The Kavanaugh Hearing

gerritn said:

LOST said:
The discussion between author and gerritn is a good one. I come down on author's side. Different candidates are suited to different States and Districts. The first thing is to win the Majority in the Senate and/or the House so as to control Committee Chairs and the agenda.
If the Dems held the Majority Kavanaugh wouldn't have gotten out of Committee. Manchin's vote might have been different or might not even have mattered.

It's not been a winning strategy, that's all I am saying.

Republicans aren't shy about running against Democrats just because a Democrat, any Democrat, is a vote to empower Democratic committee chairs and Pelosi and Schumer.  Republicans and Republican-leaners realize the exact thing you just said, which is that if the Democrats control the Senate, Kavanaugh would never have gotten out of committee.  

Successful Democrats in red and red-purple states usually need to be convincing that they are indeed moderates, despite their Democratic affiliation. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/us/politics/kavanaugh-republican-midterm-races.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Schumer isn't running for anything. Is it common for people to run a campaign "against" the Senate minority leader? Maybe I am overreaching, but have to wonder if there is a tinge of anti-Semitism here. Sadly, for some of these folks, "Schumer" probably means "New York Jew."

apple44 said:
Schumer isn't running for anything. Is it common for people to run a campaign "against" the Senate minority leader?

 The last comparative year was 2010, when Mitch McConnell was minority leader. (He was up for re-election in 2014, and 2012 was a presidential election.) Mr. One-Term Obama was quite the campaign lightning rod, too, as I recall.

For many years we have been told that moderates / independents ultimately decide elections and therefore power. Party base will vote party no matter what, but independents are increasing in size.

The republican party has turned sharply to the right (started long time before trump) and has become pretty extreme. Ronald Reagan probably would not survive a primary today. Conventional wisdom would suggest this is an electoral disaster.

But what has happened instead? They now control: WH, Senate, House, Supreme Court, majority of state houses.

I guess my point is this: maybe this stuff about having to appear moderate and middle-of-the-road isn't working anymore. Maybe we should just say what we believe, not what we think makes us sound like moderates. It's certainly worth a try, because at this point in time we basically have very little political power left, so it can't get much worse than this.

Single payer healthcare, gun control (ideally get rid of the 2nd amendment), root out money in politics, tax the rich, stimulate diversity and healthy immigration, strengthen environmental regulation, invest in education for all.

apple44 said:
Schumer isn't running for anything. Is it common for people to run a campaign "against" the Senate minority leader? Maybe I am overreaching, but have to wonder if there is a tinge of anti-Semitism here. Sadly, for some of these folks, "Schumer" probably means "New York Jew."

I canvassed for Malinowski on Saturday and one of the persons I talked with gave me Lance’s campaign literature.  It criticizes and demonizes Pelosi.  It also claims that Malinowski is a “Lobbyist against Israel and for Islamic terrorists”.  I’ll try to post a pic.  We are living in a dark and scary time. 

gerritn said:
I guess my point is this: maybe this stuff about having to appear moderate and middle-of-the-road isn't working anymore. Maybe we should just say what we believe, not what we think makes us sound like moderates. It's certainly worth a try, because at this point in time we basically have very little political power left, so it can't get much worse than this.
Single payer healthcare, gun control (ideally get rid of the 2nd amendment), root out money in politics, tax the rich, stimulate diversity and healthy immigration, strengthen environmental regulation, invest in education for all.

In my view this strategy would most likely result in a 1972 George McGovern outcome, where he went grassroots liberal and got swamped by Nixon. 

Maybe I'm wrong. But while Trump has been a disaster for the left, he just hasn't been a national disaster, in the sense that whether people like it or not, he is presiding over a time of peace and prosperity. So unless that changes in the next 25 months, there's just not enough of a problem in the national view for the nation to make a drastic change and turn to liberalism as a solution.   

Smedley said:

Maybe I'm wrong. But while Trump has been a disaster for the left, he just hasn't been a national disaster, in the sense that whether people like it or not, he is presiding over a time of peace and prosperity. So unless that changes in the next 25 months, there's just not enough of a problem in the national view for the nation to make a drastic change and turn to liberalism as a solution.   

Yep.  He's bullied our friends and neighbors.  He's accomplished nothing with North Korea.  And if he thinks he can bully China the way he has bullied our NAFTA partners and NATO partners, I think he is mistaken.  I feel like we are living on credit right now.

I reiterate, Trump is presiding over a time of peace and prosperity. That is the big-picture theme that matters heading into 2020. Unless there's some kind of war, recession, or major scandal, he will be a formidable candidate in 2020. Not unbeatable, but formidable.

