I really think that a lot of Progressives were complacent in 2016 thinking Clinton was going to win regardless.
Though I agree with your greater point that there will be a higher percentage of voters voting for the Democratic candidate next year, I'm not thinking that complacency was the biggest problem. Hillary only received ~60K less votes than did our last great president in 2012.
The problem, as I see it, and as (I recall) 538 also stated, the undecided's swung heavily to Trump on the last few days or so. As, such, Comey and Russia played a larger role. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29257 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:43 am Post subject:
^Scary thing is. There's a good chance Russian influence grows in 2020.
Russia hacking into voting systems and the US doing nothing about it after the fact is a very real possibility. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
^^^That's why there has to be a huge Democratic wave so that margins aren't close enough so that flipping a few thousand votes here or there can turn the election.
How do you have a huge Democratic turnout? By exciting the base.
Do people really think a candidate pandering to white working class Trump voters in a few swing states at the expense of everyone else who actually powers the democratic party is gonna increase turnout?
^^^That's why there has to be a huge Democratic wave so that margins aren't close enough so that flipping a few thousand votes here or there can turn the election.
How do you have a huge Democratic turnout? By exciting the base.
Do people really think a candidate pandering to white working class Trump voters in a few swing states at the expense of everyone else who actually powers the democratic party is gonna increase turnout?
Biden? Nope, it'll have to be the anti-Trump exciting the base
Shares of private prisons GEO Group Inc. and CoreCivic Inc. took a hit Friday morning after presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted about about her plan to terminate them.
GEO slid as much as 5.8%, its biggest intraday loss since March, and CoreCivic retreated as much as 6%, the largest intraday decline this year.
Quote:
Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a tweet that “private prison companies have spent millions to turn our criminal and immigration policies into ones that prioritize making them rich instead of keeping us safe —with terrible consequences. Today I’m announcing my plan to end this private profiteering off of cruelty.”
Stocks don't tank unless investors believe the candidate has a chance of winning and implementing the policy.
I haven't read the details, but this is awesome of her. I think no one talks about this subject among the other candidates, except Bernie several times. Not the media, either. So for her to apparently out of the blue do so means it's sincere, and she's always been sincere on most issues. Plus she's aggressive now and seems more comfortable and savvy. Means she's adapted as a politician and a candidate, and her intelligence has always been clear.
In a way, I am worried about these debates because people may be too reactive to one candidate or another "performing" well or poorly, because of the vague need just to thin the herd. I hope people look at who is sincere in whatever they say, and has a record of it, along with the actual policies they express, and ability to motivate voters. Even though I appreciate Warren becoming more savvy and adept, slick polish should be the low on the list of things people require for this campaign more than any other I can remember.
Anyway, if the details are good, very encouraging push by Warren.
But in two fiscal years since President Donald Trump took office, California’s share has fallen to less than half of what it was during the Obama administration, according to a Bee analysis of data from the federal grant program.
California is not alone in wondering whether the state is paying a political price after voters here backed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by a nearly two-to-one margin over Trump, the Republican candidate, in the 2016 general election.
Half of the 20 states that Clinton won almost three years ago have seen shrinking shares of money from the TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) and BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development) program.
_________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67574 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:55 pm Post subject:
This is an election that's theirs to lose, talking about Democrats. Some are playing into the Republicans hands, SNIPING. The advantage the Republicans have is unity. Dems have to take a page from that book.
Trump's out there for all to see. His maleficence makes no difference to his base. Will giving him enough rope make a difference, I don't know? I can only hope it will.
My fear is he'll find a way to steal the election through voter restrictions and gerrymandering.
June 26 and June 27 are important dates.
Americans have their minds made up about Trump. Nothing is going to change that.
But the bad news for Democrats is that, beyond a certain point, Trump is impervious to negative campaigning. As the past two years show, there is only so much Democrats can do to push his support levels down, or to push their candidate’s up, for that matter.
Quote:
Or the Democrats can attack one another so furiously in the crowded primary contest that they fatally divide and demoralize the anti-Trump majority.
Trump’s capacity for beating the Democrats is limited, but the same cannot be said of the Democrats’ capacity for beating themselves.
