Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

Please explain? Who was the guy with dog?

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

A friend of Less and the old school posters (as paigow would put it, I'm merely a middle schooler). Apropos of that, I keep waiting for less or chef to decide to say "fuck it" about the NDA and tell the full story of the exodus from Yahoo to Infirmatiion, explain who screwed who, share about how much money did or did not change hands, and why West ultimately kicked us to the curb.

Anyway, my comment about the bed? Shortly after the board moved to Infirm, there were contests and one of the prizes was furniture - I forget the name of the company that was giving the loot away, but the contest ad showed a picture of an iron bed frame.

My memory tells me that TM won the contest but never got the prize. And seeing the post reminded me of that.

ETA: Tried to make it more cryptic in a probably silly attempt to prevent outting anyone.

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

There's no valid NDA. It has just been a courtesy. Fugee and I are the only original "flounders" still posting here. I have no problem telling the story, but I will leave it up to her.

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

His handle was....?

I think my old CEO got it kicked off Yahoo. Some numb nuts from the firm posted a memo with detailed financials. Then we were kicked off Yahoo. The CEO claimed she never threatened anybody, but when we set up our firm I did hire the CEO's secretary who told me that was a lie.

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

He was DebtSlave,:rolleyes:

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

Trending overnight

#calexit

#nyexit

I volunteer. As tribute.

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

Well, shoot. If it's been out of courtesy, that takes all the fun out of it. I hereby withdraw my request.

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

Clintonism is dead. And China is very pleased at the first casualty of the Trump election, TPP.

Schumer, Kaine and Gillibrand will be the leading candidates for something like Clintonism. But they'll do something between rebranding and reengineering.

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

Please don't go......

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

if NY exits, Trump is no longer a natural born citizen. think. about. it.

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

If that's the best we can do, we will lose, and we should. Every one of those three has the taint of being tied to one or more special interest. Kaine a bit less so, Schumer more so. They all have perception problems.

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

My point was clintonism isn't really going to be a continuing thing in the Democratic party.

That said, I don't think Schumer has aspirations to do anything but what he is now. Gillibrand and Kaine each are strong potential candidates. Every politician who is worth their salt is tied to a so-called "special interest" - supporting civil rights, for example, is viewed as catering to minority communities. Gillibrand has done great work on issues of rape in the military - she's going to be viewed as part of that Emily's List Establishment that got attacked in the primaries.

We are all special. We all have interests. If you don't like Schumer because he is tied to Wall Street, say that. If you don't like Gillibrand because she's helped agriculture in upstate NY, say that. (Along this lines, it was amusing to see Ellison getting attacked because he's getting support from "establishment" figures like Bernie - welcome to the party, Bernie, you're now the establishment.)

There are lots of people in the non-Clinton part of the party, but the only one you'll find who will be hard to connect with one special interest or another is Michelle Obama.

Re: In the deal room, Thurgreed's everybodies' darling...
 

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

What about someone outside the beltway? Gavin Newsom? Or does his affair preclude him? We always wax rhapsodic about the Castro brothers down here, but I have no clue about their broader appeal. Kamala Harris is also a pretty kick ass (I realize she's a senator, but not exactly inside the beltway type, yet anyways). Kirk Watson would be a profound loss to the Texas Senate, but if he has other aspirations, I'd wholeheartedly support going higher (I'm kinda hoping he mounts an assault on Cruz).

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

I am finding that I'm much more interested in the mea culpas - the "what did I do wrong" or "what did we do wrong" articles - that in the j'accuse articles.

I really don't care who else's fault people think it is, it was close enough so any number of things might have changed the outcome. I mean, the Berners drove me batty during the campaign, but building more bridges to them might have helped, especially in getting out the young vote in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

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

Lot's of outside the Beltway possibilities. I've always been a fan of the Castros, my sister is a big Kamala Harris fan, and governors often make good presidential candidates.

Do we think an affair precludes anyone after what just happened?

I think we got to go young as much as possible.

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

Democrats need to stop looking to a single leader to be a savior, and especially not to a Senator. In two and four years, they are going to be running against Washington and a bunch of fat cuts Republicans who are not trying to solve the problems that real Americans face. For example, the GOP is going to repeal Obamacare, but it doesn't have any solutions that will work as well -- so once this happens, the Democrats need to make sure the Republican governments owns the problems with health care. There are new leaders out there, and Democrats need to develop them.

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

Just stop. Senators make shitty presidential candidates. Obama is the exception who proves the rule.

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

How about someone from a state that's not California, New York or Massachusetts?

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

You mean other than Tim Kaine? Senator Tim Kaine?

I'm ready to run Ana Navarro for something, anything.

It's just way premature to think about President, we need to run 50 states worth of strong Congressional candidates in 2 year and we need to take back some state legislatures and Governorships.

Even though I know she and I would disagree on more than half of all issues out there, every time I see her I know I'm ready to just say, Go Ana!

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

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

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

Interesting exchange between John Judis and Theda Skocpol: this and then these.

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

Hence my suggestion the party needs new blood

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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."

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Everything I missed is in this better version.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Wait, so you care about infrastructure plans?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.