America - The Official Thread

[DDastardly00]

You have any actual insight to share?

Let's start with the question @DDastardly00 dodged:



Without an answer to that question, I have a really hard time buying the notion that the Dems spent all that time and money without an eye on the future.

--



Perhaps you want to have another go at the above question?

Quit just declaring that these four seats - seats that don't swing either the majority or 2/3 supermajority situations - are somehow massively important, back it up with something.

What difference between now and 2018 would those seats make for the Dems?

Did you even read my post at all before replying?

 

[huskeR32]

Did you even read my post at all before replying?

I did. And I noticed that you still haven't answered my question.

You're laying out why 2018 is important, and I totally agree.

What you're not doing is explaining why those four seats - that don't allow the Dems to do anything at all - are important before 2018. You seem to think there's an obvious reason that they are, so why don't you just share it?

Democrats first need to realize who is in the driver's seat and then tailor their new platform to properly represent those people.

Cutting a historically 30+ point margin down to 4 isn't a sign that they're starting to do exactly this? I guess a bunch of Georgians just decided on a whim to go cast votes despite feeling like the party wasn't starting to move in the right direction? Okay...

 

[DDastardly00]

I did. And I noticed that you still haven't answered my question.

You're laying out why 2018 is important, and I totally agree.

What you're not doing is explaining why those four seats - that don't allow the Dems to do anything at all - are important before 2018. You seem to think there's an obvious reason that they are, so why don't you just share it?



Cutting a historically 30+ point margin down to 4 isn't a sign that they're starting to do exactly this? I guess a bunch of Georgians just decided on a whim to go cast votes despite feeling like the party wasn't starting to move in the right direction? Okay...

I answered this on the previous page, perhaps you skipped over it, Democrats wanted momentum going into 2018 which is why they spent vast amounts of money on these special elections. If they had won the four seats, that would cut the number needed to retake the house down to 20 seats, which would be an easier task. My point was, that you are too overconfident if you don't think every seat counts. Four seats may not seem like much, but every seat counts when your losses have been trending upwards for the last 7 years with no signs of stopping. And cutting a 30 point margin down to 4 in a historically Republican district, while seemingly positive, in the end is still another loss. They also essentially lit 30 million dollars from Pelosi's war chest on fire that could have been spent elsewhere, thus draining the coffers. In the end it was a remarkable experiment that failed in spectacular fashion.

 

[Dotini]

...They have lost 1000 seats in 7 years...

Nice post!

Could you kindly provide a source for this particularly punchy line? I'm assuming it includes state legislatures?

 

[DDastardly00]

Nice post!

Could you kindly provide a source for this particularly punchy line? I'm assuming it includes state legislatures?

Fox reported it last November, here is a source from The Hill:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures

 

[Danoff]

What could they do with 198 seats that they can't do with 194?

Prevent the republicans from ignoring as many defectors.

 

[huskeR32]

I answered this on the previous page, perhaps you skipped over it, Democrats wanted momentum going into 2018 which is why they spent vast amounts of money on these special elections.

I didn't skip over it, I fail to see how narrowing a historical 30+ point gap to four doesn't qualify as momentum.

It's a huge assumption to think that Democrats in these districts, who just watched ~90% of that gap close, will suddenly just give up and resign themselves to being unable to close that last 10%.

f they had won the four seats, that would cut the number needed to retake the house down to 20 seats, which would be an easier task.

It wouldn't do any such thing - no matter who won those four seats now, they're up for reelection in 2018; they'd have to be won all over again. And since the Dems couldn't have accomplished anything legislatively with those four seats now, it doesn't really matter all that much in the long run.

And cutting a 30 point margin down to 4 in a historically Republican district, while seemingly positive, in the end is still another loss.

Only if 2017 special elections was the end goal. Which it wasn't.

They also essentially lit 30 million dollars from Pelosi's war chest on fire that could have been spent elsewhere, thus draining the coffers.

They're spending that money on vulnerable GOP seats either way, what does it matter if they spent it now, or a year from now? Either way, the Dems in those districts are more energized and organized than they've been in decades.

