Democratic (Party) Direction

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2018/03/messing-texas

I'll take actors over military goons and spooks any damn day. (Why did I have to resort to the ICFI's news site for this breakdown?)

One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates. National security operatives (57) outnumber state and local government officials (45), lawyers (34), corporate executives, businessmen and wealthy individuals (30) and other professionals (18) among the candidates for Democratic congressional nominations.

Of the 102 primary elections to choose the Democratic nominees in these competitive districts, 44 involve candidates with a military-intelligence or State Department background, with 11 districts having two such candidates, and one district having three. In the majority of contests, the military-intelligence candidates seem likely to win the Democratic nomination, and, if the Democrats win in the general election, would enter Congress as new members of the House of Representatives.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html

(hoping to find some stats on how this breakdown compares w/ folks currently in office)

That seems off. Chris Lamb has been in the military, but does that mean he is defined by a 'military-intelligence' background?

It's kind of tricky to draw a strict line as to what amount/level of military service "defines" someone, I suppose. There was some grumbling about Lee Carter's Marine service in lefty quarters, as one might imagine.

Doesn't it seem quite likely that it's happening for the quite simple reason that it seems to be working? Jason Kander overperformed a lot in 2016 in a shitty environment, and Chris Lamb might actually flip a seat in deep red Pennsylvania. It's an easy way to signalize understanding with red-state values, without actually having to align with them.

And this is of course also what would really turn the tide in the battle for m4a and class values in general: A track record of it actually winning elections. Instead of shouting about how stupid the DNCC is, that won't really help anywhere in the long run. (even though they really are almost unimaginably stupid, it's kinda mind-blowing how dumb that move against Moser was)

Conor Lamb.

I was wondering why I was having a tough time Googling him.

Doesn't it seem quite likely that it's happening for the quite simple reason that it seems to be working?

That can certainly be *a* reason, though it's not clear to me we actually have the data to back this up yet.

Wait, then who the fuck is Chris Lamb? Oh well.

I liked this interview, btw: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/7/17092410/texas-primary-2018-turnout-evan-smith

damn you go Cynthia Nixon. wish she'd take out that shithead Schumer so we could all get the benefit of an unapologetic lefty dem

well Chuckie aint up for another 4 years

Pareene made the mistake of linking to that WSWS article yesterday then folllowed up with his correction/realization that they are probably including all ex state dept as “CIA”.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/8/17092684/great-slate-fundraising-congressional-campaign

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/7/17089212/dccc-laura-moser-backfire

I know I'm posting a lot of Vox today, but their response to the Texas primary has been really good.

I punk on Yglesias but of the relatively "non-partisan" "centrist" / whatever journos he's one of the less objectionable of late

case in point

I think this is a problem in a nutshell.

You’ve given up on persuasion and are assuming everyone who disagrees with you is irreconcilable.

I’ve read thousands of words from you and genuinely have no idea what you think “PC culture” is or why you think it’s important.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 8, 2018

Anyway, Pelosi needs to go, right?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/377421-pelosi-no-need-for-guns-daca-in-spending-package

The likeliest candidates to replace Pelosi are (male and) less liberal than she.

Unless you're referring to her seat, and not her leadership position, which, well, good luck with that.

An interesting thing: 30% of Republicans in the House whose districts were won by Clinton are more conservative than average. None of the Dems whose districts were won by Trump are more liberal than average. https://t.co/KKcnbatPeh pic.twitter.com/FeDQ5KKUEq

— Philip Bump (@pbump) March 9, 2018

Retweets are not endorsements

https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/dems-should-worry-about-long-term-direction-not-2018-message

For much of the 2016 campaign, an election between the two most disliked party nominees in history, the focus was on Trump, and he was running behind. But in the final few weeks—after the last debate, the Access Hollywood tapes were made public, and any chance that the real estate magnate could win seemed to evaporate—the spotlight shifted to Hillary Clinton. The election became a referendum on her, and she lost.