_________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Lictman had some interesting points, on reminding us how the Democrats were cheated in 2000 and how, on in-party fighting for the party out of power, and especially on impeachment. He left the conversation with:
Republicans have no value, but have a spine and Democrats have values, but, and let's all say it together . . . they have no spine. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52648 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 3:51 pm Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
Allan Lichtman on Bill Maher:
Lictman had some interesting points, on reminding us how the Democrats were cheated in 2000 and how, on in-party fighting for the party out of power, and especially on impeachment. He left the conversation with:
Republicans have no value, but have a spine and Democrats have values, but, and let's all say it together . . . they have no spine.
That’s the largest pile of ridiculous BS I have seen in a loooooong ass time. And anyone who would say such a thing or ascribe to such a thing has clearly not been paying attention to the last several years of politics or social policy _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Lictman had some interesting points, on reminding us how the Democrats were cheated in 2000 and how, on in-party fighting for the party out of power, and especially on impeachment. He left the conversation with:
Republicans have no value, but have a spine and Democrats have values, but, and let's all say it together . . . they have no spine.
That’s the largest pile of ridiculous BS I have seen in a loooooong ass time. And anyone who would say such a thing or ascribe to such a thing has clearly not been paying attention to the last several years of politics or social policy
Take it up with Lichtman, a political historian, who once won scholar of the year, who clearly pays attention as he has gotten 7 out of the last 8 elections right, 8 out of 8, if the shenanigans in Florida did not occur, which he studied extensively.
Since I (essentially) quoted his words, it sounds like you are saying I don't pay attention either. We disagree once more. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Lictman had some interesting points, on reminding us how the Democrats were cheated in 2000 and how, on in-party fighting for the party out of power, and especially on impeachment. He left the conversation with:
Republicans have no value, but have a spine and Democrats have values, but, and let's all say it together . . . they have no spine.
Also, this was an interesting episode altogether. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29257 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:21 pm Post subject:
This is the last week I'm gonna watch Bill Maher. His segment with Dr. Debra Soh was the last straw. Young people are having less sex because of feminism? And the increased access to porn has had zero effect?
Dan Savage says trans children should be allowed to transition socially, and Dr. Soh slyly brought up the difficult to reverse medical effects of transitioning with hormones and surgery (even though Savage wasn't talking about anything besides social transition). And Bill cuts Dan off to allow Debra to misdirect the argument.
After a certain point, it's my fault for still watching his show. Bill's obsession with political correctness is now overwhelming the positives some of his guests bring to the show.
If a moderate Republican was in office, and Dems were instigating conflict, I'd get where Bill was coming from a little. But Bill's ignoring the cause for the increased division (Trump). And blindly complaining about the reasonable (in comparison) effect. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
This is the last week I'm gonna watch Bill Maher. His segment with Dr. Debra Soh was the last straw. Young people are having less sex because of feminism? And the increased access to porn has had zero effect?
Dan Savage says trans children should be allowed to transition socially, and Dr. Soh slyly brought up the difficult to reverse medical effects of transitioning with hormones and surgery (even though Savage wasn't talking about anything besides social transition). And Bill cuts Dan off to allow Debra to misdirect the argument.
After a certain point, it's my fault for still watching his show. Bill's obsession with political correctness is now overwhelming the positives some of his guests bring to the show.
If a moderate Republican was in office, and Dems were instigating conflict, I'd get where Bill was coming from a little. But Bill's ignoring the cause for the increased division (Trump). And blindly complaining about the reasonable (in comparison) effect.
I thought the segment with Dr Soh and the science behind her points, and all of the discussion was most interesting. I don't think she was trying to be sly but restating how the science does not support transitioning for children.
I don't really know as I've not begun to study the subject, but here, as in nearly all cases, I tend to trust the science. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52648 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:36 pm Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Allan Lichtman on Bill Maher:
Lictman had some interesting points, on reminding us how the Democrats were cheated in 2000 and how, on in-party fighting for the party out of power, and especially on impeachment. He left the conversation with:
Republicans have no value, but have a spine and Democrats have values, but, and let's all say it together . . . they have no spine.
That’s the largest pile of ridiculous BS I have seen in a loooooong ass time. And anyone who would say such a thing or ascribe to such a thing has clearly not been paying attention to the last several years of politics or social policy
Take it up with Lichtman, a political historian, who once won scholar of the year, who clearly pays attention as he has gotten 7 out of the last 8 elections right, 8 out of 8, if the shenanigans in Florida did not occur, which he studied extensively.
