Election night 2016:Ted Cruz declared the winner. What is your reaction?

[IceSpear]

Attempt to wake myself up, since I'd clearly be having a nightmare of some sort.

[IceSpear]

I'd be amused.

This.  Life will go on.  Ted Cruz isn't the anti-Christ.  On the bright side, it'd mean Hillary will never be President and we might actually get a half-decent Democratic nominee in 2020.  Sure Scalia or Kennedy or could get replaced with a Republican, but I suspect they'll both stick around for another ten years or so.  Scalia's certainly a lifer, so maybe a Democrat can replace him when he goes.  Cruz would likely be gone in four years and probably be an electoral disaster for the Republicans.  Maybe he'll screw up badly enough that the country will decide to stop hitting itself in the head with a baseball bat.  Plus there are bound to be electoral silver linings somewhere within the Senate and House results.  Within a week, it'll be on to the next thing.  Plus, it'd be hilarious in a perverse sort of way.

Do you have any concept of how much damage Ted Cruz with a solidly Republican Congress (for at least 2 years, most likely 4) could inflict? Not only would any semblance of progress in the past 8 years be immediately rolled back, the entire Tea Party wishlist would be shoved down the country's throat at rapid speed.  You'd be begging for Hillary within a month.

The problem wouldn't be Cruz replacing Scalia, it would be Cruz replacing Ginsburg. If that happens, you can say goodbye to any slightly sane SCOTUS for a generation.

As for Cruz destroying the Republican Party, how did that work out with Dubya again? He was supposed to destroy the party for a generation, yet it struck back with a vengeance in less than 2 years.

I realize that most Atlasians have such deranged hatred of Hillary that they'd want her to lose and install President Walker or Cruz regardless of how many millions of people they hurt in the process, but if you're going to embrace that role, then kindly stop claiming the mantle of progressivism.

[IceSpear]

Maybe the Democratic party might learn a lesson by having Hillary lose to Cruz.

LOL, don't hold your breath on that one. If anything the conventional wisdom would be that Hillary lost because she's too liberal.

[IceSpear]

I'd be amused.

This.  Life will go on.  Ted Cruz isn't the anti-Christ.  On the bright side, it'd mean Hillary will never be President and we might actually get a half-decent Democratic nominee in 2020.  Sure Scalia or Kennedy or could get replaced with a Republican, but I suspect they'll both stick around for another ten years or so.  Scalia's certainly a lifer, so maybe a Democrat can replace him when he goes.  Cruz would likely be gone in four years and probably be an electoral disaster for the Republicans.  Maybe he'll screw up badly enough that the country will decide to stop hitting itself in the head with a baseball bat.  Plus there are bound to be electoral silver linings somewhere within the Senate and House results.  Within a week, it'll be on to the next thing.  Plus, it'd be hilarious in a perverse sort of way.

Do you have any concept of how much damage Ted Cruz with a solidly Republican Congress (for at least 2 years, most likely 4) could inflict? Not only would any semblance of progress in the past 8 years be immediately rolled back, the entire Tea Party wishlist would be shoved down the country's throat at rapid speed.  You'd be begging for Hillary within a month.

The problem wouldn't be Cruz replacing Scalia, it would be Cruz replacing Ginsburg. If that happens, you can say goodbye to any slightly sane SCOTUS for a generation.

As for Cruz destroying the Republican Party, how did that work out with Dubya again? He was supposed to destroy the party for a generation, yet it struck back with a vengeance in less than 2 years.

I realize that most Atlasians have such deranged hatred of Hillary that they'd want her to lose and install President Walker or Cruz regardless of how many millions of people they hurt in the process, but if you're going to embrace that role, then kindly stop claiming the mantle of progressivism.

Lol.  First, we haven't had an even slightly sane SCOTUS at any point since I was two days old.  Dubya did wreck his party, but this stuff is cyclical.  Cruz would wreck the Republican Party for the remainder of his Presidency.  The Democrats will be able to fillibuster the hell out of whatever Cruz tries to pass (or at least most of it).  We'll see the Wulfrics and the Smoltchanovs of the world whine about how the Republicans deserve a chance to pass their agenda and I'll be laughing my ass off since the Democrats won't let any major Republican bills come to a vote (assuming the Republicans still control the Senate).  

I wouldn't be begging for Hillary, I'd be saying "Don't blame me I wrote in Mike Ehrmantraut!  Besides, my vote wouldn't have changed the results."  If the Democrats want my vote, they should nominate someone worth voting for.  If they don't, that's what the write-in option is for.  Maybe there will be a decent third party candidate on the ballot, idk.  I don't hate Hillary, I just don't think she'd be a good enough President for me to vote for her.  Obamacare is here for good at this point and the progress on gay rights won't get rolled back at this point.  So aside from the usual Republican crap, much of which won't even come to a vote in the Senate, what exactly is it I'm supposed to be so scared of?  Also, if Cruz wins, 2018 will be absolutely brutal for the Republicans.

