• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented

Status
Not open for further replies.
Illinois is probably going to stay with Rauner.

We'll see. It looks like Pritzker is going to buy the democrat nomination, and I just can't see him beating Rauner. The primary will be interesting though. Ameya Pawar is young and has a great career ahead of him...but I just don't see him overcoming the type of money Pritzker will have. I wish he'd run for mayor instead.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
People keep saying this, but I'm reasonably sure it isn't true. Republicans often don't "fall in line", or whatever - where were all the Republicans falling into line for Romney in 2012? I know some Cruz people who are literally furious at Trump (they hate his populism and wanted a more constitutionally faithful candidate, blah blah blah) who sat out the election in 2016. Most of the polling evidence seems to show that Trump lost more primary voters than Clinton did - that is, people who voted Sanders in the primaries were more likely to then vote Clinton than people who voted Kasich were to then vote Trump. I feel like it is just an excuse to detract from the fact that Clinton lost because Trump won former Obama voters in several key areas. That's not Republicans falling in line, that's Democrats being persuaded to vote Republican. You don't have to face up to the fact that the swing vote in this election was poorer communities in the Rust Belt switching from Democrat to Republican, because you can blame it on young, white, millennials or whatever. They make a fantastic scapegoat!

And the whole argument that Democrats need to just line up like cannon fodder regardless of whether the candidate suits their needs is a pretty disturbing narrative, because the subtext to it is: you mustn't ever question that status quo. If the party were to elect a consciously racist but economically re-distributive candidate, I wouldn't be for a moment suggesting we fall in line. I'd be absolutely outraged and suggesting taking to the streets. So why, whenever the issue is insufficient care about class issues or income inequality or deindustrialization, does the other side have to take what they're given? It's Gramscian hegemony at its most base.

Good post.

I was not suggesting democrats fall in line, though. Far from it. Just stated that democrats tend to hold divisive feelings a bit longer, which I still believe. You gave the example of Cruz voters, but it just seems to occur on a much smaller level with republicans. They tend to have a much more homogenous paradigm, and it helps them with voting.
 
Rauner will be running in a year which will have high Democratic turnout, probably. He'll have the negative association with Trump, and he'll have failed on any promise of righting the state's finances.

I don't know that he'll lose, but I can't picture him winning easily.
 
Russia is saying dialogue with US is now "frozen"
This is fine. The diplomatic and intelligence staff could use a month off before beginning the hellscape that will be Trump's sexually submissive relationship with Russia. At some point Trump is going to think he's smarter than Putin, and that will be the day we all die.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Garland is back hearing cases at his old job in January, a few days before inauguration. This is being interpreted as evidence that a recess appointment is not even on the table. :(

A recess appointment never really was on the table, absent (1) a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate or (2) utter incompetence on the part of Congressional Republicans. But I think Aaron Strife is referring to this proposal, rather than a recess appointment. It's a fun idea, but it probably wouldn't work. There's just no realistic way for Garland to get on the Court. Elections have consequences.
 
I mean, I don't think we need to be the tea party (the worst elements of both the business class and the fringe right), but I just mean some kind of organized public resistance movement from the left. I want progressives confronting GOP Congressmen, governors, senators etc at town halls and other public events, and blowing up their phone lines. Same for the Democrats - ensuring that every single one of them stays in line and doesn't give Trump an inch on his big ticket items.

Put guys like Flake and Heller on the defensive for the next election - and if they fold, keep hammering away at them anyway. The GOP wets itself at the prospect of beating Manchin, Heitkamp etc, we need to take this much more seriously.

Like I want a tied Senate, House majority and like 13 governorships after the 2018 elections. And state legislatures everywhere. This is what we need to fight for.

Looking at governorships, there's:

New Jersey (2017) - Open
Illinois - Rauner
Maine - Open
Maryland - Hogan
Massachusetts - Baker
Nevada - Open
New Hampshire - Sununu
New Mexico - Open
Vermont - Phil Scott

Notice anything about those states? They're all states that Clinton won. Some handily. That's nine, which would already give us a majority of governor's mansions if we swept them all.

