The three worst things about the Trump presidency, to me, are the potential damage to democracy itself in our country, the potential for nuclear war (at this point, more and more likely to be with North Korea, but the other nuclear powers are sure to get involved), and worse than either of those, from a global extinction standpoint, is global warming. We're dangerously close to that tipping point. Four years of one of the biggest polluters in the world going unchecked is crazy dangerous. Losing democracy in America would be awful for us, but humanity can survive one nation being insufferable to it's own citizens (it happens all the time). Yes, I think we could recover from thermonuclear war better than we can from a runaway greenhouse effect. The carbon isn't even the worst of it. It's the methane locked up in a lot of permafrost. If that breaks free, we could eliminate carbon emissions completely and STILL be doomed.
Oh, and I don't think Russia benefiting from us pulling out monetary support from other countries is any coincidence, do you? (Though I'm sure Trump's too dumb to figure out he's being used.)
Global warming... even with Democrats in power we don't do nearly enough. As terrible as the Trump administration already is for the climate, is there really still any chance of stopping really bad climate change? Because I'm certainly no scientist, but from what little I read, even in the best realistic scenarios of what we could be doing now, it's not enough. Not even close. Trump will probably just make the really bad stuff happen a little faster, not not happen at all, sadly enough... because it would take very serious efforts to even start slowing it down, and nobody is willing to do that. We're already seeing the effects, with new record highs set pretty much every month now, but it is going to get so much worse in the future. Of course everything helps, but it's not like nuclear war, where either it happens or it doesn't; it's "it happens quicker or slightly less fast", I think.
Quote: Oh, and I don't think Russia benefiting from us pulling out monetary support from other countries is any coincidence, do you?
Yeah, there's no way that that is a cooincidence. Trump's numerous Russian contacts must have encouraged him to go in that direction, because it greatly helps Russia today. I guess they think that a larger US military isn't as threatening if our world position is worse, which, well, is true; more planes and ships would mean little if we cede our "we are the essential nation" status over to a murderous autocrat like Putin!
As for nuclear war though, I don't know, I doubt it'll happen. I guess it could, but I doubt it; even with Trump's temperament and low intelligence, I do think he's learned just enough about nuclear weapons to know we can't use them... though the saber-rattling w/ith North Korea does make them doing something really awful possible I guess, yes. I hope not.
Quote:(Though I'm sure Trump's too dumb to figure out he's being used.)
The people around him aren't so stupid that they don't know that they are helping Russia, but does Trump really get it? ... I think he knows to at least some extent, somewhere deep inside, but surely has convinced himself that whatever it is that he's done, it was all fine and perfectly justified. He well may genuinely believe that Putin is his friend though, sure... and Trump supports people he likes.
... I honestly don't understand, why is most of the Republican Party obstructing the Russia investigation and trying (failing, but trying) to instead focus on the leakers instead of potential treason? I don't want to believe that almost their whole party has been co-opted by the Russians, but things like this make you wonder...
Again, I do not believe that many Democrats would do anything similar to this, because charges this serious cannot be ignored.
But yeah, it's great to know for sure that the FBI does have an open investigation into the Trump/Russia ties. We need even more of those of course, and an independent prosecutor, but it's very good to know that it is going on.
Well, except the democrats DID focus on whoever was leaking instead of the leak itself when it happened to them. I'm not saying it was anywhere near as serious as the issues with Russia, but, well, both parties do have a pretty long history of being total hypocrites when it suits them politically.
It's true that last year the Democrats wanted to focus more on who was leaking stuff -- Podesta's emails, etc -- than the contents, because it was obvious that the leaks were happening to damage Hillary, there was nothing in those emails that was actually bad once you looked at them. And that's the big difference here; if any actual serious stuff was in those emails, I think many Dems would have taken a different tone...
There were some things worth being upset about, like certain colluding within the party to prop up one specific candidate over another. All I'm saying is that there's a contradiction here, and whether or not you think it was justified in that situation and not in this one, it's a paradox that needs resolving.
I think people should be allowed to have an opinion on who their party's nominee is. Yes, the process should be as fair as possible and it was, but of course the individual members of party leadership are going to have opinions... and when you have only two candidates and one isn't a real member of the party, it's understandable that the other one got most of the support from party insiders. But seriously, there was nothing significant in those emails. And yes, the fact that Russia was releasing them to damage Hillary IS important.
While Trump... well, things keep getting worse and worse for his administration almost by the day, and it sure is nice to see things move so fast against him!
But to really get to your point, I guess that I'd say that like many things, leaking information isn't always good or always bad. Sometimes it's one and sometimes it's the other, depending on context. We need people willing to whistleblow critical information, but intelligence operations leaking info specifically to damage one candidate are very different from that, I'm sure we all agree.
If that information is true, then I can't really consider it a bad thing in and of itself. It's when the leaked information isn't honest that there's a problem, how's that?
Also, let's treat the two cases as distinct events. In every way, I agree with you that everything about Trump is worse, but in terms of what happened with the democratic convention, that doesn't matter. It gets judged on it's own merits, and saying that party leaders should be free to collude against an "outsider" (who, I should mention, was approved as a viable candidate BY the party) makes me less than enthusiastic about the party. I don't approve of people picking their friends over a stranger when the rest of the nation is affected by it, and make no mistake, it was. Trump is president as a result of their nonsense.
No, I'm not saying they should be forced to put every single candidate on their ticket. I'm saying that if they decided to allow someone into the party as an option, they can't show favoritism later on. This isn't a matter of law so much as ethics. To us outsiders, it doesn't sit well and makes us less likely to vote for the party. You need the outsiders.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:If that information is true, then I can't really consider it a bad thing in and of itself. It's when the leaked information isn't honest that there's a problem, how's that?
When you have the Russians hacking probably everyone, but then only releasing stuff about the people they want to hurt -- that is, Hillary and her campaign -- no, whether the information is true or not is far from the only important factor. That stuff was leaked to help Trump and for no other reason, which differentiates it from normal leaks by people trying to reveal malfeasance or such. If despite that serious stuff had been revealed yes it'd be bad, but that did not happen, so the story is about Russia's efforts to get Trump elected through targeted leaks far above anything else.
Quote:Also, let's treat the two cases as distinct events. In every way, I agree with you that everything about Trump is worse, but in terms of what happened with the democratic convention, that doesn't matter. It gets judged on it's own merits, and saying that party leaders should be free to collude against an "outsider" (who, I should mention, was approved as a viable candidate BY the party) makes me less than enthusiastic about the party. I don't approve of people picking their friends over a stranger when the rest of the nation is affected by it, and make no mistake, it was. Trump is president as a result of their nonsense.
