Frank the Great
Banned
I still like Booker. I'm tired of this weird litmus test shit.
-
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 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
https://twitter.com/martintisne/status/868756931313360897/photo/1
I think there's a distinct difference between "abandonment" and "being prepared". I think the EU is preparing for the day when it relies less on the US, and more on, perhaps, ASEAN and Canada. Trump has effectively pushed the EU into doing this sooner than it would've liked, just as Brexit has done the same for EU/UK relations.
Trump's inability to say what he means, and mean what he says also has the effect of making any deals with him or the US clouded in uncertainty. His dithering over, say, The Paris Agreement speaks volumes to other countries. Definitively choosing to stay in or drop out would end uncertainty and show the world that, regardless of what the rest of us thinks of him, he has the balls to commit to a choice and stick with it. Unfortunately, he still hasn't decided, which just shows the world he's unable to do anything, hamstrung by fear of looking unpopular to one group or another.
Of course, all of this proves your point in a way. He is weak, and every day grows weaker.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'd like to believe that the way Trump dithers on everything is just him being an idiot, but unfortunately I'm increasingly sure it's something coming from Bannon and/or Putin. Uncertainty as policy. Sabotaging the ACA is the prime example right now, as you see insurers seriously talking about leaving the markets or jacking up premiums just because the administration won't commit to a clear course, which is (remember, they're still stupid) the goal.
Similarly here, Trump projecting uncertainty on Article V and the Paris accords is reshaping US-Euro relations for the worse, which he can then use to justify getting closer to Russia. It's not a good plan, because holy shit is getting closer to Russia a bad move politically right now, but it does seem to be a plan.
Similarly here, Trump projecting uncertainty on Article V and the Paris accords is reshaping US-Euro relations for the worse, which he can then use to justify getting closer to Russia. It's not a good plan, because holy shit is getting closer to Russia a bad move politically right now, but it does seem to be a plan.
He thrived under uncertainty. He falls whenever he finally puts words to pen. He's gonna try to get away with being in campaign mode for as long as he can.
gutter_trash
Banned
David Grergory "both sides"
change channel
change channel
nature boy
Member
#itsChinasproblem
that's why it is critical (like end of world imo) if ossoff loses.
ShironRedshift
Member
...Also, what about Japan? Y'know, the country whose waters the missile landed in? From that tweet you'd think they were trying to attack China itself. I mean, I know what he's getting at since China doesn't like North Korea misbehaving, but still.
TheLaughingStock
Member
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-the-democrats-need-a-new-message-w484569
Great insight from Taibbi on what it would take for the Democrats to get themselves together.
Can't convince the extremists that socialist messaging and Sanders's endorsement isn't all it takes for the candidate will sail into office over a Republican.
In the end, no matter how extreme they were, the Tea Party is still willing to get out and vote Republican.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I mean
it didn't work
"reaching across the aisle" is the one thing just about everyone on the left agrees was a huge shortcoming of Obama's because all it ever did was neuter what he was trying to do while gaining him absolutely nothing
Typical Taibbi bullshit. The Gianforte win was 1) expected and 2) the result was baked before the guy assaulted a reporter. It was closer than it had any right to be. Looking at that as some kind of catalyst is his usual false framing of some real issue so he can make some overdramatic point. Watch what happens in Georgia.
edit: The idea that Quist ran an okay campaign and should have won against a crazy person just doesn't hold water. The problem is not the Democrats (or the Republicans, really) but how broken the electoral system is overall. It's not surprising how little things change because the gears in the system are programmed not to move. It's not that people don't want to vote for Democrats, it's that people simply don't vote at all and surprisingly little is up for contest in the US at all. The same is true in blue areas, by the way. How many Democratic congresscritters have been found guilty of wrongdoing and the Ds either kept the seat or even kept the body?
edit: The idea that Quist ran an okay campaign and should have won against a crazy person just doesn't hold water. The problem is not the Democrats (or the Republicans, really) but how broken the electoral system is overall. It's not surprising how little things change because the gears in the system are programmed not to move. It's not that people don't want to vote for Democrats, it's that people simply don't vote at all and surprisingly little is up for contest in the US at all. The same is true in blue areas, by the way. How many Democratic congresscritters have been found guilty of wrongdoing and the Ds either kept the seat or even kept the body?
I keep seeing takes ala "Democrats can't win if their entire message is that Republicans are bad!" yet when I look at the actual campaigns being run in these special elections the issues are always local issues (especially healthcare) not "Trump is BAD". So I feel like these takes are criticizing Democrats in these special elections for things they aren't doing?
This is a comment on Obama as he was campaigning, not as he was governing. At least that is how I interpreted that section of the article.
This is a comment on Obama as he was campaigning, not as he was governing. At least that is how I interpreted that section of the article.
Yeah. It strikes me as a waste of time. He expended a metric ton of political capital on trying to bring people that hated him into the fold.
