USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›3 »

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

seiferguy posted:

Ground floor on USPol.

Anyway, godspeed to the city that gets Amazon HQ2.

2nd floor of USPol, the one that will avoid the flooding of our newly doomed nation.

It'll be Kansas and it'll save Laffer's "reputation" because we live in the darkest timeline. Or possibly Toronto and we'll get to see Trump really go off on the Washington Post?

Your Boy Fancy posted:

They barely got Ed Gillespie, a really rather boring man, past Corey Stewart, actual Neo Nazi.

I look forward to Corey Stewart, proud of his ~~southern~~ Minnesotan heritage running against Kaine in 2018. I'm sure Sens. Franken and Klobuchar will be happy to enlighten him as to the history of Minnesota's confederate battle flag.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 04:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 03:06

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Does this catchall include idiot media figures?

Jon Chait is sooooo close to getting it posted:

I write frequently about extremism and bad-faith argument on the left, but those tendencies remain, for now, largely walled off from national power.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 04:52

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

LiberalTwitter's favorite conservative (come for the correct takes on criminal justice, stay for the occasional Bush apologia) is going off on 9/11 remembrance. It also means that making GBS threads on the ceremonial nonsense has officially become bipartisan.

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/907218349783908352

A good and decent thread.

e:

Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Sep 11, 2017

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 13:28

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Condiv posted:

Odd, it seems kids can be tried as adults in new hampshire, and they've done so in other attempted murder cases. Wonder why they're trying to rehabilitate these particular murderous kids?

Clearly, economic anxiety is considered as a mitigating factor in the legal system as well.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It's an ouroboros of bad decisions.

But only by the bad people. The good people were fine.

This is why neoliberalism (in the actual sense,not the slapfight usage) is doomed to failure: even if everyone acts as a perfectly rational consumer in The Markets, the incentives guiding those actions can lead to longterm disaster and, generally, nobody with agency has a reason to focus on the long term.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 18:40

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Condiv posted:

gently caress off with this

Ze Pollack posted:

good news, everyone: Cory "importing cheaper drugs from Canada would be bad because, uh... safety" Booker

The amendment he voted against was totally safe, y'all. It's why Paul, Cruz, and Lee voted for it! Are we that far through the looking glass? Is it now a betrayal to insist on stronger safety standards than the unpasteurized milk crowd?

(He also voted for a similar amendment with stronger safety measures, but muh narrative)

Thanks for the link though. Interesting to continue to see people who've historically been skeptical about Single Payer line up behind it now that there's zero chance it's implemented for 4 years. Hopefully this will inspire the wonkclass to start piecing together details for paythroughs, transitions, and avoiding a potentially crippling blow to unions.

fakeedit:

Condiv posted:

forgive me if i can't tell the difference anymore after dems spent 2016 pretending raising the minimum wage, single payer healthcare, and free college were appeals to racism

Yes, this, a thing that totally happened.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 19:06

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Condiv posted:

it wouldn't leak over if people weren't trying to punch left while we were discussing a multiracial kid getting lynched

Your initial reaction makes far more sense now. For the record: I was not punching left.

"Economic Anxiety" was neither primarily nor exclusively a left meme during the election, but a mainstream media creation that spawned a boatload of thinkpieces and ManOnTheStreet pieces from nearly every outlet. Typically they were dispatches from the Rust Belt. As most of journolist and many writers of color have noted (TNC most recently), this is to absolve white America of guilt: there is no endemic racial problem in the community, it's definitely not what it looks like. The parallels to the NH situation are clear.

As to your other post-there is a wide gulf between "pretending [progessive goals] were appeals to racism" and messaging that you disagreed with or an acknowledgment that some people who supported a candidate with progressive goals were racist/sexist pieces of poo poo.

Majorian posted:

This turned out to be total horseshit actually. Booker knows perfectly well that drug safety was not an issue with that (purely symbolic bill):

Not even a little. Factually, everything in my post was correct, as confirmed by your quote. Zaid & Dyden (& Fang on twitter) do not believe that Booker is genuine, but we should not confuse this antipathy with objectivity. Again, Wyden (hardly a centrist shill) saw the need to sponsor his own amendment - one that the Tea Party Trio flipped on and voted down. This is absent from The Intercept's analysis.

Booker voted for the importation bill with stricter safety standards and against the one with less stringent regulations. This is either because A: As he stated, he is pro-importation but felt the initial bill was unsafe(which would explain the Cruz/Lee/Paul abandonment) or B: Because his votes are being influenced by pharma donors (leaving open the question of why Cruz/Lee/Paul flipped).

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 20:09

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Majorian posted:

No, it really was pretty inaccurate and misleading. No one on the left is calling for lower safety standards - they are only pointing out that Booker's excuse for capsizing a non-binding amendment is nonsense, which it is. These medications already meet our safety standards, because they were manufactured in the U.S. originally before being imported by Canada. That is why this process is calling reimportation - because we would simply be buying back the drugs that we already sold to Canada.

Again, as it was a non-binding amendment to a budget appropriations bill that he voted down, and [url=http://maplight.org/data/passthrough/#legacyurl=http://classic.maplight.org/us-congress/interest/H4300given how much money he gets from Big Pharma,[/url] it's not exactly a stretch to deduce why Booker voted the way he did. He's a massive whore for Big Pharma.

It did not need safety provisions, because the drugs were manufactured in the U.S. and already met the safety standards. It wasn't even a bill; it was a non-binding amendment. Get your facts straight.

The text of the amendment posted:

EC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO LOWERING PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES FOR AMERICANS BY IMPORTING DRUGS FROM CANADA.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to lowering prescription drug prices, including through the importation of safe and affordable prescription drugs from Canada by American pharmacists, wholesalers, and individuals with a valid prescription from a provider licensed to practice in the United States, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2017 through 2021 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2017 through 2026.

