Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Good link, Froot. I think Point #3 is the best way to read the special elections to date.

I also think this point is critical as, heh, it's the foundational assumption for my point on Ds (and, heh, the NRO's weaker point):

Democrats had hoped that an Ossoff win would suggest that traditionally Republican suburban districts, particularly in the South, were abandoning their GOP roots and preparing to swing to the Democrats.

If these are districts that are important to the Ds path to regaining the House, well, then....you can't prog up.

I agree with your broad-based strategy. They can't necessarily pour in $30M, but they can spend a pretty fair amount of that on a huge swath of elections. I think you start out spending heavy in, say, the 80ish number you suggested. Really go hard at defining your opponent and then defining yourself. Then you see who is getting traction and maybe winnow out 20-25 longer shots and focus on 50-60. The Ds SHOULD be able to raise piles of money. DJT is good for business. They have a very credible shot to take the House with enough spending and, of course, the right message.

The latter is the concern to me. But, hey, far be it from me to tell the Progs how to be Progs!

[iam416]

Would you think it's possible that the "white noise" has eliminated the possibility of quid pro quo?

Froot, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I know enough that when someone ask if "it's possible" the answer is almost always, "yes." So, ummm...Yes?

Sure, there exists a possibility of a qpq. I personally find it remote. I also think the non-D electorate won't really consider it until they see lots more. But, that's JMO. I haven't been right about anything in politics in years.

[froot loops]

Froot, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I know enough that when someone ask if "it's possible" the answer is almost always, "yes." So, ummm...Yes?

Sure, there exists a possibility of a qpq. I personally find it remote. I also think the non-D electorate won't really consider it until they see lots more. But, that's JMO. I haven't been right about anything in politics in years.

There was a story a few weeks back that the Trump administration tried to quietly lift some sanctions early but was thwarted. I can't find the link because a Google search will get you a million stories about the Senate voting 97-2 to tighten sanctions and strip Trump of some of the power to ease sanctions.

[iam416]

Try googling "Trump tries to lift russian sanctions" -- lol.

They looked into and didn't do it if the stories are to be believed. Again, I mean -- how's that play with the voters Ds are targeting? At the end of the day, he didn't do it.

I think you need a tangible act to take to the electorate as an example of the qpq. Or, alternatively you need much stronger evidence of collusion. As it is, you have a weak collusion case, to be generous, and "payoff" example that was never actually "paid."

I'm just saying -- that doesn't strike me as compelling.

[froot loops]

So Rahm Emanuel is always held up as the great architect of 2006 and that was his driving principle -- quality candidates who know how issues play locally.

I think, however, the D party is considerably different from its 2006 version. As, heh, the magic words go for someone you agree with -- they've "evolved" on certain issues. As was the point made in the Beinhart article I linked yesterday, they can't really go backtrack on immigration at this point. I think Beinhart touched on it (or someone else I read), but they're well on their way to making it impossible for Ds to even talk about assimilation (the University of California system considers the term "melting pot" a microaggression). I watched HRC get asked a question about partial birth abortion in the debates and she couldn't answer it in a way most normal human beings would answer it.

So, I wonder if Rahm's strategery is even possible 2018. I sort of doubt it. I tend to think the Progs have won the D party and now it's entirely about every conceivable form of justice -- well, what they deem to be just. It's a shame. Perhaps their ultimate identity politics strategy will pay off and there's no need to change the playbook. But, if that's the case, then the demographics better get here right fucking quick.

It sounds like the die is cast.

1. I think Emanuel is given far too much credit, Howard Dean deserves at least as much credit.

2. George W Bush deserves far more credit, circumstances matter much more.

3. I find the assimilation thing to be something that Fox News/Breitbart talks about but it isn't very persuasive. The fact that they hold up Dearborn as some sort of symbol of anti-assimilation tells me they never stepped foot in Dearborn and no policy proposal will eliminate that as a bogeyman. "They won't quit serving delicious Lebanese food, they should only be serving Burgers!"

