Support NeoGAF

[VendettaRed07]

Huh, so Texas is actually projected to become majority minority in eligible voter population by 2019. The problem is not enough of them vote.

And the fact that Texas probably has the strictest voter ID laws in the country

 

[A Link to the Past]

Warren Buffet should fund an id service that goes door-to-door in all states with voter ID laws to get them the things they need to get their IDs

These laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, might as well do something to cripple their effectiveness at suppressing the vote.

 

[Wilsongt]

Warren Buffet should fund an id service that goes door-to-door in all states with voter ID laws to get them the things they need to get their IDs

These laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, might as well do something to cripple their effectiveness at suppressing the vote.

Hopefully you don't have the police bust in on the GOTV offices and proclaim fraud.

 

[Drakeon]

And the fact that Texas probably has the strictest voter ID laws in the country

The republican party is excellent at delaying the inevitable if nothing else.

 

[Suikoguy]

Warren Buffet should fund an id service that goes door-to-door in all states with voter ID laws to get them the things they need to get their IDs

These laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, might as well do something to cripple their effectiveness at suppressing the vote.

Not the craziest idea, you can't simultaneously call it not a poll tax, and call it being paid to vote.

 

[faisal233]

And the fact that Texas probably has the strictest voter ID laws in the country

IMO, the short term solution should be to spend money to get people Democratic voters IDs.

I also liked Schumer's statement on fighting Medicare privatization. There is no way we can't get 4 GOP senators up for reelection to blink if their constituents are getting bombarded with the right message.

 

[Totakeke]

Lol what. Good lord NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/u...latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

The article itself is (only a bit) less dismissive of the media criticism, but that tweet is totally tone deaf. Author is pretty dumb to not realize that there's a feedback loop between the media and the campaigns.

 

[JP_]

Heather McGhee on the Ezra Klein podcast has some solid election analysis.

http://podbay.fm/show/1081584611

 

[Totakeke]

How reputable of a website is thehill? Don't know why google now keeps recommending me articles from there.


According to them, Obama called on election night to ask Hillary to concede.

“You need to concede,” Obama told his former secretary of State as she, her family, and her top aides continued to watch results trickle in from the key Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The latter state, called after 1:30 a.m. by The Associated Press, was the clear tipping point for the White House race, ensuring Trump would crest over the 270 electoral-vote threshold needed to win.
Clinton ultimately heeded Obama’s advice and called Trump to acknowledge her defeat in the early morning hours Wednesday.

White House officials did not immediately return requests for comment Friday.

Obama’s call left a sour taste in the mouths of some Clinton allies who believe she should have waited longer, and there’s now a fight playing out between the Obama and Clinton camps over whether to support an effort to force the Rust Belt states to recount their votes.

Inside Clinton’s room at the Peninsula Hotel in Manhattan, where aides were on the phone with boiler rooms at the campaign headquarters in Brooklyn and the Clintons’ midtown office, there was still hope as election night stretched on. Their goal was to hold off as long as possible.

Obama’s call changed that.

But Obama allies are dead-set against the multi-state recount effort. Former Obama White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer mocked it on Twitter:

“The amount of Democratic energy and money being wasted on recounts instead of trying to win the Louisiana Senate Race is mind boggling,” he tweeted on Thursday.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307536-obama-urged-clinton-to-concede-on-election-night

 

[Dominican Power]

I don't even know wtf Jill Stein is doing

 

[Holmes]

How reputable of a website is thehill? Don't know why google now keeps recommending me articles from there.


According to them, Obama called on election night to ask Hillary to concede.





http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307536-obama-urged-clinton-to-concede-on-election-night

The Hill was the political tabloid trash before Politico.

 

[metalslimer]

That's the problem with the Hill and politico. They publish so much trash I can never trust them.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I don't even know wtf Jill Stein is doing

Getting paid

 

[geomon]

Fucking deplorable.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/we-g...assenger-disrupts-flight-with-pro-trump-rant/



No action taken against the dipshit.

4 years of this shit...sigh.

You know what scares me, one of these fuckers starts some shit in front of me and I end up getting arrested because of some jackass like this.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The recounts are a waste of time and money. She lost, move on.

