State of the Union

[StrangeSox]

You really think the dems got smoked? The underlying numbers based on voter turnout were TERRIBLE for the GOP going forward.

The GOP has their largest majority in almost a century or something like that. Democrats lost just about every contestable seat and couldn't even manage to beat Sam "I've single-handily destroyed Kansas" Brownback for governor.

[Reddy]

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

[StrangeSox]

It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of it, but really it's all part of a larger "college benefits reform" proposal. I'd also imagine that, for most middle-class people, the actual average account balances would be just as low if not lower than 401(k) average balances, so $10k total in tax credits ($2.5k x 4) might actually be worth far more than the tax on capital gains. And it'd still be tax-deferred, so your money would grow tax-free for 15-18 years.

 

So the average account balance in 2013 was slightly under $20k. There's not exactly going to be a lot of capital gains taxes on that at deferment.

 

Two things that complicate the "average" balance in this case is that 529's didn't exist until the 90's and didn't get their current tax-exempt-for-college-disbursements status until 2001, so that's only 12 years of plans really being incentivized. Still, most of the middle class doesn't really have that much extra at the end of every month to dump into a 529 plan whereas the upper-middle class and upper class do.

 

I think ptact's mentioned it before, but basically public university total costs have remained flat, but who pays what portion has dramatically shifted over the last few decades. For the student, public schools were pretty damn cheap until the 90's or early 00's or so, with state funding providing a bulk of the revenue (heck, the UC system was entirely free for state residents!). But states have been cutting more and more funding for schools, which pushes tuition higher and higher.

[Reddy]

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

 

In a careful analysis, Ladd builds a case: The Midterms of 2014 demonstrate the continuation of a 20 year old trend. Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level where the population is the largest utilizing a declining electoral base of waging, white, and rural voters. As a result no GOP candidate on the horizon has a chance at the White House in 2016 and the chance of holding the Senate beyond 2016 is vanishingly small.

 

The Blue Wall is a block of states that no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. On Election Day that block added New Hampshire to its number and Virginia is shifting. At the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes out of the 270 needed to win. If Virginia joins New Hampshire that number will be 270 out of 270.

 

a) Republican Senate candidates lost every single race in the Blue Wall.

 

b) 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.

 

c) Voter turnout was awful. It was more awful for the Democrats but the GOP won 52 percent of 35 percent of the vote: in other words their mandate is 17 percent of the registered electorate (and 13 percent of those eligible to vote).

Edited January 23, 2015 by Reddy

[pettie4sox]

That is how SS rolls man.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Reddy]

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.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of it, but really it's all part of a larger "college benefits reform" proposal. I'd also imagine that, for most middle-class people, the actual average account balances would be just as low if not lower than 401(k) average balances, so $10k total in tax credits ($2.5k x 4) might actually be worth far more than the tax on capital gains. And it'd still be tax-deferred, so your money would grow tax-free for 15-18 years.

 

Yeah we'd have to see some sample math. I just don't see the point of cutting something that is beneficial to some (even if it benefits the rich, why is it a bad thing to reward saving for education?) if the idea is to focus more on credits. Give both, but put a limitation on how much you can get on one or the other.

[Jenksismyhero]

The GOP has their largest majority in almost a century or something like that. Democrats lost just about every contestable seat and couldn't even manage to beat Sam "I've single-handily destroyed Kansas" Brownback for governor.

 

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.

[Reddy]

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.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Reddy

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the number of Dems/Reps," but as far as seats up for election, there were far more Dem Senators up than Rep senators. And in off-year elections, far, far fewer democratic voters turn out as well (that's something Democrats desperately need to solve if they don't want these cycles to happen all the time). "Independent" voters, who may refuse to identify with a particular party but almost always still have some sort of strong partisan lean and reliably vote one way or the other, don't bother much at all in off-years.

 

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.

 

Yeah but historically Democratic voters just don't show up that well in non-presidential years. Typically lackluster campaigns by Democrats is definitely part of that, but I don't see any reason to think that 2014 is some sign of Democratic voters not showing up in 2016 any more than 2010 was a sign about America being sick of those progressives and ready to throw that bum out of the White House. The only time I can remember the Democrats having a good mid-term was 2006, and there was a major confluence of crap that contributed to that (Iraq/Afghanistan, slowing economy, Katrina, six years of Bush already).

 

e.g. this is from 2010, but it illustrates that Republicans generally express a higher interest in mid-term elections than Democrats, and "independents" express the lowest.

 

Edited January 23, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/opinion/...-2016.html?_r=0

 

Here's a counter to what you're claiming.

 

edit: (Reddy)

Edited January 23, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Reddy]

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.

 

[Y2HH]

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.

 

When a Republican can win a major election in IL, you know the party is losing peoples attention.

[NorthSideSox72]

I looked into this when we started him in our daycare, but isn't the catch that you can't then also claim the child care credit?

The FSA essentially IS the Child Care Credit. Same 5k amount, it's just that with using an FSA, you don't have to wait for tax time.

 

Many businesses do this automatically, my wife's does and we use it (mine does too but you only use one). She just submits receipts up to 5k worth (which doesn't take long, lol), and they reimburse every two weeks like a paycheck to our checking account. It's fantastic.

 

Though I do with it was per child, instead of 5k total.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

(4) Today’s political map looks static, but may be a little more fluid than many think. The South is not quite solidly Republican. Obama carried Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, states which now have 57 electoral votes, in 2008 and the first two in 2012, and statewide Democrats were still competitive there in 2014. This, even though George W. Bush won between 52 and 56 percent in those states in 2004.

 

Similarly, Republicans may be competitive in 2016 in seven states with 71 electoral votes — Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin — where Obama got between 51 and 54 percent in 2012. This year Republicans won statewide races and/or the House popular vote in each.

 

(5) Republican strength is at historic highs. The party holds more House and state legislative seats than it has since the 1920s and only one less Senate seat than its post-1920s high. The 2008 Obama coalition, which some argued would dominate politics for decades, has been fraying: Blacks and gentry liberals remain faithful, but Hispanics and millennials are falling away, while Jacksonians grow increasingly opposed.

 

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. .

[Reddy]

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

When a Republican can win a major election in IL, you know the party is losing peoples attention.

I think in that specific case, it was very much an Illinois thing. I voted for Rauner, not because I like him, but because Illinois is unusual in that it has one HUGE issue that dwarfs all others (the debt problem). And frankly, a GOP governor means more chance something real is done about it.

 

THings that I trend left on, like some social issues and the environment, either don't come up much at the state level or simply won't change in Illinois anyway, so I don't care as much on those for that office.

 

[Y2HH]

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.

 

I'm actually proud to tell people I voted for Rauner, because it means I was smart enough to NOT vote for Quinn.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

It wasn't really an anomoly, as I pointed out, it had a direct causal factor. But it was very state-specific.

 

[Reddy]

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?

[Y2HH]

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?

 

Who cares about Christie.

 

This coming election is coming down to our US Monarchy: Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush. Book it.

[Reddy]

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.

[StrangeSox]

When a Republican can win a major election in IL, you know the party is losing peoples attention.

"When a Democrat can win Indiana, you know the party is losing peoples attention"

[Y2HH]

"When a Democrat can win Indiana, you know the party is losing peoples attention"

 

Did you just try to compare IL to IN when it comes to politics?

 

Leave this thread.