US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply

[Fragile Bird]

Another Trump tweet - instead of tweeting words of empathy and encouragement to victims of fire in California, he attacked California for bad forest management.

California owns 2% of the forests in the state. The rest of the government owned forests are owned by, you guessed it, the federal government. And guess who cut funding for forest management? Bingo!

[lokisnow]

18 hours ago, DMC said:

More importantly, he still lost in a highly favorable environment against a pretty well-hated candidate. 

You say well hated, but the facts don’t bear it out, Ted Cruz got 1,400,000 more republicans to vote for the republican senate candidate than have EVER done so in a midterm before. Ted had a monstrous historic outperformance for a midterm election.  If Cruz had a normal Texas Republican midterm turnout he would have lost by a million votes.

 

[Fez]

Oh snap [video link]

NBC is reporting that Bay county, Florida allowed residents to vote by email in the wake of the hurricane. This is illegal under Florida law, and while Scott had issued an emergency declaration expanding early voting the county after the hurricane, he didn't say anything about email voting (and almost certainly doesn't have the power to authorize it anyway).

Its unknown exactly how many residents did vote by email, but Scott netted +30,000 votes from the county, so if its a lot that's the election right there. Assuming Nelson wins the lawsuit that will certainly will stem from this; and that it turns a lot there were a lot of email voters.

[lokisnow]

8 hours ago, Gorn said:

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.

Based on increasing midterm democrat voter turnout by 250,000-500,000 more voters than turnout in the past two presidential years, and increasing midterm democrat voter turnout by 2,500,000 more democrat voters than the last two TX senate midterms.

beto increased democrat turnout in midterms by a gain of 166% on top of the baseline of 1.5  million democrats that historically vote in Texas midterms. That’s unbelievable. What other politician has ever increased turnout by that much other than Obama and trump? 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

 I want someone that mobilizes all aspects of the Democratic constituencies.

Such a man exists, and his name is Donald Trump. Seriously, if the entire progressive base doesn't have the sense to get behind whoever the Democratic nominee winds up being, then we really are an incurably stupid country and we deserve another four years of Trump.

[lokisnow]

4 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

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.

I’m voting for a candidate that treats climate change as a clear and present danger. Any politician that calls it an existential threat can fuck right off because that kind of Weasly political philosophical wonkassbackwards double speak means said politician is going to do absolutely nothing or will make climate change worse. Anyone saying “existential” about climate change is an immediate no from me.

[Fragile Bird]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

Oh snap [video link]

NBC is reporting that Bay county, Florida allowed residents to vote by email in the wake of the hurricane. This is illegal under Florida law, and while Scott had issued an emergency declaration expanding early voting the county after the hurricane, he didn't say anything about email voting (and almost certainly doesn't have the power to authorize it anyway).

Its unknown exactly how many residents did vote by email, but Scott netted +30,000 votes from the county, so if its a lot that's the election right there. Assuming Nelson wins the lawsuit that will certainly will stem from this; and that it turns a lot there were a lot of email voters.

Now that is a scandal. If a Democrat allowed it, the Republicans would be in court right this minute.

In fact, the Democrats should ask that every e-mail vote be rejected.

Just now, lokisnow said:

I’m voting for a candidate that treats climate change as a clear and present danger. Any politician that calls it an existential threat can fuck right off because that kind of Weasly political philosophical wonkassbackwards double speak means said politician is going to do absolutely nothing or will make climate change worse. Anyone saying “existential” about climate change is an immediate no from me.

Look up the Montreal march for climate change. The provincial government of the province of Quebec just changed, and 50,000 people marched demanding that election promises be kept and stronger provisions  against climate change be brought in.

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

 

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

 

Well it’s true from a certain point of view. 20% didn’t VOTE for DeSantis, but the Russians RECORDED the votes as having 20% for DeSantis. Easy peezy lemon squeezy.

[Maithanet]

So I'm trying to figure out what the real shakeout of 2018 was in terms of redistricting.  Here's what I'm seeing (feel free to correct me where I'm wrong).  I'm considering states with a nonpartisan commission a "split" control of redistricting.  Yes, I'm aware of the fact that 2020 will impact the legislatures and the governorships of some states.  Note, I'm ignoring cases where the governor lacks the power to actually influence the redrawing of districts ,whether due to statue (NC) or legislative supermajority (MD, MA). 

Republican control:  AL, AR, AK, FL, GA, IN, KY, MO, MS, NC, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV.  179 seats in House of Representatives.

Split or nonpartisan:  AZ, CA, CO, IA, ID, KS, ME, MI, LA, MN, NJ, PA, VA, WA WI.  163 seats in House of Representatives.

Democratic Control:  CT, IL, MA, MD, NJ, HI, NV, NM, NY, OR, RI.  95 seats in House.

On the whole, Republicans are still going to be able to give themselves a pretty substantial edge in drawing districts.  Wins in Florida and Ohio governorships would singlehandedly have changed this from 179/95 Republican edge to 136/95, but alas, that did not happen. 