No, he isn't. I'm sure I've gone over this before, but Bernie did not lose because of the DNC. First, he lost the moment that he totally failed to appeal to minority voters; it was over as soon as he got crushed in the South, the rest of the campaign was just him refusing to give up even though Hillary had won it. And second, he would not have beaten Trump, not after the campaign they would have run against him; I am still quite sure he would have done worse.
Quote:No, I'm not saying they should be forced to put every single candidate on their ticket. I'm saying that if they decided to allow someone into the party as an option, they can't show favoritism later on. This isn't a matter of law so much as ethics. To us outsiders, it doesn't sit well and makes us less likely to vote for the party. You need the outsiders.
If Bernie was really so dedicated to now being a Democrat, since he ran as one, then why is he still the independent Senator from Vermont? I agree you need to keep the process fair, and they pretty much did, but of course the party insiders weren't going to be big Bernie fans. And again, the election would not have gone better with Bernie on the ticket.
She didn't focus enough on attacking trump for his policies, and she didn't present her own positions loud and clear enough. She needed Bernie to shore up support in the rust and coal belt, he should have been her running mate.
alien space marine Wrote:She didn't focus enough on attacking trump for his policies, and she didn't present her own positions loud and clear enough.
I agree, there is truth to this. Hillary did focus heavily on attacking Trump's character, which didn't work as well as it should have because too many people wrongly believed "both of them are bad" and such. I think she ran a good campaign, but yes, more ads and focus on policy would have been a good idea... and more trips to the Midwest of course. :p
Quote: She needed Bernie to shore up support in the rust and coal belt, he should have been her running mate.
I think Tim Kaine was a fine running mate. He probably didn't help Hillary's numbers a lot, but he didn't hurt either. And would Bernie have agreed to be on a ticket with her? Would that both people on our ticket would be old hurt, too? And with Bernie on the ticket, those Republican attacks against him would have started, and they'd hurt. Maybe Bernie could have helped overall, but that's questionable. But anyway, ultimately most people vote based on who the Presidential candidate is, not the VP.
Hildawg is a fake plastic person and I can scarcely watch her without cringing. As I watched her debate and even deliver speeches, I could digest it on two levels, one of her substance and the other of her ostensibly robotic delivery. If I were an ignorant person, I'd be more easily wooed by Trump's ability to use simplistic language, speak in a confident way, and deflect questions / distract from the important issues. That Hillary lost to someone as odious as Trump speaks volumes of her viability as a candidate. That is to say, in how likeable and trustworthy she appears. Apart from that, any reasonable person can see that she's magnitudes better than Trump from a standpoint of competence, diplomacy, organization, and policy.
Nonetheless, it's hard to imagine Bernie doing worse than her, even with all the **!!! SOCIALIST !!!** rhetoric that Republicans would have been shouting from the rooftops. Bernie at least had the ability to rouse people. Voters clearly wanted an outsider candidate. There are voters dumb enough to have voted for Trump over Hillary, but would have happily voted for Sanders over Trump. Sad, but true. I'd be very interested in seeing an alternate reality of Bernie getting the candidacy.
One flaw in this theory, of course, is that Sanders's primary fanbase are young people, those who are notorious for not voting. And it's no doubt that he lacked the minority support that Hillary had behind her. Still, once Hillary was out of the picture, it's easy to imagine Sanders snatching those up. Without all the scandals, with being a better public speaker, with inspiring voters with lofty (albiet unrealistic) goals of free health care, infrastructure spending, taking on Wall St., etc, I really do think Sanders would have beaten Trump.
BTW fuck those dumb worthless republicans for failing on health care and Trump bragging about being a super genious negatiator and totally shitting the bed and then predictably blaming his failures on others.
They're turning on Paul Ryan, though honestly, Trump couldn't have done any better... hell, we KNOW he couldn't, because he tried! Then got impatient and stomped his feet and gave an ultimatum. What a moron.
But in any case, we'll see if they manage to oust Ryan. Honestly, I sympathize with whoever they elect to next be the leader of the house. Even someone like Ryan, with his repugnant Randian beliefs.
But then I remember his vanity gym shots and say "fuck that dumbass".
The Democratic Party re-litigating the primaries is one of the more annoying things about losing...
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Hildawg is a fake plastic person and I can scarcely watch her without cringing. As I watched her debate and even deliver speeches, I could digest it on two levels, one of her substance and the other of her ostensibly robotic delivery. If I were an ignorant person, I'd be more easily wooed by Trump's ability to use simplistic language, speak in a confident way, and deflect questions / distract from the important issues. That Hillary lost to someone as odious as Trump speaks volumes of her viability as a candidate. That is to say, in how likeable and trustworthy she appears. Apart from that, any reasonable person can see that she's magnitudes better than Trump from a standpoint of competence, diplomacy, organization, and policy.
Nonetheless, it's hard to imagine Bernie doing worse than her, even with all the **!!! SOCIALIST !!!** rhetoric that Republicans would have been shouting from the rooftops. Bernie at least had the ability to rouse people. Voters clearly wanted an outsider candidate. There are voters dumb enough to have voted for Trump over Hillary, but would have happily voted for Sanders over Trump. Sad, but true. I'd be very interested in seeing an alternate reality of Bernie getting the candidacy.
I cannot imagine Bernie getting a majority of the popular vote in 2016, never mind the electoral college. There's almost no way, not with his record, or with the kinds of attack ads they could easily have made.
Quote:One flaw in this theory, of course, is that Sanders's primary fanbase are young people, those who are notorious for not voting. And it's no doubt that he lacked the minority support that Hillary had behind her. Still, once Hillary was out of the picture, it's easy to imagine Sanders snatching those up. Without all the scandals, with being a better public speaker, with inspiring voters with lofty (albiet unrealistic) goals of free health care, infrastructure spending, taking on Wall St., etc, I really do think Sanders would have beaten Trump.
Sure, minorities would have voted for Sanders, but you'd probably have had lower turnout than Hillary got due to lower enthusiasm. And if his appeal among younger voters really was that huge of a help, wouldn't he have won the nomination? And beyond that,remember, Bernie particularly dominated low-turnout caucuses, and did worse in primaries which are easier to vote in. He had/has a diehard base of support, but it wasn't huge in terms of numbers, and the Republican attacks would have limited his mass appeal once in the general election.
