2018 Midterm Elections Thread.

[The Romulan Republic]

I’ll stop relitigating 2016 here, though.

Meaning that you semi-derail the threat with a bunch of tired old 2016 Primary campaign lines and misrepresentations of what I said, then make a point of not "relitigating 2016" after you've already said your piece, so that if I respond I'm the one who'll be accused of derailing the thread. Classy.

But since it is indeed irrelevant to this thread, and counterproductive to the interests of the Democratic Party, the country, and the world to reargue this point, I'll content myself with this: In WW2, the US allied with fucking Stalin to stop Nazism. Clinton supporters can suck it up and play nice with Sanders supporters (and vice versa) to stop Neo-Nazism. Or they can't, in which case they are a liability to the cause.

[FireNexus]

Maybe so, but lumping people who simply don't know any better in with the actual Nazis is not how you win friends and influence people. If their entire understanding of how non-white people think and act comes from Fox News because they've literally never met anyone outside their own race before, then at the very least they deserve a little slack for acting out of ignorance rather than malice. And maybe with a bit of tact and patience they will come to realise that their fears are irrational.

I didn’t lump them in with Nazis. Sanders said they weren’t racist. You said that’s not entirely wrong because they’re too stupid to know they’re racist. Then you claimed I lumped them in with Nazis, I assume because you’re too stupid to recognize when you’re moving the goalposts.

If progressives don't at least attempt to combat this sort of low-key, unconscious racism with education and outreach then they're certainly not going to be less vulnerable to radicalisation by the real hardcore racists. Hell, the ultimate logical conclusion of going down that route is to declare that the only good Republican is a dead one, and if we start thinking like that then Trump is the least of America's problems.

I don’t disagree. But I would say that education step 1 is not “don’t worry, you’re not racist even though you voted for a racist because you were uncomfortable with his opponent’s race”. You seem to be acting like calling racism out for what it is may as well be calling everyone Auschwitz guards.

I’m not saying don’t try to educate, I’m saying don’t excuse it away while literally defining it in the same sentence!

[FireNexus]

I’ll stop relitigating 2016 here, though.

Meaning that you semi-derail the threat with a bunch of tired old 2016 Primary campaign lines and misrepresentations of what I said, then make a point of not "relitigating 2016" after you've already said your piece, so that if I respond I'm the one who'll be accused of derailing the thread. Classy.

I said I would stop. Not that I didn’t do it in the first place. It was my bad to keep pursuing it after you got triggered, and we both know where it ends anyway.

But since it is indeed irrelevant to this thread, and counterproductive to the interests of the Democratic Party, the country, and the world to reargue this point, I'll content myself with this: In WW2, the US allied with fucking Stalin to stop Nazism. Clinton supporters can suck it up and play nice with Sanders supporters (and vice versa) to stop Neo-Nazism. Or they can't, in which case they are a liability to the cause.

Things that are productive to the interests of the Democratic Party, according to TRR:

[*]Not attacking someone for excusing racism either because he is a moron or because he considers courting the racists his best play in 2020, also because he is a moron.

Here’s the thing: If a Sanders supporter is going to be turned off because I hate their idiot messiah, there is no amount of “playing nice” that is going to help beyond nominating him in 2020, and there’s no goddamn way that is ever going to happen.

[The Romulan Republic]

My response is by PM, in the interests of not further derailing the thread.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democrat is now leading the Arizona Senate race (where Republicans have sued to limit how many absentee votes can be counted).

Definitely feeling some absentee voter pride here, even if I'm in Colorado.

Edit: Gillum has also withdrawn his concession in the Florida Governorship race.

[madd0ct0r]

can you withdraw concessions? isn't that counter to the point of them?

[mr friendly guy]

Al Gore also withdrew his concession, then conceded again. So I guess you can.

[Alferd Packer]

Concessions have no legal weight--it's just a nice thing to do, essentially. Showing you're a good sport is important if you plan on running for office again, so that's why politicians typically offer them.

[Knife]

He's not entirely wrong. Some of the "I'm not racist but..." set actually believe their own rationalisations.

He’s entirely wrong. Because his statement is that it doesn’t necessarily make them racist. Just because they’re as stupid as he is doesn’t make him partly right. They’re just ignorant to their own racism. Being unwilling to vote for someone because of their race is racist.

It's out of context, there is audio out there and I would encourage you to listen to it.