In the end it was a remarkable experiment that failed in spectacular fashion.

One more time, it only failed if 2017 was the end goal. And it most certainly was not.

 

[ryzno]

I can't speak for the other states but the left and their media pushed this as the make or break for the Trump administration in GA.
The left believed if they won they had a shot in 2018, people aren't as tired of Trump as they thought and if anything it shows he's getting more support.
FYI Karen was the first Rep lady to win a seat in GA. GA media believes the fact she is a woman affected turn out. We also had very poor weather Tuesday in the 6th district and metro Atlanta which affected turn out also, due to the tropical storm we're dealing with.
Now as far as the ads. Jon Ossoff had ads from San Francisco telling us to vote for him and support their plans. Karen Handles ads were all in their district. Who do you think GA natives will vote for. All these "transplants"(our slang for people who move here) don't represent our native views.
They spent 30+ million on a puppet, trying to tell us to vote for someone who couldn't even vote for himself!!!!!

 

[DDastardly00]

I didn't skip over it, I fail to see how narrowing a historical 30+ point gap to four doesn't qualify as momentum.

It's a huge assumption to think that Democrats in these districts, who just watched ~90% of that gap close, will suddenly just give up and resign themselves to being unable to close that last 10%.

It wouldn't do any such thing - no matter who won those four seats now, they're up for reelection in 2018; they'd have to be won all over again. And since the Dems couldn't have accomplished anything legislatively with those four seats now, it doesn't really matter all that much in the long run.

I am making an assumption that had they won those 4 seats instead of losing them, they would have kept them in 2018, but it didn't happen anyway. Either way, it would have created momentum going into 2018 had they won.

Only if 2017 special elections was the end goal. Which it wasn't.

They're spending that money on vulnerable GOP seats either way, what does it matter if they spent it now, or a year from now? Either way, the Dems in those districts are more energized and organized than they've been in decades.

I get that you are looking for a silver lining here but a loss is still a loss and spending the money now does matter, it matters very much. 30 million dollars is a lot of money to spend on one House seat election, especially when that money could have been used in other places.

I also don't think that you are considering that a win, even just one win out of the four would have been a moral boost for Donators but it didn't happen. At some point donators are going to get tired of spending money on losses....

 

[Danoff]

I can't speak for the other states but the left and their media pushed this as the make or break for the Trump administration in GA.

Which is obviously wrong because not everything is about Trump.

All these "transplants"(our slang for people who move here)

They're also known as "Georgians". "Transplants" is the name everyone gets assigned by "natives", wherever they move to. For some reason, natives in each location in the country feel superior for having been born (through no choice of their own) in that particular location, over people who actually chose to live in that location.

Every state in the US is full of people proud to have to been born in that state instead of the state that all of the other people who stayed put are proud to have been born in.

 

[ryzno]

Which is obviously wrong because not everything is about Trump.



They're also known as "Georgians". "Transplants" is the name everyone gets assigned by "natives", wherever they move to. For some reason, natives in each location in the country feel superior for having been born (through no choice of their own) in that particular location, over people who actually chose to live in that location.

Every state in the US is full of people proud to have to been born in that state instead of the state that all of the other people who stayed put are proud to have been born in.

Well having a city on the other side of the US, not even in our state or the district tell us what to do to make them happy is seen as a little disrespectful here. SF had banners for Ossoff on the trollies! Who does he really represent? I'll try to find the ad on YouTube if want to see it. They even scoff at ISIS and our military! Again something we don't agree with!

Edit:
I re-watched the ad a few times and realized it was a mock ad. I still agree with my puppet statement after watching the debate.

 

[DDastardly00]

Alex Moe

‏Verified account @AlexNBCNews

2h2 hours ago

A dozen House Democrats just met privately to discuss the need to change leadership and oust Nancy Pelosi before the 2018 midterms

 

[Johnnypenso]

You have any actual insight to share?

