2018 Democrats thread

[Reddy]

12 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Oprah's HIGHLY UNLIKELY to run.

I would say the chances are greater than zero but less than 3%.   A LOT depends on what happens in the next 1 1/4 years, obviously.  I don't think she would be very well accepted at all by the progressive side of the Democratic Party, likely leading to a 3 way/divided national ticket (which would pretty much ensure a Trump victory in 2020.)

 

https://truthout.org/articles/henry-a-giroux-the-nightmare-of-neoliberal-fascism/The Nightmare of Neoliberal Fascism

No matter what there will not be a mainstream liberal/third party candidate running in 2020. Your narrative surrounding that is extremely overblown. 

[Reddy]

10 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

@Reddy, thoughts on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

In what regard? Just googled her since I'd never heard of her until now.

Do you somehow think she won't be crushed?

[caulfield12]

Reddy, you might want to pay attention to Kara Eastman (NE), who shocked the DCCC candidate in Brad Ashford

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-apos-divisions-haven-apos-100019407.html

Not to mention Jerry McNerney and Carol Shea-Porter were candidates that Rahn Emmanuel only supported (begrudgingly) after they won seats in Congress, while all of his 2006 candidates were defeated.

So that, I feel, is going to motivate people to go to the polls. What happened in 2006, the last big blue wave that-. What happened is that Rahm Emanuel was the head of the DCCC. He did everything he can, he could do, to disadvantage progressives. So you know, all over the country he would be backing these terrible conservative Wall Street candidates, and some of them were anti-gay, some of them were anti-choice, and they were all pro Wall Street. And some of them were pro-NRA. It was just a terrible lot of candidates. But he knew, he’s a smart guy. He knew that what would happen is people, there was a wave building, and people would just go and vote for his atrocious candidates.

So first of all, in the primaries, some of his bad candidates lost, and the progressives won. He then would, he then cut ties with them and just gave up on those districts. However, many of those candidates won anyway. And some of them are still in Congress, like Jerry McNerney, for example, or Carol Shea Porter, another example of candidates that Rahm would help after they won against his terrible candidates in the primary. They’re still in Congress. But you know what happened to every single one of Rahm’s candidates, every one of them? Not one, not one, it doesn’t fit in with what I’m telling you. Not one of them is still in Congress, because the next time there was a primary, that’s when-. I’m sorry, the next time there was a midterm, the Repub the Democrats the progressive Democrats said I’m not voting for this guy you voted with Republicans all the time in Congress. He’s terrible. I got sold a bill of goods and they were defeated. That was in 2010. That was the next primary after 20 06. And people say, oh, look how badly the Democrats did. No. What happened is all of the candidates that Rahm snuck into Congress in this big wave, they were all defeated the next time Democrats could defeat them.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/candidate-survived-domestic-abuse_us_5af47e3ce4b0859d11d15299

Democratic candidate survived domestic abuse, only to have it used against her by Dem opponent

But the relationship between the two (UC-Irvine) professors deteriorated over time. Porter told the Huffington Post in May that she believed Min was behind a whisper campaign against her, insinuating that elements of her 2013 divorce from an abusive husband rendered her unelectable.

“Dave Min is making desperate, false and sexist attacks against Katie Porter in order to cover up his own record siding with corporate interests,” reads a message on her campaign website.

Porter supporters also told the Huffington Post that things got tense at the California Democratic Party Convention in February when Min won the party’s endorsement by just one vote. Some Min supporters tried to intimidate Porter’s team from collecting enough signatures to force a second vote, they claimed. Min’s campaign manager responded that the campaign did not employ either rumors or intimidation to get ahead.

...

Porter cried as she told me these stories in the basement conference room of a Marriott in Washington, D.C. It was mid-April 2018, and in a few hours, female Democratic senators and celebrities would descend on the hotel for the annual EMILY’s List gala. Porter was also being celebrated that night as part of the post-election wave of women candidates vying for office. A 44-year-old Harvard-educated consumer advocate, she was the first congressional candidate EMILY’s List endorsed for the 2018 cycle and has since landed the endorsements of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

...

