|
Post by Amadan on Oct 22, 2018 9:16:15 GMT -5
Well, true enough, the Dems might once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by screwing themselves in winnable campaigns.
I gotta say, if they don't retake at least the House, we might have to resign ourselves to eight years of Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 9:33:07 GMT -5
IMO, the entire country is in trouble if the Dems don't take the House. What we've seen thus far is Trump restrained. If he retains control of the House, and has even more control of the Senate, we'll have a Saturday night massacre without consequences and Trump unleashed.
For me, this is, more than anything else, about putting something of a check on Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 22, 2018 17:40:52 GMT -5
Well, true enough, the Dems might once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by screwing themselves in winnable campaigns. I gotta say, if they don't retake at least the House, we might have to resign ourselves to eight years of Trump. I wasn't equating the severity of the Sinema gaffs with the severity of the others. Just pointing out that in these close races, the Dem candidates can't seem to help shooting themselves in the feet. Unfortunately, I'm already starting to accept that we'll have 8 years of Trump, as disgusted and depressed as such a thought makes me.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 22, 2018 18:48:10 GMT -5
In the case of Sinema, virtually everything in that townhall article was stuff dredged up from 10+ years ago and taken out of context. It is absurd to use that article's baseless partisan slanted crap to claim that Dem's are shooting themselves in the foot or otherwise not able to "keep their damn mouths shut."
In the Heitkamp case, I 100% agree with the sentiment. She and/or her campaign crew fucked up, and also, what in the ever loving fuck were they thinking.
I think it's important to differentiate between bullshit smears and actual fuckups.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 22, 2018 19:29:33 GMT -5
In the case of Sinema, virtually everything in that townhall article was stuff dredged up from 10+ years ago and taken out of context. It is absurd to use that article's baseless partisan slanted crap to claim that Dem's are shooting themselves in the foot or otherwise not able to "keep their damn mouths shut." In the Heitkamp case, I 100% agree with the sentiment. She and/or her campaign crew fucked up, and also, what in the ever loving fuck were they thinking. I think it's important to differentiate between bullshit smears and actual fuckups. Your point might hold even a drop's-worth of water if I hadn't provided links to 6 or 7 other articles from more legitimate sources that back up pretty much everything in that Townhall article (and then some). So, now you can totally ignore the TH article and focus on the legitimate sources and your conscience can be clear.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 22, 2018 19:47:04 GMT -5
In the case of Sinema, virtually everything in that townhall article was stuff dredged up from 10+ years ago and taken out of context. It is absurd to use that article's baseless partisan slanted crap to claim that Dem's are shooting themselves in the foot or otherwise not able to "keep their damn mouths shut." In the Heitkamp case, I 100% agree with the sentiment. She and/or her campaign crew fucked up, and also, what in the ever loving fuck were they thinking. I think it's important to differentiate between bullshit smears and actual fuckups. Your point might hold even a drop's-worth of water if I hadn't provided links to 6 or 7 other articles from more legitimate sources that back up pretty much everything in that Townhall article (and then some). So, now you can totally ignore the TH article and focus on the legitimate sources and your conscience can be clear. Re: the bolded, holy shit, you can't be serious. Here's the summary from the townhall article of its own claims: Explain how any of that hyperpartisan bullshit is "backed up" in your additional cites. Face it, Opty. You quoted garbage.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 23, 2018 8:15:56 GMT -5
Well, I agree that the Townhall article put a mocking, ridiculous slant on what she said (yes, obviously she was not literally trying to "summon witches" like MacBeth, and the methhead crack was obvious hyperbole).
She did say a lot of stupid stuff. I think in general, quote-mining stupid stuff someone said 10 years ago is pretty lame, and I still say nothing Sinema said is even close to what plenty of idiots on both sides (but mostly the Republican side) are saying now. Townhall is just trying to have another Hillary Clinton/"baking cupcakes" moment.
Sinema is a weak, not too bright candidate, but not really worth this much attention.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 23, 2018 8:47:40 GMT -5
I think "not too bright" is pretty accurate and while I agree that she doesn't warrant a lot of attention, specifically, her stupidity may potentially cost Dems. I'll point again to Christine O'Donnell. Obviously, she wasn't ready for prime time in 2010, and one can reasonable conclude that she cost the Repubs a Senate seat, as did that idiot Sharron Angle in Nevada. As big as 2010 was for the Repubs, it could have been bigger.
