US Politics: Don't Panic - Organize

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Harris because she might be able to walk the centrist tightrope (prosecutor, tough on crime) 

Could you honestly see most of the people who’d be smitten on “tough on crime” rhetoric  apt to go to Harris over Trump in regards to it? He(as opposed to Harris), could exploit the underlying racial fears often generating this perception of there being a need to be “tough on crime”.  And get way with  more explicit/extreme calls without alienating any part of his base. I think Harris has framed her Prosecutorial career, as well as she could since she’s begun her campaign. Mostly that of a reformer. 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, lokisnow said:

uh, candidate quality matters, Colorado and Montana have one dem senator already, and these three candidates are uniquely well suited to their states.

My apologies for being under the influence and therefore terse, but I was assuming you were referring to them flipping their respective states as potential presidential nominees.  In my own defense I think that assumption is fairly understandable considering three of the four are indeed running for president, at least for the time being.  Anyway, I agree that all four would be ideal Senate candidates in their respective states that would give the Dems the best - and even ideal - chance to pickup some seats.  However, that's not happening with Bullock and it's doubtful it's happening with Hickenlooper.  Hopefully that's the path Abrams takes, certainly rooting for that, then with Beto we'll see, who knows?

[Martell Spy]

Before Trump’s purge at DHS, top officials challenged plan for mass family arrests

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/before-trumps-purge-at-dhs-top-officials-challenged-plan-for-mass-family-arrests/2019/05/13/d7cb91ce-75af-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.6dfbe2a754eb

Quote

In the weeks before they were ousted last month, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and top
immigration enforcement official Ronald Vitiello challenged a secret White House plan to arrest thousands of
parents and children in a blitz operation against migrants in 10 major U.S. cities.
According to seven current and former Department of Homeland Security officials, the administration wanted
to target the crush of families that had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border after the president’s failed “zero
tolerance” prosecution push in early 2018. The ultimate purpose, the officials said, was a show of force to send
the message that the United States was going to get tough by swiftly moving to detain and deport recent
immigrants — including families with children.
The sprawling operation included an effort to fast-track immigration court cases, allowing the government to
obtain deportation orders against those who did not show for their hearings — officials said 90 percent of those
targeted were found deportable in their absence. The subsequent arrests would have required coordinated
raids against parents with children in their homes and neighborhoods.
But Vitiello and Nielsen halted it, concerned about a lack of preparation by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents, the risk of public outrage and worries that it would divert resources from the border.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller and ICE Deputy Director Matthew Albence were especially supportive of
the plan, officials said, eager to execute dramatic, highly visible mass arrests that they argued would help deter
the soaring influx of families.
The arrests were planned for New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the other largest U.S. destinations for
Central American migrants. Though some of the cities are considered “sanctuary” jurisdictions with police
departments that do not cooperate with ICE, the plan did not single out those locations, officials said

 

[Ormond]

Never mind; question answered by later post.

[Serious Callers Only]

The 1% are ready to cash out:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-funds-baml/record-level-of-funds-hedge-against-stocks-fall-baml-survey-idUSKCN1SK121

[Fragile Bird]

39 minutes ago, Serious Callers Only said:

The 1% are ready to cash out:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-funds-baml/record-level-of-funds-hedge-against-stocks-fall-baml-survey-idUSKCN1SK121

Puh-lease, that's not the 1%. That's widespread change. It's private portfolios, mutual funds and pensions. Many of those people might vote for Trump, but they're not crazy!

eta: 56 million households own mutual funds, 44% of the population.

[DireWolfSpirit]

16 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I only counted 9 meows in this thread. And am not best pleased.

Simmer down meow!

[DireWolfSpirit]

I still like Warren/Harris or Harris/Warren for the ticket, but honestly this far out, I could change my preference still. 

[lokisnow]

35 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I still like Warren/Harris or Harris/Warren for the ticket, but honestly this far out, I could change my preference still. 

that sounds like democrat ticket that results in a Trump=330+ EV result, woohoo!

[Serious Callers Only]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Puh-lease, that's not the 1%. That's widespread change. It's private portfolios, mutual funds and pensions. Many of those people might vote for Trump, but they're not crazy!

eta: 56 million households own mutual funds, 44% of the population.

