[Discussion] What comes next? Liber-all

American liberals and progressives now face their biggest challenge in a generation: What do we do with 4 years of a trump presidency, a republican congress, a likely conservative supreme court and most states under complete republican control?

This thread is not meant as a forum for discussing HOW or WHY democrats got destroyed in the 2016 election. It's meant for finding a way forward.

Thread scope: This thread is not meant as a forum for discussing HOW or WHY democrats got destroyed in the 2016 election. It's meant for finding a way forward.

Looking at the electoral college issue in terms of finding a way forward, it seems likely that it will still be around in 2020. Therefore Democrats need to focus on taking a progressive message through the South and Midwest at full force. Obama proved the ground game works, and I think a lot of Trump supporters will listen to a voice that takes the time to meet with them and make them feel important, because they really are important when it comes to winning the general election.

But we also have to think about what we're doing in every election. We've seen some good wins in special elections and what not--we have to keep doing that at the local and state levels, not just national. Focus on the progressive message, relate it to the issues people care about and support (ie fund) local candidates who align most closely to our views without expecting or even desiring purity. Focus more on moving the needle than on sea change. Conservatives did this extremely well for decades, but now we're seeing how poorly those policies have fared from one state to the next. It's a prime opportunity to return the favor.

28 new posts in libel-all! nice, I bet we're talking about Acasio-Cortez, I'll just pop in and be excited with everyone.

*reads past the first 5 posts*

...

Ah.

Mormech wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

I want the popularity contest. I want a president that is chosen by the population centers. F*** the flyover states, they'll take what they're given by the people that matter.

Needless to say, this will never happen, but my disdain for the electoral college, and for the states that benefit from it, cannot be overstated.

Don't take this the wrong way, but f*ck you.

Thank you, Jay. I was gonna ignore that.

So the worst president in history will be getting another SCJ nomination and November is a looooooooong way away and really, taking back the Senate is our only check on him.

Are you angry yet?

Are you donating money yet?

Are you organizing yet?

Well, we're trying new things. It didn't cause any huge upset, but made people feel better about the outcome.

Well, sh*t.

Very dark times ahead if the senate doesn't flip before another judge retires/dies.

oilypenguin wrote:

28 new posts in libel-all! nice, I bet we're talking about Acasio-Cortez, I'll just pop in and be excited with everyone.

*reads past the first 5 posts*

...

Ah.

That's what we *were* talking about. Then we got talking about whether it was a good idea to run candidates like that and suddenly it's 2016 all over again. I welcome further left candidates personally. Neoliberalism is thoroughly discredited as a set of policies America wants to vote for. Let's try some democratic socialism.

Jayhawker wrote:
Mormech wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

I want the popularity contest. I want a president that is chosen by the population centers. F*** the flyover states, they'll take what they're given by the people that matter.

Needless to say, this will never happen, but my disdain for the electoral college, and for the states that benefit from it, cannot be overstated.

Don't take this the wrong way, but f*ck you.

My apologies, I forget sometimes that any non-conservatives live in those states.

Let's hop in the way-back machine and remember that Trump danced around overturning Roe v Wade in the debates. So.

I think we need to be in the street more.

Mormech wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Mormech wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

I want the popularity contest. I want a president that is chosen by the population centers. F*** the flyover states, they'll take what they're given by the people that matter.

Needless to say, this will never happen, but my disdain for the electoral college, and for the states that benefit from it, cannot be overstated.

Don't take this the wrong way, but f*ck you.

My apologies, I forget sometimes that any non-conservatives live in those states.

I'm still interested in what the wrong way to take "f*ck you" is. With a cheery "thanks!"?

DSGamer wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

28 new posts in libel-all! nice, I bet we're talking about Acasio-Cortez, I'll just pop in and be excited with everyone.

*reads past the first 5 posts*

...

Ah.

That's what we *were* talking about. Then we got talking about whether it was a good idea to run candidates like that and suddenly it's 2016 all over again. I welcome further left candidates personally. Neoliberalism is thoroughly discredited as a set of policies America wants to vote for. Let's try some democratic socialism.

