its only irrelevant if you think of politics as a horse race and a spectacle where we all have teams we root for and whose replica kits we. politics is the question of who gets what and its important to at least nominate people who believe in the things you believe in. doug jones has only been in office a couple of month and he's already voted in favor of warrantless wiretapping, in favor of the presidents HHS nominee and in favor the republican budget (and against the shutdown). there are policy goals beyond trump and electing people like lamb is not ideal. i still hope he wins but we ought to crtitize his positions on gun control and single payer.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
its only irrelevant if you think of politics as a horse race and a spectacle where we all have teams we root for and whose replica kits we. politics is the question of who gets what and its important to at least nominate people who believe in the things you believe in. doug jones has only been in office a couple of month and he's already voted in favor of warrantless wiretapping, in favor of the presidents HHS nominee and in favor the republican budget (and against the shutdown). there are policy goals beyond trump and electing people like lamb is not ideal. i still hope he wins but we ought to crtitize his positions on gun control and single payer.
How much did Trump win this district by?
+20%, apparently.
Unless Jones or Lamb cast the deciding votes on these pivotal issues then it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters at this point is getting the house and/or Senate back in November to erode's Trump's ability to advance his own policies. Single Payer, Gun Control etc won't be happening during this or the next cycles, so the name of the game at the moment is removing the Republicans from power, then proceed accordingly about which Dem policies to advance.
Last edited:
This election won't be decided today since the absentee ballots are counted tomorrow? That is if the difference is more than 0.5% after the absentee ballots are counted. Otherwise recount and all that codswallop.
of course it matters. we had democratic legislatures before and they didnt enact progressive policies because guess what...they didnt support progressive policies. if you elect corporate democrats like warner kaine nelson and jones then youll get them voting to deregulate banks. if you elect democrats who dont support single payer like stabenow manchin schumer and casey then youll get them voting against single payer. democrats wont just sit in a circle on january 21st and say "well done boys, now what should our policies be?". just having a d next to your name is not enough if you dont support progressive policies.
None of these things will happen whether you elect liberal or conservative Dems anyway. Trump will still be President and continue implementing his agenda with the help of a GOP congress. You have to first remove this ability to get legislation through by reclaiming at least one (preferably both) houses of Congress. If you can do that then you can stop Trump's own agenda and then look at retaking the Presidency itself. Also, putting up a progressive in a district like the one Lamb is in would've resulted in them getting blown out by Saccone tonight. The Dems have to therefore look at winning districts where they can.
Only 95 votes in it now. Saccone will win this once the absentee ballots are counted.
It will be very close. I believe a large portion are from the area where Lamb did well, so it will be extremely close.
yes they will. a public option was one vote away in 2009. if only we had an actual progressive instead of joe lieberman. trump doesnt have an agenda. he is literally too stupid to have an agenda. republicans have an agenda and voting for corporate democrats doesnt do much to stop the republican agenda if they are going to vote with the republicans on key issues. whats the point of voting for joe manchin or jim justice if they dont actually stand for and advance progressive policies.
Lamb did well in Allegheny country absentee votes. Should win now.
Well the Dem Party isn't about only advancing progressive polices. That's just one of two or three components of it. Their first responsibility is to actually get into power. Once they achieve that, then they can hash out how to proceed. Electing a few progs now, wont make or break any key Dem policies as long as Trump and the Republicans are in power.
Yeah just saw that. He's up by 847 now. Saccone has to basically run the table with the remaining absentees. Looks good for Lamb.
Excellent post
EDIT : I think that you still want Lamb to win but to continue to question him on his choices is the best way forward (He seems to be an AR 15 shooting, pro-life candidate)
Last edited:
Candidates like Lamb still appeal to Dem voters, so obviously they should be able to participate in the process. The Dems as a party haven't decided how to proceed in terms of big picture policies, so maybe this would be a good time for them to have a discussion. As it stands, Tom Perez is the DNC chair and Joe Biden appears to be be a leading candidate in 2020, so progressives still have a bit of work to do.
ok sure, i want lamb to win tonight. but there isnt a big meeting where democrats decide what their goals are. they all have individual goals and together the sum of those goals coalesces into a general platform. so electing people who share goals and policies is how we shape the platform. politicians arent blank slates that just vote the party line every time.
Three thousand absentee votes in countries Saccone got 55% of vote. He will need over 60% of the absentees to win. Looking good for Lamb.
That is decent stuff from the NYT.The NYT early estimate has it at Lamb +0.4Will be a long night if that's anything to go by.
What is ominous for progressives is that the Dem Party will interpret the Jones and Lamb wins as proof that running towards the center is a winning formula. Progressive candidates are going to have to step up their game to gain more influence in terms of the party platform.
My NY Times needle graphic disappeared half way through the evening.
Yeah, it was because Westmoreland county wasn't providing results by the district, which would've ended up screwing up the model.
Excellent news so far...
Just over 500 votes separating both now
Lamb's camp declares victory but, vote is still officially too close to call.
He still has a 641 vote lead with about 200 absentee ballots to be counted. Slim, but I think he will carry the win.
While I can understand this logic, I can't help but think its the same short term thinking that got Democrats into this conundrum to begin with. Its also why the US has been moving more to the right the last 30 years while Europe, Asia and Australia are slowly growing more progressive (not without right wing backlash admittedly but still). This type of "just win with a D next to your name" thinking is how you get centre-right Democrats like the Clintons. When Democrats like Willy C. are pushing for draconian drug laws, private prisons, de-regulating Wall Street as fast as they can, Sen. Hilly C. pushing the phony WMD claims for the Iraq war just as loudly as Bush, etc the conservatives have already won despite what letter is after the name of the President.