Georgia Election Seen as Trump Barometer
Local Elections are a Significant Baromoter on the National Scene
Local Bye-Elections are a Litmus Test for how Parties are Perceived Nationally
Historically, by-elections are a gauge by which the popularity of the incumbent government is measured.
Etc. etc. etc.
The seat was up for grabs. Dems thought they had a good shot. Regardless of your personal feelings and stake in the matter, the fact is this election was seen as a litmus test for the Trump Presidency. Of course they are looking beyond this one seat, that's a no-brainer. IMO though, it's not a coincidence that Pelosi is under the gun right after this significant loss. They expected to win and actually lost ground relative to the general election. That's gotta hurt and it's movement in the wrong direction. If you only lost the general by less than 2 points, and Trump has been off the rails for months and you still lost ground, that's got to be a huge, massive blow to their egos.

 

[Danoff]

"And @Dotini wins the prize for post most likely to result in a visit from the Secret Service! Tell him what he's won Bob!"

"An all-expenses paid visit from a secret service agent for him and his friends, neighbors, and family! Dotini will be magically transported to a controlled facility where he can be evaluated. Meanwhile, those around him will also be included in the fun."

A very good friend of mine was questioned by the secret service because of a faaairly innocuous facebook post by his neighbor. Just saying... I don't think what you wrote above would trigger a response, but you're walking the tightrope.

Apologies to @Dotini, we've had a late entry in this category. The award must go to Johnny Depp.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/arts/johnny-depp-glastonbury-trump.html

 

[DDastardly00]

Apologies to @Dotini, we've had a late entry in this category. The award must go to Johnny Depp.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/arts/johnny-depp-glastonbury-trump.html

Didn't he beat his ex-wife?

He's just another liberal far-left sore loser attempting to normalize assassination comments of a sitting president. He can join Kathy Griffin in the unemployment line for all I care. I won't support any of his movies and he won't see another dime from my family. Now the question is, will Hollywood condone, condemn or stay silent on his comments?

Edit:

Looks like the WH is responding to it:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...depps-assassination-remarks/story?id=48236038

 

[mirial]

JD is just a nasty little man revelling in the company of thousands of virtue signallers.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

But the funding and effort put into this election clearly tells you that the Democrat did think it was a big deal. The effort, the money, and therefore the results, tells you it was a very big deal to the Democrats and therefore must be a huge disappointment to lose.

Oh yeah I don't doubt they'd be disappointed in the moment, one way or another. I guess my point is there's no clear evidence yet to project that disappointment into the future. If that's what they decide to do, that doesn't make it automatically true - you just have to look at last year to see how well the Dems can match up what they think is happening with reality.

They expected to win and actually lost ground relative to the general election. That's gotta hurt and it's movement in the wrong direction. If you only lost the general by less than 2 points, and Trump has been off the rails for months and you still lost ground, that's got to be a huge, massive blow to their egos.

Relative to the general they lost ground, but going by the house result from the same day, they gained a lot......which is the better indicator of their performance? The former or the latter? A combination of both? Who knows. As you impied yourself, there's definitely a debate to be had there - hence I just don't see a clear narrative emerging out of these results. I know you said you're referring specifically to the Dems' reaction, and maybe they do see a clear takeaway, but again that may be about as informative as a horoscope. If they've formed expectations for these elections/the midterms based on a narrative that may or may not be nonsense, that's their problem. It doesn't change what's really happening.......whatever that is.

the overarching result is that they are 0-4 and now they need to win 24 seats in 2018 to take the House back..

If people want to argue the semantics of each of these special elections, percentage flips, particularly in Georgia, then have at it.

Well, yeah............discussing the results usually involves discussing, er, the results...........you kinda have to do that if you want to try and build an overall picture. Swing is probably one of the most fundamental measures for analysing elections; a cursory look at the swings in the 538 table I posted shows a complex set of results, with potential indicators of success/failure for both sides. That to me is a big sign that what they mean for 2018 and beyond is far from clear.

If you want to dismiss all that (despite insisting on bringing up the topic) then that's your prerogative, but what really baffles me is you seem to be dismissing it in favour of a simplistic, football pundit type approach. 'The score is 4-nil......not looking good for the Dems!'.......what? Weren't you the one saying the other day that the discussion here wasn't 'intellectual' enough for you?

