11/08/2022, The Midterms, aka build on 2020 aka The Election Thread

[ltrandazzo]

I'm talking about who could WIN, though. Hell yes, Warren is highly qualified.

But "exciting, inspiring, motivational," I think we need that to WIN this time. Like, desperately .

That shit is a big part of what brings casual voters to the polls.

Bottom line: Warren would make a GREAT president, and I agree with her ideas. But there's no way she's unseating The OrAnge Menace, so,.sadly, it doesn't matter.

We need another Obama phenomenon. I think it's the only way we win, barring something like indisputable evidence that Red Don is a RussiAn operative or a Pedophile or something.

And I feel like, from what I've seen so far, Beto is our best hope.

Howard Dean was the early front runner in 2003. John Edwards was the early front runner in 2007. It's too early for takes like this. There will be anywhere from 1-15 or so additional folks who declare running for President in 2020 so I think it's more productive if folks start looking at their records, their proposed legislation, etc. as a barometer on what you'd like to see from them as they campaign over the next 22 months.

[cdm]

Howard Dean was the early front runner in 2003.

To think "YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH <fistpump>" was once the line of demarcation between electable and not is....really something.

[allegro]

I’m still not 100% convinced that Trump will be in the 2020 race.

I’m old enough to remember LBJ.

Talking heads on MSNBC are saying that what people AREN’T thinking about is if the Democratic front runners are suddenly running against Romney or Flake or Kasich.

IMO, Beto isn’t anywhere near Obama.

Stats show that black women elected Obama.

I am not seeing black women getting as motivated by Beto.

Add to that the CRAZY level of voter suppression happening in the Sun Belt, which wasn’t there in 2012 (VRA was repealed in 2013).

Here’s the thing that kinda pisses me off: Warren is pretty progressive. A LOT of Sanders’ ideas were FROM WARREN. She has been tirelessly working on behalf of the working class and students for nearly her entire life. She’s from a working class family, her dad was a janitor, her mom worked at Sears.

But what have I been seeing a lot of on Twitter? #STILLBERNIE people telling Warren to fuck off and go away.

Bernie Sanders was a NOBODY to most people in this country before he threw his hat into the ring. I’d known about him because I watch political shows on Sunday mornings, but until he started really getting his campaign going, he was relatively unknown. “Likable? Relatable? Charismatic?” He’s an old Jewish guy from New England, stodgy, harsh, abrasive, yells a lot, he’s not warm and fuzzy. NOAM CHOMSKY has more personality. Bernie Sanders is the Independent version of John Kasich; same personality, same temperament, same stodgy stiffness.

But here we are in 2019, with people telling Warren to go away, because Bernie is more relatable. Bernie isn’t an attorney. Bernie has never been a law professor. But, Warren? Go away.

[Mantra]

To think "YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH <fistpump>" was once the line of demarcation between electable and not is....really something.

I think about this all the time.

[ltrandazzo]

I’m still not 100% convinced that Trump will be in the 2020 race.

I see this point raised a lot, but the only thing that prevents me from getting too invested in the idea of anyone primarying Trump is that while Democratic turnout increased in the 2018 midterms, Republican turnout also increased. Dems just had more come out for them. Trump is still immensely popular in the GOP and candidates that he endorsed won more than they lost in 2017 and 2018.

I think that if Jeff Flake or Kasich or Romney decide to run against Trump, they'll get some traction, but not enough to stop him.

[Mantra]

Is the theory that Trump will be impeached/resigned by 2020, and that's why he won't be the Republican candidate? Or just that he'll be so unpopular by then (even among conservatives) that it'll be viable to run another Republican against him?

Not sure what to say about the first theory, but I can't imagine the second theory playing out. The right still loves Trump for the most part.

[allegro]

The theory is that Trump’s children will be facing indictment and Trump will step down, OR the fact that Trump’s net worth has been consistently sliding since he took office and he is just plain old unhappy being President and misses his privacy and the business world and not being under the criminal microscope all the time.

