I mean, on election night we were expecting it to be about whether we took back the Senate, not whether we took the WH. Dem president would have probably meant at least a bit of a dem swing in congress. If anything, congress would have reversed and gone back to being more red in 2018 like it usually does. This would probably be the case with Clinton too. And while it would be tough for a dem president to get anything done, it wouldn't necessarily cost them reelection.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I mean, on election night we were expecting it to be about whether we took back the Senate, not whether we took the WH. Dem president would have probably meant at least a bit of a dem swing in congress. If anything, congress would have reversed and gone back to being more red in 2018 like it usually does. This would probably be the case with Clinton too. And while it would be tough for a dem president to get anything done, it wouldn't necessarily cost them reelection.
whyamihere
Banned
Yes, I believe Sanders to be like an unwanted algae bloom. By having a coronation instead of an actual contested primary it left a lot of unused oxygen open which allowed the Sanders phenomenon to occur to the degree it did, which was far, far worse than having team players from within the party rising up and challenging (and possibly beating) her.
There were a lot of other candidates who would have been better than Hillary! None of them were in the race.
This is a very bad take and it's really unfortunate that you believe it.
"The President isn't a member of your party, he's the leader of your party." - The West Wing
With the bully pulpit, sure. But how involved with the DCCC/DSCC is the president actually, in general? Isn't that where we were really slipping?
This is a very bad take and it's really unfortunate that you believe it.
Why?
With the bully pulpit, sure. But how involved with the DCCC/DSCC is the president actually, in general? Isn't that where we were really slipping?
He is the one that appoints and sets the overall strategy for them to follow. How they implement said strategy is more in their purview.
whyamihere
Banned
It's fair and unfair to put that on Obama.
A lot of those seats were in the south/New Hampshire. Those losses in the south were natural and were just inevitable and it sucks, but racism. And there are 23897278278267326287280 members of the New Hampshire state house.
But yes. There were bigger and more important losses elsewhere. But if 2008 was in 2010, we probably wouldn't see as many losses as we did thanks to redistricting, and we would've picked up more seats in 2012.
Because I think Sanders is a fundamentally good thing to happen to the Democratic party?
A lot of those seats were in the south/New Hampshire. Those losses in the south were natural and were just inevitable and it sucks, but racism. And there are 23897278278267326287280 members of the New Hampshire state house.
But yes. There were bigger and more important losses elsewhere. But if 2008 was in 2010, we probably wouldn't see as many losses as we did thanks to redistricting, and we would've picked up more seats in 2012.
Why?
Because I think Sanders is a fundamentally good thing to happen to the Democratic party?
Oh shit, on CNN:
Sources: Congress Investigating Another Possible Sessions-Kislyak Meeting
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/polit...essions-russian-ambassador-meeting/index.html
Sources: Congress Investigating Another Possible Sessions-Kislyak Meeting
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/polit...essions-russian-ambassador-meeting/index.html
Washington (CNN)Congressional investigators are examining whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions had an additional private meeting with Russia's ambassador during the presidential campaign, according to Republican and Democratic Hill sources and intelligence officials briefed on the investigation.
Investigators on the Hill are requesting additional information, including schedules from Sessions, a source with knowledge tells CNN. They are focusing on whether such a meeting took place April 27, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, where then-candidate Donald Trump was delivering his first major foreign policy address. Prior to the speech, then-Sen. Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak attended a small VIP reception with organizers, diplomats and others.
In addition to congressional investigators, the FBI is seeking to determine the extent of interactions the Trump campaign team may have had with Russia's ambassador during the event as part of its broader counterintelligence investigation of Russian interference in the election. The FBI is looking into whether there was an additional private meeting at the Mayflower the same day, sources said. Neither Hill nor FBI investigators have yet concluded whether a private meeting took place -- and acknowledge that it is possible any additional meeting was incidental.
Oh shit, on CNN:
Sources: Congress Investigating Another Possible Sessions-Kislyak Meeting
If they can take down Sessions, that would be so good.
This is a very bad take and it's really unfortunate that you believe it.
Why?
Sanders continued the narrative of "Hillary is corrupt" "Unqualified" in the primary, raised the Wall Street speeches nothing burger, didnt get out of the primary when it was well over months earlier and waited till like late July to endorse. Oh and did I forget the Sanders delegates booing a Gold Star family at the convention. Oh wait they were booing at a lot of stuff.
