Jump to content
Tornado

The General 'Murican Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Re: Manchin. I get that it's annoying, but I would rather have him than a West Virginia Republican.
 
If the Democrats are to stay in power, they will need red state partners, many of whom are liable to be more conservative than desired on some topics.
 
However, compare Louisiana's John Bel Edwards to his Republican opponents. He suddenly looks like the best option. Yeah, he signed a tough abortion law. But he also extended Medicaid to countless people. That would not have happened with any of the Republicans.

Here's a gem from Susan Collins' Twitter last year.

Meanwhile, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska might have an interesting election in 2022:

I'm not sure whether to laugh or be terrified. However, Murkowski was primaried for being too liberal in 2010 by the Tea Party, and she ran a write-in campaign to become the second Senator elected by write-in in US history.

Hoping Murkowski tears Palin apart when that day comes. She's proven she's the only Republican politician left who cares about women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

Yeah, he signed a tough abortion law. But

As optimistic a “win” this can be given the alternatives, it’s still regardless not a actual win if this is stuff we have to settle with to make “progress” in my eyes. I get “sometimes you gotta take a few steps back to go forward” is a popular saying, but still, that’s not a super great situation to be in regardless. But I guess we’ll just have to settle and accept that’s the world we live in, and just hope for the best and see what Democrats/progressives can do with these partners to help them.

Anyway, so Brett getting nominated wasn’t a surprise, certainly not seeing much outrage from people considering everyone got that out earlier when the writing was on the wall. Hope the piece of shit enjoys the limited time he’ll probably have in that seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KHCast said:

As optimistic a “win” this can be given the alternatives, it’s still regardless not a actual win if this is stuff we have to settle with to make “progress” in my eyes.

Considering how much demand for abortion stems from lack of economic justice, I'm not so sure.

As economic justice expands, the demand will go down, and the issue becomes increasingly moot. This is actually what the Casey decision kind of foretold, that at some point in the future, requesting an abortion would become incredibly rare. 

Same thing goes for gun violence. We will probably see considerable declines in it as economic justice increases and crime rates drop.

The all or nothing approaches to abortion and guns strike me, quite frankly, as tools the capitalist class uses to keep us from seeing who the real problem in our society is. As Donald Trump uses the Presidency to expand his company's profit margins and Cory Booker and his buddies take enormous amounts of Wall Street money, we should rethink whether it's the social issues they like to argue about that are really the problem.

Should social justice be completely eschewed? Of course not. But I don't think the all-or-nothing approach (often from those in solid blue districts) is going to be a net gain for society as a whole.

Quote

Anyway, so Brett getting nominated wasn’t a surprise, certainly not seeing much outrage from people considering everyone got that out earlier when the writing was on the wall.

They're probably more focused on going home and getting those early ballots mailed in.

Honestly, the dissipation of overt rage is probably a good thing. The more visible Democrats' supporters are, the more likely Republicans will feel inclined to turn out themselves. So seeming to drop the outrage is actually a strategic decision. It means no one will expect the snake strike on November 6th.

Quote

Hope the piece of shit enjoys the limited time he’ll probably have in that seat.

There's no way the Democrats will ever get to 67 seats. 60 seats alone would be amazing.

I say Democrats because no sane Republican would vote to remove, as that would practically guarantee an electoral loss. Jeff Flake had nothing to lose this year since he's retiring, and he still voted to put him in the seat.

Brett's here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/mcconnell-scotus-2020-nominee-trump-senate/index.html

Mitch McConnell has left open the possibility he would confirm a Supreme Court nominee if there's a vacancy in 2020.

He says that his precedent only applies when the President and Senate are from different parties.

So basically, as we all knew, he's a partisan hack.

It is really important to vote next month. If one is scared about a conservative majority now, just imagine what it will look like if the GOP still controls the Senate in 2019 and gets a chance to replace a retiring Thomas or a (God forbid) passed away Ginsburg. Flipping the Senate is a longshot, but it is possible.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/how-millennials-could-kill-politics-as-we-know-it/index.html

Discussion on how millennials could change the face of American politics. Millennials have stronger independent streaks than any other group, and are less likely to see differences between the two parties. They tend to get involved in politics on issues relevant to them, rather than broad ideologies. As millennials move into politics and are poised to displace the Baby Boomers as the largest voter group between now and 2020, they could shift American politics to be more about issues than party. The great polarization of the last few decades might actually die down a little.

