US Politics: Follow the Money!

[mormont]

[mod] Any further discussion in this thread of events in Israel should relate directly to US politics, please. It should also be respectful of individuals. If you want a place to vent your righteous anger, scream into a pillow. [/mod]

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I hate the term normalizing.  I hate normalizing so much I hate normalizing the term normalizing by typing the word normalizing so much.

..Anyway, the entire concept is pretty stupid in general, but especially in terms of Trump.  Everything the POTUS does on routine is going to be normalizing.  That's self-definitional.  The media is going to cover the office no matter what.  And any way they do will logically result in normalizing.  If 100% of outlets covered his actions by explicitly stating such actions should not be normalizing, you not what the effect would be?  It'd normalize it.

Yeah, I 100% disagree, and I’m surprised you’re taking this absolutist position given that you study the Executive Branch. What you’re arguing is that anything a president does consistently will therefore be normal. That’s a rather odd hot take in my opinion.

[Bonnot OG]

Gotta love how the USA's lack of a stance on Israel murdering Palestinians enables it to happen time and time again. 

No doubt Haley walking out of the UN will help it keep happening as well.

[Spockydog]

3 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

It is related to US politics since our govs lack of a stance on it enables it to happen time and time again. 

Yeah, this wouldn't have happened were it not for Trump.

[Zorral]

13 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

It speaks to the lack of character Trump supporters have to still be supporting him. 

He could burn a cross and they would still support him. Hell, he might as well burn a cross given what he says, who he supports, and who supports him. 

As we, who read, remember history etc., know, the dumbster's entire campaign playbook, including lines such as "I want to punch them in the face," about protesters of his vile racism, sexist philosophy and criminal behaviors, has been, and continues to be, right out of George Wallace's campaign playbook via Nixon's for winning the south in the 1968 election (which Humphrey lost, btw, by less than 1% -- maybe, possibly that would have been different if the Dems had picked NYC, say, instead of crazy cop Chicago for their convention?).

So yah, they do encourage cross burning, while doing the equivalent in their vocal and body language all the time.

 

[lokisnow]

Goldman Sachs Golden Boy Phil Murphy is fast enacting a major progressive agenda in New Jersey. If he's successful in turning the state into a liberal standard bearer, I imagine he becomes the establishment frontrunner for the democrat 2020 nomination.  This will make the Bernie bros all very upset, but probably not clothes rending agony that a female beating the Bernster caused, it should be interesting, if he takes up the progressive agenda and proves it successful, that will deleverage a lot of the Bernie bro critique of the establishment candidates.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/nyregion/new-jersey-emerges-as-a-liberal-bulwark-under-murphy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Ormond]

You all might be interested in the outcome of the Democratic primary for U.S. Representative in my district, where the "progressive" woman candidate defeated the centrist former congressman. 

http://www.newsweek.com/female-candidate-kara-eastman-nebraska-928031

I voted for Kara Eastman myself. I really didn't perceive my vote as being ideological in choosing a "progressive" over a "moderate," though I found myself trusting Eastman more than Ashford on GLBT issues, my personal interest. I also certainly didn't care that Brad Ashford was not a "lifelong Democrat" since I used to be a Republican myself. But I'm someone who thinks Eastman makes a much more exciting candidate than Ashford and will be more likely to bring out young people and women to vote for her. Eastman is 48 and a fresh face; Ashford is 68 and has been around in Nebraska politics for years. I would like to see younger people in Congress who will bring new energy to the fight against Trump. 

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Ormond said:

You all might be interested in the outcome of the Democratic primary for U.S. Representative in my district, where the "progressive" woman candidate defeated the centrist former congressman.

I would like to see younger people in Congress who will bring new energy to the fight against Trump.  

Indeed.  I would also like to see more diversity in the Democratic party and fewer old white men, so this is one small step in that direction.  Which meant that my preferences were ideologically all over the map last night, since I was rooting for both "progressive" Eastman and "centerist" Rachel Reddick in PA-1 (she lost to the much older and more progressive Scott Wallace).

[Bonnot OG]

Anyone see that latest racist white person says bigoted bullshit to people of color like the entitled bigot they are? 
This one was in NYC in Midtown Man. 

That guy is an attorney. 

Look it up to get his name and see his law office number, and if you want to forward bar complaints in New York ... you can fill out a form online.

Departmental Disciplinary Committee
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
First Judicial Department
61 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, New York 10006
(212) 401-0800, fax: (212) 401-0810

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Indeed.  I would also like to see more diversity in the Democratic party and fewer old white men, so this is one small step in that direction.  Which meant that my preferences were ideologically all over the map last night, since I was rooting for both "progressive" Eastman and "centerist" Rachel Reddick in PA-1 (she lost to the much older and more progressive Scott Wallace).