He helped sow the beginning seeds to Hillary's downfall.
had to get it out my system. Holding it too long since November
It's fair and unfair to put that on Obama.
A lot of those seats were in the south/New Hampshire. Those losses in the south were natural and were just inevitable and it sucks, but racism. And there are 23897278278267326287280 members of the New Hampshire state house.
But yes. There were bigger and more important losses elsewhere. But if 2008 was in 2010, we probably wouldn't see as many losses as we did thanks to redistricting, and we would've picked up more seats in 2012.
Because I think Sanders is a fundamentally good thing to happen to the Democratic party?
Ah, I thought you were disagreeing with the descriptive part (he took advantage of the vacuum), not the prescriptive part (Bernie is bad for the Dems).
RustyNails
Member
8'O Cloppo!Oh shit, on CNN:
Sources: Congress Investigating Another Possible Sessions-Kislyak Meeting
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/polit...essions-russian-ambassador-meeting/index.html
whyamihere
Banned
Ah, I thought you were disagreeing with the descriptive part (he took advantage of the vacuum), not the prescriptive part (Bernie is bad for the Dems).
Ah, okay. But yeah, I view Bernie as an ultimate good for Democrats.
Oh shit, on CNN:
Sources: Congress Investigating Another Possible Sessions-Kislyak Meeting
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/polit...essions-russian-ambassador-meeting/index.html
Interesting - this is the center of one of the more elaborate theories behind the collusion. Would be crazy if there was at least some truth to it.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Oh shit, on CNN:
Sources: Congress Investigating Another Possible Sessions-Kislyak Meeting
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/polit...essions-russian-ambassador-meeting/index.html
Bring him down.
neurosisxeno
Member
With the bully pulpit, sure. But how involved with the DCCC/DSCC is the president actually, in general? Isn't that where we were really slipping?
The President is the most visible member of the party, so his stances tend to sway the party quite a bit. He might not control every bit of their strategy (as was apparent in 2012) but he has a lot of pull and generally controls messaging for the Party.
whyamihere
Banned
I would feel very comfortable with Sessions gone.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Honest question: how much of that job rests on the president? I feel like the president is busy being president.
Just about none.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
It is going to be kind of interesting to see what the Bernie base shakes out to actually be.
Bernie was at 43% in the primary and I could easily see his base breaking down as:
13% moderate white Dems who were anti-Hillary
20% young people
10% lefties
(counting how those voting blocks for Bernie made up of the total percentage of Dem primary voters since scaling would make it a little confusing for future purposes)
And it could turn out that the young people just liked Bernie because they don't want to pay student loans and they want to smoke weed.
And then it would be that 10% of Democrats are actually interested in Socialism.
This is a more extreme version of 2012 where Ron Paul got 20-25% of the primary vote even though only around 3% of Republicans had libertarian beliefs but Ron was clearly more racist and delusional than Romney and managed to pick up racist conspiracy theorists.
Or Bernie's base could be mostly lefties.
We will see.
But the total failure of libertarianism since 2015 should give pause to projecting the future of Socialism in America.
Bernie was at 43% in the primary and I could easily see his base breaking down as:
13% moderate white Dems who were anti-Hillary
20% young people
10% lefties
(counting how those voting blocks for Bernie made up of the total percentage of Dem primary voters since scaling would make it a little confusing for future purposes)
And it could turn out that the young people just liked Bernie because they don't want to pay student loans and they want to smoke weed.
And then it would be that 10% of Democrats are actually interested in Socialism.
This is a more extreme version of 2012 where Ron Paul got 20-25% of the primary vote even though only around 3% of Republicans had libertarian beliefs but Ron was clearly more racist and delusional than Romney and managed to pick up racist conspiracy theorists.
Or Bernie's base could be mostly lefties.
We will see.
But the total failure of libertarianism since 2015 should give pause to projecting the future of Socialism in America.
neurosisxeno
Member
Interesting - this is the center of one of the more elaborate theories behind the collusion. Would be crazy if there was at least some truth to it.
Yea I was just thinking about that. People wrote off the whole Mayflower Hotel event as a conspiracy (I read some really long blog article about it) but it being investigated by Congress lends some legitimacy to it which is interesting.