By comparison, we're only defending one governor's seat in Trump territory, Wolf in Pennsylvania. Beyond that there's opportunities in Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida (ranked by order of closeness), as well as Arizona which ended up being a 3-point race or so this year (much like the 2012 Senate race). Also states that were much redder - Iowa and Ohio could swing back after two years of Trump's bullshit, and Texas and Georgia are still on the move even if they didn't flip just yet. Texas is supposed to gain like three Congressional seats in the next Census. Big reward if we can draw a compromise map!

State legislatures are a bit too in the weeds for my 6am ramblings but we can obviously make up a lot of ground there too. Point being: the left needs to get its ass in gear, starting with the very first special election anywhere. Like what, there's that seat in Georgia? The at-large seat in Montana? Let's swing those fuckers. Run as a check and balance on Trump so all those suburbanites go "Well gee, that sounds like a good idea, don't want the president to have TOO much power" while motivating the left. Bit us in the ass during Obama but the shoe is on the other foot now! (Maybe)

Ok. Just had to get that out of my system.

Agreed. I also some things I would add:

1) I don't think Pennsylvania is Trumpland just yet, unless they manage to suppress the vote. 2016 was a year in which urban turnout in swing states was down while rural turnout was up.

2) I think it's time that every democrat who runs needs to each pick 2 or 3 policy issues to spend 90% of the campaign focused on. That way instead of simply being "antiTrump" the voters will know what their plans are in important areas.

3) Dean needs to do what he can to play SOME role in the DNC so that he can advise Keith Ellison.

4) Democrats need to start tackling the "freedom of speech" bullshit (aka the idea that harassment and bigotry is okay) and counter it with the catchphrase "freedom of conversation". The idea is that speech can be 1-way, but conversation is 2-way. Speech can sometimes be counterproductive, but conversation is usually productive.

5) It's shown to be a lost cause to try to openly court moderate conservatives (and it could be argued that it hurts our own base's enthusiasm), but maybe it might still be worth talking with them behind the scenes. People like Ana Navarro, Glenn Beck, Lindsey Graham, John McCain (remember that he DID eventually stop supporting Trump), Colin Powell, and others could become useful assets in unifying opposition to Trump, especially now that Hillary is out of the picture.

6) Someone needs to Primary Tulsi Gabbard so that she doesn't have a chance of warping the Democratic Party into a racist type of leftism.

7) Eventually we will NEED to start figuring out how to oppose Netanyahu without pissing off the wrong people. I think there potentially may be an avenue to do this if instead of it being a 100% antiIsrael stance it was instead framed as Pro-Israel, but anti-Netanyahu. Have people start bringing up the fact that Israel only became so ruthless and pro-war when Netanyahu and the far right got in control. Bring up the efforts Israel put towards peace back in the 90s.

And finally, an essential part of unifying people against the GOP will be to start hitting the whole isolationist FP rhetoric of Trump and his fanbase. It needs to begin back hard in ways that will appeal to people:

1) Have a proTrade message that consistently says "We Will Not Hide from the World" and "America will win in Trade by having a skilled workforce that every country wants"

2) Having a pro-interventionist attitude that brings up all the benefits of interventionism. Bring up that our Military isn't purely a killing machine, but also a force that helps other nations rebuild.

3) Start focusing on the history of immigration in America. Focus on how every era in America has benefitted from immigrants.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I think democrats really need to start fighting back when it comes to republicans getting a talking point that is a complete lie.

Obviously, the recent talking point sent to the GOP was to only refer to the election as a "landslide." The idea being that if you repeat something enough, your less-intelligent followers will believe it's true.

Democrats need the same concept here, just not lying. When democrats refer to the Trump, it should always be preceded by something like, "Popular vote loser" or something of that nature. It's a general concept that can be effective if used properly in the right context.
 
Elections have consequences unless Mitch McConnell decides they don't is the correct version of the saying.

I'm back.