Since I (essentially) quoted his words, it sounds like you are saying I don't pay attention either. We disagree once more.
First of all, a "pedigree" doesn't mean that everything someone says in opinion is actually accurate. Plenty of intelligent, well studied and experienced people have flawed opinions, even within their area of "expertise". Plenty of well regarded people have rested on their reputation while they have expressed baseless hyperbole. Let's skip past this idea that because Lichtman said it, it has to be accurate and move on to assessing it for ourselves. So please, if you are actually interested in having a meaningful discussion, let's acknowledge that truth so we can get on to substance.
Secondly, it's odd that you say "take it up witch Lichtman" and then get defensive about me taking issue with inaccuracies of his statement. You promote Lichtman's opinion to the realm of fact based on his status. And you take issue with my assessment that his opinion defies the obvious reality of the actions and comments from both parties. So do you just punt your thought processes over to the "expert"? Why else take the "take it up with him" comment?
But I'll play along since we are in disagreement in regards to the merit of Lichtman's comment and I'd like to hear your reasons for agreement with it. Explain to me where the "spine" is amongst the GOP and how the lack of one is demonstrated by the Dems - and I mean based on the sweeping generalization of Lichtman's description - I don't mean cite one very specific instance where you don't agree with a decision by some Democrats and view it as "spineless" (such as Impeachment).
State your case for how when logically and fairly assessing the preponderance of work and ethics towards the multitudes of issues facing this country and its diverse population that the conduct of the two parties on the whole is that it is the Dems who are spineless, but the GOP has proven to be courageous. I'd sincerely like to see that rationale laid out, because I just don't see it. But if I'm wrong, show me where rather than just go "I agree with the expert and thus I disagree with you".
I'll grant you that the GOP has demonstrated a serious set of balls in regards to how they have handled themselves for many, many years. But being ballsy is not the same thing as having a spine. Balls are a very specific set of anatomy associated with less than half the human population that serve a very limited set of human functions (and at times dysfunctional thinking) and often to the detriment of others. A spine represents the core of the ability of a human of any gender to actually stand upright proudly and with merit.
So if your point is that having balls is the same as having a spine, yeah, we will always disagree. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29257 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:38 pm Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:
This is the last week I'm gonna watch Bill Maher. His segment with Dr. Debra Soh was the last straw. Young people are having less sex because of feminism? And the increased access to porn has had zero effect?
Dan Savage says trans children should be allowed to transition socially, and Dr. Soh slyly brought up the difficult to reverse medical effects of transitioning with hormones and surgery (even though Savage wasn't talking about anything besides social transition). And Bill cuts Dan off to allow Debra to misdirect the argument.
After a certain point, it's my fault for still watching his show. Bill's obsession with political correctness is now overwhelming the positives some of his guests bring to the show.
If a moderate Republican was in office, and Dems were instigating conflict, I'd get where Bill was coming from a little. But Bill's ignoring the cause for the increased division (Trump). And blindly complaining about the reasonable (in comparison) effect.
I thought the segment with Dr Soh and the science behind her points, and all of the discussion was most interesting. I don't think she was trying to be sly but restating how the science does not support transitioning for children.
I don't really know as I've not begun to study the subject, but here, as in nearly all cases, I tend to trust the science.
I have no problem with the science. And in terms of millenials having less sex, I'm willing to concede that porn has had zero effect (even though there isn't consensus behind that fact) . Although the science does state technology has had an effect in isolating millennials which is a factor in the decrease of physical sexual activity (with other individuals).
I have a problem with the fact that Savage was talking about social transition (calling the child by the name and pronouns they want, allowing the child to dress in the clothing they want). And she misdirected the conversation by talking about the tough to reverse effects from surgery and hormones. And when Savage tried to reiterate and clarify, Bill stopped him so she could go on to her next point which was blaming feminism for the decrease in sex. Which there is no scientific evidence to back that up. There is evidence that cautionary stories of unwanted sex have led to a decrease in non-consensual sex though. But she didn't make that designation, because it doesn't fit her feminism is bad narrative. She even went out of her way to say she personally doesn't identify as a feminist anymore. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:52 pm; edited 5 times in total
Lictman had some interesting points, on reminding us how the Democrats were cheated in 2000 and how, on in-party fighting for the party out of power, and especially on impeachment. He left the conversation with:
Republicans have no value, but have a spine and Democrats have values, but, and let's all say it together . . . they have no spine.