At no point in the text is country of origin mentioned (it's not reimportation) Safety is only mentioned as "safe and affordable", which is especially vacuous, even for a non-binding amendment. One of us is certainly being "inaccurate and misleading" here.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

What is the logic of Booker voting against one reimportation amendment and for another one in the same day if he was voting against the first one to send a message?

It flows if you start from "Booker is corrupted by corporate contributions". Less so if you start from any other perspective.

I want to double back to your points later, fetish and hellblazer, but now my battery is dying. Generally, there was enough shitflinging in the primaries that we needn't invent new slurs against each other(refer to Condiv's initial point and defense of it). Similarly, Maj, when someone specifies a group, there's no need to rush in and apply the statement to other groups that it specifically is not targeted at. These two behaviors are why these conversations turn so acrimonious.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 21:12

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Majorian posted:

But the fact that so many of her big-time fans, like Joy Ann Reid, still insist that the Democrats need to jettison the working class in favor of city-dwellers in order to win elections, is pretty galling.

Has anyone else noticed nearby dogs losing their minds and bleeding from the skull? Why do you feel the need to make a distinction between "the working class" and "city-dwellers"? Does the more urban version not count, for some reason?

I'd also love the essay or transcript for the claim you attribute to Reid.

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Hillary and Bernie are at this point both seriously divisive well-poisoners who need to bow out of the lime-light and put their energy into behind-the-scenes work. I've seen enough arguments on Twitter and dKos that amount to cult of personality poo poo (Hillary/Bernie fanfiction, each side accusing the other of being corporate/Russian shills, etc, etc).

Pembroke Fuse posted:

I wish we could lock Hillary and Bernie in a sound-proof room. Forever. And then get on with the very hard task of trying to elect Dems while shifting the overton window to the left.

The DNC Chair race was disappointing proof to me that even if they both departed the scene, the angst and divisiveness would remain. There are those who wish to relitigate the primary (and when that's barred to them, the general) ad nauseam and there's no reason to believe either side will stop just because the figureheads go silent.

To avoid contributing further: 2020 will need a Dem making a positive and affirmative case in order to have success-the winner can't be the most AntiTrump. It will be interesting to see if either figurehead endorses, and what happens in the vacuum if they do not. Given the calendar, whichever camp avoids schism may have an insurmountable edge. If it's a clowncar like the last few GOP races have been, all bets are off.

cargo cult posted:

I cant tell if it's a good or bad thing that so many Rs across bot h houses are indicating they want to retire. Will they be replaced by literal Nazis?

There are indications (including from ~~our very own joementum~~ the twitter account below) that many D challengers for these retirees are already showing up wellfunded. It looks like the prospect of depleting the warchest through a bruising primary is helping these incumbents decide that discretion is the better part of valor.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/907272969763868672
As for if it's a good thing or a bad thing, most of these seats will likely be held by the GOP. But if you were to list out conditions for the Dems to take back the House, "GOP gives up incumbency advantage in districts nationwide" is likely one of the keys. Pretty much every resignation will be a boon here, especially if Bannon et al are trophy hunting in the primaries.

e: I also enjoy the photos! Hopefully that's the extent of the damage your family/friends see this season.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 23:56

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Motto posted:

People really need to realize that d&d and Twitter don't encompass the whole of us politics

What about my social circle and work network, consisting of people who DEFINITELY feel comfortable disagreeing with me about politics because I am charming and not at all a combative rear end in a top hat? It's crazy how everyone agrees with me.

Majorian posted:

I'm paraphrasing the way Reid herself has put it; I'm not trying to dogwhistle:

I don't see working class mentioned anywhere in there. So you put it in. Specifically as the opposite of "urbanites", which you took as "city-dwellers". You've fundamentally altered the meaning of her tweet, and in doing, (charitably!) stumbled into a colossal dogwhistle.

Even your altered version is wrong, however:
There are 41m white working class adults in the footprint of metro areas with a footprint of at least 1m people (nearly double the number in footprints smaller than 50,000). According to the US census, White poverty rates are higher in urban areas than rural, and rural white median income is markedly higher than urban median income for nearly every other racial category. The working class is predominantly urbanite. The WHITE WORKING CLASS is predominantly urbanite.

I can see why you're angry with your interpretation of her tweet. But she's not saying what you think she is, even in your uncharitable version.

Taerkar posted:

No they certainly did not. Though with many of the states I don't know if they really had much of a chance.

Specifically there's a feedback loop of 'State gets a bit shittier with regressive policies' -> 'More progressive indivdiuals leave to go to other states for better opportunities' -> 'The more regressive individuals remaining vote in more regressive politicians' -> 'State gets a bit shittier with regressive policies'

The party with the presidency tends to lose state houses and governors mansions, especially in midterms. Unfortunately, 2010 fell along redistricting and from that point forward, Dems faced a doublewhammy of new suppression laws and gerrymandered districts, literally costing them state houses despite the popular vote in some cases. This is coupled with a concerted effort by dark money and conservative financiers to win state houses, against a Democratic party where many oppose similar financing. Certainly they could have done more and the losses reflect a failure on the part of DNC & OFA, but pretending that Dems decided not to give a gently caress about state and local races is ahistorical.

The Muppets On PCP posted:

what should be more worrying is over 40% of state legislative races were unopposed last year

With 5,898 seats available, Dems ran 5,903 candidates to the GOP's 6,042. To be clear, 40% is not the percentage of seats Ds left unopposed. There are practical reasons for this (finding a candidate willing to put in the time, money, and subject their family to the scrutiny against a wellfunded incumbent in a +30 or +70 district is challenging), but generally candidate recruitment and support is a great way to grow a movement.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 00:51

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Taerkar posted:

That is quite true as well, though most of the states that are subject to the cycle I mentioned are not heavily gerrymandered, but rather have been subject to a decades long history of 'brain drain' as people continue to move to larger cities for jobs. (Or the suburbs).

