Reddy

I'm doing great. Made double last year what I have in the past, and as such my healthcare costs have gone up about 80% and owe more in taxes. Guess what? I'm fine with it. I think having roads and such is pretty neat. Economy's doing well, but they're pretty much engaging in all the same activities they were prior to 2008... I wish we could actually get meaningful regulation, but it ain't gonna happen with this congress.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:35 PM) It wasn't really an anomoly, as I pointed out, it had a direct causal factor. But it was very state-specific. I guess I didn't mean anomaly in the sense of a "random" event, just that it's likely to be a one-time thing because of a specific issue, like you said. It's not indicative of a trend.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:33 PM) http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3944...-michael-barone Obviously the key here is for the GOP to break from the hardcore right and be more centrist, especially on social issues. Unfortunately the candidates right now are pathetic, but a guy like Christie - assuming he can get out of the primary - would be a formidable foe. He'd appeal to a lot of the centrist voters. . Christie hasn't got a shot these days. He's gone off the deep end with his cronyism. He hasn't lost weight. His national poll numbers are pretty terrible. What does it say about your party that you can't get a decent candidate?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:31 PM) When a Republican can win a major election in IL, you know the party is losing peoples attention. That's actually not a surefire thing: "There were some GOP victories in Governor’s races, but in each case there were no coat tails. None of these candidates ran on social issues, Obama, or opposition to the ACA. Look at Rauner who took out Quinn in Illinois, but Democrats in Illinois retained their supermajority in the State Assembly having not lost a single seat." that's from the same article I listed above. Anomalies happen, and sometimes elections actually ARE based on the specific candidate. Underlying numbers in IL look fine still long-term.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:26 PM) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/opinion/...-2016.html?_r=0 Here's a counter to what you're claiming. edit: (Reddy) It literally doesn't. The only cold hard stats in that article still show overwhelming support for the Dems from Hispanics and all the other minority demographics, and among millenials. Everything else is conjecture written by an old white guy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:12 PM) Bingo. I get that turnout was low and that favors the GOP in midterms, but overrall the number of Dems/Repubs in an election is basically the same. It's the independents that will swing major contests. And lots can happen between now and 2016. Reddy is obviously be hyperbolic, but nothing is for certain when it comes to elections and I think if you're basing a guesstimate on anything, the mid-terms was a sign that the Dems aren't happy with the candidates and/or promises that are being offered and so they stayed at home. That could very well be the same situation in 2016. The statistics all ay otherwise. And I truly don't believe it to be hyperbole. It's just basic projection based on historical statistical events. The odds of the GOP winning a national election anytime soon are incredibly low. That doesn't mean it can't happen, it just means the odds are stacked against it because of rising numbers of voting minorities and the new Blue Wall that is not just opinion, but statistical fact. Oh, and in a Presidential election year, turnout will be significantly higher no matter what, and Dems only need a 2% increase from that higher turnout.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) I don't think pointing out the big disadvantages the Democrats faced in 2014 and pointing out that even considering those disadvantages, the Democrats got their asses handed to them is arguing both sides. It's just that while the results looked like that, the underlying numbers disagree. Turnout was 35% and the GOP got 52% of that 35% - which is terrible considering BIGGER turnout = more liberals. The odds of them holding senate seats in '16 are slim.

The GOP is f*cked going forward, based on 2014 election results: Yeah it's Daily Kos, but it's written by a GOP Strategist