However, there's some consolation in the fact that this is still a big improvement over what Democrats faced in 2010, when Republicans had the trifecta is essentially all of the states on the 2020 list, as well as MI, WI and PA, and the Democrats did not have their current trifecta in NY, NJ and NV.  The number of states with some attempt at nonpartisan redistricting is also expanding, which is good, even if they are inevitably flawed. 

[DMC]

Politico has called the Arizona Senate race for Sinema.

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm old enough to remember that conservatives were successful in getting liberals not to call themselves liberals and use the term progressive instead. [...]
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 don't think you have to be that old to remember that!  And yes, I totally agree with this in principle, just commenting that in Bernie's case the novelty wore off years ago - it's already "baked in the cake" with him.

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

You say well hated, but the facts don’t bear it out, Ted Cruz got 1,400,000 more republicans to vote for the republican senate candidate than have EVER done so in a midterm before. Ted had a monstrous historic outperformance for a midterm election.  If Cruz had a normal Texas Republican midterm turnout he would have lost by a million votes.

Uh, of course Cruz did well with the election results, that's the entire basis of this discussion.  And actually, yes, the facts do bear that out.  These facts show that Cruz was underwater in favorability from February 2016 to February 2018, and still only even by June 2018.  Is it Beto's fault that Cruz's ratings broke his way as the election approached or just natural as Texas GOP voters come home?  Probably mostly the latter, but regardless it suggests that Beto is limited in terms of expanding the map.

38 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Such a man exists, and his name is Donald Trump.

Agreed there. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Another Trump tweet - instead of tweeting words of empathy and encouragement to victims of fire in California, he attacked California for bad forest management.

California owns 2% of the forests in the state. The rest of the government owned forests are owned by, you guessed it, the federal government. And guess who cut funding for forest management? Bingo!

He also tweeted that the AZ election should be redone because it’s not going his way. Imagine what will happen if he does this in 2020 assuming he loses….

 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Oh snap [video link]

NBC is reporting that Bay county, Florida allowed residents to vote by email in the wake of the hurricane. This is illegal under Florida law, and while Scott had issued an emergency declaration expanding early voting the county after the hurricane, he didn't say anything about email voting (and almost certainly doesn't have the power to authorize it anyway).

Its unknown exactly how many residents did vote by email, but Scott netted +30,000 votes from the county, so if its a lot that's the election right there. Assuming Nelson wins the lawsuit that will certainly will stem from this; and that it turns a lot there were a lot of email voters.

I know it’s the today show (so possibly fake news) but how is vote by email NOT the dominant story right now? No coverage of this anywhere else I can see, not even showing up in memeorandum 

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

He also tweeted that the AZ election should be redone because it’s not going his way. Imagine what will happen if he does this in 2020 assuming he loses….

 

If he loses in 2020 he will announce the Democrats falsified the vote and he's declaring marshal law. Wait and see. He'll have to be dragged out of the WH kicking and screaming.

[lokisnow]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

If he loses in 2020 he will announce the Democrats falsified the vote and he's declaring marshal law. Wait and see. He'll have to be dragged out of the WH kicking and screaming.

Actually I think pence and his cabinet will invoke the constitutional amendment to remove him from office if that happens, and pence becomes president for two months.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Oh snap [video link]

NBC is reporting that Bay county, Florida allowed residents to vote by email in the wake of the hurricane. This is illegal under Florida law, and while Scott had issued an emergency declaration expanding early voting the county after the hurricane, he didn't say anything about email voting (and almost certainly doesn't have the power to authorize it anyway).

Its unknown exactly how many residents did vote by email, but Scott netted +30,000 votes from the county, so if its a lot that's the election right there. Assuming Nelson wins the lawsuit that will certainly will stem from this; and that it turns a lot there were a lot of email voters.

Figured out why this isn’t a national story and the democrats are not challenging it: its 147 email ballots, not 30,000 as fez implied:

 

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/281018-bay-county-email-votes

[Fragile Bird]

3 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Figured out why this isn’t a national story and the democrats are not challenging it: its 147 email ballots, not 30,000 as fez implied:

 

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/281018-bay-county-email-votes

Well that is a different story. But, the votes should still be disallowed. Illegal is illegal. And maybe the official who allowed it should be charged with fraud. Scott is calling for Democrats who are calling for vote declared to be 'illegal' because a clerk decided the signature looked different be charged with fraud.

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Oh snap [video link]

NBC is reporting that Bay county, Florida allowed residents to vote by email in the wake of the hurricane. This is illegal under Florida law, and while Scott had issued an emergency declaration expanding early voting the county after the hurricane, he didn't say anything about email voting (and almost certainly doesn't have the power to authorize it anyway).

Its unknown exactly how many residents did vote by email, but Scott netted +30,000 votes from the county, so if its a lot that's the election right there. Assuming Nelson wins the lawsuit that will certainly will stem from this; and that it turns a lot there were a lot of email voters.

