Why am I here, if not to annoy? A lot of modern Republican craziness gets boosted by a their willingness to violate procedural norms. It's nice to see the Democrats responding in kind.
Why am I here, if not to annoy?
That's similar to Fran Lebowitz's definition of life as that which annoys, but yours is more teleological.
I would be very annoyed if people drew parallels between fighting for gun regulations and Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham.
That was exactly what Samantha Bee did on her show except I guess it was more compare and contrast.
This is a pretty common tactic in Indian parliaments --- there's a whole phraseology about "storming the well of the house", "chanting slogans" and then the speaker of course has to adjourn the session.
My Facebook right now is 50% "Yeah! Go Democrats! So inspiring!" and 50% demoralized people saying that the cause that has inspired Democrats to violate procedural norms for the sake of a publicity stunt manages to not include any of the many, many gun regulations that might help reduce gun violence. I think I know which candidate each of those halves voted for in the primary.
I think having John Lewis leading it gives so much credibility that it's a basically can't-lose proposition. It's helpful that the movie and recent anniversary raised his profile a bit, but the bottom line is that there's probably no American alive with more credibility on democratic legitimacy, and so when eg Paul Ryan tries to suggest that Lewis is out of line, nobody in good faith takes Ryan the least bit seriously. It'd be like someone trying to say that Judy Dench disrespected the Oscars if she gave a political speech--the Oscars are honored by her presence, not vice-versa.
If I win an Oscar, I'm going to do the traditional thing for Nebraskans who aren't Henry Fonda and send Sacheen Littlefeather to tell the Academy to go fuck itself.
5: They're both right! If you're going to control guns, control some fucking guns. Are they worried the NRA will support they're opponents?
I'm actually not sure what all is contained in the proposed legislation--everyone talks about the no-fly list thing, but I understand there's actually a number of other provisions--but in general the point is to make it as clear as possible that there is literally nothing that Republicans are willing to do on the issue, no matter how small, how common-sensical*, or how in keeping with their larger claims about terrorism and "keeping America safe."
IOW, a broad-ranging set of restrictions on guns would do nothing but (maybe) motivate the base in a situation where the lines are drawn really clearly. But this appeals to some actual people in the mushy middle, and it provides a campaign/debate line for years to come: "My opponent says he's tough on terror, but he wouldn't even vote to keep ISIS from buying assault weapons on American soil." And that message will resonate mostly because this incident is so unprecedented that people will, at least vaguely, remember it for awhile.
*I know civil libertarians hate the idea, and they're basically right, but I don't care, and neither does anyone who might be swayed by this
5: my feed is about 50% liberals applauding this protest against due process and the Constitution, and 10% anarchists grumbling.
I kind of wish the Senate Democrats would protest over the Supreme Court nomination.
9.1 is exactly right: of course this is a publicity stunt. And it's a good one. And that's good, because Republicans have been getting away with all kinds of nonsense for decades and the more loud noise and bright lights pointed at that fact the better.
The only thing I'd like to see more of is an emphasis on the fact that it's not even that the Republicans won't vote to keep known ISIS agents from buying assault rifles in the US, it's that they won't even allow a vote on that issue. They're doing that, but so far the press is kind of muddled about the whole thing and isn't bothering to make it clear enough for my tastes.
most of my FB is A-OK with it. the Sanders-ish contingent is unhappy about the theater.
I'm happy about the theater and pissed that it's all about the perfectly-known-to-be-terrorists list.
Many people are taking this whole scene too literally. Don't look at the finger, look at where the finger is pointing.
This isn't about holding a vote to get bills (some of them bad) voted down. This is about getting people booted out of Congress in November.
It's about having different people voting when better gun bills come up next year.
1, 2: The sub-question that has long worked for me is "Why did I have kids if not to embarass them?"
My son is soon to have his first child so it will be interesting to see if the sins of the father repeat themselves in the son, in other words, whether he will pay this forward.
About the OP, yay Democrats, yay theatre, and esp. yay John Lewis (both the first one in 20th C. US history and the 2nd one, in about equal measure).
15 is right.
Of course this is all rhetoric and theater. It's activism. Activism is theater.
The point isn't and has never been to allow the executive branch to pick out individuals at will and make it illegal for them to buy guns*. The whole point is to put the Republicans between a rock and a hard place, under the biggest most glaring spotlight that they can find. "(x) didn't just make sure that terrorists would to be able to buy assault rifles legally - he wouldn't even let there be a vote on it!"
*Think how hilarious this would be, though. Imagine the level of freakout that would result if Obama casually (but very very reasonably) put the Oathkeepers on the watch list.
6, 9.1 and 15 get it right. It's legit because it's John Lewis leading the protests, which makes it untouchable as a protest. Don't like it or feel it's imperfectly messaged? It's designed not as base-riling but as an indication that Republicans won't allow votes towards extremely moderate ends. It doesn't work with anyone other than Lewis leading it, for a bunch of reasons.
But I mean... it's not even "extremely moderate ends". It's not even the first step toward something good. The legislation actually being proposed, which could have been ANYTHING if the goal is not to pass it, is legislation that would make some things somewhat worse and no things better. Why do that?
Because it's an emotionally effective way of convincing some marginally persuadable people that Republicans are nutjobs on guns and that this is a reason not to vote for them.
The goal was not to not pass legislation. It's just that if it is impossible to pass anything, you draft on what makes the best campaign ads.
So here's what I would love to happen, because this would be both good and hilarious:
1) The Dems manage to strong-arm enough swing-state Republicans into voting for this for fear that they'll be seen as "soft on terror".