(Oh, and I am still quite convinced that the largest determining factor in Trump's victory was simply that Hillary is female.)
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:BTW fuck those dumb worthless republicans for failing on health care and Trump bragging about being a super genious negatiator and totally shitting the bed and then predictably blaming his failures on others.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/r8Kxit1l.png
They're turning on Paul Ryan, though honestly, Trump couldn't have done any better... hell, we KNOW he couldn't, because he tried! Then got impatient and stomped his feet and gave an ultimatum. What a moron.
But in any case, we'll see if they manage to oust Ryan. Honestly, I sympathize with whoever they elect to next be the leader of the house. Even someone like Ryan, with his repugnant Randian beliefs.
But then I remember his vanity gym shots and say "fuck that dumbass".
[img]http://i.imgur.com/jlScmzTl.jpg
If they do manage to force out Paul Ryan, who in the world would actually want that job? Remember, he was only kind of forced into becoming Speaker because after Boehner quit, in large part because of frustration with his caucus, nobody else wanted the job. And after Ryan's terrible heath care bill and predictable failure to get it through, the job would only be harder for the next person! Right now I'd guess that Ryan hangs on, but who knows.
As for the failure of the Trumpcare/Ryancare bill... well, I did kind of see it coming. Pretty much ever since the election I've thought that the most likely result is that Obamacare stays in place, because you can give this Republican Party a majority but that is not fixing their very deep internal divisions! And indeed, that is exactly what happened, as their divisions, between the few center-right "moderates" (if there even are any real moderates in their party anymore, it's doubtful) to the very far right main bulk of the party to the "burn it all down" Freedom Caucus, are too deep to bridge. That the far right managed to save Obamacare because they refused to accept a worse but Republican variant on the bill, because they want a full repeal and won't accept anything else, is kind of amusing, but after getting this far on a "Party of No" platform what else could you expect? Opposing everything has brought their party far, and just because you cannot govern on an oppose-everything platform doesn't mean that people like the Freedom Caucus won't stick to that anyway. And they have, hence the health care bill failure.
So, I wish the Republican Party much luck in ripping itself apart for years to come, keeping even more terrible things from becoming law!
Got to admit, I'm surprised to see Republicans not voting in lockstep like I expected. I figured Democrats and liberals were more prone to idealism and in-fighting, thus why we can't ever get anything done, and why Obamacare barely squeaked by when the Dems controlled both houses and the White House.
I figured (worried) that Republicans would just swallow whatever imaginary principles they had and toe the line. Whatever agenda Trump would concoct would pass swiftly, coldly, and efficienctly. To see the same in-fighting take place within their party brings me a great deal of satisfaction. The Tea Party really is a runaway monster, isn't it? :evil: That the Donald is such a divisive figure probably doesn't help... although that probably doesn't make a difference. Republicans seemed to embrace him once it became apparent that they had to live with him.
Quote:When the balky hardliners of the House Freedom Caucus visited the White House earlier this week, this was Steve Bannon's opening line, according to people in the conference room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building:
"Guys, look. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. You have no choice but to vote for this bill."
Bannon's point was: This is the Republican platform. You're the conservative wing of the Republican Party. But people in the room were put off by the dictatorial mindset.
One of the members replied: "You know, the last time someone ordered me to something, I was 18 years old. And it was my daddy. And I didn't listen to him, either."
Trump and Bannon are a couple of dumb sons-of-bitches that are finding that they can't throw their weight around. Good. Fuck'em. The Teapards stonewalled us for six fucking years, now they're your problem, assholes.
Also lol to grown men who refer to their fathers as "daddy".
Bannon's complete lack of negotiation skills not withstanding, a member saying "the last time someone someone ordered me to do something" bit tells me just how easy that person has had it in life. The rest of us find that taking orders is just how life is.
Well, ISPs can now sell our personal data. Not being able to do that was just too STIFLING!
In California, someone's put forward a bill to outlaw fake news. You and me would look at this and say "well, hey, Breitbart, Infowars, The Blaze, and Red State is now illegal", but right now number 45 up in Washington thinks CNN is fake news, so this sort of thing is basically not enforceable as intended. I guess the best policy is still "free speech".
Quote:Sure, minorities would have voted for Sanders, but you'd probably have had lower turnout than Hillary got due to lower enthusiasm. And if his appeal among younger voters really was that huge of a help, wouldn't he have won the nomination? And beyond that,remember, Bernie particularly dominated low-turnout caucuses, and did worse in primaries which are easier to vote in. He had/has a diehard base of support, but it wasn't huge in terms of numbers, and the Republican attacks would have limited his mass appeal once in the general election.
I mean no offense, but the predictions that you made in this thread before the election were pretty much entirely wrong and so has been your post-election analysis.
Trump was eminently beatable and the Democrats greased every skid for the one candidate even more beatable than Trump. And your way of consoling yourself is to imagine a fantasy world in which Bernie Sanders would have done worse.
Quote:(Oh, and I am still quite convinced that the largest determining factor in Trump's victory was simply that Hillary is female.)
Republicans spent eight years lying to themselves about why Obama won in 2008. You're doing exactly the same thing right now.
The largest determining factor in Trump's victory was that America is obviously done with 20th century politics and 20th century politicians, and everybody knew it before the election. Except the people who ignored the writing on the wall and lost.
Of course sexism played a part, and of course I don't blame the democrats for picking a female candidate, because it's important not to get stuck in a rut of "we're not sexist, BUT female candidates have trouble winning, therefore systemic sexism", but Hillary had a lot more going against her than just sexism, and it's important to acknowledge that.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Of course sexism played a part, and of course I don't blame the democrats for picking a female candidate, because it's important not to get stuck in a rut of "we're not sexist, BUT female candidates have trouble winning, therefore systemic sexism", but Hillary had a lot more going against her than just sexism, and it's important to acknowledge that.
Do you think a male candidate with Hillary's other flaws would also have lost? That's really the only question that matters here. I doubt that very much. Maybe... but I doubt it.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Got to admit, I'm surprised to see Republicans not voting in lockstep like I expected. I figured Democrats and liberals were more prone to idealism and in-fighting, thus why we can't ever get anything done, and why Obamacare barely squeaked by when the Dems controlled both houses and the White House.