Yes, the left has a laundry list of grievances. But if you believe swing voters are going to pull the D lever because of Trump's spat with Trudeau or his pulling of out trade agreements, you are mistaken. That stuff is small potatoes, and for every person on the left knocking it, there's someone on the right praising it. 

North Korea is not small potatoes, but like the other stuff you mention, I don't see how that situation would sway any votes if the election were held today. The jury's still out on the effectiveness of Trump's diplomacy, and at least for now, for every person on the left knocking it, there's someone on the right praising it.

From the outside looking in, it doesn’t seem like ‘peace and prosperity’ when so many die in school shootings, so many die in routine police interactions, so much of the regulatory and heritage framework that kept people safe and preserved important living treasures is systematically undone to serve commercial interests over longterm civic interest.

The only people really feeling happy and safe right now are probably those born very close to the Cold War era, and who are attracted to the spy fiction it spawned. In the movies in the their minds, they’re right at home; they know what happens next. Except, the world’s moved on, we have different global needs and more spectacular to kill everyone even by accident. It’s not a time for taking chances or making mistakes. 

It appears to me that the Peace is very fragile and the Prosperity is for the few not everyone.

And the persecution of immigrants, even small children, continues.

LOST said:
It appears to me that the Peace is very fragile and the Prosperity is for the few not everyone.
And the persecution of immigrants, even small children, continues.

 None of this matters.

Eta: Smedley is right. Eta on top of that, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/

It is worth noting that despite "peace and prosperity", Dump's disapproval rating is 52%.  Of course, 40% do support him.  But those people would probably offer up their first born to Dump if asked

Sweetsnuggles said:
I canvassed for Malinowski on Saturday

Thanks for doing that

A good rule to keep in mind:  always, always, ALWAYS make sure you own the url with your name.

https://www.brettkavanaugh.com/

nohero said:
A good rule to keep in mind:  always, always, ALWAYS make sure you own the url with your name.
https://www.brettkavanaugh.com/

Not really. I'm not impressed.

Kavanaugh would not care less. He got what he wanted, what counts. That lifetime appointment to the SC.

Naming the website as such after is just a cute or clever feel better for those who lost. It won't change the critical, that right hard vote for the next 30 years.

BG9 said:

nohero said:
A good rule to keep in mind:  always, always, ALWAYS make sure you own the url with your name.
https://www.brettkavanaugh.com/

Not really. I'm not impressed.
Kavanaugh would not care less. He got what he wanted, what counts. That lifetime appointment to the SC.
Naming the website as such after is just a cute or clever feel better for those who lost. It won't change the critical, that right hard vote for the next 30 years.

 I agree with you re: Kavanaugh.

The people behind the website, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, aren't just involved because of the recent Supreme Court justice.  They worked to make the issue of sexual violence an issue of concern in the 2016 election.  Obviously, if more people (especially self-described progressives) had kept that issue in mind, the results could have been different.

gerritn said:
For many years we have been told that moderates / independents ultimately decide elections and therefore power. Party base will vote party no matter what, but independents are increasing in size.
The republican party has turned sharply to the right (started long time before trump) and has become pretty extreme. Ronald Reagan probably would not survive a primary today. Conventional wisdom would suggest this is an electoral disaster.
But what has happened instead? They now control: WH, Senate, House, Supreme Court, majority of state houses.
I guess my point is this: maybe this stuff about having to appear moderate and middle-of-the-road isn't working anymore. Maybe we should just say what we believe, not what we think makes us sound like moderates. It's certainly worth a try, because at this point in time we basically have very little political power left, so it can't get much worse than this.
Single payer healthcare, gun control (ideally get rid of the 2nd amendment), root out money in politics, tax the rich, stimulate diversity and healthy immigration, strengthen environmental regulation, invest in education for all.

 The electorate whiplashes between politicians with very different ideologies.  Bush was replaced by Obama, Obama was replaced with Trump.  A president wins an election decisively, but then his party is punished in the midterms and that punishment even extends to state and local office holders.  That president whose party was punished in the midterms then goes on to win reelection.  Divided government -- or even government where the Senate majority has fewer than 60 seats -- produces gridlock and problems persist for decades before they are addressed.  

Despite all the variables that affect who wins a Congressional seat, I still think there is a baseline partisan motivator where voters vote against the party they dislike/hate more.  We all see it in NJ, where Democrats who acknowledge that Menendez is a sleaze are still going to vote for him instead of a former Navy SEAL; we see it in red states where attractive Democrats (like Jason Kander in MI) are defeated by sleazeball Republicans whose close kin are lobbyists (Roy Blunt).

I think that centrism is itself a virtue since the country is diverse and divided.  The insult that "there's nothing in the middle of the road except roadkill and yellow lines" is a recipe for polarization and ungovernability.  