Anyway, this HBR article was kind of interesting, although some parts of it, I'd disagree. In particular the observations about the mentality of "white working class" are quite different from general assumption. This was touched on in some posts I saw earlier, from people's thanksgiving discussions.

One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC) resents professionals but admires the rich.

Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Manly dignity is a big deal for working-class men, and they’re not feeling that they have it. Trump promises a world free of political correctness and a return to an earlier era, when men were men and women knew their place. It’s comfort food for high-school-educated guys who could have been my father-in-law if they’d been born 30 years earlier. Today they feel like losers — or did until they met Trump.

Manly dignity is a big deal for most men. So is breadwinner status: Many still measure masculinity by the size of a paycheck. White working-class men’s wages hit the skids in the 1970s and took another body blow during the Great Recession. Look, I wish manliness worked differently. But most men, like most women, seek to fulfill the ideals they’ve grown up with. For many blue-collar men, all they’re asking for is basic human dignity (male varietal). Trump promises to deliver it.

Understand That Working Class Means Middle Class, Not Poor: The terminology here can be confusing. When progressives talk about the working class, typically they mean the poor. But the poor, in the bottom 30% of American families, are very different from Americans who are literally in the middle: the middle 50% of families whose median income was $64,000 in 2008. That is the true “middle class,” and they call themselves either “middle class” or “working class.”

A few days’ paid leave ain’t gonna support a family. Neither is minimum wage. WWC men aren’t interested in working at McDonald’s for $15 per hour instead of $9.50. What they want is what my father-in-law had: steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life to the 75% of Americans who don’t have a college degree. Trump promises that. I doubt he’ll deliver, but at least he understands what they need.

While the hard-living succumb to despair, drugs, or alcohol, settled families keep to the straight and narrow, like my parents-in-law, who owned their home and sent both sons to college. To accomplish that, they lived a life of rigorous thrift and self-discipline. Vance’s book passes harsh judgment on his hard-living relatives, which is not uncommon among settled families who kept their nose clean through sheer force of will. This is a second source of resentment against the poor.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Thanks shinra.

That article just reminds me how much I despise the WWC.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

I have a feeling the Castro thread might turn into a graveyard by tomorrow evening.

 

[sphagnum]

But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont.

Hey guys I hear there's this system where you control the workplace yourself and

Oh why bother

 

[Officerrob]

I have a feeling the Castro thread might turn into a graveyard by tomorrow evening.

Oh my god, that fucking thread...

 

[metalslimer]

You know the response to Castro's death is extremely tricky even for a good politician which is why it's going to be hilarious to see Trump's response.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

You know the response to Castro's death is extremely tricky even for a good politician which is why it's going to be hilarious to see Trump's response.

I mean, it's not like he's going to approach his statement with any appreciation for nuance. It was more fun with Dubya because he always saw the pieces and failed to grasp the whole. Trump doesn't even see all the pieces.

 

[numble]

Jerry Brown term-limited heads the DNC when he leaves office. Harris becomes Governor of California. Runs against Trump in 2020 to become President Harris. Take the film reel and run, Juliana.

Yes. Because the appearance of experience seems more useful than actual experience. And it means you can't leave too much of a footprint for people to hold against you.
Breaks the double bind.
Also Senators don't have a great record for Presidential runs from memory. But then I guess Trump makes precedent less useful.

Jerry Brown will be 80 going on 82 for the next election, I doubt he wants the job.

There are already big name Democrats that have thrown their hat in the ring for governorship--Gavin Newsom, John Chiang and Antonio Villaraigosa. Eric Garcetti might run as well. They all have strong California bases of support (mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles) demographic appeals that mean that she would not be guaranteed the win. Because California has an open primary, its likely that she'd compete with a popular Democrat during the general election if she makes it to the general election, unless the Democratic party clears the field, which may not be possible since Newsom and Villaraigosa wanted to run for governor before Brown announced his bid. Even if she wins, she gets a stigma of never having beat a Republican for her Senate or Governor positions.