2010 and the Tea Party "wave" made it worse, of course, but most southern and Midwest states are still predominantly regressive and fighting hard against PoC population growth.

Sorting certainly occurs, but the fights (as demonstrated in the courts, across the regions) lately have been about limiting the growth of political power moreso than population (TX, SC, NC, GA, MI, WI). With that said, it's something to battle against.

The Muppets On PCP posted:

yeah no poo poo, but also notice how much the percentage of unchallenged seats has gone up in just a few cycles

No doubt. And it's an issue. I just wanted to clarify!

Majorian posted:

I didn't "put" anything in there; she's been very openly derisive of economic populism as a strategy for months:

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/902973802207862784

Again, listen to her Pod Save America appearance. She genuinely believes that the browning of America will save us all.

e: And even with your charitable reading of Reid's tweet, it still doesn't address the biggest problem with her viewpoint, ie: how the hell does that get you over 270 EV?

You put a split between urbanite and working class. That was not there in her tweet. It's also not in her Daily Show appearance _{(unless your definition of "working class" is her referenced "Pabst Blue Ribbon voter, the kind of Coors Lite-drinking voter." in which case I'm absolutely done being charitable)}. Where do you get the difference between "urbanite" (or "city-dwelling") and "working class" from her appearances? Because so far as I can tell, it's not there in the text of any of it. And for what it's worth, my "charitable reading" of her tweet is... reading her tweet?

She believes that Dems are better suited by getting out the vote among their base than trying to convert Trump voters. Given the (justified) opposition to the old Schumer quote, I would think you'd be on board with that. Study after study, exit poll after exit poll, show that the economically disadvantaged broke for Clinton. PRRI (a single source, but not one I've seen contradicted) shows that selfreported economic insecurity in the white working class indicates a likelihood to vote for Hillary and the Dems, while cultural anxiety and white grievance indicate a likelihood to vote Trump. Another recent study suggests that grievance, rather than opposition to trade, was the best indicator and largest factor in Sanders->Trump voters. If you're galled by what you perceive as her opposition to economic populism, then don't describe it as "jettison the working class in favor of city-dwellers", which is both unsupported and questionable as all hell.

shrike82 posted:

Am I missing something about Joy Reid?
She's an MSNBC talking head. Why should people give a poo poo about her views more so than Wolf Blitzer or Maddow.

Maj feels she is notable representative of an objectionable ideology within the party. Not her own ideology, as we've seen above, but an ideology none the less.

I feel like this makes a good question for the thread though: In the absence of 2017 candidates with specific platforms to discuss, who is valid to discuss as representatives of ideologies within the Democratic Party?

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 02:02

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Calibanibal posted:

its too bad the cold war/red scare stripped us of an entire generation of public intellectuals, imho

Calibanibal is seriousposting?!

For what it's worth, I agree with this. My perception is that a tremendous amount of work on race and gender was done during the cold war that had to avoid or skirt around explicitly including class analysis... and that those movements are still sorting out intersectionality while the individual elements are more mature and fully formed.

Mustached Demon posted:

They were boomers though so it's probably a good thing.

Motherfuck a boomer.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 02:12

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

The Muppets On PCP posted:

rev william barber

Hell yes! Moral Mondays are a fantastic example of grassroots activism that funneled into electoral success. I'm fascinated to see how the PPC tour wraps up and what his next step is. His background makes for a particularly strong foil to the Evangelical strain that elected Trump and closed their megachurches during the hurricanes.

Majorian posted:

What, exactly, do you think she meant by that?

That a small portion of the working class-predominantly rural, white, and culturally conservative-votes for the GOP out of values that are incompatible with the Democratic Party rather than for economic reasons. This would square with substantial polling, as well as the way Clinton outran Feingold among others. It would also go a long way to explaining how those voters abandoned the Democratic Party when they dropped populism (and pushed for civil rights) for the unabashedly racist corporate/finance party of the Republicans decades ago.

Do you understand why it's an issue that you, out of whole cloth, split "working class" from "city-dwellers"?

Mr Hootington posted:

A lot of the idiot centrists in the Democratic party were touting her as smart and good. She and PSA are both good to watch if you want to see what the rotten core of the dems really want.

You seem lost, friend

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 02:53

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Since we are apparently doing the Democrats in this thread, here's some interesting quotes from Cory Booker on The Ezra Klein Show podcast.

The Healthcare Quote strikes me as what the establishment wing will go with in 2020, incrementalism while keeping a push towards the end goal.

The downside of that strategy is that the system will resist all of your changes as if you're doing Single Payer right now, while the more fervent advocates will see you as precompromising and selling out.

On a different note-Equifax hack. Pretty recent. Impact unknown, cause mostly unknown.
https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/907340419238907905
Finance Committee is diving in. Serendipitously, Wyden has acquitted himself well on technical and infosec matters so this should be good.

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/907426306886979584
Security Twitter is already suggesting that he's treating Equifax about like he does the IC, steering them down an unavoidable path towards embarrassment.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 04:02

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Xae posted:

That is a brutal set of questions. He is asking them to provide the rope that the civil courts will use to hang them.

Wyden is so drat good at what he does, and he doesn't get nearly enough credit for it. And yes, that appears to be exactly his game. This is in addition to the the insider trading questions because Ron, he don't gently caress around.

highme posted:

This seems meaningful

(it's a pretty good thread in general if you're not averse to reading tweetstorms)

She's not Mensch/Garland, but I'd prefer a better source generally. Last I recall reading her was a theory that Macron honeypotted the Russians with false info for their preelection leak.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 04:53

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

This past week and today have had a wave of potential congressional retirements.

Many of them are in safe seats, but the less incumbency there is in 2018 the more uncertain the results could be.