It was a great episode even though he had no "celebrities " as guests.
Love Bill Maher, I think people forget its a comedy show first, but there is a comedian for all types of people.
I'm sure some of the peeps here that hate Maher just love them some Carrot Top, Carlos Mencia, and Howie Mandel.
_________________ Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29257 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:58 pm Post subject:
My overarching issue with Bill is that we have a President banning trans people from the military. We have a President who brags about assaulting women with nearly 20 victims who have come forward.
And Bill goes out of his way to give a platform to someone blurring the line between social transitioning and medical transitioning. A person blaming feminism for a decrease in all types of sex. Why does he give people like this a platform? Because people on twitter said not nice things to Bill , after Bill said things on his show that offended them. Have some freaking perspective! _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52648 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:01 pm Post subject:
eddiejonze wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Allan Lichtman on Bill Maher:
Lictman had some interesting points, on reminding us how the Democrats were cheated in 2000 and how, on in-party fighting for the party out of power, and especially on impeachment. He left the conversation with:
Republicans have no value, but have a spine and Democrats have values, but, and let's all say it together . . . they have no spine.
It was a great episode even though he had no "celebrities " as guests.
Love Bill Maher, I think people forget its a comedy show first, but there is a comedian for all types of people.
Come on. We all know that's not how Maher presents himself and that isn't even remotely accurate as to the show's intent. Yes, there is "comedy" involved, but there's an obviously desperate attempt at arrogant "intellectualism" that just amounts to nothing more than pretentiousness.
Quote:
I'm sure some of the peeps here that hate Maher just love them some Carrot Top, Carlos Mencia, and Howie Mandel.
Seriously? Nice try. But thanks for proving my point about the mindlessness of Maher's fans that lead them to parrotting his arrogant BS. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
I really think that a lot of Progressives were complacent in 2016 thinking Clinton was going to win regardless.
Though I agree with your greater point that there will be a higher percentage of voters voting for the Democratic candidate next year, I'm not thinking that complacency was the biggest problem. Hillary only received ~60K less votes than did our last great president in 2012.
The problem, as I see it, and as (I recall) 538 also stated, the undecided's swung heavily to Trump on the last few days or so. As, such, Comey and Russia played a larger role.
Yeah this is really fair. So much of the 2016 results boil down to the electoral college demographics, Comey, and Russia. You really can argue that without Comey's letter, Clinton is likely POTUS. And so maybe the strategy shouldn't be to pander so hard to Obama-Trump and/or low information voters. But the flip side is that given Trump's historical unpopularity, it shouldn't have been so close that Comey's letter (a ~3% dip in Clinton's polling) could affect things.
I really think that a lot of Progressives were complacent in 2016 thinking Clinton was going to win regardless. Now that Trump is the incumbent, they won't think that. Also, keep in mind Progressives are often clustered in blue states anyway. If Clinton lost due middling turnout, it was arguably due to black voters in cities like Milwaukee not showing up for her like they did for Obama (even though in absolute terms I think their turnout was solid).
I agree Biden is mediocre at his own strategy, but I do think there's an inherent tension in the Democratic party that Biden is revealing. A lot of people gloss over how white, rural moderates (usually men) don't really agree with a lot of identity politics from the Democratic party writ large. There's really no way to signal to those voters that you're one of them without offending people like you and me.
As for the bolded, I hope for that too. Sanders is also polling fairly well against Trump (though clearly worse), and he has a much lower favorability rating relative to name recognition in the party.* So when Elizabeth Warren reaches Biden levels of name recognition, you'd hope she sees similar numbers to Biden. Although -- never underestimate people's latent biases. Biden probably gets a lot out of being an old white straight guy.
I haven't heard Warren play "identity politics". I've heard her propose progressive policy that will help the working poor. And since there are more minorities that fall into that category, it has triggered some insecure white males. Which is a testament to the unreliability of that demographic in the first place.
It's probably unrealistic to expect the African American turnout to reach Obama levels ever again. Which isn't surprising. And it was expected by most pre-2016.
Part of the reason why Democrats were confident pre-2016 was because (1) young new voters (18-22) prefer Democrats to Republicans and (2) minorities prefer Democrats to Republicans. Wisconsin is 86% white. So option 2 is what it is.
