U.S. Politics: Pedophilia is Just Acosta Doin' Business

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They got what they needed which is getting MoCs on the record, and it looks worse for them because it was near unanimous. They publicly defended racism.

I think it's a rather hollow victory and mostly just makes the Dem leadership look befuddled.  But it certainly is on the margins and isn't a big deal either way, sure.

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Perhaps, but if so, it’s only in the margins. They got what they needed which is getting MoCs on the record, and it looks worse for them because it was near unanimous. They publicly defended racism. The Republican Party is dead. They are the Racist Party now, and Democrats better do a good job of branding them as such.

Yes, because if there's one thing I know it's definitely that racism in the US makes you an unviable political party

[sologdin]

Same for immigration, anything is going to be open borders.  

they need an actual leftist in the race who can support open borders, so as to distinguish the centrist liberal candidates who join the illiberals in an unprincipled border closure ideology of one sort or another.  then everyone can dump their puerile mccarthyism on the principled candidate and the liberals can trounce the illiberals in a straight fight.

 

racism in the US makes you an unviable political party

i marvel that casual racism remains normal but public health insurance and taking their guns are a bridge too far out the overton window.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, sologdin said:

they need an actual leftist in the race who can support open borders, so as to distinguish the centrist liberal candidates who join the illiberals in an unprincipled border closure ideology of one sort or another.  then everyone can dump their puerile mccarthyism on the principled candidate and the liberals can trounce the illiberals in a straight fight.

I agree with this strategically, although in the exact opposite way in which I think you intended.  If they just had one (or, hell, five considering the size of the field) rabble-rouser on immigration that helped define the difference between the left and the center-left, then the latter candidates could start looking like the happy medium between Trump's abject racism and the "open borders" crowd that frankly and unfortunately scares too large a proportion of the electorate.  That's basic Downsian theory.

8 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i marvel that casual racism remains normal

Not only remains but is increasingly becoming normalized in the past couple decades (Trump's a symptom, not the cause).

[sologdin]

although in the exact opposite way in which I think you intended

nono, precisely what i meant. far left as adjunct at this point to the center left, so as to assist in defeating the illiberals.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Eta: none of these candidates have policies I am crazy about, other than universal healthcare and what Castro is talking about on immigration.  And I 100% dont buy the idea that these things are scaring anyone away.  That's some right-wing propaganda trying to rein in the left 

Getting rid of private healthcare is massively unpopular and 3 of the top 4 candidates expressed support for the Idea.  Harris to her credit, walked back her support, but it’s still a bad move to have done in the first place. Reparations too wildly unpopular.  And you could declare they shouldn’t be unpopular and no one should turn away from voting because of them but they are and will scare people off. 

Also, no, immigration is not that big an issue even among Democrats.The top issues they care about is healthcare and the economy.

Progressive stances on immigration such as open boarders or  only please a small part of the party. 

 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

My point about "the cherry on top" isn't about Trump - the fact that the bulk of GOP congress and Trump's supporters have defended this demonstrates the futility of trying to win any of these votes.  They're fucking gone.  It's not going to matter if you run on any of the following phrases "reducing healthcare costs" "medicare for all" "public option " "universal coverage" "increasing access to affordable care" "protecting the ACA".  All of this is going to be heard by that crowd as "communist death panels".  Same for immigration, anything is going to be open borders.  

No, those positions in contrasts to the one Friedman brought up are generally popular. It’s not just about catering to Trump supporters. It’s about Democrats  winning through actually running on issues that will appease those outside a section of their more left-wing base and not just focusing on catering to those on the left.

Talk of Healthcare reform lead to the the house being taken back in 2018. 

If candidates did things your way, and simply tried to out progressive their opponents on every issue they wouldn’t have won the house, and only would have gotten cheers from the hard left for being pure enough not to settle.

It was moderates who got the House who actually tried to tailor their messaging to the voters they had to work with instead of the uber-progressive voting block they’d probably wish for. It wasn’t your AOC’s types, who ran in a reliably blue District.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

And re: medicare for all being unpopular or a big shift: my point was that the party hasnt moved much from Clinton's platform, this isnt some socialist primary. 

It’s a big shift. I never said it was unpopular.  It’s not the biggest shift possible  but certainly is a big one when the last election such position was derided by the mainstream Candidates as extreme. 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

If you asked people if they wanted "medicare for all" or "universal healthcare coverage" I'm sure you'd get very different results, but I bet both have the support of most Dem voters.  And it's absolutely a negotiating point - you could probabaly get a public option out of it in the near future with 50-55 Dem senators and the house.  