It only gave us Trump.
I don't think campaigning won him much either. But his personal "brand" as it was, allowed him the slack to carry his efforts in bluer places without explicitly campaigning there.
excelsiorlef
Member
This article managed to spend so many words saying next to nothing.
TheLaughingStock
Member
It was more about the rhetoric of reaching across the aisle and less about actually reaching across to GOP positions that are not tenable for liberals. We know Obama is a semiotic politician/excellent con man.
BlastProcessing
Member
Man, the new Twin Peaks season is getting crazy.
I'm just as disappointed in Corey as everyone else, but people thinking this kills his chances politically are acting just like the people last week who thought a Republican assaulting a reporter was going to turn off his supporters. It's ignoring how people work. Corey can and likely will come back and be a contender in 2020 if he wants.
Bernie Sanders himself had a small basket worth of scandals that he only survived because he got his supporters to ignore them.
Bernie Sanders himself had a small basket worth of scandals that he only survived because he got his supporters to ignore them.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
lol
You laugh, but if in early 2015 I had told you that Hillary's closest competitor for the nomination was going to publicly attack organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL for not supporting him, and be married to a woman who bankrupted the university she was President of, would you have thought that candidate would go on to be runner-up and leader of the "progressive" ,movement?
And yet people are doom and gloom over an (admittedly) bad interview soundbite? By next year, nobody will remember this. And by the time 2020 campaigns are in full-swing and competitors think to bring it up, nobody will care. Because he's Corey Booker: handsome, black, charismatic bachelor politician who will definitely be able to talk his way out of it.
What insight? Looks like just another bandwagon bashing article. Democrats have already committed to doing a 50 state strategy. Wtf is he proposing that's any different. We all know that clintons comment last year was a mistake. We don't need another whiny article bitching about her
Sirpopopop
Member
No. Fuck Taibbi.
You can't reach your "basket of deplorables" without also jetting minority voters. It's an either/or proposition.
The thing I don't understand about that article is Taibbi mentions the Montana race while making the point that Democrats need "a new message" and need to do better speaking to the poor, sad, lonely and racist WWC...
But isn't the Montana race the perfect example of that not working?
Joy Reid made this point on her show yesterday. In Montana we just had a perfect petri dish of a race. A district dominated by the WWC. Very few minorities getting in the way with pesky calls for distracting things like rights and fair treatment. A candidate endorsed by Bernie Sanders and running on a mostly healthcare and economic message...and he still lost. Sure, it was a LOT closer than it should have been for a Republican, but that can just as easily be attributed to Trump and Gianforte's own unpopularity.
Sandersism still has no major victories under its belt. So why are people still advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water and going all-in on a strategy that, so far, has proven time and time again to be a losing one for Democrats?
But isn't the Montana race the perfect example of that not working?
Joy Reid made this point on her show yesterday. In Montana we just had a perfect petri dish of a race. A district dominated by the WWC. Very few minorities getting in the way with pesky calls for distracting things like rights and fair treatment. A candidate endorsed by Bernie Sanders and running on a mostly healthcare and economic message...and he still lost. Sure, it was a LOT closer than it should have been for a Republican, but that can just as easily be attributed to Trump and Gianforte's own unpopularity.
Sandersism still has no major victories under its belt. So why are people still advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water and going all-in on a strategy that, so far, has proven time and time again to be a losing one for Democrats?
Poodlestrike
Banned
I still say that the real mistake was backing down from it. Removed the rallying effect on her base and let theirs use it unopposed.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Sanders was not scandal free
HA, you talk big about con men, with your loud support over a bumbling fool who wishes he was good con man.
Are you running back to the "sanders had zero problems" rhetoric?
cooltrainer
Member
I agree with him that I think people should just accept that certain parts of the country are just going to vote Republican no matter what and we shouldn't waste energy on these people. Republicans have gained a lot of seats in state and national races over the past decade. That means it really wasn't that long ago those seats were held by Democrats. People think this country is so divided but a huge amount of the population is not particularly tied to ideology(especially non-voters). You can get their votes if you give something they want to hear. Democrats are afraid of their own message and as a result you see campaigns that really don't stand for anything or anybody.
Yep.
But this was a core problem with how the Clinton campaign handled scandals. They acted so damn guilty every time.
This should have been Hillary whenever the Deplorables comment was mentioned:
excelsiorlef
Member
I'd have love to have seen what would have happened if Clinton had just said fuck it and been her dry sarcastic self the entire time...
Like a full campaign version of her 13 hour Benghazi hearing performance...
Like a full campaign version of her 13 hour Benghazi hearing performance...
Box of Kittens
Banned
I do find it kind of weird that there seems to be this consensus that the Montana election was some spectacular failure, or a general sign that what the Democrats are doing isn't working. Quist lost by 6 in a roughly R+20 district
. This is consistent with results from other special elections showing a strong environment for Democrats. From a morale standpoint it sucks that we haven't captured a seat (yet), but in the grand scheme of things these results are good.
