Random Politics

[Joe K]

I don't think losing a CD by a few points that had never been even competitive in 35 years is such a big deal.

I agree.

Has there ever been a more hyped one-off congressional election? Too much media, too much of a need to create a nationwide narrative.

More than $50 million spent on the Georgia congressional election.

For context, in the 2015 UK General Election, ALL of the candidates (649 constituencies - all of which had candidates from at least 4 parties) spent 39 million pounds. Which is approximately the same amount.

Two comments:

1. Despite its history, this was a very winnable seat as the district is trending blue. That's why the DCCC dumped all it's resources into this race instead of the other special elections, which may've been winnable with more of a commitment. But Ossoff did several percentage points worse than Clinton did in the district back in November. He was not packaged well -- despite having a fairly impressive record, the Dems basically ran him as an empty suit as he didn't take any real position on health care, economic inequality, etc.

2. It's a somewhat bad sign because the Dems' conventional wisdom remains that they can win back the house in 2018 by flipping GOP voters in the suburbs who don't like Trump (instead of say, motivating nonvoters with a more populist agenda). But it didn't work in Georgia, at least not to the degree hoped for.

[mister d]

I'm guessing "throw funding at guy who kinda looks like Trudeau" was one of the last ideas in this current Dem leadership's playbook.

[brian]

The DCCC certainly needs to do a better job of candidate recruitment and developing a more enticing message than "fuck Trump", but I don't think you can read much into a seat that was a 10 percent shot of winning at best. I also don't buy the "underperforming Clinton" bullshit because it's (largely) bullshit to compare elections between two different candidates six months apart, especially a special election with nothing else on the ballot.

[mister d]

Eh. Underperforming Clinton in this current climate either indicates its a bad candidate / campaign or an irredeemable voter base. I don't see a third option.

[Joe K]

Eh. Underperforming Clinton in this current climate either indicates its a bad candidate / campaign or an irredeemable voter base. I don't see a third option.

Every other Democratic special election candidate, including the guy in South Carolina last night, significantly outperformed Clinton in their districts. So I do think Ossoff was a bad candidate. From what I've read, he probably could have been more appealing if they just let him be himself instead of running him as a bland, non-ideological "nice guy who doesn't like Trump."

[mister d]

Yup. National Dems seem to have become complete poison; the left despises them and the right will vote harder against them than they would in their absence.

[Brontoburglar]

Ossoff also didn't campaign on a "fuck Trump" mantra

[Rex]

Ossoff also didn't campaign on a "fuck Trump" mantra

Ding ding ding

Having watched about 300 campaign ads in the last 2 months (not an exaggeration), and having never heard the T-word once, I can confirm this. A puzzling campaign. Georgia 6 is a model GOP district. If I were the GOP Chamber of Commerce, I would lead off the Powerpoint with Georgia 6. It's a really nice place to live, clean and safe, with good companies always wanting to move there, lots of private gun ownership, low taxes and great football weather. There is a Republican governor and 2 Republican senators and a Republican congressional rep and it's worked out pretty well for the majority of people in that district who voted for those people. Even that I-85 on fire thingy got fixed weeks ahead of schedule. The only thing in my 15+ years of living in the region that has ever given the whites of north Metro Atlanta some pause is Trump. That's the only thing you could run on and hope to win.

[EnochRoot]

I'm not sure how it is that the Democrats spent $30m on this campaign without it being the forebear to a scorched earth campaign against Donald Trump. We've had almost a half year of his bullshit, and we can all see the darkening clouds over the United States. Make them hesitant to fall into lockstep with Trump. But it should've started in that election.

FTR, I'm not saying the 400 year old senator from VT who may or may not know Moses personally is the answer. But holy shit are we in a bad place.

[Joe K]

I'm not sure how it is that the Democrats spent $30m on this campaign without it being the forebear to a scorched earth campaign against Donald Trump. We've had almost a half year of his bullshit, and we can all see the darkening clouds over the United States. Make them hesitant to fall into lockstep with Trump. But it should've started in that election.

FTR, I'm not saying the 400 year old senator from VT who may or may not know Moses personally is the answer. But holy shit are we in a bad place.

Yeah, every analysis that points to Trump's unpopularity as evidence that the Dems will clean up in 2018 should also include the caveat that the Democratic Party is also extraordinarily unpopular now. I get that they were all red-leaning to solidly red districts, but the fact that the Dems went 0-for in the special elections doesn't give me a great feeling about 2018. Major changes need to be made in how the party presents itself and engages on economic issues. Just relying on Trump's implosion is unlikely to be enough.