No, this is wishing. It’s not negotiating when you’re not in a position to give or do anything. Once elected, they can negotiate down. The public doesn’t have to elect you.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

And to get back to my larger point: these clowns like Friedman and B Stephens and the other Never Trumpers and shit, with their "oh the Dems infighting is going to cost them" what the fuck are you smoking?  The GOP 2016 primary was a fucking clown show of people taking shots at Trump and vice versa and look wtf happened.  It's refreshing to see even centrists like Biden and Harris actually acting like they give a fuck about something.  

Trump was literally one of the most unpopular candidates ever. It’s only because his opponent was also extremely unpopular, along with  healthy dose of gerrymandering, and bad campaigning from her that he was able to win.

Taking cues from how the GOP primary was handled is ridiculous.  

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

This idea that we should be uncomfortable trying to reconcile where the Dems are by talking this shit out as absolutely mind-blowing.  It's the same cowardly shit that gets them every time.  "Shhhh you're going to scare away the moderates and civility crowd".  Bull fucking shit.  At least save this shit for when it's down to a couple primary candidates.   This sky is falling we need to woo the racists and idiot imaginary cornfed Americans shit is such tired hogshit.  

The idea is simply don’t run so heavily on ideas that either most voters won’t care about, or are actively against. Run on popular progressive ideas that will be seen as effecting most voters.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Turn out your base.  

Turn out the youth and minority vote. 

 And run on your issues.  

Minorities care about the economy and healthcare same as everyone else.

I imagine Trump’s increase in approval among Non-white Hispanics  is because many Democrats think immigration is the only issue worth discussing to them

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

nono, precisely what i meant. far left as adjunct at this point to the center left, so as to assist in defeating the illiberals.

Of course it could backfire, but it also may assist in inching the Overton window (I hate using that term, it should be called the Krehbiel window) closer to our side.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's a rather hollow victory and mostly just makes the Dem leadership look befuddled.  But it certainly is on the margins and isn't a big deal either way, sure.

That's certainly the glass half empty approach. I view it as a sign that they're slowly inching closer to impeachment, if that ever is a real option (I'm still torn on if they should do it or not). What I find troubling about this is Republicans seem to think it's a good thing that Trump made public racist remarks. I'll leave this 1A pod here in case anyone wants to listen to just how unreachable these people are. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, because if there's one thing I know it's definitely that racism in the US makes you an unviable political party

Given the margins of 2016, every bit helps. Early polling I've seen shows that this is not playing well with independents. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Given the margins of 2016, every bit helps. Early polling I've seen shows that this is not playing well with independents. 

Counterpoint - there may exist a whole lot of the populace who has been wanting someone to be more racist and will vote because they are more racist when they otherwise wouldn't. Again, 2016 had the entire government won by a guy who ran on an explicitly racist platform, and the best predictor of who voted for him was whether or not that person had racist leanings. 

The idea that racism in the US is an electoral loser is repudiated by basically all of US history. 

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's certainly the glass half empty approach. I view it as a sign that they're slowly inching closer to impeachment, if that ever is a real option (I'm still torn on if they should do it or not). What I find troubling about this is Republicans seem to think it's a good thing that Trump made public racist remarks.

I don't see how you can link this to them inching closer to impeachment, if it anything I think it indicates they're not gonna.  But, as we've discussed before, maybe they can do a formal censure rather than whatever the fuck this was, which is preferable to the impeachment process because it has no chance of success - and thus will be merely just as symbolic as a censure - and has the clear potential to make low-information centrists resent the Dems more than Trump.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

there may exist a whole lot of the populace who has been wanting someone to be more racist and will vote because they are more racist when they otherwise wouldn't. Again, 2016 had the entire government won by a guy who ran on an explicitly racist platform, and the best predictor of who voted for him was whether or not that person had racist leanings.

Yup.  Being racist on immigration is Trump's bread and butter.  He knows it, and anyone paying attention for the past four years knows it.  This is why when @Triskele continued to express his worry that the Dem candidates are becoming too far left on immigration I kind of rolled my eyes.  Yes, that is a concern to an extent, but since immigration is where Trump eats, there's absolutely no point in trying to outflank or even match him.  You express outrage at the disgusting status he's escalated and implemented, then present a humane alternative.  I do agree, though, that maybe you emphasize just advocating the approach of comprehensive immigration reform that was supported by the Bush/McCain/Rubio faction of the GOP in 2007 and 2013 - as well as the DREAM/DACA facet which is incredibly popular - rather than pushing decriminalization like Warren and Castro are doing.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Getting rid of private healthcare is massively unpopular and 3 of the top 4 candidates expressed support for the Idea.  Harris to her credit, walked back her support, but it’s still a bad move to have done in the first place. Reparations too wildly unpopular.  And you could declare they shouldn’t be unpopular and no one should turn away from voting because of them but they are and will scare people off. 

