Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • drhuy,

    its not about how, its about why, unless you think dems are too stupid to pour money into a campaign that they didnt expect to win.
    the party doesn't pour money into a campaign they -expect- to win. the party pours money into campaigns they -hope- to win.

    IE Dems aren't spending big in Hawaii because they know they're gonna win it without trying.

    if the trend-line is that relevant, hillary would have won thanks to the "purple" states. Really, how many times have dems talk about flipping red states, instead they kept losing over the last 8 years or more.
    hey, if you think shrinking GOP margins of victory aren't a problem, then more power to you...:-)

    "foregone conclusion" bwahhahah then why dems called it "referendum on trump" if they were sure they would lose?
    here is what i said:

    this should have been a foregone conclusion from the start.

    don't think Dems anywhere were "too sure" they were going to win a ruby-red state. they had GOOD REASON to hope that they would win, but as far as i know -no one- was saying that this was going to be a slam-dunk for the Dems.

    yeah, no kidding it's a disappointment for Dems that they didn't win after spending a lot of time, energy, and money in the district...but that doesn't mean the GOP is doing great and have nothing to fear, either.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Given that companies gave us $900 epipens prices for a drug that cost .05 cents per dose...
      I can buy an epipen online for €100. Original Mylan. Or arenaline autoinjectors from multiple competitors for virtually the same price. Or I drive 50 km southwest to France and buy them for half that...
      Mylan itself claims to make around $275 on each two-pack in the USA btw.

      Comment


      • Left-wing politics will be the demise of the Democratic Party

        http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-demise-of-the

        They still don't get it

        You don’t have to be a seasoned political operative to question the logic behind Democrats investing so much money into a congressional district that has gone Republican for nearly 40 years, yet that is exactly what the Democratic Party did.

        They believed they could switch moderate Republican voters to vote for a Democratic candidate and mobilize Independents by spouting a progressive message, which is philosophically antithetical to the values held by most voters — such as limited government due to a fear of government encroachment and excessive regulation — as well as utopian ideas about society, which many frankly believe are unrealistic.

        Grand visions about the future are typically distrusted by most people regardless of their ideological leanings because people live in reality, and nothing in reality happens overnight. Most Americans want pragmatism that builds toward a better tomorrow, rather than grandiose promises built on unproven ideas.



        Maybe the intent of progressive Democrats is good. Maybe it isn’t. However, what is most concerning about progressive ideology is that it maintains the belief that ultimate good comes from a centrally planned state or in essence the government. Similar to socialism, progressivism advocates for a government built on compulsory force.

        The government cannot possibly know the needs of every single person today, so that the needs of the individual are met for tomorrow. Any more than a socialist system knows how much of a product to produce. The two are arguably one in the same.

        One of the biggest problems with progressivism is that they advocate the importance of a centralized nurturing state with a moral goal, but that has never been the role of government. Government, as advocated by progressives, is impossible because it is impossible for a government to know exactly what each individual need or how much of it that they need.

        Democrats foolishly believed that college-educated Republicans would vote for a progressive Democrat over a Republican because of their disdain for President Trump and his many mishaps. The unknown Jon Ossoff ran against the known Karen Handel, who once chaired Fulton County Board of Commissioners from 2003 to 2006. She was then elected and served as Georgia’s secretary of state from 2007 to 2010.

        And she even threw her hat in the ring for the highly contested U.S. Senate race in 2014 to replace former Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). In essence, she isn’t a political newcomer and the fact that Democrats actually believed they could flip a district that has gone Republican for nearly four decades purely because of Trump’s actions shows how out of touch their strategy is.

        Handel made the election about issues, pointing out that a vote for Ossoff would be a vote for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is far more unpopular with Republican voters, including those with a disdain for Trump.

        Republicans were able to maintain all four House seats that were vacated by individuals who went on to serve cabinet posts in the Trump administration. From Kansas to Montana and Georgia to South Carolina, nothing worked for Democrats. Their strategy — or rather, lack thereof — leaves many in the Democratic party wondering where did they go wrong. And the answer is simple: it’s progressivism. Far left-leaning policies aren't registering with a majority of Americans, who still believe in themes such as tradition and small government.

        Ossoff's loss, along with the losses in Kansas, Montana, and South Carolina suggest that “Democrats are destined to lose every race from here to eternity by margins just close enough to maintain some hope for the future,” tweeted Sam Stein, senior politics editor at the Huffington Post.

        Granted, Republicans didn’t increase their power. They maintained what they already had, but if these four races were any indication of what’s to come in 2018, it’s that Democrats can’t just run campaigns against Trump. They also can’t rely on the idea that they can flip moderate “Romney Republicans” who reject Trump. That alone is not enough to win an election. They must better appeal to independents and blue-collar workers who have become turned off and isolated by progressivism.

