Nov 6, 2018 - Midterms *MEGA* Thread

[Acidbaron]

"If he acts a bit more sensible"? Please. He has no intention of changing how he acts, he's just hoping they won't investigate him because he said so.

To be fair i give him a day till his feelings are hurt again because people don't do as he says and he's back full out on twitter.

[kaelleria]

This is a batshit insane presser

[Omega10]

If posts here are anything to go by, the Democrats should act just like the Republicans now that they have a "mandate"... use the same tactics, etc... because if not, the GOP will... but that is the problem when you lack trust, and when you hate your opposite.

At the risk of beating a dead horse:

Here are the bills I would like the democrats to propose next year in the House of Representatives.

1) Pelosi-care (that's what it will get called anyways, might as well get ahead of the curve).

This would be some version of Medicare for All, paid for by repealing only the parts of the Trump Tax Cuts that were not meant for middle class and working class Americans.

2) Arkansas and another red state raised their minimum wage to $11 and $12 an hour. An increase in the minimum wage is currently the most popular way that democrats can put dollars in the hands of middle class and working class workers.

3) Do SOMETHING to increase the power of unions, focusing on features that would strengthen them in right to work states.

4) Add job-killing economy-crushing regulations (that's what they will be called) to fight voter suppression and gerrymandering.

5) Add job-killing economy-crushing regulations (that's what they will be called) to reduce further deterioration of our water supply, and start cleaning up some of the existing problems.

Things that democrats should not do yet:

Anything that upsets the fossil fuel companies. They CLEANED up in this election cycle. People in South Carolina are used to their annual evacuation exercise due to hurricanes, and they would rather face increasingly stronger hurricanes than do anything that would upset the fossil fuel companies. Climate Change is a HUGE problem, but democrats are too weak to fight this battle at this time.

[Acidbaron]

He keeps on ranting on like an old man, reminds me of a drunk fool rambling on first getting into fights with everyone then asks for unity.

[Draco-Onis]

Trump is about to speak about midterms live... brace your selfs, might not be safe for work

It's always been true but especially today it's doesn't fucking matter what Donald Trump says, hope he has some seat belts because between the house and Robert Mueller the shit is about to hit the fan. This administration is going to bleed people so fast the white house is going to be a ghost town, not many are going to be able to afford 2 years of expensive lawyers.

[infinitemeridian]

The myth of "bi-partisan" support is a cancer killing this country - this narrative is pushed by the neoliberal media class that is reliant on this to keep people divided and keep them relevant. It is completely out of touch with the general electorate and has been for decades now, which is why there has been so much turmoil.

For instance, there are no moderate positions on the following, and the Dems should not give an inch to the republicans:

a) the effectiveness of contraception
b) human's influence on the climate
c) the market's inability to provide healthcare
d) the benefits of immigration
e) whether or not illegals should be treated as humans
f) the Russian investigation
g) religious freedoms in the US
h) Trump's lack of tact and intelligence
i) whether all the MSM (or anything bad about Trump) is "fake news"
j) if transgenders are "faking it"

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/...bipartisanship

It should come as no surprise that people closest to the center of power are often the ones fondest of extolling the virtues of bipartisanship and consensus. This is, after all, more or less the reality many of them already inhabit, and the one they more or less need to inhabit if they want to be upwardly mobile—genuinely controversial ideas are unlikely to get you a promotion. The Beltway may not be a place of total agreement—the range of acceptable opinion does, after all, span the vast expanse separating Paul Krugman and Ross Douthat—but it’s certainly one where internal conflict rarely has serious consequences for those directly involved. Debates with outcomes that potentially affect millions of lives can provide raw material for jocular cocktail chatter at the nearest capitol bar or even become an occasion for the affable exchange of baked goods. Friendships may be strained, prestige may be lost, and members of the two competing political and cultural tribes may have to trade offices every few years, but the price of failure for those at the top still tends to be a teaching gig in the ivory tower, a lucrative job in lobbying or finance or, in the worst case scenario, a multimillion dollar book deal from Simon & Schuster. Even the most loathed former presidents can be afforded the equivalent of secular sainthood, so long as their successors prove to be even worse. Given the stakes, we can understand why bipartisanship is so appealing.