[EnochRoot]

I'm not sure how it is that the Democrats spent $30m on this campaign without it being the forebear to a scorched earth campaign against Donald Trump. We've had almost a half year of his bullshit, and we can all see the darkening clouds over the United States. Make them hesitant to fall into lockstep with Trump. But it should've started in that election.

FTR, I'm not saying the 400 year old senator from VT who may or may not know Moses personally is the answer. But holy shit are we in a bad place.

Yeah, every analysis that points to Trump's unpopularity as evidence that the Dems will clean up in 2018 should also include the caveat that the Democratic Party is also extraordinarily unpopular now. I get that they were all red-leaning to solidly red districts, but the fact that the Dems went 0-for in the special elections doesn't give me a great feeling about 2018. Major changes need to be made in how the party presents itself and engages on economic issues. Just relying on Trump's implosion is unlikely to be enough.

I think there's a balance between capitalizing on Trump's perilous position he's put us in as a country and outlining a plan to bring jobs back. You can run ads meant to shame the GOP for their prostration to Trump while also outlining their vision to implement massive infrastructure upgrades the likes the country's not seen since the TVA. Dare the GOP to run counter ads that it'll mean people show up to lean on shovels. See how well that plays to those who are looking for gainful employment.

[sancarlos]

[Johnnie]

Mitch McConnell Refused to Meet With Group That Funded His Polio Recovery

No idea he had and beat polio as a kid. And it's sad that I wish he hadn't.

[Pruitt]

This is outstanding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qOyT3ZkUxI

[The Sybian]

Ossoff also didn't campaign on a "fuck Trump" mantra

Ding ding ding

Having watched about 300 campaign ads in the last 2 months (not an exaggeration), and having never heard the T-word once, I can confirm this. A puzzling campaign. Georgia 6 is a model GOP district. If I were the GOP Chamber of Commerce, I would lead off the Powerpoint with Georgia 6. It's a really nice place to live, clean and safe, with good companies always wanting to move there, lots of private gun ownership, low taxes and great football weather. There is a Republican governor and 2 Republican senators and a Republican congressional rep and it's worked out pretty well for the majority of people in that district who voted for those people. Even that I-85 on fire thingy got fixed weeks ahead of schedule. The only thing in my 15+ years of living in the region that has ever given the whites of north Metro Atlanta some pause is Trump. That's the only thing you could run on and hope to win.

I'm going to extrapolate based on my polling sample size of 2. Went on vacation with my sister's family this weekend, and she lives in GA-6, despite my mother telling me she didn't for the past several months. Would have been interested to discuss it as the campaign went on, but it would have involved me speaking to her, so probably wouldn't have mattered even if I knew. I don't think my sister has much interest in politics, but I think she lines up with Dems for the most part, or at least I think she does since she can't stand all of the Fundamentalists trying to get her to join their Church and her FB feed makes it seem like she has a lot of black friends. My sister proudly announced she refused to vote, because Ossoff pissed her off with the constant text messages, flyers, ads, and people knocking on her door. Same for her husband. I think making a huge deal of dumping millions of dollars into Ossoff did more to motivate Republicans. Both candidates seemed bland and weak.

What was amazing was my father's reaction to my sister. Prior to W. Bush, my father was a proud Conservative/Republican. Bush turned him Dem, and Trump turned him into a raging Liberal. My father looked furious with her, telling her she "let the Orange Man win" and do whatever he wants by refusing to vote.

[Pruitt]

Let me throw this out there...

Excepting those who will never vote "liberal" due to their religion, love of weapons or refusal to not interfere with women's health issues...

How much money does one save by backing a Republican as opposed to a Democratic agenda? Say for a family at the median. Is it hundreds? Thousands?

[brian]

Let me throw this out there...

Excepting those who will never vote "liberal" due to their religion, love of weapons or refusal to not interfere with women's health issues...

How much money does one save by backing a Republican as opposed to a Democratic agenda? Say for a family at the median. Is it hundreds? Thousands?

Median income for an American? Doubtful they're saving anything. At best it's a wash. Most Democratic proposals for tax reform or health care reform that are revenue-neutral tend to redistribute from only the top 2-5 percent to the bottom 35 percent and don't affect truly middle class people at all. That's an overgeneralization, but one I stand by.

Purely economically, for almost every Swamper it doesn't really matter if Democrats or Republicans control the government.

