American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Dems held the House and a Fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate not even a decade ago. Republicans have held all three branches not even six months. Once health care comes to a head they will be deeply unpopular. Dems need to figure out what their health care message is more than Russia if they actually wanna win some red seats.

Totally agree here.

The MSM needs to stop focusing so much on Russia and conspiracies and coverups. All that drama plays directly into Trump's brand of politics.

Focus on policies, where Trump has A) No experience. B) Awful advisors. C) Terrible results.

There's only so many times Trump can say he can offer the bigliest health care without any results, or having people lose their coverage before they turn on him.

I'm totally sick of all the "conspiracy" crap. I want to see more of his policies like tax reform and actual foreign policy rather than BREAKING NEWS about Sessions and Comey.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

We are all going to ****ing die

I seriously think he wants to see the world burn.

He's an obese old turd od'ing on Kentucky Fried.

He's got nothing to lose.

We could have had such a nice world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dino7c]

Democrats need to stop with the excuses and find the real reason they lost and continue to lose. The "Trump is moron" campaign isn't gonna cut it. He is a moron and he kicked your ass.

And STFU about the approval rating, these are the same polls that had Hillary winning. Fool me once.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Democrats still don't have any sort of message. The opportunity is clearly there, while they haven't won anything they still have significantly over performed in some pretty red areas. They just need to either rally behind the Bernie wing, or find another Obama to unify all elements of the party, but they need to get it together pretty quickly here. Being anything other than Trump can only go so far.

Exactly. I know Perez and Ellison are kinda running the show for the Dems, but there's no real face to the party right now. Trump is a moron and is a terrible leader. We all get it. But what's the alternative? You don't have to cart out the 2020 Dem candidate tomorrow, but they need to have something to rally behind.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Totally agree here.

The MSM needs to stop focusing so much on Russia and conspiracies and coverups. All that drama plays directly into Trump's brand of politics.

Focus on policies, where Trump has A) No experience. B) Awful advisors. C) Terrible results.

There's only so many times Trump can say he can offer the bigliest health care without any results, or having people lose their coverage before they turn on him.

I'm totally sick of all the "conspiracy" crap. I want to see more of his policies like tax reform and actual foreign policy rather than BREAKING NEWS about Sessions and Comey.

You give the American electorate way, way too much credit for giving a hot half a damn about policy.
Ask just about any Trump voter what they feel about US foreign policy and they're going to give you a half-assed "we need to stop ISIS" and leave it at that, because the vast majority of voters in this country don't care. Half the reason Trump voters turned out is because he's a name they recognize and equate (misguidedly) with success. They didn't actually care about policy--otherwise all those rust belt states whose uninsured rates dropped dramatically under Obama wouldn't have voted for the guy bragging how he was going to take away their healthcare.

For better or worse, conspiracy gets attention. Policy is on CSPAN with 10 people watching. It sucks, but that's the reality of life in the US. If it was Ted Cruz and not Celebrity Apprentice Host Donald Trump that had run on the exact same platform as Trump did, he may well have lost, because all the dingbats who voted for an "outsider" would've stayed home. Outside of Republican voters who would vote for a tree stump with an (R) next to his name, Trump's base didn't love him because of policy reasons. Trump's base voted because of Lock Her Up and Build That Wall the same way Obama's base voted because of Hope and Change and Yes We Can.

Originally Posted by dino7c

Democrats need to stop with the excuses and find the real reason they lost and continue to lose. The "Trump is moron" campaign isn't gonna cut it. He is a moron and he kicked your ass.

And STFU about the approval rating, these are the same polls that had Hillary winning. Fool me once.

Trump did not kick Clinton's ass. Full stop.

He won by the narrowest margin in four swing states. He got beaten pretty handily in the popular vote. That isn't an ass-kicking, that's a BS system giving a guy a win because Nebraska's votes count more than California's.

Given that the Supreme Court is about to finally hear a gerrymandering case, it appears democrats are attempting to do something about the real reason they lost and continue to lose. They continue to win more votes than Republicans and yet they still manage to lose elections. The problem isn't the voters, the problem is the system itself.

I'm not terribly worried about the Ossoff loss. It's painful if only because dear sweet lord how do you vote for a woman who flat out tells you that she doesn't think people deserve to make enough money to live? But it's a red district in a red state. Not entirely shocking that the seat was lost.