Just say it. It was Jeffery's fault. Then I and others fell into his trap.

I posted that video of Acasio-Cortez because, man, she just comes off like the real deal. Smart, articulate, and no f*cking nonsense. You saw glimpses of what made her campaign work because she just seems laser focused and has no time for distractions.

We could all use more Acasio-Cortez in our lives.

Mormech wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Mormech wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

I want the popularity contest. I want a president that is chosen by the population centers. F*** the flyover states, they'll take what they're given by the people that matter.

Needless to say, this will never happen, but my disdain for the electoral college, and for the states that benefit from it, cannot be overstated.

Don't take this the wrong way, but f*ck you.

My apologies, I forget sometimes that any non-conservatives live in those states.

Quite a lot, actually. Also our current sh*tstain president is as East Coast elite as you get, so let's calm it down with the regional tribalism.

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

28 new posts in libel-all! nice, I bet we're talking about Acasio-Cortez, I'll just pop in and be excited with everyone.

*reads past the first 5 posts*

...

Ah.

That's what we *were* talking about. Then we got talking about whether it was a good idea to run candidates like that and suddenly it's 2016 all over again. I welcome further left candidates personally. Neoliberalism is thoroughly discredited as a set of policies America wants to vote for. Let's try some democratic socialism.

Just say it. It was Jeffery's fault. Then I and others fell into his trap.

I posted that video of Acasio-Cortez because, man, she just comes off like the real deal. Smart, articulate, and no f*cking nonsense. You saw glimpses of what made her campaign work because she just seems laser focused and has no time for distractions.

We could all use more Acasio-Cortez in our lives.

Can we clone her and send one down to NC?

Oh man, this Supreme Court thing is depressing. It's rapidly becoming the situation where only one thing can help,...and I got moderated last time I said it.

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

28 new posts in libel-all! nice, I bet we're talking about Acasio-Cortez, I'll just pop in and be excited with everyone.

*reads past the first 5 posts*

...

Ah.

That's what we *were* talking about. Then we got talking about whether it was a good idea to run candidates like that and suddenly it's 2016 all over again. I welcome further left candidates personally. Neoliberalism is thoroughly discredited as a set of policies America wants to vote for. Let's try some democratic socialism.

Just say it. It was Jeffery's fault. Then I and others fell into his trap.

Not true. It's partly my fault. I intimated a national agenda, which I understand can seem to some people like an incitement to discuss the last national election.

I posted that video of Acasio-Cortez because, man, she just comes off like the real deal. Smart, articulate, and no f*cking nonsense. You saw glimpses of what made her campaign work because she just seems laser focused and has no time for distractions.

We could all use more Acasio-Cortez in our lives.

I agree. Democratic Socialists, I'm finding, are largely very articulate about what's wrong with modern politics and the modern economy. That's why I think we should take them seriously instead of handwringing about whether or not Bernie could have won. It doesn't matter. Let's be bold and try something new.

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

28 new posts in libel-all! nice, I bet we're talking about Acasio-Cortez, I'll just pop in and be excited with everyone.

*reads past the first 5 posts*
...

Ah.

That's what we *were* talking about. Then we got talking about whether it was a good idea to run candidates like that and suddenly it's 2016 all over again. I welcome further left candidates personally. Neoliberalism is thoroughly discredited as a set of policies America wants to vote for. Let's try some democratic socialism.

Just say it. It was Jeffery's fault. Then I and others fell into his trap.

Yeah, I'll own that. I misinterpreted DSGamer's post about neo-liberalism as dodging the real failures of the 2016 election. The fact that Pelosi is still the Democratic leader in the House just screams tone-deaf to me. I'm concerned that no lessons were learned, and the Dems' blue wave won't even reach shore, much less carry anyone to victory.

I posted that video of Acasio-Cortez because, man, she just comes off like the real deal. Smart, articulate, and no f*cking nonsense. You saw glimpses of what made her campaign work because she just seems laser focused and has no time for distractions.
We could all use more Acasio-Cortez in our lives.

