This is a misleading claim from a misleading blog post.
If you look at the actual clip, Brown had already responded to the issue, in stating his opposition to the current proposals to effectively tax carbon. The moderator followed up with a question about whether he thought we would ever have to tax it, and at that point Brown said he doesn’t want to talk about the future. In context, his meaning was clear - he currently doesn’t think it should be taxed but couldn’t speculate about whether we might someday reach that point. (By contrast, it was his opponent who was asked about taxing carbon - which she apparently supports - and ignored the question in favor of some all-purpose political jive.)
[The second claim in that post is even more ridiculous. Brown is being completely consistent, in saying that he thinks it’s very reasonable to assume that ISIS terrorists will try to sneak across the border but that he doesn’t have any evidence that they have actually done so to this point.]
Gotta agree with iiandyii here. I’m sticking with by prediction of GOP +8, but if the Democrats’ ground game is as good as advertised, the polls could be skewed against them.
One thing I wonder about is Orman in KS. He is a big part of Democratic hopes, and this is one of the closest races in the county - 538 rates that race as even money (with Orman 75% likely to stick with the Dems if elected).
But he is an independent. How good of a ground game could an independent have? I would have to think that even a Republican ground game would have to outclass that of an independent. (Unless the Democrats intend to mount a big GOTV campaign for Orman?)
Thanks, chum. Future predictions from you will be tagged with a link back to this confident prediction, especially if the 2016 election produces a Republican president.
But reasonable people who want the Constitution changed should amend it, not “reinterpret” it.
Look at the map. It’s hard to conceive of any state that Obama won being lost by a future Democrat. Plus demographics are really working against the red team. Texas is purpling up by the day, when you lose that you lose any hope at all.
You’re wrong about quite a bit here. First, Obama himself has turned some states redder, such as West Virginia, and Colorado and Iowa aren’t looking as good for Democrats as they have in the past. As for states he won being lost by future Democrats, states he won were already lost, by him. Missouri used to be a bellwether state, yet the GOP has now won it in two straight elections that they lost, which means that Missouri is probably now reliably red so long as Republicans don’t get massacred.
Texas is not getting purple, it’s not even close to getting purple. It went R+16 in 2012. It’s several elections away from turning blue, if it ever does. You’re assuming demographic change without accounting for how increasing minority populations have also failed to turn Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Alabama blue. The same effect will occur in Texas, turning it even more red.
True. That’s why I can’t do a happy dance just yet. The leads have grown consistent in key races, but they are not certain. And in any case, I do think we are headed for overtime. My prediction of +8 assumes the GOP gets +5 on election night, two runoffs(GA and LA), and one race headed for a recount.
