US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply

[DMC]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

The idea of openly calling yourself a socialist and getting traction was at least refreshing if not new, but that was 2016.

Bernie has been calling himself a socialist, and the novelty wore off, way way before 2016.  And, yeah.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, I'd say what Sanders has offered is indeed bullshit, but not new at all.  But there's no point to revisit this disagreement.  I don't like Sanders, you apparently do.  Ok, that ain't gonna change.

Yeah I'm not shilling for Sanders dude, but his 2016 agenda reshaped the Democratic base, and whatever you might say about the substance of his message, the message itself was clearly presented in a way that got people's attention. And more to the point, what cannot be denied is that he ignited the Democrat youth, which was kind of the whole point of the discussion.

Getting the young/gay/black/jewish/old/etc vote isn't about getting a candidate that fits into whatever slot you need. It's about getting somebody who energizes those demographics to come out and vote.

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

At the same time Trump is just doubling down on his rhetoric; he isn't interested in expanding his, old, white, and dying base.

This is a really key point. The thing to remember about 2020 is that you will have a guy in charge of the Republican party who genuinely will not give a shit about anything but winning in 2020. There's nothing for him in any long-term future of the party. He'll toss that on the fire with pleasure if it gives him one more vote. So long as he gets enough of his current vote to come out, he won't give a damn. It'll be like 2016, but much worse, because he will have his hands on the levers to cheat. It's going to be a new level of ugly. 

5 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Now, you're already seeing people in this thread saying that other people in this thread, even people who pay a lot of attention to politics I might add, are only liking Beto because of bias or bigotry or what the fuck ever. 

I haven't seen a single person say that.

I'd refer you to my last post: I completely understand that it would be unfair to say that O'Rourke's popularity is entirely down to being a white dude. But at the same time, the idea that O'Rourke hasn't benefited, or doesn't benefit, from positive media coverage and positive perceptions because he is a white male goes against everything we know about psychology and politics. 

Some people have acknowledged that and claim it as an advantage for him. Some just get angry when you say anything that suggests he shouldn't just be handed the nomination right now. 

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Yeah I'm not shilling for Sanders dude, but his 2016 agenda reshaped the Democratic base, and whatever you might say about the substance of his message, the message itself was clearly presented in a way that got people's attention. And more to the point, what cannot be denied is that he ignited the Democrat youth, which was kind of the whole point of the discussion.

Getting the young/gay/black/jewish/old/etc vote isn't about getting a candidate that fits into whatever slot you need. It's about getting somebody who energizes those demographics to come out and vote.

But what also cannot be denied is that Sanders couldn't energise enough of the Democrat base to get close to winning the nomination, let alone an election. And that was in a field clear of competition, in a run where he was (to be quite blunt) treated with kid gloves by his opponent, at least publicly, and given a free pass by the media most of the time too.

Sanders' run was a net positive for the Dems, I think, because you're right, it did enthuse a new breed of activist in the base. But it did not offer a blueprint for how to win the election. 

[Gorn]

My first instinct to "Beto 2020" was "based on what?" Almost winning against one of the most odious and least charismatic current US politicians?

My second thought was the more, the merrier. Probably the biggest mistake the Democratic party made in 2016 (and before that in 2000) was trying to pre-select its candidate before the primaries. Long, contested primaries are good, because they sort out the good candidates from the bad, If Beto comes out on top in the end, good for him.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Yeah I'm not shilling for Sanders dude, but his 2016 agenda reshaped the Democratic base, and whatever you might say about the substance of his message, the message itself was clearly presented in a way that got people's attention. And more to the point, what cannot be denied is that he ignited the Democrat youth, which was kind of the whole point of the discussion.

Oh, I can deny that.  I think you're vastly overstating the impact of Sanders' 2016 campaign.  More precisely, I think you have the direction of causality wrong:  the Sanders campaign didn't galvanize the emergent progressive youth in 2016, but rather the emergent progressive youth galvanized that 2016 Sanders campaign.  In other words, the results would have been similar with Hillary and progressive candidate B.  There was always gonna be a progressive candidate B, just happened to be Sanders.

3 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Getting the young/gay/black/jewish/old/etc vote isn't about getting a candidate that fits into whatever slot you need. It's about getting somebody who energizes those demographics to come out and vote.

Sure of course.  I just strongly believe Sanders isn't that candidate.  I want someone that mobilizes all aspects of the Democratic constituencies.  It's already fairly clear Sanders (or Warren) could not do that.

[Fragile Bird]

8 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

 So im wondering how long the Florida recounts are going to take? They are both supposed to be hand recounts I thought I read?