2) The bill passes both houses.
3) Obama, citing concerns about the constitutionality of rescinding a constitutional right without due process, vetoes the bill and asks congress to send him something that doesn't rely on unconstitutional watch-lists.
I think it would be a real spectacle to behold when Fox, Breitbart, and all of those right-wing outlets that have been warning that Obama is gonna take all the guns and impose martial law are forced to explain how on earth it was that Obama actually did have the opportunity to take some guns and didn't do it because he cares about the constitution.
The Democrats can't strong arm Republican House leadership into allowing a vote because House leaders really don't want any chance of that kind of thing happening.
I really, really don't understand how people who supported Sanders in good faith are now incapable of understanding 20 & 21. And by "don't understand" I mean "can barely contain my sneering contempt towards". "We need a revolution right now because the whole system is corrupt and it doesn't matter if our plans are practical because they're on the side of Righteousness, but public activism for an imperfect law that could never pass is literally the grossest thing ever."
It's almost as if their goal is to prove that, yes, their highest political value is preening purity.
25: It would, but it assumes an Obama with pretty different positions on [Muslim/Arab] civil liberties, no?
24: I think you're really reaching for a reason to whine about Sanders supporters. I mean, is there some reason that Democrats should actually prefer a bad bill to a good one?
OK, it arguably better highlights the absurdity of the situation. It also increases the total absurdity, as measured in millitrumps, and makes them partially responsible for it, so on balance I definitely wouldn't call a bad bill good, but if theater is the only goal, fair enough, a bad bill furthers it.
But wouldn't it be nice to get a good bill passed? Or at least voted on? They actually were pushing for a good bill in addition to the bad one (expanding background checks or something), I was happy to see that, and I'd be happy to see them push for even better bills than the background check bill. Hell, they should hold a sit-in until the House votes on repealing the 2nd Amendment. By including the no-fly list thing, they made themselves easier to ignore. I also wouldn't say I'm outraged by it, for the record, just annoyed.
Didn't Sanders join in this particular protest? The telling anti-Sanders thing for me (I haven't noticed any particular breakdown along primary lines re this protest) is that he had no role in organizing it, because he's not the kind of guy who can convince or particularly cares about convincing his colleagues to do anything, but is happy enough to publicize himself.
Sanders isn't even in the House. Why should he have anything to do with this beyond publicity?
And especially why would he have anything to do with organizing it?
(Also, ironically, you should have replaced "Sanders" there with "Clinton" because the answer to your question as asked would be "yes". Clinton hasn't, though.)
Why should it be an action limited to the House?
The House met with and got support from the Senate leadership first. But it's really just symbolic of his failure to lead his colleagues on literally anything, not so much that he particularly needed to take the lead on this one.
The House is taking this particular action because there was no vote and no possibility of a vote. The Senate had a vote, or a series of votes, because of a threatened filibuster.
32 seems like special pleading. You could argue since he's traditionally been more opposed to gun control than the average Democrat, he needed to make his position more clear.
But mostly I don't see what this has to do with Sanders.
32: Sanders has acknowledged that he probably isn't going to win the nomination. There's no need to pile on.
I'm still not seeing how this could be symbolism of anything, especially given that he did do that thing you were trying to criticize him for not doing.
At this point you're just pointing at random political events that aren't completely in every way attributable to Sanders and saying "SEE THIS PROVES HE'S A PHONY" as if somehow people will intuit a connection that isn't just "Tigre thinks Sanders is a phony and also read the newspaper."
Well, if he was really committed he would be delivering his finger lickin' good chicken.
35 last is right, it doesn't have much of anything to do with Sanders. But since people here were for whatever reason using this to give pro or anti-Sanders takes, the publicity+failure of actual leadership seems like the most emblematic Sanders take to me.
28, 32:
Oh FFS give it a rest already.
Oh my god, he's trying to use this as an attack on Bernie Sanders. Somehow none of us expected it but it now seems inevitable.
I didn't start this issue! As I just fucking explained in 39, dumbass.
For someone who didn't start it you did a surprisingly good job of being the first person to talk about him.
I started it, you dumbasses. Is it that hard to keep track over a whopping 42 comments?
And, to be clear, I didn't say anything about Sanders himself, I was insulting his stupid fucking supporters on my FB feed. The ones who know SO much more about democracy, activism, legislation, politics, and civil rights than John Fucking "Greatest Living American" Lewis.
you did a surprisingly good job of being the first person to talk about him.
Ha! I beat him to it in the AA thread. Suck it R Tigre!
YOU STARTED IT. YOU INVADED POLAND.
44.1: "I started (x)!"
44.2: "But I didn't say anything about (x)."
From Brentin Mock, elsewhere:
Yes, the bill that Dems are staging a sit-in over is imperfect-- in fact, it's damned-wrong offensive, with huge implications for expanding racial profiling and diminishing the civil rights/liberties of people of color, most particularly Muslims. But focusing on that one draft of legislation misses the point. The Dems are taking a stand against the NRA and letting the American public know that they're not going to let the gun control issue whither away, per business as usual. Importantly, the NRA needs to see and hear that the Dems are not gonna let this issue die away. The Dems are also looking to force a vote--yes, on a miserable bill--to get Republicans on the record saying they will allow gun sales to the same people who they won't allow on the plane. It doesn't have to be an endorsement of the no-fly list, but it does expose the hypocrisy of conservatives on national security issues. This bill most likely will not pass, but in the unique event it would, it would at least get draft legislation on the books that would possibly open a path to more meaningful gun legislation later, which would be a nightmare for NRA. Feel free to disagree with the legislation, but please understand that what the Dems are doing is not for nothing. If nothing else, trust that John Lewis understands these tactics more than anyone, and wouldn't be leading a meaningless strategy.
