|
evilweasel posted:I think their votes against Kavanaugh were the right move, both morally and politically, but I think that having to make a vote on Kavanaugh is pretty much what killed them. All three of them had a real shot to win if they could keep the focus on their opposition to obamacare repeal and tax cuts for the rich, but Kavanaugh drowned out their ability to do that. Yeah... I think the argument that Kavanaugh/caravan helped Dems in the House but hurt them in the Senate feels pretty accurate. Which doesn't necessarily bode great for 2020.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think their votes against Kavanaugh were the right move, both morally and politically, but I think that having to make a vote on Kavanaugh is pretty much what killed them. All three of them had a real shot to win if they could keep the focus on their opposition to obamacare repeal and tax cuts for the rich, but Kavanaugh drowned out their ability to do that. Idle curiosity - do you think they could have swung it if Kavanaugh had been Gorsuch Mk II instead of Ein Sexmonster?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
I don't want to give credence to lovely conspiracy theories, but how is it that there are so many ballots left to count? Is it all absentee and mail in that have to be counted manually?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:RBG really should have taken it, she's smart enough to know that they were going to lose the senate sooner than later. They had already lost the Senate in 2013. I understand her points: - President is not the boss of the Supreme Court, this is inappropriate - I do what I want - This is embarrassing, I will quit when I feel I can't do my job any more - Republican Senate wouldn't appoint someone as liberal me But having a 50-year old judge there right now would feel a lot better than an 83-year old cancer survivor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Oh for sure. This is a big issue in state/local races too. I seriously investigated running in 2017 but discovered that there was no way I'd be able to continue living as I'd need to quit my job as running for office is a full time job and if I somehow ended up winning my reward would be a salary that was far too low for living expenses. This is why so many politicians become corrupt imo, they either come in absurdly wealthy and are already beholden to capitalist interests by their own wealth or if they don't they have to do shady activity just to maintain their standard of living. Regardless of whether or not you think people should live in poverty for being elected representatives, the vast majority of normal people aren't going to sacrifice their own economic well-being for their politics, it's just not how people work. Full publicly funded campaigns that paid the candidate a salary, reasonable but generous salaries, and housing allowances so you can actually go to where you need to do your legislating would help people from more diverse backgrounds run for office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Giffords’ gun control PAC endorsed the victorious Republican congressman in my district. So, you know, gently caress her. If I had as much as non-voted in this race people around here would call me a Trump supporter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They had already lost the Senate in 2013. They lost it in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2012
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They had already lost the Senate in 2013. No they didn't. They lost it in 2014. They lost the House in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I don't want to give credence to lovely conspiracy theories, but how is it that there are so many ballots left to count? It almost always takes this long to get all the ballots counted. When the difference is 10%, it's easy to declare a winner and move on, with the counting only affecting the final records. It becomes a big deal only when it's close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think their votes against Kavanaugh were the right move, both morally and politically, but I think that having to make a vote on Kavanaugh is pretty much what killed them. All three of them had a real shot to win if they could keep the focus on their opposition to obamacare repeal and tax cuts for the rich, but Kavanaugh drowned out their ability to do that. Fair enough. I'm more thinking that e.g. Donnelly coming out in support of the wall and poo poo torpedoed any enthusiasm Dems may have had for him. They probably would have lost, ok, but perhaps not underperformed the polling so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Giffords’ gun control PAC endorsed the victorious Republican congressman in my district. Christ, that's disappointing if true!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:They lost it in 2014. I still understand her points, but I agree she should have taken it. It's a wild world we live in where Trump could reasonably appoint 4 Justices in 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:But having a 50-year old judge there right now would feel a lot better than an 83-year old cancer survivor. 85, 86 in March.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
ah right, time for several days of insulting france https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1061003186125856769
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Yeah... I think the argument that Kavanaugh/caravan helped Dems in the House but hurt them in the Senate feels pretty accurate. Which doesn't necessarily bode great for 2020. I think the caravan nonsense didn't do much. I think that after the Kavanaugh hearings, those dems took a hit they couldn't recover from. I think McCaskill's late "I'm not one of those dumb democrats" and Donnelly's "build the wall" nonsense was basically a response to the Kavanaugh damage that failed to undo it. Heitikamp seems to have been just beaten by a really good Republican candidate, plus brazen voter suppression: she wasn't unpopular in North Dakota, it's just that Republicans ran someone who was also popular and between a Democrat they liked and a Republican they liked, a republican state went with the Republican. I don't know that Kavanaugh was the key factor there, but it certainly didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:85, 86 in March. Ugh. Even worse. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Why are you responding to Leon Trotsky 2012? Now that we're at the "Blame the democrats for everything we did" portion of the narrative, who can guess what's up next? I'm going to assume that when Nelson doesn't quite make up enough ground Scott is going to take a victory lap that he "prevented a stolen election" with his bullshit intimidation tactics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Christ, that's disappointing if true! The Democrat was an example of everything wrong with Democrats but still. I’m not gonna universally support Dems if Dems won’t even do it. https://giffords.org/2018/06/pa-endorsements1/ AFL-CIO And teachers endorsed him too. It was close. They collectively threw it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
