-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT10| Go Absent Yourself
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
You may be right.
But I do think it would give the image of some "bi-partisanship" if Democrats appointed a token Republican or Never Trumper to some cabinet position.
One of the ways to make the Republicans a fringe party is to absorb/assimilate a good chunk of their moderates and maintain a strong majority of independents. One of the ways to do that is through token gestures of bi-partisanship by appointing a few non--Democrats to low/mid-level cabinet positions. Independents eat that stuff up.
You can sense there is fatigue with the hyper-partisanship we're currently in. But it also feels we're just hopelessly stuck because right now elected leaders and the media just keep stoking partisan fires or make false equivalencies. Still, I do think there's an opening if there was some tangible bi-partisanship gestures, I think a good portion of the country would lap it up because we're starved for it.
The 2018 mid-terms proved that even Fox News and the GOP propaganda machine aren't strong enough to manipulate the majority of the public on tangible consensus issues like healthcare. It's why I think Democrats should stick to strong consensus bipartisan issues going into 2020. Now is not the time for a Progressive Revolution. We're basically trying to stop the Fall of Rome. Focus on healthcare with realistic improvements, "common sense" gun regulations, and add a token Republican to the cabinet, and then the Democratic party looks sensible and non-threatening compared to the rabid bull we currently have in office.
I think one of the few lessons to be learned from the U.K. elections is that we have to be wary that some people may be more comfortable going with the devil they know than taking a chance on more uncertain change. We have far more likable candidates and we control the House, so there are a lot of differences from the UK. But it definitely seems Trump may be going with the, "You may not like me, but you can't live without me!" defense. I think if Democrats tap into the nostalgia of the mythical "bi-partisanship" days where you only noticed political news around election cycles and things managed to get passed in Congress. That's the formula for a big EC win. Not making a bunch of big promises that create a lot more uncertainty, which just benefits the incumbent.
Stop right there. We're not making stupid Obama era mistakes going into the new decade.
Here's something fun I came across on twitter. https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBoIton/status/1204867071542214656?s=19
Idk I feel like Hillary was just the moderate "she doesn't inspire strong feeling candidate" and well if the candidate isn't likable that leaves room for them to be defined by the opposition.
Hell that was the original playbook with Ukraine. Since no one is passionate about Biden. No one really likes him so make him seem corrupt too (because we all know Trump is corrupt) and he would be easily viewed as negative.
Appointing Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation wasn't an "Obama era" mistake. An example of an Obama era mistake was the weak inside game in Congress. Obama thought the power of his "personality" and public likability would bend Republicans to his will if he provided an olive branch. Prior Presidents who successfully moved legislation had a much stronger inside game than Obama.
Also Obama chose to use almost all his political capital in a once-in-generation legislation, in the ACA. I'm glad he did it, but we paid an almost instant price by losing Congress for almost a decade. The dramatic change created an opening for Republicans to fuel their partisanship obstruction. If Obama instead chose to do more modest consensus changes, we likely would have held on to both the House and Senate. At the time, revamping healthcare wasn't a #1 issue with the public, it was popular with Democrats but not the public at large.
Sometimes it's worth losing the majority for a decade of power if it means instituting laws/policies that will benefit people for generations. But there's a cost. In exchange for the ACA, we lost the Supreme Court and had state districts gerrymandered to Hell. I hope people who are pro-Warren and pro-Bernie understand there's a cost to everything. Not just in money, but in the power/policies you relinquish after the backlash. Pushing for M4A or free college tuition most certainly will mean Congress will snap back to the Republicans for at least a decade again.
IMO, the Supreme Court and Federal Courts are already dangerously controlled by Republicans, so the next decade should be spent regaining the courts, which means more modest bipartisan/popular policies so Congressional majorities can be held and Democratic judges can be appointed. Solidify the ACA through the courts and Congress. Once the courts are back in a better place, then we can roll the dice again on massive structural change and hope the public doesn't freak out.
One of the dumbest things I've ever read. Good Republicans do not exist. Stop believing they do.
