|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 27 2018 10:00 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way. Good? Tilleman is a weak fundraiser and behind in the polls. We don't need someone stinking up a competitive district. Competing against the Republican is far more important than some kind of marginal blue versus lighter blue contest. Go read what Hoyer said. All of it sounds fine. Expensive swing districts are not good places to mount a virtue signaling contest. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17285576/steny-hoyer-levi-tillemann-the-intercept-colorado-jason-crow
Democratic leader says he had no input or critical thinking involved in the choice of candidate, is confident that their opponent should leave, and that the primary isn't and shouldn't be an actual choice of the voters but simply a way to avoid breaking campaign finance law by double dipping on donations for two 'races' that are really just one.
Your interpretation of that is "good" and you wonder why people have no faith in Democrats?
On April 27 2018 10:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way. It's not just the DCCC, or the DNC, it's the leadership of the Democratic party from top to bottom across the country, save a few bastions. Demonstrated here by one of the few leaders less popular than these same people's handpicked presidential loser backing the idea of doing the exact opposite of what DNC leadership (Tom Perez) explicitly said they would be doing. I don't know who's supposed to be leading the Democratic party right now, but they seem dead set against it being Bernie, despite him being significantly more popular than they are. bernie doesn't want the position of leader of the democratic party, so it seems rather moot how anyone allegedly feels about that.
That was mostly an afterthought, not the meat of the post but to that end, I'm pretty sure Bernie's been trying to get Democrats to follow his leadership for decades, I don't think he cares one way or the other for titular glory. No doubt, they're still resisting.
|
On April 27 2018 10:00 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way. Good? Tilleman is a weak fundraiser and behind in the polls. We don't need someone stinking up a competitive district. Competing against the Republican is far more important than some kind of marginal blue versus lighter blue contest. Go read what Hoyer said. All of it sounds fine. Expensive swing districts are not good places to mount a virtue signaling contest. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17285576/steny-hoyer-levi-tillemann-the-intercept-colorado-jason-crow
The DCCC needs to stay out of these and let the primaries handle it. Or just not have primaries. They are creating long term problems for themselves for nominal gain.
That being said, taping people without their consent is illegal in a lot of states and a sign of someone who should hold public office.
|
On April 27 2018 10:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 10:00 Wulfey_LA wrote:On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way. Good? Tilleman is a weak fundraiser and behind in the polls. We don't need someone stinking up a competitive district. Competing against the Republican is far more important than some kind of marginal blue versus lighter blue contest. Go read what Hoyer said. All of it sounds fine. Expensive swing districts are not good places to mount a virtue signaling contest. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17285576/steny-hoyer-levi-tillemann-the-intercept-colorado-jason-crow The DCCC needs to stay out of these and let the primaries handle it. Or just not have primaries. They are creating long term problems for themselves for nominal gain. That being said, taping people without their consent is illegal in a lot of states and a sign of someone who should hold public office.
I agree they need to stay out or get rid of them but of the two I think it's pretty clear Hoyer is the one who shouldn't be holding public office, let alone leading the party. As to the recording, it was perfectly legal and basically whistle-blowing, so I don't find it disqualifying or a negative sign in any way.
|
On April 27 2018 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 10:14 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2018 10:00 Wulfey_LA wrote:On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way. Good? Tilleman is a weak fundraiser and behind in the polls. We don't need someone stinking up a competitive district. Competing against the Republican is far more important than some kind of marginal blue versus lighter blue contest. Go read what Hoyer said. All of it sounds fine. Expensive swing districts are not good places to mount a virtue signaling contest. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17285576/steny-hoyer-levi-tillemann-the-intercept-colorado-jason-crow The DCCC needs to stay out of these and let the primaries handle it. Or just not have primaries. They are creating long term problems for themselves for nominal gain. That being said, taping people without their consent is illegal in a lot of states and a sign of someone who should hold public office. I agree they need to stay out or get rid of them but of the two I think it's pretty clear Hoyer is the one who shouldn't be holding public office, let alone leading the party. As to the recording, it was perfectly legal and basically whistle-blowing, so I don't find it disqualifying or a negative sign in any way.
