Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

Dems might actually manage to screw up the 2018 midterm blue wave:

 

DNC panel adopts rule requiring candidates to run, serve as a Democrat

 

Even if the Dems want to do this for 2020, why in the f&*k would they announce this before the midterms? It's like they know nothing about politics or are trying to lose.

[Moiraine]

16 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Dems might actually manage to screw up the 2018 midterm blue wave:

 

DNC panel adopts rule requiring candidates to run, serve as a Democrat

 

Even if the Dems want to do this for 2020, why in the f&*k would they announce this before the midterms? It's like they know nothing about politics or are trying to lose.

 

 

 

It's a lot less bad than I thought it would be. Based on the wording before clicking I thought they required that you'd already held an office as a Democrat, but that's not the case. I doubt this rule would have stopped Sanders from running in 2016 and might not stop him running in 2020. One of the requirements was something he already did, which was become a Democrat before running. He can still go back to being an Independent if he loses. But the DNC might fight against his nomination again.

[RedDenver]

50 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

It's a lot less bad than I thought it would be. Based on the wording before clicking I thought they required that you'd already held an office as a Democrat, but that's not the case. I doubt this rule would have stopped Sanders from running in 2016 and might not stop him running in 2020. One of the requirements was something he already did, which was become a Democrat before running. He can still go back to being an Independent if he loses. But the DNC might fight against his nomination again.

But why even make the rule change? It's simply bad politics to indirectly attack the most popular politician in your party (and in the country) a few months before the midterm elections. There's nobody that's going to start voting for Dems because of this rule, but there will be people that won't vote for Dems because of it. It's just so needless and stupid.

[Moiraine]

Just now, RedDenver said:

But why even make the rule change? It's simply bad politics to indirectly attack the most popular politician in your party (and in the country) a few months before the midterm elections. There's nobody that's going to start voting for Dems because of this rule, but there will be people that won't vote for Dems because of it. It's just so needless and stupid.

 

 

Ya probably.

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Ya probably.

It's crap like this that makes me think the Dem party leadership is too stupid to beat Trump in 2020.

[Moiraine]

30 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It's crap like this that makes me think the Dem party leadership is too stupid to beat Trump in 2020.

 

 

Could be. One moment I will always remember from 2016 is Wasserman Schultz having to resign from the DNC and then Clinton making the brilliant decision of hiring her to be on her campaign team. There are definitely a lot of idiots around those parts who suck at feeling the pulse of their potential voters.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[RedDenver]

I have no words for how stupid the Dem leadership is on superdelegates. They actually have the nerve to say that the politicians are being disenfranchised but don't mention their own voters:

House Dems seethe over superdelegates plan
 

Quote

 

During a two-hour-plus meeting with a group of House Democrats at DNC headquarters, Perez laid out two options under consideration for superdelegates by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee.

...

The second option, which Perez supports and which appears far more likely to be enacted, would allow superdelegates to continue to exist, but they couldn’t vote during the first round of the presidential roll-call vote. They could, however, vote during the second round or any subsequent roll call, and they would still be permitted to support any candidate they wanted.

...

“I believe this decision, if they go forward, is going to do terrible damage to party harmony,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who raised his objections with Perez during Tuesday’s dinner. “It disenfranchises the elected leadership of the party. The last time we allowed that to happen was 1972, and we had the worst landslide in our history.”

 

 

Just to add a bit more stupidity, Connolly is wrong since the superdelegates were created after the 1980 primary - and the worst landslide in history was in 1984, right after the superdelegates were created.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[commando]

here is a democrat i think almost all of us could support...even if she is in texas.   

 

 

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, commando said:

here is a democrat i think almost all of us could support...even if she is in texas.   

 

 

 

 

 

It's an amazing video but I dunno how many people in that district will even watch it.

[Danny Bateman]

Boy I'm sure getting a good laugh out of the conservative punditry world universally deciding over the past couple days that somehow between Maxine Waters & the SHS incident at the restaurant, Dems just coughed up their midterm Blue Wave over to the GOP.

 

I hate shallow, overly simple hot takes.

 

This is a pretty good article pushing back on all those people saying how wrong & stupid it was of liberals to support such a move.

 

I do tire of the "Well, yeah, the GOP is bad, but Dems are pretty broken right now too" takes. These parties aren't in the same stratosphere of dysfunction right now.

 

Plus, how funny is it to see the entire anti-P.C. crowd up in arms about a Trumpet being politely asked to leave a restaurant?

 

 

[Fru]

1 hour ago, Clifford Franklin said:

Boy I'm sure getting a good laugh out of the conservative punditry world universally deciding over the past couple days that somehow between Maxine Waters & the SHS incident at the restaurant, Dems just coughed up their midterm Blue Wave over to the GOP.

 

I hate shallow, overly simple hot takes.

 

This is a pretty good article pushing back on all those people saying how wrong & stupid it was of liberals to support such a move.

 

I do tire of the "Well, yeah, the GOP is bad, but Dems are pretty broken right now too" takes. These parties aren't in the same stratosphere of dysfunction right now.

 

Plus, how funny is it to see the entire anti-P.C. crowd up in arms about a Trumpet being politely asked to leave a restaurant?

 

 

 

That last line says it all. 

[TGHusker]

6 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

Boy I'm sure getting a good laugh out of the conservative punditry world universally deciding over the past couple days that somehow between Maxine Waters & the SHS incident at the restaurant, Dems just coughed up their midterm Blue Wave over to the GOP.

 

I hate shallow, overly simple hot takes.

 

This is a pretty good article pushing back on all those people saying how wrong & stupid it was of liberals to support such a move.

 

I do tire of the "Well, yeah, the GOP is bad, but Dems are pretty broken right now too" takes. These parties aren't in the same stratosphere of dysfunction right now.

 

Plus, how funny is it to see the entire anti-P.C. crowd up in arms about a Trumpet being politely asked to leave a restaurant?

 

 

One slight correction to the post:  Gorsuch replaced Scalia who likely would have voted the same on the mentioned court cases.  However, it is true that the Repubs artificially extended the 'lame duck' period for the President to appoint a new justice.  If Scalia had died a couple of months prior to the election, then I can understand the filibusterer of the nomination.  It is interesting however, that many Senate Repubs sensing a Hillary victory were preparing to vote yes on Obama's candidate as the Repubs thought he was more moderate than anyone Hillary would nominate.  However Scalia died in Feb.  Going back to Bork, we've seen a Senate of opposite party to the president trying to torpedo nominations that might alter the 'political balance' of the court.

If Kennedy retires and the Dems gain control of the Senate we will see a battle royale if Trump nominates another Gorsuch. If the Repubs retain the Senate, Trump will have clear sailing.

The next to retire may be the 2 senior liberals on the court - they can't be far behind Kennedy.

 

 

But I also found my word of the day in the article:

phan·tas·ma·go·ri·a

ˌfanˌtazməˈɡôrēə/

noun

noun: phantasmagoria; plural noun: phantasmagorias

1. a sequence of real or imaginary images like those seen in a dream.

   "what happened next was a phantasmagoria of horror and mystery"

Origin

 

early 19th century (originally the name of a London exhibition (1802) of optical illusions produced chiefly by magic lantern): probably from French fantasmagorie, from fantasme ‘phantasm’ + a fanciful suffix.

 

[Fru]

30 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

One slight correction to the post:  Gorsuch replaced Scalia who likely would have voted the same on the mentioned court cases.  However, it is true that the Repubs artificially extended the 'lame duck' period for the President to appoint a new justice.  If Scalia had died a couple of months prior to the election, then I can understand the filibusterer of the nomination.  It is interesting however, that many Senate Repubs sensing a Hillary victory were preparing to vote yes on Obama's candidate as the Repubs thought he was more moderate than anyone Hillary would nominate.  However Scalia died in Feb.  Going back to Bork, we've seen a Senate of opposite party to the president trying to torpedo nominations that might alter the 'political balance' of the court.

If Kennedy retires and the Dems gain control of the Senate we will see a battle royale if Trump nominates another Gorsuch. If the Repubs retain the Senate, Trump will have clear sailing.

The next to retire may be the 2 senior liberals on the court - they can't be far behind Kennedy.

 

 

But I also found my word of the day in the article:

phan·tas·ma·go·ri·a

ˌfanˌtazməˈɡôrēə/

noun

noun: phantasmagoria; plural noun: phantasmagorias

1. a sequence of real or imaginary images like those seen in a dream.

   "what happened next was a phantasmagoria of horror and mystery"

Origin

 

early 19th century (originally the name of a London exhibition (1802) of optical illusions produced chiefly by magic lantern): probably from French fantasmagorie, from fantasme ‘phantasm’ + a fanciful suffix.

 

 

Bork and Garland are not equal opposites. 

 

The Senate voted on Bork and rejected him. 

 

The Senate refused to even hold a vote on Garland.