In identifying the source of this pathology, though, we risk overlooking its most glaring contradictions and most dangerous implications. In the wake of Trump, high profile Democrats have taken to evangelizing bipartisanship in increasingly absurdist fashion. After the Republican Senate passed its robber baron tax package in December, a lachrymose Chuck Schumer took to Twitter to lament “what could have been” describing tax reform as “an issue that is ripe for bipartisan compromise” (Schumer has long favored massive corporate tax cuts), while the Democratic Party’s official Senate account praised Ronald Reagan’s approach to tax policy. Despite a sweeping victory over Republicans in Virginia, newly elected Democratic Governor Ralph Northam is now preaching bipartisanship (“Virginians deserve civility…they’re looking for a moral compass right now”) and exploring ways he can work with those across the aisle to reduce spending on Medicaid. In a recent intervention, one William Jefferson Clinton even issued the groundbreaking suggestion that Americans work to “expand the definition of ‘us’ and shrink the definition of ‘them.’” Pass the sherry.

Bipartisan posturing of this kind would be absurd in a healthy democracy, even at the best of times—after all, one of the reasons we elect people is so that they can debate and disagree. If you’re not fighting with anyone, you’re not fighting for anything. But given the stated agenda of the current administration, not to mention countless other Republican-led administrations across the country, bipartisanship is perilous and counterproductive almost by definition.

[Lothar from accounting]

2) Arkansas and another red state raised their minimum wage to $11 and $12 an hour. An increase in the minimum wage is currently the most popular way that democrats can put dollars in the hands of middle class and working class workers.

Missouri would be that other state but it's a gradual raise slower than Arkansas'. Right now Missouri MW is $7.85, it goes to $8.60 at the beginning of next year, and then has incremental increases each subsequent year until finally reaching $12 in 2023.

[NED funded]

You say I retired Jeff Flake. I did the country a great favor.

This is amazing.

[Omega10]

Missouri would be that other state but it's a gradual raise slower than Arkansas'. Right now Missouri MW is $7.85, it goes to $8.60 at the beginning of next year, and then has incremental increases each subsequent year until finally reaching $12 in 2023.

Thank you. Do you know the Arkansas raise progression?

[Lothar from accounting]

Thank you. Do you know the Arkansas raise progression?

I know they're currently higher than MO and will hit $11 by 2021.

[Endus]

"Do you regret airing that ad, the one that was so racist that Fox News wouldn't even air it?"
"I'm surprised you'd even ask me that. I do not."

Jesus Christ, this bloviating asshole.

[Omega10]

The myth of "bi-partisan" support is a cancer killing this country - this narrative is pushed by the neoliberal media class that is reliant on this to keep people divided and keep them relevant. It is completely out of touch with the general electorate and has been for decades now, which is why there has been so much turmoil.

For instance, there are no moderate positions on the following, and the Dems should not give an inch to the republicans:

a) the effectiveness of contraception
b) human's influence on the climate
c) the market's inability to provide healthcare
d) the benefits of immigration
e) whether or not illegals should be treated as humans
f) the Russian investigation
g) religious freedoms in the US
h) Trump's lack of tact and intelligence
i) whether all the MSM (or anything bad about Trump) is "fake news"
j) if transgenders are "faking it"

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/...bipartisanship

The good news about the democratic party becoming more liberal is that they are more likely to fight just in the way you are describing. Hopefully, Pelosi (assuming she is the House Majority Leader) will prioritize the items you listed here, as well as others, and as much as possible turn the next two years into policy detail battles rather than the shit that Trump has spewed over the last two years.

So investigating Trump will be ONE thing democrats will fight for, as well as fighting for more money in the hands of working/middle class Americans, identity politics - these battles DO have to be fought, and need to not be swept under the rug - and environmental issues, especially water quality. Other issues might be above the ones I mentioned here, or done in addition to these, but the battles need to initiated and fought.

And most of them will be viewed very favorably throughout the country. We WILL need a thick skin, and an ability to turn republican rage against them.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Isn't the entire point to a army security? Kind of feels like your the kind of person who gets annoyed when brakes slow down their car.