Following up on this:
Republicans Fear Flood of Centrist Retirements ahead of 2018 Elections

Conservative Shitrag Washington Examiner posted:

Republicans have a 24-seat majority in the House. This includes 23 Republican-held districts Clinton won in the presidential election and 40 where Trump received less than 50 percent of the vote.
[...]
"I'm afraid that this trickle is going to turn into a flood of moderate Republicans retiring because they don't want to have to defend Trump and deal with their far right colleagues anymore," said a GOP strategist who requested anonymity to speak candidly. "It's got to be exhausting and civilian life looks pretty good."
[...]
In addition to policy disagreements, many centrists complained they were being asked to take bigger political risks than their more conservative colleagues who generally represented safer, more Republican districts. One Republican operative lamented members from marginal districts being asked to "walk the plank" on bills conservatives with safe seats were voting against.
[...]
For these reasons, Republican sources say they don't expect Dent to be the last centrist or swing-district GOP lawmaker to retire over the next two years. "We're lucky, frankly, more haven't already," said a Republican strategist advising centrist candidates, speaking on condition of anonymity.

As with pre-WaPo Costa, most of the best sources stay behind enemy lines, but the paper's clear slant makes for a few interesting notes:
A: Primary threats aren't alluded to anywhere in the article. Indication that the establishment may be pushing back on the fringe, hoping that reminding them of the risks will keep them from beating up swing-district incumbents. Ron Howard voice: It won't.
B: They're still sore over the Healthcare Drama. This one's a shot at Ryan and the whip-it can't be lost on him that every retirement thus far is one of his Speaker votes. Even if they retain majority, losing just 15 centrists may be enough to cost him his gavel.
C: Not quoted, but the retiring Ileana Ros-Lehtinen won her district by 9 despite Clinton taking it by nearly 20. That's insane.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 13:30

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

I missed this when it came out of committee in July, but NYMag has my back with a post today... a nice reminder of :siren:

gently caress PAUL RYAN :siren:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/the-gop-wants-the-irs-to-crack-down-on-the-working-poor.html

The GOP proposes to improve the deficit by decreasing "improper" EITC payouts by requiring verification of all income before benefits go out. To accomplish 28m miniaudits, the understaffed IRS would pretty well have to cut back on rich people's enforcement (most figures say that $1 in enforcement on that top end brings $6 in recovered revenues). Overpayment on the EITC on the other hand, averages a couple hundred per erroneous report.

gently caress with the poor so that the rich can get a free pass and the government is drained of revenues. Sounds about right.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 20:04

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

gently caress this garbage country:

https://twitter.com/htTweets/status/907421003768311809

Kudos to Rep Yoder, who had the basic human decency to stop ICE from accomplishing the explicit goal of her husband's murderer.... by getting her a year-long reprieve. This evidently drained his reservoirs because he voted against Irma/Harvey aid.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 02:24

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

(bringing this over)

F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

But stunts like this are not winning them any converts. All it's doing is proving the point of those who were whining about slippery slopes and "extremists". It's one thing to question the honor and patriotism of someone like Lee. But someone as relatively unimpeachable as Jefferson is a step too far; even for me, and I'm definitely sympathetic to their cause. They're going to make a laughingstock of themselves and destroy whatever momentum that was gained.

Probably going to piss someone off by taking that stance, but if you're going to pick a fight like this, you have to be smart about it rather than playing into your opponents' hands.

https://twitter.com/andreashale/status/771782419342958592?lang=en
The whiners have spent the nation's entire history proving that they're only mollified by one thing. Consider why you reflexively dismiss the opposition of people you're "sympathetic to" in defense of a "relatively unimpeachable" slaveowning serial rapist.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 04:28

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Koalas March posted:

Yes, he's loving scum and if I ever saw him in the streets I'd be in jail within the hour claiming that I stood my ground and feared for my life. Yet I am thinking that those defenses wouldn't work for me for some reason.....

For some reason, eh?

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 03:14

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Happy Monday! Let's all have weeks that don't suck!
https://twitter.com/shujaxhaider/status/909437023458615296
https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/909769507882848257
https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/909770879424397312

Almost 9 hours before deciding that this week needs to gently caress off already. That may be a record for me.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 14:42

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

DaveWoo posted:

It's amazing how far the mainstream media will go to legitimize a movement that would be happy to destroy the mainstream media if it ever had the opportunity.

WSJ's my favorite for that dynamic.

"No, guys, they're right wing! They're on our side!"
*plays video of "Jews Will Not Replace Us"*
"Why should we, as the literal mouthpiece of Wall Street, Finance, and Banking, be concerned about such sentiments?"

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 15:27

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

PerniciousKnid posted:

Are there any studies that demonstrate a correlation (or lack) between police on-the-job casualties and hair-trigger response training, across the US and Europe?

This is especially difficult in the US, because the data set is atrocious garbage. WaPo/HuffPo and an independent project (whose name escapes me) have worked on it, but even that is piecemeal. Reporting requirements are presently minimal and done pretty inconsistently.

Towards one of TNC's points in A Case For Reparations- if Congress studies this, they can get more standardization and get the data into the public record for anyone to use.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 17:17

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Zarin posted:

That image linked awhile back about people onboard with Bernie's plan ... I saw that Duckworth and Durbin we're both "no" in that image, and wondered why.

Even still, I'm sure there's no way they would be for this Graham/Cassidy pile of garbage, but . . . where would I even look for that kind of info, just in case?

I fear that "why" will devolve immediately back into the eternal slapfight. Suffice it to say there are valid reasons to not be supporting the bill from both the center and the left, even if you are a proponent of Single Payer.

Neither supports Graham/Cassidy, though I don't believe anyone is running a whipcount on Dems over this bill so I can't provide a source.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 20:48

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

In today's edition of ~~gently caress~~ FLUFF THE GOP:
https://twitter.com/AliceOllstein/status/910128599495249920

quote:

The Republican Governors Association has quietly launched an online publication that looks like a media outlet and is branded as such on social media. The Free Telegraph blares headlines about the virtues of GOP governors, while framing Democrats negatively. It asks readers to sign up for breaking news alerts. It launched in the summer bearing no acknowledgement that it was a product of an official party committee whose sole purpose is to get more Republicans elected.