One of the biggest issues facing Democrats is that a huge number of them have actual principles that they believe in and stick to--whereas the GOP seems willing to win at all costs, no matter what moral ugliness is involved. A chunk of Democrats are still clinging to their souls, Republicans sold theirs off the minute they fell in step behind Trump. So the Democrats have divisions between left and center, but the GOP is more than happy to cater to the far right nutjobs that have taken over their party. It's a problem, yes, but it's not so easy as "just pick a face!" because the party has several different factions--and you can't go too far left or too close to the center without alienating part of that base.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ction-matters/

Effectively if the results from the other special elections represented the national picture they should have won this seat. This is the worst democratic performance in a special election thus far.

You are correct that depending how you model the previous vote you can twist the result in a different manner but this is not a strong red district as your plus 33 number would indicate.

Optically though it is worse than the statistics show. A loss here presented a credible threat to republicans in what should be safe seats. Without that threat from the left the republicans will continue to follow Trump. Now this might be good for democrats in 2018 but certainly bad for America.

Sorry, 538's article is garbage. Their statistical model is pretty much crap and ignores the history of the district itself. You want to talk about twisting statistics to forward their narrative, that is what 538 did in their "analysis" of this special election. The only thing that made this election any different from the previous elections is the slowly changing demographics of the district itself. People aren't changing their minds, more people with different mindsets are moving into the district and changing the dynamics.

Ossoff's support numbers didn't change much during this whole process. He maintained his support but lost as the Republican support all rallied behind their party candidate. The numbers are not reflective of any messaging, because people voted along party lines. That is the way it is in much of the US, but that is slowly changing. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with policy or messaging, because people don't understand, nor care, about either. They vote their perceived values and stick with that, a behavior that changes very little for the individual.

The Democrats made inroads here, but only because the demographics have changed. Messages have little impact on voters in certain parts of the United States. People vote a certain way because that is the way it has been for decades. Thankfully, because of improved education and exposure to greater diversity in schools, attitudes are shifting in the younger generations and breaking the Republican grip in these regions. The GOP is slowly dying, along with the shrinking base they so desperately rely upon to vote for them. The number of angry old white men in the USA shrinks everyday. This bodes well for Democrats and poorly for Republicans.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean to say the only made inroads because the demographics have changed and not because, you know, the current Republican President is least popular President at this point in any Presidency ever kind of selling things a bit short. I do think Georgia and Texas will become purple states down the line, but that's probably a generation away at least. These close results in red districts wouldn't be happening with a Mitt Romney as President. That's why the Dems need to get it together, they have a unique window here they can take advantage of. Would be a massive blunder to not get something out of it.

[ResAlien]

Another part of the issue is that whilst Republicans infight during the primary process they then circle the wagons around their candidate once elected. Dems are so damn steadfast that their particular candidate and ONLY their candidate is the right choice. The Democrat base is the personification of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Fuzz]

So much winning.

Ford Motor Company will move production of its small Focus sedan to China starting in 2019, and then ship the vehicles back for North American customers for the first time ever.
Ford already makes some Focus cars in China, but starting in 2019, Ford Focus cars sold in North America will be made there, too. It will mark the first time the automaker will make cars in China and export them back to the United States.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ford...hina-1.4170830
Got Ford to cancel a plant in Mexico, and move it back to, oh...wait. China!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Another part of the issue is that whilst Republicans infight during the primary process they then circle the wagons around their candidate once elected. Dems are so damn steadfast that their particular candidate and ONLY their candidate is the right choice. The Democrat base is the personification of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Wait... you think this is a positive thing about the Republican model that Democrats should emulate? This tendency leads to absolute nutbars being nominated, and then embraced and thereby legitimized by the party. If you were making a top five list of ways the USA got to this ####ed-up state, this would be on it. Am I just not getting what you're saying here?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait... you think this is a positive thing about the Republican model that Democrats should emulate? This tendency leads to absolute nutbars being nominated, and then embraced and thereby legitimized by the party. If you were making a top five list of ways the USA got to this ####ed-up state, this would be on it. Am I just not getting what you're saying here?

No it's not a positive but it is a reality. Not that the Democrats should emulate then but I'm pointing out that the splintering of the Democrat party vs the homogenous nature of the Republican party is one of the reasons we will continue to lose. Republicans care about one thing: winning. They understand it's a binary system. One of two parties has to win. By their very nature Dems are idealists and idealists often refuse to bend even when it might be beneficial overall. No one is saying vote lock step with party but the my candidate or no one mentality of the Democrats hurts them.

