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

the real problem is leveraging the necessary political capital/driving wedges in the GOP to turn on Trump

or alternatively just loudly clamoring for impeachment/highlighting all the illegal shit so that Dems take back the House in 2018 mid-terms

agreed, for sure, I see it as a rallying point rather than the one path to victory

Xpost Amazingly, we might get shit well before that!

I probably said this already but it's unpresidented to have someone entering office with a) this low an approval rating and b) already beset with scandals. this is political capital and we need to pressure Dems to use it.

i know we cant/shouldnt jump on every inane thing he says on twitter but this is really something, almost self-parody

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 8m8 minutes ago
I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote - but would campaign differently

good mourning!

they thought they were going to win those states and didn't need to do anymore, and that was clearly overconfident of them

Well, perhaps they merely did precisely what almost everyone else who follows politics was doing, which was to look at polls and aggregators and 538 and RCP and the Upshot and PEC. I know I was. And while 538 saw more uncertainty than other aggregators (and were roundly mocked as an outlier), they still were confidently predicting comfortable Clinton wins in exactly "those" states.

"I tend to believe in the indicators everybody else appears to believe in" looks like overconfidence in retrospect, because the indicators were wrong.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/crystal_ball.jpg

they raised a record amount of money, over a billion dollars, why not spend it? especially if it is to defeat a "existential threat"? hard to believe that line when the one campaign that could've prevented it stops at "good enough".

I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible

lol

How many people are there in the US? 300 million or so? I could've gotten at least 350 million votes if I really wanted to.

i heard miNewt on NPR this morning, again advocating his novel advanced-planning recommendation on pardons.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51696/newt-gingrich-trump-pardons/

That's going to go over well

I dont know the details for what docs they have collected and what resources they have but I'm a paralegal who deals with this kind of shit every day. I know how easy it is to reduce emails, etc to an MD5 hash value and cross reference them against each other to de-dupe. the warrant says they have fornesic images of all this shit. if they had access to litigation support software you could run a hash dedupe in about a day.

I write litigation support software and this is 100% OTM.

i was asked to solve the same problem with the enron email dataset for a prescreen with a tech company and did it on my creaky laptop in about an hour and a half.

there was also an interesting subquestion: who replies to emails the quickest? turns out there was a crazy guy at enron who replied in like 90 seconds to emails he sent to himself.

My :15 of fame was working on the Enron trial

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/04/13/a-dash-of-goth-in-a-sea-of-rep-ties/

Focusing on a hard to achieve long term goal is one thing. Doing that with no mechanism in mind for achieving it is another. The only remotely feasible way to change the electoral college is to win back enough state legislatures to pass NPV in states totaling 270 electoral votes (or the even harder road of winning back enough state legislatures to amend the constitution).

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive)

Ah! Now that looks like a strategy. Moreover, it's a strategy that, if successful, would have significant and tangible benefits well beyond simply repealing the electoral college, a strategy we honestly NEED to pursue because if we don't take the state legislatures the system is going to become more and more rigged.

My thinking on this is that populism is a major, major force in America today, and it's a politically non-aligned force. To achieve anything, anything at all, an anti-Trump coalition is going to need to appeal to populists. Saying that the electoral college is rigged and we need to get rid of it is going to have a lot of appeal to people with little to no knowledge or understanding of politics, people who have been conditioned to value direct democracy and the power of the individual vote above all else.

Am I saying that people should focus on it, even as a primary motive? No, absolutely not. The first priority should be opposing Trump. But man, I don't really see a lot of downside to saying "We need to fix our corrupt system by getting rid of the electoral college".

i know we cant/shouldnt jump on every inane thing he says on twitter but this is really something, almost self-parody

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 8m8 minutes ago
I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote - but would campaign differently

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Wednesday, December 21, 2016 8:34 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark

he's biting his own tweet here

i really believe the dude is suffering from a mental disorder.

He is addicted to validation that he is a winner and keeps perpetually chasing the dragon. Nothing is good enough anymore.

Even many of his supporters seem to have voted for him because or in spite of his issues. I can't imagine there are many people who don't think he's mentally ill.

Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that Donald Trump’s “drain the swamp” catch phrase was “cute” but that the President-elect now disclaims it.

During an interview with NPR’s “Morning Edition” Wednesday, host Rachel Martin asked if the former House speaker had been “working in the swamp, to use Donald Trump’s language.”

“I’m told he now just disclaims that. He now says it was cute, but he doesn't want to use it anymore,” Gingrich said, referring to the phrase. “I'd written what I thought was a very cute tweet about ‘the alligators are complaining,’ and somebody wrote back and said they were tired of hearing this stuff.”

it was clear he didn't believe it in, but kind of surprised to see him get rid of the catchphrase a month before inauguration. better now than later, i guess.

newts love swamps iirc

Lefty Blue America fundraiser and blogger Howie Klein is not optimistic for Dems re 2018

The Senate is a lost cause. Ignore the DSCC, Chuck Schumer and the Senate elections in general. We'd be better off if they choke on their own vomit after shoveling their crap, loser candidates like Patrick Murphy, Katie McGinty, Ann Kirkpatrick, Patty Judge and Ted Strickland down everyone's throats. They'll lose more seats in 2018. Don't worry about it and don't put a nickel into anything but helping defend (directly, never through the DSCC) Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Sherrod Brown (OH). The action for 2018 is all in the House. The Democrats have to come out with a net gain 24 seats to put a brake on Trumpism. (In reality they need more than 24 seats because of so many Democratic collaborators among the New Dems and Blue Dogs, but let's call it 24 seats for the sake of argument.)

How to win back the House? Offer a more attractive alternative to the destruction Trump and Ryan are promising. Sounds simple, right? Yet when people on Twitter started buzzing Monday how the Republicans had stabbed American workers in the back by excising Buy American provisions out of a water infrastructure bill, I felt the obligation of explaining to them that so many Democrats voted for it that it was completely negated as a campaign issue. https://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-much-pain-do-republicans-have-to.html

I dug this:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-the-debate-over-journalism-post-trump-gets-wrong/

My thinking on this is that populism is a major, major force in America today, and it's a politically non-aligned force. To achieve anything, anything at all, an anti-Trump coalition is going to need to appeal to populists. Saying that the electoral college is rigged and we need to get rid of it is going to have a lot of appeal to people with little to no knowledge or understanding of politics, people who have been conditioned to value direct democracy and the power of the individual vote above all else.

Am I saying that people should focus on it, even as a primary motive? No, absolutely not. The first priority should be opposing Trump. But man, I don't really see a lot of downside to saying "We need to fix our corrupt system by getting rid of the electoral college"

the electoral college is neither rigged nor corrupt. it's just dumb.

middle american populist rage is probably not going to be channeled towards tearing down an voting system that gives disproportionate voting power to middle american populist rage.

'an voting system' = 'a voting system'

Klein quotes are great

i'd be willing to supply my own vomit to Schumer

More on the issues Howie Klein writes about---

Can the 2/3 progressive Dems in the House win over this 1/3, plus voters

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/229291-stephanie-murphy-joining-blue-dogs-new-democrats

The combined membership of the New Democrat Coalition and the Blue Dog Coalition represents more than one-third of the Democratic caucus.

Both coalitions have strong bipartisan reputations and a history of working with Republicans. Murphy said she will work with her New Dem colleagues to advocate legislation that strengthens our nation’s middle class and will work with her Blue Dog colleagues to help introduce No Budget, No Pay, which says Members of Congress must pass a budget and appropriations bills on time or they don’t get paid.

Ugh to wasting time on Blue Dog ideas

But I do worry about losing more seats in the Senate unlike sometimes nihilist purist Howie Klein

LOL, fucking idiot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38397644

I know Alan Grayson makes pepole wretch, but the link to this interview in Klein's post is a good one:

“Unless there is substantial structural change, the Blue Dogs will continue to make the argument that a populist Democrat, or for that matter a progressive Democrat, which is not exactly the same thing, has no chance of winning – because that’s the way they continue to dominate the statewide machinery,” Grayson said. “Even though they’ve been proved wrong in every single race except for Alex Sink’s race for CFO, every single race for a quarter century.”