Guess it's new enough the only bit I can find is off of TYT, but no matter what you think of their analysis, that actual audio starts about 50 seconds in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psp2ORWr7pE&t=7s

Anyway, he comes right out and calls a lot of the shit that happened racist. Only at the end bit, does he say the quoted line but clearly in a way that implies he wants some outreach to people who are racists. Which is perfectly understandable since a lot of those people are just racist out of habit and cultural training and unthinking about it and can/could/should be reached and perhaps have their views changed and not just raving, spitting, racist Nazi's.

[FireNexus]

Anyway, he comes right out and calls a lot of the shit that happened racist. Only at the end bit, does he say the quoted line but clearly in a way that implies he wants some outreach to people who are racists. Which is perfectly understandable since a lot of those people are just racist out of habit and cultural training and unthinking about it and can/could/should be reached and perhaps have their views changed and not just raving, spitting, racist Nazi's.

Ok, I cannot fathom why “ok, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with Nazis” is the response I’ve gotten to this so often. Nobody said they should be lumped in with Nazis. Nobody said anything about being other than what you describe. But they are absolutely racists, period.

If you take the most charitable view of this as you did above, that Sanders is trying to bring them back into the fold and make them do the right thing by not calling them out, it’s still fucking stupid how he went about it. Absolving them of their racism as Sanders did is not necessary to courting them in that way, and it’s going to have the exact opposite effect on their future racism if they buy it.

And, not for nothing, but this isn’t nearly the first time that sanderz has displayed a conception of race issues that generally meshes with this analysis. At best, it was well-meaning but stupid. At worst, it was cynically stupid. At most likely, it is ignorantly stupid.

[Zaune]

Let me put it this way. Calling the people in question racists will be taken as lumping them in with the Nazis, and make it incredibly difficult to talk them out of their racism.

The fact that calling them racists is actually true does not change the fact that saying so to their faces will be counterproductive.

[FireNexus]

Let me put it this way. Calling the people in question racists will be taken as lumping them in with the Nazis, and make it incredibly difficult to talk them out of their racism.

The fact that calling them racists is actually true does not change the fact that saying so to their faces will be counterproductive.

You don’t have to all them racists. You just have to not absolve them of racism. This isn’t hard.

[Knife]

Anyway, he comes right out and calls a lot of the shit that happened racist. Only at the end bit, does he say the quoted line but clearly in a way that implies he wants some outreach to people who are racists. Which is perfectly understandable since a lot of those people are just racist out of habit and cultural training and unthinking about it and can/could/should be reached and perhaps have their views changed and not just raving, spitting, racist Nazi's.

Ok, I cannot fathom why “ok, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with Nazis” is the response I’ve gotten to this so often. Nobody said they should be lumped in with Nazis. Nobody said anything about being other than what you describe. But they are absolutely racists, period.

If you take the most charitable view of this as you did above, that Sanders is trying to bring them back into the fold and make them do the right thing by not calling them out, it’s still fucking stupid how he went about it. Absolving them of their racism as Sanders did is not necessary to courting them in that way, and it’s going to have the exact opposite effect on their future racism if they buy it.

And, not for nothing, but this isn’t nearly the first time that sanderz has displayed a conception of race issues that generally meshes with this analysis. At best, it was well-meaning but stupid. At worst, it was cynically stupid. At most likely, it is ignorantly stupid.

What are you talking about? The very first few sentences of the audio was the reporter putting a nice spin on it in it's 'race oriented' and Sanders interjecting that they should call it what it is, racism. First thing. And it's not a charitable view, it's what he said, you know, maybe we should try to lure some of the people who just don't think about stupid racist things they do. It will take time but might be worth the effort. Did you listen to the audio?

[FireNexus]

What are you talking about? The very first few sentences of the audio was the reporter putting a nice spin on it in it's 'race oriented' and Sanders interjecting that they should call it what it is, racism. First thing.

He was talking about the campaigns against Gillum and Abrams. Nobody said he never calls out racism no matter how blatant and in your face.

And it's not a charitable view, it's what he said, you know, maybe we should try to lure some of the people who just don't think about stupid racist things they do.

He did not. You might be able to divine that from what he said, but it sounded to me more like “those people will eventually get over this behavior” without really specifying how. His comments on racist voters in that audio don’t say a damn thing about that being a strategy. They, in fact, match what was quoted in TFA.

It will take time but might be worth the effort.

