• 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 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
this is painful

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/...2017-ed-gillespie-governor-virginia-election/

Gillespie’s slogan is “For All Virginians.” He’s apparently taken it to heart because he really does have different answers for different voters, depending on what he thinks they want to hear. At one table, he encounters a 67-year-old African-American woman named Yasmin Harris, who asks him how he plans to create job opportunities for recent graduates. By diversifying the state’s economy, he tells her: “We’re too reliant on federal contracts here, we’re too reliant on military spending in Hampton Roads, too reliant on coal in southwest Virginia.”

Sounds sensible. A minute or two later, though, he meets two blond mothers who support Donald Trump. “I voted for him, and I want him to succeed in creating jobs and keeping the country safe,” Gillespie says. Then he Trumpishly outlines a position that almost directly contradicts what he just told Harris. “You know, when you look at Virginia on things like building more ships in Newport News and stopping the war on coal in southwest Virginia and keeping Norfolk the largest naval base in the world and allowing us to develop our oil and gas resources off our deep-sea coast, I want to work with him on those things.”

Over the last decade, Virginia has mirrored a national trend. While the state has grown more liberal overall, its conservative pockets have become more rabid. Gillespie lives in a waterfront home in a wealthy cul-de-sac in Mount Vernon. In 2000, nine of Mount Vernon’s 21 voting precincts, including Gillespie’s, voted for George W. Bush. In 2008, 4 of 26 voted for John McCain. In 2016, none voted Republican at all. Meanwhile, the GOP-led legislature is increasingly dominated by far-right ideologues. Since taking office, McAuliffe has vetoed 120 pieces of legislation, a record. Among them are bills designed to roll back absentee voting, to make it easier for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ customers, to allow for weapons to be carried in state office buildings, and to protect Confederate monuments—precisely the sorts of thing that don’t play well in the cul-de-sacs of Northern Virginia. The legislature has also refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

The day of the primary vote, I attended a Gillespie watch-party at a Hilton in suburban Richmond. Gillespie was up in nearly every poll by at least 15 points, and the mood was relaxed. Early in the evening, I encountered a thirtysomething DC lobbyist who had driven down from the NoVa suburbs to support his candidate. “It’s never been a better time to be a swamp-ass,” he said happily, summing up the first six months of the Trump administration. Gillespie, presumably, would keep the pump primed. He predicted a big win.

But as the night wore on, a big win refused to materialize. Polls were closing across the state, and Stewart, incredibly, remained within a few thousand votes of Gillespie. Horrified partygoers stopped talking to one another and began to refresh their phones. In the lobby, a scrum of middle-school Gillespie fans bowed their heads to pray. At 10:07, young Gillespie staffer Tucker Oben­shain, daughter to Mark, bounded onstage to announce that “Ed’s about to come out.” Ed did not come out. After another false start, a woman standing on a chair gave up and clambered down. “Oh, my God,” she said, “why do they keep doing this to me?”

Around 10:30 pm, the AP at last called the race for Gillespie. His margin of victory was just over 1 percent. Supporters hooted gamely when Gillespie finally emerged, flush-faced, wearing a kelly-green tie. But the implications were bleak. On the one hand, nativist dog-whistling and Trumpian name-calling had almost undone the GOP’s prohibitive favorite. On the other hand, anti-Trump sentiment helped turn out nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans for their primary. Once he was onstage, Gillespie’s first impulse was to thank his donors and joke sheepishly that he hadn’t spent a dollar more of their money than he needed to. The whole thing felt, as one Gillespie adviser put it, like a “kick in the nuts.”

I tried to make the case to the Gillespie camp that he could use some humanizing, that by opening up to a magazine reporter, the winning personality I had heard about from friends might better reveal itself. I didn’t ask for much—a ride-along in the campaign car and maybe a beer afterward—but they didn’t bite. I was granted a 45-minute interview in a Richmond coffee shop, which was subsequently moved to Gillespie’s one-story campaign headquarters outside the capital.