But there are 25 institutions of higher education in the city of Milwaukee alone comprising at least 68,000 students. Nearly 3 times the margin Hillary lost the state by. Just in that 1 major city. I think it's wise to turnout those demographics as opposed to trying to drag Trump voters in rural areas over to the Democratic party.
Maybe pre-Trump that strategy is more viable. But the political spectrum is more polarized now more than ever. Rural, non-college educated whites will jump of a cliff if Trump tells them too. It's why Ohio is no longer in play. Those voters are constantly looking for an excuse to vote for Trump. Because Trump makes them feel good and gives them a person to blame (women, LGBTQ, Muslims, racial minorities, etc). It's why Trump succeeded where Romney and McCain didn't.
In my opinion, "identity politics" is such a mainstream Democratic "elite" position that unless you're directly against it, it won't register at all. When Biden is just downplaying the Anita Hill stuff, that to me is a direct play for men who think #metoo type social activism has gone too far. Well, men and older women.
I don't think Warren is focused on identity politics, to be clear. But unlike Biden she hasn't really positioned herself in opposition to it, the way I perceive Biden to have.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29257 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:33 am Post subject:
When I hear people complain about identity politics I can't help but laugh. It reeks of the privileged complaining that people have correctly identified the descrimination minorities have to live through. It takes a lot of balls to complain about Democrats playing identity politics when we have an openly racist, sexist, sexually predatory, criminal bigot occupying the most powerful position in the world dividing our country for personal, financial and political gain.
It's a watered down version of if Germans complained about Jewish people feeling sorry for themselves during the holocaust or directly after.
With that said there is political capital for Republicans who use "identity politics" as a rallying cry. And I assume that's your point Tox.
Democrats should acknowledge the success Republicans reap by crying about "social justice warriors" to their base. But they shouldn't for one minute buy into the (bleep) illogical prejudicial argument they are making. The problem isn't identifying descrimination. The problem is discrimination itself. And it doesn't go away by pretending it doesn't exist. Or electing someone like Trump who makes it worse.
Warren shouldn't waste her time declaring war on identity politics. Instead she should keep doing what she's doing. Appeal to the ever growing working poor (of all races, sexes, religions, sexual preferences, etc). Because $ doesn't care what race you are. Or your sexual and religious preference. What is plaguing our country isn't minorities or people acknowledging the plight of certain demographics. The problem is too few have and too many have not. The past middle class (made up of all types of people) has yet to recover to pre 2008 crash levels. With progressive policy we can unite instead of divide (which is Trump's specialty). _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:10 am; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29257 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:01 am Post subject:
When talking about "identity politics" 1 example that comes to mind is illegal immigration. Trump rails against it while directly benefitting financially by employing illegal immigrants at his properties.
If the Republicans goal was truly to stop illegal immigration. They would jail and fine any individual or company who employed illegal immigrants. If there are no jobs, illegal immigrants wouldn't come. But the truth of the matter is. Republicans don't want to stop it. They want to use poor brown people as scapegoats. Even though they're taking jobs nobody else would. Adding to our economy more than they take from it. So while the rich get richer by employing "illegals", idiots and racists will blame brown people instead of the people employing them. The Trumps of the world Get to have their cake and eat it too.
And after the fact, Republicans have the balls to say Democrats are playing "identity politics". _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 07 May 2014 Posts: 13823 Location: Boulder ;)
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:05 am Post subject:
I think Warren may be the most authentic candidate we have..I have a strange love for her passion and commitment and frankness
She has no agenda other than honestly caring for Americans. Using the office as intended to support "America" all near 300 million of us.. not just special interests or business
Her bravado is that of a much younger person imho. She is 70 years old but is not going to give fake respect to the scum business owners who prey on lower income and poor citizens. The enthusiasm of an innocent schoolgirl researching/doing/protecting what she knows is right and NO Ego involved from my outside perception. She really (bleep) wants to help us all..
I hear nothing about status quo from her. If it needs shaken up she will do it.
These turds with 100 million in their bank accounts and 5 homes seeking to steal money from middle class and lower class Americans.. She is like .. oh snaps.. memory.. Quiet Riot.. Dee Snyder
"We're not gonna take it.. no. we're not gonna take it.. We're not gonna take it anymore.....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
