U. S Politics: I know why the caged babe screams.

[aceluby]

15 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

A lot of you can play around with the whole, "this is just about Sarandon" argument from the last thread, but I see things like this, and I know the argument is a lot bigger. Dems are super divided to the point of saying ridiculous things to anger a huge portion of their voting base. Clinton was the worst thing about the last election, pal. The Dems consistently find the only candidates who cannot beat the obviously worse choice. How does this happen?

They have a lot of practice at it.  Infighting and running bad candidates has been their bread and butter since 1980.  The only ones able to pull of victories have been super charismatic 40 somethings in almost 35 years; and that's running against seniles, horrible business failures, ridiculously old guys, and flat out morons.

So color me shocked that the old white lady with no charisma lost in the end.  And the old white dude running against her in the primaries?  Yeah.... he had no chance either.  Hopefully the DNC has enough data at this point to start to draw some conclusions on who they back.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

The handwringing over Clinton failing to invest in MI and WI is misplaced.  If Clinton had won PA and only MI + WI had given Trump his margin of victory, then you'd have a point.  But Clinton undeniably invested a huge amount of attention and resources into winning PA and it wasn't enough.  So IF we assume that Clinton had better information and instead of investing in reach targets like AZ and GA instead spent her money in MI and WI, then yes, it's possible (not certain) that she could have won those two states and lost the election more narrowly than she did.  Would that really have been so much better?  Because it makes no difference to me. 

I almost entirely agree with this, except in one respect. In 2016, there was perfect alignment between the presidential winner in each state and which party won the senate election in that state. Clinton lost Wisconsin by slightly less than Russ Feingold lost the senate race there, but only by a little. If she had won the state, Feingold almost certainly would've won as well. And if Feingold was in the senate right now, it would be a 50-50 split and Republicans would not have a working majority due to McCain's absence (maybe that'd get him to retire, but he's vainglorious enough that I really doubt it).

[davos]

1 hour ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

Well, if we take the 2016 results and flip MI and WI to Clinton then it would be Trump 280-Clinton 256.  So yes, she would have still lost. 

And I'm not arguing against a 50 state strategy, I think that Democrats failing to even fight in huge swaths of the country is indeed a huge problem and it's why the House is such a gerrymandered mess.  But it wasn't a strategic failure that led to Clinton's loss; her voters were really badly allocated into states that were not electorally important. 

While I'm  a Wisconsin resident and would have really appreciated more resources expended in this state, both to see Trump not win and to remove Ron Johnson (one of the truly worst human beings to sit in the senate, a institution filled with horrible human beings) and replace him with Russ Feingold (who is not what he was a decade ago but is still one of the best public servants this country has had at elected high federal office in my lifetime), I don't think I can completely agree with this sentiment.   Up to the Comey memo bringing Clinton's email issue back into public focus, which hit within 2 weeks of the election, both her campaign and democrats in general were polling strongly and seemed to have momentum.  There was a lot of reason to believe that not only was a win likely but a decisive one that would give the dems a strong position to govern from for at least 2 years was quite possible.  There were some counter indications, including the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton, even among what should have been her base.  No amount of campaigning would erase have either who Clinton is as a person or her family history that both gave her the leverage to get the nomination and left a lot of people less than sure about her.  The situation indicated that the dems should be aggressive, put go after areas that would normally be solidly but not overwhelmingly GOP, and generally try to expand what looked like a W.  Then the Comey memo hit, and her polls tanked with little time to do damage control.  This exacerbated the lack of positive feelings HRC has always suffered from.  This kept people who would have voted for her at home. Combined with voter repression efforts, this gave Trump a narrow margin of victory in WI, MI, and PA.  

If not for unforeseen event of Comey's memo, Hillary would have likely been president with a narrow EC win but a strong popular vote margin.  You can't plan for the unforeseen.   A campaign can be flexible, have discussed plans to deal with various hypothetical, but they can't prepare for everything.  when a game changer hits in that window where it is close enough to the vote that its hard to have time to effectively counter but that there is still enough time for the public to absorb it (something that happens the day before the election may not have time to shift the electorate or to convince borderline voters to stay home) there the campaign has little option but to ride it out and hope.  I think in this regard Clinton's campaign did not go in the wrong direction.  Where I do hold them accountable is that they seemed to fail to recognize, much less try to counter, how effectively Trump, his surrogates, and the Russians, where using social media both to dampen HRC's support and build enthusiasm for the GOP candidate.  Obama made extremely effective use of the internet and expanding social media sector in both his wins.  Trump, much more awkwardly, did as well.  While more traditionally campaigning can not be ignored, the failure to effectively use social media really hurt Clinton.  