Ok then, here is another laughable attempt 'strategizing' a delusional cashing out

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k3kwb/jeff-bezos-is-a-post-earth-capitalist

Quote

 

Thursday night, ultra-billionaire Jeff Bezos—whose net worth is in excess of $157 billion—outlined a vision of an “incredible civilization” with trillions of people living in space, at a small, invite only event in Washington, DC.

Bezos organized the event to unveil a new lunar lander developed by his space company Blue Origin. But the specifications of this lunar lander matter less than Bezos’s vision of utopia.

 

Bezos pitched a version of the future that’s departed from the reality of capitalism, climate change, and the intractable connections between those two things. Bezos admits that limitless growth—the growth that made him the richest man in the world—is incompatible with a habitable earth. But instead of announcing investments in renewable energy or public infrastructure, Bezos pitches an escape from earth.

 

great man theory in action, hail capital. I'll probably not live to see Jeff die in his decayed and leaky orbital, but it gives me great satisfaction that it'll probably happen if his mental disease progresses.

[DireWolfSpirit]

33 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

that sounds like democrat ticket that results in a Trump=330+ EV result, woohoo!

Outside Clinton and Obama's 2nd terms, the candidates Ive preferred have never made a ticket yet in my lifetime so you can probably rest easy over those fears of a red 330+EV. I suspect this cycle may end up being another election where i'll settle for voting against the imcumbent I detest rather than for the ticket I want. Operative words being against, detest, for and want.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

that sounds like democrat ticket that results in a Trump=330+ EV result, woohoo!

Why?  Because they're both women?  I reject that premise.  It's lazy and myopic thinking that does not square with actual evidence.  How many women were elected to Congress in 2018?  Record numbers.  This trend has also been seen in statewide offices.  

It's the same type of unfounded consternation that the chattering class exasperated over Obama in 2007.  At the presidential level, Democrats win when they excite the electorate.  Obama excited people.  Bill Clinton excited people.  JFK and FDR.  While I won't go as far to say that Carter excited people, he definitely defied the odds to win both the primary and the general because the electorate was looking for something different.  Joe Biden does not excite people and is not something different.  I suppose you could say Bernie checks those two boxes, but I think his coverage is limited beyond the capability to win.  Regardless, it's going to be very difficult for Trump to win 330 EVs.  He'd have to win Virginia, Colorado, and either Nevada or New Hampshire.  That's very unlikely.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why?  Because they're both women?  I reject that premise.  It's lazy and myopic thinking that does not square with actual evidence.  How many women were elected to Congress in 2018?  Record numbers.  This trend has also been seen in statewide offices.  

Forgive me for not having the data on hand, but isn’t there a large statistical difference between running for legislative offices and running for chief executive offices?

[Jace, Extat]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why?  Because they're both women?  I reject that premise.

 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Forgive me for not having the data on hand, but isn’t there a large statistical difference between running for legislative offices and running for chief executive offices?

Yeah, DMC we're pals. But to paraphrase the late great Selina Meyer, "the American people work hard, they don't need this shit."

Just stop with the Two Women One Ticket thing. I appreciate that you think women are people too, DMC, I really do. But America doesn't. And I think if we all just accepted that then we could cut through some of this chaff that's clogging up the party.

Just give it to Biden and be done with it.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Forgive me for not having the data on hand, but isn’t there a large statistical difference between running for legislative offices and running for chief executive offices?

I don't know.  Not aware of any research splitting it up like that - particularly in terms of only running for office.  Off the top of my head, I think female governors have been at least around as prevalent as female Senators or House members as a percentage for the past twenty years.  There are many dynamics that women candidates have to overcome generally, the first being that sociologically women tend to be election averse.  Moreover, my advisor(s) wrote the book on the backlash that happens when women start to gain significant influence in legislators.  But again, I can't think of anything where they directly compared legislators to executives, although it does sound familiar.  I'll try to remember to ask Kris.

7 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Just stop with the Two Women One Ticket thing. I appreciate that you think women are people too, DMC, I really do. But America doesn't. And I think if we all just accepted that then we could cut through some of this chaff that's clogging up the party.

