Dems Rebuild

[TGHusker]

The Dems won't win converts by making Trump like statements such as this.  The gullible will listen and believe.  Sounds like

a red meat campaign issue.

 

 

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/dnc-tom-perez-electoral-college-constitution/2017/10/26/id/822264/

 

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez made a false claim about the Electoral College during a lecture this week.

Speaking at the Indiana University law school Tuesday night, Perez had this to say about the Electoral College, which is detailed in Article II of the Constitution:

"The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there."

 

The Electoral College is spelled out in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

"Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

 

The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, clarified the duties of the Electoral College. But Article II is the origin of the process that has been used in every U.S. presidential election.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

The Dems won't win converts by making Trump like statements such as this.  The gullible will listen and believe.  Sounds like

a red meat campaign issue.

 

 

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/dnc-tom-perez-electoral-college-constitution/2017/10/26/id/822264/

 

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez made a false claim about the Electoral College during a lecture this week.

Speaking at the Indiana University law school Tuesday night, Perez had this to say about the Electoral College, which is detailed in Article II of the Constitution:

"The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there."

 

The Electoral College is spelled out in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

"Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

 

The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, clarified the duties of the Electoral College. But Article II is the origin of the process that has been used in every U.S. presidential election.

I don't think it's a red meat issue. More like Perez just doesn't know what he's talking about.

[TGHusker]

Interesting article from NYer on the still on going strife in the Dem party.   They need to get their act together and consolidate around a vision

and a younger voice of the party if they hope to make gains in 2018 and take over the WH in 2020.  Of course the Repubs are good at stealing defeat

out of the jaws of victory and will do something stupid that will give the Dems an opportunity without having to better themselves in order to win.   Give me a Dem who

isn't so radically opposed to prolife concerns and I could see my self voting that way.  Of course if it is trump again, I may not have a choice.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-democratic-civil-war-is-getting-nasty-even-if-no-one-is-paying-attention

The Democratic Party today is divided over whether it wants to focus on the economy or identity,” Greenberg said when we talked. That is, as he pointed out, just what the Clinton campaign was fighting about a year ago. Greenberg and others who came out of the Bill Clinton era—like the former President himself—had never really let go of the economy-first mantra that got them to the White House in a different time, and they felt that there was a generational conflict with the Obama operatives who held sway over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 strategy. It was a fight that dogged the Clinton campaign all the way until its final days, when Greenberg and his allies inside the campaign pushed unsuccessfully to close with a focus on her plans for the economy.

“The caricature of this debate is, Bill Clinton says you have a problem and the numbers people say you don’t,” Jake Sullivan, who served as Clinton’s top policy adviser for the campaign after working with her closely at the Obama State Department, recalled. But it wasn’t that Hillary Clinton’s team disagreed over the problem, he insisted, just over what to do about it: “Everybody recognized we had a huge working-class, non-college white issue. The question was, How do you add up to victory? Do you attack it head-on or by compensating elsewhere? That was the fundamental strategic debate.”

And it still is.

 

 

[RedDenver]

Tulsi Gabbard is a young progressive that should be in the discussion. Here's where she's challenging the actions of the DNC:

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[RedDenver]

 

I can't find a good video of it, but Nancy Pelosi also pretended like the rigged primaries were no big deal and we should just move on.

[Danny Bateman]

Dems with a very good night. I'm really glad Northam rolled in VA. Ed Gillespie ran an absolutely disgusting campaign because he had no real economic message beyond tax cuts.

 

They're absolutely going down to the wire trying to flip the VA House of Delegates. They need four more wins; last I checked, they led by a hair in 3 and were down a hair in 3 others. Still lots of provisional ballots to go, which regularly benefit Dems, IIRC.

 

Here's the last bit for the party to look out for. There's a special election for a Senate seat in Washington state tonight that, if won by the Dem, would flip the Senate and give them full control of both the Legislature & the Executive there (meaning a trifecta of House, Senate & Gov). So far, that election is looking good early:

 

 

That would mean the Dems control every legislative body & governorship on the West Coast. Washington's governor has a bold progressive agenda on tap and ready to go, too.

 

Again, tonight was a good night. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by dudeguyy

[BigRedBuster]

10 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

Dems with a very good night. I'm really glad Northam rolled in VA. Ed Gillespie ran an absolutely disgusting campaign because he had no real economic message beyond tax cuts.

 

They're absolutely going down to the wire trying to flip the VA House of Delegates. They need four more wins; last I checked, they led by a hair in 3 and were down a hair in 3 others. Still lots of provisional ballots to go, which regularly benefit Dems, IIRC.

 

Here's the last bit for the party to look out for. There's a special election for a Senate seat in Washington state tonight that, if won by the Dem, would flip the Senate and give them full control of both the Legislature & the Executive there (meaning a trifecta of House, Senate & Gov). So far, that election is looking good early:

 

 

That would mean the Dems control every legislative body & governorship on the West Coast. Washington's governor has a bold progressive agenda on tap and ready to go, too.

