Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

2018 looks p bad for Dems iirc. it'd be nice to have a comprehensive list of at-risk seats, as well as seats that *could* potentially flip our way, given an adequate infusion of cash & volunteering.

― acerbic (sic)s (will), 16. november 2016 16:46 (nineteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I began this upthread. Seems to me only Nevada could be flipped to Dems, most at-risk seats are in the Midwest. But really, to everyone on here, if you want something really easily doable to do to help, do this: Begin with the list of elections in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012 Check out the close ones, check which incumbents are old and might want to step down. Really, there's only 33 races to watch, and many of them are decided already, it's not that hard for anyone to educate yourself, even if vox and 538 won't do it yet.

I know everyone is sick of elections, but perhaps a new thread for organizing before 2018? Perhaps it won't seems so shitty if everyone is ahead of the curve?

Perhaps Jeff Flake could be defeated in Arizona as well?

I'm for that, even if it means I have to keep reading Frederik B posts xp

I sort of like the idea of surprise attacking someone just slightly within the margin of "safe," like an unexpected flood of resources into the race. Don't know if that's possible in practice, but it seems like it might be a good addition to just grinding it out in the close races and hoping for the best. Also have to shore up anyone close to that "safe" margin on our side, because they can do the same.

I'm for that, even if it means I have to keep reading Frederik B posts

^

also interested in House races as well.

Problem with house races is there's a shitton of them... I mean, you all know this, but I have no idea where to even begin in getting a grasp on these, not until the field starts narrowing down, candidates are chosen in primaries, etc. But a senate thread, that should be doable, and I'd wager conversations on there could help with figuring out a bunch of stuff about state organizations, local elections, etc, a lot of stuff that influences every election as well.

Tried to copy-paste the list from wikipedia to a new question, but nope, looked awful, lol. Somebody will have to make a list themselves, of incumbents and winning margins I guess. Clean it up. I can't do it today, have to review a Danish film on the murder of Kitty Genovese.

What is this about Mike Pence going to court to seal some private emails? The irony is disgusting.

I think there's going to need to be a lot of independent GOTV mobilization in the lead up to 2018, and a lot of emphasis on how important midterm voting in particular will be.

Ugh, the map is just brutal. How do you defend a dem incumbent in Montana, North Dakota or West Virginia?

Might be easy if the economy shits the bed or the Trump Administration is underwater with scandals or if the Republicans actually try to murder Medicare - all of which are somewhere between likely and certain

we definitely do not need a thread about the 2018 elections yet. wait until 2018

can someone give me the summary on why ppl are so excited by keith ellison?

not sure if ppl missed this or the answer is just no - no one here knows

xpost I kind of disagree. Maybe we don't need a thread about 2018 specifically but I have been thinking that a separate thread specifically about strategies for going forward (leaving the grousing and grieving and despairing itt) would be useful. And the earlier the better.

the clip of him saying Trump might win the primary and the white tv news hosts cackling at him is pretty funny

i hope i'm wrong, but if/when paul ryan slips in a medicare phaseout into the budget, i think it might pass. the phaseout has been part of the ryan budget which has been proposed in the house every year since 2011. last year, the house passed it, 219-208. it'll surely be in there again this year, as ryan is already indicating. this time, it's not just a symbolic gesture because obama won't be there to veto.

the most important counterweight to privatizing medicare/social security has always been the fact that republican constituents don't support doing so. medicare/social security are very popular programs, everyone knows that. "but this year is different" (<<blllleggggh, already a cliche to say that but it's true). half of the voters are ok with anything trump does, as long as he does it in an entertaining way. all he has to do is say that he's going to change medicare for the better, obamacare bankrupted the country and this is the only way to fix it, and that the replacement is going to be so much better, it will be beautiful, etc. it's complete bullshit, but it might just work during the first two months of his administration when he can get away with just about ANYTHING with his supporters.

i agree with that karl. it blows. media has already indicated that it's going to normalize all this shit

