|
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 May 10 2018 19:40 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 19:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 19:24 Womwomwom wrote:On May 10 2018 15:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 15:08 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 13:27 Plansix wrote:
McCain opposes her and a bunch of republicans are undecided. Manchin is a peice of shit, but West Virginia is not known for its quality Democratic challenges. I'm not sure by what measure Manchin is supposed to be better than Paula Swearengin? Right and she lost terribly because West Virginia is... West Virginia. She lost but she got more votes than any of the Republicans (given their votes were more split) with the entire Democratic machine behind her opponent and starting with 0 name recognition. Worth noting Bernie Sanders beat Hillary in WV by more than 15%. The whole "It's West Virginia, so it's either someone who supports Trump most of the time or someone who suppoorts Trump all of the time" doesn't mean Manchin should be welcome in the party. If he actually cares about the things Dems want his vote on, changing the letter after his name wouldn't change his votes anyway. So let him run as the Republican-lite/Centrist he is and have the Democrat be a Democrat. But this whole "we need him" stuff just isn't an acceptable argument to me. I don't buy this "WV is WV so we have to settle for Manchin" argument in the slightest. If that was the case Bernie wouldn't have beat Hillary there. EDIT: Also let's not pretend Democrats think primaries are supposed to be real democratic exercises, they've made abundantly clear they are publicity stunts. I would say Clinton had more of a systematic advantage than Manchin. Having complete control of the party is a lot more intense than being heavily backed. I really think West Virginia just likes Manchin. Bernie winning West Virginia should have boded poorly for Manchin, right? West Virginia from everything I've read is no different from any mining town in Queensland or Western Australia. For them, then Labor PM Julia Gillard was the actual devil for even suggesting a resources tax. Mining jobs were extremely lucrative during the mining boom and no one wanted the gravy train to end. Its important people remember that Clinton was getting hit really, really hard for this exact quote: "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." Certainly misrepresented in its proper context but its one that both Bernie and Trump took advantage of as an example she was against working class Americans who work in primary and secondary industries. So while Bernie won the state by 15%, the state also saw 12.7% of people voting for alternative candidates. Not just that, around 33% of people who voted for Bernie would have voted for Trump if Bernie was the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee. There was a huge backlash against Clinton for not only her image during the campaign but also her role in the Obama Administration where they saw her as an extension of - this is shown in both the Bernie and small candidate vote. West Virginia just likes Manchin for whatever reason. I dunno what he actually does for his state, like a lot of bad state representatives, but I doubt what candidate he votes for really rings in their mind. He could help vote in a war criminal and I suspect the general population would still be more concerned if their existing coal mining jobs were going to be maintained. So 30%+ of Hillary's primary voters would have voted Trump if Bernie was the nominee? But presuming the argument is that WV does like Joe Manchin, then fine, let them vote for him as a Republican or Independent. I don't see the benefit of him being welcomed in the Democratic party as he proudly proclaims to support a war criminal for head of CIA? 30% were voting for Trump regardless who the presidential candidate was. Over 30% of people voting for Sanders would back Trump even if Sanders was the Democratic nominee. Which is insane, why would you even vote in a Democratic Party presidential primary if you were just going to straight vote Trump but I guess neither candidate was sufficiently pro-coal.
Corrected it after reading the part you were talking about.
I think it might have a lot to do with the plurality of people not thinking it matters which party controls congress.
About six months out from Election Day, 47% of registered voters say they back the Democratic candidate in their district, 44% back the Republican. Voters also are divided almost evenly over whether the country would be better off with the Democrats in control of Congress (31%) or with the GOP in charge (30%). A sizable 34% -- including nearly half of independent voters (48%) -- say it doesn't matter which party controls Congress.
www.cnn.com
Still wondering this though:
But presuming the argument is that WV does like Joe Manchin, then fine, let them vote for him as a Republican or Independent. I don't see the benefit of him being welcomed in the Democratic party as he proudly proclaims to support a war criminal for head of CIA?
|
5930 Posts
Oh no, I don't disagree with you. I actually agree with you 100%. Manchin is garbage and the Democratic Party would be better off without some guy who breaks from the ranks 50% of the time.
I'm just stating the situation in West Virginia because I suspect that's why the Democratic Party might be a bit skittish with purging Manchin, if they even want to for his voting history. There might be a carry-over effect that might spook or harm better red state Democrats and, despite what conservatives say, the Democratic Party's control over the media isn't strong enough to prevent the Morning Joes of this world from losing their minds.
|
On May 10 2018 19:56 Womwomwom wrote:
Oh no, I don't disagree with you. I actually agree with you 100%. Manchin is garbage and the Democratic Party would be better off without some guy who breaks from the ranks 50% of the time.
