That's pretty good.
Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It’s Important
Yes, I know; it's why I posted it.
I'm even sympathetic to his criticisms of the Greens. I think, however, he underestimates the coalition-building opportunities presented by the Jill Stein campaign, which, parenthetically, is the only reason I've been in involved in it.
For example, my own rather inconsequential (and white) state's first Black Lives Matter group sprung up after a combination anti-police brutality demonstration/Jill Stein campaign appearance which brought out 300 people. I know, 300 people isn't that much, but as we like to say in the Granite State, 20 people in New Hampshire is worth 100 in Boston, so 300 is like, what? 1,500 or so.
Whether that will ever amount to anything, it is difficult to say. But, through persistent and painful effort, we'll see what we can grow.
It's not usually aimed directly at such posts, but at more general "what's causing Clinton problems" discussion, like the "her biggest problem is that she represents the status quo" bit that kind of started this latest go around. I really do see those as by far her biggest issues. Without widespread sexism and without the decades of propaganda, this would be a completely different campaign.I agree with this, for what it's worth.
I'd also like to point out that "representing the status quo" is not a bad thing in American politics.
First, despite ceaseless and baseless whinging by Fergie et al., the status quo in the United States is pretty good right now. Unemployment is relatively low, especially compared to what it was a mere seven years ago. Violent crime is near a multidecade low, and quality of life is near the top of the world's league tables. The financial system is stable; inflation is, if anything, too low. Almost all of the US health problems are self-inflicted lifestyle choices (drug abuse, obesity, smoking, and so forth).
Well, I'm sure things look rosier from the departmental meetings at the local university than from behind the fast food counter, but the thing I find most disturbing about the incrementalist approach in this election is that, as near as I can tell, Hillary's incrementalism will largely be aimed at undoing the disastrous consequences of her husband's administration. I can already imagine a future, say, 20 years down the road, where we'll be hectored in voting for Chelsea to incrementally undo, say, the privatization of Social Security that her mom is gunning for.
Actually, who am I kidding? I expect that in 20 years we'll probably be voting for which of the post-apocalyptic motorcycle gang warlords will be ruling our dying planet, but I am well aware that there's an unhealthy dose of millenarianism in my thinking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're absolutely right, none of my opinions are worth anything.Eh, I was going to interact, but I'm getting kind of tired of your high horse lately. Whatever, you're absolutely correct and nothing I ever have to say is of any value. Just consider that my standard response to you for a while.She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
(Emphasis added)
What are the other ways the former Secretary of State, Senator from Wall Street, most hawkish member of Obama's cabinet who is running on "America Is Already Great" doesn't represent the status quo?
Ha. Coming from you, I find that pretty rich.
Anyway, I gather from the responses that, other than her sex, she doesn't represent anything other than the status quo.
I'm glad we can finally agree on something, Comrade Pravda.
I see that, according to 538, Hillary's chances have dropped to 65ish%.
I also ran across this article (Black Turnout Soft in Early Voting, Boding Ill for Hillary Clinton) which suggests that minority enthusiasm for Hillary was overstated. But we'll see.
So Trump blamed Clinton for the fire bombing in North Carolina so that means we can blame Trump for this, right?
Yuck.
And, it's been a while, but,
Running Subtheme: Education Reform and Vote No On 2
Baker's pro-Question 2 efforts in Lowell met with opposition (VIDEO)
I'm afraid our participation in the Vote No On 2! campaign has dwindled since they've turned to holding their speakouts at a time when I am still at work and Mr. Comrade has vacated Lowell and moved back to Nashua.
:(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see that, according to 538, Hillary's chances have dropped to 65ish%.
I also ran across this article (Black Turnout Soft in Early Voting, Boding Ill for Hillary Clinton) which suggests that minority enthusiasm for Hillary was overstated. But we'll see.
I'm not so sure how I feel about 538's prediction algorithm over the last week. They say that they use "fat" tails (statistical analysis) which tends to factor in more "less-likely" scenarios. I think they are getting carried away. I find it very difficult to believe that the likelihood of a Clinton win has gone from 87% to 65% in just a few days. I really think it was probably always closer to 70% and still is today.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Trump doesn't win I have to think his tenure as head of the FBI may be coming to a close.
I keep reading this the wrong way and it's terrifying.
I find it very difficult to believe that the likelihood of a Clinton win has gone from 87% to 65% in just a few days.
It's weird that you think 538 is too responsive—most other aggregators were putting Trump as low as 5%. 538 is the one site that predicted a Trump "comeback" (or whatever it is we've been watching).
I tell you, if the Green Party had a remotely strong candidate—even a Nader—Clinton would be in a lot of trouble. Fortunately, the Green Party is about as well-run as the Libertarians.
What will happen if McMullin takes Utah? As I understand it, if he does, it could be that neither candidate gets enough electors. Then again, he specifically ran because he wanted to give people an alternative to voting for Trump. If neither getting there by electors, and the alternative methods would result in Trump, is there any way he can solve this?
Thank you. =)
What will happen if McMullin takes Utah? As I understand it, if he does, it could be that neither candidate gets enough electors. Then again, he specifically ran because he wanted to give people an alternative to voting for Trump. If neither getting there by electors, and the alternative methods would result in Trump, is there any way he can solve this?
McMullin is relying largely on his personal contacts among the House of Representatives to be able to win the individual votes of individual Congressmen. He was specifically a senior advisor to a very influential House committee (Foreign Affairs, IIRC), and later a chief policy director for the House Republican caucus, and so he's shaken a lot of hands in the Capitol Rotunda.
The general idea is that he will be able to talk to the individual members, remind them that he's a standup guy who can be relied upon, and so he should be voted for over that loose cannon nutcase in the orange wig.
It's not clear what the effects would be back home, but they wouldn't be felt until 2018 (when the elections next come around), which may give individual Congressmen time to cover their own backsides and cut appropriate deals for the benefit of their constituencies. Or, at least, that's McMullin's hope.
McMullin is basically aiming for a Kasich gambit. Whether his chances are worse or better will likely be moot, since the tie itself is an unlikely scenario.
All I know is if we are in the city of brass, I'd like to move cities. The Plane of Fire is nice, but I don't wanna live there. City of Breezes or Palace of Ice would be nicer.
Of course you know, THIS means WAR!
Well, the odds of Trump winning were about the same as the odds of the Cubs winning the World Series
Crystal,
Don't remind me!
Trump has to win every battleground state AND take a blue state. That doesn't sound like a 33% chance to me (sounds a lot lower) but my social stats background is from a different discipline so I can't really back up my argument here.
Also, I spoke with a number of reluctant voters yesterday who told me they felt Hillary Clinton was "shady" and "up to something". I asked them what they thought her end goal was and they really didn't have an answer for me.
So what is HRC really up to?
The destruction of America? That doesn't sound like it would fare well for her career. Money? She seems pretty well off. Also, she'd be the president soooo what use would that really do for her?
Making our elementary schools teach evil ideologies like feminism or race equality to our children? I'm not sure this one warrants a response.
Colluding with foreign power? But why? To what aim?
The whole "HRC is up to something" just seems like baseless conspiracy theory.
So what is HRC really up to?
The destruction of America? That doesn't sound like it would fare well for her career. Money?
Bingo! She's out to DESTROY 'MURICA. Because...reasons. (Duh).
Seriously though, there is no shortage of really, really ugly stuff about HRC (and any who dare support her) out there. Misogyny is just the tip of the iceberg.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm out to destroy America because Terry Brooks convinced me that it leads to fantasy novels.
Speaking of destroying things, the GOP has been threatening to impeach Clinton basically as soon as she's elected.
Any opinions on this?
I'm still amazed that people actually care about baseball of all things.
Them's fightin' words, friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crush them, drive them before us and hear the lamentations of their ex-Representatives.
*see them driven
Conan is displeased with your misquote.
Speaking of destroying things, the GOP has been threatening to impeach Clinton basically as soon as she's elected.
Any opinions on this?
Seems like the logical continuation of their recent scorched-earth policy.
|
I find it very difficult to believe that the likelihood of a Clinton win has gone from 87% to 65% in just a few days.It's weird that you think 538 is too responsive—most other aggregators were putting Trump as low as 5%. 538 is the one site that predicted a Trump "comeback" (or whatever it is we've been watching).
The way the 538 model works, it is basically assuming that the large (3x normal) percentage of people polling as undecided or for third party candidates will mostly break for the main party candidate who currently has momentum (i.e. improving polls)... which post Comey e-mail surprise means Trump... and since the 'other' vote is currently more than double the difference between Clinton and Trump that tilt suggests he still has a fair chance to win.
However, I question the base assumptions. It seems far more likely that this 'other' bloc of people will vote third party, split between the two major party candidates roughly along the lines of the electorate as a whole, or not vote at all... any or all of which mean a clear Clinton victory.
It is ONLY if the 'others' break strongly for Trump in these final days that the 538 percentages pan out. Even so... they still have the odds heavily favoring a Clinton victory and Democrats retaking the Senate.
Trump has been gaining people from Johnson's camp. That's the main reason for his climb (along with Hillary losing some people). I think there's great cause for concern.
|
|
Seems like the logical continuation of their recent scorched-earth policy.Speaking of destroying things, the GOP has been threatening to impeach Clinton basically as soon as she's elected.
Any opinions on this?
By 'recent' you mean since Bill Clinton's second term, right?
I never entertained the possibility that they would NOT be looking to impeach her from day one.
That said, if Democrats take the Senate I expect the House will continue endless 'investigations', but not actually vote on impeachment. They'll wait until they have a majority in the Senate... which could easily happen in 2018 given how low Democrat turnout is in non-Presidential election years.
The funny thing is... if they don't have any more to go on than they do now... that could be Hillary's best shot at getting a second term. The more the GOP over-reaches the better her approval ratings will get.
|
|
Bad as not impeaching would look to the base, there's enough sane Republicans left in the House to know that a failed one will be even worse.
I think you vastly over-estimate GOP sanity.
Not having 67 votes didn't stop them last time. They thought with 55 seats they could muster a majority to convict and thus make it seem like he was guilty and only the need for a super-majority kept him in office. That they couldn't muster 51 votes was a measure of the relative sanity (i.e. 9.1%, 5/55) of the GOP at the time.
With the current batch I doubt they'd need more than 51 GOP senators to get 51 votes to convict. If they had 55 again it would be a slam dunk.
So, I'm curious about what you guys think about this.
My little portion of Oregon is stuck with a frozen yeti turd named Kurt Schrader. Schrader is essentially a Republican who worked out that he'd do better if he started running as a Democrat. He managed to win a primary and lurched into the running. He's been our Representative in the House ever since. We can't beat him in primaries—this year's attempt didn't even come close, and it was a stronger attempt than we expected.
Either we're stuck with him for two more years, or a somewhat worse GOP Representative. Obviously, I'd rather have Schrader than his opposition. That said, it's starting to look like the only way to get a better Democatic candidate for Representative is to kick Schrader out. By that logic, perhaps it would be better to tolerate two years with a Republican so we can muster a stronger Democratic opponent and return the region to logic.
What do you guys think? Worth it for the long game, or too dangerous in the short game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic, perhaps it would be better to tolerate two years with a Republican so we can muster a stronger Democratic opponent and return the region to logic.
Almost never works. Instead, people get even more disgusted by politics and overall voter participation falls, making it ever easier for that person's crazy friends to keep them in office.
What *does* work is finding an actual candidate who can bring people together to work on their campaign. It may take a few years. But start by finding good people to run for school board, township boards, city and village councils, whatever the first level of decision making.
Look for someone in the community who is *already* bring different neighborhoods and interest groups together. They generally won't be a viable candidate for federal office without that kind of resume.
"A stronger Democratic candidate" doesn't appear out of nowhere. They have to already have roots and ties and supporters in the community.
If you can't take over your township board with your candidates, you're never going to change congress
Almost never works. Instead, people get even more disgusted by politics and overall voter participation falls, making it ever easier for that person's crazy friends to keep them in office.
Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that a weak Democratic incumbent can have similar problems.
And it's not like stronger candidates don't already exist. The trouble is just that it's really hard to beat an incumbent in the primary. They weren't even able to kick Schultz out, and a ton of Democrats despise Schultz.
Almost never works. Instead, people get even more disgusted by politics and overall voter participation falls, making it ever easier for that person's crazy friends to keep them in office.Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that a weak Democratic incumbent can have similar problems.
Yes, I lived it. I'll send you a PM.
By that logic, perhaps it would be better to tolerate two years with a Republican so we can muster a stronger Democratic opponent and return the region to logic.Almost never works. Instead, people get even more disgusted by politics and overall voter participation falls, making it ever easier for that person's crazy friends to keep them in office.
What *does* work is finding an actual candidate who can bring people together to work on their campaign. It may take a few years. But start by finding good people to run for school board, township boards, city and village councils, whatever the first level of decision making.
Look for someone in the community who is *already* bring different neighborhoods and interest groups together. They generally won't be a viable candidate for federal office without that kind of resume.
"A stronger Democratic candidate" doesn't appear out of nowhere. They have to already have roots and ties and supporters in the community.
If you can't take over your township board with your candidates, you're never going to change congress
I don't know about the disgust, but similar arguments have been made by 3rd party folks almost every presidential election in recent years. If the adversary wins, there is no guarantee that people will suddenly learn there lesson and vote for your candidates. But it will ensure that policies you don't like will get passed, and the next candidate will have to dig out of potential hole the last person left, rather than building on previous efforts.
Kurt Schrader is that hole. He's already passing policies we don't like. We're stuck with him until he loses something, and that's a fact.
What do you guys think? Worth it for the long game, or too dangerous in the short game?
The power he gives comitees and whatnot is greater from his mere presence than his vote would be. I'd say put up with him, nothing prevents him from still doing this if he loses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in today's news, the New York Times has some interesting reporting on Trump's income.
Possible. OTOH, they haven't impeached Obama. Something's kept them from trying that.Bad as not impeaching would look to the base, there's enough sane Republicans left in the House to know that a failed one will be even worse.I think you vastly over-estimate GOP sanity.
Not having 67 votes didn't stop them last time. They thought with 55 seats they could muster a majority to convict and thus make it seem like he was guilty and only the need for a super-majority kept him in office. That they couldn't muster 51 votes was a measure of the relative sanity (i.e. 9.1%, 5/55) of the GOP at the time.
With the current batch I doubt they'd need more than 51 GOP senators to get 51 votes to convict. If they had 55 again it would be a slam dunk.
Lack of a two thirds majority in the Senate is all I can think of.
After all they've had no blowback from stalling the process for confirming a Judge, continually threathening government shutdowns, after all this is the America that gave a full pass to the Bundy boys for disrupting a national park, causing millions in damage, and they even have the gall to announce their next target.