• 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 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
I don't want to hear another "we weren't even supposed to win Georgia so it's really a victory for us to get that close in such a red district" take again.

People saying it's evidence that Democrats need to get racist are morons and bad people but Ossoff lost and he lost by more than he was supposed to even if he did lose. This was the "winnable" district and had huge amounts of money and energy sunk into it and it certainly won't get that kind of attention next year.

It's not the end of the world but any takes about how the results last night were Good, Actually need to stop.

whyamihere said:
DID I HEAR SAN FRANCISCO VALUES?!?!?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROhNSsi79E
Click to expand...
dying
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
I don't want to hear another "we weren't even supposed to win Georgia so it's really a victory for us to get that close in such a red district" take again.

People saying it's evidence that Democrats need to get racist are morons and bad people but Ossoff lost and he lost by more than he was supposed to even if he did lose. This was the "winnable" district and had huge amounts of money and energy sunk into it and it certainly won't get that kind of attention next year.

It's not the end of the world but any takes about how the results last night were Good, Actually need to stop.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

They ran the numbers and thought it was winnable. If they didn't think so, they would have left it to die like all the other special races. They were way off the mark.

Not a good result and if the party wants to win majorities more consistently then they'll need to win places like this consistently as well. 23m+ and losing by basically the same margins as contests you didn't compete in is terrible management
 
P

PBY

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
I don't want to hear another "we weren't even supposed to win Georgia so it's really a victory for us to get that close in such a red district" take again.

People saying it's evidence that Democrats need to get racist are morons and bad people but Ossoff lost and he lost by more than he was supposed to even if he did lose. This was the "winnable" district and had huge amounts of money and energy sunk into it and it certainly won't get that kind of attention next year.

It's not the end of the world but any takes about how the results last night were Good, Actually need to stop.
Click to expand...

Naaaaaailed it.
 
B

Blader

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
I don't want to hear another "we weren't even supposed to win Georgia so it's really a victory for us to get that close in such a red district" take again.

People saying it's evidence that Democrats need to get racist are morons and bad people but Ossoff lost and he lost by more than he was supposed to even if he did lose. This was the "winnable" district and had huge amounts of money and energy sunk into it and it certainly won't get that kind of attention next year.

It's not the end of the world but any takes about how the results last night were Good, Actually need to stop.
Click to expand...

That might be for the better.

How much was Ossoff supposed to lose by? The polls were essentially in a dead heat, with a margin of error of 4 points. Ossoff lost by just under 4 points. If there's any relatively objective measurement of supposed margins of winning or losing, it seems like his loss was spot on!

VendettaRed07 said:
Pretty much.

They ran the numbers and thought it was winnable. If they didn't think so, they would have left it to die like all the other special races. They were way off the mark.

Not a good result and if the party wants to win majorities more consistently then they'll need to win places like this consistently as well. 23m+ and losing by basically the same margins as contests you didn't compete in is terrible management
Click to expand...

This is really annoying to read because you know damn well if the DNC and DCCC left this race to wither on the vine, you would be among the people who would be (and deservedly so) calling out the party for failing to provide attention and resources to Ossoff's campaign.

The party spent a lopsided amount of money on this race relative to every House race in history, but so did the Republicans! And it would be irresponsible to allow a race where the candidates are basically tied and where the GOP is dumping millions of dollars in support not to respond in kind.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Emerson said:
This is so fucking untrue it's painful.

401ks are the current backbone of middle class retirement savings.
Click to expand...

It wasn't until we got to high five figure jobs that we even started seeing companies offering 401k programs. Matching was a few steps later. How are these hypothetical middle class employees getting these 401ks?
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
I don't want to hear another "we weren't even supposed to win Georgia so it's really a victory for us to get that close in such a red district" take again.

People saying it's evidence that Democrats need to get racist are morons and bad people but Ossoff lost and he lost by more than he was supposed to even if he did lose. This was the "winnable" district and had huge amounts of money and energy sunk into it and it certainly won't get that kind of attention next year.

It's not the end of the world but any takes about how the results last night were Good, Actually need to stop.
Click to expand...

I'd characterize the results as being good, but disappointing.