eke out posted:ah right, time for several days of insulting france Of course he still thinks the defense budget share issue is about checks to NATO. Of course, a European Army would likely solve the defense budget share issue and then some, but Trump is too much of an idiot to think of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They had already lost the Senate in 2013. Why do you do this, is this fun for you on some weird level E: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They had already lost the Senate in 2013. The Senate was lost in the 2014 election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Wasn't there an article recently claiming Trump is trying to divide the Democrats based on Pelosi being speaker? Maybe, but a number of the people listed in that group have been opposed to Pelosi in the past, so I wouldn't credit Trump for it. Tim Ryan challenged Pelosi in 2016, and both he and Seth Moulton are (relatively) young, ambitious, conservative Dems who've long had an eye on Pelosi's position. Mahoning posted:Actually, it was 6 months after the birth of his first child, which he said had a huge hand in the decision. And that's fair. It doesn't excuse his former position, but lets not forever punish people for eventually getting to the right answer. Obama was against gay marriage a decade ago. I say this a lot, but trust matters. It's not enough for a politician to claim they hold a position, or even to make a couple of votes that support that claim. They need to be able to convince people that they can be trusted to reliably commit to that position long-term. The more a politician or party neglects or screws over a given constituency, the more time and effort it takes to build or rebuild that trust. Tim Ryan may have made some abrupt political changes shortly before he decided he wanted to be the leader of the Dems in the House, but he has yet to convince many people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Idle curiosity - do you think they could have swung it if Kavanaugh had been Gorsuch Mk II instead of Ein Sexmonster? Yeah, exactly. If Kavanaugh had been a boring, bad conservative justice but not a rapist, I think they could have won. Voting for him wouldn't have damaged them with their base nearly as much, because he'd be getting confirmed no matter what and it would be more of an acceptable political triangulation thing than a moral issue (it would still be a moral issue, because of abortion/gay rights issues, but less of one). Voting against him would not have irritated republican crossover voters who have the usual "cultural" concerns but actually kinda want their health care and don't want tax cuts for the rich nearly as much because the vote against him would not have become a white male resentment vote - many of those crossover voters do not particularly care about the supreme court but they do care about white male resentment issues. Most people just wouldn't have cared very much. They'd have been best off with Kennedy staying on the bench since either way they were going to irritate some of the people they needed, but a lot less. They needed to fire up their base, and to get some amount of crossover votes of people who identify culturally with republicans but care about economic issues. With Kavanaugh being revealed as a rapist, their base was going to be much more demoralized by a "yes" vote and (as seems to have occurred) the crossover votes were much more turned off by a "no" vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Christ, that's disappointing if true! i suspect that was a misguided effort to copy how the NRA was so effective for so long - they'd support incumbent democrats provided they toed the line on guns, to take gun control entirely out of the political discourse, and i suspect the goal here was to support the few republicans willing to support gun control. however given the modern republican party's differences from the 1990-2010 democratic party, although that NRA strategy worked for a long time the converse does not work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Stewartmoore/status/1060998929758801921 Here comes the "in a 5-4 decision..." that this thread loves so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Comply with what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:https://twitter.com/Stewartmoore/status/1060998929758801921 tbf, I think they probably should say how many votes are left to be counted and that's what this seems to say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:https://twitter.com/Stewartmoore/status/1060998929758801921 i mean, having to reveal how many ballots were cast and how many still need to be counted seems... reasonable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:https://twitter.com/Stewartmoore/status/1060998929758801921 it is unclear to me what the harm of this decision would be, as described it sounds like they just have to make information public. i'd obviously want to read the decision though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:https://twitter.com/Stewartmoore/status/1060998929758801921 yeah there's not actually anything wrong with this, it appears they pretty legitimately did not comply Florida has extremely strong open records laws compared to most states, it's one of the few actually-good things about our law
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
This is probably a good thing, considering Broward county actually did rig the election for Wasserman-Schultz in 2016
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
eke out posted:yeah there's not actually anything wrong with this, it appears they pretty legitimately did not comply
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. This is the President of the United States literally doing violence to the integrity of his nation's democracy. I know that we've become desensitized to his authoritarian bullshit over the past couple of years, and that it's difficult to treat everything he says with the full degree of outrage that it would normally deserve, but it should be a huge loving deal - in any time line - when a president publicly says that he doesn't accept the results of an election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Comply with what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
eke out posted:yeah there's not actually anything wrong with this, it appears they pretty legitimately did not comply It's also why there's the reputation of "Florida Man;" it's way, way easier to get police reports and mugshots in Florida than in other states, which means that the wacky poo poo that happens everywhere gets publicly reported in Florida and spread wide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:I believe I was reading that there were some laws that state they must update with vote totals every 45 minutes, which they are not doing. Ah, thank you. Does not seem too horrible then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Blurred posted:Jesus Christ. This is the President of the United States literally doing violence to the integrity of his nation's democracy. I know that we've become desensitized to his authoritarian bullshit over the past couple of years, and that it's difficult to treat everything he says with the full degree of outrage that it would normally deserve, but it should be a huge loving deal - in any time line - when a president publicly says that he doesn't accept the results of an election. Oh he was just talking about Democrats getting any votes at all, wasn't he?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Blurred posted:Jesus Christ. This is the President of the United States literally doing violence to the integrity of his nation's democracy. I know that we've become desensitized to his authoritarian bullshit over the past couple of years, and that it's difficult to treat everything he says with the full degree of outrage that it would normally deserve, but it should be a huge loving deal - in any time line - when a president publicly says that he doesn't accept the results of an election. Hasn't he insisted continuously since Nov 2016 that millions of illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton in the election? Hell, before the election, wasn't he openly promising that if Hillary won, he'd claim the election was stolen?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Ah, thank you. Does not seem too horrible then. The only potential downside I can think of is that maybe the burden of putting the information out there would slow the count, but I want the drat information too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
It's okay, I'm sure Trump will examine the details of the ruling before tweeting to his followers about how a judge said the Democrats are stealing the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:39
|
|