Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[BNakagawa]

At first I wanted Herschel Walker tested for CTE. Now, I want Georgia republican voters tested for CTE.

 

Thankfully, the runoff matters a bit less, but I still want Warnock to win. Walker just shows how bad the GOP is at attracting quality candidates and how completely partisan and entirely lacking in principles and objectivity the republican voter base is there.

[unclevlad]

But, we have to realize we dodged a bullet this time.  That's all.  And again, we had 2 major assets.  #1, the abortion ruling.  That'll drop down the list;  we can't assume that's repeatable, or at least not with the same energy.  #2 is Trump himself.  Ranting about election fraud may have played to his sycophants, but don't look to have played well outside that group.  His latest rants, attacking DeSantis and others, are likely to have little traction when he's a) out of office, and b) readily targetable as an election liability.

 

Mind, DeSantis and a whole bunch of others won't be an improvement, in policy terms...and will be worse, because they won't make a dozen major mistakes a week.  

 

And apparently, some of his better media buds are laying a lot of blame on him:

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-media-outlets-call-gop-dump-donald-trump-after-midterms-1758460

 

EDIT:  on Walker...on some of his speeches?  I've wondered a bit about brain injury.  Maybe not CTE, but as a catch-all, non-medical shorthand, yeah, we can use it.  I'd prefer Warnock just to continue hoping some semblance of sanity might be emerging.  Pipe dream, I know.  And, it's insurance...should a Democrat have to leave office in a Republican state, most of the time the interim appointment's at the governor's discretion.  50-50 is tenuous;  51-49 would be reasonably secure.  (Especially if Harris chooses to run for President, if Biden doesn't.)

 

 

[Ternaugh]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

JUST IN!!! 

 

Broke into the football game for this.

 

ABC News is projecting the Democrat in Nevada as the winner of the Senate race...so the Democrats keep the Senate.

 

I won't celebrate TOO much until after recounts and the lawsuits are cleared.

 

EDIT:  AP has also called it for Masto.

 

Democrat Cisco Aguilar has won the race for Secretary of State here in Nevada, beating Jim Marchant. Some of Marchant's claims have been that we haven't actually elected anyone in Nevada since 2006, and that both he and Trump lost in 2020 because of rigged elections. He also had the brilliant idea that every county should be required to perform only hand counts of ballots in future elections.

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

But, we have to realize we dodged a bullet this time.  That's all.  And again, we had 2 major assets.  #1, the abortion ruling.  That'll drop down the list;  we can't assume that's repeatable, or at least not with the same energy.  #2 is Trump himself.  Ranting about election fraud may have played to his sycophants, but don't look to have played well outside that group.  His latest rants, attacking DeSantis and others, are likely to have little traction when he's a) out of office, and b) readily targetable as an election liability.

 

Mind, DeSantis and a whole bunch of others won't be an improvement, in policy terms...and will be worse, because they won't make a dozen major mistakes a week.  

 

 

I do believe Donald Trump is a factor, but not the sole one that Republicans would like people to believe. The broader issue of contention is Trumpism. Most Republican candidates, at the national and state level, were and are still parroting the same culture-war, obstructionist, deceitful talking points as Trump. They're still emphasizing distrust, fear and hatred as their preferred path to power. Ron DeSantis is just Trump with a coat of paint. Much has been made of the young voter turnout in this midterm, but I don't believe they turned out in such numbers because of Donald Trump, who wasn't even on the ticket. They turned out because Trumpism doesn't fly with the majority of them. It's not the America they want. As a demographic they're more diverse, more aware, and more accepting than their elders. That's a demographic that's only going to grow more powerful over time, while the base the Pubs have spent years cultivating can only shrink.

 

I also suspect that's one reason why Republican politicians and right-wing media figures have been almost apoplectic over the outcome of this mid-term election. They're starting to panic because they know they only have a limited window in which to seize power, and that window is closing.

[Lord Liaden]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

JUST IN!!! 

 

Broke into the football game for this.

 

ABC News is projecting the Democrat in Nevada as the winner of the Senate race...so the Democrats keep the Senate.

 

I won't celebrate TOO much until after recounts and the lawsuits are cleared.

 

EDIT:  AP has also called it for Masto.

 

It's also possible that Republicans will not win a majority in the House of Representatives. Called seats have been rising steadily for Democrats since Friday, while the Republican seat total has barely budged.

 

If that holds until the final result, practically speaking not much is going to change in American politics. If they do win, at least the Pubs won't be able to blame Nancy Pelosi for bad weather and earthquakes.

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

It's also possible that Republicans will not win a majority in the House of Representatives. Called seats have been rising steadily for Democrats since Friday, while the Republican seat total has barely budged.

