Street reforms, though.

Here's the thing with Johnson, though: does Wisconsin really have wood for Walker, or is he just benefiting from the timing of his three elections (two off-year, one in June of a Presidential year)? That matters, because if Walker's electoral success in Wisconsin is built on an actual base and not just the off-year malaise of the Democrats, he could have coattails for Johnson if he wins the Republican Presidential nomination.

If it's just that Walker got elected in 2010 when Democrats were pouting about Republican obstructionism, avoided recall in 2012 because the election was in June and not November, and got re-elected in 2014 because it was another down midterm for Democrats, then Johnson is probably in trouble next year.

Either way, Wisconsin is goofy and until/unless a Republican Presidential ticket emerges that doesn't have Scott Walker on it, I won't feel comfortable predicting what Wisconsin is going to do in 2016.

[flere-imsaho]

IIRC, Wisconsin's basically a red state except for Madison & Milwaukee. If key voting blocs (young people in Madison, poor people in Milwaukee) don't turn out for the Democrats, the state easily goes Republican. lungs - correct me if I'm wrong here.

When you have big concentrated pockets of votes you can easily handle elections if your GOTV is good (see: Obama 2008) or crater if they stay home en masse, which they are more likely to do as homogenous voting blocs (see: 2010 & 2014).

[flere-imsaho]

My perception is that the filibuster has become little more than a tool for parliamentary games, at this point. When was the last time it was used to stop legislation for actual ideological purposes? I don't think they even used it for the last actually unqualified SCOTUS nominee (Miers). I could be wrong, though, so correct me if I am.

Given that, the non-partisan part of me (yes, it's small), says just eliminate it (even if just for SCOTUS, on top of federal judgeships) and get on with business. This back-and-forth "will they, won't they" is just annoying and counter-productive.

I suppose the partisan part of me says keep it so Democrats can block truly unqualified candidates, but I think even the GOP (I'll probably regret this) won't let someone like Miers through in the future. And as much as I dislike Roberts and Alito, they're qualified, and you win the Oval Office you get to put those guys on the bench.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

IIRC, Wisconsin's basically a red state except for Madison & Milwaukee. If key voting blocs (young people in Madison, poor people in Milwaukee) don't turn out for the Democrats, the state easily goes Republican. lungs - correct me if I'm wrong here.

Basically. Far north along Lake Superior tends to be blue but the population is pretty low. Western Wisconsin between Madison and the Mississippi River is the bellweather region. Obama took every county along this corridor while in the governor election only a few counties went blue. Racine and Kenosha also went for both Obama and Walker.

The Milwaukee suburbs up through Green Bay and the rural central parts of the state are pretty solidly red. That region just sent Glenn Grothman to the House for pete's sake. I think if JimGA gets to know Grothman, he'd probably rank among his more liked House Reps

edit: Forgot to say Sack is absolutely right about the Walker coattails in a Presidential year if he's on the ticket.

[SackAttack]

Madison and Milwaukee are also two of the three biggest cities in the state though, and the overall state population isn't terribly large. Saying that if you exclude those two cities (when cities tend to be Democratic strongholds), the state is pretty solidly Republican?

Shit, son, that's probably true of most states in the country. "If Democratic blocs don't turn out in Los Angeles and San Francisco..."