|
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 |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So at this point it looks like:
1. House is about to be won by Republicans whenever a handful more elections are called, with very little chance of that not happening.
2. The remaining Senate races are Alaska (R lock), Georgia (runoff), Arizona (lean D) and Nevada (lean R), both sides currently at 48 (including left-leaning independents as D) called in their favor.
3. A smidge of governor races flipping to Democrat.
I guess that for all the fanfare, that's just about where the polls were on election night. Really looks like it could come down to the Georgia runoff yet again for who controls the Senate. Seems like Republicans could potentially just manage to squeeze out both chambers of Congress, but I'm still leaning towards that Dems hold it more likely than not.
|
Likely scenario us 50-50 senate again, house flips, nothing gets done for 2 more years, then Trump Biden rematch.
Trapped in a never ending loop of horror.
|
On November 10 2022 07:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 10 2022 02:49 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2022 00:59 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2022 23:21 gobbledydook wrote:On November 09 2022 23:06 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 22:51 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 16:00 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:42 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 15:39 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, it’s past my bedtime too.
Book banning? Don’t Say Gay? Blatantly unconstitutional social media bill? Weird culture war against Disney? Fuck, chartering a plane to send migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard? I mean Jesus Christ, he’s practically been licking camera lenses he’s been so eager for attention. I get it, he’s effective at selling what you’d like people to buy, but come on, don’t try to tell me the guy paying Christina Pushaw is some “common sense” moderate who “doesn’t needlessly antagonize people.” He’s maybe the single most influential figure in deciding Republicans were gonna run on CRT and trans panic this cycle. I didn't say moderate  He's a Tea Party type alright. Just again, I guess the word "needlessly" is doing some heavy lifting. but at at the end of tonight's consideration, we ought to think about how he managed to win by so much. Florida is becoming more red, but he did like 15 points better than Trump in 2020. he's convincing someone, or lots of someones. It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison? My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. 1) Low conservative voter turnout 2) Racial admixture 3) GenZ strong woke Fwiw, trans panic is dumb. The obvious ideal optimum for that is everybody shrugs and says "oh your trans. Okay" and pays about as much attention as we would to the sun rising the morning or as we would if you said "hey I'm a girl$ The (local) protected and elevated status in certain groups isn't ideal, but given the overall awful treatment that trans people experience, I don't think it's bad. You're mostly going to get treated way worse as trans (especially FtM), which is rather regrettable. CRT, on the other hand is very problematic Like the actual CRT that is a university option? Or the CRT desantis rails against, which is basically a boogy man of anything ultra right people fear? I think this is a good explanation of the controversy surrounding critical race theory. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05In essence the Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other. The Republicans fundamentally oppose the beliefs that underpin critical race theory. The Democrats support those beliefs. Critical race theory in the school teaching context is ultimately a convenient namesake for what could be more accurately called racial equity. As with many things, the Democrats are supporting the expert studied opinion. They’re not supporting it because it’s a vote winner, they’re supporting it because it is historical fact and facts don’t care about your feelings. I was recently unfortunate enough to catch some Fox News in the gym and the talking blob of lard was ranting about how convenient it is that all of the so called experts all happen to support the Democrat point of view. Surely it’s not a coincidence, he raved. Surely they’re all in on it. He suggested we follow the money. It just never occurs to them that the experts came first and that the Democrats listened. Not on CRT, not on police reform, not on homelessness, drug control, trans medical care, public health, or anything else. It’s always a conspiracy to push an agenda. That blind spot in conservative media is amusing to me because it’s a confession, they believe truth is something to be generated in order to support their ideals and they can’t imagine anyone listening first and then generating policy. They also aren’t massive fans of actually following the money. If they actually did they might notice that a fuckton of money was lost due to COVID and maybe all these ‘elites’ might be inconvenienced by that. Eh... every talking point from the AOC/Sanders archetype during the pandemic was about how "the rich got richer." They got richer to the tune of $1.7 trillion according to the title of this article I just googled and didn't bother to readThat's not to say I'm arguing in favor of any "follow the money" conspiracy. Only your insinuation that if we did indeed "follow the money" we wouldn't conclude that the so-called "elites" had a massive boon in wealth since the start of 2020. If anyone wanted to "inconvenience" me in such a manner I would welcome it. It’s an evocative framing. It’s a bit, IMO off but it sells well. Tech bros and brosettes made out like bandits sure, they’re not the only rich people, or sectors with influence. Tourism as a sector is not exactly small fry. Real estate types probably weren’t super happy at working from home reducing demand in lucrative office properties and leases not being renewed. The wider industrial sector had raw output affected by it. Whole supply chains were disrupted across the retail sector. Etc etc. If you want to follow the money, you have to actually follow the money, and where it leads. Not just conclude that tech companies made a killing ergo follow the money Covid is a manufactured conspiracy and stop at that. These aren’t insubstantial sectors, without pull and influence. These aren’t sectors without a full complement of ‘elites’ That’s the point I’m making if I hadn’t made it clear. I think most conceptions of ‘elites’ people bring to bear tend to be off base because they tend to zone in on one specific group of disliked ‘elites’ to the detriment of others, or indeed that it’s not a monolithic group and there may be active conflict within.
