Jump to content

US politics: calm blue waters


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I haven't seen any sold polling on the issue, but my guess is his position is more popular than hers even among primary voters and it's certainly better policy. Just going back to the ballot measure, next to nobody I spoke to working in local and state government thought it was a good, workable idea even if they supported the general spirit of what it was trying to do.

LOL at "certainly better policy."  What I'm talking about is centering your campaign around being the "public safety" candidate and attacking your oppenent/incumbent on those grounds.  

As discussed for years now I think the the "defund police" moniker is horrible politics - but generally I agree with the practical efforts behind it and certainly the sentiment.  Accordingly, I'd easily trust Omar to vote closer to my preferences in Congress on the issue over a guy trying to take her job by being "pro-police."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL at "certainly better policy."  What I'm talking about is centering your campaign around being the "public safety" candidate and attacking your oppenent/incumbent on those grounds.  

As discussed for years now I think the the "defund police" moniker is horrible politics - but generally I agree with the practical efforts behind it and certainly the sentiment.  Accordingly, I'd easily trust Omar to vote closer to my preferences in Congress on the issue over a guy trying to take her job by being "pro-police."

I'm not sure he's that pro-police in the way you're framing it compared to your average individual left of center, just when compared to Omar who is about as far left on the issue as one could get. Again, the two examples mentioned where he's pro-police are generally popular here in Minneapolis even among a lot of liberals. Advocating for hiring the bare minimum number of police required by law and saying we need reforms while not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater is pretty mainstream. By comparison a lot of what Omar has said ranges from incoherent to completely unworkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Anyway, looks like Omar is gonna hold on - barely.  She's up by about 3,200 votes, or 3.4%, with 96% of the expected vote reporting.

Where are you seeing that? NYT has her up 3k with 82% reporting. Anyways, looks like she's on pace to have her weakest primary performance in her young career. She's not all that popular here these days and like I said before, she's a total ghost in the district. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure he's that pro-police in the way you're framing it compared to your average individual left of center, just when compared to Omar who is about as far left on the issue as one could get.

Again, I provided a quote from Samuels himself in my first post on the subject where he explicitly said he was running on "public safety," which in this day and age is blatant code for pro-police in a Democratic primary.  And indeed, national outlets like AP literally describe him as the pro-police challenger.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Where are you seeing that?

ABC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, it's still kinda early, but the returns so far strongly suggest Rebecca Kleefisch is going to lose the GOP primary for Wisconsin governor to the Trump-endorsed Tim Michels.  This is good news for Evers' re-election hopes - Michels is clearly the weaker candidate.  And this isn't a "pro-democracy vs. anti-democracy" situation.  They're both equally horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

In other news, it's still kinda early, but the returns so far strongly suggest Rebecca Kleefisch is going to lose the GOP primary for Wisconsin governor to the Trump-endorsed Tim Michels.  This is good news for Evers' re-election hopes - Michels is clearly the weaker candidate.  And this isn't a "pro-democracy vs. anti-democracy" situation.  They're both equally horrible.

Holy eff. They're beyond both terrible...

Oddly enough, Kleefisch has barely registered on the airwaves that I've been watching...but Michels presents a face that screams, "punch me"...his commercials are agonizing. I'm embarrassed that his company does business at my place of employment. 

Evers is actually a darn good Governor. That either of those lackwits could replace him...*shudder*...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Again, I provided a quote from Samuels himself in my first post on the subject where he explicitly said he was running on "public safety," which in this day and age is blatant code for pro-police in a Democratic primary.  And indeed, national outlets like AP literally describe him as the pro-police challenger.

National outlets said the same thing too about her 2020 challenger because it's hard not to be to the right of her on the issue and thus labeled "pro-police" even if your position is mainstream left of center at worst. And national outlets probably aren't properly taking into account the very unique local aspect here, this being the district George Floyd was murdered in just over two years ago. In the aftermath a lot of Democrats here have been running on generic shit like "public safety" because they want to make it very clear they were not with the people calling for the closure of the biggest police department in the state with no real plan going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hohkay there buddy.  I'm not denying that Samuels got so close because Omar's association with "defund police" is generally unpopular - even with Democrats.  Neither, clearly, is Samuels and his campaign.  But for some reason you seem to be.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gorn said:

Between the "inflation reduction" bill, semiconductor bill, July jobs report and the still-falling gas prices, this might be Biden's best week in office so far.

Gorn -- yes! Yes, it does. This week secures greater successes in the future, even for Democrats in general. And those Democrats agitating-lite for his removal in the future will have to rethink their position. Until recently, I was worried Uncle Joe would be pushed out due to his unbroken string of failures since 2020, but this should give him time and space to run again in 2024, which he stated he intended to do. I hope he runs again. He needs to. For us all. When Big Donald beats the nothingburger of a raid at Mar-a-Lago, he'll certainly be around for 2024...

 

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Giving more money to cops isn't good policy.  It doesn't lower crime.  