That said, this is considered an RNC win, as she's perceived as easier to beat and many are calling this the Dem version of the tea party failures.

[Maithanet]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That said, this is considered an RNC win, as she's perceived as easier to beat and many are calling this the Dem version of the tea party failures.

That's possible.  I remains to be seen whether more enthusiastic/firebrand liberals or moderate candidates is the key to winning back power for the Democrats.  But it seems pretty obvious the lesson of the last eight years of politics is that voter enthusiasm is a lot more important than conventional candidate quality.  Trump was a terrible candidate by almost any metric except the ability to excite his voters.  If Eastman can get people to the polls, she'll have a real shot. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

That's possible.  I remains to be seen whether more enthusiastic/firebrand liberals or moderate candidates is the key to winning back power for the Democrats.  But it seems pretty obvious the lesson of the last eight years of politics is that voter enthusiasm is a lot more important than conventional candidate quality.  Trump was a terrible candidate by almost any metric except the ability to excite his voters.  If Eastman can get people to the polls, she'll have a real shot. 

I think there's a bit of nuance needed. Trump wasn't particularly exciting to most voters, and turnout for Republicans is not why Trump won. Trump won because turnout for Democrats was lower than it was for Obama, whereas turnout for Trump was about the same in the aggregate that it was for Romney and McCain (though where the turnout was varied a lot). I think you're right that excitement for democrats is hugely important, but excitement for Republican voters seems to be almost unnecessary. There's an old adage in politics about how Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line, and that, I think, is more telling about why Trump won than excitement factors for Trump himself. 

What I thought was interesting about the results from last night is that progressives did not do exceedingly well overall, women did. Some women were running against Bernie-backed candidates and won, some  were running against DCCC candidates and won. They were certainly more progressive than 2012 era democrats, but not remotely close to what Sanderistas are like today. If that is  representative of the voter base in general, that'll be interesting. I'm not sure it will be important enough - remember that the majority of white women voted for Trump in the US, after all - but it's interesting to me. 

[Maithanet]

Just now, Kalbear said:

I think there's a bit of nuance needed. Trump wasn't particularly exciting to most voters, and turnout for Republicans is not why Trump won. Trump won because turnout for Democrats was lower than it was for Obama, whereas turnout for Trump was about the same in the aggregate that it was for Romney and McCain (though where the turnout was varied a lot). I think you're right that excitement for democrats is hugely important, but excitement for Republican voters seems to be almost unnecessary. There's an old adage in politics about how Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line, and that, I think, is more telling about why Trump won than excitement factors for Trump himself.

You have to remember that Trump ran a FAR more negative campaign than Romney did.  He dragged Clinton into the mud and held them both there for over a year.  Negative campaigning generally serves to drive down voter turnout on both sides (hopefully the other side more than your own). But instead the incredibly ugly 2016 campaign saw Democratic enthusiasm very low and Republican enthusiasm quite comparable to Romney in 2012.  That was Trump's single great achievement as a candidate.  And I think that is indeed unique to Trump, that Rubio or Jeb wouldn't have been able to run a campaign so uncompromisingly negative, nor would they have wanted to*.

* Although if we're being honest, I think that Rubio or Jeb would have defeated Clinton in 2016.  Just not in the same way. 

[Fragile Bird]

Wow. Michigan State just settled for $500M over Nassar's victims.

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2018/05/16/larry-nassar-michigan-state-settlement-lawsuit/614502002/

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

That's possible.  I remains to be seen whether more enthusiastic/firebrand liberals or moderate candidates is the key to winning back power for the Democrats.  But it seems pretty obvious the lesson of the last eight years of politics is that voter enthusiasm is a lot more important than conventional candidate quality.  Trump was a terrible candidate by almost any metric except the ability to excite his voters.  If Eastman can get people to the polls, she'll have a real shot. 

I suspect it’s more nuanced than that. Without having any data, I would guess that (i) it doesn’t matter in safe blue districts, (ii) it’s wise to get an exciting candidate in districts you don’t think on paper you can win and (iii) it’s smart to run exciting candidates in toss up House races and safer candidates for statewide office. Furthermore to the last point, I wonder what the data shows regarding the synergy between statewide races and local races, and which level is best to take more chances at, all things considered.

[Bonnot OG]

"These aren’t people. These are animals." Trump on people that are immigrants.

Yea, if you still support him and plan on voting for him again, you're a bigot.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

"These aren’t people. These are animals." Trump on people that are immigrants.

Yea, if you still support him and plan on voting for him again, you're a bigot.

You say this like they care

[Jace, Extat]

It's a feature, not a bug.

[Darth Richard II]

Yay net neutrality?

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yay net neutrality?

It's essentially a political stunt, used to record the votes of senators and weaponized later but without any real effect on the law (since the House will vote it down, and POTUS would veto it).