K3v, you can just not read it?

xp I think you're overestimating the percentage of Trump voters and red-staters who'd be okay with anything. It was still a close election, the only people buying into the idea of a mandate are partisans, and a significant percentage (say 5-8%) of Trump's coalition weren't that far off from voting against him

if fred isnt going to save america who will

fred i don't mean harm by this but you are so weird (have to admit though i gave you a bunch of FPs last wednesday bc i felt powerless and flagging a middling dane was the best i could do). can you direct me to a post you've made in the past about why you are so fascinated by US politics to this level?

tbf it's not unusual for someone from outside the US to be interested in the politics of the world superpower since it'll likely impact them much more than say danish politics will impact US citizens

xpost I kind of disagree. Maybe we don't need a thread about 2018 specifically but I have been thinking that a separate thread specifically about strategies for going forward (leaving the grousing and grieving and despairing itt) would be useful. And the earlier the better.

― i need microsoft installed on my desktop, can you help (Old Lunch), Wednesday, November 16, 2016 11:47 AM (eight minutes ago)

what are we going to do, brainstorm and send our best ideas to the DCCC? it's just going to be a bunch of us posting articles about the elections that we could do in any other politics thread. but go ahead, knock yourselves out

marcos: US is the most important country in the world, I've lived in the US for a year, my co-worker is from the US, most of the culture I consume is from the US, I've a degree in history and most history today is decided in the US. Like, what's weird about it? And it's not as if I want to start a thread on the 2018 elections, it would be extremely weird, but sic asked if anyone knew, and apparently I'm the only one willing to copy-paste and clean up the information from wikipedia...

Ugh, I really need to not do get drawn into US history and research Kitty Genovese instead.

sorry fred i realize my comment was dickish

Ugh, I really need to not do get drawn into US history and research Kitty Genovese instead.

yeah best not to get involved

holy shit not your actual bygod coworker shit u shouldve said sooner

why Ellison?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/why_the_democrats_need_keith_ellison.html

https://thinkprogress.org/the-growing-smear-campaign-against-keith-ellison-233e16fab864#.i10d8x7s5

what would it take for this to happen?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/14/state-sanctuary-cities-risk-losing-federal-funds/FdQaxUq0SsxFIVVSVr6zmI/story.html

"have to admit though i gave you a bunch of FPs last wednesday bc i felt powerless and flagging a middling dane was the best i could do"

new board description....

xp I think you're overestimating the percentage of Trump voters and red-staters who'd be okay with anything. It was still a close election, the only people buying into the idea of a mandate are partisans, and a significant percentage (say 5-8%) of Trump's coalition weren't that far off from voting against him

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:54 AM (fifty-eight seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Beyond this, one of the things I'm trying to comfort myself with is that (some) people respond differently to rhetoric than they do to action. It's exciting to talk about burning everything down but it's a different situation once the flames start encroaching on your property.

what would it take for this to happen?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/14/state-sanctuary-cities-risk-losing-federal-funds/FdQaxUq0SsxFIVVSVr6zmI/story.html

― 龜, Wednesday, November 16, 2016 12:26 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i asked this last week and someone (gbx i think) looked into it a little and it seems like it would be very difficult since federal funding comes in through a variety of complex ways

still obv v alarming

what are we going to do, brainstorm and send our best ideas to the DCCC? it's just going to be a bunch of us posting articles about the elections that we could do in any other politics thread. but go ahead, knock yourselves out

― k3vin k., Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:59 AM (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not talking about posting articles about elections, I'm talking about a thread for on-the-ground strategy, real steps that people can take to effect change. Bitching is fun and cathartic but I for one am sick of that being my only outlet because its net real-world effect is precisely dick.

btw Schumer voted leader, Bernie and Baldwin on the team of 10

The GOP assuming a mandate in an election where they lost the popular vote can burn them. They did it with Dubya and he would have lost to a terrible candidate in 2004 had we not still been actively at war still only squeaking out a victory by a hair.