I don’t doubt that it might be worth courting the less racist folks. But Sanders didn’t say that, exactly, and if that is what he was doing he was still being an idiot. Absolving racists of racism is not going to make them less racist. You might want to avoid bringing their racism up where you can, but you don’t want to pretend it doesn’t exist. That is what Sanders did, and it’s not surprising because it’s broadly in keeping with how he approaches race-related situations more generally. Which is to say like an 80 year old white man who seems like he means well but doesn’t really get it.

Did you listen to the audio?

Yes. Did you? Because I didn’t hear anything which changed my criticism a single bit. I didn’t hear him not saying that the people who didn’t vote for a black person on account of their race weren’t necessarily racist. I didn’t hear him do anything wrt those folks but absolve them of their racism.

I heard him refuse to let the reporter pussyfoot around saying the that the organized campaign to defeat the black candidates by being explicitly racist was racist. And that’s not nothing, but it’s also not really related to the criticism.

You’re jumbling his criticism of Republican opponents and their allies with his explicit refusal to criticize white racists he either doesn’t see as racists or is trying to court in 2020.

[The Romulan Republic]

Getting away from the "Let's rehash the 2016 primary yet again" discussion, it turns out that those fears of Trump refusing to recognize an unfavourable election result might not have been so premature after all- he's accusing Democrats of stealing the Governor and Senate races in Florida, as the gap narrows amid ongoing recounts:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/10/trump-d ... orida.html

Also... why is it always fucking Florida?

[The Romulan Republic]

From Dickless Furher's Twitter account:

"Just out - in Arizona, SIGNATURES DON'T MATCH. Electoral corruption - Call for a new Election? We must protect our Democracy!"

So... illegally demand a new election until he gets the result he wants. Note that the signature issue refers to Republicans suing the state recorders to force them to change how they verify signatures on absentee ballots, because Republicans realized that absentee ballots might cause them to lose the race.

[Exonerate]

So the people actually fighting and who just obtained a legislative wall in order to block them, and this is your take?

I really don't buy into the 'any time the dems say something that isn't fighty, undercut them,' angle of rhetoric.

I'm sorry, who are we talking about here? If Pelosi gets credit for the Democrats taking the House, then when is she going to get blame for 2016? Frankly, it remains to be see if the Democrats will actually put up any resistance worthy of the term or cave in like they usually do. Or even if the other two branches of government will be able to stop anything.

Pelosi actually has a track record here, like it or not she's done more to fight Republicans than any of us, has made the Republicans tear their hair out plenty of times, and she's not going to throw us under the bus to appease Trump. I will note that Democrats can try tactical stuff too- like say 'bipartisan,' in order to get Republicans to drop their guard or appeal to moderates while legislatively stopping all she can.

I don't know how many times I've seen people cry wolf about supposed democrat betrayal that have turned out to be dead wrong- and considering the importance of not discouraging people in elections and not trying to convince them they have no good choices, I take calls of it with a handful of salt. We don't need to do the Republican's work for them.

Pelosi has a track record of safely winning her elections in a very safe district. She has "done more" because she is a House Rep and we are not. She's also very wealthy and if things go to shit, she doesn't have to suffer the consequences.

Pelosi is the current House Minority Leader and as part of the DNC leadership, she has a role in setting how Democrats conduct themselves. And what we don't need is her running off and fucking signaling that maybe the Republicans have some good ideas and can be reasoned with, or that Trump is just another normal presidency that they can politely disagree with. For all my adult life, the Republicans have been constantly shifting their position and that of their followers to the right and instead of standing their ground, Democrats have been chasing after them by trying to appeal to an almost non-existent center. Voter turnout was record high because people are pissed about Trump - and here Pelosi comes along to throws a wet blanket on that.

Now when the GOP rolls out the latest iteration of their creeping plan to strip citizenship from people who aren't white, Dems are going to act as if just another idea to be debated instead of rejected on its basic premise. And when they don't follow along the GOP program, their own words will be used against them for not being bipartisan. Or when and if Mueller's investigation turns up evidence worthy of impeachment, she'll have undermined the Democrat's position already because anybody with half a brain knows the GOP will protect Trump so an impeachment will never be "bipartisan". When Republicans hear these things, they don't "drop their guard" - they laugh at the idiots who keep throwing away leverage and extending a hand despite every attempt in the last 20 years being rebuffed. You want to convince voters they have good choices? Try not conceding ground before the fight's even started. They should be accusing the GOP of being un-American and extremists, they should be trying to impeach an narcissistic, incompetent dotard who could accidentally start a war with the wrong tweet.