Do you have evidence to imply that it was mostly only the tech bros that got richer during the pandemic? You mentioned Real estate types as one group that wasn't super happy. When I filtered the Forbes 400 list for Real Estate billionaires pretty much everyone I looked at is more wealthy than they were in 2019 and often massively more so.
https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/
|
I'm hoping Trump gets beat by DeSantis in a primary, then Trump runs as an independent. Best case scenario for Dems.
I have no idea who Democratic candidate should be other than not Biden. Someone in their 50s or 60s.
Two years of deadlock is less ideal, but it's far from the worst case scenario that could've happened.
|
|
|
On November 10 2022 09:26 JimmiC wrote:
I wonder how Trump is doing with the Murdoc media empire blaming trump for the losses along with many other reps including on this thread!
I can not imagine he is doing well with not longer being the BMOC (big man on campus).
I'm sure Mar-a-Lago's ketchup-stained walls have had a fresh, red wave of tomato applied to them since the results started coming in 
|
On November 10 2022 08:59 Lmui wrote:
I'm hoping Trump gets beat by DeSantis in a primary, then Trump runs as an independent. Best case scenario for Dems.
I have no idea who Democratic candidate should be other than not Biden. Someone in their 50s or 60s.
Two years of deadlock is less ideal, but it's far from the worst case scenario that could've happened.
I don't think it matters who the winner of the primary is if Trump and Desantis are both in it. Trump is just going to do massive damage if he runs at all even if its just from taking dollars from Desantis. I mean there are a few candidates who would scrap in a primary. Klob is still the auto win but coasties will probably pick Newsom after everything.
Hillary-trump 2024 just let it burn.
|
On November 10 2022 10:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 08:59 Lmui wrote:
I'm hoping Trump gets beat by DeSantis in a primary, then Trump runs as an independent. Best case scenario for Dems.
I have no idea who Democratic candidate should be other than not Biden. Someone in their 50s or 60s.
Two years of deadlock is less ideal, but it's far from the worst case scenario that could've happened. I don't think it matters who the winner of the primary is if Trump and Desantis are both in it. Trump is just going to do massive damage if he runs at all even if its just from taking dollars from Desantis. I mean there are a few candidates who would scrap in a primary. Klob is still the auto win but coasties will probably pick Newsom after everything. Hillary-trump 2024 just let it burn.
Or Biden-Trump 2024 and then Hillary-Trump 2028. Everything voters always wanted
|
I'm shocked to see the results from Minnesota. After George floyd and Castile seeing the most liberal set of county attorneys and Keith Elison keeping his seat after a terrible campaign. We knew Jenson "Minnesota can be like Mississippi" Birk "women just like having careers and playing the rape card" couldn't win but a massive sweep like this was not something I was expecting.
Expect legal weed to come to Minnesota, we're officially offering a trade of weed for cow beer to Wisconsin if anyone can make contact with the sconnies.
|
On November 07 2022 11:25 Husyelt wrote:
Yeah, the polls from 538 and others are way off base. Expect a decent blue wave, (considering midterms post presidential win). GOP may win the house, but the Dems will maintain the senate and honestly do better than expected in the house.
well well well.
even my girl Marie Perez is still holding a lead against a Christian Nationalist in WA 3rd district, (a red district).
|
Something I think that shouldn't be missed is that all of the republican candidates dems funded because they're crazies lost. 5 of the six lost by double digits. You should expect 2024 to be an absolute madhouse now that its been proven to be value for money.
|
Some more elections updates:
-Cortez Masto is on track to winning. The margins in the last ballot count were comfortable for her and indies are breaking for her over Laxalt. Not a guarantee yet, but I'd rather be CM than Laxalt.
-Kelly still looking likely to hold his seat. Lake still favoured to beat Hobbs for governor.
-Boebert's seat continues to flip between her and the Democratic challenger. This is going down to the wire for a seat no one thought was competitive.
|
On November 10 2022 12:09 Sermokala wrote:
Something I think that shouldn't be missed is that all of the republican candidates dems funded because they're crazies lost. 5 of the six lost by double digits. You should expect 2024 to be an absolute madhouse now that its been proven to be value for money.
