US Politics: Passing Gas In Public is Abhorrent Behavior

[all swedes are racist]

5 hours ago, Fez said:

Important to note, the DNC has faults, but they aren't the problem here. It is the DCCC that is an amazing collection of fuckups not trying to win elections (there's some truth to that tweet thread linked above). Also, don't conflate the DCCC and the DSCC, the later sometimes mess up but they really do try their hardest for the nost part and have some really good tecent successes and best efforts.

There's also the DGA and DSLC, but their problem is they often just don't have the funding to do much.

what's the relationship between dnc and dccc look like? like, does the dnc normally hold any control or influence over the dccc? in regards to funding or decision making for specific races, where would one pick up and the other leave off, etc?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, Fez said:

Important to note, the DNC has faults, but they aren't the problem here. It is the DCCC that is an amazing collection of fuckups not trying to win elections (there's some truth to that tweet thread linked above). Also, don't conflate the DCCC and the DSCC, the later sometimes mess up but they really do try their hardest for the nost part and have some really good tecent successes and best efforts.

There's also the DGA and DSLC, but their problem is they often just don't have the funding to do much.

Could you spell out that alphabet soup of acronyms, please?

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Could you spell out that alphabet soup of acronyms, please?

DNC would be Democratic National Committee.

DCCC would be Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

DSCC would be Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

DGA would be Democratic Governors' Association.

and I think DSLC is a mistake for DLCC, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. 

[Fez]

3 hours ago, r'hllor's reformed lobster said:

what's the relationship between dnc and dccc look like? like, does the dnc normally hold any control or influence over the dccc? in regards to funding or decision making for specific races, where would one pick up and the other leave off, etc?

In general, I'd say the only time the DNC has any real control over the other organizations is when there is a Democratic president who takes an active interest in the committee; so, its been 17 years. Because when that's not the case, if the DNC tried forcing the DCCC (or the others) to do something; the DCCC responds with "No. Fuck off. We raised our funds on our own and we're elected officials (or we work for them), you're just party hacks. Don't try telling us what to do." Now granted, usually things stay cordial; but that's because they leave each other in peace. Or because the DNC is led by a representative itself, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz until last year, who puts the DCCC above the DNC.

The DNC can and does directly fund congressional candidates, but they usually only do so during the midterms and Presidential elections. The rest of the time, because funds are much more limited, they are primarily focused on their core mission of supporting party infrastructure across the states. Which covers a lot of things, but at its core means making sure there are people and resources in place to help Democrats run for office at all levels, getting people to the polls, and having people at polling sites to make sure Republicans don't get up to stuff. 

In the most recent FEC report (February 28), the DNC reported having all of $10 million in current funds (fundraising is slow at this point in the cycle) and they have many more responsibilities than supporting a single congressional candidate in a special election.

By contrast, that is exactly what the DCCC is supposed to be doing, and on February 28, they reported having $12.8 million in current funds. Other than a few staffers, and needing some reserves for the outlays that fundraising events require, there is nothing for the DCCC to spending money on until the midterms except for special elections. The DCCC is the problem.

[all swedes are racist]

thanks!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

Thank you

[lokisnow]

13 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Could you spell out that alphabet soup of acronyms, please?

Judean People's Front

People's Front of Judea

[IamMe90]

10 hours ago, Fez said:

In general, I'd say the only time the DNC has any real control over the other organizations is when there is a Democratic president who takes an active interest in the committee; so, its been 17 years. Because when that's not the case, if the DNC tried forcing the DCCC (or the others) to do something; the DCCC responds with "No. Fuck off. We raised our funds on our own and we're elected officials (or we work for them), you're just party hacks. Don't try telling us what to do." Now granted, usually things stay cordial; but that's because they leave each other in peace. Or because the DNC is led by a representative itself, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz until last year, who puts the DCCC above the DNC.

The DNC can and does directly fund congressional candidates, but they usually only do so during the midterms and Presidential elections. The rest of the time, because funds are much more limited, they are primarily focused on their core mission of supporting party infrastructure across the states. Which covers a lot of things, but at its core means making sure there are people and resources in place to help Democrats run for office at all levels, getting people to the polls, and having people at polling sites to make sure Republicans don't get up to stuff. 