BlastProcessing
Member
When I say Quid, you say Pro Quo, ya'll
Quid!
Quid!
Aaron Strife
Banned
Important to remember that many of the Democrats who lost by the widest margins in 2010 were the ones who ran away from Obama. Guys like Perriello kept it close in red districts by gluing themselves to him.
Granted, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, but there was a correlation. No Democratic president was going to prevent blue dogs from being caught flat-footed in their red ass districts.
Granted, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, but there was a correlation. No Democratic president was going to prevent blue dogs from being caught flat-footed in their red ass districts.
This reads like you think weed and free college are somehow not worthy policy goals? Also, what do you mean by Socialism?It is going to be kind of interesting to see what the Bernie base shakes out to actually be.
Bernie was at 43% in the primary and I could easily see his base breaking down as:
13% moderate white Dems who were anti-Hillary
20% young people
10% lefties
(counting how those voting blocks for Bernie made up of the total percentage of Dem primary voters since scaling would make it a little confusing for future purposes)
And it could turn out that the young people just liked Bernie because they don't want to pay student loans and they want to smoke weed.
And then it would be that 10% of Democrats are actually interested in Socialism.
This is a more extreme version of 2012 where Ron Paul got 20-25% of the primary vote even though only around 3% of Republicans had libertarian beliefs but Ron was clearly more racist and delusional than Romney and managed to pick up racist conspiracy theorists.
Or Bernie's base could be mostly lefties.
We will see.
But the total failure of libertarianism since 2015 should give pause to projecting the future of Socialism in America.
I would feel very comfortable with Sessions gone.
I would feel slightly less terrified with Sessions gone.
I think Bernie Sanders is a destructive, negative force as an individual, incapable of doing anything significantly productive for the party in terms of leadership or building infrastructure because he's spent the entirety of his life being able to offer easy answers from the outside because he's never been forced into the position of having to put up or shut up. Bernie never learned any policy details, because in his career, he hasn't had to! (I'll cosign NeoXChaos' take while I'm at it.) To steal a great quote from Twitter - Populism is the conspiracy theory that a villain stands in the way of easy solutions to hard problems.Ah, okay. But yeah, I view Bernie as an ultimate good for Democrats.
Clearly, we're not going to agree on this one.
Yeah, I was amused by the GOP sitouts who allowed the ACHA to pass, cause it won't do them a world of good.Important to remember that many of the Democrats who lost by the widest margins in 2010 were the ones who ran away from Obama. Guys like Perriello kept it close in red districts by gluing themselves to him.
Granted, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, but there was a correlation. No Democratic president was going to prevent blue dogs from being caught flat-footed in their red ass districts.
Futurevoid
Member
I would feel very comfortable with Sessions gone.
Can't be said enough.
whyamihere
Banned
I think Bernie Sanders is a destructive, negative force as an individual, incapable of doing anything significantly productive for the party in terms of leadership or building infrastructure because he's spent the entirety of his life being able to offer easy answers from the outside because he's never been forced into the position of having to put up or shut up. Bernie never learned any policy details, because in his career, he hasn't had to! (I'll cosign NeoXChaos' take while I'm at it.) To steal a great quote from Twitter - Populism is the conspiracy theory that a villain stands in the way of easy solutions to hard problems.
Clearly, we're not going to agree on this one.
Clearly.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
With Obama and the Dem apparatus, the only major failing I think is that in an effort to look bipartisan and not tip scales and all that, he didn't push for the right people to take those party apparatus positions. He has a good eye for hiring talent so it's a bit pants that we had to do a purge of the party and hire new people, and what do you know? When Obama pushes for people, you get good messages and well-run operations.
I don't think a President should be out calling for cash, Cruz-style, but the idea that the party is supposed to pretend the President is an unknown entity is off to me.
Weed is a great policy goal, but it's not going to help us longterm (it'll help a shitton in the short term I think). It's an easy win, but that means it's not an issue you get to fight for to rally a base for a long time, which seems to be the point of IWMTB's post. Once you legalize it, you're just done and that's it.
With college, IWMTB was referencing the very real idea that spread that not only would college be free (which I think is doable if you've got the policy chops to work it out), but somehow the government would just throw out all loan agreements that had ever been made and let literally everyone off the hook. That's an insane policy idea and would never pass for a variety of reasons. We already have to fight "I paid for my college, why can't you?" I don't want potential left-wing voters who have already paid a good bit in student loans to start saying "I paid off my loan/some of my loan, why can't you?"