Porter knew that millions of women would be able to relate to her story ― 1 in 3 American women are physically abused by an intimate partner in their lifetimes, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence ― but she also had little choice about coming forward. Her divorce and the protective order she obtained against her husband have become the subject of a whisper campaign in the competitive Democratic primary for California’s 45th Congressional District. Several delegates to the Orange County Democratic Party told Porter they’d heard rumors from a rival campaign that something in her divorce records might disqualify her in the general election.

The last straw for Porter was when a man in Denver named Kevin Matthews whom she’d never met referred to her as “Katie ‘Restraining Order’ Porter” on Twitter.  

 

https://www.law.com/2018/06/06/bruising-primary-drives-wedge-between-u-c-irvine-law-prof-candidates/?slreturn=20180511031059

In the end, Porter defeated Min 20% to 17% to get into the runoff against Mimi Walters (has been a GOP Congressional district forever despite going Clinton over Trump this past election)

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by caulfield12

[Dam8610]

8 hours ago, Reddy said:

In what regard? Just googled her since I'd never heard of her until now.

Do you somehow think she won't be crushed?

Do you think that a 70% POC district should be represented by a POC for the first time in its history? Do you think pro Wall Street, pro big Pharma Joe Crowley who is claiming it's "his destiny" to be in Congress and that he "can't help being born white" and that his opponent's campaign is "about race" and therefore "unnecessarily divisive" deserves to "crush" a candidate like Ocasio-Cortez, as you put it?

5 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Reddy, you might want to pay attention to Kara Eastman (NE), who shocked the DCCC candidate in Brad Ashford

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-apos-divisions-haven-apos-100019407.html

Not to mention Jerry McNerney and Carol Shea-Porter were candidates that Rahn Emmanuel only supported (begrudgingly) after they won seats in Congress, while all of his 2006 candidates were defeated.

So that, I feel, is going to motivate people to go to the polls. What happened in 2006, the last big blue wave that-. What happened is that Rahm Emanuel was the head of the DCCC. He did everything he can, he could do, to disadvantage progressives. So you know, all over the country he would be backing these terrible conservative Wall Street candidates, and some of them were anti-gay, some of them were anti-choice, and they were all pro Wall Street. And some of them were pro-NRA. It was just a terrible lot of candidates. But he knew, he’s a smart guy. He knew that what would happen is people, there was a wave building, and people would just go and vote for his atrocious candidates.

So first of all, in the primaries, some of his bad candidates lost, and the progressives won. He then would, he then cut ties with them and just gave up on those districts. However, many of those candidates won anyway. And some of them are still in Congress, like Jerry McNerney, for example, or Carol Shea Porter, another example of candidates that Rahm would help after they won against his terrible candidates in the primary. They’re still in Congress. But you know what happened to every single one of Rahm’s candidates, every one of them? Not one, not one, it doesn’t fit in with what I’m telling you. Not one of them is still in Congress, because the next time there was a primary, that’s when-. I’m sorry, the next time there was a midterm, the Repub the Democrats the progressive Democrats said I’m not voting for this guy you voted with Republicans all the time in Congress. He’s terrible. I got sold a bill of goods and they were defeated. That was in 2010. That was the next primary after 20 06. And people say, oh, look how badly the Democrats did. No. What happened is all of the candidates that Rahm snuck into Congress in this big wave, they were all defeated the next time Democrats could defeat them.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/candidate-survived-domestic-abuse_us_5af47e3ce4b0859d11d15299

Democratic candidate survived domestic abuse, only to have it used against her by Dem opponent

But the relationship between the two (UC-Irvine) professors deteriorated over time. Porter told the Huffington Post in May that she believed Min was behind a whisper campaign against her, insinuating that elements of her 2013 divorce from an abusive husband rendered her unelectable.

“Dave Min is making desperate, false and sexist attacks against Katie Porter in order to cover up his own record siding with corporate interests,” reads a message on her campaign website.

Porter supporters also told the Huffington Post that things got tense at the California Democratic Party Convention in February when Min won the party’s endorsement by just one vote. Some Min supporters tried to intimidate Porter’s team from collecting enough signatures to force a second vote, they claimed. Min’s campaign manager responded that the campaign did not employ either rumors or intimidation to get ahead.

...

Porter cried as she told me these stories in the basement conference room of a Marriott in Washington, D.C. It was mid-April 2018, and in a few hours, female Democratic senators and celebrities would descend on the hotel for the annual EMILY’s List gala. Porter was also being celebrated that night as part of the post-election wave of women candidates vying for office. A 44-year-old Harvard-educated consumer advocate, she was the first congressional candidate EMILY’s List endorsed for the 2018 cycle and has since landed the endorsements of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

...

Porter knew that millions of women would be able to relate to her story ― 1 in 3 American women are physically abused by an intimate partner in their lifetimes, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence ― but she also had little choice about coming forward. Her divorce and the protective order she obtained against her husband have become the subject of a whisper campaign in the competitive Democratic primary for California’s 45th Congressional District. Several delegates to the Orange County Democratic Party told Porter they’d heard rumors from a rival campaign that something in her divorce records might disqualify her in the general election.

The last straw for Porter was when a man in Denver named Kevin Matthews whom she’d never met referred to her as “Katie ‘Restraining Order’ Porter” on Twitter.  

 

https://www.law.com/2018/06/06/bruising-primary-drives-wedge-between-u-c-irvine-law-prof-candidates/?slreturn=20180511031059

In the end, Porter defeated Min 20% to 17% to get into the runoff against Mimi Walters (has been a GOP Congressional district forever despite going Clinton over Trump this past election)

 

Wait, you mean "Vote Blue No Matter Who" will never work for progressive because the centrists will just fill Congress with horrible, easily beaten Congressmen who will only get one term because of that strategy? How could anyone have possibly known that?

[Reddy]

6 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Do you think that a 70% POC district should be represented by a POC for the first time in its history? Do you think pro Wall Street, pro big Pharma Joe Crowley who is claiming it's "his destiny" to be in Congress and that he "can't help being born white" and that his opponent's campaign is "about race" and therefore "unnecessarily divisive" deserves to "crush" a candidate like Ocasio-Cortez, as you put it?

Wait, you mean "Vote Blue No Matter Who" will never work for progressive because the centrists will just fill Congress with horrible, easily beaten Congressmen who will only get one term because of that strategy? How could anyone have possibly known that?

Literally the only articles about her are from the intercept and worse. She's raised less than 10% of what he's raised. I didn't make a statement about who SHOULD win to represent that district, I'm telling you who - most likely - will.

I'm all about Blue No Matter Who, and that goes both ways. I support Randy Bryce ferociously. I support Dems who can win. In a seat like Crowley's that will be blue no matter what, I'd love to see a viable progressive beat him. Thus far based on the numbers, that doesn't seem likely this time around.

[StrangeSox]

SCOTUS rules GOP voter suppression measures in Ohio are okay along partisan lines, Alito writing the opinion.

 

Republicans' constant voter suppression efforts need to be attacked strongly wherever Democrats get power.

 

[StrangeSox]

The Motor Voter Act is pretty explicit about this, but the Republican partisans on the court have never let explicitly clear voter protection/rights language get in their way of signing off on GOP-friendly voter suppression in the past (looking at you, Shelby County).

 

 

Democrats need to pack the court with half a dozen other justices or we're going to face decades of illegitimate conservative dogma destroying any chance at progress.

 

 

should also consider removing Gorsuch's illegitimate seat and issuing reversals of all rulings in which his vote was necessary to form a majority. McConnell started this game of hardball, Dems need to be willing to finish it.

Edited June 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

10 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

SCOTUS rules GOP voter suppression measures in Ohio are okay along partisan lines, Alito writing the opinion.

 

Republicans' constant voter suppression efforts need to be attacked strongly wherever Democrats get power.

 

Hillary was just as bad, y'all.

[Jenksismyhero]

On the one hand, i'm not sure why it's a problem if people that have registered and don't vote remain registered (perhaps there is a good reason?), but on the other, I don't see the problem with removing people who (1) don't return the pre-addressed/pre-stamped postcard sent by the state to verify they still reside at the address, and then (2) fail to vote [edit: FOR FOUR YEARS].

It's laughable that that can be considered a barrier to vote.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Jenksismyhero

[StrangeSox]

Weird how twice as many people in Democratic areas compared to Republican areas get purged from the roles.

You can read Sotomayor's dissent wherein she lays out the history of this sort of voter suppression tactics. Failing to vote FOR FOUR YEARS isn't that big of a window and you shouldn't lose your ability to vote and have to jump through hurdles to get it back because you weren't interested in 1-2 Presidential elections.

It's just another one of the GOP's efforts to maintain power and control while only have a shrinking minority of voters. The damage they're going to be doing in the courts will last a generation, which is why the Democrats need to aggressively combat it. You can keep insisting that it's "laughable" that it's considered a voting barrier, but there's a reason why the GOP aggressively pursues voter suppression everywhere they can.

Edited June 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[GoSox05]

It should be an insanely difficult process to remove someone from the voter roll not the other way around. 

Let's not act like this is just a about having some good process or to get rid of voter fraud or whatever bullshit excuse they make.  It's about making it difficult for certain parts of the country to vote. 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

How difficult is it to return a postcard? As difficult as registering in the first place?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

And what are the "hurdles" to getting back the ability to vote? Re-registering? How on earth can people do that if they can't even send in a pre-addressed/stamped post card?!

[StrangeSox]

Ohio's already purged 2 million since 2011, more than any other state. This is carried out by GOP operatives to suppress the vote, which favors the GOP.

 

facially neutral voter restrictions that have wildly disparate racial impact have a long and bad history in this country, jenks. "what's so hard about a literacy test?" "can you really not afford that small poll tax?"

Edited June 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Great. 

I ask again, how hard is it to return a postcard? And what are the hurdles to re-registering?

[Jenksismyhero]

Come on, those are vastly different from this. This is less work than registering. It's just a verification of your residence on a freakin' postcard. You can skip all the elections you want, just verify your address.

Again, there may be no good reason to remove people from the registry or there may be a very good reason. I have no idea. But I think it's laughable that putting in the smallest amount of "work" like this can be considered a barrier or some kind of voter suppression. 

You'll find that ANY effort to vote will impact more liberals than republican based on class.  So, why even have registration as a requirement? That takes some work! 

 

[Soxbadger]

 

5 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Come on, those are vastly different from this. This is less work than registering. It's just a verification of your residence on a freakin' postcard. You can skip all the elections you want, just verify your address.

Again, there may be no good reason to remove people from the registry or there may be a very good reason. I have no idea. But I think it's laughable that putting in the smallest amount of "work" like this can be considered a barrier or some kind of voter suppression. 

You'll find that ANY effort to vote will impact more liberals than republican based on class.  So, why even have registration as a requirement? That takes some work! 

 

 

Jenks,

I dont care if its Republicans or Democrats. But do you think that any citizen of the US should be able to vote in their district on election day? That there should be some mechanism to ensure that the most amount of legitimate voters can vote? 

Personally I think verification by mail is stupid. Mail gets lost all the time. At my building there are stacks of mail that were put in the wrong mailbox, etc. What steps do you think Ohio/Post office should take to ensure that the mail is delivered? Id say at minimum it should be return receipt. 

[BigSqwert]

On 6/10/2018 at 1:17 AM, caulfield12 said:

Harris isn’t ready to be president yet...I could see her running, but she needs some more experience (especially with international affairs.)

 

 

 

She does?  Why?  The last 2 Presidents had historically very little experience.  Is it because she's a woman?

[Jenksismyhero]

15 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

 

Jenks,

I dont care if its Republicans or Democrats. But do you think that any citizen of the US should be able to vote in their district on election day? That there should be some mechanism to ensure that the most amount of legitimate voters can vote? 

Personally I think verification by mail is stupid. Mail gets lost all the time. At my building there are stacks of mail that were put in the wrong mailbox, etc. What steps do you think Ohio/Post office should take to ensure that the mail is delivered? Id say at minimum it should be return receipt. 

I do, and if someone is removed from the registry for failing to return the card, they should be able to follow the same registration process and vote again. That's why I don't see a problem here - they get removed and as far as I can tell they have no additional hurdles to re-register. They just have to do it within 30 days of the election, which is true for anyone. 

I'd be fine with return receipt. And other options to verify (online, in person, etc.)

Look, our election system is 1000 times more complicated than it needs to be. But having to verify your address AND vote in a four year period to stay registered is not too much to ask IMO.

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

I do, and if someone is removed from the registry for failing to return the card, they should be able to follow the same registration process and vote again. That's why I don't see a problem here - they get removed and as far as I can tell they have no additional hurdles to re-register. They just have to do it within 30 days of the election, which is true for anyone. 

I'd be fine with return receipt. And other options to verify (online, in person, etc.)

Look, our election system is 1000 times more complicated than it needs to be. But having to verify your address AND vote in a four year period to stay registered is not too much to ask IMO.

 I dont think you should have to do anything to vote and you should be able to register that day if you feel like it. 

The additional hurdle is this, if I thought I was registered, received nothing in the mail that said I wasnt, then I go to vote and I cant. It seems entirely unnecessary and I think that given modern technology we should allow same day registration.

Anyone who wants to vote should get to vote on election day. Especially for things like President, Governor etc. I can see being a little more strict on district stuff, but if you can prove that you live in the state/country, why not be able to vote for the big things?

[GoSox05]

Once you turn 18 you should be able to vote.  It should nearly impossible to remove that.  

You should want to make voting as easy as possible.  That includes making it a national holiday.  America has a historically low voting percentage compared to most other democracies, so obviously we are doing something wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

Same day registration should be doable, and again it's a "why is our system so ancient/terrible," but how would you prevent voter fraud? Someone could just go to multiple polling places and vote multiple times.

And 100% agree it should be a national holiday. Or at least moved to a Saturday.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Jenksismyhero

[GoSox05]

Every day the Republicans continue to become the most radical right wing party in any democratic country and continue to gain more and more power.

Democratic Party better start to do something.

[Jenksismyhero]

3 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Once you turn 18 you should be able to vote.  It should nearly impossible to remove that.  

You should want to make voting as easy as possible.  That includes making it a national holiday.  America has a historically low voting percentage compared to most other democracies, so obviously we are doing something wrong.

Also no one is taking away your right to vote. It's taking away your registration to vote. Registration is an important step and prevents you from being able to vote in elections you have no business voting in (e.g., voting in Chicago if you moved to California)

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Same day registration should be doable, and again it's a "why is our system to ancient/terrible," but how would you prevent voter fraud? Someone could just go to multiple polling places and vote multiple times.

And 100% agree it should be a national holiday. Or at least moved to a Saturday.

You could go to a fingerprint. I mean Great America uses it for season passes. That would basically eliminate any chance at voter fraud. Now obviously the concern is that then the govt has your finger prints.

I think the main issue is that I just dont really think voter fraud is going to be that big of a deal. Seeing as most people dont vote anyway, what are the chances that so many people are going to commit fraud that it is actually going to the tip the scales in any election? 

I think the govt should be doing everything possible to make voting easy. They govt shouldnt be making laws to make voting hard.