 

If that holds until the final result, practically speaking not much is going to change in American politics. If they do win, at least the Pubs won't be able to blame Nancy Pelosi for bad weather and earthquakes.

 

And even if they do gain a nominal majority, the Republicans look to need tight uniformity, and it isn't clear they'll have that.  Not gaining a majority, or barely gaining one, will be an even sharper rebuke of Trump, and make managing the House tougher.

 

But I must disagree.  They'll blame Pelosi for EVERYTHING, even if she isn't Speaker...even their own hangovers.  It's what they do...demonize, demonize, demonize.

[DShomshak]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Much has been made of the young voter turnout in this midterm, but I don't believe they turned out in such numbers because of Donald Trump, who wasn't even on the ticket. They turned out because Trumpism doesn't fly with the majority of them. It's not the America they want. As a demographic they're more diverse, more aware, and more accepting than their elders. That's a demographic that's only going to grow more powerful over time, while the base the Pubs have spent years cultivating can only shrink.

It's the real Great Replacement. I suspect (though I cannot prove) that conspiracy theories often are a sort of Freudian displacement, a way of hiding from fears that are too great to acknowledge. I suggest it's less frightening to believe in a giant evil conspiracy to bring in brown people who are Not Like Us than to admit that one's own children are the ones Not Like Us.

 

But hasn't that always been the case? Our children (I use "our" collectively -- I have no offspring and almost certainly never will) are never just Mini-Mes. They are their own people. We teach them as best we can, give them whatever help we can... then put the world in their hands when we retire to our graves. Thus has it ever been. And "conservatives" take note: Stories of attempts to do otherwise rarely end well.

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

19 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Yeah, well, I think that completely describes Walker...he's a warm body for the caucus, and a complete catspaw to do what the Republican bosses want.

From a cynical but rational point of view, that is the job of legislator. Their job is to win elections... period. (Well, and fundraise for future elections.) Parties have think-tanks to work out policies and lawyers to write legislation: If the party holds enough seats, the legislation can pass -- and a loyal dunderhead can fill a seat as well as, or better than, a policy wonk. And the dunderhead may well have a better connection to the common man than the policy wonk who uses big words in long sentences and can't get to the emotional point.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

But political parties need new blood with their own minds, because they have to tap into new ideas in order to appeal to a changing electorate, and to cultivate the party's future leadership. Politicians are always behind the trends in society, and have to catch up to where every poll says America is headed. The current leaders of the Democratic Party have mostly ignored their progressive wing, but they can't keep selling the same old politics to up-and-coming younger voters. The main reason they did better than expected in the last two elections is because the GOP have become even bigger dunderheads than the Dems, and actively drove out everyone who isn't a radical extremist, or willing to pretend to be one. The old men in positions of political power now will never really understand that.

 

38 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

From a cynical but rational point of view, that is the job of legislator. Their job is to win elections... period. (Well, and fundraise for future elections.)

 

The job of members of Congress is supposed to be representing their constituents at the seat of federal power. I remember when they at least talked about taking that responsibility seriously, and would answer to their constituents for what they'd done to serve their interests. That's one advantage of a two-party system over a parliamentary one with a spectrum of parties -- it's usually less important that all members vote in lockstep. But today's Republican Party tries to be a monolith, forcing every member to vote along party lines to exercise power, regardless of their states' interests. Democrats haven't been able to do that effectively, because today's Democratic Party is actually a coalition of groups with their own agendas and priorities.

[Pariah]

That analysis brings to mind the old Will Rogers bit: "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

 

Whatever. The Democratic party needs to make like a sea captain and get their ship together before the next election cycle. 

[Iuz the Evil]

It’s interesting to see so much focus on why Republicans lost, rather than why Democrats won, in their elections. I agree the number of egregious missteps by the GOP including their crazy push for broadly unpopular anti abortion legislation (terrible move) following the SCOTUS ruling and Donald Trump himself were bigly responsible for the Senate outcome. I also would hope the more crazy candidates were repudiated, but that’s turning out to be a mixed bag. 
 

Read an article that the Democrats this cycle focused on issues that resonated with peoples daily life while the Republicans focused on “stop the steal” type conspiracy theories and the cult of Trump personality. I would like to know more about the specifics of that, as it might help with planning for future cycles.

[unclevlad]

I agree the Dems need to be prepping now for 2024.  

 

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

But political parties need new blood with their own minds, because they have to tap into new ideas in order to appeal to a changing electorate, and to cultivate the party's future leadership. Politicians are always behind the trends in society, and have to catch up to where every poll says America is headed. The current leaders of the Democratic Party have mostly ignored their progressive wing, but they can't keep selling the same old politics to up-and-coming younger voters. The main reason they did better than expected in the last two elections is because the GOP have become even bigger dunderheads than the Dems, and actively drove out everyone who isn't a radical extremist, or willing to pretend to be one. The old men in positions of political power now will never really understand that.