I don't think a President should be out calling for cash, Cruz-style, but the idea that the party is supposed to pretend the President is an unknown entity is off to me.
This reads like you think weed and free college are somehow not worthy policy goals? Also, what do you mean by Socialism?
Weed is a great policy goal, but it's not going to help us longterm (it'll help a shitton in the short term I think). It's an easy win, but that means it's not an issue you get to fight for to rally a base for a long time, which seems to be the point of IWMTB's post. Once you legalize it, you're just done and that's it.
With college, IWMTB was referencing the very real idea that spread that not only would college be free (which I think is doable if you've got the policy chops to work it out), but somehow the government would just throw out all loan agreements that had ever been made and let literally everyone off the hook. That's an insane policy idea and would never pass for a variety of reasons. We already have to fight "I paid for my college, why can't you?" I don't want potential left-wing voters who have already paid a good bit in student loans to start saying "I paid off my loan/some of my loan, why can't you?"
whyamihere
Banned
Jason Carter not running for Governor, is pro-Stacey.
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/05/31/georgia-2018-why-jason-carter-isnt-running-for-governor/
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/05/31/georgia-2018-why-jason-carter-isnt-running-for-governor/
Carter, 41, did not rule out a run in the future, likely for statewide rather than federal office in future cycles. He also declined to endorse either of the Democratic candidates House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams and state Rep. Stacey Evans saying only he would be very engaged in the 2018 campaign.
I am very impressed with both Staceys. Both of the candidates are top-flight candidates for our state. Both will make excellent governors, said Carter. The key for Democrats is to present a candidate who can bring the state together in effective ways that can be a governor for the entire state. And both have that potential. Democrats should be excited about having a primary.
The President is the most visible member of the party, so his stances tend to sway the party quite a bit. He might not control every bit of their strategy (as was apparent in 2012) but he has a lot of pull and generally controls messaging for the Party.
Yeah, you're describing the bully pulpit I mentioned. In his post mortem for 2016 he described putting in the work going out and talking in these rural communities to flip the swing states in 2008/2012. Why wasn't DCCC/DSCC following his lead? How was Obama holding them back?
Rahm helped kill Dean's 50-state strategy.Yeah, you're describing the bully pulpit I mentioned. In his post mortem for 2016 he described putting in the work going out and talking in these rural communities to flip the swing states in 2008/2012. Why wasn't DCCC/DSCC following his lead? How was Obama holding them back?
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
It is going to be kind of interesting to see what the Bernie base shakes out to actually be.
Bernie was at 43% in the primary and I could easily see his base breaking down as:
13% moderate white Dems who were anti-Hillary
20% young people
10% lefties
(counting how those voting blocks for Bernie made up of the total percentage of Dem primary voters since scaling would make it a little confusing for future purposes)
And it could turn out that the young people just liked Bernie because they don't want to pay student loans and they want to smoke weed.
And then it would be that 10% of Democrats are actually interested in Socialism.
This is a more extreme version of 2012 where Ron Paul got 20-25% of the primary vote even though only around 3% of Republicans had libertarian beliefs but Ron was clearly more racist and delusional than Romney and managed to pick up racist conspiracy theorists.
Or Bernie's base could be mostly lefties.
We will see.
But the total failure of libertarianism since 2015 should give pause to projecting the future of Socialism in America.
My experience in Canada is that a lot of people in their 20s or 30s who will attach themselves to leftist parties/candidates do so because they can't afford a house. I'm not talking about the more centrist parties here. The few that manage to get one, usually after getting into shaky relationships, start to whine about taxes/costs, but they'll still thumbs up the same candidates on Facebook, don't want to lose face.
whyamihere
Banned
ew warren just plugged TYT
ban her
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
ew warren just plugged TYT
Exhibit #537 for why she'd be a terrible presidential candidate.
whyamihere
Banned
look, Trump now can go back to talking about Hillary Clinton.
@realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary Clinton now blames everybody but herself, refuses to say she was a terrible candidate. Hits Facebook & even Dems & DNC.
Basileus777
Member
look, Trump now can go back to talking about Hillary Clinton.