I have to say, I would be very queasy to claim a victory by these means. "Every vote counts" includes those 30000 R votes who would be disenfranchised by such a decision; not to mention it isn't their fault the order was illegal (also not their fault the hurricane happened).  Anyway. this whole election is turning out to be a fiasco, that state is unprepared in any way to be of such importance to who governs the nation (or even itself).

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Any politician that calls it an existential threat can fuck right off because that kind of Weasly political philosophical wonkassbackwards double speak means said politician is going to do absolutely nothing or will make climate change worse. Anyone saying “existential” about climate change is an immediate no from me.

What now? 'Existential' means it would be their #1 (or close to) priority as a matter of policy. Just as "healthcare is a fundamental right" gave us various policy actions. In fact, thats the kind of language I would look for to ensure they take the matter seriously, not some milquetoast boilerplate about it being a 'danger'.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, karaddin said:

This is your second post in this thread getting pissy, the first was the crack about intersectionality. To this quoted post I'd say you're taking something personally that was never meant to be. Mormont didn't say that any individual is racist for supporting Beto, but I think he was alluding to bias which you're somehow offended about as well. Racial bias is a thing and it doesn't mean a person is damned for having it, it permeates all of society. You could take the same person and they'd be perceived as more charismatic etc when people see them as a white man than anything else, and it's not just how individuals as observers perceive it, but how the media report him, how people talk about him etc. It may well be that he is the best pick because at the end of the day winning is important and those factors may make him the most likely to win. That wouldn't eliminate those factors.

As for your crack at intersectionality...you're trying to weld a coalition of diverse people into getting behind the same person, and every demographic in that coalition is more loyal to the party than straight white people. So yeah, if you want to maximise turn out from groups that vote for Democrats at 70-90+% rates then you better fucking take their opinions into account and ensure that they have opportunities to succeed within the party as well.

First, I just want to apologize to everyone in the thread for the tone of my comments yesterday. The intersectionality crack especially was way out of line. I'm absolutely excited about having a diverse slate of candidates running in the 2020 primary.

Although I'm sure it's obvious, I'm still very touchy about the vitriolic nature of the 2016 primary. I feel that Bernie supporters were unfairly painted with a very broad brush, with the implication that their support was based mostly or entirely on sexism, even when many or most supporters could articulate their reason for support based on the issues.

I felt the whiffs of that whole negative spiral starting up again yesterday when "white" and "male" were interjected into a question over why O'Rourke garnered as much press as he did compared to Abrams or Gillum. 

And I absolutely agree that institutional bias is a thing, and that bias at the institutional level most likely played a role in the amount of coverage O'Rourke garnered. But while I think it is vital to examine how bias affects decision-making and candidate coverage at an academic and policy level, I'm less convinced that those discussions should spill over into the political level.

My reason for thinking O'Rourke would be a good candidate to run against Trump that has nothing to do with him being a white male is this:  Trump sucks up all the oxygen in the room when it comes to press coverage. Every single news outlet breathlessly reports every stupid utterance that is inflicted upon us by his mouth or fingers. From my perspective, O'Rourke appeared to be the only national candidate this year who was able to create his own oxygen when it came to press coverage. Now I'm sure institutional bias played a role in that, but being able to do that will be an essential component for anyone who ends up going against Trump in 2020. Maybe he won't run, or maybe someone else will come along who is able to create press coverage more effectively, but I think that will be the key factor to winning in 2020, barring a bad recession.

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

My reason for thinking O'Rourke would be a good candidate to run against Trump that has nothing to do with him being a white male is this:  Trump sucks up all the oxygen in the room when it comes to press coverage. Every single news outlet breathlessly reports every stupid utterance that is inflicted upon us by his mouth or fingers. From my perspective, O'Rourke appeared to be the only national candidate this year who was able to create his own oxygen when it came to press coverage. Now I'm sure institutional bias played a role in that, but being able to do that will be an essential component for anyone who ends up going against Trump in 2020. Maybe he won't run, or maybe someone else will come along who is able to create press coverage more effectively, but I think that will be the key factor to winning in 2020, barring a bad recession.

I don't know that you're going to be able to get any leeway on press from Trump, and if you do chances are good that you'll only get negative coverage (see: 2016 campaign). Again, don't try and do things like Trump, because chances are good you'll lose since he's the incumbent, and given the choice between a known and an unknown, people will pick the known if things are equivalent - even if it sucks. 

I also think that one of the things that turns a lot of moderates off is Trump's bombast and constant press. A lot of people, I think, want someone who isn't in the news all the time, who isn't constantly giving soundbytes and on twitter fights. That doesn't mean they should be quiet, but it does mean that going after the pugilists is probably the wrong choice. 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

 

Ahhh, I see what you're doing there Hulu...

 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I don't know that you're going to be able to get any leeway on press from Trump, and if you do chances are good that you'll only get negative coverage (see: 2016 campaign). Again, don't try and do things like Trump, because chances are good you'll lose since he's the incumbent, and given the choice between a known and an unknown, people will pick the known if things are equivalent - even if it sucks. 

I think we can probably toss out anything regarding conventional wisdom with Trump in the White House.