Then you all need to win enough seats and end the DCCC after 2018. But until then, this is the game. They are not going to change unless you remove and they will fight tooth and nail. The only way to get Hoyer out of the 2nd seat is to vote him out in the 2019 congress leadership elections.
I looked it up, it is not illegal in Colorado. But that is a move that would do long term damage to his ability to serve the district, so it’s a not one I support. He is no good to voters if the most of the House isn’t confident their conversations wont be recorded.
|
On April 27 2018 10:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 10:14 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2018 10:00 Wulfey_LA wrote:On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way. Good? Tilleman is a weak fundraiser and behind in the polls. We don't need someone stinking up a competitive district. Competing against the Republican is far more important than some kind of marginal blue versus lighter blue contest. Go read what Hoyer said. All of it sounds fine. Expensive swing districts are not good places to mount a virtue signaling contest. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17285576/steny-hoyer-levi-tillemann-the-intercept-colorado-jason-crow The DCCC needs to stay out of these and let the primaries handle it. Or just not have primaries. They are creating long term problems for themselves for nominal gain. That being said, taping people without their consent is illegal in a lot of states and a sign of someone who should hold public office. I agree they need to stay out or get rid of them but of the two I think it's pretty clear Hoyer is the one who shouldn't be holding public office, let alone leading the party. As to the recording, it was perfectly legal and basically whistle-blowing, so I don't find it disqualifying or a negative sign in any way. Then you all need to win enough seats and end the DCCC after 2018. But until then, this is the game. They are not going to change unless you remove and they will fight tooth and nail. The only way to get Hoyer out of the 2nd seat is to vote him out in the 2019 congress leadership elections. I looked it up, it is not illegal in Colorado. But that is a move that would do long term damage to his ability to serve the district, so it’s a not one I support.
But it's supposed to be a hopeless and futile effort where we're supposed to kowtow to establishment Dems like Hoyer who doesn't even know why he's picking one candidate over the other as by his own admission he wasn't involved in the choice.
+ Show Spoiler +
Libs: "Get out of the race"
Progs: "that's wrong and the opposite of what you said you'd do"
Libs: "Maybe, but winning matters more, if you don't like it win more seats"
Progs: *runs for seat*
**REPEAT**
Before 2018 it was 2016, before that 2014, before that 2012, and so on. Progressives and the rest of left are ready to get off the neoliberal hamster wheel and it's stuff like exposing Dem leadership as was done here that is critical for more to take notice.
I'm not seeing an argument for why what he did was a bad thing.
edit: He is no good to voters if the most of the House isn’t confident their conversations wont be recorded.
He was no good if he listened to Dem leadership and was forced out so they could perpetrate a fraud of a primary. So I'm still not seeing a sound argument for why this was a bad thing for him to do.
|
On April 27 2018 10:00 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 09:08 Kyadytim wrote:Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.
“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.
“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.
“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.” During the conversation, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.
The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election. “It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.” theintercept.comThe DCCC continues being terrible in all the ways that the DNC was that pissed people off in 2016. They're basically at "party elites choose who you can vote for" levels of control over races if they can manage that. It's like they watched the GOP be taken over by populists and thought to themselves "What can we do to get the Democrat party taken over by populists angry at the party establishment?" The basic gist of this article is that a progressive Dem candidate recorded the number two Democrat in the House telling in that the party had chosen a different person to run in the general election a while back, and he should just get out of the way. Good? Tilleman is a weak fundraiser and behind in the polls. We don't need someone stinking up a competitive district. Competing against the Republican is far more important than some kind of marginal blue versus lighter blue contest. Go read what Hoyer said. All of it sounds fine. Expensive swing districts are not good places to mount a virtue signaling contest. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17285576/steny-hoyer-levi-tillemann-the-intercept-colorado-jason-crow
By default, I'm extremely skeptical of anyone who uses "virtue signaling" seriously. As for the fundraising, looking largely at a candidate's ability to raise money is how we end up with bullshit like the rolodex test.
I'm not arguing that more moderate candidates shouldn't win the primaries. The problem here is that the Democrat party establishment is selecting the winners for the primaries before the primaries even get off the ground. People should be nominating candidates because that's who they think has the best chance of taking their issues to congress, not because that's who the party shoved down their throats.