Larry of the Lake -- I agree with you (and the others who supported this) here. Any additional funding, and much of the existing, just gets concentrated and wasted into the bureaucracy, which incidentally almost forced me to resign (in a former life). As a starter, one solution would be for each department to reduce their motor pool budget. Besides, these cops really need to just stop patrolling around in cars (much less armored vehicles), giving tickets and conducting high-speed chases, and instead walk their beats and engage locals like ideal peacekeepers should. Take away all obstacles between cops and citizens -- autos, armor, and guns. Dangerous (for cops) at first, yes, but safer (for cops and citizens) in the long-term.

It would be better to get the cops out of impoverished neighborhoods entirely so locals can police themselves without the threat of heavy-handed and out of touch fascists breathing down their necks. Any money saved, and more money allocated, should be given to impoverished neighborhood leaders, and spent as they see fit -- who else would know better their conditions and how to resolve them? We'd see the end of all homeless camps, I'm positive. Furthermore, I'd be OK with allowing cops to remain in the middle-class neighborhoods as well as retail / commercial zones, where they're originally intended. Upper-class neighborhoods can rely on private security -- why should the other classes pay for their security, let them pay with their own substantial bank accounts.

Defund the police -- but with a period, not an exclamation mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Having to reduce it to such an absurdity to try to counter it is how we know you know really that defunding the police is the right thing to do.  

polishgenius -- no, I'm being serious. I was an active counterinsurgent (a slightly more empowered peacekeeper) in two wars, and think it's a valid approach, especially since what we're doing now is not working. And I'm OK with testing out the policy in a city far from my state. Might have a faceitious tone, but I'm serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it (very understandably) took a while for the results to get in, but the special election in the Minnesota 1st is now at 99% reporting according to ABC.  And while the Republican - Brad Finstad - won (the race was actually called hours ago), the interesting thing is the margin.  Right now he's only winning by 4%, which is contextually great news for Dems. 

It's based on the pre-redistricting lines, where its Cook PVI was R+8 and 538's partisan lean was R+15.  Trump won the district 54 to 44 in 2020 and 53 to 38 in 2016.  In other words, the Dem candidate significantly overperformed in an open seat during a cycle when the GOP has very obvious and strong environmental advantages.

Edited by DMC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

his unbroken string of failures since 2020

Surely, you can't be serious.

His numbers tanked almost entirely because of the inflation first (the hysterical reporting about the Afghanistan withdrawal in the first week probably pushed it over the edge, even though who talks about Afghanistan now as some sort of mistake?) and then gas prices (a mixed effect of the pandemic and  the war in Ukraine), which are both global phenomena not really related to his presidency except very marginally. The approval numbers are really irrational, as witnessed by the fact that now that gas prices are falling people are starting to feel upbeat upgain and his approval is gliding upwards.

There is some truly magical thinking in the makeup of humanity -- or at least Americans -- when it comes to the presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ran said:

Surely, you can't be serious.

His numbers tanked almost entirely because of the inflation first (the hysterical reporting about the Afghanistan withdrawal in the first week probably pushed it over the edge, even though who talks about Afghanistan now as some sort of mistake?) and then gas prices (a mixed effect of the pandemic and  the war in Ukraine), which are both global phenomena not really related to his presidency except very marginally. The approval numbers are really irrational, as witnessed by the fact that now that gas prices are falling people are starting to feel upbeat upgain and his approval is gliding upwards.

There is some truly magical thinking in the makeup of humanity -- or at least Americans -- when it comes to the presidency.

Ran -- I'm serious! I accept how that list seem like victories to the political majority; but to me, in the minority, they are wasteful (covid), irrelevant (judges, climate), and harmful (executions, military). The one exception is the infrastructure, but I'd call that neither a success nor a failure, but something as a bare minimum expectation. Add in the other things you mentioned (Afghan withdrawal process, energy, inflation), and it's an unbroken string of failures, reflected in his approval ratings -- sure, irrational, but that's humanity.

Yet, I'm all for Uncle Joe. The last week was a good sign, though, and I hope he gains strength so we can see him go against Big Donald one more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

When Big Donald beats the nothingburger of a raid at Mar-a-Lago, he'll certainly be around for 2024...

By “raid” you mean the service of a search warrant that issued upon probable cause after review by a neutral judicial arbiter (appointed by Trump in 2018) is that what you mean by “raid”?

If Trump is so angry about the injustice of this “raid” why will he not show the world the search warrant he was served with to demonstrate once and for all that the “raid” was specious and without any rational basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

By “raid” you mean the service of a search warrant that issued upon probable cause after review by a neutral judicial arbiter (appointed by Trump in 2018) is that what you mean by “raid”?

If Trump is so angry about the injustice of this “raid” why will he not show the world the search warrant he was served with to demonstrate once and for all that the “raid” was specious and without any rational basis?

Ser Scot A Ellison -- yep! that's the raid I was talking about, good catch! I'm not sure why Big Donald wouldn't show this raid's search warrant, but he strikes me as the kind of man who likes to keep things private even when there's no need to. Even if I was the one who got raided, I'd still show it. In fact, I'd frame it.

Until he was defeated by Uncle Joe, Big Donald was invulnerable. And with this raid targeted at a former US President, unprecedented and with so many potentially nation-shaking future events, the raid was most likely warranted. It makes me wonder how much risk he's holding right now; and if it would put an end to his 2024 run. Exciting!!

(I wonder if the raid included helicopters. I love those kinds of raids)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...