(take that, PVI purists)
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
2016 election is a clusterfuck of an election.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
What I've seen has been less "oh no we can't win" and more "damnit we could have won if the DNC spent more money", but fortunately I've really just seen not a whole lot of either. People largely seem to get it was a long shot
BlastProcessing
Member
Yup. People need to take a step back and realize why these special elections are happening in the first place. Trump appointed people from super-safe republican districts. That's obviously what he should have done, but that doesn't change the fact that these aren't fair fights.
And the fact that these 'should be super safe elections, which is the reason why these seats got tapped' are competitive in anyway, is frightening the GOP.
If the GOP keep losing that much of a margin into 2018, lots of seats are going to flip.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Fun fact: both the NH and NY flipped state legislstove seats were Bernie people.
That said, I think the reason there's more gloom and doom after Quist losing is that we know Montana is still winnable while KS-4 was never really thought to be that. Also Thompson would have beaten Gianforte based on his swing
That said, I think the reason there's more gloom and doom after Quist losing is that we know Montana is still winnable while KS-4 was never really thought to be that. Also Thompson would have beaten Gianforte based on his swing
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
People need to look at the bigger picture here. Yes, we didn't get the seat, but we also made Montana a state that could flip in the near future and it is the sign that safe seats like this one is no longer safe.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I will start panicking if Ossoff loses. Would really suck to give Trump a fully republican congress for a extra 2 years.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Military is on board with climate change so I guess I'm for this in the abstract. Not like Tillerson is doing anything anyway.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
But those elite liberal reporters can't change an oil filter like Trump and his family!
If Ossoff loses, democrats need to throw caution to the wind and get rid of pretty much every positive message they've tried to portray over the past years. It would be time to rethink every method of campaigning and finding candidates up to this point.
I don't see the big deal if Ossoff loses by a slim margin. Isnt it a heavily R district? It would still be in line with surging Dem numbers that would flip contentious districts, just not hard R districts. It would still force the GOP To spend to defend I'm otherwise solid red areas as well.
VendettaRed07
Member
It's not super safe. We need to win there in 2018 just to maintain the senate seats we have
Regardless of incumbency advantage, The house candidate that runs there in 18 needs to figure out how to get the same voters Tester gets.
This also isn't some specifically gerrymandered district. It's state wide in a state we've won at multiple different levels different times before. Needs to be one of the heaviest contested races in 2 years from now.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I think there are a lot of dynamics at play here. The most simple is that people look at elections as binaries. Every win is a success, every loss is a failure. Obviously that's true in some sense (either you win the seat or you don't) but in a broader sense of what this suggests about 2018, it's suggesting strength, not weakness.
Another dynamic I think is at play is that there are competing factions who have incentive to treat the results as a failure. If you believe that Democrats will lose until the party embraces Bernie's message wholeheartedly, you can claim these losses confirm that. If you believe that Berniecrats are incapable of actually winning elections, you can also claim these losses confirm that.
Another dynamic I think is at play is that there are competing factions who have incentive to treat the results as a failure. If you believe that Democrats will lose until the party embraces Bernie's message wholeheartedly, you can claim these losses confirm that. If you believe that Berniecrats are incapable of actually winning elections, you can also claim these losses confirm that.
RustyNails
Member
I missed this one. Donald Trumps Base Is Shrinking
But a win is needed to turn the media narrative. The new narrative must be that Trump will destroy GOP's chances for midterms
Better hold more rallies!
VendettaRed07
Member
GOP won 64 seats in 2010. If we can't win ossoffs district the margins for winning the house is going to be really small.
Yeah there's more time but we should be aiming closer to GOP 2010 numbers vs barely getting over the bar. It's not enough to just win the house, we should have a healthy margin in it too
SirClinksAlot
Member
Nope im with you. OT topics on trump are unreadable right now.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Trump won with just a 1.5% margin and the incumbent is now gone. Sure it's the 47th bluest Republican-held seat when looking at just the averages of results according to 538, and Democrats only need 24 to flip, but I think the Trump result pushes it up a lot farther on the list of vulnerable seats because there's some obvious direct ties between trump and this election.
So I take it the reason the House has been GOP for the last 20 out of 24 years come 2019 is that the coalition that kept Democrats in power for the previous 40 is now in Republicans hands correct?
Now with this new coalition kirblar likes to talk about as the future will that one allow us to have a hold on the House irregardless of "wave elections" for x number of years or we just don't know?
*Incumbency/gerrymandering plays some role in this since 1954.
Now with this new coalition kirblar likes to talk about as the future will that one allow us to have a hold on the House irregardless of "wave elections" for x number of years or we just don't know?
*Incumbency/gerrymandering plays some role in this since 1954.
- Status