The Dem establishment fucked up big time in backing Clinton in the 2016 presidential primary, destroying a lot of trust in the party. They seem to be intent on compounding their problem by repeating the same thing in races across the country.
Edit: I stuck this in spoilers. I was kind of mad when I wrote it, but I don't disagree with anything I wrote.
+ Show Spoiler +Edit: Also, the guy the party is backing is a corporate lawyer at what is claimed to be a powerful law firm. Fuck the pro-corporate Democrats. Fuck the democrats who voted to weaken consumer financial protections recently. Democrats held power for decades by being the party of the people, and they're giving that away to the populist trend among Republicans. Even if the Republicans aren't actually doing populist things, they're talking a good game, while the Democrats are actively pushing out the people who talk about issues that matter to the working people.
|
It is interesting to see, once again, the differences between the two parties. The Republicans fight it out in the primaries, and, at least before Mitch McConnell got mad at the Tea Party, stay more hands off in the primaries. Then, while some do stay home, conservatives will suck it up and vote for squish Republican 34A in the general if need be. Meanwhile the Democrat party apparatus is very active pre-primary (it's how they did so well in 2006, from what I understand), but miffed progressives are more willing to stay home for the general if they lose. Both have their advantages. But I don't know if this is even true, it just appears to be true. Also number of self-identified conservatives vs self-identified progressives may have something to do with this as well.
I wonder if it is a contributing factor for why the Democrat party is so in sync now. Republicans seem to come in more flavors than Democrats, at least after Democrats got wiped in 2010. But that could be more a function of only the more left-leaning districts surviving as Democrat seats. Recruiting people that "match the district" like in 2006 is probably a better strategy, so I hope the grassroots Democrats don't adopt it.
This is an interesting thing to watch from the perspective of someone not invested in the Democrat party.
|
The DCCC has been around since well before I could vote. In fact it’s been around since 1886. As far as I know this has been a practice for a very long time. They pick the candidate they think has the best chance. The republican version does something similar. This has been the game for over 100 years, in some form or another.
As one of those neoliberals, I will shed no tears for Hoyer if he loses his position as whip. None of my neoliberal centrist friends will either. We don’t like the house leadership. So kick their ass and remove them. But there is no need to tape a conversation like that. Everyone already knows the DCCC plays favorites. It is pretty much all they do.
Edit: the NRCC operate in a similar fashion. It’s just that the Tea Party might have had some funding all on their own from the Kochs and Mercer’s. The progressive wing doesn’t have that luxury and has to scrap like a more traditional political insurgency.
|
On April 27 2018 11:05 Introvert wrote:
It is interesting to see, once again, the differences between the two parties. The Republicans fight it out in the primaries, and, at least before Mitch McConnell got mad at the Tea Party, stay more hands off in the primaries. Then, while some do stay home, conservatives will suck it up and vote for squish Republican 34A in the general if need be. Meanwhile the Democrat party apparatus is very active pre-primary (it's how they did so well in 2006, from what I understand), but miffed progressives are more willing to stay home for the general if they lose. Both have their advantages. But I don't know if this is even true, it just appears to be true. Also number of self-identified conservatives vs self-identified progressives may have something to do with this as well.
I wonder if it is a contributing factor for why the Democrat party is so in sync now. Republicans seem to come in more flavors then Democrats, at least after Democrats got wiped in 2010. But that could be more a function of only the more left-leaning districts surviving as Democrat seats. Recruiting people that "match the district" like in 2006 is probably a better strategy, so I hope the grassroots Democrats don't adopt it.
This is an interesting thing to watch from the perspective of someone not invested in the Democrat party.
Forgive me if I'm missing the sarcasm but really?
Pompeo and Pruitt got confirmed with Democrat votes, hard to imagine a Republican parallel but I could be forgetting some.
On April 27 2018 11:10 Plansix wrote:
The DCCC has been around since well before I could vote. In fact it’s been around since 1886. As far as I know this has been a practice for a very long time. They pick the candidate they think has the best chance. The republican version does something similar. This has been the game for over 100 years, in some form or another.