        By focusing on local issues and the local implications and attaching a vote for Ossoff to Pelosi was enough to sway even moderate Republicans to vote for the GOP candidate over the Democrat, despite their dislike of Trump.

        It should be clear to Democrats that the progressive message is not resonating with Independents or blue-collar workers — some of whom are within their base. And it is evident that Democrats still haven’t learned anything from the 2016 presidential election. They decided to stick with Pelosi as House minority leader and elected Tom Perez, whose rhetoric has marginalized non-progressives within his own party, as chair of the Democratic National Committee.

        Progressivism is ruining the Democratic Party. It will be interesting to watch how much damage it will do to the brand before the party recognizes that progressivism doesn’t resonate with the American people, not now, nor will it in 2018 and beyond.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          z,



          and the UK has a hybrid single-payer system. in fact the vast majority of single-payer systems also include the option of buying additional private insurance/healthcare.
          Because the rich never do without...

          look at the people -on- medicaid. the choice for them isn't "private vs medicaid", it's "medicaid vs nothing at all".
          Even then, utcomes are worse with medicaid vs nothing at all...

          lol wut. the whole -point- of healthcare is to increase life expectancy. :-)
          Improve quality of life, not merely extend it...

          access to healthcare would be able to mitigate at least some of the aspects of obesity, and -certainly- take care of the diabetes and high blood pressure issues that you mention.
          I ever tell you about Butterman after the El Reno tornado? Healthcare only works if the patient does the other things required. All the statins in the world won't help if everything you eat is cooked in a full stick of butter. Obesity may cause adverse health effects, but it is a lifestyle problem.

          Comment


          • I think that this election in Georgia has shown that the Democrat strategy of relying on the outrage of their base and the distaste that some Republicans and Conservatives have for Trump is insufficient to win elections. The number of Republicans switching to vote Democrat because of Trump's incompetence and temperamental unfitness for office is outweighed by the increased turnout from the Right because of Trump and the defection of working class whites who previously voted Democrat.

            Therefore I think its the wrong strategy for Democrats to move further to the right or even the center to appeal to moderate Republicans disgusted by Trump and focus on motivating their own voters to turn out with a pragmatic mix of center left and Progressive policies and solutions. In four years Trump will have to defend his record, which will most likely be that of typical Republican and will find it harder to tap anti-establishment anger.

            The presence of Trump in the White House for the next three and a half years is still a major risk for the Republicans (and the rest of us for that matter) notwithstanding the fact that Trump has managed to weather his problems till now. He is yet to be tested by a real crisis and his temperament, impulsiveness and occasional lack of self control, combined with a level of incompetence always keeps the chance of a major catastrophe a possibility.

            Comment


            • inexile,

              I think that this election in Georgia has shown that the Democrat strategy of relying on the outrage of their base and the distaste that some Republicans and Conservatives have for Trump is insufficient to win elections. The number of Republicans switching to vote Democrat because of Trump's incompetence and temperamental unfitness for office is outweighed by the increased turnout from the Right because of Trump and the defection of working class whites who previously voted Democrat.
              i'd say a mixture is needed. if Dems even get close to replicating the vote swing in GA (and the other 3 special elections!) across all the races in 2018, then they easily re-take the House.

              there's a lot of monday-morning quarterbacking going on in regards to why Ossoff lost. simply put, given the preponderance of Republicans in his district, he -had- to appeal to Republicans to win it, because the absolute number of Dems there just aren't sufficient.

              Therefore I think its the wrong strategy for Democrats to move further to the right or even the center to appeal to moderate Republicans disgusted by Trump
              on the national level, as opposed to individual state/local situations, i agree. HRC thought she could win over moderate Republicans given whom Trump was...but that didn't materialize. partisanship is simply too deep to expect people to defect on a national level as opposed to a local one. until the current system of gerrymandering (among other things) is broken-- which will likely take the judicial branch to do-- then partisanship, unfortunately, is the name of the game.

              by the way, i still believe that demographics support Dems. it's not -destiny-, as the more optimistic Dems believed just a year ago, but it's an ever-growing thumb on the scale for Dems.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                you should ask your leftist media. i also dont understand how they swayed it into "referendum on Trump".

                My leftist media? Mighty presumptuous besides me having no idea who the left equivalent of Breitbart is which means you'll have to ask.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                  Monash's statement here is inaccurate: There are in fact majorities in several Western nations that are enamored with socialism and these proportions were much higher in the mid-20th century.
                  GV perhaps, perhaps not.