If nothing else we now have a lot of voter data for GA-06 that will be useful in the future.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
This is also a good chart in terms of the voters that we should be going after.

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

Whether we need a strong government to handle complex economic problems.

Whether there is too much/too little regulation of business by the government.

The measures here are ”absolute" measures as opposed to ”relative." That is, I took the responses to the VOTER Survey questions as given, rather than rescaling the indexes to set the median score at zero. While this transformation would have made for a more symmetrical presentation, it ignores the fact that Americans may hold left-of-center views on some issues and right-of-center views on other issues. These imbalances and asymmetries are important to represent clearly. They are the raw material of both the strategic coalition building and coalition instability described in this chapter.

Supporters of Clinton and Trump are very polarized on identity and moral issues. Views on economic issues are more of a mix.

Trump supporters tend to have more pride in America than Clinton supporters do, and they are more likely to think that their group is in decline. However, these divides are not as significant as many media narratives portrayed them to be.

Divides get much wider as we move toward questions of race and national identity. Trump voters have more negative attitudes than Clinton supporters about African-Americans, are much less supportive of immigration, and have much more negative feelings toward Muslims.

On moral issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender bathrooms), there is an even larger divide between Clinton and Trump supporters in the general election. As we will see later, this was one area where Trump's core supporters looked more moderate than Ted Cruz supporters. However, these questions continue to divide the two parties.

Finally, the traditional issues that have divided the two parties, questions of inequality (whether the rich have too much money and should be taxed more), and questions about government's involvement in the economy (whether government should intervene more or less and whether government should regulate business more or less) continue to divide the parties the most.

To summarize, supporters of Clinton and Trump are very polarized on identity and moral issues. Views on economic issues are more of a mix. Both candidates' supporters are generally supportive of the social safety net, and somewhat concerned about trade. Yet they diverge very much on how concerned they are about inequality, and how actively they want to see government regulate business and intervene in the economy.

The 12 dimensions provide nuance, but for simplicity's sake, it is easier to combine these indexes into the two main dimensions that organize public opinion: questions of economics and questions of culture/social/national identity.

To do this, I created two new indexes:

An economic liberalism-conservatism index (which combines views on the social safety net, trade, inequality, and active government)

A social/identity liberalism-conservatism politics index (which combines the moral issues index plus views toward African-Americans, immigrants, and Muslims).

This allows us to plot all respondents on a single scatterplot, shown here.

figure2_drutman_e4aabc39aab12644609701bbacdff252.png
Click to expand...

Most Clinton supporters cluster in the lower-left corner: liberal on both economic and identity issues. Trump supporters cluster in the upper-middle: conservative on identity issues, and somewhat conservative on economic issues.4 Trump general election voters, however, are more widely dispersed on economic issues, ranging more broadly from liberal to conservative.

To simplify further, we can break the electorate into four types, based on their position in the four quadrants of Figure 2:

Liberal (44.6 percent): Lower left, liberal on both economic and identity issues
Populist (28.9 percent): Upper left, liberal on economic issues, conservative on identity issues
Conservative (22.7 percent): Upper right, conservative on both economic and identity issues
Libertarian (3.8 percent): Lower right, conservative on economics, liberal on identity issues

figure3_drutman_e4aabc39aab12644609701bbacdff252.png
Click to expand...
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
I don't want to hear another "we weren't even supposed to win Georgia so it's really a victory for us to get that close in such a red district" take again.

People saying it's evidence that Democrats need to get racist are morons and bad people but Ossoff lost and he lost by more than he was supposed to even if he did lose. This was the "winnable" district and had huge amounts of money and energy sunk into it and it certainly won't get that kind of attention next year.

It's not the end of the world but any takes about how the results last night were Good, Actually need to stop.

dying
Click to expand...

On the other hand, all the takes about how this is apocalyptically bad for the Democrats are really stupid and generally regressive.

Maybe we can compromise on "this is whatever."
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
pigeon said:
It wasn't until we got to high five figure jobs that we even started seeing companies offering 401k programs. Matching was a few steps later. How are these hypothetical middle class employees getting these 401ks?
Click to expand...