How on earth he could tap-tap this on his keyboard without mentioning Comey staggers me.

But if the party that holds the White House, House, and Senate, 33 governorships, and the majority of state legislative chambers and seats is doing almost everything imaginable to self-destruct, why would the opposition party want to do anything other than have a referendum on the party in power? Why wouldn’t Democrats just get out of the way?

This is....definitely a strategy.

yeah it really worked last time

Let's talk about Christina Hartman, the Democratic establishment's newly-annointed candidate in Pennsylvania's 10th district! pic.twitter.com/p4XezSdP9i

— Pinboard (@Pinboard) March 7, 2018

(click through for thread)

Kamala Harris defends ICE's existence #AbolishICE pic.twitter.com/QjzI1Nq3n2

— Brett Banditelli (@banditelli) March 9, 2018

ohhhhh nooooo, take it back Kamala

"Well, somebody's gotta do it."

her aipac speech left a little to be desired too

cnn: do you think there should be rules or laws or a society at all, or a country or a world?
dem: probably there should be that
leftists: WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SERIOUS SMH DONE WITH THIS BITCH

nice caricaturin'

luv 2 extrapol8

what she said is reasonable.

uh, i hate ICE too, but are you all saying that in the (relatively rare, compared to the general US population) cases where an undocumented person really does commit a violent crime, there shouldn't be any enforcement group that does anything about it? probably not. so are you saying another group should have authority, like the local police station, with all the problems that might lead to? or something else? don't get me wrong, what's going on with ICE is deeply fucked up, that's clear. but i'm not sure the answer is as simple as just removing the organization.

i admit that i have no clue how all this was handled before DHS/ICE was founded. maybe it really is as simple as just going back to that?

Kind of, except putting toothpaste back in the tube is a royal pain in the ass

do you think there should be rules or laws or a society at all

ICE is only 15 years old.

Also, if you read the actual thread, it's clear this is not only a problem w/ Harris

(the "defund ICE" option seems easier)

i guess (as an outsider) it just makes more sense to reform ICE, hopefully under a more humane administration, than it does to delegate authority to thousands of local police departments. especially the kinds of local police that are heavily armed with slightly used gulf war era equipment and filled with skinhead racist cops.

guess (as an outsider) it just makes more sense to reform ICE, hopefully under a more humane administration, than it does to delegate authority to thousands of local police departments. especially the kinds of local police that are heavily armed with slightly used gulf war era equipment and filled with skinhead racist cops.

― and in my opinionation, the sun is gonna surely shine♪♫ (Karl Malone), Friday, March 9, 2018 7:04 PM (thirty-seven seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

at the very least to write them a fucking blank check for whatever they want like trump did when he was running. ice/border patrol union were one of the few organizations that endorsed his disgusting ass in '16.

ugh mean 'don't' in front of 'to' up there

yeah, totally agree! i'm just saying it shouldn't be shocking when a national politician is asked whether or not ICE should exist, and she doesn't immediately advocate abolishing it. it's a fun idea but she has to think about reality.

i admit that i have no clue how all this was handled before DHS/ICE was founded. maybe it really is as simple as just going back to that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol

ICE didn’t exist until 2003 but there were laws before then iirc. The movement to disband it isn’t synonymous with no immigration law enforcement. It’s because it’s an institutionally cruel and sociopathic organization and it would be better to start again.

Glad someone else dug that up.

ICE's function is hardly limited to deportation work, abusive or otherwise. They're also involved in things like interdicting human trafficking. What the percentages are, past or present, IDK.

more on the case (and current support levels) for abolishing ICE here

https://www.thenation.com/article/its-time-to-abolish-ice/

lets
fucking
go

Americans love shutting down institutions -- just not the ones whose mandate includes state violence.

"Abolish ICE" sounds radical because it has "abolish" in it. "Let's shutter this recently created agency with an overly broad mandate and rethink the federal government's role in enforcing the law in this area" is the moderate conservative position on the CFPB.

— Official Centrism (@pareene) March 10, 2018