I started it, you dumbasses. Is it that hard to keep track over a whopping 42 comments?
And, to be clear, I didn't say anything about Sanders himself,
OK, in that case I started it in #5.
47: Well I raised the general topic of Sanders (which is what people were accusing Tigre of), but I didn't say anything about his actions/motivations. Point being, but for my 24, Bernie probably doesn't even come up. However, my ire is entirely at supporters of his who are being IMO morons about this particular issue in a way that completely undercuts the non-solipsistic claims about supporting him.
You know all of that "For every mistake in the last 30 years, there's video of Bernie opposing it" stuff? For Lewis, that's actually true, over more years, and with substantive legislation attached, not just speeches. But suddenly these schmucks know better than Lewis. F them.
45: AA thread?
OT: I think maybe this list is not exhaustive.
Before spewing a torrent of expletives, can I suggest that citing one's stupid fucking Sanders supporters on fb is intellectually lazy and counterproductive, and that dropping the sneering condescension is more likely to yield a favorable outcome in the general?
Of course the due process implications of the proposed legislation suck, but given that the purported right being denied to people on the watch list rests on a bullshit interpretation of the Second Amendment, I'm thinking that John Lewis has this figured out better than I do. Faced with civil rights conundrums, WWJLD? seems a good question to ask.
I'm pretty sure that 100% of the outrage over this bill/dissatisfaction with the sit-in on my feed comes from Sanders supporters; I also know that everyone who's shared the BMock thing quoted in 48 was a Hilary supporter (smaller n).
I mean, in general I would expect sensitivity to civil liberties to be high among Sanders supporters, but the level of "OMG, this piece of political theater is insufficiently pure for me" is way more than I can take.
Well I raised the general topic of Sanders (which is what people were accusing Tigre of)
There was a big difference to me about talking about political coalitions (which are relevant to the thread) and taking a cheap shot at Bernie Sanders's personal integrity in a thread that has nothing to do with Bernie's personal integrity. That's why I called out Tigre instead of you.
However, my ire is entirely at supporters of his who are being IMO morons about this particular issue in a way that completely undercuts the non-solipsistic claims about supporting him.
This I somewhat agree with. I think these people are being generally near-sighted about the bill. The point of the bill is pretty clearly to damage the credibility of the Republican party at a time when they're particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing by proposing a basically reactionary piece of legislation that you'd expect them to vote for given all of their fear-mongering about terrorism and Muslims, and then showing that their loyalties to the gun lobby are stronger than any actual commitments to their principles. It is particularly important to do this at a time when Democrats are potentially vulnerable to BS lines about being "soft on terror". Basically, this should nail the coffin shut on any remaining suspicions that the Republican talk about getting tough on terror is anything but talk. The terror-mongering was all they had left for 2016, and I think that this is going to cut that out from under them. So that's good.
My only defense of the people raising big fusses about the civil liberties implications of the bill is that it's always good to have people around raising big fusses about civil liberties even when they're missing the point. So they're wrong, but I am glad that they're around, especially because I don't think they're really hurting anything in any credible way.
taking a cheap shot at Bernie Sanders's personal integrity in a thread that has nothing to do with Bernie's personal integrity
Oh my stars. I am so, so sorry.
Out of respect for the very sensible 53.2, I'll hold my tongue on 53.1.
At least on mine it's roughly 50/50, and plausibly more on the Clinton than Sanders side. It's mostly just a combination of "Hey guys let's take this moment to remember that the terrorist watch list is a bunch of creepy questionably constitutional stuff" and "oh good the Democrats finally decide to really, genuinely fight hard for something and it's an awful bill." I think they're mostly too invested in policy-talk to see the actual point of what Lewis/etc. are doing, though, not yelling about idealism and purity or whatever.
I basically agree with 55.last, and I was fine with the pre-sit-in discussion that said, "Hold on, guys, this is actually a bad civil liberties deal*", but since the sit-in began, it's been clearly much more important to these people to, as I say, preen about civil liberties, as if that was the only relevant part of this.
*I still thought it was annoying and tone-deaf (because, again, the law was never going to pass, it was always about making a point, not making a law), but it was certainly worth pointing out the flaws
Since we're fb-sourcing, I should add that my feed is full of Sanders supporters, mostly classmates from Vermont who have followed the guy's career for years, and I have yet to see a post from any of them deprecating the sit-in.
Well I raised the general topic of Sanders (which is what people were accusing Tigre of), but I didn't say anything about his actions/motivations.
You really need to stop arguing with the voices in your head. Anybody in this thread who took issue with Tigre specifically did so in the context of his remarks on Sanders' actions/motivations.
To say that you brought up Sanders' actions/motivations first, except for the fact that you never did that, is every bit as incoherent has MHPH makes it out to be in 47.
And, as C Ned points out, he was the first one to not bring up Tigre's topic. So you manage to be wrong there, too.
I'm impressed with the way you have picked up on the Tigre technique of combining nonsense with insult:
I started it, you dumbasses. Is it that hard to keep track over a whopping 42 comments?
That's a breathtaking bit of irony, too - criticizing other people for lack of close attention to a small number of comments.
So, are we in the bitter lashing out stage of "I am someone who thinks he's smart about politics but was taken in by a fraud" stage, or is something else deeper going on with 61?