Also, no, immigration is not that big an issue even among Democrats.The top issues they care about is healthcare and the economy.

Progressive stances on immigration such as open boarders or  only please a small part of the party. 

 

No, those positions in contrasts to the one Friedman brought up are generally popular. It’s not just about catering to Trump supporters. It’s about Democrats  winning through actually running on issues that will appease those outside a section of their more left-wing base and not just focusing on catering to those on the left.

Talk of Healthcare reform lead to the the house being taken back in 2018. 

If candidates did things your way, and simply tried to out progressive their opponents on every issue they wouldn’t have won the house, and only would have gotten cheers from the hard left for being pure enough not to settle.

It was moderates who got the House who actually tried to tailor their messaging to the voters they had to work with instead of the uber-progressive voting block they’d probably wish for. It wasn’t your AOC’s types, who ran in a reliably blue District.

It’s a big shift. I never said it was unpopular.  It’s not the biggest shift possible  but certainly is a big one when the last election such position was derided by the mainstream Candidates as extreme. 

No, this is wishing. It’s not negotiating when you’re not in a position to give or do anything. Once elected, they can negotiate down. The public doesn’t have to elect you.

Trump was literally one of the most unpopular candidates ever. It’s only because his opponent was also extremely unpopular, along with  healthy dose of gerrymandering, and bad campaigning from her that he was able to win.

Taking cues from how the GOP primary was handled is ridiculous.  

The idea is simply don’t run so heavily on ideas that either most voters won’t care about, or are actively against. Run on popular progressive ideas that will be seen as effecting most voters.

Minorities care about the economy and healthcare same as everyone else.

I imagine Trump’s increase in approval among Non-white Hispanics  is because many Democrats think immigration is the only issue worth discussing to them

At no point did I say try to out progressive anyone else.  There's a pile of candidates, let them run on what they want to.  

Yeah, moderate districts picked up seats with moderate candidates.  Great.  

Also, gerrymandering means jack shit in senatorial or presidential elections.  Voter supression does but that's different. 

This is also more strawman stuff.  I have no issue with people running on healthcare or the economy.  Not sure why you'd think that.  I simply mentioned two issues that are important to me, personally.

Not sure why you're talking about reparations either.

As to the bolded, I'm only mentioning because it's an actual real world example that counters this stupid idea that if the Dems aren't in lock step agreement on everything they're fucking themselves.  There should be a breadth of choice of options in the primary.

This way whoever gets the nom at least can say the voters have spoken. 

This is some combination of talking past each other or you just advocating trying to turn a handful of Obama - Trump voters at the expense of anyone under 30 turning out.  

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

although in the exact opposite way in which I think you intended

nono, precisely what i meant. far left as adjunct at this point to the center left, so as to assist in defeating the illiberals.

It's too bad Castro isn't getting more traction, not exactly advocating open borders but he's close enough that the rest of the pack could easily scapegoat him on it 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

It's too bad Castro isn't getting more traction, not exactly advocating open borders but he's close enough that the rest of the pack could easily scapegoat him on it 

If it does ultimately become a battle between Harris and Warren, which is not hard to envision, I think this could become a sticking point between the two.  Doubt Castro will break though, but hey you never know.

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

If it does ultimately become a battle between Harris and Warren, which is not hard to envision, I think this could become a sticking point between the two.  Doubt Castro will break though, but hey you never know.

Yeah, Warren seems the next closest, haven't looked at the specifics but saw she was owning eliminating whatever makes crossing the border a criminal offense.

[DMC]

On the topic of Pelosi v "the squad," just read this 538 slack discussion in which Julia Azari - full disclosure, she's a close friend of my diss chair and I've met/exchanged emails with her multiple times (and also wrote one of my favorite works of the past decade) - makes some very interesting comments on the political fallout:

Quote

So in response to the Twitter fight between the House Democrats’ account and AOC’s chief of staff, there was a lot of talk like “have these fights behind closed doors, don’t have a big, public blowup.”

But I disagree. Party infighting should not be done in a smoke-filled room. That’s just not what people want from politics anymore, and I think when that does happen, it contributes to further institutional distrust and disengagement. [...]

It’s good for the Squad for Pelosi, at least, to take swipes at them. After all, part of the anti-establishment brand is to be in tension with, well, the establishment. And it’s possible that leaders like Pelosi know this! What I’m not really sure about is how good the Squad (so much shorter than typing all their names) is for the Democratic Party.

I don’t think they’re a problem, but it’s too early to gauge their party-building potential. And obviously, they make some people nervous. But if the goal is to engage young people, women and people of color, and keep the left flank of the party somewhat happy, they seem like a good bet.