When I arrive, Gillespie is in the bathroom. I occupy myself by looking at the walls. There’s a photo of Gillespie and George W. Bush and a framed profile of Gillespie from Capitol File magazine. Besides that, the place is without personality. I try to start with an ice-breaker, asking what kind of music he listens to in the campaign car.

“Generally, the news stations,” he answers. “Flip around between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. And some ESPN.” No tunes? “Yeah, not really.”

Okay, then.


Later, I attempt an awkward segue between Donald Trump Jr. and Gillespie’s grown children, whom he never mentions and who never appear on the trail. He seems puzzled by the question, eventually answering simply that one of them lives in California and two in New York: “They’re pursuing their own career, and we’re fully supportive of them.” I don’t learn what any of them do for a living but am told the family texts frequently.

Whatever I ask, Gillespie seems determined not to reveal anything about himself that he hasn’t already said publicly. Why did he run? As if in self-parody, he says he was “called to serve.” When I ask why he so often pledges to be an “honest, ethical governor,” he correctly notes that the current governor was at one point investigated by the FBI for a suspicious campaign contribution and that his predecessor was tainted by an ethics scandal. But when I suggest he might also be trying to play down his own swamp-creature past, he returns a blank stare. “I just really want them to know I’ll be an honest, ethical governor,” he says, chuckling.

Thinking of his campaign-trail insistence that he has run a “small business”—this would be his political consulting firm—I press him again.

He remains unmoved: “I think it’s just a way of saying, ‘This is who I am.’”
 
I'm also hoping for a fix for Illinois. It's Democartic-dominated, but it removes accountability and puts too much power in the hands of the state party.

Agreed.

Uncompetitive politics is horrible regardless of how a gerrymandered map supposedly "favors" the party you support.

We'll get better democrats out of this as well because it'll put more pressure on a lot of our corrupt shit heads to not be corrupt shitheads in order to continue to remain in their seats.
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/03/purge-anti-trump-republicans-nick-ayers-243416

Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff railed against congressional leaders in closed-door remarks to wealthy donors and called for a “purge” if GOP lawmakers don’t quickly rally behind President Donald Trump’s agenda.

In remarks at a Republican National Committee event at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington on Tuesday morning, Nick Ayers also warned that Republicans are “on track to get shellacked” in next year’s midterm elections if GOP lawmakers don’t pass Trump’s legislative priorities.

But Ayers reserved his harshest criticism for congressional leaders and members who have not offered full-throated support for the president.

“Just imagine the possibilities of what can happen if our entire party unifies behind him? If — and this sounds crass — we can purge the handful of people who continue to work to defeat him,” Ayers said, according to an audio recording of the remarks obtained by POLITICO.

One attendee later asked how the donors could “rally the congressional delegation that does support the president and vice president, and rally them and push them to change the current leadership in both the Senate and the House.”

“I’m not speaking on behalf of the president or vice president when I say this,” Ayers responded. “But if I were you, I would not only stop donating, I would form a coalition of all the other major donors, and just say two things. We’re definitely not giving to you, number one. And number two, if you don’t have this done by Dec. 31, we’re going out, we’re recruiting opponents, we’re maxing out to their campaigns, and we’re funding super PACs to defeat all of you.”

He continued, “Because, look, if we’re going to be in the minority again we might as well have a minority who are with us as opposed to the minority who helped us become a minority.”

The crowd laughed and burst into applause.

Yay, authoritarianism 101
 
I'm also hoping for a fix for Illinois. It's Democartic-dominated, but it removes accountability and puts too much power in the hands of the state party.

Illinois is an interesting case for how it balances being a Dem gerrymander with the need to reflect the state's highly transactional politics. There's definitely an effort to give Democrats an advantage, but at the same time a lot of the districts are drawn to give certain representatives favorable primary electorates, or to reward Republicans who are willing to play ball with Madigan.

lol what? Ohio is a state that went for Obama while going 4-12 D-R, it's gerrymandered as fuck, look at OH-1. Are you thinking of Wisconsin?

