US Politics

[IWasBored]

Right?

I see what you did there.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

cause going further left would surely have been the path to victory in georgia

Guarantee the Sanders paradox would have proven you wrong. Friends with Russia, socialism, you can screw all the cliches. They're out the door. Mainstream democrats are not in demand. People want something different. Regardless of how their logic, or lack thereof, brings them to the decision, people are impressed in this day and age by "different."

Irony of the modern conservative.

 

[DaveC]

you guarantee an openly leftist democrat would have won a special election in georgia, huh?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

you guarantee an openly leftist democrat would have won a special election in georgia, huh?

That's not what I implied at all. I implied that "something different" would have attracted red voters, regardless of whether or not it was logical.

"Guarantee" was a hyperbole, relax.

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

They lost by 5 points in Georgia. Chill.

No kidding...this was like the high school JV team coming down to the final possession against the Atlanta Falcons.

The 5 point margin shows just how many "base" are questioning their current direction on the GOP side. The GOP is timing out...they are dying and not being replaced in equal numbers. The November election was about to be their federal death knell, then a run of some of the most remarkable things to ever happen pre-election (DNC and Hillary diary opened wide to everyone, the DNC issues with Bernie (no shit...while I supported Bernie, he was an independent. Surprised the DNC wasn't his biggest fan?), the Comey comment, Hillary completely losing her mind (their mind, as a group) and following Obama/Romney numbers to chart campaigning, somehow deciding the entire rust belt into Wisconsin was unnecessary) led to an electoral college win for Trump with the mandate that comes with 4 million less votes...and on that, these idiots with their maps showing red, or counties won, etc, to try to overcome actual people voting and their numbers...land doesn't vote. Some states have 10,000,000 counties, some 10, and if all the city centers are in 2 counties, then yeah, the GOP will take more counties. This idea that rural America is more American is noxious.

Anyway...I drifted there. The GOP was on their last leg and threw a wild punch and connected. Those who try to make this into some insurgency, with comments like "this is why you lost...you underestimate us. We are powerful" are not actually performing math.

I keep thinking (hoping) that, for all the fuckery the Republicans have pulled on poor/middle America since Reagan, convincing them of what I call the "Lottery Postulate"..."hey, you should support the rich because someday, with hard work, and a Powerball ticket, you might be rich too, and will want these policies"...the policies were mostly un-impacting to their base. Heavy military spending? Yay...freedom. Heavy cuts to the true poor? Yay...lazy people of color. Heavy increases to health insurance? Well...stupid lazy people suing cost medical malpractice insurance to totally warrant me paying 100% more.

But if the Republicans get what they want, and the preexisting condition protections go away, along with some employer requirements for coverage, they will be feeling it for real. The trucker out of work for 2 years who got back to work after these changes whose wife is dying of cancer suddenly gets told "sorry...our plan won't help". Or they get no coverage because their employer is deemed to be too small under new policies to require coverage. Or, as Paul Ryan put it, the young healthy people shouldn't have to pay for old, sick people...and we all become old and sick, or know someone who is, and we see them die due to a lack of care they can afford. Those are going to be the real deal, the situations that can overcome political bias. That's where I think the GOP will have finally overreached, and that group of middle Americans and working poor Americans who used to believe in the Union and collective bargaining but let the propaganda of years convince them the Union were pinko commies, exposing themselves not to market conditions, but to the conditions of corporate collusion...THAT, I hope, is where they get it. No kidding, Bono, that the idea of labor is so confusing in this country. Maybe the best of all of Bono's rambles, or most poignant, after Red Hill Mining Town at the show I saw in LA...Laborers are confused. We have given up so much gain.

Anyways...yeah...5 points in GA is pretty amazing.

 

[BEAL]

No kidding...this was like the high school JV team coming down to the final possession against the Atlanta Falcons.