She would need to start running for governor a couple of months after being sworn in as senator. She would also have to start campaigning for President a couple of months after she is sworn in as governor. It does not seem like a realistic schedule, and the experience wouldn't offer very much that she can tout. California is a large state that needs actual governance and she would not be able to do that if she was campaigning. The tendency is that the California governor, which is elected in a federal mid-term year, builds up support for ballot propositions that will be voted on in the presidential year, which is difficult to see happening with a part-time governor.

Related to that, because the Lieutenant Governor position is separately elected, and the Lt. Gov. is acting governor whenever the governor is out of the state and takes the governor position if the governor resigns, there is the chance that the Republicans take that spot (possibly with Kevin Faulconer, the Republican mayor of San Diego) which puts an acting Republican governor while the governor is campaigning or if she resigns. Jerry Brown had issues with a Republican Lieutenant Governor signing his own executive orders whenever Brown was out of the state.

 

[Pixieking]

Huh, so Texas is actually projected to become majority minority in eligible voter population by 2019. The problem is not enough of them vote.

Is it possible to see a 2020 election where the Dem base is so catalyzed by, say, attacks on immigrants and abortion rights that the voting base dramatically increases? Like the increase in panhandle racists, but Texan and Dem?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Is it possible to see a 2020 election where the Dem base is so catalyzed by, say, attacks on immigrants and abortion rights that the voting base dramatically increases? Like the increase in panhandle racists, but Texan and Dem?

I don't think so because from what I can see most Dem voters have never been single issue voters. GOP has a lot more single issue voters which does help them a good bit.

 

[Dan]

Is it possible to see a 2020 election where the Dem base is so catalyzed by, say, attacks on immigrants and abortion rights that the voting base dramatically increases? Like the increase in panhandle racists, but Texan and Dem?

Based on that stuff, doubtful.

I say get marijuana ballot measures in strategic states to drive up participation from those who need something flashy to get their asses to vote.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Based on that stuff, doubtful.

I say get marijuana ballot measures in strategic states to drive up participation from those who need something flashy to get their asses to vote.

I dunno if this will work under these circumstances because I can see Trump's Feds cracking down by late next year.

 

[shinra-bansho]

That was a pretty comprehensive answer to an admittedly pretty unrealistic scenario. I thought the High Castle reference would have been a giveaway.

I doubt Harris runs for anything beyond Senate until 2024. At most she could be in running mate contention in 2020. I also doubt the Dems have the balls to run with another woman at the top of the ticket for a while.

 

[chadskin]

@realDonaldTrump:
Fidel Castro is dead!

Lmao. This is a real tweet.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

@realDonaldTrump:
Fidel Castro is dead!

Lmao. This is a real tweet.

The diplomatic skills of a car crash

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

At least he's not lying. Baby steps.

 

[Pixieking]

Obama Must Save the Courts to Save America From Trump

Slightly different to articles up til now:

Can President Obama appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court now that the Senate’s term is ending? Should he?

The answer to the first question is yes: The constitution gives him that power. The answer to the second one is probably no, since doing so would accomplish very little.

But the question we should be asking is something else: whether the president should appoint the 59 candidates for federal judgeships whose nominations, like Garland’s, have been left to languish. And to that question, I answer: absolutely.

When you consider those 59 judges, however, the calculus looks very different.

First, Obama’s case for recess appointments is even stronger for district and appellate judges than with Garland. Independent observers have declared a “judicial emergency,” a precisely defined term indicating serious problems with the operation of the federal judiciary. While the Supreme Court has also been crippled by the Republicans’ inaction, the situation is even worse elsewhere. Dockets are overflowing, cases are backlogged, and the judiciary is unable to do its job because the Senate is playing politics.

 

[Totakeke]

That HBR makes some sense but the reasoning feels a bit too convenient. It does explain why republicans love voting for tax cuts for the rich though. How are they not dumb?

 

[The Technomancer]

The recounts are a waste of time and money. She lost, move on.

Anyway, this HBR article was kind of interesting, although some parts of it, I'd disagree. In particular the observations about the mentality of "white working class" are quite different from general assumption. This was touched on in some posts I saw earlier, from people's thanksgiving discussions.

