|
The one thing that confuses me a little is how the Democrats not winning in traditional pure red hellscapes like Texas and Georgia is being treated as some kind of proof of living in the  hellworld by some people. Like, going into this the Senate was a 10:1 longshot for the Dems even accounting for the favorable polling, just because of which seats were up this time around. The Democrats accomplished what they could plausibly do: massively boost turnout over normal midterm elections, comfortably retake the house, and get a bunch of state/local government wins. The popular vote margin was like +9 or something, which even with all the electoral problems baked into our system means that 2020 is an apocalyptic loss for Trump. Especially since the GOP specifically tanked in a bunch of the narrow win states that let Trump win the electoral college in the first place. Everyone was afraid of an unforced D flub leading to a 2016 replay and that emphaticaly didn't happen.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Oxxidation posted:because it gets them paid Also, speaking anecdotally there are a HUGE number of people who LOVE bipartisanship talk, even though it's proven to be completely worthless IRL. Paying lip service to it is fine for a politician as long as they don't actually BELIEVE it. Unfortunately Pelosi is a shity go-along-to-get-along establishment Democrat dinosaur. I do believe she's totally down for opening 100,000 investigations on Trump at least. Covok posted:We won! They lost! For gently caress sake, be happy you covoking broke brains. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Man, I didn't realize that Pelosi was the chair of every committee and that also a vague speech about bipartisan meant you forfeited subpoena powers for 2 years. eke out posted:also good thing the speaker does not exert meaningful control over committee business in this way Solkanar512 posted:Pelosi doesn’t control committees. Also I'm pretty sure Pelosi only said it won't be an immediate priority to impeach Trump, which given that there are no votes in the senate to convict right now anyway is basically conceding nothing IRL. e: J.A.B.C. posted:Now is the winter of our SUBPOENA HIS TAX RETURNS YOU COWARDS! Pretty sure they outright said this is what they plan to do already.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:The economy going bad is almost certainly a bad thing for Trump. Also government deadlock, hilariously enough.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Your Taint posted:lol if you believe a single person who voted Republican in 2016 or yesterday would believe it was Trump's fault for a single second. The purestrain trumpists by themselves are a minority. The goal is to swamp them, not to convert them. Democrats win by motivating EVERYONE ELSE, e.g. by convincing them that Trump is bankrupting them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
I don't think trying to extrapolate from here to 2022 is very helpful or meaningful honestly. If the Democrats can drive up turnout in 2020 like they did in 2018 vs. a normal mid term, Trump gets his poo poo pushed in. Trying to look past that now is like trying to read chicken entrails to tell the future or something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm also thinking that 2018 is pretty drat near peak anti-Trump Nah, if/when the economy tanks because of his garbage policies it can go much, much lower.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
How much younger and less white will the electorate be in 2020+?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
The electorate breaking D+9 is great news FOR REPUBLICANS LOL
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Nemo Somen posted:The Good: This severely understates what happened. No new law at all can be passed without the approval of the House. It is also where all spending and revenue legislation originates. The Democrats can 100% kill ANY proposed GOP legislation now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
How different will the 2020 demographics be from 2016?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Wait, if Trump fires Mueller now that the Democrats are taking the House that would seem to accomplish... exactly gently caress-all for Trump?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Now imagine if we hadn't just won the house Not empty quoting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
It's more that firing Mueller when the Democratic majority House will just come in and start investigating in his place instantly is so utterly pointless. Especially since they can just literally tell Mueller to tell them everything and give them all his poo poo, and then even use him as a consultant for the investigation they'll be doing in the place of his original investigation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Except then it will obviously be a totally very super fake DEMORAT investigation and not a mostly fake RINO super double secret Hilldog run investigation, you idiot, you absolute moron. So no change from how they already talk about it anyway. Mueller couldn't prosecute Trump cronies directly if he's not special counsel anymore, but since Trump can pardon federal charges anyway it probably helps to just dump the evidence in the laps of state prosecutors to use.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:More likely they're hoping to burn all the work Mueller did so the Dems have to start all over again and it takes until the next election to determine anything. I'm pretty sure Mueller has access to copying technology.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