The 5 point margin shows just how many "base" are questioning their current direction on the GOP side. The GOP is timing out...they are dying and not being replaced in equal numbers. The November election was about to be their federal death knell, then a run of some of the most remarkable things to ever happen pre-election (DNC and Hillary diary opened wide to everyone, the DNC issues with Bernie (no shit...while I supported Bernie, he was an independent. Surprised the DNC wasn't his biggest fan?), the Comey comment, Hillary completely losing her mind (their mind, as a group) and following Obama/Romney numbers to chart campaigning, somehow deciding the entire rust belt into Wisconsin was unnecessary) led to an electoral college win for Trump with the mandate that comes with 4 million less votes...and on that, these idiots with their maps showing red, or counties won, etc, to try to overcome actual people voting and their numbers...land doesn't vote. Some states have 10,000,000 counties, some 10, and if all the city centers are in 2 counties, then yeah, the GOP will take more counties. This idea that rural America is more American is noxious.

Anyway...I drifted there. The GOP was on their last leg and threw a wild punch and connected. Those who try to make this into some insurgency, with comments like "this is why you lost...you underestimate us. We are powerful" are not actually performing math.

I keep thinking (hoping) that, for all the fuckery the Republicans have pulled on poor/middle America since Reagan, convincing them of what I call the "Lottery Postulate"..."hey, you should support the rich because someday, with hard work, and a Powerball ticket, you might be rich too, and will want these policies"...the policies were mostly un-impacting to their base. Heavy military spending? Yay...freedom. Heavy cuts to the true poor? Yay...lazy people of color. Heavy increases to health insurance? Well...stupid lazy people suing cost medical malpractice insurance to totally warrant me paying 100% more.

But if the Republicans get what they want, and the preexisting condition protections go away, along with some employer requirements for coverage, they will be feeling it for real. The trucker out of work for 2 years who got back to work after these changes whose wife is dying of cancer suddenly gets told "sorry...our plan won't help". Or they get no coverage because their employer is deemed to be too small under new policies to require coverage. Or, as Paul Ryan put it, the young healthy people shouldn't have to pay for old, sick people...and we all become old and sick, or know someone who is, and we see them die due to a lack of care they can afford. Those are going to be the real deal, the situations that can overcome political bias. That's where I think the GOP will have finally overreached, and that group of middle Americans and working poor Americans who used to believe in the Union and collective bargaining but let the propaganda of years convince them the Union were pinko commies, exposing themselves not to market conditions, but to the conditions of corporate collusion...THAT, I hope, is where they get it. No kidding, Bono, that the idea of labor is so confusing in this country. Maybe the best of all of Bono's rambles, or most poignant, after Red Hill Mining Town at the show I saw in LA...Laborers are confused. We have given up so much gain.

Anyways...yeah...5 points in GA is pretty amazing.

If only he offered free stuff, he'd have won in a landslide

 

[DaveC]

That's not what I implied at all. I implied that "something different" would have attracted red voters, regardless of whether or not it was logical.

"Guarantee" was a hyperbole, relax.

i really don't understand the point you're trying to make here. you're so sure this candidate would have made a difference in swinging red votes, but you aren't implying that they would win? so like they would have lost by 2 points instead of 5? that's no difference at all,the result is still the same.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

i really don't understand the point you're trying to make here. you're so sure this candidate would have made a difference in swinging red votes, but you aren't implying that they would win? so like they would have lost by 2 points instead of 5? that's no difference at all,the result is still the same.

The point im making (and it was relatively clear) is that your insinuation that because it's a red state and a red seat, a centrist is inherently better option.

I think it's the contrary, if only because of where the mainstream lies. I've said it a million times and I'll say it again - people treat political parties like sports teams. Someone who holds the title of "outsider," in my opinion, is far more likely to win such an election.

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

I would think, rationally, that the more centrist the Dem, the more chance of having won GA. It isn't a state with some untapped reservoir of progressives biting for the chance to carry a similarly-aligned candidate to the win.


This particular centrist was also bland as mush, and really had little to offer other than not being them. So maybe a dynamic centrist with a history in the state of doing some good would have been enough to ride the wave of Trump discontent and the rare situation where funding was nearly that of the opposition to a shocking victory.