                  Sticking to a strict definition of socialism i.e. 'a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.' there are no truly committed socialist governments among the major European powers. Yes, in terms of health care there are elements of socialist policies - to the extent that they have public (or mixed) health care systems but that is only one element of the economy in what are at heart highly diversified capitalist states.

                  Even most of the socialist parties in Europe have for the most part outgrown their strict socialist roots - notwithstanding the British Labor Parties most recent manifesto. Whatever policies they go into elections with none of them have moved to adopt sweeping socialist policies once in office. Hell not even in Greece! And every one of them has matching conservative parties deeply committed to the principals of free market economics.

                  If your looking for truly socialist economies you need to go fare afield to upcoming 'tiger' economies like Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe! (kidding)
                  Last edited by Monash; 22 Jun 17,, 13:00.
                  If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                    no idea who the left equivalent of Breitbart is
                    It's Indymedia in case you're wondering.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                      My leftist media? Mighty presumptuous besides me having no idea who the left equivalent of Breitbart is which means you'll have to ask.
                      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...verage-is-neg/

                      For the youngsters out there, once upon a time, CNN was pretty much down the middle. The fledgling network covered news — real news, not fake news — and worked hard to be on site wherever news was happening. When something happened, that was the place to go.


                      But those days are long gone. Watch any 10 minutes of CNN, and now you’ll see nothing more than a nonstop — and often vicious — diatribe against President Trump.

                      Under the lead of former NBC head Jeff Zucker, CNN has become a far-left network that harangues the right and praises the left, almost nonstop. “News” is secondary. Now it’s all about pushing an agenda and toeing the line for the liberal overlords.


                      Case in point: Harvard released a study last week that analyzed The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the main newscasts on CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days. No shocker here: 80 percent was negative, just 20 percent positive.

                      That’s a big change from the past. When the Chosen One, Barack Obama, completed his first 100 days, a similar study found that coverage was 59 percent positive, 41 percent negative. Skewed, but not that bad. The numbers were flipped for George W. Bush, of course: 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive. For Bill Clinton, way back in 1993, in the days when news was news (which means reporters were hard on the president regardless of his political affiliation), the coverage was 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

                      “The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive,” Byron York wrote in the Washington Examiner. “Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.”

                      Huh. So Fox really is “fair and balanced.”

                      And CNN? The Harvard researchers found CNN’s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, 7 percent positive. “Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity,” wrote the authors of the Harvard study.

                      Want proof? The Media Research Center did an exhaustive study on just how biased CNN has become, according to a report covering 20 hours, from 4 a.m. May 12 until midnight.

                      “After excluding commercials, teases and promos, our analysts found 13 hours, 27 minutes of actual news coverage, an average of just over 40 minutes per hour. Of that, a whopping 92 percent (12 hours, 19 minutes) was devoted to the Trump presidency, with a mere 68 minutes — a little more than three minutes per hour — devoted to all of the other news of the day.

                      With a few respites for Mr. Trump’s then-upcoming Middle East trip and an upcoming “Saturday Night Live” episode, “CNN used that time to endlessly analyze the President’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, then a three-day-old story,” MRC reported.

                      “Much of that airtime consisted of interviews and panel discussions giving their assessment of Trump. MRC tallied 123 appearances by guests or panelists over the course of the day. Many of CNN’s analysts showed up in multiple newscasts, each of which would count as a separate appearance,” MRC wrote.

                      According to MRC, most of CNN’s guests that day (96, or 78 percent of the total) were Trump critics, with just seven guests being pro-Trump and 13 guests ruled “neutral” by MRC.

                      CNN’s own “journalists” were even worse.

                      “Looking just at CNN’s own on-air talent, the results were even more tilted, with 69 appearances by anti-Trump analysts, vs. just two for pro-Trump analysts,” MRC wrote.

                      “The imbalance in guests was amplified by the frequent editorializing of CNN’s own hosts and anchors. During the 7 a.m. hour of “New Day,” host Chris Cuomo referred to clips of White House officials struggling to explain the decision to fire Comey as “the mendacity montage, because it’s just filled with lies.” Opening his noonhour “Inside Politics,” CNN host John King hyped that the “initial White House account of how and why Comey was fired lies in shambles, reduced to a heap of falsehoods,” MRC wrote.

                      So it’s no surprise that last week, famed “journalist” Anderson Cooper said to political commentator Jeffrey Lord, who was defending Mr. Trump: “If he took a dump on his desk, you would defend it.”

                      Yes, that’s journalism today, kids. And it’s going to get so much worse. That you can count on.

                      • Joseph Curl has covered politics for 25 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent at The Washington Times. He can be reached at [email protected] and on Twitter via @josephcurl.

