All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[kidfresh512]

Is there any really compelling evidence to prove that Republicans get a LOT bigger percentage of their natural support out to vote than the Democrats?

Its a good question really. But we have seen with elections like Doug Jones in Alabama the ONLY reason he won against a child molester backed by the GOP is enormous turnout by Black women mostly to counter the GOP vote.

In 2016 even all the voters that sat out for Hillary, or didn't turn out in the numbers they did for Obama could have turned the tide and we wouldn't be where we are now.

A Brennan Center analysis of the 2012 election showed that in states where Republicans controlled redistricting, their candidates won 53 percent of the vote and 72 percent of the seats. That year, Republicans won 48 percent of the vote nationwide while taking 54 percent of House seats. In 2016, they won 49 percent of the vote and 55 percent of the seats—a 6 percentage-point gap.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...eats-vs-votes/

We all know about the concerted, dedicated effort GOP have done in terms of voter suppression and gerrymandering to hoard power even against the will of the people. They don't even try to grow their base, they just stifle minorities and suppress the popular vote representation.

Then they put judges they think will back up claims against this behavior on benches.

Democrats or independents who think that bs will have to overwhelm the vote continuously to get is all changed and cleaned up. We can't afford to be lazy and lackadaisical "oh my vote doesnt matter", "both parties are the same anyway". That is CLEARLTY not true now. All pretense has been thrown off that line.

Thats actually one think the impeachment inquiry has helped I think as well. Even though we know GOP and McConnell will not do their duty. In doing so in allowing Trump to run unchecked, in their careless dereliction of duty we see that no they are not similar. They are not "all the same".

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I wrote about this in response to you on this question about an year and a half ago.

While the sudden death of a man in his 80s wouldn't be shocking, that's not the only potential problem.

The line of succession works in clear-cut cases, such as resignation or death. It doesn't address the gray areas, such as when someone is considering whether to resign for health reasons, or when people who haven't been elected abuse their access to the President's ear.

What happens if a President Sanders' mental faculties start declining, and he doesn't realize it? Or what happens if he's physically not able to do his job? What if unelected advisers take advantage of either situation?

These scenarios would also be complicated by the ways in which Sanders is different from the rest of the Democratic party. If he gets a standard Democrat as a running mate, a decision to step down for health reasons would have major policy implications that wouldn't be the case with a President Joe Biden. If President Joe Biden at 82 realizes that he's slipping, his Vice President would be a generic Democrat with very similar policies. A big part of Biden's appeal is his potential strength as a candidate, and the belief that he can communicate better with the rust belt, so the change in leadership wouldn't be that big a deal in terms of the policies that get implemented.

The cabinet does get to invoke the 25th amendment, but that would be a very painful vote, and one likely to outrage voters who preferred Sanders to the typical Democrat.

You already answered your own question. The Cabinet handles the 25th Ammendment. A young inexperienced President could have access to their ear abused. That's not exclusive to age. \

As far as the VP being different from a generic Democrat, it's Sanders VP, he gets to choose and people vote for the VP. At that point the American people voted for a ticket knowing the replacement. You're looking for a political problem that the voters already had a say in deciding. We've also alreayd had VP's that were a policy shift of difference from their predeccessors

[Robotman]

Democrats need to start mentioning the ballooning deficit at every speech and tv appearance.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...1TZHYIXfDU#_=_

[numberthirty]

This is the reality the Democratic party is facing. If a Democrat is elected President, the Republican strategy will be a repeat of the first four years of the Obama administration: challenge and obstruct everything, no matter if it's good for the country, and lie, cheat and steal to regain a majority in Congress at the next mid-terms.
Unless moderate Republican voters are willing to stand up and reign in the radical, obstructionist elements in their party's leadership, our country will be stuck in this quagmire. Unfortunately those moderate Republicans all seem to be a bunch of feckless cowards.

Unrelated: You know, it's fun to see you guys arguing about who's better than who in the current herd of Democratic hope-fulls, but let's remember that there are children still in cages who aren't likely to see their families again, so sitting home this time around isn't an option. Just a reminder.