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/229174-alan-grayson-florida-democrats-need-someone-message

he seems like an interesting choice for 'people to go to for advice about winning elections'

Thought that was good despite who said it. Too bad Grayson's faults and loss will hurt the reception of that message.

Meanwhile in a related issue --

Garland is not the only judge, who won't get a vote

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/dozens-of-obamas-judicial-nominees-including-historic-picks?utm_term=.rfXKrNbjY#.vqBVY1Xwr

Abid Qureshi, nominated to the federal bench by President Obama in the fall, would have been the nation’s first Muslim federal judge had the Senate confirmed him. But nominated late in a presidential election year, when traditionally few nominees get a vote, time — and politics — were always against him.
With the US Senate gone for the rest of the year, Qureshi is one of 52 nominees for federal district and appeals courts and the US Supreme Court who won’t make it onto the bench, at least for now. That group includes more than a dozen nominees who, like Qureshi, would have broken racial, gender, and religious barriers....

...The Senate confirmed 20 judges to federal district and appeals courts during Obama’s final two years in office, and left for the holiday recess with 99 court vacancies. More seats are expected to open up by the time Trump takes office in January. Of the vacant seats, 38 are considered “emergencies” by the judiciary because of the caseload. Those numbers don’t include the US Court of International Trade and the US Court of Federal Claims, where there are also open seats.
By comparison, the Senate confirmed 68 federal judges during President George W. Bush’s last two years, according to the judiciary. By the end of December 2008, there were 26 nominees pending and 53 vacancies.

middle american populist rage is probably not going to be channeled towards tearing down an voting system that gives disproportionate voting power to middle american populist rage.

― iatee

because these people have never voted against their own interests before, right? :)

Those people are not going to willingly give more representative power to Ny and cali come on

Even many of his supporters seem to have voted for him because or in spite of his issues. I can't imagine there are many people who don't think he's mentally ill.

― what is the lever disease? (Old Lunch), Wednesday, December 21, 2016 12:59 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't know I'm having a really hard time imagining this comment not resulting in a giant cartoonish eye roll from 90% of his supporters...

Those people are not going to willingly give more representative power to Ny and cali come on

― Treeship

sigh. y'all are such despair bears! you think it's not possible to sell this by pinning it all on those horrible undemocratic assholes in, i don't know, wyoming?

really, i'm not totally sure what the long-term plan is here. to win back the congress by building a coalition of people whose first priority is to shoot down any idea they personally think is stupid? because "stupid but popular" will beat "considered and nuanced" every damn time.

@dick_nixon
Half the Hill is run by kids who watch "West Wing," the other the American "House of Cards." It's no wonder we're going to hell.

such a shame vaughn meader didn't live long enough to get a twitter account

JFK is nuthin w/out the accent

Doesn't using the popular vote give *less* representative power to the big lefty states? The righty votes from these states would now matter, rather than the entire state tally going to the Dem.

Doesn't using the popular vote give *less* representative power to the big lefty states? The righty votes from these states would now matter, rather than the entire state tally going to the Dem.

― nickn

i don't know, but your argument is plausible, and i will definitely use it with the next populist i'm still on speaking terms with.

sigh. y'all are such despair bears! you think it's not possible to sell this by pinning it all on those horrible undemocratic assholes in, i don't know, wyoming?

dude it's just really fucking annoying to see someone be super optimistic when things look as bleak as they do. just wallow with the rest of us and drop the act

i mean it's clear you haven't even given any thought to these dumb pipe dreams you're selling. what's the point?

really, i'm not totally sure what the long-term plan is here. to win back the congress by building a coalition of people whose first priority is to shoot down any idea they personally think is stupid? because "stupid but popular" will beat "considered and nuanced" every damn time.

'are you interested in joining our movement to subvert the electoral college using something called the national popular vote interstate compact' probably falls under 'considered and nuanced'

Making the popular vote count would help to engage a lot of people who otherwise abstain from voting, I'm sure. When I lived in IN, there was usually no point in voting D ('08 was SHOCKING), so most people I knew didn't even bother.