                      Comment


                      • ^ this is a meaningless comparison. Trump has gleefully pointed out that he doesn't follow norms-- indeed, he actively breaks them. Trump -himself- has said that he believes in the motto that all press is good press. he deliberately -makes- his own news, too, through his tweeting.

                        so why then should anyone expect that he will be treated like another President? does anyone think that a President Mitt Romney would be getting the same level of negative media attention?

                        to put it another way, if bad press is Trump's problem, one would think that his prolific tweeting would be enormously popular. it's not.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • I was gonna say...

                          But those days are long gone. Watch any 10 minutes of CNN, and now you’ll see nothing more than a nonstop — and often vicious — diatribe against President Trump.
                          That doesn't constitute left-wing. For that Trump would have to be within the political spectrum. At best it constitutes mainstream or establishment vs someone outside that norm.

                          (Small note: Just because somewhere around 49% of Americans are outside "mainstream" doesn't make it less mainstream. And that doesn't account for Republicans who don't like Trump - because those exist too)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            ^ this is a meaningless comparison. Trump has gleefully pointed out that he doesn't follow norms-- indeed, he actively breaks them. Trump -himself- has said that he believes in the motto that all press is good press. he deliberately -makes- his own news, too, through his tweeting.

                            so why then should anyone expect that he will be treated like another President? does anyone think that a President Mitt Romney would be getting the same level of negative media attention?

                            to put it another way, if bad press is Trump's problem, one would think that his prolific tweeting would be enormously popular. it's not.
                            so Trump being 'out of the norm' on his own excuses a couple of outlets that proclaim themselves to be 'news organizations' for having upwards of 90% of their coverage of him being negative.

                            I don't think so.

                            Comment


                            • bfng,

                              a couple of outlets that proclaim themselves to be 'news organizations' for having upwards of 90% of their coverage of him being negative.
                              the point is that Trump, unlike any other President before him, -drives- a lot of coverage. he does stuff that is not normal or usual for a President, and he does it in a showman way.

                              taking the news of today, for instance-- Trump admitting that he didn't have tapes on Comey after all. that drives media coverage in and of itself-- as did Trump's earlier statement heavily hinting that he had such tapes of Comey.

                              or, for instance, when he was in Iowa and said that immigrants shouldn't get welfare benefits for five years. which drove media coverage there, plus fact checkers pointing out that this has been a law since 1996.

                              can you imagine a President Romney doing or saying any of this?

                              that's what i mean by him driving media coverage-- plus with his penchant for exaggeration, conspiracy theory, and outright lying, it's not a surprise at all that he's garnering a lot of negative media attention.

                              your point about media imbalance only makes sense when you have a remotely comparable set of folks. Obama/Romney. Kerry/Bush.

                              there's a liberal bias in media to be sure, but it is not close to being the primary driver for why coverage of Trump is negative.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                bfng,



                                the point is that Trump, unlike any other President before him, -drives- a lot of coverage. he does stuff that is not normal or usual for a President, and he does it in a showman way.

                                taking the news of today, for instance-- Trump admitting that he didn't have tapes on Comey after all. that drives media coverage in and of itself-- as did Trump's earlier statement heavily hinting that he had such tapes of Comey.

                                or, for instance, when he was in Iowa and said that immigrants shouldn't get welfare benefits for five years. which drove media coverage there, plus fact checkers pointing out that this has been a law since 1996.

                                can you imagine a President Romney doing or saying any of this?

                                that's what i mean by him driving media coverage-- plus with his penchant for exaggeration, conspiracy theory, and outright lying, it's not a surprise at all that he's garnering a lot of negative media attention.

                                your point about media imbalance only makes sense when you have a remotely comparable set of folks. Obama/Romney. Kerry/Bush.

                                there's a liberal bias in media to be sure, but it is not close to being the primary driver for why coverage of Trump is negative
                                .
                                its not my point, but it is true, and it has nothing to do with comparable's.

                                You're using the fact that trump isn't a typical politician as an excuse or justification for 'news' outlets being blatantly bias and negative.

                                those two don't add up.

                                one is not a cause for the other.

                                and your first point though, about the 'tapes'? Trump never said they did exist, he said 'if' they exist. He never claimed he had them. he said 'if'.

                                Unless there were follow up tweets or comments from him actually making the claim, which is more than possible I have not followed every report/comment/tweet/response or what have you on that one? if so, then I apologize for the comment if its not true.

                                Great example of the media twisting things just a touch.

                                and yes, the liberal bias is certainly a primary driver of it.
                                Last edited by bfng3569; 22 Jun 17,, 20:40.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X