U. S. Politics: A noun, a verb and no collusion.

[Fragile Bird]

Bill Cosby has been convicted on all 3 counts. It will be appealed, and lawyers are saying it will likely be overturned because the judge allowed other complainants to testify. But there has been, at least, a symbolic conviction.

Think about that, Mr. Trump.

[Guest]

For fuck's sake. Fucking Democrats.

Steny Hoyer secretly recorded leaning hard on a progressive Democratic candidate to drop out of the Colorado primary to flip Mike Coffman's seat.

Quote

HOYER: Levi, obviously I wanted to talk to you about this congressional race.

TILLEMANN: You would like me to get out of the race.

HOYER: You keep saying I would like you to get out, and of course that’s correct.

TILLEMANN: I know you’re fundraising for Crow.

HOYER: Yeah. I’m for Crow. I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t participate in the decision.

TILLEMANN: So your position is a decision was made very early on because voters had a say. That’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the Sixth Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate.

HOYER: That’s certainly a consequence of our decision. There are two things I would like you to consider. One may be easier than the other. First would be, if you stay in the race — and frankly, I hope that you would not — but I’ll get to that in a second. But if you stay in the race, it is not useful to the objective to tear down Crow. Crow’s clearly the favorite; doesn’t mean he’ll win, just means he’s the favorite.

TILLEMANN: I hear you.

HOYER: That doesn’t mean it’s right, just means —

TILLEMANN: No, I hear you.

HOYER: I don’t know Crow well, but I think he’s a decent human being.

TILLEMANN: So before we go any further on that, Crow is the favorite in no small part, Congressman Hoyer, because the DCCC not only put its finger on the scale, but started jumping on the scale very early on. I’m born and raised a Democrat, I mean, it’s undemocratic to have a small elite select someone and then try to rig the primary against the other people running, and that’s basically what’s been happening.

HOYER: I hear you, and I disagree.

TILLEMANN: But you were part of that process.

HOYER: Absolutely.

TILLEMANN: You said, “Abso —”?

Hoyer: Absolutely.

TILLEMANN: Yes.

HOYER: I’ve been at this a long time. When I said we need to get in strong, hard, and early, you disagree with me. You know, obviously, that’s your choice.

TILLEMANN: You guys are shoveling money at him.

HOYER: We’re going to continue.

TILLEMANN: You’re going to continue to do it?

HOYER: We are going to continue to do it, and the reason, Levi, we’re going to do it is because a decision was made to focus. It was clear that was our policy and our hope that we could, early on, try to come to an agreement on a candidate that we thought could win the general, and to give that candidate all the help we could give them so that we would have a unified effort going into a general election.

TILLEMANN: Which means effectively, Congressman Hoyer, I’m running a campaign against Crow, and against you, and against the DCCC, because you guys are on Crow’s side.

HOYER: Yeah. You know, frankly, that happens in life all the time.

Democrats are trying to thread a thin fucking needle to win back the House and (fer Chrissake please the Senate!) and shit like this is not going to help. Just shut the fuck up and quietly shove your fucking money at your preferred candidate. Quit acting all fucking mob boss.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

For fuck's sake. Fucking Democrats.

Steny Hoyer secretly recorded leaning hard on a progressive Democratic candidate to drop out of the Colorado primary to flip Mike Coffman's seat.

Was this recorded by Tillemann?  Because if so I think it's pretty scummy on his part to do this and release it to make national democrats look bad.  Way to fight the good fight.

The DCCC picks candidates that it thinks can win and does what it can to support those candidates at the expense of other candidates.  That's how politics works.  What exactly is Hoyer doing that sounds like a mob boss?  Did he threaten to end Tillemann's career?  No.  Did he promise some political appointment that isn't his to give?  No.  He asked him to drop out, and admitted that he was going to support Crow, because he saw Crow as the better candidate. 

This kind of thing happens all the time.  I don't have a problem with the DCCC having a role in selecting candidates in the primary.  A few threads ago we talked about how the RCCC should have made sure that an actual nazi wasn't the republican nominee in that one Illinois district.  This is a similar, but smaller example of the same phenomenon.  Obviously I'm not saying TIllemann is a nazi, just that the DCCC has a role in selecting candidates, because they are trying to win elections.  It's quite possible that Conor Lamb would have been damaged by a democratic primary in PA-18, and if so, his 300 vote winning margin probalby disappears.  But I'm glad as hell that he won that race, even if he is way more moderate than me. 