Only after The Associated Press inquired about the site last week was a disclosure added to The Free Telegraph�s pages identifying the publication�s partisan source.

The governors association describes the website as routine political communication. Critics, including some Republicans, say it pushes the limits of honest campaign tactics in an era of increasingly partisan media and a proliferation of �fake news� sites, including those whose material became part of an apparent Russian propaganda effort during the 2016 presidential campaign.

�It�s propaganda for sure, even if they have objective standards and all the reporting is 100 percent accurate,� said Republican communications veteran Rick Tyler, whose resume includes Ted Cruz�s 2016 presidential campaign.

The website was registered July 7 through Domains By Proxy, a company that allows the originators of a website to shield their identities. An AP search did not find any corporate, Federal Election Commission or IRS filings establishing The Free Telegraph as an independent entity.

As of early Monday afternoon, The Free Telegraph�s Twitter account and Facebook page still had no obvious identifiers tying the site to RGA. The site described itself on Twitter as �bringing you the political news that matters outside of Washington.� The Facebook account labeled The Free Telegraph a �Media/News Company.� That�s a contrast to the RGA�s Facebook page, which is clearly disclosed as belonging to a �Political Organization,� as is the account of its counterpart, the Democratic Governors Association.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2017 14:28

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

MizPiz posted:

It's common logic that liberals don't have any connections to the mainstream media.

The group that's been falling all over itself to Both Sides harder in the aftermath of Charlottesville? The set whose styleguide forbids reporting GOP lies as "lies", because we can't know if they're duplicitous or merely morons? Or perhaps you mean the portion that will dutifully transcribe officer involved shootings in the Passive Exonerative Tense, until video emerges to disprove the narrative?

Definitely the same thing as the talk radio/Fox News sphere.

Grouchio posted:

Who is to blame for the Democrats having poo poo charisma and drive? Are there any other firebrands besides Bernie and Ellison?
How hosed are we short/mid-term?

The DNC, the establishment, Hillary, DWS, and Wall Street, if I recall my Bad Dems Mantras correctly. "Firebrand" is a goalpost begging to be put on wheels, but many of the most effective Dem communicators are considered insufficiently pure: Booker (preemptive shutthefuckup Maj/mcmagic), Harris, Warren, Castro, Gabbard, and Franken.

This ignores, of course, that the national GOP has run McCain, :mitt:

, Santorum, :smugdon:

, Huck, and Cruz over the same period the Dems had Barack, Edwards, Sanders (and Hillary x2).

As far as Dem fuckedness goes: as of July they've recruited more than 200 legitimate challengers for GOP house seats (2009 GOP was at 78) and have won a slew of city/state level victories in purple and deep red districts, including the Manchester mayoral primary last night. You're already starting to see GOP resignations with heavy whispers more are on the way. It'll still take hard work, and not shooting themselves in the foot, but right now you're seeing a lot of the signs nationwide that presage a wave.

We'll have gridlock and an embattled executive if Dems retake the house. All bets are off if they grab the senate as well (holding all of their seats, and the riskiest are looking marginally safe, while grabbing AZ, NV, and at least one of TX, TN, or AL), though that scenario still appears unlikely. A Dem agenda is unlikely before 2021, but it's not as if we're staring down the barrel of a Rovian "Permanent Majority".

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 14:00

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

twice burned ice posted:

No, it's good fiscal policy!

Brownback is sitting back and applauding somewhere. Lowering taxes and regulations to draw in businesses while directly driving away their labor force is impressive. Usually it's the second order effects that drive talent away.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 15:55

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

twice burned ice posted:

the alternative is "Unions Work" essentially, but good luck getting middle-class America on board with that message in TYOOL 2017.

A better name for right to work is something like "right to work with union protections without paying the union, thereby weakening the union" but that's kind of a mouthful.

If you're willing to call out voters for their parasitic desires, pretty much every anti-welfare message applies here. The problem you run into is the same reason why the GOP racially codes their anti-welfare schtick... you don't want to drive away potential voters while appealing to your base. "The only moral [x] is my [x]", etc. When a white conservative uses food stamps or UI, it's to get back on his feet after bad luck, not mooching off the system like those Cadillac driving welfare queens.

Calling out the WWC for wanting to leech off of the labor of others without contributing any time or money of their own is usually the sort of messaging that is frowned upon in these parts.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 16:04

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Taerkar posted:

It is very accurately stating the intended goal of the laws.

It's stating the distant effect, not the immediate goal or the mechanism.

It oughta be something like Jared Laws.

Y'all know Jared, right? That lazy jerk who comes in at the end of the project and takes the credit without doing any work? The guy who keeps getting raises because he married the owner's daughter, but everyone else always has to do more work to fix what he breaks? Have any of you ever seen Jared work for two consecutive hours? Has he ever been in at 9? When was the last time he still at his desk at 3, much less 5?

Governor Lafferite and his cronies in the legislature are defending the laws that let Jared get paid more than his coworkers while still getting better insurance, sick leave, PTO, and job security than most other Stateonians. Tell them you won't stand for it. This November, say no to Jared. Because here in State, we work hard. We look out for each other and we're all in this together.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 16:14

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

e: ^^ Yyyyuuuuuuppppp

The Kingfish posted:

Right to fire works because its a clever turnabout that more clearly expresses the law's intent and doesn't involve "union" or "labor" which are scary words to idiots.

Are you reading every other post, or :confused:

twice burned ice posted:

Right to Fire is At-Will Employment, not right to work.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

At-will Employment = You can quit employment at any time with no penalty and your employer can fire you for any reason that is not against state/federal employment law.