I'm just stating the situation in West Virginia because I suspect that's why the Democratic Party might be a bit skittish with purging Manchin, if they even want to for his voting history. There might be a carry-over effect that might spook or harm better red state Democrats and, despite what conservatives say, the Democratic Party's control over the media isn't strong enough to prevent the Morning Joes of this world from losing their minds.
Won't really know if WV is beyond 'saving' until Democrats get the spine to run someone who votes with them more than they vote with Trump.
If Democrat politicians do manage not to lose what should be the easiest election in recent history it will be despite their best efforts. They've already managed to lose a 16 point lead on the generic ballot and have seen Trump's numbers rise as they drone on about Cohen and Russia.
|
On May 10 2018 19:40 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 19:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 19:24 Womwomwom wrote:On May 10 2018 15:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 15:08 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 13:27 Plansix wrote:
McCain opposes her and a bunch of republicans are undecided. Manchin is a peice of shit, but West Virginia is not known for its quality Democratic challenges. I'm not sure by what measure Manchin is supposed to be better than Paula Swearengin? Right and she lost terribly because West Virginia is... West Virginia. She lost but she got more votes than any of the Republicans (given their votes were more split) with the entire Democratic machine behind her opponent and starting with 0 name recognition. Worth noting Bernie Sanders beat Hillary in WV by more than 15%. The whole "It's West Virginia, so it's either someone who supports Trump most of the time or someone who suppoorts Trump all of the time" doesn't mean Manchin should be welcome in the party. If he actually cares about the things Dems want his vote on, changing the letter after his name wouldn't change his votes anyway. So let him run as the Republican-lite/Centrist he is and have the Democrat be a Democrat. But this whole "we need him" stuff just isn't an acceptable argument to me. I don't buy this "WV is WV so we have to settle for Manchin" argument in the slightest. If that was the case Bernie wouldn't have beat Hillary there. EDIT: Also let's not pretend Democrats think primaries are supposed to be real democratic exercises, they've made abundantly clear they are publicity stunts. I would say Clinton had more of a systematic advantage than Manchin. Having complete control of the party is a lot more intense than being heavily backed. I really think West Virginia just likes Manchin. Bernie winning West Virginia should have boded poorly for Manchin, right? West Virginia from everything I've read is no different from any mining town in Queensland or Western Australia. For them, then Labor PM Julia Gillard was the actual devil for even suggesting a resources tax. Mining jobs were extremely lucrative during the mining boom and no one wanted the gravy train to end. Its important people remember that Clinton was getting hit really, really hard for this exact quote: "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." Certainly misrepresented in its proper context but its one that both Bernie and Trump took advantage of as an example she was against working class Americans who work in primary and secondary industries. So while Bernie won the state by 15%, the state also saw 12.7% of people voting for alternative candidates. Not just that, around 33% of people who voted for Bernie would have voted for Trump if Bernie was the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee. There was a huge backlash against Clinton for not only her image during the campaign but also her role in the Obama Administration where they saw her as an extension of - this is shown in both the Bernie and small candidate vote. West Virginia just likes Manchin for whatever reason. I dunno what he actually does for his state, like a lot of bad state representatives, but I doubt what candidate he votes for really rings in their mind. He could help vote in a war criminal and I suspect the general population would still be more concerned if their existing coal mining jobs were going to be maintained. So 30%+ of Hillary's primary voters would have voted Trump if Bernie was the nominee? But presuming the argument is that WV does like Joe Manchin, then fine, let them vote for him as a Republican or Independent. I don't see the benefit of him being welcomed in the Democratic party as he proudly proclaims to support a war criminal for head of CIA? 30% were voting for Trump regardless who the presidential candidate was. Over 30% of people voting for Sanders would back Trump even if Sanders was the Democratic nominee. Which is insane, why would you even vote in a Democratic Party presidential primary if you were just going to straight vote Trump but I guess neither candidate was sufficiently pro-coal and wanted that to be known.
hypothesis:
it could be a strategic vote: so that if your preferred candidate loses, at least the nominee in the other party isn't as bad as it could've been.
also, it might just guessing) not have been possible fro them to vote for trump in the republican primary, as they weren't signed up for the republican party (dunno what virginia's system is like) so they voted in the primary they could vote in. some places you have to register party affiliation well beforehand to decide what primary you get to vote in.
