Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

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



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!

Trump hasn't done anything to affect Social Security or Medicare.

This analysis also basically assumes that a Hitler like National Socialist would be unbeatable in America.

 

[benicillin]

Lol god damn:

The Wall Street Journal has fired its highly regarded chief foreign affairs correspondent after evidence emerged about his involvement in a prospective business deal with an international businessman who was one of his key sources.

The newspaper says it was ”dismayed by the actions and poor judgment" of reporter Jay Solomon.

Solomon was offered a 10 percent stake in a fledgling company by Farhad Azima, an Iranian-born aviation magnate who has ferried weapons for the CIA. It was not clear whether Solomon ever received money or formally accepted a stake in the company.

Azima was the subject of an Associated Press investigative story published Tuesday. During the course of the investigation, the AP obtained emails and text messages between Azima and Solomon, as well as other documents.

https://apnews.com/d71bf1b8c2304329...low&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

 

[whyamihere]

Trump hasn't done anything to affect Social Security or Medicare.

This analysis also basically assumes that a Hitler like National Socialist would be unbeatable in America.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksh...ecurity-and-medicaid-breaking-major-promises/

Donald Trump's budget is based on dubious assumptions about economic growth and a strategy of extremely deep cuts into many forms of social spending. Two areas Trump has claimed since the campaign trail that would remain inviolate are Social Security and Medicaid. But both would see cuts cuts under this budget.

The budget's executive summary repeated the claim that Social Security was safe:

This plan will put our Nation’s budget back into balance and begin to reduce the national debt through fiscally conservative principles that respect American taxpayers – all while preserving Social Security and Medicare.

A number of outlets like the New York Times have taken the Social Security claim at face value. But as Center for American Progress Director of Fiscal Policy Harry Stein pointed out on Twitter, Social Security does see significant cuts in the form of Social Security Disability Insurance.

Social Security payroll taxes cover retirement, survivor benefits, and disability. People who find themselves permanently disabled and incapable of working at all — only about a third of applicants pass the vetting process, according to government statistics — can receive Social Security benefits. In 2016, that was about 8.8 million people, a decrease of 1.13% over the previous year. Children and spouses can potentially also become eligible, which can add close to 2 million additional people. In 2016, the total spent was $142.7 billion.

The cuts are supposed to produce total savings of $72 billion between 2018 and 2027 and are listed as a budget line item called "Reform disability programs." As NBC News reported, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters yesterday that Trump intended only to protect the retirement benefits part of Social Security, although he made no such distinction in the past.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Let's say Trump 2 is economically moderate or progressive.

WhyAmIHere and Max'd, could we beat this candidate without getting more racist?

 

[Roland_Gunner]

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

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!

Then we should go out and find a couple dozen more Barack Obamas. How hard could that be?

Beyond his skills as a politician Obama also had the auto industry bailout to lean on. That was a huge part of the 2012 election and something modern Dems can't replicate. Also, the GOP has at least superficially become more populist on issues like trade that makes it harder for Dems to appeal to those folks. It seems to me, we have to either give ground on social issues to make up for this or wait for Trump to really screw up health care or the economy which is going to cause massive pain for millions.

 

[whyamihere]

Let's say Trump 2 is economically moderate or progressive.

WhyAmIHere and Max'd, could we beat this candidate without getting more racist?

Yes, but he's also not! His budget isn't! You attack him on these things.

Then we should go out and find a couple dozen more Barack Obamas. How hard could that be?

Beyond his skills as a politician Obama also had the auto industry bailout to lean on. That was a huge part of the 2012 election and something modern Dems can't replicate. Also, the GOP has at least superficially become more populist on issues like trade that makes it harder for Dems to appeal to those folks. It seems to me, we have to either give ground on social issues to make up for this or wait for Trump to really screw up health care or the economy which is going to cause massive pain for millions.

I do not think trying to win back old Obama voters versus people who never voted Democrat in their life is the worst plan. I also think Trump is betraying most of his promises. Great! Run on that.

 

[jtb]

Saw an interesting graph on Twitter: Paul Ryan and Pelosi have nearly identical favorable/unfavorables.

Let's run against Paul Ryan!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Crazy that the PDP is going to have a vote of no confidence on Pelosi's shadow government!

I laughed.

 

[whyamihere]

I laughed.

Thank you it was for two people.

