This is the email sent out by the tump campaign today.


Outside of that email, it's been nothing but emails claiming the Democrat platform for 2020 is "full blown socialism".

If there are people out there that believe this nonsense then there's little reason to even try to run a center left candidate.

On top of that the official WH email that went out today was just a collection of editorials from the USA Today and NY Post that were supportive of trump, then posted some articles from the always balanced Washington Examiner about the same thing. Only 1 piece was actually about a WH policy process. The rest was all about the narrative.

Michigan GOP got their clocks cleaned in '18. Any vaguely competent D should be able to do it again in '20.

This. Both Obama and Clinton were close together. The two big issues were healthcare and Iraq, with Obama to the right on healthcare and to the left on Iraq.

The Hill on Twitter: "Sarah Sanders: "They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."… https://t.co/Dy1GfyZ7cc"

This is what proper governments do, suggest rivals should be killed. Totally normal.

How far out of whack are "what it takes to get elected/remain in office" and "what it takes to govern effectively"?

The DoJ is now arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional and the decision of the district court should be affirmed, meaning the end of the ACA and chaos in healthcare.

The Supreme Court will hear the NC gerrymandering case tomorrow. I don't agree with their reasoning, but the guys kind of have a point if the courts were arguing that political based gerrymandering is legal - Ralph Hise and David Lewis on N.C. Gerrymandering - The Atlantic

I'm not sure it's illegal, but the precision with which gerrymandering can now be done is without a doubt a threat to democratic stability.

That's begging the Democrats to rerun the 2018 healthcare campaigns that netted 40 seats in 2020.

I Think we can all agree that democracy does not work if people draw maps where 50+ percent of the vote gets you 35% of the seats.

Haven't you seen the maps? trump won nearly every county in the entire US. The fact that he lost the popular vote is irrelevant. I mean, the entire US was red! That alone proves that the R's are underrepped in both houses. It really should be a 90/10 split and even that may be too generous.


/s

I think this is an underlooked point. When the courts blessed gerrymandering, the tools to do it were pretty crude. "Let's try and put these two Polish neighborhoods together" kind of thing. There was a natural check to its effectiveness is subverting democracy because it just wasn't that effective.

If people 150 years ago had the tools and algorithms they do today where they can carve up votes street by street with a high degree of accuracy, I think that the courts would have stepped in and cut it off at the bud.

I'm in a bizarre situation where my street is the dividing line for a district. I literally am in a different district from my across the street neighbors. I vote at the church at the end of our street. They vote at an elementary school a mile or so away. Their district was hotly contested, mine was a laugher.

Agree. The courts and precedent have just messed this up with their blessing of minority majority districts etc. Probably necessary at the time to overcome entrenched racism, but has boxed the courts in unless they're willing to overturn prior precedent.

The easiest solution is taking the drawing of the electoral map out of partisan hands, but it's tough to get the party in power to agree to that.

I live in a tentacle of one of the (numerous) deeply offensive blue districts in Maryland. I think it's good that they have one red and one blue state being discussed at the same time, to lessen the sense that this is the exclusive province of one party. Rs are better at this than Ds but they both do it, and they both should get shut down.

My preference is: non-partisan redistricting > both parties gerrymandering > one party gerrymandering

I favor norms, but if there's a collapse in norms I think it's better that both sides do it rather than one side only. In a lot of instances, I think the only deterrent is mutual assured destruction.

A Play in three acts:

1. "The problem is how radical the Dems are. If they were less radical, and more moderate, we'd totally vote for them."

2. Obama continues light bulb energy efficiency program begun under George W. Bush.

3. "See, that's just the sort of radical communism that keeps me from ever voting for a Democrat. Trump might say the racist stuff out loud, but at least he's committed to stopping those radical Bush/Obama marginal improvements in light bulb efficiency. I guess the Dems just lost another 2020 voter."

Trump Administration Proposing More Exemptions To Efficient Lightbulb Standards | The Statehouse News Bureau

Big Lightbulb pushing around us plebes as usual!