Yeah, the districts are designed to split Cincinnati, shove Toledo in with Cleveland, etc. There's only a few Ohio districts that even look reasonable at a glance. Wisconsin certainly doesn't have fair maps though. After all, it's their maps that SCOTUS just heard arguments about.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
He wanted to rule against it last time it came up, but needed a better system. A better system to his specifications has been provided. He seems to like it from the oral hearing.

I wonder how likely it is that SC would hold "this is an example of a good system, use this or better" or would they say "good systems exist, adopt one" still leading to a long tail of crappy systems being challenged in effectiveness for decades.
 
So in the event that the SCOTUS does rule against partisan gerrymandering, will that have any effect on racially gerrymandered districts? Could the conservative argument actually leverage that saying racial gerrymandering is partisan given how the splits tend to play out?
 
Yeah, the districts are designed to split Cincinnati, shove Toledo in with Cleveland, etc. There's only a few Ohio districts that even look reasonable at a glance. Wisconsin certainly doesn't have fair maps though. After all, it's their maps that SCOTUS just heard arguments about.
Not for state legislative maps but their federal map doesn't look that bad to me and seems pretty representative?
 

Blader

Member
Imagine spending millions of dollars on electing a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican president across an eight-year span, finally getting that unified Republican government, and then still not seeing your legislative pet priorities made into law.

If I were a GOP donor I'd pretty livid too.
 
Not for state legislative maps but their federal map doesn't look that bad to me and seems pretty representative?

My old district disagrees:

pdstock-9th-districtjpg-4aee6e605d3900e2.jpg

EDIT: Oh, saw you meant Wisconsin, sorry about that.
 

Ogodei

Member
lol what? Ohio is a state that went for Obama while going 4-12 D-R, it's gerrymandered as fuck, look at OH-1. Are you thinking of Wisconsin?

No, i was imagining a few more Ohio D districts existed than i thought.

Aren't there 5 Ohio D districts, though? Columbus, Mahoning Valley, the West Ohio Valley, that long district on the Erie shore, and Akron-Cleveland?

You're right that what's done around Cincinnati and Dayton is criminal.
 
Meant Wisconsin

Puts too much Waukesha in WI-1 to shore up GOP base even though those are radically dissimilar types of Republicans. Carves up WI-6, WI-7, and WI-8 in ways that dilute all of the Dem power there and shoves as many Dems as possible in WI-3 and WI-4.

It should be a state that has either 4-4 districts or oscillates between 5-4 depending on which party has a good year or not.
 
Not for state legislative maps but their federal map doesn't look that bad to me and seems pretty representative?

The federal map definitely isn't as bad as the legislative map, but it still only creates two districts with a D-lean and that's about as good as you could do. They redrew the 1st to make it more friendly for Ryan and the western districts are definitely quite carefully drawn. It's not as egregious as Ohio for sure, but still an R-friendly map. And honestly the political geography of Wisconsin is such that you can gerrymander the districts without the shapes quite jumping out at you the same way they do in some other states.

EDIT: What whyamihere said, basically.
 

kirblar

Member
Over the last decade, Virginia has mirrored a national trend. While the state has grown more liberal overall, its conservative pockets have become more rabid. Gillespie lives in a waterfront home in a wealthy cul-de-sac in Mount Vernon. In 2000, nine of Mount Vernon’s 21 voting precincts, including Gillespie’s, voted for George W. Bush. In 2008, 4 of 26 voted for John McCain. In 2016, none voted Republican at all. Meanwhile, the GOP-led legislature is increasingly dominated by far-right ideologues. Since taking office, McAuliffe has vetoed 120 pieces of legislation, a record. Among them are bills designed to roll back absentee voting, to make it easier for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ customers, to allow for weapons to be carried in state office buildings, and to protect Confederate monuments—precisely the sorts of thing that don’t play well in the cul-de-sacs of Northern Virginia. The legislature has also refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
Yup. These places aren't the enemy, they're the ones helping us keep a horrible tide from swallowing us whole.
 

Ogodei

Member

Where even are these hardcore Trumpkins in Congress? It feels like the ones who were all-in on Trump mostly got absorbed into the administration.

