Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

You know those breathalyzers they hook up to drunk driver's cars, where they can’t turn their car on if they can’t blow clean? Would you be willing to have one hooked to your computer?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I have some contacts in the state GOP and I had heard that Cornyn was seeing some concerning internal polls a while back. But yeah. A purple Texas isn’t in the immediate future.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

It’s 2020. No chances are worth taking. I want as solid an R Senate as I can get.

These progressives would demand Biden give them the keys. They’d have a public fit/meltdown of epic proportions. Who would desire that?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

But weren’t the actions of that government also what set the stage for losing many seats in Congress and numerous governorships and state legislatures to Republican control?

So maybe not good for Democrats?

Also Schumer mouthing off about Georgia probably isn’t helping. Mitch at least knows to STFU and not rile up the opposition.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Whether or not that's true, which is a different point, there are only two Democratic Senators from Vermont, and the rest of them have to win re-election from electorates that are not like AOCs. Senate Democrats are overwhelmingly centrist.

I can't believe that Schumer's comments will make any difference.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

That you look around the world we live in, in the fall of 2020, and think, “woo hoo, everything is going to stay the same” says so much more about you than you realize.

Say what you will about Trumpists, but at least it’s an ethos. At least those people actively what things to be worse for the people they don’t like. You just don’t give a shit about anyone but yourself.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Maybe, but it took the NRSC less than a day to run ads in Georgia on his "Now we take Georgia, then we change the world" comments. And given today's hyper negative partisanship, that is more likely to get out R vote than many of the people who just voted anti-Trump and may stay home for a Senate runoff.

Giving people an opening like that to say they want to enact AOC's agenda doesn't seem smart, but perhaps you are right.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

1. You've argued that things will stay the same endlessly for the last ten years. Continuation of the status quo or something near it is a bedrock of your arguments. Now you're on the other side of the street? Interesting.

2. You just argued it is preferable to desire to harm others than be unconcerned with them. You may want to rethink that.

3. Half of the country just split the ticket and voted out Trump while retaining moderates and conservatives in the House and Senate. Biden won because he was moderate.

I'm thrilled to see gridlock because, like a lot of Americans (like most of them, apparently), I've felt exiled since the days of Bill Clinton. (Obama presided over gridlock, but that gridlock included his regulatory and tax policies, whereas now we have gridlock with more growth friendly GOP tax policies.) Most of us are socially tolerant to liberal, but we also - quite reasonably - do not wish to deal with greater govt oversight or increased taxation that wastes money on administration of bloated agencies.

We don't want to be governed by right wing people who think they have a right to tell us who to marry, what drugs we can take, or that a woman does not enjoy autonomy over her body. But we also do not wish to be dictated to by woke loonies (most of whom are malcontent white progressives who've warped and ruined BLM) or clueless Green New Dealers.

I'm not selfish. But unlike you, who takes a check from someone else and doesn't know what it is to take a risk in life, my wife and I and millions like us keep this economy humming. She supports a lot of families. And if I don't keep the business coming in, and simultaneously succeed at it, I don't eat.

We're tired of hearing from the left and the right. We're tired of people like you and your silly political views which if adopted would screw with our bottom line or cause us to have to deal with more compliance nonsense.

We agree with you that Trump was unfit, and we feared that a blue wave might not only replace him, but also the Senate. And that was scary. Because we who run businesses rather than accept checks from them realize that people like AOC, and naive sorts like you who think she's just swell, would Fuck Up The Economy.

In a moment where you and I can both enjoy a victory lap, we should. Trump is gone, a moderate is in charge, and gridlock ensures nothing radical is going to happen. After the last four years of craziness, I'd say this is a damn good situation.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Neither do I, but it's still dumb.

I don't know how Pelosi deals with Schumer. She and McConnell play 3D chess. Both are clearly highly skilled operators. Schumer is a milquetoast Wall Street sycophant who only knows to whine. And when he tries to orchestrate a hit, like he did in the Kavanaugh hearings with late stage witness and evidence dumps, he can't even do that correctly.