I figured (worried) that Republicans would just swallow whatever imaginary principles they had and toe the line. Whatever agenda Trump would concoct would pass swiftly, coldly, and efficienctly. To see the same in-fighting take place within their party brings me a great deal of satisfaction. The Tea Party really is a runaway monster, isn't it? :evil: That the Donald is such a divisive figure probably doesn't help... although that probably doesn't make a difference. Republicans seemed to embrace him once it became apparent that they had to live with him.
In the past, things usually were just like you describe -- getting Democrats to agree on anything was nearly impossible, while Republicans always voted in lockstep. Their drift to the right and the Tea Party movement has divided their party, though, and that was on full display in 2015-2016 through the primary/caucus campaigns. I thought that winning would not solve all their internal problems and get them working together again, and that has indeed been what happened. All those years of promising to repeal "every word" of Obamacare, of lying about how "badly" it was doing, of lying about how easy it would be to get rid of, etc... that all foundered on the rocks of reality, once the Republicans couldn't just pass another of the 50 or 60 repeal bills they sent to Obama knowing that they would go nowhere, but had to come up with an actual bill knowing it would be signed. I know I've seen a quote from at least one Republican admitting that they passed those repeal bills knowing they were just political theater, while this one was a lot harder because it was actually real since Trump would sign whatever they sent him. Reality is tough, as their party is now realizing... :P
So, some Republicans, those diehard Tea Partiers in the Freedom Caucus, are sticking to their "repeal every word of Obamacare" beliefs, but just enough other Republicans were not willing to pass Ryan's bill, a bill clearly worse than Obama's in many ways as the CBO showed among others, that it could not pass. It was a somewhat predictable result really, passing something would either require Republicans to work with Democrats, and that is unlikely particularly on their side in these too-partisan (and not small-d democratic enough) times, or come up with a bill that all wings of the Republican Party could support, and I did not think that was likely. So far at least that has proven accurate. Tax reform and making a budget will be just as hard too, Trump... :)
Trump and Bannon are a couple of dumb sons-of-bitches that are finding that they can't throw their weight around. Good. Fuck'em. The Teapards stonewalled us for six fucking years, now they're your problem, assholes.
Also lol to grown men who refer to their fathers as "daddy".
Yeah, that quote was amusing stuff, it does help show the mindset of the extremists on their side. Of course their intransigence helped America out this time so I won't complain either, but it is a kind of silly quote. :) Bannon's imperious tone deserved no better, for sure!
Just to add a bit to the above, I forgot to mention again one really important part of why the health care bill failed, that the only way to get it through would be for a strong leader to put a sustained, well thought through effort at pressing their party to support it. Between Trump's low intelligence, childish antics, inability and unwillingness to learn how the government works, and resulting incompetence, he provided none of that leadership. Obama spent 13 months working hard to get the ACA passed. Trump quit after 17 days, demanding a vote because he was bored of the details of health care. Now, because the bill was going to pass through budget reconciliation they don't have over a year to spend on it, but even so that he quit so quickly shows the degree of his utterly unprepared and incompetent manner and administration. I knew Trump was not smart, but I was surprised at the depth of Trump's ignorance about our political system; you'd think that after spending so long running for office he'd have learned SOMETHING! But no, he's too stubbornly ignorant to bother trying. Well, just like with the Freedom Caucus's entitled intransigence, in this case that helped save health care, for now at least.
Of course that is no excuse for why Paul Ryan had such a bad plan after seven years of supposedly hating Obamacare, but even with a better one you would have needed strong leadership on the top to get it through, and Trump is not able to provide that. That has been obvious for a long time, but it became even more obvious after the election -- when it came out after he won that Trump did not know what the President really did, that he'd have to replace the whole White House staff, etc, etc, it was clear that he had never cared enough to actually look at the details of what this job he worked so hard to get's actual duties were. And now that he has the job, it's just as obvious that he never will care enough, or be smart enough, to even begin at handling it even semi-competently.
Would a male candidate with Hillary's other flaws have lost? I'd say it would still have been close, but considering the race was already pretty close there's a possibility a male candidate would have squeaked ahead. As I said, sexism played a part, but the race should never have even been close, it should have been a blowout. I believe Elizabeth Warren would have been able to pull that off. She wasn't even a contender and she still got loads of people excited about the prospect of her running.
Hillary Clinton lacks charisma. No don't look at Bill. He's still charismatic. I'm talking about Hillary. Every word she says just oozes "this sentence was built in a lab, but we were forced to push the product out before it had undergone sufficient testing". The thing is, she was certain to be a better president than Trump. Heck I voted for her, but I wasn't enthusiastic about it, and trying to get some of my family members to even bother showing up at the polls was like pulling teeth. That's the problem with the democrats. They like to "play it safe" by leaning centrist so they don't alienate the other side too much. Well, I got news for them. THEY WILL NEVER EVER EVER CONVINCE A REPUBLICAN TO VOTE FOR THEM BY PLAYING CENTRIST! It isn't going to happen! They're already convinced the party are a bunch of liars, and that stupid commercial they ran only reinforced that.
You don't have to agree with the republicans, but it is absolutely fatal to fail to understand them. Not the cartoonish caricature you argue with in your head. That one's easy to win a debate with. Understand this. They don't like being pandered to with disingenuous folksy talk. Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren if she ever decided to run, are genuine and it comes off in their speeches. That can win an election.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Do you think a male candidate with Hillary's other flaws would also have lost? That's really the only question that matters here. I doubt that very much. Maybe... but I doubt it.
You have asserted, repeatedly, that a male candidate with none of her flaws would have done worse.
Quote:You don't have to agree with the republicans, but it is absolutely fatal to fail to understand them. Not the cartoonish caricature you argue with in your head. That one's easy to win a debate with. Understand this. They don't like being pandered to with disingenuous folksy talk. Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren if she ever decided to run, are genuine and it comes off in their speeches. That can win an election.
This is exactly correct.
There were a lot of voters out there who would have voted for any other Democrat (male or female). There's no way Bernie Sanders would have lost the four key reliably blue states Hillary lost to Donald Trump.
If America can elect, and comfortably re-elect a black man as president, American history makes it very evident that gender would not stop a candidate who is charismatic and positive as Obama was. Hillary is the opposite of charismatic and her campaign was absolutely not positive or forward-thinking in its messaging to the voters. She lost because she was already unpopular and she is just not a good candidate for public office. People for whom gender is a big deal are not people who would have voted for anyone with a D next to their name anyway.
