The Swamp

brian wrote:I suppose that is the million dollar question. Wisconsin and to a lesser extent Michigan and Pennsylvania have a history of progressive white voters. It wasn't just African Americans carrying the Dems to winning 6 straight elections there. What will help is if the Democrats can nominate someone who can legitimately speak truth to power about the economic forces that truly run the country. Economic resentment can run two ways and ultimately for most folks is vastly more compelling than white nationalism or gay bashing or the other sideshows that Trump offers.

brian wrote:I suppose that is the million dollar question. Wisconsin and to a lesser extent Michigan and Pennsylvania have a history of progressive white voters. It wasn't just African Americans carrying the Dems to winning 6 straight elections there. What will help is if the Democrats can nominate someone who can legitimately speak truth to power about the economic forces that truly run the country. Economic resentment can run two ways and ultimately for most folks is vastly more compelling than white nationalism or gay bashing or the other sideshows that Trump offers.

Nonlinear FC wrote:https://www.vox.com/2017/11/7/16619800/2017-election-virginia-governor-northam

Imma be a broken record on this shit. The GOP has a historical unpopular president, and a Congress that is pushing wildly unpopular legislation.

Keep that up, please.

L-Jam3 wrote:You're seriously considering Warren as a candidate? She's clearly brilliant, and there aren't many on Capital Hill who understand economic forces, but she'll be over 70 in 2020. You don't see anyone younger that can rally people behind, like a governor or other popular senator?

She'd definitely get votes because she isn't Trump, but don't you think the Dems should consider someone who can run that's more than merely "Not Trump"?

BSF21 wrote:

L-Jam3 wrote:You're seriously considering Warren as a candidate? She's clearly brilliant, and there aren't many on Capital Hill who understand economic forces, but she'll be over 70 in 2020. You don't see anyone younger that can rally people behind, like a governor or other popular senator?

She'd definitely get votes because she isn't Trump, but don't you think the Dems should consider someone who can run that's more than merely "Not Trump"?

I'm all for youthful infusion here, but what's so bad about Liz being 70? Hasn't been an issue for a while has it?

BSF21 wrote:

L-Jam3 wrote:You're seriously considering Warren as a candidate? She's clearly brilliant, and there aren't many on Capital Hill who understand economic forces, but she'll be over 70 in 2020. You don't see anyone younger that can rally people behind, like a governor or other popular senator?

She'd definitely get votes because she isn't Trump, but don't you think the Dems should consider someone who can run that's more than merely "Not Trump"?

I'm all for youthful infusion here, but what's so bad about Liz being 70? Hasn't been an issue for a while has it?

L-Jam3 wrote:You're seriously considering Warren as a candidate? She's clearly brilliant, and there aren't many on Capital Hill who understand economic forces, but she'll be over 70 in 2020. You don't see anyone younger that can rally people behind, like a governor or other popular senator?

She'd definitely get votes because she isn't Trump, but don't you think the Dems should consider someone who can run that's more than merely "Not Trump"?

DSafetyGuy wrote:

L-Jam3 wrote:You're seriously considering Warren as a candidate? She's clearly brilliant, and there aren't many on Capital Hill who understand economic forces, but she'll be over 70 in 2020. You don't see anyone younger that can rally people behind, like a governor or other popular senator?

She'd definitely get votes because she isn't Trump, but don't you think the Dems should consider someone who can run that's more than merely "Not Trump"?

I don't follow politics that closely, but with how the country has become divided in the last decade, how many of you feel that a non-white male or female could win for the Democrats? I ask because of the obvious reaction to Obama based on skin color and Hilary based in some part to her gender ("bitch" and "c*nt" being popular descriptors in some parts, which have obvious ties to her gender).