Tom Cotton in the Senate. Who in the House is pro-Trump and anti-leadership? The leadership faction, the Freedom Caucus, and the moderates are all on the outs with the administration.

Scalise might be tailor-fit for Trump but he seems to be all in on supporting Ryan.
 
No, i was imagining a few more Ohio D districts existed than i thought.

Aren't there 5 Ohio D districts, though? Columbus, Mahoning Valley, the West Ohio Valley, that long district on the Erie shore, and Akron-Cleveland?

You're right that what's done around Cincinnati and Dayton is criminal.

Just four. The West Ohio Valley district is Republican.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Imagine spending millions of dollars on electing a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican president across an eight-year span, finally getting that unified Republican government, and then still not seeing your legislative pet priorities made into law.

If I were a GOP donor I'd pretty livid too.

Pretty much. Though there was value in obstruction for the larger companies. Offshore and tax games have let them keep billions in profits.
 
We know exactly what kind of Republican we're getting in VA nowadays.

It's very, very difficult to do worse than that.

Well, that type of Democrat just nominated a centrist with the personality of a block of wood who seems to be doing considerably worse than what the environment would suggest, so I'm not really convinced!
 

Blader

Member
Where even are these hardcore Trumpkins in Congress? It feels like the ones who were all-in on Trump mostly got absorbed into the administration.

Tom Cotton in the Senate. Who in the House is pro-Trump and anti-leadership? The leadership faction, the Freedom Caucus, and the moderates are all on the outs with the administration.

Scalise might be tailor-fit for Trump but he seems to be all in on supporting Ryan.

It's not so much that the House and Senate are full of Trumpists who are being held back by Moderate Darlings, but rather that the House and Senate are full of spineless cowards with no thoughts or agency of their own and will simply do whatever Trump tells them to do.
 

kirblar

Member
Well, that type of Democrat just nominated a centrist with the personality of a block of wood who seems to be doing considerably worse than what the environment would suggest, so I'm not really convinced!
The last time we nominated the candidate of rural VA, we got Creigh Deeds.
 
Speaking of a disaster of an ad:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3SjvG-wezps

VA-Gov: Democrat Ralph Northam's newest ad tries to appeal both to voters who hate Donald Trump and swing voters who haven't utterly soured on him. Northam tells the audience that "as a doctor, nobody ever asked if I'm a Democrat or Republican. They just want my help." Northam then says that "if Donald Trump is helping Virginia, I'll work with him." Northam then transitions and says that Trump wanted to cut the state's school funding, rolling back clean air and water protections, and "taking away healthcare from thousands of Virginians." Northam says that, while Republican foe Ed Gillespie refuses to stand up to Trump, he's stood up to Trump on all these.

What an idiot.

The last time we nominated the candidate of rural VA, we got Creigh Deeds.

You're about to (hopefully) elect a shitty Democrat to the Governor's mansion in an increasingly blue state because you have to rely on affluent voters who don't care about a strong social safety net. Congrats?
 
Rick Hasen has a great summary of the gerrymandering case. Well worth a read:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95181

Justice Kennedy asked questions only to those defending Wisconsin’s gerrymander, and the questions suggested he believed, as he suggested in Vieth, that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan violated the First Amendment associational rights of Democrats. If he was concerned about finding a “judicially manageable” test to separate permissible from impermissible consideration of party (as he said he was in Vieth), he gave no inkling of that concern in questions today. While he is no sure bet to vote this way at the end—it is hard to read tea leaves from oral argument and have confidence of how he will vote—the questions on standing seemed to suggest the conservatives were looking for a way to get Kennedy’s vote other than on the merits.

If Kennedy does vote with the liberals, it could easily follow the path set out by Paul Smith, who did an excellent job arguing for the plaintiffs (all the attorneys did an excellent job in this case and the Justices were clearly prepared): intent, effect (measured by partisan asymmetry/bias) and justification, with the threshold being that a plan was enacted by a one-party legislature over the objections of the other party. I don’t expect to see the efficiency gap as the holy grail, especially because it is likely to come under sustained attack by Justice Alito, who has never been a fan of courts getting involved even in the one person, one vote cases.