Anyway, why do far left people defend Russia so much more than Israel? Neither country likes Muslims at all and both smear their opposition as terrorists but Russia is far more horrifically brutal about it. Israel killing 1000 Palestinians over the last 15 years has been horrible and a series of war crimes, but Russia is going to kill a few hundred thousands people in one year... And Israel is far further to the left of Russia in basically everything.
 

Debirudog

Member
Elections have consequences unless Mitch McConnell decides they don't is the correct version of the saying.

I'm back.

Anyway, why do far left people defend Russia so much more than Israel? Neither country likes Muslims at all and both smear their opposition as terrorists but Russia is far more horrifically brutal about it. Israel killing 1000 Palestinians over the last 15 years has been horrible and a series of war crimes, but Russia is going to kill a few hundred thousands people in one year... And Israel is far further to the left of Russia in basically everything.

Far left don't do their research at all.
 
A recess appointment never really was on the table, absent (1) a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate or (2) utter incompetence on the part of Congressional Republicans. But I think Aaron Strife is referring to this proposal, rather than a recess appointment. It's a fun idea, but it probably wouldn't work. There's just no realistic way for Garland to get on the Court. Elections have consequences.
Wish NC felt the same way, but alas, apparently elections don't have consequences there. And I'm doubtful that Cooper's lawsuits will bear fruit since if my understanding is correct they weren't powers the governor always had and thus the legislature is legally in the clear for its actions even though they're very transparently politically motivated but since that nonetheless can't be 100% proven... Yeah, I suppose elections do have consequences. Unless you're the North Carolina Republican party. In which case, they don't. I hope I'm proven wrong but that one just feels like a longshot to me...
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Elections have consequences unless Mitch McConnell decides they don't is the correct version of the saying.

I'm back.

Anyway, why do far left people defend Russia so much more than Israel? Neither country likes Muslims at all and both smear their opposition as terrorists but Russia is far more horrifically brutal about it. Israel killing 1000 Palestinians over the last 15 years has been horrible and a series of war crimes, but Russia is going to kill a few hundred thousands people in one year... And Israel is far further to the left of Russia in basically everything.

Russia is anti-america and swaths of the far left care more about being anti-america than anything else.
 
Far left don't do their research at all.

It's true!

And now, it's time for the worst article Hammer and Sickle Twitter has written in a good minute.

Garland starts his magnum opus with a promise: He’s going to combat the idea that Obama and Clinton are “doing nothing, just gave up” in the face of Trump’s victory. “Guys,” he writes. “It’s time for some game theory.” Game theory, for the uninitiated, is a branch of mathematics that uses computational models to predict the behavior of human beings in potentially conflictual situations. It’s complex, involves a lot of formal logic and algebra, and is mostly useless. Game theory models human actions on the presumption that everyone is constantly trying to maximize their potential gain against everyone around them; this is why its most famous example concerns prisoners—isolated people, cut off from all the noncompetitive ties that constitute society. One of its most important theoreticians, John Nash, was also a paranoid schizophrenic, who believed himself to be the target of a vast Russian conspiracy.

1. Literally nothing in this paragraph about game theory is correct.
2. This completely misunderstands mathematical research.
3. This is a horrible smear against the mentally ill.
4. This article was somehow retweeted by the Jacobin's main editor.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ng_with_america_s_establishment_liberals.html
 
Elections have consequences unless Mitch McConnell decides they don't is the correct version of the saying.

I'm back.

Anyway, why do far left people defend Russia so much more than Israel? Neither country likes Muslims at all and both smear their opposition as terrorists but Russia is far more horrifically brutal about it. Israel killing 1000 Palestinians over the last 15 years has been horrible and a series of war crimes, but Russia is going to kill a few hundred thousands people in one year... And Israel is far further to the left of Russia in basically everything.
That's easy. Israel is buddy-buddy with the United States, while Russia very clearly still hates us. These far left individuals tend to harbor lots of negative feelings for the United States based on the past actions of the nation, particularly in the realm of military interventions and like to see the US pushed around as revenge for that... And of course they have no love lost for concepts like nationalism and pride in their birthplace/place of residence which they see as inherently dangerous at worst and nonsensical at best, so none of that typically applies at all. Then add on some anti-capitalism sentiments on top of that and yeah, it's very easy to go:
Russia=Good, because they're anti-US
Israel: Meh at best because they're mostly pro-US