[Martell Spy]

Trump Has a Bill That Would Blow Up the WTO. It’s Called the U.S. FART Act.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trumps-u-s-fart-act-would-pull-america-out-of-the-wto-united-states-fair-and-reciprocal-tariff-act.html

Quote

The president likely had such liabilities in mind when he ordered staffers this spring to prepare draft legislation that would (essentially) nullify the WTO’s rules. White House advisers briefed Trump on the resulting “United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act” in late May. Axios briefed the public on a leaked a version of that documented Sunday night; and many, many Twitter users proceeded to “brief” each other on the fact that the White House had named its bill the “U.S. FART Act.”

 

[Martell Spy]

Man who yelled 'womp womp' and allegedly pulled gun on protesters arrested

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/02/womp-womp-suspect-arrested-immigration-protest-689657
 

Quote

 

A man who mimicked the derisive remarks of former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and brandished a handgun at immigration protesters in Alabama over the weekend was charged with menacing and reckless endangerment, AL.com reported Sunday.

Details of the altercation were also reported by The Washington Post.

With a gun tucked into the waistband of his pants, Shane Ryan Sealy shouted “womp womp” and carried a sign that said “ICE ICE baby” as he walked in front of protesters gathered in Huntsville, Alabama, part of a nationwide series of marches on Saturday against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

 

 

[Martell Spy]

EXCLUSIVE: Michael Cohen says family and country, not President Trump, is his 'first loyalty'

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-family-country-president-trump-loyalty/story?id=56304585

Quote

 

Petrillo is expected to take over as Cohen’s lead counsel in the coming days. And Cohen makes clear that his decision about whether to cooperate will be based not on any previous loyalty to Trump -- but on Petrillo’s legal advice.

Once Petrillo fully assumes his role, a joint defense agreement Cohen shared with the president, which allowed their lawyers to share information and documents with each other, will come to an end, ABC News has learned.

At that point, the legal interests of the president of the United States and his longtime personal attorney could quickly become adversarial.

 

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

13 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Worst things about the 2016 election, Trump winning, and Sanders running. I honsetly hate Sanders with a passion. Fake ass centrist trying to pass himself off as a leftist and his cult supports him no matter what. Whiter than a klan rally support base.

I got news for you, he wasn't on the ticket in 2016.

[IheartIheartTesla]

It looks like Trumps approval ratings are in the 52-42 range and haven't dropped that much (I think sufficient time has passed since the building of the concentration camps that we would have seen some effect). Generic House ballot still a bit wobbly and the Dems seem to have regained some of their lead back (we are talking 1-2 points here, nothing earth-shattering).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

45 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

EXCLUSIVE: Michael Cohen says family and country, not President Trump, is his 'first loyalty'

 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-family-country-president-trump-loyalty/story?id=56304585

 

Really, country first? I read the piece on the guardian website.
I think the country first ship has sailed a good while ago. Some time between,, the claim he would take a bullet for Trump, the Russia meeting of Dipshit Jr. and his faux consulting firm. 
Anyway, my favorite thing was him whining about his good name. I am not sure when that ship has sailed, sometime between paying hush money for Twitler's misstresses, and appearing with his "what polls?" comedy routine on CNN.

 

[Mexal]

46 minutes ago, Notone said:

Really, country first? I read the piece on the guardian website.
I think the country first ship has sailed a good while ago. Some time between,, the claim he would take a bullet for Trump, the Russia meeting of Dipshit Jr. and his faux consulting firm. 
Anyway, my favorite thing was him whining about his good name. I am not sure when that ship has sailed, sometime between paying hush money for Twitler's misstresses, and appearing with his "what polls?" comedy routine on CNN.

 

Well, on the flip side, prosecutors just received over 1 million documents from the Special master in his case. So we'll see in the next few months how much pressure he's put under to put country first.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

 So we'll see in the next few months how much pressure he's put under to put country first.