I think Trump, McConnell, and Ryan are awful, but the Democrats' problem is that the US Constitution structurally advantages the Republican Party.  

I think because centrism is itself a virtue, and the Democrats are playing on an uneven playing field, that they need to come to the center on a few social issues.

Runner_Guy said:

I think because centrism is itself a virtue, and the Democrats are playing on an uneven playing field, that they need to come to the center on a few social issues.

 He are a few big ones: abortion, gay rights, gun control, racism. What are the centers that Democrats should be moving toward?

DaveSchmidt said:

Runner_Guy said:

I think because centrism is itself a virtue, and the Democrats are playing on an uneven playing field, that they need to come to the center on a few social issues.

 He are a few big ones: abortion, gay rights, gun control, racism. What are the centers that Democrats should be moving toward?

 Well, to use abortion as an example.  

Of course the Democrats need to be pro-choice, but being pro-choice doesn't require someone to want to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which was Clinton's stance in 2016.  

There are also purely symbolic moves a candidate can make and remain an unqualified supporter of abortion rights in actual policy, but seem moderate.  For instance, Bill Clinton said that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare."  Hillary didn't.  Barack Obama gave interviews to Christianity Today.  Hillary didn't.  

After I made my last post I came across this article from The Atlantic Monthly about how deeply unpopular political correctness and "woke" culture are, including among young people.  Perhaps a bit of distancing from progressive/liberal PC excesses would help Democratic candidates.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

I do not see how "moderating" its position on abortion gains Democrats one vote. In fact they could lose votes to a Third-Party.

I think the same might be true of Republicans and Guns.

I really believe the goal for Dems should be to increase the vote among the groups likely to favor them, minorities and young people.

Runner_Guy said:

After I made my last post I came across this article from The Atlantic Monthly about how deeply unpopular political correctness and "woke" culture are, including among young people.  Perhaps a bit of distancing from progressive/liberal PC excesses would help Democratic candidates.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

 I think people are against "political correctness" because they define it as they wish. It's like being against "evil".

Frankly, I have never understood what "political correctness " is. And the second time I heard the term was from a Holocaust denier.

So I Googled:

https://qz.com/886552/a-linguist-explains-how-the-far-right-hijacked-political-correctness/

Runner_Guy said:

Despite all the variables that affect who wins a Congressional seat, I still think there is a baseline partisan motivator where voters vote against the party they dislike/hate more.  We all see it in NJ, where Democrats who acknowledge that Menendez is a sleaze are still going to vote for him instead of a former Navy SEAL; we see it in red states where attractive Democrats (like Jason Kander in MI) are defeated by sleazeball Republicans whose close kin are lobbyists (Roy Blunt).

Hugin does tout his military credential. As if that makes him moral. Reminds me of evangelists constantly citing the Lord as an imprimatur of their morality.

Hugin is pretty sleazy. IMHO, Hugin's sleaze was more despicable and hurtful than the sleaze from Menendez.

Hugin's company made it harder for generic drugs to get approved, raised prices of cancer drugs over 20% in a year and parked billions overseas to avoid US taxes. His company also paid a 280 million dollar fine to resolve cancer drug fraud allegations. Real moral, ripping every possible dollar from the sick.

Last, he supported Trump in 2016 and donated heavily to Trump's campaign. Now he's painting himself as independent from the president, a "different" Republican.

BG9 said:

Runner_Guy said:

Despite all the variables that affect who wins a Congressional seat, I still think there is a baseline partisan motivator where voters vote against the party they dislike/hate more.  We all see it in NJ, where Democrats who acknowledge that Menendez is a sleaze are still going to vote for him instead of a former Navy SEAL; we see it in red states where attractive Democrats (like Jason Kander in MI) are defeated by sleazeball Republicans whose close kin are lobbyists (Roy Blunt).

Hugin does tout his military credential. As if that makes him moral. Reminds me of evangelists constantly citing the Lord as an imprimatur of their morality.
Hugin is pretty sleazy. IMHO, Hugin's sleaze was more despicable and hurtful than the sleaze from Menendez.
Hugin's company made it harder for generic drugs to get approved, raised prices of cancer drugs over 20% in a year and parked billions overseas to avoid US taxes. His company also paid a 280 million dollar fine to resolve cancer drug fraud allegations. Real moral, ripping every possible dollar from the sick.
Last, he supported Trump in 2016 and donated heavily to Trump's campaign. Now he's painting himself as independent from the president, a "different" Republican.

You do know that Phil Murphy spent his career at Goldman Sachs, don't you?

And do you honestly think that Goldman Sachs is an up-and-up ethical company?  