 

Again, tonight was a good night. 

I'm pleased that Trumpism isn't winning.

 

But, these wins have been in areas where the Dems typically do OK.  The big test will be if they can win some elections in the middle of the country and more rural areas.  Looking at the Virginia map, it's clear that Dems won the urban areas and Repubs won the rural areas.  That divide is still very clear in America.

[RedDenver]

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm pleased that Trumpism isn't winning.

 

But, these wins have been in areas where the Dems typically do OK.  The big test will be if they can win some elections in the middle of the country and more rural areas.  Looking at the Virginia map, it's clear that Dems won the urban areas and Repubs won the rural areas.  That divide is still very clear in America.

Also, the party that wins the presidency tends to lose about 7% in the off-year elections, so the Dems are doing about as well as they'd do if any Republican was in office. The chat on 538 last night gives some details about this. So I'm not sure this is a repudiation of Trump so much as just what typically happens the year after the presidential election.

 

EDIT: 538 has an article this morning about this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-fundamentals-favor-democrats-in-2018/

From that article:

Quote

To put it another way, Tuesday’s results shouldn’t have exceeded your expectations for Democrats by all that much because you should have had high expectations already. Midterm elections — and usually also off-year and special elections — almost always go well for the opposition party, and they’re going to go especially well when the president has a sub-40 approval rating.

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by RedDenver

[Dbqgolfer]

Just my opinion, but Trump is the  gift that will keep on giving to the Democrats.  Not only will he alienate a lot of the country, the working class will end up seeing him as the fraud he is and will lump all Republicans with him, which is the Republicans fault for lining up behind him ; and conservatism will be confused with Trumpism.

 

This saddens me greatly as a conservative/former republican.

[QMany]

52 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm pleased that Trumpism isn't winning.

 

But, these wins have been in areas where the Dems typically do OK.  The big test will be if they can win some elections in the middle of the country and more rural areas.  Looking at the Virginia map, it's clear that Dems won the urban areas and Repubs won the rural areas.  That divide is still very clear in America.

 

I don't think you're going to see extreme flips in rural parts of the country. I think you are going to see widespread shift that is going to flip swing districts. 

Quote

Mr. Northam improved on Mrs. Clinton’s performance in just about every part of the state. He outperformed her in both the white working-class areas where she struggled, and the well-educated areas where she excelled.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/08/us/politics/virginia-governor-results-analysis.html

 

Comparing the 2017 and 2013 VA Gubernational elections:

• Northam (D) got 5.9% more of the vote than McAuliffe (D).
• 368,011 more people voted this year.
• Northam (D) got 335,152 more votes than McAuliffe (D).
• Ed Gillispie (R) had almost identical % of votes as Cuccinelli (R), 45.1% and 45.2% respectively.

Those % increases and voter turnout increases are really good signs for Democrats.

[TGHusker]

21 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Just my opinion, but Trump is the  gift that will keep on giving to the Democrats.  Not only will he alienate a lot of the country, the working class will end up seeing him as the fraud he is and will lump all Republicans with him, which is the Republicans fault for lining up behind him ; and conservatism will be confused with Trumpism.

 

This saddens me greatly as a conservative/former republican.

Agree 100%.

In regards to the results in Va , Trump had this to say.  Again, he attacks one of his own for not embracing the greatness that is Trump, doesn't acknowledge that he is a big reason VA went Dem:

 

But after the outcome, Trump quickly distanced himself from Gillespie.

“Ed Gillespie worked hard but did not embrace me or what I stand for,” Trump tweeted. “With the economy doing record numbers, we will continue to win, even bigger than before!”

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/democrats-win-bitter-virginia-governors-race-in-setback-for-trump-idUSKBN1D71D7

[BigRedBuster]

16 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Just my opinion, but Trump is the  gift that will keep on giving to the Democrats.  Not only will he alienate a lot of the country, the working class will end up seeing him as the fraud he is and will lump all Republicans with him, which is the Republicans fault for lining up behind him ; and conservatism will be confused with Trumpism.

 

This saddens me greatly as a conservative/former republican.

I'm in the same boat as the bolded portion of your post.

 

But, I look at it differently.

 

The Republican party has been starting to go down this path for quite some time.  Their talking points and the crap their media outlets have been spewing for years has culminated in this cesspool we have now.  Trump has latched onto it and brought it all out in the open.  It's bad that Trump is in the Whitehouse and we will go through a period where the Dems gain power because of the loony toon ways Trump and his followers are going about things now.

However, I think Conservatism needed this in the long run.  Hopefully it will be a wakeup call when the majority of his followers look back on this period in history.  The problem is, obviously, what damage is he and his followers going to do in the mean time?  That is what we have to work to minimize.  Hopefully it's a matter of domestic policies here and there that can be fixed.  I'm way more concerned about foreign policy and what damage he does with relationships and getting us in wars.

[QMany]

 

[zoogs]

The working class should clearly hold the Republicans in a dim view and that has nothing to do with Trump. American conservatism dating back decades is about removing power from the working class.