In the most recent FEC report (February 28), the DNC reported having all of $10 million in current funds (fundraising is slow at this point in the cycle) and they have many more responsibilities than supporting a single congressional candidate in a special election.

By contrast, that is exactly what the DCCC is supposed to be doing, and on February 28, they reported having $12.8 million in current funds. Other than a few staffers, and needing some reserves for the outlays that fundraising events require, there is nothing for the DCCC to spending money on until the midterms except for special elections. The DCCC is the problem.

Appreciate the breakdown, Fez. However, I think based on the 2016 presidential election alone, the DNC is still a problem. Just not as big of a problem as the DCCC, an organization of which I wasn't even aware until now! 

[Fez]

5 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

Appreciate the breakdown, Fez. However, I think based on the 2016 presidential election alone, the DNC is still a problem. Just not as big of a problem as the DCCC, an organization of which I wasn't even aware until now! 

Sure. I'm not saying everything is peachy with the DNC; they have their own issues as well (though I hope Perez and Ellison can clean things up). But because many people do only know about the DNC, they end up getting blamed for the faults of other organizations not under their control.

Its (partly) the DNC's fault that state Democratic parties barely exist anymore in so many red states; which does make candidate recruitment harder. Its (mostly) the DCCC's fault that so many GOP Representatives do not get real challengers, and (almost entirely) the DCCC's that so many challengers do not get national funding. Look at all three of the Democrats in big special elections this spring: Thompson in Kansas, Ossoff in Georgia, and Quist in Montana. We don't know how two of those elections will turn out yet, but all these candidates decided to run and made a splash on their own. If we relied on DCCC recruitment, these races would probably be uncontested. And the DCCC probably wouldn't have funded any of them, except for the fact that there's so much national attention on Georgia that they can't ignore it (although, ironically, Ossoff has raised so much money on his own that the added value from DCCC is pretty low; it'd be better for them to help Quist flood the market in Montana. He's got a decent amount of money, but not nearly as much).

By contrast, look at the senate. There are credible candidates who compete hard in almost every race (sure triage eventually happens as elections get closer, but usually everyone gets a shot) and there's still many red state Democratic senators. The DSCC doesn't get all the credit here, but they help make sure candidates are able to succeed if the conditions allow it. It is a mark against them that they didn't really get involved in the Louisiana election in December, but there are some mitigating circumstances. The (acting) leadership was on the way out the door and everyone was still shell-shocked from Trump's win.

ETA: An example: A couple months ago a friend of mine was considering running against the Republican representing his congressional district. This Republican is pretty entrenched, but its a swing district and the kind that Democrats need to win if they want a House majority. My friend got in touch with the DCCC, not looking for support this early on, but wanting to find out more about the process. Their response: "Oh, we'll look at the district in early 2018, and if any candidates have at least a $1 million cash-on-hand, we'll take them seriously." (those last 5 words are a direct quote).

That's the totally wrong attitude to have. The DCCC should not be sitting back and waiting to see if any well-funded candidates emerge (and even then not actually promising to do anything); especially not for a district like this one. They should be actively trying to recruit candidates. And if a competitive primary emerges, they should stay out of that, but begin laying the general election ground work for the whoever wins the primary. Instead they are completely passive.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Judean People's Front

People's Front of Judea

A "crack suicide squad" I'm sure.

[Commodore]

Fez,

that stuff might help at the margins, but often it's just squeezing a few more drops out of a turnip

events, outcomes, and personalities are always the biggest driver, rather than arguments or party operations

 

[Fez]

53 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Fez,

that stuff might help at the margins, but often it's just squeezing a few more drops out of a turnip

events, outcomes, and personalities are always the biggest driver, rather than arguments or party operations

 

In general, yeah, the party organizations aren't the most important factor (although when there are wave elections, the only thing that matters sometimes is that there's a credible, warm body on the ballot; and DCCC should take responsibility for that minimum requirement). But they can help, and if they aren't going to, then what's the point of their existence?

In the case of Kansas, I don't know if DCCC money could've made the difference to put Thompson over the edge; but the supposed reason for its existence is to at least try. He had a shoestring campaign and got incredibly close (for that district) because Democratic turnout dropped far less from the general election than Republican turnout did; maybe more money for GOTV operations could've had that drop be even smaller.