The Democrats need a vision and a message, as they had in 2008. "Republicans are bad and I'm not a Republican" is not a vision and it is a message that literally only worked when the Republican was Todd Akin. And when the party puts more effort into stealing votes from disaffected Republicans than it does cultivating votes from disaffected non-voters who have a clear ideological lean in your direction, it's a message that speaks of monumental blindness.
That's why the Dem establishment needs to go. They are too conservative to be viable in this environment. Not conservative in the ideological sense, but in the sense that they are rigid, deaf to criticism and entirely unwilling to adapt to reality as it changes around them.
Weltall Wrote:You have asserted, repeatedly, that a male candidate with none of her flaws would have done worse.
If this is a reference to Bernie, he had other flaws that would have led to his doing worse than Hillary; it's not only about gender. But a candidate with Hillary's same flaws that was male would certainly have done better, and probably would have won, though that FBI thing right before the election hurt a lot. Gender bias is alive and well, unfortunately.
So yeah, if Biden had run and been nominated? He'd probably be president now.
Quote:This is exactly correct.
There were a lot of voters out there who would have voted for any other Democrat (male or female). There's no way Bernie Sanders would have lost the four key reliably blue states Hillary lost to Donald Trump.
If America can elect, and comfortably re-elect a black man as president, American history makes it very evident that gender would not stop a candidate who is charismatic and positive as Obama was. Hillary is the opposite of charismatic and her campaign was absolutely not positive or forward-thinking in its messaging to the voters. She lost because she was already unpopular and she is just not a good candidate for public office. People for whom gender is a big deal are not people who would have voted for anyone with a D next to their name anyway.
You make multiple assumptions here that are not true. First, Barack Obama was black, yes, but he was also male, and sexism is the most pervasive form of discrimination there is. Consider how black men (officially) got the vote in this country more than 50 years before any women did, among many examples. So just because America elected Obama does not mean that a woman with that same charisma would do equally as well, I don't think they would.
Additionally, as for Hillary's popularity, actually, Hillary was popular... until she started running for office. People are okay with her when she's in a position, but when a woman tries to reach a higher office? Suddenly her numbers go way down... funny how that works (not really). This is a consistent pattern in her approval ratings, and looking at those numbers is one of the best ways to see how huge of a problem sexism has been for Hillary. You make multiple assumptions here that are not true.
And as for "not positive or forward-thinking to voters", I have no idea what you are talking about, but the whole Democratic policy agenda was EXACTLY those things! Yes, she did also run a lot of negative ads, but both candidates did a lot of that, and Trump had an all-negative message while Hillary had a positive one.
It is true that she's not a great speaker, though, unlike Obama or Bill Clinton. And that did certainly hurt, I agree on that point. She did her best, but will never be a natural great like those two.
Quote:The Democrats need a vision and a message, as they had in 2008. "Republicans are bad and I'm not a Republican" is not a vision and it is a message that literally only worked when the Republican was Todd Akin. And when the party puts more effort into stealing votes from disaffected Republicans than it does cultivating votes from disaffected non-voters who have a clear ideological lean in your direction, it's a message that speaks of monumental blindness.
That's why the Dem establishment needs to go. They are too conservative to be viable in this environment. Not conservative in the ideological sense, but in the sense that they are rigid, deaf to criticism and entirely unwilling to adapt to reality as it changes around them.
"Republicans are bad" was only one element of a much larger campaign. But as for 'changes in reality', if Bernie supporters actually start winning elections outside of places like Vermont then maybe you will have a point, but so far that hasn't happened much. (And Bernie would not have won.)
I think the critical difference in our views is that you think that being openly liberal is an insurmountable weakness, and we think it's the only way forward. You think the true liberal goals need to be covered up or coated in a layer of old time country boy in order for the public to swallow it, and we think such disguises aren't fooling anyone, and never really did, and the key isn't to focus on winning over republicans but in winning over the left-leaning non-voter who's disenfranchised with the whole system. In the end, that's the point I'm really trying to argue, Sanders and Clinton aside.
Quote: You think the true liberal goals need to be covered up or coated in a layer of old time country boy in order for the public to swallow it, and we think such disguises aren't fooling anyone, and never really did, and the key isn't to focus on winning over republicans
If elected, Hillary would have been the most liberal president... maybe ever, and certainly in a very long time. I know Bill's thing was triangulation, but Hillary always was to his left, and she's to Obama's left too at least on many domestic issues. Sometimes politicians in both parties hide their real goals behind a centrist-sounding screen, but most of the time that doesn't change the actual effect of the policy. Hillary would be no centrist!
Quote: but in winning over the left-leaning non-voter who's disenfranchised with the whole system.
If there really were as many people like that as you think, Bernie would have won the primaries, you know. That was a huge part of his appeal and it worked to a degree, but there isn't some 'hidden majority' of nonvoting liberals out there, or rather, there probably is but they can't be bothered to vote. A lot of them live in very liberal areas anyway, but there are some parts of the country that would be very competitive if liberals or potentially liberal voters actually voted -- Texas, for one of the best examples. It's really frustrating stuff, and we badly need strategies to get people to vote, I strongly agree on that point... but I don't know if your strategy will work. I don't think it has so far, at least not enough to actually turn elections.
Oh, and I don't know about turning Republicans for now, the core of their party is pretty far gone.... as I've said many times we badly need a Republican Party that believes in democracy and voting, but we don't have it now, for sure. For now the best we can do is appeal to the left and center, the right has gone kind of crazy. That doesn't mean centrist policies of course, it is possible to make a very good case to the middle for liberal policy, you just need centrist voters and legislators to support you. I do not believe that there are enough people out there who are liberal, don't vote because they hate the Democratic Party for reasons you describe, and live in the right areas to turn elections our way for your plan to be the answer to the party's problems. You need to win to get your agenda enacted, and between geographic party self-sorting, how more dems in small urban areas versus R's scattered around the countryside; gerrymandering and the greatly enhanced power that has given the Republican Party particularly in recent years; and how many potentially Democratic demographics rarely vote, such as Hispanics in the South and young people, we need all the help we can get to try to overcome those issues and actually win elections in congress instead of only in the popular vote.
You're forgetting that most of those primaries weren't even open to left leaning voters disenfranchised with the whole system. Those people have an "I" on their voter ID. Oklahoma was one exception, and guess who won that primary?
You've said before that a party should have the right to close out those who refuse to join them from participating in primary elections. I see your point, but on the other hand, those people you're closing out might end up staying home when the real election comes up. It might be a good idea to consider changing that policy.