|
On May 10 2018 20:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 19:40 Womwomwom wrote:On May 10 2018 19:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 19:24 Womwomwom wrote:On May 10 2018 15:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 15:08 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2018 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2018 13:27 Plansix wrote:
McCain opposes her and a bunch of republicans are undecided. Manchin is a peice of shit, but West Virginia is not known for its quality Democratic challenges. I'm not sure by what measure Manchin is supposed to be better than Paula Swearengin? Right and she lost terribly because West Virginia is... West Virginia. She lost but she got more votes than any of the Republicans (given their votes were more split) with the entire Democratic machine behind her opponent and starting with 0 name recognition. Worth noting Bernie Sanders beat Hillary in WV by more than 15%. The whole "It's West Virginia, so it's either someone who supports Trump most of the time or someone who suppoorts Trump all of the time" doesn't mean Manchin should be welcome in the party. If he actually cares about the things Dems want his vote on, changing the letter after his name wouldn't change his votes anyway. So let him run as the Republican-lite/Centrist he is and have the Democrat be a Democrat. But this whole "we need him" stuff just isn't an acceptable argument to me. I don't buy this "WV is WV so we have to settle for Manchin" argument in the slightest. If that was the case Bernie wouldn't have beat Hillary there. EDIT: Also let's not pretend Democrats think primaries are supposed to be real democratic exercises, they've made abundantly clear they are publicity stunts. I would say Clinton had more of a systematic advantage than Manchin. Having complete control of the party is a lot more intense than being heavily backed. I really think West Virginia just likes Manchin. Bernie winning West Virginia should have boded poorly for Manchin, right? West Virginia from everything I've read is no different from any mining town in Queensland or Western Australia. For them, then Labor PM Julia Gillard was the actual devil for even suggesting a resources tax. Mining jobs were extremely lucrative during the mining boom and no one wanted the gravy train to end. Its important people remember that Clinton was getting hit really, really hard for this exact quote: "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." Certainly misrepresented in its proper context but its one that both Bernie and Trump took advantage of as an example she was against working class Americans who work in primary and secondary industries. So while Bernie won the state by 15%, the state also saw 12.7% of people voting for alternative candidates. Not just that, around 33% of people who voted for Bernie would have voted for Trump if Bernie was the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee. There was a huge backlash against Clinton for not only her image during the campaign but also her role in the Obama Administration where they saw her as an extension of - this is shown in both the Bernie and small candidate vote. West Virginia just likes Manchin for whatever reason. I dunno what he actually does for his state, like a lot of bad state representatives, but I doubt what candidate he votes for really rings in their mind. He could help vote in a war criminal and I suspect the general population would still be more concerned if their existing coal mining jobs were going to be maintained. So 30%+ of Hillary's primary voters would have voted Trump if Bernie was the nominee? But presuming the argument is that WV does like Joe Manchin, then fine, let them vote for him as a Republican or Independent. I don't see the benefit of him being welcomed in the Democratic party as he proudly proclaims to support a war criminal for head of CIA? 30% were voting for Trump regardless who the presidential candidate was. Over 30% of people voting for Sanders would back Trump even if Sanders was the Democratic nominee. Which is insane, why would you even vote in a Democratic Party presidential primary if you were just going to straight vote Trump but I guess neither candidate was sufficiently pro-coal and wanted that to be known. hypothesis: it could be a strategic vote: so that if your preferred candidate loses, at least the nominee in the other party isn't as bad as it could've been. also, it might just guessing) not have been possible fro them to vote for trump in the republican primary, as they weren't signed up for the republican party (dunno what virginia's system is like) so they voted in the primary they could vote in. some places you have to register party affiliation well beforehand to decide what primary you get to vote in.
West Virginia was Semi-Closed. Meaning you could only vote in the primary for the party you are registered for, if you weren't registered you could vote in either primary. So presumably you're looking at primarily independent voters in that particular figure, it's possible her comment contributed too, considering she lost ~60% of the votes she got in 2008 primary where Obama went on to win the state in the presidential election with just slightly more votes than were cast in the Democratic primary in 2008.
That's to say she performed much worse in 2016 in WV than she did in 2008 and Obama still won the state (in the presidential election) despite saying any new coal plants would get bankrupted by legislation he wanted.
