I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Hence my suggestion the party needs new blood

There's a congressional seat in Georgia with your name on it. You may not win, but you'll have a good time and help strengthen the ticket.

If that's too ambitious, I think State Sen. Wonk or State Rep. Wonk has a nice ring to it. Think what a good time it would be to sit on one of the tax committees.

But, you'll have to overcome the fact that you've done work for the Pharma industry and so are beholden to special interests.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

How about some new Tribe Called Quest? I know, I know, Sebastian will note how tribal the new Tribe is, with all the believing in things and caring about stuff that got us into this mess in the first place, but so be it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAoqWu6wmfI

https://open.spotify.com/user/stinap...eeBwT6XBQOXvae

I've had this on repeat for a few days now. I find every three minutes of yelling Fuck You I won't Do What you Tell Me is about the interval I end up thinking it anyways.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Reading all the pieces about how the Democrats failed and what they should have done, and what strikes me is that for two decades since Gingrich became the Speaker and found new ways to hit below the belt, the Democrats have failed to make the Republicans pay a price for their obstructionism. The impeachment of Bill Clinton, governments shutdowns, abuse of the filibuster, refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote -- Democrats have failed to find a strategy to counter, instead usually trying to take what's left on the table. I blame Obama for this as much as anyone. Republicans have decided to keep government from working when a Democrat is in the White House, and voters do not hold it against them. With a Republican back in the White House, their commitment to deficit reduction and opposition to Keynesian stimulus are about to be forgotten, in favor of tax cuts and spending (infrastructure, the military) that will blow holes in the budget. Whatever else the Democrats do, they have to find a strategy to counter this.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There's a congressional seat in Georgia with your name on it. You may not win, but you'll have a good time and help strengthen the ticket.

If that's too ambitious, I think State Sen. Wonk or State Rep. Wonk has a nice ring to it. Think what a good time it would be to sit on one of the tax committees.

But, you'll have to overcome the fact that you've done work for the Pharma industry and so are beholden to special interests.

No. What I'll have to overcome is being a Yankee. This is a town where people are judged based on whether they're a "from here" or a "come here."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Reading all the pieces about how the Democrats failed and what they should have done, and what strikes me is that for two decades since Gingrich became the Speaker and found new ways to hit below the belt, the Democrats have failed to make the Republicans pay a price for their obstructionism. The impeachment of Bill Clinton, governments shutdowns, abuse of the filibuster, refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote -- Democrats have failed to find a strategy to counter, instead usually trying to take what's left on the table. I blame Obama for this as much as anyone. Republicans have decided to keep government from working when a Democrat is in the White House, and voters do not hold it against them. With a Republican back in the White House, their commitment to deficit reduction and opposition to Keynesian stimulus are about to be forgotten, in favor of tax cuts and spending (infrastructure, the military) that will blow holes in the budget. Whatever else the Democrats do, they have to find a strategy to counter this.

What price can the GOP be made to pay? If people involved in the highest branches of govt decide to obstruct, how does one penalize them other than by getting voters to vote them out (which hasn't worked too well for Democrats lately)? I agree with your assessment of the necessary counter to obstructionism, but don't see the device by which it can be done.

The Democrats could now become obstructionists themselves.

But putting that aside, one issue you raise here underscores why the Democrats lost this time around. I think we all agree that some form of stimulus is a good idea. And I agree that the GOP is now embracing that policy which they previously rejected when it was raised by a Democratic President. And yes -- that is loathsome.

But... The fact that nearly everyone is in agreement on stimulus tells us the economy is not great. Not by a long shot. Technically, yes, using silly measures like GDP, which has been revised so as to make it a useless measure, or unemployment, another useless measure, the economy is okay. But to 70-80% of society, it is very much not okay. It is delivering for asset holders, for capitalists, while savaging workers. (Fuck off in advance on your response, Adder.) Rather than bullshitting the 70-80% of Americans who do not see a robust economy with the "America is Already Great!" response to Trump, wouldn't the better reply have been, "We Have a Better Plan to Make America Great Again"? I think Hillary's biggest mistake may have been trying to get Obama's third term. She'd have done better arguing "the last time we had a bad recession, in 1992, a Clinton came into office and we enjoyed the biggest economic expansion in the last 50 years. I can do that again." That would have attracted a lot of middle and lower class voters who held their noses and voted for Trump.