What's better: Don wins and we are in the disaster we see now or calm down the Tea Party like rhetoric, get your party elected to the executive office, and then work towards more progressive goals?

Or do you think the Android like nature of the democratic party will win over the Apple like unity of the Republican party? In the end theory is great but practicality and reality have to set in eventually.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait... you think this is a positive thing about the Republican model that Democrats should emulate? This tendency leads to absolute nutbars being nominated, and then embraced and thereby legitimized by the party. If you were making a top five list of ways the USA got to this ####ed-up state, this would be on it. Am I just not getting what you're saying here?

I think he's just stating it as a reason why Republicans are able to win elections right now, and not necessarily saying it's a good or bad thing.

It's an interesting topic. So far, it is the very socialist minded democrats that are the ones who won't get behind the moderate/centrist democrats. Some of their reason are self-sabotaging, but some of them legitimately believe that the establishment democrats are doing nothing for them, so they don't care to vote for them. And there are some who (probably foolishly) see hope in Trump's message.

I wonder what would happen if the reverse was true, and someone like Bernie Sanders won a nomination. The far-left voters would come out in force, but I would bet the more moderate voters would still vote for Sanders in say a Trump v Sanders election. I don't agree with a whole lot of Sanders proposals, but I don't think I would hesitate to vote for him against someone like Trump. They would surely lose some independents, but it may be a winning formula to assume that the moderate democrats will be on your side no matter what, and go with the further left candidate.

[ResAlien]

Congressional Black Caucus expected to decline meeting with Trump. They're not interested in being used as photo op props by the reality show president

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-caucus-239785

[Thor]

Spoiler!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

No it's not a positive but it is a reality. Not that the Democrats should emulate then but I'm pointing out that the splintering of the Democrat party vs the homogenous nature of the Republican party is one of the reasons we will continue to lose.

I do agree with this, though I think the solution is that the Democratic party gets its act together and decides what it stands for. Are you the party of Sanders and Ellison or the party of Perez and Obama? Trying to be both is what's causing the splintering.

Republicans care about one thing: winning. They understand it's a binary system. One of two parties has to win.

And it's twisted them into a knot that they can't untie, which now looks like it might be a death knell. Or at least something that requires a reboot. The party is now being held hostage by not just its worst elements but humanity's.

What's better: Don wins and we are in the disaster we see now or calm down the Tea Party like rhetoric, get your party elected to the executive office, and then work towards more progressive goals? Or do you think the Android like nature of the democratic party will win over the Apple like unity of the Republican party? In the end theory is great but practicality and reality have to set in eventually.

I'm confused because now it sounds again like you're arguing for the Democrats to do likewise and mimic the GOP model, after saying earlier that they shouldn't emulate it.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I wonder what would happen if the reverse was true, and someone like Bernie Sanders won a nomination. The far-left voters would come out in force, but I would bet the more moderate voters would still vote for Sanders in say a Trump v Sanders election. I don't agree with a whole lot of Sanders proposals, but I don't think I would hesitate to vote for him against someone like Trump. They would surely lose some independents, but it may be a winning formula to assume that the moderate democrats will be on your side no matter what, and go with the further left candidate.

Against Trump, I'd like to hope so, but I'm not that convinced, because he'd be labelled a commie. Plus, hopefully it won't always be Trumps. Against Rubio (or Romney or McCain) Sanders would get obliterated.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I do agree with this, though I think the solution is that the Democratic party gets its act together and decides what it stands for. Are you the party of Sanders and Ellison or the party of Perez and Obama? Trying to be both is what's causing the splintering.

But this doesn't really apply lock-step for all democrats, all districts, etc. The message needs to be bottom up--you want progressives, NY, California? Vote in progressive senators, representatives. At the local level, idealism can be a powerful tool. At the same time, a progressive candidate who could clean up in Massachusetts is not going to do well in even a blue county in Georgia.

At the federal level, you need a candidate who appeals to as many of the 300 million+ people in the country as possible. That's where your centrists come in. Idealism is wonderful, but it has to be tempered by some grasp of reality and awareness of the world around you, and the Bernie or Bust types are doing more harm than good because they refuse to see the forest for the trees. You can't expect a country where half the voters think the minimum wage should be abolished to jump for joy at a candidate wanting to double that wage. It can't be all or nothing, you have to compromise at some point.