I don't see how someone can say that there are legitimate concerns about civil liberties and it's right to bring them up, and then complain that the people bringing them up are "preening" about being "insufficiently pure". The people who care about civil liberties are the people who care about civil liberties. They are not influential - we can tell because the great strategists who thought up the sit-in campaign didn't care about offending them. If they have concerns about civil liberties, they are going to express their concerns about civil liberties. You have successfully detected that the Democrats who care about civil liberties tend to be the ones who voted for Bernie Sanders. Don't act like they're making this up out of thin air because they hate the Congressional Black Caucus for supporting Hillary or something.
59
Do you think that they're materially hurting the cause, though? Because personally, I just don't see any way at all that they do.
I'm also hesitant to be too critical because the people on the left I've seen making the most noise about it are actual Muslims or people of Middle Eastern descent, who I think have every right to be concerned about the floating of the use of the no-fly list to restrict firearm purchases -- especially given the rise of Trumpism -- even in a bill that nobody seriously intends to pass. I just can't, as a white guy, bring myself to tell them that they're concern-trolls.
But anyway, I think it will all work out for the better. This is pretty clearly just an exercise in exposes Republicans as total hacks at a time when they're particularly vulnerable to it. Like Heebie said a couple of days ago, every poll shows Clinton up by considerable margins (even the ones included Johnson and Stein), and now that the Republicans are being exposed as total hacks on terrorism I think that gap is only going to widen. I feel pretty good about the future.
Addendum: I advocate sit-ins as non-violent civil disobedience, but I have to admit to fantasies of seeing John Lewis beat the living shit out of Paul Ryan.
64 gets it exactly right.
When you're carrying out a strategy to appeal to low-information voters, and it involves proposing legislation that makes no sense, people who obsess over politics are going to be unhappy. You cannot blame them for being unhappy.
My point originally was that they could just as easily be doing the same thing while proposing legislation that does make sense. But I'm probably wrong about that, not being a political strategist. Republicans in Congress have done literally nothing for 20 years but propose legislation that makes no sense in order to appeal to low-information voters, including actually doing various things that make no sense like the various fiscal cliffs and whatnot. Still, the number of political obsessives / wonks who have gotten disgusted by this and left the party is minuscule.
I actually agree with 63. I don't have any problem with people who really really hate the no-fly list list and think it's more important to prevent something that than to do something about gun control taking that position and being vocal about it. That's not a crazy position to have. I mean, I think it's completely wrong on the merits, but it's not a crazy position to have.
The actually-existing Democratic party, including President Obama and John Lewis, are basically fine with something like the no-fly list (subject, very very very critically IMO, to due-process procedures to challenge one's placement on it, but still). And they think (correctly) that it's a useful stick to beat the Republicans with on gun control and to achieve political success. If you are really really worked up about the no-fly list (however applied) and believe that this is more important than gun control or political victory in November, well, the mainstream Democratic party (including, apparently, Bernie Sanders) disagrees with you pretty strongly. But if that really is your view, doesn't seem to me that there's anything wrong with saying so.
That s/b for less confusion " I don't have any problem with people who really really hate the no-fly list list and think it's more important to attack the no-fly list than to do something about gun control taking that position and being vocal about it."
It doesn't have to be more important to be important.
My point originally was that they could just as easily be doing the same thing while proposing legislation that does make sense.
I'm not usually big on second or third order political strategy, but I think that the fact that the legislation doesn't make sense is kind of intended. This bill is something that, if you buy into the Republican Party's insane fear-mongering and calls for surveillance of and bans on Muslims, should be perfectly straightforward to pass. But deep down, the Republicans know that 1) the NRA will gut them if they vote for this and 2) the no-fly lists are bullshit and they're bullshit that their own party is largely responsible for and 3) that they have a philosophy of pure obstructionism and so they can't side with Dems on anything. The entire purpose of this bill is to propose a bill that is the logical endpoint of the Republicans' bullshit and showing that they *still won't vote for it* because deep down they don't give a flying fuck about terrorism or large-scale violence. The entire point is to be able to say, for the next five months, "the Republicans say X and won't vote for what X implies because they are almost entirely non-serious public servants not give a fuck about anything but their donors".
It's also crucial to do this *now* while the Trump campaign is in shambles and there's no one to unite the Republicans with any clear vision. So now they have to deal with this *and* Trump. Since this is so time-sensitive, it's completely understandable that it's basically a nonsense bill because nonsense bill is all that's required to show that a nonsense party is nonsense.
I'm totally confused about which faction of the Democratic Party is supposed to have which opinion on the sit-in. I thought Sanders supporters were supposed to be the idealistic, pro-spectacle, neutral-on-getting-stuff-done ones, and the Clinton supporters were supposed to be the pragmatic ones capable of working with Republicans.
Also, this seems like one of the more pointlessly venomous arguments I've seen lately. /feedthetrolls
ISTM there's a bit of wishful thinking in the idea that the Democrats in their heart of hearts hate the no-fly list and are only using it as a cudgel to beat the Republicans. I mean, Democratic politicians absolutely are using it as a cudgel to beat the Republicans, and it's a skillful move. But most Democrats are basically fine with the no-fly list and with, on the merits, preventing people on such a list from purchasing guns. There's broad (Dem) support for giving people some procedural mechanism to challenge placement on the list -- this is really important! -- but with that caveat the list itself is widely supported. It's not like the House members are lying on the merits about their policy desires.