[Highlord Laan]

He’s entirely wrong. Because his statement is that it doesn’t necessarily make them racist. Just because they’re as stupid as he is doesn’t make him partly right. They’re just ignorant to their own racism. Being unwilling to vote for someone because of their race is racist.

Maybe so, but lumping people who simply don't know any better in with the actual Nazis is not how you win friends and influence people. If their entire understanding of how non-white people think and act comes from Fox News because they've literally never met anyone outside their own race before, then at the very least they deserve a little slack for acting out of ignorance rather than malice. And maybe with a bit of tact and patience they will come to realise that their fears are irrational.

If progressives don't at least attempt to combat this sort of low-key, unconscious racism with education and outreach then they're certainly not going to be less vulnerable to radicalisation by the real hardcore racists. Hell, the ultimate logical conclusion of going down that route is to declare that the only good Republican is a dead one, and if we start thinking like that then Trump is the least of America's problems.

There's actually a historical term used the world over to describe the people that disagreed with the nazis or were ignorant of what they stood for by either choice or chance and sided with them anyway due to a handful of issues.

Nazis. They're still called nazis. Because if they put them in power they get to be painted with the same brush.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just found out that Rohrabacher (aka the biggest Russia fanboy in Congress) got voted out (fun facts: Paul Ryan behind closed doors described him as one of the Republicans most likely to be on Russia's pay roll, and he once floated the idea of holding a referendum to return Alaska to Russia).

Fun isn't something you consider when balancing the universe. But this does put a smile on my face.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sinema is now up by more than thirty thousand in Arizona, as the absentee/mail-in vote flips the state from Red to Blue.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/11/politics ... index.html

[Elheru Aran]

Sinema is now up by more than thirty thousand in Arizona, as the absentee/mail-in vote flips the state from Red to Blue.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/11/politics ... index.html

I can't quite recall, if she ends up winning, that makes it something like 49-49 currently considering the open seat from Florida is being contested as well and McCain's seat still hasn't been filled?

[The Romulan Republic]

Sinema is now up by more than thirty thousand in Arizona, as the absentee/mail-in vote flips the state from Red to Blue.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/11/politics ... index.html

I can't quite recall, if she ends up winning, that makes it something like 49-49 currently considering the open seat from Florida is being contested as well and McCain's seat still hasn't been filled?

Republicans hold 51, Dems 44, Independents (who caucus with the Dems) hold 2, though one of those Republican seats is McCain's currently unfilled seat. There are currently three outstanding races: Arizona, which is looking more and more like a Dem. win as the absentee votes are counted, Florida, which is currently leaning Republican but going to a recount, and Mississippi, which is headed to a run-off. In the unlikely event that all three races go Democrat in the end, then once McCain's replacement is named, the balance of power in the Senate will be unchanged. Worst case scenario (if we presume that Arizona is going blue at this point), the Republicans will pick up two.

Edit: This is pretty nearly right on 538's projections, which posited no change in the number of seats as the likeliest outcome, and a Republican gain of one as the second likeliest, prior to Election Day.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll add that this is actually really, really good news for 2020. This was a really bad year for us in the Senate, where we were playing mostly on defence. If we have this level of support in two years, with Presidential election year turnout, and a much more favourable Senate map- we're going to crush them.

[The Romulan Republic]

As a Colorado voter, this election was certainly significant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/election ... 8a463d6ea9

In short, Democrats took the governorship by 8.3 percent and picked up a Congressional seat (meaning that they now hold 4 of the state's seven seats).

Dems also dominated in the down-ballot races, retook the state Senate, and took every single statewide race: https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/p ... l-assembly

Colorado, much like Virginia, has been a swing state trending blue for a while, having gone blue in the last three Presidential elections (albeit narrowly in 2016), with Hickenlooper (a Democrat) just squeaking in for reelection as governor last time around, and both a Republican and Democratic Senator. So I'd say that this election pretty much solidifies Colorado's move towards Blue State status.

[madd0ct0r]

Is this weird asymmetry in 'playing defense' in one set of elections then the other group 'playing defense' four years later contributing to the IgoUgo of US politics? Like is the whole systems stabilising on a set of elections and back and forth in all three levels?