I'm confused because now it sounds again like you're arguing for the Democrats to do likewise and mimic the GOP model, after saying earlier that they shouldn't emulate it.

Literally no one is suggesting that you pick the worst parts of the Democratic party and rally behind them, which is what the GOP has done. The suggestion is that you rally behind the candidate most likely to win elections, be it at the local, state or federal level. But the main message needs to be that even if a democrat isn't perfect, rally behind the best option, because it sure as hell isn't going to be whatever tea party disaster the GOP is putting out there.

Democrats are so busy fighting over semantics that they don't realize they're giving the GOP the win. It's like complaining that Ossoff wasn't progressive enough, meanwhile the other option is a woman who wants to take adoption rights from gay couples and doesn't believe in a living wage. Stop fighting tiny battles amongst yourselves and look at the big picture.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Totally agree here.

The MSM needs to stop focusing so much on Russia and conspiracies and coverups. All that drama plays directly into Trump's brand of politics.

Focus on policies, where Trump has A) No experience. B) Awful advisors. C) Terrible results.

There's only so many times Trump can say he can offer the bigliest health care without any results, or having people lose their coverage before they turn on him.

I'm totally sick of all the "conspiracy" crap. I want to see more of his policies like tax reform and actual foreign policy rather than BREAKING NEWS about Sessions and Comey.

The "MSM" has no obligation to focus on any one story over another other than that story's ability to drive viewers and readers to watch their programs and read their newspapers.

It is Democratic politicians and staffers who should be driving the policy conversation, taking the opportunity to do so when brought on television, asked for quotes, or put on the radio.

It is also difficult for the media to cover Trump's policies when he essentially has no policies. He's running a skeleton crew, signing whatever Congress passes, tweeting, and golfing. There's nothing in there to make people want to look at your newspaper. The Russia story clearly drives viewership, therefore the media organizations owe it to their shareholders to pursue that story.

If you think the media has a "higher" obligation, then your beef is with capitalism and the ability for media outlets to be for-profit, publicly-traded or privately-held enterprises.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Idealism is wonderful, but it has to be tempered by some grasp of reality and awareness of the world around you, and the Bernie or Bust types are doing more harm than good because they refuse to see the forest for the trees.

Well, great, I agree again, but this argument was completely ineffective in getting them to vote for Hillary. Whatever you think the Dems should do to bounce back, there's no arguing that Resalien is right, the party is splintered and a large part of the reason we are where we are is because the wing of the party you're admonishing doesn't want to hear from you. They want their guys, not your centrist establishment types who appeal to the broad center, just like the Tea Party wanted their guys. If you don't give them their guys, they're not going to vote for someone else's.

But the main message needs to be that even if a democrat isn't perfect, rally behind the best option, because it sure as hell isn't going to be whatever tea party disaster the GOP is putting out there.

This is how things go from terrible to even worse, though, if you have a Democratic version of the Tea Party who nominates their own particular flavour of nutbar and the establishment of the party shrugs and says "well, it's still better than what they're serving across the aisle". That's literally the end of the country; I seriously doubt there's a road back from that place.

[CliffFletcher]

Dan Carlin addresses the rising tide of political violence and a polarized America in his latest Common Sense podcast. A few highlights:

* Recent attacks are the 'canaries in the coal mine' that show how far gone America is down the route towards legitimizing political violence. Right now a few whackos are motivated by the climate of hate. Ratchet the heat up a few more degrees and the number of participants will get bigger.

* Over 14 months in 1969-70, there were 40,000 political bombings, attempted bombings, and bomb threats in the U.S. (over 80 a day), killing 43. With today's media, how would Americans cope with that number of incidents? How many freedoms would they surrender? How long before they sought out totalitarianism to save them from chaos?

* There's no real possibility of a resolution to this undeclared civil war. Not even a clear goal for either side, besides expressing hate. The system isn't set up to resolve emotional conflicts.

* The media makes billions from stoking anger and polarization. Although they don't really want to foment violence, they can't pull back as long as their business model is based on selling heat and not light.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by dino7c

And STFU about the approval rating, these are the same polls that had Hillary winning. Fool me once.

No. Are you serious, really? Did you pull this opinion from Fox or a Trump tweet? An approval poll is not the same as predicting the vote of a future election.