I think there's a winning coalition there much further left than Manchin. There was definitively a coalition to the left of Hillary that could win statewide. So I still reject that Manchin is the best we can get out of WV (hell we could at least get an Obama), or that he needs to be in the Democratic party, really for any reason at this point.
|
There likely is a more left leaning coalition in WV, but finding a candidate to bring them together isn’t a simple task. And the coalition would likely be made of voters that are already voting for Manchin. In the past the DNC backing a left leaning primary challenge to a conservative democrat soured the voters in that state. When Senate seats change hands, it is on average for +2 terms, which is +12 years. It is a high risk play with consequences that can span decades. If there are going to be left leaning challenges to incumbents like Manchin, they are going need the backing of some group that can match the establishment democrats support.
|
WV is behaving very typically, most places with a lot of poor, working class people will vote for the far right in mass if they feel the left is no longer leftwing enough to be a good option for them. Montrouge in Paris has done the same but it's happening all over really, I just have this one example because of a song. And leftwing voices expressing the notion that those places are lost to the rightwing are making me sad because the way the most leftwing realistic option behaves is 90%+ of the reason why these places are lost or gained.
|
West Virginia is a bellweather for whether Democrats are appropriately championing the rights of workers. To the extent that fake Dems like Manchin have found enduring support there, its a sign that this centrist garbage needs to end.
|
It also the right leaning, anti-labor parties pushing the narrative that the “urban” left has abandoned those regions. I grew up in one of those towns and the resentment of Boston and the surrounding areas dominated everyone’s political views. And by extension, a resentment of the Democrat controlled state legislature. They elected idiot selectmen that promised to keep property taxes low and never build a new “overpriced” school, right up until the state government literally condemned the school. But when I think of my home town, I can see the people that would vote for a person like Manchin. He would appeal to them.
|
On May 10 2018 22:42 farvacola wrote:
West Virginia is a bellweather for whether Democrats are appropriately championing the rights of workers. To the extent that fake Dems like Manchin have found enduring support there, its a sign that this centrist garbage needs to end.
I disagree; i'd say it's a bellwether of whether workers FEEL the dems are championing them; not whether they are in fact being championed.
and which particular centrist garbage are you referring to? as there's a lot of garbage in politics.
and what makes manchin a "fake" dem? who is the arbiter of what constitutes a dem?
|
The problem is that, generally speaking, the narrative that the "urban" left has abandoned the concerns of rural voters is true enough to gain the sort of traction we see throughout states with significant rural populations. This is why any kind of significant focus on identity politics as they relate to policy must be accompanied by more generalized economic reforms that at least pay lip service to the concerns of folks outside the ambit of acknowledgements a la Jim Crow never really ended.
zlefin, Manchin is a fake Dem with respect to what I want and think Dems must be, nothing more, nothing less. And centrist garbage, for clarity's sake, is a reference to what Democrats stood for as Trump managed to get himself elected president.
|
ok; noted then that you dislike some dem paths. it really makes you sound like a tea partier though.
as to the centrist stuff; that does not seem to establish that it is garbage in any way, or even particularly identify the parts that are garbage, as the amount of stuff covered in that election is still very vast; or why the focus on "centrist" parts rather than other aspects, and it seems to assume the non-centrist parts aren't garbage, without providing justification for that.
|
lol... sometimes you just laugh out loud when you read news about the US these days...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Having returned from North Korea on Thursday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will embark on talks to persuade allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia to press Iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear and missile programs, U.S. officials said.
[...]
what does that even mean? Not like they're the ones who walked away...
|
On May 10 2018 23:01 zlefin wrote:
ok; noted then that you dislike some dem paths. it really makes you sound like a tea partier though.
as to the centrist stuff; that does not seem to establish that it is garbage in any way, or even particularly identify the parts that are garbage, as the amount of stuff covered/uncovered is still very vast; or why the focus on "centrist" parts rather than other aspects.
To the extent that the tea party represents a robust intra-party dialogue over what constitutes a standard bearer, Dems need their own kind of powerful leftist influence (which is why I like Bernie even though his message needs work). This is not to say that unbridled extremist influence like we've seen is the path forward, rather that the Democrats are reaping the stupid prizes from the stupid games they play in stifling leftward drift as much as they possibly can.
|
On May 10 2018 23:02 Toadesstern wrote:lol... sometimes you just laugh out loud when you read news about the US these days... Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Having returned from North Korea on Thursday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will embark on talks to persuade allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia to press Iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear and missile programs, U.S. officials said.
[...] what does that even mean? Not like they're the ones who walked away...