The Democrats need to win the House, honestly. If they can pass that rules change that allows bipartisan bills to get through, it is going to be a huge incentive for millennials to run for office: they won't need to tow the party line to get things done. Under current rules, party leaders can hold a Congressperson's agenda hostage if they are not cooperative. The rules change would solve that.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/republicans-trump-democrats-mob-kavanaugh/index.html

In a chilling reminder of Nixon's 1976 campaign of "Law and Order" that was used to stoke racist sentiment, prominent Republicans are increasingly using the word "mob" to refer to Democrats. It harkens back to Trump's speech not too long ago where he said Democratic victories would lead to a breakdown of stability and lawlessness would be freely embraced. This is all based on liberal protests.

Presumably the GOP has become so fixated on the Second Amendment that they forget to read the First (except when it involves wealthy people donating lots of money, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

Considering how much demand for abortion stems from lack of economic justice, I'm not so sure.

As economic justice expands, the demand will go down, and the issue becomes increasingly moot. This is actually what the Casey decision kind of foretold, that at some point in the future, requesting an abortion would become incredibly rare. 

Same thing goes for gun violence. We will probably see considerable declines in it as economic justice increases and crime rates drop.

 The all or nothing approaches to abortion and guns strike me, quite frankly, as tools the capitalist class uses to keep us from seeing who the real problem in our society is. As Donald Trump uses the Presidency to expand his company's profit margins and Cory Booker and his buddies take enormous amounts of Wall Street money, we should rethink whether it's the social issues they like to argue about that are really the problem.

Should social justice be completely eschewed? Of course not. But I don't think the all-or-nothing approach (often from those in solid blue districts) is going to be a net gain for society as a whole.

Quote

that all seems good, but seems like more of a long term pay off, that doesn’t really do much for women in situations currently related to abortion and poverty, so it still comes off as a damn if you do damn if you don’t situation at face value 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KHCast said:

that all seems good, but seems like more of a long term pay off, that doesn’t really do much for women in situations currently related to abortion and poverty, so it still comes off as a damn if you do damn if you don’t situation at face value 

That's basically politics, yes. It's almost inherently a utilitarian institution because you have to weigh the best ways to spend finite political capital.

In Edwards' case, he has made it harder for some women to receive an abortion. But he has also given healthcare to countless people who otherwise would not have it.

I ran a rough estimate (using half of Louisiana's population and the approximate number of women who request an abortion each year, a crude measure, but useful enough) and basically, it would take about 50 years for the number of denied abortions to match up with the number of people who now have healthcare. From a purely utilitarian standpoint and considering the circumstances, it was the best option. A pro-choice Democrat would not be in that seat, and guys like Bobby Jindal would instead be free to defund Planned Parenthood, ban abortions, and keep poor people from getting healthcare.

Edwards is very supportive of Planned Parenthood's non-abortion services, on that note, so it makes his strict policies seem far less cruel.

In a bluer area, it is easy to run on both expanding healthcare as well as increased access to abortion. But sadly, in a lot of other areas, it will be an "us or them" situation. While there should naturally be limits on how far one will go with a utilitarian analysis, it is still a good metric to use in situations where one's hands are tied. While this is going on, of course, people on the ground should be working to try and change opinions on abortion; there has been enormous success in this regard, considering over two-thirds of people believe in the right to one during the first trimester (and indeed, Edwards' abortion ban, as tough as it is, excludes the first trimester).

MmqGc8u.jpg

Meanwhile, Steve King is boasting about the possibility of overturning Roe with Kavanaugh's confirmation, and he got this savage response that shows how bullshit the GOP's combination of economic libertarianism with social conservatism is. Just one of many comments like that, though. An abortion ban without huge socioeconomic changes is amputating a leg and refusing to stop the bleeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

An abortion ban without huge socioeconomic changes is amputating a leg and refusing to stop the bleeding.

Amen to that.