Saw an interesting graph on Twitter: Paul Ryan and Pelosi have nearly identical favorable/unfavorables.

Let's run against Paul Ryan!

Not a bad idea!

 

[Autodidact]

Saw an interesting graph on Twitter: Paul Ryan and Pelosi have nearly identical favorable/unfavorables.

Let's run against Paul Ryan!

But Paul Ryan has a penis.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Saw an interesting graph on Twitter: Paul Ryan and Pelosi have nearly identical favorable/unfavorables.

Let's run against Paul Ryan!

Honestly, this is not a bad idea. I would be doing it for sure. Ryan is on completely the opposite side of the party to Obama -> Trump switchers, you can really drive a wedge in there.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Ceding traditionally Democratic voters without a fight and hoping to make up for it with Romney Republicans is not a viable strategy. On the other hand for all the hand wringing, we are making inroads in suburbs and the Sun Belt. So, you know, maybe we go after all of them?

 

[whyamihere]

Honestly, this is not a bad idea. I would be doing it for sure. Ryan is on completely the opposite side of the party to Obama -> Trump switchers, you can really drive a wedge in there.

Agreed. It's a great idea!

Ceding traditionally Democratic voters and hoping to make up for it with Romney Republicans is not a viable strategy. On the other hand for all the hand wringing, we are making inroads in suburbs and the Sun Belt. So, you know, maybe we go after all of them?

We can do both! But in the chance that the sunbelt is not yet ready to vote Dem (see: Ossoff, Jon), trying to activate Democratic voters is ALSO a good idea.

 

[Blader]

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.

Didn't the massive influx of cash into GA-6 come after the Kansas and Montana races were already over? They poured an outsize amount of resources into Ossoff's campaign because he finished so highly in the primary, and Quist and Thompson were already done. That's why the race was deemed the most winnable and the most deserving of resources.

In any event, we now have four special elections with different candidates fielding different messages, and with varying levels of party and outside support. And they all lost. So, I'm not sure what the takeaway is here re: funding.

 

[daedalius]

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



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

So an article about how being on the winning team, and continuing to win, and 'beating' the other team, is far more important than if you like the people on your own team.

Sounds like 'merica to me.

 

[TumblingHippo]

Then we should go out and find a couple dozen more Barack Obamas. How hard could that be?

Beyond his skills as a politician Obama also had the auto industry bailout to lean on. That was a huge part of the 2012 election and something modern Dems can't replicate. Also, the GOP has at least superficially become more populist on issues like trade that makes it harder for Dems to appeal to those folks. It seems to me, we have to either give ground on social issues to make up for this or wait for Trump to really screw up health care or the economy which is going to cause massive pain for millions.

Do not give up ground on social issues. Do that and they'll lose even more people. Just like folks saying we should stop going for gun laws or abortion. Becoming more like the opposition isn't going to gain ground.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ceding traditionally Democratic voters without a fight and hoping to make up for it with Romney Republicans is not a viable strategy. On the other hand for all the hand wringing, we are making inroads in suburbs and the Sun Belt. So, you know, maybe we go after all of them?

I mean, there's trade-offs, right? Those are, demographically, two rather different sets of voters. I think you have to be careful about overreach there - if you reach for both you might end with neither.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Clinton's 1996 campaign made extensive use of "Dole/Gingrich" in advertising, practically treating the Speaker as though he were Dole's running mate. Just a thought.

 

[Abinash117]

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...

Doesn't mean we shouldn't pick up a few, but expecting to win them or win in areas they are concentrated is foolish.

 

[kirblar]

I mean, there's trade-offs, right? Those are, demographically, two rather different sets of voters. I think you have to be careful about overreach there - if you reach for both you might end with neither.

(you just picked up both in your election!)

 

[Box of Kittens]

There definitely are tradeoffs. For the most part I'd say it's more important right now craft an appealing message for the Rust Belt rather than the Sun Belt, both because we're still closer there (less than 70K votes spread across PA/MI/WI) and because I think the Sun Belt will continue to move in our direction regardless (again we should always be careful about extending lessons from one country to another, but it is instructive where Corbyn made inroads).

 

[Emerson]

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?

I know an awful lot of people making 50-60k a year who have 401ks through their jobs. Your contention that it's only for people making close to 100k is just outright untrue.

