|
Another interesting data point is that Arizona's Republican governor, like Massachusetts' and Maryland's, had local Democratic politicians endorsing him over his progressive Democratic opponent and also had a Democratic party campaign manager so another possible interpretation is that centrist Democrats are very effective at stabbing progressives and their own party in the back to get centrist Republicans elected.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 13, 2018 |
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Another interesting data point is that Arizona's Republican governor, like Massachusetts' and Maryland's, had local Democratic politicians endorsing him over his progressive Democratic opponent and also had a Democratic party campaign manager so another possible interpretation is that centrist Democrats are very effective at stabbing progressives and their own party in the back to get centrist Republicans elected. Everybody involved in doing poo poo like this should be persona non grata from the Democratic Party. Actually I misread this post and the fact that it happened in multiple states is mind-blowing and deeply damning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Everybody involved in doing poo poo like this should be persona non grata from the Democratic Party. I'm going off memory, but these were a big deal internally. A Democratic state senator endorsed Ducey four years ago and the County party ended up voting to change their policy on primary endorsements specifically to endorse her opponent. This is not a good time to be a Democrat who endorses Republicans, and I'll see what I can find out about the other two people mentioned above.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Another interesting data point is that Arizona's Republican governor, like Massachusetts' and Maryland's, had local Democratic politicians endorsing him over his progressive Democratic opponent and also had a Democratic party campaign manager so another possible interpretation is that centrist Democrats are very effective at stabbing progressives and their own party in the back to get centrist Republicans elected. At least in New Jersey, there was an issue where mayors supported Christie because if they didn't, he'd retaliate and he seemed likely to cruise to re-election. The whole "bridgegate" scandal was an outgrowth of this, where a mayor refused to endorse and so Christie closed the bridge his town relied on. So while I'm inclined to assume the worst about this mayor it's worth at least checking to see if similar circumstances exist - and importantly, if Duecey's re-election was basically set in stone at that point or not (I have no idea - I don't follow local AZ politics). No excuse for the campaign manager, of course; you cross over you're now a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I wonder how the heck someone gives an "incorrect" date of birth unless they're being kind of casual as to how something isn't correct. Bad handwriting? gwinnett county is weird. it used to be a white suburban bastion but now it's pretty divided, with a white north, mixed immigrant center, and blackish south. central gwinnett is home to a large middle class korean population, and more christian koreans that move further north. this is mixed in with a substantial latino/latina population reaching out from dekalb county, and there is is also a substantial population of south asian immigrants - there is a huge carved marble hindu mandir in surburban lilburn, in southern gwinnett, which is an anchor of the middle class south asian / indian community https://www.google.com/maps/@33.885137,-84.1643021,402m/data=!3m1!1e3  the point of this is, there are lots of people in gwinnett who come from nations with different standards of record keeping and different cultural expectations of things like birth certificates and the importance of birthdays. a friend of mine who is of south asian / indian heritage was talking about this recently. pretty much none of her older extended family have actual legal birthdays, there is a date on paper and then there is a date they may or may not personally celebrate. the national bureaucracy of india was somewhat cavalier about things like birth records. a bunch of her uncles all have january 1 as a birthday because it's easy to remember this is why the state law of strict matching of last names and birthdays is cryptoracist. while the authors of these laws point to the need to check and validate data, the burden falls on people who do not meet anglo-american standards of name pronunciation, spelling, keeping of vital records, etc. of the large chinese american community in gwinnett, how can you be sure that you spell your name the same as some clerk transcribed it? how do you remember how you spelled it ten years ago when it's hard to fit chinese pronunciation into english spelling? Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Everybody involved in doing poo poo like this should be persona non grata from the Democratic Party. I can speak to the Maryland end of it somewhat. Hogan is fairly popular across the board - never managed to do anything evil, got his veto overriden by a progressive legislature (paid family leave, IIRC), slashed tolls statewide and slashed them further with MD EZPasses. The fact that he palled around with Scott Walker got everyone on alert, but he never managed to do anything ugly to labor. His two major black marks were killing transportation funding in Baltimore and putting a juvenile detention center where people had been pushing for schools. (That moment was, if anything, a tremendous teaching moment regarding the school to prison pipeline. People learned a lot.) O’Malley, and Brown’s campaign to replace him, did more damage to the statewide brand than anyone is willing to admit. Hogan had a steady four years where he basically was Not Progressive But Not Evil, made lots of anti-Trump noise, and even beat cancer while in office. So Ben Jealous won the D primary, and...well, he fell off a cliff. Did campaign appearances where he said he was running to represent Virginia, which is about as hilarious a gaffe as you can manage, and frankly came off terribly in debates. Dude was DOA. I’m not sure what he could have done better, but he generated no positive energy whatsoever. And you can’t run against the Trump agenda when the avatar is...against the Trump agenda. Honestly, I don’t know who you run in MD to stop Hogan in 2018. Considering the only challenger anyone even pretended to take seriously statewide was Chelsea loving Manning, I’m starting to have serious questions about the bench.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I'm going off memory, but these were a big deal internally. There were ads up here in Massachusetts with several Dem mayors endorsing Charlie Baker. They weren't able to get Worcester or Boston, however, and those are two of the state's largest cities. I am proud to say that I still voted for his Democratic opponent, even though I knew the poor bastard was doomed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:So Ben Jealous won the D primary, and...well, he fell off a cliff. Did campaign appearances where he said he was running to represent Virginia, which is about as hilarious a gaffe as you can manage, and frankly came off terribly in debates. Dude was DOA. I’m not sure what he could have done better, but he generated no positive energy whatsoever. And you can’t run against the Trump agenda when the avatar is...against the Trump agenda. Honestly, I don’t know who you run in MD to stop Hogan in 2018. Considering the only challenger anyone even pretended to take seriously statewide was Chelsea loving Manning, I’m starting to have serious questions about the bench. I think this is similar to the Massachusetts problem: a strongly one-party state tends to elevate politicians good at internal politicking, not campaigning. So when they suddenly get a real campaign, oh jesus is it a disaster a lot of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:Considering the only challenger anyone even pretended to take seriously statewide was Chelsea loving Manning, I’m starting to have serious questions about the bench. This all sounds like a severe institutional failing of the state level party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This all sounds like a severe institutional failing of the state level party. It’s not the Maryland of Barbara Mikulski, yeah. Considering her seat was fought over by a pro labor progressive WoC in Donna Edwards, and she lost to a white male policy nerd in Chris Van Hollen, there’s definitely a need to elevate the street level politicians. They’re out there, and they need backing over the current heads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1062423224871542784 This is a good point: Republicans tried really, really hard to turn medicare for all into an attack, even against people who weren't for it. Not sure he's correct it didn't work (as I haven't looked into it at all) but I bet he is, and that's good news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1062423224871542784 I don't know if Spanberger was an exception to the rule, but she distanced herself from Medicare for All when Brat attacked her for it. I suspect she wasn't the only Democratic freshman who campaigned on a less than pure stance on that issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1062423224871542784 They actually tried this in TX-07 and the candidate (now rep-elect Lizzie Fletcher) explicitly didn't support MfA, and Politifact even checked it. So they not only tried attacking on a losing bet but they employed it incorrectly. And lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I don't know if Spanberger was an exception to the rule, but she distanced herself from Medicare for All when Brat attacked her for it. I suspect she wasn't the only Democratic freshman who campaigned on a less than pure stance on that issue. A lot of candidates attacked as supporting medicare for all didn't. They'd never said they supported it, some had said they didn't prior to the republican ads on the issue. So it wasn't so much distancing themselves in response to the ad as it was never part of their platform to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:At least in New Jersey, there was an issue where mayors supported Christie because if they didn't, he'd retaliate and he seemed likely to cruise to re-election. The whole "bridgegate" scandal was an outgrowth of this, where a mayor refused to endorse and so Christie closed the bridge his town relied on. Sure it would be interesting to find out if the mayor had been threatened or if he is a conservative Democrat who prefers Republican leadership over progressives, but for the purposes of my argument it's really irrelevant why Democratic politicians were supporting the Republican. The race is being held up as an example of the failure of progressive politics with general election voters, which okay maybe, but a race where the Democrats were actively sabotaging their own party and campaigning for the enemy no matter the reason is a poor indicator of whether the party would do better in general if they fully backed progressive candidates the way they fully back centrist candidates now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