With this thinking it just looks America's only political choice is between Right-Wing policies and Right-Wing Lite policies. This is basically why I think the 2-party system is inherently flawed in the information age because the old game theory balance that allegedly existed doesn't exist anymore in reality.
Not sure if I agree with any of this. The primary reason for gridlock has been money in politics, where wealthy donors and elites are able to form the political choices that voters are presented with. Its imperative that big money is taken out of the equation and the only viable way to do that is by one side winning a majority of the elections and more importantly the White House. Therefore it doesn't matter whether one is a blue dog or progressive Dem, as either will do in terms of reclaiming the regulatory framework for removing the scourge of big money from politics and in the process restoring a broader sense of Democracy. Once you've stopped the bleeding that is implicit in Republican policies, you can then have a more realistic debate about where to go in terms of policy (Single Payer or not, how much gun control etc).
There are also millions of citizens who aren't interested in a choice of left wing and left wing lite policies because neither fit the cultural model of where they happen to live. At the end of the day its all about ideas and the best way to re-Democratize the country is by creating a system where big money donors don't control the narrative, and ordinary citizens, through various forms of activism, do.
Have we got a final count for the PA special election yet?
All votes are counted and Lamb is up by 627. Not sure why the media aren't reporting it as over though.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...results-conor-lamb-rick-saccone-20180314.html
As long as my darling Tulsi wins and Bernie wins, I couldn't care less about these midterms. Hmmph.
The problem is more the hyper-partisanship which derives from a greater combination of factors (Republican's long range Southern Strategy, Gerrymandering and Electoral college, change in how the two party system bosses can enforce loyalty and disincentivize compromise, reduction of cross-cutting cleavages in modern American society and the whole new social media climate which creates more "echo chambers" while reducing "watercooler media"). I think the special interests problem goes deeper than just overturning the law that spending money = speech. While I definitely think that is important and you could convince me its the most important, its definitely not the only systemic problem that needs to be addressed- can explain this more later.
It sounds like you feel the most important issue is overturning Citizens United decision so that should trump every other policy of a candidate until that happens? Do Jones and Lamb vocally support overturning Citizens United?
When did I ever suggest those should be the only choices?
What I meant was that game theory has held for a long time that a two-party system always stabilizes into the center. So theoretically you should get a choice of right wing lite and left wing lite. But the combination of factors currently changes that simplistic equation so one party is pushing an uncompromising hard right strategy (Republicans ever since the Southern Strategy was implemented) while the other constantly backs down into compromise so the entire equation shifts and you get one far-right party and one right wing lite party.
The last few decades looks like the Republicans force the Democrats to compromise far more than the Democrats ever force the Republicans to compromise.
Do you have any connection/relatives in Hawaii by chance? I went to school in the same town that her office is located in (Kapolei).
No. I've been to Hawaii just on holiday. Maui is lovely.
Nice to hear you lived in Hawaii. Like Obama.
Hyperpartisanship is a two way street. Both sides exhibit it because they are both attempting to seize power for their side. Things generally get done by way of cooperation, not extreme positions on the left or right that most people in the middle don't accept.
As for Citizens United, I don't know what Jones and Lamb's positions are, and frankly their positions are not important since it would be overturned by way of a Presidential SCOTUS pick(s). Getting more Dems elected is however important on a variety of fronts involving preventing Trump from further implementing his agenda. Ultimately we need more politicians who are able to compromise with the other side to actually get things done, and a few less of them who come up with policies that have little to no chance of ever getting implemented.
So let me see if I understand. You think its most important to pack Congress with any (D) that can win (irrespective of their personal policies) to obstruct Trump better and in 2020+ ensure a Democrat President can make a new Supreme Court pick without the republicans refusing to allow a Supreme Court nominee for a year?
Also you don't see the problem I highlighted? Reality is the Democrats could use a few more uncompromising ones (they already have plenty of wet blankets) while its the Republicans that desperately need more moderates willing to compromise.
If you pack Congress with weak Democrats all willing to compromise and strong Republicans all unwilling to compromise then you have a major shift to the right as we all have seen. Historically that is essentially how the plantation owners kept slavery so long by forcing the other side into compromise after compromise. Keep up that trend and the letters after the name become irrelevant as the entire system marches towards plutocracy.
The first bit is correct. Allowing Trump to run rampant with his policies is obviously a non starter and has to be curtailed whenever possible. The recent tarifs issue is a good example, where both sane Dems and Repubs can come together to reject his policy by implementing their own veto proof legislation.
The 2nd bit is completely incorrect. Compromise isn't a sign of weakness, its a sign of being willing to actually get things done. That's the fundamental problem with the Taliban like extremists on both sides. They are so delusionally infatuated with their causes that they forget that they forget that progress gets made when all stakeholder groups go to the table to compromise.
Are you saying you don't see a problem when one party is always willing to compromise while the other is never willing to compromise? Because that is where the US is currently at. The Republicans are absolutely unwilling to compromise (just look at the unprecedented year of not letting Obama get his SC nomination) while the Democrats are.
For compromise to work you need two sides willing to compromise not one side that always caves in and another that never compromises. In fact if only one side is willing to compromise then its not a compromise at all.
From a game theory perspective the Democrats are playing a dominated strategy (its always going to be worse than Republicans if they are always willing to compromise while the Republicans are never willing).