Strange why are you arguing both sides of every argument? haha

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:47 PM) I mean I love the positivity here, but the democrats just got smoked in the last election. The american people are clearly tired of progressive policies. Why do you think anything in these next 2 years is going to change that? If Obama gets any of these policies passed, which is a dubious claim, they are things that the majority of people want and the GOP can claim partial credit for it. You really think the dems got smoked? The underlying numbers based on voter turnout were TERRIBLE for the GOP going forward.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:41 PM) That has more to do with presidential/non-presidential election years and what Senate seats will be up than anything. Well right. The odds of winning seats back are already high for those reasons. Higher turnout = more blue. But he's got an opportunity to keep rallying a base that maaaay be less than enthusiastic about Hillary (I'm looking at minority voters specifically). The better Obama does this last couple years at fighting the GOP, the better we'll do in '16, IMO. That's what people have wanted from him all along.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:23 PM) I know you're young, but jesus go read some books or the internet on SOTU speeches. Obama did nothing new. It was not "brilliant." Every president when speaking to the American people promises the moon. That's how they get to office in the first place. I'm 28. I'm not that young. I live in the same real world as the rest of you. It's brilliant given today's context, the context of 2016, and the fact that I didn't really expect it out of him. He keeps doing what he's doing, and it's not just the Presidency we'll have locked up in '16, but we'll make gains in congress as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:33 PM) Yeah there were some clauses in there I agreed with, extended the coverage age, pre-existing conditions, etc. but that doesn't mean the whole law is good. And if it does fail in 10 years you all obviously have your built in excuse: it wasn't expansive enough to actually work! ... I mean... at least that shows we're consistent. We've been arguing that point since its inception.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) God, you are such an easy sell if that speech is all that it took. It's not the speech, it's everything he's done recently, from Cuba, to Immigration, to these new policies he's outlining.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 01:02 PM) Reddy...I think you are delusional at this point. Too hard to see what the legacy would be down the road but I don't think there are a lot of people who today would call him one of the "great" presidents. If you go off of historical approval ratings, there is nothing to indicate he is great. Hard to predict what the view of him will be 20+ years from now but to be able to make a claim that he is in fact going to be regarded that way is pretty crazy. Nah, not delusional. Y'all conveniently forget how much I don't like Obama. I hate the way approached his presidency for the first 6 years, with no backbone, no spine, and not being willing to stand up to the GOP that was just stonewalling him. In the first couple years, the reason MORE didn't get done, is that he was TRYING to reach across the isle - foolishly - and the GOP was just shaking their heads at every single policy proposal. He handled all that horribly. I hate his viewpoint on the NSA, on Snowden, on drones. Much of his foreign policy is suspect. He's an old-school conservative dressed in blue. But all that said, his approval ratings right now are MUCH higher than Bush's ratings at this point in his presidency, and he's working with the single most obstructionist congress in the history of America. And I have a feeling he's going to go hard these next couple years with his new "IDGAF" attitude, and, like I said, it's gonna look good on him, because the onus will be on this ridiculous congress to GET THINGS DONE. I mean, where is THEIR approval rating compared to Obama's? I may be wrong, but we'll see.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 01:14 PM) What do you mean more specific? What drugs are you on? If you think Obama will be considered on of the greatest Presidents in our history, you must be on something. He's failed miserably at the vast majority of campaign promises he's given in the two campaigns (ending 99% of the Bush war on terror policies, closing Gitmo, going after the wealthy/Wall Street, blah blah). His one crowning achievement - Obamacare - was an embarrassment for 6 months and still hasn't delivered the 30 million uninsured's it was supposed to. A whopping 5% drop in the number of uninsured's. I'm sure the cost the government is spending/has spent will be TOTALLY worth that. Yes, the economy is improving, though i'm always dubious of any claim that a single person pushing policy can hurt or help the economy. What specifically are you pointing to that he pushed for and got that led to the recovery? I don't think he did anything, I think the US just happened to be the most secure out of any country in the world and we're looking better because of it (falling oil prices also helped quite a bit). I don't think he gets credit for OBL. I think any president would have ok'd that mission. You're giving him credit for promises like free community college (I highly doubt he was the first to say this is a good idea) or any of his other "middle class economics" promises that will most likely not happen. I mean, the fact that you point to approval of SOTU speeches as evidence that people are behind him and not the GOP is just laughable. He's promising people the moon. Of course they'll be happy. Let's see how happy they'll be when none of it happens. Also, IBR plans have been around for a long time, at least since i've been paying back my loans (2004). I think his promise at one point to forgive all loans after 25 years never passed. So i'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm on the drug called "facts" and yes, sadly it's true that facts tend to skew left. - Obama care was gutted BECAUSE of compromise with Repubs, in order to get it passed. The original legislation was a much, much better program. And the point I was making is not that it's perfect, but that it's the first step in creating something that is much better. Sadly the GOP doesn't WANT to make it better, because a better health care plan isn't what their lobbyists want. - If you'll recall, when Obama came into office he continued with the bailouts and put forth a stimulus package that the GOP railed against. Well... turns out... it worked. - Lol @ OBL, you would've given Bush all the credit in the world if he'd gotten him... although I guess Bush did get a little distracted by creating a couple fake wars... - His promises are BRILLIANT, because when none of it happens, who's fault will it be? Not his. He pushed for the moon! The GOP congress just didn't wanna give it to him, and that will reflect badly on them in 2016. - And IBR plans started with Obama, and the 25 year forgiveness IS in effect. It did pass. FYI.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 09:43 AM) Geez, can I have what you're having? Must be some good stuff to be as delusional as your are about him. He's far from the worst, but he's also far from "one of the greats." can you be more specific? thanks.

Honest question: How much does it irk a lot of you that Obama's going to be remembered as one of the great presidents? Disclaimer: Still not a fan of many of his positions, especially wiretapping/drones/snowden/etc, but he's gotten all gangsta this year and it's going to look good on him a couple decades down the road when he was the first to start offering free college tuition, the first to try for universal health care, expanding workers' rights, equal pay, etc, etc. Saving and growing the economy after the crash. Getting OBL. Income-based repayment on student loans (big one for me personally). ALL in spite of a congress that stonewalled him every inch of the way. Meanwhile the GOP keeps imploding with their complete inability to respond to the SOTU properly. Dalek-Joni this year, Cruz had to restart his a minute into it, Rubio's drink-gate. Good times.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 10:30 PM) Here's 2006 with a 77% positive score. The summer before that a city drowned. 81! Love you, too, Balta.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 09:04 PM) Right... I know... it's a sore point for those on the right. Gosh darn facts and statistics!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 10:02 PM) Come on, there's an easy way to reply to that. Go find Bush having like 75% approval responses for one of his 2005-2007 vintage SOTU speeches. I'm sure those exist somewhere. I'd be surprised, to be honest. Now if you're talking 2002, that I could get behind.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 08:35 PM) The community college idea, for one. You mean it's free if you're willing to work for it? I guess we have different interpretations of "free"

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 07:50 PM) And he promised 'free stuff' to 90% of the country, so the results are not surprising. where does he promise that? lol

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) POTUS: I want to do things, and I can do them if the Repubs don't stop me! GOP: We want to do things, and we can do them if the Dems don't stop us! What a bunch of nonsense our government is becoming. Just so you're aware, 81% of voters approved of the speech, and 72% approved of his policy proposals for the next two years. So it's... actually... the GOP... that's out of touch. Wah wah. Link

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 01:49 PM) How do you figure? Because pitching for the Braves was some golden ticket to winning Cy Youngs? The years Glavine won the Cy Young, his ERAs were 2.55 and 2.47. I love FIP to death, and his FIPs during those years weren't bad, but there's something to be said about keeping runs off the board, even if it's "lucky." Lol because while Mark Buehrle played for the s***ty White Sox and won 19, 16, games etc, he would've won more with those sick Atlanta teams of the 90s. In no world is that a stretch of a statement. Glavine won the Cy's because of his 20 wins and low ERAs in the National League in the 90s where there was no roided up DH to deal with.