(if you want to travel down the path of 'well, if there's another 9/11 they'll just blame Obama and everyone will believe them' then you should probably just give up on politics altogether and wall yourself off - whether or not that's true, if you can't maintain some kind of faith in the people then what's the point? you'll just be slamming your head against the wall for the rest of your life.)

There's some truth to the idea that the DNC chair shouldn't also be working in Congress, campaigning and so on - how many successful RNC Chairs were in Congress at the same time?

why Ellison?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/why_the_democrats_need_keith_ellison.html

https://thinkprogress.org/the-growing-smear-campaign-against-keith-ellison-233e16fab864#.i10d8x7s5

i read both of those - neither detail his economic policies / positions. i mean look if the reason ppl like him is bc he's a black muslim that's not nothing. but i thought that sanders/warren were endorsing him bc of his economic policies since that seems to be their primary interest (and would seem to be the right way forward after an election that seemed to be a referendum on economic policy).

Patty Murray is assistant leader: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/senate-democrats-settle-on-leadership-team-sanders-elevated-231481

Schumer has not yet landed someone to lead the party's campaign arm at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Senator-elect Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has emerged as a leading choice. The opening was left unfilled even as the rest of the leadership team was formed.

Meanwhile, Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) have joined the lower rungs of the caucus' brass, as has Manchin (D-W.Va.). They join Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mark Warner of Virginia in a caucus structure so large that rank-and-file Democrats struggled to explain the structure.

“I can’t remember past that. Truthfully I can’t," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), after naming the top four Democratic leaders.

“There are new members. And I’m not sure I get them straight," added Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

plus for Ellison: the Israel lobby and Alan Dershowitz think he's an antisemite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison#Political_positions

Not to be a Berniebro but that Slate article about Ellison is pretty dumb or at least seriously slanted. I'm not pleased with Sanders's accomodationist phrases but they're treated here in a vacuum-, where Sanders's actual argument was ''i sure hope Donald Trump comes through on these two or maybe three items where we agree but if he instead continues his pattern of demagoguery I will be his worst enemy.'' And he's already issued a statement joining Warren in condemning Trump's transition team as evidence that he's already breaking promises to working people etc etc.

See also the UAW being smeared as ''pro-Trump'' because the president said sth to the effect of ''well we're against him on a million things and he doesn't share our values, but if he wants to coopt the anti-NAFTA platform we've been fighting for for decades, we're there so long as it's about good american jobs and not demonizing immigrants.''

it's michelle goldberg

plus for Ellison: the Israel lobby and Alan Dershowitz think he's an antisemite.

glad this continues to be of great significance to you. still does not answer my specific question though.

@DougHenwood
They’ve suffered a world-historic defeat and can’t face it. Centrist Dem politics is dead outside the liberal elite.

The only ways to fight Trump now are popular protest and civil disobedience, things that make liberals uncomfy. It’s up to the left.

Yes, all those "liberal elite" blacks and Latinos making less than $30,000 per year who voted for Clinton.

http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1446154759i/27390252._UY2100_SS2100_.jpg

Any turn of the DNC is important for future strategy on lower levels but for fuck's sake, we'd have President Clinton if not for like 40k people in three states who heard the FBI director mention the fucking email server again

so that political positions thing on his wiki literally has nothing to say about his economic positions. i don't think dems need to abandon the identity politics stuff entirely but it seems crazy that in light of this election they're going to move forward on someone who doesn't have economic stuff as the center of their political ideology.

like we decisively lost our stronghold rust belt states partly on the back of white supremacism and neglect (maybe, or at the least the appearance of) middle class economic needs and the collapse of manufacturing. so the solution is to get a black muslim guy who will likely exacerbate the identity politics divide that alienated said voters and who doesn't do anything to shore up the appearance of economic weakness. it feels a lot like doubling down on the hillary campaign strategy that failed.