2018 Midterm Elections

[duff]

Republicans never ever ever mouth any bi-partisan platitudes. Only the democrats are forced to/want to mouth that shit. No reason to even pretend. This is a knife fight. The audience isn’t fucking david brooks, it is the profoundly angry and activated democratic base who genuinely could give a shit about bi-partasain concerns.

That may be the case in Maryland, but in middle America it still matters. I wish it didn't. I wish people would believe more like you, but they don't here. To be able to keep some of these seats that were won yesterday, they need to at least act nice and appease their constituents.

[mister d]

So if the Dems don’t repeatedly commit to doing one-sided work towards bipartisanship, middle America will respond by ... continuing to vote for the party that doesn’t bother with bipartisanship?

[brian]

Republicans never ever ever mouth any bi-partisan platitudes. Only the democrats are forced to/want to mouth that shit. No reason to even pretend. This is a knife fight. The audience isn’t fucking david brooks, it is the profoundly angry and activated democratic base who genuinely could give a shit about bi-partasain concerns.

That may be the case in Maryland, but in middle America it still matters. I wish it didn't. I wish people would believe more like you, but they don't here. To be able to keep some of these seats that were won yesterday, they need to at least act nice and appease their constituents.

Yeah, the Republicans not offering any bi-partisan platitudes is one of the reasons why Dems crushed it in purple states like Wisconsin, Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, etc.

If the idea is to sow the fields and fight thermonuclear war with the GOP, I'm not sure that's a fight the Democrats can win. GOP turnout in elections is too consistent from cycle to cycle and maybe the Dems get lucky with the right candidate and catch lightning in a bottle, but the next Democrat to win the presidency is going to be more like Beto O'Rourke and less like AOC, as much as I personally like her.

[Rush2112]

Happy with all the Dem wins in Colorado yesterday. But a little bummed some of the other ballot issues (raising taxes with the money going to schools, especially) failed. I guess I will take what we can get here.

I feel the same way. The entire executive branch and Dem majority in both houses for the first time since 1936 yet the important ballot measures all followed a conservative line of voting. I'm not surprised 112 failed but I thought 110 (as much as I didn't want the sales tax increase) and the school one would pass.

112 had so much industry money behind it I'm not surprised it lost. The tax questions really should have been worded differently. i.e. your taxes will go up 11.67 a year so that we can give 12 million to fund education. The legalise makes it hard.

(I also don't really like the retain judges section.)

[tennbengal]

Republicans never ever ever mouth any bi-partisan platitudes. Only the democrats are forced to/want to mouth that shit. No reason to even pretend. This is a knife fight. The audience isn’t fucking david brooks, it is the profoundly angry and activated democratic base who genuinely could give a shit about bi-partasain concerns.

That may be the case in Maryland, but in middle America it still matters. I wish it didn't. I wish people would believe more like you, but they don't here. To be able to keep some of these seats that were won yesterday, they need to at least act nice and appease their constituents.

Name me one Republican Senator who mouths bi-partisan shit. They don’t. And they win. I grew up and cast my first votes in Ohio and then lived ten years in Tennessee - I know from heartland and deep red. Beto almost won Texas by fighting and going left. In Texas. Donnelly and brededesn got run as dems who ran right. Spare me bi-partisan calls from dems. Fight because that’s what your large base wants and convince more to join you.

David Brooks ain’t the audience. Or shouldnt be.

[tennbengal]

So if the Dems don’t repeatedly commit to doing one-sided work towards bipartisanship, middle America will respond by ... continuing to vote for the party that doesn’t bother with bipartisanship?

This.

[brian]

Republicans never ever ever mouth any bi-partisan platitudes. Only the democrats are forced to/want to mouth that shit. No reason to even pretend. This is a knife fight. The audience isn’t fucking david brooks, it is the profoundly angry and activated democratic base who genuinely could give a shit about bi-partasain concerns.