I might make a lot, but my wife makes like 30k a year and has a 401k through her job. Same for my best friend who makes about 40k.

 

[smokeymicpot]

Lol god damn:



https://apnews.com/d71bf1b8c2304329...low&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

Full story is crazy.

In an April 2015 email, Azima wrote to Solomon about a proposal for a $725 million air-operations, surveillance and reconnaissance support contract with the United Arab Emirates that would allow planes to spy on activity inside nearby Iran. Solomon was supposed to ferry the proposal to UAE government representatives at a lunch the following day, the email said.

“We all wish best of luck to Jay on his first defense sale,” Azima wrote to Solomon, Bernsten and Modell.

Under the proposed UAE deal, Azima’s firms were to manage specially equipped surveillance planes to monitor activity in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

In October 2014, Solomon wrote to Azima in a text message: “Our business opportunities are so promising.”

In another message that same month, Solomon asked Azima whether he had told a mutual friend about their business plans.

“Hell no!” Azima replied.

The emails show Solomon’s relationship with

 

[Vixdean]

I mean people keep trying to do some sort of weird political recursion analysis where the results of each one of these special elections proves their theory for why Hillary/Democrats lost in 2016. None of these special elections have a goddamn thing to do with 2016, or 2018 or 2020 for that matter. We know why Hillary lost and we know how to correct it, it's just a matter of finding the right candidate between now and then. Everything else is just pissing into your own mouth for the fun of it.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Agreed. It's a great idea!

which is why the dems won't do it

Spoiler

they go low we go high [fart noises]

 

[Box of Kittens]

I mean people keep trying to do some sort of weird political recursion analysis where the results of each one of these special elections proves their theory for why Hillary/Democrats lost in 2016. None of these special elections have a goddamn thing to do with 2016, or 2018 or 2020 for that matter. We know why Hillary lost and we know how to correct it, it's just a matter of finding the right candidate between now and then. Everything else is just pissing into your own mouth for the fun of it.

The results of all the special elections were basically perfect for allowing everyone to put forth their desired narratives.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

(you just picked up both in your election!)

Yes, but if that is the model you want to copy, it has a conclusion you won't like. The UK's Brexit is America's racism, roughly speaking. Leave is analogous to high mistrust of black people and Remain is analogous to less. If Corbyn had fought an election on Brexit, he would have been roundly and comprehensively beaten. There's no dobubt about this at all, this is about as close to an objective statement as you can make about these things. There are more Leavers than Remainers.

Corbyn's strategy was to not make this the Brexit election. Labour's position on Brexit was made as... woolly... as possible. I mean, there were certain key tenets (membership of the Customs Union) and Labour's position on Brexit under the surface is about as liberal as you can get and still 'win' an election, but Labour rarely took the opportunity to talk about them and tried to change the subject if they ever came up. By doing this, Labour turned a Brexit election into an economy election. UKIP voters were never especially dissimilar to Labour on economic matters, they just felt like the system was rigged and that other people seemed to be first in the queue. With Brexit not really an issue, and the leader of the Labour conceding: hey, yes, the system is rigged, that meant they fell back to Labour (at least, in much larger numbers than expected).

The American equivalent would basically be the Democrats just not talking about minority issues. They'd still hold a position on it, a very liberal position, but it would be very much not centre stage, and again often somewhat woolly when it comes to the detail. By starving that particular topic of air, and pushing aggressively on the economy, they would be able to separate those Obama -> Trump voters who are very different from the Democrats on social issues but much less separated on economic issues.

So I'm not sure many people in this thread are going to be receptive to that conclusion.

 

[Dan]

Lol god damn:



https://apnews.com/d71bf1b8c2304329...low&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

Solomon's explanation seems... lacking.

“I clearly made mistakes in my reporting and entered into a world I didn’t understand.” Solomon told the AP on Wednesday. “I never entered into any business with Farhad Azima, nor did I ever intend to. But I understand why the emails and the conversations I had with Mr. Azima may look like I was involved in some seriously troubling activities. I apologize to my bosses and colleagues at the Journal, who were nothing but great to me.”

 

[kirblar]

Yes, but if that is the model you want to copy, it has a conclusion you won't like. The UK's Brexit is America's racism, roughly speaking. Leave is analogous to high mistrust of black people and Remain is analogous to less. If Corbyn had fought an election on Brexit, he would have been roundly and comprehensively beaten. There's no dobubt about this at all, this is about as close to an objective statement as you can make about these things. There are more Leavers than Remainers.