Sanders is the only one talking about attempting to increase voter turnout by engaging voters after the next Presidential election.

Which is the best plan on the table for addressing the current lay of the land that you just mentioned.

Meanwhile, the reaction to that seems to be "Nope. Pipe Dream. I'll Just Stick With What Has Not Been Successful For Democratic Presidents."

[numberthirty]

Its a good question really. But we have seen with elections like Doug Jones in Alabama the ONLY reason he won against a child molester backed by the GOP is enormous turnout by Black women mostly to counter the GOP vote.

In 2016 even all the voters that sat out for Hillary, or didn't turn out in the numbers they did for Obama could have turned the tide and we wouldn't be where we are now.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...eats-vs-votes/

We all know about the concerted, dedicated effort GOP have done in terms of voter suppression and gerrymandering to hoard power even against the will of the people. They don't even try to grow their base, they just stifle minorities and suppress the popular vote representation.

Then they put judges they think will back up claims against this behavior on benches.

Democrats or independents who think that bs will have to overwhelm the vote continuously to get is all changed and cleaned up. We can't afford to be lazy and lackadaisical "oh my vote doesnt matter", "both parties are the same anyway". That is CLEARLTY not true now. All pretense has been thrown off that line.

Thats actually one think the impeachment inquiry has helped I think as well. Even though we know GOP and McConnell will not do their duty. In doing so in allowing Trump to run unchecked, in their careless dereliction of duty we see that no they are not similar. They are not "all the same".

Politely, I've got to disagree with what is in blue.

"Only" is a really backwards way of looking at those results. While I agree with what you mentioned being crucial to Jones being able to put that win together, it was not really the entirety of the win. When the results were Jones: 49.97%/Moore 48.34%/Write In: 1.69%, it seems at least possible that Moore could have got over fifty percent without those folks opting to go "Write In". At the very least, Moore could have got close enough to turn it into a gopher rodeo.

So, yeah. Agree that it was crucial. Disagree with it being the only reason Jones put the win together.

[worstblogever]

Sanders is the only one talking about attempting to increase voter turnout by engaging voters after the next Presidential election.

This is a lie. Multiple Democrats in the field have talked about this. Hell, Beto O'Rourke alone... not just while he was running, but he's still doing it after dropping out of the race.

[Mister Mets]

Wasn't all of this addressed, perhaps behind the scenes, during Reagan's second term? That was when his mental faculties started declining, even if they tried to hide it.

Do you have any indication that this was addressed behind the scenes during the Reagan administration?

[kidfresh512]

Sanders is the only one talking about attempting to increase voter turnout by engaging voters after the next Presidential election.

Which is the best plan on the table for addressing the current lay of the land that you just mentioned.

Meanwhile, the reaction to that seems to be "Nope. Pipe Dream. I'll Just Stick With What Has Not Been Successful For Democratic Presidents."

That isn't what people are saying at all. I am not against progressive policies. If we can spend trillions on defense. Tens of billions on one aircraft carrier, thats still broken, we can spend money on our own people. Our Healthcare system, our Infrastructure. Not to be a broken record but in the oil industry in Texas I work with die hard GOP supporters every single day. Not all of them are horrible racists personally, or cheer for children in cages. I can tell you from personal experience that base even the non hardcore trumpers will never "converted to reason". But they are THERE. They will not go away even when a Democrat wins again.

Being completely realistic and again I am not against Bernie or progressive policies. But, reality does have to come into the story line. For any one of Bernie, or Warren's big initiatives to actually come into play or be enacted. We absolutely MUST give them a Democratic House and Senate too. If GOP keep the Senate they will go into cock block mode. There is no way for a Medicare for all, there is no way there will be any major uncompromised gun control measure. That's just reality.

To get those Senate seats, some Democrats have to win in red states. They will need massive turnout, massive support to overcome the GOP base that are diehard and think that Dems are loons and socialists.