People like you will get us all killed.
No, wrong.
The normal midterm backlash was amplified by racist backlash toward the first black president. You think the Tea Party and effigies of Obama being hanged from trees wouldn't have arisen if we'd just passed "kiddiecare," as Pelosi correctly dubbed the weakass plan Rahm Emanuel wanted? You think we wouldn't have had a steady drum beat of "he's not like us BLACK BLACK BLACK"? You think Republicans and the entire conservative media sphere wouldn't have used dog whistles about the black man using their white money to help those people?
It still would've happened. We still would've lost. The Blue Dogs still would've been exterminated because they had the nerve to belong to the party that forced racist white people to tolerate a black president. The lesson from 2009-11 is use your majorities because you'll probably lose in two years. Pass all the big, sweeping bills; make all the changes you can possibly make. Your "inside game" deficiency theory has some merit in the context of legislative wrangling, since he should've been pressuring Reid to nuke the goddamn filibuster every day, but inside game had literally nothing to do with the 2010 elections.
I don't know, doesn't Biden have a much higher likability than Hilary had around this time in the race? The negatives with Hilary were super high.
Most people like and trust Biden even if he doesn't make their thighs tingle.
Also the GOP didn't define Hilary in 2016. They defined her over a 25 year period and the FBI/Comey did more immediate damage to Hilary in 2016 than any GOP smear.
The GOP won't really be able to define Biden that much because most people already know him (or think they do). John Kerry was able to get defined because in 2004, not that many people knew him. So people like Booty, Warren, and Harris (RIP) could be defined by the GOP because they're still somewhat unknown to the general public. But I doubt the GOP will be able to move the needle that much on Bernie or Biden.
As soon as Clinton announced her candidacy, her favorabilities tanked. Biden according to RCL is -3 while Clinton was in the negative teens if I recall.
Yes,. I do think a lot of things would have happened regardless if we had Kiddiecare or Obamacare. There were always going to be racists rising up in rural states/areas against Obama no matter what he did. But the 2010 thumping just wasn't limited to rural areas. Just look at the map, a ton of suburbs were lost as well. So maybe Obama was destined to lose the House in 2010, but I think the margins could be smaller and recoverable by 2012 if the bleeding wasn't so bad in 2010 with the combo of first black President/"scary" healthcare.
I guess we'll never really know if the 60+ seat loss was inevitable or if the losses could have been minimized over less drastic legislation. IMO, I think it would have been easier to hold on to the suburbs if there wasn't such drastic change. But again, I'm not arguing Obama shouldn't have done the ACA, I'm just arguing I believe it led to losing the majorities for a decade so there was a heavy price. And that's why I sound all "moderatey" advocating measured change so we can keep the majorities for a few cycles to fix all the damage.
I'm sorry I don't think I follow any of this. Passing the ACA was beyond worth it. How many millions of people would have died or been worse off sans the ACA or if we passed a shittier version in 2010? Midterm backlash is going to happen no matter what you do, the Dems were overextended and RACISM was not going to be satiated with shittier policy. The best thing you can do is pass the strongest/best legislation your caucus can agree on and then campaign like hell on it.
I have no idea what the ACA has to do with the courts. We didn't lose the Senate until 2014 (thanks Ebola!) and ACA wasn't the reason Hilary lost in 2016. So I'm kind of ????? on the point you're trying to make here.
As an aside, I'd also say no to affirmative action for Republicans. If a Republican is legit the best choice for a cabinet position then so be it but fuck bipartisanship for bipartisan's sake.
I honestly was surprised how all the "touchy/creepy" Biden incidents just bounced off him at the start of the race. It didn't really move the needle. Same thing with the whole Hunter Biden thing. It's barely moved the needle. His state by state numbers are still strong too. So it sounds like Biden is pretty baked in with the public.
I honestly think the only thing that will take down Biden is himself. And even then I thought after all the poor debate performances and weird moments on the campaign trail would cause some damage, but it hasn't. Some pair him up with a good VP, and he'll probably get the job done since he does seem to have some kind of weird teflon that's almost Trump-like.