Corbyn's strategy was to not make this the Brexit election. Labour's position on Brexit was made as... woolly... as possible. I mean, there were certain key tenets (membership of the Customs Union) and Labour's position on Brexit under the surface is about as liberal as you can get and still 'win' an election, but Labour rarely took the opportunity to talk about them and tried to change the subject if they ever came up. By doing this, Labour turned a Brexit election into an economy election. UKIP voters were never especially dissimilar to Labour on economic matters, they just felt like the system was rigged and that other people seemed to be first in the queue. With Brexit not really an issue, that meant they fell back to Labour.

The American equivalent would basically be the Democrats just not talking about minority issues. They'd still hold a position on it, a very liberal position, but it would be very much not centre stage, and again often somewhat woolly when it comes to the detail. By starving that particular topic of air, and pushing aggressively on the economy, they would be able to separate those Obama -> Trump voters who are very different from the Democrats on social issues but much less separated on economic issues.

So I'm not sure many people in this thread are going to be receptive to that conclusion.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that we're actively pushing those narratives!

We're not! Fox News & Co push them relentlessly 24/7. They push a white supremacist narrative! Racism is a luxury good, and as long as the economy is doing well, it's very difficult to get people to stop eating it!

Hell, this is sort of an unspoken thing w/ BLM's change in tactics to organization/behind-the-scenes stuff- the horrible, unfortunate implication that protesting riles up Trump's base!

 

[Stinkles]

Trump hadn't done anything crazy for days. Soothe me GAF plz. Easier me he will tweet some admission or crazy bs soon.

 

[benicillin]

Trump hadn't done anything crazy for days. Soothe me GAF plz. Easier me he will tweet some admission or crazy bs soon.

He's supposed to give up any Comey tapes by Friday so something silly will happen I'm sure.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Trump hadn't done anything crazy for days. Soothe me GAF plz. Easier me he will tweet some admission or crazy bs soon.

His lawyers are pinning him down Gulliver's Travel style.

 

[jtb]

I have no understanding whatsoever of British politics, but how is Labour an instructive example if they still couldn't drag themselves over the finish line to a majority/plurality? Are they expected to form a coalition government?

 

[Autodidact]

I have no understanding whatsoever of British politics, but how is Labour an instructive example if they still couldn't drag themselves over the finish line to a majority/plurality? Are they expected to form a coalition government?

A socialist who narrowly loses is better than a centrist who almost wins.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Again, you seem to be under the impression that we're actively pushing those narratives!

We're not! Fox News & Co push them relentlessly 24/7. They push a white supremacist narrative! Racism is a luxury good, and as long as the economy is doing well, it's very difficult to get people to stop eating it!

Hell, this is sort of an unspoken thing w/ BLM's change in tactics to organization/behind-the-scenes stuff- the horrible, unfortunate implication that protesting riles up Trump's base!

Actually, no, I think the Democrats have got the first part of the message, so no quibbles there. Where they're failing now is the second part of the message, because currently they have no message. Nobody had any idea what Ossoff stood for other than not being the Republican candidate. Go out there and tell the people the system is rigged, and you're going to fix it! I mean, the system elected Donald Trump - of course it's rigged!

 

[The Technomancer]

The only narrative I'm taking from both Labour's inability to achieve a majority and the Democrats being on the back foot for the last seven years is that anyone who believes the population is overwhelmingly progressive and just jaded is full of shit. Beyond that...eh

 

[fredrancour]

I have no understanding whatsoever of British politics, but how is Labour an instructive example if they still couldn't drag themselves over the finish line to a majority/plurality? Are they expected to form a coalition government?

The Scottish nationalist party turned off enough voters railing for another independence referendum that Tories were able to snag unlikely seats in Scotland that kept them afloat

 

[smokeymicpot]

Trump hadn't done anything crazy for days. Soothe me GAF plz. Easier me he will tweet some admission or crazy bs soon.

https://apnews.com/a416461c199547ee9cd75e3cbf0aab3e

Trump to host Trump re-election fundraiser at Trump hotel

 

[Dan]

https://apnews.com/a416461c199547ee9cd75e3cbf0aab3e

Trump to host Trump re-election fundraiser at Trump hotel

LOL, wonder how much they're charging for the venue...