Also, I have a question: is Native American now no longer that acceptable? I ask because I remember hearing that people prefer saying Indigenous now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

Amen to that.

Also, I have a question: is Native American now no longer that acceptable? I ask because I remember hearing that people prefer saying Indigenous now.

Indigenous is basically being picked up because "native American" could technically refer to anyone born here. Indigenous exclusively would refer to the first peoples of a region. It is essentially the most neutral, accurate term one can use.

I remember when people from several different indigenous groups were asked their thoughts on "Indian" or "Native American." While most disliked Indian, they did not see it as a slur or anything. They were less concerned about being called Native American and more about being recognized as Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, etc. The debate over using indigenous versus Native American versus Indian basically is arguing over whether to call people from Germany European or Asian, rather than calling them German. There's a distinct loss of identity involved in the current discourse.

Not terribly surprising, considering the left tends to have its own variations of racial insensitivity. History, regardless of whether it was written from a perspective hostile or sympathetic towards the indigenous people, has often had a tendency to treat them as a single group, rather than as numerous distinct cultures whose sole trait in common was the fact they were all on the losing side in a centuries-long conflict.

For comparison, a lot of Mexicans demonize Malintzin/Malinche, an indigenous woman who aided Cortez in his conquest of Mexico. She is often depicted as having betrayed the native peoples. Except... the native peoples were not united. They were all various different groups with their own cultures and politics and rivalries. She was just a member of one of them and was navigating the circumstances. She literally would not be able to understand the concept of "betraying" Mexico's indigenous peoples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

I remember when people from several different indigenous groups were asked their thoughts on "Indian" or "Native American." While most disliked Indian, they did not see it as a slur or anything. They were less concerned about being called Native American and more about being recognized as Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, etc. The debate over using indigenous versus Native American versus Indian basically is arguing over whether to call people from Germany European or Asian, rather than calling them German. There's a distinct loss of identity involved in the current discourse.

Okay, that's reasonable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/2018-midterm-polls-democrats-leading-house-battlegrounds-senate-republicans-forecast.html

Bad news for the GOP.

Despite their surge of enthusiasm, when one looks district by district, the Democrats have the advantage in most of the swing districts. The House is still very in reach.

Considering that Republican enthusiasm is concentrated towards red areas, however, the Democrats' Senate chances are dampened a little, though. But it is still not entirely impossible. There are so many races on the ballot this year it is very possible someone going to cast a vote for their House rep or Governor could give a needed vote to a Senate candidate to win.

The polling is especially telling: while an overwhelming majority of people feel the economy is doing great, the majority still feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Trump has officially broken another trend: people are not giving the party in power credit for economic growth.

With less than a month to go until the long-awaited midterm election, the next few weeks are likely to be quite anxiety-inducing.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/marijuana-poll-support/2018/10/08/id/885384/

Pew's latest poll on legal marijuana is out, and it has 62% of Americans in favor. That's up from 61% last year and double the 31% it was in 2000. This cause is getting stronger by the day.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/pennsylvania-lawmakers-to-vote-on-marijuana-decriminalization-this-week/

Pennsylvania's lawmakers will vote on a marijuana decriminalization bill this week, which will eliminate the criminal penalties for possessing up to one ounce.

Some legalization advocates are angry it is not a full on legalization, but I honestly think they should take what they can get. It eliminates the jail time and is a good compromise considering the circumstances.

If Democrats (who are generally more lenient on ending marijuana prohibition) can increase their clout in the state next month, maybe they can add on to the bill with further legalization efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

Despite their surge of enthusiasm, when one looks district by district, the Democrats have the advantage in most of the swing districts.

To add to this: Between now and Nov. 6th, GOP enthusiasm, which was really ginned up in response to Kavanaugh's razor thin and bat-shit crazy confirmation, is likely to recede somewhat with the glow of their "victory." I'm not sure I see Democratic enthusiasm heading down, particularly given Trump's propensity for gloating (he has now taken to assaulting Dr. Ford directly by calling her claims a Democratic hoax). If anything, I see Democratic enthusiasm going up, not down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Patticus said:

To add to this: Between now and Nov. 6th, GOP enthusiasm, which was really ginned up in response to Kavanaugh's razor thin and bat-shit crazy confirmation, is likely to recede somewhat with the glow of their "victory." I'm not sure I see Democratic enthusiasm heading down, particularly given Trump's propensity for gloating (he has now taken to assaulting Dr. Ford directly by calling her claims a Democratic hoax). If anything, I see Democratic enthusiasm going up, not down.