Obviously there are numerous other attributes, such as age, charisma, policy, and on and on. Maybe another way to ask is "how much of a hit would a Democratic candidate automatically take just on skin color or gender/is that hit survivable?"

brian wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:https://www.vox.com/2017/11/7/16619800/2017-election-virginia-governor-northam

Imma be a broken record on this shit. The GOP has a historical unpopular president, and a Congress that is pushing wildly unpopular legislation.

Keep that up, please.

I think the lede gets buried in that Vox piece frankly. Trump is historically unpopular in a time when the economy is relatively good (at least as far as things like the stock market and unemployment go) which is almost unheard of. If the economy starts to hiccup before the midterms next year it could be a bloodbath for the GOP.

That ties into any potential for impeachment. That's going to be based not on any kind of morality for the GOP leadership but a sense of realpolitik where they might feel compelled to cut bait and hope Pence can hang on to the White House in 2020. Losing the House would be a disaster for a lot of reasons, but the presidency is still the prize because they need to nominate one more right-wing judge to the Supreme Court to really push the most extreme parts of their agenda.

degenerasian wrote:The democrats can run anyone as long as they run on the issues, not play identity politics ...

degenerasian wrote:... not attack Trump ...

degenerasian wrote:They can easily seize the center.

Her son, now a sophomore in college, did not attend the news conference. Ms. Unruh said they decided to go public now because the climate had changed after accusations of sexual assault and harassment against Harvey Weinstein and because victims of sexual misconduct were no longer being blamed.

Nonlinear FC wrote:Did maybe the outrage over "grab her pussy" set the stage for this?

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:Did maybe the outrage over "grab her pussy" set the stage for this?

I hope so.

sancarlos wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:Did maybe the outrage over "grab her pussy" set the stage for this?

I hope so.

Was there a lot of outrage? I don't think so. Seems like the Weinstein/Spacey stuff had more legs.

brian wrote:

sancarlos wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:Did maybe the outrage over "grab her pussy" set the stage for this?

I hope so.

Was there a lot of outrage? I don't think so. Seems like the Weinstein/Spacey stuff had more legs.

There was a lot of outrage, but it was partisan. Republicans only care about sexual abuse when it's being done by Democrats (i.e. Weinstein or Weiner) or if it is someone who is no longer in office (Hastert, etc.)

sancarlos wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:Did maybe the outrage over "grab her pussy" set the stage for this?

I hope so.

Was there a lot of outrage? I don't think so. Seems like the Weinstein/Spacey stuff had more legs.

mister d wrote:The center is made up of people who say things like "I just want to be able to watch a football game" without any intended malice. The center can rot.

“I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…”

mister d wrote:I’m very sorry he has to exist in the future he created. Poor guy.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

degenerasian wrote:The democrats can run anyone as long as they run on the issues, not play identity politics ...

What do you mean by "identity politics"? The next time a video surfaces of a cop shooting an unarmed black guy, or Trump does something else horrible to Latino or Muslim immigrants, the Dems need to stand up. That means identity politics.

degenerasian wrote:... not attack Trump ...

You have to be joking. Trump and his brand of white identity/authoritarian politics pose the greatest threat to the US as a democracy, at least since McCarthy, and probably since the Civil War. It needs to be attacked as strongly as possible as often as possible.

degenerasian wrote:They can easily seize the center.

I guess that depends on what you mean. If you mean "white people who aren't that worked up when police shoot another unarmed black guy," I don't see how the Dems can seize the Center. Unless they remain silent as it keeps happening.

Nonlinear FC wrote:In case folks missed this, very important harbinger...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ae38d508f9

Johnnie wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:In case folks missed this, very important harbinger...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ae38d508f9

If there's one elected official who absolutely needs his ass kicked, it's Paul LePage.

Maine governor says he will not expand Medicaid despite vote

"These are guys with the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty – these types of guys – they come from Connecticut and New York, they come up here, they sell their heroin, they go back home," LePage told a large crowd. "Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue we have to deal with down the road."

degenerasian wrote:
They need to stand up when shit happens to anyone. Treat every situation separate not in general. Not identity politics. An unarmed black guy got shot, maybe the cop made a mistake in one case and was racist in another case.

