US Politics V - now with 20% more echo chamber

[PhilsFan]

The Left is going to lose no matter what. The two sides aren't even playing the same game anymore. It's obvious the GOP will do whatever it takes to claim, and hold on to power.

Is it even feasible to believe that the Democrats would stand by their own Roy Moore? Please do not say Bill Clinton. He didn't molest little girls. He was just a perv (and you could make the point that Bill probably wouldn't have survived in today's climate with the #MeToo ).

We are seeing the Dems purge out their own creeps, and on the other side? Aside from one or two senators (who are quitting), there's been silence. And silence equals acceptance.

If Bernie is still alive and kicking in 2020, throw him out there. Warren too. The Dems will still fight though, and it'll give the GOP the WH again because they fall in line.

What's amazing with all these accusations, stories, issues coming up.....Obama hasn't had one single stain on him. While he may not have been everything the Left wanted, he was by far and away the most professional, and presidential of any politician of my lifetime. Dude had integrity.

I agree that the GOP doesn't play by the same rules, but the Democrats seem intent on still pretending that they do. They define themselves by worry about what the GOP is going to say about them. They're terrified of labels: hypocrite, partisan, socialist. Then when they sprint to the center on every issue ... they still get called those things anyway.

Bill Clinton is not Roy Moore, but he has been accused of rape, and many Democrats don't "count" that because it was beneficial to Republicans so it must be false. I don't think Clinton being "better" than Roy Moore is any credit to him. Bill Clinton fucking sucks. He's way more than just a horny guy, but somehow that's what we've allowed ourselves to pretend for a long time.

They aren't going to purge their own creeps, which means you have to beat them in an election. You need to drive people out to the polls by offering them something. You can do that in a lot of places without compromising your morals ... so long as your morals aren't beholden to corporate donors.

Obama does seem to have a lot of personal integrity, but his foreign policy is a rather massive stain. I don't consider any president of ours to this point to have been any sort of moral beacon.

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren should be nowhere near the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.

Get someone young and inspiring.

But I do have to agree that the Republicans, as chaotic as they seem to be, do the politics significantly better than the Democrats.

They have the same amount of infighting, but when it's time for vote, they vote for the guy with the R no matter what.

They're also shedding young members a faster than they can create new ones, but on the short term it's working for them, and they have the ability to create enough long term pain right now to make it last a generation.

I agree that Sanders, Clinton, and Biden should be nowhere near 2020, and I tend to agree about Warren as well though I would hate it less than those three. Sanders is far too old.

Who in the D party can rise up? Thoughts were Booker, and the two brothers from TX....but they've already been called ESTABLISHMENT!!! by the progressive side.

Keith Ellision maybe?

The real scary part of all of this is that Trump is filling our courts with Alt Right and Extremists. Judges who aren't even remotely qualified to hold these positions, and they'll be in there for life.

We are going to feel the pain for a long time, and I'm afraid no young whippersnapper from the Left can fix it.

I think Biden would be great, if his age wouldn't be such a problem. He's a straight shooter without being a complete moron. I think Joe would continue Obama's progress

Cory Booker is establishment, it's a very fair criticism.

Biden is a creep with women, his time has passed.

Ellison won't ever get the support from the DNC.

Preferably someone we aren't thinking of yet.

Perhaps.

I think that tweet today just got Gillibrand into the 2020 race.

She may be the right combination of young enough and palatable enough to both the left and the Democrats. I don't love her, but she probably makes the most sense of the current names in the picture.

I don't think you're BMP, but I think your assessment that there's overwhelming support for leftist economic policy is a bit out of touch.

There are many that will support concepts of single payer, but once you label it single payer or "leftist economics" they'll run. This is why the Democratic party won't embrace it full on. They have an uphill battle on their hands as to how to communicate these policies. So far the progressive side doesn't really have anyone that can, how do you expect the Democratic party to do so?

My comments above sort of address this, but I think the communication problem is one of lacking convictions, not one of messaging. They can't communicate them properly because they don't really want to do them. Sanders had a very easy time talking about them because his donor base was individuals. Most Dems are trying to compete for the big donors and the economic policies that would most directly help the people they'd drive out to the polls are not palatable to the donors. The Dems' economics end up being only slightly to the left of the Republicans at the end of the day. They have a way better track record on social policy, but that doesn't drive enough people out to beat back against the very reliable voting base the GOP has developed.