This video is worth watching on the matter:

tl;dr: The last time this sort of thing happened (Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill allegations) it caused a major backlash from Dem and Independent voters and was a major factor in making Bush Sr. a single-term president. It even caused a major primary upset against a well-liked Democrat senator who only voted for Thomas' confirmation because he outright promised Bush he would (which happened before the allegations came out, which made things incredibly awkward for him when they did), resulting in the election of the first female African-American senator to office.

And the Thomas nomination wasn't even in an election year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her resignation today, despite being one of the most popular politicians in America.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/women-trump-kavanaugh-midterms/index.html

Interesting discussion on the impact Trump has had on women's political participation. Not only has Trump seen a massive drop in support among women for the GOP, he's also prompting them to volunteer and run for office in record numbers. Women generally participate less than men in midterms... this midterm looks like it will change that.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/politics/heidi-heitkamp-kavanaugh-cnn-interview/index.html

Heidi Heitkamp's decision to vote against Kavanaugh is given some light. As one of the most vulnerable red state Democrats, Heitkamp had instructed her staff to draw up a statement praising Kavanaugh and giving her reasons for supporting him, as she did with Gorsuch.

Then the sexual assault allegations came forward. Heitkamp believed Ford was assaulted, but was still willing to see if Kavanaugh had been mistakenly identified. Heitkamp watched Kavanaugh's interview... then watched it with the sound off to pay attention to his body language. Guilty or not, the way his emotions gripped him disqualified him from the Court in Heitkamp's eyes.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/politics/democrat-house-majority-women/index.html

Some further elaboration on the 69 most competitive House districts. These districts have a lean of 50-46 towards the Democrats. They were 56-41 towards the GOP in 2016. That's a 19 point swing away from the GOP in 2 years. Women prefer Democrats by 14 points, while men choose the Republican candidate 51 to 46. That's an enormous gender gap of 19 points. CNN did a sly statistic mixup here because it omitted how many women answered don't know/no preference (notice how the men are given numbers that add up to 97, whereas the women are just given a 14 point lead), but it does indicate considerable anti-Republican sentiment in the House seats that will carry the balance of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ sad when people have this thought process in politics.  noting warrants calling someone a bitch regardless of how far down the spectrum you sit left or right. Which even though it's not established I'm going to run a hard third party bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me or does it feel the country is being torn apart or is that the news making it seem more divided than it appears? Like I get along with people of many views but reading on how people stopped being friends with people just because they voted or support Trump seems really stupid.

People need to remember that we live under a 2 party system meaning that you can put the worst candidate on both sides and people will vote for them not because they agree or like them but because they are very strongly against the other only viable candidate. That is the consequence of the two party system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Meta77 said:

^ sad when people have this thought process in politics.  noting warrants calling someone a bitch regardless of how far down the spectrum you sit left or right. Which even though it's not established I'm going to run a hard third party bid

She's a hawkish psychopath who basically spent her entire time as ambassador trying to drum up support for America's imperialist fuckery in the Middle East, specifically in Syria and Iran. I'll call her whatever I damn well please. So kindly piss off with this "oh how sad, what happened to civility, muh centrism" shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ivo the Coldsteel said:

She's a hawkish psychopath who basically spent her entire time as ambassador trying to drum up support for America's imperialist fuckery in the Middle East, specifically in Syria and Iran. I'll call her whatever I damn well please. So kindly piss off with this "oh how sad, what happened to civility, muh centrism" shit.

I don't care about your political stances or what you say about public figures, but you can have a strike for attacking Meta77 over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add, in particular, that using the word "bitch" to describe a woman is in poor taste. It is a heavily gendered insult (observe how the word is used differently depending on which gender it is referring to, and even then, when calling men the term, there's a strong implication of being effeminate). Even if she's unpleasant, that's no more grounds to call her it than it would be to call a black person the n-word or purposely misgender a transgender person.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/mitch-mcconnell-hillary-clinton-civility/index.html

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell criticizing Clinton for saying Democrats should stop being civil with the GOP.