The bigger story is about how undemocratic caucuses are, not about if they are open or closed.
Also... the even bigger story, of course, is the Russian hacking. Here's a good new article on the pro-Sanders element of that, which helped divide the left after the nomination: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bern...71826cdb36
Oh goody, Huffington Post... I've kinda disregarded them once it became clear they aren't entirely pro-science but rather only support the science they think they're "supposed" to as a liberal.
In any event, I'm not surprised there were waves of fake news flying around, but I also wasn't affected by it. I don't use Facebook, and didn't really join in the big discussion groups with Bernie supporters.
I've never liked the Huffington Post, because their non-political articles are often really dumb and their politics are a bit too strident for me -- they were STRONGLY anti-Hillary this year for example, and in '08 as well -- but their polling-average charts subsite is good. That article I found linked from elsewhere, but it's exactly the kind of thing I would expect to have been going on, as Russia wanted not only to boost Trump, but also divide the left through trying to encourage bitter Bernie supporters, and also by encouraging people to vote for Jill Stein instead of Hillary. Maybe you didn't notice, and I'm sure most liberals did end up voting for Hillary, but this stuff did hurt to at least some extent I'm sure.
I remember the Jill Stein stuff, and I remember very quickly finding out she had some pretty wacky ideas about science thus ruling her out. I also recall being just a tad embarrassed by the crowds of Bernie supporters who basically said "Bernie, you're gonna be president whether you like it or not!" after he started promoting Hillary when it was clear he had lost.
So, supreme court nominations!
This most recent debacle has shown a critical weakness in the system of how they get nominated. The republicans did something absolutely ridiculous in refusing to even officially consider Obama's nominee. They didn't even bother trying to vote against him, they just refused to actually vote. Something about ducks, I dunno... Now they've got their own nominee, and whatever happens with this one, there's still the previous nominee sitting around completely unconsidered, for eternity. They just, skipped over him.
I wouldn't be so infuriated if they had actually put it to a vote and denied him, but that didn't even happen!
I submit a change to the rules. ANY supreme court candidate nominated for consideration MUST be voted on before any new candidates can be presented, regardless of whether the president who nominated them has left office. This would negate this tactic of leaving the supreme court in tatters for a year just to get "your" candidate up for consideration. They would not be able to avoid it. Now, if that candidate has some scandelous information, that's fine, because they can still just all vote "no" and clear the nominee out of the way, but they can't just leave the candidate unconsidered.
That would be fantastic, but after seeing their "block the Democrats" strategy work so well, there's no way it'd get through with this Republican Party...
On a Gorsuch-related note, I am glad that the Dems have the votes to force Republicans to change the judicial filibuster --they need to own this incredibly unpopular president, and going that far to support his nominee will not be good for them in the long run. Of course I'd love it if they fail to change the filibuster, which probably should be left in place, but they probably will get their whole caucus to support it unfortunately, so Gorscuh probably will get in... even though, it came out today, he committed plagarism: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/go...urt-236891
But on another note, want the positive view of Trump winning the presidency? Well, here it is: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...n-won.html This article covers an issue I have mentioned before, including before the election, that of how a narrow win in 2016 would set the Democrats up for few legislative victories this term and big Republican gains in 2018 and 2020. A lot of very hard to defend Democratic Senate seats come up in 2018, and if they did well then, as they likely would after two more years of blocking the Democratic President from accomplishing almost anything, they would then have a borderline veto-proof majority in the Senate, and would be set up for a win in the 2020 Presidential race, a year which, remember, will have a census and thus redistricting afterwards. Yes, Democrats would get the Supreme Court majority which could have helped a lot, but is that worth losing both the Congress and Presidency for what could be a long time, particularly for the Congress, after Republicans again gerrymander in district lines that favor them? It's not a good scenario. Of course had we won the House and Senate last year it would be avoided, but given how November went, a very narrow Senate majority with the same Republican House majority is the best case scenario, and Hillary could have even won with the same 52R-48D Senate minority we have now. Ugh. And that's not even speaking on how badly the party has fallen apart at the state level, a problem we probably need a Republican presidency to start to fix, to get people to care enough to vote and such (if they ever will).
But instead, Republicans suddenly have to govern at a time they were not expecting to have to do it, and have the worst President ever, and things are all falling apart for them... just in time for the next two elections to hopefully move things our way. So yeah, as the article concludes, Republicans may well come to regret that Hillary did not win in 2016!
This awkward person who makes strange mouth noises makes a good point (that others made before him).
It's basically things everyone else has said all collected in one video, but it bears repeating. He can be impeached right now.
Except for one detail: "Without the consent of congress" So, Congress can let the president accept gifts from foreign states if they want to (And thanks to a republican majority, they do!). So, what then? Well, I'm pretty sure they need to explicitly give their consent. Let's force Congress to actually decide on this matter. They can rule that they don't approve, which paves the way for impeachment, or they can approve, in which case make a note of every single Congressioner who votes to let Trump keep his corrupt presents, and let the whole country make a note of it.
So, the Democrat lost in the House special election in Kansas... but he lost by only six points, while the Republican who previously held the seat had won by at least 30 points every time he'd run, including last year when he won by 31.5. That's a change from PVI R+15 to PVI R+3 or 4, a massive improvement to say the least! (PVI measures how much one party would need to go down and the other go up in order for the other side to win, not just the size of the margin). It is disappointing to lose of course; I hoped we'd win this seat, but because Kansas almost never elects Democrats after all I expected to lose by more than this. If this keeps up this is a good sign -- at least a hundred house seats, including two others in Kansas, would flip if everywhere had a D+12 PVI change like this one did. I am certainly not saying that that will happen, far from it, but the nation clearly has noticed how terrible this administration is, and this election showed that. It's just too bad the Dem didn't win... ah well.
Quote:but the nation clearly has noticed how terrible this administration is, and this election showed that.
James Thompson is a committed Berniecrat. That's why this election was close. It's not enough for Trump to be awful. Democrats need better candidates that appeal more broadly to voters. That's what really happened here. The GOP had to throw the kitchen sink at this socialist nobody in order to barely hold a seat in Kansas because even Kansas seems to be almost okay with socialist nobodies.
I think the election result in Georgia-06 shows that it's not about how close candidates are to Bernie, it's about how there are some people who dislike the direction Trump's America is going in and will vote against that. I only hope this keeps up through the midterms, but early signs are mostly good, both the Kansas and Georgia races saw MASSIVE shifts versus last year! Ossoff just needs to win that runoff in a few months, so we have an actual victory and not another 'but we were close'...