As one of those neoliberals, I will shed no tears for Hoyer if he loses his position as whip. None of my neoliberal centrist friends will either. We don’t like the house leadership. So kick their ass and remove them. But there is no need to tape a conversation like that. Everyone already knows the DCCC plays favorites. It is pretty much all they do.
I seem to remember the idea that the party was picking candidates and the primaries being a sham being a pretty contentious issue not that long ago. This idea that neoliberals want to remove current Democratic leadership is news to all of us I think.
EDIT: The same thing is coming in the presidential primary after 2018 though the establishment is starting in a much deeper hole than they did when they lied about rallying behind Hillary in the primary.
|
On April 27 2018 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 11:05 Introvert wrote:
It is interesting to see, once again, the differences between the two parties. The Republicans fight it out in the primaries, and, at least before Mitch McConnell got mad at the Tea Party, stay more hands off in the primaries. Then, while some do stay home, conservatives will suck it up and vote for squish Republican 34A in the general if need be. Meanwhile the Democrat party apparatus is very active pre-primary (it's how they did so well in 2006, from what I understand), but miffed progressives are more willing to stay home for the general if they lose. Both have their advantages. But I don't know if this is even true, it just appears to be true. Also number of self-identified conservatives vs self-identified progressives may have something to do with this as well.
I wonder if it is a contributing factor for why the Democrat party is so in sync now. Republicans seem to come in more flavors then Democrats, at least after Democrats got wiped in 2010. But that could be more a function of only the more left-leaning districts surviving as Democrat seats. Recruiting people that "match the district" like in 2006 is probably a better strategy, so I hope the grassroots Democrats don't adopt it.
This is an interesting thing to watch from the perspective of someone not invested in the Democrat party. Forgive me if I'm missing the sarcasm but really? Pompeo and Pruitt got confirmed with Democrat votes, hard to imagine a Republican parallel but I could be forgetting some.
Both Clinton and John Kerry were confirmed with 90+ votes. That's Hillary Clinton, eternal Republican demon.
I've had this discussion with zlefin before, and while there aren't many stats for this type of thing, the idea that the GOP caucus is more divided is not controversial. Meanwhile you are going after very red state Democrats.
Edit: and by Democrat party, I mean elected Democrats. There are what, 5 or less pro-life Democrats in the House? Maybe 2 wishy-washy ones in the Senate? The Democrat party, while not 100% in line, is far more uniform.
|
On April 27 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:05 Introvert wrote:
It is interesting to see, once again, the differences between the two parties. The Republicans fight it out in the primaries, and, at least before Mitch McConnell got mad at the Tea Party, stay more hands off in the primaries. Then, while some do stay home, conservatives will suck it up and vote for squish Republican 34A in the general if need be. Meanwhile the Democrat party apparatus is very active pre-primary (it's how they did so well in 2006, from what I understand), but miffed progressives are more willing to stay home for the general if they lose. Both have their advantages. But I don't know if this is even true, it just appears to be true. Also number of self-identified conservatives vs self-identified progressives may have something to do with this as well.
I wonder if it is a contributing factor for why the Democrat party is so in sync now. Republicans seem to come in more flavors then Democrats, at least after Democrats got wiped in 2010. But that could be more a function of only the more left-leaning districts surviving as Democrat seats. Recruiting people that "match the district" like in 2006 is probably a better strategy, so I hope the grassroots Democrats don't adopt it.
This is an interesting thing to watch from the perspective of someone not invested in the Democrat party. Forgive me if I'm missing the sarcasm but really? Pompeo and Pruitt got confirmed with Democrat votes, hard to imagine a Republican parallel but I could be forgetting some. Both Clinton and John Kerry were confirmed with 90+ votes. That's Hillary Clinton, eternal Republican demon.
Well that's not exactly breaking with the party then is it? I mean wow, I did forget about that, but I don't think it's the comparable I was looking for. If there was one, it would probably be Snow and someone else (if you wanted to look).
EDIT: to be more to the point, I'm looking for something where blue state Republicans broke with the party on someone controversial.
I'm not arguing that Republicans have their stuff together or that they may not be as or more fractured on many issues, just when it comes to voting they tend to fall in line more than Democrats. as you were mentioning is the case with the regular voters.