I guess the point is, its better to donate to individual candidates than the party organizations in general; unless you want to support DNC infrastructure work (the DSCC is fine, but senate campaigns are also highly visible and easy to donate to). 

And my original point, if you're going to blame, know who to blame.

[LongRider]

Interesting list.

Quote

Week 22: Experts in authoritarianism advise to keep a list of things subtly changing around you, so you’ll remember.

 

https://medium.com/@Amy_Siskind/week-22-experts-in-authoritarianism-advise-to-keep-a-list-of-things-subtly-changing-around-you-so-fdf7960cacd6

[Werthead]

North Korea's missile blowing up on the launchpad may have been the luckiest break since the Norwegian satellite incident of 1995 (when Russia thought it was under attack and its nuclear briefcase was brought to President Yeltsin), if not Able Archer in 1983. If that missile had been shot down by the Americans or Japanese, or if the US had decided to retaliate against the missile launch site, it could have triggered a much wider conflict.

Although the situation remains severe, and North Korea is allegedly still prepping a nuclear test, it does appear that China is now more closely on board with the US in neutralising North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

[davos]

 

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

North Korea's missile blowing up on the launchpad may have been the luckiest break since the Norwegian satellite incident of 1995 (when Russia thought it was under attack and its nuclear briefcase was brought to President Yeltsin), if not Able Archer in 1983. If that missile had been shot down by the Americans or Japanese, or if the US had decided to retaliate against the missile launch site, it could have triggered a much wider conflict.

Although the situation remains severe, and North Korea is allegedly still prepping a nuclear test, it does appear that China is now more closely on board with the US in neutralising North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

The danger remains almost as high as it was this weekend.  China's options on NK are limited.  If they do what they can to ramp up the pressure, the regime will feel further backed into a corner.  Rather than helping to resolve the situation, NK may feel greater cause to ramp up its nuclear testing to show the world it is a dangerous country that should not be messed with.  The risk is that rather than nudge them into better behavior, they are instead feel pushed into dangerous actions.  And if they do preform a nuclear test, Trump will be in a hard position, at least by his lights.  He may feel the need to bomb them on principle to back up his prior rhetoric.  

[Fez]

Interesting.

Quote

 

Voice of America reports that foreign naval forces have shot dead two Somali pirates in international waters.

The pirates were attempting to hijack an unidentified ship near the Gulf of Aden on Saturday. Another pirate was injured during the incident.

Ahmed Abdullahi, an official with the anti-piracy force in the Puntland region, said the men were from a group of nine pirates. The others escaped.

The naval force involved was not named.

The report coincides with that from Chinese news agency Xinhua saying that a convoy sent by the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) rescued a Panamanian tanker that was being attacked by pirates in the Gulf of Aden on Saturday.

The PLAN received a report around 9:30 p.m. Saturday Beijing Time saying that the ship Alheera was under attack by five pirates and was requesting help.

The frigate Hengyang dispatched its shipboard helicopter to the area and had driven the pirates away an hour later.

 

Easy to read too much into this; but I can't think of other instances where China acted like this. I wonder if they see the widespread distrust of Trump as an opportunity to begin preempting the US as the guarantor of international security. I'll be curious to see if there are more stories like this coming in the future.

[Relic]

1 hour ago, davos said:

 And if they do preform a nuclear test, Trump will be in a hard position, at least by his lights.  He may feel the need to bomb them on principle to back up his prior rhetoric.  

The question is, can Drumpf do so without approval form Congress?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Relic said:

The question is, can Drumpf do so without approval form Congress?

He can, Presidents have been doing this for centuries (literally) without prior Congressional approval.  All Congress can to is strip funding from military actions the President has already undertaken.  

[Relic]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He can, Presidents have been doing this for centuries (literally) without prior Congressional approval.  All Congress can to is strip funding from military actions the President has already undertaken.  

Well then we are truly fucked. Does anyone here see a possibility that 45 DOESN'T bomb NK in the next 6 months?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Relic said:

Well then we are truly fucked. Does anyone here see a possibility that 45 DOESN'T bomb NK in the next 6 months?

It depends on whether or not he sees something shiny after he makes up his mind to do it.