Anyone can set up a 401k through tdameritrade or something else. The problem is that too many people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the money to fund one.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Plenty of near misses get turned into gains. No reason why Ossoff can't run again in 2018 and win. Or any other candidate in Georgia 6 for that matter.

This doesn't really have any bearing on 2018 chances, imo. What it does have an impact on is the likelihood of AHCA passing.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
Anyone can set up a 401k through tdameritrade or something else. The problem is that too many people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have the money to fund one.
Click to expand...

Sure, exactly. My original point was that middle class people don't have enough money to save in the first place. So they won't be setting up their own 401ks. Which is your point as well.
 
H

Hooligan69

Member
Blader said:
That might be for the better.

How much was Ossoff supposed to lose by? The polls were essentially in a dead heat, with a margin of error of 4 points. Ossoff lost by just under 4 points. If there's any relatively objective measurement of supposed margins of winning or losing, it seems like his loss was spot on!.
Click to expand...

They need to start factoring in the fact that so many Democrats, or Dem-leaning Independents, don't show up to vote, even if they are polled saying they will. Factor in an automatic -4 for any Dem in a poll to get a better idea of actual voting numbers.

Pollsters come to you, it's easy to say yes. But having to show up to vote is like going to the gym for so many, and they end up bailing, figuring it doesn't matter anyway.

The GOP has so poisoned the well that a majority of voters now think it doesn't matter so why bother.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Hooligan69 said:
They need to start factoring in the fact that so many Democrats, or Dem-leaning Independents, don't show up to vote, even if they are polled saying they will. Factor in an automatic -4 for any Dem in a poll to get a better idea of actual voting numbers.

Pollsters come to you, it's easy to say yes. But having to show up to vote is like going to the gym for so many, and they end up bailing, figuring it doesn't matter anyway.

The GOP has so poisoned the well that a majority of voters now think it doesn't matter so why bother.
Click to expand...

Democrats turned out for Ossoff. Turnout wasn't a problem at all, it was almost presidential election levels, which is insane for a special election.

Just more Republicans turned out as well, and it's a Republican district, so high turnout is bad for Ossoff.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
pigeon said:
On the other hand, all the takes about how this is apocalyptically bad for the Democrats are really stupid and generally regressive.

Maybe we can compromise on "this is whatever."
Click to expand...

I can compromise on "this is whatever". It corroborates that internal polling that someone released earlier, showing the Democrats close to a majority but not quite there yet. So progress has been made, the goal has not been reached, there is time. Learning experience.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Hooligan69 said:
They need to start factoring in the fact that so many Democrats, or Dem-leaning Independents, don't show up to vote, even if they are polled saying they will. Factor in an automatic -4 for any Dem in a poll to get a better idea of actual voting numbers.

Pollsters come to you, it's easy to say yes. But having to show up to vote is like going to the gym for so many, and they end up bailing, figuring it doesn't matter anyway.

The GOP has so poisoned the well that a majority of voters now think it doesn't matter so why bother.
Click to expand...
Voting is easier than committing to the gym, and people still won't do it...
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Jeet has been banging on this drum for a while, and he's right.

@HeerJeet
Actually, the greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing Democrats their future lay in winning over moderate Republicans.
Click to expand...

https://newrepublic.com/article/143450/anti-anti-trumpism-glue-holding-together-republican-party

Karen Handel’s narrow victory over Jon Ossoff in last night’s special election in Georgia shows how Republicans can keep their coalition together despite President Donald Trump’s unpopularity. True, Trump was a drag on Handel, who won by four points in a conservative district that Tom Price, now Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary, carried by 23 points just six months ago. But in the end, Handel convinced enough Republicans to come home to the party, which she did by shrewdly realizing what unifies the party: anti-anti-Trumpism.

During the campaign, Handel, a former Georgia secretary of state, took care to avoid mentioning Trump’s name whenever possible, referring to him only as “the president.” But as David Weigel reported in the Washington Post, Handel and her political allies ran a tribalist campaign designed to remind Republicans voters that, whatever they might feel about Trump, they hate his opponents more. They relentlessly linked Ossoff to Trump’s critics, from establishment figures like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to outliers such as controversial comedian Kathy Griffin.