EDIT2:
On April 27 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
I only speak for my small group of neoliberal assholes. The party leadership is shit. No one is really convinced the progressive leadership would be better, but change can’t hurt. And if it sucks, we can blame the new party leadership.
Looking forward to your opposition to establishment leadership in the coming elections. Better late than never 
|
I only speak for my small group of neoliberal assholes. The party leadership is shit. No one is really convinced the progressive leadership would be better, but change can’t hurt. And if it sucks, we can blame the new party leadership.
|
On April 27 2018 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On April 27 2018 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:05 Introvert wrote:
It is interesting to see, once again, the differences between the two parties. The Republicans fight it out in the primaries, and, at least before Mitch McConnell got mad at the Tea Party, stay more hands off in the primaries. Then, while some do stay home, conservatives will suck it up and vote for squish Republican 34A in the general if need be. Meanwhile the Democrat party apparatus is very active pre-primary (it's how they did so well in 2006, from what I understand), but miffed progressives are more willing to stay home for the general if they lose. Both have their advantages. But I don't know if this is even true, it just appears to be true. Also number of self-identified conservatives vs self-identified progressives may have something to do with this as well.
I wonder if it is a contributing factor for why the Democrat party is so in sync now. Republicans seem to come in more flavors then Democrats, at least after Democrats got wiped in 2010. But that could be more a function of only the more left-leaning districts surviving as Democrat seats. Recruiting people that "match the district" like in 2006 is probably a better strategy, so I hope the grassroots Democrats don't adopt it.
This is an interesting thing to watch from the perspective of someone not invested in the Democrat party. Forgive me if I'm missing the sarcasm but really? Pompeo and Pruitt got confirmed with Democrat votes, hard to imagine a Republican parallel but I could be forgetting some. Both Clinton and John Kerry were confirmed with 90+ votes. That's Hillary Clinton, eternal Republican demon. Well that's not exactly breaking with the party then is it? I mean wow, I did forget about that, but I don't think it's the comparable I was looking for. If there was one, it would probably be Snow and someone else (if you wanted to look).
Well I only mentioned them because you gave that as an example. I think watching the last year and half it it must be obvious that the Democrats are more in line. Perhaps you could chalk that up to them being the minority party, but which Democrats voted for the tax cuts, for instance? None. Cabinet nominations used to be pretty easy, now, in a very short time, almost an entire party has decided to slow down and vote no as much as possible. How did that happen to 40+ Democrats so quickly?
EDIT: to be more to the point, I'm looking for something where blue state Republicans broke with the party on someone controversial.
I'm not arguing that Republicans have their stuff together or that they may not be as or more fractured on many issues, just when it comes to voting they tend to fall in line more than Democrats. as you were mentioning is the case with the regular voters.
Plenty of Republicans voted no on the spending bill (although so did Democrats, so they could signal about DACA mostly), the tax bill, a few GOP senators have killed nominations. If we look back to the Bush years we see this as well, especially with spending, where the president and lots of GOP congress people voted for these large budgets and programs.
edit again:
I mean we have a "freedom Caucus" that was born (sort of) out of the less-conservative-but-still-supposedly-conservative "Republican study committee." There are blue state Republicans with very liberal records in places like Virginia.
|
On April 27 2018 11:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On April 27 2018 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:05 Introvert wrote:
It is interesting to see, once again, the differences between the two parties. The Republicans fight it out in the primaries, and, at least before Mitch McConnell got mad at the Tea Party, stay more hands off in the primaries. Then, while some do stay home, conservatives will suck it up and vote for squish Republican 34A in the general if need be. Meanwhile the Democrat party apparatus is very active pre-primary (it's how they did so well in 2006, from what I understand), but miffed progressives are more willing to stay home for the general if they lose. Both have their advantages. But I don't know if this is even true, it just appears to be true. Also number of self-identified conservatives vs self-identified progressives may have something to do with this as well.
I wonder if it is a contributing factor for why the Democrat party is so in sync now. Republicans seem to come in more flavors then Democrats, at least after Democrats got wiped in 2010. But that could be more a function of only the more left-leaning districts surviving as Democrat seats. Recruiting people that "match the district" like in 2006 is probably a better strategy, so I hope the grassroots Democrats don't adopt it.