I really like Acasio-Cortez. Heard her interviewed on NPR this morning. Very impressive.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Oh man, this Supreme Court thing is depressing. It's rapidly becoming the situation where only one thing can help,...and I got moderated last time I said it.

Things to remember:

1. Vice President Pence
2. House Speaker Paul Ryan
3. President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch
4. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
5. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
6. Defense Secretary James Mattis
7. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
8. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
9. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue
10. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
11. Labor Secretary Alex Acosta
12. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price
13. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson
14. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao*
15. Energy Secretary Rick Perry
16. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos
17. Veteran Affairs Secretary David Shulkin
18. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly

Jayhawker wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Oh man, this Supreme Court thing is depressing. It's rapidly becoming the situation where only one thing can help,...and I got moderated last time I said it.

Things to remember:

1. Vice President Pence
2. House Speaker Paul Ryan
3. President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch
4. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
5. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
6. Defense Secretary James Mattis
7. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
8. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
9. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue
10. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
11. Labor Secretary Alex Acosta
12. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price
13. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson
14. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao*
15. Energy Secretary Rick Perry
16. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos
17. Veteran Affairs Secretary David Shulkin
18. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly

Yes. A... direct approach won't help. Impeachment won't really help.

The only thing that helps us now is to get out in the streets and work for change.

We need to take the senate. Yes, I know what the numbers are.
We need to take the house. Again, I know.
We need to take to the streets and shut DC down if necessary to prevent the senate from approving just about anyone.

And here's the thing. Less than a year to go until the election so we won't discuss a nominee?

Fine.

Let's not discuss a nominee until the president is exonerated of all wrong-doing from the bi-partisan investigation into Russian tampering with our election. That sounds like a reasonable request.

And whether that fails or not, I think the time for politeness is well over. If we don't get off of our asses for this, what will we get off of our asses for?

IMAGE(http://memecrunch.com/meme/16IX9/heck-yeah-kid/image.jpg)

Well. This isn't half terrifying. :l

Jayhawker wrote:

Pretty good interview with Acasio-Cortez and discussion.

OMG, yes, please clone her!

The reason we keep coming back to the 2016 election is because it's hard to know which direction is forward unless you know where you took a wrong turn. Like this:

Three Marist/NBC polls, taken between June 17 and June 22, examine key states: Florida, Ohio, and Arizona. In each state, Trump’s job approval is net negative. And in each state, the percentage of respondents who say he deserves to be re-elected is lower still. In Arizona and Ohio, Trump’s job approval deficit is eight points. But when respondents are asked whether Trump “deserves to be re-elected” or whether it’s “time to give a new person a chance,” Ohioans choose a new person by a 25-point margin, and Arizonans choose a new person by a 26-point margin. In Florida, Trump’s job approval deficit is only three points, but his “deserves to be re-elected” deficit is 20 points.

Maybe voters like that hopey-changey stuff, but they're not very particular about the details.

A part that's relevant for the mid-terms, where the question is whether to run against Trump or for something (sure, why not both):

The state polls, like the national polls, expose Trump as an albatross. Marist asks voters in all three states about their “preference for the outcome of this November’s congressional elections.” In each state, by a margin of 3 to 4 points, voters say they prefer “a Congress controlled by Democrats” to “a Congress controlled by Republicans.” But when the question is reformulated as a referendum on Trump, the gap widens. The surveys ask: “Will your vote for Congress in November 2018 be a vote to send a message that we need more Democrats to be a check and balance to Donald Trump [or] more Republicans who will help Donald Trump pass his agenda?” In Ohio and Arizona, voters choose Democrats by a 16-point margin. In Florida, they choose Democrats by a nine-point margin.

We worry about policy because we're well...we're a bunch of argumentative people that spend our time hanging out in the politics section of a video game forum. I don't know how representative we are of most voters.

I don't think most voters vote for policies, I think they vote for symbols. The symbols aren't *entirely* divorced from the reality of the policy, but I don't think they are in as close of a one-to-one relationship as we wonks default to. It's more like...A Few Salient Facts. A few slogans that point towards some truth that is imagined to be deeper and more fundamental.