 

[Stinkles]

https://apnews.com/a416461c199547ee9cd75e3cbf0aab3e

Trump to host Trump re-election fundraiser at Trump hotel

Better than nothing I guess. He will say some crazy shit no doubt.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I have no understanding whatsoever of British politics, but how is Labour an instructive example if they still couldn't drag themselves over the finish line to a majority/plurality? Are they expected to form a coalition government?

This is a long answer but British politics is more, uh, path-based than American politics? As in, you very rarely see huge swing in seats from one party to the other, because seats are much smaller in terms of population than American ones and so you have strong incumbency effects, because the strength of a shadow cabinet depends on the number of seats currently held and so parties often need time to rebuild talent, and so on.

This shows the extent of Labour's recovery:

I mean, Corbyn didn't do as well as Attlee, but hey, that's a pretty high bar what with Attlee being the best postwar leader of any Western nation.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I have no understanding whatsoever of British politics, but how is Labour an instructive example if they still couldn't drag themselves over the finish line to a majority/plurality? Are they expected to form a coalition government?

In my case I brought it up because Labour ran on a left agenda and still saw big swings in their favor and picked up seats in well-educated areas that traditionally vote Tory. There's an assumption in many Democratic circles that adopting a more unabashedly left position on economic issues will scare off suburban and Sun Belt voters, and I'm not sure that's actually all that clear.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

A socialist who narrowly loses is better than a centrist who almost wins.

if they're both losers, we should at least run on the moral platform

The only narrative I'm taking from both Labour's inability to achieve a majority and the Democrats being on the back foot for the last seven years is that anyone who believes the population is overwhelmingly progressive and just jaded is full of shit. Beyond that...eh

Labour is both poised to win another election and also made massive gains that took significant power away from the Tories after both the media and half of Labour tried to sabotage Corbyn's campaign.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, you have to understand that Labour's position is now an incredibly good one to be in. They require only a very small swing to take a majority since they've opened up a new type of marginal swing, they don't have to take any of the consequences of Brexit, and they've reduced the Conservatives to the state that Conservative pro-Europe rebels can make enormous difficulties. I don't know anyone in the Labour Party who isn't over the moon right now, the party is really on the up in every way. The election result unified all the old wounds overnight.

 

[nature boy]

Enjoy!

 

[Roland_Gunner]

In my case I brought it up because Labour ran on a left agenda and still saw big swings in their favor and picked up seats in well-educated areas that traditionally vote Tory. There's an implicit assumption in many Democratic circles that adopting a more unabashedly left position on economic issues will scare off suburban and Sun Belt voters, and I'm not sure that's actually all that clear.

But as Crab laid out, Labour ran to left economically but basically buried the main social issue, brexit. Just saying they ran to the left obfuscates how they papered over a split with the working class.

 

[The Technomancer]

Labour is both poised to win another election and also made massive gains that took significant power away from the Tories after both the media and half of Labour tried to sabotage Corbyn's campaign.

Sure Labour's probably going to win, I'm just annoyed at people who seem to think if we just go far left enough 70% of a given country will unity behind us, although there are less of them around these days

 

[pigeon]

Once again, even if normalizing white supremacy is a good political strategy, I can't support it or a party that supports it. Policy matters.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Well, let's be clear. I don't think we even can win back all of the Obama -> Trump voters, particularly among his hardcore fans that love him because he's "finally a politician who tells it like it is." But we don't actually need that many to win WI/PA/MI (OH/IA are tougher nuts to crack), particularly if we can improve turnout. Running hard on healthcare and other pocketbook issues just doesn't seem to have much downside to me if it can win over voters in the Rust Belt and doesn't scare voters in the Sun Belt. And I think we can talk more about economic justice without compromising on social justice.

 

[kirblar]

Also, you have to understand that Labour's position is now an incredibly good one to be in. They require only a very small swing to take a majority since they've opened up a new type of marginal swing, they don't have to take any of the consequences of Brexit, and they've reduced the Conservatives to the state that Conservative pro-Europe rebels can make enormous difficulties. I don't know anyone in the Labour Party who isn't over the moon right now, the party is really on the up in every way. The election result unified all the old wounds overnight.

On the flipside- this required Brexit to pass to be possible!