Attacking Trump isn't working, he just yells fake news.
Just make good liberal policies (like universal healthcare, like raising taxes) and don't be scared, don't compromise. Seize the center.

DSafetyGuy wrote:

sancarlos wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:Did maybe the outrage over "grab her pussy" set the stage for this?

I hope so.

Was there a lot of outrage? I don't think so. Seems like the Weinstein/Spacey stuff had more legs.

Maybe "grab her pussy" and the subsequent debate (and continuing reminders about it) about it helped make people more open to paying attention to accusations.

"Grab her pussy" was something the accused said, not an allegation by a person at the accused.

The Weinstein accusations were allegations from a celebrity (which helps draw initial attention) who simply would not make a statement and walk away (keeping the attention focused on it). Rose McGowan stayed on it and kept hammering people, including those who were wishy-washy about Weinstein's acts. (If people dismissed what she said, she clearly would have kept screaming it from the mountaintops.) When McGowan's accusations were treated as legitimate instead of just being waved away, the support for her makes it easier for others because they see that it happened to someone else (they're not alone) and that they will be supported instead of just ignored.

Joe K wrote:I think Degen is falling victim to two false dichotomies. First, the distinction between supporting marginalized groups (i.e., "identity politics") and pushing an appealing economic message. Democrats can and should do both. Identity politics by itself, without an economic appeal, may not be enough to win. But the solution to Trumpism isn't for Dems themselves to abandon marginalized groups. White voters who might be uncomfortable with so-called "identity politics" might nevertheless vote for Democrats if they find their economic message appealing.

The second false dichotomy is between "attacking Trump" and "sticking to the issues." Criticizing Trump for spelling mistakes or for eating his steak with ketchup is probably counterproductive. But Trump must be attacked for his many misguided policies. In fact, those types of attacks probably played a big part in the Dems' successes this week.

Nonlinear FC wrote:Running against a President (and attacking him along the way) who is polling in the 30s and has disapproval close to 60 percent is a no brainer. It's laughable to suggest otherwise.

The ads in VA (which, of course, everyone in the NoVA market got a massive dose of) were very heavy on "Trump is bad, and I'm going to stand up to his bullshit." Countered by "This guy is soft on crime, bad for the economy." We actually didn't get much of the fake sanctuary city nonsense that hit the airwaves further south, which shows you they were very savvy about what they were doing.

I'm not really sure I even understand the logic employed here. The Democratic base has been fired up for over a year now. The one unifying thing is utter contempt and loathing of Trump. In the weeks running up to this Tuesday, all you heard was how dysfunctional the party was. Donna fucking Brazille out there in the days prior to election, stirring up bullshit, pedaling nonsense.

None of that matter. Tuesday was a tsunami.

So, honestly degen... What the fuck are you even talking about?

degenerasian wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:Running against a President (and attacking him along the way) who is polling in the 30s and has disapproval close to 60 percent is a no brainer. It's laughable to suggest otherwise.

The ads in VA (which, of course, everyone in the NoVA market got a massive dose of) were very heavy on "Trump is bad, and I'm going to stand up to his bullshit." Countered by "This guy is soft on crime, bad for the economy." We actually didn't get much of the fake sanctuary city nonsense that hit the airwaves further south, which shows you they were very savvy about what they were doing.

I'm not really sure I even understand the logic employed here. The Democratic base has been fired up for over a year now. The one unifying thing is utter contempt and loathing of Trump. In the weeks running up to this Tuesday, all you heard was how dysfunctional the party was. Donna fucking Brazille out there in the days prior to election, stirring up bullshit, pedaling nonsense.

None of that matter. Tuesday was a tsunami.

So, honestly degen... What the fuck are you even talking about?

It's a very good sign, Northam ran a good campaign. But it's a small sample size nonlinear. I am not convinced until the House falls in 2018.