[degenerasian]

Why dont the Dems take the 60% middle class instead of going to the bottom 35%. They let Trump pretend to take it.

[Joe K]

Why dont the Dems take the 60% middle class instead of going to the bottom 35%. They let Trump pretend to take it.

I don't think this characterization of the Democratic Party is even remotely accurate. They go out of their way to frame any taxation or social insurance programs as helping the "middle class" as opposed to the poor. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find examples of Clinton referring to combating poverty during her campaign.

[degenerasian]

Why dont the Dems take the 60% middle class instead of going to the bottom 35%. They let Trump pretend to take it.

I don't think this characterization of the Democratic Party is even remotely accurate. They go out of their way to frame any taxation or social insurance programs as helping the "middle class" as opposed to the poor. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find examples of Clinton referring to combating poverty during her campaign.

Increasing minimum wage and proposing free in-state college tuition are examples. Then Bernie Sanders on a democratic party platform was going even further.

[Joe K]

Why dont the Dems take the 60% middle class instead of going to the bottom 35%. They let Trump pretend to take it.

I don't think this characterization of the Democratic Party is even remotely accurate. They go out of their way to frame any taxation or social insurance programs as helping the "middle class" as opposed to the poor. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find examples of Clinton referring to combating poverty during her campaign.

Increasing minimum wage and proposing free in-state college tuition are examples. Then Bernie Sanders on a democratic party platform was going even further.

While those programs would help some in the bottom 35%, they are more "middle class" programs than true anti-poverty programs. Many of the truly impoverished aren't working, or can't work, which means a minimum wage increase wouldn't help them. The Democrats have largely bought into the Reaganite fiction that cash-based welfare is wrong and that social welfare programs need to be tied to employment. So their relief programs are tied to wages or tax credits, as opposed to relief that would help people who aren't working or aren't paying income tax. I would also guess that college affordability is more of a middle class issue than an issue for the poor.

Also, Sanders is still a party outsider, whose ideas were largely rejected by the Democratic establishment during the campaign. Hence, the PR effort to dismiss all his supporters as "Bernie Bros," even though he's more popular with women and people of color than he is with white men.

[Nonlinear FC]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/us/m ... -news&_r=0

There's a line in there about opposing Obamacare as a matter of faith... Pretty much says it all. These people have no idea what they are doing to themselves.

[degenerasian]

Why dont the Dems take the 60% middle class instead of going to the bottom 35%. They let Trump pretend to take it.

I don't think this characterization of the Democratic Party is even remotely accurate. They go out of their way to frame any taxation or social insurance programs as helping the "middle class" as opposed to the poor. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find examples of Clinton referring to combating poverty during her campaign.

Increasing minimum wage and proposing free in-state college tuition are examples. Then Bernie Sanders on a democratic party platform was going even further.

While those programs would help some in the bottom 35%, they are more "middle class" programs than true anti-poverty programs. Many of the truly impoverished aren't working, or can't work, which means a minimum wage increase wouldn't help them. The Democrats have largely bought into the Reaganite fiction that cash-based welfare is wrong and that social welfare programs need to be tied to employment. So their relief programs are tied to wages or tax credits, as opposed to relief that would help people who aren't working or aren't paying income tax. I would also guess that college affordability is more of a middle class issue than an issue for the poor.

Also, Sanders is still a party outsider, whose ideas were largely rejected by the Democratic establishment during the campaign. Hence, the PR effort to dismiss all his supporters as "Bernie Bros," even though he's more popular with women and people of color than he is with white men.

Depends on what the definition of middle class is. If you're making minimum wage that's $15,000 gross per year ($7.25 x 40 hours x 52 weeks). And many of those jobs don't work the full 40 hour work week or the full 52 week year. Raising it to $12 (Hillary) or $15 (Bernie) is definitely an anti-poverty measure. If you're only counting the truly impoverish then it becomes the bottom 10% not the bottom 35%. Your middle class becomes the 89% in the middle. I think that's too wide.

Middle Class is an often used term for political purposes. China boasts the largest middle class in the world but they measure a worker making $10USD per day as middle class. For income tax purposes Canada measures the middle class as household income between $45,916 and $202,800

[Brontoburglar]

Someone in the 98th percentile is not middle class, dude. come on

[The Sybian]

Someone in the 98th percentile is not middle class, dude. come on

These numbers are so arbitrary and skewed depending on where you live. I'll stick with US numbers, as I just don't have much basis for discussing income and percentages in Canada.

