U.S. Politics: That's too bad for Carrots

[Week]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Wow, you literally want to lose just so you can say woe is me. 

At a time with literal Nazis coming out of the woodwork on the right - to throw around "hate" within intra-party politics is foolish. PoC, LGBTQ, muslims, jews, women, etc have their Rights and lives under threat and yet the true hatred is a (supposed) leak about a potential cabinet or advisor. Perspective.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

are agents of Satin.

Who doesn’t like smooth warm sheets during the Winter?

[Ser Reptitious]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You can have a 50 state strategy, but you also have to be realistic. There are large geographical areas of the U.S. that have been convinced anything Democrats do is evil and that they are agents of Satin. This is what happens in a two party system when one of the parties has just gone full batshit insane. 

Yes, and that's why I said it would be hard work for a long time. But I recall someone posting an interesting chart here a few weeks ago showing that more counties went blue in Mississippi than in New York State this election. These are the kind of seeds I'm talking about. 

Democrats in general really should put much more focus on state-level (as well as local) politics than they currently do. The recent discussion in this thread about the potential political future of Mayor Pete was interesting in that regard. The only state-level positions that were mentioned at all (as far as I recall) were governor and one or two of the other most powerful state level positions (can't recall the titles at the moment). There was also a strong presumption that he would have to move away from Indiana and to a blue state in order to succeed. But I think that is very much the wrong attitude/approach. I'm sure that there are blue or blue-ish state level districts in which Pete could run as a state rep, for starters. What about the state senate? (I have to admit that I don't know how state senators tend to get elected. Do they represent a certain geographical region of the state? If so, is there one in Indiana were Pete would have a reasonable chance to succeed?) 

The point is, if promising young Democrats from red states keep moving to blue states to climb the ladder, then we basically write off the red states for good. Let's not forget that Obama won Indiana in 2008, and Democrat Evan Bayh was a two-term senator, until the bloodbath of 2010. So Democrats should roll up their sleeves and put in some serious effort, instead of running away. Of course there won't likely be a quick payoff. But perhaps the long-term trajectory can be impacted. 

The Barry Goldwater Republicans got blown out of the water in the 1964 election, yet instead of giving up they built a long-term strategy and remained laser-focused on it. Half a century onwards it sure looks like they've had enormous success. There is no reason why Democrats/Progressives can't do the same, if they can muster the same determination and patience. Nothing is ever written in stone for all eternity. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

From Philly to Germany, thousands participated in the virtual Fraud Street Run, inspired by the Four Seasons Total Landscaping news conference

Early Sunday morning, Ted Booth and Matt Gross hit the road from their home in Brooklyn, N.Y., to drive to Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Northeast Philly.

“We knew we were in the right place when we saw the adult bookstore,” Gross, 46, said.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Who doesn’t like smooth warm sheets during the Winter?

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Yes, and that's why I said it would be hard work for a long time. But I recall someone posting an interesting chart here a few weeks ago showing that more counties went blue in Mississippi than in New York State this election. These are the kind of seeds I'm talking about. 

I'm not sure if that's always a reliable comparison though given how differently states are constructed. Use Texas as an example. One county has a population of around 4m while another has something like 15 people in it. 

Quote

Democrats in general really should put much more focus on state-level (as well as local) politics than they currently do. The recent discussion in this thread about the potential political future of Mayor Pete was interesting in that regard. The only state-level positions that were mentioned at all (as far as I recall) were governor and one or two of the other most powerful state level positions (can't recall the titles at the moment). There was also a strong presumption that he would have to move away from Indiana and to a blue state in order to succeed. But I think that is very much the wrong attitude/approach. I'm sure that there are blue or blue-ish state level districts in which Pete could run as a state rep, for starters. What about the state senate? (I have to admit that I don't know how state senators tend to get elected. Do they represent a certain geographical region of the state? If so, is there one in Indiana were Pete would have a reasonable chance to succeed?) 

The point is, if promising young Democrats from red states keep moving to blue states to climb the ladder, then we basically write off the red states for good. Let's not forget that Obama won Indiana in 2008, and Democrat Evan Bayh was a two-term senator, until the bloodbath of 2010. So Democrats should roll up their sleeves and put in some serious effort, instead of running away. Of course there won't likely be a quick payoff. But perhaps the long-term trajectory can be impacted. 

If Mayor Pete's goal is to become president, running for the state senate in a red state isn't going to get him there. Now I agree that Democrats should be competing in every state legislative district they can theoretically win, but you have to be realistic about how far most people can get by that path if they have no statewide prospects. 

Quote

The Barry Goldwater Republicans got blown out of the water in the 1964 election, yet instead of giving up they built a long-term strategy and remained laser-focused on it. Half a century onwards it sure looks like they've had enormous success. There is no reason why Democrats/Progressives can't do the same, if they can muster the same determination and patience. Nothing is ever written in stone for all eternity. 