Just give it to Biden and be done with it.

I'm not, like, championing a Two Women One Ticket thing.  I agree that if a woman wins the nomination, she should pick a male (although at the same time, if a male wins the nomination, they should probably pick a female).  I was just reacting to, and rejecting, the idea that female candidates are innately going to do worse than male candidates, ceteris paribus. 

As for "just giving it to Biden," no.  That's the quickest and surest way to lose, and I will continue to fight against that until he has an insurmountable delegate lead.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Just a heads-up. When the party overwhelmingly selects Biden, and the Supers line up to endorse him quickly as a result

We'll see.  The Supers have never mattered, and almost officially don't matter at this point.

7 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Biden fails pretty much all of the purity tests, but people like him. And that is literally -and I am literally using the word literally correctly- not figuratively, all that matters. People like Trump. He's repellent and a stain on our collective honor, but an ideally placed minority really liked him.

I strongly disagree.  People are familiar with him and he's been inconsequential for three years (plus it's not like he was too consequential as VP either).  Look at where Hillary's favorables were at when she was SoS and up to 2015 compared to once she started running.  He's already reached his ceiling and his advantage vis-a-vis Trump compared to other candidates most people do not know is very marginal.  That's not a good sign for a frontrunner at such an early stage.

14 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

And I'm not sure if you follow the news, but it seems to have won them basically everything they ever wanted.

No, this is patently false.  Are you aware of what the right actually wants?

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, this is patently false.  Are you aware of what the right actually wants?

Status quo with future deference to dismantling of functional government.

That's been obvious since like 1830. And they've done that. Social Security and Unemployment Benefits and the Civil Rights act don't disappear overnight. They've got decades to let those rot at the desiccated corpse of a Republic we call our government.

As always, I'm just a whimsical hard-typing amateur. I acknowledge you to have a more robust base from which to draw information on these subjects and believe it or not I tend to defer to a great many of your positions IRL, but I see what I see. The good news is we'll find out.

Unless one of us dies. In which case I was right the whole time because you can't argue if you're dead and how dare you contradict me when I'm dead!!??!!

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

That's been obvious since like 1830. And they've done that. Social Security and Unemployment Benefits and the Civil Rights act don't disappear overnight. They've got decades to let those rot at the desiccated corpse of a Republic we call our government.

Uh, this argument is self-evidently contradictory.  If the right/GOP always got what they wanted, there wouldn't even be SS, or unemployment benefits, or the New Deal in general, or the Great Society, or the CRA/VRA, or the EPA, or the Department of Education, or Obamacare, or Roe v Wade, or anything resembling what the Federal government actually is composed of.

31 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Unless one of us dies. In which case I was right the whole time because you can't argue if you're dead and how dare you contradict me when I'm dead!!??!!

Yeah it's definitely much more likely I'll die soon than you.

[Serious Callers Only]

DeSantis: Russians accessed 2 Florida voting databases

 

Quote

Russia didn't hack our elections, that's fake news

Ok, Russia tried to hack our elections, but they couldn't get in

Ok, they got in, but they couldn't access any real databases

Ok, they accessed some databases, but they didn't change any info <-- you are here

Ok, they hacked the election, but something something war with Iran

 

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, this argument is self-evidently contradictory.  If the right/GOP always got what they wanted, there wouldn't even be SS, or unemployment benefits, or the New Deal in general, or the Great Society, or the CRA/VRA, or the EPA, or the Department of Education, or Obamacare, or Roe v Wade, or anything resembling what the Federal government actually is composed of.

She wasn't saying they don't get it all the time - but when Republicans hold their nose and vote for the person who sucks but is big on repealing all the laws they want and putting judges in, they do okay. Trump has been a staggeringly grotesque person in office, but as far as the things that most Republicans say that they are for - fewer regulations, fewer taxes, more conservative judges, more fighting against abortion - he's been a hit. 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Forgive me for not having the data on hand, but isn’t there a large statistical difference between running for legislative offices and running for chief executive offices?

There is, though I've not been able to find the article that precisely says it.