Sorry if we went through this before, but I don't see why a third, centrist party wouldn't work. There's never been a better time; outside the R and D bases, people are disgusted with Trump but at the same time scared of far-left candidates. Why couldn't a centrist party come in and scoop up those in the middle, and maybe scrape off more moderate Rs and Ds? I've heard "electoral college" and yada yada, but isn't it that whomever has the most electoral college votes wins (plurality), and not a majority of votes? If you get the right person in leadership, get a lot of financial backing behind it, and maybe start off at the state level and build up (looking at the Midwest here), why wouldn't a centrist party work?

On a side note, I'm liking what I hear from Andrew Yang, although I doubt he'd win the D primary.

Maybe if such a party is led by somebody with money that people already like. I'm not underestimating any celebrity candidates again.

If no one reaches 270, the House selects the President with one vote per state delegation. Unless said centrist party can't grab some House delegations, they get nothing. A third party would have to grow naturally while not being subsumed by whatever party they're close to, and not waste everyone's time going straight for the Presidency like the Greens and Libertarians.

I see. I wasn't aware of that. Thank you!

[quote=bbgunn;3234426 There's never been a better time; outside the R and D bases, people are disgusted with Trump but at the same time scared of far-left candidates. [/quote]

In that case, the entire R and D must be "the base"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245996/...arization.aspx

And that's why a centrist party is unlikely. The soft squishy center is considerably overstated AND lacks the concern to amount to a damned thing.

The primary thing the "center" does is annoy people who are paying attention or who have the sense or courage to take a damned stand.

Actually, the center is pretty much ignored by the idiot nut jobs on the extremes.

The country worked much better when the sides represented their people and not their party. When compromise got things accomplished for the betterment of the country.

For the Dems, who look like they could possibly wrangle total control of the government based on appealing to progressives and reaction to collective GOP lunacy, returning to the land of compromise seems like a totally defeatist strategy (which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, given their history).

'Immediate compromise from a position of power' was the theme that drove the ACA into the clusterfuck of half-measures that it still is today.

I don't see why we can't just get to...

For the Dems, after ACA, trying to compromise, and dealing with McConnell and his cohorts for 8 years, I think they need to be ready to give it right back. I'm tired of the compromise for better decisions getting thrown back my face as weak, while the R's gloat and just take everything they can grab in the meantime. They can freely jam this fucker up like a toilet after a night of beer and cheeseburgers.



On a different note, I was in my bar in KY, which is still very, very red KY, and played Fuck Tha Police on the Touch Tunes box, and people were audibly accusing one another of playing it. Fit right in during the mix of country and whatever assorted mishmash that was getting played.

Precisely.

Do you guys really think of this as war on You? Really? Do you even talk to humans outside of your circle? Your post is sad not because of what you believe in politically, it’s sad because of what you believe of your fellow human, man. It ain’t all us against them, bro.

Not at all. That's not even close. If you really knew that google thinks I read conservative media non stop, and fb knows has me pegged as a solid centrist ( I would consider myself a solidly centrist, D).

It's not war. It's not even close. But what it is, and what I personally am tired of, is what drives us all. It's precisely about the common good. It's about doing what's right. I've held out hope, and still do, that the Mueller report is about the truth, is about the main goal of keeping us safe from foreign influence and danger, and making right, any issues that come out of that. Please tell me how anything that Fox, or the president, or the R's, have said anything regarding that? Sure doesn't seem like it.

It's that as long as the leaders are dead set against any sort of effort to actually sit down and make things work, and as long as the game is all about team A, I really don't care. It's straight prisoners gambit, and I feel like the side that is has been choosing to gain personally and then rubbing our noses, and the noses of everyone in it every time. The only win is working together. I'm willing to do it, but my patience has run out, and until they truly, like you know, been forced to deal with life as a minority for a decade or so, maybe we can actually work toward a good end.

Frankly, it's about trust. One side doesn't trust the other, and the groups that do try and get work done get crushed by the groups that only want to steamroll the other. Until new leadership is in place, and a feeling of mutual trust returns this game isn't ending anytime soon, and if we have to play it, we're both going to lose, but at least we do so on even terms, not as a solitary defeat.

Are you saying people don't like Mark Zuckerberg and Howard Schultz? :lol:

I'm waiting patiently to see what the Mueller report contains, the messaging about it from Barr seems somewhat at odds with reality and simply intended to dismiss further analysis of their findings. I'm hoping its made public enough to dissuade similar issues coming up in 2020, if it doesn't then its open season as far as manipulating voters and misinformation is concerned.