It’s possible that Congress will pass a law (between now and the next Presidential election) that all Presidential nominees must release their tax returns (specifying the form), and in that case he’d also face having to do that to get elected.

He could surprise everyone and step down as (in his mind, anyway) a “winner” before any more shit hits the fan. He STILL has not kept many of his campaign promises (get rid of Obamacare, overturn Roe v Wade) and that Wall will take DECADES to build and his IDIOT followers want it built by 2020.

Conservatives do NOT love Trump. The GOP doesn’t love Trump.

Trump has commandeered the GOP, just like the Tea Party did, and now anyone who ISN’T a Trump devotee with his same pseudo Libertarian ideals is labeled a RINO.

His followers are on Twitter calling pretty much all Republicans except Trump RINOs.

(Republican In Name Only)

There are also a few other predictions:

April, first tax returns under this new tax plan. Many should have changed their withholding but didn’t. The IRS didn’t really do an aggressive campaign to inform people. The standard deduction will increase, but there are no longer any exemptions. If you’ve been claiming 5 kids ...

Economists are also still predicting that things are going to get REALLY rough by 2020.

Many of you may recall that SEPTEMBER before the 2008 election, with AIG.

[allegro]

Ugh, God, watching his press statement right now, Trump taking credit FOR GAS PRICES.

He is such a fucking liar, he spews lies CONSTANTLY, and the fact that his sycophants believe him is beyond pathetic.

I was sitting on my couch last night, alone, Christmas tree and candles lit, listening to Frank Sinatra’s Christmas album, wondering why it had been so hard for me to get “into” Christmas this year.

AND THEN IT HIT ME:

FUCKING TRUMP.

TRUMP RUINED CHRISTMAS.

That rat bastard.

I hope a popular Republican runs in 2020 as an Independent and splits the GOP vote.

[Mantra]

AND THEN IT HIT ME:

FUCKING TRUMP.

TRUMP RUINED CHRISTMAS.

That rat bastard.

LOL

I made a concerted effort to avoid all Trump stuff for a few days during Christmas, which essentially meant that I had to avoid the internet as a whole given that Trump is fucking everywhere online. He's like some malignant political tumor that's infected our entire society. It was nice not having to think about him so directly for a few days, but always in the back of my mind there's this thought of "Who knows what sort of nightmares could be happening while I'm tuned out."

[M1ke]

LOL

I made a concerted effort to avoid all Trump stuff for a few days during Christmas, which essentially meant that I had to avoid the internet as a whole given that Trump is fucking everywhere online. He's like some malignant political tumor that's infected our entire society. It was nice not having to think about him so directly for a few days, but always in the back of my mind there's this thought of "Who knows what sort of nightmares could be happening while I'm tuned out."

He's addictive, in a way, even though he's so horrible.

He's been in office for 2 years, and he hasn't blown the whole world up yet.

I mean, he's fucking up, but if we tune out, it's not going to change anything, besides to make us a bit happier for a little while. Because seriously, what the fuck are we going to do about anything Trump is going to do? He might blow the whole world sky high, but honestly, there is nothing we could do to stop that, even if we knew about it.

It might be best to stop paying attention. Might even be healthier even.

[allegro]

A whole bunch of our friends are critical Government employees (Air Traffic Controllers) who have to work without pay. Sunday starts their new pay period and they’re paid two weeks in arrears, so this coming Tuesday they will get zero pay and they’re still working.

People have bills, mortgages, tuitions, day care, they are afraid about how long this will last. It especially sucks when you’re working overtime with no pay.

Some of them had to cancel their vacation between Christmas and New Year’s, too, per management.

A ton of inspectors and aviation support have been furloughed.