That may be the case in Maryland, but in middle America it still matters. I wish it didn't. I wish people would believe more like you, but they don't here. To be able to keep some of these seats that were won yesterday, they need to at least act nice and appease their constituents.

Name me one Republican Senator who mouths bi-partisan shit. They don’t. And they win. I grew up and cast my first votes in Ohio and then lived ten years in Tennessee - I know from heartland and deep red. Beto almost won Texas by fighting and going left. In Texas. Donnelly and brededesn got run as dems who ran right. Spare me bi-partisan calls from dems. Fight because that’s what your large base wants and convince more to join you.

David Brooks ain’t the audience. Or shouldnt be.

What was so fucking liberal about Beto's policy positions? I'll wait. He was basically a white version of Obama, right down to the moderate policies that fit into the current Democratic mainstream like a $15/hr minimum wage. I don't know what to tell you, man. If Donnelly and Bredensen tried to run on more liberal policies, they probably still were going to get stomped. They're in red states in seats the Dems were lucky to be holding in the first place.

[brian]

What you're also forgetting is THAT I DON'T WANT THE MOTHERFUCKING DEMOCRATS TO COMPROMISE WITH THESE COCKSUCKERS EITHER.

But there's no downside in pretending that you want to. Literally, zero fucking downside in pretending.

[EnochRoot]

What you're also forgetting is THAT I DON'T WANT THE MOTHERFUCKING DEMOCRATS TO COMPROMISE WITH THESE COCKSUCKERS EITHER.

But there's no downside in pretending that you want to. Literally, zero fucking downside in pretending.

Sure there is. For starters, you need a "news" source to spew misinformation for you 24/7, and you need a viewership that dwarfs CNN/MSNBC combined who feed at that trough nightly.

[tennbengal]

What you're also forgetting is THAT I DON'T WANT THE MOTHERFUCKING DEMOCRATS TO COMPROMISE WITH THESE COCKSUCKERS EITHER.

But there's no downside in pretending that you want to. Literally, zero fucking downside in pretending.

Dispiriting your voters is the downside.

There is zero upside.

[brian]

What you're also forgetting is THAT I DON'T WANT THE MOTHERFUCKING DEMOCRATS TO COMPROMISE WITH THESE COCKSUCKERS EITHER.

But there's no downside in pretending that you want to. Literally, zero fucking downside in pretending.

Dispiriting your voters is the downside.

There is zero upside.

If they get dispirited by meaningless platitudes, then maybe they are a bunch of pussy-ass snowflakes.

[tennbengal]

Tester wins.

[Steve of phpBB]

She literally used the term “the bipartisan marketplace of ideas”. You don't let a group spend 2 years in nonstop bad faith then team up.

Oh my God! You mean a politician might have said something she really didn't mean at a time where it's advantageous to appear bi-partisan! The horror!

Brian- why is it advantageous to appear bi-partisan?

Because appearing bi-partisan is what tens of millions of people seem to want - especially Democrats and "Independents" who tend to lean Democrat. They don't show up on twitter, they don't follow the news closely, but they occasionally vote.

[mister d]

If they get dispirited by meaningless platitudes, then maybe they are a bunch of pussy-ass snowflakes.

Yes, only the biggest of pussies respond to "fuck you" with "fuck you" rather than "lets talk this out".

[Steve of phpBB]

Name me one Republican Senator who mouths bi-partisan shit. They don’t. And they win. I grew up and cast my first votes in Ohio and then lived ten years in Tennessee - I know from heartland and deep red. Beto almost won Texas by fighting and going left. In Texas. Donnelly and brededesn got run as dems who ran right. Spare me bi-partisan calls from dems. Fight because that’s what your large base wants and convince more to join you.

Mitt Romney. Mike Lee. Orrin Hatch. They all mouth it when they are talking to the wider audience.

[HaulCitgo]

Hell the guy from South Carolina (Graham) sounded pretty reasonable on the news this morning. You can't be a polarizing blowhard publicly.

[brian]

Hell the guy from South Carolina (Graham) sounded pretty reasonable on the news this morning. You can't be a polarizing blowhard.