If you think the current SCOTUS is bad, just wait to see what happens if Ginsburg is replaced by a Scalia clone. Dubya did not wreck the Republican Party if it won a historic landslide less than 2 years after he left office. That's not cyclical, it's short attention spans and schizophrenia.

There's no scenario where the Republicans win the presidency but lose the Senate, so they will control it. Most likely with an expanded majority. As for the filibuster, be realistic. Do you really think McConnell won't abolish it the second the GOP holds the trifecta? Even if he doesn't right away, he will the minute Dems start using it often against President Cruz's priorities. And once that happens, there's literally nothing to stop the Tea Party wishlist from being rammed through, and that includes the repeal of any piece of legislation passed through 2009 that is even slightly beneficial. Here's just a small sampling of what you'll be getting: nationwide right to work, national crackdowns on contraceptives and reproductive rights, repeal of Obamacare, gutting the social safety net and cutting spending and investments, draconian education cuts, privatization of Medicare and Social Security, gutting the EPA, and plenty more where that came from. Is that what you want in an attempt to register a petty grudge against a single politician?

"If Democrats want my vote, they should nominate someone worth voting for". Hmm, interesting logic. Well, as I'm sure you know by now, the vast majority of Democrats find Hillary worth voting for and will be doing so. By nominating Bernie Sanders or whoever, the Democrats would be losing far more votes than whatever few they gain by the left wing Hillary haters. And I have to say regarding that: how would you have reacted if Hillary supporters decided en masse to write her in, vote third party, or stay home rather than vote for Obama in 2008? Something tells me you would've been calling them sore losers who would've been responsible for President McCain and (god forbid) Vice President Palin. Well guess what? The same thing applies to you, buddy.

I have no idea why you think Obamacare is here to stay. Perhaps Obama's ability to veto over the past few years has lulled you into a false sense of security? Well, if this scenario actually came to pass, that fantasy would be destroyed. Abruptly. If someone thinks that millions of people should lose their health insurance because they have a personal vendetta against a particular politician, I fear for their sanity.

As for 2018, take a look at the map for a second. Even in a massive Democratic wave, it would be essentially impossible for Democrats to gain more than 2 seats in the Senate, which almost certainly would not be enough. So if Republicans win the presidency in 2016, the Senate is gone until at least 2021. The House could flip, but the odds would still be against the Dems due to the ridiculous gerrymandering fortress that the Republicans have built up.

So the strategery here is apparently to shove the Tea Party wishlist down the country's throat, repeal any progress, surrender the SCOTUS for a generation and the Senate for 4 years, all for...an outside shot at taking the House in 2018? Oh, and we get to keep the anti christ Hillary Clinton from being president! Sounds like a great deal to me. Well, it's true as you said, Cruz can't be the anti christ, considering Hillary already fills that role in the eyes of so many of you, and last time I checked there can only be one.

And just as I said to jfern, if you genuinely believe that the Democratic Party will "learn a lesson", you're sadly mistaken. Most people don't think of Hillary as a far right wing neoliberal warmonger (obviously, otherwise she wouldn't be the strongest nonincumbent frontrunner in history), they see her as moderately liberal. If Hillary loses, the conventional wisdom will be that the party went too far left. In which case, you can enjoy nominee Cuomo or nominee Warner in 2020. The one silver lining will presumably be that they both have penises. Oh, then they can lose to Cruz again to send another message! Wow, this plan is truly foolproof.

And just as an aside at the end of this effortpost, I find it very ironic that many of the same Atlasians who are oh so concerned about electability in places such as the Florida or Ohio Senate race (states which are barely to the right of the country overall) would willingly throw away a nationwide election because "muh hillary not left wing enough." Seems like a rather large double standard to me.

[IceSpear]

k

Not even gonna try? Disappointing, but not surprising. It's fairly clear that the logic the Hillary haters use can't hold up when subjected to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I gladly accept the victory though.

[IceSpear]

k

Not even gonna try? Disappointing, but not surprising. It's fairly clear that the logic the Hillary haters use can't hold up when subjected to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I gladly accept the victory though.

Normally I'd continue trolling you, but I'm about to start watching this documentary called The Jinx that looks like it'll be much more interesting.

[IceSpear]

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Fine, I'll humor you. What did you say in this thread that you didn't genuinely believe?

[IceSpear]

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Fine, I'll humor you. What did you say in this thread that you didn't genuinely believe?

I don't see how responding to your giant effortpost with "k" can be construed as anything other than trolling.

So the actual substance in your earlier posts was not trolling, meaning the image I posted was accurate.

[IceSpear]

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Fine, I'll humor you. What did you say in this thread that you didn't genuinely believe?

I don't see how responding to your giant effortpost with "k" can be construed as anything other than trolling.

So the actual substance in your earlier posts was not trolling, meaning the image I posted was accurate.