I heard on CNN that there are rules about the length of time in which a recount must be completed. Broward County and Palm Beach County are the two areas that always come in last and where there are always problems. I gather that the State does not properly fund the manpower nor provide enough machines for the large populations in those counties. I assume this is because they lean Democrat so this is just another voter suppression trick.

Palm Beach has already said they cannot get the recount done by the deadline, which is Saturday, I think. The reason is they have three recounts to do, Governor, Senator and Agriculture. The procedure is each recount is done individually, meaning they actually have to count the votes three times. They have said as soon as they get one recount done they will submit the numbers and then immediately start the next, submit that number, then start the third.

However, under Florida law if the recount is not finished in time, the count reverts to the original count. I’m not sure that they have even finished the original count.

Rick Scott has brought lawsuits claiming attempted fraud by the Democrats because the Democrats are demanding that ‘illegal votes’ be counted. Mail-in ballots require signatures and apparently large numbers of votes for Democrats have been rejected because some clerk decides the signature isn’t exactly like the sample on file.

For people in this thread who have raved about the mail-in ballot, how does your state deal with ensuring the validity of your ballot? Being able to reject the ballot on a judgement about the signature seems like a huge opportunity for fraud/voter suppression. The Florida voters were not told in a timely fashion and never had an opportunity to make a correction.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I dont know about Beto or Bernie (or Warren) or Hickenlooper or Kamala Harris, but I'll be voting in the Dem primary in 2020 for the candidate that has the most progressive vision, including some sort of Medicare-for-all, a substantial increase in the minimum wage, and treating climate change like the existential threat that it is. 

I think this time around Michigan will be important in both the primaries (in that no front runner will appear by then) as well as the general, so my voting 'power' is quite a bit high.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

But what also cannot be denied is that Sanders couldn't energise enough of the Democrat base to get close to winning the nomination, let alone an election. And that was in a field clear of competition, in a run where he was (to be quite blunt) treated with kid gloves by his opponent, at least publicly, and given a free pass by the media most of the time too.

The popular vote was roughly 17M to 13M, 55% to 43%. Does that really count as "not getting close" ?
As for the "free pass" by the media, that's bullshit. Thomas Frank among others wrote a great article backed by good research explaining how the media did everything it could to destroy Sanders. It's behind a paywall AND in French (can't find it in English), but at the very least his research proves that Sanders didn't get anything like a free pass: https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/12/FRANK/56895

Not that I think Sanders has a shot in 2020. Or necessarily had one in 2016. But considering the seriously bad odds Sanders faced in 2016, he did well.

[Maya Mia]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I heard on CNN that there are rules about the length of time in which a recount must be completed. Broward County and Palm Beach County are the two areas that always come in last and where there are always problems. I gather that the State does not properly fund the manpower nor provide enough machines for the large populations in those counties. I assume this is because they lean Democrat so this is just another voter suppression trick.

Palm Beach has already said they cannot get the recount done by the deadline, which is Saturday, I think. The reason is they have three recounts to do, Governor, Senator and Agriculture. The procedure is each recount is done individually, meaning they actually have to count the votes three times. They have said as soon as they get one recount done they will submit the numbers and then immediately start the next, submit that number, then start the third.

However, under Florida law if the recount is not finished in time, the count reverts to the original count. I’m not sure that they have even finished the original count.

Rick Scott has brought lawsuits claiming attempted fraud by the Democrats because the Democrats are demanding that ‘illegal votes’ be counted. Mail-in ballots require signatures and apparently large numbers of votes for Democrats have been rejected because some clerk decides the signature isn’t exactly like the sample on file.

For people in this thread who have raved about the mail-in ballot, how does your state deal with ensuring the validity of your ballot? Being able to reject the ballot on a judgement about the signature seems like a huge opportunity for fraud/voter suppression. The Florida voters were not told in a timely fashion and never had an opportunity to make a correction.

A comment on the bolded part.  A couple years ago, in FL, I was challenged in person at the poll on my signature.  The person who challenged my signature was at least 70+ years old, and very clearly couldn't see, as he kept moving my drivers license in and out from his face.  Now - yes he had my drivers license in his hand, with picture ID, and he clearly couldn't see, but he still challenged me on my signature.  I have assumed that was because I didn't meet his required demographic - ie. I'm less than 60 years old.  the following year I brought both my passport and drivers license and handed both to the person.  And have continued to do so since then.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 hours ago, Week said:

Sigh, like I (and plenty of others) would have felt had Bernie won. Seriously, give it a rest with the re-litigation of the 2016 primary. It's over and done with.