Say we did all that and got the Executive, Legislative branch again. We will have 3 years at best to both clean up the bullshit trump has rolled back or replaced AND move ahead with any new policies like Medicare for all or Gun Control legislation etc. That whole time Fox News, the right wing media will be in full rile up the base mode. The democrats will have to be more than perfect. Everything that they turned a blind eye too with trump they will put on the hypocrite hat and call Dems out for. To continue progressive policies we would have to do the enormously difficult task of keeping the congress at midterms.

So yes I think there is a real need to add realism and actual grounded hard line outlook on what can be done. That doesn't mean we have to pick a centrist. But, it is not outrageous to point out you have to move the country in the direction you mean to go. And realize there is a BIG chunk of GOP base that will be kicking and screaming the entire way.

Politely, I've got to disagree with what is in blue.

"Only" is a really backwards way of looking at those results. While I agree with what you mentioned being crucial to Jones being able to put that win together, it was not really the entirety of the win. When the results were Jones: 49.97%/Moore 48.34%/Write In: 1.69%, it seems at least possible that Moore could have got over fifty percent without those folks opting to go "Write In". At the very least, Moore could have got close enough to turn it into a gopher rodeo.

So, yeah. Agree that it was crucial. Disagree with it being the only reason Jones put the win together.

I give more credit to the black women specifically in the massive turnout for a non presidential election in the deep south than you do. But, I think the main point we largely agree so its whatever.

[numberthirty]

I give more credit to the black women specifically in the massive turnout for a non presidential election in the deep south than you do. But, I think the main point we largely agree so its whatever.

Sure.

While I don't think that it could have happened without the Democrats that came out and that is the bulk of the "How It Happened...", I just look at those numbers and don't think that the win was a certainty without that "Write In" percentage not going to Moore.

[kidfresh512]

Sure.

While I don't think that it could have happened without the Democrats that came out and that is the bulk of the "How It Happened...", I just look at those numbers and don't think that the win was a certainty without that "Write In" percentage not going to Moore.

And that goes to my other point of overwhelming the votes of people that would come out and support a credibly accused child molester. That it was so close and Doug Jones will STAY in jeopardy of his seat on the next election underscores the real dilemma. Red state democrats have to appeal to their base to come out and drown the baked in GOP votes. It isn't just snap your fingers here is Medicare for all. Voting and voting GOP ONLY is a religion for alot. That same mindset has to take over with Democrats. And that's not easy, and it wont happen overnight.

They have to build the case that the red states that stay red, also stay having the worst education, the worst healthcare, the worst economies in the country. Overcoming what has been bred into the populace down there and showing results. Drowning out those GOP base screaming and ranting about the "good old days". And trying to keep minorities in their place.

[numberthirty]

And that goes to my other point of overwhelming the votes of people that would come out and support a credibly accused child molester. That it was so close and Doug Jones will STAY in jeopardy of his seat on the next election underscores the real dilemma. Red state democrats have to appeal to their base to come out and drown the baked in GOP votes. It isn't just snap your fingers here is Medicare for all. Voting and voting GOP ONLY is a religion for alot. That same mindset has to take over with Democrats. And that's not easy, and it wont happen overnight.

They have to build the case that the red states that stay red, also stay having the worst education, the worst healthcare, the worst economies in the country. Overcoming what has been bred into the populace down there and showing results. Drowning out those GOP base screaming and ranting about the "good old days". And trying to keep minorities in their place.

While it's a little bit different issue, it will be interesting to see how Jones does against anyone who isn't Moore.

While I tend to agree with what I think you are saying, i do wonder how much of what happened there wasn't because of the exact details of it being Moore in the race.

In addition, even a state where you think "Blue" like Illinois isn't "All The Way In The Bag...". Lauren Underwood already has opponents out their raising money to try to wind her seat and ads running about her vote on impeachment.

[Theleviathan]

That isn't what people are saying at all. I am not against progressive policies. If we can spend trillions on defense. Tens of billions on one aircraft carrier, thats still broken, we can spend money on our own people. Our Healthcare system, our Infrastructure. Not to be a broken record but in the oil industry in Texas I work with die hard GOP supporters every single day. Not all of them are horrible racists personally, or cheer for children in cages. I can tell you from personal experience that base even the non hardcore trumpers will never "converted to reason". But they are THERE. They will not go away even when a Democrat wins again.