He's also spineless and bought off in the most transparent way. He'll be playing golf with Trump at Mar A Lago in six months.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Weird how not long ago you were warning that Trump was a signal of a coming revolution. Apparently everything staying mostly the same will ward that off?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Almost half the people who voted voted for the guy. And the guy was extreme. That is a movement. But politically, it has been checked. Outside politics, how long does Trumpism persist as a movement? I don't know.

I think we have two would be revolutions afoot, left and right, both rooted in grievance. And now a silent majority will have to figure out how to appease or control them.

But I never expected this to turn out how it has, and how it has turned out is pretty great compared to the other possibilities. Will it hold? Again, I don't know. 2022 may be a mess. And 2024? Could be a shitshow.

Or maybe not. Maybe Haley runs against Harris, and we see some well crafted policy platforms pitted against each other by two candidates who speak to issues rather than engaging in personal attacks (I don't blame Biden for that, BTW... he was forced to respond in kind where he did), and our politics regains some sanity.

ETA: Trump did start a revolution of sorts. The white working class grievance politics he ginned up was and is a very potent force. But like most populist revolutions, it craters upon initial success because it's defined and exclusively powered by underdog status. It knows nothing about how to manage once it's in power as it's only relationship to power is to try to topple it. The extreme left's wokeism is moving in the same direction. It can't articulate moderate messages because it's effectively a cultural French Revolution Terror. It feeds on blood, always heightening the standards people must meet to appease it in order to justify exiling all but the most extreme. In this regard, it alienates itself from all allies, eventually devolving to parody. It's cousin, radical progressivism, isn't as rabid, but it shares a similar fate by refusing anything that even hints at incrementalism.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

On the left we have... taking small steps to move us closer to the rest of the developed world (health care, education cost, wages, if we're getting really wild, child care) and thinking about what we are saying and other people.

On the right, we have getting bigly mad about having to think about our words, criminalizing immigrants, owning the libs and fucking your feelings.

These things are most certainly equal. It's so great we have avoided both. Phew.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

IMO, and I'm not alone, the essence of conservatism is reaction to the mainstream. Conservatives are often highly motivated to vote against Democrats, much more so than Democrats. Schumer is essentially correct that winning the Senate is important to getting significant legislation through. If that motivates people to turn out for Republicans, that's the way it always is. If Democrats can't motivate their own people with the promise of "changing the world," then the election is not going to go well for them.

I just posted a couple of days ago that Democrats focus too much on policy proposals that do not resonate with a significant part of the population, not because it's bad policy, but because many voters do not go to the polls motivated to back a particular policy agenda. I think I was responding to something that Warrren and GGG said, but it easily could have been Schumer. Democrats often miss the expressive aspect of voting. Obama got it. But that's not the way Schumer is wired. But if he was, the NRSC would find something that Pelosi said, or Warren, or Soros. With Trump losing, the surest best for conservatives to rally each other is to find something objectionable that someone on the left has said and to foment outrage and reaction.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Sure, there is an expressive element, but I still want health care.

The right will always be demonizing someone on the left. It is what you do when you have no positive proposals of your own. I remember when Ted Kennedy was their favorite bogeyman. I'm just amazed at how gullible their voters are that they are still willing to bite on "they're a bunch of socialists".

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

This is false. The only place that split the ticket for a Senator was Maine, which voted for Biden and Collins. And Democrats won the House. The reason that Republicans maintain their hold on the Senate is that the Senate is fundamentally undemocratic in a way that favors Republicans. Democratic Senators represent far more voters than Republicans. 40 million people in California are represented by 2 Senators. 37 million people in Utah, Iowa, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming are represented 36 Senators, and if I'm counting correctly 26 of those Senators are Republicans.

I know you are happy with this because it suits your preferences, but admit that the system is rigged instead of pretending that the country wants a GOP Senate.