So Mikey, is it country first, or America First?  

[Bonnot OG]

3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I got news for you, he wasn't on the ticket in 2016.

You know damn well what I am talking about, the primaries for the 2016 presidential election.
 

Oh look, another GOP nazi, but dont call them Nazis, and don't protest them because it's not civil. 

Just let them take over and kill everyone that isn't cis, straight, white, able bodied and neurotypical. 

Just be a good little smiling civil little do nothing as to not upset them or make the out of touch old white Dems upset. 

[Bonnot OG]

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

A lot of you can play around with the whole, "this is just about Sarandon" argument from the last thread, but I see things like this, and I know the argument is a lot bigger. Dems are super divided to the point of saying ridiculous things to anger a huge portion of their voting base. Clinton was the worst thing about the last election, pal. The Dems consistently find the only candidates who cannot beat the obviously worse choice. How does this happen?

That speaks more to society than it does about the candidate, hence my disgust for "ethical" leftists that voted with their "conscience". 

So also, let me get this straight, Clinton was the worst thing about the 2016 election, not Trump? 

K. Totally not an asinine false equivlance that ignores reality. 

Oh, and how horrible is Sanders if he couldn't beat Clinton lol? 

 

[Frog Eater]

8 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

You know god damn fucking well what I am talking about, the primaries for the 2016 presidential election.
 

Oh look, another GOP nazi, but dont call them Nazis, and don't protest them because it's not civil. 

Just let them take over and kill everyone that isn't cis, straight, white, able bodied and neurotypical. 

Just be a good little smiling civil little do nothing as to not upset them or make the out of touch old white Dems upset. 

He won a GOP Primary for a seat he cant win. The Democrat he is running against in the general has held the seat for 7 terms. 

The State GOP has disavowed this guy and his statements. 

[SweetPea]

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

Just let them take over and kill everyone that isn't cis, straight, white, able bodied and neurotypical. 

Totally realistic scenario. 

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

He won a GOP Primary for a seat he cant win. The Democrat he is running against in the general has held the seat for 7 terms. 

The State GOP has disavowed this guy and his statements. 

The GOP voters voted that assbag in, regardless of what GOP leadership has said, that's the guy the voters said "yeah, he represents my values".  Just like they did a pedophile last year, and a sexual assaulter the year before.  It's a problem.

I mean.... if you aren't at least a bit concerned about who voters are choosing as their representatives on the right, I just don't know what to say.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, aceluby said:

The GOP voters voted that assbag in, regardless of what GOP leadership has said, that's the guy the voters said "yeah, he represents my values".  Just like they did a pedophile last year, and a sexual assaulter the year before.  It's a problem.

I mean.... if you aren't at least a bit concerned about who voters are choosing as their representatives on the right, I just don't know what to say.

This really gets to the heart of problem. It's not a viable excuse to say that he can't win. What matters is that there are people en masse who are willing to vote for these kinds of candidates, and most notably they're almost always from one party. 

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

He won a GOP Primary for a seat he cant win. The Democrat he is running against in the general has held the seat for 7 terms. 

The State GOP has disavowed this guy and his statements. 

Yet the voters still voted for him. The problem is he has gotten votes and won the primary. 

Try and see the bigger picture here. They feel totally comfortable running for office and are actually getting votes.

[mormont]

49 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

This really gets to the heart of problem. It's not a viable excuse to say that he can't win. What matters is that there are people en masse who are willing to vote for these kinds of candidates, and most notably they're almost always from one party. 

It's not just that, either,

It's that these people - racists, sexual abusers, and con men - look at the GOP and say 'hey, there's a party in which my beliefs and behaviour fit right in, where I can not only be a member but have a political career'.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

It's not just that, either,

It's that these people - racists, sexual abusers, and con men - look at the GOP and say 'hey, there's a party in which my beliefs and behaviour fit right in, where I can not only be a member but have a political career'.

That's very true too, and Trump kind of took it a step further by showing that you can very obviously those beliefs and they'll still eat it up. The Democratic Party has a lot of problems, no doubt, but the Republican Party is a hot mess. I don't know how it's still functioning, let alone maintaining unified control of the government.