This overlooks the fallout from the CRA and VRA and the realignment that followed their passage.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Um, no. 

Wow, you literally want to lose just so you can say woe is me. 

Um yeah.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/10/20/biden-transition-republican-cabinet-429972

PS I'll accept your apology in advance, thanks!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Week said:

At a time with literal Nazis coming out of the woodwork on the right - to throw around "hate" within intra-party politics is foolish. PoC, LGBTQ, muslims, jews, women, etc have their Rights and lives under threat and yet the true hatred is a (supposed) leak about a potential cabinet or advisor. Perspective.

That's almost a really effective straw man you built there...lol.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Okay,

is anyone else curious about why the Trump Campaign hasn’t petitioned for Certiorari in the two cases from Pennsylvania that are ripe for such petitions?  His supporters see the SCOTUS as their Golden Ticket to the second term.  They keep throwing up the SCOTUS like it is a guaranteed win for Trump.  I know that’s not the case.

Nevertheless, why isn’t Trump pound the doors of the SCOTUS seeking their input into his election contests?

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia's_2020_Election_Help_Desk:_Tracking_election_disputes,_lawsuits,_and_recounts

[Ser Reptitious]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure if that's always a reliable comparison though given how differently states are constructed. Use Texas as an example. One county has a population of around 4m while another has something like 15 people in it. 

I used that example simply to point out that there are blue spots in even the reddest of red states, and those should be nurtured and built up. 

Quote

If Mayor Pete's goal is to become president, running for the state senate in a red state isn't going to get him there. Now I agree that Democrats should be competing in every state legislative district they can theoretically win, but you have to be realistic about how far most people can get by that path if they have no statewide prospects. 

I really like both Pete and AOC, but Pete strikes me as more of a traditional politician, in the sense that his ambitions are mainly personal and undoubtedly involve becoming President as soon as realistically possible. Any position held before that is simply intended as a stepping stone. What really excites me about AOC is that she seems much more concerned with building up the movement that she is passionate about. I doubt she will run for President any time soon (if she ever does at all), because she realizes that it would be pointless. Even if she pulls it off, at this stage she would not have allies in the sufficient amount in the right places to carry out the things that are important to her. The Democratic Party for its own good desperately needs more people with her knack for seeing the big picture and acting accordingly, rather than ones who only have eyes for the Presidency.

Quote

This overlooks the fallout from the CRA and VRA and the realignment that followed their passage.

True, this undoubtedly (unfortunately) helped Republicans. But I'm specifically talking about the success of movement conservatism. It's due to their laser-focus and long-term planning that the Republican party today is dominated by them instead of country club/Rockefeller Republicans. And the policies and court appointments pushed by them often succeed because at all levels they have put the right people in place over the years.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Um yeah.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/10/20/biden-transition-republican-cabinet-429972

PS I'll accept your apology in advance, thanks!

I didn’t seen anything about the AG position. Yes we knew Biden might want a Republican or two in his cabinet. This is nothing new. The only thing we know about his AG pick is that he wants someone independent so it’s doesn’t look like Barr 2.0 and to not make it look like he’s using the office to go after Trump.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

The recent discussion in this thread about the potential political future of Mayor Pete was interesting in that regard. The only state-level positions that were mentioned at all (as far as I recall) were governor and one or two of the other most powerful state level positions (can't recall the titles at the moment). There was also a strong presumption that he would have to move away from Indiana and to a blue state in order to succeed. But I think that is very much the wrong attitude/approach. I'm sure that there are blue or blue-ish state level districts in which Pete could run as a state rep, for starters. What about the state senate?

To be clear, as Ty said, the discussion regarding Buttigieg centered on him building upon his impressive primary performance.  Going to the state legislature after winning(ish) the Iowa caucus is decidedly a huge-ass step down.  Even a US Congress seat would be pretty meh - as would any statewide office outside of governor or (US) senator.  The discussion on his specific politically future - and why moving out of Indiana may be wise for such prospects - isn't too relevant to this discussion.  

For an illustrative comparison, take Andrew Yang.  He got some run during the primary season as well, and now is seriously considering running for mayor of New York.  Now you may be like - "see, he's pursuing a local office."  And, yes, technically.  Except there's about 1.6 million more people in NYC than in the entire state of Indiana.  Moreover, Yang didn't win a single delegate and dropped out on the night of the New Hampshire primary at the same time Buttigieg came in a close second in the contest after "winning" Iowa.

Also, your point about Evan Bayh and Joe Donnelly in Indiana betrays your argument.  Bayh was an institution in Indiana and literally a coin-flip away from the vice presidency in 2008.  Still, after retiring in 2010, he tried to regain his Senate seat in 2016.  He lost by ten.  Donnelly won in 2012 because of the notorious Tea Party overreach that cycle.  Richard Mourdock beat out longtime incumbent Dick Lugar in the GOP primary, paving the way for Donnelly's victory.  Donnelly then lost reelection by six in the very favorable 2018 cycle. 