So Sinema represents something similar here. And while some of what's being said about her goes back some years, that's hardly the first time such has ever happened, a candidate' past words or actions being used against them. It's her problem that she hung out with Code Pink loonies and I--for one--hope that does cost her in this election.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 29, 2018 9:29:09 GMT -5
Latest at RCP: Senate, no toss ups--Repubs +3, 54-46House--30 seats rated as toss-ups, Dems need to win 13 to take the HouseI don't think things are breaking well for the Dems at all right now. The Senate looks completely gone. There are 6 toss ups, but the Repubs only need 1 of those to hold the Senate. And I think the polling numbers in Florida are wrong, honestly. Right now, I see the Repubs getting to 55 seats in the Senate (+4). In the House, the Dems only needed 13 seats back in the beginning of October, as well. But at that point in time, there were 36 toss-ups (as oppose to the 30 there are now). And I think there are four or five of the current toss-ups that might very well shift to the GOP column. That would make it a 50/50 proposition for control of the House. Maybe things will shift back to the Dems' favor in the next couple of days, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 9:34:32 GMT -5
If they don't win at least the house, the country is fucking toast.
Trump and the alt-right will be completely unleashed.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 29, 2018 10:17:48 GMT -5
I'm going to offer a tentative hypothesis, on the assumption that the Repubs hold the House--or just barely lose it--and increase their margin in the Senate: a lot of people don't like being told over and over again that if they don't vote for a Dem, they're voting for Trump and are therefore complicit in everything he does and says, are--for all intents and purposes--racist xenophobes, themsleves (at the very least). I'm seeing this play out on my social media constantly. There is no middle ground and--right now--most of the posturing, tsk-tsking, and outright fury is coming from the anti-Trump crowd.
It's like with that false story on one of the shooting victims being a Holocaust survivor (which appears to have come from one tweet making the claim, that was then picked up by a partisan "news" site and repeated over and over again). That claim--with the snotty "she was killed for being Jewish in the US; let that sink in" appended to it--was posted separately by at least five people in my FB circle, then shared by many more. In one case, someone pasted that it wasn't actually true, which led to a "well, so what? It doesn't make it any less tragic!" kind of dogpile, as opposed to a simple retraction with a "sorry, my bad," or the like.
I was aware that someone speaking for the family wanted the misinformation stopped, but rather than publicly correct the people who posted the claim, I opted to do so privately. Because I expected the dogpile. Not all of them took their posts down, however. And I think this is a real problem. I, myself, have never voted party line. Never. But when I voted this time--I did early voting--I was tempted to vote straight R's, because the people above who are engaging in all of the holier-than-thou schtick are also the ones pushing the Dem candidates in my area. A perfect example is the governor's race, between Gillum and DeSantis. Look, I know there are a shit-ton of trolls on the Right on twitter and elsewhere pumping bs about Gillum, calling him a commie, engaging in racist shit, and so forth. But when it comes to the people I actually know, it's only the hardcore Trump-haters that are being nasty, that are making it almost all about Trump, that are openly calling DeSantis a racist (like Trump), and so on. They've largely abandoned reason in my view, and it made me think less of Gillum, honestly (and frankly, he's hurt himself in this regard, with some of the things he's said).
As it turned out, I didn't vote straight R's, but then I'm hardly typical. But I think there are a lot more people seeing this stuff the way I'm seeing it. And maybe that's not really fair, to some extent. One could argue effectively that it's expecting better from the Left than from the Right, in fact. Yet if one's circle of friends in social media world includes people from both sides, and it's only on the Left side that there's this constant barrage of outrage, along with threats to unfriend anyone who disagrees, well...
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 29, 2018 10:34:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure "Feeling contrarian at being told voting against Trump is a moral imperative" accounts for a significant percentage of Dem lost votes, though I'm sure it accounts for a few.
My anti-Trump friends (which is almost all of my friends) are doing the same thing - basically, if you don't vote straight D, you are saying you want Jews and trans people to be murdered, you hate women, you think fascism is no big deal, etc. etc. It annoys me.
That said, among my few right-leaning friends, even the most civil and reasonable of them are peddling the "George Soros is funding that caravan, and did you know he was a Nazi collaborator?" shit.
I get what you mean about trying to correct misinformation. I've had the same experience - trying to correct people about what someone actually said meant I was defending all the other stuff he said. No, I just think being factual and honest is important.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 29, 2018 10:40:57 GMT -5
Well, like I said, it's just a tentative hypothesis. I don't think there'd be anyway to actually demonstrate it, regardless, if indeed the Repubs do end up holding the House.