Yeah.. security.. where you already have a police force handling fine. Kind of feels you the kind of person pushing the square peg into the round hole and not figuring out why it won't go though until you break it... and then try to blame it on brown people.

[Adam Jensen]

I think Adam explains it well.

I agree with the Yellow party though.

Death to all Trevors.

- - - Updated - - -

"Do you regret airing that ad, the one that was so racist that Fox News wouldn't even air it?"
"I'm surprised you'd even ask me that. I do not."

Jesus Christ, this bloviating asshole.

Does that bloviating asshole even have the capacity for regret?

[Endus]

Does that bloviating asshole even have the capacity for regret?

That's what I'm not sure about.

Is he admitting that the add was deliberately, intentionally racist, so blatantly that he's surprised they even questioned it?
Or is he admitting that he literally lacks the capacity to feel regret, about anything, and the reporter should know that by now?

It's one of the two.

[Breccia]

Jesus Christ, this bloviating asshole.

Speaking of which, Corey Lewandowski wrote this OP ED in which he hails Trump as a massive winning conquering winning winningest winner, because -- no fucking really, follow the link, I am not making this up -- he didn't lose as many seats as Obama did.

"Oh, so, what was the gap? Surely Mr. Lewandowsky has a complete breakdown with side-by-side --"

Nope. He just says it's true and that Trump is the winner and winning and winner.

[Adam Jensen]

Speaking of which, Corey Lewandowski wrote this OP ED in which he hails Trump as a massive winning conquering winning winningest winner, because -- no fucking really, follow the link, I am not making this up -- he didn't lose as many seats as Obama did.

"Oh, so, what was the gap? Surely Mr. Lewandowsky has a complete breakdown with side-by-side --"

Nope. He just says it's true and that Trump is the winner and winning and winner.

Republicans lost last night.

Womp. Womp.

[melodramocracy]

Speaking of which, Corey Lewandowski wrote this OP ED in which he hails Trump as a massive winning conquering winning winningest winner, because -- no fucking really, follow the link, I am not making this up -- he didn't lose as many seats as Obama did.

"Oh, so, what was the gap? Surely Mr. Lewandowsky has a complete breakdown with side-by-side --"

Nope. He just says it's true and that Trump is the winner and winning and winner.

On the other side of this coin is a humorous twitter thread about all the folks who lost yesterday while having an endorsement from the steak salesman himself:


https://twitter.com/missmayn/status/1059970926563930112

[Dacien]

I disagree on the uselessness of the data. It might not tell you much by itself, but having a huge discrepancy between #of votes received in a state and #of seats won is a good indicator that something is wrong. It does not necessarily have to be gerrymandering, but there are voters being marginalized, due to the value of a single vote shifting between uneven districts. Saying the data is useless is just a "status quo is fine" argument, ignoring the issue. Unless, of course, you personally do not care about such discrepancies. Then yes, it is useless for you.
But for those who think it is a problem, that data is important as it shows that something needs to be changed.

I just read a piece by David French and he explains this pretty well: if a Progressive Democrat wins in a San Francisco California district (favors blue) 80 to 20, and another Progressive Democrat loses 40 to 60 in an Orange County California district (favors red), the Democrat Party is not entitled to both seats because they had more votes overall. No injustice has taken place.

These races exist as standalone elections, and adding up votes from a completely different election somewhere else in the state, or even somewhere else in the country, is just useless at best, and misleading at worst.

[Slybak]

His stance on pre-existing conditions does worry me. However, he did backtrack on wanting to get rid of the Medicaid expansion and he didn't do that at the last minute, he said this back in July, so I'm cautiously optimistic about that.

The amount of gerrymandering his government will continue should quench that optimism. The reason why gerrymandering, and all forms of voter suppression, are bad as a first order principle is that these are the tactics politicians utilize to shield themselves from accountability for the other decisions they make. My own Congressman hasn't been in the district to meet constituents for over a year because he's managed to negotiate himself very favorable district boundaries, and he won reelection despite the fact that he voted both to sabotage our healthcare and raise our taxes, relying instead on outside money to beat back a capable local challenger.