Well, you brought up 2016, not me. I'm looking forward, not back. When Bernie didn't get the nomination, I fell in line and supported the Clinton. But you can't honestly say it wasn't rigged for her. Donna Brazille fed her debate questions ahead of time. These are real issues that drive voter turnout down. If you don't like Bernie or Hillary, the good news is a bigger field seems to be emerging. But don't get huffy or whatever. People disagree with you. Hillary just wasn't the right candidate. I listed a ton of potential candidates upthread, and made an argument about why Bernie isn't a good choice this time. Looking ahead. Not back. We can talk about Bernie without talking about 2016 because he's in the mix.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Beto is not going to win the nomination, but he may be a viable VP pick. I’d still bet the house on Harris. She checks all the boxes and serves as a perfect foil to Trump. And she would absolutely smoke him in the debates.

[Ice Queen]

12 hours ago, Fez said:

A state where Democrats (probably) lost a senate race by 0.15% is not ruby red. Likewise, a state where a Democrat can win statewide in a normal election (the Democratic Ag Commissioner candidate has apparently won by 0.06%) is not ruby red.

It is redder than the nation as a whole, and is not part of the easiest path to 270 electoral votes, but it is not a lost cause.

Also, it would political malpractice to not at least force Republicans to spend funds defending the state.

Okay, let me reword that. It shouldn't even be that close. They shouldn't have lost the Senate race at all. Broward and Palm Beach have a lot of transplanted northerners and tend to lean left. Take them out of the equation and it's a blowout.

Let's face it--Florida is racist as hell and as redneck as Alabama and Mississippi, just with nicer beaches (not for long), and would rather vote for the guy who committed Medicare fraud and has done everything he could to destroy their economy.. This is a state where 17 children were killed and two more killed days before the election...and they still went for the NRA guy. Rick Scott has unleashed environmental havoc and its residents seem to not care about that, despite the fact that tourism is their top industry. People flock there from all over the world. They truly are voting against their own self interest.

Even the Panhandle, that was just devastated in a hurricane and all but ignored by Trump, went red. 

I've seen reports that 20% of AA women voted for DeSantis. Is that true?

Florida is not going blue anytime soon, sorry.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Florida is not going blue anytime soon, sorry.

Are we absolutely sure Amendment 4 doesn't have the possibility to change that?
 

Quote

 

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/11/09/why-the-restoration-of-felons-voting-rights-in-florida-is-a-big-deal

The restriction on the franchise that Amendment 4 lifts is far-reaching. “Nearly one-quarter of the entire disenfranchised population” in America, says Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project, a criminal-justice organisation, “will now have the right to vote and will no longer be treated as second-class citizens”. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida hailed the change as “remov[ing] an ugly stain that has been in our state’s constitution since the Civil War era”, when fear of black voters led the drive to keep felons away from the voting booth. The ACLU described the move as the single biggest expansion of voting rights since the passage of the 26th Amendment in 1971, when 18-year-olds won the franchise. 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Mitch McConnell stood before a roomful of Republican donors on Wednesday night to thank them for their help in the midterms. But the Senate leader also issued a dire warning: Democrats had just thumped them in the all-important online donor game, and the GOP badly needs to catch up.

The heart of the problem, McConnell said at the event at party headquarters on Capitol Hill, is ActBlue. The Democratic fundraising tool funneled over $700 million in small donations to House and Senate candidates over the course of the 2018 campaign. The GOP leader said Republicans were getting swamped in the hunt for online givers and that he’d charged his political team with coming up with a solution to enable them to compete in 2020.

McConnell’s push underscores the urgency confronting Republicans. In race after race, turbocharged liberal donors pumped cash into Democratic coffers — much of it through ActBlue, an easy-to-use site that allows givers to plug in their credit card information and send contributions to their candidate of choice with a click. Republicans have no such centralized fundraising platform.

 

‘A 5-alarm fire’: GOP desperate to match Dems’ online ATM
The gaping cash disparity in the midterms has Republicans worried about 2020.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/12/republicans-fundraising-donations-2020-983243

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, you brought up 2016, not me. I'm looking forward, not back. When Bernie didn't get the nomination, I fell in line and supported the Clinton. But you can't honestly say it wasn't rigged for her. Donna Brazille fed her debate questions ahead of time. These are real issues that drive voter turnout down. If you don't like Bernie or Hillary, the good news is a bigger field seems to be emerging. But don't get huffy or whatever. People disagree with you. Hillary just wasn't the right candidate. I listed a ton of potential candidates upthread, and made an argument about why Bernie isn't a good choice this time. Looking ahead. Not back. We can talk about Bernie without talking about 2016 because he's in the mix.