I don't get the argument that because Trump is good at stirring up his base by being a loudmouth dick that Democrats need to respond by being loudmouth dicks.

I think two years of Trump's approval ratings and the election results last night prove that a pretty decent majority of Americans don't want that either. It's dispiriting that there's still so much support for Trump and I totally get that. It depresses the fuck out of me too, but sometimes the answer isn't fighting fire with fire. Sometimes the answer is fighting fire with water.

[tennbengal]

Tester wins.

Bump.

Because I think holding the senate losses to three seats may be a big deal in 2020.

[brian]

Tester wins.

Bump.

Because I think holding the senate losses to three seats may be a big deal in 2020.

It absolutely will. That map is wide open in 2020.

[brian]

Hell the guy from South Carolina (Graham) sounded pretty reasonable on the news this morning. You can't be a polarizing blowhard.

I don't get the argument that because Trump is good at stirring up his base by being a loudmouth dick that Democrats need to respond by being loudmouth dicks.

I think two years of Trump's approval ratings and the election results last night prove that a pretty decent majority of Americans don't want that either. It's dispiriting that there's still so much support for Trump and I totally get that. It depresses the fuck out of me too, but sometimes the answer isn't fighting fire with fire. Sometimes the answer is fighting fire with water.

I mean, if you want to take a national lesson from Beto, take that one. He barely mentioned Trump on the campaign trail and I think the national Dems took notice of that as well (and in some respects probably informed it).

[tennbengal]

I don't understand how exercising the oversight functions that come with House leadership and control with regard to the most corrupt administration/cabal in US history is stooping to their level.

To the extent mouthing bi-partisan platitudes keeps them from doing their jobs with regard to the white house, I am against it. To the extent anyone is arguing the lessons from the mid-terms are people just want to leave well enough alone with respect to Trump, I disagree. It is a fundamental misread of individual house races to believe that people did not not vote, in huge numbers, as a check on Trump and a repudiation of Trump. The dems need to honor that.

[Joe K]

I think some of you guys are conflating temperament with bipartisanship. There a real electoral benefit to being professional and even-keeled. I’m not sure there’s any significant benefit to watering down your policy agenda in an attempt to find common ground with an extreme far-right party that consistently takes efforts at compromise as an opportunity to move further right.

[tennbengal]

I think some of you guys are conflating temperament with bipartisanship. There a real electoral benefit to being professional and even-keeled. I’m not sure there’s any significant benefit to watering down your policy agenda in an attempt to find common ground with an extreme far-right party that consistently takes efforts at compromise as an opportunity to move further right.

I agree with both parts of this. I don't trust Pelosi on the second one. At. All.

[tennbengal]

tl/dr - Obama's greatest failure as President was chasing bi-partisanship for eight years. The second the Dems regain one of the levers of government, they start up with bi-partisan talk again. I don't think it gets them anywhere good.

[brian]

I think some of you guys are conflating temperament with bipartisanship. There a real electoral benefit to being professional and even-keeled. I’m not sure there’s any significant benefit to watering down your policy agenda in an attempt to find common ground with an extreme far-right party that consistently takes efforts at compromise as an opportunity to move further right.

I agree with both parts of this. I don't trust Pelosi on the second one. At. All.

And I think they've really learned their lesson here. I'm honestly not really sure where there's room for them legislate to their right anyway. The country now firmly polls in the sweet spot of where most of the House Dems are. There's almost no one to the right of the general public in the House (amongst Dems) on almost anything.

ETA: And I think they learned that lesson with the help of Obama's failures. I think (and I believe this will be borne out when his memoirs come out) that he probably would admit as much.

[tennbengal]

The country now firmly polls in the sweet spot of where most of the House Dems are. There's almost no one to the right of the general public in the House on almost anything.

And THAT is what she should have said today.

But...she didn't.

Hence, my reaction.