Saying that this is "rigging" elections is just ridiculous, drives down turnout and makes it more likely we have a Republican house. 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Was this recorded by Tillemann?  Because if so I think it's pretty scummy on his part to do this and release it to make national democrats look bad.  Way to fight the good fight.

The DCCC picks candidates that it thinks can win and does what it can to support those candidates at the expense of other candidates.  That's how politics works.  What exactly is Hoyer doing that sounds like a mob boss?  Did he threaten to end Tillemann's career?  No.  Did he promise some political appointment that isn't his to give?  No.  He asked him to drop out, and admitted that he was going to support Crow, because he saw Crow as the better candidate. 

This kind of thing happens all the time.  I don't have a problem with the DCCC having a role in selecting candidates in the primary.  A few threads ago we talked about how the RCCC should have made sure that an actual nazi wasn't the republican nominee in that one Illinois district.  This is a similar, but smaller example of the same phenomenon.  Obviously I'm not saying TIllemann is a nazi, just that the DCCC has a role in selecting candidates, because they are trying to win elections.  It's quite possible that Conor Lamb would have been damaged by a democratic primary in PA-18, and if so, his 300 vote winning margin probalby disappears.  But I'm glad as hell that he won that race, even if he is way more moderate than me. 

Saying that this is "rigging" elections is just ridiculous, drives down turnout and makes it more likely we have a Republican house. 

It was recorded by Tillemann because he had been wrangling with the DCCC for months over material support promised to his campaign (polling, donor lists, campaign training) that never materialized.

And of course the DCCC is going to have a favored candidate. I'm not naive. All I'm saying is don't make it so fucking blatant. We just recently finished arguing this very point from the 2016 primaries, and apparently the lesson the DCCC took away from that is "keep doing the same fucking thing".

It's stupid and short-sighted and it doesn't even take into account whether their choice would be a good candidate. It's just picking a good resume. 

And this kind of blatant favoritism will backfire. We don't need Democratic gatekeepers clearing the field for the Chosen One. We had that in 2016 and it didn't work. 

Btw, here's the original article that the Vox article quoted.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And this kind of blatant favoritism will backfire. We don't need Democratic gatekeepers clearing the field for the Chosen One. We had that in 2016 and it didn't work. 

It happens at every level by both sides. It's part of what parties do. They have their internal data and they back the candidate with the best chances to win unless they find some bad oppo research. This guy stabbed his party in the back, and his actions show that there were probably valid reasons why the DCCC wasn't helping him.

[Yukle]

4 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Polls: Democrats on Track to Flip 3 GOP Senate Seats

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/polls-democrats-on-track-to-flip-3-gop-senate-seats.html

 

Hmm...

Some of their purple/red-state Senators, like WV, are still tight, though, so it's really hard to know if they'll have a net gain. It's hard to say what their net gain will be, and I find it hard to believe that AZ would ever elect a Democrat on that margin... ?

Here's something else super exciting:

Cruz is not a lock-in for Texas, with a 3% lead that's within the 3.6% margin of error. Admittedly, it's only one poll and not a sound one (that's a big margin of error) and it's entirely possible the margin favours him, so it's a 6% lead. But it's also possible it doesn't. Here's hoping.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/tx/texas_senate_cruz_vs_orourke-6310.html

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It happens at every level by both sides. It's part of what parties do. They have their internal data and they back the candidate with the best chances to win unless they find some bad oppo research. This guy stabbed his party in the back, and his actions show that there were probably valid reasons why the DCCC wasn't helping him.

I agree with you on this. At some point you keep your goddamn mouth shut if you want the party to succeed.

Now that doesn't mean the DCCC isn't a pit of scumbags who need to be cleaned out. But approaching midterms with a madman in power is not the time to air such complaints publicly when he has not revealed any particularly interesting information.

The DCCC puts its foot on the scale? Big news. I can't believe it. But I sure am glad that it got brought up in the imminent months of the most important election the Party's had in decades.

[Guest]

I view the party having a particular favorite and working behind the scenes to promote that favorite as being substantially different as the party withholding support promised to candidates who haven't been picked from on high, if for no other reason than it's fucking stupid to blatantly alienate progressive voters all over again after the 2016 primary debacle.