Much more at the link.
 

kirblar

Member
You're about to (hopefully) elect a shitty Democrat to the Governor's mansion in an increasingly blue state because you have to rely on affluent voters who don't care about a strong social safety net. Congrats?
Yes, because the most important feature of the Governor's office in VA is the veto. McAulliffe tried (and failed) to backdoor the medicaid expansion. We're not getting anything through until we can flip the chambers, and that's probably a bit off (likely sooner if SCOTUS comes through with the gerrymandering decision.)

The enemy is radicalized rural white america. The goal is keeping them from advancing. When we get to a position to actually make change, we'll do it and try to maximize what we can get. Till then, we hold the goddamn line.

(also, don't lecture me about centrism when the other guy voted for the Stupak amendment.)
 
Yes, because the most important feature of the Governor's office in VA is the veto. McAulliffe tried (and failed) to backdoor the medicaid expansion. We're not getting anything through until we can flip the chambers, and that's probably a bit off (likely sooner if SCOTUS comes through with the gerrymandering decision.)

The enemy is radicalized rural white america. The goal is keeping them from advancing. When we get to a position to actually make change, we'll do it and try to maximize what we can get. Till then, we hold the goddamn line.

(also, don't lecture me about centrism when the other guy voted for the Stupak amendment.)

I mean, Northam is running an absolutely terrible campaign, and from that "I'll work with Trump!" spot, he doesn't get it. If he loses, that's on everyone who nominated the human manifestation of paint drying. "Holding the line" only actually matters if you win, something I'm increasingly concerned Northam has the ability to do.

Also, uh, Northam voted for Bush twice and then almost switched parties. If you're going to yell about Stupak, don't. Northam is the worst and I hate that I have to campaign for him.
 

Blader

Member
Every Democrat has said they'll work with Trump if it's beneficial to to their constituents' interests. Bernie has said that! Chuck and Nancy did that!

If saying "I'll work with Trump if it helps us" is not getting it, then no Democrat gets it.
 
Every Democrat has said they'll work with Trump if it's beneficial to to their constituents' interests. Bernie has said that! Chuck and Nancy did that!

If saying "I'll work with Trump if it helps us" is not getting it, then no Democrat gets it.

You have a base that doesn't want any Democrat to "work" with Trump, or at least advertise they're doing so, because they view him as a moral failure. Then you have a very small section of rich, moderate Republicans who don't like Trump but also don't like Democrats. They either didn't vote for him, or maybe voted for Clinton.

So instead of trying to get your base to the polls in a low turn out off-year election, you... try to appeal to this very thin slice of the electorate while potentially turning off your base?
 
Kennedy seems to be one of those conservatives who like Kasich really believes "we're all americans and need unity BS" and really would rather debate how much to screw over workers and cut social programs than things like gay marriage or gerrymandering that everybody hates but can't do anything about without the court intervening
 

kirblar

Member
I mean, Northam is running an absolutely terrible campaign, and from that "I'll work with Trump!" spot, he doesn't get it. If he loses, that's on everyone who nominated the human manifestation of paint drying. "Holding the line" only actually matters if you win, something I'm increasingly concerned Northam has the ability to do.

Also, uh, Northam voted for Bush twice and then almost switched parties. If you're going to yell about Stupak, don't. Northam is the worst and I hate that I have to campaign for him.
But he didn't flip. I'm not saying he isn't a centrist, I'm saying that both were centrists. Pretending Perriello wasn't a differently flavored one is ridiculous.
 

Blader

Member
You have a base that doesn't want any Democrat to "work" with Trump, or at least advertise they're doing so, because they view him as a moral failure. Then you have a very small section of rich, moderate Republicans who don't like Trump but also don't like Democrats. They either didn't vote for him, or maybe voted for Clinton.

So instead of trying to get your base to the polls in a low turn out off-year election, you... try to appeal to this very thin slice of the electorate while potentially turning off your base?

If working with Trump or just saying you'll work with Trump when interests align is enough to depress base turnout, then I guess Dems will be losing across the board for the next six years.
 