Nobody in this country cares about sexism or dudes touching women inappropriately. If they did, Trump wouldn't be POTUS.
I am not surprised that it didn't hurt Biden.
I am not surprised that it didn't hurt Biden.
I think trump hit his record number of tweets yesterday, with something like 120 tweets in one day.
And his schedule yesterday...
The man works tirelessly for this country!
And his schedule yesterday...
- 11:15 AM Deliver remarks at the White House Summit on Child Care and Paid Leave: Supporting America's Working Families – South Court Auditorium
- 12:00 PM Receive intelligence briefing – Oval Office
- 7:00 PM The president and first lady attend the Congressional Ball – Grand Foyer
The man works tirelessly for this country!
I feel like Bernie/Warren have been doing pretty much everything right this campaign yet they still aren't polling well.
Meanwhile Biden can barely put two sentences together and is running a terrible campaign yet is still polling better. Biden has also been getting attacked left and right for the past year. I just don't think these progressive politicians are popular. Bernie's favorables tanked the second he got attacked. I'll have to see how Pete/Klobuchar poll when they get better known. I don't have any hope in Biden/Warren/Sanders doing well given their current polling trajectory.
Meanwhile Biden can barely put two sentences together and is running a terrible campaign yet is still polling better. Biden has also been getting attacked left and right for the past year. I just don't think these progressive politicians are popular. Bernie's favorables tanked the second he got attacked. I'll have to see how Pete/Klobuchar poll when they get better known. I don't have any hope in Biden/Warren/Sanders doing well given their current polling trajectory.
I think McConnell made a major tactical error going on Hannity and basically announcing the Senate is coordinating and in the tank for Trump. this means Senators like Gardner or Collins may need to show some level of independence during the trial by voting to have certain witnesses to appear. If McConnell shuts that down, then those Senators will look like they willingly participated in a kangaroo trial.
If Democrats are smart, they'll keep playing McConnells hannity interview on a loop. Make Trump's acquittal illegitimate and tar the GOP Senate with it.
If Democrats are smart, they'll keep playing McConnells hannity interview on a loop. Make Trump's acquittal illegitimate and tar the GOP Senate with it.
Someone look up the annual wages of the fart counter, I'm willing to bet you find some GOP slush money scheme shackled into that role...
Not nobody, but yeah, most people do not give a shit.
That ship sailed weeks ago when Mitch campaigned on the impeachment shit in an ad video.
Sorry, I didn't literally mean "nobody." I meant it in the figurative "not enough people care" sort of way. My bad for the lack of clarity.
Bernie retracted his endorsement earlier today: https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ung-turks?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
Just a fascinating string of awful decisions his staff had to back up on.
Just a fascinating string of awful decisions his staff had to back up on.
I got what you meant, don't worry.
But yeah, it really feels like it's a definite minority.
Dems have found a really solid recruit in NC-08, former state Supreme Court justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson
She was an Easley appointee from 2006-12, first African-American woman to serve on NC Supreme Court, served on U.S. Commission on Civil Rights appointed by Obama in 2014-19, was going to be a district judge for EDNC until Turtle Bitch got cranky in 2016, she can drive up black turnout in the district, it'll be close but definitely competitive.
She was an Easley appointee from 2006-12, first African-American woman to serve on NC Supreme Court, served on U.S. Commission on Civil Rights appointed by Obama in 2014-19, was going to be a district judge for EDNC until Turtle Bitch got cranky in 2016, she can drive up black turnout in the district, it'll be close but definitely competitive.
Judge rules Wisconsin must remove 234,000 from voter rolls
whelp, there goes Wisconsin. Who the hell responds to random mailings? I bet the percentages are very low.
Not ideal, but not all gloom and doom. From the mailer the WI Division of Elections sent in October:
WI has same-day registration at the polling place. Even though the judge moved the purge deadline from April 2021 to, well, now, those voters can just reregister on the day of the election if necessary. And not to be too blunt, but if they don't even go to the polls that day and find out they've been purged, they probably weren't going to vote anyway. The purge shouldn't be happening in the first place, though, or they should have the original deadline.