That’s not what anyone said. Everyone is shouting in agreement that there is no one true strategy in any given election beyond “connect to voters and pledge to work for things that will improve their lives.” And what that means varies almost from house to house. If you’re not good at that, you’re probably going to lose, regardless of your politics. It sunk Dave Brat on the right, too. Spend your whole campaign yelling about things that don’t have gently caress all to do with daily life, and to open yourself up to the ABIGAIL SPANBERGER IS MY NAME speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
lmao The Republican candidate suddenly has a problem with Maine's ranked-choice voting now that it looks like he's gonna lose. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/667435326/facing-defeat-maine-republican-sues-to-block-states-ranked-choice-voting-law quote:U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin, R-Maine, has a filed a lawsuit in federal court that seeks to block state election officials from conducting the nation's first ranked-choice voting tabulation in a federal race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:lmao Ah yes, the important clause of the Constitution that says "you must win a plurality" which doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
There are plenty of states that have a runoff if no candidate gets a majority, IRV just allows them to not need another election to have the runoff
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
The Supreme Court rules that the Constitution mandates winner-by-plurality. Also, Hillary is now president.quote:Poliquin's lawsuit also asserts that ranked-choice voting violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because voters who pick just one candidate in a race have less say in the outcome than those who rank multiple candidates. The Supreme Court rules that all elections are illegitimate, since a person can choose to skip a race the same way that can choose not to rank choices, having less say in the races they skip. Lycus fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:That’s not what anyone said. Everyone is shouting in agreement that there is no one true strategy in any given election beyond “connect to voters and pledge to work for things that will improve their lives.” And what that means varies almost from house to house. Sure okay. That's not wrong but it's a vacuous point, I think the argument being advanced was stronger but probably not much point in quibbling about what someone else may have meant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure okay. True statement. There'll be plenty of time for everyone to betray everyone else, probably. :-/
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Katie Porter, who is a Bernie person but also pro-prop 6 (???) has taken the lead in CA-45. https://twitter.com/CATargetBot/status/1062510738227388416
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Cindy Hyde Smith made a joke about going to a lynching. Should could actually attend a lynching and still probably not lose that seat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Cindy Hyde Smith made a joke about going to a lynching. Should could actually attend a lynching and still probably not lose that seat. The Governor chimes in: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1062439942754918400
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Katie Porter, who is a Bernie person but also pro-prop 6 (???) has taken the lead in CA-45. I have an acquaintance who's a fan of everything about socialism except the gas tax because she has to drive to work. It's not a unique viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:The Governor chimes in: You'd think the governor of the state with the highest infant mortality rate would be all for this 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:You'd think the governor of the state with the highest infant mortality rate would be all for this I want to know in the grand scheme of all countries on earth, where exactly an independent Mississippi would end up development wise. Somewhere around Albania I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:The Governor chimes in: What a reprehensible gently caress this guy is. He's also whining here that some black leaders in the state wouldn't attend some event with his Dear Leader.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Grape posted:I want to know in the grand scheme of all countries on earth, where exactly an independent Mississippi would end up development wise. That's already calculated. It turns out that Mississippi clocks in right around Poland at .866, and has the lowest HDI of any state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Grape posted:I want to know in the grand scheme of all countries on earth, where exactly an independent Mississippi would end up development wise. It has a Human Development Index score which is pretty close to Italy, which is a country American liberals do not turn their noses up to, often wish America was more like, and often spend vast sums of money to go to and visit. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Nov 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