This is an interesting thing to watch from the perspective of someone not invested in the Democrat party. Forgive me if I'm missing the sarcasm but really? Pompeo and Pruitt got confirmed with Democrat votes, hard to imagine a Republican parallel but I could be forgetting some. Both Clinton and John Kerry were confirmed with 90+ votes. That's Hillary Clinton, eternal Republican demon. Well that's not exactly breaking with the party then is it? I mean wow, I did forget about that, but I don't think it's the comparable I was looking for. If there was one, it would probably be Snow and someone else (if you wanted to look). Well I only mentioned them because you gave that as an example. I think watching the last year and half it it must be obvious that the Democrats are more in line. Perhaps you could chalk that up to them being the minority party, but which Democrats voted for the tax cuts, for instance? None. Cabinet nominations used to be pretty easy, now, in a very short time, almost an entire party has decided to slow down and vote no as much as possible. How did that happen to 40+ Democrats so quickly?
I think you're right in that there is more diversity in Republican representation as far as political views go, but the tax bill was an easy one for Democrats to oppose, look at defense spending, or countless other votes where Republicans are getting Democrats to break from their party majority.
Republicans have been voting as a block for more than a decade now and as best I can tell, still are. Dissenters have been people opposing people like Hillary dissenting from the majority that approved her (obvi a political punching bag waiting to happen).
As I said before, Snow is the closest I can think of but I can put my finger on an instance where she was a pivotal dissenter from the Republican majority and actually held out and voted against them in recent times. Rand Paul would be another candidate for what I'm imagining but I can't remember an instance where he wasn't cancelled out by Democrats supporting Trump's plans.
EDIT: I think they are both fractured parties really, just along different lines and to different degrees depending on the issues.
|
From bully in chief:
1. Does he realize that the only way he could be president during 2026 is if he was to take a cycle off and get elected again in 2024?
2. Does he even know that the US isn't in the upcoming Wold Cup?
3. Does he recognize he undermines Mexico and Canada by calling it the "US bid"?
4. How much money do you think he would force into US soccer to try and beat the UK if the above happened and he could?
This guy...
|
That Colorado DCCC bullshit brought together a bunch of threads. Personally, I think Crow is more electable than Tillman.
As a separate issue, I live in NY, and we've had a small group of democrats in the state legislature caucusing with the republicans and a democrat governor going along with it, and lately we've been seeing that writ large in Congress. If the choice is between having the party pick a candidate that is going to end up working with republicans or a candidate that might not win in the general election, I'd rather people at least have a candidate to choose that isn't going to vote like a republican.
As yet another issue, my political social circles have been growing increasingly frustrated with the democrat establishment since 2004 and the swiftboating bullshit. They've been sticking with "They go low, we go high" for a while, and in general it hasn't been working. The party has also been drifting to the right on economic issues. Letting organized labor get steamrolled is just one symptom of that,
Now, add on to those two issues that the right wing populist movement effectively took over the republican party and the republican party has control of congress, the white house, and a majority of the state governments. It's pretty damn tempting to want to throw the establishment out. It's fine to have more centrist candidates running in districts where a centrist candidate makes sense, but that should be the decision of the people who live there, not a bunch of career politicals who don't seem to care about the party base.
EDIT: I second what GH said about how the GOP votes. Excluding some really rare occasions like the ACA repeal where a couple of people break with the party and it actually matters, the GOP has been effectively voting as a single entity instead of a collection of people since at least 2010, and it's been working for them.
To really highlight this, if the positions had been reversed and Dem senate leadership had wanted to blockade a Republican president's supreme court nominee from even getting to having a hearing, I'm confident that there would have been enough Democrat dissenters not okay with the idea that the nominee would have at least moved forward.
Of course now if the situation came up (say in 2019 if Dems somehow take the senate) I'd expect the Dems to blockade, because if one side chooses "defect" 100% of the time, it's super irrational to keep choosing "cooperate."
|
On April 27 2018 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 11:24 Introvert wrote:On April 27 2018 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On April 27 2018 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:05 Introvert wrote:
It is interesting to see, once again, the differences between the two parties. The Republicans fight it out in the primaries, and, at least before Mitch McConnell got mad at the Tea Party, stay more hands off in the primaries. Then, while some do stay home, conservatives will suck it up and vote for squish Republican 34A in the general if need be. Meanwhile the Democrat party apparatus is very active pre-primary (it's how they did so well in 2006, from what I understand), but miffed progressives are more willing to stay home for the general if they lose. Both have their advantages. But I don't know if this is even true, it just appears to be true. Also number of self-identified conservatives vs self-identified progressives may have something to do with this as well.