That's the beauty of it. You can make a case for a no-fly list (or at least I think you can if there are reasonable protections added) and you can make a reasonable case for the no-fly list being bullshit. But there is no way to make a reasonable case for having a list of people too dangerous to be let on a plane but not too dangerous to be allowed to buy guns.
71.last brings up something interesting. One of the biggest advantages the Republican party has had my entire life is that, being composed mostly of authoritarians, they tend to speak with one voice (on whatever nonsense they're saying at this second). And that makes it relatively easy to control the conversation, even if they didn't have their own entire media network there to boost their claims. And the Democrats tend to have trouble coordinating what they're doing or saying.
But at least for now Trump has thrown their coalition into chaos as mass numbers of them are jumping ship to the real strongman and abandoning the normal party elites, and a lot of those elites are stuck trying to figure out which poison to drink. It wouldn't be that hard to get out of this trap* if they could have responded quickly and in unison - but they're all so discombobulated right now that as far as I can tell they just plain didn't.
*See my earlier thing about the FBI: it's not hard to imagine a way to oppose the no-fly list while supporting/proposing the creation of a different no-fly list that isn't something the President could screw around with (until there was a Republican one and they changed the law back and/or started ignoring it). "We don't want to give Obama the power to TAKE AWAY THE GUNS OF GOOD GOD FEARING PATRIOTS LIKE WE KNOW HE WANTS TO." is sitting right there waiting for them to pick it up, and yet...
74
Probably the best thing about this is seeing Democrats compromise with each other towards a common goal. I'm sure that not every Dem participating in the filibuster is totally fine with the no-fly list, but what we are seeing is some coherent political strategy towards the aim of decimating the Republican party, probably amplified by the general understanding that this bill is unlikely to pass. It's the kind of organization that the Republicans had until recently, and it comes down to often arguing and bickering like hell over principles but recognizing and lining up for shared policy goals*. I hope to see more of this kind of thing in the future on more substantial matters, such as climate action and further health care reform.
*Not to open up this can of worms for the umpteenth time, but the Sanders v. Clinton struggle was something that I think we should be grateful that we have the electoral slack to engage in. Despite the constant concern, there's no evidence that it has or is going to hurt the party electorally -- at least not in 2016. Clinton is up by an average of 5 points over Trump in the RCP aggregator even when both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are included.
BUT FOR SANDERS'S CRAVEN INSISTENCE ON RUNNING AGAINST HER, SHE WOULD BE UP BY 50 POINTS, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!
I agree with all of 77. Also, this is absolutely an issue that Dems in Congressional races think they can win with. I was at a lunch for a guy yesterday running as a Dem in a (normal year) leans R but (this year) tossup R House seat. This guy's campaign thinks that no guns for people on the no fly list is HUGE for them and incredibly useful as a campaign talking point.
There is zero doubt in my mind that the current House sit-in is directly tied into electoral strategy for November for trying to win the House. It's based on polling the issue in tossup or lean-R districts that the party thinks they might have a chance at.
Can't sign on to the joke in 78 though. You want to win the House? You absolutely fucking better hope that she's up by 50 points.
Weak Trump isn't the time to sit around and congratulate ourselves for being lucky enough to have enough "slack" to be able to bear a primary with a grandstanding shitbird without throwing the Presidential election. It's time to push to get a victory that looked absolutely impossible 6 months ago and could actually have incredibly substantial consequences for policy.
I thought it was the time to demean our erstwhile allies and focus relentlessly on the narcissism of small differences. My mistake.
To be scrupulously fair, we can do both.
Clinton's victory looked absolutely impossible six months ago? I thought it was a given from the get-go. Fortunately, Sanders' challenge has strengthened both the party and her as a candidate.
No, I meant taking the House, which still looks very difficult but is no longer impossible. The second sentence isn't true but whatevs.
I think he means winning the congressional minority as well.
Six months ago, some of us were calmly telling you this victory is the expected outcome and that we would regret not going claiming even more territory while we could.
81:
First, I don't care if Sanders is an egomaniacal grandstanding shitbird. I've always assumed that that's a hard prerequisite for becoming a politician. This is why extramarital affairs are common among politicians, I think; these people are largely driven by the attention and adoration of large numbers of people. This has been true of almost everyone I have personally known who has been a leader of an activist group. They've still done a lot of good for a lot of people.
Second, it's not just about slack. This is something we can afford to do and that we should do. I've heard from people working on the ground as organizers that down-ballot races are hiring up Sanders workers and volunteers like crazy as the offices close down -- especially by left-populists challenging Tea Party incumbents. Sanders has given these candidates a basically pre-made ideological framework to appeal to people in that I think is going to be pretty appealing to people who are waking up to the fact that they have been completely fucking swindled to by the Tea Party. When I made calls for the campaign in Texas I had multiple people in an afternoon tell me that they were lifelong Republicans but they were voting for Bernie in the primary because of 1) social security 2) medicare 3) corporate welfare 4) the banks, roughly in that order. A friend of mine who works with surveys has told me roughly the same thing.
Lastly, there are loads of neocons and moderate Republicans that I think would like to move into the Democratic Party because Trump is so embarrassing and the Tea Party has abandoned them: Lindsay Graham, John Kasich, etc. Whatever happens with this, I believe it is vital that there is a counterbalancing force pushing the electorate to the left, lest an appeal for balanced budgets look too appealing to mainstream Dems because it comes from a non-racist. Kasich, Graham, and Romney must not be allowed substantial say in the direction of the Democratic Party just because they abandoned a burning ship. A broad leftist base that presents even a very small threat of withholding votes is an important bulwark against a rightward expansion that makes the party lose sight of the things that that base wants it to stand for at a time when that rightward expansion looks more appealing than ever.