“Griffin, whose involvement in the race was limited to one April tweet in support of Ossoff, has now been linked to [Bernie] Sanders and Pelosi in a lineup of ‘childish radicals’ who back the Democrat,” Weigel wrote. “The ad strategy, and the campaign visit from Republicans such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, have had almost nothing to say about what Republicans were working on in Washington. The message was that Republicans would feel terrible if they had to watch Democrats celebrate.”

Handel hit on the magic formula for keeping Republican voters from jumping ship: a politics of negative partisanship taken to its logical extreme, where political identity is based solely on opposition to the other side. This anti-anti-Trumpism is now the glue holding together the otherwise fraying Republican coalition. It’s a weirdly contorted ideology, a counter-punching worldview that shows that the power of hatred can be the strongest force in politics.

Anti-anti-Trumpism is a natural outgrowth of longstanding Republican tendencies toward negative politics, which ramped up in the 1990s when then–House Speaker Newt Gingrich and fellow Republicans made opposing President Bill Clinton the primary feature of their party. But this anti-Democratic and anti-liberal philosophy has been updated today to account for an unpopular Republican president: Whatever you dislike about Trump, rest assured his opponents are far worse.

Anti-anti-Trumpism pervades conservative thinking, and is especially strong in an unexpected quarter: among “Never Trump” Republicans. Media outlets like National Review and The Federalist, which once warned that Trump was a menace to conservatism, are now devoted to decrying the president’s critics, sometimes portraying them as subversives who will stop at nothing, not even violence, to defeat Trump. Matt Lewis, a conservative writer at the Daily Beast, on Wednesday lamented this “shift” at The Federalist, writing, “It’s one thing to point out the left’s hypocrisy and the media’s hyperventilation; it’s another thing to cast Trump as a victim.”

Anti-anti-Trumpism is an increasingly comfortable mode for many conservatives because it allows them to maintain a right-wing identity, and support the Republican Congress, without affirmatively backing the toxic president himself. It’s an especially convenient position for traditional conservative writers who want to remain relevant—that is, to retain their readership—in the age of Trump. “The anti-anti-Trump position is a safe one,” John Ziegler, a Mediaite columnist and conservative talk show host, told Lewis, “because you’re giving the Trump cult what they want while you’re also trying to pretend you’re standing on some sort of principle.”

The powerful appeal of anti-anti-Trumpism is evident in the latest New York Times column by David Brooks, once the embodiment of intellectual Never Trumpism. Brooks compares the ongoing Russia investigation with the fake Whitewater scandal that Republicans ginned up in the 1990s, a comparison that immediately falls apart when Brooks admits he doesn’t even know what Whitewater was all about: “I was the op-ed editor at The Wall Street Journal at the peak of the Whitewater scandal. We ran a series of investigative pieces ‘raising serious questions’ (as we say in the scandal business) about the nefarious things the Clintons were thought to have done back in Arkansas. Now I confess I couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays.”

Starting from this place of ignorance, Brooks confidently concludes, “In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown. And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington. There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred—that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians.” He later writes that “frankly, on my list of reasons Trump is unfit for the presidency, the Russia-collusion story ranks number 971.”

The Whitewater scandal grew out of investments the Clintons made with friends Jim and Susan McDougal in Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s. While the McDougals received felony convictions for various shady business dealings, multiple government inquiries found no evidence connecting these crimes to the Clintons and no member of the Clinton administration was implicated. The Russia investigation has already had far more real-world consequences—for starters, the resignation of national security advisor Michael Flynn and the firing of FBI Director James Comey. And let’s not forget what started it all: Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the intent of helping Trump, and perhaps were responsible for his election. The Russia investigation is still in its early days, but it is already much closer to Watergate—which, it’s worth noting, began with the burglarization of a Democratic Party office by Nixon White House operatives, not a widespread hacking campaign by a hostile foreign power—than Whitewater.

Why is David Brooks suddenly running interference for Trump? For the same reason that National Review and The Federalist have become organs for attacking Trump’s foes, and that most Republican voters reverted to partisan loyalty and voted for Handel: politics is tribal. Brooks’s might present himself as a thoughtful, above-the-fray conservative, but at the end of the day, he too feels the tug of loyalty. A Republican president is being attacked, and his instinct is to find extenuating reasons for the man’s controversial actions.