Right To Work = You cannot be forced to join a union for a job or pay union dues for any reason unless you do so voluntarily. No employers can establish "union shops" where you need to be a member of a union to work there. If a union exists in a workplace, then they have to provide basic services for all employees, but they cannot require any employees to pay union dues.

Even if it were matching the intent of the law, I don't see many of the temporarily embarrassed millionaires and Joe the Plumbers who make up the antiunion brigade being on board with limiting their ability to fire their future employees.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 17:18

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

I regret to inform you that the crew who knows fuckall about process is very upset about process.

:arzy:, except hyperventilating over his own hyperbole.

Dems would like the text "may" to be changed to "shall", and a few other changes to stabilize the system. The GOP would like to weaken the mandatory coverage standards and give states greater latitude in how they spend federal healthcare funding.

Since neither group is able to accomplish this on their own, they work to cobble together an agreeable compromise. It would be wonderful if the Dems could accomplish this while giving up nothing of value, but that's rare when you control neither the White House nor a single chamber. Coincidentally, this is what made the Pelosi/Schumer & Trump deal so impressive-go ahead and look at the reactions to that in this subforum, if you think my label atop the post was too mean.

Did the Dems offer to give up too much? I don't know. Neither do any of the other posters. The details aren't known at this point. If I were to guess, the concessions were likely heavy: both because the GOP dominates the vote count and because they are less troubled by the status quo. Was it a deal that would have worsened life for Americans overall, or marginalized Americans in particular? I don't know. Neither do any of the other posters.

But sure. While the GOP is again aiming to trade the lives of Americans for small tax cuts, save your rancor for the Dems who dared to discuss ways to reinforce our system. It's not telling in the slightest.

I'll take one of those Jamocha shakes to go. And if you can, please get Kale to shutthefuckup.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 22:56

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Condiv posted:

why do we need to compromise at all? republicans either have enough votes to shoot themselves in the foot and ruin healthcare for everyone, proving once and for all how monstrous they are, or they don't have enough votes to do it and a compromise only nets us losses like you surmise.

as i said before, i do not see at all how bipartisanly loving up healthcare helps dems at all. we're offering single payer and we're claiming to do everything we can to protect healthcare for americans. bargaining it away weakens us!

Because the status quo, as you are fond of referencing any time healthcare comes up, is not good.

The changes Dems are believed to be asking for would improve and secure coverage and care for some Americans. The changes the (nonTortillaCoast) GOP is seeking would degrade coverage and care for some Americans. It is entirely possible that there is a sweetspot where working on this compromise (not AHCA or GCHJ, which nobody has recommended) will be a benefit to Americans.

Putting zero effort into an alternate solution (and coming after those who are) while allowing Trump and/or Congressional Rs to fuckup the healthcare of millions of Americans in order to prove a partisan point is some ghoulish, callous poo poo. Even if it's in support of some nebulous future "better" plan.

Condiv posted:

do i really need to add that kind of stuff as a footnote to every post?

If you're genuinely asking my input on your posting, I'd be content if you stopped leaping to loving Outraged on crumbs of info/topics you're unfamiliar with and then spinning out gobs of white noise over it for pages at a time. But I understand that's your brand and difficult to change such things. I'll always be tedious, mcmagic will always have an unearned confidence in his political assessments and LeJackal will always have :stonk:

views about guns and consent.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 23:24

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Condiv posted:

willa rogers gave me some nice links

Willa and Condiv, two people best known for their understanding of what Dems are actually doing :jerkbag:

That sure is a terrifying ThinkProgress^TM piece. It'd be comically inept for Schumer and the Dems to be giving all of that up for essentially nothing. I'd be right there on the ramparts with you, if it's actually happening or there was any meaningful indication it's what the Dems actually were offering to give away. Of course, there isn't (because it's not). But we go back to the theme of hyperventilation over your own hyperbole.

Condiv posted:

copper plans are not that sweet spot

more ppaca waivers aren't either

The copper plans your Vox link describes from 3 years ago certainly aren't. With the right limitations and restrictions, they could be. Similarly, your nightmare scenario ACA waivers would be a disaster. So awful that I can't imagine why any Dem, much less the 8+ that they need, would be willing to give them to the GOP. It must because the Dems are literally unimaginably bad, and not that your worst cases aren't what's actually occurring.

Condiv posted:

i'm asking why you're pretending i love republicans, much like taerkar was earlier

it doesn't make a bit of sense at all

In which you prove the point of the post you quote. In your haste to get red, mad, and nude, you seem to have missed that neither Taerkar have claimed you love Republicans. I can see why such a charge wouldn't make sense to you, given that nobody made it.

Your Parents posted:

you mean the alternate solution that keeps getting proposed that involves single payer that gets repeatedly shot down by fascists and fascist sympathizers for being too government or too taxpayer unfriendly and expensive

The solution you reference wouldn't be able to help Americans until 2021 at the absolute earliest. It would also need to undergo substantial revision to be a functional alternative, not least of which is committing to the slate of tax increases needed to fund itself. In a perfect world, it would also avoid granting exclusive power over coverage and budget to Secretary of HHS because, as we're seeing with the CSR, turns out that's a dumb loving way to administer your program.

A nonbatshit compromise for funding the CSRs, expanding waivers (some version of which desired by leadership and unions in both D and R states), and weakening coverage requirements could begin helping people the moment it's signed. As you may recall, our healthcare system is terrible, so I would think that this is a priority.