They'll learn to communicate the policies once they actually embrace them.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think that tweet today just got Gillibrand into the 2020 race.

I'm listening

 

[BVS]

Two Democrats give up their Congressional seats in order to advance the awareness and cause for gender equality.

Meanwhile the Republican Party prepares to elect a pedophile to the US Senate - with the full backing of the Republican Party.

Yep, those Republicans that were so worried about their daughters in bathrooms have already elected a pussy grabbing president that will imply you're a slut if you don't bow down before him and desperately trying to elect a pedophile that doesn't want you to be able to vote. I'm sure their daughters will grow up and appreciate the message.

 

[anitram]

I think the Democratic field will be very woman-heavy in 2020. It's obvious that Gillibrand is doing everything she can to pave her way to a run. Kamala Harris is another good guess. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious guess though I don't have the sense from her that she's going to do it.

 

[BVS]

They can't communicate them properly because they don't really want to do them. Sanders had a very easy time talking about them because his donor base was individuals.

No, I'm not talking about being to talk about them, but being able to explain them. Sanders was abysmal trying to explain economic policies; and this is what I'm talking about, there doesn't seem to be anyone that can explain these policies. And that's a big problem.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

There has to be a good, young up and coming Democrat who isn't from New York, Massachusetts or California.

Run someone from the rust belt, if there's anyone left.

 

[corianderstem]

Why Melania, Ivanka & Jared's mayoral election votes didn't count - NY Daily News

MELANIA: Didn't follow directions to sign envelope so her vote didn't count

IVANKA: Sent it on election day, too late

JARED: Never sent ballot

DONALD: Got his own b-day wrong by a month

While Eric is not mentioned, my favorite Twitter reply was:

ERIC: ate his ballot.



(Full disclosure, this isn't that newsworthy, I just posted it so I could share the Twitter joke.)

 

[Nick66]

I think Gillibrand might just be able to beat Trump.

I think he'd beat Harris or Warren, however.

 

[PhilsFan]

No, I'm not talking about being to talk about them, but being able to explain them. Sanders was abysmal trying to explain economic policies; and this is what I'm talking about, there doesn't seem to be anyone that can explain these policies. And that's a big problem.

You say this all the time but it doesn't matter. Sanders didn't lose because he lacked the wonk factor.

Do you think the GOP wins because they're experts at explaining their economic policies?

 

[PhilsFan]

Gillibrand has received criticism from both sides already to this point. Democrats came after her for calling for Franken's resignation. Leftists were outraged by the bill to outlaw support for the boycott of Israel ... which Gillibrand co-sponsored. She also has a very bad record on guns and immigration. Obviously it'll be easier for the centrist-Dems to get over a lot of this than the leftists.

 

[anitram]

Run someone from the rust belt, if there's anyone left.

They should just run Bruce Springsteen. I'm only partly joking.

Gillibrand has some built-in advantages. She was at Davis Polk and as such has access to vast sums of typically liberal $$ and fundraising in NYC, California, etc. At the same time she is from upstate New York which may as well be the rust belt in many ways. Disadvantages are that she comes across as somebody who will go whichever way the wind is blowing, she came from relative privilege (super expensive private boarding school, followed by Dartmouth), may remind some voters of Hillary as her demeanor is usually quite controlled, as stupid as it is that this should even matter.

Amy Klobuchar has also been bandied about but honestly the woman is as interesting to listen to as watching paint dry. Just a terrible public speaker.

Then there is the wild card of Mark Zuckerberg currently being on some sort of quasi-political cross-country tour which has been heavily speculated as predating a run for office. I find that pretty hard to believe and chalk it up more to billionaire whims but I guess it is possible, even if remote.

 

[BVS]

You say this all the time but it doesn't matter. Sanders didn't lose because he lacked the wonk factor.

Do you think the GOP wins because they're experts at explaining their economic policies?

Not at all, it's easy when you're touting the same economic plan for three decades.

But you're talking about something entirely different. You're talking about economic policy that we as Americans haven't truly seen before AND it still has a stigma attached to it. You have to be able to explain it at that point. I'm not saying he lost because of this, but I think he wasn't able to tip the scales enough because of it. Many of us feared he'd be completely ineffective.

 

[corianderstem]

Knowing what we know about Russian propaganda and social media during the election, there's no way Zuckerberg runs. And thank fuck for that.