That might be value for money but I can only think that it is actively harmful for democracy. You shouldn't be able to fund bad candidates with the hope that they might win the other party's primary so you can have an easier time. That's sabotage and is a disservice to Americans, who should be offered the opportunity to pick between the best each side has to offer.
|
Yeah, Shapiro quietly elevated Mastriano here in PA and then fucking trounced him. He picked out the wildest, most extremist Nazi nutcase in the bunch and helped convince R voters that he was the right choice. I guess it's proof that there are enough moderate voters who can still be genuinely turned off, when you're running a nightmare of a candidate who basically just wants to butcher your freedoms in the name of freedom.
|
I don't often agree with gobbledydook but on this I do. Funding bad opposition in hopes it'll make the general easier for you is anti-democratic. Also, the Democrats did this with Trump in the 2015/2016 during the Republican primary and that result has been disastrous for our nation's democracy. I'm glad it worked out this time, but I think it's an awful idea and the potential damage it can do to the country is far too much to justify trying it.
|
i agree it's bad, obv from my perspective it's even worse. people like Peter Meijer would have held their seats I think. the only funny thing is that the man on the House side responsible for it (DCCC chair!) lost his Biden +10 district. lol
edit: maybe his redrawn district wasn't +10, but still funny. not sure if his new distcit was more or less democrat. thinking about it, it was prob more. maybe my memory is right and it was +10
|
On November 10 2022 12:28 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 12:09 Sermokala wrote:
Something I think that shouldn't be missed is that all of the republican candidates dems funded because they're crazies lost. 5 of the six lost by double digits. You should expect 2024 to be an absolute madhouse now that its been proven to be value for money. That might be value for money but I can only think that it is actively harmful for democracy. You shouldn't be able to fund bad candidates with the hope that they might win the other party's primary so you can have an easier time. That's sabotage and is a disservice to Americans, who should be offered the opportunity to pick between the best each side has to offer.
I think you make a great point, and I think you'll find many posters here would agree that campaign finance laws need a complete makeover in the US. There's some common ground we can find.
|
|
|
New York might have cost Democrats their best chance at holding the House this midterm because of Cuomo and a bevy of other issues related to incompetence and complacency from NY Dems.
... Hochul’s victory came after weeks of narrowing polls that raised, belatedly, alarm bells among the Democratic establishment’s biggest stars. In the final days, Kamala Harris, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Biden himself all came to stump for Hochul. ... The likely answers are not terribly complicated. One was New York’s broken redistricting process, which was warped by the disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo. Another was crime: Fear of it was visceral across the state, and Zeldin, along with down-ballot Republicans, hammered it more than any other issue, to great effect. The third, perhaps, was the top of the ticket. Hochul offered no compelling rationale for her election. She barely talked up her accomplishments or even what she wanted to do next term, beyond safeguarding abortion rights. The redistricting saga doomed Democrats in New York and maybe everywhere. Ten years ago, when Republicans still controlled New York’s State Senate, Cuomo let the Republicans gerrymander their own lines in exchange for support of a ballot measure creating a quasi-independent commission of Republicans and Democrats to draw new lines for 2022. The scheme was designed to fail, because the commission was stacked with party apparatchiks who would never agree. Cuomo resigned in 2021, following a spate of credible allegations of sexual harassment and assault. By then, Democrats had full control of the State Senate. When the bipartisan commission predictably deadlocked, the Democrats unveiled House maps that were undoubtedly friendly to them. But Republicans mounted a legal challenge, financed in part by the billionaire cosmetics heir Ronald Lauder. Lower courts in conservative areas sided with the Republicans, pointing, in part, to an anti-gerrymandering clause in the state constitution. Finally, the case reached the Court of Appeals, New York’s version of the Supreme Court, which shot down the Democrats entirely: Cuomo-appointed judges threw the process to an independent special master and didn’t give the legislature a chance to fix its proposed maps. From a good-government perspective, the special master performed his duties well. The new districts were compact, prizing competitiveness over incumbency protection. The problem, of course, was the bizarre process that led to such an outcome, and the fact that it forced New York to have two different primary dates, diminishing turnout. In another year, neutral terrain would have been fine enough for Democrats. But this was 2022, and a red wave, at least in New York, was building. It was these competitive districts that washed away Democrats on Long Island and in the Hudson Valley. ... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/why-red-wave-hit-new-york/672057/
|