mdemone posted:This depends on what you think John Roberts is, at his core. John Roberts would think far enough ahead to consider if this would prevent loving with future Democratic presidents.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Wait. Is this a good or bad thing? Mostly really loving stupid, especially now that the Democrats are taking the House, because at this point any attempt to bury what Mueller is investigating is doomed to fail hilariously.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Unlikely. The most likely reason is simply that Republicans made him wait until after the midterms because they were concerned it would hurt them. The midterms are over, so Trump is now doing what he always wanted to do. Can't believe I'm saying this about anything, but Trump was sorta right. It would have been much smarter for him to obstruct the investigation up front than to let it drag on, rope in a bunch of his cronies, and then try to kill it after the mid-terms just so the Democrats can revive it in a different form, undoubtedly with the help of Mueller, the second they take over the House.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:“Bipartisanship” and “common ground” are anachronistic holdovers from the Obama era. The public loving LOVES hearing their politicians talking about that kind of reaching across the aisle decorum poo poo, no matter how disconnected from reality it is. "Why can't they work together to solve our problems?" It's fantastic rhetoric. The only problem is if you actually BELIEVE it, instead of just talking nice until Trump gives you a pretext to tell him to go gently caress off and die. Which is usually measured in minutes rather than days. My confidence that Pelosi gets that distinction is ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:cuddling up to big banks isn't helping them It's absolutely legit to bash the Democrats for blowing their economic credibility with people with triangulating third way bullshit, but if you think say rural Tennessee would break blue if only Democrats would push harder for the little guy then just LOL. Socialism only sells in a lot of these places when it's Whites Only. As much as the Democratic record on civil rights is inadequate, a lot of these rural voters want to roll back to Jim Crow tier "keep them in their place" poo poo. There are exceptions that the Democrats should totally target to win over with Actual Good Policies, and in some cases they did it in this very election! But trying to win over some of these places with more Klan chapters than science teachers is probably uh not feasible (or moral.) Hellblazer187 posted:What are the Dem policies specifically that rural voters dont like? Civil rights for anyone but straight white people who love Jeezus, if we're honest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if you immediately assume that you can't win these people without appealing to racism, you've trapped yourself into candidates like donnelly. Nah. I'm all for pushing Good Dems everywhere and not garbagemen, but you have to be realistic that if you're going to stick to your principles then some places will not be winnable in the short term. A depressing amount of rural american voters are not compatible with candidates that believe that black people are human beings. That's just an objective fact. I'm arguing you stick with your principles, in case that's not clear. Some places simply can't be won without pandering to race hate, so you have to accept the risk of losing them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Fulchrum I don't think this is factually correct. According to Gallup, 60% support stricter gun laws, while 70% support Medicare for all. Also it's another one of those things in the category of "Maybe if we sell out our principles on this issue the lovely whites will like us again!" that never works IRL because the Republicans always promise more and they'll never believe the Democrats anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:Oh no we've walked right into his trap Losing the single party monopoly on power to own the libs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Is there a political way out for our country? I keep thinking it's going to come down to violence. I don't want that, I'm not advocating that. But when one side just decides that truth doesn't matter, only power does, it sets us down a path I'm not sure how we escape. I don't know that our divisions can be healed. It's worrying and I don't know where to talk about it or if I'm even supposed to talk about it. This was always true, it just used to be hidden under a veneer of decorum or simply not exposed like it is now by modern media. What do you think the Jim Crow south was like, which is literally in living memory? Cops killing unarmed black people isn't new, the visibility is. poo poo, the KKK almost literally took over the Indiana state government at one point. I mean the literally wearing costumes one. poo poo has always been hosed, you're just less sheltered from it now. The struggle to unfuck America has always been necessary. It's just harder to hide from it now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
The NYT does lots of good anti-Trump reporting, and lots of pants-shittingly awful BOTH SIDES  editorializing.With Haberman's shitfuck access "journalism" tweeting on the side.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
I want this thread to get more alarmed about as much as I want an extra hole in my head. Actually less, given how this sinus infection is making me feel.  evilweasel posted:in the same sense that firing comey was good If Trump fires Mueller now, it's so late in the process that I think it does him more harm than good. It's absolutely obstruction of justice, but it would have been 1,000x more effective as obstruction if he just did it up front.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah it is literally impossible for people to follow two things at once. especially a group of people, that group can literally only follow a single thing. Plus Trump being hated for more things than people can keep track of isn't some kind of 5D chess super genius masterstroke, it just means he's hit hate saturation and the extra stories are just making the rubble bounce. People not being mad at your pet bad thing because they're mad about a different bad thing ultimately doesn't matter because they're still mad at Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Drone posted:Also gonna put out there that we need leadership from someone who isn't 78 goddamn years old. So Bernie needs to gently caress off too? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Does the House really produce much in the way of broader party leadership for either side? Ryan was a useless shitbird even from a GOP perspective. "Good" House leaders seem to mainly just herd cats and the bad ones are just hate sinks for both sides.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:Do the greens know they're controlled opposition and they're enjoying the grift, or are they legit accelerrationists who think they'll somehow come out on top in a full fascist takeover? Let's be clear that I'm talking about supporters of the America's Green Party specifically, not supporters of environmentalist parties in general around the world. With that out of the way: They're loving morons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:The Mueller investigation is loving brain cancer to rich liberals. The fact that that's what gets them out of the house is so damning. On the other hand, anything that makes any demographic hate Trump is good, no matter how low a priority it should actually be in the bigger picture of fascist horror to be be mad at.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Just searched "is a shill" on Twitter and yeah you're wrong Pretty sure it's an inadvertent/unconscious mixing of the connotations of "shill" and "shrill" in his mind.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The issue is that the Mueller investigation, and protecting it, is basically at this point a proxy fight for the rule of law. By tradition (because the Constitution doesn't really do a good job here) the DOJ is independent of Presidential control to a large degree, to try to keep prosecutorial decisions independent of politics, both to avoid politically motivated prosecutions and to avoid politically motivated blocking of prosecutions. The problem, of course, is that's just tradition: the Constitution isn't set up to wall off the DOJ from the President. Fritz Coldcockin posted:I'm not sure that attacking people for trying to say that Robert Mueller's investigation should be protected because "YOU DIDN'T PROTEST OTHER THING" is a great idea. If we allow Trump to get away with killing off an investigation into himself we're essentially saying "Nixon was right, the rule of law doesn't apply to the President." It's a horrendously dangerous precedent to set. Not empty quoting. And I kind of love the logic of "Rule of law was not followed before, so why ever bother trying to curb an open fascist blowing it off entirely?" 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it absolutely rules watching a lawyer trying to convince himself that no, really, after Bush V Gore 2000, "we tortured some folks," and "for the next two years committing fraud on homeowners is legal" there is such a thing as rule of law for the powerful sean10mm posted:And I kind of love the logic of "Rule of law was not followed before, so why ever bother trying to curb an open fascist blowing it off entirely?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah, it is monumentally stupid to bitch about past times where the rule of law was not followed and come to the conclusion "and that's why we should abolish the rule of law" when it's the bad people who will get more power as a result. like, it would make some amount of sense, though it would be short-sighted, if people were rooting for weakening the rule of law in favor of more power to someone they like. going "lol idiot why do you care about the rule of law, just give more power to trump" is astoundingly stupid Also Trump doing a bad thing that was previously done by somebody else isn't a reason to not attack him for it. What the gently caress kind of sadbrains logic is that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:The QQCS thread was closed. Also it had more drive by shitposting in it than the tread we were complaining about, somehow. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
CubanMissile posted:She's mentioned it for her overall platform. But I imagine it won't get too much attention since she has to pick her battles and that one is a ways off. GreyjoyBastard posted:I've been joking that she's a Bad Dem for this but she advocates for a federal Guaranteed Jobs program over UBI because [reasonably sensible arguments that I'm sure this thread will mention]. Sounds like creeping centrist pragmatism to me, which is the same as Literally Hitler.    But seriously, UBI isn't exactly something like universal health care where the US is the only dumb outlier in the entire developed world. Countries way to the left of us are only starting to pilot it, if they're doing it at all. It makes sense that she wouldn't be making a hard push for it out of the gate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:I actually feel like if the DNC is that out of touch and that foolish to triple down then there needs to be a clear message sent to them because 2016 apparently didn't work. Voting for batman or third party doesn't do the same thing as making Trump's inevitable second win against her a landslide to try and hammer the point home and send a clear message. That's not what voting for Trump would do. It would just make everyone conclude that America is 100% sincerely Chudland.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
The Dems are lovely in part because nobody participates in primaries, so the primary electorate is unrepresentative old centrist grampas and random wierdos. Lefty policy polls high in the US but those people largely don't vote in primaries so it doesn't actually matter. The primary fights are de facto fights over what the party even is. If you bitch about Dems while ignoring primaries you are literally embodying the root cause of what you're complaining about. Once that's over then you're left with the more nazi or less nazi choices in the general, and if you can't tell them apart you're a huge rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 17:52
|
|