[Yukle]

42 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It's stupid and short-sighted and it doesn't even take into account whether their choice would be a good candidate. It's just picking a good resume. 

And this kind of blatant favoritism will backfire. We don't need Democratic gatekeepers clearing the field for the Chosen One. We had that in 2016 and it didn't work. 

Two things to keep in mind, though:

1) Russian meddling was undermining Clinton and bolstering Bernie. The intention was to sow discord (and it worked). Suppose Bernie had won the nomination - do you really think that Russia would continue favourable attention of him? More likely they'd switch tactics and smash his reputation as much as possible to make the waters as murky as possible. To say nothing of the fact that the Democratic party was running against a candidate not actually part of their party. And, when all is said and done, the power was in the hands of their members. And they voted for Clinton convincingly. So, sure, perhaps the choice wasn't their best one, but the voting did the talking in the end, not the leadership.

2) Clinton did win the election. It's the utterly idiotic EC that - despite war-mongering buffoons like George W Bush and two other men before him - ruined it for everyone else.

[Week]

https://www.theroot.com/wait-did-stormy-daniels-lawyer-just-hint-that-a-1-6-m-1825573158

Quote

[Avenatti] “there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?”

Brzezinski listed Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Republican donor Elliott Broidy — but Avenatti said she was making the same mistake everyone else had.

[Avenatti]  “No, no, no,” he said. “Mr. Trump, the Trump organization and Sean Hannity. Mr. Broidy was not disclosed in open court as one of Michael Cohen’s clients.”

[Avenatti] “I think at some point we are going to find out, if in fact, the client in connection with the ($1.6 million) settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy. I’m going to leave it at that.”

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

I agree with you on this. At some point you keep your goddamn mouth shut if you want the party to succeed.

Now that doesn't mean the DCCC isn't a pit of scumbags who need to be cleaned out. But approaching midterms with a madman in power is not the time to air such complaints publicly when he has not revealed any particularly interesting information.

The DCCC puts its foot on the scale? Big news. I can't believe it. But I sure am glad that it got brought up in the imminent months of the most important election the Party's had in decades.

Again, it's not just the DCCC, it's every level of politics. I once sat in a room with people who were members of the DFL of a specific senate distinct. They were debating who should replace a retiring State House Rep. Three people wanted to run. Resources are slim, so one candidate was preferable. A vote was taken, and the obviously best candidate overwhelming won. And she was the candidate that got the help. 

[Yukle]

@Week

No way... surely that's a bait from Avenatti?

When it comes to being a lawyer, he has absolutely played Trump perfectly. He is the first person I've seen attack Trump in an effective and consistently damaging way: on TV, getting his audience to do the thinking, making Trump's surrogates seem increasingly stupid.

The way that Hannity was so brutally crushed by the revelation he was Cohen's client wasn't something Avenatti could've known, but the fact that he forced Hannity to respond to accusations against Cohen time and time again opened him up for a fall as more evidence came to light.

When it came to Cohen's decision to take the Fifth, he was so careful and methodical to stress that it's an important right of his. He always says, "He's invoking his right to the Fifth amendment..." and saying little else. Then he'll pause and wait for the news anchor to suggest it's covering something more nefarious. He can agree to those, without being the person who said them first. It's a subtle but important removal.

The incredible part, though, is that he's always seemed to know more than he has been letting on. The forensic sketch, for instance, really touched a nerve with Trump. I have a feeling that Avenatti did his homework and found out whether Trump knew someone who looked like that - or whether the story really held merit, and would be worth sticking on TV. He's playing a brilliant game: getting under Trump's skin on TV (the only noise Trump listens to) and forcing him on the defensive, getting him to make his stupid, self-contradictory, comments.

He correctly guessed Cohen would be squeezed, that Trump would soon incriminate himself (which he did, finally admitting Cohen helped him) and he also said that the case is related to campaign finance laws. He has also predicted Trump won't last the term, so here's hoping.

But there's not a doubt in my mind that Avenatti has been playing his cards carefully and methodically. He hasn't been wrong yet, has he? He was more reserved than normal when it came to this latest statement... but oh my goodness, if what he is implying is true... wow.