In making sense of anti-anti-Trumpism, Lewis wrote that “the Trump presidency is dangerous for conservatives, in part because it confuses things. It’s hard to justify your existence as a balance to the liberal media if you are spending most of your time criticizing a Republican president.” This may well be what Brooks, a fierce critic of Trump last year, has come to realize. But his essays are now weaker for it. As Lewis wrote, “If you’re not keen on defending the indefensible (which would be most of Trump’s rhetoric), you end up making a lot of tu quoque arguments that become hackneyed and predictable.”

Trump himself might even realize the power of anti-anti-Trumpism—that would explain his otherwise inexplicable decision to keep harping on “Crooked H,” more than half a year after he defeated her. Because anti-anti-Trumpism is the cohesive force keeping the Republicans together, we can expect both Trump and other Republicans’ to continue to demonize his critics at every turn. This will only intensify as Trump finds himself in more political trouble—and it should give Democrats pause. Ossoff, like Clinton before him, bet that he could win over enough disaffected Republicans to win. But in this age of negative partisanship, as Tuesday night’s results prove, it’s extremely hard to create enough converts. As they strategize for next year’s midterms, Democrats should accept the indomitable force of anti-anti-Trumpism and focus instead on energizing the very people whom anti-anti-Trumpers are demonizing.
Click to expand...
 
K

Kusagari

Member
pigeon said:
It wasn't until we got to high five figure jobs that we even started seeing companies offering 401k programs. Matching was a few steps later. How are these hypothetical middle class employees getting these 401ks?
Click to expand...

My job offers 401ks to everyone, even those making $10 an hour.
 
H

Hyoukokun

Member
pigeon said:
It wasn't until we got to high five figure jobs that we even started seeing companies offering 401k programs. Matching was a few steps later. How are these hypothetical middle class employees getting these 401ks?
Click to expand...
I had access to (and took advantage of) a 401k program with matching when I started out at a $50K/year salary. My sister works part time for a big clothing retailer, and she has a 401k through them. I recognize these are both anecdotes - if anyhow has hard numbers on the availability of 401Ks at various different income levels, it could be helpful.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
I'll go with "the result is disappointing, but it's not all bad news." As I've said many times now, my main complaint with last night's results is one of strategy. We're writing off way too many races so we can dump money far past the point where it's useful into a narrowly selected set of races based on what consultants consider to be the key demographic.

What's important now is to take what we've learned about what we're doing well and what's going wrong and apply those lessons to 2018, which is the real prize anyway.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Blader said:
This is really annoying to read because you know damn well if the DNC and DCCC left this race to wither on the vine, you would be among the people who would be (and deservedly so) calling out the party for failing to provide attention and resources to Ossoff's campaign.

The party spent a lopsided amount of money on this race relative to every House race in history, but so did the Republicans! And it would be irresponsible to allow a race where the candidates are basically tied and where the GOP is dumping millions of dollars in support not to respond in kind.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between paying attention and poor investment by incorrectly asserting that this race was significantly more winnable than the other ones they ignored.

The party seems bent on making assumptions that they can only win based on demographics and that the candidate or message is largely irrelevant. Doing that instead of trying in areas the party might not be favorable in is literally what cost them 2016. Even Obama pointed that out after the loss that he wouldn't have won had he deployed that sort of strategy instead of parking his ass in rural Iowa for several months.

It's not just "ignore" or "pay attention to". A better strategy would have been to fund all the different races and try different strategies instead of banking everything on one. The amount Republicans spent in this race was largely a counter to the fact they saw this was the only one they cared about. Had they spread resources out the GOP would likely have done the same and we wouldn't have gotten several special elections that were DOA and one that turned into a national referendum.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Ossoff, like Clinton before him, bet that he could win over enough disaffected Republicans to win. But in this age of negative partisanship, as Tuesday night’s results prove, it’s extremely hard to create enough converts. As they strategize for next year’s midterms, Democrats should accept the indomitable force of anti-anti-Trumpism and focus instead on energizing the very people whom anti-anti-Trumpers are demonizing.
Click to expand...