But Bernie, Georgia Style wasn't going to win that race. The fact that it was close at all speaks volumes about the true discontent of the begrudgingly Trump voter in 2016. They aren't getting what they hoped for, they didn't much care for the Yankee, non-religious (two Corinthians?) robber baron anyway, but swallowed and voted for him as the lesser of their perceived 2 evils. So, yeah, a really strong centrist candidate might have pulled this. But a progressive never would have won this race.


I tend to agree we need a more progressive national candidate, a Bernie type, but maybe a bit more polished and party-centric. And I think Bernie's success did help the planks move farther this way...student loans, pension gap, and single payor health care have become the backbone of the Dem platform. But in Georgia, in a largely-Republican district that hasn't been close since the ideological shift of Southern Democrats to the Republican party post-Civil Rights Act? No.

 

[PhilsFan]

Centrism is a stance for nothing. I'm not even sure Ossoff knows what his policies would have been. The Dems keep running campaigns based around tone, not substance. They're afraid of actually supporting policies voters want, because they're at odds with what donors want.

 

[DaveC]

I would think, rationally, that the more centrist the Dem, the more chance of having won GA. It isn't a state with some untapped reservoir of progressives biting for the chance to carry a similarly-aligned candidate to the win.

This particular centrist was also bland as mush, and really had little to offer other than not being them. So maybe a dynamic centrist with a history in the state of doing some good would have been enough to ride the wave of Trump discontent and the rare situation where funding was nearly that of the opposition to a shocking victory.

But Bernie, Georgia Style wasn't going to win that race. The fact that it was close at all speaks volumes about the true discontent of the begrudgingly Trump voter in 2016. They aren't getting what they hoped for, they didn't much care for the Yankee, non-religious (two Corinthians?) robber baron anyway, but swallowed and voted for him as the lesser of their perceived 2 evils. So, yeah, a really strong centrist candidate might have pulled this. But a progressive never would have won this race.

I tend to agree we need a more progressive national candidate, a Bernie type, but maybe a bit more polished and party-centric. And I think Bernie's success did help the planks move farther this way...student loans, pension gap, and single payor health care have become the backbone of the Dem platform. But in Georgia, in a largely-Republican district that hasn't been close since the ideological shift of Southern Democrats to the Republican party post-Civil Rights Act? No.

this exactly. the prevailing notion in here lately seems to be "centrist = boring loser" and that anything short of the democratic party nominating the reincarnation of eugene debs is a catastrophic failure. yea, the majority of centrist candidates lately have been really shitty. but a good centrist candidate will still win 100% of the time over a good leftist candidate in a place like georgia.

the democrats need to find good centrist candidates, not immediately take a hard left turn and hope for the best. that's a good way to drive a lot of people to the GOP. personally i'm fairly left, even for canada, and way more so than the democratic party is overall. i'd love nothing more than a truly democratic-socialist party to have a real shot at winning anything, but i'd far rather a centrist democratic party winning elections than the GOP winning them again and again because the large middle can't stomach to vote for someone who's going to drastically raise their taxes (despite what i feel is the rapidly increasing urgency of doing exactly that).

 

[DaveC]

Centrism is a stance for nothing.

now there's a hot take

 

[BEAL]

now there's a hot take

And yet we're told the center won't compromise or work with the progressive side.

It's this type of attitude that turns most of us centrist liberals off. It's like millennial talk on how they just get it you know, like we don't have to work at a desk and we're the first generation to abolish racism...

Even the GOP is finding out that they can't just ram their extremist agenda through congress. They still need that middle ground.

Incremental changes over time is how this country works. Breaking up the banks, higher taxes on the elites, and universal healthcare cannot happen at once. It will be a slow process.

Assuming liberals ever get the chance again

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

the key is a good centrist candidate in an otherwise right-leaning area.

In this case, the GA Dem candidate was not really about anything except for not being them. That doesn't work. It can, but it was not enough here to overcome the last few percentage points.