To be explicit (because evidently this is required): Recognizing the potential for noninsane compromises does not mean I support eliminating the mandate, flooding the market with tragically substandard plans, and/or allowing states to drastically reduce the level/quantity/quality of coverage provided

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 00:36

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Condiv posted:

mccaskill was boosting the copper plans just last month.

dunno why you're still trying to play it off paracaidas. especially by claiming that the thinkprogress source is flawed and incorrect somehow without actuall stating any factual objection

Nah, I explained the logical objections. It's kind of what I'm limited to when there aren't facts to discuss, as you helpfully bold in the TP piece. I wasn't aware I was required to discuss everything that any Dems had, in the past decade, indicated they were willing to work with the GOP on. Shall we discuss how awful it'd be if they offered to sign on to Trump's infrastructure bill in exchange for CSR solidification? What if they built his wall, or attached it to tax reform? Maybe they'll agree to entitlement reform to change it to "shall" on the CSR!

Also, I'd like to express my shock that an incumbent Dem senator in a reddish-purple state has indicated her openness to bipartisan reforms in a town hall meeting. Read the line you quoted from the TP article. Assuming it's as written, Congressman Bera indicated the "openness" of his caucus to a "Senate bill that includes Republican ideas like copper plans". What's the alternative here, "Absolutely not, we will not sign anything that contains Republican ideas"? It's certainly a negotiating strategy, but it belies a Trumpian incompetence given the Republican control of Government.

Condiv posted:

machin and 6 other dems were pushing the copper plan in the vox link in 2014, so i dunno why you think this one in 2017 that has the exact same name would be any better? at the very least, it's an extension of catastrophic plans to the entire population instead of under 30s. most likely it's exactly what dems were pushing in 2014. at worst it's worse than even that.

In part because it isn't 2014? There is a different President now, and with it a different administration of the ACA, and with it a different set of risks and priorities. The ACA wasn't nearly as popular as it is now. Both you and the public have indicated that you'll hold the GOP responsible for any failures of the ACA, another change from 2014. Manchin has seen his popularity and reelection chances grow substantially since 2017's repeal effort took off.

A reasonably comprehensive copper plan (with requirements that it not be the only affordable coverage available to any consumer, may only represent a small fraction of an insurer's business in any county, and meeting minimum price/coverage thresholds) would be a bitter pill to swallow that could still be a better overall outcome for the nation and both the average and marginalized consumer.

Let's turn this around: What would you be willing to deal on to get to "shall" on CSR? We've heard that you oppose the ridiculous giveaways you've determined are the Dem's stance based on a thinly sourced piece, a single spokesman's statement and your own conjecture. Do you think there will be damage if the CSRs don't get stabilization? What's it worth to you to mitigate that damage?

Condiv posted:

oh please

it was fairly obvious you two were implying that i think dems are worse than republicans

Having been down this path before with you (I think this makes four times?), why don't I save us some time? You read something into my post that isn't there. I make myself more explicit. You declare that's clearly not what I meant and whine about tone while ignoring any of the actual content. When called on it, you declare yourself unwilling to interact with someone so rude and slink off, rather that acknowledging or addressing any points.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 01:28

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

e: the metaposting is excessive and disruptive, especially given the sixer. I stand by it, but the posting histories of condiv and I are not conducive to discussion. Modifications throughout.

Condiv posted:

we have facts enough of what the copper plans and such entail. that's why i linked that past policy. please stop being obtuse and pretending that the new plan, with more republican influence, is going to be gentler than the 2014 one that had dems like tim kaine on board.
[...]
as for your theoretical better copper plan, i'm still not sure why you think it'd be better this time around. yes, there's a different president now. and nazis in our streets. and republicans control more of the government than before. there is no reason to believe the copper plans proposed this year will be less terrible than the ones proposed when the republicans had way less power and the dems had more. that's just a ludicrous notion

I explain a few of the reasons why 2017 is different than 2014, and why those factors could make for a stronger negotiating position. You reject them or wholesale ignore them and label me obtuse and the concept ludicrous. It's such a charming dance we have.

As I posted: The public now polls favorably on the ACA and says they see the GOP as responsible for future problems. This changes their motivations. Manchin has gone from being in substantial risk to leaning towards reelection ever since Repeal Circus 2017 kicked off-for him specifically, and for other Dems, this signals that defending and improving the ACA is no longer a liability but an asset. This changes their motivations. We agree that the Copper Plan, as discussed in 2014 or in the TP piece, would be awful. There is nothing to back up the idea that it must be this way. As I posted, there are implementations that would not be catastrophic.

Again, it could be that the Dems are desperately trying to give away the farm in exchange for magic beans. That would be awful. I'd be opposed to it. But in the absence of any facts or reporting, all we have is conjecture. Which could be reasonable, except I can't see any reason why they'd be doing it outside of Dems are a Waste. So either Dems are a Waste, or the outrage press is making mountains out of molehills again.

Condiv posted:

there would be damage, but that damage could and should be laid at republicans' feet. if republicans want to shirk CSR and increase people's premiums through the roof, nail them to the wall on it. that's what they should receive instead of concessions. the dems are out of power. they are completely unable to do anything to prevent premiums from rising due to republican irresponsibility. so make it clear. wield it as a weapon! republicans want to raise your already sky high premiums cause they hate working class americans! that's a message that is easy to broadcast to people right now cause guess what? republicans are currently doing everything in their power to rip away all healthcare for people. make it clear to people that republicans spitefully raised their premiums cause they couldn't rip away healthcare wholesale!

At least you're not hiding your accelerationism on this topic. For the record, still some ghoulish, callous poo poo. Instead of making literally any attempt to help you, we'll go ahead and watch things turn to poo poo. And trust that you'll blame the GOP for it. A foolproof plan, since they're typically punished for their bullshit.

*cut to Breitbart headline, 2018* "Insurance Premiums increased? More White Genocide from the Illegals"

Condiv posted:

and no, we should not be negotiating with republicans in exchange for copper plans and such. doing so is in itself incompetent, as you're going from a position of strength with the backing of the US populace to one that helps the republicans too much in exchange for the can being kicked down the road.
[...]
compromise is the losing position in this! it makes democrats culpable in republican fuckery. and worst of all, it doesn't prevent the republicans going for repeal again in a year, after their lovely plans destroy ppaca. and it weakens dems' position as defending healthcare

Paracaidas posted:

I regret to inform you that the crew who knows fuckall about process is very upset about process.