 

Herschel Walker is 60.  Fresh blood?  New leadership?  I don't think so.  He's brought in to be a token black in the Republican caucus.  Right now the only one is Tim Scott, who's got a 94% record with Heritage Action, 77% from Conservative Action (but that's still pretty high for them).  He's also, I suspect, an attempt to split the Black vote in Georgia, and of course to capitalize on football's popularity.

[unclevlad]

2 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

It’s interesting to see so much focus on why Republicans lost, rather than why Democrats won, in their elections. I agree the number of egregious missteps by the GOP including their crazy push for broadly unpopular anti abortion legislation (terrible move) following the SCOTUS ruling and Donald Trump himself were bigly responsible for the Senate outcome. I also would hope the more crazy candidates were repudiated, but that’s turning out to be a mixed bag. 
 

Read an article that the Democrats this cycle focused on issues that resonated with peoples daily life while the Republicans focused on “stop the steal” type conspiracy theories and the cult of Trump personality. I would like to know more about the specifics of that, as it might help with planning for future cycles.

 

Republican ads that I saw hit defund the police and stop the steal.  Early release was another.  Inflation of course, but Ronchetti's ads made the mistake, IMO, of tying back to the Covid shutdowns.  That doesn't play with a fair number of Republicans who DID get vaccinated.  Democratic ads hit abortion a LOT;  it was probably the most used theme.  

 

The other study is the success rate of Trump-endorsed candidates, especially those who a) pushed the steal, and b) were political novices.  Stories I've seen...that was a particularly bad combination.  In many cases, even when the candidates won, they did so by lesser margins than, say, the governor's race in the state, by significant margins.  

 

The focus is on the Republicans because historically, this should have been a slam-dunk for them.  Off-year elections go to the party not in the White House.  Biden's ratings are fairly low.  Inflation's been HIGH, which should be a massive Republican selling point.  Violence and crime have been on the upswing, big time...another Republican drum.  Yes, they played on them somewhat, but not nearly as much as they could have, at least that I saw.  

[Cancer]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

But political parties need new blood with their own minds, because they have to tap into new ideas in order to appeal to a changing electorate, and to cultivate the party's future leadership. Politicians are always behind the trends in society, and have to catch up to where every poll says America is headed. The current leaders of the Democratic Party have mostly ignored their progressive wing, but they can't keep selling the same old politics to up-and-coming younger voters. The main reason they did better than expected in the last two elections is because the GOP have become even bigger dunderheads than the Dems, and actively drove out everyone who isn't a radical extremist, or willing to pretend to be one. The old men in positions of political power now will never really understand that.

 

Perhaps more tactically accurate ... the old men in office are the ones to whom the old men who are the biggest donors can most relate.  As a candidate you have to be able to fundraise enormous sums, and you aren't going to get that money from idealistic young punks who have yet to make their first million.  Yes, they are very photogenic and can provide lots of foot-soldier campaign work, but they can't give you the money it takes to win.  So it's a delicate balancing act for a party: cultivate the younger voters who are coming up whose ballots you need in the box in November, while making the all-but-dead hands feel like they are really essential and being listened to in return for their eight-digit contributions.

 

How things will work when Satan's animation of Rupert Murdoch's corpse finally is evicted and that monolithic Dark Lord is no longer steering both that fortune and that media empire ... I cannot now guess, but I am looking forward to the day. 

[Cancer]

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Republican ads that I saw hit defund the police and stop the steal.  Early release was another.  Inflation of course, but Ronchetti's ads made the mistake, IMO, of tying back to the Covid shutdowns.  That doesn't play with a fair number of Republicans who DID get vaccinated.  Democratic ads hit abortion a LOT;  it was probably the most used theme.  

 

...

 

The focus is on the Republicans because historically, this should have been a slam-dunk for them.  Off-year elections go to the party not in the White House.  Biden's ratings are fairly low.  Inflation's been HIGH, which should be a massive Republican selling point.  Violence and crime have been on the upswing, big time...another Republican drum.  Yes, they played on them somewhat, but not nearly as much as they could have, at least that I saw.  

 

Here in western WA, there were massive negative ads run against Murray (Senate) and Schrier (House).  I don't recall seeing the stolen election story raised at all, and rather than attacking defund the police by name, it was more a general appeal against increased crime, against inflation (which they blame on Biden, but the forces driving inflation are a combination of international events and the cumulative effects of policies of the last 20 years of easy money by just all of the 21st Century administrations.  The massive appeal-to-fear TV ads that ran in the last week (during the World Series are the ones I remember seeing) had almost no specifics other than blaming everything on Biden.