I'm sorry but "fuck you" can't even begin to capture my reaction to this guy having the nerve to say that.

His partisan hackery over the judicial system aside, he's the kind of guy who masks all the terrible policies that could kill millions of people and his Party's open attempts to rig elections with "civility."

Screw civility. This is a struggle for survival at this point. If the Democrats gain the majority, they must do everything they can to shut the GOP out of power, because there is no chance in Hell the GOP would not do the same. They made their position known when they gerrymandered the House after 2010.

Democrats should try to build bridges with conservative and moderate voters, to try and make them part of a populist coalition.

But not the GOP itself. Especially so long as McConnell is the face of it.

1 hour ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Is it me or does it feel the country is being torn apart or is that the news making it seem more divided than it appears? Like I get along with people of many views but reading on how people stopped being friends with people just because they voted or support Trump seems really stupid.

It is legitimately polarized yes.

But it's basically the fact Trump does not have the same finesse as prior Republican politicians. Trump agrees with other Republicans on most of their policies. But at least someone like Bush or Reagan could give it some nice window dressing.

Trump is just unapologetic about mocking the mentally disabled, women, sexual assault victims, racial minorities, the list goes on. He ran such a disgusting campaign that many people just could not fathom the idea of someone else voting for him. There was this sense that if you let him in, you were signing off on everything he stated.

Unfortunately, people tend to ignore that if you live in one of the economically depressed, drug-destroyed areas he visited, his ideas were sounding a lot more appealing than Clinton's "ehhhh, just get retrained and move to a new area for a lesser paying job, yo." Liberal outlets dedicate themselves to proving racism, sexism, etc. rather than homing in on the fact yes, there is a statistically significant group of Trump voters who do fit the working class white argument.

Trump won the key states by less than 1% each. That tiny group matters.

Quote

People need to remember that we live under a 2 party system meaning that you can put the worst candidate on both sides and people will vote for them not because they agree or like them but because they are very strongly against the other only viable candidate. That is the consequence of the two party system.

This is important to remember, yes. Trump had a lot more reluctant voters than Clinton. They did not like his style or some of his ideas like building a wall.

But they did like that he would be another conservative, if a really caustic one.

The 2016 election really highlights the need to reform our general elections, but also our primaries. Imagine what could have happened if Democrats could vote in the Republican primaries and bolster Kasich, then go back to the Democratic primaries and vote for Clinton. Then imagine what would have happened if Republicans could cross over and support Trump in one primary but Sanders in the other.

Moderates would also be participating as well. We would get increasingly more moderate, reasonable, likeable candidates. Our current system divides the electorate upon itself, and then rewards the extreme elements. Then come general election time, everyone has to pick between candidates chosen by a smaller subset of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not mean to get anyone in trouble. But even if we disagree on platforms and issues I just did not like seeing that word used at work on someone just for no reason.

 

anyway on to something lighter someone explain the meme law over in the UK that is currently trying to be passed. Would it stop some of you from posting literal memes of any kind or just in youtube videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her resignation today, despite being one of the most popular politicians in America.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/women-trump-kavanaugh-midterms/index.html

Interesting discussion on the impact Trump has had on women's political participation. Not only has Trump seen a massive drop in support among women for the GOP, he's also prompting them to volunteer and run for office in record numbers. Women generally participate less than men in midterms... this midterm looks like it will change that.

There's a quote from the era of the Washington/Adams/Jefferson presidencies, which I can't quite remember, but it goes along the lines: Political plants certainly grow well in the shade.

I can't see her being done with politics yet, she's probably at the end of her rope right now, and may see a benefit to her long-term goals in ending her time in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At age 46, it's highly unlikely Haley is finished with politics, yes. I would not be surprised if we see her running for a Senate position or otherwise being considered for the Vice Presidency or Cabinet later on. She has been seen as a possible Presidential and VP candidate in the past, so she will most likely surface in one of those races over the next several elections.