If you don’t HAVE to fly right now, DON’T.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.b9084e2cc4ac

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0407e908b059c

Many are speculating that what Trump is doing right now isn’t about a “Wall,” at all.

https://twitter.com/michellemms/stat...543021056?s=21

This shutdown is
-- A Way To Try & Abolish The Civil Service Part Of Government.
--To Privatize A Number Of Government Agencies Under The Guise Of National Security.
--To Take The Economic Control Away From The Legislative Branch Is Being Spoken About As Treason By Some Of The GOP

[Jinsai]

Many are speculating that what Trump is doing right now isn’t about a “Wall,” at all.

https://twitter.com/michellemms/stat...543021056?s=21

Trump is a puppet, and he's been used by libertarian influence groups since before he declared his intentions to run for president. I can't say with certainty, but I sure as hell suspect that for Trump, there is no long con or deeper strategy here. He wants the wall. Whether that's the end goal of the people pulling his strings is something else entirely.

So much of Trump's agenda was laid out by Bannon... and while he's an evil bastard, he's definitely a smart guy and a great strategist... so in that amount at least, Bannon knew/knows the Wall isn't going to achieve anything ultimately other than send a message that at best is isolationist, at worst flagrantly xenophobic, and ultimately sets the groundwork for an isolationist privatized agenda...

I think all Trump wants is to hear people chanting his name.

[Star]

Can they apply for an unemployment benefits since they are not getting paid? Or just the furloughed workers can do that?

[allegro]

Can they apply for an unemployment benefits since they are not getting paid? Or just the furloughed workers can do that?

None of them can do that. They MAY eventually get back pay. Eventually. But the people who could verify their employment etc. for Federal unemployment? Not currently WORKING.

[allegro]

My FAVORITE Tweet right now:

“We have a Republican president talking about martial law to seize private property for use best deemed by state. And he’s a conservative?”

- @stuartpstevens

[Star]

None of them can do that. They MAY eventually get back pay. Eventually. But the people who could verify their employment etc. for Federal unemployment? Not currently WORKING.

So, if they are furloughed they can collect unemployment but if they are working with no pay they cannot, is that what you are saying? And people who are working will get back pay when the shutdown ends but the furloughed will not because they were not working. That is my understanding.

[allegro]

So, if they are furloughed they can collect unemployment but if they are working with no pay they cannot, is that what you are saying? And people who are working will get back pay when the shutdown ends but the furloughed will not because they were not working. That is my understanding.

Currently, furloughed employees are applying for unemployment benefits and each state is different as to how that works. See this: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/gover...-the-shutdown/

Policies vary based on individual states, but most states won’t allow unemployment beneficiaries to simply cancel their claims if the shutdown ends and their claim was uphold and benefits were issued.

Whenever the partial government shutdown ends, federal employees will be required to repay unemployment benefits they received whenever they get back pay for the time spent during the lapse in appropriations.

This scenario is highly likely. Congress has, in fact, passed legislation that grants employees retroactive pay for the time they spent on furlough during past government shutdowns, and lawmakers will likely clear similar legislation again. The Senate has already passed such legislation for this current partial shutdown, but the House has yet to act.

“The state [unemployment insurance] agency determines whether or not an overpayment exists and, generally, the recovery of the overpayment is a matter for state action under its law,” OPM guidance reads. “However, some state UI laws require the employer to recover such overpayment.”

If they are working without pay, NO, they cannot apply for unemployment, because they are not furloughed. They are working and will eventually get paid. It’s like working for an IOU.

[Mantra]

He's addictive, in a way, even though he's so horrible.

He's been in office for 2 years, and he hasn't blown the whole world up yet.

I mean, he's fucking up, but if we tune out, it's not going to change anything, besides to make us a bit happier for a little while. Because seriously, what the fuck are we going to do about anything Trump is going to do? He might blow the whole world sky high, but honestly, there is nothing we could do to stop that, even if we knew about it.

It might be best to stop paying attention. Might even be healthier even.

Yeah, part of me strongly relates to what you're saying, especially because I want to do more things in life than just work and follow politics. But ultimately I don't think I could really bring myself to stop paying attention. It's one thing to intentionally focus on something else during the holidays so that I can enjoy time with my family or whatever. But I could never just tune out completely. I guess I feel like there's something kind of strange about the idea of living in a country and not being aware of what's going on. It just seems kind of normal to follow what's happening. Obviously we can't always "do" anything about it in some direct sense, but still, I think there's a cumulative benefit to regularly following politics over time.

That said, I do think there are people who just consume the news in a mindless sort of way that isn't particularly beneficial, like people who just zone out on Fox News or CNN in the same way that someone else might get their fix from TMZ or reality television. I feel like we need a mix of following higher caliber news sources, studying history, reading political theory, etc. If you steadily do that for years, I think it sharpens your understanding of politics and shapes you into a more ideological person. People who are not consciously ideological are, in my opinion, easily swayed by bullshit. They get yanked around in this or that direction because their political thinking is based on nothing but their vibes and their fuzzy notions of "common sense." You need to have an anchor, a strong sense of how things work and what you believe in, and I just don't see how you can develop that without observing and studying things on a somewhat regular basis.

That said, I guess it comes down to a question of balancing things in your life. That's the trick I haven't mastered. I constantly feel like I don't have enough time for all the things I care about.

[elevenism]

Howard Dean was the early front runner in 2003. John Edwards was the early front runner in 2007. It's too early for takes like this.

Good GOD, I loved Edwards, and he wound up being a terrible bastard.

ANYWAY, while you're right about my putting forth a candidate being too early, I still stand by the rest of it.

Without someone youngish and exciting, I don't think we have a chance.

[Sarah K]

Idk where this goes, but RBG is missing oral arguments for the first time ever today.

This makes me sad and scared.

[ltrandazzo]

Idk where this goes, but RBG is missing oral arguments for the first time ever today.

This makes me sad and scared.

I'd say Trump thread. This thread is more for way-too-early speculation about 2020.

[Sarah K]

I keep reading speculation that de Blasio is considering a run. I did not think much of it, because I thought jumping from mayor to president is too much, but then I remember where we are. And then he announced a plan to cover every person in NYC with insurance, regardless of immigration status, and then the next day announced a plan for every NYC employee to be entitled to two weeks of paid leave. So maybe he is considering at least running this term just to get his name out there more before seriously running in the next one?

[ltrandazzo]

Mayor Bill De Bear does not excite me at all and given his overall track record and pointless pissing contests with Cuomo, he makes me think he doesn't do well with accepting responsibility for many things.

[bobbie solo]

I love his policies and his spirit but the dude is not meant for nat'l office. Keeo fighting for strong progressivre ideas here at home. His track record there has been pretty good so far.

[ltrandazzo]

Tulsi Gabbard, congresswoman from Hawaii, is running for President in 2020.

Tulsi was Vice Chair of the DNC who resigned so she could support Bernie in the 2016 primary. However, this has masked how anti-Progressive she really is.

Below is an important Twitter thread with links on each claim about how Tulsi would be a horrible choice for Democrats to nominate. I actually forgot about her and have now added her to my list of candidates who shouldn't run (the other two are Hillary and Bernie) -

[allegro]

This clip plus the thread made my Sunday morning great:

[Demogorgon]

Julian Castro is entering the race for 2020 now. Is the strategy now "throw as many bodies at Trump as we possibly can until somebody makes it happen"?

[allegro]

Julian Castro is entering the race for 2020 now. Is the strategy now "throw as many bodies at Trump as we possibly can until somebody makes it happen"?

I like him. His (and Joaquin's) mom is a pretty famous activist. Also, he's vowed to not accept any PAC money.

[Demogorgon]

For clarity, i really don't know much about him, so i can't really comment on whether it's a good idea he run or not. I'm just wondering how in the world the DNC is going to narrow the field to a single worthwhile candidate when there are so many hats being thrown in and potentially dividing the voting base even further.

[allegro]

For clarity, i really don't know much about him, so i can't really comment on whether it's a good idea he run or not. I'm just wondering how in the world the DNC is going to narrow the field to a single worthwhile candidate when there are so many hats being thrown in and potentially dividing the voting base even further.

The Iowa caucuses will narrow the field, then the primary process will narrow it again.

Remember, there were SIXTEEN Republican candidates for President in 2016 in the primaries.

The field will narrow via debates, social media campaigns, TV ads, etc.