I fully understand the Republicans and Trump not wanting their win to be discredited potentially, but equally I'm disappointed that they appear to put that before the good of the country in terms of holding future elections.

PS - Then again one thing I respect the Republican party for is they play the 'game' far better than Democrats imho - when they gain power they push full force for their agenda and f*ck the Democrats, when Democrats get into power they try and find a mid-centralist point and compromise with the Republicans, until the Democrats pull hard left in the way that Republicans pull hard right the country will continue to go to hell in a hand basket as more and more social programs go to the wall* imho.

*Literally at the moment with funding for that being more important than helping citizens

Umm..it's not? Since when?

I think the discourse on many things is exactly that.

It is the question that is asked in form every election cycle. Are you voting for someone and their ideas (us) or against someone and their ideas? If there is even a mention of acknowledgement of a good idea from someone on one side by someone on the other, immediately claims of RINO and DINO ring out.

The US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra in the Netherlands was interviewed live on tv. He was asked what he thought of the big news in the USA (referring to the Mueller report). His response was some complete nonsense about college basketball in Michigan, as if anybody over here even cares about March Madness, I suspect maybe just 1% of the population here even knows what it is. I hope for his sake it was a failed attempt at humor...

That sounds like humor. He went to Michigan.

Again Schmidty, I am left questioning your viewpoint and sentimentality. I don't disagee with your sentiment at all, in a vacuum, but I think you'd have to be particularly tone-deaf and ignorant to suggest that this distaste for compromise is something that has blossomed whole cloth from progressive political beliefs in some sort of bubble, rather than a reaction to the *long* documented strategy of the GOP abusing and rejecting any attempts at compromise. That's not opinion, that's history based on my 'fellow man' deliberately rejecting compromise and abusing my trust any time they are given the chance, for literally the entirety of my life, and then having the folks ostensibly on 'my side' repeatedly and immediately try to compromise away any and all of my interests to those same obstructionists as soon as they get anything resembling power.

You're not offended, or affected in the slightest, by the GOP essentially upending the country's entire judicial system and deliberately obstructing the process for years, explicitly so that they can load the supreme court (and every other court) with conservative justices regardless of America's political balance and MASSIVE incarceration rate, and you're not offended by the fact that the GOP has deliberately used gerrymandering to carve the country's voting districts into a system that keeps the less popular party in power, or the fact that GOP representatives try to deliberately handicap those powers as soon as they are voted out of them, but you *do* think it's a sad, basic failure of humanity when progressive folks talk about not wanting to accept compromise any longer?

This is laughable.

For the Republicans it is ONLY us vs them. They literally do nothing that doesn't benefit their party and supporters, and you support a man who literally lashes out against anyone who doesn't bend the knee to him.

As just mentioned, Merrick Garland and gerrymandering. Voter suppression.
How about just today Trump lashing out against relief for Puerto Rico?
How about him threatening California with no funding for wildfires, and claiming they need to rake their forests?
How about just a couple days ago taking steps to remove health care from millions?
How about cutting education funding from low income people and special Olympics?
Massive tax cuts for the wealthy while the deficit balloons?
Rolling back regulations designed to protect the environment?
How about locking kids i cages?

Please show me example of how this administration has done anything to act in the best interest of ALL Americans, not just those who support their agenda. Explain to me how this administration has done anything that isn't us vs them?

The GOP, as it currently stands, is out to protect the interests of corporations first and foremost while producing policy to govern over roughly 35% of the people. That's not how democracy should work.

I'm not going to attack you, instead I'll show you examples of how the GOP has governed in a Us vs Them way that ignores the will of the people.


1.) The ACA grew into popular policy that republicans have done everything in their power to dismantle primarily because it's bad for corporations.

2.) Net neutrality is wildly popular for both Dems and the Republicans, but is bad for corporations. When the bills for net neutrality went before Congress a total of 2 republicans between both House and Senate voted for it while a total of 6 dems voted against it.

3.) Campaign Finance legislation that would make money going to politicians more transparent. 2 Bills went to senate without a single GOP vote for it and zero Dems voting against it.

4.) Backup paper ballot bills that would create a paper ballot as a receipt of your recorded vote. Popular on both sides and 20 GOP members of the house voted for it while 0 dems voted against it.

