Dems Rebuild

[Whistlebritches]

This seems like a good place for my most favorite map following the election. It shows the results by county rather than state.

[TGHusker]

 

 

I do happen to think universal healthcare was an immensely important and highly belated step for the United States to be taking.

So on that issue, yeah, I applaud Obama specifically for sticking with it and for what he did manage to achieve in passing the ACA. And I do think the Republicans invented a great deal of propaganda to justify shutting down Congress over this for six years. This one is a one-sided issue, IMO.

If the Democrats weren't the party pushing for healthcare, an expanded safety net, and an already tardy environmental response, and if the Republicans weren't resisting all this in the name of things like privatizing Medicare and sweeping deregulation (dismantling Dodd Frank seems like a rather dangerous response to the financial crisis we just emerged from), I'd probably feel differently about intentions.

This isn't to say either party is all perfect, or all bad (I can list some criticisms if you like), although I do think I'm covering the recent domestic agendas of each party in broad strokes. I appreciate appeals to balance, but not to the extent that our ability to distinguish between the two coalitions of power in this country is minimized.

(edit) knapp put it so much more succinctly

I agree wt the bold and I'll give Obama a (notice - it is the correct finger - in this case a thumb) for taking action. The proof is in the pudding in regards to how good of a bill it is/was. Yes it has brought millions into the # of insured, yet the costs and the 'keep your doctor' promises have not worked out so well. One could rightfully argue than if the Repubs had gotten over their 'sour grapes' of the 2008 election, they might have been able to work wt the Dems to make it a better program. The exchange situation wtin the states has also driven up the costs. Perhaps something this big should have had a broader participation - a cross-section of governors, congress and the President. Since Pelosi's famous line, "Don't know what's in it until we pass it" - a broader group of participants may have saved it from its short comings and perhaps purchased more buy in. Notwithstanding, the repubs in congress and their corresponding repub governors earmarked this as a campaign issue from then to 2016.

If Trump is smart (debatable) he'd reach out to the dems and get local input before he and congressional repubs "redesign" the ACA.

That Pelosi line was stupid, and an example of awful governance. It's not asking too much to get the bill read before you sign it. After all, it's your job.

 

It reminds me of the same failure - bipartisan this time, rather than just a Democrat line - of how the Patriot Act was passed. Nobody read it but everyone voted for it. And we're still dealing with that dang thing to this day.

 

Yes, agree that the Patriot Act was an emotional response - but also a pier pressure issue - didn't want to be seen as unpatriotic at that time.

[Moiraine]

This seems like a good place for my most favorite map following the election. It shows the results by county rather than state.

 

Those coastal elites!

[NM11046]

 

This seems like a good place for my most favorite map following the election. It shows the results by county rather than state.

 

Those coastal elites!

 

Woot! Woot!

[HuskerNation1]

 

This seems like a good place for my most favorite map following the election. It shows the results by county rather than state.

 

Those coastal elites!

 

 

Lol...to those who must be color blind, I don't see a lot of deep red on the coasts.

 

I have to give Knapplc some credit...he does a better job of splitting up a post than anyone else on this board. Now most of what is said between the splits is nonsense, such as still claiming that Trump did not win because of a change in support from white working class voters. This is how he won WI, MI, and PA. In reality, both candidates were disliked, and Trump had the right policies to win the states he needed to win. He actually ran a better campaign focused on policies, while Hillary's whole strategy was to bash Trump (something that many on here seem to have followed).

 

Even CNN who did everything possible to try to help get Hillary elected has admitted that the election of Pelosi as a coastal liberal elite is the personification of why the Democrats lost. It's not rocket science folks.

 

https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/31692699/singleVideoOG.html?type=VideoPlayer%2FSingle&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017&videoId=31692699#.WEDFPqJUaSQ.twitter

[zoogs]

A lot of discussion in the 2016 post-mortem among Democratic Party supporters. Good points are being made all around, and not all of them are in serious conflict. Although clear lines do appear to be emerging, and I'm leaning again on the side of Bernie skepticism.

 

Here's The Atlantic: The dangerous myth that Hillary ignored the working class

 

But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost. (...)

 

What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

 

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn’t lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it.

Indeed, I think you could make the argument that she didn't connect, but there are remedies to that that don't involve handing the reins wholesale over to the Sanders vision. The most straightforward remedy to me seems to be achieved already, which is pick somebody other than Hillary to be the messenger.

 

The article also expands upon the bolded and I think it's an extremely important connection. A voting bloc was activated that had no particular fealty to traditional Republican ideals such as limited government, but did want such workings of the government to work for them; the promise of such efforts being directed in a very diverse way was convincingly painted into a threat to the patriotic conception of "America First".

[knapplc]

Indeed, I think you could make the argument that she didn't connect, but there are remedies to that that don't involve handing the reins wholesale over to the Sanders vision. The most straightforward remedy to me seems to be achieved already, which is pick somebody other than Hillary to be the messenger.

 

 

 

I've been trying to push this message the whole time. Hillary lost because people don't like her. She's an odd, awkward, unengaging person.

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

and Trump had the right policies to win the states he needed to win.

That's the most disturbing thing of the entire campaign.

 

And...I find it funny that his supporters and team close to him have been back peddling on those policies since he won by saying...."He won't actually do what he said".

[BigRedBuster]

Have a good day.

[Danny Bateman]

North Carolina governor gets initial win in fight over cabinet

 

 

A three-judge panel has sided at least temporarily with North Carolina Democratic Governor Roy Cooper in his fight against

 

a Republican-backed attempt to curtail his powers by requiring legislative confirmation of cabinet appointments.

 

The law was among a series of measures approved by lawmakers in December limiting Cooper's executive authority after he defeated incumbent Republican Governor Pat McCrory.

 

Cooper sued to block it, arguing that requiring Senate consent to his cabinet secretaries was unprecedented and unconstitutional.

 

In an order Tuesday evening, the trio of state judges said the governor was likely to succeed in his challenge.

 

"The court is absolutely correct in their decision and should not be intimidated by threats from legislative leaders," Cooper said in a statement on Wednesday.

 

Eight of the 10 cabinet secretaries for the state have been appointed and sworn in.

 

The temporary restraining order halted a hearing set for Wednesday to review Cooper's appointee for secretary of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.

 

Republican lawmakers vowed they would eventually meet to review the cabinet members' qualifications and potential conflicts of interests.

 

Republicans have said such confirmation hearings were lawful and would serve as a check on executive power.

 

Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore, both Republicans, said the judges were legislating from the bench and called on them to reverse their order.

 

"In a gross misreading of the Constitution and a blatant overstep of their Constitutional authority, three Superior Court judges attempted to dictate to the legislature when it could or could not hold committee meetings and what it could or could not consider in those meetings," the lawmakers said in a joint statement.

 

"If these three men want to make laws, they should hang up their robes and run for a legislative seat."

 

The judges said they would hear the governor's motion for a preliminary injunction on Friday. A trial on the issue is scheduled for March 7.

 

Good guy Cooper is straightening things out at least early on in North Carolina.

 

The North Carolina GOP is still drunk on power.

[RedDenver]

Not sure where else to put this:

 

Obama shamefully lines pockets with $400K for Wall Street speech

 

Looks like going soft on the Wall Street after the crash has it's perks.

[RedDenver]

I think this line sums up my thoughts:

 

"Obama’s Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It’s hard to fault those who come to this conclusion."

[zoogs]

Good context tweets here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/27/1656797/-I-just-read-the-perfect-response-to-the-Obama-400K-BS-and-I-just-have-to-document-it

 

Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-26/stop-bashing-obama-over-paid-wall-street-speeches

 

Which brings us to the second reason why Obama’s decision to speak at a Cantor Fitzgerald conference – if he sticks with it – is praiseworthy: Because the conversation between centrist politics and global finance shouldn’t be allowed to break down.

USNews: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-04-27/democrats-need-to-calm-down-over-barack-obamas-wall-street-speaking-fee

 

Liberal politics have been about not making the possible the enemy of the perfect for so long that it's possible few politicians know what perfect looks like anymore.

Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2017/04/barack_obama_is_taking_400_000_for_a_wall_street_speech_and_that_s_fine.html

 

But it should be obvious that Obama isn’t getting this absurd-sounding amount for reasons of crony capitalism: He was no friend to Cantor Fitzgerald while he was in office. And Cantor Fitzgerald isn’t a particular friend to Obama.

"If the only thing keeping progressivism afloat is the virtue-signaling of our best leaders, we're in trouble."

 

I agree with these articles much more than I agree with the vexation. It fits in our general pattern of angst against the wealthy -- whether it's NFL players landing big contracts or individual businessmen. Not only is the specific context (see first link) worrying, I find such angst to be lazy and misdirected -- and I am as strongly in favor of top-to-bottom wealth redistribution policies as anyone here. Lastly, we must take Obama for what he always was: a politician with both strengths and weaknesses, who should get credit for a progressive legacy but who always came from the 'establishment', as it were. That should not be a bad word, and the rage against this is destructive and inchoate.

[knapplc]

Why does Obama going on a speech circuit after his presidency make the Democrats "elitist?" It's not like the party unified behind him, and he was never considered a leader of the party in the same way that Trump isn't truly a leader of the Republican party.

 

W hit the circuit after office, to the tune of more than $15 million.

 

Clinton famously made over $100 million, post-presidency.

 

Here's one compilation of ex-presidential speaking fees, including George HW Bush & Jimmy Carter.

[BigRedBuster]

Why does Obama going on a speech circuit after his presidency make the Democrats "elitist?" It's not like the party unified behind him, and he was never considered a leader of the party in the same way that Trump isn't truly a leader of the Republican party.

 

W hit the circuit after office, to the tune of more than $15 million.

 

Clinton famously made over $100 million, post-presidency.

 

Here's one compilation of ex-presidential speaking fees, including George HW Bush & Jimmy Carter.

Because....

Just simply giving a speech and being paid by anyone associated with Wall Street is akin to stealing from the poor and eating their children.