I would not discount the value of running against Trump, especially in a mid-term, which have historically been unkind to the President's party in all but the most favorable conditions (i.e. 2002).

If 2016 taught anything, it is how much people vote for symbols/their gut.

And Americans don't trust this guy.

Just an honest question, can candidates who are open Socialists win an election in non deep blue districts? I would personally love to see our country go full blown socialist- free health care and education for all, eliminate the elites by seizing and redistributing their wealth (through appropriate taxation of 90% or so on wealth above a certain threshold), living wage guaranteed for all regardless of employment, open immigration to all nations. We can afford it and it would make the world a better place. But the realist in me worries that these will be tough stances to win an election on.

But maybe it’s time the Democrats just embrace the socialist label so that it is clear that there is a stark difference in vision between the parties.

Docjoe wrote:

Just an honest question, can candidates who are open Socialists win an election in non deep blue districts?

The way Americans (and most people to be fair) vote on party lines I'm pretty sure they have as much chance as anyone else on the Dem ticket. And run on an inclusive platform for minorities and they will turn out.

I don't think so. Outside of liberal hotbeds, it's just not going to happen. I forget who said it but Americans just think they're down-on-their-luck millionaires.

Ask yourself this: of all the loaded people in the medical profession you know (doctors, administrators, pharma execs), how many will willingly sign up for 90% taxation above, say, $300k in household income?

Top_Shelf wrote:

I don't think so. Outside of liberal hotbeds, it's just not going to happen. I forget who said it but Americans just think they're down-on-their-luck millionaires.

Ask yourself this: of all the loaded people in the medical profession you know (doctors, administrators, pharma execs), how many will willingly sign up for 90% taxation above, say, $300k in household income?

Agreed. It depends on the district.

Minnesota selected Bernie Sanders in the Democratic caucus (Trump came in third in the GOP caucus), so maybe a Socialist senator would have a chance. But that doesn't hold true for each House district.

My district is in play but has voted Republican for several years. Many might see a check on Trump as a reason to vote out the local talk-radio libertarian incumbent (Jason Lewis), but the candidate would have to appear as a moderate. They won't consider a socialist.

Edit: And the Democratic candidate for my district, Angie Craig, appears quite moderate. Her opponent's tactics so far are to try and brand her as a leftist extremist.

Top_Shelf wrote:

Ask yourself this: of all the loaded people in the medical profession you know (doctors, administrators, pharma execs), how many will willingly sign up for 90% taxation above, say, $300k in household income?

Indeed. BUT, that group is demographically insignificant in terms of poll numbers

Docjoe wrote:

Just an honest question, can candidates who are open Socialists win an election in non deep blue districts?

I think normal blue districts might be in play, especially if a few socialist candidates win and their residents benefit, resulting in more districts being willing to give such candidates a shot in the next cycle. I don't think there's any way they could win a remotely red district, though. I live in a red district, and the things I heard from my coworkers regarding Bernie Sanders weren't much nicer than what I heard about Clinton. I voted for Bernie in the primary myself, but the only other people I knew who did so were a few college students.

Additionally, people in this area were up in arms when our state income tax was raised to a whopping 5%, so I can't imagine how they'd react to having their taxes raised even higher. They tend to be of the typical Republican belief that people will earn the amount of money they deserve. If people are poor, it's their own fault for being lazy, and they deserve whatever bad happens to them, and the people WITH money deserve that money. Government attempts to take it are theft, and will benefit only the undeserving.

There IS a decently-sized black population in the urban part of this district, but they seemed averse to Bernie because they felt he was only trying to help poor white people and didn't take racism seriously. Better addressing their concerns might give socialist candidates a boost, though I doubt it would be enough to offset the red voters' numbers here.

Jonman wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:

Ask yourself this: of all the loaded people in the medical profession you know (doctors, administrators, pharma execs), how many will willingly sign up for 90% taxation above, say, $300k in household income?

Indeed. BUT, that group is demographically insignificant in terms of poll numbers

But their money speaks loudly in the form of attack ads. And there's no shortage of people willing to believe propaganda and vote against their self-interests.