[Joe K]

tl/dr - Obama's greatest failure as President was chasing bi-partisanship for eight years. The second the Dems regain one of the levers of govyernment, they start up with bi-partisan talk again. I don't think it gets them anywhere good.

Agreed. Obama bent over backwards to chase bipartisan support for the ACA, to the point where the bill was literally drafted by insurance industry lobbyists. And yet the GOP still acted like he was giving control of the US healthcare system to the reanimated corpse of Leon Trotsky.

[brian]

The country now firmly polls in the sweet spot of where most of the House Dems are. There's almost no one to the right of the general public in the House on almost anything.

And THAT is what she should have said today.

But...she didn't.

Hence, my reaction.

I mean, we'll see of course but I don't see how it was really that big of a deal. The coalition they built to take back the House -- like it or not -- includes a lot of suburban moderate Republicans who eat up shit like bi-partisanship.

The trick in the next two years is going to be showing and telling those people that the policies the Democrats ran on could be passed if the Republicans would only work with them. In effect, it's poker.

As a theoretical, how would you feel if the House Dems tried to work out a deal to raise the minimum wage to $13 instead of $15. Is that capitulation or bi-partisanship? And how meaningful would it be to million of Americans if it actually really did pass at $13?

But here's the thing -- the Republicans don't want to negotiate of course. We all know. We've been arguing about it all morning. So the trick is going to be going through the motions on this stuff and then forcing the Republicans to call their bluff, which we all know they're not going to do. A raise to the minimum wage isn't probably going to pass the Senate for almost any amount.

So start at $15, pass the bill and then say you're willing to work with GOP senators on a compromise. Which it fails because it will, then strike.

Then rinse and repeat with a half-dozen other things.

[Pruitt]

Just read this stunning tidbit in the Post's roundup of election results...

A law that allowed Louisiana juries to convict someone of a felony without a unanimous verdict will end, thanks to a new state amendment.

Amendment 2 was passed by voters Tuesday and will require unanimous verdicts for felony convictions in all crimes that take place after 2018, NOLA.com reported. Prior to the new legislation, Louisiana and Oregon were the only states that allowed juries to send people to prison without a unanimous verdict.

Sen. J.P. Morrell, a New Orleans Democrat who sponsored the legislation, thanked voters during a victory party Tuesday, saying, “You have fundamentally changed criminal justice in Louisiana.”

“You, now, ladies and gentlemen have ended 138 years of Jim Crow,” Morrell said.

Before the amendment, a 12-person jury verdict of 11-1 or 10-2 was enough to imprison someone in Louisiana without the possibility of parole, according to NOLA.com. The state switched from requiring unanimous juries in the late 19th century. In 1974, the threshold for conviction was raised from a 9-3 jury verdict to a 10-2 verdict as part of a compromise.

Norris Henderson, a prominent advocate for ex-offenders in New Orleans, told NOLA.com that Amendment 2 will change the landscape of mass incarceration in the state. Others, such as John Legend, have argued that the previous system was antiquated and rooted in white supremacy.

“This is probably the most important ballot measure ever in my lifetime,” Henderson said.

[mister d]

When whatever inevitable awful thing that's going to happen does happen, the Dems should have completely insulated themselves from being involved, both in action and in soundbite. They should be a party of full on resistance to this office, not one that's willing to give and take for small gains that would be ripped right back if they lose the house again. There should be no bipartisan efforts with the Rs as long as they're standing with Trump. I have no doubt history will look horribly on them if they all work nice until 2020.

[tennbengal]

I think the Dems should send whatever bills they want to send and not pre-discuss anything. I don't trust Pelosi to do that. McConnell is a pure snake and Schumer a capitulating bi-partisan festishist himself, for whom being bi-partisan means bending over. I dearly miss Harry Reid. I need Pelosi or whoever is in leadership in the House to be more like Harry Reid was. And that starts with not talking about reaching out. The dems won a huge victory last night. Fucking act like it. Talk about how they now set the agenda - even though McConnell can check them. But they need to big dick swagger, because we've seen that does move people. Simpering bi-partisan appeals only moves Chuck Todd and David Brooks.