Blorange posted:That's already calculated. It turns out that Mississippi clocks in right around Poland at .866, and has the lowest HDI of any state. Doesn't check out, Poland has reasonable public transit and plenty of rail service as well as better health care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 12:14
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Katie Porter, who is a Bernie person but also pro-prop 6 (???) has taken the lead in CA-45. there's a population of voters who lean left but haven't connected the gas tax to what's repairing the roads they drive to work every day though you'd hope that a UCI law professor who's a protege of liz warren and is probably gonna be congresswoman-elect would know better, but we'll see in january
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Cindy Hyde Smith made a joke about going to a lynching. Should could actually attend a lynching and still probably not lose that seat. She'd probably be more likely to win, even if we're only talking a shift of 99.5% chance of winning to 99.9%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure it would be interesting to find out if the mayor had been threatened or if he is a conservative Democrat who prefers Republican leadership over progressives, but for the purposes of my argument it's really irrelevant why Democratic politicians were supporting the Republican. It does matter a lot: if the dem mayor was supporting the Republican only after his victory was assured, then you know which direction any cause->effect issue runs. But it's also sort of a pointless aside unless you want to do a really deep dive on what happened. At a high level, one or two mayors endorsing don't cause that much of a split between the governor and senate races: that big a split means that there were a significant chunk of voters for whom that "centrist" label resonated - so they voted for the "centrist" republican governor vs. the "progressive" democratic challenger; and voted for the "centrist" democratic senate candidate vs. the republican (who had previously been somewhat centrist but was forced hard to the right to win her primary). Trying to blame that sort of difference on a handful of defectors is motivated reasoning. It's just not supported by the evidence. Even if you assume these centrist mayors are traitors with bad motive are the core reason for that split, you've got to ask yourself why those mayors were able to swing so many votes. People tend to assume that what motivates them, what inspires them, is what inspires everyone. It's why people constantly are like "if only democrats said this, they'd win 90% of the vote!!!!" It's just people posting what they, personally, believe and since that resonates with 100% of the people whose thought process they can carefully monitor they think it's got broader appeal than it does. The reality is that in some places progressive candidates are probably not going to capture 51% of the vote. There's a good argument to be made that certain forms of "centrism" have been discredited electorally - the "blue dog" caucus appears to have no actual constituency among american voters - but people tend to assume that all "centrist" or "moderate" politicians are centrist in the same way, which is not true. I mean, there's potential ways to make the argument that the split between the AZ governor's race and the senate race is about things other than policy differences. It may simply be that the current AZ governor is doing a relatively good job, hasn't gone down the rabbit hole of supporting trump no matter what, and so people were inclined to give him another term, but because the Senate directly acts as a check on Trump and McSally was moving more towards Trump people weren't going to give her the benefit of the doubt. That's probably a strong argument - much stronger than trying to find the handful of centrist dem traitors who caused the entire split - but it requires looking more deeply at the underlying state politics. But the counter-argument is going to be - and this is also a strong argument - that a state governor has much more power to implement progressive ideas than a senator in the party that does not control the Presidency, so if policy issues do move people they should have moved the governor's race strongly. I certainly can't say I'm an expert because the only time I've ever spent in Arizona was waiting for a connecting flight. But that's the sort of analysis you have to do if you want to try to disprove the strong implication of the split between the senate and governor races, that Arizona is open to voting for moderate democrats but is not yet willing to vote for full-fledged progressives. That's the default answer given those voting results, you need a much stronger argument to rebut it than "but this traitor mayor".