Thanks, good article. We're going to have to talk about the effect of sexism on this election at some point once we pass the "no she didn't lose because she was a woman she was just a terrible shrill arrogant person!" stage.

I'm really really struggling with the ethical dilemma that Trump's win on the back of the "the jobs are coming back lie" presents. You can't ever win against that with the truth, and I would hate for a candidate to win with an even bigger lie

I disagree with this though

The best advice I’ve seen so far for Democrats is the recommendation that hipsters move to Iowa. Class conflict now closely tracks the urban-rural divide. In the huge red plains between the thin blue coasts, shockingly high numbers of working-class men are unemployed or on disability, fueling a wave of despair deaths in the form of the opioid epidemic.

Vast rural areas are withering away, leaving trails of pain. When did you hear any American politician talk about that? Never.

Clinton did. She was just bad at campaigning on it. The problem is: while I think it was a big mistake not to rally and run on that message in those areas, I honestly don't know if it would have mattered. I don't think these people ever would have voted for her anyway

 

[Grief.exe]

Lol what. Good lord NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/u...latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

The article itself is (only a bit) less dismissive of the media criticism, but that tweet is totally tone deaf. Author is pretty dumb to not realize that there's a feedback loop between the media and the campaigns.

Completely tone deaf sometimes.

https://twitter.com/CoreyCiorciari/status/802196615188647936
Corey Ciorciari
‏@CoreyCiorciari

Words on policy pages:
Clinton - 113k
Trump - 9k

Policy fact sheets:
Clinton - 65
Trump - 0

Policy issue pages
Clinton - 38
Trump - 6

 

[Pixieking]

Lol what. Good lord NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/u...latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

The article itself is (only a bit) less dismissive of the media criticism, but that tweet is totally tone deaf. Author is pretty dumb to not realize that there's a feedback loop between the media and the campaigns.

Completely tone deaf sometimes.

https://twitter.com/CoreyCiorciari/status/802196615188647936
Corey Ciorciari
‏@CoreyCiorciari

Words on policy pages:
Clinton - 113k
Trump - 9k

Policy fact sheets:
Clinton - 65
Trump - 0

Policy issue pages
Clinton - 38
Trump - 6

Rob ‏@retroremakes 1h1 hour ago

There's been a lot of 'canary in the coalmine' talk about games these past few weeks and if you want to know a good place to try out tactics

For manipulating the news, for seeing what gestures work and what gestures don't, to see how making a space intolerable works...

Videogames are dead, dead good places to be.

Something both the gaming media and the mainstream media have done is abrogate editorial responsibility for what they class as "news". Just because something relates to famous people or companies, does not automatically class it as news - CNN's total coverage of Trump's early rallies, for example, was not newsworthy. Saying that the

candidates and news organizations spent more time discussing the candidates’ fitness for office (or lack of it) than they did the nation’s economy.

is ducking the issue. It is not the newspaper's job to run the Presidential campaigns for the candidates. If the candidates sling mud and you print that mud then you're either playing partisan politics, or you "both sides" everything into the ground. I would expect, for example, USA Today or the NY Daily to print the mud, but the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, etc have a duty to their readers to use their editorial powers to report responsibly on "news". Actual cold hard news. Certainly, policy coverage is also a partisan issue, but it is an issue based in objective facts - Hillary's mental health policy vs Trump's.

Arguing that

Both candidates spent most of their television advertising time attacking the other person’s character. In fact, the losing candidate’s ads did little else. More than three-quarters of the appeals in Mrs. Clinton’s advertisements (and nearly half of Mr. Trump’s) were about traits, characteristics or dispositions. Only 9 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s appeals in her ads were about jobs or the economy. By contrast, 34 percent of Mr. Trump’s appeals focused on the economy, jobs, taxes and trade.

is also duplicitous.