This is a valid point but Heer and the people on this board who support an agenda that brings back wayward Dems need to acknowledge that doing this is going to require some policies that aren't terribly progressive. A candidate that wants to do well in the Midwest will have to focus on economic populism and make concessions on race and gender issues. Much like Manchin and Heitkamp are doing now.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
BoogieWoogie said:
I guess I'll never get how Obama beat Romney if all these moderate Republicans were unreachable.
Click to expand...

This is a good point (although I wouldn't call them all republicans), and we know there were many Obama --> Trump voters. I think it just comes down to charisma.
 
J

jtb

Banned
at the end of the day, I think the DNC and DCCC saw very little electoral upside to contesting any of these special elections and wanted to keep their powder dry for 2018. after all, many of these fluky special election wins just end up flipping right back during the general.

I don't know if they were right not to factor in stuff like AHCA into it, but... eh.

Roland_Gunner said:
This is a valid point but Heer and the people on this board who support an agenda that brings back wayward Dems need to acknowledge that doing this is going to require some policies that aren't terribly progressive. A candidate that wants to do well in the Midwest will have to focus on economic populism and make concessions on race and gender issues. Much like Manchin and Heitkamp are doing now.
Click to expand...

But, remember, those aren't progressive issues.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Is the history of Nancy Pelosi, her beliefs, what her job actually is, her voting history and the history of her leadership some kind of profound hidden secret passed down by blind monks living in the Rocky Mountains?

Because... nobody seems to know anything about Nancy Pelosi lol

Doesn't stop them from hating her, though!
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
whyamihere said:
This is also a good chart in terms of the voters that we should be going after.

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem to clarify things?

If we shouldn't pursue moderate Republicans, we have to pursue the racists who voted for Obama because they thought Rmoney would take their Medicare. But Trump is far to Romney's left on Social Security and Medicare. So, uhh, not seeing an obvious path from this.

We could also win by winning back Bill Clinton voters in Appalachia and claiming that global warming is a hoax, but that would kill millions...
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
This is a valid point but Heer and the people on this board who support an agenda that brings back wayward Dems need to acknowledge that doing this is going to require some policies that aren't terribly progressive. A candidate that wants to do well in the Midwest will have to focus on economic populism and make concessions on race and gender issues. Much like Manchin and Heitkamp are doing now.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't need to make concessions on race and gender to win Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
This doesn't seem to clarify things?

If we shouldn't pursue moderate Republicans, we have to pursue the racists who voted for Obama because they thought Rmoney would take their Medicare. But Trump is far to Romney's left on Social Security and Medicare. So, uhh, not seeing an obvious path from this.
Click to expand...

Well, clearly Trump's actions are not to the left of Romney on social security and Medicare. Seems to be something to attack him on in 2020!
 
A

Abinash117

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
This is a valid point but Heer and the people on this board who support an agenda that brings back wayward Dems need to acknowledge that doing this is going to require some policies that aren't terribly progressive. A candidate that wants to do well in the Midwest will have to focus on economic populism and make concessions on race and gender issues. Much like Manchin and Heitkamp are doing now.
Click to expand...

If you are in a district/state that has sizable diversity people should know what to run.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
fuck 'em up Jeet

pigeon said:
On the other hand, all the takes about how this is apocalyptically bad for the Democrats are really stupid and generally regressive.

Maybe we can compromise on "this is whatever."
Click to expand...
Any take about how this the end of the party or a permanent GOP majority is incredibly dumb for sure. I just don't want to see "well actually this is a red district" held as an excuse.
 
K

kirblar

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Is the history of Nancy Pelosi, her beliefs, what her job actually is, her voting history and the history of her leadership some kind of profound hidden secret passed down by blind monks living in the Rocky Mountains?

Because... nobody seems to know anything about Nancy Pelosi lol

Doesn't stop them from hating her, though!
Click to expand...
Gamergate (and it's "corrupt" language being picked up and used against Clinton) should have taught you that only one thing matters to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
230
41K
elbourreau replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
58K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
How games prevent us from Crossing Map Boundaries? (2010 - 2020)
Analysis Trailer
2
1K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom