Thought for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This is demoralizing for Democrats. Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff tonight in the special election in GA 6. It was a good test for whether Republicans in a closely contested district would put aside partisan politics and vote for a centrist who was clearly the more thoughtful of the two running. In debates it was obvious early on that Ossoff was articulate, polished, passionate, and qualified, whereas Handel was simplistic, stumbled over her answers and generally came across as a useless wingnut. I ask myself what I would do if the tables were turned and the Republican were the far better candidate; it would be difficult but rarely do Republicans ever put forward candidates who are well-versed in policy and have a clear, positive message.
There is the belief that this was a referendum on the centrist style candidate and some believe that a more "progressive" Bernie Sanders protege will do better by exciting the base rather than trying to appeal to the undecideds. We'll see...this was a red district and I'm sure Democrats will try to spin this as an over-achievement, but it depends when expectations were set. Many believed Ossoff would pull this out and he lost by a clear margin.

---

And here is the spin:

a) the Democrats last won this seat in 1974 with 51.45% of the vote compared to the Republican 48.55%. In all of the subsequent Republican victories until last night the winning margin for the Republican was substantial, eg 79.91% to 20.09% in 2002; 66.04% to 33.96% in 2014; 61.7% to 38.3% in 2016. To win by less than 5% is a shocking result on any level, and illustrates how much the Republican party has lost.

b) the result confirms that the divisions in the USA are deep but that political geography may be consolidating these divisions unfairly as the boundaries of Congressional districts are drawn to favour one party or another, a matter that went before the Supreme Court a few days ago in relation to a case in Wisconsin:
The US supreme court on Monday agreed to decide whether electoral maps drawn deliberately to favor a particular political party are acceptable under the constitution, in a case that could have huge consequences for future US elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017...-supreme-court

c) I think we have to accept that Republicans receive their news, and probably all of their news, from other Republicans, and believe that their President is not only a huge success, that he has already changed the USA, but that he is the greatest President of all time. He says so himself, and organized a table-top endorsement of his colleagues to praise him and his glory.
What I like is the way that the President asks 'Where is the Vice-President?' even though the man in question is sitting directly opposite him, so maybe it was not a question of geography...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS7J6kTikU0

Point b is a very important one. I have not been following the gerrymandering cases but it affects the make up of the House of Representatives. Point a is a good one too...I knew there was data like that but not exactly what it was. It's a reasonable thing to keep in mind.

I read an article that said Democrats have 24 districts to flip in order to take the House in 2018. There are 26 districts that are red but in which Clinton did better than she did in Georgia sixth. These things aren't predictable so it is possible to win a couple districts that are bigger long-shots than Georgia sixth. But if that doesn't happen, it's a tall order to win 24 of the 26 red districts that have a better shot than this one (and of course not lose any that are held by Democrats). I am not steeped in the polling of these various places and it's a long time until 2018, but it's not a great sign.

Actually, here's the article. Probably a bit over the top in its pessimism, but some decent points too. https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/158438...ecial-election

http://i.imgur.com/X2sxyg9.png

1 month 10 days later...

http://i.imgur.com/EVFuguR.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-handel-239778

This is demoralizing for Democrats. Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff tonight in the special election in GA 6. It was a good test for whether Republicans in a closely contested district would put aside partisan politics and vote for a centrist who was clearly the more thoughtful of the two running. In debates it was obvious early on that Ossoff was articulate, polished, passionate, and qualified, whereas Handel was simplistic, stumbled over her answers and generally came across as a useless wingnut. I ask myself what I would do if the tables were turned and the Republican were the far better candidate; it would be difficult but rarely do Republicans ever put forward candidates who are well-versed in policy and have a clear, positive message.

There is the belief that this was a referendum on the centrist style candidate and some believe that a more "progressive" Bernie Sanders protege will do better by exciting the base rather than trying to appeal to the undecideds. We'll see...this was a red district and I'm sure Democrats will try to spin this as an over-achievement, but it depends when expectations were set. Many believed Ossoff would pull this out and he lost by a clear margin.

---

Tim Ryan was on CNN last night and he said that the Democrat brand is toxic right now. He also didn't like the idea of trying to spin Ossoff's showing into some sort of moral victory and that he didn't like playing for second place. Ryan is only one of a few Democrats that realizes that their party has an issue reaching out to working class voters and that its in trouble.

The Democratic party better wake up soon and realize that just playing defense and running out the clock until 2020 isn't going to be enough. Or else they're going to be looking at 4 more years of a Republican in the White House.

Minor news today: Trump admitted on twitter and through a letter to the house judiciary committee that he does not have tapes of his conversations with Comey. I sincerely think this is much worse than if he did have tapes although the idea of the President taping someone surreptitiously is not a lot better.

He said he had tapes when he didn't. He said it to make Comey think his honest recollections were false. Why? To prevent him from testifying honestly. This really is a shit-show. I can't even imagine how Republicans would act if Obama or Hillary bluffed they had secret tapes they did not have before a justice department official testified. It would not be the whitewash we see. Shameful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Minor news today: Trump admitted on twitter and through a letter to the house judiciary committee that he does not have tapes of his conversations with Comey. I sincerely think this is much worse than if he did have tapes although the idea of the President taping someone surreptitiously is not a lot better.

He said he had tapes when he didn't. He said it to make Comey think his honest recollections were false. Why? To prevent him from testifying honestly. This really is a shit-show. I can't even imagine how Republicans would act if Obama or Hillary bluffed they had secret tapes they did not have before a justice department official testified. It would not be the whitewash we see. Shameful.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.d7c11e2c678a

Two statutes that are cited here. The president committed two felonies. It doesn't seem borderline anymore since he has used to twitter to commit the felony and then admit to facts that prove he committed it.

[QUOTE=broncofan;1774239
Two statutes that are cited here. The president committed two felonies. It doesn't seem borderline anymore since he has used to twitter to commit the felony and then admit to facts that prove he committed it.[/QUOTE]

If it is the case that the President has broken the law, does that mean local law enforcement can arrest and charge him with the felonies you refer to? When the President claimed President Obama had illegally taped his offices, that too was a violation of the law, yet President Obama was not arrested, handcuffed and chained, marched off to the police station and charged with a felony. Moreover, how does one arrest and charge a President if he has broken the law but his allies in Congress think that is ok? Newt Gingrich happily tells you his President has lied about taping his conversations with former FBI Director Comey, but it doesn't matter because his President is not a 'professional politician', so I guess everything else this President does is just down to inexperience, and years of protocol can be ignored if the President chooses to, and break the law knowing Congress doesn't care.

Courts in the US have declared that the ban imposed on travellers from named countries is illegal, yet Border Officials ever since the Executive Order was issued have been denying people entry to the USA, regardless of what the law says. They do not even need to be the five year old boys the USA is terrified of, or Muslims. Dwight Yorke, who played football for Aston Villa and Manchester United, was denied entry to the USA because he played a charity football match in Tehran and thus had an Iranian visa stamp in his passport.

The law is now irrelevant, the Order came from the Glorious and Most Popular President, and that is all that matters, just ask his supporters.

There is something so uncritical and oblivious about his supporters as they seem willing to abdicate all historical checks on his power. Our system is designed to deal with someone engaged in self-dealing and who disregards the rule of law, but it can't handle the complicity of so many people.

It goes back to the conversation you and Trish had about the tribal nature of politics. Is the aversion of right wing voters to us liberals so strong that they would be willing to brave financial ruin just to see us squirm and to avoid admitting we were right about this man? Because the health care bill he intends to pass will not only hurt Democrats. We're not the only ones who get asthma, depression, diabetes, cancer, lupus, scleroderma and have limited financial resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It goes back to the conversation you and Trish had about the tribal nature of politics.

---

But there is a deeper problem here. Those who are not familiar with our politics seem amazed that we talk about our Judges as though they are political figures. It's not just that we think their methodologies lead to particular political outcomes but that we think they must lean in one direction or another and be in the bag for someone. There is nobody in this country who is beyond reproach. We could amend our constitution and design a fourth branch which would be an independent executive fully insulated from the other branches to investigate the other three and make sure they uphold their constitutional duties (part judicial and part executive). But nobody would trust them either. We have a lack of faith in one another and a lack of faith in the ability of people to fairly moderate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Tim Ryan was on CNN last night and he said that the Democrat brand is toxic right now. He also didn't like the idea of trying to spin Ossoff's showing into some sort of moral victory and that he didn't like playing for second place. Ryan is only one of a few Democrats that realizes that their party has an issue reaching out to working class voters and that its in trouble.

The Democratic party better wake up soon and realize that just playing defense and running out the clock until 2020 isn't going to be enough. Or else they're going to be looking at 4 more years of a Republican in the White House.

---

I agree with Tim Ryan. He seems like a straight shooter. I was disappointed by the outcome in GA 6 and didn't see it as a moral victory only because we have a limited number of better districts if we actually want to take back the house. If the take away is that support for Republicans has eroded a little bit but not enough for us to control the house, the senate, the presidency, or the appointment of new justices then I can't really be optimistic. Our brand is bad in the sense that there is a generalized aversion to it that transcends specific policies we advocate.

I just wonder what the answer is. Because Ossoff ran to the center by pursuing a pro-business attitude and avoiding less popular items like single payer health care. He was vulnerable as an outsider, both culturally and because he lived a handful of blocks outside the district and seems to fit this pajama boy stereotype the Republicans have of us. Re-branding is not easy, particularly when your offenses don't seem to be offenses at all but just differences that make you a target of mean-spirited ridicule.