Jump to content

US politics: Donny, you're out of your element


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Triskan said:

I was sort of torn on Ellison v. Perez but was leaning Perez.  I think it's understandable that the right was rooting for Ellison in that even if it's unfair he was going to be a relatively easy target to demonize.  And I think Perez has fine left-leaning credentials as is not too "establishment."  Ultimately though I wonder how much this stuff matters since the DNC chair ends up being more of a behind-the-scenes position.

Behind-the-scenes people can be important though. Consider the assistance rendered to the Clinton campaign in the primary and imagine what they can do in state-wide primaries where there is much less attention being paid to what the DNC is doing.

8 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Ultimately I think that by far the most important thing is that the Democratic party get united.  There can't be some prolonged battle between the so-called establishment and progressive wings.  Sure, there will be candidates from each that are eventually fielded; that's fine.  But there can't be a split.  Everyone needs to eventually get enthusiastically on board to go after Trump.  Perez tapping Ellison was a no-brainer to this end.

I'd say it is more likely than not that they "get united", but there is a non-negligible probability of a split. The one thing that they have in common is their opposition to the Republicans in general and Trump in particular and there is certainly enough of that to unite them. However, there might be a split over what should be done now. Here's a FiveThirtyEight article (which, bizarrely, has no statistics):

Quote

And yet the larger, systemic problems of the party loom, noted in speeches but nearly always as part of a litany of vague injustices or complicated questions to be tackled. Many of these questions are crucial to the Democrats’ future, but concrete plans for answering them haven’t been much talked about, at least in public. They’ll need to be, since some of the strategic paths forward for the party might end up being diametrically opposed to one another in practice. Consider, for instance: Should the party broaden its big tent to try to bring in more white voters without college degrees? Move away from identity politics issues to focus on a populist economic message and a tougher stance on immigration? Or should it double down on support from its traditional voters, trying to fix its black turnout problem in the post-Obama era and cater more to the progressive, Bernie Sanders-inclined youth vote?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

Oh now, OGE, I think you're being just a bit too critical of the R's here.

Yes, I guess I'm just too mean to the Republican Party. Us bleeding heart liberals (the term before social justice warrior I believe) are always supposed to be about unicorns and rainbows. LOL.

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

They're just avid fans of Roose Bolton and think his suggestion of 'A peaceful land, a quiet people' should apply to those silly libertards and their nonsensical protests.

/snarky snark snark

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winn

13 hours ago, Altherion said:

I'd say it is more likely than not that they "get united", but there is a non-negligible probability of a split. The one thing that they have in common is their opposition to the Republicans in general and Trump in particular and there is certainly enough of that to unite them. However, there might be a split over what should be done now. Here's a FiveThirtyEight article (which, bizarrely, has no statistics):

Winning solves all problems though. Before the election, people were saying that Republicans were in serious danger of a party split. Now, they still might if Trump goes far enough off-the-rails; but based on how Republicans have been acting, its pretty clear that if any other Republican had won, all their previous in-fighting would've been swept away. And thanks to the underlying cyclical nature of US politics, Democrats are likely to start doing really well in elections. 

It may already be starting. The Democratic candidate won a special election in Delaware last night to maintain control of the state senate. She won by +18. The last time this seat was up, in 2014, with the same Republican candidate as last night; the Democrat only won by +2. In 2016, Clinton beat Trump by +11 in the district. Turnout was roughly double what special elections in Delaware usually hit.

Of course, its hard to read too much into a single state senate seat. Especially when its Delaware and Joe Biden was actively campaigning. But seeing Democratic turnout go up, and by that much, for a special election is encouraging. The real test though is in April, when there's multiple congressional special elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Commodore said:

the imprimatur of "protesting" should not be license for blocking thoroughfares and streets, trespassing, destroying property, disrupting the speech of others

I hope these laws are still on the books when a radical Democrat takes office in 4 or 8 years.

And if he could be Muslim and/or gay, it would be absolutely perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I hope these laws are still on the books when a radical Democrat takes office in 4 or 8 years.

And if he could be Muslim and/or gay, it would be absolutely perfect.

Even more perfect will be if a person that absolutely despises Democrats and Republicans takes office. A gay black muslim that identifies as a gender not assigned to them at birth that HATES Democrats and Republicans.