I'm not sure I agree with the bolded, but it's definitely a fair point.  There's no way to change anything unless you put it to the public and force MCs to position-take.  I would argue, though, that the way in which this was done was a very wrong way to express those differences, and only has the affect of ostracizing the "squad" rather than the Dem party accommodating and further integrating their policies and perspectives.  Other than that though, I whole-heartedly agree with the argument she presented above.

[The Anti-Targ]

The fact that Trump has fully exposed himself as an unvarnished racists, and he will still get in the 40%s in 2020 (win or lose) is an indictment on the casual dismissal of racism as an ongoing socio-political-economic problem on the part of such a huge segment of the population I wonder if there can be much hope for improved race relations in the country. It pretty much means a majority of white people in the USA are at least casually racist or don't give a shit about racist attitudes among others (which is casually racist I guess, so the "or" doesn't really matter), and given racism is certainly not absent from the Democrat-leaning population it possibly means an absolute majority of US people are at a minimum casually racist. And there's maybe no reason to believe this level of casual (or worse) racism doesn't exist in the rest of the western hemisphere.

[felice]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The fact that Trump has fully exposed himself as an unvarnished racists, and he will still get in the 40%s in 2020 (win or lose)

Even if his dementia is so bad by then that he forgets who he's actually running against and starts ranting about how he's going to beat Crooked Hillary?

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, felice said:

Even if his dementia is so bad by then that he forgets who he's actually running against and starts ranting about how he's going to beat Crooked Hillary?

I think he'd lose the election, but he'd still get low 40% of the national vote.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Not sure why you're talking about reparations either.

 

Because it’s one of those unpopular things Candidates have stated their support for or pressed to agree with in order to try to avoid looking centrist. Things that could/would turn people off from voting candidate. Like getting rid of their private health insurance. Which again 3 of the top 4 candidates have showed support for. 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah, moderate districts picked up seats with moderate candidates.  Great.  

 

Moderate candidates won the House. They tailored their platform to accommodate the positions of the voters they got. Great. Uber-Progressive candidates  like AOC mostly won reliably blue Districts that any democrat would be hard pressed to lose and got tons of praise on social media. Not so great. 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

 As to the bolded, I'm only mentioning because it's an actual real world example that counters this stupid idea that if the Dems aren't in lock step agreement on everything they're fucking themselves.  There should be a breadth of choice of options in the primary.

No one is really arguing that. What people are arguing against is Democratic candidates adopting really unpopular positions just appeal to a more uber-left-wing of the party without considering how it appeals outside that limited group.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

This way whoever gets the nom at least can say the voters have spoken. 

And that would be really gracious loser talk. 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

At no point did I say try to out progressive anyone else.  There's a pile of candidates, let them run on what they want to.  

Well that’s what many are doing. And at times it is a mistake.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

This is some combination of talking past each other or you just advocating trying to turn a handful of Obama - Trump voters at the expense of anyone under 30 turning out.  

No. What this is you getting mad at those you dare point out not all the policy progressive positions many Democratic candidates have adopted are popular and could in fact scare many voters away and say maybe Dems shouldn’t adopt such positions-because you know they still want to beat Trump.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

This is also more strawman stuff.  I have no issue with people running on healthcare or the economy.  Not sure why you'd think that.  I simply mentioned two issues that are important to me, personally.

My point is that these issues are really the only two that could lead Democrats to a path to victory. Those need overwhelming amount of focus. Focusing on immigration simply plays right into the conservatives hands.

[Martell Spy]

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because it’s one of those unpopular things Candidates have stated their support for or pressed to agree with in order to try to avoid looking centrist. Things that could/would turn people off from voting candidate. Like getting rid of their private health insurance. Which again 3 of the top 4 candidates have showed support for. 

Moderate candidates won the House. They tailored their platform to accommodate the positions of the voters they got. Great. Uber-Progressive candidates  like AOC mostly won reliably blue Districts that any democrat would be hard pressed to lose and got tons of praise on social media. Not so great. 

No one is really arguing that. What people are arguing against is Democratic candidates adopting really unpopular positions just appeal to a more uber-left-wing of the party without considering how it appeals outside that limited group.

And that would be really gracious loser talk. 

Well that’s what many are doing. And at times it is a mistake.

No. What this is you getting mad at those you dare point out not all the policy progressive positions many Democratic candidates have adopted are popular and could in fact scare many voters away and say maybe Dems shouldn’t adopt such positions-because you know they still want to beat Trump.

My point is that these issues are really the only two that could lead Democrats to a path to victory. Those need overwhelming amount of focus. Focusing on immigration simply plays right into the conservatives hands.

So, you're saying we need a safe choice. HRC should totally run again, right?