Condiv posted:

cause my reading is you're saying i spend too little time attacking the GOP, and too much time being angry at the democrats, echoing earlier sentiments that i hate dems more than i hate republicans. if your criticism is just that i should spend more time attacking republicans, well that's just silly and not worthwhile. there's already a ton of people attacking republicans way better than I can.

I refer you to the posting advice you quoted without reading. It is, again, the same dance. My explicit answer is insufficient for you and you are owed more.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 03:05

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

The 2011 budget/debt ceiling debates are still what take hold in my memory whenever I'm considering the Democrats' negotiating prowess, so my baseline expectations about "compromise" when "stabilization" is the word-of-the-day are... low.

That's absolutely fair. That came after a colossal wave where the Dems were near historic lows and little perceived mandate to govern despite retaining power... and where they absolutely needed to make a deal due to the catastrophic consequences of failure. I take heart from the Dems being out of power and the GOP plausibly having a selfinterested motivation to fix the bill.

As Trabs mentioned, nobody is advocating that Dems join a bill that makes things worse just to "appear bipartisan". But if they can work a bill that winds up being a positive despite the concessions they make, I don't believe they should allow American healthcare to degrade just because it might hurt the GOP.

I question how much the looming idea of Single Payer plays into this dynamic as well. The worst thing for SP in the early 2020s would be a stable Obamacare with some bipartisan appeal (though that may be a better outcome for UHC longterm). For those who are willing to take an accelerationist view towards getting SP but don't quite want to commit to GCHJ/BRCA/AHCA, the CSRs crumbling and dissatisfaction increasing would be the best scenario.

Jizz Festival posted:

What's bizarre to me is all the time snd effort expended on explaining why the democrats can't possibly do any better and expecting better things from them is unrealistic because we just don't understand the dang process.

There are all sorts of ways the Dems are loving up and need to improve. It would be tremendous to focus on those, as opposed to railing on them in the instances that they're not loving up. An inability to differentiate between the two may be a sign that you lack an understanding of the process. Similarly, a poster who insists on having an article summarized for them before pedantically posting for pages about how useless the article is and whinging about how they're being treated disrespectfully might be whitenoise trash.

Captain Monkey posted:

That would be difficult, since I have him on ignore. Also I'm not interested in responding to Condiv's temporary bouts of coherency.

Did you take a wrong turn? It appears you think you're in the white noise and weak burn thread. I assure you, you are not.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 03:49

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It's like 60%, but yes.

The other 40% is low-income people or people with middle incomes who get big deductions because of their kids, house, local taxes, and end up with a refund at the end of the year, so their net FEDERAL INCOME taxes are o or a negative amount.

These people, of course, still pay sales taxes on their purchases, FICA, etc.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 14:34

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

This. loving. Country.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/10/04/judge-considers-dismissing-joe-arpaio-contempt-case/731525001/

quote:

A U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix has accepted the presidential pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

At the request of both Arpaio defense attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice lawyers, Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the guilty verdict against Arpaio with prejudice, meaning it can never be tried again.

Arpaio had been found guilty in July of criminal contempt for �flagrant disregard� of a judge's order.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2017 19:51

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

ART LAFFER DOESN'T KNOW SOMETHING! :siren:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/919900022409449474

Not that there is a bill to begin with, but I'm almost impressed with how Ryan/McConnell have crafted a legislative agenda that seems specifically designed to put zero pressure on Manchin and Heitkamp.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2017 13:53

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Koalas March posted:

Catching up on the news I've missed while I've been unwell and.. ugh. loving Rahm.

Rahm's got the biggest gap in likability between himself and fictional representations of him. It dwarfs Diamond Joe.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2017 18:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 03:06

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Throwing these out there, with a wacky belief that none of them are mutually exclusive.

Manchin's votes on all of the items Instant Sunrise bolded had zero practical impact on the content of the bills/character of the nominees, or if they passed.
Notwithstanding #1, many of those votes (Sessions, most obviously) were reprehensible and Manchin should absolutely face pressure from the left, up to and including a legitimate primary challenge.
Many of those votes may help Manchin win reelection in the general in 50 weeks and may not reflect his character or beliefs (but would, then, reflect his willingness to vote against his conscience for political expediency)
For a variety of reasons that are breathtakingly obvious, it's better that Manchin's seat be held by a D than an R. Especially when the most likely outcomes have control of the chamber determined by a seat or two either way.
There are serious risk to underperforming in a primary challenge and convincing a senator he or she is safe from the party's flank (see: AK, ME, the junior senator from WV)

The odds are fairly indefensible, since the counterfactuals required range from ludicrous to plausible and there's no tangible evidence on either side. I'm happy to elaborate if anyone likes, but the history of this thread and its predecessor (in spirit, if not name) suggest we'll find more heat than light.

I will note that 5 makes 4 a hell of a lot more interesting. Murkowski and Collins have already demonstrated a willingness to kill McConnell's bills in the face of some pretty extreme pressure, and more importantly (as with Manchin's record above), a willingness to be the deciding vote. Even if the Rs end up hanging on to the chamber by a thread (51/49, 50/50), those two would have a control over the party's agenda that makes Lieberman look like a backbencher. If the nightmare comes to pass and we lose someone on SCOTUS, those two would represent the only path to rescuing Roe (and the GOP failing to overturn despite the sacrifices (Mitt! Trump!) made by the white evangelicals would result in the most delicious drama).

Manchin currently appears to have an unexpectedly strong shot at reelection. Winding up with a Sharron Angle who costs control of the chamber-or who weakens the influence wielded by the women mentioned above-would be an awful missed opportunity with potentially ruinous consequences.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2017 02:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›3 »