# GOP still trending to win Senate **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 13, 2014, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426 "2014-08-13T10:52:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2014, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/221 "2014-08-24T23:49:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And please, let’s dispense with this “I won’t back the President”. You won’t oppose him in any way that actually matters. If anti-war Rand Paul runs against hawk Hillary Clinton, with Rand promising to get us out of Iraq and Syria and Clinton pledging to get us in deeper, you’ll vote for Hillary while barely holding your nose. Every single one of you. I think it says a lot that you only see two options: support or oppose. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/222 "2014-08-25T03:57:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And please, let’s dispense with this “I won’t back the President”. You won’t oppose him in any way that actually matters. If anti-war Rand Paul runs against hawk Hillary Clinton, with Rand promising to get us out of Iraq and Syria and Clinton pledging to get us in deeper, you’ll vote for Hillary while barely holding your nose. Every single one of you. If I’m stuck with choosing between Rand Paul and anyone else I’m going to vote for anyone else. That man is the last person I would want to see as president. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/223 "2014-08-25T04:25:16Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Yes, because war isn’t the only issue. And it’s obviously not the top issue for very many Democrats. Democrats have a long history of military adventurism with no defined mission while defining the tactics to be used rather than the mission to be accomplished, yet it doesn’t ever budge base support. Even with the emergence of a Republican noninterventionist faction, nary a liberal is moving. I guess war is just a price they are willing to pay for social programs here at home. “It’s nothing personal, people we’re bombing. We just really like our Social Security.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/224 "2014-08-25T08:28:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And it’s obviously not the top issue for very many Democrats. Democrats have a long history of military adventurism with no defined mission while defining the tactics to be used rather than the mission to be accomplished, yet it doesn’t ever budge base support. Even with the emergence of a Republican noninterventionist faction, nary a liberal is moving. I guess war is just a price they are willing to pay for social programs here at home. > > “It’s nothing personal, people we’re bombing. We just really like our Social Security.” Nonsense. The last few Democratic presidential candidates have been much less interventionist than their Republican opponents. We don’t have that Clinton-Paul matchup yet – it would be unwise to act as if this is a foregone conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/225 "2014-08-25T09:57:25Z")
It’s a hypothetical given that Paul is trying to pain Hillary as a “war hawk”. I say he’s wasting his time since nobody cares if she’s a war hawk. At least not enough to move votes. And please, candidates is your argument? In terms of military actions involving the US, Democratic Presidents have been far more interventionist. THat’s such a weird argument to make when we have a President who is on the verge of tying Bush’s record of regime change through military action. Just admit it. Democrats don’t hate war enough to risk small cuts to social programs. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/226 "2014-08-25T10:01:27Z")
And frankly, most of them don’t care all that much about civil rights either. If the Republicans went to the left of the Democrats on every single issue but economic issues, from gay rights to race to abortion to guns, 90% of Democrats would still vote for Democrats. Because nothing trumps the social programs. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/227 "2014-08-25T11:04:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And please, candidates is your argument? In terms of military actions involving the US, Democratic Presidents have been far more interventionist. THat’s such a weird argument to make when we have a President who is on the verge of tying Bush’s record of regime change through military action. We’re talking about the here and now, and your characterization of Obama’s policies are way off. In the here and now, the last several Republican candidates ran on an interventionist and hawkish platform, and the Democrats opposed this. > [@](#): > > Just admit it. Democrats don’t hate war enough to risk small cuts to social programs. Not surprisingly, you continue to show no understanding of how Democratic voters think in the real world. Hannity’s fantasy-liberals are not real people. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/228 "2014-08-25T11:06:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And frankly, most of them don’t care all that much about civil rights either. If the Republicans went to the left of the Democrats on every single issue but economic issues, from gay rights to race to abortion to guns, 90% of Democrats would still vote for Democrats. Because nothing trumps the social programs. Again, you have a child-like, Hannityesque understanding of how actual Democrats think. Just stop trying. Or, if you really want to learn something, _ask a Democrat how he/she thinks._ I’d be happy to help you learn. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/229 "2014-08-25T11:39:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re talking about the here and now, and your characterization of Obama’s policies are way off. In the here and now, the last several Republican candidates ran on an interventionist and hawkish platform, and the Democrats opposed this. Irrelevant. What is actually done matters more than what is said during a campaign. > [@](#): > > Not surprisingly, you continue to show no understanding of how Democratic voters think in the real world. Hannity’s fantasy-liberals are not real people. Whether or not that’s how Democrats think, it is the result of their voting. They will always prioritize the social programs over everything else. Adults understand how their priority-setting affects the world around them. If you prioritize stopping war lower than Social Security, Medicare, ACA, food stamps, higher taxes on the rich, and business regulations, then it will not actually be a priority to stop US involvement in wars. It doesn’t move Democratic votes, so Democrats have no reason to actually keep their promises. They just have to talk the way you rubes like during campaigns and then go ahead and topple Qaddafi or whoever the next dragon to slay is. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/230 "2014-08-25T11:45:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Again, you have a child-like, Hannityesque understanding of how actual Democrats think. Just stop trying. Or, if you really want to learn something, _ask a Democrat how he/she thinks._ I’d be happy to help you learn. It would seem that you are being immature here. In the world we actually live in, you only get to prioritize a few things at a time. Most Democrats have chosen social programs. If I’m wrong about this, then I welcome Rand Paul’s effort to win traditionally Democratic voters to the GOP. However, if I’m right about this, then Democrats can “think” all they want about war. It won’t matter, because it’s not the kind of thing you can set as a lower priority than social programs and still have it matter. Rand Paul opposes US involvement in foreign wars. Hillary Clinton has a record as quite the hawk. If you support Hillary Clinton despite this, then obviously war isn’t that important to you. other issues have taken precedence. This isn’t hard to understand. People set priorities even when they aren’t thinking about it. What you choose to actually do determines what your priorities are. Most people aren’t mature enough to avoid having 15 “#1 priorities”, 12 of which they deprioritize completely. LIke people who say their family comes first but actually having a good time comes first. Or voters who say that foreign policy is a top priority for them but vote for the pro-war candidate. It shouldn’t be hard to admit that war isn’t actually all that important to you compared to Social Security. Unless you’re one of those who childishly insists that all of your top 20 issues are #1 priorities, very important to you. Right. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/231 "2014-08-25T11:57:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Irrelevant. What is actually done matters more than what is said during a campaign. You’ve mischaracterized what he’s actually done. So you’re wrong on both counts. > [@](#): > > Whether or not that’s how Democrats think, it is the result of their voting. They will always prioritize the social programs over everything else. You’ve presented no evidence this is the case. > [@](#): > > Adults understand how their priority-setting affects the world around them. If you prioritize stopping war lower than Social Security, Medicare, ACA, food stamps, higher taxes on the rich, and business regulations, then it will not actually be a priority to stop US involvement in wars. It doesn’t move Democratic votes, so Democrats have no reason to actually keep their promises. They just have to talk the way you rubes like during campaigns and then go ahead and topple Qaddafi or whoever the next dragon to slay is. Halperinesque faux-punditry nonsense. Obama has done a [signficantly better job](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/) of keeping his promises than the current incarnation of [GOP leadership](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/). This is just easily provable factually false stuff. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/232 "2014-08-25T12:01:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It would seem that you are being immature here. In the world we actually live in, you only get to prioritize a few things at a time. Most Democrats have chosen social programs. If I’m wrong about this, then I welcome Rand Paul’s effort to win traditionally Democratic voters to the GOP. However, if I’m right about this, then Democrats can “think” all they want about war. It won’t matter, because it’s not the kind of thing you can set as a lower priority than social programs and still have it matter. Chances are, you’re totally wrong about this. > [@](#): > > Rand Paul opposes US involvement in foreign wars. Hillary Clinton has a record as quite the hawk. If you support Hillary Clinton despite this, then obviously war isn’t that important to you. other issues have taken precedence. No one has announced a run for president yet, much less announced a campaign platform. If Hillary Clinton runs on war, then I will be unlikely to support her, unless her opponent is even worse. What’s the point of jumping the gun like this? > [@](#): > > This isn’t hard to understand. People set priorities even when they aren’t thinking about it. What you choose to actually do determines what your priorities are. Most people aren’t mature enough to avoid having 15 “#1 priorities”, 12 of which they deprioritize completely. LIke people who say their family comes first but actually having a good time comes first. Or voters who say that foreign policy is a top priority for them but vote for the pro-war candidate. It shouldn’t be hard to admit that war isn’t actually all that important to you compared to Social Security. Unless you’re one of those who childishly insists that all of your top 20 issues are #1 priorities, very important to you. Right. Again, you’re just way, way off on what real people’s actual priorities have been. Obama has been far, far less interventionist than the alternative would have been. We don’t know who the nominees in 2016 will be, so it’s extremely foolish to be making advance judgments about their relative policy goals. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/233 "2014-08-25T12:53:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It would seem that you are being immature here. In the world we actually live in, you only get to prioritize a few things at a time. Most Democrats have chosen social programs. If I’m wrong about this, then I welcome Rand Paul’s effort to win traditionally Democratic voters to the GOP. However, if I’m right about this, then Democrats can “think” all they want about war. It won’t matter, because it’s not the kind of thing you can set as a lower priority than social programs and still have it matter. > > Rand Paul opposes US involvement in foreign wars. Hillary Clinton has a record as quite the hawk. If you support Hillary Clinton despite this, then obviously war isn’t that important to you. other issues have taken precedence. > > This isn’t hard to understand. People set priorities even when they aren’t thinking about it. What you choose to actually do determines what your priorities are. Most people aren’t mature enough to avoid having 15 “#1 priorities”, 12 of which they deprioritize completely. LIke people who say their family comes first but actually having a good time comes first. Or voters who say that foreign policy is a top priority for them but vote for the pro-war candidate. It shouldn’t be hard to admit that war isn’t actually all that important to you compared to Social Security. Unless you’re one of those who childishly insists that all of your top 20 issues are #1 priorities, very important to you. Right. Please don’t worry about Paul being your nominee. Ain’t gonna happen. The moneyed class in the GOP aren’t going to nominate a libertarian and they have too much invested in the military-industrial complex to nominate an isolationist. I think you are correct that Hillary is more hawkish than the average Democrat, but she is Gandhi compared to say McCain. She recognizes that the Iraq war was folly, something her opposition is not about to say (unless it’s Paul, which it won’t be). I would prefer that Hillary be more of a dove, but I’ll take a small dose of hawkishness as long as she’s on the right side of economic policy, voting rights, gay rights, women’s rights, and reproductive freedom. Show me a Republican who isn’t a war monger, believes in civil rights, voting rights, etc. and I’ll think about voting GOP. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/234 "2014-08-25T12:57:48Z")
That’s why I brought up Paul. He’s trying to portray Hillary as a war hawk, perhaps thinking it will net him some liberal votes. I say he’s adorably naive. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/235 "2014-08-25T13:04:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s why I brought up Paul. He’s trying to portray Hillary as a war hawk, perhaps thinking it will net him some liberal votes. I say he’s adorably naive. The votes Paul needs aren’t liberal. He needs to worry about the nomination first, and you don’t get that by not jumping on the “let’s get them Muslims” bandwagon. I agree that Paul in naive. I disagree with the adorable part. But I do give him props for doing the pro bono eye surgeries in whatever developing nation he was last in. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/236 "2014-08-25T14:37:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > ISIS. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a foreign enemy has to be a nation-state. ISIS has an army, you can make war against an army. ISIS claims to **be** a state, and roughly meets the definition of one since it controls territory and people. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/237 "2014-08-25T15:00:47Z")
Yup, **adaher** has a legitimate point about Paul’s foreign policy. As a far leftwing liberal Democrat, I absolutely cannot stand HRC’s hawkishness, and it really bothers me that that is seemingly the unavoidable direction in which my party is trending. Now, there’s much more to an election than just FP - to the point where I think that just about every voter cares more about domestic concerns than international affairs - so yes, I’d fall in line & hold my nose for HRC if she’s the nominee. At least she’s not a Republican, as is said. But yeah, Paul will never be the actual nominee to begin with. Forget the donor class of the GOP; no, the primary 'Pub VOTERS will never elect an isolationist to be their candidate. As much as I’d love to see an isolationist get the nomination - from either party, honestly - neither group is truly in the anti-interventionist camp at all, least of all the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/238 "2014-08-25T15:31:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because you liberals don’t get to make throw-away one-liners as though this was some sort of safe haven, where we all just know how awful those terrible conservatives are. > > If you want to say something, be prepared to defend it. > > Not everyone reading agrees with you. Roughly half the country votes for the Republicans every two years. I know you like to picture the SDMB as Liberal Cocoon Central, where of course we all know the Correct Way of Thinking, but it’s not. And among my many burdens in life is to remind of the necessity for defending your claims with citations to fact. I guess I just didn’t realize that the benefits/harm of champagne was so fraught with politics that liberal misunderstanding on it must be expunged before discussing such trivialities as the second half of the line about the benefits/harm of a Republican senate. Perhaps the class war is bigger than I thought. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/239 "2014-08-25T16:21:36Z")
I have to admit, Rand Paul as the Republican nominee in 2016 would make for an _interesting_ campaign, and I’d support it on that basis alone, so long as he never gets an actual chance of winning the election. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426/240 "2014-08-25T16:37:57Z")
[This compilation](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/25/1322723/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Poll-Explorer-says-Democrats-have-47-chance-of-holding-the-Senate-right-now?showAll=yes) has Senate control at a toss-up. Yes, I know, it’s too early … [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-still-trending-to-win-senate/695426.md?page=13)