[iam416]

2. George W Bush deserves far more credit, circumstances matter much more.

Agreed. And therein lies the Ds best hopes for 2018, right?

3. I find the assimilation thing to be something that Fox News/Breitbart talks about but it isn't very persuasive. The fact that they hold up Dearborn as some sort of symbol of anti-assimilation tells me they never stepped foot in Dearborn and no policy proposal will eliminate that as a bogeyman. "They won't quit serving delicious Lebanese food, they should only be serving Burgers!"

Perhaps. Beinhart certainly thinks the Ds should focus on it. Whether he fits into the Breitbart/Fox News model, I dunno. But his point was that multiculturalism and diversity currently trumps "Americanness" in the D politics. Or to be more blunt, the Ds help create the bogeyman. (It was actually in his article that pointed out that the UC system considers "melting pot" a microaggression).

But, again, whatever. It's not my party any longer.

[froot loops]

Try googling "Trump tries to lift russian sanctions" -- lol.

They looked into and didn't do it if the stories are to be believed. Again, I mean -- how's that play with the voters Ds are targeting? At the end of the day, he didn't do it.

I think you need a tangible act to take to the electorate as an example of the qpq. Or, alternatively you need much stronger evidence of collusion. As it is, you have a weak collusion case, to be generous, and "payoff" example that was never actually "paid."

I'm just saying -- that doesn't strike me as compelling.

Tried was the key word I was missing in my Google search.

My point in bringing up that article is maybe the "white noise" has stopped it because now the ground is poisoned.

We are coming it from different viewpoints, I'm not viewing it as an election issue, the election is over Trump won. It isn't probably a winning vote strategy for the future. But from my viewpoint the story is very important because the Russians need to be punished, we need to make sure this doesn't happen again.

If you have reports telling me Russian hackers were able to gain access to systems, that is a lot more scary than it is to me, but that's my job. My opinion of logging applications and their limitations caution me when they say there is no evidence.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Do any of you ever just shut the fuck up?

[iam416]

I agree that something more than what Obama did to the Russians needs to be done. The "story", in theory, could drive political need to take those steps.

I don't think the "story" has any impact on future preparedness. I think those wheels have been in motion since this was found out last summer.

[entropy]

Living in the suburbs of KC, centrist seem to view the Russian hacking the same way they viewed Obama's birth... A first it was news and interesting, but overtime with the same retreaded articles and comments, it is now viewed as party politics.

I know it's only one location in the country and we are in the heartland, but I think Talent is correct on how this is being viewed and the lack of response as a result. The party loyalist (maybe extremes) love this stuff, but I think the majority grow tired of it quickly.

It was part of the reason why I thought the R's were so disorganized and off point during the BO presidency. You see the same now. The big difference, however, is BO was competent and Trump is not. I still see the D's winning in 2020, but they're not making it easier on themselves.

JMO

[froot loops]

The Obama birth wasn't news, it was a smear, a nasty one at that. I hope talent is right, the wheels of future preparedness may already be in motion, but that story in itself doesn't give me confidence given the response of various actors prior to the election as reported.

Today's news in not really a retread, a lot of new stuff in there, but the Post or the Times shouldn't stop digging because it may hurt the Democratic party in 2020.

People may be tiring of it, but we kind of need to know what the hell went on.

[Wild Hoss]

Trump congratulates himself for ensuring Comey's testimony was truthful by essentially lying about the existence of recordings of their meetings.

Oh, the irony.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Oh the irony. How will you sleep at night...

[Wild Hoss]

Like a wee babe, secure in my knowledge that I will not wake up in North Platte.

[entropy]

Trump congratulates himself for ensuring Comey's testimony was truthful by essentially lying about the existence of recordings of their meetings.

Oh, the irony.

While I believe HRC would know about the lie and would do it anyways, my bet is Trump doesn't even recognize the irony.