Anyway, everything is going to be ok.
85: Okay, but the second sentence is still true, and I'm trolling you, and hope that among the concessions Sanders extracts is that Vermont-made giant puppets are included in campaign events.
85:
But when you're saying that taking the house now looks possible, aren't you admitting that all of the things that you were angrily warning us that the Sanders campaign was making inevitable have not only not come to pass but that actually the opposite has happened? Why should we listen to your panic about the excesses of the left-of-Clinton constituencies now when the past year has only discredited it? You've been doom-saying about the Sanders camp for months now and there's nothing in the polls to suggest that any of it has come to pass.
If Sanders had done the decent thing and dropped out back in May, we'd have solved global warming by now. That bastard.
Even just pragmatically, think about how many more people have gotten training running a campaign, going door-to-door, passing out fliers, organizing online and IRL, and registering voters (and how many more registered voters there are) than would have if Clinton had just been running against Martin O'Milquetoast mumbling about climate change business opportunities and balanced budgets. This is is going to be paying dividends in down-ballot races (where people are already getting repurposed from the Sanders campaign to local Democratic politics) and for years down the road as people who would not have considered careers in Democratic politics go on to make careers in Democratic politics.
90, It may seem like the enthusiasm of new voters and new issues being prioritized for the first time has made Democratic victories more likely, but that would be to give credit to Bernie Sanders, who is unique among politicians in the depths of his preening egomaniacal charlatanism. Clearly what has actually happened is the world's eyes have been opened to Hillary Clinton's unparallelled genius for campaigning and charisma, which would have happened even more so if she was unopposed in the primary.
For the fortieth time, the bill does not just prevent people on the "no fly" list from purchasing guns. It prevents anyone on the FBI terrorist watch list from buying guns. That is a broader list and contains many domestic right wing groups. THAT is why the Republicans could never, ever allow this bill to pass.
94:
Oh god that makes it even more delicious. "You see, uh... the reason we couldn't vote for that bill is that many of my wonderful constituents are, uhhh... how do I put this..."
I agree that there's not much evidence that Sanders has been a significant drag (though there is some, and we are lucky that he wasn't) But there's zero evidence that he's helped a fucking thing, though if that's what you have to tell yourself to go to sleep at night after being duped by a fraud, go for it. The reasons a big D win looks possible in Congress is that the Republicans nominated a historically bad candidate who opens up a chance for pulling in a bunch of otherwise fairly safe R areas.
I signed up for my absentee ballot today even though I don't yet know my address for the fall. But apparently now they'll email you the ballot, although you can't actual file it electronically, you print it out and send it back.
Wherever would downballot Democrats have found campaign staffers if not for the magical genie that was Bernie Sanders? How else would people ever have worked for them? How would young people ever have registered to vote? The Democratic party didn't even have anyone doing any of that before Bernie! And now his close attention to non-Debbie Wasserman Schultz downballot races and long history as someone who can effectively build a broad-based party organization will be key to victory in November. Thank you Bernie!
Just because an objection is valid doesn't mean it must be raised all the time every time.
The people who care about civil liberties are the people who care about civil liberties.
I'm not talking about Radley Balko, I'm talking about people who, a week ago, were utterly anguished about the gun control situation in America. But now that's a complete non-issue, because Democrats are doing something politically effective that vaguely advances something that will never happen that's bad on civil liberties. And it's very couched in contempt for Democrats--that's the preening.
96:
So training a bunch of political volunteers, plugging down-ballot races, and registering voters don't count?
And yes, the Republicans nominated a historically awful candidate, just like it was clear they were going to before Bernie made it a race (Cruz was the only one that stood a chance otherwise and he wasn't better) just like I've been telling you they were going to for a while which is why it was clear the Sanders campaign was a risk we could take as a party. You've gotten basically the whole campaign wrong and resorted to personal insults followed by ever more couch-fainting whenever anyone points this out. I get you're paranoid about their chances and all but this is insane coming from someone who is as smart as you.
24.2 - do you mean millitrumps or kilotrumps?
102: "24.2" s/b "27.2"
as in
27.2 - do you mean millitrumps or kilotrumps?
98 is just absurd strawmanning. I didn't argue that they had none, I said that they have more volunteers, more staff, more attention on local races, and more registered voters than they otherwise would. And registering people on college campuses is absolutely vital and you have to be completely detached from reality to believe that college students will go register themselves, especially given how often people whine about young voters not showing up to vote. The biggest reason among people I knew was that they just didn't know what they had to do to register in time because no one showed them.
What the fuck are you talking about? No, I don't think the Sanders campaign matters much if at all in terms of voter registration or political professionals. There's a huge infrastructure set up for that, and does it well. In many swing districts the key is registering Latinos, which Sanders had somewhere between zero and less than zero to do with. And I got the election right (on the Dem side). On the R side, any non-Trump would not be running into the problems that Trump now is, and we wouldn't have the chances that we now have, which is why I thought they wouldn't possibly nominate him. I was clearly wrong about that.
My take on Sanders all along has been that the risk wasn't close to being worth the reward. Once it was clear that Trump would be nominated, the "risk" side went down but the "reward" side, which started small, got progressively worse and then moved into affirmatively negative territory. I think people who voted for him after Super Tuesday or so should be ashamed, not so much for risking President Trump (though even now that's a nonzero risk) but for being dumb enough to vote for such an obvious charlatan.