Damnit all ABF! A "we don't like Trump" campaign isn't good enough! It's a stupid idea and you're a stupid party for saying it! It's gotta be done on positive notes.
And yes SJ, if they try to run a Hillary campaign again, all it'll prove is they are pathologically incapable of learning from mistakes. Elizabeth Warren! Why not her? She not rich and influential enough for you?
You're right, just running a "we oppose Trump" campaign probably is not enough; that was the core of Hillary's message after all and it wasn't quite enough. You need to run a campaign for your candidate first, against the other one second.
As for Hillary running again, we still badly need a female president and she would be great if elected, but I doubt she'll run again, and if she does I don't know if she'd get through the primaries. I'm sure there will be some strong contenders who didn't just lose...
Please god, don't let Hillary run in 2020. If you can't beat someone as inept and bumbling as Trump, you're done. I don't think even the DNC is dumb enough to run her again.
I'm not terribly worried about it. It's very rare that a candidate will make it to the general election, lose, then run again. I don't have the historical chops to say when that last happened. ABF?
So the Republicans finally managed to get together the votes to pass a version of their absurdly horrendous "health care" (aka tax cuts for the rich) bill. It sounds like the Senate Republicans are going to ignore it and write their own different bill, which probably won't be quite as bad but surely will also be worse than the ACA, so may it die in reconciliation and not become law...
But regardless, the good news for Democrats is that it is much easier to run against someone who actually voted on something terrible than someone who didn't -- that is, that the House actually held this vote makes it far easier to run against the awful people who voted for it, as opposed to a House which never held that vote and thus allowed people like Bruce Poliquin up in ME-2 to continue refusing to say whether they supported the bill or not. Now we know, he voted for it and will have to answer for that in 2018, hopefully slowing down that district's sad and frustrating strong right-wing turn it's been going through over the past decade. We'll see, but if they actually pass something as murderously (for the old, sick, and poor) horrible as this bill is, the Republicans will have a VERY hard time holding on to the House next year and I sure hope they don't.
On that note, polling in that Georgia race is mixed; I saw one Democratic poll with Ossoff up by two, and one other poll with him down by 2.6. He really needs to win this; I know it's a very gerrymandered seat and it's amazing he's close at all, but a win would mean a lot.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Please god, don't let Hillary run in 2020. If you can't beat someone as inept and bumbling as Trump, you're done. I don't think even the DNC is dumb enough to run her again.
I'm not terribly worried about it. It's very rare that a candidate will make it to the general election, lose, then run again. I don't have the historical chops to say when that last happened. ABF?
I don't know about "lose and then run again but then lose in the primaries", but "lose and then run again and be the general election nominee"? Yes, that has happened, most famously (and most recently) with Nixon, who lost to JFK in '60 before running again in '68 and winning. Andrew Jackson also lost, in an EXTREMELY close and contentious election in 1824 (where he won the popular vote but lost the election in the House to Adams after there was no winner in the Electoral College), before running again and winning the next time in 1828. Also William Jennings Bryan ran and lost three times as the Democratic nominee, in 1896, 1900, and 1908. Yeah. There are probably some more cases than that, but those are the ones I can think of offhand. So yeah, it's rare but has happened.
Of course though, Hillary has run twice now (once only in the primaries, but still) and is getting older, so it is a little different from someone who only ran once before... but on the other hand she won a majority of the popular vote by a decent margin, which is at least somewhat encouraging, though the stigma of losing, and to this idiot, will hurt her if she does try to run again I would imagine.
It's already hurt her. She "emerged from the woods" (as various web sites have reported it, I'm pretty sure they were being metaphorical, but wow what a metaphor) and the interview was entirely about her loss. It's pathetic that THIS is the thing she will be remembered for. Not the years of service in various rolls, or any of her accomplishments, but this.
I don't think she should run again for president, but perhaps if she aimed smaller and gave her support for, oh I dunno, Elizabeth Warren, she could still do well. We never really needed dynasties anyway. Close family constantly getting into the ring always did stink of corruption. It stank when W Bush ran, and won, it stank when Jeb Bush ALSO decided to win (as though he were "owed" a turn behind the desk), and it stank when Hillary ran. Yes, she was certainly more qualified than Donald, but what are the odds that so many close family members in a nation of MILLIONS would be getting that close, when it seems pretty obvious that in that millions are plenty more of those qualified for the office who never even got the chance. Parents no longer tell their kids "you could even grow up to be president!" because it seems pretty obvious that for most people, that is not a realistic possibility.
But, speaking of dynasties, let's look at Donald Nepotism Trump for a sec. Let's say after his 8 years (ugh) he doesn't decide to just stay in the office forever. Do you honestly think he wouldn't promote one of his children relentlessly to have THEM take over? 8 years is NOT the maximum level of Trump our nation is at risk of.
I like how Hillary Clinton went on TV and blamed everybody but herself for losing to the second-biggest loser to ever run for president. One trait she shares with the Donald is a complete unwillingness to admit a flaw or accept responsibility.
In the long run, her losing is probably a good thing for the country and the world, because Clinton winning in 2016 would have simply been delaying what actually happened in 2016 and probably giving America a self-aware and intelligent alt-right president instead of this cheeseburger-eating fuck wit. The single, solitary thing giving me hope for 2020 is Trump completely tarnishing the GOP brand, but that isn't much hope. If this decade has proven anything about the Democratic Party, it is that they can lose even a guaranteed election to literally anyone.
The thing is, the one thing needed for a democracy to function is an educated public. This is why we're losing. The public has been intentionally deeducated, and we're paying the price.
Fox News has fully converted into Trump's defender. For a while there, they were criticizing Trump too, but now they've clearly gotten the internal memo: "Defend Trump! Circle the Wagons! No dissent from The Message will be tolerated!"
So, they are now defending the worst thing Trump has actually done so far (that we know of), which is firing the person investigating his own crimes.
Their first defense is "What about Obama? He said Hillary was innocent DURING the investigation of her e-mails!". Okay, here's the thing. Trump is currently saying he is innocent during his own investigation, so that's hypocritical. Secondly, claiming your own innocence during an investigation isn't obstruction of justice! It's what everyone just... does! Trump is in the clear in claiming he's innocent. I mean, he's lying, but he's not breaking any laws by claiming his innocence until he's actually on the stand and sworn under oath not to lie. Thirdly, what the hell does Obama have to do with this anyway?