This is not a goddamned entry-level position. Go run for mayor or something.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think the Democratic field will be very woman-heavy in 2020. It's obvious that Gillibrand is doing everything she can to pave her way to a run. Kamala Harris is another good guess. Elizabeth Warren is the obvious guess though I don't have the sense from her that she's going to do it.

Oh, man, I would truly love for that to be the case. It'd be so awesome to have a variety of women running for president. I hope we get to see that.

There has to be a good, young up and coming Democrat who isn't from New York, Massachusetts or California.

Run someone from the rust belt, if there's anyone left.

I'll agree with this, too.

I agree that the GOP doesn't play by the same rules, but the Democrats seem intent on still pretending that they do. They define themselves by worry about what the GOP is going to say about them. They're terrified of labels: hypocrite, partisan, socialist. Then when they sprint to the center on every issue ... they still get called those things anyway.

Bill Clinton is not Roy Moore, but he has been accused of rape, and many Democrats don't "count" that because it was beneficial to Republicans so it must be false. I don't think Clinton being "better" than Roy Moore is any credit to him. Bill Clinton fucking sucks. He's way more than just a horny guy, but somehow that's what we've allowed ourselves to pretend for a long time.

And I'll agree with this as well. The label thing is a good point-either own the labels that get thrown at them, or shrug them off and focus on pushing and promoting their policies, while the people making those accusations stand there looking like the fools they are

And like I said in the sexual harassment thread, the Democrats need to acknowledge their error in overlooking the troubling claims surrounding Bill back in the '90s, and demonstrate that they've learned from any mistakes they've made in regards to that issue going forward.

My comments above sort of address this, but I think the communication problem is one of lacking convictions, not one of messaging. They can't communicate them properly because they don't really want to do them. Sanders had a very easy time talking about them because his donor base was individuals. Most Dems are trying to compete for the big donors and the economic policies that would most directly help the people they'd drive out to the polls are not palatable to the donors.

I don't know that I'd entirely go with the idea that the Democrats lack conviction or don't want to go through with the policies they support. I think, for the most part, they truly do. But it's one thing to talk about that stuff on the campaign trail, it's another entirely when they wind up in office and are facing stiff opposition from another party, as well as other various factors (the labeling issue you mentioned, special interest groups getting in the way, etc.).

I do think messaging is part of the problem. For example, for some reason, it's hard to rally young people to vote more often, and in elections beyond the presidential ones at that. The Democrats need to do better at pushing for that and encouraging that. And while liberals would obviously support left-wing policies, you (general "you") do need to find a way to make independent, and possibly moderately conservative, voters be willing to embrace them, too. The Democrats need to find a way to show how left-wing policies would benefit everyone, not just Democrats.

As for the donor thing, that, of course, could be fixed with serious campaign finance reform, and overturning Citizens United. If we could sort out those issues, the Democrats would probably have a lot easier time getting donors of various types, instead of just the big wigs, and that could go a long way towards giving them the boost they need to better push for their policies, since they'd know for certain they had the true backing of the people, and not just fancy donors. Changing those laws might also help encourage people to vote more often, since they would be more likely to feel their votes truly are mattering and they're being listened to.

Unfortunately, good luck getting that issue dealt with in this current political climate.

 

[BEAL]

Facts don't matter anymore, so it really doesn't matter if a person has any sort of substance behind their policies.

Clinton learned the hard way by trying to talk specifics. She lost to MAGA!!!

We saw how bad the GOP debates got, and I think the Dem side is going that way soon too.

I think Vince McMahon is the next logical choice for office

 

[PhilsFan]

I don't know that I'd entirely go with the idea that the Democrats lack conviction or don't want to go through with the policies they support. I think, for the most part, they truly do. But it's one thing to talk about that stuff on the campaign trail, it's another entirely when they wind up in office and are facing stiff opposition from another party, as well as other various factors (the labeling issue you mentioned, special interest groups getting in the way, etc.).

I do think messaging is part of the problem. For example, for some reason, it's hard to rally young people to vote more often, and in elections beyond the presidential ones at that. The Democrats need to do better at pushing for that and encouraging that. And while liberals would obviously support left-wing policies, you (general "you") do need to find a way to make independent, and possibly moderately conservative, voters be willing to embrace them, too. The Democrats need to find a way to show how left-wing policies would benefit everyone, not just Democrats.