Republicans (apparently) see abortion as morally equivalent to all types of murder except gun violence. If Trump made a million and a half dollar payment to keep a woman quiet about aborting his child... surely, surely, surely, surely something will finally stick against him in the eyes of his stupid supporters.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Week said:

https://www.theroot.com/wait-did-stormy-daniels-lawyer-just-hint-that-a-1-6-m-1825573158

What evidence is there that Broidy used the Trump organization as a pass through? Or are they arguing he just lied about being Cohen's client? I doubt there is anything to this.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, it's not just the DCCC, it's every level of politics. I once sat in a room with people who were members of the DFL of a specific senate distinct. They were debating who should replace a retiring State House Rep. Three people wanted to run. Resources are slim, so one candidate was preferable. A vote was taken, and the obviously best candidate overwhelming won. And she was the candidate that got the help. 

I guess it just makes the primaries a bit of kabuki theater; why even go through the process of asking what the primary voters want when there appears to be a eminently winnable candidate that could be picked by committee? I dont think any party has to have a primary process, and the way "business as usual" is done could be the Democrat's process going forward.

It would definitely save everyone a lot of time and effort.

[Ormond]

Since people are discussing Democrats in Colorado, you all might be interested in the email I just got from there:

We said last October that this was going to be the first year in Colorado history that we would recruit a candidate in all 65 House seats, and I'm proud to say that we have accomplished our goal. 

From Sterling to Bayfield and from Lamar to Craig, every voter has the choice to send a Democrat to the State House. 

................................... 

Finally, I want to thank all the candidates who have stepped up to run, especially those in districts that haven't had Democratic candidates in past years. It is a difficult decision to run for office. Your opinions and values are put up to public scrutiny and it takes a huge amount of time and energy to run a campaign. Win or lose, these folks have made a decision to stand up for a more progressive Colorado, and we are truly thankful for their commitment. 

Sincerely, 

Rep. Alec Garnett
Chair
House Majority Project

The House Majority Project is an initiative of the Colorado Democratic Party.

I've left out parts of this were just basically fundraising.  --It's quite interesting to me, though, that at least in Colorado they have recruited a Democratic candidate to run in every single district for their state House of Reps. It seems that several people on this thread have been complaining about Democrats not running candidates in all districts. At least in that one state, that's not a problem this year. 

[maarsen]

19 minutes ago, Yukle said:

@Week

No way... surely that's a bait from Avenatti?

When it comes to being a lawyer, he has absolutely played Trump perfectly. He is the first person I've seen attack Trump in an effective and consistently damaging way: on TV, getting his audience to do the thinking, making Trump's surrogates seem increasingly stupid.

The way that Hannity was so brutally crushed by the revelation he was Cohen's client wasn't something Avenatti could've known, but the fact that he forced Hannity to respond to accusations against Cohen time and time again opened him up for a fall as more evidence came to light.

When it came to Cohen's decision to take the Fifth, he was so careful and methodical to stress that it's an important right of his. He always says, "He's invoking his right to the Fifth amendment..." and saying little else. Then he'll pause and wait for the news anchor to suggest it's covering something more nefarious. He can agree to those, without being the person who said them first. It's a subtle but important removal.

The incredible part, though, is that he's always seemed to know more than he has been letting on. The forensic sketch, for instance, really touched a nerve with Trump. I have a feeling that Avenatti did his homework and found out whether Trump knew someone who looked like that - or whether the story really held merit, and would be worth sticking on TV. He's playing a brilliant game: getting under Trump's skin on TV (the only noise Trump listens to) and forcing him on the defensive, getting him to make his stupid, self-contradictory, comments.

He correctly guessed Cohen would be squeezed, that Trump would soon incriminate himself (which he did, finally admitting Cohen helped him) and he also said that the case is related to campaign finance laws. He has also predicted Trump won't last the term, so here's hoping.

But there's not a doubt in my mind that Avenatti has been playing his cards carefully and methodically. He hasn't been wrong yet, has he? He was more reserved than normal when it came to this latest statement... but oh my goodness, if what he is implying is true... wow.

Republicans (apparently) see abortion as morally equivalent to all types of murder except gun violence. If Trump made a million and a half dollar payment to keep a woman quiet about aborting his child... surely, surely, surely, surely something will finally stick against him in the eyes of his stupid supporters.