On November 10 2022 08:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 07:29 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2022 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 10 2022 02:49 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2022 00:59 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2022 23:21 gobbledydook wrote:On November 09 2022 23:06 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 22:51 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 16:00 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:42 Introvert wrote:[quote] I didn't say moderate He's a Tea Party type alright. Just again, I guess the word "needlessly" is doing some heavy lifting. but at at the end of tonight's consideration, we ought to think about how he managed to win by so much. Florida is becoming more red, but he did like 15 points better than Trump in 2020. he's convincing someone, or lots of someones. It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison? My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. 1) Low conservative voter turnout 2) Racial admixture 3) GenZ strong woke Fwiw, trans panic is dumb. The obvious ideal optimum for that is everybody shrugs and says "oh your trans. Okay" and pays about as much attention as we would to the sun rising the morning or as we would if you said "hey I'm a girl$ The (local) protected and elevated status in certain groups isn't ideal, but given the overall awful treatment that trans people experience, I don't think it's bad. You're mostly going to get treated way worse as trans (especially FtM), which is rather regrettable. CRT, on the other hand is very problematic Like the actual CRT that is a university option? Or the CRT desantis rails against, which is basically a boogy man of anything ultra right people fear? I think this is a good explanation of the controversy surrounding critical race theory. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05In essence the Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other. The Republicans fundamentally oppose the beliefs that underpin critical race theory. The Democrats support those beliefs. Critical race theory in the school teaching context is ultimately a convenient namesake for what could be more accurately called racial equity. As with many things, the Democrats are supporting the expert studied opinion. They’re not supporting it because it’s a vote winner, they’re supporting it because it is historical fact and facts don’t care about your feelings. I was recently unfortunate enough to catch some Fox News in the gym and the talking blob of lard was ranting about how convenient it is that all of the so called experts all happen to support the Democrat point of view. Surely it’s not a coincidence, he raved. Surely they’re all in on it. He suggested we follow the money. It just never occurs to them that the experts came first and that the Democrats listened. Not on CRT, not on police reform, not on homelessness, drug control, trans medical care, public health, or anything else. It’s always a conspiracy to push an agenda. That blind spot in conservative media is amusing to me because it’s a confession, they believe truth is something to be generated in order to support their ideals and they can’t imagine anyone listening first and then generating policy. They also aren’t massive fans of actually following the money. If they actually did they might notice that a fuckton of money was lost due to COVID and maybe all these ‘elites’ might be inconvenienced by that. Eh... every talking point from the AOC/Sanders archetype during the pandemic was about how "the rich got richer." They got richer to the tune of $1.7 trillion according to the title of this article I just googled and didn't bother to readThat's not to say I'm arguing in favor of any "follow the money" conspiracy. Only your insinuation that if we did indeed "follow the money" we wouldn't conclude that the so-called "elites" had a massive boon in wealth since the start of 2020. If anyone wanted to "inconvenience" me in such a manner I would welcome it. It’s an evocative framing. It’s a bit, IMO off but it sells well. Tech bros and brosettes made out like bandits sure, they’re not the only rich people, or sectors with influence. Tourism as a sector is not exactly small fry. Real estate types probably weren’t super happy at working from home reducing demand in lucrative office properties and leases not being renewed. The wider industrial sector had raw output affected by it. Whole supply chains were disrupted across the retail sector. Etc etc. If you want to follow the money, you have to actually follow the money, and where it leads. Not just conclude that tech companies made a killing ergo follow the money Covid is a manufactured conspiracy and stop at that. These aren’t insubstantial sectors, without pull and influence. These aren’t sectors without a full complement of ‘elites’ That’s the point I’m making if I hadn’t made it clear. I think most conceptions of ‘elites’ people bring to bear tend to be off base because they tend to zone in on one specific group of disliked ‘elites’ to the detriment of others, or indeed that it’s not a monolithic group and there may be active conflict within. Do you have evidence to imply that it was mostly only the tech bros that got richer during the pandemic? You mentioned Real estate types as one group that wasn't super happy. When I filtered the Forbes 400 list for Real Estate billionaires pretty much everyone I looked at is more wealthy than they were in 2019 and often massively more so. https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/
I think that when you reach that level of economic power (ability to hedge + ability to shape policy/media/events), it's not a question of whether you get more wealthy over 3 years, but how much. A zillionaire who increases their wealth by 15% over 3 years might be displeased that adverse events prevented them from increasing their wealth by 25%. Merely observing a wealth increase doesn't say much about whether those were good years for them relative to their own expectations.
On November 10 2022 12:33 StasisField wrote:
I don't often agree with gobbledydook but on this I do. Funding bad opposition in hopes it'll make the general easier for you is anti-democratic. Also, the Democrats did this with Trump in the 2015/2016 during the Republican primary and that result has been disastrous for our nation's democracy. I'm glad it worked out this time, but I think it's an awful idea and the potential damage it can do to the country is far too much to justify trying it.
Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