Plus, when referring to Israel specifically, there's also the whole treatment of Palestinians, rampant racism and discrimination and illegal building of settlements and the slow-genocide of Palestinians by a thousand cuts things that the far left doesn't tend to be fans of. Of course, Russia's not exactly a winner in the human rights department or anything either as you said, but they shit on the US so it's alright apparently. Israel on the other hand both is buddy-buddy with the United States and is constantly treating Palestinians terribly and shitting on their rights, so that's two strikes and thus yeah, they don't tend to be fans.
 
Well, good for her, she's doing more than most of GAF

Like I said, the election probably made a bunch of women furious. We'll see if that bears fruit in the years to come. I hope it does.

I actually know around a dozen women (Dem and Republican, all whom are strongly anti-Trump and furious at the current Republican Party) who are making concrete plans to run for elected office: mostly local and a couple for state legislatures but it's definitely steps in the right direction.

There would be more running -- and more who would set their sights on higher offices -- but I think this election scared women. Even if they felt emboldened by it. Hillary Clinton is an atypical woman (hell, an atypical human) and she certainly got an extreme political hazing (??), but it's hard for women to want to go into politics if they can think, "well, what's the worst voters could throw at m... oh, right."
 
People keep saying this, but I'm reasonably sure it isn't true. Republicans often don't "fall in line", or whatever - where were all the Republicans falling into line for Romney in 2012? I know some Cruz people who are literally furious at Trump (they hate his populism and wanted a more constitutionally faithful candidate, blah blah blah) who sat out the election in 2016. Most of the polling evidence seems to show that Trump lost more primary voters than Clinton did - that is, people who voted Sanders in the primaries were more likely to then vote Clinton than people who voted Kasich were to then vote Trump. I feel like it is just an excuse to detract from the fact that Clinton lost because Trump won former Obama voters in several key areas. That's not Republicans falling in line, that's Democrats being persuaded to vote Republican. You don't have to face up to the fact that the swing vote in this election was poorer communities in the Rust Belt switching from Democrat to Republican, because you can blame it on young, white, millennials or whatever. They make a fantastic scapegoat!

And the whole argument that Democrats need to just line up like cannon fodder regardless of whether the candidate suits their needs is a pretty disturbing narrative, because the subtext to it is: you mustn't ever question that status quo. If the party were to elect a consciously racist but economically re-distributive candidate, I wouldn't be for a moment suggesting we fall in line. I'd be absolutely outraged and suggesting taking to the streets. So why, whenever the issue is insufficient care about class issues or income inequality or deindustrialization, does the other side have to take what they're given? It's Gramscian hegemony at its most base.

Yeap, great analysis. Thats why I think Trump 2020 is more likely to happen than not. Just like Obama, Trump is seen as a champion of "normal
white
people". Democrats need to fix their technocrat (urban, educated, boring, emotionally distant) image.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
It's true!

And now, it's time for the worst article Hammer and Sickle Twitter has written in a good minute.



1. Literally nothing in this paragraph about game theory is correct.
2. This completely misunderstands mathematical research.
3. This is a horrible smear against the mentally ill.
4. This article was somehow retweeted by the Jacobin's main editor.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ng_with_america_s_establishment_liberals.html

Communist Twitter has always been shit, as has Maoist Twitter.

I wish Trump's sister were younger and not retired. Nepotism could have saved the Court.

Hey, it still might.
 
‏@TomArnold
Talked tapes in Oct. Need crew guy 2 approve release but scared 4 fam so face2face asked highups.LS exposes truth but Taxes&Russia2013 WORSE


Oppo droppo soon?
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
‏@TomArnold
Talked tapes in Oct. Need crew guy 2 approve release but scared 4 fam so face2face asked highups.LS exposes truth but Taxes&Russia2013 WORSE


Oppo droppo soon?


What does it say? All I could read was "Tom Arnold desperately tries to get his name back in the news after years out of the spotlight."
 