People keep thinking that Trump is smart and can play the media. Well here is the perfect counterexample. Avenatti is using the media to play Trump like a stupid, moronic fish that will never understand that the hook is well and truly set. I hope that when Trump falls, he falls BIG.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

Since people are discussing Democrats in Colorado, you all might be interested in the email I just got from there:

We said last October that this was going to be the first year in Colorado history that we would recruit a candidate in all 65 House seats, and I'm proud to say that we have accomplished our goal. 

From Sterling to Bayfield and from Lamar to Craig, every voter has the choice to send a Democrat to the State House. 

................................... 

Finally, I want to thank all the candidates who have stepped up to run, especially those in districts that haven't had Democratic candidates in past years. It is a difficult decision to run for office. Your opinions and values are put up to public scrutiny and it takes a huge amount of time and energy to run a campaign. Win or lose, these folks have made a decision to stand up for a more progressive Colorado, and we are truly thankful for their commitment. 

Sincerely, 

Rep. Alec Garnett
Chair
House Majority Project

The House Majority Project is an initiative of the Colorado Democratic Party.

I've left out parts of this were just basically fundraising.  --It's quite interesting to me, though, that at least in Colorado they have recruited a Democratic candidate to run in every single district for their state House of Reps. It seems that several people on this thread have been complaining about Democrats not running candidates in all districts. At least in that one state, that's not a problem this year. 

While Jace is not about to condone the dispensing of resources across the entirety of the Front in normal situations without extensive analysis, if ever there was a year to get any hobo with a Social Security Card on the ballot it's 2018.

[Yukle]

9 minutes ago, maarsen said:

People keep thinking that Trump is smart and can play the media. Well here is the perfect counterexample. Avenatti is using the media to play Trump like a stupid, moronic fish that will never understand that the hook is well and truly set. I hope that when Trump falls, he falls BIG.

When Trump falls it will be YUUUUGE.

His tax returns are what will finally kill him. If the Democrats take control of Congress, they must find some way of forcing the issue.

He's not a billionaire, and his income isn't legal. Those two things are what will destroy him, the idea that he was never as successful as he claimed (although still wealthy, and self-made at that, since he lost his inheritance and went bankrupt six times), and the idea that he's a con-man.

Maybe they can put him in the cell next to Bernie Madoff? That would be fitting.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, it's not just the DCCC, it's every level of politics. I once sat in a room with people who were members of the DFL of a specific senate distinct. They were debating who should replace a retiring State House Rep. Three people wanted to run. Resources are slim, so one candidate was preferable. A vote was taken, and the obviously best candidate overwhelming won. And she was the candidate that got the help. 

If the other two candidates had ran, however, would the DFL have withheld assistance like polling and access to donor lists? 

I understand resources are limited and that political parties can't fund every Tom, Dick and Mary that throws their hat into the political ring, but freezing primary candidates off from any kind of assistance whatsoever is a bridge too far.

If you'll read the Intercept article, it also shows that some of these actions by the national party are pissing off state party officials.

Although, the national party might have more money to fund candidates if the DNC and DCCC hadn't been paying $2.4 million to Hillary Clinton's Onward Together fundraising appstatus for access to her campaign's email and donor lists.

FFS. You know, I had almost talked myself into feeling okay with resuming donations to the DNC, the DCCC and its Senate counterpart, considering the importance of the 2018 elections, but fuck that. I'm going to continue to just donate to individual candidates.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

Republicans (apparently) see abortion as morally equivalent to all types of murder except gun violence. If Trump made a million and a half dollar payment to keep a woman quiet about aborting his child... surely, surely, surely, surely something will finally stick against him in the eyes of his stupid supporters.

Lol, that's cute. Republican ideology is a self-reinforcing feedback loop of stupidity and venality. So what if Trump aborted a kid. The Clintons were responsible for millions! They'll even pretend to care about aborted black babies and black people locked up by Clinton-era crime policies before they pick back up their torches and Failed Slavelord Rebellion Participant Flags.

But if such a thing were revealed, I'd at least go troll Curt Schilling about it on social media.

 

39 minutes ago, maarsen said:

People keep thinking that Trump is smart and can play the media. Well here is the perfect counterexample. Avenatti is using the media to play Trump like a stupid, moronic fish that will never understand that the hook is well and truly set. I hope that when Trump falls, he falls BIG.

When you gaze into the Abyss of reality television, the Abyss gazes also into you.