And you do know that Phil Murphy refused to release his tax returns, so we had no idea what kinds of tax avoidance he personally practiced?

And you voted for Phil Murphy, didn't you?  (because he's a Democrat).

Attacking Hugin for being the CEO of Celgene is just political opportunism.  It's not like NJ Democrats aren't thrilled to accept money from pharmaceutical companies.  

So don't give me any crap that a Republican is automatically immoral because of the business he worked for.  Plenty of Democrats work for sleazy companies too and you vote for them because you agree with them on the issues.  

I don't see any equivalence between proclaiming religious convictions as a standard for morality and actually serving as a Navy SEAL.  

Democratic candidates who served use that as a campaign asset too.  You feel differently, but I respect that and I think it is evidence of someone being patriotic and brave.  

Runner_Guy said:

Democratic candidates who served use that as a campaign asset too.  You feel differently, but I respect that and I think it is evidence of someone being patriotic and brave.  

 Yup, but it didn't do John Kerry much good.

Runner_Guy said:

After I made my last post I came across this article from The Atlantic Monthly about how deeply unpopular political correctness and "woke" culture are, including among young people.  Perhaps a bit of distancing from progressive/liberal PC excesses would help Democratic candidates.

As LOST noted, this is mportant context:

One obvious question is what people mean by “political correctness.” In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them. But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind.

From the article, it seems what they have in mind is something like: I want to think what I think without worrying about what others may think. That’s natural.

It also makes for craven politics. (Representative politics, many will prefer to put it.) Short term, craven usually wins, so don’t mess with America’s — humanity’s, even — anti-PC mind-set. Long may it live.

Runner_Guy said:

BG9 said:

Runner_Guy said:

Attacking Hugin for being the CEO of Celgene is just political opportunism.  It's not like NJ Democrats aren't thrilled to accept money from pharmaceutical companies.  
So don't give me any crap that a Republican is automatically immoral because of the business he worked for.  Plenty of Democrats work for sleazy companies too and you vote for them because you agree with them on the issues.  

 I'm against Hugin because he supports Trump and the Republican Agenda.

Others are against Menendez because he opposes Trump and supports the Democratic Agenda.

Attacking Hugin for being CEO of Celgene or attacking Menendez for allegations of corruption are not "opportunism", I think that word means something different. I would call them political tactics aimed at voters who know little about issues or care little about issues.

nohero said:

BG9 said:

nohero said:
A good rule to keep in mind:  always, always, ALWAYS make sure you own the url with your name.
https://www.brettkavanaugh.com/

Not really. I'm not impressed.
Kavanaugh would not care less. He got what he wanted, what counts. That lifetime appointment to the SC.
Naming the website as such after is just a cute or clever feel better for those who lost. It won't change the critical, that right hard vote for the next 30 years.

 I agree with you re: Kavanaugh.
The people behind the website, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, aren't just involved because of the recent Supreme Court justice.  They worked to make the issue of sexual violence an issue of concern in the 2016 election.  Obviously, if more people (especially self-described progressives) had kept that issue in mind, the results could have been different.

 Thanks for posting that link. I'm putting it on my FB page. As my page is public and there's a mix of political discussion  animal rescue and animal rights stuff, I get the odd person from the other side of the aisle. I think it might catch them off guard and get them to see another point of view.

Menendez might be the luckiest Senator up for reelection. Can't imagine many voters are truly pro-Menendez (in light of his well-documented ethical and other challanges); rather, NJ voters just don't want to turn the seat over to the Republicans. 

it's the height of lazy thinking when so-called "centrists" act as though most people vote a party line simply because someone has one party affiliation or another.  In this day and age, the two parties stand for very different agendas, with competing stances on a whole range of issues.  And the GOP in particular stands in lock step almost all of the time.  For all the hand-wringing by the likes of people such as Jeff Flake or Susan Collins, they almost always vote the party line.

So I don't vote Democratic out of mindless loyalty to my "team."  And I'm not "holding my nose" voting for Menendez this fall.  Bob Menendez is going to vote a particular way on the issues before the Senate, and it's going to be 180 degrees different than how Bob Hugin would vote.  I'll vote for Menendez knowing that he'll be supporting my POV on an array of issues.  

Frankly, I think the idea of chasing "centrism" is killing the Democratic Party.  A refusal to look at what both political parties are doing and decide which one better represents one's values isn't a virtue at all imho.

LOST said:

Runner_Guy said:

Democratic candidates who served use that as a campaign asset too.  You feel differently, but I respect that and I think it is evidence of someone being patriotic and brave.  

 Yup, but it didn't do John Kerry much good.

The Bushies managed to make Kerry's receiving a host of military honors seem like cowardice.