 

[DDastardly00]

Oh yeah I don't doubt they'd be disappointed in the moment, one way or another. I guess my point is there's no clear evidence yet to project that disappointment into the future. If that's what they decide to do, that doesn't make it automatically true - you just have to look at last year to see how well the Dems can match up what they think is happening with reality.



Relative to the general they lost ground, but going by the house result from the same day, they gained a lot......which is the better indicator of their performance? The former or the latter? A combination of both? Who knows. As you impied yourself, there's definitely a debate to be had there - hence I just don't see a clear narrative emerging out of these results. I know you said you're referring specifically to the Dems' reaction, and maybe they do see a clear takeaway, but again that may be about as informative as a horoscope. If they've formed expectations for these elections/the midterms based on a narrative that may or may not be nonsense, that's their problem. It doesn't change what's really happening.......whatever that is.




Well, yeah............discussing the results usually involves discussing, er, the results...........you kinda have to do that if you want to try and build an overall picture. Swing is probably one of the most fundamental measures for analysing elections; a cursory look at the swings in the 538 table I posted shows a complex set of results, with potential indicators of success/failure for both sides. That to me is a big sign that what they mean for 2018 and beyond is far from clear.

If you want to dismiss all that (despite insisting on bringing up the topic) then that's your prerogative, but what really baffles me is you seem to be dismissing it in favour of a simplistic, football pundit type approach. 'The score is 4-nil......not looking good for the Dems!'.......what? Weren't you the one saying the other day that the discussion here wasn't 'intellectual' enough for you?

I made it pretty clear, or at least I thought I did, that I tend to look at the overall results of special elections. Even then, I still don't put much weight into them, I simply don't see a point in trying to make a case on how the 2018 midterms will go based on so little information that we have at this point. I said in another post that we are too far out to determine anything yet. I also did not bring the topic I was replying to two posts, I believe one of those posts was yours.

Even though you are making it seem like we are disagreeing here, based on what you said above, we really aren't disagreeing at all.

------
Back on to 'Love trumps Hate', friendly, peace-living Liberals like Johnny Depp conversation....

How about that Phil Montag?

An official with the Nebraska Democratic Party was fired Thursday after an audio recording surfaced of him saying he was glad House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot last week.

His quote, well, the censored version:

"His whole job is to get people, convince Republicans to BLEEPING kick people off BLEEPING healthcare," said Phil Montag, a technology chairman with the state Democratic Party. "I hate this motherBLEEPER. I'm glad he got shot. I wish he was BLEEPING dead,"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nebraska-democratic-party-official-im-glad-scalise-got-shot-i-wish-he-was-f-king-dead/article/2626923

Well, Phil, you certainly said a mouthful there.

.....and somehow this will probably get turned into a discussion on Shakespeare.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump admits that he did not record his conversations with Comey:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...d-by-james-comey-recordings-admission/8644884

He is now suggesting that Mueller cannot be impartial because he is friends with Comey:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-24/trump-questions-impartiality-of-robert-mueller/8648688

He appears to be laying the groundwork to undermine Mueller and his investigation should anything come of it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Trump admits that he did not record his conversations with Comey:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...d-by-james-comey-recordings-admission/8644884

He is now suggesting that Mueller cannot be impartial because he is friends with Comey:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-24/trump-questions-impartiality-of-robert-mueller/8648688

He appears to be laying the groundwork to undermine Mueller and his investigation should anything come of it.

Mueller and Comey have a relationship. Mueller cannot investigage Comey or those related to Comey whether he's capable of being impartial or not. The appearance of impartiality must also be maintained. I fully expect him to be dismissed and I'm surprised he hasn't already. He was the wrong choice to begin with.

 

[Dotini]

A likely all-too-common example of top level media collusion and meddling in the realm of espionage, gun smuggling and foreign policy. The Wall Street Journal's ace reporter tries to make the news - the desired course of history - it wants to report. Here, in a rare slip-up, the hero secret agent is exposed.
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/06/21/...affairs-correspondent-over-arms-dealer-links/


Wall Street Journal Fires Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Over Arms Dealer Links
Sacked Reporter Was Given Stake in CIA Arms Smuggler's Company
Jason Ditz Posted on June 21, 2017Categories NewsTags CIA, Iran, Wall Street Journal


The Wall Street Journal today announced that it is sacking its chief foreign affairs correspondent, Jay Solomon, related to “ethical lapses” that were revealed in a Tuesday AP expose that revealed Solomon’s substantial ties to an arms dealer and smuggler for the CIA.