The numbers are different depending on what website or survey you look at, but middle class seems to be between $30,000 - $350,000 household income. Lower Middle is around $30K-$50K, Middle is around $50K-$100K, and Upper Middle is around $100K-$350K. It absolutely blows my mind that a household income of $350,001 is considered "rich." You can easily live a comfortable lifestyle raising a family on that here, but you aren't "rich" by any means. That gets you what I consider a middle class lifestyle, but not much in the way of luxury items. A family living on $30-50K being considered lower middle class is just not even fathomable here.

Ok, I found a chart showing nationally, the top 1% is $390,000, which just blows my mind. I really would have guessed much higher. Eh, I'll just post the image with the top 5 highest/lowest 1% incomes:

[BSF21]

Someone in the 98th percentile is not middle class, dude. come on

These numbers are so arbitrary and skewed depending on where you live. I'll stick with US numbers, as I just don't have much basis for discussing income and percentages in Canada.

The numbers are different depending on what website or survey you look at, but middle class seems to be between $30,000 - $350,000 household income. Lower Middle is around $30K-$50K, Middle is around $50K-$100K, and Upper Middle is around $100K-$350K. It absolutely blows my mind that a household income of $350,001 is considered "rich." You can easily live a comfortable lifestyle raising a family on that here, but you aren't "rich" by any means. That gets you what I consider a middle class lifestyle, but not much in the way of luxury items. A family living on $30-50K being considered lower middle class is just not even fathomable here.

Ok, I found a chart showing nationally, the top 1% is $390,000, which just blows my mind. I really would have guessed much higher. Eh, I'll just post the image with the top 5 highest/lowest 1% incomes:

By comparison, 350K/year here makes you incredibly wealthy. That's midwest FuckYou money.

[Ryan]

Cost of living is pretty high here too and if we made $350k a year, I'd be insufferably rich.

[rass]

I live in the same county as Syb (though comparatively on the wrong side of the figurative tracks) and my wife and I pull down no where near $350K and I feel we're comfortably middle class. Take vacations. Have decent cars. I guess it might depend on his definition of luxury items? I've never considered myself upper middle class.

[Joe K]

$350K/year also makes you very well off almost everywhere in the Northeast that isn't NYC or Boston. And even in those cities you may not be in the 1% but I would think you're easily in the top 10% of income.

[Brontoburglar]

percentile income has to be graded based off cost of living and relative to where you are, of course.

but point being, if you're in the 98th percentile of wherever you are, you. are. not. middle. class.

(I realize there's the podunk town where the richest person is making $50K a year, but as a general rule)

[A_B]

(I realize there's the podunk town where the richest person is making $50K a year, but as a general rule)

I bet that dude makes it rain at the VFW.

[mister d]

But aside from a huge house in Nowhere, NM, what can that super-rich $350K get you? Vacations and cars and shit all cost the same if you're in NYC or Nowhere, NM.

[Brontoburglar]

But aside from a huge house in Nowhere, NM, what can that super-rich $350K get you? Vacations and cars and shit all cost the same if you're in NYC or Nowhere, NM.

More money to save for retirement and pay for college for your kids?

My mortgage being super cheap means I can max out my 401K and squirrel away more money while also being able to buy what I want (within reason of course).

Single, childless guy caveats aside, I wouldn't be able to do that if I was paying $600 more a month in house payments.

[mister d]

I guess when I think of the phrase 1% I think of gaudy outward displays of wealth, not sound investments.

[mister d]

Single, childless guy caveats aside, I wouldn't be able to do that if I was paying $600 more a month in house payments.

Good fucking god, man. That'll get you 40% of my ... daycare bill. For just the youngest. And we're at the lowest amount we've paid in like 4 years.

[Ryan]

The answer is Lego Simpsons House

[A_B]

Single, childless guy caveats aside, I wouldn't be able to do that if I was paying $600 more a month in house payments.

Good fucking god, man. That'll get you 40% of my ... daycare bill. For just the youngest. And we're at the lowest amount we've paid in like 4 years.

Move to Kentucky. You can pay nearly same amount and make much less.

[mister d]

Fathers side left there 75(?) years ago. Haven't heard any clammoring about going back.

[A_B]

Fathers side left there 75(?) years ago. Haven't heard any clammoring about going back.

Yeah. I can't fault that.

[Johnnie]

Seems like it's a decent moment to repost this:

https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

And this:

https://youtu.be/LfgSEwjAeno