Did he ever stop? The guy will be talking about Hillary and his electoral victory on his death bed,
whyamihere
Banned
Did he ever stop?
He does when she shuts up about the election!
Futurevoid
Member
look, Trump now can go back to talking about Hillary Clinton.
He just masturbated all over the framed picture of his electoral map after he wrote that.
look, Trump now can go back to talking about Hillary Clinton.
Because he ever stopped?
He's been referencing Hillary and Dems being butt hurt over our loss since Nov 9.
Basileus777
Member
He does when she shuts up about the election!
So never then?
whyamihere
Banned
Because he ever stopped?
He's been referencing Hillary and Dems being butt hurt over our loss since Nov 9.
He hasn't tweeted about Hillary since May 2nd.
Baron von Loathsome
Member
He does when she shuts up about the election!
"Here lies Trump
Look how red this map is"
So less than a month ago?He hasn't tweeted about Hillary since May 2nd.
whyamihere
Banned
So less than a month ago?
Yes? By a day? Cool.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump talks about Hillary whenever there's Russia talk too fyi.
And I'm not saying that weed is a bad policy thing! I really support weed legalization.
I'm just saying that a young person who voted for Bernie may not have interest in a massively expanded welfare state, more regulations, nationalized industries, and more taxation for the middle class. They may just want to smoke weed and have less student loan debt.
And I'm not saying that weed is a bad policy thing! I really support weed legalization.
I'm just saying that a young person who voted for Bernie may not have interest in a massively expanded welfare state, more regulations, nationalized industries, and more taxation for the middle class. They may just want to smoke weed and have less student loan debt.
Bernie's primary coalition was 2/3s Is and 1/3s Ds. It skewed young, white, and rural.It is going to be kind of interesting to see what the Bernie base shakes out to actually be.
Bernie was at 43% in the primary and I could easily see his base breaking down as:
13% moderate white Dems who were anti-Hillary
20% young people
10% lefties
(counting how those voting blocks for Bernie made up of the total percentage of Dem primary voters since scaling would make it a little confusing for future purposes)
And it could turn out that the young people just liked Bernie because they don't want to pay student loans and they want to smoke weed.
And then it would be that 10% of Democrats are actually interested in Socialism.
This is a more extreme version of 2012 where Ron Paul got 20-25% of the primary vote even though only around 3% of Republicans had libertarian beliefs but Ron was clearly more racist and delusional than Romney and managed to pick up racist conspiracy theorists.
Or Bernie's base could be mostly lefties.
We will see.
But the total failure of libertarianism since 2015 should give pause to projecting the future of Socialism in America.
I agree w/ AS that Weed's a great short term issue, but not something w/ much long- term payoff, but that we should be doing it anyway because it's still the right thing to do.
Libertarianism and Socialism (assuming you're not just talking about Social Democracy, which embraces Capitalism) both fail because they're utopian ideologies. "Full" Lassez-Faire and "full" State control (cause you can really never actually have either) both lead to crappy outcomes. You have to find a balance. Not having enough safety nets and regulations is bad, so is having safety nets and regulations so strong that they choke out the economy.
The hell is going on w/ this stuff w/ her and Ro Khanna?ew warren just plugged TYT
That's not that long ago.Yes? By a day? Cool.
Look, I'm not losing sleep over who Trump chooses to tweet about. Because if it's not Hillary, it's Obama.
VendettaRed07
Member
It makes him look more sympathetic for bringing it up if Hillary does first vs bringing it up for unprovoked non legitimate "im totally insecure", petty reasons.Did he ever stop? The guy will be talking about Hillary and his electoral victory on his death bed,
I think if she wants to litigate this it's probably better to wait till trump is out because talking about this is like all he has
But the total failure of libertarianism since 2015 should give pause to projecting the future of Socialism in America.
Sounds like we've got work to do.
Basileus777
Member
Trump talks about Hillary whenever there's Russia talk too fyi.
And I'm not saying that weed is a bad policy thing! I really support weed legalization.
I'm just saying that a young person who voted for Bernie may not have interest in a massively expanded welfare state, more regulations, nationalized industries, and more taxation for the middle class. They may just want to smoke weed and have less student loan debt.
But that's how party coalitions work. You don't get every group of people wanting the entire agenda, they buy into the parts that concern them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.