As for the donor thing, that, of course, could be fixed with serious campaign finance reform, and overturning Citizens United. If we could sort out those issues, the Democrats would probably have a lot easier time getting donors of various types, instead of just the big wigs, and that could go a long way towards giving them the boost they need to better push for their policies, since they'd know for certain they had the true backing of the people, and not just fancy donors. Changing those laws might also help encourage people to vote more often, since they would be more likely to feel their votes truly are mattering and they're being listened to.

Unfortunately, good luck getting that issue dealt with in this current political climate.

I'm saying they lack conviction because they DON'T support those policies. They don't support serious reform of the tax code that whacks at the wealthy and the big corporations. Those are their donors, which many of them consider their real base. The Republicans who have a conscience on social issues. They DON'T support decreasing the military budget by taking a non-interventionist foreign policy through to the White House, because so many of them are military hawks terrified of being called weak. Many of them DON'T support healthcare reform. They think Obamacare is fine and just needs some tweaks, not total reform into a single-payer system.

Think about how much hedging Democrats do on some of this shit. Think about how much means testing they discuss whenever talking about welfare and healthcare. It's all a hedge because they don't fully support any of this stuff.

I think left wing economic policies benefit most people. I think messaging is key and it's not there. But I think it's not there because most of the DNC simply doesn't support it.

 

[trojanchick99]

I like Kamala Harris, but if you want to see a southerner, Joaquin Castro?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I have never voted for a Republican for President but I could see myself voting for Charlie Baker. Governor of MA. Unless he hoes himself out to the Gross Old Party and sells his soul. Of course it's a complete fantasy that he could get elected. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Most popular governor in the country. He's done a great job and I'd vote for his reelection over a Democrat, unless he really screwed up.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

And screw Trump for that tweet about Kirsten Gillibrand

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

https://twitter.com/HeavensHawkeye/status/940711452964466689

 

[PhilsFan]

Important to remember that Alabama had Shelby County v Holder and that they've made a concerted effort to close polling places in black communities.

http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/2016/poll-closure-report-web.pdf

 

[Bluer White]

I like Kamala Harris, but if you want to see a southerner, Joaquin Castro?

Hi trojanchick, what do you like best about Ms. Harris? You're a California resident, right?

 

[anitram]

This is an excellent read. It's what I've been saying for a long time. Enough with the naivete of "meeting these people halfway".

Roy Moore Rally Speakers from Steve Bannon to Louie Gohmert Bash Doug Jones Campaign

You grow exhausted from the effort it takes to keep mockery at bay long enough to explain that what Moore and Bannon are selling is a dangerous blend of religious extremism and McCarthyite bombast, Roy Cohn in Torquemada drag. You grow exhausted by the effort it takes, over and over again, to remind yourself that there are good people in the crowd cheering this river of sludge and nonsense.

Finally, you give up. Roy Moore is a vehicle for collecting suckers, for liberating them from their responsibility as citizens in a self-governing republic, and anybody who thinks this waterheaded theocrat belongs in the United States Senate is a dupe and a fool. Finally, you don’t care if the people behind Roy Moore, and the people in the crowd in front of him, believe you are a member of the coastal elite or an agent of Lucifer. Finally, you grow weary of the smug condescension of religious bigots. Finally, you decide to put down the twin burdens of excusing deliberate ignorance and respecting the opinions of people who want to light the world on fire to kill their imaginary enemies. And you give up and tell the truth.

These people deserve what they get.

 

[DaveC]

These people deserve what they get.

while that may be true, in this case unfortunately we all get what they deserve.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Rick Santorum on CNN is so awkward.

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

Well look at that! The child molester is winning! Color me shocked, not.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Well look at that! The child molester is winning! Color me shocked, not.

yeah, these results are reminding me way too much of last year. i say this with as much love for a state i lived in for two years, as much love for the state where my boyfriend was born and raised: fuck alabama.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Keep in mind, too, Diemen did share that link earlier today about some sketchy ruling related to the ballots. I don't doubt that's affecting results to some degree, too.

Even then, though...come the fuck ON, Alabama. What the hell is wrong with you? This should not be a contest. At all.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The big Democratic counties are still out.

Chill brotato chips

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I wondered about that. I just keep seeing things about it being too close to call right now.

But fingers crossed regardless.