Do you think that they're materially hurting the cause, though? Because personally, I just don't see any way at all that they do.
Materially, who knows? I mean, arguably not a single bit of this* matters, but 95% of gut reaction to the first reports of the sit-in by anyone who favors gun control was Fuck Yeah! And then 20% of the left dedicates itself to saying, "No, this is actually a terrible thing being done by incompetent, civil liberty-hating Democrats," and convinces some other chunk of people that they shouldn't have been enthusiastic. That doesn't strike me as a good thing, even if it's true that, if this exact law passed exactly as currently phrased (which, again, it can't and won't), it would be a net loss.
I think we can all identify the ways in which the sit-in benefitted both Dems and gun control, right? Like, we agree those exist? But all of those depend on message/imagery, not concrete, immediate gains. No law will be passed, no guns will be confiscated, Ryan will make no (immediate) concessions, no Republicans will jump ship, etc. So the only way that good things come out of the sit-in is if the gun control side treats the event as a win and as an opportunity to harm Republicans electorally. So I don't see how discouraging the gun control side from seeing/treating it as a victory helps. It makes it less likely that legislation that will never, ever pass will be bad?
I mean, it's not as if more Dems in Congress generally is bad for civil liberties. It comes down to which parts you say loud and quiet. Is it "Dems Rule, NRA Drools, but maybe be careful about civil liberties and due process," or is it "Stupid Dems Hate Civil Liberties"?
*this being online discussion of politics, in any and all fora, not the sit-in etc.
106:
It comes down to which parts you say loud and quiet. Is it "Dems Rule, NRA Drools, but maybe be careful about civil liberties and due process," or is it "Stupid Dems Hate Civil Liberties"?
I am in full agreement here. I think things are being said at reasonably appropriate volumes, though, at least from what I'm seeing. Do you?
107: WILL YOU PEOPLES STOP YELLING? I'M TRYING TO SLEEP IN HERE!!!!!!!
Anyhow, here's the short term electoral work that needs to be done. You need to flip net 30 seats, which requires holding all the "likely" "lean" and "tossup" Democratic seats, taking all 17 of the "tossup" Republican seats, and almost all of the 11 "lean" Republican seats. Plus the Senate, where you need to win 6/7 of the "tossup" seats and lose zero. Goddamn difficult but not impossible. Pretty sure that the Sanders campaign has had zero positive effect on accomplishing that goal, though likely zero or not much negative effect, either. Regardless, that's what needs to be done, and the House sit in was part of doing that work.
And maybe taking Commander Zinke (he prefers being known by his military rank to his congressional title) from the Likely Rep column as well. Which only happens if Juneau wins nearly 70% of the vote here in Msla, which only happens with big turnout . . .
Yeah but at this point I think it's become pretty clear that you're 'pretty sure' largely as a result of really hating Bernie Sanders and concluding as a result of that that literally nothing he ever did could ever have had a positive outcome because that would mean he wasn't detestable enough to justify your emotions. Or at least that's the closest you've been able to come to any real argument here. I mean, people are pointing out literal, concrete ways that the contested primary was a good thing that helped out and your best response is "No it couldn't have because we hates him".
people are pointing out literal, concrete ways that the contested primary was a good thing that helped out
You mean bare assertions by Trivers unsupported by a shred of evidence, or something else? The guy isn't a party builder and hasn't built any party infrastructure. He backed a couple House candidates, mostly in safe seats or in primaries. He hasn't raised money for, or given money to, downballot candidates. He hasn't sought to mobilize his supporters for downballot candidates in any substantial way. That some people who worked for him went to work for another campaign is ... not evidence of anything, at all. There's no evidence that he bolstered registration over anything that it would have been. The money he got went to him and his campaign organization, and nowhere else, and he's spent most of it, and he's not out there raising more on anyone else's behalf.
God damn it. Only the first paragraph there should have been italicized.
And, meanwhile, the long delay in the race made it more difficult for coordinated campaigns to get running in a bunch of states, because state parties didn't want to move before knowing who the Presidential candidate was. The state parties are making that up now, but they can't make up for the lost time.
My state Democratic Party just had their convention and while Clinton's people could've sent more delegates the Sandernistas overwhelmed them. A bunch of inexperienced but enthusiastic youths moved the platform way to the left. Anecdote? Data? I report, you decide.
Truman was from the voyeurism state.
117 is correct, so two data points?
Great to see CA49 on the likely list, rather than as a lock. Wouldn't it be great to see that guy out. If your Sanders can do that, I'll take back everything I thought about him.
Certainly agree there. Maybe Sanders had pull among the under-30 marines at Camp Pendelton and will help vote out goddamn Issa. Though Clinton won that district by something like 12 points.
We had our platform convention 2 weeks ago, and it was really great fun. There was some Sanders action in one of the Plank Committees I was on -- International Relations -- but most of their proposals were so poorly thought out, or so poorly presented, that they really didn't get anywhere.
112 is full of falsehoods and you know this.
He has been soliciting campaign funds for down ballot races in his emails for weeks and I have told you this at least twice. You engage in reporting of what people you know have said multiple times and expect to be taken seriously for it. You ought to extend the same charity to others or abstain from it yourself.
Fuck you, you pathetic self righteous little prick. I said that he's endorsed some House people, mostly in primaries. What you don't have evidence of, because there's no evidence that exists, is that he's raised substantial money for, given substantial money to, done substantial work on behalf of, or built infrastructure for anyone in a close house or Senate race.
