The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

 

I've never thought the Republicans would lose Congress. That's one of the reasons this is one of the few political forums I post in - because in places that are too devoted to politics, people are more likely to blindly believe in a "blue wave," or too likely to believe it will never happen and use that to viciously attack the Democrats and Democratic leaders because of their own agendas (anarchy, Berniebro-ing, being a secret Republican plant, what have you). 

 

The media has been greasing the "it's a comeback!!!" wheels for a while now, as they do around this time every two years, because the media would sell every vital organ they have to keep Republicans in power. This is a very recent article, which lays out why the Republicans are on the comeback.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/18/midterms-republicans-house-913906

 

I resent that so much focus is being put on Kavanaugh, because I think they were likely going to come back no matter what. They have over and over and over again. 

 

(I'm aware one of the big reasons for the eventual wins  is voter suppression - I'm talking more about the enthusiasm that happens before voting)

 

I feel like the press already has their "Men Strike Back" articles ready for the day after the elections, as I imagine the debates and anguish over abuse and harassment of women has upset them as much as it has upset the GOP (we certainly know how much it has upset CBS and NBC). They desperately want Kavanaugh to be the reason because it suits the agenda that not only keeps their Republican friends in power, but also keeps them in power. 

 

You can see how confident the Republicans are, thanks to increased base frenzy as well as knowing that thanks to voter suppression and intimidation, they already have many races locked down. You can see it because their goals for next year, announced to get votes, are pure red meat for the base. The days of throwing out token items to appeal to some alleged "swing voter" are long gone. These voters don't matter - and in many cases, they still end up voting for poverty, hate and bigotry anyway. 

 

I have a great deal of respect for Nancy Pelosi, but I do wonder if numbers would improve if she would announce she won't run for Speaker. There are so many talented candidates who have plans and goals, but it doesn't matter, because all the average sees is Speaker Pelosi and many, many investigations of Trump. I knew all the outsized media focus on how much time would be spent on investigations (which many people can't relate to and likely feel uneasy about) would hurt their numbers, and it looks like it probably has. 

 

The Democrats presumably have lots of detailed items on what they will do to help people if they are elected, but unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, absolutely none of that has broken through. 

 

2018 is 2016 is 2014, and so on and so forth. 

[ReddFoxx]

The person behind Black Americans for the President's Agenda is the insane Vernon Robinson who is actually crazy. He has called himself the Black Jesse Helms and he has failed multiple times at being elected to Congress with unhinged campaigning.

[DRW50]

 

Oh I remember him. He used to get a ton of media attention in the '00s when they were heavily pushing the narrative that black voters would become Republicans for religious reasons. 

[ReddFoxx]

That seems like a lifetime ago. It was really a stretch when that narrative was pushed.

[DramatistDreamer]

Remember when House Of Cards was the only place where you'd see such outrageous political craziness?

 

[DramatistDreamer]

ICYMI,

 

[Khan]

 

Trust me, if he had been running in OK, he'd have been a shoo-in, dead or not.

[Juliajms]

He's obviously not kidding, he's floating the idea, getting people used to it. With any luck Mother Nature will make it a non issue.

 

The fear mongering over this "migrant caravan" is really ridiculous.  A few thousand people at the boarder who cares?

[Khan]

I just hate this misconception that they (and others) are bringing over their worst criminals when we have more than enough criminals of our own to keep us all up at night.

[DramatistDreamer]

There are few things that tickle the GOP's funnybone more than jokes about collusion, corruption and treason. Yucking it up.

 

 

 

Nobody believes this sh*t. Not even the Saudi 'plants' that are on social media promoting this explanation.

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by DramatistDreamer

[Max]

 

I Am A Swede, thank you so much!

 

 

Juliajms, it's really commendable for you to have said this. Back in the 1990s, I thought that the GOP supported Clinton's impeachment because they honestly cared about morals and character. But Trump's rise shows that Republicans (save for a few exceptions) really don't care about these matters. Instead, their desire for impeachment was motivated by politics.

 

 

DramatistDreamer, I think that part of Bernie's problem with reaching minorities was because he had little experience dealing with them during his many decades of being active in Vermont politics. Vermont's a funny state politically, since it's pretty much the only state that is nearly all-white and all-rural, but also very liberal. (A lot of people seem to think that Maine is similar to Vermont politically, but that certainly is no longer the case. Although coastal Maine is still a liberal stronghold, the state has a whole has moved considerably to the right in recent years. This movement is evidenced not only by the fact that Paul LePage was elected governor twice, but also by the fact that Trump lost the state by only 2.96% in 2016.)