I love how the Dirtbag Left constantly says liberals are too mean to the white working class when they are unerringly horrible people and would get their faces pounded in if they ever spoke to a person in real life.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
What does it say? All I could read was "Tom Arnold desperately tries to get his name back in the news after years out of the spotlight."

He's been saying he's got the Trump n-word tape for a few days now, but didn't put it out during the election because everyone figured Clinton would win anyway (which seems to be a common theme among people who had an indirect hand in getting Trump elected).
 
He's been saying he's got the Trump n-word tape for a few days now, but didn't put it out during the election because everyone figured Clinton would win anyway (which seems to be a common theme among people who had an indirect hand in getting Trump elected).

He says he has a tape of Trump calling Barron Trump "retard" when Barron was like 5 years old. Which would have allowed Hillary to win the election if it came out four days before the election, but it would pointless to release these tapes now. Save them for November 2020.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
As always, your analysis is reasonable, but your snark is deliberately disingenuous.

Too soon, huh?

Wish NC felt the same way, but alas, apparently elections don't have consequences there. And I'm doubtful that Cooper's lawsuits will bear fruit since if my understanding is correct they weren't powers the governor always had and thus the legislature is legally in the clear for its actions even though they're very transparently politically motivated but since that nonetheless can't be 100% proven... Yeah, I suppose elections do have consequences. Unless you're the North Carolina Republican party. In which case, they don't. I hope I'm proven wrong but that one just feels like a longshot to me...

I think that only proves the point. In a government with separation of powers, elections still have consequences, but there's more than just one election. That said, executive power shouldn't turn on which party holds the executive. If a Democratic governor shouldn't have X power, then the same should have been true for a Republican governor.

I'm hoping that Democratic opposition to Trump, coupled with what remains of Congressional Republicans opposed to Trump, will lead to some movement on restraining executive power at the federal level, but I won't hold my breath. We're still talking about partisan politicians.
 
Elections have consequences unless Mitch McConnell decides they don't is the correct version of the saying.

I'm back.

Anyway, why do far left people defend Russia so much more than Israel? Neither country likes Muslims at all and both smear their opposition as terrorists but Russia is far more horrifically brutal about it. Israel killing 1000 Palestinians over the last 15 years has been horrible and a series of war crimes, but Russia is going to kill a few hundred thousands people in one year... And Israel is far further to the left of Russia in basically everything.

I havent seen many leftists defending Russia, more like mocking how Russia is being used as a scapegoat by some Dems, and that some liberals are resorting to vintage red scare tactics. Emotions run high, but I swear I havent seen a single Intercept reporter claiming how amazing Russia is.

I would to see some examples if you have any, though.
 
An N word tape wouldn't do anything. The election is over. The electoral college already voted. He isn't going to resign. Even if he did, we would just get Pence.

I havent seen many leftists defending Russia, more like mocking how Russia is being used as a scapegoat by some Dems, and that some liberals are resorting to vintage red scare tactics. Emotions run high, but I swear I havent seen a single Intercept reporter claiming how amazing Russia is.

I would to see some examples if you have any, though.

Jill Stein
 

kirblar

Member
I havent seen many leftists defending Russia, more like mocking how Russia is being used as a scapegoat by some Dems, and that some liberals are resorting to vintage red scare tactics. Emotions run high, but I swear I havent seen a single Intercept reporter claiming how amazing Russia is.

I would to see some examples if you have any, though.
Plenty of leftists still defending Wikileaks. Which is Russian propaganda.

The far left is just as allergic to facts as the far right is. They're just less numerous.
 
I love how every time somebody points out that Russia tried to tilt things to Trump, it's "red scare" tactics.

nobody is afraid of communism. They are afraid of exactly what happened-- a foreign power using hacking to get a candidate more favorable to their goals and which will weaken us.

I dismiss anybody who tried to paint that as "red scare tactics" as naive of willfully obtuse.
 
Plenty of leftists still defending Wikileaks. Which is Russian propaganda.