No, I'm able and willing to post a serious response to your post and my position is hardly untenable.  However, there's no point in doing so unless you're actually interested in having a serious discussion without any OTT hyperbole, straw-men, or efforts to delegitimize my views by deliberately lying about what I've said (as Beet has already done).  If you're interested in having a serious discussion, that's one thing.  Otherwise though, it'd be a waste of my time.

Feel free to address whatever you think I strawmanned or lied about in your rebuttal.

[IceSpear]

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Fine, I'll humor you. What did you say in this thread that you didn't genuinely believe?

I don't see how responding to your giant effortpost with "k" can be construed as anything other than trolling.

So the actual substance in your earlier posts was not trolling, meaning the image I posted was accurate.

No, I'm able and willing to post a serious response to your post and my position is hardly untenable.  However, there's no point in doing so unless you're actually interested in having a serious discussion without any OTT hyperbole, straw-men, or efforts to delegitimize my views by deliberately lying about what I've said (as Beet has already done).  If you're interested in having a serious discussion, that's one thing.  Otherwise though, it'd be a waste of my time.

Feel free to address whatever you think I strawmanned or lied about in your rebuttal.

I'm not saying you did (although Beet certainly did though).  I'm basically saying if you want to have a serious discussion/debate about the merits of sometimes voting for a write-in as a protest vote, then I am fine with that and will have a detailed response to your post sometime tonight or tomorrow.  But I'm just making sure you're really interested before I invest to much energy into this.

Well, a lot more was discussed than protest votes, but sure, have at it.

[IceSpear]

I'm going to address your reply without quoting, simply because it's too huge otherwise.

- The current SCOTUS can most certainly get worse. Yes, they've made some pretty awful decisions like the VRA and Citizens United, but they've also given us some pretty big victories on Obamacare and gay marriage. Both of those go up in smoke if Ginsberg is replaced by a Scalia clone.

- I don't think Cruz can beat Hillary either (barring some economic collapse or enormous scandal), but we're speaking hypothetically here obviously.

- What makes you think McConnell won't scrap the filibuster? In 2005-2006, the GOP was constantly threatening to invoke the "nuclear option." And they've only moved even further to the right in the past decade.

- I think you're being way too optimistic here. People used to say there's no way in hell that multiple Midwest Republican governors would pass right to work laws in union heavy states like Michigan because of the potential labor backlash. Well, they did it. And they were rewarded for it. And Obamacare is far less popular than unions. In this dystopian scenario, Obamacare is gone. I'd put money on it. It could even be overturned by the newly right wing SCOTUS. You're correct that there's even more executive power the Republican president could exercise than what I mentioned, and they wouldn't even need Congress.

- Fair enough on the reasons you dislike Hillary, but you're being extremely hyperbolic about how "right wing" she is. She had a fairly liberal voting record in the Senate, has been a consistent booster of women's rights, tried to get healthcare reform passed in the 90s...

- Yes, a lot can change. Perhaps if Cruz is disastrous enough Dems could retake the House. But the Senate is just impossible if you look at the map. What states are Dems going to win? Mississippi? Utah? Wyoming? Texas? Even in 2008 we got blown out of the water in these ruby red states.

- If you're not one of the "Dems should throw the presidential election in 2016 if Hillary is the nominee!" people, then fair enough, my bad. But there has certainly been people here who said that very thing, and your initial post sounded very similar to that.

- People thinking Hillary is a far right neocon warmonger is not a strawman. You browse this forum, so you should know that. Obviously very few people in the real world think that, but that was exactly my point. All of those things you listed might also contribute to it, but the "Democratic Party has gone too far to the left" narrative is going to get a lot of press too, and most people here aren't going to like that very much.

- I wasn't implying you were a sexist, but many people hold Hillary to a different standard than they hold male Democrats. That's a fact.

- You support Strickland, no? He's objectively to the right of Hillary. Same for Patrick Murphy in Florida. Both states are about a tick to the right of the nation as a whole. So I don't see how they're good fits for those states but Hillary is too right wing for a nationwide race.

[IceSpear]

What do you think I'm wrong about re:SCOTUS? It's an objective fact that if you replaced one of the liberal justices with a right winger that we would've lost the cases on Obamacare and DOMA.

It doesn't really matter why Snyder, Walker, etc. were re-elected. The fact remains that they were, despite pushing an issue that was far less popular than repeal of Obamacare. If they were not punished by the voters for doing so, why would the Republican Party as a whole be punished for repealing an unpopular law?

Well, you and King have already discussed Hillary's positions on the issues. From issue statements and voting record she's about where the average Democrat is. The "Hillary is right wing" thing comes from things like her giving a speech at Wall Street (as if most Dems don't fundraise from there), and placing way too much weight on a single vote from over a decade ago as opposed to looking at the bigger picture. I suppose we'll eventually see what her platform is after she declares.

If someone more liberal than Strickland/Murphy can't win Ohio/Florida in the Senate races, then why can someone far more liberal than Strickland/Murphy win Ohio/Florida in the presidential race?