The candidates he's backed -- staring in April 2016!!! and not in a lifetime in the House and Senate! -- include Debbie Wasserman Schultz's opponent, who opposes the Iran arms deal and also favors abolishing the fed. Another favorite is Tulsi Gabbard, who is in a safe seat, and also has very very serious foreign policy and other issues. Then there is Marcy Kaptur, who is a good Congressperson but in a very safe seat. He hasn't given even these people any of his existing campaign funds. The other folks he backed were mostly Democratic candidates in primaries in safe seats, and most of these people lost. Zephyr Teachout is a good candidate in a close race, so it's nice that he's backed her, but he still hasn't done much for her that she hadn't done on his own.
Grow up and get some fucking evidence from something other than your own set of beliefs and email account.
Let's look up these people he's endorsed and solicited donations for, as per my email account. My emails contain explicit solicitations of donations for these people. To learn about the races, I'll grow up and look them up elsewhere.
There's Eric Kingson, running against a first-term Republican for a House seat in New York. The district went for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Verdict: competitive and challenging a Republican incumbent.
There's Paul Clements, a political scientist running for in the sixth district in Michigan against Fred Upton. He also ran against Upton in 2014 and lost by a large margin. Upton has been in congress for twenty years. The district went for Obama by a small margin in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Verdict: non-competitive, but challenging a Republican incumbent.
There's Raul Grijava, who is a sitting representative in Arizona's 7th congressional district. He has won handily every time he he has run in this district. Verdict: non-competitive, no challenge to Republican incumbent.
There's Zephyr Teachout who we agree is good and is running for a seat being vacated by a retiring Republican in New York's 19th congressional district. They voted for Obama in both Presidential elections. Verdict: competitive and challenge to (currently) Republican seat.
There's Lucy Flores, who was running in Nevada's 4th congressional district against Republican Cresent Hardy, a first term representative. The district went for Obama in 2012 and had a Democratic representative before Cresent Hardy. She lost in the primary (to someone who looks good). Verdict: neutral. She lost the primary, but he still brought attention to a competitive local race and drew attention to a young politician.
There's Russ Feingold, who is running for Senate in Wisconsin. He won his 2004 election by a large margin and lost in 2010 to current incumbent Russ Johnson 52-47. Wisconsin has voted for Democratic Presidents in every election at least as far back as 1996. Verdict: competitive and challenging a Republican incumbent.
There Pramila Jayapal, seeking to represent Washington's 7th congressional district as their incumbent Democrat retires. This district is about as blue as they come. Verdict: I want to give points for supporting a newcomer, but the district is so non-competitive that I can't bring myself to give points. Non-competitive.
There's Marcy Kaptur. While it can't hurt to get out the vote for Dems in Ohio, this seat is very, very safe. Non-competitive.
There's Rick Nolan, running for district 8 in Minnesota. He's been in office since 2012 and won re-election by just 4,000 votes. Verdict: Democratic incumbent but competitive seat.
There's Tulsi Gabbard, who is in a very blue district. Non-competitive incumbent.
Then finally there's Tim Canova, who is admittedly certifiably insane and running against a sitting Democrat who leaves much to be desired. Her district is, however, incredibly blue, so this doesn't hurt Dems so much and I don't see any other way to put pressure on DWS to do things like not sponsor SOPA and not support payday loan deregulation.
So four or five competitive races, four or five challenges to incumbents depending on whether or not you count Lucy Flores. I counted her race when I decided to give $25 to Ruben Kihuen, who bested her in her primary and looks like a promising politician in a competitive district - as well as $25 each to Feingold, Teachout, Kingson, and Nolan and $25 to the Texas Democratic Party for good measure and since Texas might be in play this year.
The Texas Democrats are going to need some help, given that their thank you email to me started like this:
Hi %%Firstname(Friend)%%,
Welcome, and thank you for being a Democrat.
We couldn't be more excited to have you fighting on our side as we gear up to elect the 45th President of the United States and Democrats up and down the ballot.
For shame, Texas Democratic Party web developers!
Thanks for looking that up. How much of his own money raised has he given to any of these people? The answer is zero or near zero. How much has his (minimal) fundraising effort provided for these campaigns? I don't have the numbers in front of me but the answer is almost certainly "not much." Other than sending out an email asking for people for help in 4 or 5 competitive races, the answer is zero. So there has been a minimal effort, starting in about April of this year, to help a few folks. All of whom who have won the nomination (and are in competitive seats) will be looking for their help from the DCCC and the coordinated campaigns and elsewhere. Some of that help (not all of it, but some) has been delayed by the long primary. And, of course, as you say only 5/11 are in even arguably competitive races. The one thing they all have in common is signaling personal support for Bernie Sanders.
Even on the most generous possible assumptions, the guy just hasn't done much to help anyone but himself. The notion that anything Sanders did or is doing, as opposed to what Trump is doing, is going to have any effect on Congress flipping. But, it got you to cough up some $$, so that's good.
Sanders, ever the narcissist, says *he'll* vote for Clinton. Maybe think about other people for a change, Bernie!
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284748-sanders-says-he-will-vote-for-clinton
As I've said over an over, the long, slow drop out of the race is, to my mind, pretty clearly the only way to talk some of the insane people down from the ledge or at least reveal them to be insane to the sane ones.
I'm seeing on FB a lot of people call Warren a corporate shill for endorsing HRC, which is just so stupid that it's hard to know how to begin. But fortunately, I'm seeing even more people demanding that these people come down from their perches atop Bull Shit Mountain.
Like I've said and will keep saying, we are all going to be ok.