The AP investigation focused on Farhad Azima, an Iran-born magnate who had ferried weapons for the CIA, and founded a company, Denx LLC, that was trying to make a deal with the United Arab Emirates on a surveillance scheme intended to spy on Iran.

Solomon had been using Azima as a key source in his reporting for years, and the AP story found Azima offered Solomon a 10% stake in Denx LLC. Among the services Solomon was expected to provide was to secure a meeting with a top UAE official to sell him on the surveillance proposal.

 

[Imari]

Mueller and Comey have a relationship. Mueller cannot investigage Comey or those related to Comey whether he's capable of being impartial or not. The appearance of impartiality must also be maintained. I fully expect him to be dismissed and I'm surprised he hasn't already. He was the wrong choice to begin with.

At that level of expertise, I wouldn't be surprised at all if everyone knows each other. It has to be a pretty small club of people who are cleared and competent to lead this sort of investigation, and I'd have thought that they'd all run in sort of the same circles. Comey and Mueller happened to work together, and they happen to each have a high opinion of the other. Which you'd hope so, given the jobs that they did.

I don't see how having a respectful professional relationship with your boss precludes that boss from investigating something that includes you. Mueller is a professional, and was specifically such a good choice because both parties trusted his integrity and his ability. It seems a shame to throw that out because he happened to be Comey's boss once upon a time.

I doubt that they'll find someone as qualified and universally acceptable to replace Mueller. The guy was accepted by both Dubya and Obama, which is rare. I have no doubt that Trump would be quite happy to replace him with someone less competent, less qualified and with much less integrity. Preferably so much less that he'd be loyal to Trump rather than to the American people.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Mueller cannot investigage Comey or those related to Comey whether he's capable of being impartial or not.

Except that Mueller isn't investigating Comey.

 

[McLaren]

Except that Mueller isn't investigating Comey.

He didn't say he was; he also said those related to Comey.

The point being, Mueller & Comey are "buddy-buddy", and Mueller is potentially investigating a man who crossed said "buddy".

 

[Imari]

The point being, Mueller & Comey are "buddy-buddy", and Mueller is potentially investigating a man who crossed said "buddy".

Are they really "buddy-buddy"?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mueller-comey-close-trump-suggest-48251561

I've seen several sources that say that they were simply work colleagues who didn't hate each other. I'm yet to see any evidence of interactions between them that goes beyond a respectful professional relationship. The thing most media seems to cite is the Ashcroft thing, but I don't see friendship in that so much as two men with similar opinions of a specific policy acting in the best interests of themselves and their offices.

One would expect that if they had a close relationship there'd be more to go on than that one high pressure situation, where personal interest could well override any personal relationship.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've seen several sources that say that they were simply work colleagues who didn't hate each other. I'm yet to see any evidence of interactions between them that goes beyond a respectful professional relationship.

By that logic, nobody could conduct the investigation because any investigator that could be linked to Comey would be considered an inappropriate choice.

If Mueller was such a poor choice, why was he even considered, much less appointed to the role? And why is nobody but Trump objecting to it? Trump only started complaining once reports emerged that Mueller was pushing on with the investigation. It's a pretty transparent attempt at undermining Mueller in case Mueller finds something.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Trump's now accepting the Russian interference in the election but blaming Obama by association. It's like a badly written soap opera with nukes.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump's now accepting the Russian interference in the election but blaming Obama by association.

How does that work?

And on the day Obama break his silence on the Republicans' health care bill, too ...

 

[TenEightyOne]

How does that work?

Trump says Obama is effectively guilty of inaction.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump says Obama is effectively guilty of inaction.

But he insists that the Russians didn't influence a single vote. Which means that Trump just accused Obama of not doing anything to stop something that didn't happen.