As a citizen of a European country, I sincerely hope my government and the EU tells the US to go dig themselves out of the mess they got themselves into, instead of asking us to bail them out. If the US can convince Iran to reopen negotiations, then I'm all for it, but you don't get to fuck us over, and then boss us about. At least, I hope you don't.
|
On May 10 2018 23:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 23:01 zlefin wrote:
ok; noted then that you dislike some dem paths. it really makes you sound like a tea partier though.
as to the centrist stuff; that does not seem to establish that it is garbage in any way, or even particularly identify the parts that are garbage, as the amount of stuff covered/uncovered is still very vast; or why the focus on "centrist" parts rather than other aspects. To the extent that the tea party represents a robust intra-party dialogue over what constitutes a standard bearer, Dems need their own kind of powerful leftist influence (which is why I like Bernie even though his message needs work). This is not to say that unbridled extremist influence like we've seen is the path forward, rather that the Democrats are reaping the stupid prizes from the stupid games they play in stifling leftward drift as much as they possibly can.
the dems already have powerful leftist (well more leftist, as dems are already leftist) influences.
as to the rest; your opinion is noted.
and on the tea party, i'm not just talking about the parts you might like, but the parts that have caused severe problems, just to be clear on what I was saying.
edit addition: it also seems like the centrist ones could make a very similar complaint about the progressive wing.
|
On May 10 2018 05:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 05:25 ShoCkeyy wrote:
They still discriminate on applications for house loans... from what I can tell. Redlining is specifically illegal under HUD regulations. It is why they say “Equal Housing Lender” every time you see an ad for a mortgage. And of course Wikipedia has the Color of Money in the lead. At some of that site is good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedliningThis is a level of discrimination which most of us have no context for.
Trust me, my zip code is often considered redlining, I know what it is, and how people can still feel discriminated. You know I didn't obtain a credit card until I was 25 because they would never approve me, even though I had disposable income, and a secure job. The next one is insurance, I learned from an insurance broker, that insurance agencies tend to deny people in my specific zip code. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean the practices aren't around. Racism has been alive and proud in the US for quite some time, and will continue to be if we don't make shit like this accountable.
https://whyy.org/articles/unequal-lending-keeps-redlining-alive-philadelphias-gentrifying-neighborhoods/
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/02/15/world/barriers-homeownership-still-exist-people-color
I'm considered "white", but I'm also considered "hispanic", but because of my name alone, it's been really hard to get by in life when I was younger. It wasn't until I married a "well off white girl" that credit card companies, car companies, and mortgage companies started to take me serious.
|
Norway28606 Posts
My impression is that western european politicians cannot afford, politically, to allow themselves to be bullied by trump. It'd be political suicide. People understand that it's good to be diplomatically inclined towards him, so we're fine with our politicians not outright insulting him, but being strongarmed here won't fly.
|
On May 10 2018 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My impression is that western european politicians cannot afford, politically, to allow themselves to be bullied by trump. It'd be political suicide. People understand that it's good to be diplomatically inclined towards him, so we're fine with our politicians not outright insulting him, but being strongarmed here won't fly.
And if someone did bend the knee, their opponent would run on "I won't be bullied by Trump" and win by a landslide.
|
On May 10 2018 23:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 05:44 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2018 05:25 ShoCkeyy wrote:
They still discriminate on applications for house loans... from what I can tell. Redlining is specifically illegal under HUD regulations. It is why they say “Equal Housing Lender” every time you see an ad for a mortgage. And of course Wikipedia has the Color of Money in the lead. At some of that site is good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedliningThis is a level of discrimination which most of us have no context for. Trust me, my zip code is often considered redlining, I know what it is, and how people can still feel discriminated. You know I didn't obtain a credit card until I was 25 because they would never approve me, even though I had disposable income, and a secure job. The next one is insurance, I learned from an insurance broker, that insurance agencies tend to deny people in my specific zip code. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean the practices aren't around. Racism has been alive and proud in the US for quite some time, and will continue to be if we don't make shit like this accountable. https://whyy.org/articles/unequal-lending-keeps-redlining-alive-philadelphias-gentrifying-neighborhoods/https://www.marketplace.org/2018/02/15/world/barriers-homeownership-still-exist-people-colorI'm considered "white", but I'm also considered "hispanic", but because of my name alone, it's been really hard to get by in life when I was younger. It wasn't until I married a "well off white girl" that credit card companies, car companies, and mortgage companies started to take me serious.
As the son of a naturalized citizen from Colombia/Mexico, I can empathize with what you describe here all too well, though I have the benefit of an extremely German last name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