Being completely realistic and again I am not against Bernie or progressive policies. But, reality does have to come into the story line. For any one of Bernie, or Warren's big initiatives to actually come into play or be enacted. We absolutely MUST give them a Democratic House and Senate too. If GOP keep the Senate they will go into cock block mode. There is no way for a Medicare for all, there is no way there will be any major uncompromised gun control measure. That's just reality.

To get those Senate seats, some Democrats have to win in red states. They will need massive turnout, massive support to overcome the GOP base that are diehard and think that Dems are loons and socialists.

Say we did all that and got the Executive, Legislative branch again. We will have 3 years at best to both clean up the bullshit trump has rolled back or replaced AND move ahead with any new policies like Medicare for all or Gun Control legislation etc. That whole time Fox News, the right wing media will be in full rile up the base mode. The democrats will have to be more than perfect. Everything that they turned a blind eye too with trump they will put on the hypocrite hat and call Dems out for. To continue progressive policies we would have to do the enormously difficult task of keeping the congress at midterms.

So yes I think there is a real need to add realism and actual grounded hard line outlook on what can be done. That doesn't mean we have to pick a centrist. But, it is not outrageous to point out you have to move the country in the direction you mean to go. And realize there is a BIG chunk of GOP base that will be kicking and screaming the entire way.




I give more credit to the black women specifically in the massive turnout for a non presidential election in the deep south than you do. But, I think the main point we largely agree so its whatever.

Great post.

[Mister Mets]

While it's a little bit different issue, it will be interesting to see how Jones does against anyone who isn't Moore.

While I tend to agree with what I think you are saying, i do wonder how much of what happened there wasn't because of the exact details of it being Moore in the race.

In addition, even a state where you think "Blue" like Illinois isn't "All The Way In The Bag...". Lauren Underwood already has opponents out their raising money to try to wind her seat and ads running about her vote on impeachment.

It's misleading to refer to red states and blue states in the context of House elections.

Illinois is a blue state.

Lauren Underwood defeated a Republican incumbent.

Trump had won her district by four percent. He did much worse in the rest of Illinois.

[PaulBullion]

I'd feel a lot better about voting for Sanders in the general elections if he was more transparent with his medical records. After initially lying about his heart attack, he should live tweet his check-ups.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I'd feel a lot better about voting for Sanders in the general elections if he was more transparent with his medical records. After initially lying about his heart attack, he should live tweet his check-ups.

A legitimate concern, and one I share.

====================

Chuck Schumer Lays Out What Democrats Want In Senate Impeachment Trial

In a new letter, the Democratic leader said he expects to hear from White House witnesses and receive documents from the Trump administration. Good luck with that pipe dream, Chuck.

**********

Lindsey Graham Says He’s ‘Made Up’ His Mind Before Trump’s Senate Trial Even Starts

“I don’t need any witnesses,” the lawmaker said Sunday, shortly before the House votes on two articles of impeachment. Yep, keep on slurping Dastardly Donald, Linds. I'm sure his old pal John McCain is rolling over in his grave over Graham's pathetic behavior.

**********

Military Investigating After Cadets Flashed Apparent White Power Signs Before Army-Navy Game

Officials are probing the intent of the individuals after some people defended the cadets as playing the “Circle Game.” Far from just dumb kids doing dumb shit, these young men are future leaders of the military, so this incident SHOULD be taken seriously.

**********

Trump Has Already Lost His Pricey China Trade War, Paul Krugman Warns

The president “talks loudly but carries a small stick, and can be rolled,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist tweeted. And Dolt45, hardly a wizard when it comes to high finance will continue to duped by China.

**********

5 Aides To Democratic Rep. Jeff Van Drew Resign Ahead Of His Party Switch

The senior aides wrote to the New Jersey Democrat that they “can no longer in good conscience” keep working for someone switching to the GOP. Hardly good optics for Van Drew.