But he didn't flip. I'm not saying he isn't a centrist, I'm saying that both were centrists. Pretending Perriello wasn't a differently flavored one is ridiculous.

I mean, Perriello ended up apologizing for Stupak and taking much more progressive positions and stances than Northam did, if we're talking just about the campaigns that they ran in 2017. And Perriello's apology for Stupak was much more force than, uh, whatever this is:

At the time, I didn't pay much attention to politics. Knowing what I know now, I was wrong and would have voted differently.

And now Northam shitty tacting to the center that literally is for no one besides potentially pissing off his own base that he needs to get to the polls.

Northam sucks, and I'm deeply frustrated that we nominated him. If he loses, I'm going to be pissed forever.

If working with Trump or just saying you'll work with Trump when interests align is enough to depress base turnout, then I guess Dems will be losing across the board for the next six years.

How do you get engage Democrats to hold Trump accountable if you put out a television ad saying you're going to work with him? Why is Northam even doing that when he's running for Governor, not Senate? Who does this actually appeal to? No one.
 
Saying you'll work with Trump is a good thing in most areas. I think the amount of places that turns people off is sort of slim. I don't know if Virginia is one of those places.

I mean, can almost guarantee Heidi's appearance with Trump and him calling her a great woman will help her a lot.
 
Saying you'll work with Trump is a good thing in most areas. I think the amount of places that turns people off is sort of slim. I don't know if Virginia is one of those places.

I mean, can almost guarantee Heidi's appearance with Trump and him calling her a great woman will help her a lot.

North Dakota is not Virginia.
 
North Dakota is not Virginia.

Right, but there are a lot of rural areas in Virginia as well. Hillary didn't win it by much even with Kaine on the ticket.

I do agree that we need more liberal candidates where ever we can actually get them and need to limit the amount of conservative democrats that play that game, especially with fucking Trump, where ever possible but idk if Virginia, even if it isn't north dakota is a place where we are ready to make a clear partisan break
 

Teggy

Member
What will be the mechanics of reducing partisan gerrymandering? It seems you can't unless there is a specific law that says ”districts must follow county/city lines" or something.
 

Blader

Member
I liked Periello in the primary, but Northam crushed him by over 10 points! I would like more liberal than conservative Dems too, but the electorate -- insofar as it exists in Virginia in 2017 -- is not at point.
 

Ogodei

Member
North Dakota is not Virginia.

I do think Northam's out of step with Virginia Dems, but i think that's going to be the case with most Virginia Democratic politicians until the NoVA carpetbaggers have time to establish themselves and work their way up through the system.

Effectively, guys like McAuliffe and Northam are what you're going to get in a state that was reliably red 12 years ago. Partly because Virginia's transition has been slower than others (Texas, i feel like, will be like a dam bursting when it transitions from red to purple and you'll see some quite liberal politicians making a statewide run).

Side note is that i'm still seeing very little about this election, though i'm mostly watching ad-free HBO or Cartoon Network/Adult Swim. But i don't see yard signs or bumper stickers or much of anything.
 
The MSNBC interview with Congressman Marc Anthony just shows how strong the gun lobby is. The congressman was clueless about many gun fact specifics but still refuses to support even a discussion about regulation.
 
I liked Periello in the primary, but Northam crushed him by over 10 points! I would like more liberal than conservative Dems too, but the electorate -- insofar as it exists in Virginia in 2017 -- is not at point.

Again, though, this is my issue with relying on affluent NoVA Dems who would prefer someone more conservative than Perriello. And I wouldn't really care if Northam wasn't fucking up so much. I mean, hopefully he still wins! That would be very nice. But since Gillespie also appeals to these types of voters, I'm nervous.
 

kirblar

Member
That ad is not about bipartisan compromise. Once you get past the "moderate darling" bipartisan opening, the rest is about protecting VA from Trump. It's a soft anti-Trump ad, and I think that's fine.

The base is already energized, the Dems got 540K voters in their primary (Northam w/ 303k) compared to the GOP's 366K total. I don't see that fire suddenly burning out because Northam's campaign ads weren't burning effigies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom