This probably was commented already, but man, those Ossoff emails were bad:
"Surely the total lack of hope will raise more money and put people into the polls!" - The DNC, for some reason.
Y'know that Adam Curtis interview about how politicians and the general culture have surrendered all hope for the future, choosing instead to focus on protecting you from evil bad things that might happen, using fear itself as the sole driving force of politics, leading to a total breakdown of political reality as everything comes apart at the seams because nightmares are corrosive to the fabric of society?
This is the cartoon of that.
The more I read that email the angrier it makes me. It is simply pathetic. Both as a political piece of correspondence, and as marketing.
It's the quantity of them that gets to me. Nothing kills enthusiasm like having to clear 100+ emails every night, most of them begging for money, asking us to take polls that are indirectly begging for money, or the same petitions over and over again.
And the narratives. Every email of them BEGGING, or PLEADING, or how they keep emailing, or shaming me because I didn't give money or didn't take a survey about how much I hate Trump that day. Or the worst? Those "pack up, go home, we lost" ones because we didn't clear some arbitrary $10,000 donation limit that day ... yet ... presumably.
Ugh. At least Al Franken emails start with a joke. Pretty much the only things I notice and care about is the donation multiplier at the time.
Residents of the area seem to have been taken a massive issue with the quantity bit, specially joined with the "out of state" bit. People saw a transparent attempt to bulldoze their way with money spent on campaign adds and reacted accordingly. The excess became repulsive to the voters.
And this ties on the issue of consultants and managers and BIG DATA guys asking for a lot of money to be spent on....lots of campaign adds, more consulting and more big data. The whole thing is barely removed from parody, and if it was from Donald Trump people would openly call it grifting.
It's the quantity of them that gets to me. Nothing kills enthusiasm like having to clear 100+ emails every night, most of them begging for money, asking us to take polls that are indirectly begging for money, or the same petitions over and over again.
And the narratives. Every email of them BEGGING, or PLEADING, or how they keep emailing, or shaming me because I didn't give money or didn't take a survey about how much I hate Trump that day. Or the worst? Those "pack up, go home, we lost" ones because we didn't clear some arbitrary $10,000 donation limit that day ... yet ... presumably.
Ugh. At least Al Franken emails start with a joke. Pretty much the only things I notice and care about is the donation multiplier at the time.
Residents of the area seem to have been taken a massive issue with the quantity bit, specially joined with the "out of state" bit. People saw a transparent attempt to bulldoze their way with money spent on campaign adds and reacted accordingly. The excess became repulsive to the voters.
And this ties on the issue of consultants and managers and BIG DATA guys asking for a lot of money to be spent on....lots of campaign adds, more consulting and more big data. The whole thing is barely removed from parody, and if it was from Donald Trump people would openly call it grifting.
Based on what exactly?
Mostly reading around on Twitter, I'll admit.
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Hmm, NPR is pretty positive and explains the benefits of NPR while asking for money and I gather they do alright, maybe have emails saying the benefits of voting for the candidate (non evil platform positions) and say we have a lot of money, but we want to make x goal to help spread this message of benefits to more people or something.
Hmm, NPR is pretty positive and explains the benefits of NPR while asking for money and I gather they do alright, maybe have emails saying the benefits of voting for the candidate (non evil platform positions) and say we have a lot of money, but we want to make x goal to help spread this message of benefits to more people or something.
NPR does have the benefit of nobody directly running against them. And giving their pitch to people directly benefiting from the service they provide immediately before and after the ask.
The idea is to double (or in this case quintuple) the amount you are donating while not costing you more money. Matching funds afaik is an effective incentive.
Double, sure. Quintuple? Call me when the golden goose dies.
They lost, losses happen and are inevitable. There was something unacceptable though, and that was the elevation of Ossoff over all other candidates for no real reason. I was unhappy about it before he lost, so it's nothing new. But it made little sense as it was happening, and it still doesn't in the aftermath. I don't want a repeat.
Ossoff was in a district that nearly went for Clinton and he had a direct tie to a sitting Democrat that a lot of the party thinks highly of for important historical reasons.
I can see why he got hyped and attracted so much establishment support. He was exactly the kind of candidate they love to back.
They should maybe change.
To what? And what exactly makes this "change" a safer bet then what they already had?
They lost, losses happen and are inevitable. There was something unacceptable though, and that was the elevation of Ossoff over all other candidates for no real reason. I was unhappy about it before he lost, so it's nothing new. But it made little sense as it was happening, and it still doesn't in the aftermath. I don't want a repeat.
Ossoff was in a district that nearly went for Clinton and he had a direct tie to a sitting Democrat that a lot of the party thinks highly of for important historical reasons.
I can see why he got hyped and attracted so much establishment support. He was exactly the kind of candidate they love to back.
They should maybe change.
To what? And what exactly makes this "change" a safer bet then what they already had?
How much power do Democrats need to lose before the status quo isn't seen as the "safe bet"?
This probably was commented already, but man, those Ossoff emails were bad:
"Surely the total lack of hope will raise more money and put people into the polls!" - The DNC, for some reason.
Y'know that Adam Curtis interview about how politicians and the general culture have surrendered all hope for the future, choosing instead to focus on protecting you from evil bad things that might happen, using fear itself as the sole driving force of politics, leading to a total breakdown of political reality as everything comes apart at the seams because nightmares are corrosive to the fabric of society?
This is the cartoon of that.
To be fair the Dems would be remiss to ignore what's on the line if their opposition to win elections. This by isn't a bad motivator, per se. It's also true.The problem is when they rely too much on that.
People who are satisfied with how with party is run are actually in charge of it and its messaging and its structure and the DCCC. All of it. But lolol you don't believe in money. Seriously?
I wouldn't say everyone thinks the DCCC isn't flawed, yeah it needs reform and think out of the box. Nor is trying to get as much money as possible for elections a bad thing - not if you're serious about winning.
It's the quantity of them that gets to me. Nothing kills enthusiasm like having to clear 100+ emails every night, most of them begging for money, asking us to take polls that are indirectly begging for money, or the same petitions over and over again.
And the narratives. Every email of them BEGGING, or PLEADING, or how they keep emailing, or shaming me because I didn't give money or didn't take a survey about how much I hate Trump that day. Or the worst? Those "pack up, go home, we lost" ones because we didn't clear some arbitrary $10,000 donation limit that day ... yet ... presumably.
Ugh. At least Al Franken emails start with a joke. Pretty much the only things I notice and care about is the donation multiplier at the time.
I don't get these emails, because I never donate to the party, because I don't want these fucking emails (maybe take note there, DCCC), but that 4x match seems a little unmotivating?
You've got some guy willing to give you 80% of some arbitrary number? That's awesome, what did you need me for again?
I think the idea is that they get a bunch of people together to match 10% of (number) so that they can bundle it up as a "4x match".
That doesn't really change the calculus though. Your money still doesn't seem to be needed.
Money is always needed. It's better to have too much then not enough.
It's the quantity of them that gets to me. Nothing kills enthusiasm like having to clear 100+ emails every night, most of them begging for money, asking us to take polls that are indirectly begging for money, or the same petitions over and over again.
And the narratives. Every email of them BEGGING, or PLEADING, or how they keep emailing, or shaming me because I didn't give money or didn't take a survey about how much I hate Trump that day. Or the worst? Those "pack up, go home, we lost" ones because we didn't clear some arbitrary $10,000 donation limit that day ... yet ... presumably.
Ugh. At least Al Franken emails start with a joke. Pretty much the only things I notice and care about is the donation multiplier at the time.
Residents of the area seem to have been taken a massive issue with the quantity bit, specially joined with the "out of state" bit. People saw a transparent attempt to bulldoze their way with money spent on campaign adds and reacted accordingly. The excess became repulsive to the voters.
And this ties on the issue of consultants and managers and BIG DATA guys asking for a lot of money to be spent on....lots of campaign adds, more consulting and more big data. The whole thing is barely removed from parody, and if it was from Donald Trump people would openly call it grifting.
What's the alternative? You seem to be implying Dems shouldn't be investing in advertising, which seems like a bad idea. Or is the real issue the message or the messenger?
No, it's not perfect but no system is. It's about conserving risks, which is common wisdom in politics for a reason - it's not like people haven't won relying on these tactics.
it also depends on why he lost, was it because he wasn't perceived as too right or too left? You'll get different solutions varying on the answer.
They lost, losses happen and are inevitable. There was something unacceptable though, and that was the elevation of Ossoff over all other candidates for no real reason. I was unhappy about it before he lost, so it's nothing new. But it made little sense as it was happening, and it still doesn't in the aftermath. I don't want a repeat.
Ossoff was in a district that nearly went for Clinton and he had a direct tie to a sitting Democrat that a lot of the party thinks highly of for important historical reasons.
I can see why he got hyped and attracted so much establishment support. He was exactly the kind of candidate they love to back.
They should maybe change.
To what? And what exactly makes this "change" a safer bet then what they already had?
How much power do Democrats need to lose before the status quo isn't seen as the "safe bet"?
I don't think an election where a Republican-held hard-R seat was narrowly won by a Republican represents a substantial loss of Democrat power.
Living right outside the district, I'm also extremely confident that a more left-wing candidate would not have performed better there. This is a district where a common response to Handel's "I do not support a living wage" remark from self-identified 'moderates' was "This is the best reason to elect Handel that I've seen so far!". It's not a progressive place.
Maybe the answer is just that the DNC should have left the district alone and devoted its resources to something more easily winnable, but there's not a lot of more easily winnable seats on the board until 2018. Either way, I don't think "The DNC should have invested in a more left-wing candidate in GA-06" is a well-founded position. The right candidate for you isn't necessarily the right candidate for an R+10 district.
They lost, losses happen and are inevitable. There was something unacceptable though, and that was the elevation of Ossoff over all other candidates for no real reason. I was unhappy about it before he lost, so it's nothing new. But it made little sense as it was happening, and it still doesn't in the aftermath. I don't want a repeat.
Ossoff was in a district that nearly went for Clinton and he had a direct tie to a sitting Democrat that a lot of the party thinks highly of for important historical reasons.
I can see why he got hyped and attracted so much establishment support. He was exactly the kind of candidate they love to back.
They should maybe change.
To what? And what exactly makes this "change" a safer bet then what they already had?
How much power do Democrats need to lose before the status quo isn't seen as the "safe bet"?
Whenever they get a safer alternative, and said alternative either has the political capital to make them rethink strategy and/or replace the brass. The last one isn't done at the voting booth.
Simply put, convince them your way is safer then theirs with solid results and they'll be good to go.
Edit: Nor is a safe bet something which need to be quotes, the point is that they have less risk on paper not that it's guaranteed victory every single time. No one can guarantee that short of magic or deals with literal devils.
They lost, losses happen and are inevitable. There was something unacceptable though, and that was the elevation of Ossoff over all other candidates for no real reason. I was unhappy about it before he lost, so it's nothing new. But it made little sense as it was happening, and it still doesn't in the aftermath. I don't want a repeat.
Ossoff was in a district that nearly went for Clinton and he had a direct tie to a sitting Democrat that a lot of the party thinks highly of for important historical reasons.
I can see why he got hyped and attracted so much establishment support. He was exactly the kind of candidate they love to back.
They should maybe change.
To what? And what exactly makes this "change" a safer bet then what they already had?
How much power do Democrats need to lose before the status quo isn't seen as the "safe bet"?
Whenever they get a safer alternative, and said alternative either has the political capital to make them rethink strategy and/or replace the brass. The last one isn't done at the voting booth.
Simply put, convince them your way is safer then theirs with solid results and they'll be good to go.
Edit: Nor is a safe bet something which need to be quotes, the point is that they have less risk on paper not that it's guaranteed victory every single time. No one can guarantee that short of magic or deals with literal devils.
Yeah, but even though it worked for Trump I don't think I want the DNC striking a deal with Putin. It's bad enough when he only own one side of our system.
Coming from a Republican, I assume it means bills will be "on display" in a darkened cellar in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
+17
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
The Kentucky Republican has reintroduced his "Read the Bills" resolution requiring that any bills or amendments be filed for at least one day for every 20 pages before they can be brought up on the floor.
I'm sure this is more of a Libertarian "small gubmint" thing than anything else.
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
+31
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
oh i know i just can't resist making fun of that piece of shit louie gohmert
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
Jesus that's a stupid idea.
Not sure it's a trap in that I'm not sure he hopes it passes. An idea that dumb seems intentionally bad, so when no one votes for it he can say "I tried. Mark another win for the DC Bureaucracy over Common Sense Solutions."
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
So....you're saying it would give us a few more tools to shut legislation down unilaterally almost indefinitely?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where this is a bad thing.
0
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
So....you're saying it would give us a few more tools to shut legislation down unilaterally almost indefinitely?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where this is a bad thing.
They can use it too.
That's the bad thing.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
+4
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
So....you're saying it would give us a few more tools to shut legislation down unilaterally almost indefinitely?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where this is a bad thing.
Filibuster-by-procedure is bullshit and shouldn't exist.
If you want to put your reputation on the line, stake your claim, and really dedicate yourself to obstruction, you should be ready to own it and let your name and face be plastered all over that obstruction on the news. I'm not saying that the classic "phone book filibuster" is the only way it should be done, but it's a damn sight better than what we've got right now.
If you really wanna throw yourself on the gears, that's fine. But the way it works right now, Republicans aren't throwing themselves on the gears, they're throwing us on 'em.
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
So....you're saying it would give us a few more tools to shut legislation down unilaterally almost indefinitely?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where this is a bad thing.
Filibuster-by-procedure is bullshit and shouldn't exist.
If you want to put your reputation on the line, stake your claim, and really dedicate yourself to obstruction, you should be ready to own it and let your name and face be plastered all over that obstruction on the news. I'm not saying that the classic "phone book filibuster" is the only way it should be done, but it's a damn sight better than what we've got right now.
If you really wanna throw yourself on the gears, that's fine. But the way it works right now, Republicans aren't throwing themselves on the gears, they're throwing us on 'em.
We never should have rebelled in 1776. We could be Canada on super krypton steroids.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
The bad thing is that, despite what some would tell you and as many of them are inadvertently demonstrating, we do actually need a functioning government for some things.
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
So....you're saying it would give us a few more tools to shut legislation down unilaterally almost indefinitely?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where this is a bad thing.
Look up the history of Federal attempts at anti-lynching laws.
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
After agreeing the the what a novel idea remark. I was going to point out that Rand is one of the scummiest republicans around and that there is a high chance any good idea he puts forward will get bastardized by the details into something that is more or less sabotage (think the ridiculous long leeway that the post office has build in for pensions). There should be a minimum amount of time for reading a bill, but I don't think 1 day for every 20 pages is it. I imagine a week, maybe two, would be adequate. If a bill is put through the proper channels most of the major points should be well known before the date of the vote. A week or two would be adequate time to catch really fine points that an elected official might want to double check, since they might have had other important work when a concerning minor detail was being hammered out. Also prevent the stunt the GOP is pulling with AHCA, where they hope to pass a turd through before the public realizes they are about to get fucked over.
Rand's shit is designed to just shut down all good bills and to prevent any work on complicated and controversial issues.
Edit: Since we seem to be having such a riveting discussion about GA-6. Kellen Squire the democratic candidate for VA House of Delegates - 58, had some useful insight. Essentially, she sees little point in dwelling on GA-6 because what the left needs to do is build from the ground up (and this isn't just the people running the democratic party). GA-6 wasn't just a deep red district, the democrats have just done a shit shop at building and maintaining a proper infrastructure for getting their candidates into office at all levels.
President Donald Trump joked about Democrat Jon Ossoff's loss in Georgia's sixth congressional district's special election.
Trump said Democrats' plan to oppose Republicans and their policies is failing.
"They thought they were going to win last night in Atlanta," he said.
"They spent close to 30 million on this kid - who forgot to live in the community that he was [running] in," Trump said.
Trump lauded victor Karen Handel (R) as well as Rep-Elect Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) who won the night's other contest.
He blasted what he considered biased news networks like CNN and NBC for their perceptively slanted coverage of the race.
Trump said CNN specially built a studio to celebrate what they thought would be an Ossoff victory.
"If Karen Handel had lost, they would've been there [on air] for weeks," he said. "[But] they couldn't get out of there fast enough."
What could have been done differently? For starters, maybe not walking into an election with the "out of the state" handicap. And second all the complaints about Dem infrastructure, in comparison, Priebus managed to run a very tight ship with the goal of getting their candidates into office.
The biggest publicity hit The Vanishing American Adult has received reduced the book and the author to afterthoughts. Sitting one-on-one with Bill Maher, Sasse invited the comedian to come out to Nebraska and “work in the fields.” Maher couldn’t resist. It was a big swing and a miss on Maher’s part, which is too bad, because it was also an opportunity to poke at a weak spot in the guest’s argument. Sasse’s section on developing a work ethic is based on his own experience as a kid weeding soybean fields and detasseling corn (a detail mentioned in nearly every article about the senator, as well as the book’s short biographical note), but there aren’t enough ears to go around, and for most young Americans work experience is less picturesque. It’s not clear how a summer behind the counter at Starbucks drives home the value of “Work first, play later; and limit your play as much as necessary to get back to bed to be able to work first thing again tomorrow.” I’d agree that there is value to midwestern communalist agricultural practices, but to focus on that would require Sasse to consider the social relations of production instead of individual virtue. Easier to say that kids should work harder, like he did, weeding the soybean fields and detasseling corn.
Perhaps Sasse foregrounds his idyllic Nebraska childhood because the rest of his biography doesn’t gel quite as well with the brand he wants to project. When contemplating a worthy work life, Sasse quotes Martin Luther’s advice to a cobbler convert: “Make good shoes, and sell them at a reasonable price.” Except Sasse doesn’t make anything. As an adult, he has bounced between academia, the worlds of consulting and finance, and the government. That would all make more sense if he placed a high value on scholarship or public service, but despite his degrees Sasse relentlessly attacks schools—and as for public service, don’t forget about his Heritage rating. He exalts earthy labor that connects men to the land they live on, but he worked as an outside advisor to McKinsey: a consultant to consultants.
...
One of Sasse’s claims to fame is that he turned around a small, struggling hometown college. In the book he mines the tenure for credibility and a hard-to-believe anecdote about an entitled student. But the way Sasse reformed Midland owes more to his experience in private equity than wisdom about hard work. As president, Sasse rebranded Midland Luther College as Midland University, swallowed up half the students from a nearby de-licensed for-profit college, survived his own close call with the licensing board, invested in sports and a business program, and changed the school colors. For that he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, at a university with an enrollment smaller than that of many public high schools. There’s nothing folksy or visionary about his work at Midland; it’s straight out of the corporate consultant playbook. And there’s no sign from Sasse’s professional life that he knows how to do much else.
I mostly know him for his fraudulent Trump opposition, so it's nice to round his image by learning how he's a fraud in more ways. He's just your average folksy management consultant who had a summer job anecdote and will milk it within an inch of its life.
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
So....you're saying it would give us a few more tools to shut legislation down unilaterally almost indefinitely?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where this is a bad thing.
Look up the history of Federal attempts at anti-lynching laws.
All of these races have been held in substantially red districts, although how you measure redness is a key question for Democrats in how they formulate their strategy for 2018. As compared to the 2016 presidential result, for example, the Georgia 6 outcome was hugely disappointing for Democrats, while South Carolina 5 was a boffo performance. Last year, Clinton lost to Trump in Georgia 6 by only 1.5 percentage points. Since Clinton beat Trump by 2 points in the popular vote nationwide, that meant it was only 3 to 4 points more Republican than the country as a whole. And yet, Ossoff lost to Handel by 3.8 points, seemingly making no progress at all. By contrast, South Carolina’s 5th district was 21 points more Republican than the country overall in last year’s presidential election, so for Parnell to have come within about 3 points of Republican Ralph Norman counts as a huge improvement for Democrats.
...
One lesson for Democrats would therefore seem to be to look at a mix of indicators for the competitiveness and partisanship of a district, rather than focusing on the 2016 presidential result alone. Trump’s popularity will be a key factor, but so could the long term partisan lean of the district and how it has voted for Congress in the past. Local issues, particularly how the new health care bill might affect the district, could also play a role.
Each of the special elections so far have also come with their quirks: For instance, Georgia 6 had a very high turnout and tens of millions of dollars invested by each party, whereas South Carolina 5 had a much lower turnout and very little investment. But for that very reason — because individual races can be determined by flukish and unpredictable circumstances — Democrats would be wise to avoid the mistake they made in 2016, when Clinton campaigned in too narrow a range of states and didn’t properly consider the uncertainty in the outcome. Well-educated Sun Belt districts such as Georgia 6 could be the Democrats’ path back to a majority. But so could places such as South Carolina 5 that had once been more Democratic, or districts in Ohio or Pennsylvania or upstate New York. It’s much too early to know.
Democrats should not fall into the uncertainty trap. The strong pronouncements about what districts are worth pursuing are based on biases and untested conventional wisdom.
We shouldn't confuse vaguely plausible rationalizations for narrowing the map for strong evidence for narrowing the map in the face of uncertainty.
The 2018 midterms will be strange in that a “pretty good” year for Democrats might yield a gain of only 15 seats for the party, whereas a “very good” year — if the political climate is just a few points more Democratic-leaning — could produce a 50-seat swing instead. Because they run the government, Republicans and Trump will have more influence on the macro-level political environment. But Democrats will have at least as much say on the district-level environment based on where they recruit strong candidates instead of giving Republican incumbents a free pass.
Posts
The more I read that email the angrier it makes me. It is simply pathetic. Both as a political piece of correspondence, and as marketing.
Steam: adamjnet
Based on what exactly?
Mostly reading around on Twitter, I'll admit.
Also, tote bags and coffee mugs.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Double, sure. Quintuple? Call me when the golden goose dies.
To what? And what exactly makes this "change" a safer bet then what they already had?
How much power do Democrats need to lose before the status quo isn't seen as the "safe bet"?
To be fair the Dems would be remiss to ignore what's on the line if their opposition to win elections. This by isn't a bad motivator, per se. It's also true.The problem is when they rely too much on that.
I wouldn't say everyone thinks the DCCC isn't flawed, yeah it needs reform and think out of the box. Nor is trying to get as much money as possible for elections a bad thing - not if you're serious about winning.
Money is always needed. It's better to have too much then not enough.
What's the alternative? You seem to be implying Dems shouldn't be investing in advertising, which seems like a bad idea. Or is the real issue the message or the messenger?
No, it's not perfect but no system is. It's about conserving risks, which is common wisdom in politics for a reason - it's not like people haven't won relying on these tactics.
it also depends on why he lost, was it because he wasn't perceived as too right or too left? You'll get different solutions varying on the answer.
I don't think an election where a Republican-held hard-R seat was narrowly won by a Republican represents a substantial loss of Democrat power.
Living right outside the district, I'm also extremely confident that a more left-wing candidate would not have performed better there. This is a district where a common response to Handel's "I do not support a living wage" remark from self-identified 'moderates' was "This is the best reason to elect Handel that I've seen so far!". It's not a progressive place.
Maybe the answer is just that the DNC should have left the district alone and devoted its resources to something more easily winnable, but there's not a lot of more easily winnable seats on the board until 2018. Either way, I don't think "The DNC should have invested in a more left-wing candidate in GA-06" is a well-founded position. The right candidate for you isn't necessarily the right candidate for an R+10 district.
You would literally have to be all things to all people. Or be a few dozen people.
College diversity photo piled in a trenchcoat/A living mirror 2018
Any non-incumbent anyway
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The Greendale Human Being.
A green screen in a suit that has your ideal candidate literally projected onto them.
What a novel idea.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
i bet a doofus like louie gohmert reads pretty slowly
Whenever they get a safer alternative, and said alternative either has the political capital to make them rethink strategy and/or replace the brass. The last one isn't done at the voting booth.
Simply put, convince them your way is safer then theirs with solid results and they'll be good to go.
Edit: Nor is a safe bet something which need to be quotes, the point is that they have less risk on paper not that it's guaranteed victory every single time. No one can guarantee that short of magic or deals with literal devils.
Coming from a Republican, I assume it means bills will be "on display" in a darkened cellar in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".
I'm sure this is more of a Libertarian "small gubmint" thing than anything else.
What about Senator Lankford? Does he need to go to school and gain literacy first?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This is a trap.
The standard he's proposing is "1 day for every 20 pages before we can discuss or vote on it". Obamacare was over 2000 pages, if I'm reading correctly. Trumpcare, by contrast, is less than 50 pages. It takes a lot of pages to craft good policy, and a lot of amendments (which, in turn, will require their own waiting periods). It's much, much easier to just shit in the sandbox.
Furthermore, it creates yet another avenue for Republican obstruction, I would expect. Want to delay a bill? Propose a 5,000-page amendment to it. Now, regardless of how bullshit your proposed amendment would be, we have to wait 250 days to say "nah".
Of course our reps should read things before they vote on them. But this particular suggestion is an anarcho-libertarian trap.
Jesus that's a stupid idea.
Not sure it's a trap in that I'm not sure he hopes it passes. An idea that dumb seems intentionally bad, so when no one votes for it he can say "I tried. Mark another win for the DC Bureaucracy over Common Sense Solutions."
Propose pointless bullshit to keep libertarian cred. Vote party line whenever it matters
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where this is a bad thing.
That's the bad thing.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Filibuster-by-procedure is bullshit and shouldn't exist.
If you want to put your reputation on the line, stake your claim, and really dedicate yourself to obstruction, you should be ready to own it and let your name and face be plastered all over that obstruction on the news. I'm not saying that the classic "phone book filibuster" is the only way it should be done, but it's a damn sight better than what we've got right now.
If you really wanna throw yourself on the gears, that's fine. But the way it works right now, Republicans aren't throwing themselves on the gears, they're throwing us on 'em.
We never should have rebelled in 1776. We could be Canada on super krypton steroids.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Look up the history of Federal attempts at anti-lynching laws.
After agreeing the the what a novel idea remark. I was going to point out that Rand is one of the scummiest republicans around and that there is a high chance any good idea he puts forward will get bastardized by the details into something that is more or less sabotage (think the ridiculous long leeway that the post office has build in for pensions). There should be a minimum amount of time for reading a bill, but I don't think 1 day for every 20 pages is it. I imagine a week, maybe two, would be adequate. If a bill is put through the proper channels most of the major points should be well known before the date of the vote. A week or two would be adequate time to catch really fine points that an elected official might want to double check, since they might have had other important work when a concerning minor detail was being hammered out. Also prevent the stunt the GOP is pulling with AHCA, where they hope to pass a turd through before the public realizes they are about to get fucked over.
Rand's shit is designed to just shut down all good bills and to prevent any work on complicated and controversial issues.
Edit: Since we seem to be having such a riveting discussion about GA-6. Kellen Squire the democratic candidate for VA House of Delegates - 58, had some useful insight. Essentially, she sees little point in dwelling on GA-6 because what the left needs to do is build from the ground up (and this isn't just the people running the democratic party). GA-6 wasn't just a deep red district, the democrats have just done a shit shop at building and maintaining a proper infrastructure for getting their candidates into office at all levels.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
What could have been done differently? For starters, maybe not walking into an election with the "out of the state" handicap. And second all the complaints about Dem infrastructure, in comparison, Priebus managed to run a very tight ship with the goal of getting their candidates into office.
I mostly know him for his fraudulent Trump opposition, so it's nice to round his image by learning how he's a fraud in more ways. He's just your average folksy management consultant who had a summer job anecdote and will milk it within an inch of its life.
https://newrepublic.com/article/143438/senator-sasses-guide-grown-up
Or 2010 to 2016
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Democrats should not fall into the uncertainty trap. The strong pronouncements about what districts are worth pursuing are based on biases and untested conventional wisdom.
We shouldn't confuse vaguely plausible rationalizations for narrowing the map for strong evidence for narrowing the map in the face of uncertainty.