[Iuz the Evil]

13 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Republican ads that I saw hit defund the police and stop the steal.  Early release was another.  Inflation of course, but Ronchetti's ads made the mistake, IMO, of tying back to the Covid shutdowns.  That doesn't play with a fair number of Republicans who DID get vaccinated.  Democratic ads hit abortion a LOT;  it was probably the most used theme.  

 

The other study is the success rate of Trump-endorsed candidates, especially those who a) pushed the steal, and b) were political novices.  Stories I've seen...that was a particularly bad combination.  In many cases, even when the candidates won, they did so by lesser margins than, say, the governor's race in the state, by significant margins.  

 

The focus is on the Republicans because historically, this should have been a slam-dunk for them.  Off-year elections go to the party not in the White House.  Biden's ratings are fairly low.  Inflation's been HIGH, which should be a massive Republican selling point.  Violence and crime have been on the upswing, big time...another Republican drum.  Yes, they played on them somewhat, but not nearly as much as they could have, at least that I saw.  

If the Republicans lost this election, rather than Democrats winning it, that isn’t necessarily a great position to be in moving forward. Very fickle electorate, and need to find some broadly popular positions moving forward or that’ll flip at some point.

 

 You cannot control the behavior of your political adversary, although you can benefit from it. You can control your own party behavior to a much greater extent. From a strategy perspective, I hope they’re focusing on what worked for Democratic candidates more than the media is.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Herschel Walker is 60.  Fresh blood?  New leadership?  I don't think so.  He's brought in to be a token black in the Republican caucus.  Right now the only one is Tim Scott, who's got a 94% record with Heritage Action, 77% from Conservative Action (but that's still pretty high for them).  He's also, I suspect, an attempt to split the Black vote in Georgia, and of course to capitalize on football's popularity.

 

Are you saying that I implied Walker was fresh blood? I certainly didn't intend to.

[Lord Liaden]

52 minutes ago, Cancer said:

 

Perhaps more tactically accurate ... the old men in office are the ones to whom the old men who are the biggest donors can most relate.  As a candidate you have to be able to fundraise enormous sums, and you aren't going to get that money from idealistic young punks who have yet to make their first million.  Yes, they are very photogenic and can provide lots of foot-soldier campaign work, but they can't give you the money it takes to win.  So it's a delicate balancing act for a party: cultivate the younger voters who are coming up whose ballots you need in the box in November, while making the all-but-dead hands feel like they are really essential and being listened to in return for their eight-digit contributions.

 

 

You won't get an enormous sum from any single idealistic young punk, but there are a helluva lot more of them than there are billionaires. Donald Trump raised millions in contributions from working-class Americans for his scam to pay for legal challenges to the election. Thing is, you have to give them some plan or goal that would appeal to young voters enough to make a contribution.

[Pariah]

Sadly, it looks like Lauren Boebert will be back in the House. She leads by just over a thousand votes with 99% of precincts reporting.

 

Which is sad, because it seems like every time she opens her mouth, it's just to replace which foot is in it.

[Old Man]

6 hours ago, Cancer said:

How things will work when Satan's animation of Rupert Murdoch's corpse finally is evicted and that monolithic Dark Lord is no longer steering both that fortune and that media empire ... I cannot now guess, but I am looking forward to the day. 

 

Sadly, that hydra has many heads.  The Sinclairs of Sinclair Broadcast Group.  All the Fox execs running Facebook and NewsNation.  John Malone's recent purchase of CNN.  Ye's purchase of Parler.  Elon's purchase of Twitter.  And all the other think tanks and SuperPACS controlled by right wing billionaires like the Kochs, Mercers, and Peter Thiel, among others.  Murdoch was merely the first of many.

[wcw43921]

Ten Years Later.  .  .

[Pariah]

I saw a thing on the Book of Face today saying, "What if they're not stars, but holes poked in the top of the jar so we can breathe?"

 

I resisted the urge to answer with "Then I'm pretty sure I know who you voted for in the recent elections."

[Old Man]

Time to put someone in a rocket and shoot them through one of the holes.  Any volunteers?

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

I volunteer Elon Musk!

[unclevlad]

16 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Sadly, that hydra has many heads.  The Sinclairs of Sinclair Broadcast Group.  All the Fox execs running Facebook and NewsNation.  John Malone's recent purchase of CNN.  Ye's purchase of Parler.  Elon's purchase of Twitter.  And all the other think tanks and SuperPACS controlled by right wing billionaires like the Kochs, Mercers, and Peter Thiel, among others.  Murdoch was merely the first of many.

 

16 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

Ten Years Later.  .  .

 

I am compelled to add Alex Jones to the list.  Sometimes size doesn't matter.