Just because an ad campaign doesn't feature a message, does not mean that message does not exist. Arguing that the media couldn't report on anything but the mud implicitly accepts that newspapers are nothing more than a wing of the presidential campaigns, and not objective media. More than that, though, Hillary's negative campaign ran partially on Trump's complete lack of preparedness for the job, as well as implied women's rights. To argue the other way, Trump's campaign ran on Hillary's email issues. These were real issues in the election, but due to the media attempting objectivity, one was made out to be as bad as the other. Again, an abrogation of editorial responsibility - there is clearly no way that Hillary's emails were as bad as Trump groping women, but the media's attempt at objectivity in a situation where it wasn't warranted was appalling.

 

[metalslimer]

You know the response to Castro's death is extremely tricky even for a good politician which is why it's going to be hilarious to see Trump's response.

And I was not disappointed

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I had a dream I woke up and was Canadian. I called my mom up and shouted that I was Canadian and for her to guess who my prime minister was, and that it was Trudeau and I had free healthcare and didn't care what the heck happened with Trump.

And then I woke up and I wasn't Canadian.

First political dream I've had in several weeks... thought they were done.


Also Trump's response to Castro dying is hilarious

 

[Revolver]

The recounts are a waste of time and money. She lost, move on.

Anyway, this HBR article was kind of interesting, although some parts of it, I'd disagree. In particular the observations about the mentality of "white working class" are quite different from general assumption. This was touched on in some posts I saw earlier, from people's thanksgiving discussions.

Interesting piece. Which reminds me I've been meaning to read Hillbilly Elegy but haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Interesting piece. Which reminds me I've been meaning to read Hillbilly Elegy but haven't gotten around to it yet.

It's sitting on my book shelf waiting to be read, but haven't gotten around to it. Pokemon Moon kind of ate up my free time lately, and I keep getting distracted by other games even when I put Pokemon down. Or Christmas shopping. So much Christmas shopping

 

[Xis]

The recounts are a waste of time and money. She lost, move on.

I don't think the results will change - but!

We just had an election where Russian hackers
1 - broke into multiple systems and leaked the info to the press
2 - spread propaganda via fake news

Isn't there some value in examining the results to see if a foreign power attempted to directly manipulate votes? Even if it is just one vote out of a million, a direct attack on the voting process by a foreign power should, at the least, encourage improving the security of our voting process?

 

[plagiarize]

The recounts are a waste of time and money. She lost, move on.

Anyway, this HBR article was kind of interesting, although some parts of it, I'd disagree. In particular the observations about the mentality of "white working class" are quite different from general assumption. This was touched on in some posts I saw earlier, from people's thanksgiving discussions.

First of all, I want to see education improved all across the country, because the GOP know that good education is bad for them, and so they're happy to leave people poorly educated in he mean time, and to keep lying to them and getting them to vote GOP.

"You don't want the government telling you what to do, do you?" is the lie, because it isn't telling them what to do to provide single payer healthcare, or decent education standards, or whatever. it's providing services.

but whatever, we know that.

grown ass adults that think like that though... fuck them. what we need to do is to focus on people under say, 25 in those areas who we still have a chance of getting through to.

and as a bit of an aside, every high school curriculum should include a class on rhetoric and logical fallacies to better prepare people for the bullshit manipulations that people are going to use on them to try and get them to buy shit or vote a certain way.

of course, that'll never happen while the GOP control so much.

 

[sphagnum]

The recounts are a waste of time and money. She lost, move on.

Anyway, this HBR article was kind of interesting, although some parts of it, I'd disagree. In particular the observations about the mentality of "white working class" are quite different from general assumption. This was touched on in some posts I saw earlier, from people's thanksgiving discussions.

Now that I actually took the time to read this article, I think it's something everyone should read. It's pretty spot on from my experience as a former Republican with tons of conservative relatives. The police thing at the end is kind of dumb but overall it's got the psyche down pat.

 

[Y2Kev]

Now that I actually took the time to read this article, I think it's something everyone should read. It's pretty spot on from my experience as a former Republican with tons of conservative relatives. The police thing at the end is kind of dumb but overall it's got the psyche down pat.

Don't you think the article veers just a little into alt-right land? I'm not sure if this is psychoanalysis of the deplorables or just voicing the deplorables, but the whole bit about "manly manness" is really just missing the word cuck to be right out of reddit. I guess this is more explaining than endorsing but I get my back up whenever I see someone educated even write this without then following up with, "And this is unacceptable!"