I wonder if it is a contributing factor for why the Democrat party is so in sync now. Republicans seem to come in more flavors then Democrats, at least after Democrats got wiped in 2010. But that could be more a function of only the more left-leaning districts surviving as Democrat seats. Recruiting people that "match the district" like in 2006 is probably a better strategy, so I hope the grassroots Democrats don't adopt it.
This is an interesting thing to watch from the perspective of someone not invested in the Democrat party. Forgive me if I'm missing the sarcasm but really? Pompeo and Pruitt got confirmed with Democrat votes, hard to imagine a Republican parallel but I could be forgetting some. Both Clinton and John Kerry were confirmed with 90+ votes. That's Hillary Clinton, eternal Republican demon. Well that's not exactly breaking with the party then is it? I mean wow, I did forget about that, but I don't think it's the comparable I was looking for. If there was one, it would probably be Snow and someone else (if you wanted to look). Well I only mentioned them because you gave that as an example. I think watching the last year and half it it must be obvious that the Democrats are more in line. Perhaps you could chalk that up to them being the minority party, but which Democrats voted for the tax cuts, for instance? None. Cabinet nominations used to be pretty easy, now, in a very short time, almost an entire party has decided to slow down and vote no as much as possible. How did that happen to 40+ Democrats so quickly? I think you're right in that there is more diversity in Republican representation as far as political views go, but the tax bill was an easy one for Democrats to oppose, look at defense spending, or countless other votes where Republicans are getting Democrats to break from their party majority. Republicans have been voting as a block for more than a decade now and as best I can tell, still are. Dissenters have been people opposing people like Hillary dissenting from the majority that approved her (obvi a political punching bag waiting to happen). As I said before, Snow is the closest I can think of but I can put my finger on an instance where she was a pivotal dissenter from the Republican majority and actually held out and voted against them in recent times. Rand Paul would be another candidate for what I'm imagining but I can't remember an instance where he wasn't cancelled out by Democrats supporting Trump's plans. EDIT: I think they are both fractured parties really, just along different lines and to different degrees depending on the issues.
There clearly is an ongoing Democrat tussle, but not among those currently holding office, so far as I can tell. I didn't mean to imply that they 100% of the time in lockstep, but I think the fact that these nominations are going the way they are is good current evidence of the phenomenon. Nominations are supposed to be easy. The only Democrats that seem to vote FOR these people are super safe and old (Sen. Whitehouse I think has voted for a few?) or red staters looking to save their hides.
I don't know, I don't think my contention is terribly controversial, but maybe from the perspective of someone in the fight, if you will, such as yourself it will seem different. Certainly since 2010 the party is less diverse. You have to agree with me there.
On April 27 2018 11:34 Kyadytim wrote:
To really highlight this, if the positions had been reversed and Dem senate leadership had wanted to blockade a Republican president's supreme court nominee from even getting to having a hearing, I'm confident that there would have been enough Democrat dissenters not okay with the idea that the nominee would have at least moved forward.
I don't want to start a second conversation but I will note that I disagree with this, although which justice that is being replaced prob has some impact. I'm not sure McConnell would have held out for Ginsburg's seat. During the election one of the defining issues was the supreme court and the "Scalia seat." And there were Republicans who at least wanted a vote on Garland, but not allowing it was all on McConnell. They let him take the heat for it. So I disagree.
|
On April 27 2018 11:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:24 Introvert wrote:On April 27 2018 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On April 27 2018 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2018 11:05 Introvert wrote:
It is interesting to see, once again, the differences between the two parties. The Republicans fight it out in the primaries, and, at least before Mitch McConnell got mad at the Tea Party, stay more hands off in the primaries. Then, while some do stay home, conservatives will suck it up and vote for squish Republican 34A in the general if need be. Meanwhile the Democrat party apparatus is very active pre-primary (it's how they did so well in 2006, from what I understand), but miffed progressives are more willing to stay home for the general if they lose. Both have their advantages. But I don't know if this is even true, it just appears to be true. Also number of self-identified conservatives vs self-identified progressives may have something to do with this as well.