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Gee, I wonder why Richard Cordray lost with this idiot running his campaign. https://twitter.com/darreldrowland/status/1062509654868197376 If only there were another Dem on the statewide ballot that could have proved him wrong. Oh well, guess we'll never know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Gee, I wonder why Richard Cordray lost with this idiot running his campaign. He's right. The demographic shifts between the Republican party and the Democratic party make it a lot easier to think about winning AZ/GA in 2020 than OH/IA, unless Sherrod Brown actually does run for President.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Ohio I can understand Dems making a strategic retreat from. But Iowa? Dems just won three out of four House districts there, and as time goes on, Trump's stupid trade war is just going to hurt them more and more. Long-term it might be difficult to hold on there for demographic reasons, but in 2020 I think it's very much in play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It does matter a lot: if the dem mayor was supporting the Republican only after his victory was assured, then you know which direction any cause->effect issue runs. But it's also sort of a pointless aside unless you want to do a really deep dive on what happened. For example:  Did Putin suddenly become a completely different person in November 2016 such that millions of principled constitutional patriots flipped their opinions of a repressive strongman who murders the press? No, obviously what happened is Republican politicians started praising Putin and so their voters did too. If Trump flipped on Putin tomorrow, would his voters abandon him because they must just truly genuinely love Putin or they wouldn't have said so in a poll, no, just as obviously. Or on the Democratic side:  Did racism just appear on the scene in 2015 and millions of white Democrats suddenly said "oh gosh thanks to my consistently-formed ideological principles I must fight against this brand-new never-before-seen problem"? No, obviously, racism was always a problem. What changed was a prominent campaign gaining support from Democratic politicians and then most especially an explicitly pluralist 2015-2016 campaign with the slogan "Stronger Together". The Hillary campaign, for all its faults, demonstrably made rank-and-file Democrats less racist simply because being antiracist is now part of being on team Democrat in a way it wasn't before. So I don't really buy that the endorsement of prominent Democratic politicians has zero effect on voters when it tells them it's okay to support the Republican because he's an ally of our team too. After all if endorsements were meaningless, politicians wouldn't pursue them and they wouldn't be news would they. evilweasel posted:I mean, there's potential ways to make the argument that the split between the AZ governor's race and the senate race is about things other than policy differences. It may simply be that the current AZ governor is doing a relatively good job, hasn't gone down the rabbit hole of supporting trump no matter what, and so people were inclined to give him another term, but because the Senate directly acts as a check on Trump and McSally was moving more towards Trump people weren't going to give her the benefit of the doubt. That's probably a strong argument - much stronger than trying to find the handful of centrist dem traitors who caused the entire split - but it requires looking more deeply at the underlying state politics. But the counter-argument is going to be - and this is also a strong argument - that a state governor has much more power to implement progressive ideas than a senator in the party that does not control the Presidency, so if policy issues do move people they should have moved the governor's race strongly. There are of course plenty of other factors, a big one being that McSally and Ducey ran opposite campaigns, so one possible interpretation is that the politics of the Democratic challenger didn't even matter that much, and that in Arizona running away from Trump is a more popular platform among moderate Republicans than running toward him. Sinema picked up 12% of Republican voters, maybe it's because she is a moderate, or maybe she would have gotten them anyway because McSally went full MAGA. But I wasn't really giving the One True Interpretation of the race, I was pointing out that the simplistic narrative of "well the progressive lost, must have been too progressive" has a ton of confounding factors. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Pakled posted:Ohio I can understand Dems making a strategic retreat from. But Iowa? Dems just won three out of four House districts there, and as time goes on, Trump's stupid trade war is just going to hurt them more and more. Long-term it might be difficult to hold on there for demographic reasons, but in 2020 I think it's very much in play. I think that it's not very likely that Iowa's votes wind up being key, given what other states are in play. It's possible, but I think with Trump on the ballot and running against a national democrat running a national campaign instead of local democrats who can focus on issues related to Iowa, it's not easy to replicate that. So given that, it makes a lot less sense to focus on Iowa instead of that being more of a long-shot reach state. That does change if Trump manages to trigger either a national or a regional recession though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:16
|
|