The far left is just as allergic to facts as the far right is. They're just less numerous.
Not just propaganda, but also released personally identifying information numerous times now for benefit to no one, but putting many at risk anyway. But too many justify them anyway because "Fuck the DNC, and Fuck the United States" as if that's ever a reason to put innocents at risk.
 

pigeon

Banned
I havent seen many leftists defending Russia, more like mocking how Russia is being used as a scapegoat by some Dems, and that some liberals are resorting to vintage red scare tactics.

I mean, Russia really did hack into our systems to try to sway our elections, and that really is a direct assault on our sovereignty.

If John McCain can say that this shouldn't be a partisan issue, it's pretty disappointing that the "leftists" can't do the same. If our popular front against fascism includes Evan McMullin but not Glenn Greenwald it's hard not to see that as a pretty severe indictment of Greenwald.
 
When democrats refer to the Trump, it should always be preceded by something like, "Popular vote loser" or something of that nature. It's a general concept that can be effective if used properly in the right context.
A style of argumentation discouraged by literally all of communications theory. No thanks.

Russia is saying dialogue with US is now "frozen"

We've been doing this over and over again since they invaded Ukraine, it's ok. They're just waiting till Trump is sworn in.
 
I havent seen many leftists defending Russia, more like mocking how Russia is being used as a scapegoat by some Dems, and that some liberals are resorting to vintage red scare tactics. Emotions run high, but I swear I havent seen a single Intercept reporter claiming how amazing Russia is.

I would to see some examples if you have any, though.

Here's Rania Khalek. Rania Khalek's entire schtick has been that Israel is evil and that Hamas is good because of the greater good. She has written over 100 articles attacking Israel for being brutal to terrorists (correct) and defending Hamas (bad).

Instead of showing the horrors rebels imposed on Aleppo, AJ+ demonizes Syrians for celebrating the removal of al Qaeda from their city

https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek/status/810238593956454401

Note: Out of the 280k people in East Aleppo, 1000 (one thousand) of them are Al-Qaeda fighters.

Rania Khalek retweeted a meme that the White Helmets (people who rescued Syrian children from collapsing buildings and who are now being executed by Hezbollah) are actually an Al-Qaeda group because a couple of members look similar to some Al-Qaeda members (this is a meme pushed only by Russia).

So, when Israel is killing some terrorists and many civilians at the same time, Khalek calls it like the Holocaust. When Russia is killing some terrorists and a fuckton of civilians, Khalek calls it liberation. When Israel smears all Palestinians as terrorists, Rania Khalek will write a 20k word piece on why Bibi should be executed. When Russia smears all East Aleppo fighters as terrorists, Rania Khalek agrees and pushes this idea.

Rania Khalek was fired from her anti-Israel site for speaking at a pro-Assad event and then was immediately defended, guess who, Glenn Greenwald.
 

kess

Member
Glenn Greenwald is a regular at the Socialist Conference that gets held in the midwest, even though he regularly shills for Putin.
 
Can someone translate this into American?
Didn't see a direct response to this and uncertain how serious or not, so I'll give it a shot:

He mentioned these in October but Trump was never going to win so wtfever. The union film guys need to okay it but he/they were worried r/the_donald will dox them and threaten to kill their families (understandably). Some dude in a suit says it's fine. [Something] is some awesome oppo but there's even juicier stuff on top.

These claims seem highly dubious, at best.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
You know the Senate blockade against Garland was an unprecedented violation of constitutional norms, so blithely asserting that elections have consequences is intentionally eliding the GOP's efforts to destroy our democracy. Do better.

You're right. I am "intentionally eliding the GOP's efforts to destroy our democracy," but that's because that's not a real thing, but Democratic hyperbole over democratically elected Senate Republicans exercising their constitutional power in a way Democrats don't like. Granted, I don't care for what they did either, and think they should have worked with President Obama to confirm a justice to the Supreme Court, but my distaste doesn't transform their conduct into an unprecedented assault on our democracy etc. (And let's not ignore that their purported justification for refusing to confirm Garland was to give American voters a voice in the selection of the next person to be placed on the non-democratically elected Supreme Court. Good luck spinning that as anti-democratic.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom