Midterms 2018

[Balta1701]

On 8/7/2018 at 7:27 AM, StrangeSox said:

This seems like a bad idea

 

 

 

[Reddy]

3 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Hillary is from the northern suburbs of Chicago...why didn’t she understand the importance of the Heartland?  Oh, it’s all her campaign staff starting with Mook, Abedin/Weiner, Donna Brazile, Comey and Lynch.

Who won the Haley Stevens race, btw?  Officially called?

Obama was non-denominational Christian, but 25% of the people (let’s call it Trump’s true base) still thought he was Muslim...would he have had a chance if he was “trained in an Indonesian madrasa” as was alleged by the GOP?

 

Honestly, I’m starting to think it’s better to let the GOP basically destroy the US so that some of the progressive ideas that weren’t radical even during FDR’s (and Henry Wallace’s time) would seem much less radical.....eventually, everyone will be forced to acknowledge that the status quo/rightward drift since the 1980s is leading the country into oblivion and irrelevance, and bankruptcy (well, technically a devalued currency and unwillingness by other countries to finance our debt which the GOP no longer acknowledges is a consequential issue at all.)

 

2

This is the most white-privilege thing I've ever seen you say.

And Chicago suburbs aren't the fcking midwest. That's ridiculous. You used to be such a reasonable person on these boards, and you've shifted to crazyland over the last year.

[GoSox05]

24 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Moderate Democrats. People who support women's reproductive rights, raising the min wage (not to a blanket $15, but to a price point their local economies can afford. I've had this convo NUMEROUS times), more funding for trade schools, apprenticeship programs and training programs for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. Affordable college education, funding for infrastructure. Defense of medicaid and social security.

They decry the "socialism" of Bernie and the far-left and don't like people getting things "for free". BUT these are generally lower-information voters (MOST voters are lower-information voters) and they like the programs that help THEM, but they like them because they worked their ASSES off and think they've earned them, while the younger generation is lazy and entitled. I know most of that is actually bullshit, but you aren't going to be able to re-educate millions and millions of voters. You have to meet them where they are and give them a candidate they'll vote for, not live in some fantasy world about the candidate they SHOULD vote for. Because when you do that, you lose. As we saw last night in Michigan, Kansas and we've seen happen across the midwest REPEATEDLY in resounding fashion since 2016.

Moderate Dems have been the main face of the party for a while and probably will be during this election and in two years for a presidential election.  If they fail, like they have in the past, we are looking at historical problems. 

So, you better be right. 

Although, I'm sure if they fail they will find someone else to blame.  Russia again or the Green Party. 

[Reddy]

1 minute ago, GoSox05 said:

Moderate Dems have been the main face of the party for a while and probably will be during this election and in two years for a presidential election.  If they fail, like they have in the past, we are looking at historical problems. 

So, you better be right. 

Although, I'm sure if they fail they will find someone else to blame.  Russia again or the Green Party. 

So even though Russia very well may have been responsible for the low Dem turnout and may have in fact manipulated votes in pivotal states, you still say it's just a fake excuse?

No, Hillary was a poor candidate because of her personal baggage. Anyone else with her policies probably would've won.

[GoSox05]

7 minutes ago, Reddy said:

So even though Russia very well may have been responsible for the low Dem turnout and may have in fact manipulated votes in pivotal states, you still say it's just a fake excuse?

No, Hillary was a poor candidate because of her personal baggage. Anyone else with her policies probably would've won.

First, prove the bolded.

Second,  there is lower voter turn out because no gets excited for a candidate who says, let's raise the minimum wage a nickel a year!!!  How about more Charter schools!!!  Also, I forgot when Vlad Putin came to America and physically stopped Clinton from visiting Wisconsin and Michigan.

Third, you picked her.  The Dem establishment loved her.  Obama backed her.  She ran an election of someone that was promised and owed the presidency.  That is the fault of her and moderate dems who pushed that for years.  If they had someone better they should have ran them. 

Moderate Dems failed in 2016.  Now, they are still in charge and telling everyone what's best.  So, we will see what happens.

Edited August 8, 2018 by GoSox05

[caulfield12]

49 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Moderate Democrats. People who support women's reproductive rights, raising the min wage (not to a blanket $15, but to a price point their local economies can afford. I've had this convo NUMEROUS times), more funding for trade schools, apprenticeship programs and training programs for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. Affordable college education, funding for infrastructure. Defense of medicaid and social security.

They decry the "socialism" of Bernie and the far-left and don't like people getting things "for free". BUT these are generally lower-information voters (MOST voters are lower-information voters) and they like the programs that help THEM, but they like them because they worked their ASSES off and think they've earned them, while the younger generation is lazy and entitled. I know most of that is actually bullshit, but you aren't going to be able to re-educate millions and millions of voters. You have to meet them where they are and give them a candidate they'll vote for, not live in some fantasy world about the candidate they SHOULD vote for. Because when you do that, you lose. As we saw last night in Michigan, Kansas and we've seen happen across the midwest REPEATEDLY in resounding fashion since 2016.

Doug Jones was a complete anomaly, you could have run there as a Republican and won, probably.

That leaves Lamb and the VA gubernatorial race...which wasn’t an upset by any means.   

If it was so cut and dried, Sanders wouldn’t have won all the primaries that he did in 2016.  And they’re (Iowans) most certainly not voting for Medicaid, because they think that’s for the lazy and poor.  They’re voting for Medicare...

The Dems have lost almost all the other special elections, and Ossoff had huge money coming in, but he never defined himself well...he ran a centrist campaign and was smoked by Handel.  The Dems learned you should stand for something at least, and not be a “wussy tabula rasa.”   You can’t win just by merely being against Trump in most regions of the country

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

This is the most white-privilege thing I've ever seen you say.

And Chicago suburbs aren't the fcking midwest. That's ridiculous. You used to be such a reasonable person on these boards, and you've shifted to crazyland over the last year.

My whole goal in life is to make you think I’m going “full Greg” and will vote for the write-in candidate or GOP.

I’m not going to that extreme, yet.

On the other hand, voting for a Charlie Baker or Will Hurd (TX) also makes sense...because they can work with Dems quite well, they pretty much have to.  Hurd has an extreme amount of foreign policy knowledge due to his background.  Any half black dude who can win over a majority Hispanic constituency in one of the largest districts in the country is definitely worth listening to if we ever are to get past all the racial animosities that have fomented.

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

10 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

First, prove the bolded.

Second,  there is lower voter turn out because no gets excited for a candidate who says, let's raise the minimum wage a nickel a year!!!  How about more Charter schools!!!  Also, I forgot when Vlad Putin came to America and physically stopped Clinton from visiting Wisconsin and Michigan.

Third, you picked her.  The Dem establishment loved her.  Obama backed her.  She ran an election of someone that was promised and owed the presidency.  That is the fault of her and moderate dems who pushed that for years.  If they had someone better they should have ran them. 

Moderate Dems failed in 2016.  Now, they are still in charge and telling everyone what's best.  So, we will see what happens.

They've also won nationwide in epic fashion in the 2 years since 2016. We've already seen what's happening. The low voter turnout among Ds had to do with the misogynistic Bernie or Bust trash that was sewn by the GOP, Russia and Bernie Bros. We wouldn't have seen that with a male candidate in Hillary's place with the exact same policies.

[Reddy]

10 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Doug Jones was a complete anomaly, you could have run there as a Republican and won, probably.

That leaves Lamb and the VA gubernatorial race...which wasn’t an upset by any means.   

If it was so cut and dried, Sanders wouldn’t have won all the primaries that he did in 2016.  And they’re (Iowans) most certainly not voting for Medicaid, because they think that’s for the lazy and poor.  They’re voting for Medicare...

The Dems have lost almost all the other special elections, and Ossoff had huge money coming in, but he never defined himself well...he ran a centrist campaign and was smoked by Handel.  The Dems learned you should stand for something at least, and not be a “wussy tabula rasa.”   You can’t win just by merely being against Trump in most regions of the country

Medicaid is a HUGE issue in this state right now. So....... whoops?

And Sanders won primarily caucuses, the least democratic nominating systems. Why do we have to keep reliving this history over and over and over before it sinks in?

DEMS STAND FOR SO FUCKING MUCH. Affordable education, medicaid and social security, protecting the environment, fighting climate change, raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, common sense gun reforms, we're pro-inclusion, pro-civil rights, pro-justice for ALL, on and on and on and fucking on. I'm so fucking tired of that bullshit false narrative. You're STILL spreading GOP and Russia-driven crap and it's ridiculous. It's absolutely fucking ridiculous.

[GoSox05]

7 hours ago, Reddy said:

They've also won nationwide in epic fashion in the 2 years since 2016. We've already seen what's happening. The low voter turnout among Ds had to do with the misogynistic Bernie or Bust trash that was sewn by the GOP, Russia and Bernie Bros. We wouldn't have seen that with a male candidate in Hillary's place with the exact same policies.

This is the hottest of hot takes. 

Remember it's always someone elses fault.  Always blame the voters.  It wasn't that young people were in disenfranchised because the candidates were two people who seemed out of touch with their problems.  It wasn't that the Dem nominee was just in general a very unpopular candidate. 

It was clearly Russia and the infamous "Bernie Bros"

[caulfield12]

If Hillary actually admitted her mistakes, then we could all move on...she had 8 years to do it after the Obama loss.  That was blamed on South Carolina and the ugly racism of his comments being unfairly turned again the Clintons.  He was the king, they were interlopers not willing to wait in line for the presumed queen, basically.

See 1980, what happened the only time her husband lost an election (as an incumbent) his entire life (as ARK gov, he also ran in 1974 for Congress at age 28)...or what self-reflection did in changing the 1996 results, recovering from the bloodbath in 1994 (of course, some would say he sold out by triangulating, using Dick Morris, attacking black people over welfare abuse and the whole “superpredators” accusations regarding violent crimes and drugs/criminal justice reform.)

He won, I guess...?

[Reddy]

2 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

This is the hottest of hot takes. 

Remember it's always someone elses fault.  Always blame the voters.  It wasn't that young people were in disenfranchised because the candidates were two people who seemed out of touch with their problems.  It wasn't that the Dem nominee was just in general a very unpopular candidate. 

It was clearly Russia and the infamous "Bernie Bros"

Lol. You're so disingenuous. Like truly, how many times do I need to talk about the mistakes Hillary and the campaign made before you'll understand that - shockingly - I can and do put blame on all parties involved? Like seriously how many times? Because I've said it a dozen times throughout these threads.

Hillary. Was. A. Fundamentally. Flawed. Candidate.

Did you read that, or did you cover your eyes so you can make a "stronger" argument against me next time you try to rehash this excruciatingly tired argument?

[Reddy]

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

If Hillary actually admitted her mistakes, then we could all move on...she had 8 years to do it after the Obama loss.  That was blamed on South Carolina and the ugly racism of his comments being unfairly turned again the Clintons.  He was the king, they were interlopers not willing to wait in line for the presumed queen, basically.

See 1980, what happened the only time her husband lost an election (as an incumbent) his entire life (as ARK gov, he also ran in 1974 for Congress at age 28)...or what self-reflection did in changing the 1996 results, recovering from the bloodbath in 1994 (of course, some would say he sold out by triangulating, using Dick Morris, attacking black people over welfare abuse and the whole “superpredators” accusations regarding violent crimes and drugs/criminal justice reform.)

He won, I guess...?

 

Holy shit read the first 5 pages of her book.

[Reddy]

You people are mind-blowing.

[southsider2k5]

And we have descended to "you people"...

[GoSox05]

50 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Lol. You're so disingenuous. Like truly, how many times do I need to talk about the mistakes Hillary and the campaign made before you'll understand that - shockingly - I can and do put blame on all parties involved? Like seriously how many times? Because I've said it a dozen times throughout these threads.

Hillary. Was. A. Fundamentally. Flawed. Candidate.

Did you read that, or did you cover your eyes so you can make a "stronger" argument against me next time you try to rehash this excruciatingly tired argument?

I know you say that, but on just this page alone you argued that Russia changed votes, Bernie Bros were responsible for low voter turn out and the GOP using Bernie Sanders supporters against Clinton.

51 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Holy shit read the first 5 pages of her book.

I would rather watch Adam Engel bat on an infinite loop than read two words of her book.

[ptatc]

45 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

And we have descended to "you people"...

Unfortunately, that's what politics today has turned into. Hence the lack of people working together to get things done on any issue.

[Reddy]

7 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

I know you say that, but on just this page alone you argued that Russia changed votes, Bernie Bros were responsible for low voter turn out and the GOP using Bernie Sanders supporters against Clinton.

I would rather watch Adam Engel bat on an infinite loop than read two words of her book.

Then you might want to avoid talking about what Hillary has and hasn't taken responsibility for.

[Dam8610]

On 8/8/2018 at 1:45 PM, Reddy said:

No, Hillary was a poor candidate because of her personal baggage. Anyone else with her policies who could've actually been trusted to enact them probably would've won.

Changed it to reflect the reality that her stated policies often conflicted with answers she gave in debates and other forums.

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Changed it to reflect the reality that her stated policies often conflicted with answers she gave in debates and other forums.

As has her "taking responsibility" for things. She takes full responsibility one minute,  and then spends the next half hour blaming everyone and everything else except herself. Like I tell my kids, that isn't really what taking responsibility looks like.

 

[Texsox]

There have been some politicians who really understand and follow through on the take responsibility, Al Franken comes to mind. But most are just as you described above. 

[Dam8610]

On 8/9/2018 at 12:32 AM, Reddy said:

DEMS STAND FOR SO FUCKING MUCH. Affordable education, medicaid and social security, protecting the environment, fighting climate change, raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, common sense gun reforms, we're pro-inclusion, pro-civil rights, pro-justice for ALL, on and on and on and fucking on.

Let me know when Democrats actually do these things, rather than just saying they're for them. I'm guessing I'll be waiting a long time, since implementing policies like this would take a backbone to stand up to the GOP that I've yet to see out of the Democrats in my lifetime.

[caulfield12]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/pelosi-is-the-star-of-gop-attack-ads-worrying-democrats-upbeat-about-midterms/2018/08/09/f85a2474-9b43-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html?utm_term=.86359990f53e

[GoSox05]

38 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/pelosi-is-the-star-of-gop-attack-ads-worrying-democrats-upbeat-about-midterms/2018/08/09/f85a2474-9b43-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html?utm_term=.86359990f53e

The midterms are going to sort this out.  If the Dems do well she will stay, if they fail she will be gone. 

[Reddy]

20 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

As has her "taking responsibility" for things. She takes full responsibility one minute,  and then spends the next half hour blaming everyone and everything else except herself. Like I tell my kids, that isn't really what taking responsibility looks like.

 

She's not wrong. Had all those external things not happened AND the campaign had still made the mistakes it did, she'd have won. If her campaign hadn't made the mistakes, and all the external things still happened, she also would've won.

Taking responsibility does not mean lying about the fact that there were things that affected something that were outside of your control. That's called hubris and narcissism.