The second defense I heard was "So what? This isn't a big deal. This is nothing. He didn't murder anyone, so what's the fuss about?". So, apparently, the standard of "crimes worth caring about" is now set to "murder" at Fox News. If a body didn't hit the floor, then you shouldn't care about it. Clearly, this lets a LOT of evil stuff slide, like rape (oh wait, yeah NOW I get it Fox). Secondly, you people freaked out about a heck of a lot LESS than murder when Hillary's e-mails were the top focus, so that's a pretty hypocritical argument. Thirdly, what the hell does Hillary have to do with this?! Oh, wait, I brought that up? Oh, right.
Well the past few days sure have been interesting! It looks more and more likely every day that Trump will end up either resigning, removed under the 25th amendment, or impeached. Most Republicans still are on his side, so this will probably not be a quick thing, but between dismissing Comey after trying to get him to drop the Flynn investigation, having Rosenstein appoint a Special Counsel who is seemingly pretty solid choice, and more, it's looking bad for Trump and that's fantastic.
Again he won't be removed anytime soon unless he resigns because of that support from most Republicans, though. So, here's the question: when is the best time for Trump to go? I mean, for the most part, sooner would be better. Resign tomorrow or something! Save the world from the danger of having that troubled idiot in charge if there was a real crisis -- this is definitely a serious concern! But... if he leaves long before the midterms, the Republican Party will have time to rebuild before the vote, yes? I mean, I know they'll stay damaged for some time, but most peoples' attention spans are very short, so if he leaves before the 2018 elections (and I still would not guess he will, since unless he quits I have a hard time seeing almost any way of getting to 67 votes for removal, with how crazy most of the Republican party and base is now!) the more time they have post-Trump before an election the more time they will have to get people to forget about the whole thing and vote Republican despite what happened. Maybe the pro-Trump parts of their base would be so angry over Trump going that they would fail at that, but it could go either way yes?
Now, despite the gravity of the new revelations, I still doubt that he will go so quickly for that to be an issue since Trump may hate this job and be stunningly incompetent at every single major element of it, but he is stubborn and will not go easily. And again getting the House and 19 Senate Republicans to vote for removal to get rid of him with the 25th or an impeachment is hard to imagie, they're way too far right. And the Republican base is mostly loyal, while right-wing media outlets are still obsessed over hating the Clintons, not looking at any of Trump's bad actions.
So, best case: He really needs to go. Now, resign or something, Trump. So he does. Then let the continuing investigations and prosecutions continue for years, to keep people from being able to forget the whole thing anytime soon.
On another note... do you think Trump only has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or do you think he has additional mental health issues on top of that? It's quite plausible. Or does he have dementia or alzheimers' or something... sure, he could just be a very unintelligent man, but his rambling sentences, the way he loses track of what he's saying mid-paragraph... it really does not sound good. And then you've got the insane stress levels this job gives you on top of that, which he clearly can't handle. "I thought this job would be easy"? "Why did the Civil War happen? People don't ask that question."? Those are not statements that any mentally healthy American would ever say, because they are both completely insane, and are the exact opposite of what everyone knows about those issues -- the presidency is, as basically the whole world knows, the hardest job on Earth, and the Civil War is of course the most-covered issue in all of American history. Trump started that Civil War-related quote sanely, talking about Andrew Jackson and how he defended the Union and such, but just a couple of sentences later he completely lost track of what he was saying and said maybe the stupidest thing ever said about American history. It's just bizarre stuff.
Jon Oliver both sums it up and reminds us that another massive scandal broke out just before this latest (and oldest?) one. Remember that Trump recently gave away top secrets beyond top secret (pop secret?) to Russians, and ONLY Russians. Mind you, all classified information, legally, is no longer classified once the President reveals it, but this isn't a question on whether or not what Trump did is legal (for once), but whether what Trump did was horrendously stupid.
That's a pretty good summation of events as of when he made it (and I did watch it after you posted it, not just now); I only take issue with the bit hwere he's saying how bad a baby Trump was, I know it's a joke but that's kind of mean, babies can't help it...
But anyway, with how fast and furious the leaks have come, about Trump, Kushner, and Flynn particularly and their contacts and connections to Russia, as well as their attempts at covering up what they did, how long will it be until someone actually gets arrested? I want the investigations to be quite solid before they do that of course, but with how crazy-fast these leaks keep coming it makes you wonder... unless the FBI and CIA are holding out until they can get Trump himself, instead of going after his people. That would make a lot of sense; get them all at once! So yeah, take your time, and then get them all.
Meanwhile, other countries probably shouldn't be telling this administration any secrets they don't want immediately leaked either on Twitter or to the Russians, that's for sure.
But seriously, on (sort of) another note, what is wrong with this country? How has the Republican Party fallen so far that they are willing to overlook probable treason just because the people who did it are Republicans? There's no way the Democrats would behave that way; yes. people defend their own, but only to a point! And to anyone from any party it should have been clear that this administration passed that point by now. But no, most Republicans stand by Trump, and so most Republican lawmakers stick with him as well. With how terrible he's been on every front, from policy to autocratic tendencies to most likely treasonous connections to Russia, it is not good for our democracy that so many people in this country still excuse that behavior and continue to support him and the people around him. Does the Republican Party (and its diehard supporters) actually believe in America anymore? Because it sure seems like all they care about are themselves and tax cuts for the rich, and not anything that made this nation great.
Seriously, yes, it's good news that the Democrats are doing better; in Kansas and now Montana the Republicans lost, but Dems gained hugely versus every other election in those places in years. The 6-point margin in Montana Thursday was the closest a D has come to winning that seat since at least 2000, for example, and that was with a somewhat troubled Democratic candidate with some serious issues the Republicans exploited (his money problems, failure to pay contractors, statement sounding like he supported a gun registry, unpolished campaigning, etc...), and who the top Democratic candidates in the state (the Governor and one Senator) didn't campaign with. It's very frustrating to lose again, but at least it was closer than polling said, and it continues to be a very good sign for Democratic success once we finally get races in places not so diehard Republican (yes, Ossoff, but mainly the 2018 general). A year and a half is a long time and with how fast this scandal is moving I have no idea how things will be then, but at least it's hope.
![[Image: r8Kxit1l.png]](http://i.imgur.com/r8Kxit1l.png)
![[Image: jlScmzTl.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/jlScmzTl.jpg)