For years, the Dem party was disorganized and was an easy takedown for the dirtier tactics of the right, from Atwater to Rove. Starting roughly with Obama, but to a lesser extent with Bill Clinton, the Dems finally figured out that you have to win, and sometimes that required trying to win. Get power, then push the platform within. With the rampant gerrymandering all over the nation, and the nation's overall tilt to right of center or libertarian, you cannot run far left candidates in centrist/right areas just to feel good about yourself. Change in those types of areas comes at glacial pace. There are degrees of everything, and I find that whole "Bernie or Bust" attitude ridiculous, and the third party types who voted their "conscience" in battleground states to be complicit in the election of GWB and Trump. If you are in a decided state, create the numbers for your 3rd party. But to pretend there is no difference between republicans and democrats is factually incorrect and often the folly of youth. If you think Clinton's agenda would have been the same as Trumps because of some corporate ties, I can't change your mind, because that kind of opinion is borne of willful ignorance. No, the Dem party isn't perfect, and it is still a power structure. But the policies of this nation that do benefit the working poor and middle America, pensioners and middle class workers have some similarities in where they originated.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Incremental changes over time is how this country works. Breaking up the banks, higher taxes on the elites, and universal healthcare cannot happen at once. It will be a slow process.

Assuming liberals ever get the chance again

Exactly. I too would personally be happy with a leftist of the sort Dave describes being in office, but so long as the progress is happening at all, I'll be happy, whether it happens fast or slow.

And if a center left candidate does win an election, if those on the left are worried the candidate isn't taking a strong enough stance on this or that issue, then they need to do their part to make it clear to them the importance of taking that stance, and let that candidate see just how many people would support them for doing so. That's another good way to try and get them to do more to make left-wing policies a reality.

Honestly, I don't know that the Democratic party's main issue right now is that it's not left enough. I do think there's valid critiques to make in that area, and I do think it is AN issue to some degree, but I don't think it's the biggest one right now. I think, for the most part, those on the center left and those on the far left are probably more in tune on their political stances than they think. It's mainly just a matter of HOW to implement those stances that seems to be where they're at odds.

And it's because of that that I feel the Democrats' biggest issue right now is figuring out how to deliver their message to the public at large, regardless of how centrist or far left they are. Both Bernie and Hillary struggled to make their case to voters in some respects, but they also did manage to each entice some voters that they might not have otherwise gotten (there were Republicans who supported Hillary once Trump became the nominee, Bernie was getting young people's support). If we can find a way to blend the best aspects of both Bernie and Hillary's stances and ways of campaigning and whatnot, I think we'd be able to make some pretty decent inroads.

 

[Irvine511]

one of the smartest political guys i know posted this article about the special election, i think it's smart:

Taking nothing away from the campaign - I knew a lot of really smart people who did good work, and for the good of the cause, I think the party had to make some kind of an effort there (30 million was well beyond the point of diminishing returns), the basic match-up was uphill. Jon Ossoff, while an impressive young man, started out hardly more than a generic Democrat. The first time I spoke to one of my very smart Atlanta friends about Ossoff, she peppered her praise with a fair number of "but" to describe his weaknesses. Back when I was a candidate recruiter, I went out of my way to walk away from candidates whose qualities had to be modified by the word "but", especially in seats like this.

Karen Handel, on paper, was a proven commodity. Take ideology and everything else off the test, and she wins the bio test. I don't know if a more proven candidate, either some kind of prominent business leader, or prior elected, would have done better, but my gut says the odds are pretty decent. I was definitely in camp that our best shot here was in the big primary.

Even in districts like this, the road to 45-47%, with enough money and a good enough candidate, can be smooth. But the road from there to 50+1 can be like climbing Everest without oxygen -- sure it can be done, but it requires a really amazing climber and a fair amount of luck. Gwen Graham getting over the top in Florida 02 in 2014 (R+5 seat) when several others had come just short is a good example of this.

I don't think Democrats should get too down on this one, or Republicans get too excited. Districts like this show that the map in 2018 is likely to be fairly broad. Take away the money spent in the seat, and I think most Dems would rightfully feel very good about it. As we saw in South Carolina tonight, there are a lot of places that are more interesting than they normally are.