I struggle to see why people who make an income of $68,000 would be so angry, particularly if you live in Iowa or Indiana. I mean, I think that's a totally livable income given purchasing power parity in a lot of the rust belt. Philadelphia? Maybe not. But that place votes democratic! There's really something else at play here.

edit: Though I suppose this is a national median income.

I do not defend police who kill citizens for selling cigarettes. But the current demonization of the police underestimates the difficulty of ending police violence against communities of color. Police need to make split-second decisions in life-threatening situations. I don’t. If I had to, I might make some poor decisions too.

This is nonsense. There's no mainstream demonization of police. Who is doing this? Hillary Clinton's convention was a blow job to the military and to law enforcement. Sorry if the democratic party isn't dogwhistling constantly about All Lives Matter and Hillary had the nerve to say black lives matter once on fucking twitter.

I don't understand why we've seen this wave of commentary from very educated people that are very dead on about economic issues and then handwave why social issues affect just as many people as the economic ones. This paragraph stands out completely as out of place to me.

 

[A Link to the Past]

How able is Obama to force through these judiciary appointments? And how likely is it that he would?

 

[sphagnum]

Don't you think the article veers just a little into alt-right land? I'm not sure if this is psychoanalysis of the deplorables or just voicing the deplorables, but the whole bit about "manly manness" is really just missing the word cuck to be right out of reddit. I guess this is more explaining than endorsing but I get my back up whenever I see someone educated even write this without then following up with, "And this is unacceptable!"

I struggle to see why people who make an income of $68,000 would be so angry, particularly if you live in Iowa or Indiana. I mean, I think that's a totally livable income given purchasing power parity in a lot of the rust belt. Philadelphia? Maybe not. But that place votes democratic! There's really something else at play here.

edit: Though I suppose this is a national median income.

I think you answered your own question since the article isn't a an endorsement. In fact I think she makes it clear multiple times throughout the article that she's not happy with the way Hillary was treated and that she thinks the way these individuals think is outdated and incorrect. But it rings true about how white woking men think and feel. It reminds me a ton of both of my uncles - a former corrections officer and a mechanic, and to an extent my dad.

 

[Pixieking]

Sam Wang ‏@SamWangPhD 6m6 minutes ago

Sam Wang Retweeted Oliver Willis

To let NYT PE Liz Spayd know, *politely*, that the NYT should be vigilant about radical changes ahead, you can write to public@nytimes.com

Oliver Willis Verified account
‏@owillis

NYTimes "Public Editor" Signals Paper's Shift To A Softer Stance On Fascism.

NYTimes "Public Editor" Signals Paper's Shift To A Softer Stance On Fascism.

 

[Good Job Bob]

The DNC must be pulling their hairs out at this Stein nonsense. When are the Dems going to learn how to tap into the energy of their base and direct it towards actually productive means? Otherwise you get a bunch of protests going nowhere and people throwing millions at something totally useless.

 

[royalan]

Heather McGhee on the Ezra Klein podcast has some solid election analysis.

http://podbay.fm/show/1081584611

This was a great podcast. Heather McGhee was spot on with a lot of her points. Particularly her final one. Democrats can not be so willing to cut a deal with Donald Trump over a shit infrastructure bill when Trump has called into question the very humanity of so many Americans. The core constituency of the Democratic party. To be so willing to work with that man is a form of acknowledgement that minorities in this country are second class citizens. Really helped articulate for me why even the thought of Democrats working with Republicans on bills that may (MAY) have some tangential benefit for minorities and the lower class still left such a disgusting taste in my mouth.

 

[Slime]

The DNC must be pulling their hairs out at this Stein nonsense. When are the Dems going to learn how to tap into the energy of their base and direct it towards actually productive means? Otherwise you get a bunch of protests going nowhere and people throwing millions at something totally useless.

Well, Hillary's campaign is officially involved now:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/clinton-campaign-recount/index.html

 

[FyreWulff]

Well, Hillary's campaign is officially involved now:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/clinton-campaign-recount/index.html

In the monitoring role, so Trump's campaign will likely announce their involvement soon as well.