5.) 2 bills went before senate that would cap student loan interest rates along with other protections for student loans. Zero GOP senators voted for them while just 7 total Dems voted against the 2 bills.

6.) The minimum wage bill in '13 that would have increased minimum wage to $10.10 over a 2 year period. 1 GOP Senator was for it. 1 Dem Senator was against it.

7.) The Time between troop deployments bill that would have required a period between deployments equal to the soldier's last deployment. 6 GOP Senators were for it. 1 Dem Senator was against it.


The Lilly Ledbetter act, the court stacking, gerrymandering, consumer protections, environmental protections, affordable housing. I could go on and on with more examples of legislation that would be good for the people, is popular with the people, would be a benefit to the people, but are only supported by 1 side when it comes time to pass legislation.

I don't think GOP voters are evil or anything like that, but I do think the majority of them are misinformed when it comes to understanding what policies their representatives support.


EDIT: I want to add a special shoutout to Mitch McConnell for filibustering his own bill in '12 because he didn't expect it to get democrat support. If there ever was an example of Us vs Them this was it.

Eh, I don't exactly disagree with this headline.

The GOP’s answer to catastrophic climate change? Trolling the libs.


For a lot of people it IS us against them.

Frankly, I would feel a lot better about losing to a motivated, informed voter base that embraces evil vs. continually bouncing off of the uninformed masses of GOP voters who are apparently more than happy to willfully ignore the results of their own votes & any actions of the representatives they continue to keep in power, into eternity.

Sorry, Jon, I don't buy that at all.

First of all, that Gallup article in no way shows that the center is "soft and squishy", "considerably overstated", and "lacks the concern to amount to a damned thing." I think it's more that they hold their noses and are forced to choose a side.

Second of all, these days people in the center DO IN FACT take a damned stand.
They take a stand against extremism on both sides.
They take a stand against this whole US vs THEM crap that has divided this country. Everything is red and blue instead of red, white and blue.
They take a stand against MSM that's either hard left or hard right, and don't work for the people but rather their bottom line. The left AND the right are guilty of that.
They take a stand for compromise. If you are going to live in the same house, you always fight for what you absolutely need, but you have to find ways to work together with the people in your house so that you can live in harmony. That is a courageous stand in my humble opinion.
It takes loads of balls to say, "You know what, let's see what I can talk with my brother on the other side about, so that we can find a solution that works for both of us." That is the ultimate stand.

I definitely lean left when it comes to politics, but man, I hate all this fighting. I hate all this divisiveness. And hell, I don't even live in the U.S. anymore.

It sure seems like it should be easy to do something simple like have both sides write down their top 10 public priorities, find the ones that best match up and then work collectively towards correcting those issues. Somehow nothing close to that ever happens.

I like to believe that I too would absolutely support constructive compromise over divisive spit-fights, but the next time I see any indication that could possibly happen will also be the first, and I'm willing to admit time & my own cynicism have eroded any sort of confidence I ever had in that regard. Likewise, if I could remember even a single instance of a Republican graciously accepting compromise, and/or a Democrat not immediately conceding to the right's agenda, I'd probably be a lot more acceptable to the idea.

I do applaud your ability to stick to your core beliefs in today's political climate.

Wow. Not even willing to spend $18 million on Special Olympics?

That’s just another level of evil.

Watching DeVos *try* to defend that was truly maddening.

The fact that she couldn't understand why such a stink was being made, or couldn't predict this coming, shows how out of touch she is.

Just like everything else, it won't matter on bit to the base.

I guess I'm an evil person because why should the Federal government cover it? Where is the power to fund it in the Constitution? Why not just raise private funds. I'm sure you're willing to throw in a buck or two right?

Conversely, you could say the same thing about a million other programs, which only begs the question: why start with the Special Olympics?

I have no problem ending Federal funding to the regular Olympics as well.

Apparently such a thing doesn't exist, as it appears US National teams are privately funded, for whatever it's worth to you (tho I can't imagine that was always the case). That said, I think there is certainly some room for nuance when considering the associated TV & endorsement monies (or lack thereof), how our society handles our disabled and the relative costs involved.

It also seems worth noting that a fair number of Special Olypmpics athletes are there as a result of serving in our armed forces.