Which gets back to the lesson. One of the biggest forgotten lessons of 2006 is the importance of recruitment. My side will never have the money to go toe-to-toe with Republicans everywhere. We have to have the "better" candidate in a lot of places to win, particularly due to gerrymandering whch means we have to win more seats on GOP turf than they do on ours. At the Congressional level, the DCCC in 2006 fielded a rock-star slate of candidates. At the legislative cycle, in a year when we picked up seven GOP-held seats and held two Democratic open seats, we had the "better" candidate in almost every instance. We also recruited broadly, trying to find the best candidates we could in as many plausible seats as possible, to compete broadly, to give ourselves lots of options - and when the wave happened, the map blew wide open. Had we not put the work in on the recruitment side -- occasionally in places where a Democratic candidate had already filed, at best we would have gone plus 2 or 3, even with the wave. At same time, if we had more money, our +7 year might have been +10 or more.

Ossoff clearly has a bright future, and would have won in a lot of places last night. But in many ways, his was a candidacy created from whole cloth, and funding and turnout operations alone won't get just anyone across the line - especially somewhere like GA08. Even in this hyper partisan environment, campaigns aren't simply plug and play operations -- they are choices.

When folks ask me what the national and state party should be doing, my answer is simple: Two things, recruit high quality candidates, and register voters. And if Democrats expect to have success in November 2018, that is the work that must be done between now and then.

One big lesson from GA 06. - home - Steve Schale -- Florida from a Leading Politico

 

[corianderstem]

A guy in Wisconsin named Randy Bryce (amazing Twitter handle is @IronStache) announced his candidacy against Paul Ryan, Worst Person Ever. It's a really great ad based around health coverage, and he's apparently raised over $100,000 in a day when his ad went viral.

I look forward to the day we all learn he supports the KKK or something else gross. But for now, this former 'Sconnie is all "GO GET THAT MOTHERFUCKER, IRON STACHE."

 

[PhilsFan]

deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2

Everything in politics cannot be solved by compromise. Abortion is legal, or it’s not. That awful Supreme Court justice is confirmed, or he’s not. Pollution is properly regulated, or it’s not. Our tax system is sufficiently progressive, or it’s not. We go to war, or we don’t. Every one of these choices is ultimately a statement of morality—a conviction about what is right and wrong. Valuing “bipartisanship” on the really important issues is an admission that you have no real beliefs. What are bipartisanship and civility in comparison to life and death and human rights? How important is bipartisanship in the context of losing your health care, or sending your son off to be shot in a war? Where is the compromise to be found in an economic system that allows the very rich to accumulate staggering fortunes as tens of millions struggle to survive? Anyone with any sense of decency would be ashamed to be caught railing about the value of Congressional games when there is a real possibility that these people could force your neighbor to seek a back alley abortion and then be bankrupted by the resulting medical complications. Anyone with a proper understanding of the stakes of politics will find this fetish for politeness obscene. Is civility a greater value than life and death and war and human rights? The bipartisans, who desperately seek compromise for the sake of their own social comfort with little regard for the human costs, are amoral monsters. And they should be treated as such.

Some things cannot be reconciled. Democratic socialism cannot be reconciled with crony capitalism. A belief that health care is a human right cannot be reconciled with a belief that only those with enough money deserve decent care. A belief that workers deserve the right to organize cannot be reconciled with a belief that unions should be eradicated. A belief that a certain military action is immoral cannot be reconciled with a belief that it is necessary. Bipartisan compromise on such issues is not a virtue; it is a sin. And a pathetic one. It is a sin of not caring about things that you should really care about. It is, ultimately, an admission that you feel that matters that do not hurt you personally do not rise to the level of things that are worth speaking up about.

Politics is a fight. Some people will lose. This is good. Some people deserve to lose. Some policies deserve to be eradicated. Some things deserve to be fought for. Bad things are happening, and we can try to do something about them, or not. You cannot change this fact with apathy. All you can do is hide the bad things behind a curtain and pretend they don’t exist. If that is your approach, you deserve to be told to fuck off.

 

[DaveC]

i agree. the world is definitely a better place when you treat everyone who doesn't agree with you politically and tries to find compromise solutions as "amoral monsters" who "deserve to be told to fuck off". immediate and total rejection of anyone who doesn't always perfectly toe the line is a great way to win elections, the democrats should get on that right away

it's a little disconcerting how easily you seem to veer towards a stalinesque "all opposition must be purged" mentality.