I wonder if it is a contributing factor for why the Democrat party is so in sync now. Republicans seem to come in more flavors then Democrats, at least after Democrats got wiped in 2010. But that could be more a function of only the more left-leaning districts surviving as Democrat seats. Recruiting people that "match the district" like in 2006 is probably a better strategy, so I hope the grassroots Democrats don't adopt it.
This is an interesting thing to watch from the perspective of someone not invested in the Democrat party. Forgive me if I'm missing the sarcasm but really? Pompeo and Pruitt got confirmed with Democrat votes, hard to imagine a Republican parallel but I could be forgetting some. Both Clinton and John Kerry were confirmed with 90+ votes. That's Hillary Clinton, eternal Republican demon. Well that's not exactly breaking with the party then is it? I mean wow, I did forget about that, but I don't think it's the comparable I was looking for. If there was one, it would probably be Snow and someone else (if you wanted to look). Well I only mentioned them because you gave that as an example. I think watching the last year and half it it must be obvious that the Democrats are more in line. Perhaps you could chalk that up to them being the minority party, but which Democrats voted for the tax cuts, for instance? None. Cabinet nominations used to be pretty easy, now, in a very short time, almost an entire party has decided to slow down and vote no as much as possible. How did that happen to 40+ Democrats so quickly? I think you're right in that there is more diversity in Republican representation as far as political views go, but the tax bill was an easy one for Democrats to oppose, look at defense spending, or countless other votes where Republicans are getting Democrats to break from their party majority. Republicans have been voting as a block for more than a decade now and as best I can tell, still are. Dissenters have been people opposing people like Hillary dissenting from the majority that approved her (obvi a political punching bag waiting to happen). As I said before, Snow is the closest I can think of but I can put my finger on an instance where she was a pivotal dissenter from the Republican majority and actually held out and voted against them in recent times. Rand Paul would be another candidate for what I'm imagining but I can't remember an instance where he wasn't cancelled out by Democrats supporting Trump's plans. EDIT: I think they are both fractured parties really, just along different lines and to different degrees depending on the issues. There clearly is an ongoing Democrat tussle, but not among those currently holding office, so far as I can tell. I didn't mean to imply that they 100% of the time in lockstep, but I think the fact that these nominations are going the way they are is good current evidence of the phenomenon. Nominations are supposed to be easy. The only Democrats that seem to vote FOR these people are super safe and old (Sen. Whitehouse I think has voted for a few?) or red staters looking to save their hides. I don't know, I don't think my contention is terribly controversial, but maybe from the perspective of someone in the fight, if you will, such as yourself it will seem different. Certainly since 2010 the party is less diverse. You have to agree with me there.
Meh it's mostly not, I just see the Democrats as more divided than you do and Republicans slightly more united than you see them but the rest we pretty much agree on so I don't think it matters too much.
I suppose it's because the surging faction is already in control on the Republican side where the establishment still has dominant control on the Democratic side. But we're both in the currently less powerful (though still influential) factions.
|
I have no doubt that McConnell and the Republican senate would have held out for Ginburg's seat. That had everything to do with Obama nominating someone and a huge push for conservative donors to stop Obama and assure another conservative on the bench.
|
On April 27 2018 11:33 Gahlo wrote:From bully in chief: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/9896502123806924801. Does he realize that the only way he could be president during 2026 is if he was to take a cycle off and get elected again in 2024? 2. Does he even know that the US isn't in the upcoming Wold Cup? 3. Does he recognize he undermines Mexico and Canada by calling it the "US bid"? 4. How much money do you think he would force into US soccer to try and beat the UK if the above happened and he could? This guy...
The conditions that FIFA imposes on host countries is absurd. Fuck hosting that in Canada.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-bc-was-right-to-give-fifa-world-cup-bid-the-boot/
Unlimited foreign money into Canada, 10 year tax exemption, we foot all security costs, exemption from labour laws etc.
Trump can host it at maralago if he wants it that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