Telling people everything was great was bad strategy. That kind of naked bullshit regarding the core issue of interest to voters insults their intelligence. The better message would have been, "Obama did a lot to save us, and we should be thankful for his cool hand at the wheel in a time of turmoil. But he could only get us so far, because of GOP obstructionism. I'm the candidate who'll take us from stability to serious growth."

Instead, Trump's going to be the architect of a miniature New New Deal. Holy shit, is that ever twisted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What price can the GOP be made to pay? If people involved in the highest branches of govt decide to obstruct, how does one penalize them other than by getting voters to vote them out (which hasn't worked too well for Democrats lately)? I agree with your assessment of the necessary counter to obstructionism, but don't see the device by which it can be done.

They needed to make it a theme, and hit it every time. When Congress doesn't spend do anything about Zika, or spend money on infrastructure, or hold hearings on Merrick Garland, the attack is that they are not doing their jobs. And it wasn't Congress -- it was a Republican Congress, and a Republican do-nothing Congress. If Senators won't even hold hearings, why do they get a paycheck? That water is under the bridge now, but Democrats just gave that turf up. Did Obama have things he wanted to do to help the economy in Rust Belt states? I think he did. Did he talk about it? Did he tell voters when the GOP blocked it? I don't think so.

The Democrats could now become obstructionists themselves.

Not if the GOP has its shit together -- but that is a big if.

But putting that aside, one issue you raise here underscores why the Democrats lost this time around. I think we all agree that some form of stimulus is a good idea. And I agree that the GOP is now embracing that policy which they previously rejected when it was raised by a Democratic President. And yes -- that is loathsome.

But... The fact that nearly everyone is in agreement on stimulus tells us the economy is not great. Not by a long shot. Technically, yes, using silly measures like GDP, which has been revised so as to make it a useless measure, or unemployment, another useless measure, the economy is okay. But to 70-80% of society, it is very much not okay. It is delivering for asset holders, for capitalists, while savaging workers. (Fuck off in advance on your response, Adder.) Rather than bullshitting the 70-80% of Americans who do not see a robust economy with the "America is Already Great!" response to Trump, wouldn't the better reply have been, "We Have a Better Plan to Make America Great Again"? I think Hillary's biggest mistake may have been trying to get Obama's third term. She'd have done better arguing "the last time we had a bad recession, in 1992, a Clinton came into office and we enjoyed the biggest economic expansion in the last 50 years. I can do that again." That would have attracted a lot of middle and lower class voters who held their noses and voted for Trump.

I generally agree.

But I also go back to the fact that Trump won the same number of votes, more or less, as McCain and Romney, and did not even win a majority. It's not Trump persuaded a lot of people to change their mind, because he basically lost a voter for every voter whose mind he changed. Clinton did not engage the Obama coalition, many of whom stayed home.

Telling people everything was great was bad strategy. That kind of naked bullshit regarding the core issue of interest to voters insults their intelligence. The better message would have been, "Obama did a lot to save us, and we should be thankful for his cool hand at the wheel in a time of turmoil. But he could only get us so far, because of GOP obstructionism. I'm the candidate who'll take us from stability to serious growth."

Instead, Trump's going to be the architect of a miniature New New Deal. Holy shit, is that ever twisted.

It's not clear to me that Republicans in Congress will go for that. Many of them want to roll back the New Deal, not enact another one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Thanks for this list. While it is incomplete, I'm sure, it is a good start.

Everything I missed is in this better version.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They needed to make it a theme, and hit it every time. When Congress doesn't spend do anything about Zika.....


It's not clear to me that Republicans in Congress will go for that. Many of them want to roll back the New Deal, not enact another one.

You must be recalling a different history of Zika funding than I do

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...nthood-funding

And in the weekend WSJ, there an interesting piece asserting that Trump has rebuilt the anti-elite, but pro government Nixon coalition. It rang true to me, as I am ambivalent on elites, but pretty anti-government. It kills me that Trump is proposing an infrastructure plan that will kill jobs, and is four times the size of what Hillary proposed. That thinking is a big part of the reason I left the GOP. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on a Trump presidency:


http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file...l-be-hard-keep

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

No. What I'll have to overcome is being a Yankee. This is a town where people are judged based on whether they're a "from here" or a "come here."