The Senate is unlikely, because Graham will be 65 in 2020 and there are plenty of 80+ GOP Senators. The other SC Senator is even younger.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/nikki-haley-replacement-congress-republicans/index.html

Meanwhile, there is discussion of appointing retiring Senator Bob Corker to the position. Considering Corker's position as one of Trump's larger in-party critics, that would be quite surprising.

There was even talk of putting Ivanka Trump in, but Trump has said he would no do it because it would be seen as nepotism. ...I find it strange he would care.

https://jalopnik.com/uber-and-lyft-are-offering-discounted-rides-to-get-peop-1829600559

Citing 15 million people who could not vote in 2016 due to transportation issues, Lyft and Uber are offering discounted rides on Election Day.

Meanwhile, the GOP's low key voter suppression continues with this gem from Eric Trump. He claims it is the "last day," but it's actually just the last day to register by mail. He even erased the part of the original image that specified some states had alternate ways to register.

Of course he forgot to mention that key part... would not want high registration rates. That favors Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/408786-centrists-pledge-to-withhold-support-for-speaker-unless-house-rules-change

Some more background on the rules changes House members are seeking.

The proposed rules package would give any bill an automatic markup (that is, increased priority) if it has one cosponsor from the other Party, would make it easier to add amendments to legislation, would require a bipartisan meeting at the start of every session, and would protect the Speaker from being ousted by a small minority.

Ironically, the way the Problem Solvers' Caucus is ramming this through is pledges from its membership - Democrats and Republicans - to withhold their votes for Speaker unless the candidate promises rules changes.

As the Democrats are simultaneously mulling over a party rules change that would prevent the Speaker candidacy from going to anyone who could not command a majority in the full House, and the House is quite likely to be narrowly divided after the midterms, this could be a quite powerful threat.

The message that the moderate Republicans are sending with the Democrats is clear: if the Democrats really want to oppose Trump, they need to be a party for real, lasting change and not return to business as usual. Not just in policy, but in how they conduct business. They need to toss out Pelosi, then rebuild the House from the ground up to encourage partnership and cooperation. The Hastert Rule and leadership rules have both made it so fringe caucuses, or majorities in the majority caucus, can obstruct meaningful legislation from passing. As the Senate gradually becomes more partisan, maybe the House can ironically become the most respected branch of government as it redistributes power towards its ordinary members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/politics/trump-midterms-travel-final-four-weeks-strategy/index.html

The GOP's midterm strategy: "Trump people to death." Their plan is to drag him from state to state to try and turn out Republican voters, with even Trump asking supporters to pretend he is at the top of the ballot. His ability to pursue his agenda is heavily tied to his majorities, so it is hoped he will whip up enough support to prevent huge losses.

It is expected this strategy will work best in the Senate, allowing the GOP to unseat Senators like Heitkamp and McCaskill. The House is being fought in more swingy, suburban districts where he has lost popularity, so it would not work as well there.

Democrats are not scared, however. Whenever Trump visits somewhere, Democrats raise a lot more money. This money can be turned into ads and get out the vote efforts. In addition, the American ideal of divided government is rearing its head even in red states: a lot of conservatives would still prefer power shift a little to make the government more balanced.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/heidi-heitkamp-hillary-clinton-response-cnntv/index.html

Heidi Heitkamp has rebuked Clinton's "no civility" message. With only a few weeks left, she's naturally eager to piece back together her image as a moderate considering she voted against Kavanaugh.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/mitt-romney-family-separations/index.html

Mitt Romney has said he considers the separation of families at the border shameful. Considering he is likely to be the Senator from Utah in 3 months, we shall see if he puts his money where his mouth is with his votes.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/politics/kevin-mccarthy-border-wall-bill/index.html

As another election tactic, Kevin McCarthy is going to introduce a bill that would provide $23 billion in funding for Trump's border wall. It will not be considered until after the midterms are over. It would most likely never pass the Senate, but it is undoubtedly an attempt to try and turn out the GOP base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

Heidi Heitkamp has rebuked Clinton's "no civility" message. With only a few weeks left, she's naturally eager to piece back together her image as a moderate considering she voted against Kavanaugh.

Kind of have to agree with Heitkamp here. No matter how the other person acts or what they believe in, if you end up stooping to their levels, then you're no better than them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.