 

While I wasn't surprised that Bernie had trouble with minorities, I was surprised that the bitterness of the 2008 primary went away and that Hillary didn't have any trouble winning the minority vote in the Democratic primaries. I suspect (though I could definitely be wrong) that a lot of minorities appreciated the way that Hillary worked for Obama and were willing to let bygones be bygones. But--and this is only my opinion--I always thought that the Obama/Hillary alliance was a very uneasy one, and was formed primarily for their mutual political benefit. For Hillary, being loyal to Obama had the obvious benefit of her inheriting the Obama coalition when she ran for POTUS again in 2016. But Obama benefited as well: had Hillary stayed in the Senate, she may have been a persistent Democratic critic of the former president (with an eye on challenging President Obama in the 2012 Democratic primary). Also, I thought that offering Hillary the Secretary of State position (as opposed to some other high-profile position that seemed to be a better fit, such as Attorney General) was puzzling, since their differences over the Iraq War was the # 1 reason why Obama defeated Hillary in 2008.

 

Regarding Michael Bloomberg, if he wants to run for president, his best option would be to run as an independent. He became very unpopular among liberals during this third term as mayor, and unlike John Kasich (who likely will launch an independent bid in 2020 and form a "fusion" ticket with John Hickenlooper), Bloomberg is wealthy enough to be competitive with the two major parties.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Max

[JaneAusten]

Max it’s good to see you back here. A conservative who can speak to policy versus hyperbole

 

i will challenge you on Maine. I’d call it more independent than republican. And it’s been that way. Olympia Snowe was a Republican Senator from this state, very popular, who was regularly vnamed one of the top 5 senators in congress because she was known for reaching across the aisle. She decided not to run in 2012 because she had gotten disgusted with the overly partisan Washington and particularly her party. As you can see Susan Collins is no Olympia Snowe or Margaret Chase Smith, another admirable GOP Senator from MAine.  And LePage both times with around 38 percent of the vote, both elections with an independent spoiler. And by the way Angus King the other Senator is an independent not a republican.

[DramatistDreamer]

 

I agree that many of Bernie's problems stemmed from the fact that he was only familiar with Vermont style politics but I'm not sure that Bernie himself recognized this fact.  He certainly didn't acknowledge it, even when he was advised that this was the case. 

 

He had no experience governing in a place as diverse as NYC but that didn't stop him from running to Brooklyn in an effort to boost his NYC credentials during the primary campaign to tout Brooklyn as instrumental to shaping him as the person he became in his life.

Aside from that, Bernie just made numerous faux pas on the campaign trail and became caustic when he got cited for them. 

For instance, calling black people in the South 'low information voters' certainly didn't help his case.  Instead of truly acknowledging how his comments could be taken, he insisted that others just didn't understand the spirit in which he uttered those words.  He never went much deeper than that though, just seemed to barrel along.

Bernie seemed unwilling to listen to the concerns of voters of color, insisting his ideology was best.  He came off as a brittle, inflexible unable to adapt know-it-all. 

 

Hillary, on the other hand, during her campaign, spent an hour at a nationally known hip hop radio station and acknowledged her past foibles, especially the super-predator comment, which she apologized for. She acknowledged how hurtful those words would come off.  She also made a fair point that many black churches and community organizations, whose leaders were exasperated by the devastation of the crack crisis on their families and neighborhoods, took a tougher, less forgiving stance and she opted to fall in line with them.

(FWIW, I think those church and community leaders hoped that law enforcement would treat the crack crisis the way they now treat the opioid crisis--with a degree of humanity but soon realized that the people would be much harsher toward their communities, arresting and jailing addicts for long sentences, wreaking even greater devastation in families and communities, but that's another story for another post).

 

At the heart of the matter between Hillary and Obama is that fact that both are pragmatic people.  The emnity stemmed from their two "camps" rather than the two of them.  It was pretty well known that some key Obama campaign staff disliked Hillary but except for maybe Bill (who had his own issues), I don't think there was animosity from Hillary's key campaign staff. People forget that Hillary spent time in the Senate where she was used to quickly putting aside ego to build consensus. And I do think that Obama was genuine in wanting to build that "team of rivals" and believed that Hillary would be a great fit in his cabinet.

FWIW, even considering his remarks in their 2008 Democratic debate where Obama seemed to hesitate and then say "Oh you're likeable enough, Hillary", I honestly think that Obama really didn't think Hillary's 'likeability factor' should matter.  He no doubt, recognized that people's impressions could often be skewed, some people certainly had negative feelings about his wife Michelle (remember that hideous cover of The New Yorker?)  so he knew that the likeability metric was pretty superficial.  I propose that that was of no consequence to him, he wanted a capable, reasonable person he could work with, even if she was tough and I suspect that he knew he'd find that in Hillary. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by DramatistDreamer

[DRW50]

Trump doing his distraction technique again, and also doing more work for Russia - if we pull out of this arms treaty, then Russia can be even more open about developing more nuclear weapons.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/20/trump-russia-nuclear-agreement-withdraw-920043

[DramatistDreamer]