 

[Popmartijn]

That quote is a load of bullshit. It does paint a clear picture though of the political climate in the US though and the delusion of the 'Bernie or bust' crowd. They rather want to have a huge defeat instead of a small step of progress. In a climate like this, getting any real progress will be difficult. Especially since the other side appears to be much better in extremism and deluding their supporters into supporting these extreme non-compromising ideas.

Even on important issues there can be 'bipartisanship' and compromise. But there must be a climate where parties are willing to talk to each other and come together. This is one of the main things missing in the US right now. And it looks like the left is just as bad as the right.
Framing it with some bad examples is not helping the discussion.

 

[deep]

We have dozens of congressmen that seem to support the practice.


Congressional Black Caucus turns down Trump invitation - ABC News

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

Great idea...lose every time, but with your middle finger extended, as your nation goes to shit.

But...but...you kept your cred, brah...


Naw...I'd rather win to my side of center and push left from a position of power.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That quote is a load of bullshit. It does paint a clear picture though of the political climate in the US though and the delusion of the 'Bernie or bust' crowd. They rather want to have a huge defeat instead of a small step of progress. In a climate like this, getting any real progress will be difficult. Especially since the other side appears to be much better in extremism and deluding their supporters into supporting these extreme non-compromising ideas.

Even on important issues there can be 'bipartisanship' and compromise. But there must be a climate where parties are willing to talk to each other and come together. This is one of the main things missing in the US right now. And it looks like the left is just as bad as the right.
Framing it with some bad examples is not helping the discussion.

The Republicans have pushed anyone who'd consider themselves moderate out of the party, and the Bernie or bust crowd wants to do the same.

That'll leave the majority without a home, and a never ending struggle between two unwavering factions.

I think history has taught us that two uncompromising parties are good for a nation's future. Or maybe the opposite, I dunno. I was a sports management major.

 

[deep]

Eric Holder Considering Presidential Bid for 2020 Election, Sources Say - Atlanta Black Star

He is a pretty smart guy.

 

[deep]

Muller should include this in his investigation, I am sure there is a connection to Trumps Cuba policy

Marco Rubio opens Twitter 'investigation' into failed Ivanka Trump hug - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

I think history has taught us that two uncompromising parties are good for a nation's future. Or maybe the opposite, I dunno. I was a sports management major.

I think, like so many things, perception determines if this is right.

If you are of the belief, totally defensible, that gridlock creates the best government because only the coal that is squeezed into a diamond gets through, then two uncompromising parties is good for a nation's future (as long as the filibuster remains active, because 50+1 would be a mess).

But if you believe government can provide solutions, and should, and while government inefficiency is a trope, it is not always accurate, then you want two parties willing to work together and compromise.

I was a political science major (pre-law) for 3 years until my dad died and I realized I was not going to be able to afford law school. So I became a Radio and TV (Media Arts) major. And it took 5.5 years for me to get out because I had committed so far down the poli-sci path. But I didn't finish.

My emphasis was sports broadcasting. So, if you can manage some athletes, use your power and get me in at the network, and I will provide praise for your clients around contract time. Unless you are in team management, and then I can do the opposite. I am really a whore...I just want back into sports broadcasting. But I messed around and developed a stupid career in something more important (read: boring) in the meantime....

 

[DaveC]

But I didn't finish.

since you're new here, let me tell you about lance's mom...

 

[PhilsFan]

The majority of people support single-payer health care. Most countries already have it. It's not a radical notion. I don't understand why I'm "Bernie Or Bust" for thinking compromise on that issue doesn't work, but I've noticed an increasing trend in Democratic circles to utterly refuse to hear criticism from the left, so I'm not surprised.

I hope I don't get like that when I get older.

 

[DaveC]

only the olds think things like "common ground" and "dialogue" are important.

 

[PhilsFan]

I want to have a dialogue with the rest of the left! They're the ones who seem uninterested, in my experience.

There is no dialogue to be had with the right. Look at the healthcare bill. There are no souls on that side left to be saved.