One of the things you have to do in building in an area where the party has been weakened and lost seats is make sure you have someone running for every seat. It's only by running campaigns that you identify the people willing to work together for the next campaign. The sacrificial lamb candidacies don't need people who will win, they need people who care, and out of those campaigns come the people who win the next time.

It doesn't need to be you. But building in the Southeast, the Southwest, and Texas need to be really big priorities.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

You must be recalling a different history of Zika funding than I do

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...nthood-funding

And in the weekend WSJ, there an interesting piece asserting that Trump has rebuilt the anti-elite, but pro government Nixon coalition. It rang true to me, as I am ambivalent on elites, but pretty anti-government. It kills me that Trump is proposing an infrastructure plan that will kill jobs, and is four times the size of what Hillary proposed. That thinking is a big part of the reason I left the GOP. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on a Trump presidency:


http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file...l-be-hard-keep

The version of the bill pushed by Republicans included a provision that prohibited zika funds from being used to fund treatment programs at planned parenthood, where indeed pregnant women do often get health services. The Republicans' insistence that every bill involving any medical funding exclude planned parenthood is juvenile, but effective for their base. Insisting that we Dems fight it tooth and nail every time they do it is also juvenile, but effective for our base. Adults would have found a way to work it out.

I do appreciate the National Review's reliance on a journalist at the Daily Signal for their medical assessment. Now that's great journalism.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

You must be recalling a different history of Zika funding than I do

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...nthood-funding

And in the weekend WSJ, there an interesting piece asserting that Trump has rebuilt the anti-elite, but pro government Nixon coalition. It rang true to me, as I am ambivalent on elites, but pretty anti-government. It kills me that Trump is proposing an infrastructure plan that will kill jobs, and is four times the size of what Hillary proposed. That thinking is a big part of the reason I left the GOP. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on a Trump presidency:


http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file...l-be-hard-keep

An important distinction between Trump's and Hillary's infrastructure plans is that Trump is proposing P3 projects. Risk is largely on the developer, financing is private, repaid over time through tax revenues. If you're going to do infrastructure cost effectively, removing govt from the process as much as possible, this is the best way to do so.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

An important distinction between Trump's and Hillary's infrastructure plans is that Trump is proposing P3 projects. Risk is largely on the developer, financing is private, repaid over time through tax revenues. If you're going to do infrastructure cost effectively, removing govt from the process as much as possible, this is the best way to do so.

Wait, so you care about infrastructure plans?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wait, so you care about infrastructure plans?

He cares about things, he just does not believe in things, nor does he give a shit about thing. It is a confusing Venn. So, can I just say Dave Chapelle was so on point last night, as was Tribe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

You must be recalling a different history of Zika funding than I do

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...nthood-funding

Consistent with that piece and this NYT piece, Congress did nothing from the winter until the summer, refusing to appropriate unless cuts were made elsewhere. They then passed a bill with different provisions designed to be unpalatable to Senate Democrats. As both pieces show, the White House did not do a good job of making an issue out of the GOP's refusal to act.

[Hank Chinaski]

What happened?

Hillary lost Michigan by 12,000*. Johnson/Stein got 220,000 total.

Detroit was about 240,000 for Hil and 7000 for Trump. In 2012 Detroit was 280,000 for President Obama and 6000 for Romney. 40,000 votes that went 98% or so to the Dems didn't happen. Not blaming Detroit** alone, the same may hold true across the state, it is just harder to see outside a single city

But Trump didn't get a lot more votes than Romney. Hil just got fewer than the President.

All this hand wringing about white Obama voters switching to Trump misses the point that there were more than enough votes to beat him. I think there was an arrogance, or over confidence, and I somewhat blame Facebook and the other echo chambers.

*didn't do the same math for Philadelphia, but willing to bet it is on par.
** Also, population could have declined, explaining some of it, but shit, 20,000 more Detroit votes and she wins.