[mister d]

And Brian ooooooohhhhhhh burrrnnnnnnn!!!!!!!

[brian]

I think the Dems should send whatever bills they want to send and not pre-discuss anything. I don't trust Pelosi to do that. McConnell is a pure snake and Schumer a capitulating bi-partisan festishist himself, for whom being bi-partisan means bending over. I dearly miss Harry Reid. I need Pelosi or whoever is in leadership in the House to be more like Harry Reid was. And that starts with not talking about reaching out. The dems won a huge victory last night. Fucking act like it. Talk about how they now set the agenda - even though McConnell can check them. But they need to big dick swagger, because we've seen that does move people. Simpering bi-partisan appeals only moves Chuck Todd and David Brooks.

You didn't answer my question. If the Dems can work out a deal to raise the minimum wage to even let's say only $12, would you take it?

[tennbengal]

I think the Dems should send whatever bills they want to send and not pre-discuss anything. I don't trust Pelosi to do that. McConnell is a pure snake and Schumer a capitulating bi-partisan festishist himself, for whom being bi-partisan means bending over. I dearly miss Harry Reid. I need Pelosi or whoever is in leadership in the House to be more like Harry Reid was. And that starts with not talking about reaching out. The dems won a huge victory last night. Fucking act like it. Talk about how they now set the agenda - even though McConnell can check them. But they need to big dick swagger, because we've seen that does move people. Simpering bi-partisan appeals only moves Chuck Todd and David Brooks.

You didn't answer my question. If the Dems can work out a deal to raise the minimum wage to even let's say only $12, would you take it?

Sure! As long as they don't pre-negotiate it. Send bills up with everything they want and go from there. That's what I expect. They don't have the Senate, they will need to negotiate at some point as a natural part of governing. But no fucking need to dry hump the DC fetish of bi-partisan. Just legislate.

[mister d]

Hey, maybe they can work in a bipartisan manner to replace Jeff Sessions, who just resigned!

[tennbengal]

Hey, maybe they can work in a bipartisan manner to replace Jeff Sessions, who just resigned!

Other thread!

[mister d]

All the same.

[HaulCitgo]

tl/dr - Obama's greatest failure as President was chasing bi-partisanship for eight years. The second the Dems regain one of the levers of govyernment, they start up with bi-partisan talk again. I don't think it gets them anywhere good.

Agreed. Obama bent over backwards to chase bipartisan support for the ACA, to the point where the bill was literally drafted by insurance industry lobbyists. And yet the GOP still acted like he was giving control of the US healthcare system to the reanimated corpse of Leon Trotsky.

But he actually got the biggest piece of social welfare legislation in a generation passed. So I'm not really getting the critique. Whatever he did it worked.

As for Graham it wasn't the litigators tone, it was his words when he said he thought Dems and Republicans could work together to pass immigration and infrastructure bills. And he probably needs to be seen as the polarizing figure locally.

[Joe K]

tl/dr - Obama's greatest failure as President was chasing bi-partisanship for eight years. The second the Dems regain one of the levers of govyernment, they start up with bi-partisan talk again. I don't think it gets them anywhere good.

Agreed. Obama bent over backwards to chase bipartisan support for the ACA, to the point where the bill was literally drafted by insurance industry lobbyists. And yet the GOP still acted like he was giving control of the US healthcare system to the reanimated corpse of Leon Trotsky.

But he actually got the biggest piece of social welfare legislation in a generation passed. So I'm not really getting the critique. Whatever he did it worked.

As for Graham it wasn't the litigators tone, it was his words when he said he thought Dems and Republicans could work together to pass immigration and infrastructure bills. And he probably needs to be seen as the polarizing figure locally.

Wait, you think Lindsey Graham is actually a bipartisan compromiser? The same Lindsey Graham who is an extreme warmonger and viciously dismissed the allegations brought by Kavanaugh’s accusers?

[HaulCitgo]

No. That's the point though. Same as pelosi.