God forbid protesters treat protests more seriously than a parade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Fez said:

Winn

Winning solves all problems though. Before the election, people were saying that Republicans were in serious danger of a party split. Now, they still might if Trump goes far enough off-the-rails; but based on how Republicans have been acting, its pretty clear that if any other Republican had won, all their previous in-fighting would've been swept away. And thanks to the underlying cyclical nature of US politics, Democrats are likely to start doing really well in elections. 

It may already be starting. The Democratic candidate won a special election in Delaware last night to maintain control of the state senate. She won by +18. The last time this seat was up, in 2014, with the same Republican candidate as last night; the Democrat only won by +2. In 2016, Clinton beat Trump by +11 in the district. Turnout was roughly double what special elections in Delaware usually hit.

Of course, its hard to read too much into a single state senate seat. Especially when its Delaware and Joe Biden was actively campaigning. But seeing Democratic turnout go up, and by that much, for a special election is encouraging. The real test though is in April, when there's multiple congressional special elections.

God, I want to believe you but it's just so hard to take you seriously after how your reassuring words were so catastrophically wrong in the most important way so recently :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

God, I want to believe you but it's just so hard to take you seriously after how your reassuring words were so catastrophically wrong in the most important way so recently :/

Gosh, Fez is reporting on something that DID happen that's unusual (Democratic turnout going way up in a special election), and then specifically states "it's hard to read too much into a single state senate seat." So I don't think he is being Pollyanna-ish in what he's saying here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

God, I want to believe you but it's just so hard to take you seriously after how your reassuring words were so catastrophically wrong in the most important way so recently :/

I've admitted multiple times that I was completely off about 2016 (though I was always a little nervous about MI and WI, but I thought Clinton would easily win PA, NC, and FL); but I was completely off because I trusted the "gold standard" polls and what various analytics people were saying. I'm ignoring all that now, for instance I have no idea what Trump's approval ratings are, and just looking at concrete things that happen.

A concrete thing that happened was that Democrats kept the Delaware state senate with a special election by a much larger margin than they recently have gotten in that District, and with very high turnout. Maybe it was the Biden factor or some other circumstance, but it may also be an encouraging sign. The congressional special elections for KS-4 on April 11 and GA-6 on April 18 will tell us a lot more. If Democrats win GA-6* and have a closer than expected loss in KS-4, I'll take that as a very good sign that the political winds are starting to change. If they lose both, and KS-4 is a bad loss, it means just being anti-Trump isn't enough for Democrats; at least, not yet.

As I said, we'll see.

*Technically its only a jungle special primary. But there's only 1 Democrat with an active campaign and several Republicans, so if the Democrat can get above 50% there won't be a general special election. If they don't, we wait until June to see what happens.

 

55 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Gosh, Fez is reporting on something that DID happen that's unusual (Democratic turnout going way up in a special election), and then specifically states "it's hard to read too much into a single state senate seat." So I don't think he is being Pollyanna-ish in what he's saying here.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I hope these laws are still on the books when a radical Democrat takes office in 4 or 8 years.

And if he could be Muslim and/or gay, it would be absolutely perfect.

It would not matter. In the first scenario, I suspect you would see protests similar to the Tea Party. In the second scenario, I can almost guarantee you that you would see an entirely different (and far more effective) form of protest; this is part of the reason why the second scenario is so unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I hope these laws are still on the books when a radical Democrat takes office in 4 or 8 years.

And if he could be Muslim and/or gay, it would be absolutely perfect.

Just let there be a Democrat President with a super majority being serious about going after guns. That would totally suffice to make the right cry bloody murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Notone said:

Just let there be a Democrat President with a super majority being serious about going after guns. That would totally suffice to make the right cry bloody murder.

Unfortunately I suspect more than a few would also *commit* bloody murder...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

God forbid protesters treat protests more seriously than a parade.

not quite, the problem is if/when no one cares to hear their speech (or it isn't having the desired effect), they force you to (or the corollary, disrupt speech they don't like)

by blocking traffic, appropriating microphones, shouting down speakers, destroying property, etc.

Using physical numbers and volume to add weight to an argument has never been persuasive to me (if anything the contrarian/skeptic in me makes me want to go the other way). I guess the idea is to influence politicians, but they have polling data (not to mention election results) that is more accurate than gaging voter sentiment from a town hall or rally. 

I went to a Tea Party rally in 2010 and was immediately bored by the whole affair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...