Same thing happened in Missouri - Claire McCaskill was able to hold her seat in 2012 because the Tea Party spurred Todd Akin to a primary victory (Akin and Mourdock, btw, share being particularly odious candidates due to their comments on abortion/rape).  Once the GOP put down the crack pipe in 2018 Hawley easily beat her by six.  These races demonstrate that Indiana and Missouri are plainly drifting away from Democrats at the statewide level.  That doesn't mean you abandon them or don't engage in a 50-state effort, certainly!  But it does underline that that strategy needs to be balanced by being realistic.

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, outside Bernie in the White House what specific policies would assuage your anger at Biden winning and picking people he trusts for his staff and cabinet?

I wanna pick up on the second part of this question.  So, I get why leftists are complaining about Tanden, or Deese.  But what about all of Biden's other picks?  What about the fact Liz Warren gushed over Janet Yellen and Ron Klain?  Or environmentalists seem thrilled with John Kerry (even though I'm not)?  Shouldn't leftists by happy with Mayorkas - a Cuban immigrant that spearheaded DACA - at Homeland?  What problems do you have, as a leftist, with Linda Thomas-Greenfield or Cecilia Rouse?  Seems this lamenting that Biden's picks are all "centrists" and/or an affront to leftists is entirely ignoring at least half of his actual picks.  Is your demand really that leftists should have veto power over every single one of his Cabinet/Cabinet-level appointees?

47 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Nevertheless, why isn’t Trump pound the doors of the SCOTUS seeking their input into his election contests?

Isn't the answer to this obvious?  Even they don't think they'll be granted cert.

[Fragile Bird]

I don’t know how many other benefits people have already noticed after the election of Biden, but GM today withdrew it’s support of the Trump lawsuit against the state of California. The one that would block California from setting it’s own emission standards, as it has for decades.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Isn't the answer to this obvious?  Even they don't think they'll be granted cert.

Well if they refuse to petition for Cert what will all the Trumpanista die hards out their screaming for the SCOTUS to save their baby say?

I know it’s a long shot to flip die hard Trumpanistas... but how do Trump and his surrogates spin a failure to go to the very court so many of them praise Trump for ensuring will remain in their pocket?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I didn’t seen anything about the AG position. Yes we knew Biden might want a Republican or two in his cabinet. This is nothing new. The only thing we know about his AG pick is that he wants someone independent so it’s doesn’t look like Barr 2.0 and to not make it look like he’s using the office to go after Trump.

It's not AG position specific (the rumor), the leak I'm referring to is that he'd kicked around Republican cabinet members which means he could be considering Repub for AG. I didnt know you were saying there's no specific rumor about that position. Either way, I wanted to make a broader point that he's not against Rs in his cabinet.

It'll be great if he doesn't pick a single R for his cabinet, AG or not. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Will if they refuse to petition for Cert what will all the Trumpanista die hards out their screaming for the SCOTUS to save their baby say?

I know it’s a long shot to flip die hard Trumpanistas... but how do Trump and his surrogates spin a failure to go to the very court so many of them praise Trump for ensuring will remain in their pocket?

Aren't these questions answering your own previous question?  The reason the Trump camp isn't pushing for cert is because if they're denied it makes their failure even more glaring and deflating.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Either way, I wanted to make a broader point that he's not against Rs in his cabinet.

The article you linked to was before the election, when it costs nothing to say you'd consider cross-partisans for your Cabinet.  Fact is, since the election, not a single specific Republican has been bandied about in the cacophony that is the Cabinet rumor mill.  Doesn't necessarily mean Biden won't eventually appoint one - I could still maybe see him giving some token appointment (which I think would be pointless but who gives a shit), although even that seems doubtful at this point.  But it's almost certain Biden isn't picking a Republican for AG or any important position.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Aren't these questions answering your own previous question?  The reason the Trump camp isn't pushing for cert is because if they're denied it makes their failure even more glaring and deflating.

Yes, but, conversely failing to even petition the SCOTUS should (I know it will not) raise the ire of his supporters because they think the SCOTUS is a guaranteed win.  

I do see how it is deflating to lose.  But, shouldn’t it raise the Trumpanista hackles if he doesn’t even try?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But, shouldn’t it raise the Trumpanista hackles if he doesn’t even try?

I assume they're relying on Trumpists either not noticing and/or not understanding cert.  Sounds like a pretty safe bet.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

I assume they're relying on Trumpists either not noticing and/or not understanding cert.  Sounds like a pretty safe bet.

You mean the people who think they can hold back evidence at the Trial level and get it before the Supremes when none of the lower courts could see it?  

They aren’t exactly legal eagles that’s for certain.

It’s just when I see them repeatedly screaming “Just wait for the SCOTUS...” it has to make them wonder, at some point, why the SCOTUS isn’t being brought into the mix.