Dude, it wasn’t rigged. Parties often have a preferred candidate and they do things to help them, but saying it was rigged implies that it was fixed. That was simply not the case.  

[Week]

13 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Then again...I got called some nasty things by democrat friends when I was rooting for Bernie in the primaries. Mostly sexist, but I don't think the white part stood out too much. Just saying, I don't think it's that big of a deal. As long as a bad candidate isn't rammed down our throats.

[again -- implied in the latter bolded statement]

58 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, you brought up 2016, not me. I'm looking forward, not back. When Bernie didn't get the nomination, I fell in line and supported the Clinton. But you can't honestly say it wasn't rigged for her. Donna Brazille fed her debate questions ahead of time. These are real issues that drive voter turnout down. If you don't like Bernie or Hillary, the good news is a bigger field seems to be emerging. But don't get huffy or whatever. People disagree with you. Hillary just wasn't the right candidate. I listed a ton of potential candidates upthread, and made an argument about why Bernie isn't a good choice this time. Looking ahead. Not back. We can talk about Bernie without talking about 2016 because he's in the mix.

 Yeah, ok. You contradicted yourself a number of times here in the bolded text. 

Now -- let's look ahead!!

https://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-didnt-mean-to-tell-the-truth-1830344771

/Bern gonna bern. 

[lokisnow]

18 hours ago, Ormond said:

What are you drinking?   Franklin Pierce was followed in office by James Buchanan, who was a member of the same political party and who denied Pierce renomination in a party convention (the only time that happened to a sitting President). Buchanan was a member of the US House for ten years, from 1821-1831, was a U.S. Senator from 1834 to 1845, and was the Secretary of State between 1845 and 1849. That resume doesn't fit what you are describing at all.

Dammit! One tries to remember high school president stuff/order and i get it all mixed up! Could have sworn pierce was 15th!

[OldGimletEye]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Bernie has been calling himself a socialist, and the novelty wore off, way way before 2016.  And, yeah.

Perhaps.
I'm old enough to remember that conservatives were successful in getting liberals not to call themselves liberals and use the term progressive instead. Frankly, that was a bit chickenshit on some liberal's part, in my opinion.
And then of course, conservatives and Republicans have always used the socialist label (often loosely) to discredit any policies they don't like, even if the technocratic merits of the policies in question have merit.
I'm not an ardent Bernie fan, but I do like that he was willing to call himself a "socialist" and throw that term back into the Republican Parties face a little bit. 
Personally, I think standing up to Republicans and saying "Yeah I'm liberal or socialist and if you don't like it, then tough shit" won't get old for awhile.

I've argued with my fair share of conservative knuckleheads. And I know when they start with that liberal or socialist stuff, the best thing to do is to run right at them, so to speak, and not try to do any fancy footwork around the issue.

[Fragile Bird]

Back to Florida - the recount deadline is Thursday, not Saturday (last Saturday was the count deadline).

Trump has already stepped in, saying the recount shouldn’t be held, the wins should just be handed to the Republicans.

The Secretary of State told Scott that investigation showed there was no fraud. Now the Attorney General is again demanding that a fraud investigation be opened.

The push is coming from the White House, I’m sure. It’s been noted that the WH is upset with the candidate in Arizona who is not making claims of fraud and deception against her Democrat opponent.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Health care carried House Democrats to victory on Election Day. But what now?

In interviews this fall with half a dozen senior House Democratic aides, health care lobbyists, and progressive wonks, it became clear the party is only in the nascent stages of figuring out its next steps on health care.

The new House Democratic majority knows what it opposes. They want to stop any further efforts by Republicans or the Trump administration to roll back and undermine the Affordable Care Act or overhaul Medicaid and Medicare.

But Democrats are less certain about an affirmative health care agenda. Most Democrats campaigned on protecting preexisting conditions, but the ACA has already done that. Medicare-for-all is energizing the party’s left wing, but nobody expects a single-payer bill to start moving through the House. Drug prices offer the rare opportunity for bipartisan work with Senate Republicans and the Trump White House, but it is also a difficult problem with few easy policy solutions — certainly not any silver bullet that Democrats could pull out of the box and pass on day one, or even month one, of the next Congress.

 

What the new Democratic House majority might actually pass on health care
House Democrats have a lot to figure out on their signature issue.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/7/18065500/midterm-elections-results-2018-house-democrats-health-care