No way China buys $50BN next year, or even $40BN.
The Farce of the Deal.
I'm pretty sure someone posted the graphic about the age gap in the UK election results. Something I found pretty interesting while we await better demo information:
The lesson from 2016-2018 too. Another two year trifecta, but one with just a single "accomplishment" which everyone hates. How was the Republican's "inside game" there? They didn't pass shit because they're all terrible at legislating and have no agenda anyway beyond payouts to donors.
It's quite astonishing how even the English Conservative party seemed to have more concrete ideas and plans for their country in this election than the GOP has had in the last decade. Truly the worst major party in the developed world.
The republican callers are getting all riled up in the Washington Journal the past week. Thursday morning will be legendary! I suggest you record it!
Also there is no guarantee that China will even buy more products, there is no legal enforcement.
At the federal level, I've never seen Republicans effectively govern in my adult life.
The accusations of temper tantrums and the like were pretty overblown.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus did the right thing by pushing and everyone else did the right thing by accepting the amendments. Furthermore this was always going to be a value statement/soundbite bill (at this current stage) to run on. With the current Senate in place it could not be anything more. This thing will go through further changes if/before it becomes law and as such early consensus is more easily reached. Not that it really mattered with 0.0001% of the voting public being aware. The chances of this turning into a political liability was always remote.
We're leading Trump, why are we concerned about reaching out to them?
Last edited:
Has there been an instance of an impeached president running for another term? I csnt think of any
In the US? There's only been two impeached presidents.
Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP, lost his party's primary after his impeachment. Clinton, of course, was in his second term.
I couldn't care less about base Republicans.
I'm talking about the squishy middle of Conservative Democrats / Liberal Republicans. And more specifically post-election. We don't need them to win the 2020 election but you do need them to hold House/Senate majorities for more than a cycle.
There's basically two schools of thought on what you do once you get a super majority. One is being as bold as possible while you have the power even if it means the power is brief. This is what the majority of the people in this thread advocate.
Second is being a little more methodical and measured. The change will be slower but you may be able to sustain power longer, so you avoid the opposition party taking an immediate wrecking ball to everything.
There are pros and cons to both. As for the "Go Big" strategy in 2009. But now I feel it's more important for Democrats to hold power for several cycles because Republicans have not only shown zero ability to govern, they also have a hard-on for pillaging any meaningful policies Democrats have put in place. So if reaching out and "useless bipartisan gestures post-election means Democrats can hold on to their majority for a few cycles, then yes I'm for it. I also think the country is trending Left overall, so modest progressive legislation could sail through Congress and it will allow us to get to a better place within the next 6-8 years.
....of course it could totally backfire. If Democrats do a shit-job at messaging and allow Republicans to paint sensible legislation as "radical" then you get zero benefit of going small. The GOP will always say everything Dems do is "radical", but it's up to the Dems to have a spine to not let it stick. For example, background checks and AR gun restrictions are like 70-80% issue in favor for the public. Democrats shouldn't be able to let GOP take something that has 70-80% support down to 40%. But of course stranger things have happened.
The GOP has a significantly smaller voter pool that sadly can still win them the Presidency and the Senate because both institutions are fundamentally gerrymandered, but if Democrats have high enthusiasm they can and have swamped the GOP. It's all about turning out the base and the various factions of the Democratic Party. The GOP has it much easier because their base is largely homogenous.
The thing that gives me considerable hope - especially after 2018 - is knowing that people are absolutely dying to get a chance to kick Trump out of office. I really don't expect turnout to be a problem; we've been thinking about and waiting for this day for years. It's about vengeance. It's about rubbing it in the faces of his supporters.
He won by 70,000 votes across three states, and he certainly hasn't gotten more popular since then.
He won by 70,000 votes across three states, and he certainly hasn't gotten more popular since then.
This is very well stated. I like that, fundamentally gerrymandered.
- Status