For the record, I'd like the Dems to take the House, because a) I think it's almost always better for the country when one party doesn't control every branch, b) because I think there will be no significant check on Trump's initiatives, and c) because I think government spending will increase at a greater rate (contrary to the supposed platforms of a good chunk of the Repubs, to be sure).
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 29, 2018 11:00:50 GMT -5
I'm going to agree with Rob here. Honestly, the anger and outrage and "all bad things lead back to Trump" stuff is actually so over the top, it's really working against the Dems. And they just can't see that, because...Trump.
I watched Bill Maher last night with my husband. It was recorded from a few days ago, so the terrible massacre in the synagogue had not yet happened. Maher had on Max Boot who recently and proudly left the Republican party, a reporter from The Daily Beast who is left in the political spectrum, and Anthony Scaramucci. And several times, I'm not kidding, SEVERAL times, Scaramucci tried to explain how a significant portion of Trump's behavior is a strategy, and if the Dems understood how this works, they could bring in the blue wave at midterms. And he tried, and he tried, and Maher and Boot (and a little of the reporter) were soooo emotional and angry and blustery about Trump, that they kept cutting Scaramucci off and never let him finish. Scaramucci is smart. He's well-educated (Harvard law) The guy knows Trump better than any person on that panel. He's actually very even-handed and well-spoken on these talk shows which surprised me, given he lasted not very long and left the administration in an embarrassed way. But he was trying to make an important point on that show, one which could help the Dems, and they would..not...let...him...finish. Finally, he just said something like, "Ok whatever. When you guys lose at midterms, I will come back and explain exactly why. But you could have found out how to beat him tonight." And they just could not put down their partisan anger to listen for ONE friggin minute. Even my husband said, "Let the guy finish his point."
I actually like Bill Maher. I respect that he has folks from the other side on his show, and he attempts dialogue with them. Sometimes this works out better than other times, but he tries. And I respect that he can criticize his own at times. (he did a critical segment on PC culture at the end) I don't think he' a reflexive partisan hack. I will watch his show where I simply cannot watch much of Colbert or ANY of John Oliver. But he's not immune to Trump Derangement Syndrome either. Last night he just could not get over his Trump anger for a few seconds, to listen.
This Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing. And it's going to hurt the Dems at midterms, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 11:03:17 GMT -5
More and more, I hear people talking about GOP voters the way enablers talk about abusive partners:
"Don't contradict him; you'll just make him angrier."
"Maybe he wouldn't hit you if you didn't say things like that."
Seriously, what DO you suggest we say?
Based on what I'm hearing from y'all, I'll be damned if I know what it is we can say that WON'T set them off and "force" them to vote GOP. Talking about healthcare doesn't seem to move them -- they are brainwashed to think the Dems are coming after their pre-existing condition protection. Not the environment -- they are brainwashed to think that it's either not being hurt or that God will fix it or that it doesn't matter anyway. Not talking about standing by our allies and not enabling dictators -- they are brainwashed to think that Europe is their enemy and Putin and Kim Jong Un are swell fellas. Not about Trump's lies and corruptions and promotion of alt-right racist horrors and conspiracy theory nonsense -- they've been brainwashed to think those are harmless or incidental (if they don't think they're downright awesome). Not about the danger of doing away with financial regulations -- they're convinced that the Trump has done miraculous wonders with the economy after that awful Obama trashed it. No matter how many alt-righters send bombs or kill people because they believe batshit things Trump and Fox News trumpets out, they will keep talking about how it is those violent terrible unreasonable leftists who are mean to Republican reps in restaurants that are the real problem.
I keep hearing some of you talk about the Dems not talking issues. Well, I hear them talking issues. But I don't see how they get past the above with certain voters. Two years ago, even one year ago, I thought it was possible. But now... Yeah, I actually think all of the above is blindingly obvious to anyone who isn't willfully, bullheadedly blind or downright brainwashed.
I want the Dems to take at least the House far more to keep Trump in check than for any other reason. Indeed, what I anticipate if it happens is not sweeping liberal reform (I don't think that's possible, anyway, under the most optimistic scenario for the Democrats) but at least something like a rein on Trump's excesses.
Trump Derangement Syndrome, c.e.? The problem is, Trump is deranged. And the GOP is enabling it.
|
|